Dear Asobo, I have a propeller configured correctly with power absorb scalar

to make the prop spin at idle at 1220 RPMs with a shaft torque force of 141

ft-lbs… (idle), then at full thrust under ISA conditions it spins at 2000 RPM

just as POH and gives the correct trust and power to take off, maintain speed,

etc., all matches all works… important to note, this is NOT using legacy

tables. However as soon as I enable PROP MODERN, the configurations goes high-

wired: **Problem 1:** prop_mod_use_absorbed_torque = 0; This results in wrong

RPMs at idle again… it drops from 1220 RPM to almost half, is like the power

absorb scalars get totally ignored in favour of something else… nothing I

could do to influence this unless you spool the engine to the wrong N1 at idle

or wrong torque at idle. So I set it as prop_mod_use_absorbed_torque = 0…

which takes me to problem 2. **Problem 2:** prop_mod_use_absorbed_torque = 1

This keeps the correct idle torque of 141 ft-lbs, correct N1 and correct 1220

RPMs on prop, however it seems at the same time the power absorb formulas goes

wrong because I end up with a propeller creating a very heavy thrust on idle

(450 lbs NEW vs 180 - 200 lbs old)… causing the airplane to over taxi fairly

quick!. and then at full power drops, the thrust falls too much. (losing about

300lbs of force vs non modern) making the aircraft unable to take off using

the POH runway length, so clearly, the thrust goes wrong under this

circumstances. I tried altering all the PROP_MOD values to correct this issue

to no availability, the only thing that helped a bit was was changing the

**prop_mod_aspect_ratio** from 6 to 4.8 to generate more torque at the end of

the curve and decrease the the **prop_mod_lift_slope_cf to** reduce a bit the

idle thrust speed, however I could not generate more thrust at full power (969

ft-lbs as per POH), So it seems I am unable to balance the curve out with the

old curve… not matter what I tried, it seems the power absorb is calculated

automatically somehow making it impossible to have the correct idle RPM vs

thrust at high power. Can we have more detail about how power absorb is

calculated with the prop modern formulas and what can be used to influence it?

the only solution I have so far is to reset power_propeller_absorbed_cf back

to 1.0 (from 0.42 as I need it), which then returns the full power of the

propeller under modern flight model, but I lose the required 1220 idle RPM

speed with the required idle torque and idle N1. **Problem 3:** Yes more, if

you enable CFD + Re-inject rotors… then the propeller lose even more thrust…

up to 200 to 250 lbs more… why is this? how Re-inject rotors affects turbo

prop performance? **Conclusions:** I want to use Prop modern, but quiet

frankly after 2 weeks of no sleep trying to tweak it, I am about to give it

and leave it all legacy… there must be something I am doing wrong, we should

be able to tweak these values much easier and to control results better for

sure. I am able to tweak piston engine +prop modern fairly quick, but with

TurboProps, the absorved torque is causing misbehaviour that I cannot

understand or control. Thanks in advance for the time to read this question

and any insight that could be provided. Kind regards, Raul

To add to this, IS the SDK statement wrong??

`[PROPELLER]`

This section is for defining the properties of the propellers on a piston

aircraft. The parameters available are:

Totally, because for TurboProps you need to configure that section for sure…

R.

Our tech writer will fix this.

Hello @Simbol Can you give me access to your package so I can have a look at

what’s happening in your specific case? Regards, Sylvain

I had some really off performance when i first tried the modern prop model.

high static thrust and low speed. I use a negative twist value and that fixed

it. I think u have -10 on my diamonds.

where? can you elaborate more? R.

ok my mistake, as the values are reversed i thought i had a negative value

entered into the cfg. prop_mod_aoa_twist_delta_deg = 7.5 is what I have

@FlyingRaccoon I wanted to utilise the modern prop system for our own

turboprops, but I hit the same wall and some limitations with it. I didn’t

spend as much time as @Simbol with it as I had a deadline to meet, but I found

myself very restricted. To clarify, I am a big advocate of legacy tables

because they allow me to tune the propeller exactly how I need it and the data

and formulae used for them match the academic and industry standards and I

know it first-hand.

- Documentation: a table showing what scalars and parametres work with the modern prop system would help a lot. I.e. does prop_power_absorbed work or not?
- Undocumented parametres: prop_mod_aoa_lift_delta_align_beta_deg
- Better explanations: advance_ratio_on_effective_beta, for example, makes no sense -even if unused. By reading it, I assume that as the advance ratio increases (moving right on the J/β table), the propeller beta also does. So, a value of 0.2 means what? That for every 0.2 of change in advance ratio the propeller β will change by 1 degree? Things like that would help a lot if they were explained or formulated.
- Discrete control: the modern flight model should be able to simulate propeller operation throughout all advance ratios and beta angles as it uses very basic properties of the fin. The issue with that (and the previous modern propeller model) is that it is generic and you cannot predict behaviours in particular ranges. I.e. the prop may work well when flying, but when idle its RPM may be too high or too low. If I tweak power_absorbed to get my idles right, I need to re-work my flight RPM, then thrust etc.
- I also had another situation: my prop works well for idle and takeoff, but on climb it will over-rev beyond the real RPM. Since I couldn’t tune power absorbed, the solution I found was to set beta_max to 90 degrees, so the propeller has more playroom. This way if it was about to over-rev it would go from 40 degrees to 45, 50, 60 or whatever it wants to maintain RPM. The problem is that per the aircraft manual the real propeller doesn’t go to above 40 degrees. This shows that the absorbed propeller power is either wrong or not-tunable in the modern propeller simulation. If our option is to move the propeller to unrealistic pitches to get it to work, so be it, but we need to know why. And here comes my next point.
- In the previous situation I also noticed that my feathered RPM was half what it should be, which makes the problem even more pronounced. So I have a propeller that can fly from 12 to 80 degrees, but feathers at 83 and produces no thrust? That doesn’t make sense from a physics standpoint.
- Propeller discing: there is a beta angle for every prop where it will produce zero thrust and is used when taxying to keep the plane in place. Using legacy tables this can be specified, but with the modern FM it will be guessed. Again, I’m (kind of) OK with using unrealistic figures if the prop performs, but it turns propeller developement into guesswork, while there are perfectly fine physics model to predict it accurately. On to my next point.
- Mathematical formulae: It would help me a lot if the formulae for the modern propeller model were listed next to the respective parametres and in a way that they are complete if put together -i.e. formulas posted for other things like ITT are not complete and will not give a proper output if put in excel.

TLDR, the modern prop model makes sense as a concept, but its implementation

has errors that show even in moderate circumstances. The lack of tuning

options for edge cases such as feathering, discing or reverse make the problem

worse, as we have to rely on trial-and-error instead of predictable formulae

and real data. If, at least, we have the formulae for the modern prop model,

we can shape it to what we need in less time.

I also tried all the parameter adjustments and found pretty much the same

problem, at high rpm the power absorption is high and 2 times exceeds the

value of Engine power output , yet at low rpm the power absorption is very

inadequate. In addition, the very high power absorption value at g high rpm

creates a very high slipstream, creating a higher additional drag. I don’t

know how to adjust it.

Indeed this remains an issue, althought I enabled CFD for the product I had to

leave prop_modern disabled for the time being or I am unable to achieve the

required configuration in line with my license with the aircraft manufacturer.

We require Asobo to review these formulas so we can work better in the future.

Best, Taul

The engine power and rpm need to be correct as well as reduction gear ratio. I

would check those first. Once you know the prop is absorbing the correct

torque at full power, the only source of lost thrust is propeller drag.

Even with correct reduction gear ratio and torque relations, the modern prop

model misses the mark on Np. You will miss either ground idle or flight idle

Np. It works very well on pistons, but on turboprops it misses the mark by a

lot for some reason. Knowing the numbers for the planes I worked on very well,

it is impossible to get correct Np-Torque-Ng relationships.