Thanks! Will try to restart the flight next time I encountered the problem and test this fix.
Had a very nice flight yesterday. Two and a half hours over snowy western Canada, no autopilot, 3/4 of the time in darkness with a long drawn-out sunrise ahead of me. Really enjoyable!
During this flight I did not encounter the low ITT problem that I had the last time around. The one thing I know I did differently is that I kept the condition lever at high idle. I missed that on the last flight and had it pushed fully forward.
A question: Is it indeed correct that the condition lever is never set to anything higher than high idle? I checked the checklist again, including an official one from Pilatus, and I didn’t see any mention of putting the lever any higher at any stage of the flight. Can anyone confirm that this is accurate?
It looks like a lever but in essence it’s a three way switch. It controls the “floor” of the turbine rpm, what would be idle rpm on a piston engine. You need high idle in flight for the landing, so the turbine can spool up fast enough for a go around. On the ground you have the low setting to prevent the plane running away when taxiing. On the PAC-750 that has the same engine the settings are named flight idle and ground idle to make it clear.
Thanks a lot @UnsealedKarma36! That’s really valuable to know! As you may have gathered I currently know b*ggerall about turboprop planes. Hopefully this will change soon
Hey guys, I’m looking for a G1000 equipped aircraft that I can practice partial panel IFR with.
In the porter, is there a circuit breaker that disables the AHARS? Can someone try this, and show me a screenshot of what the G1000 looks like with the AHARS disabled? I would like to confirm this before I purchase.
I don’t think the modders needed 3 months to implement the existing PMS/GTN/TDS mods… but okay. Just say it directly: You had no interest to do that. That’s fine. Maybe not customer friendly, but honest.
In this aircraft a lot was provided by Milviz/Blackbird already. If they hadn´t done the bezels already, it would have been not so easy if possible at all to retrofit the cockpit with these for casual modders. I don´t like it either, that they decided to go this way, but maybe there is more to it, that is not communicated. But it is their product and I respect and accept that. I would not want to miss the porter in any case.
If it was that easy, then why don’t you see them (PMS/TDS) doing it themselves? After all, you’d figure they’d want to make it easier for aircraft makers to integrate their products… right?
Why blame us when you should rightly be putting the blame on those who won’t do the work for their own stuff.
Heck, we even have to make the 3D models and then paint them?
There have been times when it was a quality feature when an aircraft provider was able to provide support for a highly acclaimed avionics suite and I am sure this will remain so.
At the end of the day it’s your choice not to include these features, but from a consumer point of view it’s something to think about for future releases. Blackbird set a pretty high bar with the Cessna 310 and in some ways the decision to not officially support third-party avionics feels like a bit of a step back.
These are not features. A feature is the dirt/wear/tear. A feature is engine out behavior. A feature is the tablet. A feature is the easter eggs.
At the end of the day, it’s our choice to not have to provide support for a product that we don’t make any profit off of, didn’t make and don’t want to provide support for.
Go talk to them about making sure their stuff doesn’t interfere with basic sim functions, works with MS/Asobo tools/code and get them to supply their own models and paint. See what they say to you. I’d be interested… bet they ignore you.
On the support side of things… one of the main reasons we did this is because something like 60% of ALL support issues/questions on the 310 are related directly to these units and the usage thereof…
Support for third party avionics is indeed a feature and listed in the features of nearly every addon that supports them. You’ve already stated Blackbird doesn’t intend to support them and I think you have a reasonable stance in the rest of your post. It’s a bit disappointing, but I can’t blame you. I don’t see how a dev can provide their own model for your panels though - is there allowance for this in the EULA for your products?
There’s a lot of animosity in this statement, but as much as it’s not your responsibility to support these products, it’s equally not their responsibility to support yours, which is why third parties end up doing it when the developer won’t (which is increasingly rare, I actually don’t know of any other dev who explicitly rejects support for these addons.)
It also dismisses the tremendous effort put forth by PMS who has worked together with Working Title at every step along the way to resolve Asobo code conflicts, almost all of which came about as a result of unannounced changes to the underlying code.
Lastly, it ignores the obvious benefit of supporting these addons as you are likely to ship more units by supporting them than not. Not trying to say you should support them, just saying your provided reasons for not doing so make less sense the more you explain.
EDIT: Editing to say that this all sounds nastier than I intended. I think the influx of support issues is a strong enough reason to not provide official support for the addons. Not everyone can support everything all the time, so I’ll take the route of admitting I don’t know the inner workings of all of these things and the work that goes into it.
If you’re talkiing about PMS GTN750, technically they already do that:
Their software was working until working title put out the GNS unit in the marketplace that wasn’t fully tested and has issues (not a basic sim function either, it’s an optional upgrade).
PMS released compatibility fixes to work around the issue that WT created.
These 3rd party avionics are a massive value add to aircraft developers, aircraft devs don’t need to create their own avionics from scratch.
I don’t know why so many support issues are about it, as I’ve never raised a ticket with an aircraft developer about the PMS GTN750 they always just worked fine. If it’s simple configuration it should be solvable by combining the common issues into an FAQ.
In any case, I won’t be buying further aircraft from developers that are against collaboration in this way. It’s not in the spirit of how I normally see sim development and the way enthusiasts like to combine addons which is a major part of the sim experience. These days we have aircraft as nice as the Fenix A320 or the PMDG 737 and it’s only the GTN750 that brings the quality of the GA avionics closer to what the airliner guys get. Asobo avionics limitations become apparent fairly quickly.
A developer can choose whatever direction they want which is fine with me, as an enthusiast level simmer though we’ll also only choose the devs that are top of the line including avionics quality and integrations.
