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,