Calling- REAL WORLD CRJ2 Pilots

[Kyle Sanders]

Hello to the GREAT CRJ-200 community.

 

I am looking for real world CRJ-200 pilots to take a look at my planning in a specific situation and be able to tell me if I am doing something wrong.

 

Please reference this discussion and then contact me with any questions. I will provide real world pilots of a step by step instruction of how I came up with my values upon request. (it will take a while to write it but if it means that I can learn how to fly the CRJ better and more accurately, then I am willing to do that) It would be a shame to have to stop flying the JROLLON CRJ2 if I can't figure this out 

 

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/4405-solved-inaccurate-performance-vs-real-world-charts/

[horani]

I do not know exactly what you mean. However first of - in the RW the CRJ2 is not flying anywhere close to the FLs you'v mentioned... 365? C'mon...

Edited January 3, 2013 by horani

[Kyle Sanders]

I do not know exactly what you mean. However first of - in the RW the CRJ2 is not flying anywhere close to the FLs you'v mentioned... 365? C'mon...

1) you are correct, I usually see FL for CRZ in between FL240-FL320. It is rare but I have seen them higher.

 

2) Regardless of what normal AIRLINER COMPANIES do.. I am going by what the CHARTS say it can do. My KATL-CYYZ trip with 32PAX and 28 pieces of luggage then plus the fuel and all other calculations, the real world charts say that FL380 is not only capable, it is the Optimum Cruise Altitude for that weight and ISA deviation. I had to take it down to FL370 due to SWEVEN/NEODD rules. but the CRJ did not even make that. It caped off at 300ft/min ceiling at FL260.

 

3) are you a real world CRJ2 pilot?

 

4) I would be happy to share my real world charts with you for review but it cant be here due to copywrite.

[horani]

Kyle,

 

I am RW pilot, however not certified for CRJ2. I've never seen them above FL280, they don't climb very well above FL220. CRJ2 is very underpowered and theory here is different than the real aircraft. Surely you can try anything in sim. I would be interested to see the chart saying FL380 is optimal cruise for even empty CRJ200. BTW, which "real world" charts are you reffering to?

 

It might be helpful if somebody certified for CRJ will step in here.

Edited January 3, 2013 by horani

[Kyle Sanders]

Kyle,

 

I am RW pilot, however not certified for CRJ2. I've never seen them above FL280, they don't climb very well above FL220. CRJ2 is very underpowered and theory here is different than the real aircraft. Surely you can try anything in sim. I would be interested to see the chart saying FL380 is optimal cruise for even empty CRJ200. BTW, which "real world" charts are you reffering to?

 

It might be helpful if somebody certified for CRJ will step in here.

Horani,

 

I have looked at EVERY one of these flights and 90% of them were above F280. The top i found was FL350 in there.

 

The real world charts that im referring to is a download that I have. I will give it to you but i need an email address to send to. I am not allowed to post copywrite material here (my first post i referenced in this thread had some explaining my flight planning but was removed from the thread)

 

Edited January 3, 2013 by Kyle

[horani]

Kyle,

 

I had a look randomly on those flights and MOST of them are bellow 28,000 feet filed. The only exception is SkyWest at 33,000 feet KMSP-KAPN i.e. Air Canada, for example, is flying them bellow FL280 as are most European operators. I really think that in the real world they do not go above 28,000 feet usually. I do not know what to say except for what has been said already. I am not CRJ2 pilot, but I've seen the almost everyday as well as their pilots. I know there are real world CRJ2 pilots active on another forums, please search and try to get in touch with them.

 

Regards

 

Horani

[cessna729]

Hi Kyle, as an ex-Pro RW pilot (long time back and not CRJ2 rated ), I'd have to agree with horani, have you tried:

Beware they have been known to "eat sim pilots for breakfast"

But if you manage to get some good stories and find out more, I'd be interested to learn how CRJ2 rated crews deal with this bird!

Unfortunately it was this event were a RW crew were trying to get to FL410 "cos the charts said it could", that put a big "dent" in the CRJ's safety record (no pun intended). Note: You might have to register to see the full thread (it's an achieve of the posts as they came in, and is 225 posts long on that thread alone).

cessna729.

Edited January 3, 2013 by cessna729

[arb65912]

Wow, Cessna729, what a great site I was not aware of.... thank you for sharing.

 

Cheers, AJ 

[Kyle Sanders]

Kyle,

 

I had a look randomly on those flights and MOST of them are bellow 28,000 feet filed. The only exception is SkyWest at 33,000 feet KMSP-KAPN i.e. Air Canada, for example, is flying them bellow FL280 as are most European operators. I really think that in the real world they do not go above 28,000 feet usually. I do not know what to say except for what has been said already. I am not CRJ2 pilot, but I've seen the almost everyday as well as their pilots. I know there are real world CRJ2 pilots active on another forums, please search and try to get in touch with them.

 

Regards

 

Horani

Horani, like I said before, it is not so much as what other airliners do for their routes, im trying to get the CRJ2 to act like the charts SAY it should. If they do not usually fly that high, the I can live with that, but I want an accurate flight planning charts for the JROLLON CRJ2.

Further more, there ARE flights that go to higher like you said, the FL330 guy... that ONE exception is all that counts.. he went up there.... Now HOW did he go up there?

 

Hi Kyle, as an ex-Pro RW pilot (long time back and not CRJ2 rated ), I'd have to agree with horani, have you tried:

Beware they have been known to "eat sim pilots for breakfast"

But if you manage to get some good stories and find out more, I'd be interested to learn how CRJ2 rated crews deal with this bird!

Unfortunately it was this event were a RW crew were trying to get to FL410 "cos the charts said it could", that put a big "dent" in the CRJ's safety record (no pun intended). Note: You might have to register to see the full thread (it's an achieve of the posts as they came in, and is 225 posts long on that thread alone).

cessna729.

I thank you for the link to the forum there, but im not so sure I want to go in there and be all "Well my sim does this".... Not sure if they would understand what im trying to do.

I have heard of that event with the crash on the empty CRJ2. Horrible event... but regardless... as I told Horani, I still want to be able to ACCURATELY plan my flights.... I want to be able to:

Know EXACTLY how much im going to weight for Ramp, Taxi, Ramp, Takeoff, Thrust Reduction, How long it is going to take to CLB to CRZ ALT... WHAT my CRZ ALT will be for MAX efficientcy... My DES planned and know how much fuel i will use for EACH phase of the flight, thrust limits for each phase (i know it is already simulated), How am i going to climb?- 250/290/M.74?.... 250/M.74?... 250/320/M.77? What the time and fuel needed for each version with regards to pressure altitude and ISA deviation.... I can keep going... but i think you guys get the idea.

[Kyle Sanders]

Additinally- the airliners have dispatchers to do ALL these calculations for them. I dont have that.

 

The dispatchers have software that does all these calculations for them. I dont have that.

 

 

What I "DO" have is the paper work that the software is built off of. I have the time to sit down for a couple hours, assess the winds, ISA deviations, Pressure altitudes, Weight and Balance, ect... So i now want to be able to take that information and input it into charts then FLY the CRJ the way it is SUPPOSE to be flown.

 

 

I think that sums it up lol

[horani]

Kyle,

 

in case you want to accurately plan your flights, you should be aware of each aircraft's limitations in real world operations. It is not about what the plane should be capable of on the paper, but what it really is considering all circumstances.

You would not believe what, for example, T7 can (should) be capable of based on paper qualifications. Does anybody push it to these limits in RW? Absolutely not!

 

So that either:

 

1. You would like to find out what CRJ2 is capable of based on paper qualifications for which sim is great as you can break many safety considerations. You've already experienced nosedive from FL350...

or

2. You want to fly this bird as close as possible to RW, as it is SUPPOSED to be flown. In such a case you will not push it that far and therefore the FL280 (about) would be your limit.

Edited January 3, 2013 by horani

[Cooley]

Kyle -

I have a CL-65 type rating and flew CRJ200 for regional airline for three years.  I can tell you that we routinely flew the CRJ above FL280.  It really comes down to weight, temperature and stage length.  Most of the regional flights are short distances (> 500 nm) so a lot of the planned altitudes are between FL220 and FL280.  We had several flights that went from East Coast cities to the mid-West and Southeast planned at FL350.  I never took the aircraft to FL410, but on a cold day with light payload the CRJ can make FL410.  After the CRJ crashed due to duel-engine flame out at FL410 the aircraft was restricted to FL370.

 

The trick to getting the CRJ climb above FL280 is to fly fast at lower altitudes.  You must fly over 300+ kts from 10,000 ft.  If you fly the standard climb profile at 280 kts the aircraft will never make it above FL310.  It comes down energy management by keeping the aircraft speed up for as long as possible. 

[horani]

Cooley,

Edited January 3, 2013 by horani

[Cooley]

Cooley,

Yes?

[Kyle Sanders]

Kyle,

 

in case you want to accurately plan your flights, you should be aware of each aircraft's limitations in real world operations. It is not about what the plane should be capable of on the paper, but what it really is considering all circumstances.

You would not believe what, for example, T7 can (should) be capable of based on paper qualifications. Does anybody push it to these limits in RW? Absolutely not!

 

So that either:

 

1. You would like to find out what CRJ2 is capable of based on paper qualifications for which sim is great as you can break many safety considerations. You've already experienced nosedive from FL350...

or

2. You want to fly this bird as close as possible to RW, as it is SUPPOSED to be flown. In such a case you will not push it that far and therefore the FL280 (about) would be your limit.

Sir, you do understand that I speak of "Optimum Cruise Altitude" for EFFICIENCY..... Not the "Maximum Operating Altitude"... Right? For example... that charts says at a weight of 21,000kg GW... and an ISA + 5c, you WANT to be at FL350 for optimum fuel burn vs output.... but at that weight and ISA deviation.... you technically COULD be at FL370 but you will not exactly get the best economy/efficiency. Therefore im not "PUSHING ITS LIMITS" at all... That would be going up to FL370... I want FL350 for efficiency for this example. Please send me an email address so I can show you the charts

 

Kyle -

I have a CL-65 type rating and flew CRJ200 for regional airline for three years.  I can tell you that we routinely flew the CRJ above FL280.  It really comes down to weight, temperature and stage length.  Most of the regional flights are short distances (> 500 nm) so a lot of the planned altitudes are between FL220 and FL280.  We had several flights that went from East Coast cities to the mid-West and Southeast planned at FL350.  I never took the aircraft to FL410, but on a cold day with light payload the CRJ can make FL410.  After the CRJ crashed due to duel-engine flame out at FL410 the aircraft was restricted to FL370.

 

The trick to getting the CRJ climb above FL280 is to fly fast at lower altitudes.  You must fly over 300+ kts from 10,000 ft.  If you fly the standard climb profile at 280 kts the aircraft will never make it above FL310.  It comes down energy management by keeping the aircraft speed up for as long as possible. 

Thank you for understanding my point. So you think I should use the 250/310/M.77 Climb Profile? I used that once... it took me for a very slow climb but at a higher pace. I guess that would be ok for a long distance flight... with that CLB profile it would take almost 30% of your trip disntace which is the limit for a selected altitude.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Kyle

[Cooley]

Yes, use the 250/310/M.77 Climb Profile when planned above FL280.  It does make for a slow climb, but it enables the aircraft to get to the higher altitudes.  I typically climbed at a higher rate to 10,000 FT, then transitions to 310 KTS / .77 M for the rest of the climb.  We used the slower climb profile for shorter trips to get to altitude quicker.

 

Another thing to consider is that shorter trips especially on the East Coast ATC has a lot of restrictions which most of the time limit your ability to fly at optimum cruise altitudes.

 

Also, once above 10,000 FT make sure you climb in V/S mode.  If you use SPEED mode the aircraft will pitch over to increase speed and sometimes that may result in a descent.

[Kyle Sanders]

Cooley! Thank you so much! This is VERY informative! I'm going to plan another flight issuing the new climb profile you suggested and the V/S method. I have actually been using only the SPD Mode for FLCH. I will be sure to do this.

Also, I have noticed in the JROLLON CRJ that the CLB thrust is always higher than the TO thrust. In other aircraft that I have studied... It is always the opposite. Is it like that in RW?

Do you fly the JROLLON CRJ? If so, do you plan your flights with the real world charts? (I can give them to you if you don't have them anymore) and does it act right for you?

[Cooley]

I do fly JRollon's CRJ (still think its the best x-plane aircraft with the J32 next)...I'm biased since I flew both aircraft.  If only Javier made the J41 I would be totally happy.

 

The climb thrust settings usually will be higher than the T.O. thrust settings.  This is especially true during hot days, in icing conditions or Flex takeoffs.  That being said, I don't believe the climb thrust will ALWAYS be higher. 

 

I already have the performance charts from my airline...thanks for the offer.

[arb65912]

Gentlemen,

 

Just for confirmation of what was discussed above.

 

I have climbed up to FL370  using VS = 1.0 at maximum power settings ( in green of course) and watching the speed.

 

At the final 1000' of climb U was at M.765

 

Worked as a  charm.

 

Thank you for a great discussion and explanations.

 

Cheers, AJ 

 

Edited January 5, 2013 by arb65912

[Kyle Sanders]

AJ,

At max thrust and a fixed V/S I'm "SURE" that it worked just fine but there are a few things that you have yet to consider:

1) using max thrust in a non-emergent situation is not a good thing. You will, over time, cause more maintainence on your aircraft and your airline will not be happy with you. Think of it as the redline on the RPMs of your car... Staying right below that redline is with the "safe operating limit" but would you want to do that all day everyday? How much fuel would you burn instead of being smart with speed vs efficiency?

2) what was your payload and GW?

3) what was your climb profile?

4) hand in hand with your GW- what was the ISA deviation and planned optimum cruise altitude?

5) head/tail winds?

I can keep going but I think you get the idea.

[arb65912]

Hi Kyle,

 

Good points. I was not concerned about the things you listed , I was just trying to see if the VS mode would get me to FL370 but I definitely agree with on fuel burn etc.

 

I could try a longer climb with lower power settings definitely, I might try it on another flight.

 

From what I have recorded:

 

Payload Weight  4116 lb    Total Weight 41806 lb  Tail Wind 98 

 

Started the test at FL290 , did not consider ISA deviation or optimum altitude, sorry.

 

Yes, I understand that all mentioned factors are all linked together and will affect the performance but just for the curiosity if I can get to FL370, it worked.

 

I usually fly CRJ2 at FL270 and below.

 

Great plane , along with JS32, my two favorites.

 

Cheers, AJ 

[Kyle Sanders]

Yes, use the 250/310/M.77 Climb Profile when planned above FL280.  It does make for a slow climb, but it enables the aircraft to get to the higher altitudes.  I typically climbed at a higher rate to 10,000 FT, then transitions to 310 KTS / .77 M for the rest of the climb.  We used the slower climb profile for shorter trips to get to altitude quicker.

 

Another thing to consider is that shorter trips especially on the East Coast ATC has a lot of restrictions which most of the time limit your ability to fly at optimum cruise altitudes.

 

Also, once above 10,000 FT make sure you climb in V/S mode.  If you use SPEED mode the aircraft will pitch over to increase speed and sometimes that may result in a descent.

Ok, So i tried the published 250/320/M.77 climb profile. It still did not work. Planning put me at FL390 but the "30% or less of total trip distance for CLB" rule made it to be FL370 for optimum cruise ECON.

You will find all the detailed information that I have put out for others to try as well in a very large X-Plane enthusiasts group. All the feedback came back is still coming in but so far looks to be the same problem with everyone.

 

Please look through the document attached here and tell me what you think.

CRJ2 Test Brief.pdf

[cessna729]

Please look through the document attached here and tell me what you think.

Hi Kyle, had a quick look, and it looks interesting, but I'm not too sure that running your tests using http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=15453&st=50#commentsStart is such a good idea, IMHO. (maybe all the bugs have been sorted out by now, but it appears to complicate your testing adding uncertainty/variability and not everyone has python plug-in installed, thus no two tests will have same Wx), My suggestion is just used the X-Plane supplied resources and ether set Wx same (whole world you decide on settings) or use a fixed METAR.rwx file).

Also I can't see if you are recording X-Plane version/32, 64 bits ect also CRJ-200 version/number of calculations ect. As I've said, I've only had a quick look at that one pdf, so appologies if you explained it all else where. . But it does look fun testing

cessna729.

[cessna729]

Hi Kyle, only me again, ref CRJ2 Test Brief.pdf

Just a thought! How about you providing a saved Test Flight Plan, or a couple of Flight Plans, each with a different Flight Profile, so you could compare aircraft performance on different phases of flight (but everyone would be flying the same profile)?

You could extend the testing if you so desired by having FULL FMS controlled flight (takeoff to 200ft on final approach using THRUST LIM ect) comparied with only HDG/ALT mode or even "Hand flown" .

Just an idea!

cessna729.

p.s. What's a "JORDAN CRJ-200"??

Edited January 9, 2013 by cessna729

[Kyle Sanders]

Hi Kyle, had a quick look, and it looks interesting, but I'm not too sure that running your tests using http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=15453&st=50#commentsStart is such a good idea, IMHO. (maybe all the bugs have been sorted out by now, but it appears to complicate your testing adding uncertainty/variability and not everyone has python plug-in installed, thus no two tests will have same Wx), My suggestion is just used the X-Plane supplied resources and ether set Wx same (whole world you decide on settings) or use a fixed METAR.rwx file).

Also I can't see if you are recording X-Plane version/32, 64 bits ect also CRJ-200 version/number of calculations ect. As I've said, I've only had a quick look at that one pdf, so appologies if you explained it all else where.

cessna729.

Yes, i understand that not everyone has the Python interface, but it is a good thing to have and maybe will allow someone to become aware of it via this brief.

 

It is also a CONDITION of this test. I regret posting it so early now that I have found that the CRJ2 has completely different parameters in the XP10 version... to the point where it is unrealistic and shoots up like a "ROCKET"- from a real world CRJ2 pilot. So I completed my test on the XP9.7. My results were not great. I have used all three climb profiles supplied with the CRJ2: 250/M.74.... 250/290/M.74 and 250/320/M.77... they ALL have the same results... Not getting to their optimum altitude for its weight and ISA Deviation.

 

XP9 and 10 also does not simulate upper level winds accurately. I get my ISA Deviation and wind component information from here: http://aviationweather.gov/adds/winds/ 

 

Cameron has told me that I am the only one asking for this level of realism, If that is true, then that is sad. I cannot fly this aircraft if I do not have a proper flight planning resource. I have one... it is the real world charts... but the CRJ2 in the simulator does not perform correctly with those.

 

Hi Kyle, only me again, ref CRJ2 Test Brief.pdf

Just a thought! How about you providing a saved Test Flight Plan, or a couple of Flight Plans, each with a different Flight Profile, so you could compare aircraft performance on different phases of flight (but everyone would be flying the same profile)?

You could extend the testing if you so desired by having FULL FMS controlled flight (takeoff to 200ft on final approach using THRUST LIM ect) comparied with only HDG/ALT mode or even "Hand flown" .

Just an idea!

cessna729.

p.s. What's a "JORDAN CRJ-200"??

yeah... that JORDAN error has been pointed out to me more times than I can count lol.

But as far as saving a flight plan for all three profiles... Im not sure what you mean. The route is supplied via the brief, Everything else is up to the pilot to manage.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Kyle