Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood

Recently, Morgans posted:

"C J Campbell" wrote

Hmm. I thought it was just scraping tiles off a roof. I'll have to
look at it again.

It was. They were terra-cotta roof tiles, which have the color and
somewhat the consistency of bricks, so it would be easy to confuse
the two.

Interesting, I'll have to look at it again sometime. But to the pilot, I
suspect that it would be a distinction without a meaningful difference.
;-)

Neil

On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote:
here's more.
Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm

Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also
curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was
the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on
the second prototype.

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin?


It was more economical to modify aircraft already in the inventory for the
reconnaissance mission than to procure dedicated reconnaissance aircraft.

In article . com,
Kingfish wrote:

On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote:
here's more.
Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm

Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also
curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was
the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on
the second prototype.

The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look
at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to
negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote

The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look
at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to
negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side.

The contra rotating props are said to be more efficient, and it has to do
with the swirling motion props impart to the air.

When one prop hits the air, it sends it flying back at a much higher speed
which gives you thrust. It also starts the air spinning around. The energy
it takes to spin it is basically wasted, because it does not contribute to
forward thrust.

If you put another prop right behind the first prop rotating the opposite
way, the spin whacks the second prop, and takes the spin out, which converts
that spin into rearward velocity, and recovers some of the wasted energy of
the spinning prop wash.

So it is said. g
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 27, 4:29 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article . com,

Kingfish wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote:
here's more.
Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm

Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also
curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was
the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on
the second prototype.

The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look
at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to
negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side.

I wonder how the Russians handle prop governor failures in the Tu-95?
I guess feathering props on one engine is not a huge deal when you
have three more?