any change for the e175

Started by Wil De Boer, Wed 27 Feb 2019, 09:19

Previous topic - Next topic

Wil De Boer

Wed 27 Feb 2019, 09:19 Last Edit: Wed 27 Feb 2019, 09:21 by Wil De Boer
is there any change that the embraer 175
will be included in the route planning .


Chris Liu

Wed 27 Feb 2019, 14:32 #1 Last Edit: Wed 27 Feb 2019, 14:55 by Chris Liu
TLDR: If someone makes a quality E190, E190-E2 or A220-100 we will add it for longer London City flights. But I don't know of any near release.

You may find the discussion at interesting, it goes to some length regarding various aircraft types.

The E-Jets (E170, E175, E190 and E195) I think are the best regional jet for us right now, specifically the Embraer E190. The E175 is too close in size to the Q400. The Avro RJ/146, Fokker 70/100 and even the CRJ are long in the tooth and being retired by many operators. And the A318 is hideously uneconomical on short sectors owing to it's high empty weight.

Unfortunately the FS version of the E190 is outdated, it was ported from FS9 and it shows. The E195 (which isn't LCY approved) from feelThere/Wilco E-Jets v2 is only a minor update to the visuals and flight dynamics for FSX, and there's no paint kit available.

That above reasons are why we didn't add any E-Jets, and got a fleet of A319/A320 instead. However as they're not allowed in to London City I'm now hoping for a quality Embraer E2 or A220 (aka Bombardier CSeries) addon to deploy on longer sectors out of London City, but I'm not aware of anything available at the moment.

Wil De Boer

clear enough its true.
It was just because that flybe uses the 175 , I was thinking it fits into the routes.
unfortunately for me  i own the aerosoft A320 for fsx , for free (winning a price with a group flight)
But when changing to p3d4 I have to buy the update to prof version.
And for me the airbus is not a favorite AC. So I`m not paying for the updated airbus .
So i stick to the mjc , ifly 737 and aerosoft crj.
the dash is challenges enough for many happy flight hours .
thanks for explaining the choice. I can live with it  :)

Chris Liu

Thu 28 Feb 2019, 13:08 #3 Last Edit: Thu 28 Feb 2019, 13:09 by Chris Liu
I understand Will, the Airbus is not liked by everyone. But the P3Dv4 Aerosoft "Pro" version is a significant enhancement on the old FSX release so it might be worth the upgrade price, I recommend reading some reviews.

I wouldn't buy Wilco/feelThere E175 & E195 for P3Dv4, although it recently got ported it has NO improvements at all, it's 8 years old and feels it! It is cheap at $25 though.

Wil De Boer

Its just  I`m not a bus fan . I started in the 90th`s with the pmdg B737 , later the ifly737. Its just  I can`t buy everything.
Because I  won the bus for free I never would`t buying it.
All the AC are different to handle and managing this 3 AC with some single props is  a full hobby job.
flying the intercity routes with the dash over ORBX UK and Ireland is  every time a journey .
and the ifly737 and the crj  I use for other VA I join. 

Chris Liu

Wed 06 Mar 2019, 13:59 #5 Last Edit: Wed 06 Mar 2019, 14:27 by Chris Liu
Ask and you shall receive, eh? Announced today:

I thought this was just a rehash of the old Wilco/feelThere E-jets v2 product, but it seems Aeroplane Heaven are doing new visuals for P3Dv4. I'm unclear how much of the old feelThere product will be recycled but I expect it'll be most of the systems code. That might be a good thing as AH's systems depth is a mixed-bag (e.g. the JustFlight HS.748 missing fuel trimmers. AH has done quite a few classic airliners for JF).

Must be very annoying to those who just repurchased the E-Jets E175/E195 P3Dv4 port though...

Chris Liu

Wed 13 Mar 2019, 10:00 #6 Last Edit: Wed 27 Mar 2019, 15:31 by Chris Liu
There are some more photos, including virtual cockpit interior shots at

At the moment it looks a bit cartoony inside, I hope this is something that will be improved before release. We shall be keeping a close eye on this product.

Also worth noting there's an XP11 equivalent in the X-Crafts E-Jets.

Chris Liu

Sun 07 Apr 2019, 01:17 #7 Last Edit: Mon 08 Apr 2019, 01:51 by Chris Liu
I've been reading the operating and performance manuals on the E190 and there's significant restrictions operating it out of London City. With a full passenger load it'll go about 700 miles (which is Madrid or Stockholm), then for every extra 100 nm you need to leave 4-5 seats empty. So if you want to reach Portugal, Southern Spain or Central Italy you'll need to restrict to around 88 passengers (from 97). The complexities of this I'll go through below for those who are interested:

The operating empty weight (OEW/BOW) is around 27900 kg for the AR, LR or STD E190 variants; I can't find figures for the SR Short Range version that is often used at London City, but apparently it's not structurally much different although it has a far lower MTOW likely to reduce airport fees.

On London City's 1200m runway the MTOW is approximately 42000 kg using Flap 4 in ISA conditions, with the uprated "E7" engine software coupled to ATTCS that will overboost from 18500 lbf to 20000 lbf in the event of single engine operation (the normal CF34-10E6 won't overboost thus reducing MTOW to an almost useless 39750 kg).

With 97 passengers in two classes and 1200 kg in the hold, you have a total payload of 9500 kg. That leaves you 4500 kg for fuel before you hit MTOW for LCY's short runway, which gives a range of around 700 nm. If you want to go any further then you have to start reducing payload so you can add fuel. Restricting from 97 to 88 passengers gets you to 900 nm range. But BA Cityflyer operate their E190SR much further than that, 1630nm to Santorini in Greece! Whilst their SR's OEW/BOW could be lower, I suspect BA are simply restricting passenger loading to around 65% for sufficient range!

So I hear you asking about the smaller E175 which is 22 seats smaller and thus significantly lighter when empty so should have more useful load and require less fuel. And that would be the case except the E175 engines' have a physically smaller fan and are thus 4000 lbf down on thurst per engine, which means the MTOW out of LCY is also quite a bit lower then the E195, so there isn't really a net gain and you're lumped with an aircraft that's then very similarly sized to the Q400.

I expect the V speeds would also be lower with the "E7" engine variant when you're MTOW limited as you're relying on the "overboost" function to get you out of trouble if you have an engine failure.

The CSeries has a much higher usable payload from London City, indeed one has already flown non-stop transatlantic to JFK carrying the equivalent of 40 passengers! Unfortunately doesn't seem a good one will be forthcoming for P3D any time soon.

Tom David

Quote from: Chris Liu on Wed 27 Feb 2019, 14:32
TLDR: If someone makes a quality E190, E190-E2 or A220-100 we will add it for longer London City flights. But I don't know of any near release.

There you go mate:


Chris Liu

Mon 28 Oct 2019, 22:38 #9 Last Edit: Mon 28 Oct 2019, 22:39 by Chris Liu
Strictly speaking the 195 is not London City authorised, it's the 190SR. But really waiting on a P3D model too so those users don't lose out, hopefully feelThere's will be along shortly

Paul Regimbal

 8) Don't mind me if I quietly cheer for the A220 in my corner over here! haha.  But Chris is right, it'll likely be a while before a good model comes out.  ;D

Chris Liu

Sat 07 Dec 2019, 00:28 #11 Last Edit: Sat 07 Dec 2019, 17:22 by Chris Liu
The last screenshot update on the feelThere E-jets v3 for P3Dv4 was 14th November at and they said elsewhere later that they still hoped to release it this year.

As regards XP11, does anyone have preferences as regards the SSG and X-Craft for the E-jets? At the moment I have one vote for each and the discussion at seems to favour the SSG

Chris Liu

Mon 16 Dec 2019, 11:20 #12 Last Edit: Tue 17 Dec 2019, 00:15 by Chris Liu
The feelthere ejets is now released and there's tutorial video series on their YouTube channel. I think it's rather pricey though $60 per pair or $100 for all 4. The tutorial video looks impressive but some of the feedbacksuggests it's been thrown together in a hurry for Christmas, so I'd suggesting waiting a while for more feedback:
QuoteBought it (175 - 195 since I fly the 195 IRL), some first impressions:
- Some MCDU pages are missing (like Flaps selection at TO and LDG, RTE send you to FPL, FIX page is incomplete)
-Start Up procedure is ok, couple of thing missing (some EICAS messages)
- AP is way too violent
- in TRS TO-3 is missing
- can't set the altimeters to STD: the click spot it's hard to find
- Anti Ice remains ON after TO and never turn off during flight.
- PFD/ND are a bit hard to read in some moments and some fonts overlaps
- VC model is too big and proportions are wrong (not too big deal for me)
- It's nice to hand fly
-FPS are great, really light on the sim.
- External model is super (even if on the 195 the 2R door is too big)
- Pitch during the Approach it's WAY to high (on the 195): at flare I was at almost 20° with Flap 5.

Hope to see some updates in the future to address some of these things, I think that 60$ it's a bit overpriced...for that money it should be better....
...what I have seen at the moment the aircraft is not really well made. I had to set the trim a 8UP to land it with flap 5 which is not even close to the real figures. Fuel capacity is totally wrong: real plane takes 13192Kg of fuel while this stops at 9330 (and I suspect that also the weights are wrong). Takeoff trim settings are way off, TO Thrust settings are not working, whatever FLEX TEMP you set  it will give you always the same N1 value. The MCDU is incomplete: TO and LDG Pages are incomplete (No flaps setting, no temperature compensation).
Anti Ice logic is not working (remains on for all the flight), FMA on takeoff gives you the wrong mode (LNAV is engaging while rolling, it should remain to ROLL and then switch to TRACK and at 400ft LNAV kicks in).
These problems goes beyond the possible configurations that the plane can have.

QuoteOh,no, The aerodynamic is as bad as the old one. Just did some quick test
LRC FL300, very typical
For E190, with 10200LB, the FMC gives me LRC for M.66, but AOM gives me M.72
manual Speed to M.72 the aircraft gose FF:1640PPH and N1 on 75.7
on AOM, for 50000kg weight, the FF should be 1056Kph(2330pph) N1 should be 83.5

For E170, with 82000LB, FMC LRC is M.68,AOM M.67, so that's OK
But, with M.68, FF GIVES 1200PPH. while manual gives 1756PPH under same condition.
and N1 as low as 77.2 rather than 83.2 on the AOM.

So.... as "good" as the old one.... that makes my fuel plan from AOM's SFP chart useless,  always overweight on landing....
I had backed up my original version aerodynamic tweak, I'll see if it works with the new one then....

QuoteI couldn't get past the visuals of the vc modelling...some aspects seemed nice (like it appears they have used pbr which enhances the look) but there seems to be something about proportions and / or somehow it just felt like a slightly cartoonish version. I think it's the displays in terms of fonts sizing and somehow the proportion modelling for some parts of the vc seem off.