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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood
Recently, Morgans posted:
"C J Campbell" wrote Hmm. I thought it was just scraping tiles off a roof. I'll have to look at it again. It was. They were terra-cotta roof tiles, which have the color and somewhat the consistency of bricks, so it would be easy to confuse the two. Interesting, I'll have to look at it again sometime. But to the pilot, I suspect that it would be a distinction without a meaningful difference. ;-) Neil |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood
On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote:
here's more. Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on the second prototype. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood
"Kingfish" wrote in message ups.com... Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? It was more economical to modify aircraft already in the inventory for the reconnaissance mission than to procure dedicated reconnaissance aircraft. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood
In article . com,
Kingfish wrote: On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote: here's more. Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on the second prototype. The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side. The contra rotating props are said to be more efficient, and it has to do with the swirling motion props impart to the air. When one prop hits the air, it sends it flying back at a much higher speed which gives you thrust. It also starts the air spinning around. The energy it takes to spin it is basically wasted, because it does not contribute to forward thrust. If you put another prop right behind the first prop rotating the opposite way, the spin whacks the second prop, and takes the spin out, which converts that spin into rearward velocity, and recovers some of the wasted energy of the spinning prop wash. So it is said. g -- Jim in NC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood
On Sep 27, 4:29 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article . com, Kingfish wrote: On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote: here's more. Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on the second prototype. The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side. I wonder how the Russians handle prop governor failures in the Tu-95? I guess feathering props on one engine is not a huge deal when you have three more? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gear Up, pt 7 - pilot Howard Hughes in a ploughed field.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | April 20th 07 02:21 PM |
Thrusting or Sucking (where's Howard Stern when we need him.) | 01-- Zero One | Soaring | 0 | January 17th 06 01:40 PM |
Thrusting or Sucking (where's Howard Stern when we need him.) | Ken Kochanski (KK) | Soaring | 37 | January 14th 06 09:51 AM |
Howard Ebersole | TomnKeyLargo | Soaring | 0 | January 8th 05 11:32 PM |
Hughes replica accident? | Steve Dold | Piloting | 5 | August 6th 03 12:05 AM |