Document 1 of 1

Naval propellers from design to manufacture

Gangler, J P. Naval Forces18. 6 (1997): 112-117.

Abstract
Modern warship propellers must be quiet and efficient. Gangler describes integrated design and manufacturing techniques.

Full text

View Image - WAYS TO AN INTEGRATED APPROACH

For more than a century propellers have been in use on merchant and military ships. Design theories have made dramatic progress; sophisticated computer models or very large model test facilities are now available. Nevertheless, for sailors, captains, naval architects and naval engineers, propellers remain to a certain extent an enigma. The main reason is probably the wide range of possible combinations of ship types, engine types and mission profiles. What is optimum and what are the relevant optimisation criteria? Are controllable pitch propellers better than fixed? DESIGN PROBLEMS VERSUS SHIP TYPES The propulsion theory does not depend on the size of the propeller or on the type of ship. For those who are familiar with propeller design this explains why the same non-dimensional coefficients describe the propulsive performance of a 10 mm diameter propeller as well as a 12 metre one. Nevertheless a design is not created by theory alone but with data as well and the use of large computers is not the only way to success. The computer-users' saying "garbage in, garbage out" applies perfectly to propeller design. The data varies widely with the type of ship. Figure 1 shows a possible distribution of the different classes of ships on a two-dimensional diagram. It takes into account the delivered propeller power (per shaft) and the ratio of the power per square diameter. In other words it represents ships by their propeller power and propeller loading. Constant diameter lines are also shown. The graph does not intend to show any one type of ship but it gives tendencies. Propellers for navies deliver power comparable to other ship types. Power density, i.e. power delivered per square metre, is higher than for any other type except perhaps for recent passenger cruise vessels. As a result, navy ships may be sorted into four main types: High speed small craft (fast attack) Light frigates, corvettes, OPVs Heavy frigates, destroyers Aircraft carriers For other naval craft, (tenders, tugs, command ships, replenishment vessels, LPDs, etc.), the propeller design can be approached with strategies very similar to those currently used for the merchant marine, except where the choice of materials or strength characteristics are concerned. The main target in designing propellers for fast attack craft is to achieve speed performance and to avoid erosive cavitation. Due to their small size the propellers are very often of the fixed pitch type. Light frigates and OPVs are often optimised for low to medium speeds. Fixed pitch or controllable pitch are suitable depending on the type of propulsion plant.

Light frigates and OPVs do not sail at very high speeds. Their propulsion must be multipurpose and very flexible. Their smaller size makes them apparently easier to design since they have to withstand lower stresses. The problem may come more from a lack of funds (see below) than from pure hydrodynamics or mechanics. Heavy multi-purpose or specialised frigates as well as destroyers demand efficiency at cruise speed, low noise characteristics and good efficiency to achieve reasonable maximum speed. Mixed engine propulsion (COGOG, GAG, DOG, DLAG ...) ensures this very different speed configuration and leads mostly to the use of controllable pitch. Aircraft carriers must sail at high speeds to be able to launch the aircraft. Power is essential for them. Some of them have more than 80 MW installed per shaft. Their propellers must first of all deliver and withstand thrust. A fifth category has also to be dealt with: submarine propellers. They have to be as silent as possible, which means considerably quieter than any surface ship. The primary and sometimes unique goal of propeller design is to achieve the lowest noise level at patrol and/or cruise speed. This categorisation underlines the differences caused by the type and size of the ships, a factor which also determines what corresponding funds will be made available to the designer or the design team. Hundreds of thousands of manhours have already been spent on research and development for SSBN propellers. It is not certain that the same amount of research and development is currently being done for small patrol vessels. DESIGN TOOLS COMPUTER OR MODEL TESTING It is obvious that propeller designing made huge progress at the turn of the ' 60s when computers began to render existing theories accessible other than through correction factor tables. Today the most advanced computer programmes are able, within an acceptable running time, to predict overall performances and pressure distribution with reasonable accuracy. This applies to the free-running propeller operating in a given inflow field. But the actual wake field distribution or the tiny details which may lead to problems such as early noise or unforeseen erosion are not yet accessible for computation. Moreover, the propeller does not operate in a fixed environment and the analysis by advanced computers using Navier-Stokes equations would become painful and far too expensive if any sailing mode had to be checked. Despite computer performances it is not yet possible to perform a fully accurate analysis of a propeller mounted on a shaft, behind brackets, close to the hull, operating in a more or less turbulent field, in off-design conditions. This is why model testing is still a tool for analysing propellers: new theories can be reviewed and assessed at a reasonable cost. Global analysis and hull/appendages/propeller interactions can be assessed and witnessed. The use of model test facilities has another advantage: It is so difficult to have ideal trial conditions at sea that the contractual performances of propellers are often defined on model scale. Geometry and test conditions can therefore be checked and reproduced many times if necessary. It is nevertheless highly advisable that these tests are performed by an independent facility. If the tests were performed by those who designed the propellers, it would be too easy to get astonishingly good results! However, even if the model propeller or ship is perfectly manufactured to scale, model testing suffers from real drawbacks which are consequences of scaling. Hydrodynamicists know that hull and/or model testing should simultaneously consider several conflicting scaling ratios. Most of the time the Reynolds number (the ratio based on speed geometry and fluid viscosity) at model scale is far different from that at full scale. This is one major source of discrepancy between model and full scale results. Another is the wall effect. If too close to the wall of the facility, towing tank or tunnel, pressure distribution between the model and the wall is disturbed and this influences the results. Coupled with the Reynolds number problem, this can lead to uncertainties or errors. Indeed it is sometimes a question of whether or not model tests create more uncertainties than solutions and it must not be assumed that a decision to carry out model tests will automatically eliminate design problems. Nevertheless, model tests can be useful when combined with good correlation coefficients between the model and the full scale, given that the model testing team

has had years of experience and feedback from full scale experiments. Moreover, the larger the facility and especially the larger the towing tank and/or the cavitation tunnel, the better the Reynolds number condition will be met and the wall effect attenuated. However, the best theories, the fastest computers and the largest facilities are not enough to produce a good design. Not just any theory, programme, test or facility gives guidance for the choice of profile types, pitch distribution, overall geometry, thickness distribution, etc. This choice has to be made with regard to the design target through guidance derived from a century of experience. Computers help designers to check tendencies, to select parameters within a database and to get overall performances. Model tests supply the final proof or show areas of improvement. Computer models and model tests do not compete: they must be used together. LOW NOISE

View Image - The flagship of the Spanish Navy, the PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS aircraft carrier, is equipped with naval propellers from ACB Lips.

PROPELLER DESIGN Self noise and radiated noise are to be fought against as much as possible. It seems silly to install something resembling a food blender at the rear of a ship! This is one of the paradoxes of the propeller. A propeller cannot be silent under any condition. The role of the designer is to keep the propellerborne noise as low as possible. Noise has different sources: it can be flow-induced. The degree of roughness of the profiles and the hub would then be kept as low as possible. Any protrusion is to be avoided as it would cause micro or macro turbulence. However, flow-induced noise is nothing compared to cavitation noise. Cavitation is a very natural phenomenon. It is simply seawater boiling at ambient temperature under very low pressure conditions. Such conditions occur beyond a given flow speed depending on the pressure distribution characteristics of the acting hydrodynamic surface. Cavitation then starts (incepts, say the hydrodynamicists). The noise is created by the high energy implosion of vapour bubbles when the pressure downstream of the cavitation area exceeds the vapour pressure. Depending on the density and shape of the vapour cavities (bubbles, sheets, vortices), the noise is a blank noise and/or it reinforces pure tones like the blade rate and its harmonics. Cavitation noise is much louder than flow-induced noise. This is why so much attention is paid to propeller cavitation inception. A good index by which to appreciate the noise performance of a propeller is its cavitation inception speed. How to avoid early inception: by avoiding irregularities on the hub and profiles, by shortening any protrusion and, most important, by avoiding early cavitation induced by the overall geometry of the profile. The earliest type is known as tip vortex cavitation. Tip vortices are naturally produced by differences of pressure which exist between the sides of a propeller blade. The main research programmes at the turn of this century will be on ways to avoid or to lower the intensity of such vortices. The simplest way is to increase the number of blades. The tip vortex intensity is directly related to the blade lift. For the same propeller thrust, a Iq-bladed propeller features approximately half the tip vortex figure of a 5-bladed one. The only point is that the larger the number of blades, the larger the number of other design and production problems which arise. Five-bladed propellers are those most often specified for low noise surface ships. Some attempts have been made for seven. Another way to reduce noise is to use special features at the tip of the

blades like the winglets on aircraft. This is still-not fully controlled. But the most effective means of getting impressive cavitation inception speeds, i.e. above 25 knots, is to operate in an undisturbed flow. Unfortunately the propeller operates behind a ship. This leads to flow disturbances which may seem negligible for frigates when compared with those for tankers. However, due to the higher speed of the frigate, the effect of the wake is significant. These disturbances are either parallel to the propeller axis or tangential. They are known as the wake field which the propeller has to face. Incidence on a given profile varies with every revolution and consequently the lift varies, producing varying vortices. One way to solve the problem is to use special profiles able to keep the same cavitationfree performance on a wide range of incidence angles. A more effective way is to design the ship's afterbody very carefully, paying the utmost attention to any appendage in front of the propeller or by reducing the shaft angles. A high cavitation inception speed is mainly a consequence of a very smooth wake field. This is why it is so important for the propeller designer to be involved at a very early stage in the ship's afterbody design. Thanks to his design expertise, he is able to give guidance to the naval architect. Such co-operation at an early stage is the key to success in low noise propellers - and therefore low noise ship design. Using this approach, actual cavitation inception speeds exceeding 20 knots can be achieved on surface ships. CONTROLLABLE PITCH/FIXED PITCH? This is the most frequently asked question. The answer depends on the choices made for the propulsion plant and on the ship mission profile. Several topics have to be carefully considered: flexibility, manoeuvrability; safety, efficiency, noise characteristics, reliability, maintainability and through-life costs. Where manoeuvrability and flexibility are concerned, the controllable pitch propeller (CPP) is the adequate solution for gas turbines and/or diesel engine driven propulsion plants. The CPP gives backing capacity to the gas turbine through its full/astern pitch capacity in something like twenty seconds, without any consequence on the strength of the propeller blades. The low pitch setting gives diesel engines clutchin possibilities or loitering capacities. For multi-purpose ships, the CPP can accommodate offdesign conditions like changes in displacement or changes in resistance when towing an array or sonar. Providing that adequate controls are installed, the CPP can minimise the noise emission in off-design conditions. Diesel engine protection is sometimes essential to avoid early wear or unexpected breakdowns. An efficient load control is possible with a CPP. It protects the engine from overloading due to sea state, manoeuvres at high speed or dramatic changes in ship displacement. This occurs mainly on small-size fast craft. Fixed pitch propellers (FPP) can lead to disasters on these ships although the propeller itself is not responsible since it has no built-in adjustment capacity. In that case, the use of FPPs is only possible if the engines have large power margins, far larger than when CPPs are used. For some reason, crash stop ability is sometimes not considered as vital for navy ships as for merchant ones. Recent experience in the Middle East has shown that when a mine is detected close to the vessel, the best reaction is sometimes to stop as soon as possible and not to perform a port or starboard escape since other mines may be hidden elsewhere. A few metres'advantage can make the difference. From this point of view, the CPP is still the right answer for gas turbine/diesel engine ships. Nevertheless, when sufficient torque can be made available at any time, the FPP presents a fair manoeuvring capacity: this applies to ships with large electric motors. But there are some drawbacks. When running astern, the actual leading edges of FPP blades are the trailing edges and with the modern design of high skew blades this induces loads at the tip far greater than when running ahead. As a result, the rpm and/or the torque should be limited in order to protect the propeller from bending. In that case the stopping capacity is sometimes lower than that of the CPP despite apparently high available astern power.

View Image - A 5-axis milling machine for naval propellers.

When compared to the FPP, the CPP at first glance looks less reliable. This is a consequence of the number of parts involved: one for the FPP, hundreds for the CPP. Nevertheless, reliability studies demonstrate that CPPs are reliable enough to equip a single-shaft 35 MW aircraft carrier. CPP subassembly mean times between failures (MTBF) are greater than the ship's expected life, provided that periodic maintenance is done every 4-5 years. This maintenance is done during normal drydocking periods. The blade seals are systematically replaced by new ones. This ensures proper tightening of the blades onto the hub and prevents any ingress of water into the hub or any leakage of oil into the sea. The mechanism itself is extremely robust and as shock resistant as the rest of the propulsion system. Reports from repair yards show that after severe collisions with, for example, wrecks, or accidental grounding, the CPP mechanism inside the blade remains undamaged while the blades are half destroyed and the propeller shaft itself is bent. In those circumstances the CPP is equivalent to the FPP and repairs are ensured since only the damaged blades have to be replaced and not the whole propeller. Moreover, the CPP can be equipped with the optional feature for underwater blade replacement! Despite its characteristics of good endurance and reliability, the CPP is still considered as unreliable by some navies. It happens that on some ships an air ventilation system has been used to dampen the propeller induced noise. This system, added to a very complicated pitch actuating mechanism, has been the cause of leakage, sea water ingress, etc. Several dry-dockings have been needed between normal overhauls. This is not a consequence of any unreliability but rather of conflict between the pitch actuating system and the pressurised air system. This will be eliminated in the near future, thanks to already completed improvements in silence and accuracy (see below). But for the most part, navies find CPP systems quite reliable. The FPP is very often said to be more efficient that the CPP. This is the result of an analysis based only on the influence of the hub size on the propulsive efficiency, any other geometrical parameters being unchanged. Differences in efficiency of 5 to 7% are put forward in favour of the FPP. This was true decades ago for some semiempirical designs based on standard series and oldfashioned profiles, with constant loading of the profiles from the hub to the tip of the blades. This kind of design was suitable for slow general cargo ships but is no longer acceptable for navy ships: to avoid cavitation inception of vortices either close to the hub or at the tip of the blades and to avoid vibration, modern designs use lift reduction techniques and/or more sophisticated geometry. Some of these techniques are suitable only for CPPs since they do not need to reverse their direction of rotation. Some can be applied to both types. Certain features increase efficiency compared to "standard series", some decrease efficiency on purpose but improve other aspects. On the other hand, the meaning of efficiency is to be questioned. If efficiency means the ratio between propulsive power (delivered thrust times ship speed) and absorbed power when the propeller runs at its exact design point for one unique ship condition, the FPP is no doubt more efficient than the CPP by a few percent. If efficiency is measured through fuel consumption over a long period of time, taking into account all aspects of the mission profile, or through the same ratio as above but as an average of any actual conditions, then the difference is in favour of the CPP. The choice is not obvious and is more a result of overall propulsion optimisation than of a simple direct comparison of both types. NOISE REDUCTION SYSTEMS

When it is unavoidable, try to control it. This very logical attitude has been adopted for deco113.ps ades to reduce propeller induced noise levels. Various ways have been tried, some exotic, some still unsatisfactory (visco elastic coating, for instance), some effective enough to result in a well-known standard. One way is air injection at the leading edge of the propeller blade, whether of the fixed or controllable pitch type. In some operating conditions, air is blown into small holes bored at the leading edge, on one or both sides of the profiles, from root to tip. When cavitation is present, some air is trapped in the vapour cavities and acts as a damper during the vapour bubble collapse process. The resulting collapsing noise is lower than it would be without air. In addition, if the air bubbles form a continuous layer on both sides of the profiles, the acoustic impedance of the sea water in the vicinity of the blades is changed in a certain range of frequencies. The noise emitted at the blade surface is therefore dampened. Up to the beginning of the '70s, cavitation inception speeds were rather low and the pressurised air system was used for low/cruise speeds. Moreover, the lack of pitch accuracy of the old-fashioned CPP installations made them noisy at low speeds and the pressurised air system was the only means of rendering these installations acceptable. It may be said that this lack of accuracy is the origin of the rather poor opinion some sailors have of CPPs. The present situation is quite different, with the use of profiles capable of high cavitation inception speeds. At low/cruise speeds, where the propeller is not yet cavitating, the injection of air produces increased noise in the high frequency range, something like cavitation! Moreover, the injection of a given volume of gas in a varying pressure environment like that of a propeller can dramatically reinforce the blade rate and its harmonics. Meanwhile, the CPP pitch control performance has been improved. In conventional CPP installations, the actual blade pitch is transmitted to the controls via mechanical links, i.e. rods, pipes, etc. These are sensitive to temperature and/or pressure and the readings at the MCR panels are sometimes not accurate enough. The advanced pitch measurement systems used now are independent of temperature and pressure. They use direct pitch measuring sensors and the pitch signal is transmitted without any temperature-dependent link. As a result, some major navies have either given up pressurised air systems or are on the way to not specifying such systems for future projects. As far as CPPs are concerned, they prefer profiles leading to a high cavitation inception speed (CIS) plus a very accurate combined sensor and control system known as the Electronic Pitch Feedback System (EPFS). MATERIALS Several sea water corrosion-resistant materials have already been in use during the long history of the propeller. For navies, as for the merchant marine, the best compromise between the need for strength, casting and repair capability, good corrosion resistance. easy machining and cost is an aluminium bronze alloy with a chemical content close to: Any other copper based alloy has globally inferior characteristics.

View Image -

Stainless steel is more difficult to cast soundly in large amounts, to grind and machine very accurately and is therefore more expensive. This explains why it is used only when one particular property is needed: amagnetism (for MCMVs) or hardness (for ice-breakers). Titanium must be forged for naval applications. It is harder to machine than stainless steel. Due to the forging and machining costs, the use of titanium is very expensive. For very special applications, highly selfdampening materials are requested. These are made of alloys based on about 50% manganese plus copper and other metals. Although good when new,

their characteristics vary with time and are subject to becoming brittle after some months or years. They are not repairable. Their use is restricted to cases where propeller selfvibration is a major concern. However they should be considered as a last resort when any other means, including redesigning the propellers, has not been satisfactory in solving the problem. Composite materials have made a more than significant breakthrough in past decades. Thorough investigations have been made to apply them to propeller manufacture. Their advantage is their weight. Although extremely suitable for aircraft propellers or rotors, they are not right for ship propellers, even medium-sized ones. The reason is that the stresses a naval propeller has to withstand are multi-directional, with almost equivalent levels in several directions. However the centrifugal force in aircraft propellers or rotors is prominent and in this case the fibres of the composite materials can be used in the right stress direction. For naval propellers, many tests have shown that due to the multi-directional stresses, even sophisticated fabrics do not withstand the load for a long time. Problems of fitting the materials onto metal inserts are also complicated by the number of stress directions to be taken into account. A second drawback of these materials is their low elasticity modules: the deflection at the tip of the propeller is quite large and the manufacturing processes are not yet accurate enough to ensure the same deflection on any blade. As a consequence, when delivering thrust, the composite blades do not bend homogeneously and each blade has its own pitch, slightly different from the other! Lastly, the most resistant fibre carbon is not sea water resistant and must be protected by a suitable coating, the coating itself being far less resistant to abrasion or cavitation erosion than metal alloys. It is probable that in the future some propellers will be made of composite material but their use will be limited to very special cases, for instance small or medium-sized MCMV where the thrust is not too large and amagnetism is in strong demand. For the time being, isotropic materials are still better than composites. PROPELLER MANUFACTURE If design is essential, any design, even the best one, would lead to a complete disaster if the actual geometry is too far from what is expected. The difference between a conventional average profile and an ultra-performing one might be just a few millimetres or even tenths of millimetres. Until the mid-seventies, fixed pitch and controllable pitch propeller blades were first cast, then machined by hand grinding and finally polished. The current manufacturing tolerance standards, like ISO 484, take into account the casting and manufacturing processes of the sixties. The military standards of many nations are more stringent than ISO 484. The main complement they feature is the extensive use of edges and fillet templates. To a lesser extent they also require some tighter tolerances. Hand grinding is not inaccurate and specified tolerances can be met. The only drawbacks of this process are the lead times and consequent costs. At the beginning of the ' 80s, the computeraided multi-axis milling machine came onto the market for three dimensional machining and was immediately used for machining propeller blades. Machining times were drastically reduced and overall accuracy was achieved at reduced cost. Near-perfect three dimensional surfaces are now available without having to position the templates at repeated intervals during the step by step hand grinding. While ISO standards allow for several millimetres on overall dimensions such as diameters and lengths, CAM machines achieve tenths of millimetres. Templates are no longer machining tools but just Did this improvement in machining explain some sudden changes in acoustic signatures in the late '80s? It is doubtful, since the most accurate machining is nothing if the design is poor or if the actual operating conditions are nowhere near the design conditions. Fixed pitch propellers can also be machined on multi-axis machines. Depending on the total surface of the blades, which is sometimes greater than the corresponding disk area, it may or may not be possible to grind the total surface. With large blade areas it is not always possible to machine the blade fillets with the same tools as for the tip. In that case, it is still necessary to do the work by hand. Once the propeller or the propeller blades have been machined, polishing is easy as the remaining grinding or milling strips are quite small. Computer-aided polishing robots are also available today. Polishing is essential. The efficiency depends on the smoothness of the propeller blade. Engineers know from experience how an engine can suffer from over-torque due to propeller fouling. This is

why divers should gently polish the propellers before leaving the harbour at the beginning of any mission. Even a small hit on the leading edge of a profile may cause cavitation at an unexpected speed. OTHER PROPULSION SYSTEMS/ MIXED PROPULSION This topic is inevitably dealt with in any book or paper on propulsion. Most of these systems have existed for a long time. Detailed discussions on how they did not have any great success on the market is not the purpose of the present discussion. The main reason is presumably that, although excellent for some dedicated use, they are not flexible enough to be fitted on highly versatile multipurpose platforms. Anyhow they have their place in the game when their main advantage is of the utmost importance: vertical-axis propellers or azimuthal thrusters are excellent propulsion devices when manoeuvrability is the principal requirement. The contra-rotating propeller story is less simple. The propulsion theory exists. The hydrodynamic design tools have existed for more than 30 years. The system is fully successful when extreme power densities are needed and torpedo propulsion is an obvious application. But despite some apparently successful full scale experiments, it is not yet a strong competitor of the conventional propeller due to the complexity of the installation.

View Image - Figure. 1

Another case is the waterjet. The growing demand for speed on the ferry market has demonstrated that above, say, 35-40 knots, the waterjet overcomes the drop in efficiency which the propeller has to face due to cavitation. Moreover, the faster the ship, the less the waterjet is sensitive to cavitation-induced thrust breakdown. Steering and stopping are excellent, giving the ship superior manoeuvrability. For small or medium size fast patrol craft, the waterjet should always be considered at the feasibility phase of a project. The decision to choose a waterjet as opposed to a propeller depends on naval architecture and price considerations. For low/medium speed ships, i.e. for long range patrol or multi-task vessels, the overall efficiency of a waterjet-based propulsion plant becomes less attractive. Moreover, to keep this efficiency acceptable, the diameter of the waterjet increases drastically and the integration of the propulsion device into the afterbody may have an effect on the balance of the ship's design. This is why mixed propulsion systems are envisaged to solve this problem: rather small waterjets or waterjets as "boosters" for propulsion at high speed and propellers for patrol and/or cruise speeds. In this case the propeller must be of the controllable pitch type to cope with extremely differing operating conditions. AN INTEGRATED APPROACH From this very short presentation of propellers, some conclusions can be drawn. Despite the unicity of the laws of physics, the choice of a propulsion system for a naval ship has no unique solution. The number one keyword in the design and manufacturing process is compromise. The meaning of this word may lead to confusion: compromise might mean that diplomacy has been used to cope with different or even incoherent views. This is not the case when selecting a propulsion system. In this field, compromise means that the best overall performance is constantly sought and that an optimum balance is the sole target of the project team. A second keyword is integration. Design is nothing if the material is poor or if the manufacture does not follow the design. The use of the most advanced computer techniques is just a waste of money if the selected design conditions are not those under which the ship will operate. It is therefore essential that, at a very early phase of the project, the propulsion system is studied by an integrated team. The choice of hull lines, options on engine layouts, influence efficiency, noise levels

and vibration and/or manufacturing problems may influence design. Any of these early decisions influence costs. There are just a few propeller manufacturers capable of producing propellers for the naval forces. They are both designers and manufacturers and they supply and design other propulsion devices as well. Their integration into the ship's project tea key to success at the least expense. J. P. Gangler is a naval architect and hydrodynamicist. For 25 years he has been involved in, or in charge of, important programmes covering fast attack craft, patrol vessels, frigates, aircraft carriers and submarines. He is presently Technical Director at acbLIPS, a joint venture between GEC ALSTHOM ACB, France, and LIPS BV, The Netherlands.

Indexing (details)
Subjects: Title: Authors: Publication title: Volume: Issue: Pages: Number of pages: Publication year: Publication Date: Year: Publisher: Place of Publication: Country of publication: Journal Subjects: ISSN: Source type: Language of Publication: Document Type: Accession Number: ProQuest Document ID: Document URL: Propellers, Warships, Design engineering, Manufacturing Naval propellers from design to manufacture Gangler, J P Naval Forces 18 6 112-117 6 1997 1997 1997 Moench Verlagsgesellschaft mbH Aldershot Germany Aeronautics And Space Flight 07228880 Trade Journals English Feature 03637499 199372961 http://ezproxy.utas.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/? url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199372961? accountid=14245 Copyright Moench Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1997 2010-06-06 2 databases - ProQuest Career and Technical Education - ProQuest Research Library << Link to document in ProQuest
Contact ProQuest
2010 ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

Copyright: Last Updated: Database: