[Crumpp]

Even assume 4-blade naca16 has no advantage above Vmax at all, that is to say, P47P51 is equipped with German old narrow chord Gottingen airfoil, P47 still has around 20% efficiency advantage(300-400HP) above Vmax, ie 0.7Mach.

Not anything outstanding about the propeller and everything to do with the engine.....

So simply assuming 85% for all CSP when above Vmax

This condition is key. Of course, above Vmax we are outside of the aircrafts design envelope and our efficiency curve no longer approximates a slope of zero. Instead it takes on a negative slope.

Just though as it is a good assumption to have a slope of zero in the envelope, it is also a good assumption that all CSP designs will have a similar negative slope outside that envelope.

See:

3-blade naca16=3-blade ClarkY and 4-blade ClarkY=3-blade ClarkY

Now, that is not to say it would not be very cool to add the minor differences outside the envelope and some very basic assumptions could be made based on general propeller characteristics. A generic curve could be the thing that fixes the "supersonic dives" that are possible in the game.

I also think that individual and specific characteristic's are way more trouble than it is worth for dubious accuracy without the actual data. It would also open up a huge can of worms for your developers and people having to decide what data is applicable.

Look at all the arguments over such very well documented performance parameters as climb rates or Vmax. Now you want to add in propeller design?

The whining would never stop, not that it does now.

My suggestion would be to concentrate on accurately modeling the limits and behaviors found in the Operating Instructions.

I think it would be more realistic and easier to model the consequences of exceeding the dynamic pressure and mach limits of the aircraft than trying to find a generic braking point. You don't think, "my efficiency curve will drop off and drag rise due to compressibility will keep me safe" when you point an aircrafts nose down in a steep dive. You think, "don't exceed Vne...don't exceed Vne" as your butt cheeks suck up the seat.

For example, our FW190 tries to dive away from a P47. At ~466mphTAS, the FW encounters compressibility, and loses elevator control. The FW now happily sails to the dirt barrier or the pilot very very carefully uses the elevator trim to recover without overloading the airframe.

At 466 mph TAS, the P47 is in full control. He either:

1. Watches the FW hit the dirt barrier from the comfort of altitude.

2. Catches the FW on its straight path to the dirt barrier and shoots it down. His top speed is ~40 mph faster...

2. Follows the FW on its rather helpless recovery and shoots it down.


Diving away is a very bad option for the FW190 if the limits are accurately modeled.