Climb Rates

[Nano]

I believe I have 1.4.1 working pretty good and have begun doing some flights.

One thing I am noticing is that the aircraft appears way under powered. Is this the case? I'm currently climbing thru 30K feet with a climb of 700 fpm and 90.5 set in the thrust limit. If I use the climb thrust from the FMS (87.2), it wouldn't even climb at 27K. My current weight is 41085 lbs. Not really that heavy.

Also, the CRZ power setting is higher that the CLB power setting 88.0 vs 87.2. That doesn't seem right. These numbers come from my takeoff temperature of -8 deg C. as the OAT. Am I doing this correct? My experience is the TO power should be the highest, then CLB then MCT, then CRZ in that order.

Any experience would be appreciated.

TIA.

[skipper63]

Hi,

I think those N1 numbers according to temperature are not really working properly yet. If I use them, I do have the same problems that you just described.

I set my N1 limit for take off to around 95-96,5% and basically use that to climb up to my flight level. I know that these settings are probably too high, but a climbing time of 30+ minutes to FL330 or 340 also does not seem correct either. During cruise, depending on winds I have the N1 set at anything between 88 to around 93% to be able to cruise at mach 0.74-76.

The fuel burn during climb is too high also. On short flights for my VA, my fuel burn is always way higher than the briefing, which is fairly acurate. On flights over 2 hours, the fuel burn is much closer to what the briefing says.

[guym-p]

My experience is the TO power should be the highest, then CLB then MCT, then CRZ in that order.

I would swap the middle settings in your example. Maximum continuous thrust and maximum climb thrust could conceivably have the same value, but climb thrust could not be higher than MCT.

[aviatop]

CRJ-200 under XP10 is overpowered, it is true and Javier is waiting for a stable version to work with this problem. In XP9 it is ok, I think. Flying it IRL and compare with this model have no questions about it's engine power. But consumption... I've opened a topic here about consumption and you can search it, no need to retelling a hole topic on few words here.

As for me I have set up a parameters of consumption in PM, logging Fuel Flow in every stage of IRL flight few times and then trying to catch the right parameter in X-plane.

Edited January 29, 2012 by aviatop

[Japo32]

it is overpowered in the ground.. for taxi.. but really not so much.. and I would even say it is the same when flying. I try several flights.. and yes.. the taxi is so sensitive now.. but the take of is normal as usual.. and the altitude catch the same..... so I feel confortable with it. But I will wait for an stable release to start testing deeply....

Edited January 29, 2012 by Japo32

[aviatop]

it is overpowered in the ground.. for taxi.. but really not so much.. and I would even say it is the same when flying. I try several flights.. and yes.. the taxi is so sensitive now.. but the take of is normal as usual.. and the altitude catch the same..... so I feel confortable with it. But I will wait for an stable release to start testing deeply....

Oh, and my opinioin is vice-versa. In XP10 taxiing is looking so real now! In Real Life CRJ taxiing on IDLE (first movement on about 30% N1), then setting power to IDLE and use brakes for decreasing ground speed, that is rising rather rapidly. In this way XP10 is much more realistic with this aircraft than XP9. But when you enter the runway and setting up TO power CRJ in XP10 becomes a rocket. It's absolutely easy to takeoff with 70-75% N1 in it with the real one t/o distance. In XP9 this stage (and the others of course, except taxiiing) looking more realistic.

[Japo32]

In my takeoffs I had to apply almost throttle to takeoff....

Anyway, note there is nothing I can do in planemaker, because I cannot reduce the thrust per engine, because is set as the real one, and if I do the plane wont be able to reach its altitudes... Austin is the one to rework worth this.

[aviatop]

In my takeoffs I had to apply almost throttle to takeoff....

Anyway, note there is nothing I can do in planemaker, because I cannot reduce the thrust per engine, because is set as the real one, and if I do the plane wont be able to reach its altitudes... Austin is the one to rework worth this.

Yeah, I know. That's why I'am not hurry up to migrate to XP10;)

[Kyle Sanders]

Yeah, I know. That's why I'am not hurry up to migrate to XP10;)

have you emailed XP about this? i want to fly XP10 but if it is having problems like this and they don't know about it.. it will NEVER get fixed

Thanks

[Japo32]

The users are the ones that have to, if you feel something is wrong...

In my case I don't feel unconfortable with the engines right now in xp10. They are different.. but I preffer to stabilize all and know how it works.. but for sure it don't make me not use it.

As said.. I made several flights with the new engines and the only issue I found was the taxi one... Applied full power to takeoff and toke the normal as always to take off.. and the climb was satisficed also.

In plane maker if you open the plane, you will find all the paramenters. Any user can modify them.... and try.. but right now I don't feel confident playing with it... because as said before I was satisphiced from what I saw.

So you only have to play with different parameters.. and I think the only I would change is the "critical altitude" But as you can see in plane maker that one is cero.. because when I set several values.. that was a rocket for sure in the first stages.. so I left to cero.

Maybe compresor area could be better (I toke from a drawing making area calculations...), but max allowable thrust is like the manuals.. so it cannot be lowered, and rpm is the same..... So no much to touch there.

Maybe max forwards throttle number.. put lower.. but if you do.. you will find problems reaching the altitudes the plane do now.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Japo32