Ok on reflection my juices have started to flow about this whole spiral slipstream yawing motion thing and something just doesn't add up.
Bear with me and forgive my ignorance of the matter but having a spiral slipstream that is more powerful than the airflow across the vertical stabiliser just doesn't work, especially when you factor in friction from the plane's undercarriage and even the inertia of the plane's weight.
Simply put the plane is designed to travel more or less in a striaght line and to push it offline must take more force than the spiral prop wash.

Good basic primer for all aspects of flight:
http://www.av8n.com/how/

Look at section 8 for the yaw-wise torque budget, and discussion of the various factors applying. (note that official documentation gets this *wrong*, blaming P-Factor for the right rudder requirement, and also note that torque requires a rolling moment (from ailerons), not a rudder input to correct, though that is in another section).

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/yaw.html

And some nice description of the conversion from 'modern' GA to a tailwheel configuration...

http://www.avweb.com/news/avtraining/183265-1.html?redirected=1

Great you confirm this !

I did try to explain this wrong p-factor myth some time ago in the RoF forum in several variants, but nobody helped me, and in the end i gave up, as several "RL pilots" did stab in my back

Is your point arguing against the actual existence of this phenomenon? If so I can assure you that it is real and by far the biggest asymmetrical force acting on a plane in flight. If you looked at the vertical stab of my S1S from above you would easily notice that it is married to the fuselage with a 1-2 degree leading edge offset to the left. Even with this helpful design feature it requires a huge amount of right rudder until about 140 mph, at which point left rudder begins to be required. P-factor and torque often get blamed. Torque is only a factor on the ground at high power setting and p-factor plays a very small roll in fixed wing aircraft unless one is concerned about "critical engine" theory in some light twins.

Whoops! Snipped by posts above while I was typing.

@Smokin_Hole: sorry. i don´t get your post.

This:



is exactly, what I said and how I understood Lieste. What are you opposing ???

My post was written in response to Georgio, not you. Yours and the other posts were written as I was typing. Sorry for the confusion but I tried to make that clear in my second post.

And I wrote before reading your second post






You are great. You didnt read anything, but are judging. They locked the thread, although i didnt say anything wrong.
After they reopened, i deleted, because I don´t discuss under such condition. And now be so kind, and keep that senseless stuff out of this forum.

Another easy way to dismiss p-factor: if I am climbing with full power at 100 MPH, I will have lots of right rudder. Now I roll inverted and continue to climb. No change in right rudder input is required. If you imagine the prop disk as fixed, all I have done is rotated 180 degrees around the crankshaft. If P-factor was a err, factor, then left rudder should be required in the inverted position.

I didn´t have that good idea to explain it ...but i guess it wouldn´t have helped anyhow

PS: ...but i had some others: in a front wheel aircraft, you have no AoA at take off roll for sure. The rudder input doesn´t change, when you rotate and get AoA.

Nevertheless you find this p-factor explanation for right rudder in lots of PPL instruction books. I guess they just copy it from one another without giving it much thought. In internet discussions you see from time to time, how Google makes paste and copy so easy. It often replaces thinking

Maybe I would have read what you had so say if you hadn't delete it, and then cried censorship. That action alone is easy to judge.

You have anything to say about slipstream or p-factor or other senseful stuff ? If you have something to say about the vid, go ahead and let me know. You could recheck the missing slipstream f.e. when flying high power stalls. Perhaps you find a fault in my opinion.

As you put it here ..... agreed .... but

I don't have a problem with your opinion on the FM. Its your confrontational style. My opinion is the slipstream maybe over modeled in BOS, and under modeled in COD, but again having never flown these aircraft its difficult to have a definitive opinion. I'm not sweating it as both FM's aren't final. BOS's FM just changed in their last patch, and I've had too little flight time to form an opinion.

If you were sensible in the first place, and only wanted comments on the FM, you should have just posted about the FM, not infer censorship on the ATAG forums when there was none.

How? The vertical stabilizer is still in the exact same position relative to the propeller and all related airflow.

No, it was killed off because it was at the time an unmanageable mess and a financial sinkhole.

Lay on the floor on your back. Seriously, do it! Now hold your right foot forward and your left foot 6 inches back simulating your upright control input. Now make enthusiastic airplane noises as you roll over on your stomach carefully maintaining your foot configuration. Notice that your rudder input has reversed relative to the earth. Spiraling slipstream has followed your roll because it followed your now inverted vertical stab. The prop disk meanwhile never changed. If p-factor played a significant roll your rudder would need to be reversed in order to continue to overcome it. Hope that helps.

That is interesting. Do you have any facts, that lead to your opinion ? Because from all I know, the 109 needed almost full rudder at take off. That is why I think, the rudder of the BoS 109 is a bit too effective. If you think, the slipstream is overmodelled, that is the opposite.
I hope you didnt just copy your opinion from the other forum, as I did read the same thing from another guy, who didnt have any facts as well. Soshi_Tiger: "I think the argument here is that it under modeled in CoD and to me seams over modeled in BoS."

Furthermore it is interesting, that you think it is "undermodelled" in CLoD. Can you please specify, in which situation you did find any ?


PS:



No it did not change, although a few are telling this after every patch. But you can be sure, nothing on the slipstream or propeller effects did change. No need to hold back with your facts.

Have you produced facts.
I see you think the Slipstream is wrong, but I can't recall seeing anything to back it up.
Very undermoddelled in CloD and still undermodelled in BoS.