Important: These forums are for discussions between SkyDemon users. They are not routinely monitored by SkyDemon staff so any urgent issues should be sent directly to our Customer Support.

Feature request: Extended Performance Profiles (Temp, RPM, MP)


Author
Message
FlorianK
F
Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6, Visits: 18
Hi, 

after having used Skydemon since quite a while, I've invested quite some time to build very detailed performance profiles based on the figures from my three relevant POHs, generating the whole XML-Data of the profile via a makro from a very detailed spreadsheet. While the current possibilities with multiple performance values per profile for different altitudes is great, this could easily be extended to offer even better flexibility without much effort:

Suggestion 1:
Add an (ISA based) temperature field to the performance data, allowing us to enter multiple values for the same altitude (e.g. ISA, ISA+20°C and ISA-20°C). Then either let us select the correct temperature level (e.g. ISA+20°C) in the "route"-tab in addition to the performance profile [basic implementation] or alternatively calculate it based on the weather data for the planned route (maybe even even interpolating the performance figures, e.g. for a leg in ISA -7.4°C) [advanced implementation]. 
Currently I have performance profiles for 55%, 65%, 75% and MCP for five different temperature levels (ISA-20°C, ISA-10°C, ISA, ISA+10°C, ISA+20°C), resulting in 20 performance profiles per plane which makes things quite "crowded".

Suggetion 2:
Add fields for RPM and (optionally) MP to the performance entries and (optionally) display the appropriate values for the current altitude during navigation. 
When I started building performance profiles, I build the profiles based on fixed RPM values (e.g. a "2400rpm" profile). While this means that setting the correct power during flight was very straightforward even when flying routes with permanently changing levels due to airspace restrictions ("always set 2400rpm") this wasn't a good solution compared to building profiles base on power percentages (e.g. 65%), as 2400rpm might be a fast, high power setting MSL but a slow, low power setting on high altitudes. 
But when using power percentage profiles, one always need to keep a copy of the power charts at hand, especially when flying permanently changing altitudes (starting at 2500 ft, then 4500 to fly over a CTR, then 5500 when turning NE, then 2500 while turning NW and flying below an C airspace....). It would be great if SD could just show the appropriate values for the selected profile during navigation so I can see my target RPM (and MP, if applicable) value for the current altitude.

Best regards
Florian

Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 4.7K
I totally understand the value in being able to express such fine-grained performance figures. Internally, SkyDemon's flight modelling engine could easily cope with such data and being a perfectionist, it's very tempting because of the slightly more accurate output that would be produced.

Unfortunately, most of our customers have enough trouble with setting up their aircraft's performance profiles as it is. It's a trade-off between getting slightly better performance calculations and keeping the user interface understandable by a large number of customers.

ArnaudC
A
Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 42, Visits: 63
Tim Dawson - 5/8/2019 10:51:08 AM
I totally understand the value in being able to express such fine-grained performance figures. Internally, SkyDemon's flight modelling engine could easily cope with such data and being a perfectionist, it's very tempting because of the slightly more accurate output that would be produced.

Unfortunately, most of our customers have enough trouble with setting up their aircraft's performance profiles as it is. It's a trade-off between getting slightly better performance calculations and keeping the user interface understandable by a large number of customers.

Make this the "Expert" performance profile mode, something that people would have the choice to deactivate/not select.

FlorianK
F
Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)Too Much Forum (240 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6, Visits: 18
Tim,

while I can understand that you're hesitant regarding the different temperatures, adding (optional) fields for RPM and MP wouldn't make it more complicated but add quite a level of comfort especially for pilots flying many different planes.

This brings another idea to my mind that could make performance profiles much easier: How about creating a little wizard dialog for entering the data, starting with a selection like "fixed RPM profile" or "% profile" with or without MP...
In addition when entering the performance data for the different altitudes it would be much more user friendly if the data could be directly entered in a table containing addition rows for the intermediate altitudes in steps of 1000 or 2000ft containing the values calculated by SD. 
That way, when entering the performance data for e.g. a C172, one e.g. start entering the data for the lowest altitude (e.g. 2000ft), the highest altitude (e.g. 12000ft) as well as the altitude with the peak TAS (e.g. 6000ft) and then compare the calculated values for the intermediate altitudes (4000 / 8000 / 10000ft) to see how far they are apart from the POH figures to decide whether we want to add more data or keep it that way.

Best Regards
Florian


Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)SkyDemon Team (513K reputation)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 4.7K
How would having separate data fields for RPM or MP be better than the free-text Name field we have at the moment? SkyDemon wouldn't actually use the values internally as part of the performance modelling.
ArnaudC
A
Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)Too Much Forum (930 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 42, Visits: 63
Tim Dawson - 5/14/2019 10:05:49 AM
How would having separate data fields for RPM or MP be better than the free-text Name field we have at the moment? SkyDemon wouldn't actually use the values internally as part of the performance modelling.

For in-flight reference.
You can group all the 65% power TAS/FF like today (which is very neat), and upon click somewhere it would show the MAP/rpm for the current (or nearest) altitude.
Using the current free-text Name field means un-grouping like it was before, which is much less readable, more cumbersome in planning, and not practical for in-flight re-planning (where ATC might issue something else than you had planned).

GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search