Herbert O. Fisher is one of those people who generally went unnoticed. That
is until he climbed into the cockpit of an airplane. A test pilot for Curtiss
Wright since 1937, Fisher’s reputation was such that he was offered many of
the company’s more difficult test programs. His work during World War Two
was so remarkable, that he was the only civilian pilot to be awarded the
USAAF’s Air Medal. This award was pinned onto his suit jacket by President
Roosevelt during a special White House ceremony.
In some respects, Germany had led the way in propeller design by introducing wide,
broad chord blade propellers. If one looks at the narrow chord blades of the Luftwaffe’s
Bf 109E fighter and compares these to the later Bf 109G, it is readily apparent that the
latter’s propeller blades have widened considerable. The earlier VDM,
variable pitch propeller worked reasonably well at converting the
Daimler-Benz 601 engine’s power into thrust. However, as the weight
and drag of subsequent models increased, so did the horsepower
requirements. With the increased power came the need to utilize that
power in a more efficient manner. Thus, German engineers looked to
the propeller design as the solution to getting the power to the
road, to use the common metaphor. Ultimately, these engineers decided
to remain with three blades, rather than four (or more) as
incorporated by British and American designers. It must be assumed
that the efficiency of their design did not require more than three
blades. Perhaps the penultimate example of the German three-blade
design resides in those used on late war fighters such as the Fw 190D
and the Ta 152. Indeed, the chord to span ratio of these propellers
is dramatic in comparison to the “toothpick” blades used on virtually
every fighter in the American inventory through 1942. Another
noteworthy observation of the German designs shows us that the
propeller blades were not “clipped”, or squared off. The blades
have a semi-elliptical trailing edge that tapers to a tight radius
at the tip. There can be little doubt that this shape was found to
be acceptable. Yet, one must speculate if, somehow, the German
designers had missed the boat. Consider the enormous amount of power
produced by the late war DB 605A and the Jumo 213A engines, producing
up to 1,800 and 2,240 horsepower respectively. Now, compare that
with the performance of the fighters in which they were installed.
The fastest sub-model of the Bf 109G could do no better than 428 mph.
Likewise the much-touted Fw 190D could manage but just 426 mph. When
we look at the North American P-51D, we see a fighter that was at
least 10 mph faster on 300 to 600 fewer horsepower. Granted, the
superlative P-51 was a remarkably low drag design. Nonetheless, had
the Germans found themselves on the backside of the power vs efficiency
curve again? I believe that we can say that the answer is yes.
Exactly what the process was that led the American propeller
manufacturers to develop “high activity”, paddle blade props
is uncertain. What is known is that complaints from combat units
about poor acceleration and climb caused the aircraft industry as
a whole to evaluate how horsepower was being converted into motive
thrust. One of the earliest developments saw the installation of
“cuffs” at the base of each blade to improve airflow to the engine.
These cuffs performed very much like a cooling fan and did aid in
reducing the operating temperature of the large radial engines.
However, the value of the cuffs was dubious at best when installed
on aircraft with liquid cooled powerplants. Indeed, the Aeroproducts
prop installed on the P-51K (essentially a P-51D built in the Dallas
factory) did not incorporate cuffs and performance was not effected
to any measurable degree.
With the surrender of Japan, aircraft production contracts were
slashed to the bone, with some being cancelled outright. Curtiss
was one of the companies whose production slowed dramatically.
With much less test flying being done, Fisher and his considerable
talents were transferred to the Propeller Division of Curtiss Wright.
At the time, much effort was being expended on researching supersonic
propellers. Curtiss was investigating ways to overcome the loss of
efficiency that accompanies the propeller tips exceeding the speed
of sound. If it were possible to engineer a propeller that could
maintain its efficiency at transonic speeds, the performance of
conventional aircraft could be enhanced significantly. Or, that was
the hope at least. Since the early years of the war, propeller
technology had advanced considerably. Let’s take some space and
review propeller development during the war.
After the war, the development of propellers did not cease. Even with the introduction of
turbojet powered aircraft, propeller design evolved. The desire to develop a propeller
that maintained its efficiency at transonic speeds led the Curtiss
Propeller Division to design and test several different concepts.
Herb Fisher was the logical choice to fly the test aircraft. Curtiss
was able to obtain a P-47D-30-RE from the Air Corps. Fitted with one
of several different “supersonic” propellers, Fisher undertook a long
and risky flight test program that incorporated high Mach dives from
high altitudes. Typically, Fisher would climb above 35,000 ft. He
would then push over into a steep dive, allowing his airspeed to
build beyond 560 mph (true airspeed). He would then execute a pullout
at 18,000 ft. Several of these dives resulted in speeds of Mach .83.
However, that was as fast as the P-47 could go.
Ultimately, the propeller designers gradually turned to blades of greater chord.
Moreover, that chord was extended closer to the propeller hub, blending into the
cuffs on the Hamilton Standard 24D50-65 installed on the Mustang. Curtiss Electric props
incorporated increased chord, but they narrowed down to the reverse taper of the cuff.
By their appearance, the new prop blade designs did present more than a passing likeness
to a canoe paddle. Hence the term, “paddle blades”. One striking
difference between the American propellers and those of Germany was
that the “paddle blades” were more of constant chord taper. Whereas
the Germans utilized a more pronounced taper leading to the tip. It
might be speculated that the German designers did not want to place
the greatest width of the prop near the tip. Reasoning for this may
be that it made little sense to do that because of the great loss of
efficiency when the tip velocity approached the speed of sound.
Therefore, the greatest width of chord can be seen at the mid-section
of the blade. However, one must wonder how much thrust was sacrificed
by tapering the trailing edge so much when the loss of efficiency was
likely no greater with Aeroproducts constant chord, squared tip design.
Certainly, by 1944, the Americans and British had not only caught up
with the Germans in propeller design, but probably had surged ahead.
Despite having a propeller that was designed to be more efficient at these speeds,
the fact remained that the drag rise across the prop was so great
that it functioned like a giant disk shaped air brake. Fisher
had proved beyond any doubt that all previous claims of exceeding
the speed of sound while diving a prop driven aircraft were untrue.
There is little doubt that the pilots who reported speeds in excess
of Mach 1 were honestly and accurately reporting what they
has seen on their air speed indicator. However, due to the extreme rate of descent,
the pressure differential in the static pressure airspeed indicator
lags far behind the actual altitude of the aircraft. Air speed
indicators of the era were not designed to cope with descents that
could exceed 40,000 feet per minute. This difference between outside
pressure and that within the system would indicate wildly ambitious
speeds. These pilots had simply been fooled. When we stop and
consider that the ultra-sleek P-80A Shooting Star jet fighter was
never able to exceed Mach .94, how can anyone believe that a prop
driven fighter could even come close?
Ultimately, all of Fisher’s test dives provided a great deal of data
that was becoming superfluous even while the testing continued.
Without question, all future fighter designs would be powered by jet
engines. The final attempt to construct a supersonic, propeller
driven fighter, Republic’s XF-84H (accurately nicknamed the
Thunderscreech), failed to achieve its purpose. Yet, it was without
doubt, the fastest prop driven aircraft ever to fly.
Fisher would test several different transonic propellers of varying
geometry and design. These included scimitar shaped blades and
straight, non-tapered blades. What each design had in common was
that the blades were razor thin. They were prone to flexing at high
aerodynamic and torque loads. Moreover, they suffered severe leading
edge erosion at high speeds. This required that the pilot apply power
very gently to avoid damaging the fragile blades. That Fisher was
able to complete all of this remarkably dangerous testing speaks
volumes of not only his engineering talents, but of his extraordinary
flying skills as well.
Fisher’s propeller work was not limited to transonic props. He also
conducted a great deal of testing with reversible pitch designs. It
was this testing that produced a safe method of rapid descent for
airliners. Flying a Douglas C-54, Fisher would reverse the pitch of
all four engines simultaneously. He would then push the nose over
and maintain a rate of descent that exceeded 15,000 ft/min., yet
forward airspeed was well within normal parameters (200 mph) and
there was no decrease in controllability. Fisher wrote that he would
be flying at 15,000 ft., three miles from the field and be stopped
on the runway in one minute and fifty seconds! This method was
demonstrated for Hap Arnold and Dwight Eisenhower in 1948. In
total, Fisher performed nearly 200 of these high rate/low speed
descents during the program’s life. Herb had developed a usable
method of safely dumping altitude in the event of an emergency.
Fisher was also instrumental in developing the use of reversing
pitch to rapidly slow an aircraft, which allowed them to land safely
on shorter runways, and in general, greatly reduce the incidence of
runway overruns.
Eventually Fisher would leave Curtiss, but continued to work in
aviation, becoming one of the country’s most renowned experts on aviation
matters. The entire story of his career is just as remarkable as
his work with propellers. That story will be told in a major
aviation magazine in the near future. For now, the reader need
only understand that Herb Fisher was a quiet and unassuming man,
who did not seek the limelight. However, he was a giant in his
field and a true pioneer of American aviation.
Later, Herb worked with the U.S. Navy performing zero g, vertical
dives flying a Grumman F8F Bearcat. The purpose was to explore a
dive bombing technique that the Navy thought might be viable. From
high altitude, Fisher would nose the F8F into a vertical dive, while
simultaneously reversing the propeller pitch. This allowed a
controlled vertical dive at rates of descent that varied between
30,000 and 37,000 fpm. Even though the Navy was suitably impressed,
with the ascendancy of turbojet powered aircraft, using a propeller
for aerodynamic braking rapidly became moot.
