Don't make the mistake of confusing contra-rotating with counter-rotating. They're two different types of arrangements.
The Airbus is counter-rotating. The pair of propellers on each wing turn in opposite directions to counter the effect of torque, instead of the typical arrangement where they all turn in the same direction.
Also has a novel setup that allows the engines to be identical across all installations, with only the gearbox to the propeller being different. That's why this typically hasn't been done in large multi-engine installations since traditionally, they'd of needed clockwise and counter-clockwise engines. The complication and added expense thus has usually discouraged this despite the performance advantages.
Contra-rotating is like what the Tu-95 Bear is equipped with, where two propellers are paired on the same shaft and rotate in opposite directions of each other.
I always assumed that two propellers on the same axis turning in opposite directions were referred to as "counter-rotating." No matter, I get your drift.
As I recall, the first time a twin engine design with props turning in opposite directions was on the Lockheed P-38. Early models had both engines turning in the same directions but that lead to severe torque and controllability problems.
If my knowledge of aviation history is accurate, the Lightning indeed was the first major example of counter-rotating props.
Edit: Wikipedia says that the Wright Flyer had such an arrangement. So I suppose that one has to take the honor, although it can hardly be said to have popularized it.
The novelty with the P-38, if Wikipedia is accurate, is that the counter-rotation was reversed so that the top of the propeller arc was moving outwards, away from each other. This seems to have aided stability, especially when firing its weapons.
A few things for what it's worth. I used to work with a guy who retired from the Air Force as a sergeant. His outfit was inspected by Brigadier General Stewart in Viet Nam.
There is an old man in Petrolia, Ontario which is near Sarnia who owns a 1967 Bristol car, an aluminum-bodied coupe with a Chrysler 318 and Torqueflight. It's a project but it's solid. He said he grew up in Bristol and remembered the Brabazon on it's test flights. He said he'd take about $8,000.00 for the car but it needs a lot of work.
The Lockheed P-38 was a major influence on General Motors styling in the late 1940s. Where do you think those stubby fins on a 49 Cadillac come from, as well as the air scoops below the headlights on a 49 Oldsmobile? Harley Earl was the head of styling and he knew his stuff! If you know anything about old cars, you'd know he designed the 1927 LaSalle, the first car ever styled as an entire entity and what a beautiful machine it is!
Yes, I'm a train, car, airplane and ship nut. Like DM said about anything that moves.
Leo_AmesThe Airbus is counter-rotating. The pair of propellers on each wing turn in opposite directions to counter the effect of torque, instead of the typical arrangement where they all turn in the same direction.
There's much more to it. Google "down between engines" to see some of the aerodynamic reasoning. Here is a PDF with some background that describes advantages when an engine goes out.
Harley Earl! The man most responsible for the complete change in American auto body styling from 1929 to 1939. What a guy.
I did a bit of research on that prop-jet powered Republic fighter. It was the XF-84H, called, and not affectionately, the "Thundershriek!" Apparantly the noise level didn't just make people nauseous, it let to some siezures and nervous breakdowns! AND it could be heard as far as 25 miles away!
Wow. No wonder they dropped it.
And could that man dress! I saw a picture of "Mistearl" on the deck of an ocean liner in about 1930. Derby hat, spats, striped trousers with creases so sharp you could shave with them! He had style and that's a fact!
Firelock76I did a bit of research on that prop-jet powered Republic fighter. It was the XF-84H, called, and not affectionately, the "Thundershriek!" Apparantly the noise level didn't just make people nauseous, it let to some seizures and nervous breakdowns! AND it could be heard as far as 25 miles away!
The Thunderscreech was an interesting aircraft, as was the somewhat less deflicted XF88B (the latter engineers were smart enough to keep the propeller stopped and feathered on the ground!). The idea was to run a substantial portion of the propeller blades supersonic all the time, in the case of the 84H, on the ground with the engine at idle. This meant that the blades were shedding shockwaves outward at considerable intensity. This is not noise, it is the same cause as sonic boom, or the thing that killed the Discovery crew. As a 'fun' aside, the shock directly affected peristalsis in the large intestine leading to 'soiled underwear'...
Now, in a sense, this was the T1 of the aircraft world, because when supersonic props worked correctly both the speed and range of the aircraft increased dramatically. Someone pointed out that the effective HP equivalent of the thrust for the regular Thunderjet was about 11,000 vs. 5800 to 7500 shp for the same speed; the expected range of the turboshaft version was about 2000 miles unrefueled, which is astounding. (Of course the aircraft had terrible stability problems, had an emergency landing almost every time, and didn't come within over 100 kt of its design speed ...but the promise was, and still is, there for supersonic propellers)
Apparently the Navy was testing a contrarotating version of the outfit at the time 'research was suspended' - whether this would have fixed some of the stability problem is probably less important than the continuation of the noise ... which might be reduced somewhat with modern bladetip designs (like those seen on the Airbus A400) but NOT the profiles then thought appropriate for a propjet fighter. (It should not be surprising that the Tu-95 Bear, which was a faster aircraft than the 84H, was extremely loud in the air, again predominantly due to shock noise from the props)
As a somewhat amusing aside: A later high-performance aircraft with high nominal fuel efficiency was the original follow-on to the SR71, with the pulse detonation wave engines running at about 30Hz, apparently just as loud albeit at lower frequency than the shocktrains from the Screech. Note that that aircraft went nowhere, either, but the promise of good fuel efficiency at reasonably high Mach continues to be explored...
The A400M has been plagued with teething problems, overweight, far over budget and thus many of the orders have been cut. The purpose of counter rotating props is to reduce drag and increase lift, allowing its use on short, grass runways (in theory).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I've read that another aircraft with noise issues from propeller tips was the B-36.
Since both models were known for long-endurance missions, I'm curious as to how the crews of B-36's and Tu-95's dealt with the noise.
CSSHEGEWISCH I've read that another aircraft with noise issues from propeller tips was the B-36. Since both models were known for long-endurance missions, I'm curious as to how the crews of B-36's and Tu-95's dealt with the noise.
"On the B-36, the large, slow-turning propellers interacted with the high pressure air flow behind the wings to produce an easily recognizable very low frequency pulse at ground level that betrayed approaching flights." Not clear if the flight crews also felt the pulse.
"The TU-95 has four Kuznetsov NK-12 engines, each driving contra-rotating propellers. It is the only propeller-powered strategic bomber still in operational use today. The tips of the propeller-blades move faster than the speed of sound, making it one of the noisiest military aircraft." So a very different noise produced.
The sounds of a Merlin-engined P-51.
https://youtu.be/h5fjKEXXPQ8
Schlimm ,
now , it's really schlimm ( ger for : bad ) with you .
Thought this thread is about a music piece which again was composed to try and capture the spirit of steam , a 231 or Pacific type namely , obviously then the most impressive type around for the composer .
I wanted to add some to the topic , thinking this was a site devoted to discussing railroad matter .
I see I'm wrong - at least on this hijacked thread .
Thanks for saving my time
= J =
uuh .. and Old Aunt June is not to be cut off so easily , here's my offer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfHl87p7X5o
sit back , relax and have a glass of something fine ..
.. or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGult1u1DbE
Ah yes J, Schlimm is from an old joke. The Merlin engine does at least whistle, so that is tangentially related to steam engines.
The LH Airbus 380 short doc was fine, though these days I fly Air Berlin Airbus 330s.
Alright, I started this thread and all due respect to you Juniatha, it's not hijacked at all, it's really about the sweet music made by the machine, whether train, car or aircraft. I love the sound made by the Avro Lancaster that flies over Toronto now and then. Four Packard-built Merlins in full chat is a sound to behold. I love the sound of my recently purchased two-stroke Saab, the chainsaw from hell. My friend's Citroen SM makes some mighty fine music as well.
I bought a book a few years ago, by Axel Zwingenberger, "Vom Zauber der Zuge, Eine Reise durch den Nacht in Bildern und Musik" and it includes a CD of his boogie-woogie piano playing and a CD of steam locomotives recorded at the end of standard-gauge steam in East Germany in about 1999. Music! It's all sweet music!
Hi Juniatha! Hey listen, that video of the Aibus cockpit scared the hell out of me! Where's the control yokes? Is that pilot flying the 'Bus with a laptop? How do you "feel" the airplane with a laptop? Jeez! And just when I was getting used to airplanes without propellers!
On the other hand, I was impressed by that all-woman helicopter crew. I'd fly with them anytime. Matter of fact, the last time I was on a helicopter a young woman WAS flying it, and very well I might add.
Speaking of man-made things that defy God and fly, there's a thread called "Historic Warbirds" on the "General Discussion" side, page two. We'd gotten to discussing those wild, wooly, spinning and spitting castor oil rotary engines when the thread, uh, "ran out of steam."
Does this put us back on topic?
Firelock76 Hi Juniatha! Hey listen, that video of the Aibus cockpit scared the hell out of me! Where's the control yokes? Is that pilot flying the 'Bus with a laptop? How do you "feel" the airplane with a laptop? Jeez! And just when I was getting used to airplanes without propellers!
You sound like Frank Towns, the pilot in "The Flight of the Phoenix". He was an old seat-of-the-pants pilot who couldn't make the transition to jets and looked with disdain at flying on instruments.
The book reads well and the first movie with James Stewart as Frank Towns is the better version.
What a great movie that was! I recall lines around the block to get into the theatre for days when it played where I grew up. Pictures like that were an event, with banners, sidewalk signs and so forth. I watched it recently and was impressed once again by Ian Bannen's performance, and let's not forget Dan Duryea, one of my all- time champs.
On You Tube is the film of the "Phoenix" crashing where Paul Mantz was killed. He was Amelia Earhart's ground crew chief by the way.
Poor old Paul Mantz. Quite the Hollywood stunt flyer exraordinare and co-founder of Tallmantz Aviation with the late Frank Tallmann, also a stunt flyer.
So the "Flight Of The Phoeniz" movie is better than the book? Wouldn't be the first time a movie was better than the book it was based on. Doesn't happen very often. Sometimes the movie and the book complement each other very well, like "The Great Escape" or "The Outlaw Josey Wales."
I believe that Frank Tallman flew the airplane through the hangar in the picture "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." He also wrangled the Mosquitos for "633 Squadron" and the B-25s for "Catch 22"
Yes, some books do complement each other and those are good examples. But just about any book by Stephen King is better as a movie, especially "Christine;" cripes that book just went on and on. King even admits that he runs on a bit. Another stinker was "Jaws." Remember in the book about how the mayor was in trouble with the mob, and Hooper was fooling around with Brody's wife? What did that have to do with the story which was about a big 'ol shark? I recently saw it again in a theatre and it sure holds up. Sure it's a mechanical shark but it still scared the hell out of me.
One book that was total dreck, something you read on an airplane or on the train to work but made my absolute favourite and one of the best movies of all time and that was "The Godfather"
Some books have never been made into movies and should have been like "The Barefoot Brigade" and "Elkhorn Tavern" by Douglas C. Jones, an amazing writer of the Civil War and thereafter.
Firelock76 Where's the control yokes? Is that pilot flying the 'Bus with a laptop?
I thought it was common knowledge that those airplanes have sidesticks, like fighters.
I greatly enjoyed the music-lovers' tie-in to the original thread topic, the invocation of Tannhauser ... although wasn't that business with the squirts, in that context, just a bit suggestive for a family-friendly forum? (The 380 is big enough to BE the Venusberg...)
"Flight of the Phoenix" stunt flyer Paul Mantz was killed flying the "Phoenix plane" in the movie. Film credits dedicate the movie to him. He also crashed landed a B-17 bomber for the film "12 O'clock High." Paul trained Amelia Earhart in long distance flying prior to her death in her world circle flight.
As an Army air Cadet in the 1920's he stunted his military plane by flying down the railroad tracks directly into the path of a speeding passenger steam locomotive. The engineer raised a chorus on the whistle while Paul pulled the plane up before collision impact. The passenger train was carrying millitary officers to the graduation of the cadet class Paul was to graduate with. He was discharged for the incident.
In WW II Paul went in the service as an Army Air Corps Major in the First Motion Picture Unit (FMPU). After the war he purchased 475 surplus military planes for use by Hollywood. These were bombers and fighters - P51 Mustangs - that were used in many post WW II films about the war. Paul joked he had the sixth largest air force in the world. One of the P51C Mustangs he rebuilt into a race plane and was used in Bendix trophy racing for which he won the race during 3 consecutive seasons.
In 1961 Paul Mantz joined with Frank Tallmann to form Tallmanz Aviation providing movie and TV stunt work for Hollywood. The "Flight of the Phoenix" plane was classified as - Tallmanz Phoenix P-1 - and was to be piloted by Frank. Frank had broken his leg in a freak accident and Paul stepped into the pilots role for the movie. Frank was also killed in a movie stunt crash eight years later in 1973.
Paul Mantz death at the controls of the "Flight of the Phoenix" Talmantz P-1 plane on July 8th, 1965 can be seen on u-tube the - plane hits ground on a low pass for the camera and the hull breaks right behind the wing. Paul was 63 years old and had acquired a Hollywood movie fortune of $10M. Toxicology tests in the desert enviornment indicate ethanol consumption, and that Paul had been drinking, however, the test may have been corrupted by decomposition due to lack of refrigeration of the body.
Bobby Rose was standing in the cockpit behind Mantz and was playing the role of "Dorfman" and was seriously hurt. Paul Mantz had been stunting for actor Jimmy Stewart playing the character "Frank Towns."
The movie credits read - "It should be rememered... that Paul Mantz, a fine man and brilliant flyer, gave his life in the making of this film..."
Doc
54light15 What a great movie that was! I recall lines around the block to get into the theatre for days when it played where I grew up. Pictures like that were an event, with banners, sidewalk signs and so forth. I watched it recently and was impressed once again by Ian Bannen's performance, and let's not forget Dan Duryea, one of my all- time champs. On You Tube is the film of the "Phoenix" crashing where Paul Mantz was killed. He was Amelia Earhart's ground crew chief by the way.
Great movie, with great acting (how can you go wrong with anything starring General Jimmy Stewart, who flew many B-24 bombing missions over Germany) pretty good script, fine directing.
And on books and movies, I'm reminded about something Mel Brooks said about "Frankenstein" the book, and "Frankenstein" the 1931 movie.
Mel said both were works of genius, the book because "who'd ever believe a 19 year old girl could write something like that?" and the movie was a work of genius, "because the book as written is impossible to make a decent film out of."
Oh yeah, "Jaws" the book. Bored me. "For cryin' out loud, WHEN is the shark gonna eat somebody?"
"Northwest Passage", the 1940 movie with Spencer Tracy is a LOT better than the book, trust me.
NORTH AMERICAN P-51 MUSTANG -
I think one of the really cool things about the movie - "Flight of the Phoenix" is that the whole story hinges around the busted SKY TRUCK, and that Heinrick Dorfman can lead the whole group to rebuild it into a working rescue aircraft. All the drama and eveyone's rescue depends on this fictional rebuilding of the SKY TRUCK wreck.
That they really did construct and fly such a reworked airplane as the "Tallmanz P-1" is truely remarkable, considering that in most films such a thing is never done, never constructed or that like today it is created fictionally as a computor generated cyber event.
In the 1960's they did build such a real "movie plane" and they flew it with stunt pilots! - REMARKABLE! - UNBELIEVABLE! - OUTSTANDING!
In the film it would also appear that in the final scenes at the end of the film - the "rescue scenes at the oasis" - that a modified P-51 Mustang fighter was used as a substitute for then destroyed "Tallmanz P-1" rescue plane.
The Mustang P-51 of course was the premere combat fighter of WWII and undoubtedly this plane used was from the Tallmanz Aviation warbird movie inventory.
Just in case you wondered why the movie plane looked different at the end.
I'm gonna have to watch Phoenix again to see a P-51. But, regarding "Jaws," how many sharks do you see? One! I highly recommend "Sharknado" 1 & 2 In those you see thousands! A shark killed by a bar stool! A shark killed by a pool cue! A shark hanging from the runner of a helicopter! In the 2nd one, the guy is body surfing a shark through the sky and I won't tell you where it lands. I guarantee, you don't want to have a mouthful of beer at that moment as someone will get a beer shower! These pictures are so unbelievable, they're incredible! Rent "Sharknado" buy beer and laugh your head off! Sharknado!!
To those who actually read the book, they will know that the plane was originally something similar to a Fairchild C-82. One of the tailbooms was salvaged to serve as the fuselage, along with one engine and enough of the wings, for the aircraft with which they flew from the crash site. The first version of the movie is good but the book is much better.
Hm , so I followed the link and listened . Sorry , naw-naw-naw - not for me . The sound is way to barking , belting , more like a big old bike , some hint of trucking , too , not my preference for aircraft . Whre is the smoothness , the subtle reserve of power ? Well , never mind - here's to you :
Although I certainly will say nothing against the way it was restored , the aircraft doesn’t quite display the engine sound as it was ( as far as I can say from what little I saw and heard of these radial engines ) its slightly on the hard side , somewhat rough with too much metal noise ( and I don’t even mention those squealing brakes ) and slightly too pronounced rhythm and somewhat too throaty exhaust at idling , then at full throttle it’s a bit belting .. What I love is the smooth , subdued humming that holds the hint of a promise to continue timelessly and go on and on forever – while really it can’t of course as little as we ourselves could stay above the clouds forever
Caution , don’t watch either one if a hefty dose of sentimental sweetness should make you feel unwell , it’s fully drenched in Fifties style coverage .. and as I recognized at the first note the Lufthansa one with Martin Boettcher’s music , too – now that’s for me , I’m an admitting romantic , incurable ; so , I can take it friends , and I like it like that *gee* !
Juniatha
Well, I guess I'm the first triple threat to report. Flanged wheels got me first - at the age of five months, with a Lionel train for Christmas. (Real tinplate, with flat hook and slot couplers.)
Then there were the aircraft. I was living under the airspace that the Grumman Iron Works used to test Hellcats. If a diving Stuka was more frightening than the full throttle scream of a diving Hellcat it must have been very scary indeed.
Of course, all of that time I was living within smelling distance of salt water - New York Harbor, at that time one of the busiest ports in the world. I remember seeing the capsized Normandie at its midtown pier - and what was left of USS Franklin as she steamed under the Brooklyn Bridge en route to the Navy Yard for repairs.
Ships got the first crack at me - Merchant Marine cadet. A summer steaming around the Atlantic, trying to hold a tired WWII hospital ship together, pretty much wore out that idea's welcome. Being within a few hundred miles of the Andrea Doria/Stockholm collision sealed the negatives.
So I spent 26 years bending wrenches, running paperwork and finally processing statistics on a wide spectrum of USAF flying machines (and some that were oversize artillery shells.) Once I brushed the flight line dust off my shoes I vowed, "Never again." So now I live about six miles from Nellis AFB and have high performance machinery cruising in for landings at all hours...
In the meantime, the railfan mourned the passing of steam - and then was sent to Japan, where the only thing not powered by an elephant-eared coalburner was the base supply spur (Motive power was a DD10 siderod center-cab provided by the US Army and taken over by the JNR at the end of the Occupation.) I went back to Railfan Heaven twice, to have the final demise of steam (and the Kiso Forest Railway) cushioned by a bunch of brutally beautiful cat motors and some of the nicest-looking diesels in the world. Diesel-hydraulics - diesel-electric power in Japan at that time consisted of some not too successful one-offs.
To return to the original subject, I always crack up when the classical music announcer reports that the next piece will be, "Pacific two thirty-one." Not one in ten are aware that the digits stand for the wheel arrangement...
Chuck (Classical music lover, fan of anything that moves under its own power - even CPV Monolith, the starship that's a modified planet)
The subsitute "Phoenix" after the crash was a North American O-47, a pot-bellied observation aircraft from the World War Two era. At the time it was the only flying O-47 in the world. It was dressed up to resemble the profile of the tail boom of the C-82.
Since North American also built the P-51 this could be where the confusion comes from about a P-51 being in "Flight Of The Phoenix."
And I'm with Dr. D on this one, no computer-generated movie planes for this kid! If there's no real airplanes in the movie don't bother me with it!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.