Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm currently enroute on my second flight today and just spotted an anomaly that I can't explain. As you can see on my pictures I planned for FL380, but both LEGS and DIR INTC pages indicate that I should be at FL370. Why is that?

20220112_124738.jpg

20220112_124847.jpg

20220112_124745.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CRJay said:

Oh nice, that's one I reported 1,5yr+ back in the P3D "Professional" version. Fun to see it was never fixed and just ported over to MSFS :P.

I really hope we get that update they've been talking about soon. This bird is a joy to fly but there're just too many annoying bugs that have a negative impact on the experience. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past, we were told that the airplane could not fly higher. Because the performance data they had did not include levels higher than that. So they told a bunch of real CRJ pilots that it could not fly higher and the FMS would not accept it... And this statement was given after RW CRJ pilots told them that that was incorrect.
 

Would love to find that thread again, but it may have been deleted, or at least I can't find it at the moment. But just for a laugh;

 

 

Same issue from Oct. 2020 in the P3D version. You can see mentioned there as well that it has been reported already and some comment was made about it by the dev but the thread was not found then either :P . Honestly, I hope no one is putting their faith in the to-do lists becoming all-done lists, the track record is not exactly great. And I say this while honestly hoping to see this CRJ be as good as it can be, but have kind of given up seeing history repeat itself with every release.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CRJay said:

Honestly, I hope no one is putting their faith in the to-do lists becoming all-done lists

I have no issues with wrong fonts on certain displays etc, this is not a level D simulation. However, I do not like when a developer implements a function/feature and then refrain from completing it. That's not fair to the customers that bought the product assuming that feature was included. In volume 1 of the documents they state the following:

 

Accurate systems programming reflects behaviour of the real CRJ within normal operations.

 

Since I'm not a RW CRJ pilot I don't know if FL380 is outside of "normal operations" but I doubt it, so by ignoring this and other similar bugs they don't stick to what they promise. That's somewhat surprising to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I filed a ticket and this was the answer I got:

 

This probably means that you are too heavy for FL380 - did you check this with lower weights and in accordance with your MAX FL?

 

I don't have access to the documentation at the moment so I can't check, but according to SimBrief my TOW was approximately 32.6 tons. Perhaps that was too much for FL380? I will check as soons as I can but @KuntaKinte or @CRJay maybe know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you are too heavy for that flight level, it will not just select another level for you, but show you a message on the CDU display like "UNABLE CRZ ALT". 

 

Depending on atmospheric conditions, you should be able to reach FL380 already at 33000kg actual weight. Taking off with 32600kg and burning (optimistic guesstimate) about 800-1000kg during the 20-25 minutes up to cruise level, you should be quite easily able to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zenit_swe said:

I just looked it up in the quick reference and according to the cruise table for CRJ-900 FL380 shouldn't be a problem even if I was as heavy as 39000kg.

crj_cruise.png

 

If that is from the Aerosoft documentation, I would not use that. Here is the altitude capability table for Mach 0.77 from the QRH1 PERF section (our procedures are 250/10000ft - 290/M.74 up to FL360 and above FL360 M.77).

 

altcapability.thumb.jpg.592d16764420a5c9425dd3f02993f034.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CRJay said:

If that is from the Aerosoft documentation, I would not use that

How come? That's the only documents I have and I assume they modeled the aircraft based on those numbers?

 

I don't know what the pressure altitude was at FL380, but since ISA was around -5 degrees it shouldn't have been any problem to fly at that level if I interpret your table correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zenit_swe said:

How come? That's the only documents I have and I assume they modeled the aircraft based on those numbers?

 

I don't know what the pressure altitude was at FL380, but since ISA was around -5 degrees it shouldn't have been any problem to fly at that level if I interpret your table correctly.

 

Well, I don't have the plane installed at the moment so I can't check their manuals (I own the MS store version). But if the real plane is unable to go to FL380 at 39000kg (well above max ramp weight) I am a bit suspicious of how they get fuel flow for that combination :P . It also does not seem to be taken from any chart in the performance sections of the real plane's QRH that I am familiar with, so I have no clue where those numbers come from. Personally, I would not use them for those reasons. But I have the benefit of having real documents available to me, so that is cheating a bit.

 

The pressure altitude at FL380 is 38000ft. And indeed, with an ISA deviation of -5C you can probably expect even better performance than the most left column for 500fpm @ M.77, so FL380 should not be an issue at all.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...