Cessna Skymaster

I seem to think the rear engine is gear reversed as the propeller rotates in the opposite direction to the nose as far as I can tell.

Duh, I just thought, I can reverse the direction of the airflow on my ceiling fan just by reversing it. No blade change. Must be gears.

Opposite handed props.

The rear engine is installed in the opposite direction from the front, so the propeller blades naturally rotate in opposite directions.  The aft blades are mounted in the hub so the flat side is to the back of the airplane as normal.  Both engines are ungeared IO-360C Continentals.

Well see that makes me scratch my head. If two identical props are turning in opposite directions, only one is going to be an airscrew. I had thought they used opposite handed props, like on an F-82, where the engines are turning in opposite directions and the props are opposite handed.

Whaddah I know? I do know that the rear engine only developed about 70% of the power of the forward engine and that it was a bad thing to rotate too quickly when taking off.

Looking at pictures it appears, looking from the tail forward, that both props turn clockwise. If this is so then wouldn't there be a massive tork to counter?

BTW, a skymaster was my first model. I melted the wings with too much glue.

Right handed prop:

Left handed prop:

OK, so opposite torque.

Logically they would have to be opposite handed. If they were the same then the rear engine would only multiply the torque from the front, meaning the aircraft would be determined to ground loop the moment you opened the throttle. Having the engines turning in opposite directions would have the torque forces cancelling each other

This was a favorite Dornier layout going back to their big flying boats. I wonder if there's a connection.

A couple of other thing about the Skymaster, from some pilot forums.

Easy to overheat the rear engine when taxiing on a hot day. Think Vietnam. You had to pay attention to the rear engine; if it quit you had to act quickly.

A Skymaster rating would not be usable for other twins.

GMorrison

Well see that makes me scratch my head. If two identical props are turning in opposite directions, only one is going to be an airscrew. I had thought they used opposite handed props, like on an F-82, where the engines are turning in opposite directions and the props are opposite handed.

Whaddah I know? I do know that the rear engine only developed about 70% of the power of the forward engine and that it was a bad thing to rotate too quickly when taking off.

 

The two props are opposite handed, Bill. 

 

Yes, John. I know that I just couldn't follow your flat vs. curved description but I see it now.

Having never had a ride in one of these but having seen them around the airport, they were loud. They were ugly. I'd love a 172 any day.

The thing I didn't like in the 337 was that every time a pitch change was made the props went out of synch, and I didn't much care for the heavy engine in the back in case of a crash.

The 172 is a fine compromise for the needs of day VFR flying.  I like the early straight tail the best, nice and light.