• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Bombardier CRJ-100/200 Released by PAD

I'm sure at least one of the PAD folks can address that concern. I was under the impression that the FSX versions were native FSX. . . .maybe I'm wrong.
 
Our models are all made for FS9 and the panels/gauges are modified for those who wish to fly them in FSX.
This is the way it will always be for us. For the reasons why see the thread below from Lionheart "Life of a Dev"

Bob
PAD
 
The real 100/200's are dogs compared to the 700/900's. However, the 700 version that comes with FSX is pretty lame. You will most likely get a better experience with the payware...I think. I'm not really familiar with Premier Aircraft models.
 
bobmay said:
Our models are all made for FS9 and the panels/gauges are modified for those who wish to fly them in FSX.
This is the way it will always be for us. For the reasons why see the thread below from Lionheart "Life of a Dev"
Bob, PAD
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Bob. I enjoy all the airplane that PAD has built over the years and having them for FSX is a plus. Of course everyone has a personal opinion or reason for not wanting "non-Native FSX" aircraft in their FSX installation. Personally I don't see it, it's not like having one of those is going to infect the other native FSX aircraft with bad habits, lol.
 
I always liked the smaller CRJs for hops from Denver and Colorado Springs to Phoenix. The 700 was a tiny tube crammed with people, the 900 only has windows for every second row of seats. They may as well have left them off entirely. When I ride in the 900 all I can think of is "sewer pipe". For me the 100 and 200 are the "classic" CRJs.

Thank you BobMay and PAD for another interesting, useful, quality FS freeware add-on! You guys do great stuff -- thanks for sharing your passion with the fight sim world.

:wiggle::ernae::applause::applause::ernae::jump:
 
java2srv said:
I always liked the smaller CRJs for hops from Denver and Colorado Springs to Phoenix. The 700 was a tiny tube crammed with people, the 900 only has windows for every second row of seats. They may as well have left them off entirely. When I ride in the 900 all I can think of is "sewer pipe". For me the 100 and 200 are the "classic" CRJs.

Thank you BobMay and PAD for another interesting, useful, quality FS freeware add-on! You guys do great stuff -- thanks for sharing your passion with the fight sim world.

:wiggle::ernae::applause::applause::ernae::jump:
Click to expand...

The 900 has windows for every seat location, except for the back row.

The first two windows are in th Galley area and forward Lav, and are blocked. Then there are 20 windows on each side for your viewing pleasure. If what you say is true, then the CRJ-900 would have almost 160 seats. The first 4 rows in this plane are first class seats and three accross (1 and 2). The rest of the rows are 4 seats accross (2 and 2)





Aug109007.jpg


084.jpg
 
Sorry Bone but by your window arithmetic the CRJ-900 would have only 76 seats. Allowing that some airlines don't have a first/business class area that adds another 4 seats. Bombardier says this is a 86 seater so some airlines presumably pack 'em in and get 86 tushes on 86 seats, which means that with high density seating quite a few window seats won't actually have windows.

Bob. (amateur pedant)
 
The picture above is a 76 seat configuration CRJ-900. It still doesn't change anything as far my previous statement. My airline does have a cabin layout that puts 86 seats in the cabin, with all rows but a few having windows. Still a far cry from Java2's statement that every second row doesn't have windows.
 
Bone said:
The real 100/200's are dogs compared to the 700/900's.
Click to expand...

Lack of power, eh?

However, the 700 version that comes with FSX is pretty lame.
Click to expand...

It has its quirks in terms of VC controls, but I find it quite up to the job.

Now that I somehow got the hand of Wilco's E-Jets (FMC! :isadizzy:), I'm most likely going to exchange the CRJ 700 for the ERJ-170.


java2srv said:
When I ride in the 900 all I can think of is "sewer pipe".
Click to expand...

You're gonna love the CRJ 100 then. :d
http://www2.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/NextGen/index.html


Bone said:
The picture above is a 76 seat configuration CRJ-900.
Click to expand...

CRJ-05 then?
 
Well, I had to fly the 100 for almost 10 years and this was definitely the most dangerous (e.g. concerning systems and aerodynamics) 'airliner' with the lowest dispatch rate I ever flew.
Even if it would be of L-39 standard, I wouldn't fly a simulated 100! :icon_lol:
 
Bjoern said:
Lack of power, eh?



It has its quirks in terms of VC controls, but I find it quite up to the job.

Now that I somehow got the hand of Wilco's E-Jets (FMC! :isadizzy:), I'm most likely going to exchange the CRJ 700 for the ERJ-170.




You're gonna love the CRJ 100 then. :d
http://www2.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/NextGen/index.html




CRJ-05 then?
Click to expand...

Well, the Marketing term is CRJ-705, but all the ones I fly say CRJ-900 NextGen under the cockpit side window, even though they have 76 seats in them. You might be able to see it under the FO's window in the second picture I posted.

As far as the 100/200 is concerned, yes it is under powered. It was tricky to fly well, but like anything else, once you did it for awhile you became used to it and learned how to operate it efficiently. Just the same, I don't ever want to fly it again.
 
Bone said:
Well, the Marketing term is CRJ-705, but all the ones I fly say CRJ-900 NextGen under the cockpit side window, even though they have 76 seats in them. You might be able to see it under the FO's window in the second picture I posted.
Click to expand...

Whoops, forgot the "7". Guess I used them all up in posts about that new Windows...:icon_lol:

As far as the 100/200 is concerned, yes it is under powered. It was tricky to fly well, but like anything else, once you did it for awhile you became used to it and learned how to operate it efficiently. Just the same, I don't ever want to fly it again.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder why this unpopular thing is still in wide use by regional carriers...
 
Bjoern said:
:icon_lol:



Makes you wonder why this unpopular thing is still in wide use by regional carriers...
Click to expand...

1. Most operators lease them, with quite a few more years to go on the lease.

2. There are so many in service, they can't be replaced quickly even if the leases were up.

3. In spite of what some "mainline" pilots spout off about the 200 having a high cost per available seat mile, CRJ-200's make alot of money. They do in fact have a higher CASM than larger planes, but the B-737 has a higher CASM than the B-757, and the B-757 has a higher CASM than the B-767. CASM isn't the only metric in regard to profit.

People forget that the 200 was a turboprop replacement, and it has done that job exceedingly well...even better than what airline managements thought it would do. These planes go everywhere, and they have cultivated service to cities that traditionally had some very bad and inconvenient travel options...even some that had no service because they were too far awy from an airline hub. It's become fashionable to denigrate the 200 and call for it's demise. But, it still has it's uses. Management doesn't care if it's a pain in the arse for a pilot to fly, it moves alot of people, and that's it's job.
 
I know a number of guys that have flown the ERJ-145 and the CRJ-200. They say the ERJ-145 is worse.

EDIT: Most of the popular sentiments in this field of battle don't differentiate between the ERJ and the CRJ. They are all lumped together into the 50 seat regional jet category.
 
Bone said:
I know a number of guys that have flown the ERJ-145 and the CRJ-200. They say the ERJ-145 is worse.

EDIT: Most of the popular sentiments in this field of battle don't differentiate between the ERJ and the CRJ. They are all lumped together into the 50 seat regional jet category.
Click to expand...

Heh, sounds like "the smaller the jet the worse it flies"...:d


Ah well, so far Wilco's ERJ has made me a quite happy...as long as you manage to battle the quite eccentric autopilot.

I won't say no to a native FSX CRJ series though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top