Cancels out the disadvantages of torque, P-factor, and slipstream effects of the prop.Never understood counter-rotating. What's the advantage?
Cancels out the disadvantages of torque, P-factor, and slipstream effects of the prop.Never understood counter-rotating. What's the advantage?
I get the torque and p-factor, but prop slipstream? Seems like disturbed from prop 1 would screw up prop 2.Cancels out the disadvantages of torque, P-factor, and slipstream effects of the prop.
I get the torque and p-factor, but prop slipstream? Seems like disturbed from prop 1 would screw up prop 2.
It also requires a complex gearbox and the headaches that come with it.Apparently it makes things more efficient, at least according to Wikipedia. It also increases the propeller blade-area without have an impractically large single propeller allowing the props to absorb greater engine power which by the end of WWII had increased significantly.
It also requires a complex gearbox and the headaches that come with it.
Or you could pull a Fairey Gannet, involve two engines in said gearbox, and really give the ADs fits.
I can't think of anyone else but the Brits ever putting a recip one into production.It also requires a complex gearbox and the headaches that come with it.
Me neither. The wikipedia article @Flash posted stated that the Brits used it on Spits and their derivatives due to propellor size limitations driven by the length of the undercarriage.I can't think of anyone else but the Brits ever putting a recip one into production.
Makes sense............would have been neat to see a gull-winged SpitBrits used it on Spits and their derivatives due to propellor size limitations driven by the length of the undercarriage.
I can't think of anyone else but the Brits ever putting a recip one into production.
He specified recip.Uhhhhh, are you talking about contra-rotating props? Because the Soviets made plenty like the Tu-95/114/128/142 and the An-22.
He specified recip.