A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 06, 02:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
buttman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?

I'm doing some research, trying to find information on airplanes with
counter-rotating props, but I'm getting a lot of junk hits from
articles that use "counter-rotating" when they should mean
"contra-rotating".

I was always taught that "contra-rotating" was when you had two sets of
blades spinning from the same hub, as in this: http://tinyurl.com/vxu9a
and "counter-rotating" meant two different engines on a twin, each
spinning in opposite directions, ala the Seneca and Twin Comanche.

But according to google, more than half of the instances of
"counter-rotating" are used to describe "contra-rotating". Are all
those people wrong, or is the term interchangeable?

(by the way, I'm trying to compile a list of counter-rotating twins, if
anyone knows of any that are not listed he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter...ing_propellers please post)

  #2  
Old November 11th 06, 02:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
karl gruber[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?

Yea,

The Wright Flyer.


Karl
"Curator" N185KG



"buttman" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm doing some research, trying to find information on airplanes with
counter-rotating props, but I'm getting a lot of junk hits from
articles that use "counter-rotating" when they should mean
"contra-rotating".

I was always taught that "contra-rotating" was when you had two sets of
blades spinning from the same hub, as in this: http://tinyurl.com/vxu9a
and "counter-rotating" meant two different engines on a twin, each
spinning in opposite directions, ala the Seneca and Twin Comanche.

But according to google, more than half of the instances of
"counter-rotating" are used to describe "contra-rotating". Are all
those people wrong, or is the term interchangeable?

(by the way, I'm trying to compile a list of counter-rotating twins, if
anyone knows of any that are not listed he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter...ing_propellers please post)



  #3  
Old November 11th 06, 03:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,446
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?

Counter-rotating: prop tips rotate inboard

Contra-rotating: prop tips rotate outboard
  #4  
Old November 11th 06, 03:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeableterms?

Counter-rotating: you have to run to keep up with the cash register.
Contra-rotating: you have to run to keep up with the sales people.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #5  
Old November 11th 06, 05:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?

Counter rotating props are on two engine and shafts, they
rotate both clock and counter clockwise. On the P38 the
blades rotated away from the fuselage. Modern practice is
to have the blades rotate toward the fuselage and thus have
the lowest Vmc.

Contra-rotating is having two propellers on the same shaft
rotating in opposite directions to cancel torque effect and
gyroscopic forces.




"john smith" wrote in message
...
| Counter-rotating: prop tips rotate inboard
|
| Contra-rotating: prop tips rotate outboard


  #6  
Old November 11th 06, 09:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Grumman-581[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 491
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:21:53 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote:
On the P38 the blades rotated away from the fuselage.
Modern practice is to have the blades rotate toward
the fuselage and thus have the lowest Vmc.


Kind of depends upon your point of reference, doesn't it? No matter what,
the props are going to rotate towards the fuselage... It just depends upon
whether your point of reference is the top or the bottom of the fuselage...

  #7  
Old November 11th 06, 10:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?

P-factor and rotation is always, by convention, based on the
top blade moving downward.



"Grumman-581" wrote
in message
news | On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:21:53 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote:
| On the P38 the blades rotated away from the fuselage.
| Modern practice is to have the blades rotate toward
| the fuselage and thus have the lowest Vmc.
|
| Kind of depends upon your point of reference, doesn't it?
No matter what,
| the props are going to rotate towards the fuselage... It
just depends upon
| whether your point of reference is the top or the bottom
of the fuselage...
|


  #8  
Old November 11th 06, 12:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
P-factor and rotation is always, by convention, based on the
top blade moving downward.


I can't think of a situation where the top blade would move any direction
but down. ;-)

The most common rotation pattern in modern twins is for the top blade(s) to
rotate towards the fuselage.

KB


  #9  
Old November 11th 06, 01:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dave[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?

Just for the heck of it..... in comparison...

On a twin engine BOAT , the prop tips rotate tips outward at the top
of the arcs for best handling and fuel econmy..

The boat handles like a pig if this is set up in backwards, and the
fuel economy plummits..

Dave



On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:31:52 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
P-factor and rotation is always, by convention, based on the
top blade moving downward.


I can't think of a situation where the top blade would move any direction
but down. ;-)

The most common rotation pattern in modern twins is for the top blade(s) to
rotate towards the fuselage.

KB


  #10  
Old November 11th 06, 03:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 312
Default are "counter-rotating" and "contra-rotating" interchangeable terms?


On Nov 11, 8:51 am, Dave wrote:
Just for the heck of it..... in comparison...

On a twin engine BOAT , the prop tips rotate tips outward at the top
of the arcs for best handling and fuel econmy..

The boat handles like a pig if this is set up in backwards, and the
fuel economy plummits..

Dave

For what it's worth, I found this on one of the boat news groups
regarding screw rotation.

this discussion (the discussion being direction of rotation of twin
screwed boats) there are several other factors to consider. If you look
at the keel of the German Z- Boats, they had a concavity to the stern
section of the boat running from where the keel began to rise deck ward
back. The theory here was that this would tunnel the water into each
prop. What it did was creat a situation where the boat would suck its
stern down with a strong reverse command.
In combat warships we are always trying to improve our turning ability
with out stepping out side the rules. There has been experimentation
with both applications. We have seen the same thing that Peter
mentioned, but not with a large amount of speed increase.
We have found that with the props rotating inward, two things are noted
that are considered an improvement in relationship to the props
rotating outward. 1) That there is a slight decrease in the cavitation
noted with strong reverse commands and that the ship will get up and
move a little quicker. This is thought to be caused by a decrease in
water turbulence caused by the water and air ( there is air to the
underside of the boat) running off of the keel as the prop tends to
pull water in from the outboard aspect of the boat. 2) Perhaps more
important is the slight improvement in the turn radious noted with the
inboard turning props. This is suspected to be caused by the water from
the props pushing against the outboard surface of the exposed turning
rudder.
In the great scheme of things what we have noted in combat ships is
that as you increase the size of the prop you increase speed and
cavitation ( especially if that prop starts to get larger than the
water flow from the keel can feed). As you increase the rudder size you
decrease the turning radious, but you will increase the sudden rocking
of the boat as you turn th rudder over and you will decrease the speed
of the boat.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.