Jump to content

FlyByWire128

Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FlyByWire128

  1. I've found some settings get randomly changed after an update... it's super annoying!
  2. Now I'm wondering what airport(s) would have this type of weather frequently (i.e. where are you most likely to have to fly an approach to CAT II or CAT III minima?)...
  3. This post outlines the process for re-engaging SPD mode after leveling off.
  4. Based on the transition from IAS to MACH, I'm beginning to suspect the bug is right and the displayed Mach is wrong...
  5. @Jersey1985 You should transition from IAS to Mach earlier during the climb. Typically, this occurs at 290 kts = M 0.74 (about 29,000 ft). It should also happen automatically at 31,600 ft (which will be closer to 290 kts = M 0.77). Trying to climb at M 0.81 will result in very slow vertical speeds, as most of the thrust is needed just to maintain your airspeed (the typical CRJ cruising speed is ~0.78).
  6. Unless something has changed, the automatic switch-over in the CRJ occurs at 31,600 ft. (along with the automatic half-bank engagement). If you wait until that point, 290 kts is ~M0.77 (so you have to manually switch from IAS to MACH at FL280 to maintain M0.74).
  7. It appears that the target mach is reset to the current mach at 31,600 ft (switch over point). I will typically manually switch from IAS to MACH at M 0.74, and reset the target to M 0.77 (to account for this offset behavior). The aircraft will continue to climb at M 0.73-M 0.74, which will cause the target mach to change to M 0.73 or M 0.74 at 31,600 ft (resulting in a climb around M 0.72 if I don't remember to reset it).
  8. For some reason, MSFS2020 treats a wet taxiway like thick mud. This is true for all of the aircraft (default, A320nx, CRJ, etc.), and can probably only be fixed by Asobo, unfortunately.
  9. I can confirm that I also see this issue. I get the call-out at the set DH and then it repeats 3 or 4 times as I continue the approach. Once I touch down, it seems to stop.
  10. I was shocked too, but it does work in MSFS2020 (including with the CRJ). I've been using that program with FSX and P3D (which are almost the same core programs as FS2002) for almost a decade, and I thought for sure it wouldn't work with MSFS2020. Imagine my surprise when I tried it!
  11. I have had success using an old FS2002 program to pause the simulator (https://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=iwillbeback.zip&CatID=root&Go=Search). You have to enter in the distance from your current position that you want the sim to pause (so it's not perfectly at TOD), but it gets the job done when I need to walk away...
  12. Is that the view you are using when trying to enter data? If so, the speed brake lever may be in front of the clear button... you can tell if the cursor changes to a hand. I had to move my viewpoint to the left a bit in order to click CLR behind the speed brake lever.
  13. It looks like you haven't set your V-speeds properly. You are getting the error because V2 and VT are less than VR.
  14. There appears to be a bug with the transition from IAS to MACH causing the target value to be ~0.03 off. I do as you suggest, but then increase the target to M0.75 or M0.76 to maintain M0.73-M0.74 in the climb. Using the APU to provide pressurization air to the packs instead of using engine bleed air would indeed provide slightly more thrust. Someone more familiar with the CRJ systems would have to weigh in on how much bleed air (and therefore engine power) is required for pressurization. I have not experienced the failure to climb issue yet, unless I leave Wing A/I on by mistake (thus robbing the engines of some power). The usual explanations for failure to climb are: Letting the speed fall significantly below M0.74 (behind the power curve) Airframe icing (apparently a problem even with icing set to "visual only" in settings) Phantom spoiler deployment (triggered by keybinding / hitting "Esc") that is not visible in the cockpit or externally
  15. I've noticed on several flights that the aircraft will pitch to climb M0.02-M0.03 below the target value (both prior to the latest patch and today after the hotfix). I set the speed bug to 290 kts above 10,000 feet and the speed is rock solid! At 29,000-30,000 ft, 290 kts = M0.74, so I press the IAS/MACH button and the aircraft pitches up to increase the climb rate, letting the speed decay down to about M0.72. I've found I have to set the speed bug to ~M0.76 in order to climb between M0.73 and M0.74. Am I doing something wrong?
  16. When you say "lose thrust" in climb, is the engine power actually decreasing, or are you losing the ability to climb/maintain speed? There have been a couple of threads on similar issues (topics you might search for): Phantom spoiler deployment / use of the Esc key Icing set to visual only (still adds weight/drag) Wing A/I uses significant bleed air, especially at higher altitude (~5% hit to N1) Falling behind the power curve (climbing at too slow an airspeed) Key-bindings
  17. I had the HUD issue after the last Sim or CRJ update (I can't remember which). After restarting MSFS, the problem seemed to fix itself...
  18. Have you looked at this FAQ post?
  19. That was my assumption as well - thanks for confirming! Perhaps that is the root cause of many issues folks are having going direct... in other AC (I'm looking at you Boeing/Airbus), the next "target" fix is at the top (LSK L1).
  20. I have found that putting the direct fix 2nd from the top works (i.e. LSK #2) - is that the correct procedure or a work-around?
  21. Interesting... I know there is a bug that causes approaches with DME arcs to CTD, but it doesn't look like the ILS15 at EGBB has any DME arc (unless I'm looking at the wrong plate).
  22. I have completed 20+ flights with the CRJ and the only time I had a freeze and CTD was when I loaded an approach with a DME arc. Are you trying to load departures or approaches that contain DME arcs on every flight? I've heard the development team is working to fix a lot of things in the next update (specifically the GS capture and tracking, as well as the drunken swerving when flying north in a crosswind), but the only CTD fix I've heard about is for the DME arc bug...
  23. In aircraft design, Vne speeds are determined based on either structural loads (the force caused by the air will cause it to break) or vibration/flutter (the airflow will cause an unstable oscillation that will cause the airframe to break). It is not uncommon for structural margins to be 20%-50% (e.g. if the Vne produces a force of 100 lbs. on a component, that component will break at 150 lbs. of force). Adding additional safety margins increases weight, which is the enemy of aircraft design. Not knowing the results of Bombardier's loads or flutter analysis, we can't say for certain what would happen. Since most aerodynamic forces are proportional to the square of velocity, it's entirely possible that you could damage airframe components at 40 kts over Vne... I wouldn't be nervous in a real CRJ though. You have two trained professionals flying the aircraft, and it is unlikely that they would miss reducing thrust when the aircraft levels off. In the event they did, they would surely hear the overspeed warning and reduce speed (that is why Vne is defined to have a margin of safety before you actually damage the plane).
  24. This is a known bug. If you choose an arrival / approach that contains a DME arc, it will cause the CRJ / MSFS to crash. Based on other comments on this forum, this has been corrected in the development build and will be part of the next update. In the meantime, choose arrivals and approaches without a DME arc.
  25. Some thoughts I posted in another thread:
×
×
  • Create New...