Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hitech on January 28, 2005, 12:12:30 PM
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 001.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 002.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 003.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 004.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 005.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 006.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 007.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 008.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 009.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 010.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 011.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 012.jpg)
-
Straiga: After reading the images. Didn't see anything speaking to the question of engine torque. Might have missed it.
HiTech
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 013.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 014.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 015.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 016.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 017.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 018.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 019.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 020.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 021.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 022.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 023.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 024.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 025.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 026.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 027.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 028.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 029.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 030.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 031.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 032.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 033.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 034.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 035.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 036.jpg)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 037.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/multi/Multi-engine 038.jpg)
-
Hitech, thanks for posting these for me.
I have look and look to see if theres in any enigne torque issues relating to multi-engines. As you see they dont mention any such thing. I do agree that you just cant take any engine torque away from the airframe, its present. But in a multi-engine it is less prevalent then Prop Slipstream and P-Factor and yaw due to asymmetric thrust. They talk about light twins but I have found no difference from the big multies in the way they behave in flight. Also the same single engine procedures are also used as in light twins. V1 cuts are a hand full even V2 plus 10 cuts. Jets fly the same as props single engine.
I have more books to research, I will see what I can come up with.
Straiga
-
Hitech, I found a book called Transition to twins from ASA publications by David Robson. He talks about engine torque on the airframe. Regardless which way the props turn counter rotation or the same rotation, torque does not effect the airframe. During a single engine failure then torque along with P-Factor and Prop Slipstream adds to the force on the airframe but in small amount. P-Factor and Prop Slipstream are more adverse to the airframe.
Straiga
-
Hey Hitech are you out there?
Straiga
-
Hi Hitech,
I'm missing page 3-17 and 3-18 of the second batch. No numbers allocated, so I suppose they might be missing in the original batch?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi again,
It seems Multi-engine 027.jpg and /Multi-engine 032.jpg are missing, too.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun there all in order those jpegs were deleted because of a Scanner cable problem.
Straiga
-
Hi Straiga,
>I have look and look to see if theres in any enigne torque issues relating to multi-engines. As you see they dont mention any such thing.
Small suprise, the chapters you provided are all on directional stability, while torque is a matter of longitudinal stability :-)
But there's one highlighting sentence on page 3-19: "As a result [of sideslip], a negative rolling moment is created because of the differential in lift forces between the two wings."
This sideslip-induced rolling moment is what counters the torque-induced rolling moment. Note that page 3-20 also mentions an additional rolling moment generated by the vertical tail which also opposes the torque-induced rolling moment.
>I do agree that you just cant take any engine torque away from the airframe, its present. But in a multi-engine it is less prevalent then Prop Slipstream and P-Factor and yaw due to asymmetric thrust. They talk about light twins but I have found no difference from the big multies in the way they behave in flight.
I'd say the torque effects would be most noticable on small, high-powered aircraft. (I didn't pick the somewhat exotic He 219 example by accident :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I wanted to straighten out where I have stood the entire time. Nobody has picked a bone with me in a while and that's probably not a bad thing.
I have always referenced in this discussion a multiengine airplane with 2 operating engines (Forget the single engined aerodynamics, that's a can of worms)
I have always said that torque does not magically disappear on a twin, in fact it doubles when compared to the comparable single (for instance, a Cherokee-160 and a PA-23-160 Apache)
The amount of torque applied to the airframe is doubled.
Now, I have said always and still stand, that the effects of torque are not pronounced and also not a factor when flying a twin. There are several reasons, but the big one is that with the torque creators located outboard of the fuselage and thus not aligned with any axis of the Center of Gravity they simply do not have the leverage required to roll the airplane. They still create their force, however they can't roll the airplane. (Not the case in a vaccuum, but we're not in outer space)
This is a different story in the Cessna 337 Skymaster or Adams A-500 with engine out. They are Centerline Thrust airplanes (Engines mounted on the centerline...on the longitudnal axis of the CG) and without the engines to counter one another they will act just as a single would...with engine torque as a factor because torque now has the leverage it needs to rotate the airplane about the long axis of the CG.
I'm quoting page 3-8 of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25) because its handy and was on the desk.
Whenever an airplane changes its flight attitude or position in flight, it rotates about one or more of three axes, which are imaginary lines that pass through the airpalne's center of gravity.
We all learned day 1 in our private pilot ground schools that everything the airplane does rotates around its center of gravity and the effects of torque and what it would cause the airplane to do are no exception. Newton was right, Equal and Opposite reaction. However, Newton wasn't an aeronautical engineer or pilot. His principal applies and is valid in this case, but because the airplane has no axis for the engine torque to have an effect...the airplane simply won't rotate.
We've gotten so far off track in talking about engine torque now we are talking about engine out aerodynamics in twins. There are world class experts out there who don't know everything there is to know about this subject and I'm tempted not to touch that with a ten and a half foot pole.
But I will...
So many things happen so quickly when you lose an engine. The most pronounced is a yaw toward the dead engine and a roll, which is caused by a lack of airflow over the wing of the failed engine (no power thus no slipstream). To reduce Vmc its vital to bank into the good engine which uses the airplanes weight as leverage against the yaw tendency (and it is a yaw tendency) of that good engine so it won't throw you out of control.
There are ways to determine Vmc, and they are a worst case scenario. With much of the emphasis being put on producing maximimum possible power at max weight, and rudder control.
The FAA Requires that the airplane have the least favorable CG. This is typically Aft, which provides the greatest arm between the CG and the downward moving propeller blade of either engine (more leverage, thus making it easier for that engine to Yaw the airplane) and also reduces the arm between the CG and rudder. This will reduce effectiveness of the rudder to the bare minimum. There is also a stipulation that no more than 150lbs of pressure may be applied to the rudder.
With all this emphasis on rudder and creating the worst case scenario in terms of yaw and controlling it...I think it's pretty safe to say that the FAA is concerned about yaw more than roll as a certification issue. This didn't just come out of thin air, lots of airplanes have crashed and people died giving us the rules, guidelines and standards we have today.
-
Well said Golfer
Straiga
-
This sideslip-induced rolling moment is what counters the torque-induced rolling moment. Note that page 3-20 also mentions an additional rolling moment generated by the vertical tail which also opposes the torque-induced rolling moment
The sideslip-induced rolling moment is a byproduct of yaw and one wing tip moving faster through the air then the other, creating an asymmetric lift situation. Also one wing has induced airflow from the running engine and prop wash also creating an asymmetric lift situation. This is where the roll moment comes from. But the roll moment can either to the right or left depending which engine has failed and this is with two props turning in the same direction. One roll moment in the direction of torque and the other moment in the oposite direction of torque.
Additional rolling moment generated by the tail and rudder also opose engine torque-induced rolling moment. This why I have been saying all along that the P-51 does not use aileron on takeoff just rudder. Remember on any airplane, aileron are not truely effective until about 40 - 60 kts of airspeed. So what do you use until they get effective (rudder).
Small suprise, the chapters you provided are all on directional stability, while torque is a matter of longitudinal stability :-)
Its not a supprise in a twin they are very stable in the longitudnal axis, but directional stabilty is the key when losing one or more engines.
I'd say the torque effects would be most noticable on small, high-powered aircraft. (I didn't pick the somewhat exotic He 219 example by accident :-)
Try looking at a Piper Aerostar this is what your talking about small and high powered also a Mitsubishi MU-2. They are a dream to fly until you lose a engine. The MU-2 has differential spoilers too, this is a extreamly difficult airplane to fly single engine. These multies do not exert any engine torque rolling moments either.
Do you see my point! Multies are design for single engine failures. They are very stable in the longitudnal axis but directional axis they are deadly. So you have to design the airplane for a loss of a engine, which is all about directional control.
Later Straiga
-
Hi Golfer,
>I have always said that torque does not magically disappear on a twin, in fact it doubles when compared to the comparable single (for instance, a Cherokee-160 and a PA-23-160 Apache)
>The amount of torque applied to the airframe is doubled.
>Now, I have said always and still stand, that the effects of torque are not pronounced and also not a factor when flying a twin.
I think you're pointing out an important aspect here - torque being physically present on one hand and torque being a factor for piloting technique on the other hand.
I just disagree on the explanation you provide:
>However, Newton wasn't an aeronautical engineer or pilot. His principal applies and is valid in this case, but because the airplane has no axis for the engine torque to have an effect...the airplane simply won't rotate.
The strange thing about torque as a physical phenomenon is that, unlike force, it is not located in space.
It will just generate a moment around an axis on an object, and the properties of the object will determine the location of this axis.
An example: Put a stack of bricks under the wingtip of an airplane on the ramp, and torque will readily attempt to roll the aircraft about the wingtip.
That's much harder than rolling it about the tyre contact point as it would without the bricks, or than rolling it about the centre of gravity as it would do in flight, because due to the moment arm defined by the difference between the axis of rotation and the location at which the opposing force is applied (centre of gravity), the opposing moment is rather large. However, the location only comes in for converting a force into a moment, not for the question whether the moment can act at all - it always does.
Why torque is a non-factor in multi-engined aircraft is hard to figure out for a non-pilot :-) I'd suggest that the rotational inertia that skyrockets once you begin to move mass outboards will slow the aircraft's reaction to torque changes so much that other factors, like P factor, will render torque imperceptible.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Straiga,
>The sideslip-induced rolling moment is a byproduct of yaw and one wing tip moving faster through the air then the other, creating an asymmetric lift situation. Also one wing has induced airflow from the running engine and prop wash also creating an asymmetric lift situation. This is where the roll moment comes from.
Hm, I was currently thinking of regular twin-engined flight.
Do you agree that to counter P factor in a symmetrical twin with equal-handed engines, you would use rudder to induce a slight side-slip?
That would open the question which force balances the sideslip-induced rolling moment, and I'd suggest torque as an answer :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,I do not belive the moment of inertia is the answere, we are talking about a constant force not a changing force. My guess is it is being offset do to slip stream effects having more wing area to hit.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hm, I was currently thinking of regular twin-engined flight.
Do you agree that to counter P factor in a symmetrical twin with equal-handed engines, you would use rudder to induce a slight side-slip?
That would open the question which force balances the sideslip-induced rolling moment, and I'd suggest torque as an answer :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Clarify these:
Symmetrical Twin.
Equal-handed engines.
Do you mean Conventional Twin (Props both turn the same direction)
Do you mean Counter-Rotating propellers?
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Straiga,
>The sideslip-induced rolling moment is a byproduct of yaw and one wing tip moving faster through the air then the other, creating an asymmetric lift situation. Also one wing has induced airflow from the running engine and prop wash also creating an asymmetric lift situation. This is where the roll moment comes from.
Hm, I was currently thinking of regular twin-engined flight.
Do you agree that to counter P factor in a symmetrical twin with equal-handed engines, you would use rudder to induce a slight side-slip?
That would open the question which force balances the sideslip-induced rolling moment, and I'd suggest torque as an answer :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The stuff Straiga was defining is either:
Adverse Yaw. The tendency of the airplane to yaw away from the direction of bank. As he said, one wing is moving faster through the air than the other with the ailerons deflected.
As you'd imagine, given that it says 'Yaw' in the name this is corrected by Rudder.
Proverse Roll (I think this is what you're/he was talking about) which is an airplane rolling in the direction of a rudder input. There are lots of R/C rudder/elevator only airplanes out there, in fact I have two of them I use for unlimited RC Combat. (SPAD, Simple Plastic Airplane Design).
Anyway, because the airplane is Yawing (example a yaw to the right) the left wing is moving faster (its moving forward of the CG) just as a water skier would going to the left of a boat wake. Think of the skier as a wing and the line anchor on the boat as the Center of Gravity.
This extra speed creates extra lift and causes a roll to the right.
You can do one of a few things to correct for this. Apply left rudder to regain a wings level (or nearly) attitude. this will cause a slip in the other direction and lots of drag slowing you down. You can use aileron to correct for it, also slowing you down.
This only happens when the rudder is deflected in flight, with the rudder trimmed and the ball centered, no such rolling moment exists.
In the case of the little RC airplanes, they're so grossly overpowered (.25 or bigger engines) for their weight (often less than 2.5 pounds) there's lots of power so slowing down isn't a problem. Obviously, flying in a sideslip the whole way to your destination isn't an efficient way to get there. You'll fly slower, thus longer and burn more fuel getting to the destination.
-
Hi Golfer,
>>Symmetrical Twin.
With "symmetrical", I just to suggest that we have a perfectly symmetrical airframe (and engine mounts).
If we had a asymmetrical airframe (purposefully designed thus), that might already compensate for some of the effects we're interested in right now.
>>Equal-handed engines.
What I meant is that the engines turn clock-wise, or that they both turn counter-clock-wise. If "contra-rotating" is a technical term, is there also "co-rotating"? In German the latter is "gleichsinnig", I'm searching for the English equivalent :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Also, I haven't done much but I'm sure you can find lots of writeups about the DC-10 (United flight 232) that crashed in Sioux City, IA. This airplane had a catastrophic failure of the #2 engine which severed all three independent hydraulic systems at once. This left them with no control surfaces and only differential power to guide them.
They were trimmed for a certain airspeed (fast, maybe 285 kias?) which presented them the obstacle of dealing with a phugoid. This is basically the airplane porposing while it flies faster/slower than the trimmed speed.
Doing a little research there may help alleviate (or create) some problems grasping whats/whys of inherent stability and aerodynamcics.
-
Co-Rotating = Conventional Twin (the technical term) = Props in the same direction.
Looks like you've got it.
I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
-
Hi Hitech,
>HoHun,I do not belive the moment of inertia is the answere, we are talking about a constant force not a changing force.
My idea is that the constant force would be trimmed out by the pilot just like a weight difference due to asymmetric fuel use.
The pilot wouldn't be able to tell torque from a weight imbalance at constant power and rpm, so he wouldn't perceive it as torque.
That's why I think the pilot might look for roll acceleration more than for roll moment when he's looking for torque.
>My guess is it is being offset do to slip stream effects having more wing area to hit.
I agree that this effect is a primary suspect, too :-) However, I'm not sure the geometry is sufficiently different for it to be the only cause. Just think of the Twin Mustang that's still very similar to a P-51 in most dimensions. How is it going to compensate for twice the torque with less than twice the airframe?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Golfer,
>This extra speed creates extra lift and causes a roll to the right. [...]
>This only happens when the rudder is deflected in flight, with the rudder trimmed and the ball centered, no such rolling moment exists.
Hm, what is the optimum equilibrium for long-range cruise in our co-rotating, symmetrical twin?
From Straiga's summary for a single-engined aircraft, I'd expect a small side-slip in order to compensate for torque.
I'd expect the same for a twin, as it has twice the torque. The generally larger airframe might mean that less sideslip is needed anyway, I guess.
With the ball centered, it's still possible to be side-slipping I believe?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
You are going to do the best in Coordinated flight (ball centered)
The only time you don't want the ball centered in normal flight is when you have an engine out in a twin. You will then want to establish what is called a 'Zero Sidelsip' condition which actually splits the ball on the line toward the good engine.
I'm sure down in his images somewhere it includes this information.
The ATP book page 2-3 has Zero Sideslip info.
That is for flight in a Multi engine airplane while flying on a single, not just a piston single.
Straiga where'd ya get the ATP books? Did you instruct there? Attend way back when?
-
Ok guys were getting there.
Multi-engine with one eng out;
Yaw1: Due to one engine out, it yaws either left or right, depends on what engine is producing thrust, yawing the airplane into the dead engine. Byproduct: Side Slip: Byproduct Drag.
Adverse Yaw1: Due to asymmetric aileron, to keep the dead engine wing 5 % banked into good engine, one wing moves forward creating lift on that wing and unequal lift effect: Byproduct: A Yaw moment away from the good engine and a rolling moment into the good engine: Byproduct Drag. Side Slip: Byproduct Drag
Asymmetric Lift1: Due to good engine producing prop wash airflow across the wing: Byproduct: Rolling moment into the dead engine.
To Counter Forces;
Yaw1: To counter Yaw (Rudder)
Byproduct of Rudder: Drag.
Byproduct of Rudder: Side Slip rolling moment toward the good engine.
Byproduct of Side Slip: Drag.
Adverse Yaw 1: To counter Yaw (Rudder)
Byproduct of Rudder: Drag.
Byproduct of Rudder: Side Slip rolling moment toward the good engine.
Byproduct of Side Slip: Drag.
Asymmetric Lift1: to counter this (Rudder) and (Aileron) 5% bank into the good engine: Byproduct of Rudder: Drag.
Byproduct of Rudder: Side Slip rolling moment toward the good engine.
Byproduct of Aileron: Yaw moment away from the good engine. Byproduct of Aileron: Rolling moment into the good engine. Byproduct Drag.
Byproduct of Aileron: Side Slip Drag.
Later Straiga
-
Hi Straiga,
>Multi-engine with one eng out;
[...]
>To Counter Forces;
Good way of summing it up - how would it look like for the symmetrical airframe, co-rotating engine twin in stabilized cruise? I think we might be able to sort it out after all :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hey HoHun,
A twin engine in cruise flight with both props turning the same direction (Co-Rotating). Is this what were talking about, if it is.
Both engine are producing equal thrust and both wings have equal prop wash induced airflow across them. At level flight with no positive angle of attach there is no P-factor present. P-factor is only present in a nose high or positive angle of attach, which will yaw the airframe to the left. In a single engine situation the when the right is only running P-Factor and engine thrust will yaw to the left the airframe far more because of the leverage it exerts from the length away from the CG. With the left engine only running the P-Factor wants to yaw the airframe to the left but the thrust is greater and will yaw the airframe to the right. We get P-Factor in a single engine situation because of the asymmetric Lift nose high angle of attach.
In straight and level flight with both engines running all forces are balanced. Aileron trim is at 0, rudder trim is slightly to the right due to prop slipstream, elevator trim set to hold a given airspeed.
If you think that there would be an induced roll due to engine torque. Well lets discuss this a little. Torgue effects is at its greatest in power application or power reduction in a single engine airplane. With a strong power application there is a greater torque moment. Most pilots just dont jam the throttle to the engine, to reduce the torque effect they add power gradually and to counter this rudder can be used. But aileron can be used also but when you use aileron, you get a adverse aileron effect and sideslip which yaws the plane into the direction of engine torque moment. Correct? So now you need more rudder and more drag of the airframe, this is less efficient then just using rudder and to reduce sideslip to 0. With a decrease in engine torque the single engine plane will yaw to the right, rudder is used to counter this effect. In cruse flight engine torque is present but is not a great influence on the airframe so a slight right rudder trim is used to counter this at a 0 sideslip.
Multi-engine airplane do not experience this torque roll effect. This is a different airframe all together the engine are mounted on the wings and the engine and props are mounted inline to the nose of the airframe, way forward of the CG. Now if you take and draw a line from the CG straight out to the engine placement and measure the distance we have some kind of leveage on the CG. Now draw a line from the engine to the most forward point were the prop location is, and measure the distance. The leverage arm has increased more, and this leverage is off the center of gravity, and off the longitudnal axis. Buy using the coefficient of yaw formula you can calculate the yaw force induced on the airframe. But nowhere is there a input for torque effect in the yaw coefficient formula.
The placement of the engine from the CG and longitudnal axis, torque forces are deminished due to the placement of the engines, but engine thrust and P-Factor and prop slipstream forces have increased.
Now when you see the picture of a twin provided by Hitech you can see this. Lets take the right wing and engine, if the engine is running the wing would rotate the oposit of the props direction of rotation. If I took the hand of god and grab the left wing tip the wing rotation would stop. Lets call the hand of god the fuselage. With now mounted to the left wing tip and the fuselage that has a horizontal stabilizer and elevators, by using up elevator you can stop this rotation in flight. But what happens know because torque force is deminished by the fuselage and elevator force, the placement of the engine will try to create some force or leverage on the airframe.
Remembur that the fuselage is in the CG and longitudnal axis or the pivot point in the roll axis and yaw axis. The engine is the pivot point or roll axis for torque force in a single engine airplane, but not in a multi-engine when the engine is mounted on the wing away from the fuselage center pivot point. This is where the fuselage has a greater moment then the engine torque moment. All the engine can do know is roll the plane to the left by asymmetric lift and yaw, due to the P-Factor and the engine thrust around the pivot point roll and yaw axis. So by using rudder on the fuselage roll and yaw moment, this can counter this force, which has a further distances from the CG and has a bigger leverage arm then the engine. But when airspeed is decreased you will lose this leverage and the airplane will stall/spin out of controll.
The same goes for the left hand engine and the hand of god thing and all other things relate to the right engine.
Later Straiga
-
Hi Straiga,
>In straight and level flight with both engines running all forces are balanced. Aileron trim is at 0, rudder trim is slightly to the right due to prop slipstream, elevator trim set to hold a given airspeed.
With the slight rudder trim, would that mean we're flying at a slight sideslip?
>Torgue effects is at its greatest in power application or power reduction in a single engine airplane. With a strong power application there is a greater torque moment. Most pilots just dont jam the throttle to the engine, to reduce the torque effect they add power gradually and to counter this rudder can be used.
Actually, the torque is at its maximum when the engine is producing full power, but I agree that from a piloting perspective, the change in torque is more important than the absolute torque.
That's why I'm convinced that the higher rotational inertia of twins plays a big role for reducing torque effects - the Twin Mustangs has about 12 times the rotational inertia of the P-51, and only two times the torque, so the torque effects you describe are reduced by a factor of six!
>Now if you take and draw a line from the CG straight out to the engine placement and measure the distance we have some kind of leveage on the CG.
Well, torque is a moment, and moments are not localized. It doen't matter where the engine is located, only the way its rotation axis is oriented.
>With now mounted to the left wing tip and the fuselage that has a horizontal stabilizer and elevators, by using up elevator you can stop this rotation in flight.
But for the other engine, situated on the other side of the fuselage, you'd need down elevator to stop the rotation.
If you put the aircraft together, you'll see that the elevator's force is applied at the same lateral position at the centre of gravity, so it generates no rolling moment about the centre of gravity at all. (Else you'd get a roll every time you apply elevator.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
With the slight rudder trim, would that mean we're flying at a slight sideslip?
0 Sideslip, 0 Roll, 0 Pitch, 0 Yaw, Ball centered.
Well, torque is a moment, and moments are not localized. It doen't matter where the engine is located, only the way its rotation axis is oriented.
Im not clear on what your saying.
But for the other engine, situated on the other side of the fuselage, you'd need down elevator to stop the rotation.
But with both wings attached 0 elevator. Up elevator right wing only. Down elevator left wing only.
If you put the aircraft together, you'll see that the elevator's force is applied at the same lateral position at the centre of gravity, so it generates no rolling moment about the centre of gravity at all. (Else you'd get a roll every time you apply elevator.)
Elevator is in the pitch axis not in the lateral axis. I dont see where you get that the elevator is at the same lateral axis at the CG. Did I miss something?
Actually, the torque is at its maximum when the engine is producing full power, but I agree that from a piloting perspective, the change in torque is more important than the absolute torque.
True we feel more in the change in torque then constant torque.
With differential incidences in the main wing, vertical stabilizer set to a angle of attach left of center line, one wing clipped shorter than the other, engine mount setting the engine nose down and to the right. All this rigging in the airframe keeps the plane countering torque from the engine in straight and level flight with a steady state airspeed with little or no trim required for a single engine airplane. In multi-engines some rigging is in the airframe but not to counter torque.
Man its tuff to talk and not be able to draw something or work with visuals to help you understand this.
Later Straiga
-
Hi Straiga,
>Im not clear on what your saying.
Well, physically a moment is sort of a disembodied force/moment arm combination. It will try to rotate stuff, but won't really care for the axis. If the aircraft is on the ground, torque will try to roll the aircraft around one mainwheel tyre contact point, if it's in the air, around the centre of gravity.
So if you have two co-rotating engines, you have two times the torque no matter where they are located. Something else has to be there to counteract it, and that's what I'm looking for.
I'd expect some sideslip in stabilized cruise even for a twin, but now you tell me there is none, so I'm a bit at a loss right now ...
>Elevator is in the pitch axis not in the lateral axis. I dont see where you get that the elevator is at the same lateral axis at the CG. Did I miss something?
Well, not really - we're both struggling with English terminology :-)
Lateral control is rotation around the vertical axis, the lateral position is translation along the left-right (lateral) axis.
Since the elevator (centre) is in the same left-right (lateral) position as the centre of gravity, so elevator forces generate no moment about the centre of gravity and cannot counteract torque.
>Man its tuff to talk and not be able to draw something or work with visuals to help you understand this.
And I am explaining stuff in a foreign language to increase the difficulty factor even further ;-) But I think we're making progress!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
this and the rest of these threads need some beer and a game of pool or darts.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
this and the rest of these threads need some beer and a game of pool or darts.
that and a lie detector
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
that and a lie detector
I wouldn't pass judgement yet, just because you think its ok.
I mean, if you can come up with something that says "here this is proof you are not telling the truth" it's one thing. It's another if you are just saying because you feel something is improbable or unlikely and then deciding its impossible.
Make it a bottle of 16yr Jameson to the winner?