Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At 70000lbs tow using the standard 290/.74 climb schedule the aircraft reached fl370 in 18 mins, that seems a bit fast doesn't it?  The real aircraft on that route took 25 mins which would seem more what I would expect.  It feels like the crj just wants to keep climbing even at high weights.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Deputy Sheriffs

The temp in the sim would affect this as well, not to mention winds.  From what I recall neither are very accurate yet.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The winds and temps were actually spot on in the sim, and yet the flight was done in the climb detent.  I just did another flight from kden to kslc an hour after the real world flight.  i verified the temps and winds in the sim matched the real world, and my aircraft was able to reach fl 360 in 15 mins, the real aircraft took 21 mins.  I used a full pax load and enough baggage for 50# per passenger, and a reasonable fuel load for the length of the flight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pilot53 said:

At 70000lbs tow using the standard 290/.74 climb schedule the aircraft reached fl370 in 18 mins, that seems a bit fast doesn't it?  The real aircraft on that route took 25 mins which would seem more what I would expect.  It feels like the crj just wants to keep climbing even at high weights.

Yes it does climb better then the real 700 does. In my experience our 900’s climb a lot better then our 700’s do. Honestly it’s taken me close to half an hour to get into the upper 30’s on the 700 before. So yes it is a little to powerful if you ask me. But it’s not a major concern right now in my eyes but rather something to be improved on down the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matthew2312 said:

Yes it does climb better then the real 700 does. In my experience our 900’s climb a lot better then our 700’s do. Honestly it’s taken me close to half an hour to get into the upper 30’s on the 700 before. So yes it is a little to powerful if you ask me. But it’s not a major concern right now in my eyes but rather something to be improved on down the road.

Thats a pretty big difference, I hope they can fix this soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer
13 hours ago, Pilot53 said:

At 70000lbs tow using the standard 290/.74 climb schedule the aircraft reached fl370 in 18 mins, that seems a bit fast doesn't it?  The real aircraft on that route took 25 mins which would seem more what I would expect.  It feels like the crj just wants to keep climbing even at high weights.

Well according to the CRJ-700 flight planning manual the climb from SL to Fl370 at your given weight would be 21 min. And that is with ISA temperature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, metzgergva said:

Well according to the CRJ-700 flight planning manual the climb from SL to Fl370 at your given weight would be 21 min. And that is with ISA temperature.

There has to be something very wrong with this aircrafts flight performance, I just did another flight and it took 15 minutes to get to 360, ISA+2 and winds steady around 25 kts through the climb.  The real flight took 25 mins. I used 320/.80 for my speeds.  I saw getting climb rates upwards of 4000 fps through FL 180 where the real aircraft should be about half that.  Climb rates were 3000 dropping to around 2500 fps through the 20's.  This aircraft needs some tweaking with its performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SixFootScream said:

Thats odd. I can't seem to climb beyond 29000FT without losing speed.

You must have ice on the aircraft, or are using too low a speed.  If you dont have ice and fly it at the correct climb speeds it has way too much performance. Ive been checking several real world crj7 flights on flightaware around the 2 hour total flgiht time mark they all climb around 1000-2000 fpm through the teens and 20's, then 1000 fpm or less until they hit cruise at around 360-370.   Total time takes around 20-25 mins depending on weight and conditions, but the aerosoft crj climbs much much faster than this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pilot53 said:

You must have ice on the aircraft, or are using too low a speed.  If you dont have ice and fly it at the correct climb speeds it has way too much performance. Ive been checking several real world crj7 flights on flightaware around the 2 hour total flgiht time mark they all climb around 1000-2000 fpm through the teens and 20's, then 1000 fpm or less until they hit cruise at around 360-370.   Total time takes around 20-25 mins depending on weight and conditions, but the aerosoft crj climbs much much faster than this.  

My anti-ice is on throughout the flight. I switch it on the ground already also I am a noob so I got no idea how to fly the CRJ properly. I am surprised I managed with the speed till 29000FT. Then I run out of speed and the jet won't climb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SixFootScream said:

My anti-ice is on throughout the flight. I switch it on the ground already also I am a noob so I got no idea how to fly the CRJ properly. I am surprised I managed with the speed till 29000FT. Then I run out of speed and the jet won't climb.

 

Wing Anti-Ice will cost about 5% N1 (thrust).  If you are not in icing conditions (i.e. not in the clouds), you can turn it off and gain more thrust.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FlyByWire128 said:

 

Wing Anti-Ice will cost about 5% N1 (thrust).  If you are not in icing conditions (i.e. not in the clouds), you can turn it off and gain more thrust.

Thanks for the tip. Next flight will not turn anti-ice on.

 

Does the CRJ get an ice warning?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SixFootScream said:

Thanks for the tip. Next flight will not turn anti-ice on.

 

Does the CRJ get an ice warning?

 

Yes, you should get a Yellow Caution message on the ECAS and a light on the OH panel.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just did another flight this time at MTOW set in both the load manager and the FS menu (the load manager basically doesn't work), from sea level to 360 took 17 mins and 40 seconds at ISA +5.  Climb rates were insane, 4500 fpm below 10000, around 3000-4000 fpm all the way until FL200.  Above FL 200 I was seeing 2500-3000 FPM, then above FL 320 climb rates were around 1100 fpm.   C'mon guys, this is in no way realistic and yes I have the flight model set correctly in the sim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, metzgergva said:

Could you post here a  couple of screenshot of the 3 displays during the climb. 

Sure, also I just learned that the weight in the fs payload manager are to be ignored, previously I was setting them to match the efb.  Using only the efb did help the issue slightly but climb rates were still too high below FL 200.   You will notice that the mach number is set at .77 but the aircraft is maintaining .745, that's because for some reason spd mode doesn't work properly with mach on this aircraft so if I want .74 I need to set .77.   18.5 minutes to FL 360 from sea level at ISA +10 to +5 is much too fast at MTOW.  Hopefully this is something that can be fixed soon.

 

 

high.PNG

high2.PNG

low.PNG

mid.PNG

mid2.PNG

mid3.PNG

weights.PNG

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

I agree that this climb is too much. I checked the N1 settings and they seem to be correct. If I fly it, I do not get this performance. Can you confirm that the weights shown in the UI are really MTOW?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, metzgergva said:

I agree that this climb is too much. I checked the N1 settings and they seem to be correct. If I fly it, I do not get this performance. Can you confirm that the weights shown in the UI are really MTOW?

The MSFS UI?  The weights in the MSFS UI do not match the efb, but as you can see the efb shows the airplane right at MTOW.  If i manually edit the MSFS payload menu to match the efb the aircraft climbs even faster.  In another post JRBarrett confirmed to me that I should never enter weights manually into the msfs menu, just use the efb and then click the set payload in simulator button.  I always click that button twice as it seems to be incomplete after one click.    Im surprised to hear that you dont get this kind of performance though, even if you watch "the dude's" tutorials on youtube you can see that his aircraft is climbing at 3000-4000 fpm through the teens.  A few others have also mentioned on this forum that the climb rate of the crj is too high, especially in the lower altitudes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

As you confirmed that the UI has a different wright than the EFB, the error is there. The UI shows the actual loading that the sim uses. If the EFB values are not properly transferred, then this is a different issue that some have seen. We have that issue registered to work upon.

I would suggest that you try your MTOW test flight by loading via the UI with the maximums per stations as indicated. Do bot use the load slider.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, metzgergva said:

As you confirmed that the UI has a different wright than the EFB, the error is there. The UI shows the actual loading that the sim uses. If the EFB values are not properly transferred, then this is a different issue that some have seen. We have that issue registered to work upon.

I would suggest that you try your MTOW test flight by loading via the UI with the maximums per stations as indicated. Do bot use the load slider.

 

I'll try this again with the UI only and not the efb.  Because if I use the efb first then manually edit the UI to match, the climb performance is even less realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, metzgergva said:

As you confirmed that the UI has a different wright than the EFB, the error is there. The UI shows the actual loading that the sim uses. If the EFB values are not properly transferred, then this is a different issue that some have seen. We have that issue registered to work upon.

I would suggest that you try your MTOW test flight by loading via the UI with the maximums per stations as indicated. Do bot use the load slider.

 

 

Ok so doing the flight again manually entering weights in the UI, no EFB, the airplane still climbs too fast.  ISA was around +10 most of the way, and we had an increasing tailwind this time which should have actually made it climb slower bit its still a rocket ship.  As you can see, 16 mins 50 seconds to fl 360 at mtow.  Please try again to replicate and tune this behavior, what I am seeing matches what I can see in every youtube video of this addon as well, including the tutorial flights.  I'm not the only one who has this issue I just suspect there are a lot of newbies using this aircraft on msfs that just dont know this is not realistic so it goes unreported.

 

 

low.PNG

low2.PNG

mid.PNG

high.PNG

weights.PNG

final.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

The issue you have raised is recognized and it is indeed a better climb performance than the real aircraft. It is not as dramatic as you sound if you arrive at FL 360 while you should in the same time arrive at FL310. Please recognize that the atmospheric model and the flight model in MSFS are completely new and temperature has a big influence. As the cruise data at the typical flight level is very accurate, they have more importance over the climb performance as they define much more the flight planning versus actual consumption.
Therefore the focus has been on that aspect. 
As the engine parameters throughout the climb seem to be in line with the FADEC calculation, I would need to find the reason for the better performance in the flight model or engine performance. This will take some time to complete. I cannot offer a short term solution as this is not caused by a single variable to tweak.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, metzgergva said:

The issue you have raised is recognized and it is indeed a better climb performance than the real aircraft. It is not as dramatic as you sound if you arrive at FL 360 while you should in the same time arrive at FL310. Please recognize that the atmospheric model and the flight model in MSFS are completely new and temperature has a big influence. As the cruise data at the typical flight level is very accurate, they have more importance over the climb performance as they define much more the flight planning versus actual consumption.
Therefore the focus has been on that aspect. 
As the engine parameters throughout the climb seem to be in line with the FADEC calculation, I would need to find the reason for the better performance in the flight model or engine performance. This will take some time to complete. I cannot offer a short term solution as this is not caused by a single variable to tweak.

Understood, I am glad that the issue has been acknowledged and is being worked on.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...