Project Martin A-30 Baltimore

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

In this case, it is kids, mom, sister and even some issues of my own. Things come in bunches.

Regarding your AIR file:
Personally I think 2 HP is pretty much dead on.
I challenge you to find two identical mass production engines that are closer than that in power, especially in the 1700 HP range.
With automobile engines in the 200-250 HP range, the difference is about what you would get with a different viscosity of oil so the percentage is much lower at 1700 HP.
Perhaps your mechanics indexed the plugs optimally?
Perhaps you align honed the crankshaft?
2 HP is nothing.

I think the numbers right now are pretty good and would not mess with them any further.
Regarding the Service Ceiling, I need to figure out what I would do myself in that situation.
I still have not had a chance to test my B-25 with a new protocol yet.
Gamers being what they are, I would guess that if anyone really did conduct a flight test on their own, they would stay at probably 11,000 feet or so to take advantage of the power peak there for a speed run anyway.
You can suggest power settings for Cruise, Max Continuous and whatever but in this game you have no way of enforcing anything in a nice fashion.

We are already well ahead of the stock flight models:
The Me 109G is about 100 MPH too faaaassst
The P-51D is around 2000-3000 pounds too light
The Spitfire Mk.IX has a Griffon engine and is about 40 MPH too faaassst
The FW 190A is pretty well crippled for handling as well.

My guess regarding Microsoft is that the distinction between Turbochargers and Superchargers was not made because there are not enough real differences in an AIR file of this type.
The terminology was probably all done as Turbo because that is the more common type in General Aviation today.
I don't know for sure that is the case, but that is my guess.
The difference here is that we are working on flight models for aeroplanes in a time when turbos were not well developed and often outright dangerous. Consider how many of the original warbirds of this era still have operational turbochargers.

By the way, 10,500 feet was just my GUESS at the R-2600-13/29's critical altitude.
It wasn't directly stated in any of the SEFCs I have seen thus far.
You may find a better reference but I don't think it matters all that much.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

It never rains, it comes pouring down... Good luck!

My two daughters and wife have been virtually hibernating for two weeks because it´s exam time, and nerves are a bit on edge. Hopefully with the arrival of the summer in a couple of weeks things will slowly calm down again. Summer?... Yesterday it was sweltering and today it´s raining.

Anyway, what you have to say about the Baltimore .air file is absolutely great! Thank you very much indeed for your counselling all this time.

I didn´t consciously go for the 10500 feet critical altitude - they just happened as I was fitting the power and the speeds as closely as I could to the specified speed, but hadn´t a clue about critical altitude. This came out at 10500 even before the ceiling test. Curious coincidence! - or quite obviously a good educated guess.

At least we can see that the simulator IS indeed doing things amazingly correctly, and also, within a very reasonable margin of error.

Initially, out of ignorance, I didn´t know that a 5 or 6 mph at peak performance is not a large margin, so I was rather worried, but with everything that we have been discussing I know better now. I´m going to adjust the ceiling for the Mk.IIIA now. In view of the successful results on the Mk.V, I foresee no problems! I´ll post as soon as I get that sorted out.

Just out of curiosity, maybe we we can find an interesting turbocharged warbird to test the low altitude turbocharger change, so that we can test the lag. At the moment I think it would be the only thing at fault with the use of this parameter for superchargers. Not that it matters, because it turns out that speeds are perfectly OK without it!!

Have a good weekend!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

What I Did and DID NOT Say

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am glad you got satisfactory results with your AIR file tuning.
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CFS, these are quite good results.
Can you improve them? Probably.
Will the improvements be significant? Probably not.

This post is yet another disagreement or perhaps really a clarification of what I did and DID NOT tell you.

First of all, 10,500 feet was MY GUESS as to the engine's critical altitude. It is not in the SEFC.
On that we agree.
The actual critical altitude of your AIR file is a bit below 10,500 feet.
The critical altitude is the highest altitude at which the supercharger can maintain maximum boost / Manifold Pressure.
Your reading at 10,500 feet is 41.8 inches Hg, not 42.0 inches, so you are already above critical altitude.

I did say that 5-6 MPH too high is pretty close in performance, but what I did NOT say was that the engine power that is used to achieve that level of speed is pretty close.
The engine power is actually far too high but I do not believe any of us can do better within the limits of CFS.

From an ideal standpoint with a better simulator, the performance curves are not very good because they entirely miss the peaks and valleys of a multi-speed supercharger. If you look at the SEFC, you will see what I mean.
The consequence is that where the real aeroplane is the slowest and worst performing is usually where our CFS models perform the best.
It isn't a great simulation of tactical limitations, but it is the best we can do with what we have.

Gotta Run.
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Well, within CFS1 limits is what I should have said - the best get can get with single-speed superchargers - and perhaps not amazingly correct and a small margin of error - only in some places.

Critical altitude, I agree, must be just below 10500 ft - maybe 10300, because at 10500 it´still at 42, and 11000 it´s at 41.

__500 ft 44.0 Hg 1706 Hp 293.3 mph
_4500 ft 42.0 Hg 1665 Hp 300.4 mph
_6700 ft 42.0 Hg 1700 Hp 309.4 mph
_8000 ft 42.0 Hg 1721 Hp 317.2 mph
_9000 ft 42.0 Hg 1738 Hp 321.3 mph
10000 ft 42.0 Hg 1755 Hp 323.7 mph
10500 ft 41.8 Hg 1755 Hp 325.3 mph <<<<< peak here
11000 ft 41.0 Hg 1716 Hp 324.6 mph
11500 ft 40.3 Hg 1684 Hp 324.2 mph
12000 ft 39.4 Hg 1647 Hp 323.4 mph
12500 ft 38.6 Hg 1611 Hp 322.2 mph
15000 ft 35.0 Hg 1445 Hp 318.4 mph

Where it doesn´t coincide with reality or rather where it does really the opposite, goes to show the need for tinkering with the parameter that I was tinkering with. Although it has its limitations too, it does reduce boost power by the amount one would wish for altitudes below - they could all be at 41.5, for example, but perhaps the reduction is too general. I wouldn´t know. What I don´t like about it, is the lag. Does a supercharger have a lag?

Update:
If one were to conduct serious trials to try to make performance a little more realistic using the low altitude boost reduction, military power could also be included in WEP.
I just noticed that military power of 41.5 and 44 Hg in the Vultee, and 41 and 42 Hg on the Mitchell are also 5-minute powers.

Must run!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Low Altitude Boost Reduction

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Perhaps Military Power also has a 5 minute limit but it is not 5 minutes per flight.
It is more like 5 minutes duration or until Cylinder Head Temperature reaches a predetermined maximum.
After some cool down, it is useable yet again.

I still have some trouble understanding what "Supercharger Minimum Manifold Pressure" really means.
What is it intended for? How can we use it?

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Old name possibly clearer

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your interest in the subject.
Yes, not to worry, I understand that after 5 minutes of WEP we have to let it cool down and then we can use it again.

In the Vultee and Mitchel-C SEFC´s, apart from the 44.3 Hg and 44.0 HG Take-off power respectively, military power is also quoted as a 5 minute job. (They call it "Emergency Maximum" for the B-25-C/D and "Military" for the Vultee). This may be interesting to implement, with or without the a possible second booster speed, but it will probably need some extra thinking as to its desirability.

So, what´s "Supercharge Low Altitude Boost Related" (old name) or "Manifold Pressure Minimum" (new name)?

I actually prefer the old name of this parameter, because it reflects a little more clearly (but only a little!), what it actually does to the booster (for the moment it won´t matter if we call it supercharger or a turbocharger).

I have the same problem trying to understand what the new name is supposed to mean. The only thing it suggests, is that the Booster can have a variable minimum pressure setting, because consequently, a Maximum Booster pressure is implied (which in fact exists). But the contradiction is that in effect it lowers Maximum Booster Pressure, not Minimum!! They minimize the maximum pressure... OK.
Minimum Pressure in any case would always be Zero, and regulating this is absurd.

Maybe they meant a Minimum Maximum Pressure, there being a Maximum Maximum Pressure... Oh dear!

This is not only misleading but confusing, because when I used it, it was not like changing the minimum pressure on a single-speed booster´s normal speed range which would act all the time, but it creates a separate, lower speed possibility, so we have two maximums - not minimums.

Moreover, it does not suggest how or when it acts.

The old naming called it "Low Altitude Boost Related?", adding a comment in the Info saying it was a Boost Increase for Low Altitudes that could be used with large numbers like 100000 and defaulted to 1.0 when not used. This is a small improvement, but still not enough. That´s why noboby (we know) has ever used it!

It is still misleading, because it implies only positive numbers, hence my question whether a low altitude boost INCREASE actually existed on a booster as a choice for a setting.

However, the parameter also caters for NEGATIVE numbers, and this is where it makes more sense.

After you clarified my understanding of the engine´s critical altitude, I found that the "actuator" is flying above or below what CFS decides is Critical Altitude, which for the Baltimore Mk.V is, like you pointed out, just under 10500 ft.

That´s why I was so interested. What you can actually do with it, is SUBTRACT an amount you would deem necessary from the Booster´s Performance 1 Hg for every -16500 entered below critical altitude, which you may not really want to do because in the game, like you say, CFS unrealistically but conveniently increases performance making for a more exciting experience.

Anyway, then, you have to counteract the reduction for WEP implementation, and put back what you took out so that WEP stays where you want it, below and above critical altitude.
This is a little confusing to explain, so I´ll go back to the numbers on the experiments to come back on this later.

You don´t get a virtual lever with which you can select high or low booster pressure whenever you like, but at least you do get an altitude-controlled maximum manifold pressure control!

Anyway, this is what I´ve found out so far. We´ll talk about the lag effect another time!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Conceptually real WEP is not too hard to understand. The problem is that if you define a setting as WEP in CFS, you must use either "Water / MW50 injection" or Throttle Gate.
So the choice is one of 10 minutes maximum or 5 minutes with critical engine damage.

Does your new parameter actually change the shape of the power / altitude curve?
If not, then how is this different than just setting the Maximum Manifold Pressure differently?
This parameter actually IS used in AIR files already, just not in CFS AIR files because no one builds for CFS....
See the examples listed on the Microsoft page.

I am pretty certain I do not understand what you are describing at this point.
I am also starting to get a few ideas as to what is supposed to happen but I need first to determine how to actually test my idea.

All these tests are stacking up pretty quickly and I don't have the staff to handle them.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I think you are crediting me with more insight than I have. My capacity in this experiment is more like that of an
audodidactic, unqualified technician rather than that of an engineer. Consequently, the ideas I can supply are based on experimental observations of a more general nature, rather than exact requirements based on documented specifications.I´m sorry that the experiments have been piling up too quickly. They were by no means meant to require any specific analysis.

I mentioned something to that effect in the post with the first experiment results. The intention behind them was merely to show the general effect of a possible use of this parameter. I also said I wasn´t sure by how much it would be desirable to reduce performance below critical altitude, so the test was just to see if it works, requiring no precise analysis. That will come later.

All that is really necessary for now is to show that the Manifold Pressure readings in the test-results in this case are at 41 Hg instead of 42 Hg in the part of the power curve below critical altitude, with their corresponding Hp and speed values. What´s more, you can decide what Hg value you want and put in a corresponding entry! ... for 41 Hg, 41.5 Hg, whatever! An entry of -16500 will give you a reduction of 1 Hg. Consequently, -8250 will give you 0.5 Hg lower.

I have included screenshots of the AirEd .air file Engine parameters which show the implementation of 1 Hg and 0.5 Hg Manifold Pressure reductions compared to not using the reduction, just to avoid confusion as to what parameters are being altered.

This would answer your question: "Does your new parameter actually change the shape of the power / altitude curve?" with "Yes.", because as I have said, you can change the inches of mercury for altitudes below engine critical altitude by any one number for all altitudes.

So your next question: "If not, then how is this different than just setting the Maximum Manifold Pressure differently?. This parameter actually IS used in AIR files already, just not in CFS AIR files because no one builds for CFS...." is difficult to answer, because it starts with "If not...",

This in effect IS different indeed, and you ARE setting Manifold Pressure differently, because you are separating low altitudes from high altitudes, and unless I am very much mistaken, NONE of CFS1 aircraft have ANY other setting than 1.0 for "Supercharger Low Altitude Boost Related" (the old name of "Manifold Pressure Min (inHg)")

New nomenclature in new .AirEd.ini:
11=40,double,*Manifold Pressure Min (inHg)
11h=Usually 1.0 if Turbocharged|Affects Min RPM?
This is misleading because it mainly affects Maximum RPM. Maybe it affects minimum RPM, but I don´t remember very well. It´s not important for my present purposes. Anyway, you can always increase the Engine Throttle Effectivity Table anyway.

Old nomenclature in older .AirEd.ini:
11=40,double,*Supercharger Low Altitude Boost Related ?
11h=Usually 1.0000 if Turbocharged|Large values (~100000) Inc MP/HP at SL
This is DEFINITELY a more valid general description of what the parameter does, but it doesn´t tell you that you can use NEGATIVE values, and NEITHER does it tell you that it can ADD OR SUBTRACT one inch of mercury for any 16500 entry units. NEITHER does IT tell you, that the low altitudes it refers to, are ALL altitudes below ENGINE critical altitude.

Then, you said: "I am pretty certain I do not understand what you are describing at this point." I´m afraid all I can say is that I have tried to explain it 3 times, and have given general examples, but I am at a loss to do any better as far as describing or explaining is concerned.

What WEP to implement?
I do understand the concept of WEP after you explained it some time ago, but I didn´t know the 10-minute type. That would be the Water-only injection type 1, I suppose.

At the moment we have only Take-off power in WEP with 44 Hg for 5 minutes. With the Methanol-Water type 2, it appears that any abuse will burn out the WEP booster but not the entire engine, which is what you had mentioned as your preference. I´d say it´s better than WEP type 3, with the unreal, self-destructing engine.

If I were to include military power inside WEP, as in the SEFC this is also stated with a 5-minute time limit, there would really be no change, so it would still be type 2. However, if you suggest using the 10-minute option to give simmers a higher chance of survival, we can use that. I see no problem, although it is a bit unreal.

Hopefully this helps.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Changing the curve

Hello again,
I wonder if these long posts only make things more confusing.

Before tinkering with Supercharger Low Altitude Boost Related (parameter 505/11), we set Maximum Manifold Pressure at 42 to get our normal max. MP. We had a certain Boost Gain entry, and then set Emergency Power Manifold Pressure Increase (parameter 505/16) to 2, to get our max. WEP power of 44 Hg.

Now, by tinkering with Supercharger Low Altitude Related Boost with the values mentioned in my previous post, we can lower the Normal non-WEP Maximum Manifold Pressure for low altitudes to 41 Hg or 41.5 Hg instead of having it at 42, which would be the normal MP setting for both below and above critical altitude. Then, after critical altitude, the curve remains unaltered (and WEP is no longer effective anyway).

This is non-WEP - we are assuming that we are not going to use WEP other than for Take-off.
If we do, the 44 Hg WEP peaks will distort the power curve completely!

So, in other words, for the example of the Mk.V Baltimore, this parameter gives us a 42 Hg base value above critical altitude, and a lower 41 or 41.5 Hg base value for below critical altitude, as opposed to the same 42 Hg one for both.

We still only get one WEP though, and in the two examples with settings for either 41 or 41.5 Hg for low altitudes, you don´t get 42 Hg below critical altitude.

The KICKER: The PROBLEM for the moment is that as soon as you pull back the throttle when you are in WEP, RPM go down too much, so in reality the only WEP you can have is the max. 44 Hg one. You never get to try 43 or 42 S.L. I´m still investigating that part.

What the parameter doesn´t do, is alter the relationship between Hp and inches of Hg, but that´s not what you are asking either...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Regarding WEP as done in CFS....
Let's try this scenario:
I am piloting an overloaded B-25C Mitchell from a medium / short field.
To get off the ground as quickly as possible and to reach minimum control speed for single engine operation and also to quickly gain some altitude,
I run the engines at 44 inches MP for 4 minutes (Take-Off maximum setting).
Our crew gets comfortable on a slow cruise to the target.
We fly past the target to attack from the back side so that after the bomb run we are heading towards home.
The Bomb run is flown relatively slowly for reasonable accuracy.
After the run, we get into a shallow dive with the engines at 42 inches MP to quickly put distance between us and any interceptors.
I figure I should be able to run at 42 inches MP for 5 minutes because that is what the SEFC says is safe.
This should not strain the engine at all.

In CFS, the engine will be crippled 1:10 into my egress run.... But WHY????
The problem as I see it is that CFS isn't really all that sophisticated in its engine simulation.
There are really only TWO maximum power settings:
WEP which is time limited to either 5 minutes or 10 minutes
non-WEP which is NOT time limited

With a typical aero engine there are a lot of other limitations as we discussed earlier:
WEP / Take-Off which is typically limited to 1, 2, 5 or 10 minutes or even in the case of some German Engines, not really limited at all.
Military Power which is also time limited
Climb Power which is typically 30 minutes
Maximum Continuous which has no time limits but burns so much fuel that it is not the best way to travel (Typically Auto-Rich mixture)
Economical Cruise which has no time limits other than fuel duration

So the design question is how to we fit what we know into how CFS does things?

Regarding the shape of the power curve:
The question is how

42.0 inches Normal Maximum
44.0 inches WEP
-18500.0 Min Supercharger MP
and
Supercharger X

is different in shape from

41.0 inches Normal Maximum
44.0 inches WEP
1.0 Min Supercharger MP
and
Supercharger slightly lower than X

The biggest problem isn't that we can't tune the normal maximum MP.
The problem is that the curve is noticeably higher in the middle than at either SL or Critical Altitude.
Is this bulge removed or reduced with your -18500.0 value?

If it is reduced, then I can see how this is useful.
If it is not reduced, then it just means this is another way to tune settings that we can already control by known parameters.

I suppose another question would be WHY you want the MP down to 41.0 or 41.5 inches Hg for normal maximum.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Low Altitude Boost Reduction Parameter.

Hello Ivan,
I set normal HG to 41 or 41.5 for experimental purposes to see if the new parameter worked. As the normal one was 42, I had to try and reduce it, as I couldn´t reduce it to 42 from 42... I do remember asking what the best normal MP value would have to be, but that I´d try something out lowering the present one anyway, as a tentative trial to see what happened.

Then, more useful settings can be tried out in the future once it is established that this works.

So, using the as yet non-corrected-for-ceiling .air file, I set up 2 tables with comparative results showing how the lower MP values using Low-Altitude-Boost-Reduction worked compared to the MP values when you don´t use it. I was still discovering the magnitude of the settings compared to the changes in MP results, and found that something indeed was definitely going on, so then I had to try and find some more useful figures.

The first step was to correct the .air file for ceiling, and the nex step was to use THIS .air file for further experiments.
I am finishing the trials to try and set up two more more correct comparison tables, and also, to try and figure out a better way to establish values that will give a useful envelope.

The wife´s calling to lunch, I´ll be back later!

Update:
OK, my belly´s full.

With a 1 Hg reduction for low altitude, the bulge is (I think) removed, but I want to make sure first, and show it on a comparative performance table. Maybe 1 Hg less is not correct... I don´t know yet. Maybe it behaves with 41 (or 41.5) as it should do with 42.

42 is too high. Why? Because CFS1 assigns an excessively high performance to 42 Hg MP?

So, what is happening, is that in order to correct the excessively high performance below critical altitude, this parameter allows us to regulate it into more correct margins there, but of course, at the price of a lower MP reading there! - Otherwise, how else could it be achieved?

I still have to complete the tests for the ceiling-corrected .air file that uses Low Altitude Boost Reduction, in order to show a more correct comparison.

Another different matter is whether to offer THE option of WEP so as to include or not to include 42 Hg MP. Obviously only ONE option is available, and a good question is what to put in it, 44 and 42, or only 42, or only 44?.That it the question that needs a bit more thinking.

I didn´t know that under only 1 engine, in CFS1 this one runs quite a large risk in failing even if handled properly. So in reality they were quite a lot more reliable.

2nd Update:
Incidentally, the correct value to subtract for -1 Hg is -16500 not -18500, and the WEP reading should be the same for an .air file with or without the Low-Altitude Boost Reduction.

I don´t call it "Minimum Supercharger MP" because that means nothing.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Not a reduction after all, but a limitation

Hello again, Ivan.

It isn´t doing what I thought!

I´m doing the speed tests, (which I hadn´t done before as I´d only done quick readings for Hp and Hg), with the .air file that I corrected for ceiling, and of course, your exact question applies completely:
"Is this bulge removed or reduced with your -18500.0 value?"
I had overlooked a very obvious factor:

Contrary to what I expected, it does not REDUCE the Hg values along the curve above critical altitude by the Hg reduction entered, but LIMITS the Hg value to the OLD VALUE MINUS THE REDUCTION VALUE.

I was so busy trying to explain what I thought was happening, instead of finishing my trials first. These would have told me long before all this mess, that what I was getting was a very strange kind of reduction, which will be of no use to us after all.

You must have seen it and consequently didn´t understand what I was getting at. It wasn´t at all like I was saying!, so now I feel quite stupid.

The reduction in MP only affects those altitudes along the curve that had higher MP values than the resulting ones from the new reduction entry. It does not reduce all the values below critical altitude. The ones at higher altitudes have lower Hg readings, and are not affected - amongst which are the ones creating the peak!

So if we enter a reduction for 1 Hg, all Hg values upto 11000 ft above 41 are reduced from 42 to 41. The ones at the peak, however, are not affected, because these are below 41 Hg. So the peak still exists because it occurs with Hg values of 40 and 39 high up.

I think I´ll kindly ask Smilo to eliminate some of my last posts, because the reduction does not have the effect described. For the moment, I can´t see how the parameter in question can be of any use.

Sorry about all the bother, and thanks for abiding with me notwhithstanding!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Please compare posts 177 and 184.
The curves do seem to be quite similarly shaped though I have not graphed them to confirm.

42 is too high. Why? Because CFS1 assigns an excessively high performance to 42 Hg MP?

So, what is happening, is that in order to correct the excessively high performance below critical altitude, this parameter allows us to regulate it into more correct margins there, but of course, at the price of a lower MP reading there! - Otherwise, how else could it be achieved?

You can reduce the power via Torque / Friction adjustments. If not, then why not?
The bottom line is that if the high points in the middle are reduced then so are the low points and the curve pretty much looks the same only shifted.

I didn´t know that under only 1 engine, in CFS1 this one runs quite a large risk in failing even if handled properly. So in reality they were quite a lot more reliable.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I don´t call it "Minimum Supercharger MP" because that means nothing.

This is the only label for this parameter that actually has a real meaning.
Keep in mind that all other labels were created to describe what earlier experimenters GUESSES. Some were good guesses. Many were not.
Look at the comment with the "WEP Boost Gain" field. That comment was accurate for the AIR files examined but the AIR files themselves were not done in an optimal manner.

Gotta Run again.
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks again for your comments!
Yes, a reduction in the parameter in question, for any given altitude, works differently from what I´d thought, and moreover, it is not critical altitude dependant! This could be seen from when I first tried it out, but I didn´t see it. I was too engrossed with the reduction where it was being applied, not where it wasn´t. Too silly...

Of course, we could cut it all down to 39 Hg, all the way from S.L. to 12000 ft, but that reduction would be too much for the lower altitudes. That way you WOULD chop the peak down, but you´d have a HUGE jump down from WEP as soon as you budged the throttle lever away from full throttle. What I thought was a turbo lag, was this jump!

AND, like you said, I now see that you don´t need this parameter to limit Hg values to 39 because you can just limit normal Boost to 39 Hg, and put in +5 Hg into WEP - and have a smooth transition to full WEP and the peak would appear in WEP and make the middle of the curve even worse if the simmer used WEP after take-off.

I had actually thought about this at the beginning, and it would probably have been better to use that instead of the parameter in question. At least it would be as per SEFC: The 41 Hg would also be in WEP, and Maximum Continuous with 39 Hg would be within normal Boost. I wonder...

The running under 1 engine thing was a mis-interpretation on my part between this:
"To get off the ground as quickly as possible and to reach minimum control speed for single engine operation and also to quickly gain some altitude,"
and this:
"I figure I should be able to run at 42 inches MP for 5 minutes because that is what the SEFC says is safe.
This should not strain the engine at all.
In CFS, the engine will be crippled 1:10 into my egress run.... But WHY????"

Obviously you meant both engines. So the simulator sometimes destroys your engine anyway... probably out of spite, because it´s not real... ha ha!

OK, thanks, I get your point about the label "Minimum Supercharger MP" having a real meaning. Obviously, I don´t understand what is meant, what it is supossed to do, or when it is supposed to be used, which doesn´t necessarily mean it´s wrong! Like what happened with air. files and the label "WEP Boost Gain".

Then you said "You can reduce the power via Torque / Friction adjustments. If not, then why not?".
Well, you can, but as this will affect the whole curve, not just the peak, it is really of no use, so you can´t...

Well... I´m just adjusting the Mk.IIIA .air file for ceiling now.
That´s going the same way as the Mk.V´s ceiling adjustment - i.e., acceptably well enough!

But what a mess, this "Minimum Supercharger MP" thing.
That really messed me up, or rather, I really messed that one up. I wonder what it´s there for...

Anyway, Cheers!
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
I was wondering the following is possible:
Could you delete my posts 188 and 189, because they contain wrong information and will not be of any help to anyone?
Also, no answers make reference to them specifically so the thread will not lose context.
The two posts are really the worst ones, and won´t be missed on the subject of the parameter I was trying to experiment with. The rest of the posts are not too bad as far the parameter is concerned, and also contain other information and lead to other answers.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Regarding deleting prior posts in the discussion,
I believe that keeping the posts is generally a good idea because it documents tests that were conducted even if the results were not as expected.
Without the mention of the WEP Boost Gain testing that you did earlier, I probably would never have experimented with that parameter at all.
I had noted that parameter being where it was for years and never done a thing with it.

I figure the posts that are really worth deleting are those that disparage others whether or not they are members here or that may prompt a discussion along those lines.
I occasionally DO express my opinions along those lines because it is very difficult to demonstrate or describe the improvements in a process without showing how the older process has faults.

If I go beyond that, please let me know. I do not wish to insult anyone in this arena.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
A very encouraging post! I learnt a new word - to disparage - good!
No, no, there is no such sensation! You dealt with the incongruous results of my tests with great respect and cooperation, and also never ruled out that something could come of it after all.

I sometimes tend to get frustrated and start criticizing incongruencies in the way how CFS handles .airfile parameters, because of certain difficulties in getting them to do something. It is not aimed at anyone specific, but really of no use except to let off steam - but then why don´t I just run around the park? When CFS came out, what it was capable of was amazing. People created it, so I really should be more diplomatic - Thanks to their efforts, I (we) can enjoy the sim.

I get your point about the posts about the experiment having their value despite the mistaken interpretation. Results are still results. Perhaps, Minimum Supercharger MP, by the mere fact of existing, will one day show a usefull application, but will remain a mystery until then. Meanwhile, the posts describe one of its effects, which may lead to something else...

Now I wonder if "WEP Boost Gain" accepts negative values too... Ha ha! Even if it sounds like a joke, I´ll try it out!

It´s funny how some things occur simultaneously. My daughter got a cooperation grant in her final physics year to do some research, and the experiments are not giving the desired results. They are, however, the basis for her Final Degree Project, and she may have to present non-conclusive evidence in her report, but this will invalidate neither the experiment nor the Project!

Anyway, the two standard-fashion Baltimore .air files are going very well.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

For disparaging remarks, I was actually referring to your post here that commented on some disparaging remarks I had made about some other projects.
I do voice my opinions about poor quality projects, but I try not to do that on a public forum. That is why I asked Smilo to delete the post.

I had also thought about Negative values in the WEP Boost Gain but didn't try it because I could not even guess as to what the effect might be.
I actually am quite satisfied with the current understanding of the effects of positive modifiers in that field.

In the scheme of CFS AIR files, what we are doing here is hardly standard though we might wish it were.
You and I both know that most AIR files are pretty unrealistic.
Then again, what we are doing is just based on our current best knowledge.
Looking back in a year or even a month, perhaps this method will seem poor as well.

As you might have guessed, I have always been interested in Physics and am getting curious about what your daughter's project involves.
My own daughter is having quite a lot of fun in High School Physics and her parents can actually still follow what she is doing!
I don't know how long that will last though.

I have come across a few climb / ceiling test protocols but have no chance to test them.
Life is getting terribly busy out here. Anna is back from Lisbon as of last night.

Gotta run yet again....

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I´m so sorry, I do forget things..., and I can´t remember where I said you had done anything of the sort... But that means I would have been making disparaging remarks about you! If so, I am also sorry, because that would be none of my business.

I agree that it´s sometimes difficult to avoid the situation whereby what one says about how something has been done, and how it could perhaps be improved, could imply that one is criticising the previous job... One is so concentrated on the experiment that one doesn´t realize how comments which are not thus intended, could perhaps be disparaging.

My daughter is finishing her physics degree wants to do some statal exams to get a three-year training post in residence become a physicist in a hospital - of the kind who looks after the radiotherapy machinery and advanced scanners. Along these lines she is participating as an assistant with a university biologist and a physicist who have her as a slave to do the laboratory preparation of solutions, that are subject to some kind of energy, that will be then applied to certain cells, to see any changes in the cells, changes which are expected to be seen under spectro-cromatography. Due to the sloth of these two individuals, she is often left alone to prepare and test the solutions, and lacks the sufficient guidance to have any job-satisfaction, and apparently results are not as good as expected. She has the impression that if they were more dedicated, some more positive results would come out. Something that started as appearing very interesting, has become tedious and boring... Anyway... I have managed to cheer her up by saying that this is exactly how things get in real life, and that she should just do what she can without letting it depress her!

Just in case: The only similitude I mean to convey here, between my daughter´s situation and mine, is strictly related to the inconclusive experimental results - not by any means to the sloth of the two scientists she is "working" for... but I know you will not get me wrong.

As regards climb protocols, I have my own primitive system whereby I set the autopilot to a climb rate just over the specification, reduce it occasionally as the plane rises, and record the time every 1000 ft. Very simple and perhaps quite effective. I always use automiture automatically "on" as default, as the Baltimore had that, and because I really haven´t got the presence of mind to be adjusting mixture all the time as well.

Anyway! OK then,
Chairs,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Perhaps I should have held off a bit on the comments on your experiments.
I know I have done a few experiments with parameters that caused an effect with no relation to the description:
Minimum Governed RPM and Maximum Governed RPM seem to have a pretty definite meaning but for some reason, they also control the Propeller Animation on AF99 Models.

- Ivan.