Jump to content

CaptCrash

Members
  • Posts

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by CaptCrash

  1. 5 hours ago, tkyler said:

     

    I know how you feel Mike....I felt a similar sting reading your comments on Toto's Discord a while back,  insinuting a simple swap from your work to mine would "make eveything OK" and I was just too lazy to do it....and clearly my defensive posture resulted in a harsh turn of phrase above..which doesn't make it right.  At the end of the day though, we get the customer support emails (a much larger contingent than is present on forums)  and as such, I have a broader perspective of my customer base ...and enough experience in this market to know that your changes would result in making several customers happier, but also several more disappointed and I have to answer to those folks.

    I'm sorry if it stung a bit.   What we're dealing with here is a "philosophy of development" given known limitations in 'modeling methodology'.   For a good while I've watched us aircraft devs "put in the numbers" and complain to Austin when things don't perform right.  But at the end of the day, these are just a big collection of numerical models and approximations, some better than others depending on lots of factors. So as aircraft devs with 'approximate models' in many places, we've always had to determine "which numbers to prioritize"  given the state of X-Plane's flight/systems models.  If, for example, you prioritize "accurate blade angles and engine parameters per handbooks" but the plane's performance is off in some regime because X-Plane's 'black box models' are off or too generic in places ....then you have to ask yourself, "can a user see the blade twist angles of the flight model? ..... or can a user more easily see the "off-nominal performance" and you make your decision about what to prioritize and compromise.  If I said, "I'm putting in all the accurate numbers and will wait for X-Plane to 'come to me' and perform correctly before I release the product....well..you can imagine how that will go, so my philosophy is different.  Numerical compromises and fudges are required for more balanced performance across the envelope in my experience. 

    Indeed you have put in a crazy amount of accurate info into Plane-maker, and I do appreciate your work and it won't go to waste.  It is not a simple swap and deploy because as you've noted, the X-Plane models aren't perfect so some numbers will have to change to accomodate the ground regime; however, your work is a wonderful springboard that I do respect and will simply have to look at parameter by parameter and gauge the effect against their impacts in a broader range of regimes.   I hope I can strike a balance that satisfies enough.

    -tkyler

     

     

    My sincere apologies for making any inference that you were not being proactive toward the development of the MU-2.

    • Like 1
  2. On 1/11/2024 at 11:52 AM, tkyler said:

    none to speak of.  I did spend some time trying out Captain Crashes "fixes"; however,  I found out that he only tested in "cruise conditions" to "match numbers", because he had charts with numbers......but in doing so.....using his new prop / engine settings, the plane is completely inaccurate for ground ops, with insufficient thrust for taxi without going well into the alpha region.  When I asked him about this he said, "no, I didn't test on the ground"....DOH...  This is why I'm generally roll my eyes at community members with "fixes"....their perspective is usually very one dimensional, only regarding whatever it is they are passionate about. but the whole of the system is very inter-dependent.

    I'm keeping part of his work, and dismissing other parts..and its a parameter by parameter evaluation.   So sorry..no news yet, but certainly the work is still in my inbox.

    TK

    Ouch. Thanks Tom, can't say this makes me want continue to contribute or feel valued in your community. Well I wouldn't say it's my work that's the problem it lies more with the governor and stock engine model. I followed the overhaul manual for both blade profile and airfoil from hartzell. And I tested in the air because there is no data for "ground handling". Thanks, crash

  3. Funny you should mention that. @arctic85 I just finished updating the XP12 version with more features and a better matching CG. I've been talking with Tom about incorporating the mod, because diff files aren't as friendly as I would like and I'm not going to release a full acf file to the forum. I'll try and get the diffs and updated airfoils up next weekend

    • Like 1
  4. Hi @Rlondon I understand your frustration. Using the file explorer if you navigate to [X-Plane install directory]\Aircraft\X-Aviation\CL650 you will see several folders, one of them is called "Documentation". That folder has all the mentioned documents based on the release. My recommendation would be to delete the Log.txt file in the main X-Plane folder then start X-Plane in VR. If X-Plane crashes attach that log file. Sometimes Windows can be very dumb in how it handles files and may or may not properly overwrite the log file. Please attach that log file as a response to this thread and lets see if we can identify any potential issues.

  5. 3 hours ago, JPL19 said:

    Thank you for your work on this.

    Can someone point to any on-line instructions as to how to actually apply the ".diff" patch.  I have tried WinMerge and TortiseMerge but cannot comprehend how to to apply the patch.

    Joe

    For windows try https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/patch/

    I've attached an experimental build of the latest patch file. Below is an image from an article referencing the above tool: https://medium.com/codex/how-to-create-and-apply-patches-a9ef94340501. As always your results may vary.

    image.thumb.png.8381ddc88750c4cc91cca3e6886b56ab.png

    MU2_mod_2022-08-18.patch

  6. Quote

    Curiously, the POH indicates an IOAT of -3° at 18 000 ft (instead of -10). I know that the temperature is decreasing by 2°/1000 ft only below 10 000 ft, but it cannot explain such a difference. The calibration gauge maybe, different in the real aircraft ?

    @danhenri The discrepancy you note is due to compression heating and the limited recovery coefficient of the temperature probe on the actual MU2. Based on the POH values I have identified the recovery coefficient of the temperature probe to be about 0.6. This is important for the following equation:
    T_static = T_total * (1 + 1 / (0.2 * C_recovery * Mach^2))
    Where T_static is the static outside air temp, T_Total is the indicated outside air temperature, C_recovery is the energy recovery coefficient of the probe. Modern probes are 1 but those are aspirated types on jets, on stuff like the MU it would be between 0.6 or 0.8 depending on type.

    Regarding your performance issues, you may want to try out my FM modification, it gets the plane to within 1% of cruise POH values. I haven't evaluated takeoff or landing distances yet.

  7. 8/9/2022 Change log

    added flight model ventral strakes
    added tip tank fins and strakes
    added 85% ram inlet recovery pressure
    reduced total power to 1113shp to account for ram inlet recovery
    cruise values are now consistently below 2% delta from POH values at all altitudes
    Changed trim time response and increased elevator trim in response to POH values and autopilot sensitivities
    uploaded weight and balance spreadsheet

  8. 1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

    Already reported and being addressed. Payd to read other posts.

    Hey there @mjrhealth I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you are trying to be helpful might I suggest instead of saying "payd (sic) to read other posts" providing a link to the other posts as an alternative? Something along the lines of the following:

    Quote

    Hey good find. It looks like this issue has already been reported, here is a link to that post:

    Lets try to avoid basically telling people to read the forum and have a bit more understanding that people miss things.

    Thanks,

    Crash

    • Upvote 1
  9. Hmm. I believe @amyinorbit has openGPWS functioning on her M1 in the Q400 so maybe she can shed some light on her voodoo that she do, I don't own a mac.  the weather API for XP12 is going to be totally different hopefully rendering the need for openWXR redundant. But for users that will not upgrade to XP12 it may be worth integrating it. I would have done so already but I'd need to modify the obj and insert the screen object to replace the mesh where the INOP sticker is

  10. OpenWXR is a free plugin which relies on OpenGPWS and emulates a functional radar. This would be very useful for the OEM version of the panel which currently has an INOP weather radar. The system is customizable to the exact color and radar beam configuration using proper radar signal generation, filtering, signal processing and integration. It works as a standalone plugin once it is compiled and only requires space on the panel.png for the screen drawing
    https://github.com/skiselkov/OpenWXR/

  11. LibRadio is a plugin that properly computes signal propagation and handling of LOC/GS signals. Libradio relies on OpenGPWS to compile but acts as a standalone plugin. It greatly enhances the realism of radio signals by properly computing the signal masking and signal strength. It overrides the default radios but requires some updates in the MU2 to properly be integrated. I have it compiled on my system and the AP loses APPR functionality.

    One major draw back to using the default handling of nav signals is the downwind ILS case. If flying downwind with the ILS tuned but on the departure end of the ILS Xplane will provide a guidance signal for the opposite runway effectively rendering BC approaches impossible.

    https://github.com/skiselkov/libradio
    https://github.com/skiselkov/opengpws

    • Like 2
  12. There is a fuel limitation in the MU-2 based on the ZFW cg of the aircraft, if it is nose heavy then you can only put fuel in the mains or mains and outers. You can find this information in section 7 of the manual i posted in this forum. If there is no fueling limitation applied then you should fill the mains first, then the outers, then the tips. There can be several reasons for this here are a couple major one.
    1) if a fuel transfer system failure occurs the resulting imbalance roll moment is greatly increased if all the fuel is out on the tips.
    2) In the event of a bleed system failure or leak in the tip tanks you may not be able to transfer fuel from the tip tank(s) Proceed to 1.
    If you use the manual and go through the flight planning for section, you can get proper fuel numbers. I put a request into simbrief(Navigraph) to add the MU-2.
    Below is an image of my weight and balance form for the MU2. For Flight planning I plan an average climb TAS of about 185knots and 670pph for climb (this is based on the book values, the TOGA MU-2 fuel burn is about 14% too low). for cruise the flight planning tables lay it out quite nicely, and if you are using my mod, your speeds will be spot on but the fuel flows are still 14% too low.

    image.thumb.png.b1774a27136f44c0411e061782eb2eeb.png

×
×
  • Create New...