Jump to content

Martin_1970

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Martin_1970

  1. Dear Santa Claus...

    I wish ..  :D :D

    A PC-12 NG with this level of detail and simulation depth.

    But i´m realistic. The NG has a honeywell Primus APEX avionic suite what would be really much work in re-engineering/programming. So i don´t expect this from HotStart as they invested so much work in the addon functionality of the LR G1000 with Synthetic vision , Weather Radar, TAWS.

     

    Maybe a Cessna Grand Caravan-EX as a "workhorse" ?

  2. Hi,

    in the WPT - Airport information it is not always KLAY displayed. Normally it´s your destination airport.

     

    E.g. this "flightplan"

    image.png.303b8960ada7e918b190468988b27574.png

     

    shows that airport info:

    image.png.539b194c8a312f8ce8ecc184b689734b.png

     

    and:

    If you press the FMS button, and go with the cursor for example to a frequency, press enter, then the frequency is (pre) selected in the COM:

    image.thumb.png.3b6b97695c1b6887571c8cee686c8795.png

     

    It is more than "nothing".  But yes, for the fully (100%) functionality of a G1000 we have to wait until LR upgrades the implementation ;)

    • Upvote 1
  3. just some additional informations:

    I had a look in the POH, section 7.9 of the real aircraft. 

    Compared to the model , the implementation of the FAN, just adding more fresh (and maybe cold) air, is correct.

    image.png.735e1e2c7c7ad16080c14da7023374ad.png

    But the real aircraft has a control for the evaporator (parts 20, 22), which is not implemented in the model:

    image.png.715b208300fd333a7ea5388608e6ecd9.png

     

    So, finally: If you don´t want to freeze, stay on automatic mode :D

    image.png

    image.png

  4. me again ;)

     

    i think i found the "room for improvement":

    In flight, -36°C OAT, IAT setpoint 21°C.

    AC = AUTO:

    image.png.348ce42c16afc3cf505abc832501a948.png

     

    just switching AC = MANUAL:

    image.png.a587a6ab6bf303cfc1f995e397d0aced.png

     

    Vapor system active with full cooling power in manual mode.

    So my first assumption should be corrected. We don't reach the temperature due to missing heat power, it seems we heat and cool at the same time, instead of just heating at this temperatures.

     

    But i think, this is now a task for the developers ;)

     

    Anyway, i´m still excited from the aircraft. Such a complex air conditioning system.

    Many other designer implement just slow ramp to setpoint temperature

     

    I would have done more testing, but a CTD again killed my flight

     

     

     

  5. Hi,

    i have seen some similar: In Mode AUTO -> everything is fine.

    In Mode Manual:

    - Teste at ground with engine in idle

     

    With further testing i saw, this behaviour is depending on the outside temperature.

    So we might don´t have a "cooling", we just might have not enough heat power. This seems to be the reason for the temperature drop on higher fan levels.

    image.png.df3d5cbba2f489d72cd2b862b2765fa7.png

    In this diagram:

    AirCond was off

    @ 8:00:  set temperature to 20°C, FAN = 4

    @ 7:30: FAN = 2 (here the AC holds temperature)

    @ 5:25: FAN = 4 (drop to missing heat power)??

    @3:50: increase of outside temperature from 13°C to 21°C

     

    So, maybe only FAN-4 is a little bit too strong?

    But i wonder, even with increasing engine power to 90% torque, i get not more heat power??

     

    In the weekend i will do some more testing in the air.

     

     

  6. Hi,

    i could verify this crash is also on 11.26, even in a clean x-plane installation.

    I have no solution, only a workaround that helped me with my crashes:

    http://forums.x-pilot.com/forums/topic/15091-possible-ctd-workaround/

     

    Problem of this CTD is, you don´t get any debug.log / crashlog, tracehistory, so it will be hard for the developers to find the cause.

    I have somestimes crashes, where even the last line in the log is not present :(

    However, i personally think it's gizmo, but i´m not able to make any test with deactivated gizmo plugin, because the engine will be shut down (sure... no license ;) )

  7. What i desribed is the "real life" functionality of this sensor.

    I´m not sure, if the simulation is so detailed, to set a chip detection error only if some other mechanical wear is really high.

  8. Hi,

    in the flight plan:

    Go to EDIT mode by pressing the FMS key, then select the line/field with the outer FMS ring, and then you can adjust the altitude with the inner FMS ring.

    image.png.5872d43006bdd103007e05b8ba448d6e.png

     

    But depending on the flightplan, e.g. if SID/STAR/APPROACHES are added, not every height is adjustable.

    Additional you can set only in the editable fields an altitude, but not an ABOVE/BELOW/AT restriction like this:

    image.png.e3397d7e7ddbd8a3e13c329bd80a6b6e.png

     

    • Like 1
  9. Hi,

    when going through the ckecklist with the "check" button, at the end you get "go to next checklist" selected, but the previous checkbox is not marked as checked (see red marking):

    image.png.5e805f92a362d2ee1d81382fcfb863ad.png

     

    Maintenance / Engine Timers:

    The timer of the starter seems to count all the time, not only if starter is active:

    (Sorry, forgot screenshot)  Runtime of all other components was about 21h, starter runtime was ~ 1280min ( i think, display in minutes instead of hour is intended ;) )

  10. Hi,

    was there a specific reason why the 1.1 is renamed to 1.0.9b ?

    Do i have to reinstall the aircraft? I loaded the package when it was named "1.1".

     

    Another question generally:

    The payload (persons and baggage) isn´t stored to the next flight? Just not implemented?

    Is there a list of conditions, what must be done, that the aircraft is recognized as properly shut down?

     

    regards,

    Martin

  11. Hi,

    the CHIP sensor detects small metal parts/shavings in the oil.

    The reason for the metal parts is normally wear of mechanical parts, e.g. the bearings.

    So if you get the chip message, either some other parts should show heavy wear, or maybe the sensor itslelf is defect ;)

  12. Hello,

    i was on a flight from BGBW -> CYYR, as my new engine (total about 6.0hrs) failed at 26.000ft. I could do an emergency landing :) and looked in the log file

    2018-11-03 16:44:44 TBM900[fail.c:931]: Component compressor has failed due to excessive wear (worn: 0.165200%, slope 1.0, rate: 0.000%/s). You can prevent this by observing performance limitations and servicing the aircraft regularly in the maintenance hangar.
    2018-11-03 16:44:44 TBM900[fail.c:934]: Failure impact: tbm900/failures/engine/comp_stall
    2018-11-03 16:45:03 TBM900[fail.c:931]: Component compressor has failed due to excessive wear (worn: 4.682590%, slope 0.0, rate: 0.208%/s). You can prevent this by observing performance limitations and servicing the aircraft regularly in the maintenance hangar.
    2018-11-03 16:45:03 TBM900[fail.c:934]: Failure impact: sim/operation/failures/rel_seize_0
    2018-11-03 16:45:06 TBM900[fail.c:931]: Component turbines has failed due to excessive wear (worn: 100.000000%, slope 0.5, rate: 0.555%/s). You can prevent this by observing performance limitations and servicing the aircraft regularly in the maintenance hangar.
    2018-11-03 16:45:06 TBM900[fail.c:934]: Failure impact: sim/operation/failures/rel_hunsta0
    2018-11-03 16:45:06 TBM900[fail.c:934]: Failure impact: sim/operation/failures/rel_engfir0

    Before everybody says: Don´t exceed the limits...  I was flying in 26.000Ft, Torque about 80-85%, N1 99%,  ITT i dont remember but far away from limits. Everything stable for more than 1,5h´s of flight.

    I am wondering about the first defect entry in the log: excessive wear with 0.17% ???

    What else could cause such an engine failure, even everything was inside the limits and checked before start ("as new")??

    Or is there a random "increase blood pressure of the pilot" function implemented :D, or maybe a bug in the calculation?

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...