my compliment for your technical description! It look like You know
very well the matter, even if You are not a Pilot. But I suppose You
are fond of Aircrafts!
Roberto.
Il giorno 10/apr/05, alle 04:08, mwalters ha scritto:
> Brian et al:
>
> This is going to really be off topic. So apologies to all those out
> there in
> Zuikoland who don't get turned on by planes and warbirds especially.
>
> As a non-pilot, here is what I understand about torque and propellor
> planes - in
> this case the Spitfire. The later Griffon engined versions had much
> more power
> (1800 -2200 hp depending on version) than the merlin engined ones
> (1000 - 1600
> IIRC). The engines (and props) rotated in different directions. The
> Griffon
> engines were getting close to delivering more power than the airframe
> could
> handle, especially at low airspeeds (eg, take off) when the control
> surfaces are
> less effective. Once airborne, the rudder could be trimmed so that the
> plane
> would fly straight without continual pressure on the rudder pedals (an
> Bf 109,
> on the other hand, had no rudder trim and the pilot had to apply
> rudder pressure
> throughout flight). Another thing to remember is that all control
> surfaces were
> manual - no servo assist here, and forces were related to speed,
> design and
> gearing. Ailerons were notorious for stiffing up at speed, and roll
> rates
> dropped significantly as airspeed went up. Some planes were better
> than others.
> The Spitfire was OK, though others, notably the FW190, had better role
> rates.
>
> All single engined prop planes will turn more easily in the direction
> of prop
> rotation. Pilots learned to live with it. Twins should not have this
> problem.
> However, it depends. The P-38 Lightning had handed engines (they
> rotated in
> different directions). The Mossie generally had both engines rotating
> in the
> same direction, though the later marks had handed Merlins (again
> IIRC). It was
> really a question of gearing the prop drive accordingly (I never
> understood why
> Supermarine/RR didn't either design the Griffon to rotate the same
> direction as
> the Merlin, or gear the prop accordingly). However, planes of the size
> of the
> Mossie had much larger airframes and control surfaces, so would have
> been better
> able to control prop torque.
>
> Brian is right that the XVIII was a brute, but boy was it fast. Pilots
> of the
> Griffon spits treated the engine's torque with respect. In fact at
> slow speeds,
> the torque was enough to overcome the controls and the plane would do
> a torque
> roll under full throttle. A lovely situation if you were trying to do
> an
> overshoot!!! The only answer was contra-rotating props, as seen on
> the Seafire
> 47. This had a 2200 hp griffon but no/no torque effect as each prop
> rotated in
> opposing directions.
>
> Martin.
>
> Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
>
>> on 9/04/2005 00:10, Brian Swale at bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wrote:
>>
>>> So, if we are invaded, we will all have to become guerillas
>>
>> Supposing the noun 'guerrilla' has an Spanish etymology, Brian;
>> correct
>> spelling is done with a double 'r' :^)
>> How many times did I double (or missed to double) an 'n', 's' or 'p'
>> so far,
>> trying to write in English?
>>
>> Joking a little on a serious issue. Too late to be awake this Friday
>> night... - no surprise pronouncing 'gorillas': is there an essential
>> difference?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Fernando.
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|