No APU?

[Superpilotv2 2]

Hi, since some days I fly arround with the 727-100 early variatns from HJG. Really lovely old iron. But today I stumbeled upon the fact, that an APU isn´t accessable via the panel. I read that the 727 was one of the first plane fitted with such an APU. So didn´t I read right or is this missing?

[altstiff 71]

Possible that the HJG version does not model it, do not know for sure as I do not use their version.Dreamfleet has an excellent payware version of the 727 if you are really into it.

[Superpilotv2 2]

Possible that the HJG version does not model it, do not know for sure as I do not use their version.Dreamfleet has an excellent payware version of the 727 if you are really into it.

I´ve heard very positive things about the Dreamfleet version but I´m not sure whether I should buy it. I use FS9 only temporarily till the NGX is out and I have the motivation to reinstall FSX again (Got some problems with the activation).

[Avantime 81]

IIRC the APU was a factory option and some airlines didn't opt for it at the start.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

I´ve heard very positive things about the Dreamfleet version but I´m not sure whether I should buy it. I use FS9 only temporarily till the NGX is out and I have the motivation to reinstall FSX again (Got some problems with the activation).

If you want the best add-on 727 and one of the truly greatest of all FS9 aircfraft, the DF 727 is worth ever penny you will pay for it. My only regret is not buying it years earlier!

[Gavin 99]

If you want the best add-on 727 and one of the truly greatest of all FS9 aircfraft, the DF 727 is worth ever penny you will pay for it. My only regret is not buying it years earlier!

Agree 100%

[Superpilotv2 2]

If you want the best add-on 727 and one of the truly greatest of all FS9 aircfraft, the DF 727 is worth ever penny you will pay for it. My only regret is not buying it years earlier!

You´ve got me hooked on that plane! Just rereading an review in the FS Magazin. WOW, Aerosoft wants only 12 € for the whole boxed package. This one is a no brainer, I´ll get it right away. :smile:Btw. there will be some gauges made by RealityXP. Will they work in an 64 Bit environment? Cause I have the Beech 36 from, Dreamfleet and it doesn´t work correct cause I can´t install the realityXP gauges. Their core is written in 16 bit and is only compatible with 32 bit. Another thing: I´ve read that most airlines didn´t use the flaps on 40 because they caused some craches by it´s low landing speed then. Is this right? Should I land with flaps on 30 instead of 40?Now flying the 727-100C from San Diego to Phoenix/Mesa-Gateway.

[Chock 17,769]

It is true that many airlines did not use flaps 40 on the 727, but it was not really because of crashes...Soon after the 727 first appeared, there were several accidents where 727s came down hard, short of the touchdown point because of an excessive sink rate which could develop when at flaps 40, because it caused a lot of drag and the slow spool up time of the engines caught the crews out as they went to flaps 40 late on the approach. Because of that, most airlines insisted that the 727 be well stabilised on its approach/landing configuration a bit earlier (i.e. higher) than what tended to be the case with other aircraft.The tale about not using flaps 40 'because of crashes' is therefore put about because it sometimes gets mixed up with another story related to the flaps 40 setting on 727s, that being the tale that one or two airlines actually blocked off the flaps 40 setting on their 727s, which is indeed true. TWA (one of the big users of the 727) were among the airlines which blocked the flap 40 setting, but they actually did that because flaps 40 was hardly necessary on the 727 since it could be brought to a standstill in a very short distance indeed, even when landing at the higher speeds necessary for other flap settings. Flaps 40 therefore was simply a waste of fuel because it required high engine power settings on approach to counter the massive amount of drag, and the airlines did not think it was necessary to waste that fuel when flaps 30 was perfectly adequate, this being during the fuel crisis that followed the Yom Kippur War between Syria, Egypt and Israel, which drove the cost of aviation fuel up quite a bit.The APU on the 727 was actually added after the main design layout of all the major parts was created, which meant Boeing were a bit stuck for a location to put the thing. In the end they opted for putting it in the wheel well, which means the APU on a 727 can only be safely operated when it is on the ground with the gear doors open. Not every 727 had an APU, but most of them did.Great B727 info website: http://www.boeing-727.com/Al

[Superpilotv2 2]

Thanks Al for your in depth explanation of that flaps thing.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

You´ve got me hooked on that plane! Just rereading an review in the FS Magazin. WOW, Aerosoft wants only 12 € for the whole boxed package. This one is a no brainer, I´ll get it right away. :smile:Btw. there will be some gauges made by RealityXP. Will they work in an 64 Bit environment? Cause I have the Beech 36 from, Dreamfleet and it doesn´t work correct cause I can´t install the realityXP gauges. Their core is written in 16 bit and is only compatible with 32 bit. Another thing: I´ve read that most airlines didn´t use the flaps on 40 because they caused some craches by it´s low landing speed then. Is this right? Should I land with flaps on 30 instead of 40?Now flying the 727-100C from San Diego to Phoenix/Mesa-Gateway.

I have Win7 64 and have had no problem at all with any Reality XP products. I think the only one that had an issue was a GPS. You will have zero problems with the DF 727 and it's RealityXP WX radar. You are going to LOVE this product. ENJOY!! :( Ian

[kiwiflyer45 123]

It is true that many airlines did not use flaps 40 on the 727, but it was not really because of crashes...Soon after the 727 first appeared, there were several accidents where 727s came down hard, short of the touchdown point because of an excessive sink rate which could develop when at flaps 40, because it caused a lot of drag and the slow spool up time of the engines caught the crews out as they went to flaps 40 late on the approach. Because of that, most airlines insisted that the 727 be well stabilised on its approach/landing configuration a bit earlier (i.e. higher) than what tended to be the case with other aircraft.The tale about not using flaps 40 'because of crashes' is therefore put about because it sometimes gets mixed up with another story related to the flaps 40 setting on 727s, that being the tale that one or two airlines actually blocked off the flaps 40 setting on their 727s, which is indeed true. TWA (one of the big users of the 727) were among the airlines which blocked the flap 40 setting, but they actually did that because flaps 40 was hardly necessary on the 727 since it could be brought to a standstill in a very short distance indeed, even when landing at the higher speeds necessary for other flap settings. Flaps 40 therefore was simply a waste of fuel because it required high engine power settings on approach to counter the massive amount of drag, and the airlines did not think it was necessary to waste that fuel when flaps 30 was perfectly adequate, this being during the fuel crisis that followed the Yom Kippur War between Syria, Egypt and Israel, which drove the cost of aviation fuel up quite a bit.The APU on the 727 was actually added after the main design layout of all the major parts was created, which meant Boeing were a bit stuck for a location to put the thing. In the end they opted for putting it in the wheel well, which means the APU on a 727 can only be safely operated when it is on the ground with the gear doors open. Not every 727 had an APU, but most of them did.Great B727 info website: http://www.boeing-727.com/Al

Excellent information Al. It is always a pleasure to read your posts. My memory of some discussion about those early 727 problems was that many of the early crashes were caused by pilot error with crews who had transitioned directly from props to the 727 as their first jet. That was in the days before full-motion simulators and so their training was not as in-depth as it would have been in a later generation. I can readily see that if you were not used to the slow spool up time of those earlier jet engines then being in a high drag configuration close to the ground and needing to correct for an excessive sink rate you would be very vulnerable to landing short or hitting the ground at an excessive rate and collapsing the gear.

[Avantime 81]

Excellent information Al. It is always a pleasure to read your posts. My memory of some discussion about those early 727 problems was that many of the early crashes were caused by pilot error with crews who had transitioned directly from props to the 727 as their first jet. That was in the days before full-motion simulators and so their training was not as in-depth as it would have been in a later generation. I can readily see that if you were not used to the slow spool up time of those earlier jet engines then being in a high drag configuration close to the ground and needing to correct for an excessive sink rate you would be very vulnerable to landing short or hitting the ground at an excessive rate and collapsing the gear.

You're right, slow jet spool up times are exactly the reason why early jet aircraft have such high 'barn door style' flap settings. (The DH Comet goes all the way to flap 90) With so much drag the pilot would have to use a very high thrust setting on approach and, in theory, if the pilot has to go around all he needed to do is to push the throttle a little bit further and raise the flaps, and the go around will be achieved with minimal spool up time. (Remember the A320 Habsheim crash?)Unfortunately for the 727, all T-tail aircraft can go into an unrecoverable 'deep stall' so therefore it's not advisable for 727 pilots to get too slow on approach, unless in short field conditions. Plus there are noise and fuel burn issues to consider and most carriers stopped using flap 40.

[altstiff 71]

I lived in Chicago when this famous 727 short field landing took place....http://youtu.be/NV4tgjSPgks

[kiwiflyer45 123]

I lived in Chicago when this famous 727 short field landing took place....http://youtu.be/NV4tgjSPgks

Holy Tiresmoke Batman! That was a short one!!! :( Cool video - thanks for sharing. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't just seen it!!! :( In today's "risk averse" world they probably wouldn't be allowed to do anything like this...

[Superpilotv2 2]

I lived in Chicago when this famous 727 short field landing took place....

Well, I know what the first flight of the DF will be. :( Trying to ger her in and out of Meigs Field.Btw. for the ones who don´t crawl the screen shots forum all day long: I´ve released some pictures of my 727 experience: http://forum.avsim.n...her-threeholer/ and http://forum.avsim.n...holer%c2%b4s-2/.