The n1 reading being delayed is actually a feature, not a bug. Got to sit on the jumpseat for a test run today and I can say that the N1 reading coming alive was spot on
Good to hear! Strange that it only comes live after you already have a fire burning in that engine - but I suppose FADEC already knows the numbers way before and can act appropriately.
6:17 top tip - Saw a video from Crew Rest (EMB captain), and he advised that the TO/LDG fuel is actually the taxi fuel before takeoff / and the taxi fuel after landing. It has nothing to do with the actual fuel for TO or after landing, but rather taxi fuel before TO and expected after landing. For the plane’s calc.
Hi Emmanuel, I've followed you for a long time and I'm happy to share with you that this week I've started my ATPL courses. I was curious if there was anything interesting you wanted to share about your study path, how did you face the exams and if you have any particular suggestions. Thanks
On the E-jets the course is usually set via the preview functions on the display control panel "PREV". This enables you to set the course while still in FMS and it will automatically transition to LOC when the APP is armed and the localizer captured. This might fix the problem, but I agree it should not change the course once set. ...maybe a fault in the programming of the autotune function.
A beautiful night flight…thanks for flying the E-Jet. I’m having a lot of fun flying this plane on Beyond ATC but learn something every time I watch your videos!
Yes, you should be aware of handling the a/c systems correctly... from the video perspective you switch to loc2 not to loc1 therefor the course messed up, this factor for error is a 'human factor' ;-)
My experience with them on VATSIM was mostly fine. I did two flights. First one LOWW to LHBP went pretty well with ILS approach in the end. Second one was to LYTV, and there it did weird routing in the STAR so I had to manually intervene in heading mode. Also ATC initially said to do RNP approach, and well, not implemented yet, so I had to change to another. Overall, even in this alpha state, they can be fun to fly and I hope they get that custom FMS and VNAV soon. As for VATSIM, I wouldn't really recommend them yet, especially on unfamiliar airport or in a area with a lot of traffic. But on familiar routes those flights can be enjoyable. Developers themselves say to wait until navigation functions are implemented so they are not really advertised with that support at the moment.
I think it is on par with the CRJ on the potential to go sideways sometimes :D In case of low visibility might be even more challenging to do a manual approach and landing.
Hey Emmanuel, love your videos. Do you have any tutorials planned on the E-Jets? Its getting to a point now where the aircraft development looks like its tracking in the right direction, and i am getting closer to purchasing. That being said i haven't a clue around the embraer cockpit.
I was in the same opinion until i finally bought the e190/95 and i have to say i find myself using it almost as much as fenix or pmdg 737. You can handle it in Vatsim if you know how to get around without vnav. Yes, it has some room for improvement, but it can also be said about any MSFS aircraft ever made. The cockpit is rather simple and easy to learn. The aircraft flies very nicely, the autopilot can sometimes surprise you, but it is fun. I say go for it.
Hi, once the E-Jets have their custom FMS and if things start working correctly and they can be flown reliably using the real SOPs I'll most definitely look into it. For now it's still a lot of improvizing.
Very nice night flight. I just took the plunge and purchased the E-190 to fly Airlink in my home country (South Africa). Has anyone who has a Bravo throttle (I think you do Emmanuel?) know how to set it up for reverse/idle thrust? According to Aerosoft you're supposed to map the detent to 'Toggle throttle reverse thrust' but that doesn't work for me. Using rev on axis in the calibration is not ideal because you have to kind of guess when you are at idle.
Question from me on the ILS, do you not get the “ghost” green needles behind the fms ones as you activate the approach. Been a while but fairly sure the Rockwell avionics in the CJ4 do that and the g5000? In the longitude certainly do. Very handy indeed!
Think of it as to what you want the aeroplane to prioritise. If you select VS the aeroplane will try to maintain the set Vs. As you climb and air gets thinner and as power available for climb reduces she will continue to pitch up increasing your AOA. Am sure these aeroplanes have protection but without it you could then end up in a stall situation - as I once did at night in a long climb in a Cessna 172 G1000 in the sim. In FLCH the aeroplane will target the set airspeed. This way no chance of a stall as when excess power becomes less and less for climb she will simply pitch down to maintain the set speed. So rule of thumb, climb with FLCH and descend with VS. Some exceptions to this with short and small climbs and also when reaching assigned altitude as Em has highlighted before - you reduce your VS (by changing from FLCH to VS) as you get close - 1000 ft before - so as not to “frighten” the collision avoidance software calculation of nearby aircraft thinking you might blow through it.
@@ivorevans1795 awesome explanation, thank you. So I completely understand the airspeed implications, and my question was more targeted in the descent under FL100. Emi was borderline-high on profile here, so selecting VS would have helped him reach the desired altitude first, and then he could have slowed down second. But instead, he chose FLC mode which meant the plane prioritised reaching that airspeed first (which had the effect of temporarily reducing vs to help the plane pitch up to reach that speed), before then descending at that IAS. The net result meaning, in the process, precious track miles were eaten up while the plane reached the targeted speed fist, meaning the risk that he’d be high on his vertical path. Hence my Q - wouldn’t you always want to reach the altitude first, then slow down?
@@jclad10 for every 10 knot of deceleration add one track mile. For example if you are at 300 knots, you will require and EXTRA 5 track miles to decelerate to 250IAS and get on profile Same calculation for a TW. for example, let’s say you are FL300, 280IAS, 10 knot Tailwind. 30 x 3 = 90nm 30 IAS DECEL = 3 nm 10 knot TW = 1nm Total= 94NM estimated track milage required
I have the 170/175 of this. It's obviously improving, slowly, but seeing the X-Crafts Embraers on Xplane makes me a tad disappointed in these. It's been what, 18 months since release? And still no VNAV/custom FMS. It still feels like a bare bones product to me. I like the 727 but I think they should be putting more time and resources into these. I think it's in danger of stagnating a little.
As someone who's been involved in the early stages of development of addons for flight sims since over ten years I can tell you this level of progress is quite normal. FSS simply released the E-Jets much, much too early.
depends on what you want from it. if you know what to expect and are happy to do a bit more of hands on flying and managing, it can be worth it. if you want to try it out, the freighter is quite a bit cheaper
The n1 reading being delayed is actually a feature, not a bug. Got to sit on the jumpseat for a test run today and I can say that the N1 reading coming alive was spot on
Good to hear! Strange that it only comes live after you already have a fire burning in that engine - but I suppose FADEC already knows the numbers way before and can act appropriately.
6:17 top tip - Saw a video from Crew Rest (EMB captain), and he advised that the TO/LDG fuel is actually the taxi fuel before takeoff / and the taxi fuel after landing. It has nothing to do with the actual fuel for TO or after landing, but rather taxi fuel before TO and expected after landing. For the plane’s calc.
Hi Emmanuel, I've followed you for a long time and I'm happy to share with you that this week I've started my ATPL courses. I was curious if there was anything interesting you wanted to share about your study path, how did you face the exams and if you have any particular suggestions. Thanks
On the E-jets the course is usually set via the preview functions on the display control panel "PREV". This enables you to set the course while still in FMS and it will automatically transition to LOC when the APP is armed and the localizer captured. This might fix the problem, but I agree it should not change the course once set. ...maybe a fault in the programming of the autotune function.
A beautiful night flight…thanks for flying the E-Jet. I’m having a lot of fun flying this plane on Beyond ATC but learn something every time I watch your videos!
Yes, you should be aware of handling the a/c systems correctly... from the video perspective you switch to loc2 not to loc1 therefor the course messed up, this factor for error is a 'human factor' ;-)
My experience with them on VATSIM was mostly fine.
I did two flights. First one LOWW to LHBP went pretty well with ILS approach in the end.
Second one was to LYTV, and there it did weird routing in the STAR so I had to manually intervene in heading mode. Also ATC initially said to do RNP approach, and well, not implemented yet, so I had to change to another.
Overall, even in this alpha state, they can be fun to fly and I hope they get that custom FMS and VNAV soon.
As for VATSIM, I wouldn't really recommend them yet, especially on unfamiliar airport or in a area with a lot of traffic. But on familiar routes those flights can be enjoyable.
Developers themselves say to wait until navigation functions are implemented so they are not really advertised with that support at the moment.
FSS is not saying anything at the moment on the status of the FMS, unfortunately. Just that they are working on it.
I think it is on par with the CRJ on the potential to go sideways sometimes :D In case of low visibility might be even more challenging to do a manual approach and landing.
Did a flight in the 175 and all went well until landing. Had a 22 kt crosswind in ORD and when i did the correction, i lost control of the plane haha.
OOogah, I wouldn't want to be on the road for weather like that, let alone a taxiway!
Hey Emmanuel, love your videos. Do you have any tutorials planned on the E-Jets? Its getting to a point now where the aircraft development looks like its tracking in the right direction, and i am getting closer to purchasing. That being said i haven't a clue around the embraer cockpit.
I was in the same opinion until i finally bought the e190/95 and i have to say i find myself using it almost as much as fenix or pmdg 737. You can handle it in Vatsim if you know how to get around without vnav. Yes, it has some room for improvement, but it can also be said about any MSFS aircraft ever made. The cockpit is rather simple and easy to learn. The aircraft flies very nicely, the autopilot can sometimes surprise you, but it is fun. I say go for it.
Hi, once the E-Jets have their custom FMS and if things start working correctly and they can be flown reliably using the real SOPs I'll most definitely look into it. For now it's still a lot of improvizing.
Very nice night flight. I just took the plunge and purchased the E-190 to fly Airlink in my home country (South Africa). Has anyone who has a Bravo throttle (I think you do Emmanuel?) know how to set it up for reverse/idle thrust? According to Aerosoft you're supposed to map the detent to 'Toggle throttle reverse thrust' but that doesn't work for me. Using rev on axis in the calibration is not ideal because you have to kind of guess when you are at idle.
Can you try the XP X-Crafts Ejet new update and see how that compares? Great video btw
try the x crafts ejets, very high quality
Do you have a soundpack or any other mod on this? Cause I thought the sound were pretty good actually!
Question from me on the ILS, do you not get the “ghost” green needles behind the fms ones as you activate the approach. Been a while but fairly sure the Rockwell avionics in the CJ4 do that and the g5000? In the longitude certainly do. Very handy indeed!
Have you noticed that the Cabin Temp is set to 13C as default?
56:17 why did you switch to FLC here instead of VS? I’m really struggling on when to use VS versus FLCH
Think of it as to what you want the aeroplane to prioritise. If you select VS the aeroplane will try to maintain the set Vs. As you climb and air gets thinner and as power available for climb reduces she will continue to pitch up increasing your AOA. Am sure these aeroplanes have protection but without it you could then end up in a stall situation - as I once did at night in a long climb in a Cessna 172 G1000 in the sim. In FLCH the aeroplane will target the set airspeed. This way no chance of a stall as when excess power becomes less and less for climb she will simply pitch down to maintain the set speed. So rule of thumb, climb with FLCH and descend with VS. Some exceptions to this with short and small climbs and also when reaching assigned altitude as Em has highlighted before - you reduce your VS (by changing from FLCH to VS) as you get close - 1000 ft before - so as not to “frighten” the collision avoidance software calculation of nearby aircraft thinking you might blow through it.
@@ivorevans1795 awesome explanation, thank you. So I completely understand the airspeed implications, and my question was more targeted in the descent under FL100. Emi was borderline-high on profile here, so selecting VS would have helped him reach the desired altitude first, and then he could have slowed down second. But instead, he chose FLC mode which meant the plane prioritised reaching that airspeed first (which had the effect of temporarily reducing vs to help the plane pitch up to reach that speed), before then descending at that IAS. The net result meaning, in the process, precious track miles were eaten up while the plane reached the targeted speed fist, meaning the risk that he’d be high on his vertical path.
Hence my Q - wouldn’t you always want to reach the altitude first, then slow down?
ATC - we don’t see many of them 😅.. Only have the 175 I assume it’s same state as not used in LONG time
Systemwise they're on the same level, yes.
Guess most Ejets on Vatsim are xcraft for xplane anyways.
I use this plane on vatsim and it’s not that bad. It’s a lot more common I believe in the states but it is a great little regional jet.
When you calculated the top of the T/D you added 8NM to the calculated distance - how did you arrive at this number, is this a percentage maybe?
I thought the rule of thumb was add 10 miles for deceleration
@@jclad10 for every 10 knot of deceleration add one track mile.
For example if you are at 300 knots, you will require and EXTRA 5 track miles to decelerate to 250IAS and get on profile
Same calculation for a TW.
for example, let’s say you are FL300, 280IAS, 10 knot Tailwind.
30 x 3 = 90nm
30 IAS DECEL = 3 nm
10 knot TW = 1nm
Total= 94NM estimated track milage required
A330 driver. Could you maby make a new simbreif flight plan tutorial. Its ok if you dont have time. it would just help me😄
I have the 170/175 of this. It's obviously improving, slowly, but seeing the X-Crafts Embraers on Xplane makes me a tad disappointed in these. It's been what, 18 months since release? And still no VNAV/custom FMS. It still feels like a bare bones product to me. I like the 727 but I think they should be putting more time and resources into these. I think it's in danger of stagnating a little.
As someone who's been involved in the early stages of development of addons for flight sims since over ten years I can tell you this level of progress is quite normal. FSS simply released the E-Jets much, much too early.
@@A330Driver fair enough. I know that custom FMS is going to take time and effort, I just hope there's light at the end of the tunnel.
This is good mod ?
Is it worth to buy it now?
no.
depends on what you want from it. if you know what to expect and are happy to do a bit more of hands on flying and managing, it can be worth it. if you want to try it out, the freighter is quite a bit cheaper
As long as it is still in Early Access the answer is a resounding: No!
no
no
No