Boeing 707 Revision

[Herman]

The 707 attitude at ground level looks perfect. Thank you all involved at HJG.

Herman

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

That's just one of a number of FDE related resolutions that were applied.

As related "several times" throughout both of the following-linked project development/redevelopment threads ....


tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9822/b707-720-modifications

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


The STATIC PITCH adjustments are more successful for the shorter fuselage aircraft versions. The longer fuselage aircraft versions can still tend to demonstrate a "wee bit" of a canter/dip towards the nose .... and more-so at extremely low weights. Mike and I tried to offset this .... as best we could .... but we very quickly learned that (due to certain limitations within these older 3D models) if we adjusted the CP values any further, or tried redistributing other weight contributing data much further also .... then .... we ran the risk of creating NG collapses and other CP related issues, so, and as documented within each of the above-linked postings, our hands were "tied" .... to some extent. Whatever STATIC PITCH related issues might remain .... minor though those these may be .... are "NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD" as was previously the case however.

In addition to this .... the extent of all of the FDE editing applied to each of these simulations (both the B707's and C-135's) is such that there's "NO WAY IN THE WORLD" any one of them will TO, climb, cruise, descend, and fly approaches to landing as badly as some did previously .... BUT HAVING SAID THIS .... that all depends upon how well each simulation is loaded and then flown in the first instance. Therefore it's "absolutely essential" to load, and then fly, each of these simulations "precisely as recommended" (and which is what the flying guides within the each of the 2 new manuals are intended to assist with) or one can still, and probably will, get into trouble fairly promptly.

Mark C
AKL/NZ