Aerosoft CRJ - new preview screenshots [Jan 29]

[omarsmak30 4,068]

14 minutes ago, pmplayer said:

Nice Thanks -  awesome and exciting, the first study level Plane for MSFS 🙃

 

cheers 😉

Nope is not study level. It is a high fidelity aircraft simulating day to day systems. 

[Los 416]

13 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

Nope is not study level. It is a high fidelity aircraft simulating day to day systems. 

I guess this gets closer to a definition of “study level” requiring failures to be modeled (either purposely to run emergency procedures or by happenstance by failing to follow SOP) otherwise then as you say just high fidelity of day to day operations.

I like that!

[sd_flyer 6,037]

25 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

Nope is not study level. It is a high fidelity aircraft simulating day to day systems. 

It current state of affairs in MSFS 3rd party aircraft business "study level" can be defined as all system working as expected with near 99% functionality while airplane handling resembles RL LOL

[omarsmak30 4,068]

26 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

It current state of affairs in MSFS 3rd party aircraft business "study level" can be defined as all system working as expected with near 99% functionality while airplane handling resembles RL LOL

Lol i second that. Once PMDG and FSLabs enter the game, then definition will change lol 😂

 

[Gridley 257]

Does anyone know if it's supposed to have a fully functional realistic FMC?

[NightOfDreams 370]

Isn't this like the 12th time they've released preview pictures? When's the dang plane coming out already??? Gosh this better live up to all the hype..

Edited January 30, 2021 by NightOfDreams

[JRBarrett 3,069]

6 hours ago, captain420 said:

does the CRJ fly and operate more like a boeing, airbus or cj4?

A real CRJ would probably have more in common (operationally) with the CJ-4 than a Boeing, and would be very different than an Airbus. There are similarities in the look and feel of the flight displays and FMS, they are both Rockwell Collins systems, but the CRJ uses the older Proline 4, and the CJ-4 uses the much newer Proline 21

Both airplanes use FADEC controlled engines with no auto throttle, but fixed thrust detents for TOGA and climb power. 

The CJ-4 has full VNAV capability, but the CRJ has only “advisory” VNAV, which is only used in descents. It basically gives a descent cue on the PFD that is flown like a glideslope, but the pilot has to manually keep the cue centered by varying vertical speed and thrust, and the pilot is fully responsible for meeting and speed or altitude constraints on a STAR.

There are a very small number of CRJs that have an option for coupled VNAV, but the great majority do not.

In both airplanes, controlling engine thrust to achieve a specific speed in cruise is 100 percent manual.

The CRJ can be flown quite a bit faster than the CJ-4 ... up to Mach 0.82, but Mach 0.76 or 0.78 would be more typical and economical. The CJ-4 is limited to Mach 0.74

[JRBarrett 3,069]

1 hour ago, Gridley said:

Does anyone know if it's supposed to have a fully functional realistic FMC?

The existing P3D version does, though some functions are not quite “right”. Hopefully they are working on refining some of those features for the MSFS version. 

[cwburnett 1,809]

10 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

The CRJ can be flown quite a bit faster than the CJ-4 ... up to Mach 0.82, but Mach 0.76 or 0.78 would be more typical and economical. The CJ-4 is limited to Mach 0.74

Yup, the CRJ and the CJ4 are quite similar in terms of avionics and systems. Not that it really matters, but the CJ4 Mmo is actually M0.77 and it is typically cruised right at or just below 0.77 (people flying private jets see no reason to not ride the red line).

[JRBarrett 3,069]

1 minute ago, cwburnett said:

Yup, the CRJ and the CJ4 are quite similar in terms of avionics and systems. Not that it really matters, but the CJ4 Mmo is actually M0.77 and it is typically cruised right at or just below 0.77 (people flying private jets see no reason to not ride the red line).

Yes, in flying the WT CJ, I typically keep it pretty close to the line!

[captain420 3,099]

So basically the CJ4 is a baby CRJ with more advanced avionics? And if you know how to fly and operate a CJ4 then you would be right at home in a CRJ?

Edited January 30, 2021 by captain420

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, captain420 said:

So basically the CJ4 is a baby CRJ with more advanced avionics? And if you know how to fly and operate a CJ4 then you would be right at home in a CRJ?

Depends which CRJ as to the equipment it has on the flight deck, but also as to how and where they operate. The CRJ700/550 depicted in this new Aerosoft version is not the older CRJ 700 variant, it is the very latest one with the very latest avionics, so if you are familiar with modern jet avionics you'll not have any trouble with the CRJ.

Originally the CRJ has its roots in a Learjet design which was picked up by Canadair/Bombardier, to eventually become the CRJ100/200, which had 50 seats. It was subsequently developed into the 700, 900 and 1000 variants. This is why it looks a bit like a big stretched LearJet, because that's what it originally was. But before the bigger versions were developed, the CRJ 100 and 200 were very important for large airline operations, because with only 50 seats, these smaller CRJs were allowed to be operated with just one cabin crew member (you need at least one cabin crew per every fifty passengers), and another (controversial) difference was with regard to the airline scope clauses which these smaller aeroplanes fitted into.

If you are not familiar with scope clauses, these are staffing/operational contract limits which typically come into play when big airlines set up a smaller regional version of their airline, such as United Airlines setting up United Express - United was the launch customer for the CRJ550 and the CRJ550's spec was basically created to fit their scope clauses. Typically, budget feeder airlines are operated by a regional airline rather than by the main airline company itself. This is why you see things such as Aer Lingus liveried ATR-72s with 'operated by Stobart Air' on them, BA Dornier 328s operated by Sun Air, and SAS CRJ900s which don't have a Scandinavian country registration prefix and so on. The reason major airlines do this, is so that they can get around pilot union rules and pay scales and all that kind of stuff, in order to have cheaper operations at a regional level. But in doing this, they don't get things all their own way with everything, there are limits on the scope of what these contract regionals can operate (hence the name of these scope clauses) and with the CRJ, it means a lot of major airlines can't operate the CRJ700 as a regional feeder because it has between 66 and 77 seats, and it has an MTOW of 75,000 lbs, whereas United's scope rules limit the MTOW of such stuff operated in the US as a regional feeder, to 65,000 lbs. So to get around this, United ordered a slightly hamstrung CRJ 700 version with different seating, less fuel capacity (but way more luggage capacity) and it was certified as a different type, this being the 550.

This means many pilots are paid less for flying the 550 than they are for flying the 700, even though they are basically the same plane. The 550 appears a bit more luxurious in the cabin because it has a cabin capable of fitting 74 seats the same as the CRJ700, but with only fifty seats actually fitted in it, some of which are first class. There is a limit to that pretence of luxury however, because the 700 which the 550 is based on only has one toilet, so the people in the 'posh seats' in a 550 have to share the bog with the scumbags in the cheap seats lol; only the 900 and 1000 CRJ variants have two toilets.

As noted, up in the cockpit the two aeroplane types (and they are genuinely two different types as far as crew qualifications go) are otherwise the same aeroplane systems-wise. But as mentioned you'd get paid less for driving a CRJ550 than you would for driving a CRJ700 and you'd be landing at smaller regional airports more often in a 550 than you would in a 700.

So going back to the original question, you do operate them like some other jets, and like a lot of regional types, they are fairly easy to get to grips with in terms of learning the systems, but if you like simulating realism then you would operate the Aerosoft's included two variants in this forthcoming package differently from one another even though the cockpits are basically the same. Thus you are more likely to operate the 550 version like a CJ4 than the 700, in spite of there not being much difference between the two up at the pointy end, apart from range.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Chock

[JRBarrett 3,069]

1 hour ago, captain420 said:

So basically the CJ4 is a baby CRJ with more advanced avionics? And if you know how to fly and operate a CJ4 then you would be right at home in a CRJ?

The CRJ has more systems that need to be manually configured for flight than the CJ-4 - three hydraulic systems, all of which have to be set to the proper operating mode before takeoff - two stabilizer trim computers that need to be energized, two yaw dampers, two air conditioning packs that need to be turned on before takeoff. (Most of these systems are automatic on the CJ-4) 

The CRJ has leading edge slats, and 4 flap positions as opposed to the CJ-4’s two

These CRJ systems are emulated in the existing P3D version of the airplane, so I assume they will exist on the MSFS version. That appears to be the case based on the screen shots.

One other difference is that the CRJ has thrust reversers, while the CJ-4 does not.

The CJ-4 normally climbs with the power levers in the fixed climb detent, using IAS hold at 240 knots until high enough for climbing at a fixed Mach speed. The CRJ climbs the same way, except it typically uses 290 knots with power levers in the climb detent. Both aircraft typically descend using vertical speed mode. The CJ-4 can descend in full VNAV, with automatic level-off to meet crossing restrictions, while the CRJ pilot has to manually manage constraints. Both aircraft have to be throttled back manually once in cruise with the pilot responsible for managing thrust to maintain the proper cruise speed.

The FMS programming is similar in both aircraft, since they are both Rockwell Collins designs.

So, yes, the CJ-4 (especially the WT version) would be a ideal aircraft to learn procedures that would also apply specifically to the CRJ

[z06z33 763]

With the fact that my system can’t even run GA planes at 1440p consistently at 30 FPS... I have a feeling the CRJ will be released as a PowerPoint lol... My system is no slouch 8700k@4.8 ghz and a GTX 1080. I just ordered a RTX 3090 so we will see if that changes things.

Edited January 30, 2021 by z06z33

[z06z33 763]

Duplicate post.

Edited January 30, 2021 by z06z33