MU-2 The most realistic Garrett turboprop simulation aircraft on the market ?

[Carlo12 2]

Hello Flysimware,

I have bought your aircarft after reading this decription on your website.
But - this is far away from being a correct turboprop simulation, the Engine simulation has some major flaws:

1. Changing the condition levers has no impact on ITT - you can climb with 100% thrust and lower the condition levers to taxi, there is no consequence on Temperature. In RL, your Engine would be melting ...
In a correct turboprop simulation, you have to pay attention on the ITT, in the Flysimware way of simulating, it is impossible to raise the temps to Red Line.

2. Lowering the Cond. Levers from TO/LND to MIN Cruise leaves the Prop-RPM at 100 %. This is a Major Bug and far away from even a simplified turboprop simulation!

3. The Prop-Sounds don´t catch up with RPM changing.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think if Flysimware will leave this statement “The most realistic Garrett turboprop simulation aircraft on the market” on their website,  they should contact PMDG an ask them to take the J41 from the market.

This is real a shame, because the FDE of this aircraft is nice done an a Joy in Hand-Flying.

BTW. Since the July patch, the Light Check boxes in the ConfigManager don´t work anymore.
 

[louisdecoolste 12]

As this is your third topic on the same `issues` I've answered your post elsewhere. 

[Carlo12 2]

As this is your third topic on the same `issues` I've answered your post elsewhere. 

i failed to understand what you mean?

This is my first and only topic.

[louisdecoolste 12]

Your topic has been raised elsewhere. And now on more than one occasion.

Read 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/469897-no-it-is-not-a-garrett/

 

contribute to that topic as we really don't need another one covering the same ground. The Garretts are flat-rated in this application, which affects the `first red line limiting`. For further details absorb the other topic and make sure you are understanding the impact of flat-rating on the performance and indications of the Garretts. 

 

The point about the condition levers is also covered in that topic. IRL the option to use 96% is rarely taken so FSW opted to model the CL as off/taxi/100% which is reasonable, if not quite in keeping with the claim for accuracy in the engine modelling.

 

As for your comparisons with the PMDG product, the TPE331-14 used in that application is NOT flat-rated, which necessarily changes the operating parameters on torque v. ITT/EGT and therefore means there isn't a true basis for comparison. One area that is different is that the SOP for the J41 DOES involve CL reduction to 98% and the engine is equipped with an early form of FADEC - The Torque Temperature Limiting (TTL) system. In consequence the J41 is equipped with a different torque measuring system (electronic) against the earlier generation hydraulic system of the Moo.

 

You are simply not comparing like with like.