Froogle's first look at the 747v3

[springbok204 5]

The comment he made about the 747 being less automated and more challenging than the 777 is interesting.

 

When I started using the 777, that automation he spoke of was amazing.  For say, start, the 777 would switch off packs.  In the 747, you have to switch them off manually. But I think I understand when folks who use the 777 say its too automated and a lil 'dry' to use.  I'm a self confessed 777 nut but I'm looking forward to using the 747.  It may indeed be a bit more of a challenge

 

 

Kirk Mayers

[G MIDY 101]

The comment he made about the 747 being less automated and more challenging than the 777 is interesting.

 

When I started using the 777, that automation he spoke of was amazing.  For say, start, the 777 would switch off packs.  In the 747, you have to switch them off manually. But I think I understand when folks who use the 777 say its too automated and a lil 'dry' to use.  I'm a self confessed 777 nut but I'm looking forward to using the 747.  It may indeed be a bit more of a challenge

 

 

Kirk Mayers

 

The 747 also has a stronger APU which can start two engines at a time. Little nuances will make this far more pleasurable to fly in my opinion. The famous architect Norman Foster after all called it his most favourite building..

[Cann0nF0dd3r 21]

It comes down to preferences. I play a lot with the T7 as well as the FSL A320 and they are amazing. That level of automation is fine, nothing wrong with that but at the same time I LOVE the Majestic Dash-8 Q400. Its modern but still very manual as far as flying it, no auto throttle etc. 

[Boomer 1,619]

The comment he made about the 747 being less automated and more challenging than the 777 is interesting.

 

Yep I find the 777 far less interesting to fly because it is so automated.

[craig_read 43]

Happy to have someone correct me, but for Pete (Froogle) pump number 4 should remain in AUX until you've pushed back.  As I understand it the purpose is that it powers the nose gear, so if you have it ON it'll pressurise the nose gear steering hydraulics which will cause problems.  This can be turned on once Pushback is complete and the nose gear is free of any tugs.

 

One thing I will say is start up times on the engines is a lot longer than I thought, I imagine this is more realistic or is it because he's left 1 pack on?  I always thought you turned all off and the aircraft could only really cope with starting 2 engines at once really.

 

Here to learn, miss the 747 since I dispanded FSX.

 

Cheers

[Stephen Simpson 7]

I've never been one for mahoosive jets, more a 737 A319 person but I like the sounds of the new 747.  Definitely think I will have to get this when it comes out.

 

S

[Jovabra 18]

Froogle,

What do you think about the AEROWINX PFX? Amazing flight performance. Everthing is working and a constant update service to make it better and better or a request for specifiek company adjustments. Working Circuit Breakers also on the electrical panels P6-1 etc"located down stars. With some computer knowlege you can make a connection with FSX scenery.

Regards

Jovabra

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

The 747 also has a stronger APU which can start two engines at a time.

 

It's actually rated for all four, but an operator would only do it if they had the autostart option (modeled). Without it, it would be an accident waiting to happen.

[craig_read 43]

The comment he made about the 747 being less automated and more challenging than the 777 is interesting.

 

When I started using the 777, that automation he spoke of was amazing.  For say, start, the 777 would switch off packs.  In the 747, you have to switch them off manually. But I think I understand when folks who use the 777 say its too automated and a lil 'dry' to use.  I'm a self confessed 777 nut but I'm looking forward to using the 747.  It may indeed be a bit more of a challenge

 

 

Kirk Mayers

 

I don't think you'll find it very hard really.  Personally I would still say that the 747-400 is heavily automated, and really not that far behind the 777 in many ways.  The predecessor however was a big challenge, virtually everything is manual.  I remember getting a simulation of the 747-200 and it took a lot of work to get going, which you'd expect, it was designed to be flown by 3 people!  

 

There are just a few things that you'll need to get your head around, apart from the manual flying characteristics that is, such as manually setting up fuel pumps depending on fuel load.  That's another comment I'll make on the video here.  The cross feeds aren't turned on by default, it depends on the fuel loads in the tanks.  If you're in what's called a 'tank to engine' condition then the override pumps and cross feeds are not required, and if ON the fuel system would be incorrectly configured.  This is a condition which you reach during your flight as well, upper EICAS will show TANK/ENG indicating fuel is equal in the engine tanks so the fuel system needs to be reconfigured to maintain the balance.  I remember when I was out and I'd missed this message I'd have to turn off pumps on a tank or two to balance things out before going to TANK/ENG..

 

There are also some pretty cool features that the 777 has in it's CDU which aren't present in the 747-400, and of course the electronic checklist which I love personally, saves on paper .  Sounds are great in this though!  Would have been nice to hear the APU outside on its own.

 

Froogle,

What do you think about the AEROWINX PFX? Amazing flight performance. Everthing is working and a constant update service to make it better and better or a request for specifiek company adjustments. Working Circuit Breakers also on the electrical panels P6-1 etc"located down stars. With some computer knowlege you can make a connection with FSX scenery.

Regards

Jovabra

 

I loved PS1.3, it was the first thing that really got me into simming, before the 747-400 came out for FS9 from PMDG (those were the days).  Then Aerowinx took a back seat, but it's still used a lot today for home flightdecks.  That's what taught me the most about the 747-400 though.

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but thought I'd reply

 

Cheers

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Happy to have someone correct me, but for Pete (Froogle) pump number 4 should remain in AUX until you've pushed back.  As I understand it the purpose is that it powers the nose gear, so if you have it ON it'll pressurise the nose gear steering hydraulics which will cause problems.  This can be turned on once Pushback is complete and the nose gear is free of any tugs.

 

Lockout pin prevents accidental activation. Different SOPs may specify different procedures based on their risk stance. May also change whether you have pneumatic or elec on 1 and 4 (modeled).

 

 

 

One thing I will say is start up times on the engines is a lot longer than I thought, I imagine this is more realistic or is it because he's left 1 pack on?  I always thought you turned all off and the aircraft could only really cope with starting 2 engines at once really.

 

You can get all four going at the same time if you really wanted to. The APU is rated for it - just be sure the packs are off. In general, what you have running will affect how quickly the engine spools up during the start: packs, HYDs, etc.

[craig_read 43]

Kyle,

 

Not expecting an answer to this question as I know the rules.  Just a thought to consider for users such as myself.  I understand the FSX version will be released first, as a P3D user I won't want to purchase an FSX product where there isn't a clear path to the P3D version without financial impact.  Obviously (without mentioning names) other developers have adopted a stance where if you buy FSX first, P3D can be transitioned to with only the price differential to pay, meaning ultimately there is no financial penalty for early adoption for P3D users.  If the PMDG stance on this could get some clarity some might appreciate that early on, obviously that's a decision you (not literally 'you' of course) must make.

 

I suggest this because not knowing the route to P3D will be a barrier for myself in making any purchase (and I am sure I won't be the only one).  The decision isn't one I wish to influence, that's not my place, but before any release I'd like to understand the situation here so I can make an informed buying decision.

 

Like I said, no response required, just something for consideration, hope I'm not speaking out of turn.

 

Cheers

 

PS It does look great, I've missed the 747-400 a lot.. and am looking forward to using it.

[shamrockflyer 647]

Just a side note to PMDG - can you please consider this being your first 'modern day' airliner release for X-Plane 11? In conjunction with FSX and P3D. We have waited too long for a big release of a jet airliner for X-Plane from PMDG, it would be nice to see the 744 make her way into X-Plane at the same time as FSX and P3D. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Not expecting an answer to this question as I know the rules.  Just a thought to consider for users such as myself.  I understand the FSX version will be released first, as a P3D user I won't want to purchase an FSX product where there isn't a clear path to the P3D version without financial impact.  Obviously (without mentioning names) other developers have adopted a stance where if you buy FSX first, P3D can be transitioned to with only the price differential to pay, meaning ultimately there is no financial penalty for early adoption for P3D users.  If the PMDG stance on this could get some clarity some might appreciate that early on, obviously that's a decision you (not literally 'you' of course) must make.

 

The FSX and P3D licenses have always been separate with us. As far as the platforms go, they are not in any path toward each other. They're parallel paths for different purposes.

 

The versions may release somewhat staggered, or they may release at the same time - we aren't sure yet. Either way, if you want one of the versions, don't expect to "convert" between them. This is the same policy that we've had for a few years.

[Avwriter 85]

The comment he made about the 747 being less automated and more challenging than the 777 is interesting.

 

When I started using the 777, that automation he spoke of was amazing.  For say, start, the 777 would switch off packs.  In the 747, you have to switch them off manually. But I think I understand when folks who use the 777 say its too automated and a lil 'dry' to use.  I'm a self confessed 777 nut but I'm looking forward to using the 747.  It may indeed be a bit more of a challenge

 

 

Kirk Mayers

Keep in mind that PMDG is also working on a 748, which is even more automated than the 777 (indeed RSR himself referred to the 748 as "basically a 4-engine 777" in one of his presentations a couple of years ago).  Thus, eventually you will have the best of both worlds at your fingertips.

[Boomer 1,619]

The versions may release somewhat staggered, or they may release at the same time

 

Well here's hoping for same time as I am a P3D flier now.