Boeing 720B Performance question

[Telly]

Hello everyone,

After having installed and flown the 707-320B on a number of occasions, I installed the 720-020B model with the 1965 panel in my FSX/Acceleration and am having (over) performance issues.

My first test flight consisted of the 720 with full PAX load and 56,000 lbs of fuel, and using the 707-320B's EPR/ROC settings as a rough guide, I couldn't achieve a "realistic" climb/cruise flight path.

Setting EPR to 1.85, the N1 passes 100% and the acceleration to V1 is extreme.   After Vr, I clean the a/c configuration and set EPR to 1.60 which gives me roughly 96% N1 and a ROC of 4500-5000 fpm needed to sustain 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft.

Cruise is also achieved with EPR hovering around 1.1 with N1 at 60% and IAS of 340; this at FL300!

Are there any changes need to be made to the FSX a/c config file, or is the 720 certified for HALO* flights   ? 


* high altitude, low orbit

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

It's been a while since I've flown any of the B720's .... although, by coincidnce, I've recently begun rewriting my flying guides for each the B707's (new Bassic Flying Guides) .... and which will, eventually, extend to both species of the B720.

In fact this new data for the B707-320, 420, -320B EARLY, -320B ADV, and -320C has already been compiled by me over the past 4 weeks or so, but, I've not yet posted it.

The data we currently have here ....
tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/1567/b707-panels-installation-handling-notes
.... was compiled by me .... 9 years ago .... when I was learning/first starting to compile FS aircraft/flight guidence (as part of my pre-release testing regime) in order to to assist folk.

GETTING TO YOU POINT THOUGH ....

I can't speak for FSX, but, the B720-B's performance should be "no different" than in FS2004 .... given that the only difference between these 2 FDE's is in regard to Smoke Effects display coding .... BUT .... what you describe "DOES" seem to be abnormally potent performance than I recall being the case.

The B720 was (essentially) a lighter/simpler contruction, slightly smaller, cheaper version of the B707-120 .... intended for shorter range routes and high altitude operations (it was intended to counter the CV880 and CV990) .... and as such it could operate from shorter RWY's, climb more quickly, and probably fly a bit faster than most B707 versions too .... and probably had plenty of reserve power (especially the B720-B's) as well to say the very least.

As a counter to the CONVAIR threat .... the B720 did (although it wasn't entire resposible for) impair sales of the CV880/Cv990 by virtue of the fact that despite being a bit slower it could carry more than the competing CONVAIR's .... and as suich was much better money-making potential for the airlines.

The original performance data I recorded (in FS2004) .... "9 yEARS AGO" (when I was first learning this stuff) .... and after MGW separture .... was as follows ....

B720-020B

MGTOW 234,000 LBS.

4X P&W JT3D-1 fanjet engines rated at 17,000 LBS thrust e/a.

Set engine thrust to EPR 1.40 .... then release brakes and increase T/O thrust to approximately EPR 1.85.

Initial ROC 2,000-2,500 FPM.

After gear and flap retraction reduce thrust to EPR 1.50. Increase ROC to 3,000 FPM until passing 18,000 FT. Assume the following schedule for best climb performance ....

- 18,000 FT reduce ROC to 2,500 FPM until 22,000 FT
- 22,000 FT reduce ROC to 2,000 FPM until 27,000 FT
- 27,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,800 FPM until 28,000 FT
- 28,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,500 FPM until 29,000 FT
- 29,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,200 FPM until 30,000 FT
- 30,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,000 FPM until 30,500 FT
- 30,500 FT reduce ROC to 750 FPM until 30,750 FT
- 30,750 FT reduce ROC to 500 FPM until 30,900 FT
- 30,900 FT reduce ROC to 250 FPM until 31,000 FT
- 31,000 FT ALT CAPTURE/TOC .... target airspeed 328 IAS

Check engine thrust between 10,000 FT and 30,000 FT to ensure a constant setting of at least EPR 1.50. Reduce thrust to EPR 1.40 passing between 30,000 and 31,000 FT.

Maintain EPR 1.40 for the following FL310 cruise performance ....

IAS = 328
MACH = 0.854
TAS = 502
EPR = 1.40
N1 = 85.5 %
EGT = 418
N2 = 87.8 %
F/F = 2,600-2,700 LBS per hour/per engine.

Further reduce engine thrust for MACH 0.82 cruise and fuel economy.[/quote}


The same/similar should be perfectly practiceable in FSX too.

EPR is extremly difficult to represent in FS .... and requires some "fudging" .... SO .... whatever engine EPR values are presented should (perhaps) be taken "with a grain of salt" .... that's just FS for ya !!!!

It's the engine N1/N2 values that should (probably) be focussed upon .... in conjunction with airspeed/MAcH and altitude indications .... BUT AGAIN .... the above guide should still be workable (provide a satisfactory FS experience) .... "AS A GUIDE" !!!!

If I were writing this guide now (and which will happen for the benefit of all) .... and following a MGW departure .... I'd probably advise restricting T/O power to N2 100% .... and then maintaining an initial ROC of around 2000 FPM (or more .... remember it's a lighter more capable aircraft) until after Flap and Gear retraction .... and then .... further increasing the ROC whilst also reducing power somewhat (along the lines of what I've recommended above) .... and then following the prescribed altitude/ROC adjustment schedule too.

Be that an good/authentic procedure or not (I dunno .... I'm not a pilot) it does/"SHOULD" work fine in FS.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to 250 KTS below 10,000 FT because that's more of a pattern/traffic-flow restriction around some of the worlds busier airports .... as I understand. In fact I've known traffic, around some airports in the past (like NZAA), to sit on as much as 300 KTS .... as used to happen a lot to assist/benefit CV880's break records within the USA (some are still unbroken today I believe) during the early-to-mid 1960's .... until "restrictions" were imposed at some places.

Best I can advise .... for the moment is ....

"TRY" my old recommendation/s above.

"IF" .... I get time tomorrow .... then "I MAY" post a revised procedure .... based on 9 years more knowledge and experience .... and we'll see how that then compares

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Deleted]

I am totally surprised that 720 could do mach 0.85 cruising speed!!!

Regards,

Aharon

[Telly]

I'll try using the above profiles to see how much of a difference there is from my "guesstimate/707 rough estimate" test flight, but I honestly think there might be a problem with the 720 being so overpowered in FSX (fde or possibly the gauges showing false readings).

As your mentioned Mark, I believe using N1/N2 percentages would probably be closer to reality, so if you're in the process of writing new instructions, see if you can add this info in (and keep in mind that I'd be more than willing to help out in any way possible).

As for the 250 KIAS below 10,000 rule, unfortunately I can't avoid it since I do all my flying using FSAirlines which penalizes the VA when over-speeding below 10,000 ft, or forgetting the landing lights on/off at that altitude.

Once again, thank you Mark for all the help!

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I am totally surprised that 720 could do mach 0.85 cruising speed

He's missed what I stated above .... that the current performance data was written by me "9 years ago" when I was "first learning" how to compile this stuff

These simulation will easily do MACH 0.85 (so might the real world aircraft too if it wasn't controlled) if they're hammered and one goes "BALLS-THE-WALL" !!!! .... but ordinarily .... "MACH 0.82" would probabably be "quite sufficient" at 31,000 FT.

On an aside and in regard to FDE compilation generally ....

One thing that possibly needs to be born-in-mind is we (anyone in fact) can fine-tune FDE's ..... "to a point" .... in that indicated engine parameters (such as EPR or PS7, N1, EGT, N2, and F/F) are usually pretty accurate "at SL" (for our simulations at least) .... and probably to around 10,000 FT in FS too, but, what gradually happens afterward .... "in FS" .... is something we've all got to learn to live with .... and that's just the way FS works


"TELLY" .... I'll try'n find time (today) to bring forward my planned B720-B re-analysis .... and will let you know .... because given what I've learned after 9 years of experience and knowledge gain (in respect of how to best drive these suckers in FS) there's bound to be minor, but positive. differences. This's already evident in regard to the (new yet to be released) B707 guides I've recently re-compiled .... and that's on the basis of just "handling/procedural technique alone" without any FDE editing at all.

Again .... there shouldn't be any difference, at all, between FSX and FS2004 performance since the AIR.FILE and CFG data is precisely "the same" for both .... save for the Smoke Effects data which I mentioned.

Part of the secret (mine at least) to manipulating these simulations (and others) into best possible (if not credible) peformance in FS is to find the "SWEET SPOT/S" .... the best combination of thrust reduction setting and ROC adjustment/s after T/O and clean up whilst still guarunteeing acceptable ROC and acceleration performance too .... in order to eventually formulate a guide intended to try'n aid folk .... BUT .... it'll always be something we learn better over time

Thanks for you offer too BTW .... one of these days I may even take you up on it

Mark C
Akl/NZ

[Deleted]

ohhhh that makes sense LOL Mach 0.82 sounds right LOL I did mach 0.83 at 30,000 ft. Guess I was almost right LOL

Regards,

Aharon

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

You're .... "GETTING THERE" .... like a Turtle in a thundestorm/slowly but surely maybe .... BUT .... you "ARE" (definitely) getting there

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Deleted]

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

OK .... I've done what I indicated I'd try'n do .... bringing forward my planned "B720-020B" test/re-evaluation in anticipation of the new B707/720 PANEL INSTALLATION & HANDLING NOTES/manuals I've been compling over the past several weeks.

PLEASE NOTE: The following observations relate to the later fanjet powered B720-B only .... and not the earlier/original turbojet powered B720-A version ..... please don't confuse these aircraft types.

The following analysis is based on my FS2004 observations only .... BUT AGAIN .... no (majot) difference/s should be evident in FSX since the FDE is precisely the same for both FS versions .... save for the Smoke Effects data I've mentioned.

It's important to ensure the correct B720-B Aircraft Base Pack/FDE version and Panel combination are used .... or .... the intended performance/s will be thrown "right out of whack" and become quite unrealistic.

Upon interrogation the "Last Modified Date" for the current "B720B.AIR" file version should read as follows ....

Tuesday, 23 May 2006, 10:01:52 p.m.

The HJG custom B707/720 Panel version used is as follows ....

"B720-o20B 1965"

ANYWAY ....

Here's my new (based on 9 years more experience) recommended handling procedure/s for flying the HJG B720-020B "at MGW" only .... and operating from the default KSEA (FS2004) airport .... and climbing to a cruising altitude of 31,000 FT.

PLEASE NOTE: Operating overweight or at significantly reduced weight/s .... or at cruising altitudes less than or in excess of 31,000 FT will result in entirely different performance observations ....

B720-020B "MAY 2015 EDIT"

4X P&W JT3D-1 fanjet engines rated at 17,000 LBS thrust e/a

MGTOW = 234,700 LBS

DEFAULT 100% FUEL/PAYLOAD = 19,294 LBS overload

FUEL & PAYLOAD ADJUSTMENTS

LEFT AUX = 80%
LEFT = 70%
CENTER = 64.7%
RIGHT = 70%
RIGHT AUX = 80%
CENTER 2 = 100%
CENTER 3 = 100%
No payload adjustment = 48 LBS overload

PANEL = "HJG B720-B 1965"

TRIM = 6 units (Center Pedestal gauge/scale indication)
T/O FLAP SETTING = 30* (2X notches)
MAX T/O THRUST = N2 100% (N1 104% EPR 1.72)
V1 = 128 KTS (at MGW)
VR = 139 KTS (at MGW)
V2 = 153 KTS (at MGW)
INITIAL CLIMB RATE = 2,500 FPM (prior gear/flap retraction)
FLAP 30* RETRACT SPEED = 200 KIAS
FLAP 20* RETRACT SPEED = 220 KIAS
AFTER T/O (after clean-up) CLIMB THRUST = maintain N2 91.5%
AFTER T/O (post flap/gear retraction) ROC = 3000 FPM

Maintain 2,500 FPM ROC and maximum power (N2 100%) until after gear and flap retraction .... then increase ROC to 3,000 FPM and reduce power to approximately N2 91.5% and assume the following climb/power adjustment schedule ....

- 10,000 FT reduce ROC to 2,500 FPM - maintain approx N2 90%
- 20,000 FT reduce ROC to 2,000 FPM - maintain approx N2 89%
- 25,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,800 FPM - maintain approx N2 88%
- 27,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,500 FPM - maintain approx N2 87%
- 28,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,200 FPM - maintain approx N2 86%
- 29,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,000 FPM - maintain approx N2 85%
- 30,000 FT reduce ROC to 800 FPM - maintain approx N2 84%
- 30,500 FT reduce ROC to 500 FPM - maintain approx N2 83%
- 30,800 FT reduce ROC to 200 FPM - maintain approx N2 82%
- 31,000 FT ALT CAPTURE - maintain approx N2 82%

FL310 CRUISE PERFORMANCE

IAS = 314 KTS
MACH = 0.82.1
TAS = 481 KTS
EPR = 1.26
N1 = 74.1%
EGT = 389*C
N2 = 82.1
F/F = 1,984 LBS (X4)
AI Pitch = +0(+1)*

During the course of this afternoon I've flown the HJG B720-020B to cruising altitude (31,000 FT) several times in order to ensure the above observations are as reliable as is possible .... with very little, if any, variation being evident betweeen each test.

I need to stress that flying the above procedures "IS NOT EASY" for the less experienced .... and does require concentration and skill, but, once mastered (practice makes perfect), this becomes 2nd nature, and "DOES" make the challange flying these great simulations a lot more enjoyable/rewarding.

Needless to say .... the above prescribed data not based on real world B720-020B procedures (and I'm not a pilot), but rather, are designed around how this particular simulation wants to performs in FS .... and which then dictates my recommended procedure.

These procedures also reflect the way I (personally) like to fly in FS .... so .... some degree of "difference" in opinion (tehnique-wise) is possibly to be expected

I might need to add a couple more minor fine-tuning edits (so keep an eye on the above just in case), but, see how you go .... since the above prescribed procedure should (will) work fine in both FS2004 and FSX

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Telly]

Here is my first series of test from take-off to around 15,000 ft:

Base model with B720B.air file, model 11 config, panel.b720-020b.1965 panel, and texture.olympic_airways_1976_051b_sx-dbg repaint; all files freshly downloaded from HJG's site.  All this on FSX with Acceleration on a Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit environment.



As a reference, I used your fuel settings and the model's default payload settings:

FUEL & PAYLOAD ADJUSTMENTS

LEFT AUX = 80%
LEFT = 70%
CENTER = 64.7%
RIGHT = 70%
RIGHT AUX = 80%
CENTER 2 = 100%
CENTER 3 = 100%
No payload adjustment = 48 LBS overload


and didn't have the same 48 lbs overload.  Below is my FSX Fuel and Payload inventory:

Empty weight      115,000 lbs
Payload            38,860 lbs
Fuel               77,212.40 lbs
Gross weight      231,072 lbs
Max Gross         234,000 lbs
Max Fuel           80,740.00 lbs



Now on to the test flights (managed two before I was continuously interrupted by calls from work).


Take-off:
Automatically calculated V-speeds            V1-126   Vr-137   V2-152
N2 100%  
EPR 1.78 (as opposed to 1.72)
N1 105% (as opposed to 104%)


Climb:
N2 91.5%
EPR 1.44 (as opposed to 1.47)
didn't gather any N1 info...


I flew the a/c to around 15,000 ft twice using your ROC, and on the first go, the auto-trim started working at around 14,000 ft and the ROC shot up to 6,000+ fpm, stalling the a/c.   On the second flight it climbed up to 15,000 with no problems.


The differences in readings are minor, but I did want to pass them on since there might be a problem concerning FSX.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I acknowlege .... from your initial report .... something definitely isn't right there "TELLY".

Whilst there's some differences in FSX (I understand the program has a few additional FDE related parameters "that can be exploited" .... and which we've never done incidentally) .... those differences which do exist should be so minor they account for little .... unlike the differences which occured between FS2002 and FS2004 that imposed some obligatory and quite major FDE re-writing.

A problem I have here is that can't verify FSX performance/s .... since I don't use that particular FS version .... BUT AGAIN .... in regard to these simulations that shouldn't matter.

I do need to "quiz you" in regard to a some of your "initial" test observations though .... as follows ....


1. I note you went up only as far as 15,000 FT .... and which will result in entirely different cruise performance indications than recorded by me at 31,000 FT.

2. I also note you were some 4,000 LBS lighter than me on T/O also .... and which although it may not seem much is actually sufficient to result in slightly more enhanced (spritely) performance .... believe it or not.

3. I additionally note after T/O .... and assume after flap/gear retraction .... you reduced power to N2 91.5%, but, did you also increase the ROC to 3000 FPM ? The simulation should have no difficulty adjusting to that combination of engine thrust and ROC until 10,000 FT .... at which point the ROC needs to be reduced to 2,500 FPM and engine power eased back to N2 90 % .... then so on and so forth in accordance with my revised power/ROC adjustment schedule throughout the climb.

4. Forget the EPR data .... because in FS and at altitude these indications have to be taken with "a grain of salt".

5. Throughout the climb .... using any of these simulations .... engine thrust must be constantly monitured .... and adjusted if necessary .... at around every 1000 FT of the climb (I recommend). The engine spooling rate for each engine version (turbojet, versus fanjet, versus modern turbofan engines) represented among these B707/720 simulations is also compiled to vary between each of the 3 basic engine types. As such .... one may think they've successfully set engine thrust at N2 91.5%, but, due to the slow spooling rate of the B720-B's JT3D-1 fanjet engines (and the JT3C and JT4A turbojets are even slower), the actual thrust setting finally acquired might drift a bit higher or lower than the intended setting (even I've been caught here .... through side-traction and/or concentration lapses when tired), so, one's best advised to set the recommended engine thrust setting .... plus around "point five" of a per cent (.5%) more. It's a little "TRICKY" .... but .... can be done and eventually becomes quite easy with experience, but again, engine thrust must be "CONSTANTLY MONITORED AND ADJUSTED" during any climb toward cruising altitude. Even that mere point 5 of a per cent more power "does" make a difference. If one frequently hovers ones mouse cursor over the N2 gauges it'll display a placard not only identifying the name of the gauge, but also, displaying it's precise indicated value at that particular moment .... and which is how I keep a precise handle on what's happening. I think it's necessary to have FS Tool Tips enabled in order to be able to see this.

6. I note you say "Auto Trim" kicked-in at around 14,000 FT .... pitching you up to around 6000 FPM .... and inducing a stall. What troubles me here is there's no Auto-Trim as such .... except in "AP CONTROLLED FLIGHT" mode .... so I assume this must be what you mean. During AP controlled flight minor Trim adjustments are made automatically, or, these can be induced manually by mouse clicking on either of the 2 Trim wheels (top or bottom axis) represented on the AP sub panel .... 1 click equals 100 FPM ROC/ROD adjustment .... with the ROC being very easily controlled per this method. In AP, or even Manual, flight control mode the Trim shouldn't slip/run-away .... and if it ever does (unheard of though) then that could be indicative of a hardware device interaction issue with the simulation. Again .... hovering ones mouse cursor over either of the 2 Trim wheels on the AP sub panel will display a placard indicating the established ROC value at that particular moment .... and which is how I keep a precise handle on what's happening there also .... since I've observed there can be "a very minor" discrepency between what the VSI gauge indicates versus the actual ROC/ROD value acquired .... I therefore recommend using the VSI gauge as "a quick visual reference", but then, interrogating the AP Trim wheel regularly for the actual acquired value .... and adjust it if necessary .... is my "best advice".

7. Are you saying you experienced no difficulties at all during your 2nd test .... and everything basically performed more-or-less as prescribed per my revised procedure ? Just clarifying this particular detail Results can vary from test to test .... and that's just in the nature of FS .... BUT .... what I do is perform several tests for any particular simulation, then, identify the 3 results that are in basic agreement, and which form the foundation for whatever becomes my recommended flying guide/s. Needless to say this takes an awful lot of time .... and how many individual simulations do we have here ? .... each of which have been similarly tested by me prior to their release


One detail I didn't mention yesterday and in hind-sight suppose I should have ....

As a matter of FS (only) practice .... since this wouldn't be done in the RW .... I like to select the AP "ON" ASAP after T/O and gear retraction .... usually as soon as the recommended initial 2500 FPM ROC has been acquired in the case of this particular simulation. It just makes things easier

I'd like to see you try a few more tests .... based entirely upon my above recommended profile (weights included) .... aided by these additional notes .... and then report back if you wouldn't mind.

I'm happy analyse and advise .... "IF I CAN" .... and which (I hope), by now, most appreciate is "an HJG service standard" anyway

As a last resort .... and only if problems persist (though they shouldn't) I may end up sending you my own FDE files for the "B720-B" per email.

I can see your registered email address here, so please, don't go breaching your own privacy by posting it here publicly

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Telly]

Just a head's up... still at work and can't read the whole article!
Hopefully will be able to tonight when I eventually reach home...

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

No problem .... we'll just "take it as it comes" (as we're both available) then "TELLY"

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I've performed another 3 tests today .... each based on my above-prescribed (recently revised) procedure for the HJG B720-B.

As a result of these tests .... in FS2004 (and FSX shouldn't prove any different because aerodynamically- speaking there's no difference between the 2 FDE data to start with) .... I can only confirm my above procedure and recorded performance observations.

The only detail I can find that "DOES" (possibly) require attention is the CRUISE LIFT SCALER (that's FDE related) .... because at cruising altitude, and for the IAS, TAS, and MACH airspeed indications I've recorded, the AI gauge "IS" showing a "0" (degree) attitude .... whereas for similar performance indications each of the other B707 versions I've recently written new (yet to be released) Flying Guides for, each display a + 1* AI attitude during the high-altitude/high-speed cruise regime.

Got to be careful with this CLS value .... because "IF" it's edited, to try'n coax a (preferrably) slightly higher AI pitch attitude in the high-altitude/high-speed cruise regime, then, it could also (possibly) unwittingly change the entire climb profile I've so far devised. Unfortunately FDE work can sometimes become a bag of compromises (if not worms .... or both) .... "FIX" something "HERE" and it may "BREAK" something else "THERE" .... or .... bump something positively here and it may bump something else negatively there

What I've recorded in regard to this AI anomaly could also have been induced by other factors .... including my recommended fuel loading/distribuion .... it's hard to say.

EVEN SO .... an extenal check of just how the simulation was actually sitting inflight, during this observation, seems to indicate that despite what the AI gauge displays, the simulation certainly wasn't sitting at either a perfectly flat or nose down axis/attitude .... in fact it didn't look too-too bad at all despite my reservations .... and as can be seen here ....











The above checks were flown twice .... with 2 different aircraft at the same simulated weight, altitude, and airspeed .... and with no obvious variation between results being apparent.

During the 3rd test I followed my above-recomended altitude/ROC adjustment climb profile .... BUT THIS TIME .... increased the N2 power setting/s by just "1% more throughout the climb (starting at N2 92.5 % after flap/gear retraction and establishing an initial 3,000 FPM ROC) .... and which then resulted in the following cruise performance indications at 31,000 FT ....


FL310 CRUISE PERFORMANCE (1% higherr N2 test)

IAS = 318 KTS
MACH = 0.82.9
TAS = 486 KTS
EPR = 1.29
N1 = 77.1%
EGT = 394*C
N2 = 83.4
F/F = 2,129 LBS (X4)
AI Pitch = +0*

It may be "perceived" that the engine N1/N2 indications are a little "on the low side", but, I think it also needs to be remembered that the B720-B has a lower MGW (is lighter) than the B707-120B/138B, but, it's P&W JT3D SERIES fanjet engines have a similar thrust rating .... hence each of these factors combine to result in the somewhat lower engine indications (it seems the B720-B has "plenty of reserve power") evident, as well as the simulations slightly more spritely climb performance too. I address this particular performance through keeping the initial ROC higher .... for longer .... and by easing power back a bit wee bit too .... and which keeps the airspeed under control whilst also ensuring a good ROC too (things do get busy from between 27,000 FT and 31,000 FT though, but, that's "nothing" once one's accustomed to it) .... and which seems to work fine "for me".

I don't know if there's really much more I can do here "TELLY" .... short of sending you my own FDE files (with Smoke Effects data modified for FSX use) if you wish .... just in case you do, for any reason, have a wrong, or corrupted FDE .... but .... I'm content continuing to try and assist .... "if posible".

Mark C
AKL/NZ