FS2004 Boeing 747 Classic

[Jon00]

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!

I think that would be really difficult to do; both the panel and the flight deck would need to be created, as they are different on the early -100.(autopilot and other)
It would also require modifications to the fuselage behind the upper deck to account for the hump where the systems are housed.

 

[Jon00]

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.

Yes, its a waste of time to make these sub-variants.
As far as I know, the 7Q and 70A are very similar internally (maybe identical?).
The best thing about it was the long cowl, which made it look better than the standard JT9.

 

[Jon_aus]

I think that would be really difficult to do; both the panel and the flight deck would need to be created, as they are different on the early -100.(autopilot and other)
It would also require modifications to the fuselage behind the upper deck to account for the hump where the systems are housed.

The -100 with the -3A’s didn’t change. Just the motors which could be converted from the -3 to the -7 which most of all airlines did fairly quickly.
I think also the gains were mostly in take-off performance with little difference after that but I could be wrong. And usually am lol.

 

[Jon_aus]

Yes, its a waste of time to make these sub-variants.
As far as I know, the 7Q and 70A are very similar internally (maybe identical?).
The best thing about it was the long cowl, which made it look better than the standard JT9.

The -70A’s do have a RR vibe to them I think.

Here’s a list of NW 747 classics back in the day. (1998)

Active :
747-151 -- L/N 027, S/N 19778, JT9D-7A
747-151 -- L/N 045, S/N 19780, JT9D-7A
747-151 -- L/N 075, S/N 19785, JT9D-7A
747-251B, L/N 088, S/N 20356, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 135, S/N 20357, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 141, S/N 20358, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 163, S/N 20359, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 165, S/N 20360, JT9D-7Q
747-251F, L/N 258, S/N 21120, JT9D-7F
747-251F, L/N 261, S/N 21121, JT9D-7F
747-251F, L/N 269, S/N 21122, JT9D-7F
747-251F, L/N 308, S/N 21321, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 357, S/N 21704, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 374, S/N 21705, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 377, S/N 21706, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 378, S/N 21707, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 379, S/N 21708, JT9D-7Q
747-2J9F, L/N 400, S/N 21668, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 412, S/N 21709, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 442, S/N 22389, JT9D-7Q
747-251F, L/N 444, S/N 22388, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 594, S/N 23111, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 595, S/N 23112, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 642, S/N 23547, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 644, S/N 23548, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 651, S/N 23549, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251F, L/N 680, S/N 23887, JT9D-7Q
747-251F, L/N 682, S/N 23888, JT9D-7Q

747-227B, L/N 375, S/N 21682, JT9D-7Q
747-227B, L/N 437, S/N 21991, JT9D-7Q
747-227B, L/N 465, S/N 22234, JT9D-7Q
747-212B, L/N 470, S/N 21941, JT9D-7Q
747-212B, L/N 471, S/N 21942, JT9D-7Q

Clearly indicated by this listing :
Latest built all pax aicraft (833.000lbs MTOW) are powered with JT9D-7R4G2 engines. (most fuel efficient)
All early built freighters are powered by JT9D-7F engines (MTOW 800.000 lbs)
Most powered by JT9D-7Q engines.

Note : 3 more 747-200 freighters were obtained later :

747-222SF, L/N 673, S/N 23736, JT9D-7R4G2 (NWA : July 2000
747-222SF, L/N 675, S/N 23737, JT9D-7R4G2 (NWA : July 2000)
747-212F----L/N 710, S/N 24177, JT9D-7R4G2 (NWA : Oct 1999

 

[Jon00]

The -70A’s do have a RR vibe to them I think.

Here’s a list of NW 747 classics back in the day. (1998)

Active :
747-151 -- L/N 027, S/N 19778, JT9D-7A
747-151 -- L/N 045, S/N 19780, JT9D-7A
747-151 -- L/N 075, S/N 19785, JT9D-7A
747-251B, L/N 088, S/N 20356, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 135, S/N 20357, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 141, S/N 20358, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 163, S/N 20359, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 165, S/N 20360, JT9D-7Q
747-251F, L/N 258, S/N 21120, JT9D-7F
747-251F, L/N 261, S/N 21121, JT9D-7F
747-251F, L/N 269, S/N 21122, JT9D-7F
747-251F, L/N 308, S/N 21321, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 357, S/N 21704, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 374, S/N 21705, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 377, S/N 21706, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 378, S/N 21707, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 379, S/N 21708, JT9D-7Q
747-2J9F, L/N 400, S/N 21668, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 412, S/N 21709, JT9D-7Q
747-251B, L/N 442, S/N 22389, JT9D-7Q
747-251F, L/N 444, S/N 22388, JT9D-7F
747-251B, L/N 594, S/N 23111, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 595, S/N 23112, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 642, S/N 23547, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 644, S/N 23548, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251B, L/N 651, S/N 23549, JT9D-7R4G2
747-251F, L/N 680, S/N 23887, JT9D-7Q
747-251F, L/N 682, S/N 23888, JT9D-7Q

747-227B, L/N 375, S/N 21682, JT9D-7Q
747-227B, L/N 437, S/N 21991, JT9D-7Q
747-227B, L/N 465, S/N 22234, JT9D-7Q
747-212B, L/N 470, S/N 21941, JT9D-7Q
747-212B, L/N 471, S/N 21942, JT9D-7Q

Clearly indicated by this listing :
Latest built all pax aicraft (833.000lbs MTOW) are powered with JT9D-7R4G2 engines. (most fuel efficient)
All early built freighters are powered by JT9D-7F engines (MTOW 800.000 lbs)
Most powered by JT9D-7Q engines.

Note : 3 more 747-200 freighters were obtained later :

747-222SF, L/N 673, S/N 23736, JT9D-7R4G2 (NWA : July 2000
747-222SF, L/N 675, S/N 23737, JT9D-7R4G2 (NWA : July 2000)
747-212F----L/N 710, S/N 24177, JT9D-7R4G2 (NWA : Oct 1999

That's a nice list where could I find it?
I have the list of engines from the time of delivery.

 

[Jon_aus]

That's a nice list where could I find it?
I have the list of engines from the time of delivery.

I sourced it online. Sadly I don’t have that book. I had a list somewhere also of the United 747 classic fleet as well.

 

[arwasairl]

Some other liveries.

 

[Jon00]

Some other liveries.

View attachment 100726View attachment 100727
View attachment 100728View attachment 100729
View attachment 100730

They look really great.
How long does it take to make one?
Are you planning to create liveries for European airlines?

 

[ASCTU744]

They look really great.
How long does it take to make one?
Are you planning to create liveries for European airlines?

Sabena and KLM would be all-time classics, or lufthansa. But I'm sure the avsim community will eventually come up with hundreds of liveries.

 

[Jon00]

Sabena and KLM would be all-time classics, or lufthansa. But I'm sure the avsim community will eventually come up with hundreds of liveries.

Klm blue,and retro white
Alitalia Landor,Baci and Bulgari version
British Landor,Sas and Sabena with the Combi
Lufthansa Black radome,Olympic,Swissair brown stripes,Air Atlanta,European...
Just a few that come in mind now
It would be nice if there were any of these

 

[arwasairl]

They look really great.
How long does it take to make one?
Are you planning to create liveries for European airlines?

It does not take very long, but the textures are path traced rendered.

It requires more specialized software, and it requires a very powerful PC (rendering can use around 22GB of VRAM, you will need a high VRAM NVIDIA GPU, as the renderer does not support AMD's OpenCL at all) hence the reason why I do not think I will release a public paintkit for the moment. I don't think the majority of painters have the ability to buy $800 per year software for the liveries, but it is the most efficient and best looking way to get the liveries done quickly and in high quality.

 

[Jon00]

It does not take very long, but the textures are path traced rendered.

View attachment 100735

It requires more specialized software, and it requires a very powerful PC (rendering can use around 22GB of VRAM, you will need a high VRAM NVIDIA GPU, as the renderer does not support AMD's OpenCL at all) hence the reason why I do not think I will release a public paintkit for the moment. I don't think the majority of painters have the ability to buy $800 per year software for the liveries, but it is the most efficient and best looking way to get the liveries done quickly and in high quality.

damn you are truly amazing at doing this.

could we create liveries with normal software?(using an existing livery as a base)





a -70a should look like this (it's not 100% the same, I just used photos to do it)

 

[alex_94]

Wow those pictures look incredbile! Love to see it in the sim. Cant wait

 

[alex_94]

arwasairl. I know you said youre using c++ for animations not XML. Does this mean animations will be locked to gauges like you see on some payware models like PMDG or Ifly for example? Meaning, if we dont use the supplied panel youll lose animations to the gears/flaps/control surfaces?​

 

[arwasairl]

arwasairl. I know you said youre using c++ for animations not XML. Does this mean animations will be locked to gauges like you see on some payware models like PMDG or Ifly for example? Meaning, if we dont use the supplied panel youll lose animations to the gears/flaps/control surfaces?​

Yes. I am only using very few standard animation variables, with the majority of them all being custom. This is for failure simulation as I can now lock out every single individual gear door, and each flight control surface. I am only using default animation variables with tires.

The entire gauge has been migrated to a standard C++ .gau file, and as such most of the gauge handles interaction code and animation calculations. The partinfo XML only contains the Lvar animation name, and that is it. We don't compute interactions in XML as its simply more clunky to manage two different languages. The gauge resolves animations with information from our own internal tagging tool, and just pushes computations straight to the Lvar where the sim reads it.

 

[Jon00]

Yes. I am only using very few standard animation variables, with the majority of them all being custom. This is for failure simulation as I can now lock out every single individual gear door, and each flight control surface. I am only using default animation variables with tires.

The entire gauge has been migrated to a standard C++ .gau file, and as such most of the gauge handles interaction code and animation calculations. The partinfo XML only contains the Lvar animation name, and that is it. We don't compute interactions in XML as its simply more clunky to manage two different languages. The gauge resolves animations with information from our own internal tagging tool, and just pushes computations straight to the Lvar where the sim reads it.

Are you planning to create a condensation effect on the wings?
I know it’s not easy, I’ve tried it myself, but without success

 

[DragonflightDesign]

Yes. I am only using very few standard animation variables, with the majority of them all being custom. This is for failure simulation as I can now lock out every single individual gear door, and each flight control surface. I am only using default animation variables with tires.

The entire gauge has been migrated to a standard C++ .gau file, and as such most of the gauge handles interaction code and animation calculations. The partinfo XML only contains the Lvar animation name, and that is it. We don't compute interactions in XML as its simply more clunky to manage two different languages. The gauge resolves animations with information from our own internal tagging tool, and just pushes computations straight to the Lvar where the sim reads it.

That's what I refer to as the Dumb Terminal approach in sd2gauXX. Inputs are via XML input variable ('terminal keyboard'), all calculations are done in a separate systems gauge ('mainframe') and only push out the final data to the XML display variable (the 'dumb terminal'). There's one step further than that (although it wouldn't be too much use in your current project) and that is to build a framework with all the common actions in it e.g. navcom radios are always going to need a method of selecting and setting the frequencies. On the next project, by using #ifdef or some form of flag in your code you simply (!!!!) call the section in the framework that does those actions and then add radio-specific code in another file e.g. I'm currently building a set of Bendix-King KX165A radios, so anything that is unique to the KX165A and does not select the frequencies goes in the kx165a.cpp file. Also building classes for e.g. the primary instruments can shorten development time.

That's a 'long run' approach though and is only worth the effort if you can be certain of additional projects down the line.

 

[Twaalvis]

I've been following this project since the beginning and wow it's truly amazing how much progress is being made! Take my money already!

Are there any plans for a retrofit/glass cockpit version like some airliners did to their 747 classics in the late 90's/early 2000's?

picture by airliners.net

Would be fun for 'modern' cargo ops! But I guess that would take a ton of time.

 

[ASCTU744]

@Twaalvis the image you linked would be the perfect combi between retro and classic, I believe martinair and KLM had those. But check this out XD, at this point it's basically a -400:

 

[Jon00]

I've been following this project since the beginning and wow it's truly amazing how much progress is being made! Take my money already!

Are there any plans for a retrofit/glass cockpit version like some airliners did to their 747 classics in the late 90's/early 2000's?
View attachment 100763
picture by airliners.net

Would be fun for 'modern' cargo ops! But I guess that would take a ton of time.

That would be nice, but doing so would require remodeling the VC.
It’s easier to create a retrofit version featuring a digital VSI/TCAS and a digital altimeter.
Some of the last 747s my father flew were equipped with a digital VSI/TCAS,digital altimeter, digital HSI, and a tape-style radio altimeter