Down wind faster than the wind

It would be just as easy to use a small disc brake. Quite a range of sizes available on bicycles, mopeds, racing karts, and small motorcycles. One of them would likely do the job quite well with minimal weight and cost.

I would use one on the common drive axle, or the drive wheel if only one is needed for the full size vehicle. That would keep the drive system forces acting always in the same direction if so desired.

A system of gears and chains from a bicycle would also be one of my choices for altering the advance ratio rather than the propeller pitch to optimize performance.

Dan 0., an IVT (I have one) is needed to accomplish the gearing changes that you are suggesting, not a CVT. You are right, changing the gearing in the manner that you described could allow the propeller to be used as an aero brake as well.
 
Last edited:
Neat device! The ingenuity required to combine two reasonably simple concepts to get a seemingly unrelated result never fails to amaze me!

I have been doing some reading about propeller design and have some questions:
1. Can the area of the propeller's "disc" be equated to a particular sail area?
2. Would the aspect ratio of the prop and sail need to be similar for a decent comparison?
3. How much does the "dead" area around the hub of the prop affect the efficiency?
4. Is there a particular pitch that could be considered a breaking point with respect to the number of blades on the prop?
5. Is there a particular pitch vs diameter ratio that could be considered a breaking point with respect to the number of blades on the prop?
6. Does the width of the blade play a significant role in that break point?

I'm still pursuing a non-prop cart and want to get a better understanding of the roles that each of the parameters of the prop design plays. I don't mind experimenting but I'd like to start out as close to the optimum as possible.
 
I'm not sure why you'd want much control, other than a simple but good, mechanical brake and simple steering. Acceleration would be dealt with by disengaging the brake, and deceleration by applying it. I'm thinking of the DD cart as a phenomenon and brainteaser, rather than the latest transport option or sport, and since in good tradition form follows function, it would be best if extra gizmos were for the purposes of trying to ascertain lateral wind movement (so as to minimize it), windspeed, ground speed, etc., if necessary. I would have thought that something under a force 10 gale would do the trick, but if you want to 'extreme-DDFTTW', variable pitch (or just a disengage blades mode) would be useful to get it on the tarmac/salt without killing someone.

For braking: even for a pure DDWFTTW vehicle meant only for demonstrating the principle, if it's carrying a person I think there should be a means of disengaging the transmission between prop and wheels. If the prop stays connected (as in the small cart), you have double work when applying the brake: you'd not only be dissipating the kinetic energy of cart + driver, you'd be fighting the thrust from the prop. Simply disengaging the prop would apply a braking force: the prop would slow down, then start turning the other way like a turbine, which in itself would slow down the cart.

As for acceleration, I am unsure of the forces involved in powering a large cart. For a propeller large enough to power a one- or two-person cart, what torque is it exerting when held stationary in the wind, as it would be just before starting? For a given wind speed, what would be the acceleration directly after starting to move?
 
We are contemplating a ride-on cart with either fixed pitch prop, or one with slightly variable pitch. We would alter the pitch only to find the best position for fastest downwind speed, not for control....

For braking we've discussed braking at the propeller itself, or at the wheels. In either case you'd want brakes that provided zero drag when not engaged.

We've talked about many transmission options, and JB seems to be leaning toward a "spool and take-up reel" design. In this case you'd want to be very careful to make sure you don't let inertia send the filament flying off the spool. That could be done with proper braking of the prop, spool, axle, or through a dedicated friction brake that operates on the spool only when the filament goes slack.

Hi!

First of all a fundamental thing: you should not only do this, you should do this with style. You should add "self start" to your claim. Bauer's did it, Goodman's did it, yours does it and so should the full scale cart also. It's just plain styleless if you have to push the cart to start.

For braking I don't see the point of discussion? Any bicycle brake will be pretty much perfect. Easy to implement, relatively cheap, lightweight and zero drag when not engaged.

I strongly oppose to the "spool and take-up reel" design. It can be argued that it violates the steady state requirement. Even if agreed it doesn't it would again be unstylish to be able to do only short runs without "reloading". If there truly is a problem with efficient gearing, just go for a bigger propeller or wait for force 10 wind :D

From the self starting and acceleration point of view, you might want to consider shaping the cart frame so that you would maximize drag going "downwind" and minimize drag going upwind. Perhaps the "mast" for the prop could be a "half cylinder" or something (propably quite stiff and lightweight solution at the same time). Or perhaps some kind of "umbrella sail" that opens when the wind blows at it form aft and closes by itself when aproaching windspeed. I think the self starting point needs some consideration especially in the full scale context.

A cart with a controllable variable pitch prop would be by far the best option(if it can be done in practice). This would allow for maximum acceleration all the way from zero to terminal velocity. At start the prop could would work as a turbine and only later as a propellor. Maximum acceleration is not part of the claim ofcourse, but a question of style again.

Using bicycle gears instead of variable pitch was an interesting idea. The overall gearing range achievable with conventional bicycle gears is about 500 %. This will not match the infinite gearing of variable pitch but definately an idea worth considering. Perhaps you could use the 14-speed rohloff speedhub. It is as effective as derailleurs and you can change the oil yourself to something that is optimal for this situation. Also the 11th gear is direct 1:1 and therefore very efficient. ETA: I mean design so that top speed is to be achieved at gear 11 and use the other gears to accelerate or slow down.

But the ultimate point of controllable variable pitch is this: the speed would depend on your driving skills, the ability to keep the pitch at optimum! Build two carts and you can have a seriously fun drag race! Quite something else than just sitting as a passenger.
 
Last edited:
A two speed automatic pitch?

Rig the blades so that there is about 90-135 degrees slack. At start the blade would be as in a turbine or almost perpendicular to wind and the airfoil shape would be "backwards" when the prop is turning. This would guarantee a start. While accelerating at some point the relative wind at the prop will "tip over the leading edge", thus making the blade "gybe", and turn into the proper position designed for max speed. I have absolutely no idea if this will work even in theory, but maybe someone would find it an interesting design consideration. Could the prop make the "gybe" by itself or will the cart only reach some speed lower than that is needed for the gybe?
 
I like that idea. For the ride-on version we could take the same approach we use on sailplanes - just a simple piece of yarn.
Yes, the link isn't too difficult. I wondered about mounting a sail (more like a light but inflexible air rudder) above the rear wheel, but offset enough to add a gear train to turn the wheel, gearing down its motion so that the presumably fairly flappy movement of the rudder would only turn the wheel a little. A yarn connection would presumably be fine too, and its attachment allows gearing in similar manner. The problem I have with it is that pesky reversal of the wind. The rudder principle requires that it is being generally pushed one way - reverse the wind direction as the cart outpaces the wind, and it would tend to jacknife one way or the other. I've been trying to imagine a fully rotating wheel or other self-righting system, but so far can't fix it. The only solution I can think of at the moment is to manually set it by changing the location of the rudder's axle wrt its area (tricky) or only engaging the system at faster than wind speeds. Idiots might then still question whether it got to windspeed by itself and DIRECTLY downwind, but once past it, you could maintain that and also have a mechanism that keeps it self-directing downwind. There's also a bit of a complication that the best wheel for the job is in the turbulent air of the prop end, so maybe a rudder or sail at the front would be better, with yarn to the rear wheel steering mech. Can you think of a way for it to automatically reverse with the prevailing wind?

Hello John,

well, if one wants to have such a cart that can travel DWFTW at some greater angle instead of directly, then yes, it would be a problem. But then, i think that a certain amount of "non-directness" should be possible already, if it isn't too big.
Hi Chris, I think you may have misunderstood, or at least posted the wrong quote. The problem I was describing is that of a rudder trying to keep the cart DDW, not, as you seem to have described, being able to drive in different directions with respect to the wind. I don't have the experience or knowledge to even begin to work that out, but presumably one needs to change the machine significantly, probably rotating the whole prop axis, sometimes changing it from a prop to a turbine, etc., etc. I can well imagine it being a new sport in 5-10 years though. People will sit on anything and go fast!

As for Michaels question of braking the cart, what about a magnetic brake? <snip> Or the straight and simple way that bicycles brake
As others have said, I can't see the need for complex solutions, other than for style-weirdness. If going for the latter, sure, you could even generate electricity from the wind to power the electric brake!

For braking: even for a pure DDWFTTW vehicle meant only for demonstrating the principle, if it's carrying a person I think there should be a means of disengaging the transmission between prop and wheels.
Ah, you're no fun!:p As humber reminded us a while back, you don't want to get sucked into the propeller.;)

But seriously, yes, I agree. There should also, of course, be a cage round the prop, and the rider should have protective clothing and helmet, and perhaps be strapped into a roll cage...especially if this sport becomes combined with storm chasing!

If the prop stays connected (as in the small cart), you have double work when applying the brake: you'd not only be dissipating the kinetic energy of cart + driver, you'd be fighting the thrust from the prop.
Yes, I didn't think of that. Like braking in your car while still with the drive engaged (although with a fluid clutch).

Simply disengaging the prop would apply a braking force: the prop would slow down, then start turning the other way like a turbine, which in itself would slow down the cart.
Surely not much, once its disengaged? It won't act as a brake to the rest of the mechanism if it's disconnected, although changing its momentum would absorb some energy. Above windspeed, once disengaged it will tend to be turned the same way by whatever headwind there is. Then, as the cart slows to below windspeed by general losses [ETA: the headwind!] or a mechanical brake, it will reverse direction (being turned like a turbine in the tailwind - but a disconnected turbine doesn't do much). You would have to drive it faster that way to act as an air brake, and not from the wheels, or you're just back to acceleration mode....I think...:boggled: [ETA: yes, the wheels are going the wrong way! - maybe a mechanical reverse gear? - or is there something like Dan's variable gear that reverses also?]

Maybe the variable pitch idea would be better than I first thought, and worth a try (didn't someone already have that on an earlier one?). It can give gradual or maximum acceleration, be trimmed for top speed, and altered again to gradually reduce thrust or gradually reverse it, and finally be set at infinite pitch again at rest, not to mention demonstrating reverse! Maybe its only drawback is that it is complicated - its action changing at different windspeeds, as well as the mechanical complication.
 
Last edited:
Hi Chris, I think you may have misunderstood, or at least posted the wrong quote. The problem I was describing is that of a rudder trying to keep the cart DDW, not, as you seem to have described, being able to drive in different directions with respect to the wind.

Hello John,

ok, i see. My fault then ;)
I was thinking of being able to travel at some angle to the wind with the same cart and still get faster-than-the-wind.

Greetings,

Chris
 
snip
(being turned like a turbine in the tailwind - but a disconnected turbine doesn't do much).
Well, a minor correction ….a disconnected turbine or “wind-milling propeller” if you talk to a pilot, creates a lot of drag. If you want to minimize the “push” from the tailwind when you are below wind speed, you should bring the propeller to a full stop.
 
Well, a minor correction ….a disconnected turbine or “wind-milling propeller” if you talk to a pilot, creates a lot of drag. If you want to minimize the “push” from the tailwind when you are below wind speed, you should bring the propeller to a full stop.
I find that hard to understand, but there's "a lot of drag" for a pilot and "a lot of drag" sufficient for a brake. If there was just a lump of stuff out there in the air causing drag, sure, it has x amount of drag. If the same cross-section is a prop and allowed to spin freely, I imagine it should screw through the air with minimal drag compared to x. So the prop disconnected would be less efficient as a brake (above windspeed travel) than a similarly sized piece of wood. Then there is the problem that the wind we're travelling in is already going in our direction, so as soon as we slow to below windspeed, any drag from bluff surface areas or spinning props are working to accelerate us, unless they can be made to move in the opposite direction and thrust the wind forwards faster than it would normally be moving. Hence I think your second statement is wrong. Bringing the prop to a full stop just causes it to act like an oddly shaped sail, and it's still in a tail wind. It needs to screw, to be driven, to do that, and in the opposite direction from its normal operation. I may be wrong, but I can't honestly see where.
 
Last edited:
I may be wrong, but I can't honestly see where.

You are wrong here:
If the same cross-section is a prop and allowed to spin freely, I imagine it should screw through the air with minimal drag compared to x.

Although counter intuitive, a free spinning prop is in fact "a better sail" than the same prop fixed so that it does not spin.

For example in a sailboat sailors put the engine in reverse to stop the propeller from spinning while sailing. Most do this pobably to get rid of the noise and vibration, but it also reduces drag compared to a free spinning prop. (Serious sailors ofcourse have folding propellers.)
 
I find that hard to understand
Maybe it is.
This is a quote from http://www.search.com/reference/Powered_Hang_Glider
“The propeller is locked in place while soaring power off, as a wind milling propeller has more drag than a stationary one: Expect a 10 to 20% decrease in glide performance with a wind milling propeller (clutched units) and 2 to 4% decrease with a locked propeller”
Also: autogiros are using this effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogiro
Something for you to think about: For the same descending speed, why do a parachuter need a much larger area on his chute than a hang glider pilot need in his wing?
 
John, rehn brings up an example that is easy to visualize:

If a spinning turbine didn't create more resistance than a stationary one, a gyrocopter pilot would let his rotor sit idle rather than spin it. Imagine two suddenly unpowered gyrocopters at altitude -- which one would you want to be in ... the one with the spinning rotor, or the one whose rotor is suddenly stopped still?

JB
 
You are wrong here:


Although counter intuitive, a free spinning prop is in fact "a better sail" than the same prop fixed so that it does not spin.

For example in a sailboat sailors put the engine in reverse to stop the propeller from spinning while sailing. Most do this pobably to get rid of the noise and vibration, but it also reduces drag compared to a free spinning prop. (Serious sailors ofcourse have folding propellers.)

Maybe it is.
This is a quote from http://www.search.com/reference/Powered_Hang_Glider
“The propeller is locked in place while soaring power off, as a wind milling propeller has more drag than a stationary one: Expect a 10 to 20% decrease in glide performance with a wind milling propeller (clutched units) and 2 to 4% decrease with a locked propeller”
Also: autogiros are using this effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogiro
Something for you to think about: For the same descending speed, why do a parachuter need a much larger area on his chute than a hang glider pilot need in his wing?
Well, thank you, that's amazing. I stand corrected. This thing has endless surprises for me.
 
Variable-pitch propeller is a simple and effective way to go. Some very successful human-powered airplanes have gone this way, and for them weight and complexity are at a premium. For motor-powered airplanes, although there are some that have gearing between the motor and the prop, variable gearing is a very unusual feature (I don't know of any off the top of my head, although I'm sure it has been done). Variable pitch is like trimming the sails on a boat. The driver can just have a lever like a shift lever that he can keep nudging forward as the vehicle accelerates, until he gets to the point where it doesn't help any more.
 
Variable-pitch propeller is a simple and effective way to go. Some very successful human-powered airplanes have gone this way, and for them weight and complexity are at a premium.

Very interesting: I didn't know that. Are there any specific problems with a propeller that can reverse the pitch? This seems to me the best way to control acceleration and deceleration of the DDWFTTW cart. When travelling at more than wind speed, changing from positive to negative pitch and then increasing the negative pitch would work like using the gears to apply engine braking in a car. That, combined with disc brakes on the wheels, would enable you to bring the cart to a stop very quickly.
 
Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross (which were not the first human-powered airplanes, by the way) had fixed-pitch props AFAIK. All three of the Daedalus planes (which currently hold all of the distance and duration records) used variable-pitch props. There have been many others, and I don't know which (if any) others had variable-pitch props.

I am getting a bit out of my area of expertise here, in terms of the specifics of variable-pitch prop design, but here's what I think is the case: a prop has a "design pitch", which is where it will be most efficient. You design it so that this is how it will be used in the most common operating condition (e.g. cruise speed). By adjusting the pitch, you can operate reasonably well at airspeeds that are higher or lower, with a sacrifice in efficiency (though less of a sacrifice than if you didn't adjust the pitch at all). A "dream-world" propeller would be able to adjust other things (like twist, for starters) in order to operate well at a wide range of airspeeds, but this isn't practical. When it comes to actually reversing the airflow, I think that's so far beyond the ideal operating parameters that all bets are off, although if you're just trying to dissipate energy, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. You also have to worry at that point about things like whether the thrust bearings are going to behave nicely when you load them up the wrong way.

I don't think a DDWFTTW cart would be so heavy that you'd have trouble stopping it with off-the-shelf bicycle brakes. Since it's traveling on the level, it's far less of a problem than stopping a tandem going down a steep hill, and that's a problem that has been solved. Probably doesn't hurt at that point to do something with prop pitch, though, maybe cranking it way beyond cruise pitch so that it takes the maximum power to turn it (provided the structures can take this kind of loading).
 
Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross (which were not the first human-powered airplanes, by the way) had fixed-pitch props AFAIK. All three of the Daedalus planes (which currently hold all of the distance and duration records) used variable-pitch props. There have been many others, and I don't know which (if any) others had variable-pitch props.

I am getting a bit out of my area of expertise here, in terms of the specifics of variable-pitch prop design, but here's what I think is the case: a prop has a "design pitch", which is where it will be most efficient. You design it so that this is how it will be used in the most common operating condition (e.g. cruise speed). By adjusting the pitch, you can operate reasonably well at airspeeds that are higher or lower, with a sacrifice in efficiency (though less of a sacrifice than if you didn't adjust the pitch at all). A "dream-world" propeller would be able to adjust other things (like twist, for starters) in order to operate well at a wide range of airspeeds, but this isn't practical. When it comes to actually reversing the airflow, I think that's so far beyond the ideal operating parameters that all bets are off, although if you're just trying to dissipate energy, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. You also have to worry at that point about things like whether the thrust bearings are going to behave nicely when you load them up the wrong way.

I hate it when people quote a lengthy excerpt just to say "yeah - that's right". But I guess that's what I'm doing.

Also, I happen to know JJ has worked on human powered aircraft with one of the legends in the field.

Nominally, one can imagine the design pitch to simply be a "true" pitch. In other words the angle of the blade from the plane of the disk varies inversely with the radius. This way you'd get the same theoretical advance for a single prop rotation at any radial station. Clearly you compromise this design parameter when you start twisting the blades at the root. But as JJ points out, that compromise can still be a good trade-off. Incidentally, I don't think that "true" pitch is typically the most efficient design as it doesn't yield the most efficient lift profile (lift vs. radius). But it's generally pretty close, and the argument holds either way.
 
First of all a fundamental thing: you should not only do this, you should do this with style. You should add "self start" to your claim. Bauer's did it, Goodman's did it, yours does it and so should the full scale cart also. It's just plain styleless if you have to push the cart to start.

Yes, do it in style!

For braking I don't see the point of discussion? Any bicycle brake will be pretty much perfect. Easy to implement, relatively cheap, lightweight and zero drag when not engaged.

The brake is an issue if the prop is still connected to the wheels. In this case the propeller will be producing forward thrust at any speed under cruising speed, so the brake will have to work against this thrust as well as simply dissipating the kinetic energy of the cart. If the prop is disengaged, it will tend to slow down the cart until wind speed is reached, but will tend to speed it up when the cart is running under windspeed. It seems obvious that under windspeed the prop will produce less forward thrust when disengaged than when engaged. Maybe this thrust isn't important and is easily overcome by a disc brake: I don't know.

I strongly oppose to the "spool and take-up reel" design. It can be argued that it violates the steady state requirement. Even if agreed it doesn't it would again be unstylish to be able to do only short runs without "reloading". If there truly is a problem with efficient gearing, just go for a bigger propeller or wait for force 10 wind :D

I agree. There will certainly be peole who complain that you are "winding the cart up". The design should permit the cart to run for an indefinite time, at least theoretically. What sort of gearing have human-powered aircraft used?
 

Back
Top Bottom