And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
1. The asymmetrical thrust from the rotation of the engine is counterbalanced by offsetting it to the total wing surface. (The French had several asymmetrical designs for the same reason.) Big torque engines and props, like found on the P-47, were actually a factor in maneuvering of these planes, sharper turns in one direction vs other, that sort of thing (the Sopwith Camel was noted especially for torquing in one direction sharply, good pilots used this to get out of bad situations, and was also the reason so many cracked up on landing.)
2. Notice all the glass? This is a recon bird. So lots of glass is good for this.
So, well, there are reasons. Still looks weird... Solve it by two counter rotating engines on either side of the fuselage, like on a P-38. Makes a much nicer looking plane.
Thanks. Being Mr. Wizard is what I do best, or so my wife tells me...
Rotational torque from engines (back when the engine spun around the fixed crankshaft, no, really, crazy world) and from big props is a very interesting thing to watch. You can see it in a lot of high performance RC planes (those wonderful things that existed before those darned quad-copters took over the world.)
wikipedia has more answers. also check out Rutan's catbird. "radical"? not really. does not look weird at all. visual symmetry and balance symmetry is in the eye of the beholder I guess. also, the sopwith's torque caused takeoff accidents, not landing accidents. when I land, the engine torque is zero...just sayin'.
Never understood why the Herms had such an abhorrence to curved Plexiglas canopies. All those flat panels must have had an adverse effect on the drag numbers. All the Junkers, Dorniers, and Heinkels used those flat-paned canopies that must have caused a huge amount of drag, robbing the aircraft of a lot of performance.
optical qualities of bent plexiglass are very odd to those used to flat glass panels. the herms had issues with manufacturing plexiglas sheet with good optical qualities. it is very easy to get bubbles in the sheet while it is extruded. fairly complex process compared to optical glass. you should get a look out of the scanner bubbles on the PBY5A catalinas. lots of distortion. low speed low altitude troop sniffer doesn't have big issues with drag as one would with a high speed recon aircraft. drag increases at a square of speed. low speed aircraft are cheaper and easier to build. so long as they can do the job, why not?
Much easier to manufacture, of course, (ni forming needed) but also probably not as strong as curved panels. Also would have used less material than curved canopies, although only a miniscule amount more per canopy. Just sayin'.
winkle could fly anything if it would at least get off the ground. Captain Brown stating it flew nicely must be considered with what the man was capable of flying. the term "nicely" is what a man of such vast experience and tactful understatement may have used when todays young airman may say "where is my parachute".
Of one thing I wish I'd been able to do; attend one of Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown's many seminars where he spoke at length of his flying experiences. And of course, to have met the man himself.
Two reasons.
ReplyDelete1. The asymmetrical thrust from the rotation of the engine is counterbalanced by offsetting it to the total wing surface. (The French had several asymmetrical designs for the same reason.) Big torque engines and props, like found on the P-47, were actually a factor in maneuvering of these planes, sharper turns in one direction vs other, that sort of thing (the Sopwith Camel was noted especially for torquing in one direction sharply, good pilots used this to get out of bad situations, and was also the reason so many cracked up on landing.)
2. Notice all the glass? This is a recon bird. So lots of glass is good for this.
So, well, there are reasons. Still looks weird... Solve it by two counter rotating engines on either side of the fuselage, like on a P-38. Makes a much nicer looking plane.
Amazing analysis, Beans! WOW! Nicely done.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Being Mr. Wizard is what I do best, or so my wife tells me...
DeleteRotational torque from engines (back when the engine spun around the fixed crankshaft, no, really, crazy world) and from big props is a very interesting thing to watch. You can see it in a lot of high performance RC planes (those wonderful things that existed before those darned quad-copters took over the world.)
wikipedia has more answers. also check out Rutan's catbird. "radical"? not really. does not look weird at all. visual symmetry and balance symmetry is in the eye of the beholder I guess. also, the sopwith's torque caused takeoff accidents, not landing accidents. when I land, the engine torque is zero...just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteYou must be thinking of the Boomerang instead of the Catbird
Deletehttp://rutanboomerang.com/
It gave the pilot an unobstructed view which was desirable for an observation aircraft while only needing one expensive engine and propeller.
ReplyDeleteThe Bronco and the Partenavia P.68 were also designed to give the pilot a good view of the ground.
Al_in_Ottawa
Never understood why the Herms had such an abhorrence to curved Plexiglas canopies. All those flat panels must have had an adverse effect on the drag numbers. All the Junkers, Dorniers, and Heinkels used those flat-paned canopies that must have caused a huge amount of drag, robbing the aircraft of a lot of performance.
ReplyDeleteoptical qualities of bent plexiglass are very odd to those used to flat glass panels. the herms had issues with manufacturing plexiglas sheet with good optical qualities. it is very easy to get bubbles in the sheet while it is extruded. fairly complex process compared to optical glass. you should get a look out of the scanner bubbles on the PBY5A catalinas. lots of distortion.
Deletelow speed low altitude troop sniffer doesn't have big issues with drag as one would with a high speed recon aircraft. drag increases at a square of speed. low speed aircraft are cheaper and easier to build. so long as they can do the job, why not?
Much easier to manufacture, of course, (ni forming needed) but also probably not as strong as curved panels. Also would have used less material than curved canopies, although only a miniscule amount more per canopy. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say easier to manufacture, of course, (NO forming needed) blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteEric Brown was impressed by how nicely it flew.
ReplyDeletewinkle could fly anything if it would at least get off the ground. Captain Brown stating it flew nicely must be considered with what the man was capable of flying. the term "nicely" is what a man of such vast experience and tactful understatement may have used when todays young airman may say "where is my parachute".
DeleteOf one thing I wish I'd been able to do; attend one of Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown's many seminars where he spoke at length of his flying experiences. And of course, to have met the man himself.
Delete