Wow! Fabulous. I love these late model Spitfires and the contra rotating propeller adds another dimension - presumably improves performance and torque steer.
The PR XIX never used the contra rotating prop operationally, this one was fitted with a Griffon from an Avro Shackleton and used cut down Shack props. I believe the idea was to use it for a speed record/air racing (not sure which, seen both listed). The wingtips were also clipped (later refitted to the proper full tips). I believe only the last 3 versions of the Seafire (Fr45-47) used the contra rotating prop. It helped a lot with the torque from what i've heard, I think most say the Griffon could never be used at full power on takeoff with the standard 5 bladed propellor, and even then had a tendency to swing because of the immense torque.
it would have performed even better during the War....They were using 150octane is most of these, and safe to assume for a photo recon plane which relies on speed/performance...
I listened to a podcast from a WW2 spitfire pilot and he said towards the end of the war they wouldn't use the latest spitfires preferring the mk9 because they were lighter and more manageable.
indeed when i stood beside this XIX model i felt the front heavyness and the huge torque it must have from this beast of engine. The IX was the top of the mountain for the Spit such as the F and early G model of the 109.
Pros and cons of contra rotating prop: Pros, elimination of all adverse factors related with asymmetry and torque, giving a more precise flight without constant trimming for different engine settings. This was a must on carrier take off and landing. Also, for the same prop area, with an extra blade, the diameter was reduced, giving more prop clearance in carrier landings. Cons, weight complexity, that was a box of tricks, more parts that can fail.
very nice spitfire! i love the contraprop! i read in the comments, it doesn't exist anymore... that's sad! what do you think of the seafang? the most advanced spitfire?
no, the later RR engines had a special carburettor which helps, but i think it can not fly with negantive g´s as long as a direct injected engine. Still a beast !!
kubanskiloewe well actually the engines from around 1941 had want they called an 'injection carburetor', what is now referred to as 'single point fuel injection'. It used a diaphragm under constant pressure instead of a float chamber. It can handle any amount of negative G.
Living near the old Battle of Britain memorial flight’s base in the 60s I’ve watched many warbirds over the years. This Spitfire is incredible and the smoothest sounding Griffon I’ve ever heard! Although they were testing contra rotating propellers on the mark 14 prototypes early in 1943, it’s such a shame they never made it onto the production aircraft. Pity this 19 in this configuration isn’t still around.
@@wilburfinnigan2980 Wrong little willy wanker. The reason for the short take off and initial climb is that the contra rotating props cancel out the massive torque of the engine so the pilot can use more than low revs and boost which was normal until off the ground, then he could open up to climb faster than anything else.. The Spitfire would still out maneuver any US fighter as well as have much better climb and acceleration. Any pilot in a Spitfire would be more than happy to be in the best fighter of the war. The added weight may make a bit of difference but it was still in a class of it's own.
great planes !! in their day !!! love the engine sounds ! then went over to jets !!! problem was the poms couldn't get jets in fast enough !!! like the sabre jet we got these after korea not during about 1954 flew this after the meteor !!! lol imagine if an A29 mirage came up against a Spitfire ???? Lol I'll leave that to your imagination !!!!!!
@F22RaptorSquadron with the contrarotating Prop you can pull faster to max Power as with single Propeller; an grass it is the same distance or a bit shorter i think, Spitfires and 109´s are made for grass runway´s
Contra rotating props allowed full boost to be used for take off, normally they had to limit it to + 7 lbs boost until off the ground when they could use more power.
Barry Rodliffe I was not aware of that. So then for this application on take off, full boost would be significantly higher. Boost would be greater than 2 fold ? BTW, with the contra - rotating props and that massive spinner, this kite looks all the more aggressive. Stunning in fact. Cheers.
she would outclass the 262 in start, steepclimb, maneauverability and acceleration with no doubt ! BUT a 262 flown at high speeds would be always the Boss in the sky and dictate the fight ;-) Its pretty much the same as a P51 vs a MIG15.
A Mark XIX? I know this mark was Griffon powered, but I thought the contra-rotating prop unit came later on the Mark 22 or 24. Can anyone clear this up? Edit. Ah, the Mark XIX DID have CRPs fitted. More info here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-rotating_propellers
for sure it is ! this engine has so much torque and the 6blade contra Propeller can use ALL of this without rolling the whole plane to one side ! Therefore it accelerate straight like a jet ! Here this is the plane a few years later when they changed the propeller and engine (but still a Griffon engine ) ruclips.net/video/rmLkMETLKKs/видео.html
The Spitfire with a Griffon engine was limited to + 7lbs boost for take off, then they would use + 14 lbs for bormal climb or even up to + 25lbs boost maximum , the contra rotating prop would allow full boost for take off, once in flight it made little difference and the heavier contra prop was not quite as good for climb or acceleration, but the take off on this video is very impressive.
graham woodward with one prop the a/c swings violently due to torque and other factors. With two contra rotating props those factors are annulated. So you may apply full power and sometimes it could surge.
The negative point are complexity and nose weight. Apart from control the other positive thing is that blades are shorter having more ground clearence.
better in acceleration and much less torque to one side....perhaps none at all. He can push the lever full forward without slipping away from the torque monster engine.
The main difference is the pilot could use full boost and revs for take off rather than low revs and only 7 lbs boost because of the massive torque effect with the normal 5 blade pro, which is why this one climbs like that. Once off the ground there is not so much difference.
It's an experimental plane, by the Royal Air Force as way to test out the counter rotating props, alas no unfortunately this plane never saw action during WW2 , like I said the plane was test bed for many of the Royal Air Force experiments on aviation technologies of that period, however this not the only experimental spitfire aircraft that the British experiment with , there's also the spitfire seaplane a mark 10 on floats and then there's the twin seater night fighter variant where the radar operator seats in rear cockpit.
This is a Spitfire Mk XIX that was used during the war for photo reconnaissance, the Spitfires on floats were both Mk V and Mk IX but they were never used operationally, the twin seat Spitfires were for training, they were modified Mk VIII and Mk IX. The Spitfire was used for many things but not as a night fighter, Britain had the Beaufighters and then the Mosquitos for that. If you think about it the front was full of engine, where could one fit radar?
Some Mk.I's or II's were used for night fighting....landing was too tricky though. A number of Mk.IX's were converted to two-seaters in 1950, for the Irish Air Corps.
as far as i know, no it did´nt. This plane was repainted and fitted with a new engine with no contrrotating propeller. This is it nowadays ;-) ruclips.net/video/rmLkMETLKKs/видео.html
Wow! Fabulous. I love these late model Spitfires and the contra rotating propeller adds another dimension - presumably improves performance and torque steer.
The PR XIX never used the contra rotating prop operationally, this one was fitted with a Griffon from an Avro Shackleton and used cut down Shack props. I believe the idea was to use it for a speed record/air racing (not sure which, seen both listed). The wingtips were also clipped (later refitted to the proper full tips). I believe only the last 3 versions of the Seafire (Fr45-47) used the contra rotating prop. It helped a lot with the torque from what i've heard, I think most say the Griffon could never be used at full power on takeoff with the standard 5 bladed propellor, and even then had a tendency to swing because of the immense torque.
Wow, what a great sound from the engine and props!!!
What a thing!Awesome and beautiful❤👍!
Thank you for not playing music or talking. Awesome sound....
My favorite spitfire.
I can see now why this plane has the Height record for a piston plane
ABSOLUTE POWER
Wow, that aircraft has a VERY short takeoff distance. Probably wouldn't be that much longer on a grass runway too
it would have performed even better during the War....They were using 150octane is most of these, and safe to assume for a photo recon plane which relies on speed/performance...
Increíble sound
I listened to a podcast from a WW2 spitfire pilot and he said towards the end of the war they wouldn't use the latest spitfires preferring the mk9 because they were lighter and more manageable.
indeed when i stood beside this XIX model i felt the front heavyness and the huge torque it must have from this beast of engine. The IX was the top of the mountain for the Spit such as the F and early G model of the 109.
@@kubanskiloewe he said it was like driving a small car with a Lamborghini engine in it
@@tamar5261 yep, this engine would be have be more fitting in the younger P51 design, hmm. a 190long nose with it would be also nice :-)
Pros and cons of contra rotating prop: Pros, elimination of all adverse factors related with asymmetry and torque, giving a more precise flight without constant trimming for different engine settings. This was a must on carrier take off and landing. Also, for the same prop area, with an extra blade, the diameter was reduced, giving more prop clearance in carrier landings. Cons, weight complexity, that was a box of tricks, more parts that can fail.
Thanks for the UL! What a beautiful plane! That SOUND!!! I got goosebumps!
3:02 No Spit problem here! No cut off of the engine at negative G.
very nice spitfire! i love the contraprop! i read in the comments, it doesn't exist anymore... that's sad!
what do you think of the seafang? the most advanced spitfire?
no, the later RR engines had a special carburettor which helps, but i think it can not fly with negantive g´s as long as a direct injected engine. Still a beast !!
kubanskiloewe well actually the engines from around 1941 had want they called an 'injection carburetor', what is now referred to as 'single point fuel injection'. It used a diaphragm under constant pressure instead of a float chamber. It can handle any amount of negative G.
Ty that problem was fixed in Jan 41
Living near the old Battle of Britain memorial flight’s base in the 60s I’ve watched many warbirds over the years. This Spitfire is incredible and the smoothest sounding Griffon I’ve ever heard! Although they were testing contra rotating propellers on the mark 14 prototypes early in 1943, it’s such a shame they never made it onto the production aircraft. Pity this 19 in this configuration isn’t still around.
yep, they changed the propeller and gear, perhaps the engine too but its still a Griffon ! ruclips.net/video/C2LbeGmB8oQ/видео.html
What a beast! I did not know there was a contra prop version. Shows how much i know😢
very rare ! .....this one was converted later into a 1 propeller version too...i have videos from it; planes is now brown coloured
this would have changed history, at the right time, wow
@@wilburfinnigan2980
Wrong little willy wanker.
The reason for the short take off and initial climb is that the contra rotating props cancel out the massive torque of the engine so the pilot can use more than low revs and boost which was normal until off the ground, then he could open up to climb faster than anything else..
The Spitfire would still out maneuver any US fighter as well as have much better climb and acceleration. Any pilot in a Spitfire would be more than happy to be in the best fighter of the war.
The added weight may make a bit of difference but it was still in a class of it's own.
How?
great planes !! in their day !!! love the engine sounds ! then went over to jets !!! problem was the poms couldn't get jets in fast enough !!! like the sabre jet we got these after korea not during about 1954 flew this after the meteor !!! lol imagine if an A29 mirage came up against a Spitfire ???? Lol I'll leave that to your imagination !!!!!!
@F22RaptorSquadron
with the contrarotating Prop you can pull faster to max Power as with
single Propeller; an grass it is the same distance or a bit shorter i think,
Spitfires and 109´s are made for grass runway´s
Not as pretty as the early Merlin powered Spits . but very fast and ideal for photo recon. over enemy territory.
Crikey ! She climbs like a home sick angel.
Contra rotating props allowed full boost to be used for take off, normally they had to limit it to + 7 lbs boost until off the ground when they could use more power.
Barry Rodliffe I was not aware of that. So then for this application on take off, full boost would be significantly higher. Boost would be greater than 2 fold ? BTW, with the contra - rotating props and
that massive spinner, this kite looks all the more aggressive. Stunning in fact. Cheers.
Excellent.. :)
Magnificient!
Spine chilling, oh yeah
Neat a contrarotating propeller
Beautiful...just beautiful, wonder how she would handle against a Me-262
she would outclass the 262 in start, steepclimb, maneauverability and acceleration with no doubt ! BUT a 262 flown at high speeds would be always the Boss in the sky and dictate the fight ;-) Its pretty much the same as a P51 vs a MIG15.
kubanskiloewe Maneuverability fight: Spitfire vs. Zero
Devil: No Me262 could turn or roll with this plane
That's a PR19, no guns at all...
@@vascoribeiro69
Lucky for the Me 262 pilots who attacked Spitfire Mk XIX's. The Me 262 pilot could not shoot any down.
A Mark XIX?
I know this mark was Griffon powered, but I thought the contra-rotating prop unit came later on the Mark 22 or 24.
Can anyone clear this up?
Edit.
Ah, the Mark XIX DID have CRPs fitted.
More info here:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-rotating_propellers
!where are the p51s here they come those small dots way behind
oh look! check out the 262 leaving the Spit XIX in the dust!
Andreina Rangel
Then when the 262 has run out of fuel watch the spitfire pilot flick the v’s when turning well inside the radius of the German junk!
wow!
flippin heck! it took off like a jet fighter!
power/weight is very good ;-)
Thankyou. It just looks much faster than a normal spit in level flight.
for sure it is ! this engine has so much torque and the 6blade contra Propeller can use ALL of this without rolling the whole plane to one side ! Therefore it accelerate straight like a jet !
Here this is the plane a few years later when they changed the propeller and engine (but still a Griffon engine ) ruclips.net/video/rmLkMETLKKs/видео.html
The Spitfire with a Griffon engine was limited to + 7lbs boost for take off, then they would use + 14 lbs for bormal climb or even up to + 25lbs boost maximum , the contra rotating prop would allow full boost for take off, once in flight it made little difference and the heavier contra prop was not quite as good for climb or acceleration, but the take off on this video is very impressive.
thanks for the info Barrie
Beautiful aircraft with a beast of an engine. Out of interest where was this filmed?
puhh that was a long time ago before they rebuild the aircraft with a new engine and 5 blades. It was somehwere in west germany.
Apart from eliminating torque - it looks as if it flies and accelerates faster. Is this what actually happens?
yep, such short take off with steep climb i did´nt saw on the same Spitfire later with the normal 5blade prop.
that's a beast
thats for sure !
The takeoff indicates.........it has some serious punch! Wow.
oh it really had !! ......yeah unfortunately they swapped the engine with a single 5 blade propeller
there was no torque, so you may apply almost full MP...
why??
graham woodward with one prop the a/c swings violently due to torque and other factors. With two contra rotating props those factors are annulated. So you may apply full power and sometimes it could surge.
The negative point are complexity and nose weight. Apart from control the other positive thing is that blades are shorter having more ground clearence.
and??? how does it perform compared to a 4 or 5 prop
better in acceleration and much less torque to one side....perhaps none at all. He can push the lever full forward without slipping away from the torque monster engine.
The main difference is the pilot could use full boost and revs for take off rather than low revs and only 7 lbs boost because of the massive torque effect with the normal 5 blade pro, which is why this one climbs like that. Once off the ground there is not so much difference.
and can you clarify that this is not a supermarine? very rare catch!
? what else should it be ?
A little too late to enter ww2, that spit would have run around in circles on some of the Germans top propeller fighters during that era.
Офигеть!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's an experimental plane, by the Royal Air Force as way to test out the counter rotating props, alas no unfortunately this plane never saw action
during WW2 , like I said the plane was test bed for many of the Royal Air Force experiments on aviation technologies of that period, however this not the only experimental spitfire aircraft that the British experiment with , there's also the spitfire seaplane a mark 10 on floats and then there's the twin seater night fighter variant where the radar operator seats in rear cockpit.
It did see active service. It was in use from May 1944 until the end of the war.
This is a Spitfire Mk XIX that was used during the war for photo reconnaissance, the Spitfires on floats were both Mk V and Mk IX but they were never used operationally, the twin seat Spitfires were for training, they were modified Mk VIII and Mk IX. The Spitfire was used for many things but not as a night fighter, Britain had the Beaufighters and then the Mosquitos for that. If you think about it the front was full of engine, where could one fit radar?
The Seafire FR47 went to Korean War. It was equiped with a prop setup like this.
Some Mk.I's or II's were used for night fighting....landing was too tricky though.
A number of Mk.IX's were converted to two-seaters in 1950, for the Irish Air Corps.
Anyone put this engine in a P51 withe the less draggy wing?
think some pimped P51 flew later on RENO race ? ruclips.net/video/9Sgvz4oAsNA/видео.html
Engine from a Shackleton?
idk
Does anyone know if this variant saw combat against the Luftwaffe?
as far as i know, no it did´nt.
This plane was repainted and fitted with a new engine with no contrrotating propeller. This is it nowadays ;-)
ruclips.net/video/rmLkMETLKKs/видео.html
Pepe No it was PR
@SeafireTWA
ja man kann nicht immer alles wegschneiden; ich hoffe es macht Dir nichts aus sonst muss ich es rausnehmen.
ha ha ha lol ... bei 3:50 hasse mich gefilmt ^^
very short take off
ne ne is alles ok ... ^^ lass es ja drin ..... den Flieger gibt es nicht mehr !!!
see the 109 keep up thith that lol
well... the video is rubbish, but The Audio... wowsah.
Mmm not the best of sounds
Hate those ugly blap blap blap sounds😷