PDA

View Full Version : Modelling Torque effects



XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 05:54 PM
I hope the new patch adresses the lack of torque in FB. I wish the effects would be more intense througout the flight regions. Not just on takeoff. I have been reading accounts of WW2 veterans from both sides and they all agree that these prop fighters with 2000+ hp engines had to really compensate for torque effects when flying. Takeoff and landing being most crucial. A nice effect would be if throttle is advanced too quickly to see torque effects really affect the airframe. Oh well, just a thought.

http://utenti.lycos.it/AEREOFAN/images/saetta.jpg

caccia buon!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 05:54 PM
I hope the new patch adresses the lack of torque in FB. I wish the effects would be more intense througout the flight regions. Not just on takeoff. I have been reading accounts of WW2 veterans from both sides and they all agree that these prop fighters with 2000+ hp engines had to really compensate for torque effects when flying. Takeoff and landing being most crucial. A nice effect would be if throttle is advanced too quickly to see torque effects really affect the airframe. Oh well, just a thought.

http://utenti.lycos.it/AEREOFAN/images/saetta.jpg

caccia buon!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 06:05 PM
especially with the p38 coming it had the best torque out of anyfighter which made it so deadly. On zenos drive in theater site theres a RA clip which shows the p38f and the p51d flying side by side at 160mph, then both gave it full throttle the p38 cruises past it till its top speed then the mustang starts to gain on it very slowly


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 06:07 PM
Most likely the torque effects in the next sim engine will be outstanding.For now im happy with the way they are but am looking foward to realistic torque effects.Ever sit in a 400 horsepower car and rev the motor....its a frame wrencing experience and just think what 2000 HP will do.

XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 07:34 PM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- Most likely the torque effects in the next sim
- engine will be outstanding.For now im happy with the
- way they are but am looking foward to realistic
- torque effects.Ever sit in a 400 horsepower car and
- rev the motor....its a frame wrencing experience and
- just think what 2000 HP will do.
-
Really. Realistic torque effect would make dogfighting very difficult, which is why it is not modelled properly. When you reduce the throttle to stay on somones 6, then firewall the throttle and nothing happens its easy to aim. Try aiming when the throttle is firewalled and the plane rotates about its roll axis......tough!

http://utenti.lycos.it/AEREOFAN/images/saetta.jpg

caccia buon!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 07:42 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- especially with the p38 coming it had the best
- torque out of anyfighter which made it so deadly. On
- zenos drive in theater site theres a RA clip which
- shows the p38f and the p51d flying side by side at
- 160mph, then both gave it full throttle the p38
- cruises past it till its top speed then the mustang
- starts to gain on it very slowly

I think he is talking about the torqe effects not the thrust? You know, how the AC would pull n roll to one side due to torque... Which the P38 didnt have a problem with due to the counter rotating props that cancled each others torque, unlike the early P38 that howard cracked up due to the non-counter rotating engs! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 02:58 AM
mike_espo wrote:
- Wolfstriked wrote:
-- Most likely the torque effects in the next sim
-- engine will be outstanding.For now im happy with the
-- way they are but am looking foward to realistic
-- torque effects.Ever sit in a 400 horsepower car and
-- rev the motor....its a frame wrencing experience and
-- just think what 2000 HP will do.
--
- Really. Realistic torque effect would make
- dogfighting very difficult, which is why it is not
- modelled properly. When you reduce the throttle to
- stay on somones 6, then firewall the throttle and
- nothing happens its easy to aim. Try aiming when the
- throttle is firewalled and the plane rotates about
- its roll axis......tough!


Tough but realistic and loads of fun/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Just be careful of how you control the power and also know what the torque will cause and use to ones advantage..

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 03:06 AM
Lots of torque...

Would turn better in one direction than the other.
Raising or lowering the nose would also yaw the plane.
Changing throttle fast would not only affect roll but also pitch and yaw if done while turning.

I think most of these are present already, they were there in IL2. Maybe not as strong as some would like but then who wants to show proofs instead of opinions? These planes are not Sopwith Camels and DrI's.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 03:14 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- These planes are not Sopwith Camels and DrI's.

DING! In that not only did the props induce torque, but the eng spun around the shaft. That is to say the bulk of the DrI's engine, ie cylinders spun around a FIXED shaft, thus all that momentum of the engine also added to the torque effects.. Where as in the likes of the P47 radials, the engine was mounted fixed, and the shaft spun with the prop on the end of the shaft. But the red baron used that to his adv to turn sharply.. in one direction! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 03:30 AM
The torque forces on these fighters is not a phenomenon that one can (maybe feel a bit) and (think exists already, probably.) A corsair pilot stayed over at our hanger one week and told us that if he didn't counter with almost full opposite aileron on take off, climb, and other critical flight maneuvers, the plane would roll over on its back. He mentioned two acquaintances who died in training because the forces were stronger than the men expected. FB should make these critical elements more noticeable. Some of the single engine civil aircraft I fly from the Tomahawk to the Caravan have more torque in RL than the P-47 in the game/sim. A jug having the weak tendencies to (slightly turn a bit) during takeoff should be no where NEAR Oleg's standards.


Falcon

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


Message Edited on 07/27/0302:45AM by Falcon-4

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 03:39 AM
tagert wrote:
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-- These planes are not Sopwith Camels and DrI's.
-
- DING! In that not only did the props induce torque,
- but the eng spun around the shaft. That is to say
- the bulk of the DrI's engine, ie cylinders spun
- around a FIXED shaft, thus all that momentum of the
- engine also added to the torque effects.. Where as
- in the likes of the P47 radials, the engine was
- mounted fixed, and the shaft spun with the prop on
- the end of the shaft. But the red baron used that to
- his adv to turn sharply.. in one direction! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wow, that's a crazy kind of enigine design, tagert! Is there any more info on this?

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 03:40 AM
tagert wrote:
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-- These planes are not Sopwith Camels and DrI's.
-
- DING! In that not only did the props induce torque,
- but the eng spun around the shaft. That is to say
- the bulk of the DrI's engine, ie cylinders spun
- around a FIXED shaft, thus all that momentum of the
- engine also added to the torque effects.. Where as
- in the likes of the P47 radials, the engine was
- mounted fixed, and the shaft spun with the prop on
- the end of the shaft. But the red baron used that to
- his adv to turn sharply.. in one direction! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wow, that's a crazy kind of engine design, tagert! Is there any more info on this?





Message Edited on 07/27/0302:40AM by HomeboyWu

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 03:42 AM
Falcon-4 wrote:
- The torque forces on these fighters is not a
- phenomenon that one can (maybe feel a bit) and
- (think exists already, probably.) A corsair pilot
- stayed over at our hanger one week and told us that
- if he didn't counter with almost full opposite
- aileron on take off, climb, and other critical
- flight maneuvers, the plane would roll over on its
- back. He mentioned two acquaintances who died in
- training because the forces were stronger than the
- men expected. FB should make these critical
- elements more noticeable. The civil aircraft I fly
- from the Tomahawk to the Caravan have more torque
- than the P-47 in the game/sim. A jug having the
- weak tendencies to (slightly turn a bit) during
- takeoff should be no where NEAR Oleg's standards.

Defintally more apparent at slow speeds.. like take off, I have also heard storys of the F4U and how hard it was to take off the carriers due to the torgue effects. I wondered about the turn right due to torque thing... that is in the yaw axis.. I kind of expected to see more of a roll/lean in the nose to tail axis.. you know, kind of compress the strut when you crank it up... but all we have is a turn right effect.... while taxi take off.. once gear off the ground.. you should see more of a roll come into play that you have to adj for... it is there... but really suttle.



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 04:59 AM
HomeboyWu wrote:
- Wow, that's a crazy kind of engine design, tagert!
- Is there any more info on this?

Emmmm.. that is about all I know about it, that and a few of the WWI ac roterys were like that... I think the camel was the same thing, basically the cylinder/engine block spun arund a fixed crank shaft.. That is to say very UNLINE what your use to seeing where the engine is fixed mounted, and the crank shaft spins. It was a sorce of alot of momentum, espically when you consider the light AC.. reltivly light they were mounted on. Im sure some folks here know of a good link... Im just going off memory of things I read years ago.. and it is fading! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Except for prom night.. that is burned in my memory! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 05:39 PM
HomeboyWu wrote:

- Wow, that's a crazy kind of engine design, tagert!
- Is there any more info on this?
-

They were called rotary engine types, and were quite widespread in ww1. IIRC some sort of technical problem led to this solution, but was ceased to be used after ww1. Rotary engined a/c generally rolled and turned much better towards the rotaion, but on the opposite side they had very ugly stall characteristics because of the great torque involved.

Back on topic, I think torque forces are modelled very modestly in Il-2FB. They should be much more pronounced.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 06:52 PM
More on rotaries? Well, the carbs were fitted to the firewall, stationary. The fuel mixture was fed through the crankshaft out to the engines. This meant a rather large volume of fuel mixture had to be burned off before there was any change in the power generated in the cylinders. And before there was any change in output power, the entire mass of the engine had to be slowed down to create an RPM change.

A partial remedy was the blip throttle. Rather than adjust the engine power using the carb, you cut the ignition instantly converting the engine to a rathe complex air pump braking its own rotation. That's why you hear the interesting full power - idle - full power - idle when those old birds come in to land.

Cheers,
Fred

No sig as of now, as people apparently can't handle reality without creating too much trouble for the poor mods.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:04 AM
Il2 was certianly more fun with planes wildley careering all over the place till you got the hang of it ..

the adverse yaw effects are actually from a number of causes only a minimal amount being actually torque

- torque causing roll that pushes one wheel into the ground harder causing yaw
- spiral prop wash hitting the tail plane
- when "tail down" the angle of attack of the rising and falling prop blades differs

and an interersting one

- at the point of time when the tail lifts this causes a gyroscopic precession of the prop resulting in yaw


as a point of interest adverse yaw in spits was so bad pilots where restricted in how much throttle they couold use at takeoff

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:44 AM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- Il2 was certianly more fun with planes wildley
- careering all over the place till you got the hang
- of it ..
-
- the adverse yaw effects are actually from a number
- of causes only a minimal amount being actually
- torque
-
-- torque causing roll that pushes one wheel into the ground harder causing yaw
-- spiral prop wash hitting the tail plane
-- when "tail down" the angle of attack of the rising and falling prop blades differs
-
- and an interersting one
-
-- at the point of time when the tail lifts this causes a gyroscopic precession of the prop resulting in yaw
-
-
- as a point of interest adverse yaw in spits was so
- bad pilots where restricted in how much throttle
- they couold use at takeoff
-
-

I thought adverse yaw comes when you do an aileron roll?

For example you roll right then the left wing (with aileron deflected down) creates more lift (and drag) than the right wing. The increased (decreased) drag of the left (right) wing gives the plane a tendency to yaw left. Since you yaw left when roll right, it's called adverse yaw.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:52 AM
ya i think your correct

gettin too liberal with the terminology here

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:53 AM
WTE_Galway wrote:

- the adverse yaw effects are actually from a number
- of causes only a minimal amount being actually
- torque
-
-


Adverse yaw is not caused by engine induced torque, helical propwash, gyroscopic precession, or P factor. Adverse yaw is not experienced in ground handling at all.

Adverse yaw is the phenomenon whereby when rolling an aircraft, it will tend to yaw in the direction opposite to the roll. Roll right and the aircraft will yaw left. It is yaw "adverse" to the intended direction of a turn.

There are actually two forms of adverse yaw and they are both explainable by different means but simply put, the "outside" wing is caused to produce more lift and thus, more drag. This slows that wing, causing the aicraft to yaw in that direction.



Rats. Gotta learn to type faster. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Not to mention more concisely.

Message Edited on 07/27/0307:02PM by Wind_Master

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:14 AM
im copying & pasting from another post here : ......

PLZ read it



-----------------------------------------------------



On the takeoff roll, the prop engine aircraft in FB tend to drop a wing (yet they roll pretty straight on - if you keep the wings level with aileron, you do not need any rudder input at all).

Well.. any power pilot know that this does not happen in real-life aicraft. Period. In real life aircraft experience YAW, not ROLL due to engine torque on the takeoff run (especially the tail draggers).
I have the impression that this roll tendency is meant to simulate some kind of engine torque - but if so, why does it disappear imediately once lift off?

Even worse - if you look closely, you will see the same roll tendency even in the 262 LOL

Switch off one engine in a He-111 - apply full power on the remaining engine... and try to find ANY yaw tendency. You won't find any. Because it is simply not modelled. You want a challenge? Switch off the 2 engines on the wing of a TB3... again not the slightest yaw....!???????



Fly an aircraft really slow at full power. You do not need ANY rudder to keep it straight, and only some very minor corrections with the aileron to keep the wings level (the roll stability goes down the slower you fly - in real life this simply does not happen. Should this simulate engine torque in FB?). If you stall it from very slow speed out of a very steep climb, any aircraft in FB will lower the nose gently, having no more than 20-30 kp/h on top of the arc. Nice move - some kind of hammerhead-autopilot. Absolutely NO influence of engine torque. None. You simply cannot stall.

Of course people might argue now that prop torque is there in FB... but I ask where?
If I apply full power from idle at very low speed, I expect the engine torque to throw my aircraft into a snap roll, followed by a spin (this speed was 130 mph for the P-51D, for example). In FB the plane yaws a bit... and yaws back till the ball is centered again. It needs absolutely no rudder or aileron input to keep it level



----------------------------------------------------

ok the guy who posted that is a pilot IRL & plays FB & CFS2 before that & hes a REALLY good gamer

FB is way cool but is FAR from real life




Message Edited on 07/29/0308:50AM by WUAF_Badsight

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 12:17 PM
Many planes were really dangerous at start and landing
especially the start,
The Bf109s had a wery nasty habit of turning on to
its back just after takeoff if you werent carefull,
I dont know how many pilots were killed because of it,
just that they were really many.
and the Typhoon and Tempest had a brutal tendencie
to turn to the right when accelerating, it was so bad that they
had to preparate the ground beside the takeoff strip,
because it was almost inpossible to ceep them on the runway.
all this because the torque effects of the engines.

<ceter>http://www.daveswarbirds.com/glennill/images/p-63.jpg </center>
BECOME A KING WHINER

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 02:17 PM
Good post. WUAF. I was afraid of that. Not too realistic. I read from a P-38 pilot he managed to escape 4 fw-190s due to the fact that he knew that their aircraft could not handle slow speed engine torque effects, while he in his lightning with the counter-rotating propellers could. Too bad.

http://utenti.lycos.it/AEREOFAN/images/saetta.jpg

caccia buon!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>