Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BoeingFan88

PMDG Boeing 777

Recommended Posts

"As of now we have two products in development...we have not shared with you...when the time is right"...now THATS what I wanna know!and please don't say woodpidgeon! lol. I'm sincerely hoping A320/1 and A330/340 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Im really excited and really hope they re model the 747. It cannot be compared to the NGX and the possible 777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Sim's 707, 727 have been very successful, the former of which is no longer in active service, and 727s being used only for cargo, and an Iranian Airline (and some VIP).
This is incorrect, there are quite a few 707's still in service, although almost all of them are military or cargo variants these days. A recent study found that with upgrades, 707s would still be able to operate until 2040 (by which time they would be approaching 80 years old as a design), but more realistically, with their remaining airframe hours and before maintenance costs make them too costly to service, they could be operated until 2018 without major reskinning work having to be carried out on them.Either way, this probably is longer than the 727 will be around, since with wing-mounted podded engines, the 707 has been able to have modern high bypass turbofans fitted with relative ease, whereas the 727's internally mounted engine will not allow that to be done (a problem which Boeing did briefly consider addressing, before abandoning it as not economically viable). As a result, the 727 is noisy and not very environmentally-friendly; thus the 727 is rapidly being banished from the skies of many countries in spite of hush kits having been fitted, since its quieter engines are still thirsty and not very green.All that said, unlike the major airlines and air forces, in the simulation world we have the luxury of being able to operate anything we like without worrying about whether the real aircraft was a sales success or not. The PMDG J41 and the MD-11 are prime examples of that, in that neither is exactly ubiquitous. Nevertheless, so long as it is a good simulation of the real aircraft, that matters little, since what PMDG goes for is the kind of customer who cares more about accuracy than popularity.You probably won't find any 737-100s flying at all, but you watch how many copies of their forthcoming one CS will manage to shift.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have almost every newer Boeing/ McDonnell Douglas aircraft available in great quality, which is great in my opinion. Nevertheless I have read that Europe and especially Germany have a strong flightsim market, too and I would be surprised if an high quality Airbus for fsx would not be successful. And as we Europeans buy lots of Boeing/ McDonnell Douglas fs products, I am quite sure that also American simmers would buy an Airbus. Unfortunately Airbus is completely underrepresented in fs so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is incorrect, there are quite a few 707's still in service, although almost all of them are military or cargo variants these days. A recent study found that with upgrades, 707s would still be able to operate until 2040 (by which time they would be approaching 80 years old as a design), but more realistically, with their remaining airframe hours and before maintenance costs make them too costly to service, they could be operated until 2018 without major reskinning work having to be carried out on them.Either way, this probably is longer than the 727 will be around, since with wing-mounted podded engines, the 707 has been able to have modern high bypass turbofans fitted with relative ease, whereas the 727's internally mounted engine will not allow that to be done (a problem which Boeing did briefly consider addressing, before abandoning it as not economically viable). As a result, the 727 is noisy and not very environmentally-friendly; thus the 727 is rapidly being banished from the skies of many countries in spite of hush kits having been fitted, since its quieter engines are still thirsty and not very green.All that said, unlike the major airlines and air forces, in the simulation world we have the luxury of being able to operate anything we like without worrying about whether the real aircraft was a sales success or not. The PMDG J41 and the MD-11 are prime examples of that, in that neither is exactly ubiquitous. Nevertheless, so long as it is a good simulation of the real aircraft, that matters little, since what PMDG goes for is the kind of customer who cares more about accuracy than popularity.You probably won't find any 737-100s flying at all, but you watch how many copies of their forthcoming one CS will manage to shift.Al
Thou art mistaken! The only of the three original american airliner designs (707, DC-8 and Convair 880) have been fitted with CFM high-bypass engines. The Douglas DC-8 was fitted with CFMs and was in service with these, with operators like Delta until the early 80s, late 70s. No Boeing 707 aircraft have been retrofitted with CFM or any other small high-bypass turbofan engines, with the KC-137 being an exception, as it isn't a true civilian 707, as is the topic at debate (plus the US Military can put whatever the hell the like on the planes, they've got the dough); a beleive at one point somebody tried, but never received FAA approval, or approval for an STC. Now, the 707 wouldn't be economically viable with CFM engines, as its short fuselage doesn't lend to much performance or efficieny gain over the original engines. The DC-8 however, was fitted with these, because the DC-8-70 and DC-8-80 had streched fuselages, lending to better efficiency with a CFM engine, as the larger aircraft goes, its economical, and the DC-8 is tougher and built better than the 707. The Convair 880 was made in small numbers, and to this day is the fastest subsonic airliner ever built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thou art mistaken! The only of the three original american airliner designs (707, DC-8 and Convair 880) have been fitted with CFM high-bypass engines.
Then I'm quite evidently not mistaken am I?Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the NGX will keep me happy for at least a year! Then a 777 those are for me the two perfect aircraft for my fleet. 737 Short to Medium and 777 Medium-Long. Love the Dash-8 too but I am not a big fan of only VC planes so we will see how that goes. But lets just get the NGX first. One foot at a time. As for the "secret" products who knows, but a 787 and a classic airliner would be pretty cool. Who knows maybe a biz jet. It could be anything but for the time being I just want to see the NGX then the 777. What ever happens after that I dont think we need to worry about now. Steven Herzberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really really really hoping for a 737-300, 400, 500. Even a 200, 200adv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the idea of the earlier Dash variants. Numerous short hops all over the world. The long haul market was not really my thing until I got the MD11, though I have never flown it for much more than 4 hours at a go. Perhaps I would get a 777, who knows. At PMDG's level of expertise, it would be hard and probably pointless to even try and resist :)Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,Just felt like weighing in on things here a bit. I fly the B777 and it will be worth the wait! The systems and automation are unbelievable. When explaining the aircraft to my friends, I tell it like this - 'if there's anything wrong with the aircraft it tells you whats wrong, and then it goes one step further and tells you what to do with it!'. Managing Non-normals in this baby is a breeze when you compare it to most other airliners in the sky. The centre of most Non-normal operations after identifing the problem on the EICAS is to run the electronic checklist - which come to think of it makes normal operations a breeze too!For those complaining about long haul flying etc...There's nothing stopping you from taking it and flying it to where ever you want on how ever short or long flight you want - thats the beauty of flight simulation isn't it! And for those who like to fly real world routes check out where airlines like Emirates, Etihad and Qatar send their Triplers. Some very short sectors where they level off at lower altitudes and slow down to allow the hosties to complete a meal service!I have a few photos of the B777 flight deck and aircraft which I would like to share if I'm permitted to and can resize the pictures.For what its' worth I am looking forward to getting my hands on the NGX when its' released - what an exciting product and an amazing sneak peak into what we have to look forward to in the future!Mitch Beck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if there's anything wrong with the aircraft it tells you whats wrong, and then it goes one step further and tells you what to do with it!
Unless you happen to be on Speedbird 38, in which case it doesn't. Then you have to reduce the flaps and cross your fingers. :( Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you happen to be on Speedbird 38, in which case it doesn't. Then you have to reduce the flaps and cross your fingers. :( Al
You can't plan for everything in life can you! For anyone thats interested Flaps podcast did an interview with Peter Burkill (The captain of BA38) in their August 2010 episode; very interesting to hear a first hand account of what happened and reducing the flap setting gained an extra 50m or so and enabled them to clear the motorway. Also deals with the fallout he got within the company on a personal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete Burkhill co-wrote (with his wife Maria) a pretty interesting book about that crash landing too (Thirty Seconds to Impact, published by AuthorHouse).Coincidentally I read that very book last weekend, it's a remarkably frank account of things. It's light on technical details until the final chapter, since it is aimed at the general reader, the final chapter covers the AAIB's investigation and findings. Worth a look if you are interested in that kind of thing, although keep in mind that the book is more about how his family dealt with negative press accusations and how he felt BA's PA department let him down a lot (in stark contrast to how Chesley Sullenburger was treated by US Air) rather than going over the minute details of the crash itself.What is interesting, is that he mentions how frustrating it was to be sat at home and see many pilots and non-pilots commenting on the matter on various online forums, which he was unable to respond to because BA had told him that he could not do so. Something we should all perhaps bear in mind whenever we feel inclined to pipe up about what we think caused this or that air accident, since he took a lot of completely undeserved flak at the time. Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete Burkhill co-wrote (with his wife Maria) a pretty interesting book about that crash landing too (Thirty Seconds to Impact, published by AuthorHouse).Coincidentally I read that very book last weekend, it's a remarkably frank account of things. It's light on technical details until the final chapter, since it is aimed at the general reader, the final chapter covers the AAIB's investigation and findings. Worth a look if you are interested in that kind of thing, although keep in mind that the book is more about how his family dealt with negative press accusations and how he felt BA's PA department let him down a lot (in stark contrast to how Chesley Sullenburger was treated by US Air) rather than going over the minute details of the crash itself.What is interesting, is that he mentions how frustrating it was to be sat at home and see many pilots and non-pilots commenting on the matter on various online forums, which he was unable to respond to because BA had told him that he could not do so. Something we should all perhaps bear in mind whenever we feel inclined to pipe up about what we think caused this or that air accident, since he took a lot of completely undeserved flak at the time. Al
Can I plus 1 Al,I have a signed copy of that book just here, and although it doesn't go into deep technicals, it's one of the best things I have ever read, very very open and honest account.It even made me dislike BA managment... A lot/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably worth pointing out that Pete Burkhill did actually come to terms with BA, to the extent that I believe he actually rejoined them after having initially left following his treatment. I think BA too learned a lot about how to deal with such things in light of how US Air dealt with their forced landing on the Hudson in a much more intelligent fashion with regard to giving the press what they wanted, thus stopping them from writing a load of nonsense.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably worth pointing out that Pete Burkhill did actually come to terms with BA, to the extent that I believe he actually rejoined them after having initially left following his treatment. I think BA too learned a lot about how to deal with such things in light of how US Air dealt with their forced landing on the Hudson in a much more intelligent fashion with regard to giving the press what they wanted, thus stopping them from writing a load of nonsense.Al
I sympathise with him totally. I am forced to put up with armchair experts and the 20/20 hindsight committee in my job daily! The crew were bloody heroes!!!Will definately read his book now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last thing I heard about the 737NGX was that VNAV was being tweaked.Would it be a safe bet to say this tweaking will be applied to the B777? And anything else learned while building the 737NGX, making a B777 MUCH closer to eventually being in our hands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

assuming PMDG just started work on it, than I wouldent expect a 777 for at least 3 years, that and if they are working on a Dash 8 Q400 you won't hear from them for a long time once this masterpice of an aircraft the 737NGX is out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one song that explains what the PMDG 777 would never be and the captain 777 ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn6HH4vmSRU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one song that explains what the PMDG 777 would never be and the captain 777 is
Yet another completely unnecessary bash at a different developer, particularly given the title of this thread. And people wonder why threads get locked.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Boeing 707 aircraft have been retrofitted with CFM or any other small high-bypass turbofan engines
One 707 was retrofitted with CFM56-2s in the late 1970s during the CFM56 flight test programme. Prior to this the engine had flown on a YC-15 (in the US) and a Caravelle (in France), but the 707 was the first aircraft to use the CFM56 as its sole powerplant. Boeing marketed the aircraft as the 707-700, but quickly pulled the plug on the programme as the 757 was right around the corner and there was little interest in the re-engined 707.CFM56-2 on the DC-8, 707 (E-3/E-6) and C-135 based (KC-135/RC-135) aircraft.CFM56-3 on the 737 ClassicCFM56-5 on the A320 family/A340-200/A340-300CFM56-7 on the 737NG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thou art mistaken! The only of the three original american airliner designs (707, DC-8 and Convair 880) have been fitted with CFM high-bypass engines. The Douglas DC-8 was fitted with CFMs and was in service with these, with operators like Delta until the early 80s, late 70s. No Boeing 707 aircraft have been retrofitted with CFM or any other small high-bypass turbofan engines, with the KC-137 being an exception, as it isn't a true civilian 707, as is the topic at debate (plus the US Military can put whatever the hell the like on the planes, they've got the dough); a beleive at one point somebody tried, but never received FAA approval, or approval for an STC. Now, the 707 wouldn't be economically viable with CFM engines, as its short fuselage doesn't lend to much performance or efficieny gain over the original engines. The DC-8 however, was fitted with these, because the DC-8-70 and DC-8-80 had streched fuselages, lending to better efficiency with a CFM engine, as the larger aircraft goes, its economical, and the DC-8 is tougher and built better than the 707. The Convair 880 was made in small numbers, and to this day is the fastest subsonic airliner ever built.
You are mistaken, there is no such aricraft as the KC137. There was a Vc-137.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are mistaken, there is no such aricraft as the KC137. There was a Vc-137.
There is actually such a thing as a KC-137 - a tanker/transport for the Brazilian Air Force, but none have been re-engined with the CFM56. He was probably thinking of the KC-135, which itself is not based on the 707. Many hundreds of KC-135s have been reengined, with the new designation KC-135R and KC-135T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites