Electro Power for small aircraft and drones

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
Anna Honey got back from her trip yesterday. I think it burned her out because she is still sleeping and almost never sleeps this late.
I just had a little snack / breakfast and thought I would check in and see any developments.

Turns out I need to apologize. The graph you are using also has the needed slopes, it is just not so obvious because of the scaling. I rescaled your screenshot and can see it better now. I still think the graph is wrong for the coarser pitch angles and this graph explains why your NXT blasts through those angles so fast.
Beckwith's tutorial on propellers which is where I started has a Power Coefficient graph similar to yours. It took me quite some time to realise that the majority of the useful information was being hidden by the scale of the images. I re-scaled your screenshot image and perhaps now you can see that it really isn't anywhere close to horizontal lines for the finer pitch angles if graphed to a useful scale.

As for the Power Coefficient for the Airacobra that I posted here, you are STILL not paying attention to what I am pointing out.
The Horizontal Red Dashed line is NOT at Zero. It is at 0.178. If you look closely, you will see that the 27 Degree pitch angle series also starts at the same place. (I wonder why?)
The second attachment shows a calculated Power Coefficient versus Altitude table for the Airacobra that should explain why I chose to use 0.178 as the Dashed Line to see how the Propeller would behave.
Basically, this is what would happen to the propeller as the Airacobra goes from Zero airspeed to its Maximum Level Speed which is achieved at 12,500 Feet.
I suggest you build such a table for your NXT. I don't think you need to go to 40,000 Feet. Heck, the Airacobra really can't get there either but it was worth seeing what would happen to power as altitude increased.

The Airacobra was known as a low / medium altitude fighter with an inadequate supercharger and I tried to tune it to behave that way which is why it hits maximum power at 12,500 Feet. As you can see from the Horsepower versus Altitude table, it drops off power pretty quickly as it gains altitude. It would not have been difficult to tune it for a couple thousand feet higher which is what you are trying to do with your NXT.

I believe you are doing something strange which I can't figure out from here. AirWrench in CFS2 probably did a more reasonable engine build which is why it got a more consistent power curve.

Enough for now. I have chores to do.
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Thank you for your message - no need to apologize. Thanks too for indicating the non-zero aspect of the horizontal red dotted line!

The problem I am constantly running into with the NXT propeller graph tables, is that the 11 columns in the efficiency table and the 12 columns in the power coefficient table are not enough for the pitch angles I need.

Then, the column shifting has made things worse because the matching of the zero-line crossings for the curves in the two tables is now quite a nightmare, so I´m discarding those tables completely.

I noticed the graph tables in your Airacobra I downloaded last night have 15 columns, so with your kind permission I´ll take the liberty of using those, adjusting curves to required J factors, and of course taking into account the difference in propeller diameter.

Hopefully with that, the strangeness you are seeing in my graph tables at the moment will disappear!

Let´s see how it goes!

Update: I´ve just directly copied over your 2 propeller graph tables, and performance results without making any changes whatsoever, are looking very promising, even though the graphs are made for a 10.375 ft propeller:

.....500 ft: 351 hp, 355 mph, 35.3 pitch, 38.8 hg.
...5300 ft: 369 hp, 369 mph, 37.3 pitch, 38.8 hg.
17500 ft: 412 hp, 452 mph, 45.3 pitch, 38.2 hg.

Next step: We´ll see what happens after adjusting J. factors to the smaller 6.25 ft propeller! Then I´ll also do a more thorough test perhaps every 1500 ft.

Thank you very much again!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
No problem with using the Propeller Tables from Airacobra.
I believe they will cure the vast majority of your problems with the AIR file.
By the way, I STRONGLY SUGGEST you do not mess with either of the propeller tables unless you really know what you are doing!
Your last message suggests that you do not know because there is nothing in either table that is related to the size of the propeller on the Airacobra!
I have pretty good confidence those tables from Airacobra will work fine the way they are now.

By the way, with all the discussion regarding Nemesis NXT, I figured I would do a little bit of minor research on the aeroplane.
It seems like the Nemesis and the NXT are two different planes. I have probably even seen the Nemesis at the Udvar Hazy museum.
I figured I would do some basic information gathering and generate a flight model for a new sportplane called the Hubris HXT.....
I don't think it is quite as big a problem as this thread is making it appear and it gets me off my a$$ to actually install some tools on the Game Machine.

Gotta Run and Get Lunch.
Anna Honey was kind enough to make Lunch.
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

OK, then! The performance of your Airacobra´s two propeller graph tables directly transferred to my Nemesis NXT .air file only provide a loose approximation to the performance I am looking for:

.....500 ft: 351 hp, 355 mph instead of perhaps 387 mph (32 mph too slow)
...5300 ft: 369 hp, 369 mph instead of 405 mph (36 mph too slow)
17500 ft: 412 hp, 452 mph instead of 440 mph (12 mph too fast)

This means that it is not something I can use directly in my .air file, and if I can´t use your tables as a basis to work on, then my only alternative is for me to flatten all the 15 columns, and use those columns to put my data in .This way I would not be messing with either of your graph tables. I only want the 15 empty columns, basically .

The Nemesis was Sharp´s smaller, 100 Hp fixed gear racer, built before the 350 Hp retractable gear Nemesis NXT racer, but you already know that.

I´m glad to hear that you want to take up the Nemesis NXT as a new project for you, and I´m sure you will be far more successful in your search for gathering data, because you are better at that than I am, and know where to look. Great!

Should you be interested in the FS98/CFS1 Nemesis NXT .mdl file and textures so that you can have a simulator model to accompany your new Hubris HXT flight model , do let me know and I will attach it to a post.

Cheers for now,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
I just got back from dinner with my Son and Wife. My Daughter is still in Europe at the moment.
I had no luck getting FDEditor.exe to do anything useful on the Game Machine. Apparently it needs some registry entries from installations of CFS and FS98 in order to find the aircraft directories. I guess I will need to use something else.

I believe you are taking the wrong approach to the performance problem!
Look at your engine power outputs. The reason why you are getting such high speeds at 17,500 Feet is because your engine power there is way too high. It is about 60 HP higher than Sea Level and should be nearly the same.
I am not actually taking on a Nemesis project. That is why I called it the "Hubris" project. Just the opposite of Nemesis. I intend it only as a proof of concept and an exercise in setting up tools on the Game Machine.
The Hubris HXT bears an amazing resemblance to a P-40....
The P-40 wasn't ideal for a propeller but it is a taildragger unlike the Airacobra.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

I use AirEd and AAM for .air files, and it is easy to define the paths it needs.

Aha! I thought that might be the case - so power at 17500 ft should be nearly the same as S.L. speeds. Then Critical Altitude cannot be at 17500 ft, but lower, so that power goes down sooner. Boost Gain must come down.

Your Proof of Concept Flight Dynamics: Just for the event that you don´t want to get confused with your P-40 when you try out your Hubris HXT flight dynamics, you perhaps might be interested in doing so with the attached CFS1 Hubris HXT model. I changed textures, markings, file names etc. from the Nemesis NXT, and the panel has the Beckwith Test Gauge.
The provisional .air file contains your unchanged Airacobra propeller curves and propeller pitch angle range, but the propeller is 6.25 ft in diameter. It also has the 350 Hp supercharger and turbocharged TIO-540-NXT engine (with Boost Gain and Critical Altitude too high).
Perhaps you can save some work by modifying this .air file, and if not, just throw it out and put in your own from scratch, and if you don´t want or like the model, not to worry, don´t use it. It is no "Zwangsbeglückung" - a forced gratification...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
I just spent the last couple hours going through the P-40N (Hawk87W) AIR file and changing just about everything that I thought needed it.
The first cut at eyeball values for landing gear spring rates and MOI tell me that my eyeball is out of practice. It bounces so much that I can't easily take off, so I do an air start. No big deal, I will calculate those values tomorrow. These were just guesses.
I was still able to take a first cut at an engine.
500 Feet 351 HP - 39.5 inches Hg
17,000 Feet 401 HP - 38.9 inches Hg if I remember correctly.
Boost 2.65
A bunch of things need fixed but I won't be able to get back to a computer until tomorrow evening after the Trick or Treaters are done.

The autopilot doesn't work all that well at high speed yet, so as soon as it gets to about 420 MPH, it wiggles too much.
I need to find my notebook to see how to correct that because it was an intended feature in some of my projects to discourage over speeding.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Interesting Manifold Pressure and Boost values... slightly higher than mine, just the opposite of what I thought would be needed, i.e. a slight reduction. So, it is something for me to go by to make adjustments to correct power and then speed.
At first I adjusted the Torque and Friction graphs slightly, to get correct 500ft Power
Altitude vs. Power Test Results with 2.65 Boost Gain and max. manifold pressure 39.5 in. hg. settings:
.....500 ft: 351 Hp, 39.5 inches Hg. > Fine.
17000 ft: 420 Hp, 39.5 inches Hg. > Strange,
Why hasn´t Manifold Pressure gone down to 38.9? That´s why Hp is not at 401.
I wonder.

Update: At 17000 ft:
To get the 38.9 inches Hg you report, on my computer it needs Boost Gain at 2.563, but gives 411 Hp.
Then, to get your 401 Hp, mine needs 2.549 Boost gain, but manifold pressure goes down further, to 38.3 inches Hg.
Strange... So either the atmosphere is different from my computer to yours, or Windows 10 is doing strange (un)doings to CFS1.
This can´t have anything to do with the propeller, so what can it be?
Or can it? - It won´t go faster than 418 mph with 401 Hp. I don´t want to further reduce Zero Lift Drag, because this is already down to 22 in AirEd, or 1.010742 in AAM.

Update 2: At the end I did start messing with the Prop Efficiency table, and increased the efficiency for the J Factors involved for speeds at 500 ft, Reno Altitude and 17000 ft. These three are the reference altitudes/speeds, and results got better, although instead of 401 Hp at 17000 ft, to get it anywhere better speedwise, I needed at least 410 Hp, and it is now 429 mph instead of 418 mph.
At 500 ft was only getting 339 mph, which I thought was very low, and after raising Prop Efficiency for the corresponding J Factor, I am getting 356.5 mph.
Then, at 5300 ft, I hadn´t tested before, but with the corresponding J Factor prop efficiency adjustments I made for S.L., I´m getting 373.6 mph.

Notwhithstanding, everything is still rather low, I´d say... Still strange...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
This evening, I didn't do anything that would be of use to your project. It was more of a sanity check on my own proof of concept.
As I mentioned in my prior message, I could not get Hubris HXT to settle down on the runway. The eyeball estimates for Landing Gear and MOI values were probably not so good. Most likely it was Landing Gear parameters as it usually is, so what I did was find a rather poor profile drawing of the Nemesis NXT and scale it to act as a working drawing and pulled basic measurements from that drawing.
It made sense to get some reasonably accurate dimensions since my original estimates were obviously garbage. If I was going to plug some numbers into a spreadsheet, to calculate values to use in the AIR file, it would make sense that I should use reasonably accurate numbers.

As soon as I plugged those values into the AIR file, the model settled down without even the slightest wiggle.
It took me quite a while to remember how to use GIMP to get the measurements I needed and use the Landing Gear spreadsheet I had built years ago. I am probably going back to edit the Landing Gear spreadsheet because there is additional information that can easily be calculated that I am currently getting by experimentation.

Until I get the basic AIR file problems such as autopilot resolved, I cannot do any actual speed testing or tuning even though I believe the basic power levels are correct.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

I hope you had a nice evening with the Trick or Treaters. Here my daughter was over for a light dinner and some pumpkin pie, but although a couple of houses in the area were eerily and halloweenly decorated and I´m sure there were some parties in town, it is not such an established festivity here as in other countries.

So, back to the NXT: Re. landing gear and autopilot, my .air file has no problems to this respect, but anyway... each to his own, as they say!

Anyway, I put your 2.65 Boost Gain value back in again, which would coincide with your comment that you believe that the basic power levels are correct, and squeezed a little more juice out of the propeller efficiency graph crests for the J Factor curves in question.

Thus, I managed to get considerably more power at 5300 ft: 370 Hp and 379.8 mph, which was quite surprising, although still not enough.
Of course, power at 500 ft remained the same with 351 Hp, but giving 20 mph more: 359 mph, which was quite satisfying, although still not enough. Then, at 17000 ft, strangely enough, now with 420 Hp again, speed hardly changed - Only 429.3 mph! That was also surprising, and of course hardly enough.

So, I thought about it a bit more - in my defence I must say I have been very systematic in my messing with the propeller curves - anyway, and then I thought I´d mess with the corresponding Power Coefficient curves, and whittled them down a bit. However, contrary to what I was expecting, speeds at 500 ft and 5300 ft went down by 2 mph, whereas at 17000 there was a marginal increase to 430.1 mph. So, I scrapped the messing with the Power Coefficient curves.

I continued musing about the current state of affairs, and then tried increasing the propeller diameter by 2 inches to 77, as I was using the specified 75 in. prop, but 500 ft and 5300 ft speeds went down by 3 mph, and speed at 17000 went up to 430.9 mph. This was also contrary to what I was expecting, to I scrapped that idea too.

Well, no hurries and no worries... and we shall see...

Have a nice All Saints Day! We maybe we are going for a walk in the wooded mountains near here.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
I am about to go eat Lunch but did a little tuning the Hubris HXT while Anna Honey was out picking up Lunch for all of us.
All I have done since the last post is to tune the elevator trim parameters. Now it CAN make speed runs. It took a couple tries to get there.
The problem is that the annotations in AirEd are not quite what I am used to in FDE so it took a while to find the right parameter.
I found the parameter in FDEctrl.txt but it is in decimal there (170), so I had to convert that to the AirEd style which is Hex (AA).
Simple but it at least shows that I remember some things.

Here is the first couple test speed runs.
Trim is still WAY off but I will fix that when it becomes a bigger problem.

500 Feet ----- 351 HP - 39.5 inches Hg - 374 MPH - 35 Degrees Pitch
17,500 Feet -- 403 HP - 39.4 inches Hg - 435 MPH - 42 Degrees Pitch

Note that I am using a 77 inch propeller and Propeller Tables are straight from my Hawk 87W (P-40N).
I didn't see any need to do any modifications even though I know there are some interpolation issues with those tables.
They are at the very low Advance Ratios, so I don't expect them to affect anything for this proof of concept.
Tuning for a couple extra MPH should be fairly easy. (Famous last words).
Tuning this beast to actually fly well off autopilot is another story.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
It´s looking promising indeed! Your values are better than mine.
My advance ratios are also quite low - between 1.858 and 2.242.

Good luck for the "couple " extra MPH. Mine seemed to have hit a brick wall.
My Zero Lift Drag was already down to 20 in AirEd, and I didn´t know if it was realistic to go further down, but I´ve just tried an
exaggerated drop in Zero Lift Drag to 10, and it has certainly had a great effect - it overshot all the marks. Now it will require
finer Zero Lift Drag adjustments - and perhaps also the 45-deg. propeller curve.
Let´s see if it works.
Mine flies quite well off autopilot, but it has rather high MOI´s for that.
Anyway, it IS a beast, isn´t it?

By the way, on a linguistic note, I just looked in a Thesaurus, because I wasn´t so sure about Nemesis and Hubris being opposites,
and I´m sorry to disappoint you: Nemesis is like vigilante, avenger, punisher, or the unbeatable enemy in this case, and antonyms
for Nemesis would be redeemer, vindicator, exonerator, pardoner, assistant, or even friendliness.
Redeemer or Vindicator would perhaps sound nice for a plane.

Hubris is more like pride, pridefulness, arrogance or vanity, and antonyms for Hubris would be diffidence, altruism or timidity.
I remember reading that hubris was what the builders of the Titanic were accused of, when they called it unsinkable and
didn´t put in enough lifeboats. Anyway, enough philosophy.

Cheers for now,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
For Hubris and Nemesis, you need to go back to the original Greek meanings for the words.
Anna Honey left today for YET ANOTHER TRIP. Seems like I don't see much of her these days.
At least this trip will be short. She will be back before the weekend is over.
Last night, we actually didn't get very many Trick or Treaters. There were only 5 groups of kids so we have a LOT of candy left over.

As for project Hubris, attached are a couple screenshots. The Game Machine does not have any image handling software other than MS Paint, so I need to correct that situation. Saving things as Bitmaps for processing elsewhere is not efficient for time or space on the flash drives.
As you can see, the 441 MPH at 17,500 Feet was achieved.
CD0 was set at 16.
This is NOT an optimal arrangement. Note that the Speed at 500 Feet is 399 MPH which is a bit too high?
I wanted it down at between 390 MPH and 395 MPH tops. Even slower than that if I could manage it.
On each cycle, I fix a couple handling issues, so handling is passable though I still don't like it. That is the "Beast" part.

Interestingly enough, NOW is the time to do some tuning in the Propeller Efficiency Table, but not necessarily in the manner that you might expect. The maximum speed run at 17,500 Feet uses a pitch angle of 42 Degrees. That is definitely and interpolated value in both tables but adjusting both at the same time is silly.
Ideal case would be to bring Cd0 back up a bit after eliminating the valley from interpolated values at 42 Degrees.
To do that, I need to calculate Advance Ratios which I had been ignoring up to this point because of confidence in the propeller tables.
If you think about it, even 437 MPH was within 1% of the target. That was with Cd0 = 20.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
Attached is my current version of Hubris HXT Hawk.
It had to retain the Hawk name as a tribute to everything it got from the P-40N.
I thought you might get some insights from taking a close look at what I did.
Nothing in it is particularly odd and as I stated before, there are still many things wrong, but I think you will be able to use the basics.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

ello Aleatorylamp,
Since the last post, I edited the Propeller Efficiency Curve a bit for the 40 Degrees series because that curve fell much faster than the rest and was causing an interpolation problem on a high speed run at 17,500 Feet.
Results were as expected, I was able to increase Cd0 back to 18 and stay within performance goals.

Here is a summary of results:
500 Feet ----- 351 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 391 MPH -- 36 Degrees
2500 Feet --- 356 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 399 MPH -- 36 Degrees
5000 Feet --- 363 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 406 MPH -- 37 Degrees
5300 Feet --- 364 HP --39.5 in Hg -- 407 MPH -- 37 Degrees
7500 Feet --- 371 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 432 MPH -- 39 Degrees
10000 Feet -- 379 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 441 MPH -- 40 Degrees
12500 Feet -- 387 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 441 MPH -- 41 Degrees
15000 Feet -- 395 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 440 MPH -- 41 Degrees
17000 Feet -- 402 HP -- 39.5 in Hg -- 441 MPH -- Did not write down pitch
17500 Feet -- 403 HP -- 39.4 in Hg -- 441 MPH -- 42 Degrees

Seems like pretty good results but there is still some room for tuning.
This Propeller Efficiency graph is just a bit better than that for the P-40N but the P-40N never went quite fast enough to make a real difference with this graph. Advance Ratios are near identical to those for Airacobra.

Time for bed.
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
I just got up - I sometimes need some extra sleep... I just saw your last 3 posts. VERY interesting! Well done.
Re. Ancient Greek meanings of Nemesis and Hubris, I looked them up - it made an interesting read. It is still along the same lines however,, but even more dramatic!
Anyway... After further tweaking here and there yesterday, I achieved some better results myself as well, also with Cd0 at 20:
500 ft: ----351 hp, 39.5 in Hg, 384.2 mph, 36.1 pitch
5300 ft:--- 369 hp, 39.5 in Hg, 394.1 mph, 38.6 pitch < this needs some more tweaking.
17500 ft: --422 Hp, 39.4 in Hg, 443.0 mph, 45.2 pitch < this needs some more work too.

Thanks for the .air file - I´ll have a look later this morning. Perhaps I can discover why I don´t get 403 Hp with the required performance at 17500 ft
Must rush - more, later!
Cheers,
Aletorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi again, Ivan,

Before looking into your .air file, I decided to try and improve mine and I have made some more progress slightly tweaking the graphs. I still have Cd0 at 20, Boost Gain at 2.65 and max manifold pressure at 39.5 in. Hg.

The propeller pitch differences between yours and mine I suppose are due to my 75 inch propeller, and your 77 inch one, and I haven´t achieved the lower progressive increase without a drop as you have. I´m still trying to figure out what is happening. The problem is that the 403 Hp at 17500 ft do not give the desired speed.

500 fr:-----351 Hp, 384.6 mph, 39.5 Hg, 37.8 pitch
5300 ft:----370 Hp, 407.1 mph, 39.5 Hg, 40.3 pitch
7500 ft:----379 Hp, 415.3 mph, 39.5 Hg, 41.2 pitch
10500 ft:---391 Hp, 425.0 mph, 39.5 Hg, 42.4 pitch
12500 ft:---400 Hp, 429.5 mph, 39.5 Hg, 43.2 pitch
15500 ft:---413 Hp, 434.6 mph, 39.5 Hg, 44.3 pitch
17000 ft:---420 Hp, 439.2 mph, 39.5 Hg, 45.0 pitch
17500 ft:---422 Hp, 440.7 mph, 39.5 Hg, 45.2 pitch < power and speed peak. I haven´t been able to reduce the 422 Hp here.
18000 ft:---412 Hp, 440.0 mph, 38.7 Hg, 45.0 pitch < in. Hg. drop starts here.
18500 ft:---402 Hp, 439.1 mph, 37.9 Hg, 45.1 pitch

So... I´ve just looked into your .air file, and seen that some of the the engine specs are slightly different, which would explain the differences.
Rather than thinking that the my sources of information from are not the same as yours, I would wager there has been some intelligent engine tweaking that would not have occurred to me. Applying them to my .air file will require some thought, as some will depend on others, and this will take some time yet.

Then, I was trying to delete the Hubris H888XT aircraft from my Post #66, but after the recent changes in the SOH site I haven´t been able to find that option. Consequently, for the sake of consistency, I´m attaching my new Nemesis .air file, renamed for the Hubris HXT, just in case there happens to be any interest. For the moment, there have not been any downloads, but for the remote possibility there could be any, this would now be the correct .air file to have. As it is meant only as a prop for an exercise, it will not obviously not appear in the library.

Regarding a possible upload of the Nemesis NXT this will depend on how good I can get the .air file.
At any rate, it is a fun and interesting exercise, especially after your indications during your Proof of Concept project.
As it turns out, CFS1 is indeed very much capable of having a 350 Hp piston engined machine running well over 400 mph, something I had found impossible to achieve with FS98, and had problems achieving with CFS1.

Have a nice Sunday!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
In Greek Mythology, Hubris is human pride, conceit, and arrogance which offends the gods.
This brings the goddess Nemesis who provides punishment and retribution to the offender.
Thus, Hubris is followed by Nemesis or Hubris brings about the appearance of Nemesis......
That was my reason for choosing this name for a proof-of-concept project.

At this point, I don't really have any further editing that needs to be done on Hubris HXT, so perhaps it is a good time to look at what you were doing with your AIR file. Without even looking, I suspect you have a slight mismatch of power coefficients. The slight reduction of power at altitude should help a bit. A slightly larger propeller will also help, but that isn't why I chose to use 77 inch diameter.

I strongly suggest you learn at least the basics of using a spreadsheet program. It is a great help in being able to visualise the relationship of the values in the tables and recalculate some values if necessary. Without a spreadsheet, I would not have been able to see the interpolation problem that was causing the speed issue I was having and more importantly see where the problem was.
If I were in your place right now, I would suggest multiplying the POWER COEFFICIENT table values for 45 degrees by 1.02 (increase by 2 percent). That would be after you have gotten the engine power down a bit at 17,500 Feet.
This is working blind without having looked at your AIR file, so don't be too confident in the recommendation.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
About the meaning of Hubris and Nemesis in Greek mythology, yes, that´s true, at least it´s what I read too, only I didn´t expound so much.
Anyway... Reducing Power at altitude is what I´ve been trying to do all along, but to no avail - without lowering Boost Gain, that is, which has the inconvenient effect (that you have managed to avoid) of getting a power peak before critical altitude.
It seems there is no other way than with Boost Gain to act on power at altitude, but never mind, I won´t bother you with it any longer, as I see it is also getting a bit tedious for you.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
I downloaded and installed your Hubris HXT as "Nemesis" on my Game Machine.
I figure whenever a release version comes out, it will get overwritten.
Regarding Hubris and Nemesis in Greek Mythology, I am pretty sure you would look it up but I am not so certain others following this thread would take the time to do the same and an explanation of why I chose that name for a proof of concept was worthwhile to include.

I did not do much testing other than to switch the panel out for a test panel and get a power versus altitude table.
They match up pretty well with what you are getting. I did only one speed run at 17,500 Feet. I got 434 MPH which is much lower than what you are getting.
I am not sure I agree with you that your NXT landing gear parameters are well configured. The model enters the simulator at too steep an angle and the damping on the tail wheel is too low.

My HXT carries a ADI system weighing 150 pounds which is a bit heavier than what yours carries but I suspect that your aircraft is flying with more weight than mine is. You will observe that my version has a DP file and yours does not. I believe that means that you are using the default DP file which is basically that of the Spitfire Mk.IX. That means that you may be carrying around a couple hundred pounds of cannon and MG rounds that you didn't know about.
You will observe that my DP file has provisions for a single 200 pound BOMB. This is for the weight of the optional passenger. Remember this is a two-seater? Of course, to stay under MTOW with the ADI system installed and two passengers, you can't carry full fuel.

Good Night.
- Ivan.