Fuel Gauge

[Scott]

whoops, My BAD, sorry getting nicknames mixed up. I guess we use nicknames for a reason and I shouldn't try to shortcut same. my apologies.

[Ragwing nut]

I'm not completely clear on what you mean Tom. Induced drag is a component of lift (but only if the lift is contributing to overcoming gravity). Lift created by the H stabilizer for example is actually drag as it's effectively adding to the weight of the airplane.

The rotating prop has induced drag (sort of), but the stationary prop is all parasitic drag.

Now in addition to the induced drag of the spinning prop, there is lift, which in this case is also drag (from the perspective of the airframe) because the lift is only turning the dead engine, not contributing to counteracting gravity. You basically have a wind turbine that extracts energy from the airflow, which comes from the aircraft's kinetic energy. Extracting kinetic energy means the aircraft slows or descends.

The rotating prop converts the aircraft's kinetic energy into rotation of the engine which in turn generates heat, mostly through compressing and moving air through the combustion chambers. The heat will be dissipated through the engine's cooling fins. For the sake of argument, if you assume a broken crankshaft that allows the prop to spin without moving the pistons, maybe the prop spins up fast enough that the effective angle of attack on the blades minimizes drag to the point where there's less drag than the stationary prop. But that's not the scenario here.

Stationary prop creates parasitic drag and nothing else. Drag increases at the square of speed, but this applies to both the spinning and stationary states.

We all know it takes a fair amount of energy to swing a prop. Takes a lot more to turn it at a few hundred RPM.

S

I think it was meant for me, and should have said parasite drag, not induced.

[3Dreaming]

I'm not completely clear on what you mean Tom. S

??? I'm not sure that should have been directed at me.

[Scott]

I'm not completely clear on what you mean Tom. Induced drag is a component of lift (but only if the lift is contributing to overcoming gravity). Lift created by the H stabilizer for example is actually drag as it's effectively adding to the weight of the airplane.

The rotating prop has induced drag (sort of), but the stationary prop is all parasitic drag.

Now in addition to the induced drag of the spinning prop, there is lift, which in this case is also drag (from the perspective of the airframe) because the lift is only turning the dead engine, not contributing to counteracting gravity. You basically have a wind turbine that extracts energy from the airflow, which comes from the aircraft's kinetic energy. Extracting kinetic energy means the aircraft slows or descends.

The rotating prop converts the aircraft's kinetic energy into rotation of the engine which in turn generates heat, mostly through compressing and moving air through the combustion chambers. The heat will be dissipated through the engine's cooling fins. For the sake of argument, if you assume a broken crankshaft that allows the prop to spin without moving the pistons, maybe the prop spins up fast enough that the effective angle of attack on the blades minimizes drag to the point where there's less drag than the stationary prop. But that's not the scenario here.

Stationary prop creates parasitic drag and nothing else. Drag increases at the square of speed, but this applies to both the spinning and stationary states.

We all know it takes a fair amount of energy to swing a prop. Takes a lot more to turn it at a few hundred RPM.

S

[Ragwing nut]

If you do the match there is probably very little difference between a windmilling propeller and a stationary one. They are both induced drag if it not spinning at an rpm to equal pitch advancement or creating lift through excess rpm. The only way a stationary blade in less drag is if it is possible for you to feather it like in most twins. There is a reason twins have that ability.

[Scott]

A windmilling prop would tend to be not stalled which means the airfoil generates "lift" which in this case causes rotation of the engine. I takes energy to overcome the friction and compression of the engine. That energy needs to come from somewhere and in this case it comes at the expense of the aircraft's movement through the air (drag) which is dependent on gravity.

A stationary prop is most likely stalled (certainly all but the root portions) so while there is some energy used in creating some turbulence behind the blades, there is no energy taken by the engine (which of course is not rotating).

So stationary/stalled blade takes less energy= lower drag.

May seem counter intuitive but there you go. If there was no friction or compression in the engine that's a different story (but also a fictitious one).

[woodmw]

I seem to remember during my primary training, an instructor telling me that a windmilling prop is much like a solid disk of the same diameter. Not true???

[Ragwing nut]

I have had wing tanks not properly feed before. I always dump the wing tank after 90 min of flight if I going somewhere.

[3Dreaming]

a prop that is stopped is a big wind break, windmilling reduces the drag quite a bit...

I am going to have ti disagree with you on that.

[astjp2]

a prop that is stopped is a big wind break, windmilling reduces the drag quite a bit...

[Garry Crookham]

If it helps at all my Taylorcraft at idle flew just like a Schweitzer 2-22.
Hank

I've got to disagree with this. I've flown a 2-22 quite a bit and have been flying Taylorcrafts for over 50 years. Yes on a good day you can soar in a Taylorcraft but the 2-22 will do much much better. The glide ratio of a 2-22 is 18:1 vs the Taylorcraft's 10:1, gross wt of a 2-22 is 900 lbs vs Taylorcraft's 1100-1500 depending on model.

[3Dreaming]

If it helps at all my Taylorcraft at idle flew just like a Schweitzer 2-22. The 2-22 is NOT a sailplane, it is a training glider and has a stick instead o a wheel but if you want some confidence building for a potential engine failure look for a local gliding club with a 2-22. You want a 2-22, NOT a 2-33 or other more efficient plane! I was able to soar in the 2-22 in good conditions (not great, but good) and think I could probably soar the 41 Taylorcraft if needed.........but I don't plan to test that out anytime soon.

Hank

I'm waiting on a day with ideal conditions before I try again.

[Hank Jarrett]

If it helps at all my Taylorcraft at idle flew just like a Schweitzer 2-22. The 2-22 is NOT a sailplane, it is a training glider and has a stick instead o a wheel but if you want some confidence building for a potential engine failure look for a local gliding club with a 2-22. You want a 2-22, NOT a 2-33 or other more efficient plane! I was able to soar in the 2-22 in good conditions (not great, but good) and think I could probably soar the 41 Taylorcraft if needed.........but I don't plan to test that out anytime soon.

Hank

[3Dreaming]

I have only done it over the airport with plenty of altitude. It was my first attempt at soaring. I glided for quite a while, but was never quite able to maintain altitude. I think I could pick better conditions now. I lowered the nose for restart at 2000 AGL with plans to stop at 1000 AGL and set up for landing if it didn't restart. Like Rob I had planned my approach to be plenty high with a slip to get down, but it didn't come to that.

[Scott]

I don't have the constitution to turn off my one and only fan, even if it has an electric starter.

There are a couple of things I remember about my dead stick Taylorcraft adventure however... First, how quickly the prop stopped, and second how much less glide distance/time you have compared to a simulated engine failure (i.e. engine idling).

Thanks to both of you for for doing the "research" though. Good to know that, if you've resolved the engine fault, a restart may be possible. Only decision left to make is, do you want to use up your altitude trying to restart, or getting to a landing area!