P-51 with contra-props

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The YP-59 wasn't in service though, first deliveries in July that year. Did the P-80 even exist in February 1943?

I've read some of his other posts relating to the P-80 and everyone else's reactions... :evil4:

And the YP-59 was slower than the Spitfire XIV. And several other piston powered aircraft.

Not too much faster than a Spitfire IX, actually.
 
The YP-59 wasn't in service though, first deliveries in July that year. Did the P-80 even exist in February 1943?

I've read some of his other posts relating to the P-80 and everyone else's reactions... :evil4:
*technically* speaking, the P-59 was the Allies' first combat jet.

But somehow, there were hundreds of F-80Cs ready to shoot Nazis in the face.

Methinks someone has spent far too much time in the War Thunder forums...
 
To the question "P-51 with contra props. No. At least not as a Project or documented charge number.

3, 4 and five blade projects were all conventional with variations. The five bladed Rotol installed (and removed from) XP-51G was particularly offensive with respect to yaw stability. The four blade HS was tested first on AM 118 (NA-93) during testing as an A-36 'prototype' and the three blade HS and Curtiss props were tested on various Merlin Mustangs, notably 43-12093 in Summer 1943.

Contra props had the potential advantage of rendering the effects of rotational vortex to a minimum as well as removing torque - at the expense of complexity and diminished operational reliabilty and increased weight for questionable performance advantages.
 
Do you just make stuff up? The first production Griffon Spitfire appeared in Oct 1942 have first flight in Nov 1941, this is before any jets were in service however there was a war on. When discussing the vicious characteristics of a Griffon Spitfire please compare to a P-80 from Wiki
The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80As, one of which was destroyed in the accident in which Burcham was killed. A 13th YP-80A was modified to the sole F-14 photo reconnaissance model and lost in a December crash.

Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (demonstration, familiarization, and possible interception roles), two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy, but when test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire while demonstrating a YP-80A (44-83026) at RAF Burtonwood, Lancashire, England, on 28 January 1945, the YP-80A was temporarily grounded.[14][15]


Do you actually read what's posted?

The war was loooooong over before the first contra prop Spitfire/Seafire entered service
 
Do you actually read what's posted?

The war was loooooong over before the first contra prop Spitfire/Seafire entered service
Mk VIII Spitfire's were fitted with contra rotating props, one made by de havilland the other rotol, two MkXIV's were fitted with C-R props also, there was a lot of development work done looooooong before the war ended.
Correct, the higher powered Griffon engined versions had vicious torque issues - a small light airframe with too much power.
Took an age to get into service - and was already far eclipsed by jets - and quickly exited stage left
Just to add most of the C-R props were fitted to Griffon engined Spitfires, the same engines and props were fitted to Mk 21's and later the post war Spiteful.
 
1662551235632.png
 
Do you actually read what's posted?

The war was loooooong over before the first contra prop Spitfire/Seafire entered service
True but people are talking past each other.

The Griffon Spitfire was flying in service 2 years before the war ended (in Europe).

The power of the Griffon did increase over that time.

A large part of the Griffon torque "problem" was that it rotated in the opposite direction of the Merlin.
Pilot fresh from learning to fly Merlin Spitfire jumps in Griffon Spitfire, boots the rudder to one side anticipating torque and plane goes in the opposite direction he is expecting.
Somewhat solved with better training. New pilots may not have had the trouble that old pilots did. It takes a while to "unlearn" reflex responses. Pilots with several hundred hours in Spits may have had more trouble than newbies.

The Counter rotating propeller on the last Seafires (and there were Griffon powered Seafires without counter rotating props) were good for 2350hp at low level.
 
For a little bit of perspective on the jets vs prop jobs in the 1940s, especially for carrier use.

McDonald FH-1 Phantom
FH-1-photo.jpg

top speed 505mph at 30,000ft?
First flight Jan 1945
First issue to service squadron Aug 1947
First sea duty May 1948

North American FJ-1
640px-FJ-1_%28modified%29.jpg

top speed 547mph at 9,000ft?
First flight Sept 1946
First issue to service squadron Aug 1948
First sea duty May 1949

Vought F6U-1
F6U-photo.jpg

top speed 596mph at ?????????
First flight Oct 1946
Never issued to a service squadron after evaluation in 1949-50 unless used as trainers to assist pilots transitioning to jets.
"The 30 production aircraft had only a total of 945 hours of flight time, 31.5 hours each. Some aircraft flew only six hours which was enough for little more than their acceptance flight and the flight to their disposition" This was during the Korean war so it was particularly damning.

Everybody knew that jets were coming. The questions were when and how long would they take to get the problems solved.
 
A large part of the Griffon torque "problem" was that it rotated in the opposite direction of the Merlin.
Pilot fresh from learning to fly Merlin Spitfire jumps in Griffon Spitfire, boots the rudder to one side anticipating torque and plane goes in the opposite direction he is expecting.
Somewhat solved with better training. New pilots may not have had the trouble that old pilots did. It takes a while to "unlearn" reflex responses. Pilots with several hundred hours in Spits may have had more trouble than newbies.
It's not the reflex.
Take-off is done with full rudder trim. If you wind the trim the wrong way, you'll never be able to over-power it and keep the aircraft straight.
It was the cause of Sir TIm Wallis' accident here in New Zealand a few years ago.
 
Took an age to get into service - and was already far eclipsed by jets - and quickly exited stage left

Fairy Gannet. In service from 1953. Retired in 1978. 25 years

Avro Shackleton. In service from 1951. Retired in 1991. 40 years.

Tupolev TU-95. In service from 1956... STILL in service, 66 years later - and likely to be in service for at least another decade.

'Quickly exited stage left' :rolleyes:
 
The issue was range, range, range coupled with early engine materials flaws.
From what I've read - and especially in conjunction with nations operating smaller carriers - slow throttle response time was also a major problem with early jets.

Taken from an interview with the first man to deck land a jet aircraft, a certain posters supposedly 'less than stellar pilot', drawn from 'a pool of very mediocre pilots' ;)

"Deck landing", Eric says, "all depends on lift control", given that the boat does not lie flat and still like a runway. "On a piston engine, throttle movement provides it". Should you need lift, just open the throttle and as the airscrew revs up, the pilot gets lift from the propeller's wash. If he needs drag, to reduce speed, he simply throttles back to achieve it. Landing the Vampire would require a whole new technique. The problem facing anyone hoping to land a turbo-jet aircraft on a carrier was that none of them could then remotely offer throttle reaction like that of a piston engine. When first flying jets, Eric had been surprised to find they had such slow acceleration due to their centrifugal compressors, taking fifteen seconds to go from zero idle to full power before the brakes were released. Yet if he needed more lift when landing the Vampire on the carrier, Eric realised he would need to increase its speed – and that option just wouldn't be there in an emergency. That's what made deck-landing the Vampire potentially so dangerous. The answer would lie in faster axial-flow engines but these were some years off."


.... The FAA continued with props and contra props for the time being until the operational issues had been worked through and jets improved- which lead to the Wyvern going into service and aircraft like the Firefly and Fury soldiering on until the FAA finally got what it wanted in the form of the Sea Hawk.
 
Last edited:
Do you actually read what's posted?

The war was loooooong over before the first contra prop Spitfire/Seafire entered service
I do, but it was you that invented the pressing need for a Spitfire to have a contra prop. Presumably they stayed grounded from 1942 to 1946? You have introduced a new concept to the forum that the Spitfire had quote "too much power". Did this manifest itself with disorientated pilots blinded by the speed, or did they get giddy with its excessive rate of climb? Did elderly passengers get a bout of the vapours? Did hens stop laying, cows stop producing milk or did the UK populace rush to church thinking the world was ending? What the hell does "too much power" mean and where is your evidence that this applied to the Spitfire.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back