Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Marius_S

Starting engines

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, AirCanada235 said:

I managed to get Engine 3 going - but engine 4 catches and does not stay lit - not sure what I have done!!

I go:

  1. Engine selector to X
  2. Fuel pump for X to low
  3. Mixture Auto Lean
  4. Throttles forward slightly
  5. starter & safety on, followed by primer on straight away
  6. At 6 blades, ignition to both
  7. Between 6 and 12 blades, boost on (normally straight after ignition to both)
  8. When it catches, be ready on the throttles, they may require a little bump forward or back.
  9. Once the engine has caught and is settled, mixture to auto rich.

Never failed to start an engine yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PMDG777 said:

I go:

  1. Engine selector to X
  2. Fuel pump for X to low
  3. Mixture Auto Lean
  4. Throttles forward slightly
  5. starter & safety on, followed by primer on straight away
  6. At 6 blades, ignition to both
  7. Between 6 and 12 blades, boost on (normally straight after ignition to both)
  8. When it catches, be ready on the throttles, they may require a little bump forward or back.
  9. Once the engine has caught and is settled, mixture to auto rich.

Never failed to start an engine yet.

Makes sense to me but was following the checklist from the POH verbatim. After trying a few different combos (mixture auto lean) I got them all going but not the way it's written by the manufacturer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AirCanada235 said:

Makes sense to me but was following the checklist from the POH verbatim. After trying a few different combos (mixture auto lean) I got them all going but not the way it's written by the manufacturer. 

Yeah I couldn't get them to start using the PMDG checklist either. I had to put mixture to Auto lean before starting and tweaked the timing and now they start first time every time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it occurred to anybody else how completely realistic it is that there are so many variations on how to get the engines started? What works for Dan Downs doesn't necessarily work for Chris Brand or Dave Robertson, and different techniques have evolved organically. I'm already looking for signs that each of the four engines on my 6 has a different start technique that works best -- Yesterday, I used the PMDG checklist for 3, 4, and 2, with no problems, but 1 took three tries. It finally started when I waited a second longer to switch on the boost pump (missed the click spot and had to try again). I wonder how my start technique will change as the engines get more time on them.

This thing is brilliant. 

  • Upvote 2

Best Regards,

Kurt "Yoda" Kalbfleisch

Pinner, Middx, UK

Beta tester for PMDG J41, NGX, and GFO, Flight1 Super King Air B200, Flight1 Cessna Citation Mustang, Flight1 Cessna 182, Flight1 Cessna 177B, Aeroworx B200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yoda967 said:

Has it occurred to anybody else how completely realistic it is that there are so many variations on how to get the engines started? What works for Dan Downs doesn't necessarily work for Chris Brand or Dave Robertson, and different techniques have evolved organically. I'm already looking for signs that each of the four engines on my 6 has a different start technique that works best -- Yesterday, I used the PMDG checklist for 3, 4, and 2, with no problems, but 1 took three tries. It finally started when I waited a second longer to switch on the boost pump (missed the click spot and had to try again). I wonder how my start technique will change as the engines get more time on them.

This thing is brilliant. 

I think the engines take into account everything about the atmosphere around them so every start is different, sometimes they'll fire up instantly, the next they'll need coaxing to start. Certainly makes for an interesting aircraft

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Yoda967 said:

Has it occurred to anybody else how completely realistic it is that there are so many variations on how to get the engines started? What works for Dan Downs doesn't necessarily work for Chris Brand or Dave Robertson, and different techniques have evolved organically. I'm already looking for signs that each of the four engines on my 6 has a different start technique that works best -- Yesterday, I used the PMDG checklist for 3, 4, and 2, with no problems, but 1 took three tries. It finally started when I waited a second longer to switch on the boost pump (missed the click spot and had to try again). I wonder how my start technique will change as the engines get more time on them.

This thing is brilliant. 

Definitely something the DC-6 dev team added in to add in some realism.

I think there's some meta-realism in here, too. A lot of people are new to the concept of aviation's early days. Back then, we didn't have all of the technology to monitor the aircraft that we have today. As such, they really didn't have a solid data set to evaluate various procedures against each other. Out of that came a number of different procedures that are used to start the engines, simply because someone found something that worked and taught it to them, and it grew organically (again, partially due to the lack of "this is statistically better than that"). Additionally, you'll likely find a ton of what many would consider old wives' tales about what to do and what not to do, and a pseudoscientific answer as to why or why not. The cool bit is seeing the varied procedures that people have recommended here, as it echoes the real world, where if you were to ask the same question of a few different 6 drivers, you're likely to get at least a couple variations.

With modern jets, there are some minor variations in SOPs within the same model of aircraft, but I think the 6 takes it a bit further, since things were somewhat more of an art than a precise science back then. Heck, use the 'no GPS' option and go back and look at your flight track. Someone familiar with /A flying will draw some nice lines, like a practiced artist. Someone dependent on /G technology might draw precise lines with it, but if it's removed, those lines could end up being quite messy. Now, it's all precision and very little art. Back then, there was a lot of 'art' involved, and that resulted in some pretty varied procedures.

...but that's not to get lost in the romanticism of the past. Accidents were a lot more frequent back then, and part of the reason for that was the lack of precision (and human factors...have you seen the 6's flight deck???). As the 6 has hopefully shown people - flying was a lot of work back then. Turn the GPS off, too, and you'll quickly see how flying was a lot of being in the dark about your exact position, too. Even with cross radials, the margin of error in your position was a lot higher, and until you look it up, it's pretty ambiguous. With GPS and a moving map, it's just a quick glance away.

  • Upvote 4

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Definitely something the DC-6 dev team added in to add in some realism.

I think there's some meta-realism in here, too. A lot of people are new to the concept of aviation's early days. Back then, we didn't have all of the technology to monitor the aircraft that we have today. As such, they really didn't have a solid data set to evaluate various procedures against each other. Out of that came a number of different procedures that are used to start the engines, simply because someone found something that worked and taught it to them, and it grew organically (again, partially due to the lack of "this is statistically better than that"). Additionally, you'll likely find a ton of what many would consider old wives' tales about what to do and what not to do, and a pseudoscientific answer as to why or why not. The cool bit is seeing the varied procedures that people have recommended here, as it echoes the real world, where if you were to ask the same question of a few different 6 drivers, you're likely to get at least a couple variations.

With modern jets, there are some minor variations in SOPs within the same model of aircraft, but I think the 6 takes it a bit further, since things were somewhat more of an art than a precise science back then. Heck, use the 'no GPS' option and go back and look at your flight track. Someone familiar with /A flying will draw some nice lines, like a practiced artist. Someone dependent on /G technology might draw precise lines with it, but if it's removed, those lines could end up being quite messy. Now, it's all precision and very little art. Back then, there was a lot of 'art' involved, and that resulted in some pretty varied procedures.

...but that's not to get lost in the romanticism of the past. Accidents were a lot more frequent back then, and part of the reason for that was the lack of precision (and human factors...have you seen the 6's flight deck???). As the 6 has hopefully shown people - flying was a lot of work back then. Turn the GPS off, too, and you'll quickly see how flying was a lot of being in the dark about your exact position, too. Even with cross radials, the margin of error in your position was a lot higher, and until you look it up, it's pretty ambiguous. With GPS and a moving map, it's just a quick glance away.

How did the operating documents from back then compare with now? Nowadays literally everything is documented and hand holds a pilot through it. I know we have the DC-6 POH but I'm not sure how accurate that is to real life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PMDG777 said:

How did the operating documents from back then compare with now? Nowadays literally everything is documented and hand holds a pilot through it. I know we have the DC-6 POH but I'm not sure how accurate that is to real life?

I think a lot of it was taken directly from one (note the odd/antiquated terminology in it, here and there). There are a few old military versions (C-118) floating around out there that you can probably track down.


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PMDG777 said:

Yeah I couldn't get them to start using the PMDG checklist either. I had to put mixture to Auto lean before starting and tweaked the timing and now they start first time every time

According to the manual (POH page 166) this should not be done:

The engines should be started using the priming system only, the mixture controls being moved out of “IDLE CUT-OFF” after the engines start firing.

And:

The engines should not be started with the mixture controls out of “IDLE CUTOFF.”

Also I don´t see the randomness in starting. The engines always catches at the moment when "12 Blades" are called, regardless when in the starting sequence I turn on the primer, magnetos and boost coil, or at which outside temperature (Have tried at both +45° and ÷15°C). I would have expect that the engine would start sometimes at 10 or sometimes at 15 blades i.e premature or post the "12 Blade" call.

If I fail to move the mixture out of Cut-off before or right after "12 Blades" are called, then the engine won´t start (That might be why some of You have troubles starting the engines without having the mixture at Cut-off).

There is also no sign of spark plug fouling - but maybe the DC-6B was not affected by this ?

At least I can run the engines at idle until the tanks run dry.

The props though, do stop at random positions.


System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same observations. Once you get the hang of it, the engines will always start in the same way. No 'wait.. wait.. ok, one more primer shot..wait.', if you follow what's working for you, it will always work.
It would be nice if PMDG could state what's behind the engine (and engine start) simulation, so we as users know what we can expect from it. Is it a true dynamic calculation, taking every variable into account? Or is it needed to fulfill certain items in the correct order? Can we flood the engine? Can we foul the plugs?

Some more in-depth feature descriptons would help both sides, users and devs, to understand the limitations and see if it could be a bug, it could be the user, or it is just not simulated (but the user expects it, because he is familiar with.. eh.. the other addons).

  • Upvote 2

Regards.
Matthias Hanel
 

MilViz Beta Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MatzeH84 said:

I have the same observations. Once you get the hang of it, the engines will always start in the same way. No 'wait.. wait.. ok, one more primer shot..wait.', if you follow what's working for you, it will always work.
It would be nice if PMDG could state what's behind the engine (and engine start) simulation, so we as users know what we can expect from it. Is it a true dynamic calculation, taking every variable into account? Or is it needed to fulfill certain items in the correct order? Can we flood the engine? Can we foul the plugs?

Some more in-depth feature descriptons would help both sides, users and devs, to understand the limitations and see if it could be a bug, it could be the user, or it is just not simulated (but the user expects it, because he he familiar with.. eh.. the other addons).

+1

Kyle and Chris might have different versions, cause I see no randomness in the engine starts.

It would be nice to know if the amount of priming, or difference in OAT / engine temperatures, has any effect, cause that would rule out pilot start procedure errors.

also the intruduction of fuel by moving the mixture lever out of cut-off should start the engine, even in the rotation goes a good deal past 12 blades, and starter (engine rotates), primer, boost switch are still On.

It´s no shame if the startup is kind of scripted, but then there are no needs to "save" an engine start by doing anything else than do a complete engine re-start sequence in order to re-inititate the scripting.

If not scripted and start-ups can be random - then please show a video, cause maybe something is wrong with my install.


System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is a small edit that also works every time and should be closer to how it should be done in order to follow the POH:

1. Battery/Gnd power - On

2. Inverters and Instrument power - On

3. Master Prop RPM- Full forward

4. Fuel Tank and crossfeed levers - Full forward

5. Fuel boost pumps for all four main tanks - Low

6. Cowl flaps - 3 Fully open

7. Mixture - 3 Cut off

8. Throttle - 3 Forward slightly

9. Engine selector to - 3

10. Starter & safety - On,

11. Primer - On after 3 Blades

12. Ignition - 3 to Both after 6 Blades

13. Boost -  On (normally straight after ignition to both)

14. When it catches (12 Blades) - Mixture 3 Auto rich

15. Throttle - 3 Adjust to 1000 RPM

 

Repeat for Engine 4, 2 & 1

After engine 2 is startet set to to Plane Battery (going from ground to battery power)

Moving the Mixture lever from Cut-off to Auto rich too late after the 12 Blade call and the start will fail - Repeat the sequence.


System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep this is also my observation- if you don't put up auto-rich immediately after it fires, it will run down again. However, it should start and run on primer only I guess? And if you are trying to start without priming, it will never start- even if you primed (over-primed by feeling) enough on the first try.

So it seems the engine will only catch if:

-mags on, throttle cracked, boost pump low, primer on, start on and boost on

and it will only continue running if:

-throttle open enough, mixture immediately to auto-rich

 

Has anyone observed that the prime, start and boost switches jump back to off when the 'correct' sequence isn't followed? It seems like there is a timer running down when set to on, and will force the respective switch to off when it's 0. It happened to me severeal times that I was in my second attempt and the switches randomly flipped off.


Regards.
Matthias Hanel
 

MilViz Beta Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Has anyone observed that the prime, start and boost switches jump back to off when the 'correct' sequence isn't followed? It seems like there is a timer running down when set to on, and will force the respective switch to off when it's 0. It happened to me severeal times that I was in my second attempt and the switches randomly flipped off.

Yep - they seems timed.

Normally engine temperature determines how much You should prime i.e in cold weather with cold engines You must prime longer, and in warm weather, or with warm engines You might be able to start without any priming.

If ovr primed You would need to clear the engines, by rotating them some time with mixture in cut-off and open throttle.

A warm engine might catch fast, while a cold engine might need to be nursed more and catch much later - even needing serveral starting atempts.


System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...