zinhawk

Where in the devil's hellscape are you getting 72% fan?

865 is max allowable for the T5 setting (done by ground crew) if you can't achieve fan speed without going hotter. After that you pull the engine out. Do not conflate max values with normal operation. The "manual" is chock full of misnomers and misunderstandings of systems. The T5 is your wall. On standard day and warmer temps you are hitting this ITT wall for sure. It is a single number no matter what. For DCS this seems to be 799ish. Also you should test 1 parameter at a time to see what is changing what. In test 2 you dropped the temp and got a slight rise in speed which is expected but then you raised the altitude which should nerf it a bit. The core speed is kind of irrelevant though. It will do what ever it has to until it reaches the T5 limit, which should be fan speed target, which is the most critical for performance. What I do find interesting is ITT also decreasing. It should be the same mark (799ish) at full throttle. Perhaps the T5 system is a little dorked at the extremes or other factors are at play at those cold temps. We don't normally run that cold so I don't have a lot of real data to compare to down there. Now I want to test and pick brains.

To be "accurate to what you would find", yeah it ought be fixed. Is it flyable? yes. The engine topic is a dead horse flogged many times over. ITT issues have been reported and taken in so who knows, maybe changes are in the works. There is an awful lot going on and frankly I would agree this is bottom barrel from a total game perspective.

What you are referring to is the T5 Amp and that is ITT based and physically set by the engine specialists to achieve a certain fan speed. It limits the fuel control (analog) and while the fan speed (not core) target is based on OAT, the IEPU/fuel control/T5 system is not FADEC. It only monitors OAT, compares it to expected fan speed changes and throws a code for engine troops to adjust when it doesn't like what it sees. So, changes in OAT doesn't "turn on" the T5, it is on the whole time. The fuel override switch turns off the T5 and you should see maximum, engine melting numbers after a long period. DCS does not model the override switch currently. DCS trim is 799 on the ITT guage which is a brand new engine kinda trim. In response to the OP, core RPM is typically somewheres around 96-97ish. BUT depending on how good your compressor is they can run slower while putting out ridiculous discharge pressure and can achieve target fan speed the same as a crappy compressor running in the 98s. The core is managed by the fuel control so, yes seeing fairly consistent numbers across differing locations is normal. In terms of raw numbers I gave the core a meh. What you should see change based on altitude, OAT, yadayada is the fan speed. DCS actually models this change exceedingly well. When you compare the calculated fan speed curve (which is our target curve) DCS has the same slope. However, this curve is about 4% below target. No engine on the line is below 1-1.5% of the target. So, a low ITT number, sagging rpms, I think Caldera is thinking in the right track. The T5 is set too low if I were to diagnose this as a real engine. Normal is 820-830s.

Pneumatic starters just like the airlines, hence the air source. The APUstarter is electric. There are no hydraulics for the engine systems. They run on fuel pressure. The hydro pumps attached are purely for servicing aircraft systems. Real world no start you tell the crew chief who calls engine shop, who tells you to step to the spare because it will be a loong day of troubleshooting. Short answer is, yes, to attempt an immediate restart you should motor to blow out excess fuel and cool the ITT below 150ish. I don't think DCS goes into that much detail on the model though as I tried a hot start scenario just because and it fired right up no problem. To shutdown, yes, back over the horn in off position.

As long as your battery is on, ignition breakers in, and you have an air source (in normal case the APU), all you need to do is put the corresponding throttle "over the horn" (lift function on HOTAS throttles) to start. That is what we do real world. Look for the "Engine on left (right)" and "Engine off left(right)" functions and map them to 4 buttons or if you have a throttle like the Warthog, assign the lift up and foward function to on and up and back to off respectively. We only touch the manual motor switch to cool the engine below ITT parameters to prevent hot starts and other troubleshooting techniques. The fuel pumps are for the tanks and only necessary to maintain pressure in the lines during manuevering. The pump on the engine is driven by the engine itself and is sufficient for startup and maintaining run feed.

Fact 1: DCS engine is ~4% under target at any OAT when doing full throttle checks. Fact 2: Real world limit is 2%. That is a hard limit. What does that mean in pounds of thrust? I'm not going to sit here and say I know for sure. But, attempting to deduce from the provided performance tables, when you check max power at the same OAT "ideal conditions" the DCS engine puts out metrics in the Max Continuous line where the real thing at similar OAT is closer to the Max 30 Min line. Imagine that, it is ~4% difference in RPM. Take 80% of the total thrust at each line and that is in the ballpark of a 550lb difference. In total that figures to be ~1100lb shortfall between what DCS indicates and what the real metrics are at similar OAT. Pretty much flying around with a pair of Mk82s permanently attached. It is entirely possible perhaps the core makes up a little, I don't know. But it keeps being said this is A1 NASA level coding and just like the TF-34 so why wouldn't I treat it as such and expect reasonable results? Those that say close enough ought to recalibrate what "close" is. Aregiously bad? Matter of perspective I guess. It is not unusable, but it could be better. What has been said above in terms of weight management still apply. The A-10 doesn't have a lot of thrust to play with to begin with. That is why I'm more of a proponent of squeezing every little bit out that ought to be. Is it worth the effort to get more RPMs? It was said it is a million dollar problem. If it truly is I respect that. I don't think so but I'm not the coder. I would offer this: If the T5 system is at all modeled or the ITT is proportionately tied to fan speed you could do as we do real world and crank up the ITT until Fan comes up at least ~3%. Right now you are at 799, you have a lot of headroom.

FWIW. I asked an ex WSO if he had a preference. While he didn't use the newer style, he also said the old UFC wasn't red lettering. The difference basically a screen swap. So those holding out for old school might've been sorely disappointed. I voted old school anyway for the Jane's feels. In any case I'm not going to let a silly thing like a UFC stop me from flying the crap out of it when funds are available.

Not sure what a helicopter has to do with it but I understand your point on expense vs gains. From my perspective at least it is not asking for an expensive code change. In general, engine behavior is modeled pretty good, except that the expected power reading is lower than normally accepted. No, the real engines are tuned to perform the same as the charts in terms of thrust no matter the age. What is different is efficiency and longevity. In that regard real engines are generally less than the charts but that is not something to be concerned with at all in our little simulation world. Moving engine stuff to my other reference topic to keep the conversation clear for other FM stuff. In general the references are good, but doing max power checks is saying something is off with implementation

Can someone tell me which rating point is being used for Max Takeoff power? I think I'm smelling the general 3% discrepancy.

It has been reported in the general bugs I believe though I cannot find it at the moment. It seems whatever broke the ground AI routing has now infected taxi AI. I too get run over by the wingman when I'm first in line on the latest OB in the Maple Leaf campaigns. I usually do a quick Request Takeoff and get on the runway before he gets to the threshold.

Both. Operating under the assumption that A: the model is such that fan speed is representative of thrust as it should be, B: Being a video game the gauges are 100% accurate of the "digital engine information" in the simulation. If the gauges don't reflect the simulation data than okay, that is odd, hard to have solid starting point there. Not sure what charts were tested against, but only one is used to determine proper thrust output and tuning and that is the fan speed trim chart found in the 1A-10(A)C-2-71JG-2 or 2J-TF34-116-9. Further explanation in my older post along with reference photos. Ignore the minor other stuff, main focus is the fan output. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269627

Already did here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269627 Since I didn't get a response, I'm assuming they do not have engine 10C TO access. So this site has the 1A-10A-2-71JG-2: http://www.newportaero.com/home/manuals/technical_orders/browse/___5004/to.html I'm not going to buy a manual I have access to with the same info just to prove a point. Limits haven't changed in 40 years, though accuracy in recording data has. Even going through that thread I tested parameters from the example CETADS picture. The engine still falls short.

You've convinced me too, I just don't have any material experience to add to the matter. Engine building, and systems testing and tuning is more my baliwick so I responded to that specifically. In the mean time I'll just keep blowing **** up :pilotfly::joystick:

It is not a feeling. It doesn't reach acceptable fan speed limits on the trim chart used by jet troops. Don't need an engineering degree to read a chart and perform maintenance runs. I don't know how they approach the simulation coding or if it is like real world where 80% of thrust comes off the fan. If it is, it is thrust deficient and the fan speed needs punched up at least 3% to be minimum limits. Doesn't sound like a lot to most, but to an engine troop it is a lot, especially multiplied by 2. Not asking for complete recoding and deadnuts on peformance. Just a fan speed tune up in the current format. In any event, nothing is going to be changed and I am perfectly okay with that just to be clear.

I can't speak to drag issues, but it is a convincing argument. In terms of the engines, if you put what DCS has into a real aircraft it would be grounded. So there is a difference of putting it at the low end of performance limits and that. Passion on this subject stems less from "blinking lights and rivet counting", but where simulation of the FM=simulation of the aircraft. Wildly off when you bill yourself as a highly detailed simulator makes heads crop up. There was a reddit post a few weeks back that basically said "we checked and the Air Force is happy". Either their Air Force rep has no idea what the engine should be doing or they are nerfing it on purpose for whatever reason. In any case it is what it is. I said my piece earlier and now I will just enjoy it for what it is.

Data plate behind it says Glide Slope Antenna.

Yes. I didn't mean to imply it was DoD, just that it was unneeded and unwanted. Pretty much how this thread is going....

hrrrrmmmm. Short of saying "google A-10B".... Does this guy let you see it? https://www.flickr.com/photos/53104577@N07/29321540174

Balls. https://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/a-10_two-seaterD-450x287.jpg

A-10B. Originally thought of as a two seat All-Weather/Night Attack, pentagon priorities and equipment advances made it irrelevant as soon as it was built and ultimately became a one off trainer and test bed. Not a serious wish. I just saw the picture and I thought of how cool it would be to two seat an A-10 briefly.

Those who can't see image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/53104577@N07/29321540174

He is describing the forward part of the right gear nacelle: Not quite. I wondered the same thing and got different answers from different crew chiefs, but after working on this thing for the last few years I was smart enough to stick my head in the well a few months ago :lol: It is the ILS antenna but lets keep that a mystery. :thumbup:

Here is what would get me excited the most based on module type: Cold War 1)Korea 2)Nam 3)Fulda Gap/Eastern Europe 4)Afghanistan /SW Asia (Could be Modern) 5)Horn of Africa/Suez Canal area (WWII moddable as well) WWII 1)Eastern Front 2)Mediterranean/North Africa (older models would work well here) 3)Philippine Sea/Indonesia 4)Burma (Could use Nam map here too) Modern 1)Utilizing the western half of Caucuses 2)South China Sea 3)Alaska Red Flag 4)South America for funsies. I like Chile/Argentina over the Andes location. 5)Literally anywhere different

This makes little sense. Putting the throttles over the hump begins the start sequence but it is not the same as the ignition switch. It is a one and done command. You have to have the throttle axis input at idle (as read by DCS) before DCS allows the cut off position to move. The smallest amount of signal will interrupt this. That is why you have to either turn off controller sync as others have said or chop your throttles back (those without a cutoff function). I don't have VR but the control function should be the same regardless. Something is A: messing with throttle axis input somewhere somehow or B: As randomTOTEN said, in this specific instance, it sounds like something is messing with your key command input.