X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m27.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.3) with ESMTP id 872000 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:04:09 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.8; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-m27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.1c6.36eb8cc5 (3890) for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:03:23 -0500 (EST) From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: <1c6.36eb8cc5.30ce508a@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:03:22 EST Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: "P" factor? Re: Static Engine RPM To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1134360202" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5022 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1134360202 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On further review, in addition to te conventional "P" factor, the obvious "torque effect" tries to roll the plane in the direction opposite of prop rotation. The wing leveling input adds adverse yaw, and that also looks like "P" factor. Lynn E. Hanover Posting on top is like talking backwards. In a message dated 12/11/2005 10:19:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, lendich@optusnet.com.au writes: Ed, What you are saying reflects what I've read also - however Tracy's experience with the difference between the 2.17 and the 2.85 suggests that there is also the centrifugal forces of prop + rotor direction to contend with, as Tracy required full R rudder to maintain directional control with the 2.85, whereas with the 2.17, it wasn't anywhere near as difficult - so I'm led to believe. If it were just the wind from the prop corkscrewing around the fuselage until it hit the rudder, the L and R turning props would give a similar response in intensity. This wasn't the case, it would seem. George ( down under) Hi Georges, -------------------------------1134360202 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On further review, in addition to te conventional "P" factor, the obvio= us=20 "torque effect" tries to roll the plane in the direction opposite of prop=20 rotation. The wing leveling input adds adverse yaw, and that also looks like= "P"=20 factor.

Lynn E. Hanover

Posting on top is like talking backwards.

In a message dated 12/11/2005 10:19:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20 lendich@optusnet.com.au writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

Ed,

What you are saying reflects what I've read also - how= ever=20 Tracy's experience with the difference between the 2.17 and the 2.85 sugge= sts=20 that there is also the centrifugal forces of prop + rotor direction to con= tend=20 with, as Tracy required full R rudder to maintain directional control= =20 with the 2.85, whereas with the 2.17, it wasn't anywhere near as difficult= -=20 so I'm led to believe.

If it were just the wind from the prop corkscrewing ar= ound=20 the fuselage until it hit the rudder, the L and R turning props=20 would give a similar response in intensity. This wasn't the case, it=20 would seem.

George ( down under)

Hi Georges,

-------------------------------1134360202--