View Full Version : What is the fastest propellor driven plane?

21 Aug 05,, 01:51
I heard the Tu 95 was one of the fastest. Were any of the fighters faster?
Would it be possible for propellor driven transport planes to be near supersonic?

21 Aug 05,, 04:30
I did a quick yahoo search and came up with this

TU-144 is the world record holder for turbo prop plane

a modified Grumman F8F Bearcat is the fastest singe piston engine

and a Army B-29 was the fastest 4 piston engine plane

Very interesting - hope this helps you out

here it the link to the info

21 Aug 05,, 05:10
Okay, I saw your post spaceship, and knew you had something wrong there.

The Tu-144, also known as the CHARGER, is the Soviet version of the Supersonic Transport - the Concorde. (It was also derisively known as the 'Konkordski', because of it's an obvious knock-off of the British/French aircraft.)

The link you provided is for the Tu-114 CLEAT, the airliner version of the Tu-95 bomber. THAT is the world's fastest prop aircraft since setting the record in 1960.

Just a typo; good link.

21 Aug 05,, 07:15
Fastest Propelled Aircraft
The Soviet Tu-95/142 (NATO code-name "Bear") has a maximum level speed of Mach 0.82, or 925 km/h (575 mph). The TU-95 "Bear" first flew in 1954 and was initially operated by Long Range Aviation, which was the Soviet strategic air force. The jet-type performance is provided by four extremely powerful turboprops, each driving massive eight blade contra-rotating propellers.

21 Aug 05,, 07:20
The fastest propellor fighter
Hawker Fury / Sea Fury G-CBEL "361"
Wing span : 38 ft 5 in / 11.7 m
Length : 34 ft 8 in / 10.57 m
Max weight : 15,200 lb / 6645 kg
Service ceiling : 35,800 ft
Max speed : 435 kts / 740 kmh
Engine : 2,550 hp Bristol Centaurus 18

Designed in the 1940s to a joint RAF/RN specification as a replacement to the RAFs successful Tempest fighter bomber, the Hawker Fury was too late to take part in World War Two, the prototype not flying until September 1944. At the same time the Sea Fury was developed for the Royal Navy, with the prototype flying in February 1945. The type was to be the fastest propellor driven fighter produced.

Repatriated Canuck
24 Aug 05,, 14:17
Corsairs where faster than those two.

Terran empire
24 Aug 05,, 14:58
It's the russian Tupolev Tu-114 / Tu-95 Bear there props counter-rotate.
But It's no where near as cool as the F84H Thunder-screech ( the F84 was the thunder chef jet the F48H was a special version that had a prop fitted to the shaft of the jet turbine when on the Prop broke the sound barrier and was heard for at least 20 miles ) who Held the record in the west till the Specs of the Bear got out.

25 Aug 05,, 01:55
Mach 0.82 that seems as fast as a 747.
What would be the advantage of using turbo-props over jets?

What is the fastest twin prop 4-8 passenger plane?

25 Aug 05,, 10:57
Mach 0.82 that seems as fast as a 747.
What would be the advantage of using turbo-props over jets?

The Tu-95 has a 10000 miles range.

29 Aug 05,, 09:45
The Tu-95 has a 10000 miles range.

A B-52 only has a range of 8800 miles.
Plus I read the Tu-95 can out accelerate jet interceptors.

So does the B-52 have any advantages over the Tu-95

29 Aug 05,, 09:54
A B-52 only has a range of 8800 miles.
Plus I read the Tu-95 can out accelerate jet interceptors.

So does the B-52 have any advantages over the Tu-95

I don't know the full specs for those 2 planes. You can probably find them easily on the web. What about payload ? Also I have a feeling that the B-52 might be faster.

Its propulsion system gives the Tu an advantage in range over jets. I find it difficult to believe it could "out accelerate" (not sure of what you mean) jets, interceptors in particular.

29 Aug 05,, 11:34
A B-52 only has a range of 8800 miles.
Plus I read the Tu-95 can out accelerate jet interceptors.

So does the B-52 have any advantages over the Tu-95

Certainly has due to its jet engines.

If I understand it right the maximum speed is very different from a cruise speed.... even though B-52 may be less in terms of maximum speed I guess it may have much higher cruise speed than the Bear.

In general turbo propeller driven aircraft is much more economic for shorter range flights but loose in terms of speed.... Bear is an exception here but this must have been bought with high consumption rate at its max speed. When I asked this question to aviation engineer he explained to me that the trust of propeller dirven engine is a function of two main things - a number of blades and rotations per second (actually many others factors like the size/length of blades as well). There is a natural limit to number of rotations per second possible with propeller driven engine - a major factor which makes them slower.... Hence in the Bear this was resolved by increasing the size of the blades and having two of them rotating counter direction. Look at the Bear picture and you will notice how big are his blades.....

A jet engine is initially designed for larger number of rotations and many many of smaller blades in its main rotor..... It consists of two hulls and two rotors - one is a rocket which burns jet fuel and a hot stream rotates small rotor while going to nozzles. This small rotor shares same axis with a larger rotor in frond of the engine, and hence the rotation is transmitted to a larger rotor from smaller one. It is the large rotor which creates the main thrust of the engine. Because of higher number of rotations per second and higher number of blades jet engine naturally flights at higher speed and is highly inefficient at lower speed.

The supersonic speeds was mostly a result of afterburning - until recently all supersonic aircraft were using additional afterburning (just like rocket) to achieve supersonic speed.... Raptor in US as well as 1.44 and jet 117 of Saturn are the only engines which do so without afterburning and hence on a economic cruise mode....

from Civil aviation experience I was told that proppeler driven aircraft is good piece to serve a root less than 1000 km... due to its good consumption rate.... moreover a turbine driven aricraft is quite inefficient at low speeds which it has to have while taking off and circling around airports. Hence turbine driven aircraft gains efficiency over torboprop if the part of the root between taking off and landing is longer - at its speed it is at roots beyond 1000km....

OK. Back to the point - B-52 is good to fly to a long range target at its high speed, but not very good to hang around and patrol around Russia..... jet engine makes it fly too fast and needs to be refueled faster...

Bear is much better to patrol enemy borders prepared for a strike.... but it is less efficient than B-52 to fly long-range mission from airfield - it simply takes longer for him. Fast speed is needed only on a certain parts of its dangerous route to the target. This is because Soviet Union did not plan its major strike with strategic bombers from its territory. It realied on patrolling.

In general both B-52 and Bear had little chace of geting to their main targets away from boders ans shouting their 3,000 range missiles..... both were too visible, and too slow to withstand a defense systems which perfectly knew which roots those begemoths will be flying to their targets. Those roots were covered with number of SAM's and interceptors making their success quite unlikelly.