P-38 Lightning

[PR19_Kit]

Tophe, you forgot the pusher version.......

[Tophe]

Oh, sorry, shame on me... Here are they, with an extra pusher:

[PR19_Kit]

Yesssssssssssss, that's the one! 

[famvburg]

    Well, the Short Sturgeon had engines with c/r props & we can't forget the Shackleton with 4. I definitely don't see why a big ol' 4 engined a/c needs c/r props. We also can't forget all of the multi-engine prototype turbo prop a/c of the '50s that had c/r props as well. I guess reducng or eliminating the torque at any time is a plus.

Would you need contra-props on a twin?  Just have the engines counter-rotating.  Does have factor though!

[rickshaw]

   Well, the Short Sturgeon had engines with c/r props & we can't forget the Shackleton with 4. I definitely don't see why a big ol' 4 engined a/c needs c/r props. We also can't forget all of the multi-engine prototype turbo prop a/c of the '50s that had c/r props as well. I guess reducng or eliminating the torque at any time is a plus.

While torque reduction/elimination is a big reason why you'd have a contra-rotating prop on an aircraft with the props on the centreline, the main reason why contra-props were used on multi-engine types was to try and get a better power transmission from the engine to the air.  Big engines with single-props, AIUI tended to turn too fast for the prop to get as good a "purchase" as a lower powered engine, so it rather negated the point of putting that big engine in the aircraft.

[PR19_Kit]

Surely contra-props allow them to fit larger, more powerful engines, and if they had single props they'd have to be HUGE to absorb the power, and thus need monster undercarriages for the prop to clear the ground. It's not always about torque reduction I suspect.

[rickshaw]

Surely contra-props allow them to fit larger, more powerful engines, and if they had single props they'd have to be HUGE to absorb the power, and thus need monster undercarriages for the prop to clear the ground. It's not always about torque reduction I suspect.

Can you imagine how long the undercarriage on a Tu95 would have to be if they'd used single props on the NK12?   

Speaking of which, anybody know where I can lay my hands on an aftermarket NK12?  I think I'll only need one or two...

[tahsin]

"Out of the box" or what ?

[famvburg]

      Actually, engine / prop RPM is addressed using reduction gearing. P&W R-4360s used on transport - type a/c used different reduction gearing to turn larger diameter props slower than, say, an R-4360 used on a faster single engined type turning a smaller diameter prop. If you read about air racers using radials, that comes up in using an engine from a C-124 with a prop from a C-130 or something along those lines. Replace the nose case gearbox with a different ratio one. There are a number of other ways as well, such as more blades, wider chord blades, etc. Now, when it comes to Griffons, maybe RR just didn't have many choices of reduction gearing as P&W & Wright had for their radials.

   Well, the Short Sturgeon had engines with c/r props & we can't forget the Shackleton with 4. I definitely don't see why a big ol' 4 engined a/c needs c/r props. We also can't forget all of the multi-engine prototype turbo prop a/c of the '50s that had c/r props as well. I guess reducng or eliminating the torque at any time is a plus.

While torque reduction/elimination is a big reason why you'd have a contra-rotating prop on an aircraft with the props on the centreline, the main reason why contra-props were used on multi-engine types was to try and get a better power transmission from the engine to the air.  Big engines with single-props, AIUI tended to turn too fast for the prop to get as good a "purchase" as a lower powered engine, so it rather negated the point of putting that big engine in the aircraft.

[ysi_maniac]

This is a great idea

[Tophe]

"Out of the box" or what ?

What is this? Related to Lightning as twin-boomer only? Or Lockheed also? Or ...?
(nice as science-fiction anyway, I may draw an intermediate between this and a Lightning, could you tell us the name or source?)

[tahsin]

"Out of the box" or what ?

What is this? Related to Lightning as twin-boomer only? Or Lockheed also? Or ...?
(nice as science-fiction anyway, I may draw an intermediate between this and a Lightning, could you tell us the name or source?)

It is from  Conceptships which today appears to be banned in Turkey for some reason , and proxies I use don't give much in the way of URLs but it is still on the front page. Also dated as Monday , February 7 , 2011 and is by Richard Han.

[Jschmus]

I could be wrong, but that looks very much like it could be a Cartann Blade starfighter, from Aaron Allston's The Starfighters of Adumar.  That was the last book in the X-Wing series, and it followed the New Republic's effort to bring the planet of Adumar into their fold.  The natives' dominant culture centered around dueling, and it's highest form was aerial/space dogfighting, with twin-boom fighters called Blades.  I wrote Allston a message years ago asking what they looked like, and he told me he envisioned something like a P-38.

[Mossie]

There was a P-38 fighter in Revenge of the Sith, IIRC it is modelled on the P-38 centre sections inboard of the booms:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/p38starfighter/index.html
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rogue-class_Porax-38_starfighter

[Tophe]

Thanks for all those links.