Tudor Powerplants/props

Thankyou chaps,
pretty much what i thought, but nice to have someones elses thoughts and knowledge, I was of course aware that Lincolns didnt have C/R props but knew that the basic wing was similar to the early Shacks. And as you say the Tudor didnt enjoy a long production run as i gather Roy Dobson ordered scrapping the whole remaining production run after the death of Roy Chadwick in a Tudor at Woodford. Quite a shame really i always thought it a very elegant aeroplane Though the Tudor 6 always looked a tad long in the fuselage dept! and rather nose heavy. Also whilst on the subject, did the later Avro 748 share any fuselage similarities in cross section/dimension to the Tudor as in general arrangement you can certainly see a likeness?.

The Tudor did share the wing and the basic nacelles, similar four bladed propellers, and undercarriage assemblies of the Lincoln, though it used civil certified RR Merlins, and one example, the Bristol Hercules.
The Shackleton used the same basic Lincoln wing as above, but was powered by the higher powered RR Griffon, the contra-props were needed to absorb the extra while keeping the overall propeller diameter down (thus maintaining the original Lincoln engine positioning), this also had benefits in allowing the widening of the fuselage, and bomb door opening width without penalty.
I’ve always assumed that the Tudor as built never needed the extra power, and as it was dropped by the nationals fairly quickly any planned variants were shelved and as such never needed the extra power or contra props.

Noise from the contra-props was a problem particularly for the crews of early Shackletons before sound proofing mods were introduced.

Lincolns don’t have contraprops, you are thinking of the Shackleton perhaps?

They would be difficult to justify commercially on the grounds of weight and maintenance costs.