CrashTronic

Members
  • Content count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About CrashTronic

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

177 profile views
  1. It's true for all phases, after takeoff, the power is always lower than where it should be. Enjoy and let me know if you run into any other issues. Hopefully an update occurs.
  2. Yup you are cruising using only ~950hp per engine, about 250hp short of where you should be or 1000hp total. With the change from XP10 to 11 something changed the piston engine behavior and the AFE always undershoots the power in XP11, meaning you have to control it now and use the cruise tables in the back of the operating handbook. If you set book power values, the speeds will match. Hope this helps, Mike
  3. Thanks for the photos, my initial hypothesis is your engine power is low based on your BMEP, but I need a bit more information. Could you take some more screenshots with the overlay displaying engine rpm and engine power instead of torque and prop rpm? Thanks, Mike
  4. The performance seems to match high blower settings up to about FL190 in the low blower setting, I am using the 11.10 beta. My testing indicates the airspeeds are pretty close to right. @alexcolka please let me know if you find any discrepancies. If you do find one, please retest at "clear" weather settings (ISA) if you aren't there already and please send the aircraft altitude weight, airspeed, engine: RPM, BMEP, Fuel Flow, power, blower setting, and mixture setting. The altitude, engine power, fuel flow can be found in the data output screen of the settings and click show in cockpit.Thanks!
  5. It's a quick and dirty work around until/if PMDG decides to update the core functionality of the code. I'd be happy to help update the blower code and CHT profile and support it myself. I really do not want to see this airplane fall behind the xplane update cycle. As reference I did the twin otter from aerosoft updated and alternate FDE a couple of years ago with support from Aerosoft: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/88611-updated-fde-to-twin-otter-updated-2842015/ http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/94799-fsx-p3d-v1-dhc-6-300-wheels-alternative-fde-and-engine-simulation/
  6. New Changes to the high alt values. Tested at 19000 low blower auto lean for cruise
  7. What values did you change for the FF and how close are they? could you put a reply in my topic about superchargers so we can compare notes? thanks!
  8. @SO666 provided you only release the sections of your cfg you modified you aren't infringing on the PMDG IP. I have been mucking with the xplane aircraft settings have made mods for the Aerosoft twin-otter as well. do not release the entire file, rather quote the sections and data you changed if you want an example see my thread for xplane as an example
  9. can you please attach screenshots showing this issue? Thanks!
  10. @DEHowie It would be nice to know. For now you can check out my thread which updates the SFC for the engines, it's a wip, the high blower doesn't work quite right either but it's better than a direct import
  11. X-Plane 11.10 beta With the addition of the new aerodynamics and minor changes to the piston code I have reformulated the SFC for the DC-6. Things of note: The specific fuel consumption values match in sim to POH values at 1200 bhp and 2400 bhp The actual x-plane sfc model appears to follow a (c+x^n)/x rational function where X is power and Y is SFC, however at the power levels concerned a linear approximation is quite adequate for the 1/2 power to full power range with SFC deviating from expected values at lower power values. The fuel flows per engine do not match poh values and deviate from poh as follows (low blower only, auto-rich) 1800BHP (METO) -140pph 1500BHP (Climb) -150pph 1400BHP (Climb) -150pph 1200BHP (Cruise) +65pph 1100BHP (Cruise) +87pph ACF SFC set values P acf/_SFC_half_lo_PRP 0.3982 P acf/_SFC_half_hi_PRP 0.3982 P acf/_SFC_full_lo_PRP 0.70225 P acf/_SFC_full_hi_PRP 0.70225 X-Plane SFC observed / POH 1200BHP (Half) - 0.487 (597pph) / 0.487 2400BHP (Full) - 0.861 (2067pph) / 0.857 I have not tuned the high altitude (hi) SFC values or the Auto-lean.
  12. Oh and I should add, below ~17" mp the prop drives the engine according to AFSD.
  13. Solution to the negative torque problem....hang jets on them wings
  14. If shock cooling is a risk then are those effects also seen in cold climates sub zero temperatures on shutdown? It appears that would be the greatest shock cooling area because of no heat production. And with a massive fleet of piston powered airlines we have yet to see any evidence which is statistically relevant to support shock cooling. Yes damage can happen if there are flaws in the metallurgy but that is the root cause not the high cooling rate theory. I highly suggest reading Pelican's Perch by Jonn Deakin https://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182102-1.html He has a wealth of information and we used it at our flight school as a foundation to engine management, especially for those looking to get into the big bore high performance engines.
  15. probably 12000-16000