>Randy,>>Give it up dude. I never made any statement about any 100s or>200s actually being powered by -11s. You might want to>re-read a message, several times before you post. What I did>say was the -11 provides a good "average," powerplant/thrust. >I stand by that 100%. The rest of my message is just>providing REAL airline experience. . .backed up with several>THOUSAND hours of both flight and engineering time in both>100s and 200s. So, why don't you try to weigh that. . . You seem to make threads go south in the PIC forum and here now too? Let's stick to the facts so that this post stays civil. My reply did not ATTACK you so if you can stick to what I SAY it would be nice."I never made any statement about any 100s or>200s actually being powered by -11s." Dude? You can call me Shirley but not dude. While you are correct that you did not claim this, your reply was that an engine that is NOT FOUND ON ANY 727 is OK. Is this not right? I will agree if we were talking about certain *other* developers who always preach *entertainment* titles when you ask about the "real stuff" like EPR gauges. People have told me that EPR was not at all important either but as one who says that have flown this bird in RL you know how utter nonsense that claim would be. My post was to question the WHY it was created with such a "odd engine type" when a simple search will show that they are not USED AT ALL. What I have brought up in this thread are facts. Even IF 727s were ORIGINALLY created with 11s (I have to see something if you want to convice me) it does not lesson the fact that they do not represent 727s today." provides a good "average," powerplant/thrust.>I stand by that 100%." I like this and agree 100%. But I was never contending this POINT since I already stated that DF could reproduce thatvarient as well as 15s or 7s its just not ON any 727s, see my point too? I bought it and I LOVE IT. A masterpiece REALLY, but I will STATE MY OPINION on what I would LIKE TO SEE.. Unless someone can actually PROVE that my engine contention is wrong then poping in personal crud is meaningless and does nothing but start fighting. I stand behind DF as they know but that does not mean I don't have something to say. Even PMDG know this ......And one last thing, DreamFleet are not making a aircraft that no longer EXISTS, it flys DAILY so is it unreasonable to ASK FOR the engine that are in USE on the planes today?? How in the world can this be *negative* or wrong? I have a buddy that works close to me that told me that he has a couple of 727s with MD 80 engines on them! Still looking for 11s ;-)Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

Randy,"While you are correct that you did not claim this, your reply was that an engine that is NOT FOUND ON ANY 727 is OK. Is this not right?"No, that isn't what I said. OK, here's one more time for purposes of reading comprehension; This is EXACTLY what I said. . . "The -11s should be more than adequate forgeneral sim use and should provide for a very reasonable meanfor an "average," powered 727."This statement is based on thousands of hours of real -7,-9, and -15 time in both 100s and 200s. Any questions?Randy, you seem to be the ONLY person who's even remotely concerned about this. The -11s seem to be working for this sim. And, in a big way. Like I said before. . .give it a rest.

Thanks for the civil reply Hawk. Again discussion is not an issue in my book. It's certainly not a case of me putting down the product since in fact one can read the DF 727 threads where I give nothing but praise for the sim. I do believe they have done a great job at replicating the 11s for the 727 but I am not the only one who wonders why we only have this rare breed varient. Now to be fair DF probably have their reasons for this, it's not like they said "hey lets model the 11s" without also knowing folks would question why. I have buddies who dispatch the real bird whos first question was "what engine type did they model"? So maybe I am the one to have brought this to the attention of others. It was not meant to pick on the sim, I keep stating that to be clear, I support the sim AS IS but would love ot see IF a future update that they provide (if possible) varient engines. I would buy this sim even IF I had not already and knew about the 11s...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

Oh and I like this sim sooo much that I am trying to produce a "crvm" style landing package for it ;-). You have flown it so what do you think of a panel with this view? No gauges set yet just trying to work out bigger gauge view on landing.. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/100676.jpgBest Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

Landing panel looks nice! I think Shift + 3 is already a pretty decent landing panel though, either way I'll be glad to use it when it is out. :)Do you fly online Randy, if so have you thought of anyway to get the TCAS properly working (I understand its not technically broken)?

Thanks! No I have not been on-line in quite a long while. On-line is fantastic though, hopefully it can become more user friendly for those first starting out as it was very difficult at first for me geting everything set up correctly with all the needed programs etc. Maybe the TCAS is a lot like PMDG's TCAS? Could be a FSUIPC thing perhaps? The landing view is not concerned with the "outside view" per se since DF have done a wonderful job in providing this, what I like to have personally is a descent outside view with LARGE gauges for landing. It worked great for my PIC mod and the King Air 200 so hopefully this will too. Unless DF refuses to let me upload the bmp but I know that they have offered in the past to provide an install program that only works with registered editions of their program which is ok by me..Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

Randy, I would glad sometime to help you get the software set up so that you could fly on VATSIM. You truly only need (if you are using FS2004, which I know you are) 2 programs to get up and going. Just SBRelay and Squawkbox. I really think you should look into it, because it truly adds another level to the 'simulation' that we both enjoy.

It's curious how DF made their engine choice. Not sure I would know the difference, though the operator I am familiar with is flying-100-7-200-15-200-17-200-217most with stage 3 hushkits. Other than performance ratings, the only thing I could dope out on a quick look is that there is a procedure for engine start with thrust reversers deployed, and the -217 requies HYD PUMP A to stow the reverser while the others are pneumatic.scott s..

No topic

Well this thread has run it's course, I want to say to anyone that has not purchased this sim to not let this trivial post change your mind, it was my questions ALONE and in no way lessons this fantastic offering. To say that I am not happy would be a lie, it met and beat hopes for it's type. So what I am getting at is just because I questioned why does not mean that I dissaprove. Discussion and questions are a good thing, we all learn many things in conversations, sometimes we gain new friends and insight at others we make enimies and bad memories, hopefully this is the former... Happy flight simming guys- Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

RandyYou did mean former right?;)Troy

LOL yeah good catch ;-)Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

I don't care why they did choose -11's. But It seems EPR Climb tables are not for -11 engines, also -11's producing max 14000 lbs thrust right? But Thrust is set to 17000 lbs in aircraft.cfg ( Correct me if I'm wrong about -11 specs. )I wish Ron Freimuth show up and clear our minds :-)

Randy:I see where you're coming from.Just thought you might like to see that someone agrees with the gist of your posts. I too am a -27 fanatic. I think that DF will probably fix the performance on the -11's. But I too would prefer to see the -15's or the -17's on the 200. Perhaps it will come in an update to have more than one engine type? Anyway, just wanted to lend some support.

>I don't care why they did choose -11's. But It seems EPR>Climb tables are not for -11 engines, also -11's producing>max 14000 lbs thrust right? But Thrust is set to 17000 lbs in>aircraft.cfg ( Correct me if I'm wrong about -11 specs. )>>I wish Ron Freimuth show up and clear our minds :-)The -11 is a good choice to fit both the -100 and -200. The takeoff thrust ratings for the -9, -11, and -15 are 14500, 15000, and 15500 lbs respectively. The max continuous thrust ratings are 12600, 12600, and 13750 lbs respectively.From the documentation I've been able to scare up, the -11 was only certed for the -200, and only a few of them were sold (to Mexicana Airlines) before the -15 hit the streets.As to the static_thrust setting in the aircraft.cfg, it's only one of many parameters used in thrust modeling. Remember that you are setting takeoff power to something less than 100% firewalled power. If you run a test suite like AFSD against the 727 model, the thrust curve looks right on the money...i.e. setting charted takeoff EPR produces right at 15000 lbs thrust at STP.Keep in mind that producing high-quality accurate thrust curves for another engine variant is a time-consuming and non-trivial task. Add to that the needed custom gauge work to display accurate EPR readings, and it's a reasonable choice to not include scads of engine options. They've opted for a single very accurate engine model that works acceptably for both the 100 and 200. If you want to approximate -15 performance, you can always adjust (reduce) the load in order to normalize the thrust-weight ratio, and vice-versa if an extra 500 lbs thrust on the -100 bothers you. For a fully-loaded -200 that means taking about 6600 lbs of pax/cargo off to get the equivalent performance of a 727-200 with -15s instead of -11s.One last thought: I'd bet that thrust figures for a -15 retrofitted with a Stage-III compliant hush kit are very close to the original -11. Can't say it's worth a lot of heartbeats arguing over something like 1-2% variance in thrust. Heck, the real engines probably vary that much just due to age, installation factors etc.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC