P-51 with contra-props
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
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...
- Thread starter
- #23
wuzak
Captain
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...
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.
Yeah but Spitfire had massive torque issues, far too long in delivery, overshadowed by jets, fragile construction, weak undercarriage, terrible naval fighter, just worthless all round, don't you know...
- Thread starter
- #25
wuzak
Captain
Sorry, I forgot.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
*technically* speaking, the P-59 was the Allies' first combat jet.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...
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...
drgondog
Major
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.
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 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.
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.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Never seen that plane before. Thanks.
Dash119
Senior Airman
Not done during the war, but...
Dash119
Senior Airman
And for other planes that experimented with contra-rotating props, let us not forget the Hughes XF-11:
Although that one didn't work out very well for Mr. Hughes...
Although that one didn't work out very well for Mr. Hughes...
Shortround6
Major General
For a little bit of perspective on the jets vs prop jobs in the 1940s, especially for carrier use.
McDonald FH-1 Phantom
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
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
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.
McDonald FH-1 Phantom
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
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
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.
drgondog
Major
The issue was range, range, range coupled with early engine materials flaws.
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.
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'
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."
An Interview With Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown On The First Jet Landing On An Aircraft Carrier - Vulcan To The Sky
Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown is credited with over 2,400 carrier landings (no one else has come close) as well as being the holder of numerous 'firsts'. He
vulcantothesky.org
.... 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:
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
Similar threads
