Why no spinners?

[HealzDevo]

Weird then, if the plane didn't fly any differently. Must be a reason they bothered to put them on in the first place. Would they describe why in one of the early technical manuals for one of those types that had them and then lost them perhaps?

 

[jimh]

Well, by not flying any differently I mean it didn't shake or throw anything out of balance. On that same note, in the Mustang if you have a fouled plug you feel as if the motor is going to jump out of the mounts. I've seen a bird strike on a T-6 wing increase the stall speed to around 110mph, and another bird strike not affect it at all. In both cases there was enough damage to down the airplane several weeks for repairs.

jim

 

[GrauGeist]

...Must be a reason they bothered to put them on in the first place...

Aerodynamics is the main reason spinners were developed for the prop(s)...

On liquid-cooled engines, it wasn't an issue as it was on some of the radial engines which need airflow over the jugs. Liquid-cooled engines have the ability to have remote locations for thier radiators.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've flown GA aircraft that had spinners fail - you didn't notice anything until the spinner started coming apart and half of it was still on prop hub, then it felt like the motor was going to shake apart. Eventually the remaining spinner structure departed the aircraft and no further abnormal vibration was noticed.

Jim - in the case with the P-51, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the reason why nothing was felt by the deformation of the spinner was the location where it was damaged, but I'd also bet that if you put a dynamic balancer on the aircraft you would see the prop out of balance or at least out of limits recommended by the balancer manufacturer (Chadwick).