Gentlemen:

Had a little time on my hands so tried to do some research to find out if any World War Two Bombers were ever fitted with Counter Rotating Props or had engines that could turn opposite to each other.

I looked at the Avro Lancaster, the Avro Lincoln which came out at the end of the war but never saw World War Two service from what I read, the Avro Shackleton which had Griffon Engines with Counter Rotating Props and the American built Boeing Washingtons (B29s).

I might be a bit off topic but I did find some interesting information on the fuel injection/carburetor system used on the Griffon Engine on the Avro Shackleton.

The reason I am so curious about these engines is I do not understand why they did not have the engines on the port side turn opposite to the engines on the starboard side of the aircraft or vice versa.
It would have made more sense and made for much easier control of the aircraft on takeoff and landing or if battle damage/engine failure occured.

It is also interesting to note I believe on many light post war twin engine aircraft both engines still turn in the same direction.

I am sure that even on the "C130" four engined Herc the engines all turn the same way.

Now this does not make any sense to me in this day and age and all comments are most welcome.

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

I think the PR variants supplied to the RAF had the original engines actually Doug. I seem to recall from reading the Adrian Warburton biography that the reason he liked the P-38 so much for PR stuff was it didn't swing on take-off.

ozzy72 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2006 at 2:28pm:

I should have said the ones supplied for evaluation purposes in the early days of WWII. The high torque on take-off was one reason it was rejected. The lack of turbochargers was another. http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/a-b/battletwo10a.html

PS. It was the RAF that named it Lightning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-rotating_propellers

Quote:

I suspect it would have been just after take-off. The Lanc was a remarkable aeroplane but I reckon it would take a very skilled pilot to control a heavily loaded 4-engined type if it lost an engine during the actual take-off run. Most RAF bomber pilots didn't have the time to become highly skilled.

Aye, mechanical fuel injection. A lot of the German planes such as the 109 had it

ozzy72 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2006 at 4:21am:

Why? because you get 5 gears in reverse and one forward if your engine turns the wrong way

Quote:

Reason #2 is that the original Klimov usually has been demilitarized by placing a cocked grenade between the valve heads... You can't remove the cannon from the engine. There is only one left that still has the original engine (and the centerline cannon)

Also there are a few Yak-11s that have been converted to Yak-3s (it's the same plane but whitout a few meters of wingspan and a radial)

Quote:

CR props = extra gearbox = power loss + added complexity

Only reason why the NK-12 is the only CR engine still in production is that it doesn't need a gearbox to change the turning direction, it uses a bunch of internal splitters instead... When the thing is off you can turn both props the same direction.

Spitfire we're talking about paired engines rotating in opposite directions not contra-rotating props