Onto OEM #3

Crop Duster said:
The airframe mod evolution is impressive. The legacies were pretty heavy in roll.

The displays are much better than the G-Toys, but I'd like the new Pilatupi better with steam gauges, or nice big color screens controlled by discrete switches and knobs. Similarly, while much better than the G-Toy nested menu nightmare, the whole track ball thing is way too video game for me.

The truly advanced technology remains invisible. When the tool becomes an impediment to the job, is it even a tool anymore?
Click to expand...
...how many hours do you have in the NG?
 
Roger Roger said:
...how many hours do you have in the NG?
Click to expand...
Too many.

Point is, I'm not a fan of moving stuff around and/or changing things just because one can. If there's a good reason for a change, I'll be leading the charge. But changing stuff, reducing ruggedness, and/or increasing complexity just for invidious marketing distinction is superfluous at best, dangerous at worst. Made coffee at a machine lately? Some machines now require 8 buttons to be pushed to obtain a cup of coffee! Just plain coffee, not even espresso. Been in a new Mercedes lately? Same BS. You shift with the blinker stalk. I 'spose that's worth the premium cost right there.

Then again, I'm the guy who keeps posting the Hicks vid re: "If you're in marketing or advertising... KILL YOURSELF!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crop Duster said:
Too many.

Point is, I'm not a fan of moving stuff around and/or changing things just because one can. If there's a good reason for a change, I'll be leading the charge. But changing stuff just for invidious marketing distinction is superfluous at best, dangerous at worst. Made coffee at a machine lately? Some machines now require 8 buttons to be pushed to obtain a cup of coffee! Just plain coffee, not even espresso. Been in a new Mercedes lately? Same BS. You shift with the blinker stalk. I 'spose that's worth the premium cost right there.
Click to expand...

The NG and /47 legacies are vastly superior to the /45s. And, ergonomically at least, the NG is superior to the /47... though the Honeywell boxes are • compared to a 650/750 combo
 
ppragman said:
The NG and /47 legacies are vastly superior to the /45s. And, ergonomically at least, the NG is superior to the /47... though the Honeywell boxes are • compared to a 650/750 combo
Click to expand...
Well, in terms of FMS functionality, I'll take the Honeywell every day of the week and Sundays. It's the video-game interface that I find annoying and less than optimally efficient or practical.
 
ppragman said:
The interface is terrible, we're in agreement there. It's pretty amazing with what it can do though.
Click to expand...
Yup. Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

That said, I don't ever wanna be doing a 200nm arrival in a PC12. The real reason the 12 ended up with that interface -that whole FMS suite - is Pilatus used the PC12 as a test bed for the PC-24.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wish I had a PC12 in my base. It would make dealing with these shoulder seasons easier, and I wouldn’t have had to put so many flights on wx hold for icing.
 
Crop Duster said:
Too many.

Point is, I'm not a fan of moving stuff around and/or changing things just because one can. If there's a good reason for a change, I'll be leading the charge. But changing stuff, reducing ruggedness, and/or increasing complexity just for invidious marketing distinction is superfluous at best, dangerous at worst. Made coffee at a machine lately? Some machines now require 8 buttons to be pushed to obtain a cup of coffee! Just plain coffee, not even espresso. Been in a new Mercedes lately? Same BS. You shift with the blinker stalk. I 'spose that's worth the premium cost right there.

Then again, I'm the guy who keeps posting the Hicks vid re: "If you're in marketing or advertising... KILL YOURSELF!"
Click to expand...
Glass with synthetic vision is far superior to steam gauges. If you think otherwise you’re smoking crack. Go back to flying brokeass Lear 35s, ya relic.


Also, if you want to compare reliability on 4 big LCD screens to either steam gauges or a tube efis like the legacy or a Lear 31....it’s not even close.
 
Last edited:
Roger Roger said:
No. It should simply be torque 0-100%.
Click to expand...

I disagree - 0 -100% tells you nothing about what you're actually looking.

PSI tells you that you're actually looking at an oil pressure reading, which is a fairly indirect measurement of the actual horsepower being generated.
 
ppragman said:
I disagree - 0 -100% tells you nothing about what you're actually looking.

PSI tells you that you're actually looking at an oil pressure reading, which is a fairly indirect measurement of the actual horsepower being generated.
Click to expand...
No it’s freaking not. Horsepower is torque x RPM. RPM is constant. Power is directly proportional to torque. I don’t give a flip if it’s measuring an oil pressure, an amplified strain gauge signal, an N1 speed, or a manifold pressure. 100% for max takeoff power. 80ish for climb, 40ish for landing approach. Adaptable for every airplane. I don’t care that 44.34 psi at the torque oil port equals rated power, if I understand that torque is measured via oil pressure that’s sufficient, the actual number that corresponds to full power is irrelevant unless I’m doing a maintenance procedure that requires me to measure that oil pressure.
 
Roger Roger said:
No it’s freaking not. Horsepower is torque x RPM. RPM is constant. Power is directly proportional to torque. I don’t give a flip if it’s measuring an oil pressure, an amplified strain gauge signal, an N1 speed, or a manifold pressure. 100% for max takeoff power. 80ish for climb, 40ish for landing approach.
Click to expand...

I care. If you know what it's measuring and how it's measuring it helps you understand the bigger picture of the system. For instance, "wild ass torque fluctuations" don't necessarily mean wild ass horsepower fluctuations.

Either tell me exactly what's being measured like Pilatus does, or tell me what the actual power is at the prop as a real number.
 
ppragman said:
I care. If you know what it's measuring and how it's measuring it helps you understand the bigger picture of the system. For instance, "wild ass torque fluctuations" don't necessarily mean wild ass horsepower fluctuations.

Either tell me exactly what's being measured like Pilatus does, or tell me what the actual power is at the prop as a real number.
Click to expand...
I literally do not care what the actual horsepower or psi number is. For people who grew up using Arabian/modern counting methods, 0-100% is an intuitive scale and usability and interpretability is far more important in day-to-day use than the actual psi/hp number. Like I said, as with any system on the aircraft the pilot must understand what it is measuring (an oil pressure generated by twisting parts opening an oil port) but the actual number is irrelevant in day to day operations.
 
So Roger, the legacy PC12 checklist says that if oil pressure gets stuck in the low yellow band (60-90PSI) then don’t use more than 24 PSI indicated torque. Having never flown an NG I’m not sure if the checklist says something similar or no.

Obviously, if the oil pressure system is compromised you can protect engine lubrication by operating at lower power settings, but 24 PSI seems like an oddly specific number. Any thought to why they picked that number? If it was just to keep the engine running, they’d have said as much by saying “minimum possible to sustain flight.”
 
gotWXdagain said:
So Roger, the legacy PC12 checklist says that if oil pressure gets stuck in the low yellow band (60-90PSI) then don’t use more than 24 PSI indicated torque. Having never flown an NG I’m not sure if the checklist says something similar or no.

Obviously, if the oil pressure system is compromised you can protect engine lubrication by operating at lower power settings, but 24 PSI seems like an oddly specific number. Any thought to why they picked that number? If it was just to keep the engine running, they’d have said as much by saying “minimum possible to sustain flight.”
Click to expand...
I don’t know.

But having the gauge marked as 24 psi instead of 54% isn’t gonna help me know why.
 
Having to know 54% would completely useless. If it’s being fed through the computer, why not have the computer recalibrate a corrected 100%?

I suspect, though admittedly I have nothing to back this up, the reason they used 24 PSI is because when oil pressure is limited, the oil pressure to sHP indication correlation is different- 1000 sHP will be indicated at 24 PSI Tq.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Having to know 54% would completely useless. If it’s being fed through the computer, why not have the computer recalibrate a corrected 100%?

I suspect, though admittedly I have nothing to back this up, the reason they used 24 PSI is because when oil pressure is limited, the oil pressure to sHP indication correlation is different- 1000 sHP will be indicated at 24 PSI Tq.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But that should be linear so unless you’re at an exact main system oil pressure, your tq indication is wrong. So if that is so why isn’t there an “engine oil pressure to torque oil pressure” correlation chart? And if 24psi gives you 100% power, there needs to be big note on there, because if I’m suddenly faced with low oil pressure I want to know that my ballpark power settings that I’d normally use to get back to the airport aren’t gonna work before I’m setting what’s normally approach power and blasting through the localizer at 190 knots while running a QRH procedure in a “no memory item” airplane.
 
Roger Roger said:
Maybe. But that should be linear so unless you’re at an exact main system oil pressure, your tq indication is wrong. So if that is so why isn’t there an “engine oil pressure to torque oil pressure” correlation chart? And if 24psi gives you 100% power, there needs to be big note on there, because if I’m suddenly faced with low oil pressure I want to know that my ballpark power settings that I’d normally use to get back to the airport aren’t gonna work before I’m setting what’s normally approach power and blasting through the localizer at 190 knots while running a QRH procedure in a “no memory item” airplane.
Click to expand...

Pro tip from a PC12 training pilot: The more you read Pilatus’s AFM, you will come to understand how terribly it’s written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top