Perhaps the designer took inspiration from a classic Italian design: the Venetian gondola. Gondola's have asymmetric profiles to balance the off-center position of the gondolier, and the fact that the propulsive force is exerted on one side. Check it out.
@Rudewalrus that's correct, congrats! The cross axis of the gondola's flat bottom and that of its hull (transversally from side to side), rather than being parallel as in any other boat, are in fact converging at roughly 1,5mt off the right side of the boat (which is the side where the gondolier stands and exerts force through the oar), at the waterline level. Cheers from Venice.
I'm Bismarck, and this is my plane shop. I work here with my old 109 and my son, Big 190. Everything in here has a rudder and a flight stick. One thing I've learned after 21 sorties - you never know WHAT is gonna come through that cloud.
The P-38 btw did not just use counter-rotating propellers but counter-rotating engines, each having its own model number. While this eliminates torque as a whole it creates a whole new series of issues regarding production, logistics & maintenance.
If the engines are counter-rotating, so are the Props. So yes, they are counter-rotating propellors. It's the same thing, just a different word. What they aren't is contra-rotating which is an entirely other affair.
The de Havilland Hornet, whose prototype arrived for service acceptance testing just as the war ended, also used "handed" propellors, and the engines to drive them (a special version of the Roll-Royce Merlin) have different mark numbers. However the only difference is that one of them has a reversing gear in the final drive, while the other does not.
The Allison engine was built such that propellers could be attached to the crankshaft at either end. Turning the engine around would change rotation from counter-clockwise to clockwise (or vice versa). The Allison was also used for a number of prototype aircraft with pusher propellers. Having engines that actually rotated in opposite directions may have been a benefit when revving up or slowing down the engines as the torque required to change the rotating momentum of the engines would cancel each other out in addition to the propeller forces.
The P-38 was ahead of it's time. No, literally, it came out too early. It was a fantastic fundamental design, could easily have been the best propeller plane in WW II, but it really would have benefited from another 6-12 months of design polishing. But there was a war going on, so it launched in an "early access" kind of state. It did pretty well in spite of this though.
@@danzervos7606 The engine wasn't turned around, it was the crankshaft that was reversed. The Allison V-1710 had a definite front and a definite rear, however, the front could mount a variety of output units such that the basic engine could be configured for a variety of applications - conventional fighter layout such as the P-40, mid-engine P-39, etc. There was no way to fit the output unit to the rear of the engine.
The BF109 Series where factory trimmed on cruise flight/speed with the red squares on the wings, ruder... You notice that if you fly with a 109 F4 at arround 400-420 Km/h. At this Speed there is no roll tendency.
i read in a book that italian mechanics spent half their time putting back togheter crashed enemy planes, and once used parts taken from a slide in a park to fix an engine (i don't even want to know wtf they came up with), doing this sort of stuff was normal back then.
The Italians did NOT screw it up - they just do things differently. That's all! The increased length of the left wing of the MC202 (and some other Italian aircraft) was put there to counter "P Factor" during a climb or at high angles of attack, which causes the relative wind to give the down side blade more bite than the up side blade, and to counter engine torque, which was quite large in the big engines. The Italians built in enough ability to TRIM OUT any problems caused by this design characteristic! THE MC 202 WAS A WONDERFUL PLANE! It was admired by the few Allies who were lucky enough to fly it. Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown, the great British test pilot said it was EQUIVALENT TO THE SPITFIRE 5 - which is saying a lot in anybody's language! Naturally, the upgraded MC 205 and experimental MC 206 were deadly, and would have been a handful to fight against in combat. They were supurb maneuvering aircraft. THE ONE WEIRD PROBLEM THE ITALIAN AIRCRAFT ALL HAD was that, like the French, their THROTTLES WERE REVERSED!! When you wanted to INCREASE POWER, you PULLED BACK on the throttle! Fine for the Italians, but if you were an Allied pilot testing the thing, and you were coming in on short final and needed more power, you would naturally push the throttle forward, which was almost like shutting off the engine - bad! --- MACCHI IS A BEAUTIFUL, WONDERFUL, MAGNIFICENT AIRPLANE!!!!!!!!!!! Only the Italians could make them so beautiful. Don't get me started here -- Old Man Bob
Well now I can see a reason why this plane was prevented from being made in significant numbers. Worker 1: What are you doing!? All of these airframes are uneven! Worker 2: That's how they're supposed to be, according to the blueprints. Worker 1: What!? ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!
Install another type of engine and a prop turning the other way, and you really must ajust one wingtip. Then you finally have a normal plane. You even have a choice for two long or two short wings. Unless you restore the assymmetrie to the other side. A very smart idea is exchangable wingtips, then you can choose for the designed ease of asymmetrie, or for a normal plane. Let's hope the left and right wing profiles are the same, and the difference is just the wingtips.
That reminds me of a Pilatus B4, an aluminum aerobatic glider. One day the front of the wingtip had a small accident. A little dent. The aircraft technician painted it, leaving the dent. Pulling it out by a small suction cup did not work, I guess. And there was no way to hammer it out, without making a hole and having to repair that too. And here comes the ingenious part. The little bit of drag caused by the dent at the wingtip worked just like giving a bit of rudder. The aircraft technician mounted a small wooden block under the other wingtip. He needed a couple of test flights to sand away just enough wood. Then the small block equalled out the little dent. Just a bit of drag, not enough damage to send that wing to Switzerland or another aircraft workshop for repair. And it's a funny example of asymmetrie.
infact it was so bad it was the worst nightmare of p51 and spitfires :D all macchi ang fiat series (reggiane too) were way better than all the other piston fighters :) learn history
@@JoséSantich Rule the world? You mean telling those fools, who think they need a president, what to do? Thou shall not rule the world, unless thou art pure love. That's a commandment. Remember the millions killed by those violent lunatics who are adicted to rules and ruling and rude authority. Ruling? Why do you even think about it? Yuk! What has ruling to do with asymmetrical airplanes? Those silly guns aboard for killing pilots born across some border? Get rid of rulers, life will be much better. That's called freedom. There were times when democracy was good. When you only got fools of two kinds, what is democracy worth? You only get yourself a foolish presisent and a foolish government, and perhaps you deserve it. You get ruled by fools in the end. And fools love to press a button, even if it is labeled "Killing the entire earth is so simple, just press this button and watch what happens." There's always an excuse. They started, so we had no choice. We had warned them, but they wouldn't listen. We only stored our nuclear missiles on those Pacific islands, it was not meant as a threat. Things like that is called ruling the world. Some call it foreign policy, others call it rule the world. So proud of the country, it's ruling the world!
The M.C. 202 is a strange aircraft, full of contradictions in it's own design. It's very hard for me to come to a conclusion on this aircraft as it is, essentially, nothing but a mixed bag. Btw, I still need a title for this series and as I am shit with those, I award an imaginary Iron Cross 2nd Class to anyone coming up with a short, snappy, interesting and fitting title. Yup, it's hard.
If I was Mussolini I would have gone to Hitler and told him I wanted a DB601E/ MG 151/20 for the Macchi 202 and then if he said now I would have told him I was not going anywhere until he said yes. Imaigine if the mc202 had gotten a db601e and a single motor cannon!!! it would have been able to compete against late war allied planes even if it was at a disadvantage but the origial configuration of db601Aa and 2 12.7 was inadequate as hell!!
The plane wasnt properly balanced around adding such a weapon, it threw off the center of gravity too much, the plane had to be redesigned and it was already hard to manufacture
This past spring, in a modeling group on FB, someone posted a complaint about a model he built of the MC 202. Would you believe the kit was so poorly designed that one wing was longer than the other!! He then detailed how he had to fix that. ... He was a bit embarrassed when commenters helpfully pointed out that the 202's wings were _made_ that way... LOL.
The vertical tail of 109's from F onwards, had aerofoil shapes to counter prop torque and p-factor. Like a wing but instead of producing lift, the tail was pushed to the left.
I've always found it to be an interesting solution, but not a very good one. I've toyed around with asymmetrical wing lengths in X-Plane and always found that it only worked in a set airspeed range (too low, prop torque wins, plane rolls counterclockwise; two high wing lift wins, plane rolls clockwise) plus all of the aforementioned issues with stall characteristics and maneuverability. It could be a good solution for light sport planes, if they actually produced enough prop torque for it to be necessary - and with a ~200hp engine, that isn't likely - but on fighters that need to operate in a wide envelope of conditions, it causes far more problems than it fixes.
Nice video. The french made Bloch Mb152 of the 40s used an other solution : engine axis out of axis (5 degrees left side). Visually disturbing but efficient. BTW, after the war Bloch became Dassault.
I would personally find it fun and interesting if my math teacher gave us a problem that dealt with this. finding out how much longer the wing had to be to cancel the torque from the engine
Moments about a point. Things to consider does the torque increase with engine speed? Dose the size and rotational speed of the propeller effect the amount of torque? If so what effect does increasing/decreasing the size/amount of the engine power have? It would make maths/physics lessons interesting!
One can assume that torque is a function of engine output power. Counter torque from the wing would be a function of aircraft speed and angle of attack. Consequently they would not necessarily correspond and cancel each other out.
I have read about this plane many times but never in detail so was unaware of this feature. I guess it had some interesting flick role tendencies, as well as stall and spin. A classic case of solving one problem and creating many more in the process.
Very interesting. Alternate approaches are where we learn the most lasting lessons. The Eindekker . . . Interruptor Gear . . . cannon for shooting down large aircraft quickly . . . climb + dive versus roll and turn rate . . . and that, for most pilots, "Speed is Life". Since it was asymmetry as an effective torque countering method, would engine cooling intakes mounted on the opposite side counter torque as well as asymmetric lift? Unequal drag, in other words, rather than unequal lift. And thanks for posting. As with Bernard, you force me to think, to reconsider my preconceived notions. Great stuff for an old guy worried about ossification of intellect.
First I thought you wanted us to see the unsymmetrical shape of the nose. Untill I looked in the description I never knew that planes are unsymmetric. Very interesting information you gave us :)
Italian aerodynamists were top-notch back in the days ! They still are and produce wonderful cars ! Don't forget that Mussolini strongly encouraged scientific developpment in fascist Italy to bring back some sort of "roman science" from Antiquity !
As for small single engine aircraft. They will have the engine mounted so the propeller is pointed a bit to the the left or right and bit up or down, depending on the engine rotation and the aircraft it's mounted on. The vertical tail will also be mounted with the leading edge offset to the right or left, depending on the engine. Of course these mods are set, to work best at the speed the aircraft will be flying at, for majority of the time. As for bigger planes they also do this and add rudder trim. The pilots learns, to trim the airplane at all times wether, climbing, diving, turning or just flying level.
NO! NO! NO! The Machi 202 was MAGNIFICENT!!!! Look at my comments above -one of the great dogfighting planes, one of the best ever built! Sculpted by Italians ---- BEAUTY!!!! -- Old Man Bob
Some fighter aircraft attempted to minimize this torque effect by mounting the engine at an angle in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Another technique was to mount the vertical stabilizer with a built-in cant to create a giant trim tab. The final solution is to mount counter rotating propellers on the same engine. The British used this feature in the final marks of the Spitfire. This is the only example of this approach in a fighter I am aware of.
It's an old thread but very interesting, and besides, countering torque in air vehicles is a timeless quest. This approach got me thinking. We've got all manner of things sticking out of the wings of modern aircraft, right? Why not one more - a retractable wing extender. Deploy when you want it, retract it when you don't.
At this point i always like to point at the Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil" and the Fokker D.XXIII which had a front and rear propeller that turned into opposite directions to cancel out each others torque.
In competitive free flight, asymmetrical wings are almost imperative when it comes to performing. This is because to achieve the longest time, the model is to fly in a constant turn while remaining level (or at least very close)
Actually, the 109 had an airfoil section to the vertical stab and rudder meant to counteract the pull on takeoff. It was, obviously, only partially effective and when the Czechs built 109s with Junkers 211s it actually made the problem worse because they turned in the opposite direction. Also. The F4U Corsair had a couple degrees of right trim built into the vertical stab. Many, many, single engine planes have used the simple expedient of a bit of angle in the engine thrust line to overcome torque effects.
It seems that the Star Citizen spacecraft called Corsair, probably the most beautiful and complete one, does actually make use of inspiration from all this... topic and takes inspiration even from the czech name airframe, combining then the purpose the ship in Star Citizen has (piracy base)
That torque effect is called P factor and to those talking about stall spins. One of the steps for recovery is idle power, negating that effect. Fun fact: the P factor is nowadays mostly overlooked by aerospace engineering students unless they are pilots themselves. It's really easy to account for.
There are actually 4 forces, not one, that cause this left turning tendency. The torque effect is the first, but there are three others. 2) in a climb, the angle of attack of one blade increases, while one blade decreases, causing a pulling tendency to the left, 3) the rotating slipstream of the propeller pushes against the tail, causing a left yaw, and 4) gyroscopic precession dictates that a force on a spinning moment (the propeller) is felt 90 degrees prior to the application. By pulling up, you are also pushing it to the left. That said, most of these don't mean shit unless you're doing takeoffs, but, in a hammerhead, you will always fall to the left (or right if you have a weird prop) unless you actively correct that.
This one was also very weird because it has a "backwards" throttle- you pull to increase power and push to decrease. This led to German pilot Hans Joachim Marseille crashing in a wheels-up landing after he borrowed an M.C.202 for a test flight (or, because it was him, more likely a joyride). As he was flying, his brain began operating in "pilot mode", entirely by reflexes and feel, so when he went to increase power, he accidentally turned off the engine.
There are actually two separate effects here; torque and P-factor. Torque causes a rolling motion, and P-factor causes a yawing motion. Obviously, on these old stick and string airplanes without computer controls, a yaw tends to generate a roll also and vice versa, so in practice the two effects blend together a bit. Torque is exactly what you described, P-factor is caused when the plane is at at slight angle of attack. The propeller no longer bites the air perpendicular to the propeller disc, and the relative airspeeds of the prop blades on the left and right becomes slightly different, causing the net thrust of the propeller to become slightly off-center. The effect may be predictable enough for a seasoned pilot to deal with it, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect on flight performance. When you deflect the flight control surfaces you add drag. A P-38 jock, then, could firewall their throttles without having to worry about rudder deflection or aileron input slowing them down at all.
RAWtiercel You missed prop wash creating a vortex around the fuselage and putting more pressure on one side of the rudder. A number of planes adjust the rudder slightly for that but it's limited to one configuration. You can see it on where the rudder meets the fuselage on the Hurricane for example.
Not many tho italian planes were designed woth specific take off characteristics. When Italian royalist pilots tried allied planes they sometimes died. One of italy's best aaces died from a us plane on take off due to it being hard to take off. The English also disliked the type for this.
Increase cost production (altho by a small margin) to give pilot fixed and very primitive trim that hinder him in every situation except flying in specific conditions at specific speed, now that's 200IQ move
Interesting that it works so well. I guess you still get torque effects on acceleration and in climb. Btw some aircraft had asymetrical rudder that was like a wing sometimes even deflected to one side. I heard that about Bf 109 but can't fund it anywhere.
Ok about the propeller torque but it not only this, there is the prop slipstream that makes an incidence at the vertical tail especially at taking off. Also, you should mention contra-rotating propellers. Trim-tabs at the ailerons would solve the problem
having a plane that tries to roll right gives it a faster roll rate to the right than left, which is a huge advantage when performing a Split S evade manoeuvre to shake an opponent on one's six that has a plane that is roll biased to the left, such as the Bf-109, Fw-190, P-47, etc. Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were taught to always roll to the right when evading German fighters for this reason. Those that forgot this lesson usually didn't live to learn from the mistake.
I recall I think Eric (Winkle) Brown relating a story about a JU88 thattye RAF had created out of several crash landed JU88s in early 41, when having assembled it they just thought there was something wrong with it but could not quite put their finger on it,, so they got a captured German pilot to cast his eye over it. He looked at from one side and walked to the other and burst out laughing. Apparently the wings were from two subtle variants one have a small increase in span over the other!
Well that is a very nice and simple solution to the torque effect. (the behaviour during a stall is perhaps a bit of an inconvenience, but oh well) Are there any explosive .50 cal round options for the M.C. 202 in game btw? I do remember hearing Bo say that the Italians had some sort of explosive rounds for their .50 cals and that, according to pilots, the .50s left holes the size of 20mm cannon rounds (I think, don't remember very well) in their wings.
The explosive rounds were rubbish because the bullet was too little for a useful explosive charge. But the incendiary rounds in that machine gun was very effective
+Alessandro Monge Not necessarily true, the Breda-SAFAT guns used in Italian aircraft carried around 4.5g of HE filler per shell I believe. And from what I remember the Russian ShVAK 20mm cannon had about ~9g of HE filler per shell. So damage wise 2 12.7mm HE shells was almost equal to a single 20mm Russian cannon shell. They were fairly effective per their weight, but the longer shell meant a shorter case, and so their velocity was not as easy to use as it could have been. Germans used HE in their MG131 13mm guns as well, since it used the same design doctrine of longer shells but less case length. The only reason Russians and the US didn't use them was for 2 reasons: A) because the .50 BMG and 12.7x108mm guns had smaller length shells meant that HE filler weight was limited to 1-2g making them relatively ineffective. and B) Because the 2 previously mentioned shells had so much velocity (relative to their German and Italian counterparts), AP and AP-I were better choices, since though they did not have the raw power of explosives, they were still able to pinch through wing spars, radios, armor, and engine blocks very easily
You surely true, but I just reported italian pilots' feelings read in books... I surely noticed that the best ammunition type for this machine gun was the incendiary one... Also remember that the italian .50 cal was very slower then the american/russian ones!
+Alessandro Monge Yup! I remember reading a British pilot saying that just a couple of hits made holes bigger than his head in the wings of his Hurricane
Actually, I read interwies of italian pilots who said that the HE shell was effective. It depended moslty on ammunition. Early breda HE shells had istant fuse, so they had the tendency blow outside the aircraft, dealing little to none damage. Later shells had delayed fuse, those were effective
MC 200 also had the asymmetrical wing. The Mc 202 just inherited it. I wonder if the wing was more of an issue with the more powerful inline engine or if they adjusted the manufacture to suit the higher power. Most nations offset the vertical stabilizer on many aircraft to help with the torque issue so the the MC 200 and MC 202 are only unique in solution. I am thinking the vertical stabilizers were a better fix overall but very few people were comparing notes around 1940-41.
The best solution ultimately was probably a counter-rotating double prop. These were only developed right at the end of prop warplane development however. Examples being the Seafire Mk 46 and 47 and the Westland Wyvern. Both were carrier born aircraft where a tendency to pull to either side on takeoff would be a major issue.
Apparently you never heard of Macchi MC.72. it flew in 1931 and had contra-rotating propellers And by the way you made confusion between counter-rotating propellers(not coaxial, like in P-38) and contra-rotating propellers(coaxial, like in MC.72 and many years later in very late versions of Spitfires)
The Corsair had big problems with torque from its large propeller. I think they had to attach a special stabilizer on the top of the wing on one side to make up for it.
Yes. They called the F-4U The Ensign Eliminator because of that torque. If you increased the throttle to rapidly and the air wouldn't allow the prop to increase it's speed fast enough the aircraft would rotate about the prop ... .
Actually, a lot of fighters had the problem, there were different ways to address it structurally. The wing was one way, but there were others that were just not as extreme looking as the Italian solution. It didn't start with the 202, the longer wing was introduced on the MC 200. Torque roll only becomes bothersome when the aircraft is slow and very dirty, with gear, flaps, etc hanging out and control inputs lessened. Too much power too quickly in those situations can put your airplane in the ground fast.
Most (if not all) single engine aircraft (even modern light aircraft}) have about 1.5-2 deg offset thrust to counter this problem. The challenge arises at different power settings, meaning that more or less might be needed at different throttle settings - that is why: power-on = right foot, power-off =left foot when doing training is drummed into you.
The explanation given regarding countering torque effect of the Propeller is incomplete and misleading. The Bf109, Spitfire, P-51 very certainly have assymetrical vertical stabilizers which set a kind of Rudder trim into the aircraft - in case of the 109 the only available, while the others have additional trim installations in the cockpit. What the Macchi design is doing regarding the left wing - is to pre-set Aileron Trim in that it produces slightly more lift to counter the roll-moment, which by the other Aicraft must be done by setting up the Ailerons via fixed trim tabs or adjustable ones from the cockpit. But a pre-set trim is only good for a certain speed range, usually cruise speed, below and above it will be out of trim. The reference to the P-38 is a very good one, because it actually flies almost like a Jet and is a superbly stable gun platform. One can do things with a P-38 (or counterrotating twin) which will surprise single engine Fighters regarding initial turnrate. There is another effect of the Prop on same direction turning configurations (99 % of all WWII ac) that is the effect of loading and unloading of the Prop. Almost all modern WWII combat Aircraft had adjustable Prop Pitch-Control where a governor sensed engine RPM and kept a given RPM setting by changing the Angle of Attack of the Prop Blades. Only in steady flight this governor had almost no work to do in all other situations it is constantly changing Angle of Attack with a lag, this induces constantly changing torque forces onto the aircraft - the aircraft yaws to the left when loading the Prop (adding more power or deceleration by an abrupt climb or turn), while it yaws to the right more and more in a dive. The effect had a VERY pronounced detrimental effect on general aircraft stability the higher power to weight ratios went. A Mossie with two Merlin 100 going at 25 lbs Boost and almost 4000 HP will throw the aircraft right into a spin if applied at very low airspeeds. In WWII a good Fighter Pilot was one which mastered his mount totally and that meant to keep it in desired trim all the time, because if they didn't they could not hit anything unless they were right above it. The Me 210 was deemed unacceptable by the RLM because the high asymmetrical power and small rudder made it a very bad weapons platform and dangerous in certain take-off and landing scenarios. Watch for the Jockey of a restored Mossie (on Tube) and his adventures on takeoffs trying to tame the Beast !!! Sadly IL-2 - to please the kids - totally neglected this very vital aspect of flying a Prop Warbird. Watch some Tube Videos with Spits or even P-51s on Takeoff and see what amount of right Rudder they need !!!!!
This seems like it caused way more problems than it solved... It's nice, not having to slightly pull to the side to counter the torque effect, but having bigger stall-related issues, worse spin recovery conditions, problems in sharp turns, that kinda cancels that one little advantage out. Was that really worth it? I'm not sure i would want to fly that...
To be honest - I liked in every Sim the Italian Planes more than the German ones. When we exclude the C.200 Saetta, most of the italian planes were quite good.
Hmmm I wonder if instead of making one wing longer if you could give the wings different camber. Or possibly give it 109 style extending slats but make the one on the shorter wing wider.
Regarding the first part of the video: does the same thing apply for single engine modern turbine planes? They, too, have rotating masses in their engines, of course. Physics says yes, cpu says no, probably?
Do you know Spitfire changed from Merlin to Griffon engines, with the prop turning the other way? Pilots converting had to be very careful at take off.
Some aircraft did, look up the contra-rotating propeller. It doesn't require two engines at all, just additional transmission to drive both using one engine.
I also have to say that the italian engine Alfa Romeo Benz licensed copy was never reliable as the original german. I hoped that the game's developers introduced an unlock which allows you to use original Benz engines with more power and fight power endurance. Because in real war, germans supplied italians with their engines since we were not able to copy them
The P38's counter-rotating engines were primarily to eliminate the critical engine, and make it safe to fly on only one engine. They also eliminated P-factor - while torque makes the aircraft ROLL left, P factor causes the aircraft to YAW left. A multi-engine plane like the P38 won't (or shouldn't) have an issue with torque causing the aircraft to roll as long as at least two engines are running, since both engines will basically cancel each other out, with the torque being applied on different planes. They will, however, still suffer from P-factor absent counter-rotating engines. Again, the P38's engines were done that way to avoid having a critical engine (which yes, is caused by torque), but had the happy effect of eliminating P-factor, resulting in a naturally stable aircraft that did not automatically want to roll or yaw without input.
This is my favourite plane together with the Ki-61's (wich are based on the M.C. 202 Folgore). I remember when i started playing realistic in warthunder i was absolutely shit. Except for this plane, i mostly got 1 or more kills per 3 matches wich still isn't great, but it's a start. Later i met her japanese sister, wich is even better in my opinion and with wich i got atleast 2 kills per match. Now i just have to wait for the Folgore to come on sale so i can buy it. :p And the armanent is alright in my opinion. It could be better but i think if you know how to fly the plane and if you know how to turnfight properly, that shouldn't be a problem. As i always like to say: No matter what caliber, these bullets are still gonna hurt.
Perhaps the designer took inspiration from a classic Italian design: the Venetian gondola. Gondola's have asymmetric profiles to balance the off-center position of the gondolier, and the fact that the propulsive force is exerted on one side. Check it out.
Too clever...
Asymmetric wings react to propeller torque, as venetian gondola react to the single-side oar
@Rudewalrus that's correct, congrats! The cross axis of the gondola's flat bottom and that of its hull (transversally from side to side), rather than being parallel as in any other boat, are in fact converging at roughly 1,5mt off the right side of the boat (which is the side where the gondolier stands and exerts force through the oar), at the waterline level.
Cheers from Venice.
No, you can't fk on a gondola while instead with a macchi 202 you can...
I'm Bismarck, and this is my plane shop. I work here with my old 109 and my son, Big 190. Everything in here has a rudder and a flight stick. One thing I've learned after 21 sorties - you never know WHAT is gonna come through that cloud.
Luftwaffe stars!
Rip the old man, he passed away a couple of weeks ago :(
Kitten Dispenser and his friend, 112
mmmmmmm spitfire fodder!
？? ؟
It might be assymetric but the MC.202 is still a beautifull aircraft.
She is, ja
It’s fucking asymmetric?
*inhale*
*AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
*Proceeds to grab die cast model of M.C.202*
holy shit, he's right!
LoL!
Italian planes look so cool, the RE.2002 is probably my favorite design. Too bad they all use raw spaghetti noodles as ammunition
You kidding me?! That's deadly!!
you said they used bad ammunition did you mean all italian ones or r2002? because g55 amaze
@@bryanwestphal8703 2 12.7mm guns?
@@bryanwestphal8703 the Breda 12.7 are insanely underpowered and weak.
Re.2002? Really?? Either you have very unusual taste, or you really meant to say Re.2005 Sagittario. 🙂
The P-38 btw did not just use counter-rotating propellers but counter-rotating engines, each having its own model number. While this eliminates torque as a whole it creates a whole new series of issues regarding production, logistics & maintenance.
If the engines are counter-rotating, so are the Props. So yes, they are counter-rotating propellors. It's the same thing, just a different word. What they aren't is contra-rotating which is an entirely other affair.
The de Havilland Hornet, whose prototype arrived for service acceptance testing just as the war ended, also used "handed" propellors, and the engines to drive them (a special version of the Roll-Royce Merlin) have different mark numbers. However the only difference is that one of them has a reversing gear in the final drive, while the other does not.
The Allison engine was built such that propellers could be attached to the crankshaft at either end. Turning the engine around would change rotation from counter-clockwise to clockwise (or vice versa). The Allison was also used for a number of prototype aircraft with pusher propellers. Having engines that actually rotated in opposite directions may have been a benefit when revving up or slowing down the engines as the torque required to change the rotating momentum of the engines would cancel each other out in addition to the propeller forces.
The P-38 was ahead of it's time.
No, literally, it came out too early. It was a fantastic fundamental design, could easily have been the best propeller plane in WW II, but it really would have benefited from another 6-12 months of design polishing.
But there was a war going on, so it launched in an "early access" kind of state. It did pretty well in spite of this though.
@@danzervos7606 The engine wasn't turned around, it was the crankshaft that was reversed. The Allison V-1710 had a definite front and a definite rear, however, the front could mount a variety of output units such that the basic engine could be configured for a variety of applications - conventional fighter layout such as the P-40, mid-engine P-39, etc. There was no way to fit the output unit to the rear of the engine.
The French Bloch 150/151/152 series solved this problem by mounting the engine a few degrees off center to counter engine torque.
The BF109 Series where factory trimmed on cruise flight/speed with the red squares on the wings, ruder... You notice that if you fly with a 109 F4 at arround 400-420 Km/h. At this Speed there is no roll tendency.
i read in a book that italian mechanics spent half their time putting back togheter crashed enemy planes, and once used parts taken from a slide in a park to fix an engine (i don't even want to know wtf they came up with), doing this sort of stuff was normal back then.
this is fascinating never knew the 202's wings were so different from each other. love learning something new every day.
I love the M.C. 202. top 3 of my favorit
It's a good plane :) that also happens to be a mixed bag.
it just the guns... it's spaghetti and macaroni lunches Sweden actually bought some M.C. 202 but it did not pass the Swedish weather.
@Martin3148_Swe which ones are the other 2, viking.
The Italians did NOT screw it up - they just do things differently. That's all! The increased length of the left wing of the MC202 (and some other Italian aircraft) was put there to counter "P Factor" during a climb or at high angles of attack, which causes the relative wind to give the down side blade more bite than the up side blade, and to counter engine torque, which was quite large in the big engines. The Italians built in enough ability to TRIM OUT any problems caused by this design characteristic! THE MC 202 WAS A WONDERFUL PLANE! It was admired by the few Allies who were lucky enough to fly it. Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown, the great British test pilot said it was EQUIVALENT TO THE SPITFIRE 5 - which is saying a lot in anybody's language! Naturally, the upgraded MC 205 and experimental MC 206 were deadly, and would have been a handful to fight against in combat. They were supurb maneuvering aircraft. THE ONE WEIRD PROBLEM THE ITALIAN AIRCRAFT ALL HAD was that, like the French, their THROTTLES WERE REVERSED!! When you wanted to INCREASE POWER, you PULLED BACK on the throttle! Fine for the Italians, but if you were an Allied pilot testing the thing, and you were coming in on short final and needed more power, you would naturally push the throttle forward, which was almost like shutting off the engine - bad! --- MACCHI IS A BEAUTIFUL, WONDERFUL, MAGNIFICENT AIRPLANE!!!!!!!!!!! Only the Italians could make them so beautiful. Don't get me started here -- Old Man Bob
Like, you taught me a lot I never knew that about the MC202 and thank you!!!
Welcome :)
A simple and elegant solution.
Well now I can see a reason why this plane was prevented from being made in significant numbers.
Worker 1: What are you doing!? All of these airframes are uneven!
Worker 2: That's how they're supposed to be, according to the blueprints.
Worker 1: What!? ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!
Install another type of engine and a prop turning the other way, and you really must ajust one wingtip. Then you finally have a normal plane. You even have a choice for two long or two short wings. Unless you restore the assymmetrie to the other side. A very smart idea is exchangable wingtips, then you can choose for the designed ease of asymmetrie, or for a normal plane. Let's hope the left and right wing profiles are the same, and the difference is just the wingtips.
That reminds me of a Pilatus B4, an aluminum aerobatic glider. One day the front of the wingtip had a small accident. A little dent. The aircraft technician painted it, leaving the dent. Pulling it out by a small suction cup did not work, I guess. And there was no way to hammer it out, without making a hole and having to repair that too. And here comes the ingenious part. The little bit of drag caused by the dent at the wingtip worked just like giving a bit of rudder. The aircraft technician mounted a small wooden block under the other wingtip. He needed a couple of test flights to sand away just enough wood. Then the small block equalled out the little dent. Just a bit of drag, not enough damage to send that wing to Switzerland or another aircraft workshop for repair.
And it's a funny example of asymmetrie.
infact it was so bad it was the worst nightmare of p51 and spitfires :D all macchi ang fiat series (reggiane too) were way better than all the other piston fighters :) learn history
@@JoséSantich Rule the world? You mean telling those fools, who think they need a president, what to do? Thou shall not rule the world, unless thou art pure love. That's a commandment. Remember the millions killed by those violent lunatics who are adicted to rules and ruling and rude authority. Ruling? Why do you even think about it? Yuk! What has ruling to do with asymmetrical airplanes? Those silly guns aboard for killing pilots born across some border? Get rid of rulers, life will be much better. That's called freedom. There were times when democracy was good. When you only got fools of two kinds, what is democracy worth? You only get yourself a foolish presisent and a foolish government, and perhaps you deserve it. You get ruled by fools in the end. And fools love to press a button, even if it is labeled "Killing the entire earth is so simple, just press this button and watch what happens." There's always an excuse. They started, so we had no choice. We had warned them, but they wouldn't listen. We only stored our nuclear missiles on those Pacific islands, it was not meant as a threat. Things like that is called ruling the world. Some call it foreign policy, others call it rule the world. So proud of the country, it's ruling the world!
@@JoséSantich Thank you. Jokes are fun. Get a hug!
i always learn something new to me on your channel, keep up the good research !
The M.C. 202 is a strange aircraft, full of contradictions in it's own design. It's very hard for me to come to a conclusion on this aircraft as it is, essentially, nothing but a mixed bag.
Btw, I still need a title for this series and as I am shit with those, I award an imaginary Iron Cross 2nd Class to anyone coming up with a short, snappy, interesting and fitting title. Yup, it's hard.
"G.I.I.F.A" German Inspection of Inferior Foreign Aircraft
call it 'Tech Lessons in WW2 Aircraft'
call it 'Tech Lessons in WW2 Aircraft'
"Birds eye review"
the MC202 has the same wing setup like the Blohm&Voss BV237 but the BV237 has 2 different lenghts of elevator. But it's the same effect as the MC202
Very interesting information, thank you.
R J Mitchell, one of the Spitfire designers was a great admirer of the Italian ideas. This one most useful on take- off.
If I was Mussolini I would have gone to Hitler and told him I wanted a DB601E/ MG 151/20 for the Macchi 202 and then if he said now I would have told him I was not going anywhere until he said yes. Imaigine if the mc202 had gotten a db601e and a single motor cannon!!! it would have been able to compete against late war allied planes even if it was at a disadvantage but the origial configuration of db601Aa and 2 12.7 was inadequate as hell!!
The plane wasnt properly balanced around adding such a weapon, it threw off the center of gravity too much, the plane had to be redesigned and it was already hard to manufacture
This past spring, in a modeling group on FB, someone posted a complaint about a model he built of the MC 202. Would you believe the kit was so poorly designed that one wing was longer than the other!! He then detailed how he had to fix that.
... He was a bit embarrassed when commenters helpfully pointed out that the 202's wings were _made_ that way... LOL.
The vertical tail of 109's from F onwards, had aerofoil shapes to counter prop torque and p-factor. Like a wing but instead of producing lift, the tail was pushed to the left.
It was a big issue when the bf 109 got a merlin ... post war Hispano HA 112 . They play as messerchmits in the film " The battle ob Britain"
P40 also had asymmetrical vertical stabiliser and rudder.
I've always found it to be an interesting solution, but not a very good one. I've toyed around with asymmetrical wing lengths in X-Plane and always found that it only worked in a set airspeed range (too low, prop torque wins, plane rolls counterclockwise; two high wing lift wins, plane rolls clockwise) plus all of the aforementioned issues with stall characteristics and maneuverability. It could be a good solution for light sport planes, if they actually produced enough prop torque for it to be necessary - and with a ~200hp engine, that isn't likely - but on fighters that need to operate in a wide envelope of conditions, it causes far more problems than it fixes.
Indeed, it fixed one (minor) issue while producing other, more severe one's.
Nice video. The french made Bloch Mb152 of the 40s used an other solution : engine axis out of axis (5 degrees left side). Visually disturbing but efficient. BTW, after the war Bloch became Dassault.
Very educational, thank you Bismarck.
And I thank you ^^
Awesome video Bismarck!
Thank you, Cedric
6 years later and I still haven't forgiven you for making this video
I would personally find it fun and interesting if my math teacher gave us a problem that dealt with this. finding out how much longer the wing had to be to cancel the torque from the engine
Moments about a point. Things to consider does the torque increase with engine speed? Dose the size and rotational speed of the propeller effect the amount of torque? If so what effect does increasing/decreasing the size/amount of the engine power have? It would make maths/physics lessons interesting!
One can assume that torque is a function of engine output power. Counter torque from the wing would be a function of aircraft speed and angle of attack. Consequently they would not necessarily correspond and cancel each other out.
I wish it was just maths
I have read about this plane many times but never in detail so was unaware of this feature. I guess it had some interesting flick role tendencies, as well as stall and spin. A classic case of solving one problem and creating many more in the process.
Very interesting. Alternate approaches are where we learn the most lasting lessons. The Eindekker . . . Interruptor Gear . . . cannon for shooting down large aircraft quickly . . . climb + dive versus roll and turn rate . . . and that, for most pilots, "Speed is Life".
Since it was asymmetry as an effective torque countering method, would engine cooling intakes mounted on the opposite side counter torque as well as asymmetric lift? Unequal drag, in other words, rather than unequal lift.
And thanks for posting. As with Bernard, you force me to think, to reconsider my preconceived notions. Great stuff for an old guy worried about ossification of intellect.
First I thought you wanted us to see the unsymmetrical shape of the nose. Untill I looked in the description I never knew that planes are unsymmetric. Very interesting information you gave us :)
That asymmetry is due to the engine supercharger intake! It's that weird tube thing sticking out of the side of the engine
The most glaring 'symmetry' destroyer for planes tend to be the intakes etc.
Man the early Spits and their different radiators D:
Never noticed it, but now it can't be unseen! Still a beautiful machine though :D
Italian aerodynamists were top-notch back in the days ! They still are and produce wonderful cars !
Don't forget that Mussolini strongly encouraged scientific developpment in fascist Italy to bring back some sort of "roman science" from Antiquity !
idk about cars look at peugeot
Peugeot is french??????
What they say about Mussolini is that under him the trains ran on time.
@@martismartiis813 what
@@danzervos7606 ahah, right. No train is late if the train driver that is late gets shot.
*Fascist problems require fascist solutions.*
As for small single engine aircraft. They will have the engine mounted so the propeller is pointed a bit to the the left or right and bit up or down, depending on the engine rotation and the aircraft it's mounted on. The vertical tail will also be mounted with the leading edge offset to the right or left, depending on the engine. Of course these mods are set, to work best at the speed the aircraft will be flying at, for majority of the time.
As for bigger planes they also do this and add rudder trim. The pilots learns, to trim the airplane at all times wether, climbing, diving, turning or just flying level.
*OCD TRIGGERED
You just ruined any future flights i have with the 202 :'(
Same... x)
NO! NO! NO! The Machi 202 was MAGNIFICENT!!!! Look at my comments above -one of the great dogfighting planes, one of the best ever built! Sculpted by Italians ---- BEAUTY!!!! -- Old Man Bob
I don't know why this stupid font keeps drawing lines through my comments - disregard the lines! Best wishes, Bob
Fred Ferd If you put two - symbols it draws a line through them.
Some fighter aircraft attempted to minimize this torque effect by mounting the engine at an angle in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Another technique was to mount the vertical stabilizer with a built-in cant to create a giant trim tab. The final solution is to mount counter rotating propellers on the same engine. The British used this feature in the final marks of the Spitfire. This is the only example of this approach in a fighter I am aware of.
try and fly the fiat G.50 and then we can talk about stall recovery nightmare, trust me you will miss the c.202
It's an old thread but very interesting, and besides, countering torque in air vehicles is a timeless quest. This approach got me thinking. We've got all manner of things sticking out of the wings of modern aircraft, right? Why not one more - a retractable wing extender. Deploy when you want it, retract it when you don't.
At this point i always like to point at the Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil" and the Fokker D.XXIII which had a front and rear propeller that turned into opposite directions to cancel out each others torque.
In competitive free flight, asymmetrical wings are almost imperative when it comes to performing. This is because to achieve the longest time, the model is to fly in a constant turn while remaining level (or at least very close)
Actually, the 109 had an airfoil section to the vertical stab and rudder meant to counteract the pull on takeoff. It was, obviously, only partially effective and when the Czechs built 109s with Junkers 211s it actually made the problem worse because they turned in the opposite direction. Also. The F4U Corsair had a couple degrees of right trim built into the vertical stab. Many, many, single engine planes have used the simple expedient of a bit of angle in the engine thrust line to overcome torque effects.
It seems that the Star Citizen spacecraft called Corsair, probably the most beautiful and complete one, does actually make use of inspiration from all this... topic and takes inspiration even from the czech name airframe, combining then the purpose the ship in Star Citizen has (piracy base)
That torque effect is called P factor and to those talking about stall spins. One of the steps for recovery is idle power, negating that effect.
Fun fact: the P factor is nowadays mostly overlooked by aerospace engineering students unless they are pilots themselves. It's really easy to account for.
There are actually 4 forces, not one, that cause this left turning tendency. The torque effect is the first, but there are three others. 2) in a climb, the angle of attack of one blade increases, while one blade decreases, causing a pulling tendency to the left, 3) the rotating slipstream of the propeller pushes against the tail, causing a left yaw, and 4) gyroscopic precession dictates that a force on a spinning moment (the propeller) is felt 90 degrees prior to the application. By pulling up, you are also pushing it to the left. That said, most of these don't mean shit unless you're doing takeoffs, but, in a hammerhead, you will always fall to the left (or right if you have a weird prop) unless you actively correct that.
This is amazing... The macchi puts in more randomness in dog fights:)
This one was also very weird because it has a "backwards" throttle- you pull to increase power and push to decrease. This led to German pilot Hans Joachim Marseille crashing in a wheels-up landing after he borrowed an M.C.202 for a test flight (or, because it was him, more likely a joyride). As he was flying, his brain began operating in "pilot mode", entirely by reflexes and feel, so when he went to increase power, he accidentally turned off the engine.
There are actually two separate effects here; torque and P-factor. Torque causes a rolling motion, and P-factor causes a yawing motion. Obviously, on these old stick and string airplanes without computer controls, a yaw tends to generate a roll also and vice versa, so in practice the two effects blend together a bit.
Torque is exactly what you described, P-factor is caused when the plane is at at slight angle of attack. The propeller no longer bites the air perpendicular to the propeller disc, and the relative airspeeds of the prop blades on the left and right becomes slightly different, causing the net thrust of the propeller to become slightly off-center.
The effect may be predictable enough for a seasoned pilot to deal with it, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect on flight performance. When you deflect the flight control surfaces you add drag. A P-38 jock, then, could firewall their throttles without having to worry about rudder deflection or aileron input slowing them down at all.
RAWtiercel You missed prop wash creating a vortex around the fuselage and putting more pressure on one side of the rudder. A number of planes adjust the rudder slightly for that but it's limited to one configuration. You can see it on where the rudder meets the fuselage on the Hurricane for example.
How many pilots did the Italians lose because of torque affect in their early stages of training? This alone may of have made up for the drawbacks.
Not many tho italian planes were designed woth specific take off characteristics. When Italian royalist pilots tried allied planes they sometimes died. One of italy's best aaces died from a us plane on take off due to it being hard to take off. The English also disliked the type for this.
Ok I physically hurt from that plane design
Increase cost production (altho by a small margin) to give pilot fixed and very primitive trim that hinder him in every situation except flying in specific conditions at specific speed, now that's 200IQ move
You should do one on the Blohm & Vos Bv 141, which was startlingly asymmetrical.
I love your explaining videos where you tell facts about the aircrafts ! You could start a new serie, named something like: Bismarck explains!
Pretty much already is a series with this being Ep. 3. Have some planes for the next few others but it takes time.
It's still my favourite aircraft regardless.
Interesting that it works so well. I guess you still get torque effects on acceleration and in climb.
Btw some aircraft had asymetrical rudder that was like a wing sometimes even deflected to one side. I heard that about Bf 109 but can't fund it anywhere.
That’s very cool! I had no idea even though
The slightly larger left wing also meant a larger aileron, which gave more control authority in a right-hand turn, again, counteracting torque.
I can never un-see this.
I love your videos just as this plane :D
It may be asymmetrical but it’s so beautiful
Ok about the propeller torque but it not only this, there is the prop slipstream that makes an incidence at the vertical tail especially at taking off. Also, you should mention contra-rotating propellers. Trim-tabs at the ailerons would solve the problem
having a plane that tries to roll right gives it a faster roll rate to the right than left, which is a huge advantage when performing a Split S evade manoeuvre to shake an opponent on one's six that has a plane that is roll biased to the left, such as the Bf-109, Fw-190, P-47, etc.
Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were taught to always roll to the right when evading German fighters for this reason. Those that forgot this lesson usually didn't live to learn from the mistake.
for you Imperials: use "Freedom Units" instead lol sehr Sarkasticher
Great channel Bis ! always good stuff hire..XD
I recall I think Eric (Winkle) Brown relating a story about a JU88 thattye RAF had created out of several crash landed JU88s in early 41, when having assembled it they just thought there was something wrong with it but could not quite put their finger on it,, so they got a captured German pilot to cast his eye over it. He looked at from one side and walked to the other and burst out laughing. Apparently the wings were from two subtle variants one have a small increase in span over the other!
This will never stop bothering me.
Thank you Bismarck for giving some love to our old puppy, the Folgore!
Well that is a very nice and simple solution to the torque effect. (the behaviour during a stall is perhaps a bit of an inconvenience, but oh well)
Are there any explosive .50 cal round options for the M.C. 202 in game btw? I do remember hearing Bo say that the Italians had some sort of explosive rounds for their .50 cals and that, according to pilots, the .50s left holes the size of 20mm cannon rounds (I think, don't remember very well) in their wings.
The explosive rounds were rubbish because the bullet was too little for a useful explosive charge. But the incendiary rounds in that machine gun was very effective
+Alessandro Monge Not necessarily true, the Breda-SAFAT guns used in Italian aircraft carried around 4.5g of HE filler per shell I believe. And from what I remember the Russian ShVAK 20mm cannon had about ~9g of HE filler per shell. So damage wise 2 12.7mm HE shells was almost equal to a single 20mm Russian cannon shell. They were fairly effective per their weight, but the longer shell meant a shorter case, and so their velocity was not as easy to use as it could have been. Germans used HE in their MG131 13mm guns as well, since it used the same design doctrine of longer shells but less case length. The only reason Russians and the US didn't use them was for 2 reasons: A) because the .50 BMG and 12.7x108mm guns had smaller length shells meant that HE filler weight was limited to 1-2g making them relatively ineffective. and B) Because the 2 previously mentioned shells had so much velocity (relative to their German and Italian counterparts), AP and AP-I were better choices, since though they did not have the raw power of explosives, they were still able to pinch through wing spars, radios, armor, and engine blocks very easily
You surely true, but I just reported italian pilots' feelings read in books... I surely noticed that the best ammunition type for this machine gun was the incendiary one... Also remember that the italian .50 cal was very slower then the american/russian ones!
+Alessandro Monge Yup! I remember reading a British pilot saying that just a couple of hits made holes bigger than his head in the wings of his Hurricane
Actually, I read interwies of italian pilots who said that the HE shell was effective. It depended moslty on ammunition. Early breda HE shells had istant fuse, so they had the tendency blow outside the aircraft, dealing little to none damage. Later shells had delayed fuse, those were effective
MC 200 also had the asymmetrical wing. The Mc 202 just inherited it. I wonder if the wing was more of an issue with the more powerful inline engine or if they adjusted the manufacture to suit the higher power. Most nations offset the vertical stabilizer on many aircraft to help with the torque issue so the the MC 200 and MC 202 are only unique in solution. I am thinking the vertical stabilizers were a better fix overall but very few people were comparing notes around 1940-41.
The best solution ultimately was probably a counter-rotating double prop. These were only developed right at the end of prop warplane development however.
Examples being the Seafire Mk 46 and 47 and the Westland Wyvern. Both were carrier born aircraft where a tendency to pull to either side on takeoff would be a major issue.
Apparently you never heard of Macchi MC.72. it flew in 1931 and had contra-rotating propellers
And by the way you made confusion between counter-rotating propellers(not coaxial, like in P-38) and contra-rotating propellers(coaxial, like in MC.72 and many years later in very late versions of Spitfires)
This is going to haunt me for forever…..
Torque Effect was even more pronounced in the P-51 than in the Bf-109. Pilots flying the P-51 couldn't use full throttle during takeoff because of it.
The Corsair had big problems with torque from its large propeller. I think they had to attach a special stabilizer on the top of the wing on one side to make up for it.
Yes. They called the F-4U The Ensign Eliminator because of that torque. If you increased the throttle to rapidly and the air wouldn't allow the prop to increase it's speed fast enough the aircraft would rotate about the prop ...
.
Actually, a lot of fighters had the problem, there were different ways to address it structurally. The wing was one way, but there were others that were just not as extreme looking as the Italian solution. It didn't start with the 202, the longer wing was introduced on the MC 200. Torque roll only becomes bothersome when the aircraft is slow and very dirty, with gear, flaps, etc hanging out and control inputs lessened. Too much power too quickly in those situations can put your airplane in the ground fast.
The French Bloch fighters had their engines sticking out at an askew sort of angle for the same reason.
Most (if not all) single engine aircraft (even modern light aircraft}) have about 1.5-2 deg offset thrust to counter this problem. The challenge arises at different power settings, meaning that more or less might be needed at different throttle settings - that is why: power-on = right foot, power-off =left foot when doing training is drummed into you.
The explanation given regarding countering torque effect of the Propeller is incomplete and misleading. The Bf109, Spitfire, P-51 very certainly have assymetrical vertical stabilizers which set a kind of Rudder trim into the aircraft - in case of the 109 the only available, while the others have additional trim installations in the cockpit. What the Macchi design is doing regarding the left wing - is to pre-set Aileron Trim in that it produces slightly more lift to counter the roll-moment, which by the other Aicraft must be done by setting up the Ailerons via fixed trim tabs or adjustable ones from the cockpit. But a pre-set trim is only good for a certain speed range, usually cruise speed, below and above it will be out of trim. The reference to the P-38 is a very good one, because it actually flies almost like a Jet and is a superbly stable gun platform. One can do things with a P-38 (or counterrotating twin) which will surprise single engine Fighters regarding initial turnrate. There is another effect of the Prop on same direction turning configurations (99 % of all WWII ac) that is the effect of loading and unloading of the Prop. Almost all modern WWII combat Aircraft had adjustable Prop Pitch-Control where a governor sensed engine RPM and kept a given RPM setting by changing the Angle of Attack of the Prop Blades. Only in steady flight this governor had almost no work to do in all other situations it is constantly changing Angle of Attack with a lag, this induces constantly changing torque forces onto the aircraft - the aircraft yaws to the left when loading the Prop (adding more power or deceleration by an abrupt climb or turn), while it yaws to the right more and more in a dive. The effect had a VERY pronounced detrimental effect on general aircraft stability the higher power to weight ratios went. A Mossie with two Merlin 100 going at 25 lbs Boost and almost 4000 HP will throw the aircraft right into a spin if applied at very low airspeeds. In WWII a good Fighter Pilot was one which mastered his mount totally and that meant to keep it in desired trim all the time, because if they didn't they could not hit anything unless they were right above it. The Me 210 was deemed unacceptable by the RLM because the high asymmetrical power and small rudder made it a very bad weapons platform and dangerous in certain take-off and landing scenarios. Watch for the Jockey of a restored Mossie (on Tube) and his adventures on takeoffs trying to tame the Beast !!! Sadly IL-2 - to please the kids - totally neglected this very vital aspect of flying a Prop Warbird. Watch some Tube Videos with Spits or even P-51s on Takeoff and see what amount of right Rudder they need !!!!!
When I first looked at the He 111 H-3 from above in war thunder i felt like i wanted a new bomber now
I never knew that. Thanks!
The Mosquito had both props turning the same way which made takeoffs tricky.
very interesting piece of insight
Thrust angles help counter torque effects.
The Spitfires, up to mark9, had the radiatorscoop on the starboard wing, to counter the torque.
If it does not fit, you must acquit!
Always easy to shoot down an enemy plane in the 202 when they don’t try to get out of the way lol great video though!
IIRC, the Corsair counteracted it by having the vertical stabilizer off-set
i thought p 38s didnt have counter rotating props so they didnt have to manufacture 2 different engines and have mixed engines
Please do a video on the Romanian IAR-80. You do great work.
This seems like it caused way more problems than it solved... It's nice, not having to slightly pull to the side to counter the torque effect, but having bigger stall-related issues, worse spin recovery conditions, problems in sharp turns, that kinda cancels that one little advantage out. Was that really worth it? I'm not sure i would want to fly that...
The original P38 did not have counter rotating engines. It was the British that suggested it.
To be honest - I liked in every Sim the Italian Planes more than the German ones.
When we exclude the C.200 Saetta, most of the italian planes were quite good.
Thanks very interesting!!
I love it.
Hmmm I wonder if instead of making one wing longer if you could give the wings different camber. Or possibly give it 109 style extending slats but make the one on the shorter wing wider.
Regarding the first part of the video: does the same thing apply for single engine modern turbine planes? They, too, have rotating masses in their engines, of course. Physics says yes, cpu says no, probably?
Do you know Spitfire changed from Merlin to Griffon engines, with the prop turning the other way? Pilots converting had to be very careful at take off.
I thought a lot of these machines had the engine mounted slightly askew to reduce this tendency at speed.
Why don’t we have two propellers one in front of the other, rotating in different directions.
Some aircraft did, look up the contra-rotating propeller. It doesn't require two engines at all, just additional transmission to drive both using one engine.
I also have to say that the italian engine Alfa Romeo Benz licensed copy was never reliable as the original german. I hoped that the game's developers introduced an unlock which allows you to use original Benz engines with more power and fight power endurance. Because in real war, germans supplied italians with their engines since we were not able to copy them
Ma che minchia stai scrivendo....
What does OCD here stand for? If not for "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder", then what is it?
It does stand for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's just a way of saying that it will bother some people because its not perfectly symmetrical.
The P38's counter-rotating engines were primarily to eliminate the critical engine, and make it safe to fly on only one engine. They also eliminated P-factor - while torque makes the aircraft ROLL left, P factor causes the aircraft to YAW left.
A multi-engine plane like the P38 won't (or shouldn't) have an issue with torque causing the aircraft to roll as long as at least two engines are running, since both engines will basically cancel each other out, with the torque being applied on different planes. They will, however, still suffer from P-factor absent counter-rotating engines.
Again, the P38's engines were done that way to avoid having a critical engine (which yes, is caused by torque), but had the happy effect of eliminating P-factor, resulting in a naturally stable aircraft that did not automatically want to roll or yaw without input.
They did change the direction the engines rotated as the original arrangement made it harder to control with an engine failure.
Yeah, the floor pan of an Alfa Romeo Giullietta is 10cm wider on the driver's side than the passenger side. I'm seeing a trend here......
Cole Taylor
Trend ... ? Ignorance is all you're ever gonna have
And you didn't get the joke so who's really the ignoramus?
The designer of the MC 202 Folgore thought the wings were the same length when designing the aircraft
This is my favourite plane together with the Ki-61's (wich are based on the M.C. 202 Folgore). I remember when i started playing realistic in warthunder i was absolutely shit. Except for this plane, i mostly got 1 or more kills per 3 matches wich still isn't great, but it's a start. Later i met her japanese sister, wich is even better in my opinion and with wich i got atleast 2 kills per match. Now i just have to wait for the Folgore to come on sale so i can buy it. :p
And the armanent is alright in my opinion. It could be better but i think if you know how to fly the plane and if you know how to turnfight properly, that shouldn't be a problem. As i always like to say: No matter what caliber, these bullets are still gonna hurt.