On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 18:30 -0700, John Denker wrote: > On 12/20/2008 04:37 PM, Ron Jensen wrote: > > >> You don't need to tell me the propeller and engine interact. > >> I'm pretty sure I knew that already. That's exactly why > >> they should be tested separately. > > > > And yet, you are testing them together and posting your results. > > I report my results in the form of shaft power, torque, RPM, > and MAP. And each time I explain that -- in that form -- > they are independent of the properties of the propeller. > > > You've never told me what RPM you expect the engine to achieve with the > > prop set full coarse? > > Except that I did. Unless my inbox and outbox are lying > to me, on 12/20/2008 03:11 PM, I wrote in part: > > > Full forward on the prop control sets the governor for > > 2400. > > Not coincidentally, 2400 is redline and top-of-the green > on the tachometer in the real aircraft, and not coincidentally > also in the current FGFS c182 and c182rg, because that's > where I put them when I did the artwork.
Yes, 2400 is full fine. I asked about full coarse. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that you expected the engine to turn faster than 1750 rpm with the lever back (coarse): "Consider the following scenario: The Sim World c182rg is sitting on the runway at KSFO. The propeller control is pulled back, so that the engine is operating at relatively low revs, about 1750 RPM in contrast to redline which is 2400 RPM. The pilot can observe that if the throttle is open anywhere between 52% and 100% open, moving the throttle has no effect on the MAP." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
