Talk:Counter-rotating propellers

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

but why not?

what's not explained on this page are the disadvantages of counter-rotating props. to the neophyte (me at least), it seems that all planes should have counter-rotating props. off hand i can't think of any cons and this page only glorifies them. could someone with more knowledge in this area add a sentence or two as to why most planes do not use them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarthur (talk • contribs) 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point, article is not referenced yet so it does not give us anywhere to look at. I can have a guess at two possible reasons: I think there might be handling problems with one engine out, possibly worse than a twin with both engines that rotate the same way. The other factor is probably the extra cost of producing engines that rotate in different directions. Need to look in to it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added info on this--Iediteverything (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clockwise...from the pilot seat"?

This is true only if the pilot sits behind the propellers. Many airplanes have the cockpit ahead of the propellers. It would be unambiguous to say, "when viewed from behind the airplane", instead. Furthermore, however the rotation is described, it is true of almost all propeller-driven airplanes, not just those with two engines. I shall make an appropriate edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.121.240 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Counterrotating" = "Contrarotating" =

Although some may intend the terms to mean different things, as actually used in the literature there is no formal distinction evident. Many examples given in the talk page for "contrarotating propellers." The Hitchens reference is not appropriate because it postdates the Wikipedia article (and doesn't cite a source itself.) Am replacing that citation with "citation needed" but even if a citation can be found it will still fly in the face of actual usage - in other words, the article itself and the corresponding article on "contrarotating propellers" need to be corrected.

2601:14F:4502:6E98:223:7DFF:FEC4:2D73 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a different source that confirms the use of the term as this article states, it is from 1980 (35 years older than the previous cite), from a Jane's Information Group publication by Bill Gunston, a very well respected aviation author. I cannot comment on the other article (not read it), this may be a US/BRIT WP:ENGVAR problem, if it is then any alternative names/terms need to be included and cited, however I just visited 10 American aircraft articles that used contra-rotating propellers and they all clearly use that term in the text. I can't see the problem myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was exactly the kind of source that was needed. There are however also dictionaries that equate "counter" and "contrarotating", many examples in the literature of "counterrotating" applied to common shaft props, and some even that call separate-shaft arrangements "contra" rotating. So may I suggest the following revision:

Gunston ^[1] defines opposing-rotation aircraft propellers that share a common axis as [[contra-rotating propellers]], rather than counter-rotating. Other dictionaries ^[2] ^[3] do not make this distinction. Actual usage in the literature varies, with "counter-rotating" frequently applied to coaxial arrangements and (less frequently) "contra-rotating" applied to non-coaxial configurations.

Happy to provide citations to examples.

2601:14F:4502:6E98:223:7DFF:FEC4:2D73 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last suggested revision, but from a slightly different perspective. It is a bit over-the-top though, as it caters to definition addicts.

We can forget Gunston and all the dictionaries and every other source that likes to pigeon-hole things. eg this is an 'A', my friend, not a 'B'. We all know what arguments ensue between people that havn't agreed upfront that they are using the same definition, and we can all come up with examples I'm sure.

So, look at this article's value as a learning resource. Imagine someone saying "I'd like to learn a bit about contra-rotating propellers. I'll try wikipedia."

There's not much there, which is OK. "No problem. I'll just search the web then. Oh, that's a shame. It's all superficial stuff, not really what I'm after." Finally, after spending some time they find that the real stuff available to them, on the web, on contra-rotating propellers is actually under counter-rotation. This is not because these writers got it wrong because they didn't check with Gunston or a dictionary. These writers know as much as anyone about co-axial props and choose to call them counter... There's no right or wrong about it but let's be aware that if we want to learn anything beyond the superficial we may just have to seek out writings by experts who call them counter... That's why it would be good for this article to acknowledge the same.

The bottom line is to help the reader find what they are looking for. This will add real value to the article.Pieter1963 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can not 'forget Gunston' etc' because Wikipedia articles rely on cited sources. This article and the contra-rotating article have hatnotes and links in their See also sections to help the reader find what they are looking for. I don't understand your misunderstanding of these terms and your claim that these terms are wrong. What do you propose to rename these articles? If you do propose to rename them then a formal process needs to be started. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're an encyclopedia, not an etymological dictionary. There are two obvious concepts here: counter-rotating and contra-rotating propellers (I'm not even going to bother defining them, it's so obvious). COMMONNAME supports the obvious definitions and scope for each. Your changes recently are "supported by sources" in an obscure completist sense, but that is the opposite of a useful change to an encyclopedia based on explaining concepts, rather than trainspotting words. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gunston 1980, p. 98.
^ AGARD Aeronautical Multilingual Dictionary, Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research and Development, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Pergamon Press, NY 1960. Word entry 9135.
^ Adams, Frank Davis, "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Aeronautical Dictionary," Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 1959.

[1] Gunston 1980, p. 98.

[AGARD1960-2] AGARD Aeronautical Multilingual Dictionary, Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research and Development, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Pergamon Press, NY 1960. Word entry 9135.

[Adams1959-3] Adams, Frank Davis, "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Aeronautical Dictionary," Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 1959.

[1]

[2]

[3]