My understanding was having an engine that swung the prop the other way was logistically and in engineering terms not warranted in most cases. High performance fighter types made it worthwhile, and as the P-38 Lightning offered to the Brits without turbos and without handed engines was a dog.

I do take on board the Logistic problems you are talking about. Having an engine that will only go on one side might be a problem that would incease the size of the engine stocks by 2. However, I think, stocks of engines were the least expensive of having a wrecked aircraft at the end of the runway and (shock of horrors) a dead pilot that had had a very valuable training. So that is probably not the answer.
The engineering problems were really not that great. You only had to put an extra idleing gear on the gear box of the engine like was done on the Merlin 130 series fitted on the Hornet. No big engineering feat.

However, if looked at from the production point of view, it was a nightmare. Having to produce two sets of engines for one type was a problem.

I do not think the performance (or lack of) of the Lightnings delivered to the british had anything to do with which way the engines were turning. It had a bearing on directional control during take off, but any self respecting pilot of the time would be able to correct the swing. Why did all the Manchesters, Lancasters, Wellingtons, Blenheims etc. get off the ground if a pilot didn´t know how to correct for the swing on take off? Usually it was done by advancing one side´s throttles ahead of the other!
The only time handed engines are worthawhile, is in the engine out case. I think a Mossie would have benefitted very much from handed engines. It swung like hell on take off (non handed engines!) but the pilots handled it. However, if one engine quit at a bad time, a crash was the only outcome. I wonder how many crews would have been saved (and Mossies) if handed engines were standard?

Possibly, but I doubt it. Again, that makes more sense as disinformation as a sound locator (surely) isn’t going to be confused by the nature of the noise – but better to have people arguing about sound locators (not secret) than wondering about those large aerials for CHL/H…

In the absence of evidence otherwise, I don’t believe it. 😉

I´m completely with you on that one. It is one of the “war stories”. It certainly wouldn´t have fooled the soundlocators or radar. I´ve never come across any reference in German material about deliberate use of unsynced engines to fool the defences.

One method that I’ve read about and never been able to see in action that I understand was used on Lancs was to synch the outboard engines with the inboard engines by superimposing the prop discs in the pilot’s line of sight, and when the engines were synchronised, the stroboscopic effect would presumably make the outboard blades appear to be stationary. This would only be applicable on aircraft where it was possible to have both prop blades in the pilot’s line of sight, however! Maybe someone here has used it? I’d assume that to synch the inboard engines the pilot would use the sound of the engines.

One of the “war stories”. On the darkest of nights, with no moonlight, as most Bomber Command sorties were flown, you certainly can not see any “prop discs”, let alone individual blades. Even on a training flight in a Seminole (or something similar), at night in the dark, with the props right in your face you can not see any “prop disc”. There is just nothing there. Try seeing it from the flightdeck of a Lancaster, where the props are far, far away. Never would work.
Nerver having flown a four engined machine, I could not tell you how it was done, but by sight, NO WAY. I´m guessing hearing would be the best way to sync the props.

Have I got that all wrong?

Hummmm. Yes, and no!
Most of todays twins have counter rotating props! That has all to do with the ease of control in case of engine failure! On older twins, like the Piper Apache, both engines turn in the same direction (clockwise as seen from the cockpit). In that case, a twin has what is called a critical engine. To loose that engine, will impair the slow flight ability of the aircraft, the minimum control speed will be higher. The minimum control speed, is the lowest speed at which the rudder is able to correct for the yaw caused by a failed engine. In case of the Apache (for example), the left engine is creating a slipstream of air rotating clockwise aft from the engine. That rotating slipstream is hitting the fin and rudder, creating an extra effiency of the controls. In case the right engine failing, it will help energizing the controls. The slip stream from the right engine is, in the case of the Apache, blown into space and will not come anywhere near the rudder, and will there for not help in case the left engine fails! I´m not sure I´ll even understand this bu******:eek:

Anyway, the counter rotating props were invented to get rid of the critical engine. By having the left engine turning clockwise and the right engine anti-clockwise, the slipstream of both engines is hitting the fin/rudder and maintaining the same minimum controlspeed no matter which engine fails. It has nothing to with prop sync, as I can tell you after having taught a few hundred hours on light twins with counter rotating props:eek:

On the subject of prop sync, it has nothing to do with the position of the props. It has all to with the RPM of the engines. The procedure is to use one engine as master and adjust the other´s RPM by ear (that one becoming the slave).
It is even known for jet engines to be out of sync, and it drives me nuts to fly in a jet that has it´s engines out of sync!

I Is there anywhere i can get a listing of Squadren codes during the war?

Have you tried this site?
http://www.rafweb.org/Menu.htm#Sqn%20Markings

Scroll down until you come to squadrons by number.

Hope it helps.

I’d like to see that vid, I’m assuming that it’s not made its way onto the web yet?
Tom

No it has not made it´s way onto the net, and probably never will. I got it from a good friend of mine that was a camera man for the Icelandic State Television at the time. To get it I had to promis not to distribute it. It is almost 20 years now, so I could ask him again:D

Any competition standard in excess of ‘Beginners; is likely to include some flicking figures, which is not ideal for a 60 year old fighter, though no doubt they were flicked in squadron service!

I´m a bit familiar with the programs, having competed a few times myself, although it was all done to the IAC (International Aerobatic Club) standards, which are a bit different from the British system. “Beginners” category is more or less the same, but the British “standard” category is a little bit more ´adventurous´ than the sportsman category of the IAC, and (genarally) involves more inverted flying than does sportsman. A sportsman category can be flown “relatively” cleanly in non-inverted equipped machines, while the few sequences of the British standard category I´ve seen would require an inverted system to be flown cleanly. The story I heard about Tony and his Spit competion flying was that he flew in the standard category, and that made me wonder as the Spit (if true to Mk.I form) did not have inverted fuel system. So in a way, I was hoping to be told that he never did compete at the standard level in the Spit, as I took it all with a grain of salt;)

Regarding your reference to flicks, that is the last thing that would worry me in the Spit. Clean flicks (no aileron input to accelerate the rotation), done at a sensible airspeed (well bellow manuvering speed, like right after a roll off the top), are not that violent manuvers (you must also keep in mind that the airframe was not 60 years old at the time:D ). What I would be far more worried about was the g-load required to keep a fast flying aircraft like the Spit within the “box” during an aerobatic compitition. As you know, if out of the “box”, severe penalties apply, something I´m all too aware of:eek: 😮 In an aircraft like the Spit something in the order of 6g+ would be the order of the day:eek:

I just would like to know if he really did fly a competion in a Spit. If not it proves me right. If he did, well, I´ve got to eat some humble pie in front of a certain gentilman;)

Tony was mentored by Neil Williams and Manx Kelly, the latter entering Morane Saulnier 230 G-AVEB in a contest, and doing quite well. Brian Lecomber ( also ex Rothmans ) flew a rotary engined Camel (repro) in a contest in 1979, or thereabouts.

Thank you for that info. Being mentored by Neil Williams among others will explain the show he put on in my CAP in (IIRC) 1986. I´ve only seen videos of that show, and it is truly awesome:D

When using any child (car) seat in an aeroplane be sure that it is approved for aeroplane use! Most car seats today are only intended for use with a three point seat belt. In my airline we only accept cild seats in the cabin that are approved for two point attachment. Somewhere on the back (or underside) you will find an FAA (or similar) sticker declearing it fit for aeroplane use with a two point attacment.

Here’s a Do 228 doing some low passes and even a barrel roll at 4:25! 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo0xuC0oVZM

You obviously enjoyed the link I posted on Planetalk earlier tonight:rolleyes:

Later in the video he does it again with one engine shut down, and rolls into the dead engine. That was a long held taboo, never turn into a dead engine. But then again, the pilot was a Dornier test pilot and would know what was, and what was not possible with the aircraft!