See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299645069

Optimal Propeller Pitch Scheduling and Propeller--Airframe Matching for

Conceptual Design

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-3190

CITATIONS READS
4 275

1 author:

Robert Alan McDonald

48 PUBLICATIONS   237 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Alan McDonald on 21 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimal Propeller Pitch Scheduling and
Propeller–Airframe Matching for Conceptual Design

Robert A. McDonald∗
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407

An alternate form of the propeller thrust coefficient sometimes used in the early days
of aviation was used to derive optimal propeller speed/pitch scheduling and also provide
insight into propeller/airframe matching. Although constant speed propellers behave very
differently from this optimum, their behavior is shown to be optimal for the speed-limited,
high thrust case where they usually operate. Situations where optimal pitch control pro-
vides an advantage over constant speed control are identified. The influence of propeller
size and type on aircraft performance is investigated with an aim of providing the aircraft
designer with intuitive decision making tools.

I. Introduction
he constant speed propeller has been the de facto standard for advanced propeller driven aircraft since
T its introduction in the 1930’s. Some references describe a constant speed propeller’s benefits as allowing
the propeller to operate at peak efficiency at all times; unfortunately, this perspective is more myth than
fact. The constant speed propeller’s primary benefit is that it allows the propeller to absorb more power (and
thereby produce more thrust) across a much greater range of operating conditions. This allows significant
improvement in aircraft performance for the same size propeller.
This paper is a short meander as part of an ongoing study to investigate the design and performance of
electric aircraft. In particular, the overall study has multiple aims. First, to develop modeling techniques
for electric aircraft appropriate for conceptual design. Further, to illustrate the kinds of decisions and trades
a would-be designer of an electric aircraft will face. Finally, to develop the canonical presentation of these
factors that will be most useful and will become most familiar to designers of these systems. Although this
paper is not restricted to electric aircraft in any way, it provides a necessary step along the greater path.

II. Historical Perspective

The development of the variable pitch and constant speed propeller by Frank Caldwell in the 1930’s was
a fundamental technological step in the maturation of propeller driven aircraft.1 Caldwell was not the first
to recognize the need for variable pitch – or to devise a means of achieving it, but his work at Hamilton
Standard produced solutions that would define the technology.
The time between the World Wars was a period of rapid advancement in aviation technology. Variable
pitch and constant speed propellers are a critical component of that advance, but their introduction was not
without controversy.2, 3 At the time of their development and introduction, the aviation community did not
universally understand or appreciate the benefits these systems would have on aircraft performance. It was
obvious that these systems had direct implications on weight, complexity, cost, and reliability, but it was
not obvious that their performance benefits would ever buy their way on the aircraft.4
Caldwell’s two-position controllable pitch propeller was production ready by the end of 1932; its develop-
ment earned Caldwell and Hamilton Standard the 1933 Collier Trophy for the most significant achievement
in aviation for that year.1 The Caldwell Hamilton Standard constant speed propeller went into production
in late 1935, and a paper on its operation was presented in June of 1936.5
∗ Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, One Grand Avenue, AIAA Senior Member.

1 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Presentation of this paper was widely reported in the technical and popular press both domestic and
abroad.6–8 These articles again garnered strong response, this time predominately positive,9–11 but significant
doubt still remained as to whether the constant speed propeller would ever see broad application.12
Even as the constant speed propeller gained acceptance, its position as the best overall solution was
far from settled. Contemporary technical articles exploring the theoretical benefit of a constant speed
propeller likewise mentioned variable diameter (though dismissively) and genuinely considered variable speed
gearboxes.13–15 Engineers of the time would perhaps be surprised to see that counter-rotating propellers
and variable speed gearboxes never became commonplace.
Though only two- and three-speed gearboxes were considered, theoretical performance of an infinitely
variable gearbox was also explored13 such that the engine could operate at fixed optimal speed and the
propeller could operate at any desired speed. Operating the torque producer at fixed speed was always
viewed as desirable.
Since about 1940, the preeminence of the constant speed propeller has seldom been challenged. Operating
a propeller at constant speed is so accepted as the best solution that alternatives are seldom discussed and
explanations of its action are often incorrect. For example, it is often inferred (or outright stated) that
constant speed propellers vary pitch such that they always operate at peak efficiency (for a given advance
ratio); this explanation is entirely false. Fortunately, the established literature for educating pilots typically
uses a more appropriate gearbox analogy; without referencing efficiency, they explain that the constant speed
approach allows the engine to produce peak power and the propeller to put that power to good use across a
wide range of operating conditions.
Over the years, alternatives to the constant speed propeller have been proposed, but those proposals
focus on producing mechanically simple solutions (such as aeroelastically twisting blades) that emulate
the constant speed propeller’s performance. Hamilton Standard even developed variable camber propellers
where the pitch of two closely paired rows of blades would change to vary camber for VTOL or transition
into separate blades for high speed;16 of course, those systems were also expected to operate at constant
speed.
To find a discussion of the merits of constant speed contrasted to various alternative control schedules, we
must return to Caldwell’s original constant speed propeller paper5 where he states “. . . the most satisfactory
type of automatic operation is that which matches the propeller operating conditions to the limits established
for the engine on which it is mounted.” He later goes on to state that “This requirement is based upon the
engine manufacturers’ present conception of engine limitation and might be changed easily should it become
the custom of engine manufacturers to arrange the operating limits according to some scheme not now used.”
This discussion indicates that the supremacy of a constant speed propeller stems from point performance
rather than mission performance. I.e. how to obtain the most thrust out of a given propulsion system,
rather than how to obtain a lesser thrust most efficiently. In fact, beyond maximizing power available
throughout the flight envelope, perhaps the next most important feature of the constant speed propeller
is in the name itself. Constant speed control protects the propulsion system from damage caused by over-
speeding; although today considered an attribute of a complex aircraft, when introduced, the constant speed
propeller was viewed from the perspective of reducing pilot workload during aerobatics or aerial combat.
Without proposing a realizable system, Caldwell suggests that an automatic propeller may be able to
approach optimal efficiency by maintaining constant blade angle of attack, but such a propeller would
over-speed the engine during climb. Caldwell also classifies various control schemes according to the state
variable that would drive their operation; torque, thrust, air density, and static pressure are all considered
as controlling parameters. Each is dismissed as inferior to constant speed control.5
Although Caldwell makes a convincing case for the supremacy of constant speed control, he does leave
room for alternate control schemes in the event that the engine’s operating limitations take a different form.
Propellers driven by electric motors may provide just such an opportunity. Furthermore, though an optimal
control would have been difficult to realize in 1936, a modern digital control system should be able to provide
any form of propeller pitch scheduling desired.

III. Propeller Performance Modeling

Today, propeller operation is conventionally nondimensionalized in terms of the advance ratio J and
power CP and thrust coefficients CT . The propeller’s advance is the distance the propeller moves forward
with each revolution, calculated as the ratio of the forward velocity V to the rotational speed n. The advance

2 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

ratio is therefore the ratio of the advance to the propeller diameter, Dp . Advance ratio, power and thrust
coefficients are defined in Equations 1 through 3 below where ρ represents the density of the working fluid,
Pshaf t the power absorbed by the propeller, and T the thrust produced.
V
J≡ (1)
n Dp
Pshaf t
CP ≡ (2)
ρ n3 Dp 5
T
CT ≡ (3)
ρ n2 Dp 4
Propeller efficiency ηp is defined in Equation 4 as the ratio of thrust power T V produced by the propeller
to shaft power Pshaf t absorbed by the propeller.
TV J CT
ηp ≡ = (4)
Pshaf t CP
The performance of a variable pitch propeller is canonically presented as a propeller map like the one
depicted in Figure 1. The propeller map consists of contours of propeller efficiency plotted on axes of power
coefficient and advance ratio. This propeller map also includes a bold line representing an approximate stall
boundary.

0.6

0.5

0.4
90
CP

0.3 85
70
50

0.2
30
10

0.1

0
0 1 2 3
J

Figure 1. Typical propeller efficiency map. Bold line depicts approximate stall boundary.

Propeller manufacturers have provided data in this form to aircraft manufacturers to use in aircraft
design and propeller selection activities. The venerable Hamilton Standard Red Book17 is perhaps the best
known example of such a catalog. Computer programs capable of generating these maps18 have also been
developed to provide the aircraft designer with parametric propeller performance maps.
A published propeller performance map19 was used in this paper; this particular propeller was chosen
because the data was presented in tabular form rather than graphically. The chosen propeller is a 4-bladed
propeller with activity factor of 100 and integrated design lift coefficient of 0.55. The maximum rotational
speed for the propeller was set to 1900 RP M .
The published map tabulates thrust coefficient as a function of advance ratio and power coefficient.
However, the published map provides no information about the propeller pitch angle at each operating
condition. A separately published model18 relating power coefficient, advance ratio, and blade pitch at 3/4
of the radius, β3/4 , was used to provide a pitch angle reference for the blades and to simplify the variable
pitch propeller map to one suitable for use as a fixed pitch propeller as required. When representing a fixed

3 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

pitch propeller, the pitch angle was set to β3/4 = 30◦ . The variation of propeller pitch angle across the
propeller map is depicted in Figure 2 with the chosen fixed pitch propeller in bold. It is clear from this figure
that a fixed pitch propeller has a much narrower operating range than does a variable pitch propeller.

0.6

0.5
45 50

0.4
40

CP 0.3 35

30
0.2 25

20
0.1 15
10

0
0 1 2 3
J

Figure 2. Propeller map depicting propeller pitch variation with the fixed pitch propeller used in this study highlighted
in bold (β3/4 = 30◦ ).

Before constant speed props were commonplace, aeronautical engineers also employed propeller coeffi-
cients different from those of Equations 2 and 3 depending on the task at hand. Though many texts of the era
discuss the alternate forms, only a few texts elucidate why an engineer would prefer one over another.20, 21
These alternate coefficients are obtained by dividing the conventional coefficients by the advance ratio raised
to some power. The advance ratio can be used to cancel out any of the three terms appearing in its definition
(V , n, or Dp ). Airspeed does not appear in the definition of the standard propeller coefficients, making it
ideal for use in situations such as the performance analysis of a known constant speed propeller where the
propeller speed and diameter are both known.
Equation 2 can be divided by J 3 and Equation 3 can be divided by J 2 resulting in the first alternate
forms of the propeller coefficients given below as Equations 5 and 6.
CP Pshaf t
CP 0 ≡ = (5)
J3 ρ V 3 Dp 2
CT T
CT 0 ≡ = (6)
J2 ρ V 2 Dp 2
The engine speed does not appear in Equations 5 and 6, making the first alternate propeller coefficients
ideal for applications where the engine speed is unknown.
Equation 2 can be divided by J 5 and Equation 3 can be divided by J 4 resulting in the second alternate
forms of the propeller coefficients given below as Equations 7 and 8.

CP Pshaf t n2
CP 00 ≡ 5
= (7)
J ρV 5

CT T n2
CT 00 ≡ = (8)
J4 ρV 4
The propeller diameter does not appear in Equations 7 and 8, making the second alternate propeller
coefficients ideal for determining the propeller size. The second alternate
p propeller power coefficient was
often further manipulated to form the ‘speed-power coefficient’, CS ≡ 5 1/CP 00 , a form without propeller
diameter and linear in velocity.

4 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 For this paper, we find particular use in the first alternate form of the thrust coefficient, CT 0 . We use
thrust (rather than shaft power) because it is of more direct consequence to the performance of an aircraft.
We use the first alternate form because propeller speed does not appear in it – thereby readily allowing
consideration of variable speed operation.
Evaluating CT 0 across the propeller map allows the construction of Figure 3 depicting lines of constant
0
CT to be superimposed on a propeller map. These contours are left unlabeled as their shape is more
important than their numeric value at this time. Contours of CT 0 represent lines of constant thrust at a
given flight condition; each point along a contour represents a pitch/speed combination that will result in
the same thrust for a given propeller and flight condition.

0.6

0.5

0.4
CP

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3
J

Figure 3. Propeller map depicting lines of constant CT 0 . These lines represent constant thrust at a given flight condition,
or for equilibrium flight and some minor restrictions, lines of constant drag coefficient, lift coefficient, lift to drag ratio,
and equivalent airspeed.

Manipulation of the rightmost equality of Equation 6 may continue leading to some interesting results.
First, the propeller diameter squared may be written in terms of the propeller area Dp 2 = 4 Sp /π. Substi-
tution of this relation and multiplication by Sref /Sref yields the following equality.
π T Sref
CT 0 =
4 ρ V 2 Sref Sp
This relationship may be specialized for the common cruise case of equilibrium flight where thrust equals
drag T = D, and the terms may be grouped as in Equation 9 to reveal the aircraft total drag coefficient
CD ≡ 2 D/(ρ V 2 Sref ), where Sref is the aircraft reference area.
π Sref
CT 0 = CD (9)
8 Sp
The equivalence represented in Equation 9 means that Figure 3 also depicts lines of constant drag
coefficient in equilibrium flight for a given ratio of reference area to propeller area. Aside from the requirement
that the drag coefficient correspond to equilibrium flight, Equation 9 contains no direct dependence on the
flight condition; consequently Figure 3 applies at all points across the flight envelope.
Figure 3 intrepreted in terms of the drag coefficient becomes a crucial depiction of the match between an
aircraft and its propeller. The designer may manipulate this match via the parameter Sref /Sp , representing
the relative size of the propeller to the size of the aircraft.
Ignoring the effects of altitude (Reynolds number) and compressibility (Mach number), an aircraft’s clean
drag coefficient may be thought of as a function of lift coefficient CD = f (CL ). Although the drag polar
is not invertible, since we are considering only equilibrium flight it is reasonable to restrict ourselves to

5 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

lift coefficients greater than that for minimum drag. With this restriction, the drag polar may be inverted
CL = f −1 (CD ), and Equation 9 may be thought of in terms of the lift coefficient.
Consequently, with restrictions to equilibrium flight and a simple drag polar (ignoring altitude and
compressibility effects), Figure 3 may be considered to represent lines of constant lift coefficient. Further,
considering the lift to drag ratio as a function of lift coefficient L/D = f (CL ), it is evident that Figure 3
also represents lines of constant aerodynamic efficiency.
Restriction to equilibrium flight also infers that lift must equal weight L = W ; this allows the equilibrium
lift coefficient to be written in terms of the sea level density ρ0 and equivalent airspeed Ve as in Equation 10.
2 W
CL = 2 S (10)
ρ0 Ve ref
Understanding the relationship between lift coefficient and equivalent airspeed in Equation 10 allows
Figure 3 to be also considered as representing lines of constant equivalent airspeed. Note that this step to
equivalent airspeed also introduces the wing loading W/S as another parameter the designer may use to
manipulate the match between the aircraft and the propeller.
The process leading to this point from Equation 9 was done in an abstract manner to emphasize the
generality of this process. Relatively few assumptions and limitations were required to demonstrate that
the contours in Figure 3 represent lines of constant thrust at a given flight condition, drag coefficient, lift
coefficient, lift to drag ratio, and equivalent airspeed. The match between these contours and the underlying
propeller map can be manipulated via the relative size of the propeller Sref /Sp and, in the case of equivalent
airspeed, the wing loading W/S.
Alternatively, this process may be repeated for a particular analytical form of the drag polar, say CD =
CD,0 + K CL 2 . In this case, an expression for each of the equivalent contour metrics may be derived in terms
of CT 0 , the design parameters Sref /Sp and for equivalent airspeed W/S, and some constants including π and
ρ0 . This derivation is not included here; though the derivation is straightforward, the expressions become
rather cumbersome yet they would add little to the overall discussion.

IV. Propeller Pitch Scheduling

Comparing the constant pitch angle lines of Figure 2 to the constant thrust lines of Figure 3, we observe
that a fixed pitch propeller will cross the constant thrust lines only once and that each crossing occurs
at a specific value of propeller efficiency. As the constant thrust lines also represent lines of constant
drag coefficient, lift coefficient, lift to drag ratio, and equivalent airspeed, this observation has significant
implications. Most notably, the efficiency of a fixed pitch propeller on an aircraft in equilibrium flight is a
function only of equivalent airspeed; this consequence is plainly evident by the vertical efficiency contours of
Figures 10(a) and 10(b) presented later in the paper. Such an aircraft will achieve peak propeller efficiency
at a single specific equivalent airspeed. This crossing point is controlled by selection of the propeller map,
the drag polar, and the design parameters Sref /Sp and W/S.
Most variable pitch propellers operate with a constant speed governor. Although constant speed oper-
ation does not guarantee optimal propeller efficiency, it does keep the engine operating at constant speed.
Furthermore, constant speed operation greatly expands the propeller’s operating range, allowing it to absorb
more power (and create more thrust) over a wider range of airspeed. Recalling Equation 1, when operating
at constant rotational speed, the propeller’s advance ratio may be viewed as a surrogate for the aircraft’s
airspeed. At a given airspeed, a constant speed propeller is restricted to operate somewhere along a ver-
tical line on the propeller map. Maximum thrust (and power absorbed) will occur at the stall boundary;
reductions in required thrust will move the operating point down the constant speed vertical line.
The constant CT 0 lines in Figure 3 represent a continuum of propeller pitch-speed combinations capable
of producing the same required thrust at a given flight condition. An optimal pitch propeller would operate
at the highest efficiency pitch-speed point along this line. Graphically, this corresponds to the point where
the constant thrust and constant efficiency contours are tangent. Considering each thrust line in turn results
in the approximate optimal pitch line is depicted in Figure 4. This optimal pitch line is an inherent property
of the propeller, it does not depend on the flight condition, the aircraft, or the source of shaft power.
In this case, points along the optimal pitch line were obtained using a numerical constrained optimizer.
The optimizer was free to vary power coefficient and advance ratio in order to maximize efficiency subject
to an equality constraint on thrust (via CT 0 ). This optimization was repeated for a range of values of the

6 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 0.6

0.5

0.4

CP
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3
J

Figure 4. Propeller map depicting the line of optimal efficiency for a given thrust.

equality constraint to construct each point along the line. The tabulated nature of the underlying data
and the interpolation performed to form the propeller map leads to the oscillations visible in the efficiency
contours. These oscillations also resulted in a great deal of scatter in the optimal pitch points.
The approximate optimal pitch line depicted in Figure 4 was obtained by fitting a quadratic curve to
the optimal pitch points. Though there is no reason to believe the optimal power coefficient is a quadratic
function of advance ratio, this approximation is sufficient and appropriate for this study. If this curve does
differ substantially in character from the behavior of the true optimal pitch curve, the difference would occur
for very small advance ratios (say J < 0.2).
At first glance, the optimal pitch line of Figure 4 stands in stark contrast to the vertical operating line
characteristic of a constant speed propeller; it would seem that constant speed propellers are nearly as far
from optimal behavior as possible. However, the aircraft designer also faces the need to use as small a
propeller as possible and to utilize that propeller to the maximum effort possible while remaining within the
engine manufacturer’s operating limits as mentioned by Caldwell.5 These goals are achieved by turning the
propeller at high speed and near the stall boundary. In particular, maximum thrust operation will occur
near the stall boundary and at maximum allowed rotational speed.
At a given airspeed, the maximum allowable rotational speed boundary forms a vertical line on the
propeller map; any point to the left of this line is unavailable. Starting from maximum available thrust
(where the vertical speed boundary intersects the stall boundary), reducing required thrust is best achieved
by maintaining maximum speed and reducing pitch. This is exactly the behavior of a constant speed
propeller. Continued reductions in required thrust are best achieved by reducing pitch to move down the
vertical constant speed line on the propeller map until you reach the optimal pitch curve of Figure 4. At
that point, as required thrust continues to be reduced, the optimal strategy changes to one of reducing speed
and increasing pitch to follow the optimal pitch curve on the propeller map up and to the right.
From this discussion, we observe that although a constant speed propeller does not achieve optimal
efficiency at all times, it does achieve optimal behavior for high thrust requirements for rotational speed
constrained systems (the usual case); these requirements are met so long as the constant speed propeller
operates above the optimal pitch line. If a constant speed propeller is required to operate below the optimal
pitch line for a significant portion of the mission, significant gains in performance may be achieved through
use of optimal pitch scheduling instead. This is readily observed by choosing an operating point below the
optimal pitch line and following a constant thrust contour up until it intersects the optimal pitch line; the
efficiency difference between these points can be quite significant.
This discussion of optimal pitch control assumes that the objective is to minimize shaft power required
to produce a given amount of thrust at a particular flight condition. A different objective, such as low noise

7 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

operations, may of course lead to substantially different results.

V. Example Aircraft Model

An example aircraft must be specified in order to depict the behavior of the propeller associated with a
specific airframe. For this paper, an aircraft model based loosely on the Cessna 208 single-engine turboprop
cargo aircraft was chosen. The key parameters that define the example aircraft are specified in Table 1.
Table 1. Parameters that define example aircraft.

Parameter Symbol Value Units

Wing area Sref 280 f t2
Wing loading W/S 31 lbf /f t2
Weight W 8680 lbf
Aspect ratio AR 9.35
Induced drag efficiency e 0.85
Parasite drag coefficient CD,0 0.035
Maximum lift to drag ratio L/Dmax 13.4
Maximum lift coefficient CL,max 1.52

VI. Propeller / Airframe Performance

Before considering the limitations and losses of the device providing shaft power (electric motor, piston
or turbine engine) it is useful to consider the performance of just the propeller/airframe combination; this
paper is limited entirely to that scope. The propeller/airframe considered alone establish a set of bounds
on the performance achievable by the entire system. The shaft power device’s characteristics (including
weight, maximum power available, power lapse with altitude or speed, maximum rotational speed, and
thermodynamic, mechanical, or electrical efficiency) will limit or degrade performance from this set of bounds,
no motor can improve upon this performance. This incremental approach is taken as a means of elucidating
the design process as we look towards complex systems such as electric aircraft that may have substantially
different trade spaces from the conventional systems designers are familiar with. Understanding where and
how the system is decoupled allows the impact of design decisions to be made clear.
Six candidate propellers were integrated with the airframe described in Section V. A small (Dp =
81 in) and large (Dp = 87 in) propeller each operated in fixed pitch, constant speed, and optimal pitch
modes. Figure 5 depicts the torque/speed operating envelope for each propeller to turn at all levels of effort
throughout the flight envelope. In each case, the propeller unloads with increased altitude and airspeed;
consequently it is significant that the flight envelope included sea level static operation, but the highest
airspeeds and altitudes considered are not significant. Stated another way, the highest torque required to
turn the propeller corresponds to sea level static conditions at maximum effort.
For the fixed pitch propellers in Figures 5(a) and 5(b), covering all levels of effort implies all propeller
speeds from zero to 1900 RP M ; this envelope is depicted as the un-shaded region of the figure. For the
constant speed propellers in Figures 5(c) and 5(d), the full level of effort envelope of course forms a vertical
line at 1900 RP M ; the envelope is depicted as the black line in the background of the figure. For the optimal
pitch propellers in Figures 5(e) and 5(f), the full level of effort envelope has characteristics similar to both
the constant speed and fixed pitch propellers. The envelope is depicted as the combination of the black line
in the background of the figure combined with the un-shaded region.
Figure 6 depicts the equilibrium flight (T = D, L = W ) propeller speed (in RP M ) on axes of altitude
vs. equivalent airspeed. No matter the mechanism used to turn the propeller, this chart depicts the speed
it must turn to achieve equilibrium flight. The vertical line to the left of the chart represents the stall limit
for the aircraft. The curved boundary on the upper-right hand side of the chart represents the maximum
possible effort flight envelope for the airframe/propeller combination; this may be viewed as a maximum
level flight speed, an absolute ceiling, or a Ps = 0 boundary. Note that this flight envelope is an inherent
property of the airframe and propeller, any further restrictions imposed by the shaft power source have not

8 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

yet been included.
Figure 6 omits the constant speed propellers because, by definition, the propeller turns at fixed speed and
there would be no contours to display. The boundary of the flight envelope for the constant speed propeller is
the same as that of the optimal pitch propeller shown in Figures 6(c) and 6(d). Note that the small optimal
pitch propeller of Figure 6(c) displays no propeller speed contours whatsoever; it is a de facto constant speed
prop. The larger optimal pitch propeller of Figure 6(d) does have a small region in the lower left corner of
the flight envelope where there is an advantage to reducing propeller speed and breaking from constant speed
operation; however, for the vast majority of the flight envelope, the propeller operates as a constant speed
propeller. From these figures, we can infer the conditions that would justify an optimal pitch propeller – the
design requirements for the aircraft must demand a large flight envelope (high ceiling, high airspeed), but
they must also demand long duration operations low and slow, where the efficiency improvement is realized.
Figure 5 also depicts the torque/speed operating envelope for each propeller to achieve equilibrium flight
corresponding to Figure 6. For the fixed pitch propellers in Figures 5(a) and 5(b), the equilibrium flight
torque/speed envelope is depicted by the shaded region of the figures. For the constant speed propellers
in Figures 5(c) and 5(d), the equilibrium flight torque/speed envelope is depicted by the grey vertical line
in front of the black line. For the small optimal pitch propeller in Figure 5(e), the equilibrium flight
torque/speed envelope is a vertical line identical to that for the constant speed propeller; this confirms the
earlier discussion of Figure 6(c). For the large optimal pitch propeller in Figure 5(f), a small area of optimal
pitch operation is evident (in addition to the constant speed operation).
The differences between the maximum effort and equilibrium regions of Figure 5 represent potential
excess power for climb and acceleration and also areas of the flight envelope that can not be reached due to
insufficient thrust. Because the propeller un-loads with increases in airspeed and altitude, the un-achievable
flight envelope corresponds to the lower portion of the maximum effort envelopes. The maximum effort
envelopes above the equilibrium envelope corresponds to static and takeoff conditions and to potential excess
power throughout the flight envelope.
Figure 7 depicts the maximum effort thrust available throughout the flight envelope for each propeller.
This thrust will determine the rate of climb and important aspects of point performance. At maximum
effort, the optimal pitch propeller behaves the same as a constant speed propeller.
Figure 7 makes clear that increased thrust available is the origin of the expanded flight envelope made
available by a constant speed or optimal pitch propeller. These systems use the same size propeller to achieve
significantly increased thrust available at all flight conditions. This additional thrust available translates
into increases of more than 60 KEAS level flight speed and 10,000 f t of ceiling and will of course offer
corresponding improvements in rate of climb.
Figures 8 and 9 depicts the maximum effort rate of climb (or specific excess power) for each propeller /
airframe combination; Figure 8 is plotted in terms of equivalent airspeed while Figure 9 is plotted in terms
of true airspeed. Once again, the maximum effort performance for the constant speed and optimal pitch
propellers are identical.
Figures 8(b) and 8(c) provide two alternative means of achieving similar performance. In Figure 8(b),
a large fixed pitch propeller is capable of delivering a ceiling of slightly more than 20,000 f t, a maximum
level flight speed of about 150 KEAS, and a maximum sea level rate of climb of more than 900 f t/min. In
Figure 8(c), a small variable pitch propeller delivers a higher ceiling of 24,000 f t, substantial improvement in
level flight speed to about 195 KEAS, and a slight reduction in sea level rate of climb to over 800 f t/min.
Figure 10 depicts the propeller efficiency for equilibrium flight for each propeller/airframe combination.
As foretold in Section IV, fixed pitch equilibrium flight propeller efficiency forms vertical lines when plotted
on axes of altitude vs. equivalent airspeed. The most notable aspect of Figure 10 is to compare the lower left
corners of Figures 10(d) and 10(f); recalling Figure 6(d), this is the area where constant speed and optimal
pitch propellers differ. In this case, we observe very slight improvements in propeller efficiency of perhaps
1% in a very restricted area of the flight envelope.

VII. Conclusions
An alternate form of the propeller thrust coefficient, CT 0 was employed to provide a means of deriving
optimal propeller speed/pitch scheduling and to provide insight into propeller/airframe matching. Although
constant speed propellers behave very differently from the optimum pitch/speed schedule, their behavior was
shown to be optimal for the speed-limited, high thrust case that is common for most aircraft. An aircraft

9 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

that requires an extremely large flight envelope (high ceiling, high level flight speed), or very high static
thrust (vertical takeoff), but that spends extended periods operating at low power (low speed and altitude)
may benefit from optimal pitch scheduling.
Aircraft performance charts were constructed to display the effects of propeller size and type (fixed pitch,
constant speed, and optimal pitch) in a way that may help the designer determine the right approach to meet
their requirements. An incremental approach to airframe/propeller/engine design is proposed and developed
wherein a propeller and airframe are first matched without considering the source of shaft power.

References
1 Kinney, J. R., “Frank W. Caldwell and Variable-Pitch Propeller Development, 1918-1938,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38,

No. 5, 2015/06/10 2001, pp. 967–976.

2 Spooner, S., “The Variable Pitch Airscrew, With a Description of a New System of Hydraulic Control,” Flight, Vol. 20,

No. 1008, April 19 1928, pp. 269–270.

3 Spooner, S., “Editorial Comment, Variable Pitch Airscrews,” Flight, Vol. 20, No. 1008, April 19 1928, pp. 257, 258.
4 Williams, D. L. H., “Airscrew Design,” Flight, Vol. 24, No. 1247, November 17 1932, pp. 1093.
5 Caldwell, F. W., Martin, E., and Rhines, T. B., “The Constant-Speed Propeller - Part I - Its Performance,” SAE

Transactions, Vol. 40, No. 1, January 1937, pp. 28–33, Presented in White Sulfur Springs, WV, June 3, 1936.
6 Anonymous, “Constant-Speed Propeller,” Automotive Industries, Vol. 74, No. 26, June 27 1936, pp. 907–908.
7 Smith, G. G., “The Constant-Speed Airscrew An Explanation of the Principle of the Hamilton Standard, Advantages to

be Expected,” The Aircraft Engineer , Vol. 13, No. 2, August 27 1936, pp. 228a–228d, Supplement to Flight Vol. 30, No. 1444.
8 Klemin, A., “Mystery of the Constant Speed Propeller,” Scientific American, Vol. 155, November 1936, pp. 301–303.
9 Smith, D. D. F., “Correspondence, Constant-Speed Airscrews,” Flight, Vol. 30, No. 1446, September 10 1936, pp. 272.
10 McEvoy, M. A., “Correspondence, Constant-Speed Airscrews,” Flight, Vol. 30, No. 1447, September 17 1936, pp. 292.
11 Anonymous, “Correspondence, A Pilot on Constant-Speed Airscrews,” Flight, Vol. 30, No. 1452, October 22 1936, pp. 410.
12 Smith, G. G., “Private Flying, Topics of the Day – V.P. Airscrews for Us,” Flight, Vol. 30, No. 1446, September 10 1936,

pp. 275.
13 Smith, G. G., “Airscrew Development; Concluding Sections of the Paper Read Recently by Dr. H. C. Watts Before the

R.Ae.S.” The Aircraft Engineer , Vol. 12, No. 2, February 27 1936, pp. 228a–228e, Supplement to Flight Vol. 29, No. 1418.
14 Pankhurst, R. C., Conn, J. F. C., Fowler, R. G., and Love, E. M., “The Effect of Variation of Gear Ratio on the Per-

formance of a Variable-pitch Airscrew for a High-speed Aeroplane,” Tech. Rep. R&M 2039, Aeronautical Research Committee,
1941.
15 Fairhurst, L. G., “Airscrews, A Review of the Present Position and Future Outlook of Constant-speed Airscrews,” Flight,

Vol. 44, No. 1812, September 16 1943, pp. 311–314.

16 Anonymous, “Generalized Method of Variable Camber Propeller Performance Estimation,” Tech. Rep. PDB 6408, Hamil-

ton Standard, Windsor Locks, CT, 1964.

17 Anonymous, “Generalized Method of Propeller Performance Estimation,” Tech. Rep. PDB 6101, Hamilton Standard,

Windsor Locks, CT, 1963.

18 Worobel, R. and Mayo, W. G., “Advanced General Aviation Propeller Study,” Tech. Rep. NASA CR-114399, NASA,

1971.
19 Smith, C., Hirschkron, R., and Warren, R., “Propulsion System Study for Small Transport Aircraft Technology (STAT),”

Tech. Rep. NASA CR-165330, NASA, May 1981.

20 Diehl, W. S., Engineering Aerodynamics, The Ronald Press Company, 2nd ed., 1936.
21 Warner, E. P., Airplane Design; Performanc, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 2nd ed., 1936.

10 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 5 5

4 4
Torque (1000 ft lbf)

Torque (1000 ft lbf)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)
(a) Small (Dp = 81 in) fixed pitch propeller. (b) Large (Dp = 87 in) fixed pitch propeller.

5 5

4 4
Torque (1000 ft lbf)

Torque (1000 ft lbf)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)
(c) Small (Dp = 81 in) constant speed propeller. (d) Large (Dp = 87 in) constant speed propeller.

5 5

4 4
Torque (1000 ft lbf)

Torque (1000 ft lbf)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)
(e) Small (Dp = 81 in) optimal pitch propeller. (f) Large (Dp = 87 in) optimal pitch propeller.

Figure 5. Propeller torque/speed envelope.

11 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)
20 20

18
50
15 15

10 10
18
50

5 5

180 0
177500
1 650
1 600
1 0
180 0

0
177500

15500
1 50

15 50
16
16

14
0

0 14
0 00
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(a) Small (Dp = 81 in) fixed pitch propeller. (b) Large (Dp = 87 in) fixed pitch propeller.

35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)

20 20

15 15

10 10
1850
5 5 1800
0
175
1700
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(c) Small (Dp = 81 in) optimal pitch propeller. (d) Large (Dp = 87 in) optimal pitch propeller.

Figure 6. Equilibrium flight propeller speed (RP M ).

12 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)
20 20

15 15

200
10 10

40
200

0
40

5 5

60
0

0
80
60

0
0

0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(a) Small (Dp = 81 in) fixed pitch propeller. (b) Large (Dp = 87 in) fixed pitch propeller.

35400 35
400
30 30
400 600
25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)

800
20 600 20
100
15 15 0
800
120
0
10 10
100 140
0 0
5 5 160
1200 0
1800
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(c) Small (Dp = 81 in) constant speed or optimal pitch (d) Large (Dp = 87 in) constant speed or optimal pitch
propeller. propeller.
Figure 7. Maximum effort thrust available (lbf ).

13 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

1200000
0
345000
0
1150500000

6000
00
225 0

0
80

7
3050

40

0
3

4500 900 0
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(a) Small (Dp = 81 in) fixed pitch propeller. (b) Large (Dp = 87 in) fixed pitch propeller.

35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)

20 20

15 15

10 10
25 0
0
50 0
0
100000

75 00
23000
0

10
4 00 0

5 5
5 60

12
70 50
0
800 1500
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(c) Small (Dp = 81 in) constant speed or optimal pitch (d) Large (Dp = 87 in) constant speed or optimal pitch
propeller. propeller.
Figure 8. Rate of climb (f t/min) plotted vs. equivalent airspeed.

14 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

10
2000
00
30 0
40
500
10
15

600
50
20500
0

700
2
30500
00

80
3 0
40

450 900

0
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
V (kts) V (kts)
(a) Small (Dp = 81 in) fixed pitch propeller. (b) Large (Dp = 87 in) fixed pitch propeller.

35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)

20 20

15 15

10 10
250
0
500
750
1000
20

1000
300
0
400
500

5 5
600

125
70

0
0

800
1500
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
V (kts) V (kts)
(c) Small (Dp = 81 in) constant speed or optimal pitch (d) Large (Dp = 87 in) constant speed or optimal pitch
propeller. propeller.
Figure 9. Rate of climb (f t/min) plotted vs. true airspeed.

15 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 35 35

30 30

25 25
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

72
70
74
76
78
80
82
72
68
70
74
76
78

84
80

82

0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(a) Small (Dp = 81 in) fixed pitch propeller. (b) Large (Dp = 87 in) fixed pitch propeller.

35 35

30 30
74

72
76
25 25

70
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)

20 20
72
70
68

15 15

10 10
80

82
78

78
76
74

5 5
80

84
82

76

0 0 80
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(c) Small (Dp = 81 in) constant speed propeller. (d) Large (Dp = 87 in) constant speed propeller.

35 35

30 30

25 25
72 7068
h (1000 ft.)

h (1000 ft.)

20 20
74
70 686664

15 15

10 10
80
78
76
76

82
72
74

78 0

5 5
8

84
82

0 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Ve (KEAS) Ve (KEAS)

(e) Small (Dp = 81 in) optimal pitch propeller. (f) Large (Dp = 87 in) optimal pitch propeller.

Figure 10. Equilibrium flight propeller efficiency.

16 of 16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats