RCU Forums - View Single Post - Is there a difference ?

06-23-2003 | 03:00 AM

#7

MJohnny78

Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2002

Posts: 20

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

From: Kill Devil Hills, NC

Is there a difference ?

BALLGUNNER (and all), On June 10, in discussing tractor and pusher props, you wrote:

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Fred Huber is correct in defining tractor and pusher props as clockwise and counter-clockwise. The example of the P-38 is a perfect one. The idea was to eliminate torque and allow manueverability without counteracting torque forces. It also made takeoffs straight ahead and easier. All P-38's were not so equipped.<hr></blockquote>

This suggests another aspect of prop rotation that would interest me if and when I ever build a TWIN:

Given that "Every ACTION has an equal and opposite REACTION", and also given that conventional, single-engine aircraft props have CLOCKWISE rotation (as seen from the pilot's seat), and finally, given that the equal and opposite reaction is for the plane to ROTATE (roll) to the left, consider the following question:

Wouldn't it be advisable to have the props on a twin to be: a.) counter-rotating, and b.) to rotate in such a way that the upper part of the rotational disc is moving INBOARD? This would mean that in an engine-out situation, the (opposite) reaction to the power still developed by the starboard engine, for example, would be to to tend to RAISE the left wing panel, thus counteracting (to some degree) the tendancy of the unpowered side to DROP?

EXPERTS, Is this the practice in full-scale twins?

Reply Like