![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:17 • Filed to: Planeopnik | ![]() | ![]() |
What is this? It’s a WWII British plane I know that much . Searching for “two prop WWII british war planes” did not result in a find. The canopy does not look right for a spitfire. Then there is that second bubble.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:21 |
|
It’s a plane.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:22 |
|
It’s a French Alize from the 1950s
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:23 |
|
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:24 |
|
Fairey Gannet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:24 |
|
That explains why it’s ugly.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:26 |
|
Fairey Gannet.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:26 |
|
Yup!
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:28 |
|
bicyclebuck got it, it’s a fairey gannet, british not french.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:29 |
|
Fairey Gannet I believe —
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:29 |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:29 |
|
Fairey Gannet
(I didn’t know this, I googled using keyword “counterrotating” which helped
)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet
06/04/2019 at 11:30 |
|
That’s Fairey Gannet , a post-WWII carrier-based sub-hunter and airborne early warning plane. About the only thing more wonky than those wings were the engines:
Fairey selected an engine based on the Armstrong Siddeley Mamba turboprop: the Double Mamba (or “Twin Mamba”), two Mambas mounted side-by-side and coupled through a common gearbox to coaxial contra-rotating propellers.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:30 |
|
Reverse Google search says Fairey Gannet AS6
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:34 |
|
It’s a Fairey Gannet.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:36 |
|
I think a good number of us knew this one already, which is possibly cool but certainly a little troubling.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:40 |
|
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:42 |
|
Cool video!
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:43 |
|
Someone paid $ 14.98 for that cake.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:44 |
|
I think French Alize is fairly attractive. Yeah, it’s actually Alizée but pretty much the same name.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:48 |
|
.
.
.
e
v
e
n
t
h
o
u
g
h
the propellers in the Gannet are contra-rotat
i
n
g
,
j
u
s
t
l
i
k
e
o
n
y
o
u
r
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
B
e
a
r
.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:50 |
|
This is the Alize. Similar concept, but only a single engine and single prop.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:54 |
|
Other’s have ID’d it. The Gannet is one of my favorite aircraft. The Double Mamba was a beast. I also wonder how warm it got in that radar operator’s position set between the exhausts.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 11:55 |
|
Good clarification. Counter-rotating would be as the P-38, as
immortalized in a line of the song
“give me operations”.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:03 |
|
It identifies as an Apache attack helicopter
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:07 |
|
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:09 |
|
Shit, I would too. That’s gold right there.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:09 |
|
That is an airplane.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:09 |
|
Those wings are quite a feat of engineering. Excellent video.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:12 |
|
I take full responsibility.
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/this-date-in-aviation-history-september-19-september-1828999696
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:13 |
|
Counter-rotating, top, versus contra-rotating.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:16 |
|
much like a 200k mile boring camry on craigslist, just becuase they listed the price at $6k doens’t mean someone paid it.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:19 |
|
My first encounter with the Gannet was in a 1979 Jane’s as below:
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:24 |
|
Something which may amuse you:
This is the power unit from a Matilda II infantry tank. It used two AEC bus engines...
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:29 |
|
Thank you, I had never heard about that song! Pray, sir... what does AB refer to - air brake?
B
y
t
h
e
w
a
y
,
I
s
e
e
m
t
o
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
m
e
v
e
r
y
e
a
r
l
y
P
-
3
8
s
d
i
d
n
o
t have a counter-rotating setup
,
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
?
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:32 |
|
Hey Fairey, why you make such a weird plane?
I dunno
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:35 |
|
If Kinja made a plane.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:37 |
|
I know very little about these things. Are there synchronization issues with using two engines? Or it is just spinning power through a gearbox?
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:39 |
|
Probably air brakes, but I don’t know.
I am not aware of any lack of counter-rotation. The XP-38 had counter-rotation in one direction, and it was reversed on the YP-38s for better stability, which tells me that it was always intended and that certainly no production models went without.
The F-82 twin Mustangs had a quirk of drag that required a reversal as well, but were also always counter.
There is one
trick with countered props, in
that a sudden engine loss creates extreme weirdness on a throttle-up of the remaining engine. Possibly fatal weirdness - to wit, roll and yaw.
06/04/2019 at 12:45 |
|
If Kinja made a plane, it’d be an ekranoplan :
06/04/2019 at 12:53 |
|
![]() 06/04/2019 at 12:57 |
|
It depends on how it’s done. If engines are formally linked together, then whichever engine is the stronger or better tuned of the two (which you hope is neither, but will still be likely), that one engine will be “pulling”, the other “dragging” to a very small extent. One may run infinitesimally lean, the other rich, and so on. If the engines are both feeding into a “torque blender” (similar in some respects to what is used in a Prius hybrid system), then (if it’s symmetric) the engines can run at independent speeds and the output will be some factor of the average of the two.
Or, something like a fluid coupling can be used.
Typically, you’d want a. your power to be blended before the transmission so you don’t have to run multiple cluster gears, and b. you’d want to be able to cut out or disconnect one engine if it broke. I don’t know if the Matilda II
handled the latter issue with two clutches or what.
For an offroad vehicle, sometimes there are two independent drivetrains - and while the “pulling/dragging” is taking place through the medium of the ground, it’s a much softer sort of connection. See for examples of the “independent drivetrains” the Twini Mini, the 2CV Sahara and the Zil 135.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 13:05 |
|
Well, I’m still a little confused, but thanks. I don’t have a mechanical mind. My brother got that.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 13:06 |
|
Hah!
![]() 06/04/2019 at 13:08 |
|
Just looked it up. It seems the Brits and the French ordered at first some Allison-engined ones (non-turbocharged). For parts commonality reasons (with the Tomahawk) both engines rotated clockwise:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p38_7.html
W
h
i
l
e
l
ooking for this
I found a
n
interesting q
u
o
t
e
on the F-82
v
s
t
h
e
L
i
g
h
t
n
ing
a
n
d
w
h
y
i
n
the P-38 the top tips
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r
s
move outwards
w
h
e
r
e
a
s
in the F-82
they move inwards
(
V
m
c
,
“
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
p
e
e
d
i
n
a
m
u
l
t
i
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
d
a
/
c
”
,
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
i
n
g
I
l
e
a
r
n
e
d
t
o
d
a
y
!
)
http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?324-P-38-Prop-rotation-question
I regret that I don’t have any P-38 time, but some years ago, I was a
patient in a Navy Hospital and my room mate for several weeks was a USAF
Colonel. With a lot of time to kill, we talked a lot. He flew P-38s in
the Big One, F-82s in Korea and B-58s in the cold war.
He said that the P-38 was intentionaly configured to be unstable. A high
Vmc was an accepted trade off. On the other hand, The F-82's props
swung the other way like Piper twins. It was configured for stability.
Missions were long.
Lots of gas on board. He said that it was a
gentleman’s plane. Low Vmc. An engine cut was a non event.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 13:17 |
|
Oh man, I love ekranoplans. Just the idea of zooming across the Black or the Caspian Sea at +300 knots.
O
n
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
h
a
n
d
.
.
.
c
a
n they r
e
a
l
l
y
be called planes
,
o
r
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
?
![]() 06/04/2019 at 13:30 |
|
If you link two engines together directly
, you’d better link their throttles together and tune them almost exactly the same, or they’ll be miserable. Think of one engine as straining like pushing a car uphill, and the other getting “dragged” like in a car engine-braking downhill.
Or, to avoid that, use some fancy gearing kind of like a backwards differential to allow them to run at different speeds and both push the same shaft. Like how the driveshaft pushes wheels at different speeds. That’s easier, but means you slow way down if one engine stops, and ideally you have a brake on the dead engine to keep the “live” one from trying to turn it backwards . And your clutch needs to be *after* the combining part, or the whole thing will just spin with one engine disconnected.
In either case, you want the two engines’ power combined first
, then available to stick in your gearbox - unless you’re demented and/or Russian.
![]() 06/04/2019 at 14:10 |
|
I posted more matilda II stuff.
06/04/2019 at 16:31 |
|
That is not an attractive airplane by any stretch, but in that paint scheme, I have to say it works.