|
Post by Herman on Feb 25, 2018 0:11:25 GMT
Some time ago I did download and fly one of Libardo Guzman's 707-320B's. I recall using an HJG 707-320B panel.
The model actually flew very well (featuring a dynamic flexing wing and very nice paints\textures) even though the configuration in respect to payload and fuel load were a bit odd compared to the same HJG aircraft.
HJG.....MGTOW,== 335,000 lbs Payload= 40,000 lbs Max fuel= 154,255 lbs
Guzman....MGTOW--312,000 lbs Payload==80,000 lbs Max fuel==35,592 lbs
It is also suggested that the aircraft cruising speed should be Mach 0.74 as compared to a more realistic Mach 0.82. (No wonder with such little fuel the range is very limited.)
Herman
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 25, 2018 2:30:48 GMT
As I mentioned earlier today .... The FDE supported by the LG B707's represents the earliest version of HJG's B707 FDE's (discarded prior to 2006) .... FS2000/FS2002 based files which don't translate well into FS2004 and FSX without some extensive editing. I can see/understand your point of comparison (above) ... in regard to the data you've pasted .... but .... in all other respects there's really no comparison between either of the 2 FS versions. It could be the LG composed B707 loading is compiled on the basis of that of a typical B707 320B ADV/C flight .... whereas at HJG we compile our W&B data on the basis of 100% payload and fuel capacities (which always result in a nominal default overload) .... and in doing so we expect end users to adjust payload and/or fuel loading in accordance with the requirements of their virtual flights. This's done so end users (competent in regard to flight planning) get the benefit of being able to plan flights accordingly and in respect of the true capacities of these aircraft .... rather than being restricte br a set/specif MGW payload/fuel loading As mentioned earlier .... we supplied Libardo with the old HJG B707 FDE, but, we did also advise it'd be in the best interests of his simulation to edit this data (this would be essential anyway given the COG position in both 3D models would likely differ) in accordance with his requirements, but, we coulddn't (at that time) assist him to do so. MACH 0.74 would likely be a (fuel) cost saving measure employed by some operators after the impact of first oil price shock of the early 1970's .... and some operators (namely freight carriers continued this well in to the 90's too .... BUT .... during it's golden years MACH 0.80 to MACH 0.82 was usually the respected B707 velocity in the high altitude cruise regime. The B707 was always a wee bit faster that the DC-8. Reduced cruise velocity would also have promoted extended range .... although later version B707's (and DC-8's) didn't really suffer range issues given requirements of routes they flew in relation to the capability of technology and civil aviation development of the time (1960's and 70's I mean) .... and routinely flew the Atlantic between the US east coast and both the UK, and Europe, without necesitating an en-route tech/fuel stops ... unlike earlier versions of these aircraft and the COMET 4. Really prefer to keep this thread on track in regard to "JOSCYRIACV2's" queries and Mike's advice ... rather than digressing too much Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 25, 2018 2:41:56 GMT
I've just applied Mike's recommended FFS edit of "1.24" (remember this particular edit is intended for both the B707-320B ADV and B707-320C only, but, "NOT" any of our other B707's) .... and I'm now seeing the following F/F indications as a result .... GROUND IDLE (SL to 400 FT ASL) = 765 LBS (per hour/per engine) at N1 28.7 / N2 59.3
T/O THRUST (SL to 400 FT ASL) = 10, 835 LBS (per hour/per engine) at N2 100%I think you're "right on the money Mike" I've not had time today to fly all the way up to altitude for a complete and thorough check, but, based on the above (almost) SL indications this's a very good start .... and one which would continue to be proportionately evident all the way up .... SO .... "use it" folks Of course the F/F indications I've quoted above will vary in accordance with airport altitude .... and possibly temperature environment too .... and whatever they become by cruising altitude, subject to various drag parameters we compile into any FDE as well as simulated aircraft weight, power setting, and OAT also too, we have to accept .... because that's the way these parameters work within FS Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|