Vickers V.1000/VC7 anyone?

Unfortunately all you say it is true to a point but putting outward ratoating propson a twin boom aircraft like the P-38 means the prop wash alone means that both engines become critical in an engine out situation even without the torque reaction.

Sorry but you cannot have two critical engines on a twin-engine aircraft. It is one or none but not two. From the FAA:

The critical engine is the engine whose failure has the most adverse effect on directional control.

Many twins are designed with a counter-rotating right
engine. With this design, the degree of asymmetrical
thrust is the same with either engine inoperative. No
engine is more critical than the other, and a VMC
demonstration may be performed with either engine
windmilling.

An engine may be critical for other than aerodynamic reasons, but discounting that the P-38 with counter-rotating props does not have a critical engine.

Unless you are to believe that German WW2 bomber aircrew were so stupid as to not know how to synchronise engines, then one has to accept that the desynchronisation was deliberate.
IIRC the engines were deliberately desynchronised in order to confuse sound locators on approaching enemy airspace and then resynchronised on the way home.
Any fool can be uncomfortable -and they certainly weren’t fools.

Aahh, but you’re making an assumption that the lack of synchronisation was either deliberate or due to ‘crew error’. Just playing devil’s advocate here but I’ve got another ball to add to the playing field: What if the reason is technical? Perhaps the technicalities of the German constant speed units and variable pitch props was such that they easily strayed from the set rpm?

I’m not saying that this was the case but we shouldn’t rule out any options unless they are proven to be wrong. There seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence but as JDK points out there isn’t a guilty verdict yet.

The faster the engine turns the earlier this ignition spark has to take place; this is the ignition ‘advance’. I’m not sure for aero-engines but typically the total advance at 3000 RPM for a four-stroke engine could be 30° to 40° before the piston reaches the top of the cylinder.

Some engines will run happily backwards at idle speeds, particularly two-stroke engines, and some will run at higher speeds but at much reduced power.

Actually I’ve seen an O-320 run that had ignition after top dead center due to a slight misunderstanding between the engineer adjusting the timing and the tool used for this. It didn’t sound happy, but it did run!

Just a couple of points to add to this discussion.

All light twins today have them.

Indeed the ones mentioned have counter rotating props, but not all light twins do! The Beech Baron for one doesn’t and if you include somewhat larger types such as King Airs then there are a lot of non-handed engines around.

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.

As far as I know on most ‘handed’ engines the odd one out has the engine turning the ‘wrong’ way, not just the prop. To get an engine turning the other way around you need different ignition timing but the problem is that a lot of the stresses on the components are reversed or at least different. A lot of ‘odd one out’ engines are rumoured to have reliability problems.

Synchronizing two engines by ear in a small twin isn’t difficult. I’ve never tried more than that (yet) but using prop synchronizing systems does make life easier especially as larger aircraft also tend to have better soundproofing and/or pressurized cabins which cuts down on the noise. An FE on a Connie would therefore need better hearing I guess to synchronize the props :rolleyes: .

I’ve done some work on a B-25 in the past, but I’m not able to provide that data I’m afraid. I might be able to ask around, but that will be a roundabout way so if anyone else is able to provide a more direct source, go with that first!

Stuur maar even een mailtje als ik moet gaan netwerken voor je 😉

The statement basically says that:

“The Me109 Red 7 is ready to go again, and will return to its ‘birthplace’, to the present day EADS at Manching. MAC will not be able, for various operational, insurance related and other reasons, to continue to operate the aircraft by itself. EADS have come forward, as a helping hand so to speak, to take this responsibility. Thereby assuring that Red 7 will always have a safe home in Germany. EADS have also committed to displaying the aircraft in the future, both static and flying. A big thank you to all the friends, sponsors and fans without whom this whole project would not have been possible.” (my translation)

I may have made some mistakes here and there but I think most of it will be correct.