Cancels out the disadvantages of torque, P-factor, and slipstream effects of the prop.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Test - Aircraft models pics
- Thread starter mad dog
- Start date
I get the torque and p-factor, but prop slipstream? Seems like disturbed from prop 1 would screw up prop 2.
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.
Yup! Which is why relatively few prop aircraft used/use it. The noise is also supposed to be much louder as well, I've talked to guys who have intercepted Tu-95/142 Bears and they said the props can be heard loud and clear, not the case with any other aircraft.
Or you could pull a Fairey Gannet, involve two engines in said gearbox, and really give the ADs fits.
707guy
"You can't make this shit up..."
There's at least one still flying - would love to see it in person one of these days.
I can't think of anyone else but the Brits ever putting a recip one into production.
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.
Makes sense............would have been neat to see a gull-winged Spit
Uhhhhh, are you talking about contra-rotating props? Because the Soviets made plenty like the Tu-95/114/128/142 and the An-22.
Last edited:
He specified recip.
But in reply to the contra-rotating propeller article and a reason behind them, a reciprocating engine is something completely different. Or recip props?
