Hamilton Standard 130A/B Manual

QLDSpitty, pm me an email address, you might have noticed from other threads that thanks to Graham A I have a table of blade data you might find useful.

Here is a cut and paste of 130B title data:

Document Identification
Publication Number 130B
Revision Date 08/15/1983
Revision Number 10
Document Type OHM
Detail
Title/Equipment Aircraft Propeller Aluminum Blades
Application(s) C-130; Guppy; L100; L-188; L382; Convair 580; DHC-2
Part Number(s) n/a
Engine(s) n/a
Model(s) 2D30-237; 54H60

So don’t pay for it because I don’t think it has what you want!

Still looking for 130A, but no luck as yet.

Hmmm, that’s a few beers!

Just wasted 15 quid on a downloadable 130A. It ends on page 66 with the line ‘templates and tables are available from the manufacturer on request’

This was from 1956 – I guess somewhere between 1947 (the one I saw the contents page of) and 1956 the lawyers began to gain power.

The 1947 one is 90-something quid!

Thanks, though.

Ed, I don’t suppose you copied the 6127 before running for it?

Nope, that the one at the top.
Cees

Thanks Cees

We have this HS one, No. 110:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246093[/ATTACH]

and this one from DH:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246092[/ATTACH]

If it’s something else, then yes please :eagerness:

Hi Matt,
I cannot help you with a repair manual but I do have a HS bracket type prop manual. If you can use it I will donate it to the project.
Cheers
Cees

Agreed, but reaching for another pint in the virtual pub, re. 1) it was considered that the part inboard of, say, 40% didn’t really do anything useful anyway, so that rule was only loosely applied, at least by De Havilland for a while. Maybe this was because they were initially just copying US designs as per the Flight article in the other blade thread, and the Americans only really had radials apart from the Allison. (Spit I is an example, with plenty of shank outside the cowl radius):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246090[/ATTACH]
(2) Aerofoils were compared, and some optimums were arrived at, but see 4, (3) You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But (4) it isn’t just the extremes of performance. History is littered with aircraft that suddenly got a whole lot better, or worse, with a change of prop. Almost always glossed over by that aircraft’s ‘experts’. What we have is a part of the drive chain that can vary its efficiency by five, ten percent or more. It is the only means to convert a reciprocating engine’s power to an aeroplane’s motion. If it were, say, a prop shaft that could, if the wrong one was selected, reduce an engine’s efficiency by just 5% then it would be got right – for reasons of economy if nothing else. But there are all kinds of ‘it’ll do’ arrangements flying, and the work done eighty years ago is largely unknown or ignored. I suppose its fair to say that in a military aircraft with reserves of power an inefficient prop is not a safety issue in normal civilian usage, so it happens. (which reading it back is what you said) (5) I need a CAD orientated volunteer!

Blades for Dummies. I am coming to a sense that blades are a school of aerodynamic thought entirely separate. That the permutations of design are equally valid being argued over a beer in the pub as much as the stern experimentation of a wind tunnel. From soaking in lots of information I make the following observations : (1). The difference between a radial blade and an inline blade is the round shank is longer on the radial, to keep the aerofoil doing the work chopping into clean air outside the engine front; unless a tweak is put closer in to drive cooling air over radial cylinders. (2). There are only a small group of aerofoils used for WW2 designs, shifted up and down the length of the blade(3) a blade is a system, where the blade design is integrated with spinner and cowling design (4) some modern blade re grinding is ‘eyeball engineering’ with results disguised by the fact that aircraft are not being pushed to limits (5) modern CAD program’s such as Solidworks are able to simulate and identify disturbed airflow over a cowling; modern 3d scanning is able to accurately measure real geometry, so combining the two techniques can resolve complicated performance issues in your shed.

8.3 inches. 129 inch diameter.. the rest should fall into place now. Aerofoil was probably RAF6 or possibly Clark Y – I heard growling from down the corridor before I’d found that bit.

Here you go. No one has original dH tables. The new blades for UK Spits with DH props were done by measuring existing ones. That data is jealously guarded.

HOWEVER it can be pieced together – technically for the Spit I de H 55409 blade, but I suspect it’s the same. In these graphs you need propeller ‘III’ in the first two figures, and propeller ‘V’ in the last. All you now need is an absolute measurement of chord at 0.7 radius, something that frustratingly I can’t put my hands on right now. From Fig 4 you can work out the chord along the blade (the figures are ratio of chord to chord at 0.7r). From fig 2, thickness to chord, you can derive the thickness. Angular twist (fig 3) is fairly straightforward. These are from RAE Reports 2357 and 2602, available online.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246057[/ATTACH]

Blade planforms were not symmetrical of course, they were plotted along a straight axis defined by centre of mass of the section. That’ll require some work, but is doable – or you can just do it by eye, from photos, as yours is a replica.

For that key dimension, chord at 0.7r, I will dig in what I got from Farnborough before they released the lions.

Anyone got a table for a MkV Spitfire Dehav prop blade?Need do a 3D profile for a replica blade.

Yes, there are a known set of corrections for distance to hub centre – the precise figures are laid out in a table in manual 110. That’s the one that isn’t in a locked filing cabinet at the end of a disused corridor behind a sign reading ‘Beware of the leopard’.

Thanks for the info, and confirmation. I think I will fork out for one of the copies that are apparently available from sellers online.

I have enough DH data to start making comparisons.

Close but no cigar

Matt,

I find that these kind of documents are held on the dusty shelves of old offices in which an old man will sit, quietly oiling a shotgun, muttering about flash pilots and unpaid bills for blade grinding. As they basically constitute the intellectual property of blade grinding they are passed out of the coffin of a departed grinder into the hands of their apprentice. As the art fades and the apprentices go for easier work you may find the information becomes easier to get at if you show genuine interest.

I think I did stumble on what you are wanting but only had the wit to copy a few pages instead of sprinting for the door. Maybe the big rottweiler looking at me had something to do with my timidity. As you can see this 130B looks like a 1960’s edition, but most probably has most of the blades of interest in it. This one is in the USA. No doubt there is another at the bottom of some box. I would recommend contacting your local blade grinder to see what they have.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246025[/ATTACH]

The way I saw this worked out on the blade was thus :

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246026[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246027[/ATTACH]

Upon enquiry it was explained that the first 12″ dimension is the distance from the centre of the hub. As the blade is loose on the bench, I assumed that there is a set distance from the shank end, for a particular shank size, that establishes this 12″ position, and the other stations are worked out from there.
Ed