Pe-2 impossible to land on 1 engine

[Raptorattacker]

5 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Can't tell wether ironic or flattery.  I choose flattery, because I like being flattened. 

Flattery and abject admiration!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It's not hard, just requires about 30 Mins in Quick Missions and can do it too.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

You can't necessarily feather the dead prop on the Pe-2, but you can reduce the pitch control to zero before it dies, if you have time. It's kind of a make-shift feathering. 

 

It's also good to know which engine is the 'critical engine'.  If the critical engine on the Pe-2 goes down, then keeping it in the air becomes exceedingly difficult. 

 

 

 

[Requiem]

2 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

You can't necessarily feather the dead prop on the Pe-2, but you can reduce the pitch control to zero before it dies, if you have time. It's kind of a make-shift feathering. 

 

It's also good to know which engine is the 'critical engine'.  If the critical engine on the Pe-2 goes down, then keeping it in the air becomes exceedingly difficult.

I think the Pe-2 has counter rotating props so there is no "critical engine." With counter rotating propellers the effects are the same in an engine failure regardless of left or right.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

1 hour ago, SYN_Requiem said:

I think the Pe-2 has counter rotating props so there is no "critical engine." With counter rotating propellers the effects are the same in an engine failure regardless of left or right.

Starting up the plane in QMB, parked on the runway, in external view, shows that both engines of the Ser.35 and .87 are counter-clockwise, not counter-rotating. 

 

I wish it was counter-rotating.  The thing would probably be 30-50kph faster!

Edited January 22, 2019 by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

[Requiem]

25 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

Starting up the plane in QMB, parked on the runway, in external view, shows that both engines of the Ser.35 and .87 are counter-clockwise, not counter-rotating. 

 

I wish it was counter-rotating.  The thing would probably be 30-50kph faster!

Yep you're right! My mistake, I just could have sworn one of the planes we had wasn't entirely conventional ? I checked as well and remembered the Hs 129 is an odd one out with those contra rotating props. It's takeoff behaviour never made sense to me based on that.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

The question I have is:

 

Is there a 'more-critical' setup for counter-rotating blades?  If the blades are inwardly-rotating (descending blade(s) towards the fuselage) vs. outwardly-rotating (descending blade(s) toward the wingtips), I think there would be quite a difference if an engine went out.  I can only guess that all counter-rotating setups are inwardly rotating for that reason. 

 

[AndyJWest]

11 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

The question I have is:

 

Is there a 'more-critical' setup for counter-rotating blades?  If the blades are inwardly-rotating (descending blade(s) towards the fuselage) vs. outwardly-rotating (descending blade(s) toward the wingtips), I think there would be quite a difference if an engine went out.  I can only guess that all counter-rotating setups are inwardly rotating for that reason. 

 

 

The P-38 was originally designed with inwardly-rotating propellers, but changed to outwardly-rotating to improve its stability as a gunnery platform.