[Engine] Start process takes too long, several parameters are incorrect

[KuntaKinte 210]

Incorrect state

 

Please login to view this video.

 

 

ITT: rise starting only at 34 %

N2: rise overall too slow, with a flattening from 19 - 22 %

Fuel Flow: at 20 % N2 initially 15 KPH, jumping to a permanent value of 200 KPH at 22 % N2

Oil Pressure: rise overall too slow, reaching green values only at 46 % N2

Starter Cutout: too late at 55 % N2

 

This all sums up to 60 seconds from starter engagement to starter cutout at 55 % N2 (AS CRJ). In the context of a RL cycle (time from starter engagement to cutout at appr. 50 % N2) it still takes 55 seconds.

 

 

[KuntaKinte 210]

Correct state

 

Please login to view this video.

 

 

ITT: instantly with thrustlever IDLE together with AUTO IGNITION advisory message

N2: swift and even rise

Fuel Flow: instantly with thrustlever IDLE together with AUTO IGNITION advisory message, steady rise in increments of 5 KPH

Oil Pressure: steady rise after starter engagement, reaching green values at 20 % N2

Starter Cutout: at 50 - 51 % N2

 

A RL cycle from starter engagement to cutout takes appr. 35 seconds.

[jstnj 106]

I appreciate you putting this together. Would be nice to get this addressed.

[Raptor05121 84]

I came here specifically to post this. Hopefully this can be resolved ASAP.

[jay jay 93]

The lack of response seems to indicate that one shouldn't hold one's breath waiting for this to be corrected. 

[jstnj 106]

On 3/19/2022 at 9:48 PM, jay jay said:

The lack of response seems to indicate that one shouldn't hold one's breath waiting for this to be corrected. 

It's clear there's no dedicated team on the CRJ any longer. It sounds like they outsource their development teams for their payware, and probably only have a small amount of active teams at a given time. This is all common practice that I have no problem with...I just wish they were transparent about it.

 

They pretend to collect a bunch of bug reports for 6+months and then never address the issues because they have no one to work on them. I wish they were honest about the fact that the CRJ is not going to receive the attention it deserves (mainly because they dont think it de$erve$ it). You can report a bug now, and in 6 months a new forum moderator will say "oh this is a new one, thank you for your report".

 

Eagle Dynamics does the same with DCS modules. They release an aircraft and move ALL the resources away from it, and start on new projects so they can sell more modules. Meanwhile, the previous release is put on life support. Twin Otter purchasers (of which I am not) should look forward to their plane being abandoned as soon as Aerosoft starts developing the next MSFS offering.

[zenit_swe 90]

On 3/23/2022 at 6:44 PM, jstnj said:

Eagle Dynamics does the same with DCS modules. They release an aircraft and move ALL the resources away from it, and start on new projects so they can sell more modules

Now that isn't entirely true is it? Wouldn't you agree that the Hornet have received quite a few updates over the years just to take one example? 

 

[jstnj 106]

5 hours ago, zenit_swe said:

Now that isn't entirely true is it? Wouldn't you agree that the Hornet have received quite a few updates over the years just to take one example? 

 

You are giving one (questionable) example and posing it as if it invalidates my statement... I'll happily debate this outside of this thread.

Moderators will look for any reason to close a topic, including going off-topic. If you want to talk DCS make a thread for it. If you think that's why I made the statement, you are missing my point.