Engine Indication and Performance Adjustments Complete

[Boeing or not going 578]

Is the original version of this mod compatible with the sp1 revision?

[HawkDsl 50]

Thanks Atlantic flyer for your generous work. It is appreciated.

[CFIJose 5,485]

I just picked up this beauty and I love it. I'm also wondering if the new mods are available. Thanks for the generous contribution Nick!

[Boeing or not going 578]

I've heard nothing in 2 weeks. Wonder what happened. Maybe Carenado told him to stop.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

I've heard nothing in 2 weeks. Wonder what happened. Maybe Carenado told him to stop.

 

Maybe.

[aeronauta 67]

Look on the bright side, maybe they asked him to help them sort the mess for an SP2

 

Jorge

[Boeing or not going 578]

It would be nice to have realistic ITT, the v1 of the mod does not fix it.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

It would be nice to have realistic ITT, the v1 of the mod does not fix it.

 

 

To do that, I think, you'd have to change both the air file and the gauge.  As I understand it, the ITT becomes the limiting power factor somewhere between 15,000 and 16,000 feet, which means you have to start pulling back some power to keep it within limits.  So, as a minimum, you need a formula of some kind to calculate ITT given present conditions (altitude, temperature, ISA, power setting).  Perhaps, if someone has or can come up with a formula then the gauge could be changed...or, as a minumum, sample data (if the data plots can be modelled onto a simple line or curve then finding a formula might not be as hard...doesn't have to be perfect).  But, on top of that, it might also mean there'd need to be a change to the air file to compensate for the reduction in power (depending on what Carenado did in there).

 

As an oversimplification, say you knew what the temperature would be at full power at SL at ISA and you also knew what the temperature would be at, say 15,000 feet at ISA.  You could use a linear formula ( ax+b ).  Then, say you knew that reducing the power by 10% reduced ITT by 10%, increasing temperature X by 20 degrees C increased ITT 40 degrees, and increasing ISA by 5 C increased ITT 100 C.  All of that is relatively simple and could be put into a linear formula and fed into the gauge.  Like I said, doesn't need to be perfect...just good enough to get the gauge to behave similar to the RW aircraft.

[Boeing or not going 578]

To do that, I think, you'd have to change both the air file and the gauge.  As I understand it, the ITT becomes the limiting power factor somewhere between 15,000 and 16,000 feet, which means you have to start pulling back some power to keep it within limits.  So, as a minimum, you need a formula of some kind to calculate ITT given present conditions (altitude, temperature, ISA, power setting).  Perhaps, if someone has or can come up with a formula then the gauge could be changed...or, as a minumum, sample data (if the data plots can be modelled onto a simple line or curve then finding a formula might not be as hard...doesn't have to be perfect).  But, on top of that, it might also mean there'd need to be a change to the air file to compensate for the reduction in power (depending on what Carenado did in there).

 

As an oversimplification, say you knew what the temperature would be at full power at SL at ISA and you also knew what the temperature would be at, say 15,000 feet at ISA.  You could use a linear formula ( ax+b ).  Then, say you knew that reducing the power by 10% reduced ITT by 10%, increasing temperature X by 20 degrees C increased ITT 40 degrees, and increasing ISA by 5 C increased ITT 100 C.  All of that is relatively simple and could be put into a linear formula and fed into the gauge.  Like I said, doesn't need to be perfect...just good enough to get the gauge to behave similar to the RW aircraft.

 

Doesnt the Flight1 PC-12 have realistic ITT?

[GrummanDriver 0]

You shouldn't need to reduce the power, just not advance it any further. There will be climb torque for the PC12, I am un sure of what it is in a PC12/45, but lets call it 3700lbs. As the aircraft climbs the torque will reduce, therefore the pilot will need to push the power levers up to keep the same climb torque ( just has he or she would in a CSU equipped piston aircraft as the manifold pressure reduces). Every time the power levers are pushed up and the torque is increased the ITT will rise, eventually the engine(s) will reach a point where you have increased the power to the ITT limit, from that point onwards the ITT will remain constant but the torque will drop away as torque can no longer be increased by pushing the power levers up as the engine is 'temped out' so to speak. 

The issue with FSX and its simulation of the PT6 engine is that it incorrectly has ITT decreasing as the aircraft climbs, therefore the engine does not 'temp out' in the climb as torque is increased to maintain the climb setting. This gives an inaccurate indication of climb performance as the engine is able to be kept at its full climb torque all the way into the high flight levels. 

 

If it could be altered at that ITT does not decrease in the climb, a much more realistic simulation would be had as climb performance would correctly drop off as the aircraft temps out. 

I believe the F1 B200 simulates this. 

 

The use of engine anti ice / inertial separator also plays a part in this combination of torque/ITT. 

[LEAPWeaver 5]

Just as a quick update for you all. I am still working on this one. At the moment I am trying to figure out some unit conversions in the code for the EIS to accurately read in kilograms. With luck I will be wrapping this up this week. Stay tuned.

[HawkDsl 50]

Just as a quick update for you all. I am still working on this one. At the moment I am trying to figure out some unit conversions in the code for the EIS to accurately read in kilograms. With luck I will be wrapping this up this week. Stay tuned.

 

AF; As always, thank you and all the others who help with mods.

 

All; I haven't had a look at the sound yet (I'm in the middle of a major BlueSky dload of Cali).. but once I'm able, I'll have a look for improvements in that department as well.

[bigsky10 3]

I have another question.  I have put about 20 hours on the new PC12 trying to make the adjustments which I have found in this forum.  Always find good information here.

 

I’m using a Saitek PRO Flight yoke and Throttle system with my Carenado PC12. I set my condition lever to ground idle or flight idle and use Power Control lever to increase and decrease RPMs and Torque. My question for one of you is in a C208 which has a similar power plant, you have a propeller control but on the PC12 you do not.  I normally fly with the lever on my throttle control full forward and do not change it because it has no corresponding action on the cockpit power console.  In an exterior view when you increase or decrease the prop control you can hear a difference in the sound and you can see a change in RPM and ITT.  Does the PC12 have an automatic prop control which engages the prop from a feather position to a full power position?   Am I of the right thinking that this prop control lever should be full when engine is running?

I have not been able to find anything in any checklists or documentation that addresses this.

[LEAPWeaver 5]

Yes, the PC-12 has an auto-feathering constant speed prop, so, you will not need to adjust your prop control lever. All you need to do is leave it full forward and you are good to go.

[Boeing or not going 578]

That is good news Nick, looking forward to it. I was worried Carenado told you to stop tweaking! Until then would you be able to tell me what code to insert into the vc xml engine file so the fuel reset switch works in the vc? It works in the 2d panel but I can't find the line of code, I'm not a programmer.