Precious Metal P-51 Griffon Engine Test Run #1 2013 

P47 had 47 :)

@@viruspter1dactl 46L actually. Lol

@@viruspter1dactl radial

Just think how beautiful she will be after she gets all of her make-up on and he hair done!

They had to, Torque on that thing would be retarded.

actually, howard hughes did it back in the late 40s.

Appalling68 it's not a Warbird. No griffon powered Mustangs ever saw combat in either WW 2 or Korea. This is purely for racing the contra props were supposed to counter take off swing of griffon motors

Michael Naisbitt Well if you must split hairs. The P-51 is a "warbird." Obviously the P-51 was originally built with the Packard Merlin engine. You did notice my use of the word "modified", right?

Can't be much of an explosion when your tiny mind explodes.

+shellcool0wns Several racing Mustangs have flown with Griffons.

@@FiveCentsPlease I love it 🤣 they must be epic

@@Shellcool From memory, there are several. The plane in the video was severely burned from a fuel line fire. It is being rebuilt but I have recently read that it is going back to stock condition. mlttzvmsup4k.i.optimole.com/5JfZEXg-0TdUpbs6/w:auto/h:auto/q:auto/airshowstuff.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/11927484_575791245894918_7820596974380904207_o.jpg Then there was the Red Baron--crashed and destroyed, not fatal. I think parts of the wreck still exist and someone was thinking of building it. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/RB-51_in_the_Reno_Pits.jpg Also there was Miss Ashley II. Look closely at the wings and tail, they are from a Learjet. Miss Ashley II disintegrated into pieces during the Reno 1999 race, fatal to the pilot. i.redd.it/ypsw0wem0j511.jpg They may be other Griffon Mustangs but I'll need to look that up.

@@FiveCentsPlease wow thanks for the info, lovely planes and sad crashes :(

Because some people are stupid and don't know cool if it slapped them in the face

Micke Mike, because some people are scumbags.

I must be some very jealous bloke; they have to dislike because they would want one so much... Or they have strong double vision and click the wrong thumb...

10-20% more efficient in general.

panther105 The correct term is contra-rotating or coaxial propellers since they're on the same axis (one behind the other.) Counter rotating propellers would be like on the P38 Lightning where the port and starboard propellers rotate in opposite directions away from each other.

Jeez...!! I sound like such know-it all. Anyway, in the miltary and especially combat situations SIMPLE IS BEST....More gears whizzing around trying to stay lubricated and not grind into each other is the main reason we don't have a lot of this kind of propellor arrangement in history or even now when we have more exacting computer controlled machining. Amazing tech though. Practically anything we can imagine these days was already thought of and probably made into a working model decades ago. In terms of mechanical tech, we haven't really gone much further than the basic mechanism we had over 100 years ago. And, if you really look way back, you will find the Egyptians, Greeks and Chinese had it all the basic stuff worked out millenia ago....

panther105 There are several methods of driving coaxial propellers, some being more reliable than others. But overall like you said, there's additional complexity. Many coaxial gearboxes were unreliable and could result in spectacular failure with one or both propellers parting company from the plane or getting stuck and acting like a huge airbrake. The reason that coaxial propellers aren't in use today is because there's few applications for them. The only two major applications for them in modern times are the bear bomber and various helicopters.

panther105 its not only the efficiency its also that it negates propeller torque.. for example seafire planes during the ww2 had difficulties with aircraft takeoff cause of the torque(a propeller pull in the opposite side of the rotation direction)

Or a Super Marine Spitfire

Cost and complexity of serviceability.

Its 'cos the griffon was exclusevly built for the spitfire at the time.

Martin Tynan They did ,but just ran out of war.THey even looked at really changing things by putting a Griffon mid engine like an Aircobra.Called a TBF ,"The Big Fighter".Never got off the drawing board.War was ending and Jets were starting

Not exactly true. Fairey Firefly and Fairey Barracuda used it as well and there were probably more types equipped with the R/R Griffon Engine.

pilots were cheaper

Rules, Piston engines only

@@dedmunds2323 As it should be. Turboprops would make it too easy.

John Nedoroscik Jr, I wish contra-coax was more common.

It's a Rolls Griffon. Much bigger engine.

swastika is a luck charm in far eastern culture.

SEAL52 And they use it on a red and white background too ?

b4lbuz Yes way before the nazis took it.

The swastika is actually a religious symbol friend. Just because hitler used it does not change what it's original meaning was before he adopted it.

+427SuperSnake1 You are right, It was and still is a religious symbol in the East but you are wrong if you honestly believe Martin Tynan is using it for that purpose. He is waving the Nazi Flag, make no mistake. The swastika comes in many colors and styles. Odd is it not he chooses the Nazi.

+Brent Breggs It suffered a fire during a refueling stop, if I recall it was a high pressure fuel line. The damage was worse than originally thought but it is being rebuilt. I'm hearing that it might be going back to stock.

+ viirus Pter1dactle Contra-props are more efficient. They are also safer for high-power single-engine aircraft, eliminating dangerous torque that affects handling.

@@FiveCentsPlease yeah I know now