once the wheels leave the ground....

Ravioli said:
@mscard88 is miss quoting Henning. Hydrogen is the future. Get it right buddy :)
Click to expand...

Don't know this Henning. Hydrogen is for bombs. Everyone knows you can't have bombs on planes. I even heard the TSA say that. So I do have it right macaroni boy.
 
eman1200 said:
what's stopping the plane from spinning around the prop instead of the prop spinning around the plane?
Click to expand...

You're just looking at it the wrong way. From the correct frame of reference the plane is spinning and the prop is stationary.:eek:

Same as the difference between centrifugal and centripetal force. ;)
 
eman1200 said:
what's stopping the plane from spinning around the prop instead of the prop spinning around the plane?
Click to expand...
I thought the plane did spin around the prop. How else would you stay in the seat?!?
 
mscard88 said:
Don't know this Henning. Hydrogen is for bombs. Everyone knows you can't have bombs on planes. I even heard the TSA say that. So I do have it right macaroni boy.
Click to expand...


Says who? We put lots of bombs on lots of planes. I make my living designing bombs and missiles and other nasty things to be put on planes for the express purpose of killing people. Bombs are GREAT things to go onto planes. Especially F22s and F16s and F18s and F35s and F15s and....

Weren’t you in the USAF? You should know this.
 
@eman1200 your answer lies in quantum theory.

The plane actually does spin but once we observe it we alter the experiment and it appears still.

One hint that this is a quantum problem is that the prop appears to vanish once it starts turning fast enough.
 
Sinistar said:
@eman1200 your answer lies in quantum theory.

The plane actually does spin but once we observe it we alter the experiment and it appears still.

One hint that this is a quantum problem is that the prop appears to vanish once it starts turning fast enough.
Click to expand...


I believe that, according to the Copenhagen hypothesis, we have to attach a cat to the prop for the experiment to be valid in quantum physics.

Hopefully @Rushie will be along soon to clarify....
 
Some engineer on here will probably give the correct, eyes-roll-into-your-head answer but it evidently has to do with torque. An airplane with enough torque can actually torque roll an airframe in a power-on stall. But normally there isn’t enough torque to cause the airplane to roll around the crank-shaft.
 
FlySince9 said:
Some engineer on here will probably give the correct, eyes-roll-into-your-head answer but it evidently has to do with torque. An airplane with enough torque can actually torque roll an airframe in a power-on stall. But normally there isn’t enough torque to cause the airplane to roll around the crank-shaft.
Click to expand...

a simple "I dunno" would have sufficed :dunno:
 
Coriolis effect, Duh
 
Actually none of us know the answer :( And if we thought we knew it we're too afraid to actually post in fear of all the follow up posts. Maybe someone on a RC plane forum or Cirrus forum will have your answer...[edit]...maybe this is a CSIP question LOL !
 
Half Fast said:
Says who? We put lots of bombs on lots of planes. I make my living designing bombs and missiles and other nasty things to be put on planes for the express purpose of killing people. Bombs are GREAT things to go onto planes. Especially F22s and F16s and F18s and F35s and F15s and....

Weren’t you in the USAF? You should know this.
Click to expand...

This isn't that kind of thread...
 
Ok, here is a related question-

If an acrobatic airplane did fast rolls opposite of prop rotation, would the prop stop? Would the engine still be running? Would the plane slow down and stop flying?
 
midwestpa24 said:
I believe is was the old Sopwith's that the engine was attached firmly to the propeller while the crank shaft was bolted to the airframe, thus allowing the entire engine to spin with the propeller.
Click to expand...

Here ya go:
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Here ya go:
Click to expand...

Obviously a geared engine with a multi-speed transmission. You can tell by the different speeds between the engine and prop at various points throughout the video. Plus it looks like it has beta mode, too. The only question here is whether or not you need to double clutch or if you can speed shift it at WOT?
 
fudge80 said:
I guess because the airframe weighs much more than the propeller.
Click to expand...

FlySince9 said:
Some engineer on here will probably give the correct, eyes-roll-into-your-head answer but it evidently has to do with torque. An airplane with enough torque can actually torque roll an airframe in a power-on stall. But normally there isn’t enough torque to cause the airplane to roll around the crank-shaft.
Click to expand...

^^^This and this^^^ Rotational inertia. The airframe has much, much more of it. What little it might be trying to spin is countered by aileron, and you wouldn't notice the signal with all the noise but some planes have aileron trim tabs and turboprops exhaust stubs for the same function.

Mind you I'm not an aerospace engineer, just a regular one.

GRG55 said:
You're just looking at it the wrong way. From the correct frame of reference the plane is spinning and the prop is stationary.:eek:
Click to expand...

This is also correct if you want to go Einsteinian.

Sinistar said:
@eman1200 your answer lies in quantum theory.

The plane actually does spin but once we observe it we alter the experiment and it appears still.

One hint that this is a quantum problem is that the prop appears to vanish once it starts turning fast enough.
Click to expand...

More research is needed to demonstrate the veracity of this theory.:)
 
The wheels will never leave the ground if the conveyor hold the plane back
 
GRG55 said:
You're just looking at it the wrong way. From the correct frame of reference the plane is spinning and the prop is stationary.:eek:
Click to expand...

Actually in that frame of reference the entire universe would revolve around Eman's prop.
 
FlySince9 said:
Some engineer on here will probably give the correct, eyes-roll-into-your-head answer but it evidently has to do with torque. An airplane with enough torque can actually torque roll an airframe in a power-on stall. But normally there isn’t enough torque to cause the airplane to roll around the crank-shaft.
Click to expand...
 
once the wheels leave the ground....

...tap the breaks and suck the gear up. The rest will take care of it's self.
 
Basically, the answer to the question is that the planes most of us fly don't have all that much torque created by the prop relative to the rotational inertia of the plane, so a little bit of aileron is enough to stop it. Little enough that it mostly isn't noticeable compared to all the other stuff you're dealing with in the cockpit.

Get enough power/torque from the engine, and you can make any plane torque roll. If you google "torque roll" you'll mostly see RC stuff because those planes have much higher power/torque to weight ratios.

From what I've gathered reading about P-51s, they have enough torque roll that pilots have to pay attention to it and not advance to full power in certain situations (I surmise it's mostly situations where there isn't enough aileron/rudder authority to deal with it).
 
Nochmal said:
...Get enough power/torque from the engine, and you can make any plane torque roll.….
Click to expand...

I've heard of pork roll (taylor ham...what's up, jersey?) but not torque roll.

so you're saying with a lil more power and a lil less aileron, the plane WOULD spin!! see!! eman knows what's up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top