Post by dc6tryer on Oct 15, 2009 12:32:26 GMT -5
Hi,
I just posted this and lost the response!
so am now trying again!!
This is about the wonderful FIAT G12 from Stefano Meneghini. The aircraft comes in a variety of models with different engines and set-ups. I posted on SimOuthouse about CHT and via Stefano recieved this reply from FSAviator.
FSAviator realised from the outset I had no idea what I was doing; flying the airplane above it's set cruise height and at completely the wrong speed and with an abnormal fuel load. He realised which model I was attempting to fly and took the trouble to post this response which I feel might be of interest to others who fly as chaotically as myself.
Hi Andy,
here the answer:
The question has a complicated answer in three parts. On the other hand some parts of it may be simplistic, but your correspondent did not disclose any real world aviation experience so I must assume he has no aircrew experience in part 2.
PART 1
Every flight simulation release has to be restricted to specific goals else they become one of those projects that is discussed in forums for years and never released due to never ending 'mission creep'. This release is not in any way a Flight Engineer simulation. The release documentation emphasises that fact at various points. Attempts to use it as an FE simulation will fail. The goal of this release is set out in 'How to fly the Fiat G.12';
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FIAT G.12 - MANY VARIANTS.
The goal of this product is to deliver better understanding of the last gasp of the vintage era of aviation history, before the classic era procedures adopted in the continental United States (CONUS) as early as 1932 were adopted everywhere......... This product allows us to simulate captaincy and pilot operated vintage era systems, procedures, and sorties in detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and later
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MULTI CREW OPERATIONS
After we reach the appropriate legislative altitude for the date and location we are simulating we apply Econ(omical) cruise power and begin to monitor headwind vector and descend again if necessary (subject to terrain). The semi circular cruising rule did not apply in the vintage phase of aviation history.
.......see 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.calclassic.com/tutorials
Our virtual flight engineer (FE) will operate most engine systems including the oil cooler shutters and the supercharger turbine controls to match what we are doing as PF. We must control boost, RPM and cowls. Substantial cowl opening will be necessary with ’high’ RPM applied when we also have low natural profile (cooling) drag ( = IAS). Our virtual FE supplements the engine cooling due to cowl opening by other means. Micro management of engine temperatures is his job, not ours, in a multi crew cockpit .
We must not get bogged down in micro managing the roles of other crew members. Our goal is compliant operation of the aircraft in accordance with real ATC procedures, not micro managing engines. We are not simulating single crew operations when we simulate the operation of a complex four aircrew propliner, and we must not pretend that we are required to do everything that needs to be done in an airliner cockpit. It is an error to pretend that the other three crew have all died and that we must manage all the systems in complex cockpits. Simulation of single crew aircraft operation and multi crew operation should be quite different experiences. The airline or military pilot of the vintage era was not a jack of all trades.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In any aeroplane complex enough to require a dedicated FE engine temperature control is not primarily a pilot function. This simulation does not give consumers control over the means to control CHT which was controlled by the FE in real life. Consumers must not allow themselves to become bogged down in controlling FE parameters. Consumers must concentrate on achieving the captaincy and pilot operating targets, (without pilot error), selected examples of which this release features in detail. There are no CHT targets in the handling notes because consumers cannot, and should not, control CHT. The last part of this reply explains why in more detail.
PART 2
In this part of my reply I will treat the question as a real world incident report which reports a high gauge reading as a problem but which more importantly reveals pilot error in the hope your correspondent will find that constructive and useful. During the incident the aircraft was being operated above its operational ceiling which in turn caused IAS to decay.
As the release documentation explains we have released five different aircraft, with three different engines, burning two different grades of AVGAS. There is no such thing as 'a G.12'. Each version has its own unique handling targets and limits.
Since IAS decayed to 120 KIAS and 2000 RPM had been selected for cruise I can only surmise that the aircraft was a heavy post war G.12 variant with a pannier and most likely the G.12LB.
Each set of handling notes and the text 'How to fly the Fiat G.12' set out the altitude at which initial climb must be rejected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REJECTING CLIMB
If simulating a date before 1947 we continue climb to initiate cruise at 4000 metres; else if after 1946 we continue only to 3000 metres before rejecting climb. We route around, not over, higher terrain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The power setting that is 'Economical relates directly to those criteria. 3000 metres is approx 9800 feet. It is pilot error to initiate cruise at a higher level. After always levelling at no more than 3000M we apply the mandated econ cruise power and the aeroplane is continually retrimmed to sustain 3000M until (unless) it reaches zero pitch,
....see 2008 Propliner Tutorial from Calclassic.com/tutrorials
By that means we discover, (or accelerate towards but never reach), our target profile drag (IAS) for today's weight and today's weather. During cruise we do not allow IAS to decay.
An altitude of 12,000 feet has no relevance to any of these aircraft. These are vintage era aircraft designed to operate to European rules. They do not maintain assigned altitudes dictated by FAA controllers in the United States. They are not readily compatible with that process and any attempt by a later ATC agency in Europe to assign an altitude above 3000M must be rejected by the Captain. Failure to do so is captaincy error. Consequently the maximum initial level that any of the post war versions could accept from an ATC agency during later service with NATO (and after the introduction of airways within southern Europe) was FL90. This relates to the energy state that Econ cruise power will sustain at very high fractions of departure weight.
Once (if) we achieve zero pitch (minimum frontal area drag) *at the altitude specified in the handling notes*, or if ultra short hauling a *lower* planned level, we don't retrim again until ToD and we do not attempt to sustain an ATC assigned altitude. The aeroplane drifts up (or down) *at constant IAS*, as the weather varies enroute, and as our weight reduces via fuel burn. The IAS in question is the IAS we (eventually if ever) attained at zero pitch at 3000M (or lower planned initial level) at the trip specific weight, in the trip specific weather, and is different on every flight. In any variety of G.12 that target IAS is always in excess 120 KIAS.
The primary cause of failure to *sustain* cruise IAS during the reported incident was climb above operational ceiling. The primary cause of failure to initially achieve cruise IAS is failure to sustain Vy during climb to initial cruising level. The aeroplane must not be allowed to suffer IAS decay in either phase.
****************************
Climb phase power:
RPM = 2250
C = 1.09
220 KmIAS
COWLS = 40%
On reaching 3000 metres
Call for Econ cruise power
****************************
In all the post war G.12s Vy = 220 KmIAS = 119 KIAS. We never allow a lower IAS to develop during climb. As we level off at 3000M (or less) with climb power still applied the aeroplane accelerates. We close the cowls, significantly reducing drag and it accelerates a little faster. We reduce boost and RPM, but not so suddenly that IAS decays.
****************************
Econ cruise power:
C = 0.875
RPM = 2000
COWLS = CLOSED
Plan 660 PPH
Note: Yields 155 KTAS at 3000M (FL98)
****************************
In typical weather, following a max gross departure, (which would be very rare with appropriate fuel planning), G.12LB econ cruise power sustains about 148 KTAS in initial cruise at 3000M which is a profile drag of about 127-128 KIAS. It is hard to conceive of weather conditions which would cause IAS to decay to 120 KIAS *provided the maximum ceiling for rejecting initial climb is not exceeded* (carb heat is off and other anti-ice systems are on). As the handling notes disclose by the time the aircraft reaches mean cruise weight a profile drag of => 130 KIAS will deliver a cruising velocity => 155 KTAS.
Throttle percent has no relevance to piston engine operation. The constant is boost (C in Italian aircraft). As high altitudes we (may) need more throttle percent to sustain the same target boost. Compliant operation of the G.12LB relates to 4D navigation in compliance with real world procedures, not CHT. When climb is correctly rejected at 3000M (or even at 3700M <> 12000 feet) we achieve C=0.875 using only 58% throttle. We do not intend to overheat the engines with more than 220 PPH per engine fuel flow. We intend to cruise using only 440hp per engine. More boost = more fuel flow = more horse power = more heat.
After departure our operational ceiling is 3000M. It increases only very slowly and in a G.12LB which departed at high weights it is unlikely to reach 3700M in any weather system, even by ToD. The worst case G.12 (which is the CA) is very slightly harder to accelerate at 3000M (9800 feet). Alitalia dumped the CA on the Italian Air Force after just one year. The LB typically and initially achieves a couple of extra KIAS and about 127-128 KIAS at 3000M with econ cruise power applied following a max gross departure. All other varieties of G.12 achieve higher IAS with econ cruise power applied, and it is harder to allow IAS to decay to 120 KIAS (222 KmIAS), *provided cruise is not attempted at excessive altitude*.
The incident report discloses that the captain and pilot flying became distracted whilst interfering in the FEs role in the cockpit, and whilst distracted climbed above operational ceiling and allowed IAS to decay during cruise. The text 'How to fly the Fiat G.12' warns against that probability in many places. We must not become preoccupied in other crew members roles to the detriment of our role as captain and pilot flying.
IAS is cooling drag and when we allow IAS to decay CHT rises; so in any aircraft we must take care not to climb above operational ceiling else the FE will start to lose control of CHT and a vicious circle begins as the FE adds engine drag and oil cooler shutter drag to achieve cooling causing IAS to decay further. If a particular release has accurate CHT gauges (very unlikely) then application of excess boost above econ boost causes excess CHT. However that is not the cause of excess displayed CHT in this simulation product.
PART 3 - Design Constraints and Goals.
As with over 99% of all MSFS releases the displayed CHT is inaccurate in relation to the applied boost, rpm and cowl opening because this project did not include the intention to display accurate values. Consumers are warned not to attempt FE simulation throughout the documentation.
When I sent the beta 1.0 FD for the G.12LB to the project manager almost a year ago on 4th November 2008 I explained to him,
>>>>>>>>
2) So far the ONLY engine temperature with driver code is OIL. Note that normal oil temperatures are lower than in the Savoias due to more efficient oil coolers. I doubt I will be able to drive CHT correctly for this specific engine. I will provide some generic CHT code later ONLY IF you intend to create CHT gauges.
>>>>>>>>
The project manager decided the project would have CHT gauges anyway, and that generic FD code is in place. Attempts to control displayed CHT via FD alone (in any aircraft release) fail for the following reason.
The way temperature responds to RPM and boost in MSFS is controlled by the hard coded Microsoft Flight Model (FM). The hard coded FM equations behave as though high RPM (high rubbing friction) is the primary cause of high temperatures in every part of an engine. That is correct for oil temperature, but incorrect for CHT. In reality CHT is heavily dependent on energy flow through the engine, (fuel flow in pounds per hour (actually calories consumed) not friction = rpm). Third party aircraft and engine specific Flight Dynamics (FD) only poke specific values into hard coded MS equations. If the hard coded Microsoft equation that calculates a temperature consequence is wrong there are no numbers that can be poked into that broken FM equation by the FD that will work for all combinations of boost and RPM. It is only possible to encode FD values which deliver the correct (engine specific) result at a single chosen boost and RPM combination.
The only way an add on aircraft release can have accurate CHT gauges is if the gauge author writes non linearity code in C or xml which corrects the fake non linearity calculated by the broken FM equation. The project team decided not to do that for two reasons. Firstly this project was already suffering 'mission creep'. Secondly we did not anyway have enough engine specific data for the three different and fairly obscure engines to know what corrective non linearity to encode in three different sets of CHT gauges.
The beta 3.0 handling notes for the G.12LB supplied with the beta 3.0 FD on 17th February 2009 contained the real handling values for the Pegasus 48 and relevant CHT gauge driver code. We tested that beta during February and concluded that the release handling notes could not include CHT limit values since the Microsoft equations miscalculate the consequence of boost variation too inaccurately. If they had been included consumers would have been driven either to reduce RPM to values which provide poor traction efficiency, else to excessive opening of the cowls causing excessive drag and loss of cruising velocity or climb rate. We decided to promulgate the 'correct' = 'default' cowl opening (drag status) instead so that the performance envelope of each version is experienced correctly at false CHT.
The CHT values are deliberately false. Consumers cannot control them and are warned not to become distracted by trying. This product intentionally does not support simulation of the FE role. Compliance with the small number of real operating targets we selected for inclusion within the supplied handling notes is already very difficult for most flight sim enthusiasts. Controlling altitude and IAS correctly throughout the flight is a primary goal from which flight sim enthusiasts should not be distracted by pretending complex aircraft are operated single crew. The real captain and pilot flying did not have time to play at being FE to chase CHT targets either; else they also risked losing control of both target altitude and target IAS.
I hope you find that to be a full and constructive reply,
Regards,
FSAviator
Stefano.
Andy again
I find this a really helpful and constructive reply. The way FSAviator can pare down the language to the necessary has always lightened my soul; to know there are those who still care deeply about generating meaning and sense from the right words is liberating and even if I crash a lot, it's probably that I'm still reading when I should be looking after things in the air.
Andy.
I just posted this and lost the response!
so am now trying again!!This is about the wonderful FIAT G12 from Stefano Meneghini. The aircraft comes in a variety of models with different engines and set-ups. I posted on SimOuthouse about CHT and via Stefano recieved this reply from FSAviator.
FSAviator realised from the outset I had no idea what I was doing; flying the airplane above it's set cruise height and at completely the wrong speed and with an abnormal fuel load. He realised which model I was attempting to fly and took the trouble to post this response which I feel might be of interest to others who fly as chaotically as myself.
Hi Andy,
here the answer:
The question has a complicated answer in three parts. On the other hand some parts of it may be simplistic, but your correspondent did not disclose any real world aviation experience so I must assume he has no aircrew experience in part 2.
PART 1
Every flight simulation release has to be restricted to specific goals else they become one of those projects that is discussed in forums for years and never released due to never ending 'mission creep'. This release is not in any way a Flight Engineer simulation. The release documentation emphasises that fact at various points. Attempts to use it as an FE simulation will fail. The goal of this release is set out in 'How to fly the Fiat G.12';
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FIAT G.12 - MANY VARIANTS.
The goal of this product is to deliver better understanding of the last gasp of the vintage era of aviation history, before the classic era procedures adopted in the continental United States (CONUS) as early as 1932 were adopted everywhere......... This product allows us to simulate captaincy and pilot operated vintage era systems, procedures, and sorties in detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and later
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MULTI CREW OPERATIONS
After we reach the appropriate legislative altitude for the date and location we are simulating we apply Econ(omical) cruise power and begin to monitor headwind vector and descend again if necessary (subject to terrain). The semi circular cruising rule did not apply in the vintage phase of aviation history.
.......see 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.calclassic.com/tutorials
Our virtual flight engineer (FE) will operate most engine systems including the oil cooler shutters and the supercharger turbine controls to match what we are doing as PF. We must control boost, RPM and cowls. Substantial cowl opening will be necessary with ’high’ RPM applied when we also have low natural profile (cooling) drag ( = IAS). Our virtual FE supplements the engine cooling due to cowl opening by other means. Micro management of engine temperatures is his job, not ours, in a multi crew cockpit .
We must not get bogged down in micro managing the roles of other crew members. Our goal is compliant operation of the aircraft in accordance with real ATC procedures, not micro managing engines. We are not simulating single crew operations when we simulate the operation of a complex four aircrew propliner, and we must not pretend that we are required to do everything that needs to be done in an airliner cockpit. It is an error to pretend that the other three crew have all died and that we must manage all the systems in complex cockpits. Simulation of single crew aircraft operation and multi crew operation should be quite different experiences. The airline or military pilot of the vintage era was not a jack of all trades.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In any aeroplane complex enough to require a dedicated FE engine temperature control is not primarily a pilot function. This simulation does not give consumers control over the means to control CHT which was controlled by the FE in real life. Consumers must not allow themselves to become bogged down in controlling FE parameters. Consumers must concentrate on achieving the captaincy and pilot operating targets, (without pilot error), selected examples of which this release features in detail. There are no CHT targets in the handling notes because consumers cannot, and should not, control CHT. The last part of this reply explains why in more detail.
PART 2
In this part of my reply I will treat the question as a real world incident report which reports a high gauge reading as a problem but which more importantly reveals pilot error in the hope your correspondent will find that constructive and useful. During the incident the aircraft was being operated above its operational ceiling which in turn caused IAS to decay.
As the release documentation explains we have released five different aircraft, with three different engines, burning two different grades of AVGAS. There is no such thing as 'a G.12'. Each version has its own unique handling targets and limits.
Since IAS decayed to 120 KIAS and 2000 RPM had been selected for cruise I can only surmise that the aircraft was a heavy post war G.12 variant with a pannier and most likely the G.12LB.
Each set of handling notes and the text 'How to fly the Fiat G.12' set out the altitude at which initial climb must be rejected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REJECTING CLIMB
If simulating a date before 1947 we continue climb to initiate cruise at 4000 metres; else if after 1946 we continue only to 3000 metres before rejecting climb. We route around, not over, higher terrain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The power setting that is 'Economical relates directly to those criteria. 3000 metres is approx 9800 feet. It is pilot error to initiate cruise at a higher level. After always levelling at no more than 3000M we apply the mandated econ cruise power and the aeroplane is continually retrimmed to sustain 3000M until (unless) it reaches zero pitch,
....see 2008 Propliner Tutorial from Calclassic.com/tutrorials
By that means we discover, (or accelerate towards but never reach), our target profile drag (IAS) for today's weight and today's weather. During cruise we do not allow IAS to decay.
An altitude of 12,000 feet has no relevance to any of these aircraft. These are vintage era aircraft designed to operate to European rules. They do not maintain assigned altitudes dictated by FAA controllers in the United States. They are not readily compatible with that process and any attempt by a later ATC agency in Europe to assign an altitude above 3000M must be rejected by the Captain. Failure to do so is captaincy error. Consequently the maximum initial level that any of the post war versions could accept from an ATC agency during later service with NATO (and after the introduction of airways within southern Europe) was FL90. This relates to the energy state that Econ cruise power will sustain at very high fractions of departure weight.
Once (if) we achieve zero pitch (minimum frontal area drag) *at the altitude specified in the handling notes*, or if ultra short hauling a *lower* planned level, we don't retrim again until ToD and we do not attempt to sustain an ATC assigned altitude. The aeroplane drifts up (or down) *at constant IAS*, as the weather varies enroute, and as our weight reduces via fuel burn. The IAS in question is the IAS we (eventually if ever) attained at zero pitch at 3000M (or lower planned initial level) at the trip specific weight, in the trip specific weather, and is different on every flight. In any variety of G.12 that target IAS is always in excess 120 KIAS.
The primary cause of failure to *sustain* cruise IAS during the reported incident was climb above operational ceiling. The primary cause of failure to initially achieve cruise IAS is failure to sustain Vy during climb to initial cruising level. The aeroplane must not be allowed to suffer IAS decay in either phase.
****************************
Climb phase power:
RPM = 2250
C = 1.09
220 KmIAS
COWLS = 40%
On reaching 3000 metres
Call for Econ cruise power
****************************
In all the post war G.12s Vy = 220 KmIAS = 119 KIAS. We never allow a lower IAS to develop during climb. As we level off at 3000M (or less) with climb power still applied the aeroplane accelerates. We close the cowls, significantly reducing drag and it accelerates a little faster. We reduce boost and RPM, but not so suddenly that IAS decays.
****************************
Econ cruise power:
C = 0.875
RPM = 2000
COWLS = CLOSED
Plan 660 PPH
Note: Yields 155 KTAS at 3000M (FL98)
****************************
In typical weather, following a max gross departure, (which would be very rare with appropriate fuel planning), G.12LB econ cruise power sustains about 148 KTAS in initial cruise at 3000M which is a profile drag of about 127-128 KIAS. It is hard to conceive of weather conditions which would cause IAS to decay to 120 KIAS *provided the maximum ceiling for rejecting initial climb is not exceeded* (carb heat is off and other anti-ice systems are on). As the handling notes disclose by the time the aircraft reaches mean cruise weight a profile drag of => 130 KIAS will deliver a cruising velocity => 155 KTAS.
Throttle percent has no relevance to piston engine operation. The constant is boost (C in Italian aircraft). As high altitudes we (may) need more throttle percent to sustain the same target boost. Compliant operation of the G.12LB relates to 4D navigation in compliance with real world procedures, not CHT. When climb is correctly rejected at 3000M (or even at 3700M <> 12000 feet) we achieve C=0.875 using only 58% throttle. We do not intend to overheat the engines with more than 220 PPH per engine fuel flow. We intend to cruise using only 440hp per engine. More boost = more fuel flow = more horse power = more heat.
After departure our operational ceiling is 3000M. It increases only very slowly and in a G.12LB which departed at high weights it is unlikely to reach 3700M in any weather system, even by ToD. The worst case G.12 (which is the CA) is very slightly harder to accelerate at 3000M (9800 feet). Alitalia dumped the CA on the Italian Air Force after just one year. The LB typically and initially achieves a couple of extra KIAS and about 127-128 KIAS at 3000M with econ cruise power applied following a max gross departure. All other varieties of G.12 achieve higher IAS with econ cruise power applied, and it is harder to allow IAS to decay to 120 KIAS (222 KmIAS), *provided cruise is not attempted at excessive altitude*.
The incident report discloses that the captain and pilot flying became distracted whilst interfering in the FEs role in the cockpit, and whilst distracted climbed above operational ceiling and allowed IAS to decay during cruise. The text 'How to fly the Fiat G.12' warns against that probability in many places. We must not become preoccupied in other crew members roles to the detriment of our role as captain and pilot flying.
IAS is cooling drag and when we allow IAS to decay CHT rises; so in any aircraft we must take care not to climb above operational ceiling else the FE will start to lose control of CHT and a vicious circle begins as the FE adds engine drag and oil cooler shutter drag to achieve cooling causing IAS to decay further. If a particular release has accurate CHT gauges (very unlikely) then application of excess boost above econ boost causes excess CHT. However that is not the cause of excess displayed CHT in this simulation product.
PART 3 - Design Constraints and Goals.
As with over 99% of all MSFS releases the displayed CHT is inaccurate in relation to the applied boost, rpm and cowl opening because this project did not include the intention to display accurate values. Consumers are warned not to attempt FE simulation throughout the documentation.
When I sent the beta 1.0 FD for the G.12LB to the project manager almost a year ago on 4th November 2008 I explained to him,
>>>>>>>>
2) So far the ONLY engine temperature with driver code is OIL. Note that normal oil temperatures are lower than in the Savoias due to more efficient oil coolers. I doubt I will be able to drive CHT correctly for this specific engine. I will provide some generic CHT code later ONLY IF you intend to create CHT gauges.
>>>>>>>>
The project manager decided the project would have CHT gauges anyway, and that generic FD code is in place. Attempts to control displayed CHT via FD alone (in any aircraft release) fail for the following reason.
The way temperature responds to RPM and boost in MSFS is controlled by the hard coded Microsoft Flight Model (FM). The hard coded FM equations behave as though high RPM (high rubbing friction) is the primary cause of high temperatures in every part of an engine. That is correct for oil temperature, but incorrect for CHT. In reality CHT is heavily dependent on energy flow through the engine, (fuel flow in pounds per hour (actually calories consumed) not friction = rpm). Third party aircraft and engine specific Flight Dynamics (FD) only poke specific values into hard coded MS equations. If the hard coded Microsoft equation that calculates a temperature consequence is wrong there are no numbers that can be poked into that broken FM equation by the FD that will work for all combinations of boost and RPM. It is only possible to encode FD values which deliver the correct (engine specific) result at a single chosen boost and RPM combination.
The only way an add on aircraft release can have accurate CHT gauges is if the gauge author writes non linearity code in C or xml which corrects the fake non linearity calculated by the broken FM equation. The project team decided not to do that for two reasons. Firstly this project was already suffering 'mission creep'. Secondly we did not anyway have enough engine specific data for the three different and fairly obscure engines to know what corrective non linearity to encode in three different sets of CHT gauges.
The beta 3.0 handling notes for the G.12LB supplied with the beta 3.0 FD on 17th February 2009 contained the real handling values for the Pegasus 48 and relevant CHT gauge driver code. We tested that beta during February and concluded that the release handling notes could not include CHT limit values since the Microsoft equations miscalculate the consequence of boost variation too inaccurately. If they had been included consumers would have been driven either to reduce RPM to values which provide poor traction efficiency, else to excessive opening of the cowls causing excessive drag and loss of cruising velocity or climb rate. We decided to promulgate the 'correct' = 'default' cowl opening (drag status) instead so that the performance envelope of each version is experienced correctly at false CHT.
The CHT values are deliberately false. Consumers cannot control them and are warned not to become distracted by trying. This product intentionally does not support simulation of the FE role. Compliance with the small number of real operating targets we selected for inclusion within the supplied handling notes is already very difficult for most flight sim enthusiasts. Controlling altitude and IAS correctly throughout the flight is a primary goal from which flight sim enthusiasts should not be distracted by pretending complex aircraft are operated single crew. The real captain and pilot flying did not have time to play at being FE to chase CHT targets either; else they also risked losing control of both target altitude and target IAS.
I hope you find that to be a full and constructive reply,
Regards,
FSAviator
Stefano.
Andy again
I find this a really helpful and constructive reply. The way FSAviator can pare down the language to the necessary has always lightened my soul; to know there are those who still care deeply about generating meaning and sense from the right words is liberating and even if I crash a lot, it's probably that I'm still reading when I should be looking after things in the air.
Andy.
