B707/720 Modifications

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I'm replacing my original B707 FDE modifications thread with this new one .... given the benefits/improvements recently applied to our C-135 SERIES FDE's are also now being applied to our B707's/720's too (the previously methodology was good but what's being applied now is definitely "SUPERIOR/BETTER") in order to achieve similar improved flight performance/s for each of these/our B707/720 simulations.


Having now completed the C-135 SERIES FDE edits (which will be released "later" but not as part of the next update .... although at least 3X of these edits will be released in order to support new base pack model/texture additions) .... I'm pressing on with similar FDE edits for our entire B707/720 SERIES .... "AS I CAN/TIME AND OPPORTUNITY BOTH PERMIT"

Almost completed (99% at least .... just a couple of incidental problems to resolve) are edits for both the B707-320 and -420. These simulations .... like our entire C-135 line prior to FDE fixing too .... each demonstrated the same approach to landing issues (primarily too high an AI pitch attitude .... resulting in impaired RWY visibility throughout the entire approach to landing) among other climb, cruise, and descent related impairments .... all of which have now been/are being "FIXED" .... as the following images may testify


1. Approach to landing pitch attitude/RWY visibility throughout any approach to landing (view in relation pitch attitude/AI gauge indication/s) is "SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED" .... it's now no longer necessary to raise the scenery horizon view to improve RWY visibility during any approach to landing (provided one's not overweight for landing and flaps, gear, and engine power are extended and applied correctly throughout any approach to landing .... or can can, and most likely will "get into trouble") .... with the added risk of then staring at an excessive amount of virtual concrete during roll-out after landing ....


B707-320





B707-420





Both our B707-320 and -420 panels differ .... in that the -320 features EPR, N1, EGT, N2, and FF indications among it engine gauges cluster whereas that for the -420 is composed of P7 (not EPR), N1, EGT, N2, and FF indications. Quite a bit of subtle variation exits among our extensive B707 panel line .... and which is evident once one becomes acquainted with these panels.


2. The above-mentioned "improved AI pitch gauge indications in conjunction with the external AI pitch attitude" for these simulations is now "CORRECT". For B707/720 type aircraft the approach to landing AI pitch attitude shouldn't vary in excess of -1* degree to 0* degrees ....


B707-320





B707-420





.... with a +2* degree flare being applied prior to landing and from around 10-15 FT as power is retarded for the landing. "THIS" .... is about as fine/accurate as we can make the performance of these simulations .... and the applied fixes "DO" work .... "provided the entire approach to landing is managed well/properly"


3. the CP data has been adjusted "AS BEST WE CAN" .... in order to enable these simulations to demonstrate a "better" static ground pitch ....


B707-320 MODEL SHORT


B707-320 MODEL (standard)


B707-320 MODEL CARGO



B707-420 MODEL SHORT


B707-420 MODEL (standard)



I'm not prepared to risk any further CP adjustment/s than have so far been applied .... since any further adjustment/s may result in these simulations "being crashed" (not FS crashing) when loading into FS at the start of any flying session. At MGW these simulations now sit "almost" correctly .... whilst at MLW there is still "a very minor tendency for them to pitch down slightly toward the nose and whilst on the ground .... but which will have to be "tolerated" due to apparent minor limitations with some of these models.


When released (along with the remainder of the C-135 FDE edits too) this project will be accompanied by the "ADDITIONAL SURPRISE" I keep talking about .... and which is still being evaluated at the moment also


Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Herman]

Thank you. I will look forward to flying the revised 707\720 models when they become available.

Herman

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Not 3D models,

These are "FDE revisions" .... to improve/enhance/perfect the performance of these models.

Same as has already been applied to the C-135's .... which will be released "a later on/once this B707/720 component is also completed".

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Pressing on with these B707/720 FDE edits .... as I can ....

Aided by the recently completed (and yet to be released)C-135 FDE edits as mentioned per the following link ....


tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9817/135-modifications


.... I've just completed editing the B707-220 FDE today and after some 3, or 4, days of (bloody) "frustration"

It's just as well I scrapped our originally intended B707/720 FDE editing project, commenced early this year, because what's now being slowly achieved is "DEFINITELY SUPERIOR" having benefited from the recent new C-135 data.

As I've mentioned previously .... FDE work is "the most time consuming (and often irritating) aspect of FS development and upgrading work". There's no such thing as a quick fix or one solution applies to every simulation type of methodology. Each subject/model has to be assessed "individually" .... and "individual solutions" then developed/applied to each simulation accordingly .... often after assessing the results of "quite a number of successive edits" (what works well to achieve good high altitude/high speed flight characteristics may not be suitable for desirable low speed/low altitude and in particular approach to landing flight performance. It requires a lot of fine tuning, thorough testing, all of which can often be akin to milking a mouse). As Mike, whom assists me, recently stated .... it's a case of "edit, test, observe, rinse, edit again, test once more, and observe yet again .... and repeat as many this process as many times as may be necessary". It's process that sometimes needs to be repeated a dozen, or even more, times in succession in order to explore all possibilities to discover, and apply, "the very best solution possible" for each individual simulation .... and that's just the way it "IS"

I'm attending to each of the problem children/most difficult simulations first .... in order to get them out of the way ASAP before returning to those that were partially completed pre-COVID 19 and earlier this year

ANYWAY .... and as has already applied to the B707-320 and -420 mentioned within my above progress report ....


1. The B707-220 flight performance has now been fine tuned "as much as I dare" .... in particular getting the approach to landing profile right .... MEANING .... the best pitch attitude (this usually results in a -1* through 0* degree AI pitch attitude at the correct approach to landing airspeed with full payload, 20% total fuel remaining, and both gear and full flaps extended .... and which is "about spot-on/right" for B707/C-135 TYPE aircraft) in order to ensure "un-obscured RWY visibility throughout the entire approach to landing" and from as much as 20 DME out .... or just as the following imagery demonstrates ....


B707-220 APPROACH TO LANDING PROFILE (external view)
















B707-220 APPROACH TO LANDING PROFILE (panel view)






1. The B707-220 CP's have also been fine tuned as much as I dare too .... MEANING .... improving its static ground pitch (getting it to sit correctly/better whilst on the ground (too much adjustment will cause these simulations to crash when loading into any FS session .... "NOT" an FS crash though .... whilst insufficient adjustment will result in a distinct canter toward the nose). B707/C-135 TYPE aircraft, unlike DC-8's, sit fairly flat whilst on the ground .... pretty much as demonstrated per the following imagery ....


B707-220 MODEL 01


B707-220 MODEL 02



Needless to say the TO and climb performance of each subject so far successfully edited is "greatly improved/a lot more authentic" now too .... but .... it'd require a fairly technical, and lengthy, video in order to demonstrate this, and which I can't at this time provide, so, you'll just have to take my word for it

A problem with the old (still currently downloadable) FDE's, and which has prompted this editing, is many of these simulations have suffered from a variety of flight performance related problems .... ranging from being "ridiculously and grossly overpowered" to demonstrating "unsatisfactory pitch attitude and other less than desirable flight characteristics". This's perhaps hardly surprising though considering "NONE" of these FDE's have ever been properly edited since the very earliest days of FS2004 (at least not beyond what was deemed necessary for panel compatibility). Back in those days we simply didn't know how to do what we now know how to do and which is now, finally, benefiting these each of simulations.

Whilst this project (and any project I undertake) can only proceed in accordance with the time I have available to apply to it another yet to be announced "SURPRISE" will also benefit these simulations "even more" ....when release time eventually comes

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Based on the same sorts of edits as have been presented above .... the B720-A's now "done" (not released yet though .... and it won't be until the rest of the B707's are complete .... and by which time the earlier hinted "SURPRISE" will also be ready and released too). There are times I'd like to be able to present video's .... since these would more convincingly demonstrate the positive gains/success of the edits I've been referring to recently .... therefore the following imagery will continue to have to suffice

B720-A Approach to landing pitch attitude corrected ....


PANEL VIEW






.... and confirmed externall as follows ....


EXTERNAL VIEW






















B720-A CP data's also been agjusted (as much as I dare risk) in order to improve the static ground pitch of these simulation ....


MODEL 02


MODEL 07


MODEL 08


MODEL 11



This's been "a fun simulation to fly" .... and since editing I'm "very pleased" with the manner in which it's now flying

Just coming pack to the approach to landing pitch attitude ....

The applied fix/es (for this) has/have been achieved per very fine adjustments to the "appropriate scalers". However .... it's essential to fly all approaches to landing at the correct/recommended weight and airspeed/s .... or .... problems "WILL" occur.

In respect of weight .... whilst approaching to land with maximum payload the total remaining fuel shouldn't ever exceed 20%.

In respect of approach to landing airspeed/s .... this's a little more tricky since these B707 panels feature a V-speed calculator which automatically sets TO V-speeds (only) and in accordance with weight, but, this same facility doesn't provide landing specific V-REF data. However .... approaching to land at, or below, MLW I've found that resetting the TO V-speed data, again in accordance with reduced weight (as should be the case upon the conclusion of any virtual flight), this action results in V-REF data that's very close to actual B707 landing speeds. In particular .... and as my guide for the approach to landing .... I generally note the indicated V2 speed (as evident per the V-REF placards visible in each of the panel images) and use this as my target approach to landing airspeed .... with sometimes plus, or minus, a couple of KTS.

Just digressing slightly here ....

The approach to landing airspeed for B707's is probably a "wee bit" higher than those for DC-8's (and that for the CV-880's is even higher still) due to the BOEING's slightly greater wing sweep .... BUT .... the above-mentioned recommended work-around, in the absence of actual landing specific V-REF, seems to work very well .... "for me"

Setting the speed bugs within the ASI gauge is very simply achieved as follows ...

1. Click on the "V" icon (located on the main panel and above the ASI gauge) .... this action will "open" the V-REF placard to display the recommended V1, VR, V2 speeds in accordance with simulated weight.

2. Click on the open V-REF placard .... this action will automatically set the speed bugs within the ASI gauge in accordance with the placarded airspeed data.

PLEASE NOTE: Unlike is the case with our DC-10 panels (and those for our B727 and DC-9 too .... I think) .... this V-REF data "will not" automatically update. As one's flight progresses virtual fuel will be spent .... resulting in weight reduction and the need to then "manually" reset/readjust the V-REF data .... especially in order to determine the approximate landing airspeed. This's equally simply achieved as follows ....

1. Click on the V-REF placard .... this action will "close" this placard.

2. Click on the "V" icon .... this action will "open" the V-REF placard to display the recalculated/recommended V1, VR, V2 speeds once again in accordance with simulated weight.

3. Click on the open V-REF placard .... this action will once again automatically set/reset the speed bugs within the ASI gauge in accordance with the placarded/recalculated V-speed data.

PLEASE NOTE: If one doesn't "close" then "reopen" the V-REF placard .... then .... the recalculated V-speeds can't be displayed .... AND .... if one doesn't click on the V-REF placard .... then .... the speed bugs within the ASI gauge can't be set in accordance with the recalculated and weight dictated speed data.

This's "a neat little and very easy to use" feature of each of our B707 panels .... and which is pretty reliable too.

Coming back to the approach to landing pitch attitude once again (particularly in regard to flying an AP controlled ILS/GS coupled auto approach prior to actually landing) ....

Getting this right is dependent on weight, airspeed, and just plain old good decision making.

Fly the approach to landing overweight and the simulations nose will tend to drift up/high as airspeed reduces .... and the lift of the flaps will likely be insufficient to bring the nose down and which will then result in RWY/horizon visibility problems.

Again .... "DO NOT" land overweight .... it'll only complicate performance .... as well as the enjoyment of these B707 simulations too.

Too much airspeed during any approach to landing, and captive with the lift of the flaps, will cause the nose to drift "down" .... the AI pitch attitude during any stage of the approach to landing (using these B707 simulations) should range between but never exceed -1* to 0* on the AI gauge.

Insufficient airspeed during any approach to landing will also cause the nose to drift "up" (even if at a sensible landing weight) .... and which will once again result in RWY/horizon visibility problems.

Aided by "good judgement" first and foremost (situational awareness of the type that basically means staying in front of the simulation) .... power and airspeed are critical to ensuring a decent/correct pitch attitude throughout the entire approach to landing. The (classic) B707's don't have AT's (some of these aircraft, as was also trialed on some DC-8's too, were AT equipped, but, period anecdotes indicate that crews mostly opted not to use the system given it wasn't sufficiently reliable .... these aircraft represented the dawning of some of the reliable automated aviation systems which are standard equipment today). Power must be adjusted "manually" .... in order to maintain pitch and airspeed .... and the power also needs to be carefully, and constantly, jockied/manipulated throughout most the approach prior to landing in order to maintain the best profile in relation to the displayed ILS/GS indications .... if the latter are being relied upon.

Approach to landing airspeed will vary slightly between B707 versions and their weight .... as will engine thrust and spool-up time too. Power should be applied decisively but "cautiously" rather than decisively and aggressively .... since large power inputs/reductions will tend to result in pitch related issues in the form of a potential see-sawing oscillation if such power adjustments are excessive .... and which will additionally cause the simulation to either under flt, or over fly, the displayed ILS/GS indications.

It's important to remember that B707's do not represent AIRBUS type technology, so, shouldn't be flown, or expected to perform, with AIRBUS-like precision. The B707 is, and should largely, be flown "manually".

These B707 simulations are capable of flying AP controlled ILS/GS coupled auto-approaches and down to approximate 100 FT .... and by which point the AP should then be disengaged and the actual landing then flown "manually".

These B707 are capable of very successfully intercepting any ILS/GS beam from angles as acute as 90* (if flown carefully) .... though 25* to 30* should be considered a normal and preferable intercept angle.

In FS (and as is the case with most simulations) a long final approach to landing (up to 20 to DME from any RWY) is better than anything less. Flying such a longer approach simply allows more time for the simulation to "stabilize" on the ILS/GS .... due to the tendency, in FS, for most simulations to weave somewhat prior to becoming stabilized on any ILS/GS beam.

Using these B707's AP AUTO mode should be engaged .... when within range (20 to 21 DME is usually the maximum distance in FS) of the selected ILS/GS .... BUT .... "only when these indications begin to center within both the AI and HSI gauges". If out of ILS /GS range .... then .... AP VOR/LOC mode should be engaged "first" .... and then reset to AP AUTO mode once within range of the intended ILS/GS.

Flying the full approach to landing circuit pattern (downwind, to base, and to final approach sectors) for any virtual airport and at reduced/reducing airspeed .... and also during acute turns of up to 90* .... these simulations may exhibit a minor tendency to rise and fall slightly as may be evidenced per VSI gauge indications (although in reality this indication tends to be more of "an FS gauge reflex" since the simulation likely isn't rising or falling at anything like the rate indicated). Any tendency for these simulation to do this during manouvering, or in response to flap extension too, may "easily and very effectively" be restricted/limited by "tapping both trim up and down keyboard commands .... no more than 2, possibly 3 at the most, trim inputs in response to either inclination should be necessary (this action is effective even whilst the AP remains engaged) in order to "force" these simulations maintain "a reasonably level" flight attitude/profile in relation to banked manouvers .... and until actually descending down the ILS/GS beam.

This may all seem quite complex .... "to read" .... but in reality .... it's all "FAR MORE EASY" than it appears in B&W .... although how these simulations ultimately actually respond, and fly, is entirely up to the V-pilot/end user controlling them.

I'll start concluding this presentation now by saying .... "PRACTICE" (and the more of it then the better) ultimately makes for "PERFECTION"

Although most of our currently downloadable B707 simulations "DO" manifest some issues that impair the like of pitch attitude, performance, and RWY visibility during most approaches to landing), these particular issues are, now, being successfully eradicated per the FDE edits referenced within this thread .... unfortunately without video to better demonstrate the fact.

These edits, once released, will definitely make for "far better and far more enjoyable" HJG B707 experiences .... for everyone whom chooses to partake of such

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

FDE edits for the B707-138, B707-138B (early production), B707-138B (late production), and B707-120BF (rare pure freighter) are now "done" too.

Basically the same matter as commented above have been addressed .... despite the fact that the nature of all this editing, by necessity, has to be specific for each type.


ANYWAY ....


- CP's corrected to improve static ground pitch .... as much as Mike and I dare risking. At "extremely low weights" the nose may still tend to "dip slightly" (nowhere near as much as previously though), but, such is unavoidable given both the chronological and technical foundations of these models .... as well as other limitations we ran into that can't (easily)( be resolved.

- Appropriate flight scalers adjusted to improve both inflight performance .... previously some of these simulation demonstrated cruise pitch related issues and/or cruised at around the right airspeed/MACH velocity, but, for too little engine power.

- RWY visibility throughout the approach to landing has been improved for these also .... due to the corrected approach to landing pitch attitude.


The above aspects have been each adjusted with success .... in as much as is/should be evident per the following imagery ....


1. B707-138 - PANEL VIEW (1959 configuration) - APPROACH TO LANDING





B707-138 - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING





B707-138 - EXTERNAL VIEW - STATIC GROUND PITCH

MODEL (standard)



2. B707-138B EARLY PRODUCTION - PANEL VIEW (1959 configuration) - APPROACH TO LANDING





B707-138B EARLY PRODUCTION - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING











B707-138B EARLY PRODUCTION - EXTERNAL VIEW - STATIC GROUND PITCH

MODEL (standard)


MODEL S2HK



3. B707-138B LATE PRODUCTION - PANEL VIEW (1965 configuration) - APPROACH TO LANDING





B707-138B LATE PRODUCTION - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING











B707-138B LATE PRODUCTION - EXTERNAL VIEW - STATIC GROUND PITCH

MODEL (standard)


MODEL S2HK



4. B707-120BF (pure freighter) - PANEL VIEW (1965 configuration) - APPROACH TO LANDING





B707-120BF (pure freighter) - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING





B707-120BF (pure freighter) - EXTERNAL VIEW - STATIC GROUND PITCH

MODEL CARGO



FDE edits for the B707-120, -120B, and B720-B are also "complete" too .... but .... I don't have time to present everything else this evening.

Again my thanks to Mike MONCE for his assistance with these and thus far


Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Still haven't had time to image evidence of the completed B707-120, -120B, B720-B FDE improvements .... but .... they "ARE DONE" (and I "WILL" get around to doing so once I'm less subjected to some current impositions) .... and performing far better than previously/the currently downloadable stock.

Thought this next one (B367-80 .... below) would be "a breeze" once I got into it, but as things transpired it became "a right royal prick of a thing" to try'n get right (all of these simulations are individual .... therefore requiring different solutions being specifically customized, tested, and then applied to each .... and which is what takes time, and patience too, in order to perfect). I found "a lot wrong with it/this one" .... but needless to say .... I managed to fix it (beat the bi-yetch into submission) and now it's performing "really well" in comparison to how it used to perform in FS.

A point to remember when flying this particular simulation is .... due to it's much lower engine thrust rating than that of all other members of our B707/C-135 family (9,500 LBS thrust "dry" .... or .... 11,000 LBS thrust wet) it doesn't like to .... or rather it's probably not a good idea .... to take it up/above the virtual FL250 following any MGW departure. At this particular FS altitude, and once settled into the cruise, it "purrs along like Cheshire Cat"/quite nicely indeed (albeit a little more slowly than the rest of our B707/C-135 family) .... although power "DOES" need to be constantly checked, and adjusted if necessary, in order to maintain performance.

Simulating a wet TO (water/methanol injection system .... included in this and our B707-120 and C-135A/P&W J57 series simulations .... along with those for our DC-8 SHIP ONE 1959 and DC-8-11/12 subjects too) this B367-80 simulation has amble power to maintain a good ROC (which we've improved "fractionally" .... because it needed it) following any MGW departure .... but .... it also needs to be understood that the WI system is only good for 3 minutes duration (only) following any TO, and once it's "exhausted" .... THEN .... so is the boost provided by it too .... and which then requires well planned intervention (anticipation) in the form of a fairly well timed ROC adjustment so as to maintain forward momentum and continue climbing at a sensible acceleration rate

ANYWAY .... having now been subjected to the similar edits as discussed above ....


- CP's corrected to improve static ground pitch .... as much as Mike and I dare risking.

- Appropriate flight scalers adjusted to improve both inflight performance.

- RWY visibility throughout the entire approach to landing improved also


.... here's visual evidence in support of how much better this B367-80 simulation is now performing in respect of each of the above mentioned claims ....


1. B67-80 - PANEL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING






2. B367-80 - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING






3. B367-80 - EXTERNAL VIEW - STATIC GROUND PITCH

MODEL (standard)




That's a total of 11 of our civil B707 flight line base packs/FDE's edited/completed by me now .... although some of these have yet to be presented here as I mentioned above.

Just 4 more subjects left for me to complete now .... then they're all "DONE" .... and I can once again return to my MD-80/90 fixing ....

tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9816/mad-dog-modifications

.... and which is a far easier project than this recent lot or our preceding (now completed) C-135 SERIES flight line.

This's all taken a wee while, but, it had to be done.

Later on "may" explain a little concerning why some aspects of this project have been addressed they they have (the best, most difficult, but, the most effective way) and not by simpler means/solutions.

It's just a pity it's not been practical to do all of this before now

Once again my thanks to Mike MONCE for his assistance with this project


Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

The B707-700's "DONE" now (among other's I've still yet to present) too .... leaving just 3 more of our civil B707/720 flight line remaining to be FDE edited.

Again .... this one's been adjusted in accordance with all that's been preiously mentioned above.


1. B707-700 - APPROACH TO LANDING (panel view)




In addition to the FDE editing necessary to get the nose "down" so as to improve RWY visibilty throughout the entire approach to landing (from as much as 20 DME prior to landing) .... in the case of this panel, and it's accompanying E-3D panel version also, I've had to apply "a very minor" panel/scenery horizon line/view edit to further ensure adequate RWY visibilty. This's been due to the slightly higher and much wider portion of flat main panel combing below the windshield which, unlike is the case for each of our other B707 panels (barring just these 2) unavoidably interferes with RWY visibility. Editing the FDE in order to ensure the right approach to landing nose/pitch attitude for simulations using these 2 panel versions wasn't enough .... hence this additional slight/minor panel view adjustment "had to" be applied.

As may be evident within the above 2 panel images .... there's a minor degree of hypo-sensitivity in regard to FD indications within the AI gauge/s (which isn't the case with any of the other B707 panels presented above). For some reason FD indications in just this B707-700 panel (and its accompanying E-3D panel version) display with less accuracy in relation to FD VOR/LOC and AUTO/GS selections .... but .... is/are more-or-less OK in regard to FD HDG mode indications. I've requested this be "fixed", but, whether it can/will be is an entirely different matter


2. B707-700 - APPROACH TO LANDING (external view)




The above 2 external images confirm the approach to landing nose/pitch attitude (evident in the above panel views) to be "about right" .... and which now ranges from -1* to 0* throughout the approach to landing (provided the simulations flown properly to start with) .... until the flare for landing (about +2*) from around 20FT prior to landing.


3. B707-700 - CP adjustments (static ground pitch)
MODEL (standard)


A "very minor" pitch toward the nose remains evident (among each of the larger B707's) when on the ground, but, it's nowhere near as pronounced/acute as it was previously/as "is" the case with our current publicly downloadable B707/720 stock. At near empty weight though this canter, toward the nose, will increase "fractionally" more .... BUT .... that's something that'll have to be lived with. If we make any further adjustment/s to the CP's (wheels and strut compression primarily) .... then .... we automatically run the risk of these simulations being "crashed" when they load into FS .... MEANING .... being crashed "by FS" when loading and "NOT" FS crashing during the loading process. It must be remembered these are quite old models (but still quite good one's .... and these simulations generally will be far better now and as a result of these latest FDE edits), but, due to their "technical chronology" they do also have certain limitations .... and which ultimately imposes one, or two, minor limitations upon us too in regard to what we can easily do/achieve.


The flight performance of this one (like that for each of the other B707's/720's so far edited) has been "improved" somewhat too. Previously this B707-700 simulation exhibited too great a performance for way too little engine thrust at altitude. With scalers for a number of the appropriate flight parameters having now been "adjusted" .... these engine indications, in relation to performance, have been corrected somewhat and are now a bit more accurate/believable than was the case previously.

Just a quick reminder .... "NONE" of the above edited B707/720 FDE's are, yet, publicly downloadable

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Finished this one yesterday .... and certified it today.

It's the "early production" version of what succeeded the B707-320/-420 and evolved into the B707-320B ADV and -320C. This version being the B707-320B .... a classic physical feature of which is it's large -320/-420 inherited ventral fin .... the -320B being the only version of the B707-B/C series to be fitted with it. Not many of this B707 version were ever produced .... before it quickly transitioned to the -320B SCD, -320B ADV, and -320C (to try to keep ahead of DOUGLAS). PAN AMERICAN and TWA were the primary operators of this version .... though, and as is evidenced by our "B707-320B EARLY" section texture downloads, the few produced did eventually go on to fly with a number of other operators.

With it's higher weight (than the -320/-420) and somewhat lower engine thrust rating (P&W JT3D-1 fan-jet engines rated at 17,000 LBS thrust .... it also had a unique flap system too with 17* and 23* degree detentes unlike both earlier and later aircraft versions) .... this one's a bit more challenging to fly (well) .... and the first impression one gets of that is its considerably longer TO roll at MGW .... as well as it's not being quite as agile as the -B ADV/C during climb to cruising altitude, whilst also not really having quite the same punch at altitude too, but, it's none-the-less "very enjoyable to fly" .... only more-so considering it's it's been successfully FDE edited and is now flying like bird/better/like it's never flown before and despite of its operational/logistical limitations.

Here's the usual visual evidence for this one in support of my recent claims ....


1. B707-320B (early production) - PANEL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING





2. B707-320B (early production) - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING








The above 2 images once more confirm the approach to landing nose/pitch attitude to now be "about right" .... ranging from a -1* to a 0* (degree) AI pitch attitude throughout the approach to landing (a right royal prick of a bloody edit to try'n perfect for this one given each of these simulations need "different" edits .... no such thing as a one edit fits or is good for all type resolution .... but .... that's ultimately for the better in the long run) .... until the flare for landing (about +2* degrees) from around 20FT prior to landing.


3. B707-320B (early production) - STATIC GROUND PITCH - CP ADJUSTMENTS
MODEL (standard)



In respect of the CP/static ground pitch editing .... and as was stated in regard to the above-presented B707-700 .... a "very minor" canter toward the nose remains evident (as will be the case among each of the larger B707 versions), but again, it's nowhere near as pronounced as it was previously the case. At near empty weight though this canter, toward the nose, will increase "fractionally" more .... BUT ONCE AGAIN .... it's something that'll have to be lived with. If we make any further adjustment/s to the CP's (wheels contact points and strut compression/s) .... then .... due to certain limitations imposed by these 3D models we'll be running the risk of these simulations being "crashed" when they load into FS .... MEANING .... crashed "by FS" when loading and "NOT" FS crashing during the loading process.

Working on the last one's now .... almost the conclusion of 4 months work. Longer really though considering this project was commenced during late December/early January has been interrupted/delayed a number of times by COVID (a good thing though because I discovered a better/more effective way to edit these simulations and which has recently benefited our C-135 SERIES simulations too) .... as well as other personal impositions along the way.

Be reminded that "NONE of these edits (for either the B707's/720's or C-135's) are yet publicly downloadable .... with the exception of just 3 of the new C-135 base packs/FDE's released just recently and by necessity.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

After precisely a months work (to the day) .... and also having benefited from 4 months of work that's already been applied to fixing from our recently completed (and yet to be released) C-135 FDE's also ....

tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9817/135-modifications

.... the FDE fixing of our entire civil B707/720 flight line is also now "COMPLETE" .... save for a couple more test flights that required to assess and re-verify some performances.

Although not (yet) having been presented above .... the B707-120, -120B, and B720-B flight line "HAS" been addressed too .... and with similar "POSITIVE" results.

Both the B707-320B ADV and -320C presented below represent today's termination of this project.

Most of the following imagery represents the B707-320B ADV.

I'll try'n present more of the -320C later (maybe) .... along with imagery relating to the 120, -120B, and B720-B later also .... "PROVIDED I GET TIME TO DO SO".

Once again here's the usual visual evidence for these latest subjects in support of my recent claims of improvement/s ....


1. B707-320B ADV - PANEL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING (both 1965 and 1970 panel versions)










2. B707-320B ADV - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING
























3. B707-320B ADV - STATIC GROUND PITCH - CP ADJUSTMENTS

MODEL (standard)



MODEL HK3


MODEL S2HK


MODEL SCD




MODEL 323B (standard)


MODEL 323B S2HK



The above presentation pretty much completes all I'm going to present here in regard to the B707-320B ADV.

The following presentation represents all I've (so far) had time to prepare in regard to the B707-320C .... though all 3D models and both principal panel versions are represented below (there are other panel versions we offer too but these only differ in respect of both their OH and FE sub panel configurations) ....


1. B707-320C - PANEL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING (both 1965 and 1970 panel versions)










2. B707-320C - EXTERNAL VIEW - APPROACH TO LANDING








3. B707-320B ADV - STATIC GROUND PITCH - CP ADJUSTMENTS

MODEL (standard)




MODEL HK3




MODEL S2HK




MODEL 323C (standard)




MODEL 323C S2HK





As I said above .... the editing part of this project, along with 99.999% of all the the pre-release testing too, has now been "COMPLETED" .... with (I feel) very satisfactory results.

Once again I may .... "IF I GET TIME" (if I can be arsed doing so) add bit more imagery .... though realistically this'll mostly be for decorative purposes only since all my previous commentary pretty much states all that needs being communicated

I may also add some form of report later still .... essentially to close off this deal and more clearly, but briefly, outline a little more of what's been done that images can't really demonstrate .... and to also annihilate some quite erroneous views (and other fallacies) I've recently had the "amusement" of eves-dropping upon and which need to be cleared up/put to rest once'n'for all too .... when I get the time do do so also

Once more also .... be reminded that "NONE of these edits (for either the B707's/720's or C-135's) are yet publicly downloadable .... with the exception of just 3 (only) of our new C-135 base packs/FDE's released just recently and by necessity.

Mark C
AKL/'NZ

[Nathan Ford - HJG]

Amazing work, absolutely fabulous job. They all look spot on. Thanks Mark for giving up so much of your time on this project.
Looking forward to flying them.

Cheers,
Nathan

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Anything FS related costs time (only few people can really imagine just how much in respect of running a group like this/HJG) .... and that's something totally unavoidable.

Having recently retired though I (perhaps) have a little more time than the average person .... BUT STILL .... time is "TIME" and to be brutally honest there are things I'd much rather be doing (than FS) and that are more economically profitable to me even in my retirement.

The credit for this/these project/s is not mine exclusively though

"SURE" .... it was my own idea/desire "to want to try'n improve these B707/720 and C-135 simulations" .... just as was the case in regard to the CV-880 and DC-8 FDE's a little while back (after all they were each desperately needed it/upgrading .... and got it too .... as have the B707/720 and C-135 simulations now too) .... BUT .... George CARTY has played a major role in this project too in respect of "certain amendments" he's more recently applied to the AIR.FILE data .... just as Benoit PLAMONDON has played a major role also .... and throughout these entire projects (remember it's B707/720 and C-135 FDE editing) I've had the best FS/FDE teacher one could ever hope for in the name of Mike MONCE whom taught me all I've learned .... and Erik INGRAM was the incentive/driving force behind the recent C-135 edits/improvements in particular and which further motivated me to "want to" address the B707's/720's as well.

These are the guys whom have made "these projects" what they've now become .... not me solely

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Klaus Hullermann]

Hi Mark,

Wow! Now we can enjoy the entire (civil and military) 707/C-135-flightline even better! ***Thumbs up***

You and the other HJG-guys (or should I say artists) are doing a absolutely fantastic job offering so many classic jetliners and try to be as realistic (panel, sound, FDE, etc.) as the FS permitts.

Also you offering all those great files for free and in your sparetime. I'm always impressed what you guys are doing!

I want to give the entire HJG-team a big and loud THANK YOU for all the amazing work!

Klaus

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Still not had time to sort out imagery representing the aircraft type component of this B707/720 project that isn't yet featured above .... but .... which have been "completed" none-the-less and which I still hope to try'n find time to add in order to present the best/fullest impression of everything.

Within my last posting I mentioned I'd try'n present a wee bit more about this/these project/s and in regard what's actually been done to improve it/them (hopefully dispelling a couple of local myths and fallacies along the way too) .... and which I'll now attempt to relate below.

It's important to appreciate this particular project isn't just an FDE update alone.

It's also a panel related gauges/core files update too .... for the B367-80/B707/B720 (and C-135) components which make up this complete project.

And there's also another "yet to be announced" component of this project too which is still being finalized in order to complete the entire package.

With regard to the FDE. What's been done "is not" a total FDE re-write (such is entirely out of the question and would require an unacceptably long period of time to develop .... especially given the variety represented among these simulations with each of their individual aircraft type performances .... and to the extent that we'd never be able to relaunch such a total FDE rewrite project within a year anyway) .... so .... we do need to be clear about this from the very start.

The FDE component of this project should therefore be regarded as "a salvage" .... just as I described our almost identical DC-8 FDE update of 2016/17. Salvage or not though the effect/s of the FDE editing that's been applied to each individual simulation "MORE THAN POSITIVELY/SUCCESSFULLY" addresses a number of past and long standing issues (some of which we weren't even aware existed and discovered only as a result of this recent editing) and which have previously impaired these simulations .... BUT .... there's actually a lot more to this update than just FDE editing alone and this what I'll attempt to describe as follows ....


1. Although this's not a complete FDE rewrite .... extensive sections of FDE related data for each individual subject have, by necessity, been completely rewritten in order to achieve what we wanted to resolve (fix what needed being fixed essentially) .... too much really to be able to itemize or relate simply/easily here, but, all of which have the accumulative effect of improving ground, climb, cruise, descent, and approach to landing profiles. As previously stated .... some of these simulations previously performed "ridiculously" .... being either grossly overpowered or in some cases somewhat under powered .... whilst also demonstrating an undesirable pitch attitude during cruise and the approach to landing in particular. Previously one might not have been able to see much of, if any of, the RWY during approaches to landing (even at MLW or subjecting these simulations to further weight reduction) .... namely because the approach to landing pitch attitude of these simulations was wrong to start with .... and which effectively robbed one of adequate RWY visibility despite the fact that such views, using any 2D panel, are "artificial" anyway and do tend to be very pitch sensitive in regard to what can easily be seen. This sort of problem is often addressed by people in a couple of ways as follows ....

(a) Some opt to use keyboard commands in order to raise the seat view/scenery horizon line .... to promote/improve RWY visibility .... but .... whilst this "sort of works" it can also then result in one then staring at an unrealistically extensive portion of virtual concrete after landing (often without any scenery horizon line view at all) .... unless the view is again adjusted prior to actually landing (a process that can require one to have more sets of hands than most of us were born with). An issue I found associated with this particular sort of view manipulation (and which mat be unique to these particular panel) is after such adjustment/s and readjustment/s the view sometimes wouldn't reset to its same original axis .... to the extent of then causing further view related issues.

(b) Another alternative by some is to edit the panel "FORWARD VIEW" data dictated by the PANEL.CFG, but, whilst this "sort of" works too it doesn't address/resolve the reason why these simulations were tending to rob one of adequate RWY visibility during approaches to landing .... and which was simply because the approach to landing "pitch attitude" of most of these simulations was wrong/the fundamental cause of these view related problems to start with. Therefore .... by manipulating a number of FDE based scalers .... in order to correct the erroneous pitch attitude of these simulations .... we've been able to vastly improve RWY visibility during approaches to landing ... to the extent that commonly applied view related adjustments (as described above) aren't/shouldn't now be necessary. Using each of these simulations .... adequate RWY visibility will/should now be maintained throughout the entirety of any approach to landing (provided one flies sensibly and at the correct airspeed and weight .... and also subject to the timing of associated gear, flap, and power adjustments too of course) .... from more than 20 DME prior to landing and right up to the commencement of the flare for landing.

Therefore neither of the above options "A" or "B" are effective means to successfully address the like of these panel/scenery related view perspective issues .... at least not in the case of these B707 panels. The only really effective means by which to do so is "at FDE level" in order to correct the natural approach to landing nose pitch attitude for each of these B707 simulations so these issues are then less likely to occur .... and which is precisely what's now been achieved. Having said this though .... each of our 4 1970 era B707 panels feature a wider and flatter upper main panel combing below the windshield and which unfortunately tends to interfere with RWY visibility. In the case of "just these 4 panels only" the new FDE dictated pitch solution can't totally address this particular view related issue. Each of these panels therefore requires a very minor view perspective adjustment "at PANEL.CFG level" (already successfully applied) in order to ensure adequate RWY visibility during approaches to landing and in conjunction with the correctly adjusted pitch attitude for each B707 simulation that supports these 4 panels. This's something I was hoping to avoid, but, in this particular case it's simply "not been possible" .... so .... to resolve this issue once'n'for all we'll "need to" replace each of these 4 panels accordingly. Evidence of the this new and successfully adjusted view perspective, for these 4 1970 era panels, can been viewed in my last posting above and also compared with that of the accompanying 1965 era panels which need no such alteration.


2. This update is also composed of a number of panel gauges related improvements/edits too. We didn't know this previously (at least we didn't understand if this was ever previously reported to us .... given the way some things are often described by people) .... BUT .... we "did" discover a panel/gauge related anomaly that interrupted engine starting sequences, to cause an audio "stutter" (what I refer to internally here as being the "START FART") right at the very point of ignition during engine startup/spool up sequences .... an issue normally only evident in external viewing mode only and when using the default M$FS auto-engine startup procedure. This particular issue has now been successfully "RESOLVED/FIXED". Further FDE related work in this area also now results in slightly longer, and much smoother, engine startup sequences too .... all the way to idle engine running speed. In regard to our turbo- powered B367-80, B707-120, -138 and C-135 aircraft subjects (the panels for which each feature simulated water/methanol injection power boost during TO and initial climb .... timed for 3 minutes duration only). This WI system previously took "too long" to achieve maximum TO power .... a duration of some 30 seconds (possibly correct for much earlier turbo-jet type engines but incorrect for these later and pre-fan-jet era JT3C-6 and J57 turbo-jet engines). This's also now been corrected too .... and using a "soon to be released" new B707 PANELS GAUGES/CORE FILES (V1.7) package for these particular B707/C-135 panels .... the engine spool up time, in order to achieve the full (temporary) water/methanol boost, is now around some 10 seconds only .... whilst also still being limited to just 3 minutes duration. In addition to this .... the WX Radar in each of these panels also has now been further improved too (what George describes as gyro-stabilization) in order for it to be able to paint a more accurate return of FS generated weather .... particularly during inflight pitch and bank modes.


SO THEN .... this should all convey a somewhat more full/better impression in regard to the content and extent of this soon to be re-released B367-80/B707/B720/C-135 project.

I may be back later with a few tips in regard to flight characteristics and handling .... "IF" (as always) I can justify the time required to do so.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Klaus Hullermann]

Hi Mark,

you have a talent of teasing us about the coming 707/C-135 FDE/panel improvements. That's quite brutal, you know that, right?

But I'm sure you and the other guys are only want to deliver quality. So I don't have any problems with getting teased about such a great improvement.

Klaus