Finn 873 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Hi Ppanpan As You said, the autopilot is the default Maule, and there is no way we can change it´s appearance. For the navigation light - I will take a look at it and fix it if I can :-) On the radios, as I said in the other post, I will take a look at it, but it might not be possible to change, due to the way FSX handles radios! Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPanPan 0 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Thanks for your reply Finn. OK, all understood. I'll watch this space. (I never said but, when the digits do move, they look great - nice work !). By the way, are you part of Aerosoft or part of the beta testing team? Cheers PPanPan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I started out as a beta tester on the twotter. Later I worked on the caution light panel, beta range lights etc. as well as making some of the fixes in the 1.01 unofficial update. Right now I´m helping out doing some of the fixes for the 1.10 update, like Marker beacon lights, DME and smaller bugfixes and corrections. I´m not hired or otherwise related to Aerosoft, but working together with them has been very interesting and enjoyable. Our intend is to make the twotter as good as possible, but You must understand that we can´t please everybody. On the radio issue - if I can fix it easily, You will get them fixed - if not, then You have to live with them as they are. Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPanPan 0 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 That's really interesting to hear how you have become involved with this project and Aerosoft. Understood you will try with the radios - really appreciate your efforts. As you have been involved on the beta range lights, do you know why the mouse pointer changes when you move over them? Are they supposed to be clickable? Talking of which, I have noticed the fire handles do not show as clickable (the mouse pointer does not turn from arrow to hand) but they are of course clickable. Just thought I'd throw this one in there! Last thing for now ... are the fire handles supposed to light up and you get a warning bell when there is an engine fire? I have tried an FSX engine fire (armed to fail in 1 to 5 minutes) and I got no fire handle lights or bell. Also, the only engine instrument that changed was the torque pressue - it dropped slowly throughout the fire. The other engine instruments, most noticeably the temperature gauge, remained normal. Is that right? Cheers PPanPan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted February 25, 2008 Author Aerosoft Share Posted February 25, 2008 That's really interesting to hear how you have become involved with this project and Aerosoft. Understood you will try with the radios - really appreciate your efforts. As you have been involved on the beta range lights, do you know why the mouse pointer changes when you move over them? Are they supposed to be clickable? Talking of which, I have noticed the fire handles do not show as clickable (the mouse pointer does not turn from arrow to hand) but they are of course clickable. Just thought I'd throw this one in there! Last thing for now ... are the fire handles supposed to light up and you get a warning bell when there is an engine fire? I have tried an FSX engine fire (armed to fail in 1 to 5 minutes) and I got no fire handle lights or bell. Also, the only engine instrument that changed was the torque pressue - it dropped slowly throughout the fire. The other engine instruments, most noticeably the temperature gauge, remained normal. Is that right? Cheers PPanPan Like most lights you can click on the beta lights to test them and that's why they show a hand. The fire handles are not made to light up in this version, we'll see if that can be changed in the future. I also noticed FSX does not show an increase in oil temperature, but that could be realistic if the oil cooler is still working. Keep in mind that the temperature of an engine fire is not as high as the working temperature inside the ignition chambers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPanPan 0 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Hi Mathjis, thanks for your reply. I didn't know you could click on lights to test them - something new I have learnt today then! Understood re the fire handles not lighting up. I must be going mad, but I thought I saw a picture of them lit up somewhere - I guess a real plane pic. Good point re the oil temp gauge still reading normally. I'll try a few more times and change my actions/timings to see if that makes any difference. Re the fire bell though - I really think that needs to be added, especially if the handles do not light up. You have to be very vigilant to spot you have an engine fire without the bell and handle lights. Is the bell something you are able to add easily? Really hope so. If not in v1.10, perhaps 1.20, if there will be one. Cheers PPanPan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted February 25, 2008 Author Aerosoft Share Posted February 25, 2008 Hi Mathjis, thanks for your reply. I didn't know you could click on lights to test them - something new I have learnt today then! Understood re the fire handles not lighting up. I must be going mad, but I thought I saw a picture of them lit up somewhere - I guess a real plane pic. Good point re the oil temp gauge still reading normally. I'll try a few more times and change my actions/timings to see if that makes any difference. Re the fire bell though - I really think that needs to be added, especially if the handles do not light up. You have to be very vigilant to spot you have an engine fire without the bell and handle lights. Is the bell something you are able to add easily? Really hope so. If not in v1.10, perhaps 1.20, if there will be one. Cheers PPanPan I'll look at the fire bell, but it is not something that's easy to do without serious programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPanPan 0 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I'll look at the fire bell, but it is not something that's easy to do without serious programming. Thanks Mathjis - I'll keep my fingers crossed that you'll be able to add it one day. Cheers PPanPan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stallings 1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I am sure it would depend upon the aircraft whether or not the fire handles would light up. A pilot would know the handle is pulled by looking at it. One of those cases where real eyeballs are more reliable in the real cockpit vice the virtual one where depth isn't as obvious. The main role of the fire handle is to release a fire retardant agent and also isolate all fuel flow to the engine. Checking the status of the handle is a normal power off checklist item. Pulling the handle in flight would be a deliberate step and requires enough arm force so that it would be practically impossible to do it accidently, unless one was particularly negligent. On the C-130 there was a light in the handle that flashed for engine overhead and luminated steady for engine fire. Those were visual warnings and the pilot would pull the affected handle as part of his emergency response. The backlight is therefore merely to alert the pilot of the condition and not the status of the handle (pulled/unpulled). Again, it would be a matter if DeHavilland Canada actually had a light alert for engine overheat or fire integrated into the handle. Cheers, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stallings 1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 That's really interesting to hear how you have become involved with this project and Aerosoft. Understood you will try with the radios - really appreciate your efforts. As you have been involved on the beta range lights, do you know why the mouse pointer changes when you move over them? Are they supposed to be clickable? Talking of which, I have noticed the fire handles do not show as clickable (the mouse pointer does not turn from arrow to hand) but they are of course clickable. Just thought I'd throw this one in there! Last thing for now ... are the fire handles supposed to light up and you get a warning bell when there is an engine fire? I have tried an FSX engine fire (armed to fail in 1 to 5 minutes) and I got no fire handle lights or bell. Also, the only engine instrument that changed was the torque pressue - it dropped slowly throughout the fire. The other engine instruments, most noticeably the temperature gauge, remained normal. Is that right? Cheers PPanPan It depends upon the location of the fire. But the inlet turbine temperature gauge is feed information from a thermocoupler located in the engine. If the fire is causing that section of engine to increase in temperature, then you should see a cooresponding increase in ITT. In fact, one of the ways to tell you have a thermocoupler failure is to coorelate fuel flow with ITT and ensure the values make sense. If your ITT is way higher than your fuel flow and torque would indicate, then it's a good sign you've got an overheat or fire condition. Likewise if your ITT is lower than it should be for the fuel flow and torque readings, then it means you have a failed thermocoupler (i.e. your ITT is failed). This last situation is particularly dangerous since that increased fuel flow is metered to the engine in excess of what should be burned. The overflow fuel can cause a severe fire in the burn chamber the rapidly spreads to outside engine and airframe components. We lost a C-130 in Wyoming several years back because the thermocouplers failed, causing the fuel flow to rapidly increase to meet what the engine thought it should have needed. The raw fuel spilled into other areas and ultimately caused the engine mounts to burn through. The engine parted from the aircraft and the ruptured fuel lines spilled raw fuel to hot components, feeding increased fire which caused wing failure and loss of all onboard. The crew had several hours of notice by seeing a higher than normal fuel flow indication without an associated increase in ITT (called TIT in the C-130 world). Unfortunately the crew was a high time aircraft commander and flight engineer with young co-pilot and navigator. Rather than abort their mission and land they decided to play in-flight troubleshooter! There are times you land a malfunctioned airplane and let maintenance on the ground diagnose what went wrong! The point of all this is that sometimes engine fires develop in very strange ways. It is not as simple as knowing a certain gauge will reveal a certain malady that points to overheat or fire. You have to scan and reconcile all engine instruments to see the first stages of problems. This is why most aborts are due to gauge errors. With people onboard it is not wise to ignore the leading indicators even as they are most likely failed couplers and probes connected to the instrument. In the case of torque going down that strikes me as odd. In real life though any instrument is subject to strange behavior during a fire because the wires and probes themselves can often be the first things that burn away. In terms of actual power loss, that should normally only result from a decrease in fuel flow to the engine. Cheers, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPanPan 0 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Wow, thanks Ken. This forum is a great to place to benefit from the knowledge of others. I am guessing you have a background in engineering or aircraft maintenance? I now have a better appreciation of what I can expect from the engine instruments although I suspect the complex interrelation you highlight is probably not modelled in the twotter. I have asked in another post if it will be possible to add the activation lights to the fire handles and/or the fire bell. Should these items ever be added, this will certainly help bring a fire to the quick attention of the crew. Cheers PPanPan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laszlo 0 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 A small mistake into the Britisch Airways Textura the band in the left side is in the reflection. Best regards: Laszlo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stallings 1 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Wow, thanks Ken. This forum is a great to place to benefit from the knowledge of others. I am guessing you have a background in engineering or aircraft maintenance? I now have a better appreciation of what I can expect from the engine instruments although I suspect the complex interrelation you highlight is probably not modelled in the twotter. I have asked in another post if it will be possible to add the activation lights to the fire handles and/or the fire bell. Should these items ever be added, this will certainly help bring a fire to the quick attention of the crew. Cheers PPanPan Oh no! Just like Oddball in Kelly's Heroes, I just fly them. I don't know what makes them work! Seriously, I'm not a maintainer nor an aerospace engineer. I'm just a former navigator and current pilot. Just read the Dash-1 and got trained on the systems for flying. Cheers, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laszlo 0 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I have, I hope with yours consent, changed the Britisch Airways texture. Best regards: Laszlo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stallings 1 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 This should be an easy fix, but one I think nearly everyone would like ... To center the eyepoint so that it appears like the pilot is sitting in the seat, rather than significantly off center to the left, make this adjustment in the eyepoint values of the aircraft's configuration files ... Change the middle value to -1.20. This will center up the pilot's eyepoint to where it would be sitting in the seat. Cheers, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Hi Ken I will take a look at it tonight Finn "Wothan" Jacobsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAL 0 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Hi all, Just a couple issues I wanted to bring up: 1. It appears to me that the flaps at 10 degs probably have too much drag (I'm using version 1.02 with the -300 old radios). I base this on info from an air test for a dhc-6 300. The document that I have is something I copied off the net awhile back and I can no longer find the link. But I'm 99% sure it is the airtest done for Air Pictorial in the 70's). If you want a copy of it I can probably e-mail it or post it here on the board if it's allowed. Unfortunately, in the test they only mention that it was not at max weight, but as I can gather there was just the pilot and copilot, and for my own tests I put about 60% of fuel capacity in. In the air test the following is mentioned as they are in the circuit: "with 15 lb. torque and 10 deg. of flap, the aircraft flew very nicely in the groove at 90-95 knots. " and on one engine: "Using full power on one engine, and 10 deg. of flap, speed was reduced to 60 knots I.A.S.; climbing turns at this speed either with or against the live engine presented no difficulty. The recommended procedure for best single engine climb in straight flight is to bank 5 deg. towards the live engine; the best rate of climb will be obtained at 79 knots I.A.S. at full load. At the reduced load at which this test was done, the Twin Otter was climbing under these conditions with a steady 1,000 ft./min. showing on its V.S.I." With the 1.02 flight model I'm not able to get these numbers. The problem may lie in the way FS models flaps. In real life as flaps are lowered there is a greater effect of lift and lesser effect of drag at first, and then when they are fully extended the drag has a greater effect than lift. The FS model doesn't really allow for that, but there is a way around it and if I change the Aircraft file to the following I can create this effect and get the correct numbers according to the air test: [flaps.0] //Trailing Edge Inboard Flaps Animation type = 1 span-outboard = 0.45 extending-time = 25 flaps-position.0 = 0 flaps-position.1 = 10, 102 flaps-position.2 = 20, 95 flaps-position.3 = 30, 95 flaps-position.4 = 37.5, 95 damaging-speed = 102 blowout-speed = 112 system_type = 1 lift_scalar = 0.0 drag_scalar = 0.0 pitch_scalar = 0 [flaps.1] //Flaps lift type = 1 span-outboard = 0.45 extending-time = 25 flaps-position.0 = 0 flaps-position.1 = 12 flaps-position.2 = 22 flaps-position.3 = 29 flaps-position.4 = 37 damaging-speed = 102 blowout-speed = 112 system_type = 1 lift_scalar = 1 drag_scalar = 0 pitch_scalar = 1.0 [flaps.2] //flaps drag type = 1 span-outboard = 0.45 extending-time = 25 flaps-position.0 = 0 flaps-position.1 = 1, 102 flaps-position.2 = 15, 95 flaps-position.3 = 30, 95 flaps-position.4 = 37.5, 95 damaging-speed = 102 blowout-speed = 112 system_type = 1 lift_scalar = 0.0 drag_scalar = 1.1 pitch_scalar = 1.0 Note: There appears to be a little bug in the flap indicator gauge between the windscreens in that it does not indicate the flap positions correctly. A hack to fix this in the Aircraft file would be to change the [flaps.0] entry to: [flaps.0] //Trailing Edge Inboard Flaps Animation type = 1 span-outboard = 0.45 extending-time = 25 flaps-position.0 = 0 flaps-position.1 = 8, 102 flaps-position.2 = 14, 95 flaps-position.3 = 20, 95 flaps-position.4 = 30.5, 95 damaging-speed = 102 blowout-speed = 112 system_type = 1 lift_scalar = 0.0 drag_scalar = 0.0 pitch_scalar = 0 Anyway, I'd be really interested to hear if the real otter pilots on this board think this is an improvement on the flight model or if I am somehow misinterpreting the numbers from the air test. 2. My understanding is that in the PT6A there is no physical link between the propeller and the engine (strange as it sounds). This means that adjusting the prop levers should have no effect on fuel flow. If this aspect of the PT6A can be confirmed I actually do have a fix for this that I got off the old avhistory.org air file decode forum. It worked successfully in FS9 but I haven't tried it yet in FSX. 3. One of the air tests that I have read mention that at full flaps the aircraft nose should be pitched down at about 15 degs or so on an approach of about 65-70 knots. It seems that in the sim the aircraft is still fairly level at these speeds. 4. The next is a minor issue but at the moment the stall horn seems to activate right at the stall (or?). My understanding is that the horn should act as a warning of an impending stall and not as an indicator that the aircraft has now stalled. Is there any way to adjust it so the horn starts at 5-10 knots above the stall? Anyway, look forward to hearing your opinions! I'd also like to thank aerosoft for making the dhc-6, I'm having loads of fun with it. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Nice post John. Can any real twotter pilot confirm that the above flap values are Ok ? If they are we certainly will include it, but we have to verify that they act more correct than ours. Regards Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Hi John We have now looked at Your settings and added similar values. Though they have been tweaked a bit. Thank You very much for Your input. It will make the twotter even better :-D Kind regards Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAL 0 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Hi Finn, Ok! great stuff, I'm glad you found that useful. If you (or anyone else with real twin otter time) have a chance at some point I'd really like to hear some feedback for the other ideas I posted. I'll paste them again here: 2. My understanding is that in the PT6A there is no physical link between the propeller and the engine (strange as it sounds). This means that adjusting the prop levers should have no effect on fuel flow. If this aspect of the PT6A can be confirmed I actually do have a fix for this that I got off the old avhistory.org air file decode forum. It worked successfully in FS9 but I haven't tried it yet in FSX. 3. One of the air tests that I have read mention that at full flaps the aircraft nose should be pitched down at about 15 degs or so on an approach of about 65-70 knots. It seems that in the sim the aircraft is still fairly level at these speeds. 4. The next is a minor issue but at the moment the stall horn seems to activate right at the stall (or?). My understanding is that the horn should act as a warning of an impending stall and not as an indicator that the aircraft has now stalled. Is there any way to adjust it so the horn starts at 5-10 knots above the stall? Cheers! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Hi John On 2.: The PT6A is a so called freeturbine, wich means that You have a self sustained "gasproducer" wich works as a common jetengine (in it´s principle). The exhaust gasses are then used to drive the turbine that is connected to the propeller gearbox. As You see, there is no mechanical linkage between the propeller turbine and the "gasproducer", but merely a "liquid" (air is a liquid) connection between them. On 3.: There is a linkage between the flaps and the elevator trim, wich "adjust" the elevator trim down to counteract the pitch up tendency of the aircraft (the problem we had pre 1.02) when flaps are lowered. It shouldn´t result in a pitchdown of the aircraft but rather attempt to keep the aircraft level when flaps are lowered, just as You see if You use the 1.02 update on the -300 old style version. On 4.: The stall warning horn and caution light in the Twotter is working like all other FSX aircraft. In a flight simulator it is very hard to tell when the aircraft actually is in a stall or just approaching it. The buffeting when the stall warning is triggered doesn´t mean the aircraft has stalled. Buffeting occurs before the actual stall, so in this respect the stall warning in the Twotter should work correct. Regards Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAL 0 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Hi again and thanks for your quick reply! Ok, your description of the PT6A is the same as what was being discussed by the gurus on the avhistory board. The consensus that they reached there is that for the PT6A to be properly modelled 1. fuel flow should only depend on the N1 (the gas generator) and be completely independent of prop rpm. 2. there should be a negative correlation between prop rpm and torque pressure. This means that when prop rpm is reduced torque pressure should increase and vice versa (the physics behind this relationship I'm not sure of). Of course, when the power levers are adjusted the gas generator, torque pressure and fuel flow should all react, but prop rpm remains constant (the governor obviously takes care of that). Luckily there is an easy fix for this which I have tried out in FSX now and it works successfully: In the air file make these changes in the following tables: Table 509 changes the relationship between fuel flow, torque and prop rpm. Record: 0509 *Engine[Per Cyl]/TurboProp Friction Torque vs RPM Points: 4 -10.000000 -0.181300 6.000000 0.177560 70.000000 0.500610 100.000000 0.780000 In the aerosoft twin otter table 1508 must then be adjusted slightly. Record: 1508 *!Turbine Turboprop Torque vs CN1? Points: 4 0.000000 0.000000 60.000000 0.046500 98.000000 1.800000 105.000000 1.800000 I noticed that pbearsailor mentioned in another thread: "One other nitpick maybe just doesn't fit your target audience, but I'd sure like to see the power levers able to over torque and over temp. Seems like I can just firewall the power levers and that isn't the way most simple turboprops are: you've got to set those limits yourself and can't push it all the way up. Again, not a biggie. " Well if you do the above fix there is the potential to over torque, however for some reason the torque gauge gets stuck at the red line. For example, if you take off and mistakenly reduce prop rpm before reducing power it should be possible to over torque, but it doesn't because the gauge gets stuck. At least when I do this fix in FS9 on a freeware twotter the torque gauge goes past the redline. Anyway, hope this is useful for you. Cheers! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Hi John Thanks for Your input. I will forward Your changes in the air file to the flightmodel developer and let him take a look at it. For the overtorque readout on the torque gauges - I have to be honest. We just recieved the internal models from the model developer. As You know that gauges are "embedded" in the model files and not easy to fix. My point is that we probably won´t make further changes to the gauges. We are allready late with the promised 1.10 update and to start over again on those model files will certainly postpone it´s release further. Regards Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbearsailor 9 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 That all makes sense to me, John. On the overtorque capability, even if the gauge were to remain stuck at redline as it is now, if the engine was able to exceed the torque limits, you'd still be able to push the power levers up until just short of the redline as a limit. Folks that want realism could do it this way and those that don't care can firewall it and have some extra unrealistic power. I realize I can limit it now, but I know it won't overtorque, so why bother. :shock: It's one of the things that makes a turbine takeoff different from a piston takeoff. For most pistons, it's a matter of pushing it to the stops, giving a quick glance at the gauges, and then transferring attention to airspeed. On a simple turboprop like this, the pilot has to keep checking torque and temp throughout the takeoff along with the airspeed and you never hit the stops with the power levers. I know you guys are pushing deadlines and need to wrap it up, but darn, with the new flight model, it's pretty close to being a Twin Otter. This would make it a little better. cheers, steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I´m not sure about that reducing prop rpm should increase torque! When You retard the prop levers, You "tell" the props to rotate at a certain slower speed. To do so the propeller blade angle will be increased, wich will "bug" down propller rpm until this certain rpm is reached. The gasgenerator will just continue producing the same amount of air to drive the free turbine, cause You didn´t add more fuel for increased power. What I think is "mixed" into this discussion is the way free turbines are used in helicopters. On helicopters with a free turbine, You have a governor that actually will add power to counter the drop in rpm when the blade angles on Your rotor (say propeller) is increased, thus requiring more torque to MAINTAIN rotor rpm (say propeller rpm). The main reason constant speed propellers are used is due to the fact that a fixed propeller only is effective at certain RPM´s. A propeller with it´s blades fixed at fully fine would only be effective for take off and short slow flights. A propeller with it´s blades at a course setting would be economic at cruise speeds, but next to useless during take off. I know that the turbine model of the Aerosoft Twin Otter isn´t perfect, nor are any other addon turboprop aircraft. Things could be improved for sure, but the policy of Aerosofts internal developement is to stick to the FSX SDK. You might change the airfile to reflect a more accurate behaviour, but You have to assure that this behaviour also is accurate at both sealevel, 10.000 ft, -20°C and +35°C. If not You haven´t made a more accurate engine model, just a different one. And all those engine parameters also effect airspeeds at altitudes etc. What You get with the Aerosoft Twin Otter, is an aircraft that is flying close to actual real world performance figures when it comes to stall speed, cruise speeds etc. Regards Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account]](https://forum.aerosoft.com/uploads/monthly_2023_09/Aerosoft_Social_Media_Profilbild_Neu23.thumb.jpg.03721825e6a434ed4af0c8b2b73a5898.jpg)
Recommended Posts