Quote:
Originally posted by Narsinha:
However this has not much to do with the Camel's behaviour to go down in right, and up in left turns. The latter one derives from the added gyroscopic effect to the inertia, and the resulting torque, not precession.

The clockwise turning engine (in direction of flight) simply assists the plane when doing a right turn, in turning the whole plane to the right along its axis. If you want to turn to the left, the engine does not only not assist you, but you have to additionally overcome the engines torque, resulting in a rise, or a long rising turn, if not countered.
Narsinha, the above quote states your initial thinking (not the opposite).

Now please, there's nothing wrong with allowing oneself to think about a process from a different "angle", and as John Denker summarizes, our early thinking about torque or gyrocopic precession is often based on intuition:

For any normal object (such as a book) if you apply a force in a given direction, it will respond with motion in that direction. People are so accustomed to this behavior that they lose sight of the fact that force and motion are not exactly the same thing, and they don’t always go together

Further:

Quote:
Originally posted by Narsinha:
As long as the engine runs with a fixed speed there is no torque to feel, you only have to fight the inertia during course changes.
This is not correct, because torque is also a "reactive" force, and is present when the engine/prop is turning, and does affect flight direction unless compensated for (either by the pilot, or by the plane's design, or both).

On the otherhand, it is gyroscopic precession which occurs only at certain times during prop and/or rotary-engined flight, again Denker:

Gyroscopic effects only occur when the there is a change in the orientation of the gyro’s plane of rotation. You can take a gyro and transport it north/south, east/west, or up/down, without causing any precession, as long as the gyro’s plane of rotation remains parallel to the original plane of rotation. You can even roll an airplane without seeing gyroscopic effects due to engine rotation, since the roll leaves the engine’s plane of rotation undisturbed.

As I tried to impress in an earlier post:

"First, all reciprocating engines that rotate a crankshaft/flywheel/and/or their outer casing (as with inline and rotary aircraft engines) produce "torque". You car engine produces torque, an electric motor produces torque, even the rubber band power for a balsa model airplane produces torque, however, torque is not the same as gyroscopic precession.

Therefore there are specific and different forces involved when talk turns to engine "torque", and when people start to talk of what was called "rotary torque" during WWI (that earlier term is a poor and confusing description, and probably why prolonged confusion continues). Rotary torque describes gyroscopic precession, which is a force that is encountered (felt) when a spinning mass is rotating in one plane, and an external force attempts to move it out of it's rotating axis of motion (outside it present rotating plane). Torque is a constant force when motive power is spinning, but gyroscopic precession is only experienced when changes in direction of its axis of rotation are changed, otherwise it's generally not even perceived."

So in the final analysis, the Camel's turning ability was very much affected by precession, and by torque, and by CG, and by it's rigged instability, and, and..... \:\)

Hey, there's been no problem in keeping this thread "front and center" now these past days.......but I hope that's been a good thing. \:D