7 ms·
You mean Bf109 I think. The P-51 started 3 and then moved to 4. Ditto P-47. FW-190 and F6F stayed at 3 whole time afaik. Tempest started with 4. So it varied. B
by rusanu 10y ago
You mean Bf109 I think. The P-51 started 3 and then moved to 4. Ditto P-47. FW-190 and F6F stayed at 3 whole time afaik. Tempest started with 4. So it varied. But there is a trend of the early (1939) designs to have 3 and the late (1944) designs to have 4. I guess available power from the engine plays a big role, as engines got more powerful they started fitting 4 blades. Using the extra power on 3 blades would require longer blades (which is problematic), spinning them faster (again, problematic as tips reach sound barrier) or increasing the pitch (I guess there are aerodynamic limits for that).
- _Codemonkeyism 10y agoThanks, how emberrassing, yes Bf109. "I guess available power from the engine plays a big role, as engines got more powerful they started fitting 4 blades." Good one.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoThis is a really cool write-up. Another thing that might be of interest was the performance of the aircraft. There's a guy in Texas with 6 non-flying 109s, a couple P-51s, and some other stuff for sale as a lot. He's a former stunt pilot, flew in the movie 'Battle of Britain' and several others. In his words, the 109 handled much better at the limit than the P-51. The P-51 could dive and go very fast, but with poor control. In his opinion the 109 was the superior aircraft. Not sure if it relates at all to the prop discussion, but maybe in the grand scheme of engineering? Those warbirds are fascinating pieces of hardware to me.