Regional & Corporate Jet Alternatives

[PaulEMB]

Hi all,

I was just replying to a thread from Eric Tomlin on the new Lear shell, and almost hijacked his thread into a discussion about RJs

So I thought I would start a new one - I started by saying "Best of luck to all RJ builders - I see lots of comments that echo my feelings from a couple of years ago."

I have been an RJ fan for over 4 years - after seeing an EMB 120 cockpit on the FDS website, I decided I had to have one!

At the time, I was living in Lisbon, Portugal, and flying 3-4 times a week as a passenger in the ERJ 145 operated by Portugalia. I bought the Feelthere 145, and was hooked!

Now, 4 years later, I am committed to the RJ - I have a 5 meter long, full scale ERJ 145 front end in my garage, with more money spent than I care to add up. (and many happy hours spent building, and lately flying it!)

The key to a successful home cockpit build is the software that links it to MSFS, and then, via a variety of possible interface methods, makes it work when you press the switch instead of clicking the mouse.

There are not many alternatives - Project Magenta, some great ideas from Stoney3K, and little else for a full cockpit setup.

There are a lot more Lear projects out there than there used to be - still only a couple of ERJ ones I know of, and some, also increasing (Thanks to Joe!) CRJ projects.

What do we lack? Honeywell clone software!

Why not start to make a user group to show PM and other possible developers how big the market is - it may help the guys at PM to look at their planning for software upgrades, or encourage others to look at the market.

I know Enrico has this on his long list, but the Boeing users, professional and hobbyist, are, rightly, as the biggest (and first) user group being addressed currently, and we can see some good improvements in the latest releases.

However, if we RJ users had a bigger voice?

Please post your comments or views on the Heavy/RJ debate - Remember, we haven't yet got to the VLJ/Corporate debate - A full size cockpit that fits into your spare bedroom - medium range, and full glass cockpit displays - and you can land where you want to - anywhere! Why build a 747?

Don't forget - the software drives the hardware! - If there was a viable RJ software available, hardware suppliers would add the available panels to their range.

Lets debate, not complain about what isn't there to suit our needs!

[Kennair]

Hi Paul,

I timely thread as I have recently been debating my cockpit rebuild. I was very close to building a CRJ pit, partly due to the availability of hardware from Joe but when I looked into the software side there seemed only to be PM available and unfortunately not without its problems. It doesn't seem to be as well supported as the Boeing/Airbus stock. I too am not knocking PM here and understand that they have to prioritise their time and effort to where it's most needed and do a fine job in the process.

In the end I decided to retain and update my PC12 instead (and very happy with the decision to remain with GA at this stage), however if there were an RJ glass along with a similar PM Systems solution I would be very interested for the future when I decide to move into the "semi-heavies". Even so the Next Gen PC12 utilizes a Honeywell Primus glass cockpit, so if there were a sim emulation I would be interested even now.

There are many clever software designers such as FSXpand that hold great promise, but even so it's still the Boeing fleet that is mainly accommodated (again, due to demand). Once again both Joe and Hispapanels realise the need by making RJ panels available and I guess if there is more of a voice, the software might come too. I'd love to hear what others may have done to accomodate their RJ/Glass pit.

Just my 2c worth,

Ken.

[Tomlin]

I echo the most part of both these posts here in this thread. How nice it would be to have a really feature laden Honeywell Primus package. Yes, the PMRJ leaves a bit to be desired, BUT I have been very happy with using it so far. I really hope that they push forward through whatever is going on the past while and continue support for this software since there is a growing base of Learjet, CRJ, and other 'RJ' sims.

If I had the money to invest...boy o' boy...

[alaxus]

Apparently PM is making a CRJ suite, which uses the Honeywell suite. Don't know when it will be done though.
I did mention to Enrico that there are quite a few lear builders out there, and that the lear avionics suite is not to far off the CRJ one, and that maybe he could make a few mods to the CRJ one to suit the lear.

Time will tell though.

[Tomlin]

Apparently PM is making a CRJ suite, which uses the Honeywell suite. Don't know when it will be done though.
I did mention to Enrico that there are quite a few lear builders out there, and that the lear avionics suite is not to far off the CRJ one, and that maybe he could make a few mods to the CRJ one to suit the lear.

Time will tell though.

The CRJ suite is Rockwell Collins...ERJ is Honeywell. In my opinion the PMRJ software is very close to the Honeywell Primus 1000 software suite, with just a hand full of lacking things like CAS messages and some ND options. However, it's not complete yet till some of those issues are worked out and hopefully they will one day get a version of the UNS FMS and autopilot created for it. Then it will be really nice. Here's to hoping as Paul stated, there's tons of new LJ builders, plus a growing roster of CRJ builders too and we all need some accurate software. If the RJ software was worked on, maybe it could be like the Boeing suite, where it covers a few different types in one package, I.E., the RJ package would represent the CRJ/ERJ/LJ software.

BTW, although far from perfect, I really am glad I got the PMRJ software as it looks great for what it is at this point.

[Michael Carter]

I know the feeling well Paul.

When the retro- movement strikes a little farther down the road in the sim software industry as it has with American auto manufacturers in the last few years, maybe the first generation Boeing drivers will have something to look forward to as well. But, that's probably wishful thinking.

Most of us are making out OK though, but not fully 100% functional yet.

Not a lot of sophisticated logic involved there. You'd think it would be more popular. Too many kids developing software having never flown on a 707, 720, 727, or DC-8 I suppose.

More's the pity.

[Kennair]

And as I mentioned earlier it's not only the RJ's that are going for the likes of Rockwell Collins or Honeywell Primus suites, GA is more and more heading down this road due to it's decreasing cost and reliability. I would consider that an RJ suite should begin to get as much, if not more development energy due to the larger fleet of simulators now vying for it.

Ken.

[Tomlin]

On the heels of what BSW (Mike) was saying, it dawned on me a few days ago that as these newer aircraft come online, simulating them avionics-wise will get easier but building a cockpit for them will likely get harder. Case in point, look at the new Cessna Mustang, the PC-12NG, and some other new designs. They are having the interiors designed by the same companies like BMW, etc. to give a luxurious feeling to them, hence the hard-to-build parts wont be the panels per se, but the trim parts that are all compound curves and complicated radiuses versus flat angles. All the old(er)/current aircraft have fairly easy to build liner parts/trim. But take a good look at the new aircraft coming out and they almost all have vacumm formed parts where the panels are not, looking more like a darn automobile than an airplane. Therefore, I think that we will see most of the home sims staying the models that are current or older, but very little 'new' aircraft from this point on (at least those that look like a car interior). The only other way would be if the parts suppliers provide the new interior parts by purchasing expensive vaccum forming machines.

WOW! I just realised that this is post number '747' for me!

[PaulEMB]

Eric,

Well done for achieving post "747"

Makes me look lazy----I reckon the interiors can be relatively easily achieved by using the MDF/fiber glass/cloth and resin methods used by many builders - look at what they achieve on "Monster Garage".

Imagine "Monster Sim Hangar"!

Meanwhile, on the various posts on PMRJ, it is becoming evident that many items we (I) thought were present in PMRJ by reading the extensive PM documentation for the Boeing, and the short section on PMRJ, are not functional in the RJ suite, even when used with the full MCP/CDU/PMSys software for the Boeing.

I recently contemplated buying the Boeing GC to get better funcionality - EICAS messages, Trim, WX/Terrain etc, but gave up the idea having tried the demo, as it didn't fit the screen layout.

Lets hope that Enrico and team land a commercial contract that will allow us hobby builders to benefit from the development of more features in an RJ/GA suite.

[Tomlin]

Eric,

Well done for achieving post "747"

Makes me look lazy----I reckon the interiors can be relatively easily achieved by using the MDF/fiber glass/cloth and resin methods used by many builders - look at what they achieve on "Monster Garage".

Imagine "Monster Sim Hangar"!

Meanwhile, on the various posts on PMRJ, it is becoming evident that many items we (I) thought were there are many functions we thought were present in PMRJ by reading the extensive PM documentation for the Boeing, and the short section on PMRJ, are not functional in the RJ suite, even when used with the full MCP/CDU/PMSys software for the Boeing.

I recently contemplated buying the Boeing GC to get better funcionality - EICAS messages, Trim, WX/Terrain etc, but gave up the idea having tried the demo, as it didn't fit the screen layout.

Lets hope that Enrico and team land a commercial contract that will allow us hobby builders to benefit from the development of more features in an RJ/GA suite.

Hear, Hear!!! Thanks Paul!