VSKYLABS Dev Update: Interaction & Assignment Standardization

[VSKYLABS Development News] issued 17th March 2026


Hello VSKYLABS Test-Pilots!

The VSKYLABS Cockpit-Builders Assignment Layer has matured and became a core element of the VSKYLABS development framework. It was already implemented in about 50% of the existing VSKYLABS products, now being deployed to the rest of the fleet.

The Assignment Layer introduces a standardized interaction framework, unifying how cockpit/aircraft elements respond to user input across all supported aircraft.

It provides a straightforward assignment-system for all aircraft switches, knobs, and interactions via a dedicated X-Plane 12 assignment layer, interfaced via X-Plane 12 built-in assignment screens, eliminating the need for using 3rd party plugins for binding commands into hardware switches/knobs/levers/buttons etc...

As part of this process, legacy VSKYLABS interaction methods are being phased out and replaced with current VSKYLABS interaction and assignment logic.

Key outcomes include:
  • Consistent interaction behavior across the VSKYLABS fleet.
  • Expanded and seamless control assignment options.
  • Improved compatibility with custom cockpit hardware setups.
  • Streamlined interaction logic and response.
The VSKYLABS Cockpit-Builders Assignment Layer update is scheduled for implementation in the remaining products starting the very near future.

Remaining VSKYLABS products which are expecting the update:

Attached down below are selected VSKYLABS Cockpit Builders Assignment Layer Feature Cards, of already-implemented aircraft.

Completion of this implementation across the remaining VSKYLABS fleet will mark a significant milestone in VSKYLABS aircraft integration with X-Plane 12.


Stay tuned! 


Huss
VSKYLABS


A Few Inches Lower: VR Lessons from the SR-71 Cockpit

[VSKYLABS Development Notes] issued 14th March 2026


In this article, I will introduce an important phase and practice in the development of virtual simulation models. In our case, this refers to VSKYLABS development of aircraft for the X-Plane Flight Simulator.

True scaling of the virtual cockpit:

To make a long story short, scaling the virtual aircraft so it represents the real-world aircraft in a true 1:1 scale is maybe the most fundamental process in the virtual aircraft development process. In X-Plane, proper scaling of the aircraft is not only crucial for proper aerodynamic calculations... it is also crucial for providing a realistic flying experience in the virtual cockpit.

During development, at some point, flight testing is flown in the VR (Virtual Reality) environment. This takes place in a relatively early state of the project, where things are tight enough, yet not fully completed.

'Man-Machine' integration:

Real cockpits are tailored around a human pilot, providing seamless 'integration' with the aircraft (in most cases...). If there's a switch that should be reached by the pilot during aircraft operation and flight, the average pilot should simply reach his hand and touch it.

This goes for levers, buttons, dials... In many cockpits, some of the systems are located around the pilot: overhead panels, below the seat, behind the other seat, between the legs. These should be reachable as well in VR... replicating the real-world configuration.

Another 'Man-Machine' integration aspect that is evaluated in this process is the overall geometry of the panels, padding and the canopy cut-outs, which should align properly (with some adjustments) to pilot height, providing an authentic line-of-sight with the world.

Exploring/evaluating the virtual cockpit:

When I first sit in the WIP virtual cockpit, in VR, it must simply 'feel right'. I use the touch controllers and set my hands over the throttles, going through all levers and switches... all should perfectly fit. This is the ultimate scaling validation of the cockpit and its ergonomic design, which should reflect the real-world aircraft.

Then, I place the touch controller on my seat cushion, just between my legs. The virtual and the physical cushions should 'align', and the touch controller should 'sit' on the virtual cushion.

Looking outside, around... I seek the familiar 'cockpit feeling'... try to sense the depth of the aircraft floor, trying to read the instruments... see that all fits right.

Then, I take it for a short ride, looking for unexpected issues of line-of-sight and field of view. Some aircraft are amazingly surprising when transitioning from a 2D display to VR. The combination of peripheral vision and natural head movement brings the flying experience to a whole new level of realism. In most cases, when flying in VR, it is much easier to see the runway through caged canopies during taxi, takeoff, and landings, or to manage taxiing in a tail-dragger, where the nose is set high above the runway when looking forward. In VR we can look 'over the shoulder' and past cockpit obstacles and notice ultimate peripheral cues with peripheral vision.

In the following video - cockpit operation and landing in Full-VR environment. I'm flying the VSKYLABS F-19 Stealth Fighter, in full VR environment (touch controllers and physical pedals, no physical Joystick or switches).

The VSKYLABS F-19 cockpit was designed and modeled following the F-18 late cockpit design, with only a few adaptations. All cockpit elements which were designed for human interaction in the F-18, are in full and comfortable each of the pilot in VR.

Lets set the focus on the caged cockpit of the F-19. When flying in X-Plane using 2-d display, landing the aircraft becomes a bit challenging due to the canopy cage structure, similar to the SR-71. However, when flying in VR, the addition of peripheral vision and natural head movement results with a straightforward operation, visuals with the runway and judgement to the touch-down zone.


The SR-71A Blackbird Cockpit and Canopy Geometry ALL WRONG??:

Here is a fascinating 'behind-the-scenes' story from the early stage of the VR scaling validation process.

During the development of the VSKYLABS SR-71-TB, extensive operations were tested in VR. At the time, the development of the 'synthetic' aerial refueling session was nearly complete, and since all components had been modeled in 1:1 true scale, I wanted to see how it would feel inside the cockpit in VR.

During the 'synthetic' refueling, I noticed a severe problem. Hey! This does not feel right!

The air refueling is set as a kind of a 'baked' phase (no actual formation flying). The SR-71 and the tanker are aligned, geometrically speaking, as closely as possible to the real-world conditions. Yet, even in VR, when sitting in the virtual cockpit of the SR-71, I could hardly see the designated area on the tanker that should be observed during the refuel, if it were a real-world formation flying segment.

*To note that I've 'been there, done that' for real, yet obviously not in the SR-71...still...I knew what to look for...


This was a serious issue. I re-checked everything, inspected the 3D model, the drawings, tons of references. All seemed right, yet... realistically, sitting 'in-place' with the tanker didn't feel right. It felt almost impossible to fly formation and see the tanker signals if it were an actual aerial refueling.

At the time, I was in close contact with Ret. Lt. Col. BC Thomas. We discussed many of the real-world SR-71 operational aspects with a focus on systems and flying practices. In one of our conversations I asked him: BC, something doesn't fit when I am sitting in the SR-71 model, observing the tanker... I can hardly see the tanker signal area... if I were flying this in real-time formation, I could not see the tanker's belly clearly. Was it that hard to fly formation with the tanker? Or...is it a serious modelling issue...?

His reply was amazing, and solved the issue instantly: he told me that during aerial refueling sessions he had to lower the seat so much that the stick almost hit his chin (as he described it) to see the tanker properly. He told me that once sitting lower, flying the aerial refueling was quite smooth and straightforward.

Once we ended that conversation, I launched the VSKYLABS SR-71 in VR and flew to the aerial refueling phase. Then, I lowered the seat (using the down arrow, in VR)... and... once positioned quite a few inches lower, the view was perfect! This 'lowering of the seat' action was an actual real-world SR-71 pilot technique, and it validated the cockpit geometry of the model...using VR...amazing isn't it?

VR is not only powerful for the pilot. For the developer, it becomes an engineering tool, allowing cockpit geometry and human-machine integration to be validated. It is a crucial human-factors validation tool in cockpit geometry development.



Huss
VSKYLABS

VSKYLABS Test-Flight Report: Revolution Mini-500, Flying the Power Curve

[VSKYLABS Test-Flight report] issued 9th March 2026

Hello VSKYLABS Test-Pilots!

A simple, yet fascinating experience in X-Plane 12, reflected here from the VSKYLABS cockpit.

I took the Mini-500 for a short hop. X-Plane version 12.4.0-r2.

Above is an edited video showing segments from that flight, which took about 4 minutes.


Very long time since the last time I flew the Mini-500. Most of my flying these days are test and evaluation flights; usually short, mission-oriented segments that are highly focused. In many cases they are repetitive: flying the same segment again and again until the results are satisfactory.

My last flight in the Mini-500 was (very) long ago, so I considered this experience as 'fresh'.

My flight window was short, so I started the flight in 'Engines Running' mode. Everything was already set; cyclic, collective, pedals. Up we go...(raising collective and tickle the pedals).

My first thought was: Oh gosh… this is so under-powered...man...have I missed a flight-model update in X-Plane???

*Reminder - I developed this helicopter for X-Plane, and people may be flying it as we speak!

I was pulling collective and almost nothing happened...well, almost nothing. I continued raising it for a clear lift-off. Anti-torque input was very responsive, yet predictable (phew...). Once airborne, I could confirm: a very weak helicopter. As I pulled the collective just a bit higher, I could practically hear the engine being stressed, the RPM struggling to hold 100%....NICE!!!

The Mini-500 is powered by a Rotax 582 / 67 hp engine. So this drive-train behavior was expected, and obviously was one of the core aspects in development. But as noted...I haven't flown it for a very long time. 

Since I only had a few minutes for this hop, I moved into a clearer area and gently pushed forward to gain airspeed and actually fly. At this point I noticed the drive-train strain again as I raised the collective gently for forward flight. As a side-note I'll add that demonstrating this Man-Machine interface was one of the core objective in the development of the VSKYLABS Mini-500. I hadn’t flown it for many months, yet it felt just right.

I love under-powered aircraft. Flying them forces the pilot to manage the engine, controls, and energy (airspeed, altitude, sink rates...) with constant attention.

A few seconds later I crossed the dark side of the Height-Velocity envelope while accelerating.

The flight took place at Base-8, which provides quite a few references and 'positive distractions'. I decided to follow one of the inner roads and headed toward the Ramp Compound area. The combination of low sun angle and haze looked immersive. It was one of those moments that occasionally happen when flying in X-Plane 12 under 'interesting' weather conditions.

As I  got close to the ramp compound, which is a kind of a confined landing area, depending on the approach, I slowed down and descended while performing a quick 180° turn to position myself just in front of the snowy ramp.

During that combined descent and turn there was a moment when I had to raise the collective and add anti-torque input quite significantly. I felt that I might not make it. The RPM was stressed, and I recognized an unintentional drop in altitude as I raised the collective higher than expected.

It was one of those moments:

Raise the collective higher… or wait for the power.

I waited for the power, while keep losing a bit of altitude.

RPM gained 100% and the situation was controllable again. Phew. No crash...

I accelerated again and headed to the nearby unpaved landing strip, performing a fast fly-by. It was pretty fun and the Mini-500 felt spot-on. It really 'comes alive' above 60 knots...

I pulled up gently and made a large 360° turn above the paved runway area, coming back for landing. Final approach was a bit 'hotter' than planned. Again, I found myself managing the power curve a bit too late and low with a slightly higher sink rate. I guess that this is was due to the fact that I've flown powerful VSKYLABS helicopters lately, and for me, this flight was in fact a kind of an adaptation flight...getting back to my old 'Mini-500 skills'...

Just like over the ramp compound, the power-train eventually provided the needed power though during the maneuver I had my doubts...again...

Landing was predictable, gentle and...safe.

End of flight.

I conclude the experience as very satisfying. Both in  a sim-pilot and a developer perspective.

What I enjoyed the most was the interaction with the Mini-500 from the controls-perspective. It is an under-powered helicopter, and that characteristic is noticeable both in handling (how it feels on the controls), and in the sound feedback.

Flying aircraft by the sounds they make is one of the most satisfying experiences.
(Depending on the aircraft, this characteristics is implemented in many VSKYLABS aircraft, indicating stall, airspeed over the canopy, high Alpha buffet and so forth).

This handling and feedback combination triggers certain instincts in real-world pilots, regardless of what aircraft they fly.


Huss
VSKYLABS


Add-On Fatigue Syndrome

[VSKYLABS Editorial] issued 6th March 2026

Add-On Fatigue Syndrome (AFS)

A Self-Diagnostic Overview for Flight Simulation Pilots

By Huss, VSKYLABS 'Virtual Aviation Medicine Department'

Are you spending more time scrolling your aircraft menu than flying? VSKYLABS diagnoses "Add-On Fatigue Syndrome" and offers the 'clinical cure' for flight simulation burnout. If this is related to you, keep on reading!

OK..

Thing is...that the modern sim-pilot has access to more aircraft than ever before in history.

Which, ironically, is exactly where the problem begins.

In the past decade, VSKYLABS developed nearly 40 different aircraft add-on products for X-Plane Flight Simulator. Aircraft projects are diverse, covering a huge range of aircraft type and categories: GA, Twins, Trainers, Historic/Iconic aircraft, Jets, Rockets, Gyros, Helicopters, Gliders, RC Models airplanes...Home-built, Concept aircraft...Jet-Fighters...and more.

If you do the math, that is a new aircraft product every few months. 

Obviously, in addition to VSKYLABS, other developers in the X-Plane Eco-system develop and release new aircraft add-ons continuously. Over time...aircraft selection in the Eco-system becomes 'Ultimate'.

At some point around 2023, I realized that due the situation I described above, a new product turns 'old' very quickly...and goes down into the oblivion of the Eco-system/flight simmers huge aircraft hangars, resulting in loss of interest of the simmer, not only in the specific add-on, but also generally in the flight simulation platform. This leads to 'No-Fly time', sometimes pretty long!


So...What Is Add-On Fatigue?


Add-On Fatigue Syndrome appears when a simulator pilot owns so many aircraft that choosing one becomes unexpectedly difficult:
  • Your hangar is full.
  • Your aircraft are excellent (freeware, payware...your own designs).
  • And yet you scrolls through the aircraft list thinking:
    Hmm… nothing interesting to fly tonight!"
  • You are overloaded, lacking flying motivation...all your sim activities feels 'useless'...you stop flying...
———————————————————————————————————————————————


Early Warning Signs:

  • You scroll through the aircraft menu repeatedly.
  • You load an aircraft… then exit the flight a few minutes later.
  • You browse the store occasionally.
  • You download almost every freeware aircraft at the X-Plane.org...
  • At this stage you may already be experiencing 'Hangar' or 'Flightsim' Saturation.
  • In some cases, you haven't flown some of your favorite aircraft, for months...possibly years.
———————————————————————————————————————————————


The Four Phases that may lead to AFS:


Phase One: I call it "The Honeymoon"

A new aircraft is acquired and flown enthusiastically. You open the Manuals, explore the cockpit. Everything feels exciting!

Phase Two: Wow, Another Release
Another aircraft appears. Curiosity cycles and your hangar grows.

Phase Three: New Release and Update 'Frenzy'
Aircraft accumulate faster in your hangar, faster than they can be properly explored. You start looping through the hangar looking for the next spark of excitement.

Phase Four: Total Burnout
Your virtual hangar contains dozens of aircraft of all kinds...freeware, payware...You say:
    "There’s nothing interesting to fly"...
    "What's the point...this is boring"...

At this point, you are probably deep in the AFS...

———————————————————————————————————————————————


The Cure


Don't fight AFS. Embrace it!

Take a time-out!

Go fishing, or have quality time with your family.

Go outside and let your tired eyes some infinite-focus time.

When you'll be ready, you'll know it.


...I do this all the time...
It also dramatically reduces bug reports.



Huss
VSKYLABS

VSKYLABS Aircraft Fleet Platform is Now Online

[VSKYLABS News] issued 3rd March 2026

VSKYLABS has completed the consolidation of all aircraft projects information, specifications, development notes and update logs into a dedicated fleet platform:

VSKYLABS Aerospace Simulations Aircraft Fleet:

aircraft.vskylabs.com

This infrastructure provides a solid, long-term archive of the VSKYLABS fleet, designed for improved exploration and search capabilities, centralized documentation, and scalable growth in the light of the future expansion and variety of the VSKYLABS fleet. 

The new platform is expanding on a daily basis as additional aircraft data, technical references and project media are being gradually integrated across all projects pages. The increase of coverage scope includes extended real-world aircraft specs, reference and information side by side with the virtual ones.

The platform is fully interconnected with the VSKYLABS Specialized Centers, the Magazine, and the Official Website & Store, allowing cross-centers reference.

Quick navigation in the interconnected VSKYLABS centers can be done on the fly, using the quick links in the Left-Hand side bar of each center.

The VSKYLABS Aircraft Fleet platform marks in important milestone in the evolution of the fleet and its future development.

Explore the fleet now:
aircraft.vskylabs.com


Huss
VSKYLABS

IAI LAVI Briefing: Design Doctrine Analysis

[VSKYLABS Test-Pilot Notes] issued 24th February 2026


Here is an introduction to a true VSKYLABS Myth-Busting project in X-Plane!

The IAI LAVI exists in aviation history as a mythical strike fighter - a compact 'wonder' fighter that should have carried bombs and fuel as if it was an F-4E Phantom II, while being agile and maneuverable as if it was a General Dynamics F-16A Falcon. All specifications are documented, but the full operational "proof" never had a real chance to materialize.

The LAVI appeared/appears in various flight simulators over the years. One of its most significant appearances was in the Jane's IAF: Israeli Air Force (1998), and later in Falcon BMS. Although the simulation modules allowed to 'experience' the aircraft in a dynamic combat/warfare simulation, they did not challenge the aircraft concept fundamentally in a high-fidelity aerodynamics and physics based environment.

Being deeply familiar with the aircraft and the concept behind its design, I decided to develop the aircraft as a flying test-bed and to challenge the concept under stress in the most advanced flight simulation in our days: X-Plane 12.

The development effort of the VSKYLABS 'Test-Pilot': LAVI and VSKYLABS 'Test-Pilot': F-4E Phantom II in X-Plane 12 overlapped in the past few years, providing a fascinating perspective of the LAVI especially due to the fact that the real aircraft was developed as an operational alternative to the aging Phantoms in the Israeli Air Force. I will dedicate a whole separate article for this topic in the future.

The following design doctrine briefing is based on my in-depth study of the LAVI configuration over the years, supported by official IAI publications and professional reports from the 1980's (I kept some rare and authentic references from the days that the aircraft was actually a flying prototype in the late 80's). The LAVI was designed for demanding air-to-ground roles, with payload, range, and penetration performance expectations that pushed the configuration to its limits. It never had the opportunity to prove those expectations operationally.

Given the extensive existing materials found on the internet, I will try to provide a slightly different angle and to cover some details which are not commonly discussed. Here we go.


The IAI LAVI was born from a set of unusual design requirements: The IAF needed an aircraft that could dominate the air-to-ground aspects like the F-4E Phantom II (including similar payload carrying capabilities), yet to retain the maneuverability and agility of the General Dynamics F-16 Falcon, in the Air-to-Air department. The rigid set of operational specifications dictated a robust, compact and efficient airframe design.

To hit these two major requirements, the aircraft had to integrate a powerful engine, advanced aerodynamic design, multi-mode radar for both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles, high capacity fuel and multiple external stores stations...all while maintaining low-observable characteristics and high penetration speeds at low altitude. It was an ambitious design and the IAI’s extensive operational experience in the 70's provided the foundation that was needed to push such a dense, high-performance design and configuration into reality.

What truly distinguishes the LAVI from what appears as its 'older brother', the F-16, was that it conceived from the beginning around heavy air-to-ground mission demands, while the F-16 and other fighters from that era gained/integrated such capabilities in later variants. The LAVI compact airframe was designed to carry 18,500 pounds of external stores(!). It featured fifteen (15) stations; nine under the fuselage and three under each wing, offering incredible mission flexibility.

The external storage and weight carrying capabilities were of the core 'myth-busting' goals in the initiation of the VSKYLABS 'Test-Pilot': LAVI development for X-Plane 12. 

*In the image above, the LAVI prototype refueling from an A-4N Skyhawk. Its compact dimensions are a direct reflection of the requirement for a relatively low-observable configuration. This is immediately noticed when flying formation with the Skyhawk.

IAI LAVI - Design Doctrine Briefing:

At its core, the LAVI was a delta wing aircraft with close-coupled, all-moving canards, a direct evolution from the IAI Kfir, blended with the familiar General Dynamics F-16A. The LAVI embraced the aerodynamic design of an inherently unstable configuration (similar to the F-16 in principle) managed by powerful digital Fly-By-Wire systems. This instability was a major performance multiplier which offered a payoff in lift and trim far greater compared to a conventional layout especially in a compact aircraft in both air-to-ground and air-to-air requirements. 

The design approach extended to the under-slung inlet, chosen specifically to deal with the distortion sensitivity of turbofan engines at high angles of attack, optimized for a highly maneuverable air-to-air aircraft. By blending the wing and body, the designers reduced drag while gaining valuable internal volume for fuel, systems and avionics.

Flying fast at low altitude, fully loaded and in military power alone (non-afterburner) was one of the core design requirements. The fuselage featured the 'Coke-Bottle' geometrya typical supersonic area-rule design which optimizes and controls drag rise near critical Mach number, especially in low-level penetrations.

The wing was a highly complex aero-design, featuring a 54-degree leading-edge sweep and an aspect ratio of 2.25. It was built from multiple cross-sectional airfoils which were tailored along the span to manage lift distribution and drag across its wide flight envelope which included wide margins of high Angle of Attack, for air-to-air roles. With the Flight Control Computer synchronizing the all-moving canards, high-authority leading-edge flaps, and independent elevons, the LAVI achieved wing load distribution that stayed very close to the ideal lift-drag polar. Managing the massive shifts in center of gravity due to the highly flexible external loads storage required the constant synergy of the Fly-By-Wire system and the all-moving canards.

The engine plays a central role in aircraft performance. The early engine proposal incorporated the GE-F404. During evaluation, Pratt & Whitney proposed the more powerful PW-1120 (derivative of the F-100 engine) and the PW-1120 was ultimately selected. That decision had impact on the aircraft length (extended compared to the GE-F404 design), yet it increased the maximum takeoff weight and external storage capabilities and allowed larger wing area and span.

Wingtip missiles were not new in fighter design of the LAVI era, but in the LAVI configuration doctrine, they were integrated as part of a broader aerodynamic optimization strategy ; they have smaller influence on the center of pressure shift and lower zero-lift drag compared to under-wing mounted missiles. While wing-tip missiles offered seeker field of view and other advantages, in the LAVI they were integrated as part of the efficient wing design approach.

The landing gears were designed to get folded into the wing-body blended section. This kept the wing and fuselage clear for heavy ordnance, a feature only possible with a blended low-wing design. In contrast, the gears are usually either attached to the fuselage (like in the F-16 or F-18) or to the wings (like in the F-4, Mirage 2000 etc...). 

Range requirements demanded substantial external fuel. Two 600-USG wing tanks and one 350-USG center-line tank brought the external-to-internal fuel ratio to 1.7. As noted, it was designed to penetrate deep at high speeds with a full load. That's a lot of drag wrapped into a compact, highly powered airframe.

The LAVI essence was of a compact, high-tech 'raider' aircraft: an inherently unstable, digitally stabilized platform that packed the firepower of a much larger, more expensive strike aircraft into a tight, agile frame. It never had the opportunity to prove its doctrine in operational service, yet the design itself remains a fascinating study in how far disciplined configuration engineering can be pushed within tight physical limits.

Thanks to X-Plane 12, we have the technology to put the concept under stress. 

Stay tuned for more related references and actual flying report as the VSKYLABS 'Test-Pilot': LAVI development go deeper into the flight testing phase.


Huss
VSKYLABS.


External Photos Attribution:
All real-world LAVI photographs featured in this article are credited to the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit and are licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (via Wikimedia Commons).

Aeromatic Propellers - For Dummies

[VSKYLABS Test-Pilot Notes] issued 17th February 2026

(The Self-Balancing Physics of Passive Variable-Pitch).

Wait. This is not going to be a heavy aerodynamics lecture. This is a PRACTICAL look at something you can actually fly in X-Plane 12, and something that exists in the real world! It’s about real physics, real engineering ideas, and how they translate into the simulation. The most exciting part is that it happens to involve one of the most fascinating VSKYLABS aircraft ever developed for X-Plane: The VSKYLABS Rutan Long-EZ.

So instead of diving into academic summaries, let’s talk about what the Aeromatic propeller really is, and what were the reasons for its design.

*screenshot: The VSKYLABS Rutan LongEZ equipped with Aeromatic propeller physics in X-Plane.

A fixed-pitch propeller is always a compromise. If you choose a low pitch prop, the airplane accelerates and climbs well but cruise speed suffers. Choose a higher pitch prop for better cruise, and takeoff performance becomes less impressive...or even an issue. Due to propeller aerodynamic efficiency, a single given fixed blade angle simply cannot be perfect for every phase of flight. That’s why variable-pitch propellers became popular in the 1930's, following the advances in aircraft design at the time, that pushed maximum flying speeds thresholds rapidly (the evolution of the racing aircraft - will save this for another time...).

Variable-pitch propellers solved much of the 'compromising' problem, but at a cost: Hydraulics, governors, oil systems, extra weight, extra complexity. For small aircraft, ultralights (and even today’s lightweight platforms), that complexity was/is often too much, and in some cases - not practical.

The Aeromatic Propeller was one of the earliest passive variable-pitch propellers, developed in the 1930s. 'Passive' means there are no hydraulic lines, no electric motors, no cockpit controls to move ('twist') the blades. In the passive-variable pitch propeller, the propeller changes its pitch by itself, using only the natural forces already acting on it during flight. It is a mechanical balancing act between aerodynamic forces and centrifugal forces.

In short, each blade is mounted on a pivot. It is not rigidly fixed at one angle. Instead, it can rotate around a pivot axis to change its pitch (refer to the screenshot above). The hub flange holds the blade at a certain angle relative to that pivot axis, and as the blade pivots, it moves along an arc, forward toward low pitch, or backward toward high pitch. The range of movement is limited by mechanical stops that define the minimum and maximum pitch for a given Aeromatic propeller.

Now imagine the airplane at takeoff. The blades are spinning, air is flowing over them, and thrust is being produced. The aerodynamic thrust force acts at the blade’s center of pressure and tends to rotate the blade toward low pitch. In simple words, the airflow 'wants' to flatten the blade. Torque has some influence as well, but it’s relatively small compared to the thrust effect, in the Aeromatic propeller mechanism.

At the same time, centrifugal forces are acting strongly on the spinning blades. Centrifugal Twisting Moment tends to reduce pitch regardless of position. But there is another centrifugal effect: the displacement force, which behaves differently depending on where the blade sits relative to the plane of rotation. If the blade is forward of that plane, centrifugal force tends to increase pitch. If it is rearward, it tends to reduce pitch.

This is where the counterweights comes in.

The Aeromatic propeller includes counterweight arms positioned in front of the plane of rotation. As the propeller spins, centrifugal force acts on these weights and pulls them toward the plane of rotation. Because the weights are mechanically linked to the blade, this motion increases blade pitch. In other words, while aerodynamic forces are trying to drive the blade toward low pitch, the centrifugal forces acting on the blade and counterweights are trying to drive it toward high pitch.

The magic of the Aeromatic prop is that these opposing forces balance each other automatically.

At takeoff, aerodynamic pitch-decreasing forces are strongest. The blades move toward low pitch, allowing the engine to reach full takeoff RPM and power. As the airplane accelerates and forward speed increases, the balance shifts:

The centrifugal forces become more dominant, and blade pitch increases. This prevents the engine from over-speeding and allows efficient power use throughout takeoff, climb and cruise, where the airspeed vs power demand varies.

In flight, the Aeromatic tends to 'govern' engine RPM at a given throttle setting. Over a wide range of airspeeds, RPM stays relatively stable because blade pitch continuously adjusts to match conditions. The propeller load curve follows the engine manufacturer’s calculated load relationship quite accurately, meaning that throttle position, manifold pressure and RPM maintains a predictable, stable relationship. For this reason, the Aeromatic prop design can fit a variety of aircraft.

And here’s the beauty of it - no extra cockpit controls are required. No prop lever. No constant-speed governor. The system works on its own. Besides the aerodynamic benefits...this is a very efficient configuration from the simulated aircraft developer perspective; no cockpit levers, no interaction...it is all in the physics!

So, in plain language, the Aeromatic propeller is a self-balancing system. Airflow tries to flatten the blades. Spinning mass and counterweights try to increase pitch. The final blade angle is simply the point where those forces 'agree' or equalize. And it happens continuously throughout the entire flight envelope regime.

The overall configuration is a lightweight and mechanically-simple way to get some of the benefits of a variable-pitch propeller without the hydraulics and controls complexity that comes with it. In the 50's-60's, the Aeromatic propellers were certified on many aircraft including Piper, Stinson, Ercoupe, T-craft, Bellanca, Swift, Aeronca, Cessna, Fairchild and more. In the present (2026) it seems that many aircraft home-builders and Experimental/LSA owners have increased interest in this simple configuration, to improve aircraft performance and safety margins.

The VSKYLABS / X-Plane / LongEZ Connection:

The Aeromatic propeller is a remarkably elegant piece of engineering, and amazingly (but not surprisingly) X-Plane Flight Simulator can simulate passive variable-pitch propellers out-of-the-box! (if you know what you're doing...).

VSKYLABS has always tried to push the aircraft designs into each and every possible 'corner' of X-Plane physics and flight dynamics models. When developed the VSL Rutan LongEZ, back in 2017/2018, during deep study of the aircraft, I came across the 'Canard Zone' forums, where pilots had an interesting discussions of the topic, specifically about the LongEZ. This was the inspiration that triggered the implementation of the Aeromatic propeller mechanism in the VSKYLABS Rutan LongEZ aircraft.


If you happens to fly the VSKYLABS Rutan LongEZ (none-ER variant), know that it is powered by a real-physics Aeromatic propeller!


Huss
VSKYLABS.