No, no, none taken. Though I like my smiley face better because he's sticking out his tongue :( . Yours is the Ron Hamilton (Eaglesoft variety) special. I think he holds the record for using that emoticon.

:--)))))

the FPS is awesome with the 707!

Same for me!

A side note: They announced that the upcoming 737-100 will perform even better, so it seems like the only demanding planes in the CS range are the FMC driven ones while the steamliners go very friendly.

Also have read somewhere at CS that they are going to improve performance of their FMC aircraft in future updates, which is great!

A question on the 707: Does the INS work as the originals did? Is it a comparable to the freeware CIVA-INS gauge for FS9 (the one in the RPF 747) as seen here?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF0-ZbvjrEw&playnext=1&list=PL42B0491B3C923E04&index=67If so, that one was very VERY good. I still haven't bought it, but if the INS is as good as this, the 707 seems like a fantastic vehicle for it.On a side note: I wish they'd add the FMC to the 737-100, or at least to the 737-200 expansion pack. That'd probably be the only thing making it worth while to get an update or "expansion pack", a visual model isn't usually worth the extra $$. Something as vital as an FMC would.

A question on the 707: Does the INS work as the originals did? Is it a comparable to the freeware CIVA-INS gauge for FS9 (the one in the RPF 747) as seen here?

If so, that one was very VERY good. I still haven't bought it, but if the INS is as good as this, the 707 seems like a fantastic vehicle for it.On a side note: I wish they'd add the FMC to the 737-100, or at least to the 737-200 expansion pack. That'd probably be the only thing making it worth while to get an update or "expansion pack", a visual model isn't usually worth the extra $. Something as vital as an FMC would.

It is the CIVA INS, CS just includes the optional panel.cfg lines to use it.

audiohavoc is right, you'll get the very good Civa INS there and I know that somebody even explains the double (virtual triple) unit installation over in the CS forums. 707 and 727 are currently driven like this (in the sim) and I can tell you about big fun when going INS only. If you own the fabulous Concorde X too, you'll get three fine Civa INS birds and the Simcheck A300 might complete this picture soon (currently has an own developed INS solution without the ability to let the Civa do the job, but SP2 will help here if released).

Sounds good - I'm a bit concerned with required runway length for this baby though - Doesn't seem like I can use it where I'd like. I haven't seen any data on this. Can someone post some numbers on minimum runway length at low TOW plz?This looked like a bad idea though:

For the ultimate in macho 1960s piloting realism, if you attach lead weights to your rudder pedals to make them really hard to move, so that your legs ache after half an hour of using the rudder, then it would be just like the real thing LOLAl

.......Or tighten up the tension on your Saitek Rudder Pedals eh Chock? :(

Runway length: Loooooong! Quite a beast to get off the ground fully loaded. As a classic plane noob I'm really enjoying it, and the model is beautiful too.

Sounds good - I'm a bit concerned with required runway length for this baby though - Doesn't seem like I can use it where I'd like. I haven't seen any data on this. Can someone post some numbers on minimum runway length at low TOW plz?

BOEING 707-120Take-off field length (long-range cruise with 200 n.m. alternateplus two hr reserve at 15,000ft, I.S.A. no wind), 5,900ft for 1,500 n.m. stage, 7,780ftfor 2,500 n.m. and 10,500ft for 3,500 n.m.; normal cruising speed, 591 m.p.h.;landing field length, 6,420ft.BOEING 707-220Field lengths, shorter than —120; normal maximum cruisingspeed, 608 m.p.h.BOEING 707-320Take-off field length (assumptions as for 707-120), 5,550ft for1,720 st. m. stage, 6,850 for 2,900 st. m. and 8,550ft for 4,000 St. m.; normal cruisingspeed, 600 m.p.h.; landing field length, 6,400ft.BOEING 707-420Take-off field length, max. T.O. weight, 9,000ft; cruising speedat 200,000 Ib at 30,000ft, 585 m.p.h.; landing field length at 190,000 Ib, 6,280ft.BOEING 717 (more commonly known as the C-135 and KC-135 military variants)Range with maximum payload, 1,700 st. m.; range with fullpassenger payload (130 tourists), 2,400 st. m.; C.A.R. field length, max. weight,5,400ft; landing field length (at 150,000 Ib), 5,500ft.That do you? As you can see, the 707 needs quite a long runway in comparison to more modern jet airliners, which is why Boeing later made the 720 variant, which was also known as the 717 for a while until Boeing changed its designation to the 720. The 720 was a shortened version of the 707-120 with a wing modification, mainly comprising the addition of Krueger flaps added to the wings outboard of the engines, which is what the 727 had that made also better at short field take off and landing than most other jets of that era. The 720 was also a bit faster than most other 707s too. Al

BOEING 707-120Take-off field length (long-range cruise with 200 n.m. alternateplus two hr reserve at 15,000ft, I.S.A. no wind), 5,900ft for 1,500 n.m. stage, 7,780ftfor 2,500 n.m. and 10,500ft for 3,500 n.m.; normal cruising speed, 591 m.p.h.;landing field length, 6,420ft.BOEING 707-220Field lengths, shorter than —120; normal maximum cruisingspeed, 608 m.p.h.BOEING 707-320Take-off field length (assumptions as for 707-120), 5,550ft for1,720 st. m. stage, 6,850 for 2,900 st. m. and 8,550ft for 4,000 St. m.; normal cruisingspeed, 600 m.p.h.; landing field length, 6,400ft.BOEING 707-420Take-off field length, max. T.O. weight, 9,000ft; cruising speedat 200,000 Ib at 30,000ft, 585 m.p.h.; landing field length at 190,000 Ib, 6,280ft.BOEING 717 (more commonly known as the C-135 and KC-135 military variants)Range with maximum payload, 1,700 st. m.; range with fullpassenger payload (130 tourists), 2,400 st. m.; C.A.R. field length, max. weight,5,400ft; landing field length (at 150,000 Ib), 5,500ft.That do you? As you can see, the 707 needs quite a long runway in comparison to more modern jet airliners, which is why Boeing later made the 720 variant, which was also known as the 717 for a while until Boeing changed its designation to the 720. The 720 was a shortened version of the 707-120 with a wing modification, mainly comprising the addition of Krueger flaps added to the wings outboard of the engines, which is what the 727 had that made also better at short field take off and landing than most other jets of that era. The 720 was also a bit faster than most other 707s too. Al

hey Al, anyone ever told you.... you should get out a bit more :(

I would, but since it is currently 01:20am, dark and raining outside, I think I'll stay in at the moment.Al