If the Thunderscreech had dual propellers, like the SkyShark below did, would that have fixed it's problems?The implication being a dual, counter rotating propellers setup could output the same thrust without having to rotate at supersonic speed to do so. Thus eliminating many of the problems caused by a extremely loud supersonic single propeller setup caused.as for the sound of that supersonic propeller:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItexQxJS9U&list=RDYItexQxJS9U&start_radio=1
A simple duct solves most of its problems.
>>64666157The thunderscreech did have counterrotating propellers, you can see them in the image you posted.Fucking retard.
>>64666163>"That's a common misconception, but the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech did not use counterrotating (contra) propellers; it used a single, massive propeller driven by two linked turboprop engines (XT40), and its immense torque was countered by a large dorsal yaw vane and a T-tail, leading to significant instability and noise."
>>64666209also FS-060 only had four flights, and is assumed to have been scrapped in 1956 when the project was canceled. However it's T40 engine might have been used in the Skyshark's flight test program.
>>64666163>local retard does it again
>SkySharkif the late 1940s turboshaft/turboprop engine development had been further along,or the problems with Allison's XT40 could have been solved the SkyShark would have been the most kino Douglas warplane of all time.
>>64667515>Allison's XT40According to the wiki, most applications of the XT40 were with contra-rotating propellers. The XF-84H was the only one that didn't.Also the XT40 had the most success with experimental VTOL aircraft like the tailsitters.
>>64666157Supersonic blade tips are actually common.If you ever hear a T-6 Texan take off or an Hu-16 Albatross, it's got this loud high-pitched chopping whine that drowns out the roar from the engine exhaust. I've also heard it on a DC-3, but only because it had Albatross 1820-76 engines on it.
>>64666157>Fixing the "problem">Not weaponizing it
>>64670315>weaponizing sonicboomsThat would be the Soviet Myasishchev M-25. A low flying "sonic boom attack aircraft," designed to generate super sonic shockwaves powerfull enough to damage ground targets without use of conventional bombs.
SCREEEEEEEE
>>64666157>Unmanned screecher
>>64668136>XF-84H didn'twrong
>>64676296Am I?
>>64666157The Tu-95 has counter rotating propellers and is loud enough to be detected by sonar arrays half way around the world.
>>64678968Yes.You are Wrong.entire so-called "topic" belongs on plebbit or some videogamestreamGo back
