> If the blades are still angled to produce thrust, then instead of the blades taking a bite out of the air, the oncoming air will start to take a bite out of the blades, so to speak, driving the propeller, and thus the turbine, in reverse.
Minor correction for the author, a unfeathered prop continues to rotate in the correct direction. The flow of torque is reversed, not the actual rotation of the prop.
Indeed under certain circumstances the prop can end up speeding past its design RPM to the point that the prop tips become supersonic creating a whole world of other problems and dangers.
It's one of numerous errors in the article that demonstrate Dempsy has fundamental misunderstandings about the stuff she is writing about, which is hilarious given she is routinely and extensively complemented (by people who know nothing about aviation) for her "excellent analysis".
She never even mentions the ultimate cause of the crash: Antonov's design required dual grounds, but the factory in Poland modified the design to group the grounds together, without realizing or caring about the implications.
It's right in the UK DoT crash report - page 30 - and on the summary of the crash on the BAAA's website, which is in the first 6 google results for the crash. It would probably be higher except her article and copies of it on reddit are taking up the first couple of hits now.
Minor correction for the author, a unfeathered prop continues to rotate in the correct direction. The flow of torque is reversed, not the actual rotation of the prop.
Indeed under certain circumstances the prop can end up speeding past its design RPM to the point that the prop tips become supersonic creating a whole world of other problems and dangers.