Winter Flying, pt 3 - Lighting Ski.jpg (1/1)

In article ,
says...

begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg

I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

In article ,
says...

begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg

I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

"Art Woodbury" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg

I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

To balence out the torque generated by the two engines.

"Art Woodbury" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg

I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

To balence out the torque generated by the two engines.

Frank from Deeeetroit wrote:
"Art Woodbury" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg
I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

To balence out the torque generated by the two engines.


Balancing the torque is correct. But, IIRC, they
originally rotated the opposite direction (facing
craft, top rotating in), and were changed to help
resolve a buffeting problem.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

Frank from Deeeetroit wrote:
"Art Woodbury" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg
I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

To balence out the torque generated by the two engines.


Balancing the torque is correct. But, IIRC, they
originally rotated the opposite direction (facing
craft, top rotating in), and were changed to help
resolve a buffeting problem.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

In article ,
says...
Frank from Deeeetroit wrote:
"Art Woodbury" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg
I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

To balence out the torque generated by the two engines.


Balancing the torque is correct. But, IIRC, they
originally rotated the opposite direction (facing
craft, top rotating in), and were changed to help
resolve a buffeting problem.


Balancing torque is helpful of course, but more important
is minimizing P-factor, where you can run out of rudder
authority sooner when the critical engine is out. Inward-
turning props would help that situation a lot.

Resolving a buffeting problem is certainly a reasonable
answer. I was sure there must have been an important reason
to sacrifice engine-out handling.

In article ,
says...
Frank from Deeeetroit wrote:
"Art Woodbury" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
begin 644 Lighting Ski.jpg
I posted recently on this subject. Does anyone know why
Lightnings had the contra-rotating props on the "wrong"
sides? P-factor and torque from the outward-turning props
make both sides critical in an engine-out situation. Kelly
Johnson didn't make mistakes like this. Is there an
explanation?

Art W.

To balence out the torque generated by the two engines.


Balancing the torque is correct. But, IIRC, they
originally rotated the opposite direction (facing
craft, top rotating in), and were changed to help
resolve a buffeting problem.


Balancing torque is helpful of course, but more important
is minimizing P-factor, where you can run out of rudder
authority sooner when the critical engine is out. Inward-
turning props would help that situation a lot.

Resolving a buffeting problem is certainly a reasonable
answer. I was sure there must have been an important reason
to sacrifice engine-out handling.