GScholz more ont turbo props:

[Casca]

g00b:

Is there a link with some more information about the vehicle in the picture?

[Golfer]

remember that we're already flying way above the runway

Ah...I didn't get that the first time around but you did mention 'Straight and level flight' so I shall restate.

a) we held the rudder centered and fed in aileron to compensate for the engine torque?

Engine torque really isn't a big issue at altitude and when flying Straight and level.  But, just sayin the word 'torque' and using the prop as well here we go...

Due torque, the airplane would yaw left, the vertical component of lift would cause the aircraft to roll.  While this is not directly due to torque, it is a byproduct.  If you used aileron only to correct the problem, you'd have a level attitude though the ball would not be centered.  The ball would be to the right, because we need to hold right aileron to keep level (Due to the yawing moment being converted to roll by vertical lift component built into the wings due to dyhedral, NOT because torque rolls an airplane) and that would cause the nose to want to go left.

b) we held ailerons neutral and fed in rudder to compensate for the engine torque?

This is still what you're supposed to do.  As mentioned before, I never touched aileron trim when flying in a conventional twin (Piper Apache as an example).  I used the red rudder trim a lot, but never EVER touched aileron.  All the rudder trim is used for is to keep that ball centered.  

(DOH!) I think something is hitting me, its not aileron trim in the Apache, its elevator trim that is the black ball.  Still, no matter I never used it.  It's the King Airs with aileron trim.

c) We held all controls centered?

the airplane would slowly yaw to the left, and because of the vertical component of lift it would start to roll.  This would be cause the airplane to nose over and you would be providing someone a hole of significant size to plane a redwood.

[Straiga]

a) we held the rudder centered and fed in aileron to compensate for the engine torque?

The plane would yaw left because of assemetric aileron in the direction of the torque. You would not have any directional control in flight. But on takeoff ailerons are not effective until about 45 -60 MPH so now how can you use aileron on takeoff to counter torque at a low airspeed when torque is at its most prominate state.

we held ailerons neutral and fed in rudder to compensate for the engine torque?

 

This is the correct way to counter torque in a 4 engine airplane and the use of rudder gives you directional control.

Straiga, I have a huge respect for your wealth of experience. But be aware some of us may have a fair amount of knowledge on the subjects at hand as well.

Goob, its nice to know where your coming from. I now know what experience you might have. Thats all, I hope I did not affend you if I did Im sorry. Do you live in Las Vegas it looks like the area behind my house?

As to my credentials. They are irrelavent. I never use my credentials to prove or disprove a point. Either the argement can be shown to be true or not.

You mean you cant tell us where you get your vast aeronautical experience from. We all would like to know.

Ok please explain one topic. How does adding or moving engines change the Torque effect. Please do not speak to P-factor/slip stream or preccesion. Just about Torque. I.E. a rolling moment created only by the force of the engine.

Because I view that statement about engine torque to be 100% accurate.

Because you could put those 4 engines in a straight line all behind each other, or out on the wings. And the roll force on the the air frame do to engine torque will be exatly the same.

If you do not agree with this, please explain presicly why.

I have in other posts and have given actual flying experiences about this. You can not understand because you dont have any kind of Multi-Engine time. You do not want to believe when I have real flight experiences for some reason you except to say that I have no knowledge of physics.

So you explain why in detail, about torque of four engines affecting an airframe so we can all see were you are flawed in your thinking.

So dont believe me go ask any multi-engine rated pilot to tell you that your wrong in your thinking. I dont have a problem understanding the physics about a four engine airplane but you do so please go ask someone who also knows about this subject.

All I have done is mention that I have seen some flaws in AHII aerodynamics. I have heard that this is the most accurate flight sim out there. Even to the point were Pyro has to get it right about how a spent shell casing is either discharged over board or remains in a box in the airplane. Who cares. It is probably so minute' that it woundnt be a factor anyway. But you go for it pyro lets get it right.

We had a discussion about losing the tail plane in a fight and which way will the nose point afterwards and found that the CG is not even modeled while this happens. So it just makes you wondered what else is not modeled correctly in AHII. But when you try to tell someone about this with real experiences they dont believe you.

Straiga

[Tails]

I'd like to chime in, but I'm still trying to work out complex torque interactions to the airframe in multi-engine craft...and this is WITHOUT a physics degree

[g00b]

Originally posted by Casca
g00b:

Is there a link with some more information about the vehicle in the picture?

http://www.easyracers.com

Check out the racing page

http://www.easyracers.com/racing

And the Virtual Rush page

http://www.easyracers.com/virtual_rush.htm

A video produced by Ford:

http://www.easyracers.com/videos/VR_Ford.wmv

Our Junior Rider setting a new world record:

http://www.easyracers.com/videos/BM2003_Macky_Thurs.wmv

Check out the multimedia page for other cool videos too:

http://www.easyracers.com/multimedia.htm

g00b

[straffo]

Originally posted by Straiga
This is the correct way to counter torque in a 4 engine airplane and the use of rudder gives you directional control.

In wich conditions ? be more explicit please.

Is it on the ground ,during rotation , on cruise ?

And please read my previous post , if there is no propeller on the plane will torque change or not ? (at full power obviously)

[Golfer]

On the ground and in the air, Straffo.

Also, if you didn't have props, you'd just have a big noisy thing that sat on the runway.  No matter how much torque or power the engines are putting out, with no prop (way to convert all that torque into movement of air) then you sit there.

[Straiga]

Hey Golfer you also have B-17G time too Cool. Tell me did you have to use any aileron in the flight except to turn or use them for a crosswind. I dont think anybody will beleive you, you have actual flight experience. LOL

Straiga

[straffo]

Thank Golfer, you agree the torque force produced by the engine is still here.

So it's not the torque ,it's another force.

Perhaps one is the "souffle hélicoïdal de l'hélice" I'll translate by "Helical propwash"   
plus the "précession gyroscopique" ...

The only think I remember for sure is it's the sum of 4 forces

I will dig in my "Mécanique du vol" books but I guess  it can be found in an English book aswell.

[Golfer]

I'm not shallow enough to say I have time in one.  I don't have any training whatsoever.  I sat in the right seat and moved the yoke around while keeping the HSI of my GPS pointed at Lancaster, OH.

It was a real neat experience, I didn't land (I have 50hrs tailwheel time but no friggin endorsement...I need to amend that) nor did I start the engines, taxi or takeoff.  Climbing through about 1500' AGL (about 2400' MSL) I took the controls for the 30 minute flight.

It was a fall afternoon and not a breath of wind here in Ohio...just like Aces High.  Clear 'n a million.  Windsock limp.  (Unlike >15kts wind which I refer to as 'Boner Conditions')

I got to imagine a P-51 off my wing taking me into Germany.  I got to think of what it would be like to have 10's and 100's of luftwaffe fighters coming in with only one purpose...killing me.

What an experience.  (Also, was not multi rated at the time nor was the pilot a current CFI so no logbook time for this.  I'd burn my logbooks to do it again)

[HoHun]

Hi Golfer,

>Due torque, the airplane would yaw left, the vertical component of lift would cause the aircraft to roll.  While this is not directly due to torque, it is a byproduct.  If you used aileron only to correct the problem, you'd have a level attitude though the ball would not be centered.  The ball would be to the right, because we need to hold right aileron to keep level (Due to the yawing moment being converted to roll by vertical lift component built into the wings due to dyhedral, NOT because torque rolls an airplane) and that would cause the nose to want to go left.

OK, I agree with the flight status :-)

However, as the sum of all moments around each axis as well as the sum of all forces parallel to each axis have to be zero for an equilibrium, I'd say that the aileron-induced right roll moment counters the engine-torque induced left roll. The yaw in my opinion is aileron-induced.

I believe that while we still disagree, we have now exactly identified where we do :-) Roger on this being the critical spot?

>the airplane would slowly yaw to the left, and because of the vertical component of lift it would start to roll.  This would be cause the airplane to nose over and you would be providing someone a hole of significant size to plane a redwood.

OK, again I agree with the flight status (and the depth of the hole as well :-)

But again, I'd say that the roll would be torque-induced, and the yaw roll-induced, for the same reason as above, so (as already expected) we can conveniently treat point c) as part of point a).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Golfer]

It's very very very important we are talking about the same type of airplane.  What airplane are you using in your  mind as an example.

Then I'll show you mine

[HoHun]

Hi Golfer,

>It's very very very important we are talking about the same type of airplane.  What airplane are you using in your  mind as an example.

>Then I'll show you mine

Actually, my mental image is sort of an animated threeview line drawing with plenty of vector arrows :-)

But if you need a type, how about a He 219?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Golfer]

not to be a stickler for details...but what is that?

Tell me :

Single or Multi Engine, High/low wing.  Or just pick a common GA airplane like a C-172 or C-310

[HoHun]

Hi Golfer,

>not to be a stickler for details...but what is that?

The Heinkel He 219 is a heavy, high-powered WW2 night fighter in twin-engine, mid-wing, twin-fin configuration.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)