FS2004 Boeing 747 Classic

[Jon00]

Not particularly useful to be honest as I am not sure what I would do with that information. I do not plan on doing the little differences in variants between each airline as they mostly involve payload differences which FS2004 cannot do without you creating a separate aircraft.cfg. It is the same reason why we are only doing one variant of the JT9D-7 series of engines instead of the different subvariants like the older 15 stage variants.

Do you think it is possible to simulate a late 100(JT9D3) by changing the values on .Air and CFG?

we could even just have the model(without Panel) to make the livery?

 

[arwasairl]

Do you think it is possible to simulate a late 100(JT9D3) by changing the values on .Air and CFG?

we could even just have the model(without Panel) to make the livery?

The JT9D-3A series needs more than air file and cfg changes. We calculate fuel flow in our gauge internally, instead of using the sim's, so no, other than changing total thrust you can't properly simulate it with just that. The -100 also included a different air conditioning system, dual autopilot (no FAIL-OP, no autoland, FMA is quite different, and no DC BUS ISOLATION 1) and many 100s were fitted with systems that the later 200s did not have (STP system for example).

As far as liveries are concerned, I am not sure if a paintkit will be released because the textures are path traced in 3dsMax with V-Ray. I did not use Photoshop and Substance Painter doesn't export rendered maps. I don't feel comfortable releasing the source model file due to people ripping content and putting them into other games, and besides, most people do not have access to such expensive software anyways so the user base will be quite small.

 

[Jon00]

The JT9D-3A series needs more than air file and cfg changes. We calculate fuel flow in our gauge internally, instead of using the sim's, so no, other than changing total thrust you can't properly simulate it with just that. The -100 also included a different air conditioning system, dual autopilot (no FAIL-OP, no autoland, FMA is quite different, and no DC BUS ISOLATION 1) and many 100s were fitted with systems that the later 200s did not have (STP system for example).

As far as liveries are concerned, I am not sure if a paintkit will be released because the textures are path traced in 3dsMax with V-Ray. I did not use Photoshop and Substance Painter doesn't export rendered maps. I don't feel comfortable releasing the source model file due to people ripping content and putting them into other games, and besides, most people do not have access to such expensive software anyways so the user base will be quite small.

Thanks for the reply.
I wasn't aware of all these differences.
I only knew about the difference regarding the autopilot; I’ve only ever been in the cockpit of a 200;I’ve never happened to see the cockpit of the 100.

 

[alex_94]

Plus the jt9d-3 had blow in doors on the nacelles. which would obviously need another model modification, but would be nice to have down the line.

Aviation Photo #0796644: Boeing 747-121 - Pan American World Airways - Pan Am

Sadly a sight never to be seen (or heard!) again - climbing off 28L - Photo taken at London - Heathrow (LHR / EGLL) in England, United Kingdom on June 1, 1970.

www.airliners.net

 

[Jon00]

The JT9D-3A series needs more than air file and cfg changes. We calculate fuel flow in our gauge internally, instead of using the sim's, so no, other than changing total thrust you can't properly simulate it with just that. The -100 also included a different air conditioning system, dual autopilot (no FAIL-OP, no autoland, FMA is quite different, and no DC BUS ISOLATION 1) and many 100s were fitted with systems that the later 200s did not have (STP system for example).

As far as liveries are concerned, I am not sure if a paintkit will be released because the textures are path traced in 3dsMax with V-Ray. I did not use Photoshop and Substance Painter doesn't export rendered maps. I don't feel comfortable releasing the source model file due to people ripping content and putting them into other games, and besides, most people do not have access to such expensive software anyways so the user base will be quite small.

Will you also be making versions with the LTN ?
I remember my father flying on ex-British 200-series aircraft that were equipped with them.

 

[Jon00]

Plus the jt9d-3 had blow in doors on the nacelles. which would obviously need another model modification, but would be nice to have down the line.

Aviation Photo #0796644: Boeing 747-121 - Pan American World Airways - Pan Am

Sadly a sight never to be seen (or heard!) again - climbing off 28L - Photo taken at London - Heathrow (LHR / EGLL) in England, United Kingdom on June 1, 1970.

www.airliners.net

You could make a fake one just by drawing it.

We would still have a late 100 without the hump behind the upper deck.

 

[Jon_aus]

Not particularly useful to be honest as I am not sure what I would do with that information. I do not plan on doing the little differences in variants between each airline as they mostly involve payload differences which FS2004 cannot do without you creating a separate aircraft.cfg. It is the same reason why we are only doing one variant of the JT9D-7 series of engines instead of the different subvariants like the older 15 stage variants.

It is possible to list what variants are planned? For curiosity's sake? Honestly, after looking at what has been accomplished so far, ONE variant would be astounding let alone any more.

 

[Jon00]

Plus the jt9d-3 had blow in doors on the nacelles. which would obviously need another model modification, but would be nice to have down the line.

Aviation Photo #0796644: Boeing 747-121 - Pan American World Airways - Pan Am

Sadly a sight never to be seen (or heard!) again - climbing off 28L - Photo taken at London - Heathrow (LHR / EGLL) in England, United Kingdom on June 1, 1970.

www.airliners.net

I ran a quick test,
and this is the result (it's not perfect It's made with Paint)

 

[alex_94]

Looks pretty convincing

 

[arwasairl]

It is possible to list what variants are planned? For curiosity's sake? Honestly, after looking at what has been accomplished so far, ONE variant would be astounding let alone any more.

The -100, -200B, -200SF, -200M, -300, and the -300M are planned. The variants that don't have any physical difference are the -200SUD, the -100B, -100SR, -100BSR, and the -300SR, and so for those liveries will be made and designated as "-100SR" etc. but won't have any visual difference.

However I must admit, other than the JT9D-3A, and the JT9D-7R4G2, we won't be doing any other JT9D variants; I am aware the -100SR never had the -7R, and they had the older 15 stage -7A, but in practice its difference is miniscule to the point where it doesn't seem necessary to go through the lengths to add them.

As far as the other engines are concerned, I am only planning on the GE CF6-50C2 and RB211-524C2s, though I have to put an asterisk and say that these will only be on the -200 series. I can kind of extrapolate numbers for the -300, though it won't be as accurate.

The 747SP, I am not entirely sure on that one yet. Not only do I not have any AMMs for that particular variant (and I need them for the flap mechanism, there's zero good pictures of it up close in good lighting) I also don't have any performance manuals for them either. I am only aware of the general differences between the SP and the other variants, such as for example the SP not having the entire right side AC power bus, four zones for air conditioning, no gasper or supply vent fan (at least on Iran Air's SPs), having only two recirculation fans; one for the flight deck and the second for the other 3 zones, a simpler fire protection system, and I believe some differences with gust response and the yaw damper. The problem is, with the way the current code is set up, I physically cannot hook them to the rest of the electrical system without knowing exactly which rail it hooks up to. I would have to arbitrarily guess which bus a component would connect to, and something about that doesn't feel right to me. Until documents for the SP show up, I do not plan on doing it.

In either case, I have also done a video of the autoland system. This is the first video for the C++ gauge port for the project. I am aware of many visual bugs, so don't mind the weirdness.

 

[Jon00]

The -100, -200B, -200SF, -200M, -300, and the -300M are planned. The variants that don't have any physical difference are the -200SUD, the -100B, -100SR, -100BSR, and the -300SR, and so for those liveries will be made and designated as "-100SR" etc. but won't have any visual difference.

However I must admit, other than the JT9D-3A, and the JT9D-7R4G2, we won't be doing any other JT9D variants; I am aware the -100SR never had the -7R, and they had the older 15 stage -7A, but in practice its difference is miniscule to the point where it doesn't seem necessary to go through the lengths to add them.

As far as the other engines are concerned, I am only planning on the GE CF6-50C2 and RB211-524C2s, though I have to put an asterisk and say that these will only be on the -200 series. I can kind of extrapolate numbers for the -300, though it won't be as accurate.

The 747SP, I am not entirely sure on that one yet. Not only do I not have any AMMs for that particular variant (and I need them for the flap mechanism, there's zero good pictures of it up close in good lighting) I also don't have any performance manuals for them either. I am only aware of the general differences between the SP and the other variants, such as for example the SP not having the entire right side AC power bus, four zones for air conditioning, no gasper or supply vent fan (at least on Iran Air's SPs), having only two recirculation fans; one for the flight deck and the second for the other 3 zones, a simpler fire protection system, and I believe some differences with gust response and the yaw damper. The problem is, with the way the current code is set up, I physically cannot hook them to the rest of the electrical system without knowing exactly which rail it hooks up to. I would have to arbitrarily guess which bus a component would connect to, and something about that doesn't feel right to me. Until documents for the SP show up, I do not plan on doing it.

In either case, I have also done a video of the autoland system. This is the first video for the C++ gauge port for the project. I am aware of many visual bugs, so don't mind the weirdness.

Don't worry about the other versions; focus on finishing this one first.

Regarding the 747SP flaps, I have this,I don't know if it might help you.

This is a JT9D-3.

 

[arwasairl]

Don't worry about the other versions; focus on finishing this one first.

Regarding the 747SP flaps, I have this,I don't know if it might help you.
View attachment 100679


This is a JT9D-3.
View attachment 100680

Ive seen variations of this image for the flaps but it is not particularly helpful. And as I mentioned, I need more substantial documentation for the SP, not only about its geometry but its electrical and air conditioning system.

And respectfully, I can do things on my own time.

 

[Jon00]

Ive seen variations of this image for the flaps but it is not particularly helpful. And as I mentioned, I need more substantial documentation for the SP, not only about its geometry but its electrical and air conditioning system.

And respectfully, I can do things on my own time.

Take your time,don't worry about it.

As for the 747SP manuals, I think getting hold of them is impossible; how many were actually produced
maybe 100? And, more importantly, how many have survived?

 

[arwasairl]

Take your time,don't worry about it.

As for the 747SP manuals, I think getting hold of them is impossible; how many were actually produced
maybe 100? And, more importantly, how many have survived?

I have heard of some leaks from Saudia in regards to the SP, but I was only able to get a ramp maintenance manual for the SP. The most annoying part about this document I have is that there are sections in the table of contents where it references the 747SP's trailing edge and leading edge flap drive system, but those pages are just simple drawings and they do not include the detailed drawings the full AMM would have. The RMM is a simplified and cut-down version of the AMM, so it makes sense, but unfortunately is rather useless for the 3D model.

There are also electrical schematics for the SP, and from what I can tell, it is all the same as the current 747 with the exception of the second external power and APU generators being removed, and the split system breaker also being removed.

 

[Jon00]

I have heard of some leaks from Saudia in regards to the SP, but I was only able to get a ramp maintenance manual for the SP. The most annoying part about this document I have is that there are sections in the table of contents where it references the 747SP's trailing edge and leading edge flap drive system, but those pages are just simple drawings and they do not include the detailed drawings the full AMM would have. The RMM is a simplified and cut-down version of the AMM, so it makes sense, but unfortunately is rather useless for the 3D model.

View attachment 100683

There are also electrical schematics for the SP, and from what I can tell, it is all the same as the current 747 with the exception of the second external power and APU generators being removed, and the split system breaker also being removed.

I know that here in Europe, the African 747SPs used to undergo maintenance at Lufthansa's facilities.
I'll see if I can find one used in an online shop(Ebay or Other).
.

 

[Jon_aus]

The -100, -200B, -200SF, -200M, -300, and the -300M are planned. The variants that don't have any physical difference are the -200SUD, the -100B, -100SR, -100BSR, and the -300SR, and so for those liveries will be made and designated as "-100SR" etc. but won't have any visual difference.

However I must admit, other than the JT9D-3A, and the JT9D-7R4G2, we won't be doing any other JT9D variants; I am aware the -100SR never had the -7R, and they had the older 15 stage -7A, but in practice its difference is miniscule to the point where it doesn't seem necessary to go through the lengths to add them.

OK thank you. So basically most models are planned - external only - but the only engine choices will be for the JT9D-3A and the JT9D-7R4G2 motors?

Or in other words, the -100 and early -200's with the -3A and the others having the JT9D-7R4G2? I think that's because of the accuracy in modelling engine/ fuel data correctly? I'm not criticizing in anyway, because I feel its sometimes better to only model 1-2 really well than 6-8 not so well. So I am pretty excited.


Also the one big flaw in FS9 and other sims is the limitations in having accurate fuel burn at altitude, particularly when it comes to optimum cruise altitude fuel flow. Even in payware add-ons (PMDG/ iFLY) flying at optimum was only an illusion as one could ALWAYS climb even above maximum cruise altitude no matter how heavy and the fuel burn would ALWAYS be better. There was no penalty for doing so due to the developers getting the whole drag/fuel flow thingy wrong.

The Dreamfleet 727 is the only one I know of in FS9 that seemed to model this correctly. Has there been any workaround for this with this model? Or is it fairly similar to the above problems?

 

[Jon00]

OK thank you. So basically most models are planned - external only - but the only engine choices will be for the JT9D-3A and the JT9D-7R4G2 motors?

Or in other words, the -100 and early -200's with the -3A and the others having the JT9D-7R4G2? I think that's because of the accuracy in modelling engine/ fuel data correctly? I'm not criticizing in anyway, because I feel its sometimes better to only model 1-2 really well than 6-8 not so well. So I am pretty excited.


Also the one big flaw in FS9 and other sims is the limitations in having accurate fuel burn at altitude, particularly when it comes to optimum cruise altitude fuel flow. Even in payware add-ons (PMDG/ iFLY) flying at optimum was only an illusion as one could ALWAYS climb even above maximum cruise altitude no matter how heavy and the fuel burn would ALWAYS be better. There was no penalty for doing so due to the developers getting the whole drag/fuel flow thingy wrong.

The Dreamfleet 727 is the only one I know of in FS9 that seemed to model this correctly. Has there been any workaround for this with this model? Or is it fairly similar to the above problems?

It would be great to have it with the -70A engines.
I remember SAS's 747s were equipped with them, and they looked amazing; we rarely saw the CF6s, so the first time I saw them, I thought they were just standard CFs. I took a photo and showed it to my father, who told me they were -70As.
Childhood memories

 

[ASCTU744]

I have heard of some leaks from Saudia in regards to the SP, but I was only able to get a ramp maintenance manual for the SP. The most annoying part about this document I have is that there are sections in the table of contents where it references the 747SP's trailing edge and leading edge flap drive system, but those pages are just simple drawings and they do not include the detailed drawings the full AMM would have. The RMM is a simplified and cut-down version of the AMM, so it makes sense, but unfortunately is rather useless for the 3D model.

View attachment 100683

There are also electrical schematics for the SP, and from what I can tell, it is all the same as the current 747 with the exception of the second external power and APU generators being removed, and the split system breaker also being removed.

Only if you dont mind, but I'd love to get my hands on those RMM's

 

[Jon_aus]

I am aware the -100SR never had the -7R, and they had the older 15 stage -7A, but in practice its difference is miniscule to the point where it doesn't seem necessary to go through the lengths to add them.

Probably not although most airlines did go from the -3/-3A to the -7/7A for some improved performance. I'm recalling most -100's did have those fairly soon when PW made it available. To quote an engineer/pilot/management (not sure) "We had a celebration when the last -3 model engine was replaced by the so much better -7A models."

However, it WOULD be fun to have the -100 with those -3A's that are struggling to perform well. I recall reading from a controller that out of LHR, 747-100's with the -3A's would still be below 10,000 ft by Manchester. Thats 130+ nm away. Slow climb!

 

[Jon_aus]

It would be great to have it with the -70A engines.
I remember SAS's 747s were equipped with them, and they looked amazing; we rarely saw the CF6s, so the first time I saw them, I thought they were just standard CFs. I took a photo and showed it to my father, who told me they were -70As.
Childhood memories

Difficult decision to spend many many hours on modeling something so few airlines used. Quite the rare mod!

Interesting even with the JT9D-7R4G2 motors and how many airlines used it :
The following 747-200 (-B and -F) are delivered with PW JT-9D-7R4G2 engines, however several earlier built PW powered 747-200 aircraft were later re-engined with spare engines or engines from early retired 747-300 aircraft :

Air China : L/N 591, 628, 670, 814
China Airlines : 752, 462 (re-engined),
Korean : 718, 720
JAL : 579, 581, 635, 754, 684
Singapore : 710
NWA : 594, 595, 642, 644, 651 (many engines changes at NWA , most freighters -7Q, all late built 251B to -7R)
United : 673, 675
SAA : 154, 158, 160, 194, 198, 301 (all re-engined)

Commercial Jet Aircraft Census by Bill Harms, update September 1998.