For Rob small question and request.

[nighthawk65 4]

Hey, Rob curious if you have any thought or if you would like to share in reference what looks like an industry-wide abandonment of the queen of the skies, except for a loyal few?  Whis United would be one of them

 

Second this may seem trivial but could you guys develop the United Paint themes of old, with the tulip for your paint schemes.

 

One other thought, what would it take to develop a minor program where if you put in specific data like the FS2Crew of the original PMDG 747, it would give you a print-out like the ones received from the on-board printer on the aircraft.  May be silly, just thought it could add to the overall realism of the aircraft.

 

V/R

K. Plummer

[77west 139]

The withdrawal of many 747's from commercial service is just a reality that the large twins do the same thing with lower costs. If it wasn't for the 777's and A350's of this world, the 747 may still have had many years left in her. Sadly, the only planes that need 4 engines these days are the VLA's like the A380. The final nail in the passenger 747 market was the 777-9X - basically a twinjet 747.

 

However - The market for freighters with the nose loading door may keep her going for a few more years.

 

The 3 frames to replace Air Force One will likely be the last passenger frames built, unless we see a new passenger customer (unlikely) or top-up order from existing operator (possible, but also a long shot)

[Goldstar Textures 85]

If I understand your question at all - They used a Delta 747 for the referencing for V3 (or whatever we shall call it) if I am not mistaken. Also used a 77E from Delta for that particular addon apparently too.

Also heard Sun Country for the 737!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Hey, Rob curious if you have any thought or if you would like to share in reference what looks like an industry-wide abandonment of the queen of the skies, except for a loyal few?  Whis United would be one of them

 

Four engines drink more fuel. Speaking from a very high level, the number of engines evolved somewhat like this:

1. More engines for more power to get off of the ground
2. More engines for address issues of reliability
3. More engines to satisfy requirements to get across oceans (this is also where 3-holers came about - cost savings over 4 at the cost of added complexity)
4. Do we really need more than 2 now?

Since we've gotten to a point where a two engine aircraft can get upwards of 5.5 hours of ETOPS approval - essentially world coverage, minus a few spots around Antarctica - and those aircraft have proven to be extremely reliable in general (at least engine-wise), there hasn't been a realistic requirement for more. Note that the 748 has received more cargo orders than passenger. The extra 200,000 pounds in MTOW of the 748F is something that is more of an issue in the cargo realm, and the extra engines help to facilitate that with more raw power to get you off of the ground. For a passenger carrier, having to justify twice the engines at a theoretical cost of twice the maintenance and about twice the fuel burn is a tough rationalization, and one you can see fewer and fewer are willing to make.

 

 

 

Second this may seem trivial but could you guys develop the United Paint themes of old, with the tulip for your paint schemes.

 

I have a feeling a UAL will make its way in there. I think that UAL was only eclipsed by BAW in the number of 400s operated, so it would be a tough operator to leave out. If our team doesn't get to the older liveries, you can be sure that one of the many talented groups/individuals will do one. In the past, we've done at least a couple UAL liveries.

 

 

 

One other thought, what would it take to develop a minor program where if you put in specific data like the FS2Crew of the original PMDG 747, it would give you a print-out like the ones received from the on-board printer on the aircraft.  May be silly, just thought it could add to the overall realism of the aircraft.

 

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Elaborate?

[Jimm 437]

Four engines drink more fuel. Speaking from a very high level, the number of engines evolved somewhat like this:

1. More engines for more power to get off of the ground
2. More engines for address issues of reliability
3. More engines to satisfy requirements to get across oceans (this is also where 3-holers came about - cost savings over 4 at the cost of added complexity)
4. Do we really need more than 2 now?

Since we've gotten to a point where a two engine aircraft can get upwards of 5.5 hours of ETOPS approval - essentially world coverage, minus a few spots around Antarctica - and those aircraft have proven to be extremely reliable in general (at least engine-wise), there hasn't been a realistic requirement for more. Note that the 748 has received more cargo orders than passenger. The extra 200,000 pounds in MTOW of the 748F is something that is more of an issue in the cargo realm, and the extra engines help to facilitate that with more raw power to get you off of the ground. For a passenger carrier, having to justify twice the engines at a theoretical cost of twice the maintenance and about twice the fuel burn is a tough rationalization, and one you can see fewer and fewer are willing to make.

 

 

 

 

I have a feeling a UAL will make its way in there. I think that UAL was only eclipsed by BAW in the number of 400s operated, so it would be a tough operator to leave out. If our team doesn't get to the older liveries, you can be sure that one of the many talented groups/individuals will do one. In the past, we've done at least a couple UAL liveries.

 

 

 

 

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Elaborate?

I believe he may be referring to the loadsheet printer in the center pedestal?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I believe he may be referring to the loadsheet printer in the center pedestal?

 

Right, but I'm curious as to what function is being requested here.

[nighthawk65 4]

Four engines drink more fuel. Speaking from a very high level, the number of engines evolved somewhat like this:

1. More engines for more power to get off of the ground
2. More engines for address issues of reliability
3. More engines to satisfy requirements to get across oceans (this is also where 3-holers came about - cost savings over 4 at the cost of added complexity)
4. Do we really need more than 2 now?

Since we've gotten to a point where a two engine aircraft can get upwards of 5.5 hours of ETOPS approval - essentially world coverage, minus a few spots around Antarctica - and those aircraft have proven to be extremely reliable in general (at least engine-wise), there hasn't been a realistic requirement for more. Note that the 748 has received more cargo orders than passenger. The extra 200,000 pounds in MTOW of the 748F is something that is more of an issue in the cargo realm, and the extra engines help to facilitate that with more raw power to get you off of the ground. For a passenger carrier, having to justify twice the engines at a theoretical cost of twice the maintenance and about twice the fuel burn is a tough rationalization, and one you can see fewer and fewer are willing to make.

 

 

 

 

I have a feeling a UAL will make its way in there. I think that UAL was only eclipsed by BAW in the number of 400s operated, so it would be a tough operator to leave out. If our team doesn't get to the older liveries, you can be sure that one of the many talented groups/individuals will do one. In the past, we've done at least a couple UAL liveries.

 

 

 

 

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Elaborate?

 

Yes I was referring the load sheet printer in the center pedestal or maybe someday even looking at simulating the company page from ACARS.  This is just a thought, but it would be interesting to see if we could ever develop code, that might work with some of the V. Airlines, to simulate ACARS communications.  

 

Right, but I'm curious as to what function is being requested here.

Kyle do you remember for the FS9/FSX version of the PMDG 747 and FS2crew, you had to go into their app before launching FS9 or FSX and fill in several boxes of data.  Then once the program was loaded, it gave you data directly from the loadsheet printer.  It was just a thought to add a little more touch of realism.  

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Yes I was referring the load sheet printer in the center pedestal or maybe someday even looking at simulating the company page from ACARS.  This is just a thought, but it would be interesting to see if we could ever develop code, that might work with some of the V. Airlines, to simulate ACARS communications.  

 

The sim doesn't have the SimPaper2016 development yet, where one can realistically tear off paper and read it with any sort of accuracy or ease. For this reason, this is why InSimCharts2016 also doesn't exist. People have been, and still are, much better off printing things for themselves on a physical printer if a printed product is desirable.

 

Code for the ACARS and DataComm interface is pretty easy. The network and support for that interface is quite another. There's a reason it hasn't been done yet.