Think about fixed pitch props and the need for a very coarse pitch to achieve high cruise speeds, how well would that work at slow speed such as on take off? Given the limited thrust available from such an inefficient prop at slow speed how long a take off roll would be required for such an aeroplane? Where would one find a sufficiently long and flat take off surface on land?
You don't see many seaplane racers after they invented VP props!
The rules of the Schneider cup specified that it was for seaplanes / flying boats, and was a speed competition. Because it became so prestigious, countries put a lot of effort into producing fast waterborne aircraft in order to meet the rules,hence the seaplane racers.
Had the competition been for landplanes they would no doubt have produced landplane racers, which would possibly have been even faster. Since, as sea planes, they had an awful lot of oggin for a take - off run, the biggest problem with fixed (coarse) pitch propellors was probably that of keeping straight. As regards the Swordfish, the difference between take off speed and cruising speed was not that great (think large Tiger Moth), so a fixed pitch prop would work well enough.
Given the limited thrust available from such an inefficient prop at slow speed how long a take off roll would be required for such an aeroplane? Where would one find a sufficiently long and flat take off surface on land?
the biggest problem with fixed (coarse) pitch propellors was probably that of keeping straight
A friend of mine recently sent me a contemporary article about the development of the Supermarine S5 and S6. Full of very interesting facts and anecdotes. I'll try to post a link.
Pertinent to this thread, was that the torque during takeoff was so high that it tended to bury one of the floats. To try to compensate for this, one float was made bigger than the other!
Slight thread drift, but during development of the R engine, at one point, it was consuming 120 gallons of OIL per hour.
Surely no-one could make a longer thread out of this one....but I'll wait and see.....
Sorry for the thread drift, but just responding to the previous post and helping to confound Wander00
I agree with Ghengis, but as English is a steadily evolving language, things do change (not always for the better). This is the consensus on the Web (so it must be true )
Quote:
In American and Canadian English, spelt means exclusively a hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe, and the verb spell makes spelled in its past-tense and past-participial forms. In varieties of English from outside North America, spelt and spelled both work as past-tense and past-participial forms of spell. They are interchangeable, and both are in common use.
British and Australian writers apparently make no distinction between spelled and spelt, using them as both past participles and past-tense forms of spell.
Next Post (preferably back on thread)................................
Although the following has been told previously there may be some who missed it.
In the memoirs of a retired airforce officer he tells a true story whereby the stations Walrus air/sea rescue a/c had come back from its RAF equivilant of annual C of A - but with very poor performance - barely able to clear the boundary hedge on take off etc. Despite numerous investigations and adjustments up to senior engineering officer heights the mighty and exalted had got no where ! Then stepped forward Paddy - a lowly AC-nil who's inability to hold down any worthwhile duty had relegated him to being placed airman in charge of hanger floor sweeping. To the senior engineering officer he stepped forward and said
"I think I know whats wrong Sir - The propeller is on 'back to front." !
Perhaps some one will recognise the book and its author.
and there'd be no trees in the way either!
)
