Mk 14 is a later development - twin props are for torque control and better application of power - this later griffon engine produced between 2500 and 2700 hp. Even in level flight full power caused torque roll, the clipped wing tips are for more speed and higher roll rate at lower altitude.
@rudevandriver : yes counter rotating props dont pull the aircraft to one side when large amounts of power are applied. griffon engines have a lot more power then merlins. also debatable the efficiency of a 5 blade air screw - getting rather close to the limit (supersonic tip speed) however the airbus a400 transport gets round this with carbon composite blades that sweep back just like swept back wings on a jet.
The contra-rotating propeller as I understand it is to counter-act the aircraft's want to swing in the opposite direction of the single propeller blade, such was the slipstream generated by the blade.
"Even with full aileron, elevator and rudder, this brute of a fighter took off slightly sideways." - Don Healy, 17 Squadron.
@JBofBrisbane Hello to another Brisbanite! ... There is the spiral prop wash, the propeller torque effect (a la helicopters) and the twisting effect when the motor speeds up and slowed down - they were/are total beasts! Plus, tail draggers have the prop on an angle when on the ground so the rising and falling blades have very different angles of attack and this makes them want to head off into the bushes when under power on takeoff. The bigger the prop and the more horsepower ... look out!
See that? Stick armour on, stick rockets on, and you can beat the shit out of any Taliban stupid enough to show up for a firefight. And it'll loiter forever on a small amount of fuel.
why isnt some one making new merlins and griffins - also merlin and griffins with fuel injection and electronic ignition and computer engine management and anti knock sensors and variable cam timing etc. - surely it wouldnt take that much to get these parts manufactured- open to comments.
The 2nd prop has to deal with turbulence generated by prop #1. It's not efficient or practical...complex mechanical prop mechanism...1 prop does just as well
the extra rotor is part of whats called the Contra-rotating system it provides (if setup correctly) little to no torque and better low speed handeling and thrust (it has to do with single props thrust actually spiraling.
In 2005 it was sold to the French collector, Christophe Jacquard, who took it to Duxford to have the wing tips replaced. It is now based at Dijon-Darois, airport, France.
Its PS890 which is a Pr19 with an engine from the shackleton, after a bit of research it appears they modded it for a climb to altitude record and therefore clipped the wings. Althought most photos on the net show it with the standard wings.
No it's probably a mk14e as it has clipped wings, 19s had the full eliptical wings for the height advantage clipped wings were desighned for manoverability at low altitude
clipped wings give better roll rate at low altitudes. griffons were used in the mk12 (single stage ) mk14, then 18 onwards. contra props appeared in very limited numbers in all marks right the way up to the last machine
the only variants too see service with contra props were the mk21 and seafire 47,and the torque was cancelled out with this prop arrangement,so there was no swing on takeoff,it could beat the tempest mk5,,but slightly slower than the fury fb11
very nice,its just a pity that somewhere there is a shackelton that could be getting airborne but its engines are being used for this kind of thing.shame really
Believe it or not but a flying Shackelton is now part of the Pima Air&Space museum in Tucson,AZ. I don't know if it was the last flying one or not or will it ever fly again?
So someone knicked the contra Griffon to put into the XIX? I know the XIX was originally a Griffon engined bird and not the contra but odd that they would steal one from the Shackelton...
If I am not mistaken alot of the late Griffon powered Spit's were contra. The Griff is a neat powerful engine but it just does not sing like the Merlin.
Each to their own. I love the contra-props howl on approach - and the chattering growl of the griffon at high rpm...i think they both have their merits.
The Merlin is lovely. Don't get me wrong...i just think i'm a bit desensitised to it.
its flying in a spitfire, i dont really see that as a waste. a waste is when you see one being destroyed when used in tractor pulling. thats a waste. a spit, spits are important part of history
This particular Spitfire was designed for the Griffon, as the Mk XIV variant.
Every bit as rare as a Shackelton...there are only two still flying and far fewer non-airworthy XIV survivors than Shackeltons last time I checked. It wasn't a Spitfire that was later modified for the Griffon as you're thinking...it's a genuine Supermarine variant!
As for the other comments, the contra-rotating blades eliminated P-factor (torque) allowing for full throttle takeoff and better handling.
@rudevandriver Bit of a silly comment, the Shackelton would require 4 of these engines and a lot more money to invest in restoration, unfortunately the publics interest lies in the Spitfire and Vulcan, the Shackelton is mostly unknown to everyone. But i would lie both to be in the air, not only one of them.
the technical term for torque in an aircraft is p factor, and yes it cancels out with this type of design. this was probably the hottest spitfire model.
Sorry...I wish i could answer your question but i don't know. The only thing i've heard that there's no torque on takeoff. Thanks for for the comment and thanks for watching.
@spitgalore the extra propeller cancelled ALL torque from the machines first propeller meaning that for once the spitfire could take off in a straight line without being dragged to one side as well as roll super quickly in both directions
I was curious about that myself, and so I checked out the Wikipedia page on contra rotating props. According to what it says, they are more efficient. But the down-side is increased complexity and maintenance. The end-result is that it's still used in the military today (including torpedoes) because cost is less of a factor for them.
@spitgalore Yes, supposing you have the power to turn it. Also with porpellor driven aircraft you have a left turning tendency on climbouts. or right depending on direction of rotation. this "can" create instability issues. anyway look up P-factor for aircraft and it might explain a bit better than I am
@spitgalore A true expert will know more, but the Soviets used the same principle on their turbo-prop tu-95 "Bear" strategic bomber.
It would seem that on a turbo-prop it enhanced the effect to almost the same as a true jet, but with better fuel-economy. The drawback on the TU-95 was that it developed (or develops, some of them are back in service) a truly terryfying amount of noise, as the already accelerated airflow from the first propellar hits the second, contra-rotating propellar.
@spitgalore If you didn't get an answer yet it, the point of it is to make the whole thing smaller in diameter so it will fit without excessively long landing gear. The lack of torque effects is a benefit but not the original motive.
A Spitfire XIX is a photo-recon version of the XIV and XVIII, with a 2000hp Rolls Royce Griffon engine. It ought to have a five blade propeller. The marks 22 and 24 and the Seafire 47 had contra-rotating, six blade props. The problem with Spitfires is that they are small aircraft, and they sit low to the ground. You cannot fit the large, four blade props that the Americans used. You need smaller props with more blades. The contra-rotating prop does reduce torque on takeoff.
@spitgalore It also reduces de need to increase the diameter of the prop in order to generate the same propulsion force, as you double the number of blades.
@spitgalore I am not an expert but the main reasons for the contra rotating props are to reduce the diameter of prop needed to handle the power of the Griffon engine and also to eliminate the torque [twist] problems caused by such a large engine. I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me can give a more precise answer!
And? Are they better as a normal spitfire??? I mean, are they faster? Do they have a better climbrate??
I wonder...
Weibkoln 2 months ago
Mk 14 is a later development - twin props are for torque control and better application of power - this later griffon engine produced between 2500 and 2700 hp. Even in level flight full power caused torque roll, the clipped wing tips are for more speed and higher roll rate at lower altitude.
tomview1 7 months ago
@tomview1 Sorry - I mean Mk 19 - last development before the Spiteful/Seafang
tomview1 7 months ago
Comment removed
1973frassrand 10 months ago
Thank you... much easier take off, I'll wager...
popsaka1 11 months ago
@rudevandriver : yes counter rotating props dont pull the aircraft to one side when large amounts of power are applied. griffon engines have a lot more power then merlins. also debatable the efficiency of a 5 blade air screw - getting rather close to the limit (supersonic tip speed) however the airbus a400 transport gets round this with carbon composite blades that sweep back just like swept back wings on a jet.
mrtopcats 1 year ago
Too bad they never got around to putting this engine in a production Mustang.
1vdn992 1 year ago
The contra-rotating propeller as I understand it is to counter-act the aircraft's want to swing in the opposite direction of the single propeller blade, such was the slipstream generated by the blade.
"Even with full aileron, elevator and rudder, this brute of a fighter took off slightly sideways." - Don Healy, 17 Squadron.
jfatcar 1 year ago
@jfatcar - I thought it was more the shaft torque that did that. The whole "spiral prop wash" thing was actually the wingtip vortices.
JBofBrisbane 5 months ago
@JBofBrisbane Hello to another Brisbanite! ... There is the spiral prop wash, the propeller torque effect (a la helicopters) and the twisting effect when the motor speeds up and slowed down - they were/are total beasts! Plus, tail draggers have the prop on an angle when on the ground so the rising and falling blades have very different angles of attack and this makes them want to head off into the bushes when under power on takeoff. The bigger the prop and the more horsepower ... look out!
hogey74 3 months ago
No computers, minimal electronics, no plastics, built by hand, and it raises the hairs on the back of your neck, true engineering.
dreamsfgh 1 year ago
What happened to the sound?
Scrapheap71 1 year ago
x1x was an unarmed, high altitude recon plane. contra props aid high alt flying. x1x also had pressurised cockpit.
ericstee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Dad was a test pilot for this spitfire during a stint with DH in1945. One prototype crashed into a hedge and he was lucky to be alive!
heidilibby 1 year ago
My Dad was a test pilot for this spitfire during a stint with DH in1945. One prototype crashed into a hedge and he was lucky to be alive!
heidilibby 1 year ago
See that? Stick armour on, stick rockets on, and you can beat the shit out of any Taliban stupid enough to show up for a firefight. And it'll loiter forever on a small amount of fuel.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
did they use these during the war? I have never seen one before?
Walletofmoths 1 year ago
best airplane ever made.
MrIrishrover2010 1 year ago
why isnt some one making new merlins and griffins - also merlin and griffins with fuel injection and electronic ignition and computer engine management and anti knock sensors and variable cam timing etc. - surely it wouldnt take that much to get these parts manufactured- open to comments.
MASTERRACE19 1 year ago
The 2nd prop has to deal with turbulence generated by prop #1. It's not efficient or practical...complex mechanical prop mechanism...1 prop does just as well
60knightsix 1 year ago
Thanks for showing such a beautiful plane, with its double propellers.
spitgalore 1 year ago
Last flying Shack is at Ysterplaz in Cape Town, RSA.
infijarken 1 year ago
the extra rotor is part of whats called the Contra-rotating system it provides (if setup correctly) little to no torque and better low speed handeling and thrust (it has to do with single props thrust actually spiraling.
starshooter10 1 year ago
In 2005 it was sold to the French collector, Christophe Jacquard, who took it to Duxford to have the wing tips replaced. It is now based at Dijon-Darois, airport, France.
foofydoo 2 years ago
Its PS890 which is a Pr19 with an engine from the shackleton, after a bit of research it appears they modded it for a climb to altitude record and therefore clipped the wings. Althought most photos on the net show it with the standard wings.
foofydoo 2 years ago
No it's probably a mk14e as it has clipped wings, 19s had the full eliptical wings for the height advantage clipped wings were desighned for manoverability at low altitude
nissanskylinegtrrule 2 years ago
Because the double reversal ceremony propeller is attached the engine may be a glee phone.?
You may remodeled this spit Fire
I, do near this body from Japan and, touch and look at it and want to sit down to a/the cockpit seat.
kubota422 2 years ago
clipped wings give better roll rate at low altitudes. griffons were used in the mk12 (single stage ) mk14, then 18 onwards. contra props appeared in very limited numbers in all marks right the way up to the last machine
SeafangXVI 2 years ago
Something about clipping the wings and lengthening the nose spoils this plane's beauty a bit.
lordieuan777 2 years ago 5
does any one have a video of post war spitfire racing aircraft?
halffliffe 2 years ago
Planes of fame did, indeed, attach a Shack motor to this Spit. It's a XIV, I believe.
joebobshouse 2 years ago
no m8 its a 19
JoeIsReallyKool 2 years ago
the only variants too see service with contra props were the mk21 and seafire 47,and the torque was cancelled out with this prop arrangement,so there was no swing on takeoff,it could beat the tempest mk5,,but slightly slower than the fury fb11
EskiJooe 2 years ago
somehow, it just dosent look as beautiful as the mk IX
SonarWavePulse 2 years ago
very nice,its just a pity that somewhere there is a shackelton that could be getting airborne but its engines are being used for this kind of thing.shame really
rudevandriver 3 years ago
Believe it or not but a flying Shackelton is now part of the Pima Air&Space museum in Tucson,AZ. I don't know if it was the last flying one or not or will it ever fly again?
megashegem 3 years ago
@megashegem If I remember correctly it was faireyed to Arizona as a display not to fly again.Bummer
thresher4 11 months ago
So someone knicked the contra Griffon to put into the XIX? I know the XIX was originally a Griffon engined bird and not the contra but odd that they would steal one from the Shackelton...
steveobhave 3 years ago
If I am not mistaken alot of the late Griffon powered Spit's were contra. The Griff is a neat powerful engine but it just does not sing like the Merlin.
klesmer 3 years ago
Each to their own. I love the contra-props howl on approach - and the chattering growl of the griffon at high rpm...i think they both have their merits.
The Merlin is lovely. Don't get me wrong...i just think i'm a bit desensitised to it.
juzzi07 2 years ago
This is alot better than seeing it used in a pull tractor. At least this is in a plane
n1ckb99 2 years ago 12
@rudevandriver
its flying in a spitfire, i dont really see that as a waste. a waste is when you see one being destroyed when used in tractor pulling. thats a waste. a spit, spits are important part of history
ad356 1 year ago
@rudevandriver
This particular Spitfire was designed for the Griffon, as the Mk XIV variant.
Every bit as rare as a Shackelton...there are only two still flying and far fewer non-airworthy XIV survivors than Shackeltons last time I checked. It wasn't a Spitfire that was later modified for the Griffon as you're thinking...it's a genuine Supermarine variant!
As for the other comments, the contra-rotating blades eliminated P-factor (torque) allowing for full throttle takeoff and better handling.
westtexasduster 1 year ago
@rudevandriver Bit of a silly comment, the Shackelton would require 4 of these engines and a lot more money to invest in restoration, unfortunately the publics interest lies in the Spitfire and Vulcan, the Shackelton is mostly unknown to everyone. But i would lie both to be in the air, not only one of them.
j4cko56 2 months ago
the technical term for torque in an aircraft is p factor, and yes it cancels out with this type of design. this was probably the hottest spitfire model.
ad356 3 years ago
Torque and p-factor are two separate effects
bjs030 3 years ago
How does this plane compare to the Sea Fury and Tempest for power and aggression, was it ever used in Combat?
ukchris64 3 years ago
yeah i guess it took away the torque effects
WillieWonka928D 3 years ago
Thanks for sharing such a beautiful video. Were there any benefits in having such an extra propeller?
spitgalore 3 years ago
Sorry...I wish i could answer your question but i don't know. The only thing i've heard that there's no torque on takeoff. Thanks for for the comment and thanks for watching.
megashegem 3 years ago
You are correct: the two propellers cancelled each other out and the plane could taxi in a straight line.
Seasideman1955 3 years ago
@megashegem it have another reason.. just in flying there is no gyro effect because of the diffrent way of propeller run... That's the case..;)
VictorSeedorsky 1 year ago
@megashegem No torque-- each prop cancells the other out.
CEOkiller 4 months ago
@spitgalore the extra propeller cancelled ALL torque from the machines first propeller meaning that for once the spitfire could take off in a straight line without being dragged to one side as well as roll super quickly in both directions
youwanttoliveforever 1 year ago
@spitgalore
I was curious about that myself, and so I checked out the Wikipedia page on contra rotating props. According to what it says, they are more efficient. But the down-side is increased complexity and maintenance. The end-result is that it's still used in the military today (including torpedoes) because cost is less of a factor for them.
DonTruman 1 year ago
@spitgalore Yes, supposing you have the power to turn it. Also with porpellor driven aircraft you have a left turning tendency on climbouts. or right depending on direction of rotation. this "can" create instability issues. anyway look up P-factor for aircraft and it might explain a bit better than I am
marco21falcon 1 year ago
@spitgalore A true expert will know more, but the Soviets used the same principle on their turbo-prop tu-95 "Bear" strategic bomber.
It would seem that on a turbo-prop it enhanced the effect to almost the same as a true jet, but with better fuel-economy. The drawback on the TU-95 was that it developed (or develops, some of them are back in service) a truly terryfying amount of noise, as the already accelerated airflow from the first propellar hits the second, contra-rotating propellar.
LarS1963 1 year ago
@LarS1963 AFAIK the TU-95 is as loud as it is because the propellers operate at supersonic speeds (the tips at least)
Scrapheap71 1 year ago
@spitgalore If you didn't get an answer yet it, the point of it is to make the whole thing smaller in diameter so it will fit without excessively long landing gear. The lack of torque effects is a benefit but not the original motive.
YoungJim409 1 year ago
@spitgalore : More power throughput for a given prop diameter (or smaller prop diameter for given power), no torque effects.
williedemel 1 year ago
@spitgalore ive heard that it gives better fuel efficiency
MrJp990 1 year ago
@spitgalore more thrust , m less torque , less drag , fuel eficiency
javierriveraurruela 8 months ago
A Spitfire XIX is a photo-recon version of the XIV and XVIII, with a 2000hp Rolls Royce Griffon engine. It ought to have a five blade propeller. The marks 22 and 24 and the Seafire 47 had contra-rotating, six blade props. The problem with Spitfires is that they are small aircraft, and they sit low to the ground. You cannot fit the large, four blade props that the Americans used. You need smaller props with more blades. The contra-rotating prop does reduce torque on takeoff.
Rev6044 5 months ago
@spitgalore It also reduces de need to increase the diameter of the prop in order to generate the same propulsion force, as you double the number of blades.
werkmap 2 months ago
@spitgalore I am not an expert but the main reasons for the contra rotating props are to reduce the diameter of prop needed to handle the power of the Griffon engine and also to eliminate the torque [twist] problems caused by such a large engine. I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me can give a more precise answer!
tim60s321 1 month ago
Its the Rolls Royce Griffen engine, also fitted to the Shakleton.
"Flaps up" when taxing a Spit!!
zucoy21z89 3 years ago
i saw this bird! lovely sound, but too bad its no longer at the POF.
erad5 3 years ago