and the jetstream 41 project? Was it cancelled?I impatiently wait the 737NG, but I like very much turbo prop also and I cannot see the project on your site.....

Nameless(Forum rules state that you gotta at least sign your posts with AT LEAST your First name)I believe PMDG have not cancelled the J41,more like postponed it till after the 737NG development...RegardsJohnhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk 650Hours ;)P 2.53 GHZ512 RAMWINXPGFORCE 4 128MB Ti4600http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

;-)(Just politely re-iterating the forum policy on names....thanks for minding it in the future! No worries about being a first timer tho- it happens!)The J-41 development was superceded by the 737NG as we felt it was important to step into the MSFS pool with a more mainstream product than a short haul turboprop. (Even though I happen to be a big fan of this particular short-haul turboprop!) :-lolOnce we get through the NG series, we'll give you an update on the state of this particular bird! Thanks for asking, however! Glad to know you are interested!

Are you planning on doing the super 31 as well?That's the only version of this plane I've actually flown on and I think it looks a little prettier, more "sportscar" like!Derek

Derek-No. The J-31 and J-41 aircraft are entirely different and almost entirely unrelated so development of the J-41 will not spill into a J-31.The J-31 might LOOK more like a sports-car, but having logged time as a First Officer in that vibrating, underpowered death-trap, I can assure you that it isn't. The J-31 is lucky it can get out of it's own way on most days- and with one engine out you essentially flip a coin as to whether or not you can maintain altitude....Not a nice little airplane by ANY stretch of the imagination! :-lol

>Not a nice little airplane by ANY stretch of the imagination! >:-lol>he, he, I guess an unexpected answer .. :-lolMichael J.

Actually, the flight I was on (American Eagle from Nashville) was delayed for mechanical reasons... so not quite unexpected... but it's got me curious. I thought the 41 was a stretched version of the 31 with updated avionics. Is there more to it than this?Thanks for the infoDerek

I'd rather drive than fly in one of those turbo-prop death traps..especially after the tragedy at KCLT.

Eric,Lets not fall into extreme and bad-mouth turboprops. There is nothing inherently more dangerous in turboprops than in jets. Maybe companies that own and operate them are more dangerous but this is a different story. And turboprops are still very efficient people movers - in terms of cents per mile.Michael J.

Eric-(Disclaimer: I am picking on you. I don't normally do this- but I'm going to in this case.)>I'd rather drive than fly in one of those turbo-prop death>traps..especially after the tragedy at KCLT.This quote is highly indicative of a complete lack of understanding in the operation and safety record of modern aircraft and operating procedures. Surprises me actually, coming from you.....You categorically condemn all turbo-prop aircraft based on a single accident at KCLT. Let me point out the flaw in this approach to logic:1) In early 2003, a B-1900D crashed on takeoff from KCLT. Currently it is believed that this crash was the result of improper maintenance techniques that caused the full range of elevator movement to be unavailable. This condition was aggravated, it is believed, by a critical weight/CG loading condition which is otherwise normal- and the result was the loss of the airplane, it's passengers and crew. The failure is not, as you would suggest, related to it's propulsion systems.2) In 1999, Alaska Airlines lost an MD-80 as the result of what was believed to be improper maintenance techniques that caused the horizontal stabilizer to cease functioning normally in flight. The result was teh loss of the airplane, it's passengers and crew. Again, the failure was not related to the airplane's propulsion system.Would this mean that jets are also not safe in light of the accident in KCLT?To carry the logic argument further-3) Lauda Airliens lost a 767-300 when a reverser sleeve deployed in flight tearing the engine from the wing and causing catastrophic damage to the airplane at altitude. This failure does not, however, indicate that the 767-300 (or all jets) is an inherently unsafe aircraft. 4) In 1989 a UAL DC-10 suffered an uncontained turbine failure and crashed in Sioux City, IA. This does not indicate that DC-10s (or all jets) are at risk of suffering similar failures.5) In 2000 (?) a DHL DC-8 departed Long Beach (?) CA and pitched into a nose up attitude as a result of freight having rolled to the back of the airplane when loaders failed to secure it prior to departure. The airplane stalled and crashed, resulting in the catastrophic loss of the ship and crew. This does not indicate that the DC-8 (or all jets) are inherently unsafe.According to most recent USDOT data, the apparent accident rate for turboprop aircraft operated by Part 121 operators in the USA is congruent with the turbojet accident rate. Given that I have flown turboprop aircraft some 3000+ hours in the past few years, I can assure you that the propulsion system does not make an airplane any more/less safe. I wouldn't risk my mother's only son if I felt otherwise.....In spite of my own tongue-in-cheek commentary on the J-31, the regulatory bodies that oversee civil aviation go to great lengths to ensure that the aircraft used to transport passengers meet very high standards for safety and redundancy. This level of safety can be erroded by poor maintenance, poor training, poor situational awareness or even poor judgement.... Regardless of the type of propulsion system.So in summary- if turboprops as a group were unsafe- you wouldn't have an opportunity to fly on them.

Derek->I thought the 41 was a>stretched version of the 31 with updated avionics. Is there>more to it than this?Yes- the two airplanes are dramatically different. Although I'm not quoting official information- I have heard that the component commonality between these two aircraft is less than 5%. The J-31 was originally designed by Hawker Siddley and fitted to the airline market as an afterthought.The J-41 was designed from the outset as a high speed commuter turboprop and reflects a significant amount of refinement over the J-31. Obviously, length and span changed- but beyond that the design of the wing is quite different. The engines are ENTIRELY different and significantly more powerful (1600 shp as opposed to 900 shp). The engine counter-rotate using 5 bladed scimitar blades as opposed to 4 bladed paddle props used on the -31.The pneumatic, pressurization, hydraulic and electrical systems are entirely different and fit more in line with the types of systems installed on most modern airliners. The J-31 had the kinds of systems youd expect to find on most general aviation airplanes....The avionics are significantly upgraded- and the airplane is actually quite nice to fly from up front.There is a significant difference in speed between the two types. In fact- when I first moved from the -31 to the -41, I was surprised at how much more quickly we covered terrain!All in all- a fun airplane to fly. I'm glad I'm on it. I will admit that I'm not a fan of riding around on one as a passenger tho....the seats in the cabin get a bit uncomfortable after 90 minutes- and our line likes to use the airplane on flights slightly longer than this... ;-)

What company are you flying the Jetstream 41 for?

I think RR flies for this subsidiary of United Airlines (paint scheme matches United's) out of Washington Dulles. Forgot the name - you can probably find it on the web. I fly into KIAD on business every 3 months or so - would love to hook up with RR on one of those days ...I will be there July 14-18.Michael J.

Michael J. Atlantic Coast Airlines is the name of the outfit.... Keep me posted on your trip schedule... If i happen to be around at the right time- we'll grab a cup!