No, it is not a Garrett

[louisdecoolste 12]

I've dealt with your trim tab assertion in your dedicated topic. As for the Garrett comments, you really should read what comes before. We've covered the representation of the relationship between torque and EGT quite adequately. Your comments look like you haven't understood the concepts being discussed, or have simply rushed in with your own viewpoint, based on a few minutes with the product on a friends system. Things we've already covered.

[CSCARLOS 0]

 

 

From what I can see from teh videos it behaves as it should. RPm is either grnd idle(taxi) or flight 100%,. It ceratinly doesnt change in videos.

 

If you pay close attention to the video (advance to minute 6:15), you will clearly see how the pilot disconnects the prop synchrophaser, release friction lever, advance condition levers full forward to their T.O./Land position and finally re-adjust friction lever.

Even when engine normal operating speed is stablished between 96% and 100% RPM,  100% is the parameter for takeoff and landing, and below 100% (96% minimum) as appropiate for the rest of the flight according to prevailing conditions and particular needs.

Cheers
 

[louisdecoolste 12]

Not sure you can actually define anything from that video - it's episodic and does not cover the whole flight so you have no way of gauging where and when the condition levers may have been pulled back - judged by the earlier armsfolded-at-cruise the condition levers are still full forward at that point. Could easily have been to expedite a descent at the behest of ATC, or to match a particular STAR, or simply the whim of the PIC. Why are you using non-instructional videos to reference what is a non-issue ? 

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make here ? Is this your standard operating procedure when you fly your Marquise ? 

 

There are differing ways to fly the same aeroplane even within the standard operating regime. 

 

Here's a PIREP one that doesn't reference the condition levers, except for checking for full forward for take off.

http://www.airaffair.com/Library/Archive/Part1/mu-2_pilot_report

 

The main reason for retarding at cruise was originally to reduce the noise levels in the cabin. Early models were know  to be LOUD. The later models with the -10 engine and 4-blade props are noticeably quieter.

[warbirds 555]

Then this may be of interest

 

http://eastaire.us/newchecklist.pdf

 

And don't forget to ping Dave (hangar) for a copy of his 1.7 FDE amendment 4c. 

 

You will get an appreciation of what the Moo can Doo... 

Curious what is 1.7 FDE amendment 4c ?

[CSCARLOS 0]

Not sure you can actually define anything from that video - it's episodic and does not cover the whole flight so you have no way of gauging where and when the condition levers may have been pulled back - judged by the earlier armsfolded-at-cruise the condition levers are still full forward at that point. Could easily have been to expedite a descent at the behest of ATC, or to match a particular STAR, or simply the whim of the PIC. Why are you using non-instructional videos to reference what is a non-issue ? 

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make here ? Is this your standard operating procedure when you fly your Marquise ? 

 

There are differing ways to fly the same aeroplane even within the standard operating regime. 

 

Here's a PIREP one that doesn't reference the condition levers, except for checking for full forward for take off.

http://www.airaffair.com/Library/Archive/Part1/mu-2_pilot_report

 

The main reason for retarding at cruise was originally to reduce the noise levels in the cabin. Early models were know  to be LOUD. The later models with the -10 engine and 4-blade props are noticeably quieter.

@ louisdecoolste:

 

It's not a good habit rushing to respond about any topic without thinking a bit first.  I would suggest you stop always arguing against everybody and pretending you are always right while the others

 

are wrong. Now:

 

1-Read the post again... check the video from minute 6:15 forward....The video is perfectly clear for some observations.

 

2-Forget about STARs or whatever, it's mentioned in the video itself it´s just a straight-in VISUAL approach...pay attention.

 

3-You do not need to see the whole flight to see pilot`s actions along final approach...or do you?

 

4-You say: "Not sure what point you are trying to make here ?"  ... check quotations again... "mjrhealth" stimates RPMs do not change in video. I just point out there is a subtle change in RPMs at

the moment the pilot acts on the Condition Levers and push them forward to T.O./Land position in final approach...

 

5-You say: "The main reason for retarding at cruise was originally to reduce the noise levels in the cabin."  ... No my friend, sorry but no. Reduced noise level is a bonus you obtain from the main reason which is FUEL CONSUMPTION -Read the aircraft manual.  Fuel consumption varies in accordance to power settings at altitude and prevailing conditions, and are provided as Torque/RPM combinations which adequately managed can translate into more range for a trip, or more endurance for holdings ... two good reasons.

 

Cheers

 

[louisdecoolste 12]

Fuel consumption is better adjusted by retarding the power levers. Or flying at a more economic height, or utilising a tailwind. If you think a scant change in prop rpm can make a significant difference in the flying characteristics, you are not getting what we are trying to explain to you. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's subtle in your own description because its imperceptible. So what significant difference to fuel consumption do you think it makes ? And again, as we never saw when the pilot retarded the CL's you are the one making assumptions.

There are plenty of things that DO matter that we wish the developers to fix, so why to insist to force this complete non-issue, when its already been explained by the developers ?

 

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you told us about your experiences in the real thing that lead you to this foregone conclusion that this is something that needs modelling ? How many hours do you have in this aircraft, the -60 Marquise ? If not, then what are your experiences behind Garretts ?

 

The developers explained why they didn't, I've provided examples where the lever is simply advanced to 100% and left there, and you regard an imperceptible change in RPM as something that is necessary for the correct interpretation of the flight model. We don't. There are many other important aspects of the Garrett modelling that need to be addressed first. The torque settings are more important to the economic operation of the aircraft than RPM. This is a geared turbine, so there is ALWAYS going to be a proportional relationship between prop speed and power setting - the reason that the range of adjustment is so small (100-96%) at a cruise power setting is that is all there is. This is not a PT6 nor any other free turbine.

 

If you look at this actual checklist 

http://eastaire.us/newchecklist.pdf

you will see - or rather NOT see - any reference to adjusting CL for cruise flight. Again, its optional for the real world use of this aircraft. 

 

And more range for a trip makes no sense to me. Can you explain what you mean by that ? A trip is a set distance, planned for with appropriate diversionary fuel. If you have a fuel problemy, well that's just very poor planning, or an emergency.

[CSCARLOS 0]

Fuel consumption is better adjusted by retarding the power levers. Or flying at a more economic height, or utilising a tailwind. If you think a scant change in prop rpm can make a significant difference in the flying characteristics, you are not getting what we are trying to explain to you. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's subtle in your own description because its imperceptible. So what significant difference to fuel consumption do you think it makes ? And again, as we never saw when the pilot retarded the CL's you are the one making assumptions.

There are plenty of things that DO matter that we wish the developers to fix, so why to insist to force this complete non-issue, when its already been explained by the developers ?

 

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you told us about your experiences in the real thing that lead you to this foregone conclusion that this is something that needs modelling ? How many hours do you have in this aircraft, the -60 Marquise ? If not, then what are your experiences behind Garretts ?

 

The developers explained why they didn't, I've provided examples where the lever is simply advanced to 100% and left there, and you regard an imperceptible change in RPM as something that is necessary for the correct interpretation of the flight model. We don't. There are many other important aspects of the Garrett modelling that need to be addressed first. The torque settings are more important to the economic operation of the aircraft than RPM. This is a geared turbine, so there is ALWAYS going to be a proportional relationship between prop speed and power setting - the reason that the range of adjustment is so small (100-96%) at a cruise power setting is that is all there is. This is not a PT6 nor any other free turbine.

 

If you look at this actual checklist 

http://eastaire.us/newchecklist.pdf

you will see - or rather NOT see - any reference to adjusting CL for cruise flight. Again, its optional for the real world use of this aircraft. 

 

And more range for a trip makes no sense to me. Can you explain what you mean by that ? A trip is a set distance, planned for with appropriate diversionary fuel. If you have a fuel problemy, well that's just very poor planning, or an emergency.

 

So...you are 100% sure there is no reference about adjusting Conditon Levers...

Once again, READ before responding to anybody...

 

In "YOUR" New Checklists - Section 5/Normal Procedures  (.pdf document page 98):

 

CLIMB (18000') / CRUISE

Power ............SET AS REQUIRED (96% RPM TO 98% RPM)

 

 

Also READ the AFM (Aircraft Flight Manual) Section 5 Normal Procedures:

 

CRUISE CLIMB (AFM 5-17)

RPM ......  96% to 98%

EGT ...... 650ºC MAXIMUM

Torque... 100%  MAXIMUM

 

CRUISE (AFM 5-18-1)

Power ............SET AS REQUIRED (96% RPM TO 98% RPM)

 

 

Sorry but, do yourself a favor and stop asking others to demostrate their knowledge and expertise... it's no good for you, as you are the one who need it most.

 

Cheers

[louisdecoolste 12]

98% RPM is the delivered RPM from a PL setting that is at max cruise, with CL full forward...

 

and the claimed difference in SFC, to attend to your range increase claims, is a change form 0.652 to 0.650 lb/hp/hr, according to the same AFM you seem able to quote at will, but not quite understand. 

 

Enough, The developers aren't changing this aspect, and you are the only one pursuing it. . 

[CSCARLOS 0]

98% RPM is the delivered RPM from a PL setting that is at max cruise, with CL full forward...

 

and the claimed difference in SFC, to attend to your range increase claims, is a change form 0.652 to 0.650 lb/hp/hr, according to the same AFM you seem able to quote at will, but not quite understand. 

 

Enough, The developers aren't changing this aspect, and you are the only one pursuing it. . 

Again... you're absolutely wrong....

but, yes..good enough. I won't continue wasting my time with you any more.

 

Cheers

 

[19dcavscout 39]

In the King Air 200 with PT6-42A's in it, which is flat rated to 850 hp, the Torque does decrease with an increase in altitude. The simple explanation for this is, the RPM's stay the same, but as the air density decreases, the props are not pushing as hard against the air around them and it is easier to maintain the 1900 RPM prop rpm (if commanded, and 1900 is what we use in climb).  You then increase the throttle to maintain desired torque, or to maintain the maximum amount of power to help climb the aircraft. This occurs until you either temp out, or you reach your N1 limits (varies on outside temperature and altitude).  So yes, a turboprop will gradually reduce torque as it climbs and ITT/EGT/TGT will remain the same until you command more fuel for the engine by moving the throttles forward.

[ramprat 8]

Curious what is 1.7 FDE amendment 4c ?

+1

[MBaclawski 11]

 

 

Curious what is 1.7 FDE amendment 4c ?

 

That is a updated and Very well done Flight sim model that  (Dave) Hanger did for the Mu-2 . He 

fixed quite a few things and from my limited time in the Mu I think he has it spot on. I passed 100 

hours in the MU with his FDE and Love it.  Send him a PM and I'm sure he will be happy to send it over,

I don't think he hangs out in this forum much anymore and I don't blame him . Personally I don't either

so if you can't get a hold of him send me a PM i will send it over. 

[ramprat 8]

Thanks for resonding Marty.  I will PM you.

[raymie 81]

Hi Marty, 

 

If you do not mind I will also send you a PM regarding Dave's mod--your comments peaked my curiosity.

 

Thanks,

 

Raymie

Spokane Valley, WA