Hi folks. I checked out the DF forums and did a search on this subject but didn't find any answers. Has anyone else noticed that the reverse thrust on this a/c is waaaay to strong? The power goes up to t/o settings if you hold down the F2 button. I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my install. Everything else seems to work ok. In fact, I love the airplane otherwise. Thanks for any insights.

By default, the Dreamfleet 727s have nearly 50% power in the reversers. To reduce this, all you need to do is edit the following line in the aircraft.cfg in the "GeneralEngineData" secion:min_throttle_limit=-0.48All you need to do is change the value to something less powerful, I use a value of -0.25 as it still allows for powerbacks but does a decent job of extending my landing rollout giving me something more than 3000ft landings without using the brakes.Of course, in addition to changing all four of the aircraft.cfg files, you also need to change the four aircraft.cfg files in the Flight One Software/Text-O-Matic/data.727100CARGO, /data.727100PAX, /data.727200CARGO and /data.727200PAX folders.

Whilst I'm not suggesting that you might be wrong Jeff, before I go and ask the current real world 727 pilots we have on the beta team for their opinion (and also why they have never told me the reverse thrust is wrong), is there something you can add to back up your comment?http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Just from another user's perspective, that's one issue that never even came to my attention. The reverse thrust from a purely subjective viewpoint seems fine to me. When something bothers me about an aspect of an aircraft's performance I usually get a "gut" feeling first, then check it out more closely by the numbers. I haven't been 'motivated' to do such with regard to reverse thrust on the 727. BTW, the brakes groaning is a *really* nice extra on this plane! Mike

I've had a look into this and the reverse setting has never been changed from the original files created by Ron Freimuth and I'm inclined to believe it to be correct without proof otherwise.I tried the reduced setting of -0.25 instead of -0.48 and it hardly moves the aircraft backwards, even at full reverse thrust - and that was using the Super27 too!! The effect of this change simply reduces the amont of engine power allowed for reverse.Wouldn't it be the case that a lightly loaded aircraft being given full reverse on touchdown, would slow down quicker than a heavy one and is it a case of the pilot using reverse power as it is needed depending on the situation. Rather than just applying full reverse as a matter of course.I'm sure current users don't need reminding that this isn't a F1,F2 & F4 product; F1 will set of a aural warning and F4 will over run the engines to destruction (real ones that is).http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

I sure wish I could try the Super 27 as well :) :) :)

Come on Major Clay: Let's have a real world evaluation of this issue:Respectfully:RTH

Paul, Thanks for responding. I can't give you any figures right now. I'll post some later on, but basically hitting F2 and holing it down for full reverse gives me what seems to be full power in reverse. You mention that it isn't an F1, F2 airplane and I agree, but is hitting F2 after touchdown not the correct way to engage the reversers? Thanks.

Thanks, Nick. I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. That's why I was thinking it was a problem with my install or something. Is -.25 a real world figure or something that feels right to you?

I'm going out on a limb here, but it may have something to do wth the fact that full reverse is almost never used....Nahhhh.

;-)Just like you almost never use full power, full brakes, max bank angle etcHolding F2 will take the engines to max reverse thrust, just like holding F3 gives max forward thrust and neither are the way to it.http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

>I tried the reduced setting of -0.25 instead of -0.48 and it>hardly moves the aircraft backwards..That will teach me to keep 10 copies of modified files around without properly labeling them. :) Looks like that value came from on of my early attempts at getting the -200s to come closer to the full 727-200Adv max takeoff weight of 209,000lb. I think that was the one I had to overpower in order to get off the ground in less that 16,000ft of runway, hence needing less reverse power.

I know the feeling well. I just did what I thought was a final flight in a 100 Super27 and found it would do snap rolls!!! I know the original release was a bit to lathargic, but I think I must have dozed off last night whilst editing some files :-)http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Exactly. The problem with the community at large is that people take what they see on a normal revenue flight and assume it's the aircraft at peak performance. A 737 will command a roll rate comparable to some fighter aircraft with full deflection - no kidding, it's been done. The difference is that no 737 pilot in his right mind would use anywhere near that kind of control authority - one 737 pilot described maneuvering best done 'as if you were milking a mouse.'

Hi Paul, I'm not saying that the DF 727 does not model reverse thrust correctly, only that it seems a bit excessive to me. I was really thinking that I could be wrong after reading some of this thread and due to the fact that I'm the only one who seems to have come forward with this question. When I got to work today I asked a couple of ex 727 drivers about it. One couldn't remember but said he thought that quite a bit of power was available for reverse. The other said that an EPR of 2.00 sounded about right to him with full reverse applied. He also said that the airplane could come to a stop with reverse thrust alone at a light to moderate landing weight if the runway was long enough. I actually get about a 2.00 EPR in the sim at full reverse which is accurate based on what I was told. My question though, is this. There has to be a considerable amount of efficiency loss between the amount of power being generated by the engines in reverse and the amount of air that's actually being moved forward and providing stopping power. Is this loss of efficiency taken into account in the figures included in the .cfg file for reverse thrust or do they merely reflect the power output of the engine?