Flamin_Squirrel

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.

No it shouldn't. The tanks are pressurised unless the probe is out or bleeds are off (or weight on wheels IIRC). Unless there's some other obscure information we're missing, it's a bug.

Damnit. Where'd you see that?

Wouldn't it be 3? We've not had October's update yet. Although that should mean we see something today, but it's been rather quiet...

Excellent. Now, how about an updated version of your carrier landing guide of yours :music_whistling: Thanks for your continued input! :thumbup:

:doh::doh::doh: Forgot I'd downloaded it. Can't find the online version now either. Sorry.

This guide recommends 17. *link deleted*

I'm not forgetting anything. And nothing you said contradicts what I said.

No it can't. At 350kts you'll cover 4nm in 41 seconds. Even with lead breaking overhead the ship, that leaves ~14 second interval between following aircraft, which isn't much.

I never said there wouldn't be any damage. I was responding to the idea that exceeding G limits would definitely result in wings snapping off. Nothing more.

You're still missing some1's point. Depth of field is a result of focal length, something our eyes have to adjust for (the same as a camera) and is one of the ways we perceive depth. Focal length is fixed in VR, so we've lost this information. VR only provides depth perception through stereoscopic vision - it's totally independent of focal length. Whether this makes much difference to the topic at hand is perhaps more up for debate, but the idea that it could seems perfectly possible.