Fairey Battle question.

Worth remembering, though, that an original selling point of the hydromatic was the ability to feather blades in the case of engine failure on multi-engine types, so less imperative to introduce them on singles..

As far as I know, AR213 is currently flying with a bracket prop, as is P9374. AR213’s is a constant speed, P9374’s is a two position. In 1940, there was a conversion kit made to convert one from the other. It used the same basic prop, just added a governor.

I believe the props on Lancs were Hydromatic from the start. DH were advertising Hydromatic props in 1939.

Think you will find that the Spitfire and Lancaster used DH props and had spinners fitted.

I know Spits used the DH bob weighted type (two pitch?), but I thought very breifly (a matter of months)?

However having a spinner fitted to front-line fighters must have been pretty important for performance considerations I would have thought, might explain why the Spitfire had one and the Battle didn’t with the similar propeller types.
Maybe as Graham suggests, getting at the mechanism outweighed the performance benefits.

Apologies, I’m generalising as the forum has signed me out across my three computers and I’m posting by phone:o

Certainly nothing to do with hectic and short operational life, as the lack of a spinner was standardised well before the war. I suspect it had a lot to do with ease of maintenance for what was an advanced technology for the time.

Some Canadian-built Hurricanes had Hamilton Standard props without spinners, but not otherwise. The Hydromatic props did not come into use on Spitfires until late in 1942 so I suspect they were not on the first Lancasters, whatever the majority or later ones may have had, but then the Lancaster was a later type so perhaps they did.

Spinners weren’t common on radial engines either, at least until later in the war with the tighter cowlings and fan intakes. However, some types had caps on the front of the hub with the aft part of the mechanism still exposed.

Not having a prop spinner cone would certainly have contributed to its already sluggish performance. Though overall the Airframe size and weight was to heavy for the Merlin engine spec assigned at the time.

Think you will find that the Spitfire and Lancaster used DH props and had spinners fitted.

Just for the sake of accuracy – the Lanc used hydromatic props – not the counterbalanced bracket type as fitted to Spitfires.

Early Spits used balance weights and had spinners

[QUOTE
Didn’t most RR Merlin applications use Rotol props?
I wonder if the DH props had operating issues with spinners attached?[/QUOTE]

Think you will find that the Spitfire and Lancaster used DH props and had spinners fitted.

Could it be to do with the propeller rather than the engine?

Battles seemed to use bob weighted DH/Hamilton types like the Blenheim, Hampden, and Wellesley which also didn’t use spinners, though the last two did sometimes use small nose type spinners.

Didn’t most RR Merlin applications use Rotol props?
I wonder if the DH props had operating issues with spinners attached?

Did they not have a problem with them falling off so omitted them,asa Battle life was short lived in as a combat aeroplane I guess more pressing things were going on as to sort out a fix.

TA

The prototype Battle had a spinner.

Dave

Which now begs the question why was it dropped from production aircraft?

The prototype Battle had a spinner.

Dave