KZhead
Ғылым және технология

Contra Rotating Propellers: The Hidden Key to Supercharged Aircraft Performance

Military TV
2023 ж. 13 Қаз.
128 901 Рет қаралды
Жүктеу

The concept of contra-rotating propellers involves the installation of two propellers on a single piston or turboprop engine, one positioned immediately behind the other, rotating in opposite directions on the same axis. This creates a fascinating synchronized motion, where one propeller spins clockwise while the other spins counterclockwise. At low speeds during flight, the spinning blades of a propeller generate significant rotational airflow. In a single-rotor design, this airflow is often wasted, and can lead to stability issues, causing the aircraft to turn left or right depending on the propeller's rotation direction - called torque effect. Thereby, the presence of contra-rotating propellers maximizes the utilization of this airflow, offering high performance and minimal energy loss while countering the torque effect.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv

Пікірлер

  • The TU-95 was a shocker when it arrived. It was the answer to the B-52. The early B-52's were faster and had an 8,000 mile unrefueled range. The Soviets didn't have the engines to match the B-52's performance. The TU-95 was 100 mph faster than our engineers thought possible for a prop plane and had an 11,000 mile range. They could and did operate out of far eastern Soviet air bases and fly up an down the west coast of north america as far south as Mexico and return non-stop and unrefueled.

    @OldSloGuy@OldSloGuy6 ай бұрын

  • I think the Russians have put in the most work/research into this and have made some awesome aircraft utilizing that technology!

    @txvet7738@txvet77387 ай бұрын

    • Absolutely.

      @andreapehjerne8490@andreapehjerne84907 ай бұрын

    • They just copy the west. You only have to look at their aircraft designs. 🇬🇧

      @gazza2933@gazza29337 ай бұрын

    • Wrong USA

      @rosevitelli5814@rosevitelli58146 ай бұрын

    • Yes, Tupolev TU-95

      @linkernick5379@linkernick53796 ай бұрын

    • NK-93

      @andrewday3206@andrewday32065 ай бұрын

  • I worked on the Fairey Gannet aircraft engine in 1955. The contra-rotating propellers powered by 2 independent engines was a key feature of this very successful submarine hunter.

    @peterjackson2625@peterjackson26253 ай бұрын

  • The Kuznetsov NK-93 was a Contra-Rotating Geared Turbofan. It was ducted and would have been the most efficient jet engine in the world as well as the quietest contra-rotating aircraft engine. It had flight testing for 2006 to 2008 but lack of investment held it back.

    @andrewday3206@andrewday32066 ай бұрын

  • I firmly believe that counter-rotation is the way to go. THE noise factor can be ironed out using the latest technology that is used in the marine industry. The efficiency is over 100 percent, more like 120 to 130 percent. This is the way to go for the long run. Nice interesting video Sir.

    @victoryfirst2878@victoryfirst28783 ай бұрын

  • The primary usage of contra-rotating props seems to be in aircraft with SO MUCH power a single prop can't handle it without being way excessively long. Reference the Soviet "Bear" and it's many offspring - some of those offspring are still in use today.

    @bricefleckenstein9666@bricefleckenstein96667 ай бұрын

  • Why don’t they paint the propeller in yellow to look like sun flowers?

    @Just_Johnnie@Just_Johnnie7 ай бұрын

    • F18 Hornet. Iam coming 😂to di

      @Pierchinggun@Pierchinggun2 ай бұрын

  • The U.S. would occasionally develop an airplane with contra rotation blade, but the Russians have a long history of using them. It is nothing new.

    @bubbapate5740@bubbapate57406 ай бұрын

  • "Contra-rotating" props will hopefully be realized with the late '70s era UDF system. (Un-Ducted Fan). Before much more efficiency can be achieved, there must be a break from the "tube & wings" layout. A BWB system (Blended Wing Body) with twin vertical stabilizers can mitigate much of the noise pollution and increase lift.

    @greggwilliamson@greggwilliamson7 ай бұрын

  • Is it possible to use Contra Rotating Toroidal propeller?

    @kendee9166@kendee91666 ай бұрын

  • After his crash in a contra rotating Howard Hughes did his best to kill off the field. They sure have their uses. But great bearings design and lubrication are key to keep them safe

    @longboardfella5306@longboardfella53062 ай бұрын

  • The Propellers Rotated Backward

    @94520shatto@94520shatto7 ай бұрын

  • I feel like this video was supposed to be longer lol.

    @jourdanjackson5365@jourdanjackson53657 ай бұрын

    • They could have mentioned counter rotating blade powered aircraft like the Sikorsky x2 series,and Kamov ka-52

      @hesomagari1019@hesomagari10193 ай бұрын

  • Excelente.

    @antoniodias2776@antoniodias27764 ай бұрын

  • When he said "...to unveil the truth about contra-rotating propellers." and then i see a 8 minutes video. Can't go that deep. I wished it would go deeper into detail why they work better than other options. Still good video for what it is.

    @newT033@newT03318 күн бұрын

  • Counter rotating are used on winged aircraft when engines under preform:)

    @drbendover7467@drbendover74677 ай бұрын

  • Every one of the diagram rotation drawing the props are turning in the wrong direction, why?

    @dhroman4564@dhroman45647 ай бұрын

    • The illustrator was just an illustrator.

      @carsten4594@carsten45946 ай бұрын

  • As the Contra-rotating props have become more and more utilized, especially in mid sized transport the answer would seem to be clear, at least for now.

    @geraldhoag5548@geraldhoag55486 ай бұрын

  • I noticed the earlier American propfan engines from the 1980s like the GE-36 used contra-rotating propellers but the new designs have the rear blades stationary instead. Anyone know why this is?

    @johnroberts7018@johnroberts70183 ай бұрын

    • The stationary blades straighten the airflow, help increase efficiency. Same thing happens inside of jet engines. Hence the term, ‘stator blades’.

      @tonyscarsella7577@tonyscarsella75773 ай бұрын

  • Or on Electric Motored Aircraft. It's also a Single compression stage that drives part of the efficiency benefit.

    @ccfmfg@ccfmfg6 ай бұрын

  • Thx for vid, you can have a look at RISE prototype engine wich is neither a turboprporp, nor a tubofan, and could look like contraroratives fans.. RISE engine from SAFRAN interresting

    @frednoname3714@frednoname37144 ай бұрын

  • I don't feel noise level is different between the AN-70 contra rotating prop and A400M.

    @alexlo7708@alexlo77083 ай бұрын

  • One of the features of the contra rotating propellers is the tendency for annoying background music to arise in vblogs about contra rotating propellers. Scientists with the latest high speed computers are trying to counter-act annoying background music phenomenon thought to be tied to ancient alien technology. Other than the background music, a good presentation

    @terrygerhart6878@terrygerhart6878Ай бұрын

  • Nice video

    @lawrencesingh159@lawrencesingh1597 ай бұрын

    • Thanks

      @Military-TV@Military-TV7 ай бұрын

    • @@Military-TV thank you so much for your awesome job

      @waleedali9393@waleedali93937 ай бұрын

  • Electric is coming, and coming with Contra Rotating electric over jets for smaller aircraft, will be interesting to see, or hybrid systems

    @ttinnovations3310@ttinnovations33102 ай бұрын

  • Video didn't really explore the physics of WHY contra-rotating props are actually more efficient. 🥴

    @snipelite94@snipelite947 ай бұрын

  • You can recall Howard Hughs nearly killing working on a similar project

    @v1-vr-rotatev2-vy_vx31@v1-vr-rotatev2-vy_vx312 ай бұрын

  • CACR: coaxial counter-rotation.

    @graxxor@graxxor2 ай бұрын

  • Come up with a design of contra-rotating propellers that use toroidal blades, and you've got yourself a solidly-efficient (and quieter) engine.

    @MilesEdgeworth129@MilesEdgeworth1295 ай бұрын

  • Well, I hate to pop anyone’s balloon, but YES, I have heard of it….?

    @mencken8@mencken86 ай бұрын

  • I think the tu-95 is the fastest turboprop in the world or was it the thunder screech🤷🏿‍♂️

    @David-yy7lb@David-yy7lb6 ай бұрын

  • Late model Spitfires and Seafires used contra rotating propellers near the end of WW11 and beyond, but I am not sure they made that much of a difference.

    @sylvaleader@sylvaleader6 ай бұрын

    • They built 18 of them in 1948 ww2 was over by 1945 bruh

      @willpugh8865@willpugh88653 ай бұрын

    • @@willpugh8865 They built a lot more than 18. I know for a fact that 90 Seafire f47s were built by Supermarine after the war. Some Spitfire 22's also had contraprops. Supermarine were also ran development Spits with both Merlins and Griffons that had Rotol 6 bladed contraprops.

      @sylvaleader@sylvaleader2 ай бұрын

  • So is it fueleffective?

    @a627246@a6272467 ай бұрын

    • Yes

      @ULZIMAKUM@ULZIMAKUM7 ай бұрын

  • Avro Shackleton 🥰🥰🥰

    @user-tn1vc1xz5d@user-tn1vc1xz5d7 ай бұрын

  • Like the original plan on torpedo, put the counter rotating propeller at the back, on commercial aircraft, so the noise is away from the passenger.

    @budisutanto5987@budisutanto59873 ай бұрын

  • Maybe in the future there will be a contra blade fan in jet engine.

    @faisal_lhim@faisal_lhim7 ай бұрын

    • I'm not sure what that would achieve.

      @pierrebuffiere5923@pierrebuffiere59236 ай бұрын

    • Hmm. Turboprop as shown in video is a jet engine, technically.

      @TatyanaFatkulova@TatyanaFatkulova3 ай бұрын

  • Contra: "low" Counter: "opposite"

    @jb5music@jb5music6 ай бұрын

  • The first 1/3 of the script is heavy on cliches. After that the pacing and content feels right.

    @PavlosPapageorgiou@PavlosPapageorgiou2 ай бұрын

  • A lot of statements and repeated and repeated. No technical explanations as to why. Waste of time.

    @alexwood5425@alexwood54257 ай бұрын

  • Just because you’d not heard of contra-rotating propellers, don’t assume that no one has. And, furthermore, don’t spend what felt like a hour to say something that can be said in two minutes.

    @andyhiscox2750@andyhiscox27506 ай бұрын

  • Opposite spinning propeller on both wings is best

    @oldschoolpiston5454@oldschoolpiston54547 ай бұрын

    • Isn't that what the P-38 did?

      @paulh7589@paulh75897 ай бұрын

    • Till one stops

      @heftosprod@heftosprod6 ай бұрын

  • Look up the Thunderscreech jet. There was talk of making it contra. All those TU Bear crewmen are going deaf

    @kh40yr@kh40yr3 ай бұрын

  • NEVER BEEN A SECRECT

    @carstensommer1315@carstensommer13157 ай бұрын

  • Hidden key to giant radar cross section.

    @scottgalbraith7461@scottgalbraith74613 ай бұрын

  • *Contar Rotating props are VERY VERY VERY VERY LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

    @johnslugger@johnslugger7 ай бұрын

    • On a Bear maritime patrol variant. anyway.

      @bricefleckenstein9666@bricefleckenstein96667 ай бұрын

    • @@bricefleckenstein9666 *True! 550 MPH for a prop plane is pretty good for that old Tupolev Tu-95 just about as fast as a jet with twice the fuel economy. Of coarse the real story is that captured German engineers build it behind the scenes and their names were buried along with them. The USSR had their own version of "Operation Paper-Clip".*

      @johnslugger@johnslugger7 ай бұрын

    • @@johnslugger One of the variants holds the all-time record for fastest prop aircraft (not the pure piston record though, since it's a turboprop). I THINK it was one of the airliner versions (Tu-114 or Tu-116) but not 100% certain. I'm sure there was SOME input into the design from captured German engineers - but by 10 years after the war the Soviets themselves had learned and advanced quite a bit on their own, and FAR surpassed the Germans of the time in some fields.

      @bricefleckenstein9666@bricefleckenstein96667 ай бұрын

    • ​@@bricefleckenstein9666The design team for the Nk-12 was led by Ferdinand Brandner, an ex-Junkers engineer until 1953. This engine was in big parts designed by captured Junkers engineers. It certainly was not only "some" input. It's still the most powerful serial turboprop ever built, 70 years after its creation.

      @wanderschlosser1857@wanderschlosser18577 ай бұрын

    • @@wanderschlosser1857 But the ENGINE (which was largely ex-German design I grant) is nowhere near the entire AIRPLANE (most of which was NOT ex-German designed). I stand by my comment.

      @bricefleckenstein9666@bricefleckenstein96666 ай бұрын

  • Why still use propellers for commercial aircraft anyways when jet engines can provide more power using less fuel. Private aviation I get still using propeller driven aircraft. Military aircraft I get still using propeller driven aircraft as well. But this same tech is also used in Helicopters. Which is really just a larger propeller pointed in a different direction.

    @texasgrillchef8581@texasgrillchef85816 ай бұрын

  • Florecita rockera tu te lo buscaste

    @georgecastiblanco2978@georgecastiblanco29785 ай бұрын

  • All questions and no answers in this video

    @FPVREVIEWS@FPVREVIEWS3 ай бұрын

  • The only disadvantage is the loud noise these propellors make.

    @TonVerkleijT3@TonVerkleijT34 ай бұрын

    • The sound isn't the only disadvantage. They're more mechanically complex as well, requiring extra gearing to tranfer power to the counter-rotating shaft. This requires more maintenance and creates more opportunities for failure.

      @VTdarkangel@VTdarkangel4 ай бұрын

  • Ever heared of Tu-95 🐻 ?

    @manout-kidin8735@manout-kidin87356 ай бұрын

  • Holy crap are you kidding me the first time I never heard of this was during world war II. I've been watching twin bladed aircraft since before you were born boy.

    @mikesuch9021@mikesuch90216 ай бұрын

  • The future of flight inside the atmosphere depends heavily on the plasma jet, and the plasma jet has a wonderful ratio of weight to the resulting force. With continued development, it will be suitable for flight inside the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere at speeds that are considered relatively limited, because in space we will need a speed many times the speed of light. There remains a topic. The energy required to operate these engines. It is possible that the energy of calcium apatite hydroxide crystals and cellulose crystals, when used correctly, meets this requirement.

    @2012562@20125627 ай бұрын

  • this video had no information on contra-rotating props that wasnt common sense. i was hoping to learn how this efficiency is possible.

    @Raven3one@Raven3one6 ай бұрын

  • "Is it truly effective, or do they fall short of expectations? " Your question. Answer the damned thing. Sorry your 8 minute tap dance around just saying something is like the infomercials that lead you on and never give you the information. Just say it.. They are expensive, heavy, and additional mechanical that can fail. But yeah,, they work. If you can afford them. KISS principle.

    @Sailor376also@Sailor376also7 ай бұрын

    • @zvast@zvast7 ай бұрын

  • solution: Intermeshing-rotor

    @Oleg50600@Oleg506007 ай бұрын

  • Since everyone is using noise-cancelling earbuds, maybe its time is here again. Say what?

    @mitchgingras3899@mitchgingras38996 ай бұрын

  • They are too complex for commercial aircraft. I think the next step is the unducted fan on jet engines.

    @airdad5383@airdad53836 ай бұрын

  • I can power that , 10000v ac x2 , propeller again .

    @RuelDomalaon-fy3hf@RuelDomalaon-fy3hf4 ай бұрын

  • lazy non-treatment of the most favorable turbulence reduction and high-speed pressure pockets created by CRT. PLUS : you're unfair towards civilian turbo props. Nothing antiquated about them: the A400 flies at 780 km/hr cruise speed with extraordinary fuel economy (like tu-94 and tu-114). The turboprops' CRT noise problem can be solved with modern materials for passengers and modern noise-reducing helices. And your oh-so-modern jets are de facto being flown at 750-800 km/hr by airlines these days... to save fuel... So they are as slow! You can bet that tu-114 at 850km/hr uses less fuel than any jet and needs much less working hours for maintenance.

    @marcdunord@marcdunord6 ай бұрын

    • Indeed!

      @ldkbudda4176@ldkbudda41763 ай бұрын

  • First

    @user-ms8qg2rz5s@user-ms8qg2rz5s7 ай бұрын

  • How many times are you going to repeat the SAME THING? 🙄 This video could have been 1 minute long in total.

    @XB10001@XB100016 ай бұрын

  • I don't think they are syncing the propellers properly. A 1:1 ratio as pictured wouldn't be the most efficient. What would be the most efficient is Larmor frequency precession

    @chrisrosenkreuz23@chrisrosenkreuz237 ай бұрын

    • Why don't you advise them directly?

      @zvast@zvast7 ай бұрын

  • So it makes your plane loud and saves some fuel? Sometimes I think militaries do stupid $h!+ just to try and entice other militaries to invest in something stupid too.

    @philchristmas4071@philchristmas40717 ай бұрын

    • You dont see the value in fuel saving?

      @umueri1877@umueri18777 ай бұрын

    • He must be a rich Arab 😉@@umueri1877

      @zvast@zvast7 ай бұрын

    • Face zgomot, dar un avion de mărimea lui Tu 95 nu mai contează zgomotul. Este vizibil radar de la sute de kilometri. Nu la fel se pune problema la elicopterul Ka 52 Black Shark. Conceptul de elici coaxiale fac inutilă elicea anti-cuplu din coadă, deci elicopterul nu mai depinde de vânt, și face virajele plate, fără a mai înclina fuselajul pe viraj, deci nu pierde cuplu-motor. În plus, soluția elicilor coaxiale mărește mult randamentul aeronavei, deci sarcină utilă mai mare și reduce consumul de combustibil.

      @teicangigi559@teicangigi5596 ай бұрын

  • ดี..แต่ไม่เหนว่าแปลก..รอแผลบ.เดยวมีตามแน่ๆ

    @user-xs6by8gl8y@user-xs6by8gl8y7 ай бұрын

  • ....merely complex and seriously did not add to much to the plane as a whole, the consumption rise, the gear must be more strength than usual one ( must turns two propelers with huge wind surface to cut off) ...and for what ? To add some plus when turn your plane or for short take off ? No, not worthing, otherwise any built a so concept.

    @entropy_of_principles@entropy_of_principles4 ай бұрын

  • Old tech

    @janwitts2688@janwitts26882 ай бұрын

  • I think your not understanding what a supercharged engine is. Tu-95 is even an piston engine.

    @konekillerking@konekillerking6 ай бұрын

    • The TU-95 is powered by four Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprop engines. They each produce about 15,000 shaft horsepower. That is why it is necessary to have an 8 bladed contra rotating propeller 18-20 feet in diameter (depending on the model) to translate the power to thrust.

      @TricksterJ97@TricksterJ976 ай бұрын

  • are western minds gonna amit that russia was right and have better tech the US 😂 fat chance american ego to big

    @scottsuttan2123@scottsuttan21235 ай бұрын

  • Maybe it doesn't make much sense to argue about this anymore. Not after the MIT toroidal propeller

    @lawrencemontecristo2482@lawrencemontecristo24827 ай бұрын

  • Yes we have! The Chinese played with it. The Russians still use it on the bears. 😂😂😂😂🙏🙏🪬🪬💎💎💯💯🇬🇧🇬🇧

    @paulcoverdale8312@paulcoverdale83122 ай бұрын
KZhead