Flamin_Squirrel

Agree Joker, seems like it might be a bug?

I do! I had a pro-flight trainer collective, didn't rate it. The Vipril one is fantastic though.

Pedals are well worth it for helicopters. Get the best you feel comfortable paying for. You do generally get what you pay for. I have a collective too, and I enjoy it, but consider it no where near as important - a throttle will work fine.

Good question. It seems to pop up even if the NVS mode switch is off, which doesn't make sense to me. Bug?

Vortex ring requires low (air) speed and high rate of descent (and power applied). Make your approaches shallow, like a fixed wing, and you'll be much less likely to end up in that situation. Also, make your approaches into wind. It makes a big difference.

Absolutely. This has been quite embarrassing for me, as I've just shown what can happen when well meaning training material isn't worded as quite as well as it should be, combines with misinterpretation, leading to completely getting the wrong end of the stick. And I shouldn't have, as while I'm not multi-engine trained, I'm not a complete layman either. As Bremspropeller said, this isn't the most complex scenario in the world, but if you mess up the initial conditions you can easily come to the wrong conclusion. Out of interest, what did you find in DCS that's not right?

Yes you’re right, nothing wrong with the image. Each side can be imagined to have an “up” and “down” force, which just happens to be shown by the curved arrow. Because the up and down forces are not the same distance from the C of G, that leads to the resulting force shown by the arrows I drew. Good grief I’m out of practice with this. Thanks for your patience.

I conceded on the first page I might be wrong. But you just expected me to take your word for it. Or at least, despite being the most aggressive in asserting my stupidity, beyond linking documents, you also seemed the least interested in explaining why. Anyway, Krupi and those who mentioned the C of G I think have the answer as to why I was probably wrong. It also makes me suspect that the image you showed above (typical of what you’d see in a text book) is actually inaccurate, leading to much (my!) confusion. The purple resulting torque arrows are shown rotating around the engine, but should they not be shown about the C of G (as I’ve scribbled on below)? I never intended this topic to degenerate, my mind just doesn’t work with half the picture. The fact my book shows the same (inaccurate? thoughts?) image, and describes torque being negated with both engines running, threw me.

There ARE two pivot points. You cannot get away from that. If you're saying that can be resolved into a single co-ordinate system then sure I'm sure it can, but you've not done that in your example.

You don't know my background. Given that you seem to think the centre point of wherea torque acts is irrelevant, I'm not sure why you think anyone should take you seriously.

grafspee: Th anks. So the P-factor bit makes perfect sense and can see why that would lead to yaw; but the torque bit not so much. Consider the following single engine scenarios, and the resulting effects on the airframe: In both examples, the engines cause an anti-clockwise rotation about the engine itself, but because the pivot points are on different sides of the aircraft, the effects on the fuselage are in different 'directions' for want of a better word. If these two moments don't cancel, why?

Ah. An ad-homen criticism rather than an actual response. Not very constructive.

You can't just add the forces together because the torque from each engine acts through the centreline of the prop, not the centreline of the fuselage. Image single engine flight on each engine, non-counterrotating. From the point of view of rotating around one engine, it'll try and rotate the fuselage up. With the other engine operating, down. Both engines are trying to rotate in the same direction in, but because the points of rotation are offset they work in opposition.

The conversation was fine until you showed up. You've done nothing other than mud sling and cite articles you don't understand. Don't bother replying to anything else I say, because I'll simply ignore you.

How? Draw a diagram showing how the moments will achieve this. Take some of your own advice, because you don't understand this as well as you think you do.

Yeah P-factor is the only thing I can think of that might be an explanation. Been a good learning experience this thread. Disappointing the training documentation I have is misleading (although to be fair they probably didn't have 4,000hp taildraggers in mind!)

Yes it eliminates the critical engine, but that's only a factor in single engine flight. There's engine torque, P-factor, gyroscopic precession, and slipstream, none of which are acting around the same pivot point, so it's not as simple as just adding these factors together.

No.

But this isn't a single with the torque acting around the longitudinal axis. The right engine will want to rotate the CofG aft/counter clockwise, the left engine will want to rotate the CofG forward/clockwise. If what Kermit says means I'm wrong then I probably am, but if I am this is more complex than it might seem on the surface. In fact my book on flying twins specifically says the following: "In a twin, the [torque] reaction is largely negated until one engine fails".

Hmm. That makes no sense to me, but then I've only flown a light twin, nothing that big. Interesting either way, thanks.

While both engines are running the torque cancels out (even without counter-rotating engines), so no left yaw on take-off. It's only when you get into single engine operation things change.

I put my name down months ago, but can't find the tracking post. How can I check I'm still on the list? No rush, just thought I'd have heard something by now.

They did: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/288278-dcs-f-14-priority-issues

Like what? Nothing in NATOPS that indicates this should happen. It's not a failure either.