Author Topic: Contra rotating propellors (Read 13588 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #60 on:** May 11, 2005, 11:58:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Yep. Never said they flew contra-rotating Spit 21s on ops

Probably should have clarified it though as I can see in retrospect where it might have been seen as implied based on the original discussion.

Dan/CorkyJr

Ah lol, with all the discussion I thought (assumed) that all Mk21s had the contra props.

Angus · « **Reply #61 on:** May 12, 2005, 05:37:44 AM »

I belive they were equipped with them post war.
The Seafire 47 had them as standard.
Performance? Well, it's a navalized aircraft, so 452 mph, ROC 4800 ft/min, time to 20K 4.8 mins, fuel 154 gal, max range 1475 miles, and roll rate 68 deg/sec, well, that's not bad

I always thought the Mk 21 was similar in performance. Quill compares it to the XIV and finds it better in all categories except a yawing unsuitability at high altitude. All combat maneuvers are described as good. Climbing can be done hands off, and the yawing can be countered with the rudder. Acceleration is better, speed is 10-12 mph greater, range is greater, armament is better, high speed roll rate is better, so, - overall better.

Angus · « **Reply #62 on:** May 12, 2005, 05:41:25 AM »

The ultimate Spit was perhaps the 24, a polished 22 perhaps.
Quill describes a mk 22 on the landing like this (it was dark and cloudy), - as he chopped the throttle on the threshold of the RWY, the aircraft virtually landed itself.
A real lady.
Now, did that one have a contra-prop?

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #63 on:** May 12, 2005, 05:44:21 AM »

Speed, XIV/21 : 448 / 454 mph
Climb, SL, XIV/21 : 4700 / 4500 fpm
Range : 450 / 490 miles (most economical)
Weight : XIV, 8500 lbs, Mk21, 9200 lbs.

Powerloading, wingloading etc. similairly worser on the 21. Add the handling troubles. It was simply unsuccessful, with marginal improvements.

Angus · « **Reply #64 on:** May 12, 2005, 05:47:08 AM »

I'll take Quills word for it any day, sorry.

What was the reason for the yaw anyway, all the power?

mw · « **Reply #65 on:** May 12, 2005, 07:47:57 AM »

Here’s a Spitfire 21 with contra-prop on active service with No. 1 Sqdn.

Spit 21’s with contra props were produced before VE but I doubt they saw action. Rawlings states that No. 1 Sqdn. converted to Spitfire F.21’s in May 45 “but its only operation with these was to cover the Channel Island landings.”

‘Dizzy’ Allen, who flew both contra-prop and 5-bladed Spitfire 21’s with No 1 Sqdn., wrote:

“It was equipped with Spitfires Mark XXI but I never had a chance to fly the squadron on real operations before the war ground to a halt.

Some of these Spitfires had five-blade propellers, others had six-bladed propellers, three of each rotating in the contra-prop disposition. It was the same lovely aircraft as its mother, the Mark I Spitfire. Both the five-bladed and the contra-prop Spitfires Mark XXI were dreamy aircraft. The former could exceed the performance of the latter on the dive, but on the climb it was quite a bit slower and could never get as high as the contra-prop. They both retained beautiful handling characteristics.”

Wing Commander H.R. ‘Dizzy’ Allen DFC, Battle for Britain, (Transworld, London, 1973), p. 126.

Dan, I'm quite aware, and appreciative, of your familiarity with Spit XII operations

Contact me at admin@spitfireperformance.com re: my Spit XII stuff.

agent 009 · « **Reply #66 on:** May 29, 2005, 03:53:07 PM »

Saw this in another forum. If true, spite was faster than P-51 H.

The DH Hornet managed 472 mph, the Supermarine Spiteful 494 mph.

Angus · « **Reply #67 on:** May 31, 2005, 08:16:48 AM »

The Spiteful had a laminar flow wing, different from the original Spitfire wing.
So, not a Spitfire, or?
Anyway, it was disappointing how little faster than "just a Spitfire" it was.
They're all beauties anyway

mw · « **Reply #68 on:** May 31, 2005, 10:06:15 AM »

Hiyas:

I stumbled on this pic the other day of a Spitfire PR XIX with contra prop:

The PR XIX (225 built) was pretty much just an unarmed Spit XIV dedicated for photo recon. The contra prop sure wasn't standard for this varient during the war though.

agent 009 · « **Reply #69 on:** May 31, 2005, 01:47:16 PM »

Ah yah I think you're right Angus. Spiteful is Spit with laminar flow wings. Seems quite a bit faster than a Mk 14. Don't know bout Mk 21. Wonder why it was not considered a success?

Saw an article on the Hornet 3, ( circa 1947) at Barnes & noble. It claimed the Hornet 3 was fastest piston fighter ever to go into production. Forget exact speed. Between 472 & 500.

Angus · « **Reply #70 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:05:05 PM »

Well, the Hornet was a Twin, and refined to the limit.
I belive they were ready for combat on the pacific front when the war ended, and had perhaps done some patrols.
But that picture of the PR blue spitty, wow, drool, wonder how fast that was. I bet ROC is 4.5 mins to 20 K and speed,,,,,460?

agent 009 · « **Reply #71 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:19:36 PM »

Yep Hornet was twin.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #72 on:** June 01, 2005, 02:10:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by agent 009
Yep Hornet was twin.

And one of the most beautiful planes ever to fly. The photo below comes from: http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2915.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #73 on:** June 01, 2005, 02:21:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
The Spiteful had a laminar flow wing, different from the original Spitfire wing.

... also a radiator layout copied - at last they got rid of those drag bags - from an old adversary.

Angus · « **Reply #74 on:** June 01, 2005, 05:05:33 AM »

And topped it's speed, hehe.
Anyway, does anyone have performance specs for the Spiteful? Wingloading and climb?
Oh, and the Hornet, - what a plane. The ultimate twin!