CSCARLOS

Again... you're absolutely wrong.... but, yes..good enough. I won't continue wasting my time with you any more. Cheers

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: 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

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

Sorry....I suggest you do a better research about this matter. Efectively, when you move the wheel down the tab goes up...this is WRONG... You move the wheel down for trimming nose-up and it's correctly confirmed by the Elev Trim Indicator reference line displacing down to the nose-up range... BUT the Trim Tabs raising in relation to the elevator is WRONG... To release backward pressure on the yoke (elevator UP) the Trim tab must move DOWN (opposite) to keep the elevator UP. Just to conclude: Elevator and Rudder Trimming animations are wrong - to be fixed. Lateral (Roll) trimming is correct. Cockpit Trim wheels movement and corresponding Indicators are correct. Cheers

You asked me for my sources of information. I think you got these both sources, the MU-2B-60 Marquise Aircraft Flight Manual I had mentioned already in the other post, and the FAA’s corresponding Aircraft Type Certificate I cite now. As an elemental comment, being it the Mitsubishi or another aircraft with the same conventional design: I cannot think of any way for Trimming Nose Up, having a Nose-Up indication from the Elevator Trim Indicator, and getting out of the aircraft just to find out that the elevator Trim Tabs are pointing UP! … no way I would takeoff… what I would take is a photograph for sure… and what ever actions would be in order! Once said that, I consider unnecessary all what follows, but anyway here it comes: This is textual Information regarding Elevator Trim Tab under “control surface movements” paragraph as directly taken from the FAA corresponding Aircraft Type Certificate: “Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° Nose Down 1° (See Note 8)” “NOTE 8. Airworthiness Directive– AD 93-07-11, mandated that the maximum deflection of the elevator nose-down trim reduced to 1 degree from 10 degrees in accordance with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries LTD. Service Bulletin No. 079/27-010 dated August 28, 1992. Effected models are MU-2B-25/-26/-26A/-40/-35/-36/-36A/-60”. So, if reading carefully this Acft. Type Cert.: “Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° ” is exactly the opposite to what you state as “ +30/-1 degrees operation” “more tab `up` is applied than tab `down` “. Type Certificate reads “Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° ” ... I repeat: “Nose Up” ... NOT Tab Up 30º or +30 deg. as you state. Type certificate specifying “Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° ” implies that for the aircraft Nose Up attitude, the Trim Tab will have a 30º range DOWN in relation to the elevator …in order to force the elevator UP and thus achieving a Tail Low/Nose Up attitude. I would’nt like to take this argumentation any further. You may be perfectly sure about your point of view and adhere to it…. I adhere to mine. Cheers, Carlos

Hi everybody, There seems to be an animation issue concerning the MU-2 elevator trim tabs. As for inflight trimming purposes, a Trim Tab is actually required to move in the opposite direction to that of the control surface it is connected to for trimming. So, in Flysimware's MU-2, for an inflight Nose-Up trimming, Tabs are incorrectly modelled moving upward -when they must move downward to force elevators upward and hence lower the aircraft's tail resulting in a nose-up attitude. Logically enough ...for trimming Nose-Down... just the opposite is observed. In case of disagreement, then it can be easily verified just observing another quality product... or real life aircraft ! Cheers, Carlos

Hi everybody, Once having the opportunity to give Flysimware MU-2 a brief try in a friend's system, knowing other sim products, having consulted the real life Mu-2B-60 Marquise Flight Manual and some technical posts on the internet about this great aircraft... let me say that: First (already discused in the forum, so not going in too much detail): Contrary to what Flysimware claims, the turbine model is really incorrect in regard to Torque and Temperature, and also due to the fact that it's not possible to stablish correct power settings from the 100% down to 96% range as needed specifically for cruise, descend and holdings... according to tables contained in the real Aircraft's Flight Manual. Second- there is an animation issue concerning the elevators trim tabs. As for inflight trimming purposes, a Trim Tab is actually required to move in the opposite direction to that of the control surface it is connected to. So, in Flysimware's MU2, for an inflight Nose-Up trimming, Tabs are incorrectly modelled moving upward -when they must move downward to force elevators upward and hence lower the aircraft's tail resulting in a nose-up attitude. Logically enough ...for trimming Nose-Down... just the opposite as described is observed. In case of disagreement, then it can be easily verified just observing another quality product... or real life aircraft ! The problem here is not the issues themselves (if being able to fix them and not leaving the product as it is now), but Flysimware's claiming what actually is not true when advertising the product as "the most realistic Garrett turboprop simulation aircraft on the market". It`s then when the above mentioned issues become unacceptable... specially when looking at the competence -RealAir, Majestic Software, PMDG... where more than one virtually perfect model, by far superior in flight dynamics refinament, systems, turbine behavior and aesthetics- can be found... one selling for just € 32.95 ! Hope Flysimware be able to fix the aforementioned issues, then the product will worth the price and become a good virtual version of the great and venerable Mitubishi Mu-2 Marquise. Sorry for any mistakes in my english.... Cheers, Carlos