I already own the DF727 and I am considering the 747-200 RFP V2.From what I know both are less automated then for example PMDG 737Ng and 747 and LDS767.How do they compare? What does the RFP offer which I don't already have in DF727, or the other way around. What about FPS? One thing I have seen on the RFP is the documentation and I'm very impressed.

Besides being a completely different aircraft is the FRATS. Don

FPS on the ready for pushback airplane is a bit worse than the DF 727, because it is a bigger airplane with more polygons. The VC leaves a little to be desired, but it is one of the finest addons ever made. I just wish the VC textures were updated and there were some options for LCD screens, TCAS, windshield wipers, a few more things

>FPS on the ready for pushback airplane is a bit worse than>the DF 727, because it is a bigger airplane with more>polygons. But from the cockpit you can't see the plane is bigger.

If you added all that to the RFP it would no longer be the RFP :)On my system the RFP actually outperforms the DF727...

When I feel like flying steam gauge without all that fancy pants FMC crap I look towards the DF727 and RFP. I only do 2D panels so the VC problem doesn't bother me. Just be warned, it takes a little bit of patience to develop your SOP's so that the RFP flys nicely. Plus I've never gotten the autoland to land anywhere near nice. It always slams it down at like 700 ft/s. However, based on previous experience with the RFP, I'm willing to think this is something I'm doing wrong, not a bug.

It's a very early version of the autoland system.The real one didn't land too smoothly either.It's really only used when there's 0 visibility. ( even then I still use FD, not auto ).My source is a retired 747-200 pilot who flew for Northwest.

yes you can, the VC is bigger with more gauges, and there is a virtual cabin behind the door. thus more polygons

Trust me in this, you're not supposed to heavily flare a 742 :)Like a 737 it's meant to be flown onto the runway or you get excessive floating.I pretty much always land the RFP by hand at 500-700 fpm, gives a nice satisfying "thud".Take controls at 1000-1500ft or sooner, cut throttle and disengage autothrottle at 30-50ft.

>yes you can, the VC is bigger with more gauges, and there is>a virtual cabin behind the door. thus more polygonsBut if I only use 2D panels?

>If you added all that to the RFP it would no longer be the>RFP :)>>On my system the RFP actually outperforms the DF727...And what system do you have?

Exactly the right way to do it, Jeroen, in my opinion. I also like to have a little power on the engines for better control so I usually cut the autothrottle and autopilot as you do, although I tend to do it at more like 1000' AGL rather than 1500'.It's a big, heavy, bird and it's a little harder to "grease" it onto the runway............(although every now and then you do just that and really feel like you know what you are doing...:) )Ed GreenKCLThttp://www.panelshop.com/DEV.jpg

P4-2.4 with 1.5GB RAM and a GF6600.Not state of the art by current standards, but it serves me well.

>I pretty much always land the RFP by hand at 500-700 fpm,>gives a nice satisfying "thud".500-700 fpm? That sounds rather much. About 10 ft/sec (3m / sec)That sounds such a rather strong impact on the pavement. When I have flewn in airliners (rw 747) I surely did not get the impression we landed on the pavement at such a high speed.

You did. Remember those aircraft have some rather large shock absorbers, and a lot of mass behind them.Try flaring one and you're going to float halfway down the runway before you either stall out and bump down anyway or overshoot.