[BUG] ANTI-ICE system checking : no FTIT change
-
for GE engines, turning on engine Anti ice does not change anything,
for PW engines, FTIT only is changed
…one more reason to love GE engines…so, did canopy also AI get an upgrade? That was my immediate assumption.
-
known bug ???
i dont get it ??
for GE engines, i quote :
“There is no change in RPM FTIT or fuel flow when the switch is placed in the ON position.”
The PW 229 engine has the bug JP.
As for the GE, yes, but I assume you have not added any code for a ENG A/I FAIL, so in a sense , there is no anti ice check. -
The PW 229 engine has the bug JP.
As for the GE, yes, but I assume you have not added any code for a ENG A/I FAIL, so in a sense , there is no anti ice check.Sure for pw229 ?
And no for the rest , TBH I didn’t understand what you said LOL
-
Yes ,100% sure. The 220 and the 229 anti ice test has the same steps and behaviour.
For the GE you are correct. There is no change in FTIT / RPM.
Since that is the case ,and the engine is 100% operational with no faults, there is really no need to code the anti ice test for the GE engine. You know I am a bastard, and you also know where I’m going with this. -
When I test the BAF MLU (F-16 BAC in BMS) it should have the PW-220 but I see no change in FTIT behaviour when going from ON to OFF?
-
When I test the BAF MLU (F-16 BAC in BMS) it should have the PW-220 but I see no change in FTIT behaviour when going from ON to OFF?
Just tested the BAF MLU. It dose have the PW220, and I saw no problem. FTIT responed
-
I hope my summary of this is correct.
1. PW220 No bug
2. PW229 Bug
3. GE No Ice test, but procedure in post #8 is unnecessary for BMS because no code in BMS to handle fault. -
old list of F-16 model according to anti-ice check we did before release, maybe that will help ?
We saw some GE engine with the FTIT changes as well, which shouldnt happen as per GE procedureY … Yes, FTIT changes
N … No, FTIT does not change
? … Not tested
Y … F-16 Block 30 18th AS (Aggressor) - GE engine => NOK but needs a recheck as this may be a mistake ?
N … F-16 Block 32 64th AS (Aggressor) - Pw engine => NOK
Y … F-16AM BAC - Pw engine => OK
? … F-16AM RDAF
? … F-16AM RNlAF
? … F-16AM RNoAF
Y … F-16A Block 15 - Pw engine => OK
Y … F-16B Block 15 - Pw engine => OK
Y … F-16C Block 25 - Pw engine => OK
N … F-16C Block 30 - Ge engine => OK
Y … F-16C Block 32 - Pw engine => OK
N … F-16CM Block 40 - Ge engine => OK
N … F-16DM Block 40 - Ge engine => OK
Y … F-16CM Block 42 - Pw engine => OK
N … F-16CM Block 50 - Ge engine => OK
N … F-16CM Block 52 - Pw engine => NOK
N … F-16DM Block 52 - Pw engine => NOK
N … F-16C Block 52+ HAF - Pw engine => NOK
N … F-16C Block 52+ CFT HAF - Pw engine => NOK
N … F-16CM USAF Thunderbirds - Ge engine => OK
Y … F-16C Block 32 ROKAF - Pw engine => OK
N … KF-16C Block 52 ROKAF - Pw engine => NOK
N … F-16D Block 52+ RSAF - Pw engine => NOK
Y … F-16A Block 15 Netz IDF/AF - Pw engine => OK
Y … F-16B Block 15 Netz IDF/AF - Pw engine => OK
N … F-16C Block 30 Barak I IDF/AF - Ge engine => OK
N … F-16D Block 30 Barak I IDF/AF - Ge engine => OK
N … F-16C Block 40 Barak II IDF/AF - Ge engine => OK
N … F-16D Block 40 Barak II IDF/AF - Ge engine => OK
N … F-16I Block 52+ Sufa IDF/AF - Pw engine => NOK
N … F-16I Block 52+ Sufa CFT IDF/AF - Pw engine => NOK
Y … F-16C Block 32 EAF - Pw engine => OK
? … F-16C Block 40 EAF
? … F-16C Block 52+ EAF
? … F-16AM RJAF
Y … F-16C Block 32 ROKAF - Pw engine
N … KF-16C Block 52 ROKAF - Pw engineif the Rokaf block 32 has the FTIT change at anti Ice check, then shouldn’t the ROKAF block52 with the same engine show the same behavior?
-
@Red:
if the Rokaf block 32 has the FTIT change at anti Ice check, then shouldn’t the ROKAF block52 with the same engine show the same behavior?
they dont have the same engine
-
bug found and fixed