RJ Professional

happy to report all user error (my fault) had the ign selector on the TM Airbus Throttle set to Crank. but it in normal position andd EGT spooled up

General advice, landing and taxi in, typically achieves 450-550C. Brake fans running on chocks after shutdown and before engine start must be for a minimum of 15 minutes. Typically, if you start up and taxi after a minimum of 20 minutes and can start the takeoff with brake temps at a maximum of 200C, all OK. There are tables within the aircraft manuals for calculating the required cooling period if brake fans or BTI are unserviceable. In service, on a hot day with a 30 to 40 minutes turnaround after a max weight landing on a 6,000’ runway, the brakes would be usually be found cool enough to start up and taxi out.

Hi Mark, One of the routes I like to do is EGBB-EICK. Departing runway 15 the RJ picks up the Honiley (HON 113.65) VOR, then I retune to the Compton(CPT114.35) VOR, then I retune to Strumble(113.1) VOR. These I tune on Nav 2 and all work fine. I then tune Nav 2 to the Cork(CRK114.6) VOR but because of the distance away it doesn't tune straight away. I then set up the approach, with the ILS usually for runway 34 on Nav 1 (109.15) So all goes well until I tune the Cork VOR on Nav 2 and the ILS on Nav 1 which on this flight did not work. I have flown this route before and not had a problem. Sometimes I've had the same problem at other airports, Vigo in Spain, Stavanger in Norway. These airports I have flown into at other times with no problem. I always use RJ100 but can't see this being the problem, as no one else on the forum has reported any problems with tunning VOR's it must be something I am doing or not. Great plane by the way. Roger

We did test the RJ up to its maximum crosswind components of 35 knots, and sufficient yaw control was confirmed with the "Rudder Steering Axis" option enabled and disabled to maintain the runway centreline. That's not to say something in the sim, or other changes to the flight model may have changed that at some point post-release though, so we have made a note to double-check that ahead of the next update. The "quirky" nose wheel steering/rudder control that you mentioned is a known side effect of a fix that was created to prevent conflicts between the nose wheel steering axis and rudder axis control assignments. From our testing (as well as feedback we received since that fix was applied), the current method of nose wheel steering is the better logic and should match the behaviour seen in other aircraft that have the option to disable the nose wheel steering from the rudder axis. Mark - Just Flight

Thanks all for your response. I suspect that it may be a spoilers control assignment that may be the culprit. I will check that when I am next in the sim.

I do recall that in the 146 FCOM, there are warnings advising pilots not to change the set altitude or vertical mode during the ALT ACQ phase. So you would let the aircraft acquire the altitude before then making any further adjustments to the autopilot vertical modes. With the RJ sharing a lot of the philosophy from the 146, that is likely good practice to follow in the RJ too. Mark - Just Flight

For reports such as this, we kindly ask that you contact Just Flight Support via the following link: https://www.justflight.com/support Our support team will be able to assist with replicating the behavior and logging a bug on our internal trackers if required: Mark - Just Flight

This is expected behavior as the TOC calculations are essentially the predicated TOC calculated by the data entered in the FMS. Therefore, the TOC point calculations are only re-calculated once something has been executed in the FMS. Note that although these calculations will never be perfectly accurate due to external factors such as temperature and wind, etc, the TOC calculations are something we have logged internally as something to potentially look into improving in the future. Mark - Just Flight

This is expected behavior as the altitude fixes are fixed points derived from the navdata. It is something we have logged internally as something to potentially look into improving in the future. Mark - Just Flight

Hi all, Based on comments on the FSDT forums, it looks like a fix for this was included in the latest GSX update (v3.4.5): https://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,33033.0.html Mark - Just Flight

I believe there were a few attempts at an RJ freighter, but the market just wasn't there for it. The most recent attempt appears to have concluded in 2017 when the market was saturated with 146 freighters: https://www.aircargonews.net/bae-postpones-plans-for-avro-rj100-freighter-conversion/19943.article A sizeable number of the active 146 freighters have been modernised with EFIS cockpits, so the operators may feel like there aren't enough benefits to investing in what would likely be a niche, low production program. Mark - Just Flight

Wow, didn't even realize an audio panel was hiding under the EFB. Thanks, got it working!

The RJ already uses 8K textures as standard for larger panel areas such as the main instrument panel. The difference between the RJ and F28 is the size of the texture sheets based on our artist's different techniques. The F28 has smaller texture sheets and therefore has a higher pixel density, the RJ has larger texture sheets and lower pixel density. In order to have the same effect as the F28 optional 8K texture pack, the RJ would require an extensive rework of all the cockpit textures. A significant undertaking which wouldn't be feasible for us at the moment. Never say never, but we're very happy with the quality of the current RJ textures when viewed from the standard pilot position. Mark - Just Flight

To the best of my knowledge, Swiss used that option as well. For nostalgic reasons, I'd kindly like to concur with Mac's request.

Thanks for getting back so quickly on this. Your suggestion worked perfectly! The "new" audio tracks now play as boarding music.

Just had a successful flight after updating the GTN. Thanks again!

I agree with the comments made by Mark and A Former User. I can add a little from the real aircraft perspective. The altimeter system (unlike that of the RJ) is obviously more prone to variations of holding altitude with speed changes/temperature and power changes. The research aircraft at Cranfield has, as I understand it, undergone been modification to use the RJ sensors to allow RVSM operations- but I doubt that was cheap to do! I guess they can get up above 146 operating altitudes as it’s not carrying 112 pax. 146 type: Having captured (say) FL 280, the ability to maintain it varies with change of speed; slow down a few knots/M and it will descend slightly; increase speed and it will climb slightly. Speed changes may be the result of warmer/colder airmass and subsequent N1 increase or decrease, as well as fuel burn and a reduction in a/c mass. How much climb or descent? Some a/c were better than others, but typically 50’ to 80’ from required altitude. We had a form to fill in an advise the engineers if we thought it excessive. We would record parameters such as OAT (or was it TAT?), Fl, speed/mach, N1 and captured altitude and variance. They had a BAe doc to compare to and decided if it was acceptable or not. To recapture the assigned FL, most pilots used the sync button. Very few used the pitch UP/DOWN on the rear of the centre console and ALT capture - it was so prone to under/overshoot. I’m happy when I have the time to answer other 146/RJ questions if I can. But, we will fall out if you keep calling the thrust levers ‘throttles’. Cessna like to use ‘throttle’ for their jet - but BAe do not.