|
|
Post by crashhawkce on Jun 24, 2006 21:56:24 GMT
Excellent job on the 707 panels! Do you plan on creating panels for the 707-700 and the KC-135 series and if not which ones could I use for the -135 series?
Thanks
Janathan
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 24, 2006 22:21:04 GMT
OK .... we don't as yet have any B367-80, B707-700, 0r C135 series specific panels in the line.
For the moment I would perhaps be inclined to use the B707-320B/C panel for B707-700.
The C135's are bit more tricky .... depending on the period of 135 you're flying.
If you plan on flying the old J57 turbojet powered aircraft then I'd perhaps be inclined to mate those aircraft with either B707-220 or -320 panels .... you could also use the B707-120 panel with "WATER METHANOL" system for the very earliest of C135's too. For the moment I'm not sure how far back chronologically our C135 line extends, but, I understand Gary CARLSON (their creator) may have future plans regarding these.
For the fanjet powered C135's I'd be inclined to use either B707-120B, or B707-320B/C panels.
In the case of B367-80 I'd be inclined to use the B707-120 .... although in reality the cockpit and instrument layout on B367-80 bore little resemblance to that of the later B707 series.
Some of you might be wondering what's the fundimental difference between these B707 panels .... and why so many of them ?
If you pay particular attention to engine instrumentation (particularly EPR gauges) you'll notice the turbojet powered aircraft all feature much higher incremental values. By comparason these same gauges on fanjet powered aircraft feature lower increnmental values.
The PANEL.CFG file within each of the 7 panels is set up to select uses different and appropriately calibrated instrumentation to best reflect the performance of the various turbojet and fanjet powerplants applied throughout the B707/720 series.
The modified FDE's then do the rest for you.
Hope that's enough to help you get sorted
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jun 25, 2006 17:16:25 GMT
The proper mating would be the following -
J57 -> B707-120 (all J57-engined C-135s had water injection)
TF33 -> B707-320C (all TF33 aircraft used the engine instruments from the aircraft that donated the engines - American Airlines 707-320Cs, so it's going to be the closest panel)
F108 -> B707-320C (for now due to the lack of a CFM-specific panel. Otherwise would most closely mirror the 707-700 for pre-Pacer CRAG flight deck, however the Pacer CRAG flight deck is all its own, so it would require a specific panel under all circumstances).
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 25, 2006 22:50:46 GMT
Personally .... I'd like to see these, but, it's w-a-y to early to say yet  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 26, 2006 7:16:31 GMT
The water injection system on the 707-120 panel will only work if the aircraft FDE is equipped with afterburners. What was the J57 engine thrust, without and with water injection?
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 26, 2006 10:00:00 GMT
P&W J57-P-59W (on KC135-A)
9,500 lb "dry" thrust rating
11,200 lb "wet" thrust rating
13,750 lb "maximum" thrust .... exceed that and you're probably in for both a change of engine and underwear ;D
Mark C
AKL/NZ
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 26, 2006 10:13:42 GMT
What the hell length of runway did the KC-135A need? Even the 707-120's JT3C-6 engines had 11,200 lb dry thrust, boosted to 13,000 lbs with water injection.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 26, 2006 10:26:07 GMT
At least 10,000ft and with reduced load .... according to my references. Take is described as being long, very noisy, and extremly dirty  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jun 26, 2006 17:28:47 GMT
George, when fully loaded, the KC-135 needed well over 12,000 feet of runway and the V1 was nearly 50 knots below VR due to the lack of reversers. Speed didn't matter if you lost an engine or water injection post V1- you were going to crash. If you were airborne, you might get lucky and have enough speed to fly level long enough to start dumping fuel to get light enough to climb to pattern altitude and make an emergency landing, but most times, you ended up in the weeds off the end of the runway and, if you were really lucky, you survived the ensuing conflageration.
The KC-135 was/is a great airplane, but they were asking a lot from those little engines to pull into the air. Once you got off and well above V2, then you could start to relax, but until the introduction of the TF33 on the KC-135E and the F108 on the KC-135R, takeoffs were an extremely dangerous affair, especially when deployed where your demeneralized water may not be so demeneralized.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 26, 2006 17:54:01 GMT
How did such a dangerously underpowered aircraft ever get certificated in the first place? Shouldn't a lower weight limit have been imposed until more powerful engines were available? (J75s perhaps - these were the military JT4A).
|
|
|
|
Post by Harerton Dourado - HJG on Jun 26, 2006 19:00:59 GMT
Wow! Did these figures were similar for the turbojets 707-100?
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jun 26, 2006 20:14:54 GMT
No. The 707-100 operated at much lighter weights than the KC-135.
Not only that, but as I mentioned in another thread, the 707-100's water injection system was an "inner/outer" so if you lost one of the 2 water pumps, you'd lose power symetrically. On the KC-135A, it was a "left/right" system, so if one of the pumps failed, you lost power asymmetrically, ususally resulting in an aircraft cartwheeling down the runway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Carlson - HJG on Jun 27, 2006 11:46:27 GMT
Initially the C-135's injection was left/right. After a string af accidents, like what Chris described, caused by losing all water injection on one side, Boeing reworked the system to be inboard/outboard.
Cheers, Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jun 27, 2006 18:12:58 GMT
When did this happen Gary? I looked at both of my KC-135 books and they state that it was never fixed because the only way to fix it was to completely re-plumb the wing. It only got "fixed" when the aircraft were re-engined and the water injection system deactivated.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 28, 2006 8:07:21 GMT
I've had a look at some KC-135 panel pics, and it seems that some aspects are very different - for example the fuel valves are on the forward control panel (where the radar/ADF/XPDR/INS are situated on the 707). Also the engine gauges seem to be N1-EGT-N2-FF-OILPRESS from top to bottom, instead of the 707's EPR-N1-EGT-N2-FF.
|
|
