|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Nov 3, 2020 6:12:09 GMT
Ja mein freund  Don't get me started in regard to explaining my ability to dish out punishment  .... I'm "real good" at that sort of stuff, BUT, "only for the right reasons"  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Nov 5, 2020 1:56:30 GMT
The other day, and near the end of PP1 of this thread, I mentioned "a little" (only) about what's been done to improve these B707/720 (and C-135) simulations. I'm now going to relate "a little" (only) about their performances and how (we feel) each simulation can configured and best flown in FS The actual performance of each of these (all of our) simulations is primarily dictated by their simulated weight and engine thrust. Unlike is the practice of some FS authors though it's perhaps important to appreciate that we/HJG "DO NOT EVER" assign weight to generate "the feel" of any simulation .... since that (we feel) is the wrong way to compile. In short the heavier the simulation .... and the lower its simulated engine thrust rating .... then .... the more restricted its performance will be. This then dictates "specific handling procedures" for each simulation .... in order to ensure acceptable performance .... aided also by our recommended power and ROC adjustment/s through various altitudes and all the way up to cruising altitude. It's in this regard that our basic flying guides .... which outline our recommended (what we believe are the best procedures for each simulation) .... are intended assist. The recommended procedures for each simulation "differ" (again due to weight and engine thrust primarily), but, if practiced correctly, as recommended, then, these procedures "DO" work faultlessly. These recommendations may seem difficult to implement at first (they certainly require concentration and skill), but, once mastered they quickly become intuitive with practice .... and to the extent of making one's FS experience, using these simulations, somewhat more enjoyable if not "a little" more realistic too. Some people perhaps need to (be helped to) realize that these are "flight simulations only" .... and do not, and cannot, ever replicate the actual flight characteristics any particular aircraft type with absolute fidelity. However .... we can, and do try to, "design" procedures to artificially represent the known flight performance of any particular aircraft type, but, one must always remember that FS, at best, is just "a game" (albeit an enjoyable past time) .... and by virtue of the fact it (the "game") lacks certain RW parameters to manipulate, not all flight physics, or other technical factors, can be exploited or replicated accordingly .... despite our endeavours to try'n make everything as convincing an illusion of flight, and aircraft type, as is practical .... limited only by our currently FS knowledge and skill. By default all of these (each of our) simulations load into FS with a nominal overload. This's both "intentional and perfectly normal" .... as well as being "desirable" too .... simply because we compile each simulation with both 100% payload, as well as 100% fuel load too, both in accordance with the best and most reliable technical data "available to us" (it's perhaps important to bear in mind though that this sort data can differ between some aircraft types of the same model .... and we can't represent all configurations .... so .... we typically then apply "a single payload and fuel configuration only" and which best represents each aircraft type) .... rather than compiling what would otherwise become a payload and fuel loading "good for a typical flight". This methodology (we believe) enables better, and more accurate, flight planning for the "specific" requirements of any virtual flight. As stated above our simulations load into FS with full fuel and payload. Using the FUEL & PAYLOAD facility within FS .... the end user is then expected to "manually adjust" payload, or fuel load, or both, in order to set each simulation at, or near, it's MGW statement .... and in accordance with the requirements of their intended virtual flights. Our basic flying guides recommend fuel adjustment only and no payload adjustment at all .... in order to set each simulation at, or near, its MGW. This represents our "test configuration" for each simulation .... and which will be more than sufficient to please most/those less knowledgeable or technically inclined at least. For those whom enjoy the challenges of flight planning though .... if one wants to prioritize range, then, payload can be sacrificed in order to promote fuel .... AND .... if one wants to prioritize payload, then, fuel can be be sacrificed and with a resulting range impairment. Each of these methodologies work superbly in accordance with whichever one's preference may be. These same flying guides then go on to recommend specific post TO/clean up ROC and power adjustments, through various altitude zones, in order to ensure a descent ROC coupled with controlled acceleration all the way up to cruising altitude .... where (if these guides are followed to the letter) each simulation will/should then arrive slightly below its recommended cruising airspeed/MACH velocity .... and once power is set for the cruise .... the simulation will/should then respond by slowly accelerating into that particular recommended airspeed/MACH velocity .... and which is preferable to arriving at altitude over-speed and then having to slow down accordingly. In regard to the recent (yet to be released) B707/720/C-135 FDE edits. The performances of most of these simulations will vary .... some considerably .... again based on weight and engine thrust primarily (but numerous other influences/edits have been applied to achieve this also) .... and which dictates our recommended procedures. At MGW .... TO, using the least powerful of these virtual aircraft types (those powered by the lower thrust JT3P, JT3C-6, and J57 turbo-jet engines in particular .... and which require water/methanol injection to provide a power boost for TO) can/will be "quite challenging" .... especially in regard to some of the very high weight military C-135 aircraft .... but again .... once mastered these recommended procedures become "A PIECE OF PISS". At MGW though .... and even with maximum power applied (assisted also by the water/methanol boost) .... these simulations will require the full length of the default KSEA RWY 34R/16L .... right down to the last tens of meters .... in order to be able to accelerate toward VR and become airborne. These are "very heavy" aircraft and "not" short field performers .... and if the water/methanol injection system isn't engaged in order to boost TO and initial climb performance .... THEN .... it's highly unlikely one will become airborne at all .... at least not without perpetrating some substantial off-roading well beyond the opposing RWY threshold. At MGW .... each TO is "fun" .... and the "fun" doesn't end there either Once airborne, and with gear retracted and TO flaps still extended, "DO NOT" expect these simulations to accelerate rapidly. With full power applied .... and up to FLAP 30 selected .... acceleration will be gradual. With power adjustment/s following flap retractions acceleration will continue to be "gradual in proportion to the recommended and established ROC". These simulations no longer accelerate and climb unrealistically or uncontrollably like scalded cats. Our soon to be released (also) basic flying guide/s, compiled especially for these simulations, recommend a specific post TO/gear retraction ROC .... prior to commencing flap retraction, and then slowly increasing the ROC with further flap retraction until clean .... a procedure which, if not implemented correctly, can/will result in an unrecoverable stall. It's also essential to be aware that the water/methanol assisted TO boost, featured in some of these B707/C-135 simulations, is limited to to "just 3 minutes duration only" (a was the case in the RW) .... after which the ROC needs to be checked/reduced in a very smooth and timely manner .... prior to setting climb power .... and then ascending all the way up to cruising altitude. Again it's all "FUN" .... and once mastered it really becomes quite "ENJOYABLE" In addition to the above limitation/s and using any of these B707/720/C-135 simulations also (regardless of their weight and power specifications) .... at no time should the AI pitch attitude ever be allowed to increase beyond 10*. Failure to ensure this will result in an inability to maintain controlled acceleration, an impaired climb, and the risk of a further increasing pitch attitude, that will inevitably result in an unrecoverable stall .... if not checked sooner. That's "a little" more about these simulations generally .... and their handling. I'll be back later on (at least I'll try to be) with additional important handling information .... this time in regard to flying the downwind, base, and final approach to landing sectors of any arrival .... and again using these B707/720/C-135 simulations. These procedures require "a technique" also .... in order to limit/control/eradicate potential for both pitch and bank instability during AP controlled level flight (particularly during acute manoeuvering turns) which can otherwise result from the mishandling of these phases of virtual flight. In short and in advance of these additional notices .... one's well advised to appreciate these are "old aircraft types". They don't represent the latest AIRBUS and BOEING type aircraft technology. Therefore they shouldn't be flown or expected to fly or perform as such .... or in accordance with the stability of most modern aircraft types of the last 2 or 3 decades. These aircraft effectively represent the infancy of, and pioneered the excellence of, the modern aviation technology that's possibly taken for granted today. More on this .... and these B707/720/C-135 simulations "later" though. Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by Klaus Hullermann on Nov 5, 2020 5:51:44 GMT
Hi Mark.
This new FDEs for the 707/C-135 are sounding even better and better. I can imagine that the turbojet 707s and their military cousins will be quite challenging compared to the later turbofan variants. But I'm sure that those new FDEs will be boosting the 707/C-135 flightline for sure!
Klaus
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Nov 5, 2020 5:59:26 GMT
WELL .... they're definitely "a hell of a lot better than they were" .... and have ever previously been. Handling-wise ....they'e each all got there own little personalities .... and which make them all the more fun, if not more challenging too, if not bot, too Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Nov 5, 2020 6:05:03 GMT
As I mentioned within my above posting (see my last post on PP1 of this thread) .... TO for some of these B707/C-136 simulations (particularly for the high weight low power J57 powered C-135's) can be "FUN"  Once cleaned up though and successfully established in the climb .... everything then becomes "a lot easier" .... and much more-so too if the recommended ROC, altitude, power adjustments procedures are strictly implemented .... all of which are intended to aid ones enjoyment of these simulations Arrivals, for these same simulations, can be "just as tricky" and present their own unique challenges too .... and which requires more of a "TECHNIQUE" than a procedure when intending to fly any AP controlled ILS/GS coupled auto-approach to landing. Starting with the downwind sector of any arrival .... operating with a full payload the simulation should not have in excess of 20% total fuel remaining. Flight planning should be undertaken in order to ensure this's the case upon arrival. Attempting to fly any phase of the approach to landing with in excess of 20% total fuel remaining "IS" going to result in difficulties .... particularly in regard to pitch attitude. Therefore avoid arriving, and then flying the approach to landing, in an overweight condition .... or things will/can go to hell in a hand basket very easily/quickly Using any of these simulations .... below 10,000 FT, and flying the downwind sector of any approach to landing, airspeed shouldn't be in excess of 250 KTS .... and nor should it be allowed to deteriorate below 225 KTS either. With most of these B707/720/C-135 simulations .... whilst in level flight, flying the downwind downwind sector clean, and with less than 20% total fuel remaining, the AI pitch attitude should commence at around +1* and slowly increase to +2* with continued airspeed reduction toward 225 kTS .... as evident within the following image ....  I generally like to fly a long approach to landing .... from around 20 to 25 DME. Doing so simply allows more time for the simulation to become stable once established on the ILS/GS and from much earlier a stage than would otherwise be the case if flying a much shorter approach to landing. 5 months of development and testing has absolutely convinced/proven, to me, that the approach to landing, using any of these B707/720/C-135 simulations, is by far best undertake this way and as follows .... Commencing the turn from downwind to the base sector of the approach to landing .... using AP HDG mode with ALT HLD also engaged and from approximately 24 DME .... and with airspeed reducing from 225 toward 200 KTS .... and with the first increment of flap selected also .... these simulations should demonstrate an approximately +1* AI pitch attitude .... as evident within the following image ....  As is about to be demonstrated .... these B707/720/C-135 simulations are perfectly capable of successfully flying an AP controlled ILS/GS coupled auto-approach to landing (auto-land "IS NOT" possible though) from as acute an aut0-intercept as as 90* .... although 25* to 30* should be considered more practical/better/normal handling. With the AP HDG and ALT HLD modes both engaged and airspeed reducing .... these simulations will display a tendency to "dip slightly" when first entering any turn (although the simulation, in external viewing mode, isn't actually "dipping" as acutely as the VSI gauge may suggest). In any case .... it's normal for most aeroplanes to trade "a little altitude" during such acute turns and with reducing airspeed as is being demonstrated within this particular presentation. The general rule of thumb (for these simulations at least) is the tighter/more acute any turn with reducing airspeed .... then .... the greater the tendency for them to "dip" slightly during such turns. Flying these B707/720/C-135 simulations .... this tendency needs to be both expected and anticipated. The moment any slightest "dip" is observed .... then .... arrest it immediately. It's recommended that the TRIM UP keyboard command be gently tapped repeatedly (such manual trim intervention works perfectly with these simulations/panels even during AP controlled flight .... unlike is the case with some other simulations/panels) to limit any such "dip" and in order maintain as level a flying attitude as can be achieved. As these simulations acquire the new HDG following any such AP controlled turn, and begin to roll back into level flight again, they will then display a tendency to "rise" slightly as the new heading is acquired. Again this tendency needs to be both expected and anticipated also .... and the moment any slightest "rise" is observed .... then .... TRIM DOWN keyboard command gently tapped repeatedly in order to arrest the "rise" and continue maintaining the most level flying attitude possible .... as evident within the following image ....  This "dip" and "rise" during AP controlled banking is largely caused by the AP attempting to maintain level flight during the altered/banked flight attitude. If not arrested in a timely manner or if otherwise improperly checked, then, this "dip" and "rise" phenomenon has potential to result in flight instability .... it is very easy to control/restrict though and will only become an issue if one allows such. Flying an AP controlled ILS GS coupled auto-approach to landing, from in excess of 22 DME, ensures the simulation is actually out of range of the ILS/GS .... so .... to initiate such an auto-approach AP VOR/LOC mode should be engaged at "the moment the HSI bars begin to move toward the center of the gauge" in order to enable the simulation to automatically turn toward the localizer beam .... with the second notch of flap being selected also at this same moment .... and with airspeed continuing to be reduced toward 180 KTS .... as evident within the following image ....  .... THEN .... "as soon as" the GS indicator within the AI gauge becomes active .... from around 22 DME in this particular case .... AP AUTO mode should then be engaged in order to commence the auto-ILS/GS capture preferrably from below the indication/s. Again .... these simulations will display a similar tendency to "dip, rise, and also "weave" slightly too, as the ILS/GS beam is acquired, but, to a much lesser and smoother extent, and which should, once again, be expected and anticipated, and controlled per similar gentle tapping of keyboard commands "TRIM UP/DOWN" in order to maintain level flight .... as evident within the following image ....  With airspeed reduced to 180 KTS .... and as soon as the orange GS indicator (located at the right side of the AI gauge) is "just above" the center line .... I like to firstly select "Gear Down" .... then secondly select the 3rd notch of flap too .... followed then by an immediate power reduction also. These actions combined help avoid/restrict any tendency for the simulation to rise above the GS indicator as result of the slight "ballooning effect" caused by flap lift. From this point of the approach to landing it's not necessary, or advisable, to try to address this/any such ballooning effect per manual TRIM UP/DOWN responses. With the 3rd notch of flap selected .... airspeed will begin begin to reduce quite rapidly .... and as it reduces toward 160KTS I then like to select "Full Flaps" .... THEN .... just as promptly boost engine power again in order to arrest the flap drag and avoid airspeed declining below the ASI bugged V-REF. It should be noted/expected that "a large amount of power "WILL" be required in order to arrest the flap drag and maintain the computed V-REF airspeed .... as evident within the following image ....  This high power setting in response to flap drag is a desirable advantage though in the event of a missed approach .... as in the event of any such aborted landing the engine spool up time, in order to be able climb away safely and commence a second landing attempt, is "greatly reduced". Throughout the final approach to landing .... and with both gear down and full flaps selected .... these simulations should each demonstrate an AI pitch attitude ranging from -1* to 0*. From around 10 to 4 DME prior to landing I like to keep airspeed fractionally above the computed V-REF bugged within the ASI gauge. Very subtle power adjustments "WILL" be required in order to maintain the GS indication. If the simulation slips slightly below the GS, then, boost the power slightly until it's once again aligned .... AND .... if the simulation rises slightly above the GS, then, retard the power slightly until it's once again aligned .... as evident within each of the following images ....     It needs to be understood that airspeed/"V" placard, built into each of these B707 panels, computes weight dictated "TO" V-REF data only .... HOWEVER .... the displayed "V2" references are actually very close to desirable B707 approach landing airspeeds (B707's feature greater wing sweep than DC-8's and not only cruise faster but also fly the approach to landing slightly faster too). To generate approximate V-REF data for landing .... prior to commencing any approach to landing the airspeed/"V" placard must be "closed" .... then "reopened" again in order for new V-REF to be computed and displayed (this placard can't auto-update). The airspeed/"V"placard must then be mouse-clicked in order for the airspeed bugs, located within the ASI gauge, to be auto-set in accordance with the new computed/placarded V-REF data. Again .... manual/keyboard commanded TRIM UP/DOWN responses shouldn't be used in order to maintain GS indications. This's best achieved per subtle engine power adjustments. Avoid large and lengthy power imputs though as such will generate lift .... and if excessive, at either extreme, this will result in the simulation then commencing a see-saw motion as it attempts to maintain the ILS/GS indications. This isn't a tutorial .... and isn't intended to be one. It's simply "GOOD ADVICE" .... based on my own past 5 months of editing and extensive testing of our new B707/720/C-135 FDE's. The other intention of this presentation is to demonstrate, without the slightest element doubt, how the panel/RWY view issues, which have plague all of these simulations for so long prior to now, have indeed been "MORE THAN ADEQUATELY RESOLVED" .... as is evidenced by the above series of images recorded throughout an entire AP controlled ILS/GS coupled auto-approach to landing from 24 DME and down to 100FT. Having said all of this though .... how well these simulations fly and what one see's, if not how well one see's it all too, is entirely dependent upon how well the end user flies these simulations in the first instance .... hopefully aided by our good advice. The above images were all recorded using our new B707-320C FDE, but, the panel/RWY view perspective story (as discussed and illustrated throughout this thread) is now the same/similar for each of these B707/720/C-135 simulations now each has been successfully "tweaked .... as much as we dare". AGAIN .... BE AWARE THIS NEW DATA HAS NOT YET BEEN PUBLICLY UPLOADED Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Nov 5, 2020 10:37:34 GMT
Iām getting really quite excited about these fabulous sounding updates.
Looking forward to getting stuck into them. šš„
Nathan
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 8, 2020 6:47:23 GMT
Time for "one last report" in regard to the B707 FDE editing ("COMPLETED NOW") .... and which, by default, also positively implicates each of the C-135 FDE's too since "both" of these projects are related. As hinted in my earlier reports within this thread .... "a lot of work" has been applied to this/these simulations over the past 6 (and "more") months, in order to not only improve their static ground pitch (as best can be achieved subject to certain limitations) and approach to landing flight profiles .... BUT ALSO .... to improve their other flight characteristics too and which, by virtue of the edits applied to each, "HAS" been positively achieved. In fact given the nature of some of this editing there's "absolutely no way in hell" these simulations can fly as badly as some of them have been flying for many years previously .... and which is a "A GOOD THING". A particular performance related issue that's disadvantaged many of these simulations in the past is the fact some of them have been "so grossly" overpowered .... accelerating like scalded cats after T/O and even at/near MGW .... whilst others have been "somewhat" under powered and have struggled to achieve performances they should easily be capable of. As will hopefully soon be realized, by those opting to fly these updated simulations, this's been positively addressed as well and to the extent that each of these simulations now performs (post T/O climb and all the way up to cruising altitude) a lot more realistically than previously .... "provided they're properly to start with" of course I've already covered some aspects of this, and what's now to be expected, within each of my last 3 recent reports within this thread. How any simulation ultimately performs though is largely dependent upon "how one/the end user opts to fly it", but once again and just to further reiterate, each of these simulations "are" now performing "better" than previously .... "for both their recent FDE editing and being flown properly also. I've compiled procedural recommendations (T/O, climb, cruise, descent, and approach to landing) for each individual simulation and which, in order to achieve best possible performance, need to be implemented and adhered to .... otherwise one can still, and probably will, get into trouble quite easily. This supporting documentation (along with 2 new manuals too .... 1 for the B707's .... and 1 (a separate one) for the C-135's .... "if I can ready these in time) .... should be released/available shortly. In as much as the static ground pitch and T/O/climb performance of these simulations has previously been "an issue" .... so have some of their cruise performances as well. Previously many of these simulations have achieved a respectable cruising speed within the high altitude/high speed cruise regime, but, too easily and for too little power .... and which has also now been positively addressed. In addition to this .... a number of these simulations previously demonstrated improper flight characteristics within the high altitude/high speed cruise regime too .... maintaining "too flat" a nose/pitch attitude in most cases (the B720's have been the worst for this) and which has also now been positively addressed .... at least as much as can be without risking buggering everything else up completely. It pays to bear in mind though that the faster one flies, "in FS", then the flatter the AI/nose pitch attitude is going to become .... and that's true for any simulation. Just because some of these aircraft were .... "in the real world" .... capable of airspeed/MACH velocities akin to those routinely flown by CV-880's, it doesn't mean they should be flown like that, since B707's seldom ever, if ever, were "in the R/W" and in the interest of both fuel economy and maintenance costs. Therefore there "is" such a thing as flying "sensibly/economically" .... and which, if people really like to try'n "replicate R/W operations", is how these simulations should best be flown (in fact this's what our recommendations/guides are all based upon) .... rather than going "BALLS TO THE BLOODY WALL AND WITHOUT A CARE IN THE WORD FOR ANYTHING ELSE" Another reason why not to over accelerate when flying these B707/C-135 simulations is, "in FS", and with greater and greater power adjustment being applied, one not only ends up flying faster, but also, one will additionally observe engine N1 and N2 indications beginning to merge .... and which, when subject to even higher power settings, eventually results in the N1's starting to exceed the N2's. "This's a common FS issue" we've noted over the years .... and not just with our own simulations either. Therefore the maximum airspeed/velocity we recommend is determined by "that point below which engine N1 and N2 values remain acceptable" .... whilst also ensuring the simulations FF and AI/nose pitch attitude indications also remain acceptable too. The maximum performances we recommend are totally consistent with R/W B707/C-135 performances .... in so far as or knowledge of these is concerned (different aircraft versions are capable of different performances and we've replicated this into these simulations) and can easily be replicated (by us) "in FS'. All of these simulations now cruise "very nicely" at the virtual FL310 (with the exception of B367-80 which best performs at FL250) and at velocities ranging from MACH 0.80 .... through to MACH 0.83 mostly (MACH 0.74/0.75 for B367-80) .... and which is about as fast as one really needs to fly them .... and with one, or two (due to their simulated engine thrust) even managing to achieve MACH 0.84/0.85 quite nicely as well .... all for better engine thrust and FF indications along with a cruise pitch attitude of around +1 (degree). In respect of high altitude/high speed cruise performance, and using any of our B707 panels, there is "a very minor" (but almost insignificant) anomaly in respect of pitch indication/s demonstrated by their AI gauges. It's been noted that whilst this gauge may demonstrate an 0* (degree) AI pitch attitude in panel view .... comparing this indication with the simulations actual flight attitude in external FS view confirms the nose pitch attitude to be close/r to around +1* (degree) .... or a fraction less .... for the likes of MACH 0.83 performance at the virtual FL310. The following imagery tends to confirm the AI observations I'm reporting .... and illustrates each simulation being flown as fast as it should "sensibly" be flown at the virtual FL310 PANEL VIEW - AI PITCH/GAUGE INDICATION  EXTERNAL VIEW - ACTUAL PITCH INDICATION     The FS altitude/airspeed data, visible at the top of each image, should verify my performance/AI observation claims. Yet again .... I need to acknowledge George CARTY, Mike MONCE, and Benoit PLAMONDON's expertise in regard to the "B707" installment of this FDE project Shouldn't be too long now before these are all publicly available .... and we can then move on to the next project. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
|
Post by Benoit - HJG on Dec 8, 2020 12:43:24 GMT
In addition to newly improved modifications to it's FDEs (Flight Dynamics) and along with an amazing selection of existing and more recently added textures, The B707/B720/C-135s have upgraded engine sounds, 22 (11 FS2004 - 11 FSX) new soundpacks.
Pocedure #1. This tutorial takes you through the steps on how to startup engines using ground support simulation with pneumatic air delivery system. This is the most commonly used procedure.
Procedure #2. This tutorial takes you through the steps on how to startup engines using ground support simulation with pneumatic air delivery system by first starting engine #3, then using it's bleed air to startup the remaining engines. This alternative way is a less commonly used procedure.
Benoit
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 8, 2020 17:40:59 GMT
What Benoit's produced for us is "NEW B707/C-135" sound packs for "EVERYTHING" .... as per the following list ..... TURBO JET SERIES B367-80 P&W JT3P turbo-jet (no reverse) B707 P&W JT3C-6 turbo-jet B707 P&W JT3C-6 turbo-jet (no reverse) .... for C-135 use B707 P&W JT4A turbo-jet FAN-JET SERIES B707 P&W JT3D-3B fan-jet B707 P&W JT3D-3B fan-jet (no reverse) .... for C-135 use B707 P&W JT3D-7 fan-jet B707 P&W JT3D-7 fan-jet (no reverse) .... for C-135 use B707-RR Conway 508 fan-jet MODERN TURBO-FAN SERIES B707 CFM-56 turbo-fan B707 CFM-56 turbo-fan (no reverse) .... for C-135 use.... for C-135 use PLEASE NOTE: Not all C-135 aircraft versions "weren't" equipped with TR's but for those we represent and for which this "does" the case then "NO REVERSE" sound packs are/will be available .... whilst others will use the standard versions with TR audio. As may partially be demonstrated by the 2 above engine startup tutorials .... these "NEW" B707/C-135 sound packs are "VASTLY SUPERIOR" to the audio we currently, and have offered, for many years past .... and the credit for this is "entirely Benoit's Benoit's "NEW" B707 audio project is composed of a total of 11 separate sound packs for these and C-135 aircraft .... the production of all of which have been aided by his own personal, and very extensive, library resource of private recording dating back many years. It's not only fair to say .... but is also a fact too .... that B707 audio, for FS, won't get better than the project we're about to re-release ... .at least not for the forseeable future. In fact among the variation of engine tones the only thing that's missing is the smell of burned kerosene .... and the warm brush of jet lasted air. In addition to all this these "NEW" sound packs have been produced as "SEPARATE" FS2004 and FSX specific audio versions (so that's 22 sound packs in total) .... this's necessary due to significant audio differences and capabilities in regard to the Sound Engine/s of both FS versions. This "NEW" audio project represents the bulk of the "SURPRISE" (there's still a bit more though that won't become evident until released) I've been making constant reference too recently. This's a project that Benoit's been working on for well over a year .... and the rest These "NEW" sound packs are "HJG FDE SPECIFIC" .... each sound pack having been compiled in accordance with the dictates of our own aircraft type FDE's, so, the right tones are heard at the right point in response with power adjustment and settings. For these sound packs to work properly/as intended though the a "NEW" V1.7 B707 and V6.1 C-135 aircraft base packs along with a "NEW" V1.7 B707 Panel Gauges/Core Files "MUST BE USED" .... when released. As I commented within an earlier report on this thread we detected an anomaly within the currently downloadable/soon to become old V1.6 B707 Panel Gauges/Core Files package .... which, minor though it was, momentarily interfered with engine startups among these simulations only .... but .... which both required gauges and FDE editing (separate to the static and flight performance FDE editing applied to these simulations) in order to resolve. So, this will impose the need to "REPLACE" both B707 and C-135 aircraft base packs and panel gauges/core files .... which is "totally unavoidable" (due to the inter-relationships between gauges an, FDE, and sound) .... but which is also for "THE OVERALL BETTER" too. It "WILL NOT" be necessary to replace any of the existing panels though .... although the 1970 era panels are being "REPLACED" with view related enhancements as mentioned within either of my 3 earlier recent reports within this thread. Maybe we've got time to present a few videos demonstrating these sound packs is use with our B707/C-135 simulations, but, I'll leave that entirely up to Benoit as the audio content of this project is "his party" Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by Klaus Hullermann on Dec 8, 2020 20:18:56 GMT
I can't wait for 're-flying' the 707/C-135 jets in my FS9. Also Benoit did a great job (I've watched both videos) with the engine sound for the 707/C-135.
Now that's what I call quality over quantity. The HJG-team rocks fantastically!!
Klaus
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 15, 2020 23:40:31 GMT
Whilst we're working hard behind the scenes at the moment preparing our next website update for release .... and which, this year, is "a double release" .... here'e a quick video Benoit knocked-up to preview some of his "NEW" B707/C-135 sound packs which will form the backbone of our next release/s. Demonstrated within the following-linked video .... made in "FSX" .... is each of our following "NEW" aircraft type/engine type audio .... - P&W JT3C-6/P&W J57 turbo-jet (water injected and with heavy smokes effects) .... for B707-120/F, -138, and B720-A/AF .... as well as numerous C-135's too - P&W JT4A turbojet ... for B707-220 and -320/F. - P&W JT3D-3B .... for B707-120B/BF, -138B, -320B EARLY/ADV/SCD .... as well as numerous C-135's too. - RR CONWAY 508 .... for B707-420. PLEASE NOTE: Each of these "NEW" sound packs (and as is the case for all HJG FS audio) have been engineered in accordance with HJG B707/720/C-135 FDE .... and which is the best, and most thorough, way to compile sound packs and with the most pleasing results .... This video was produced by Benoit PLAMONDON .... the author of all of HJG's sound packs. This is one of his "PLANE SPOTTER" series of FS audio-visuals. All credit for this is due to Benoit .... as this's "his party" There are several other aircraft type/engine type sound packs also .... but ... .times' not in our favor to be able to present all of these at the moment FYI .... and just a quick additional comment and before anyone states something like .... "why aren't the fans inside each engine seen to be turning whist the engines are starting/running" Be advised that what's evident there is the "static grill" located near the front end of each engine. These "DO NOT" turn. The turning part of these engines is located further back inside each nacelle and "DOES" turn behind this grill Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by Benoit - HJG on Dec 16, 2020 5:01:04 GMT
A couple of military examples with CFM-56 engines made in "FSX" .... for our "NEW" aircraft type audio ....
- CFM-56 turbofan ... for B707-700 and C-135 series (KC-135R, RC-135, TC-135, E3-D, E6B)
PLEASE NOTE: Each of these "NEW" sound packs (and as is the case for all HJG FS audio) have been engineered in accordance with HJG B707/720/C-135 FDE .... and which is the best, and most thorough, way to compile sound packs and with the most pleasing results ....
Benoit
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 18, 2020 22:28:33 GMT
Although this (what I'm about to relate below) is now included within each of my 2 recently compiled forum based B707 and C-135 manuals .... B707 MANUALtonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9861/b707-installation-handling-notesC-135 MANUALtonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9860/135-series-installation-handling-notes.... what I'm presenting herein is intended to further increase awareness of a feature in our B707 panels that some, over time, may have forgotten, whilst others might be completely unaware of. I want to talk about the Fire Extinguisher System featured in these panels .... and how it functions/how to put out virtual/simulated engine fires .... BUT .... which requires "CAUTION" too .... because it will also, and literally, "put the virtual fires out" where engines are concerned .... and in doing so create a little additional "FUN" as a consequence Our B707 panels feature either of the 2 following Fire Extinguisher Systems .... located within the upper portion of each CAPT and FO main panel and below the windshield .... or .... located within the upper section of the OH sub panel in the case of just 5 of our B707 panels only .... MAIN PANEL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SYSTEM (B707-120/B/F/BF, -138/B EARLY/LATE, -220, -320, -320B EARLY, -320B ADV, -323C, -420, B720-A/AF/B/BF panels)  OVERHEAD PANEL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SYSTEM (B367-80, B707-320B ADVC 1970, -323 1970, -700, and E-3D panels ) Unlike is the case with the B727 panels we host .... the Fire Detection System in our B707 panels doesn't feature an audible/"ringing" Fire Warning Bell (unfortunately) .... but .... those B727 panels also represent far later programming and by an entirely different party too. The absence a "ringing" Fire Warning Bell in our B707 panels shouldn't matter though .... simply because (so far as I'm aware) it can't be made to function automatically (even in the B727 panels) or in response to any failure that may be pre-programmed to occur using the FS FAILURES options .... although an actual engine failure can be pre-programmed to occur. The File Warning System in our B707 panel may not, at first glance, look as though it's animated, but, it "IS" .... and it does work (outside the above-mentioned minor limitation) as follows .... 1. Left mouse click on the fire warning cover or Handle for any particular engine .... either #1/2/3/or #4 ....   2. The above #1 action causes the cover to open or the Handle extend .... as follows ....   3. Opening the cover or extending the Handle for any engine will cause the selected engine to shut-down. 4. Then .... position the mouse inside the open aperture or just above the extended Handle .... and left click "a 2nd time". 5. The above # 4 action will simulate the fire retardant system being discharged .... "ALSO TRIGGERING ITS ASSOCIATED AUDIO EFFECT TOO" and will additionally illuminate the orange or yellow lamp associated with the selected engine. Upon shutting-down any engine per the above prescribed procedure it "WILL NOT" then be possible to restart that selected engine .... at least not within the same FS flying session. Shutting-down any engine as prescribed above then, and by default, creates an interesting asymmetric power situation .... which needs to be and managed properly in order to maintain flight control and directional stability. "DO NOT" .... under any circumstances .... attempt to control engine thrust using E+1/2/3/or 4 keyboard commands (at least not unless one has the non-HJG supplied SELECT AND CORRECT utility installed and configured to work with these panels/simulations) since doing so will completely bugger up synchronization of the Power Levers within that FS flying session. The only effective manner of power control then remaining is to open the CP sub panel .... and carefully mouse each individual Power Lever up/down to stagger the Power Lever settings, as required, in order limit/counter influence of the asymmetric power situation. Be warned though .... this does then make for "a particular interesting approach to landing" .... and which can become "REAL FUN" .... but .... a safe and relatively normal landing "CAN" be successfully achieved .... if one's sufficiently careful/prudent. Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by Benoit - HJG on Dec 21, 2020 22:10:31 GMT
B707-320C with JT3D-7 engines .... for our "NEW" aircraft type audio ....
- JT3D-7 sounds for B707-320B/-320C and C-135 series (E-3C and TC-18)
PLEASE NOTE: Each of these "NEW" sound packs (and as is the case for all HJG FS audio) have been engineered in accordance with HJG B707/720/C-135 FDE .... and which is the best, and most thorough, way to compile sound packs and with the most pleasing results ....
B707-320C flight from CYVR-CYYC, some segments captured from the flight are seen in this FSX video, mostly fd views.
Benoit
|
|
.... I'm "real good" at that sort of stuff, BUT,"only for the right reasons" 
