CV990A

...And the good people from Skysoft are working on Beijing:http://forum.skysoftsimulation.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=39&extra=page%3D1

It doesn't work that easy, Aharon.Darth Mop, I honestly wouldn't know, neither of these models are 100% matches in terms of the engine nacelle. I personally would just use the SF model and accept that there wil be inacuracies, you could try and use the -100B or even the JT9D-3 model (you'd get the older engine cowling with blow in doors, but you should at least have the right JT9D engine), but I think you won't get a 100% accurate ressult either way.Sander

After a little digging around on the internet, I think I can answer your question.This particular aircraft was one of the 5 747-132's build for Delta Airlines. Build in 1970 she was equiped with JT9D-3A engine, with the charactaristic "blow in" doors of early 747-100's.When retired by Delta in 1977 she was converted to SF configuration by Boeing, before being delivered to Flying Tigers and eventualy EL AL Cargo and Air Hong Kong Cargo.My guess is, that during the 77 conversion to freighter the engine cowling was replaced by a updated one also used by the -100B or -200B versions, while retaining the original JT9D-3A engine.So my best guess is that this was simply a hybrid version which Posky hasn't modelled.before 1977 conversion:http://www.airliners [dot] net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-747-132/1934998/L/&sid=7951f0b337cf70051d4cc7ed0d49d73e after 1977 conversion:http://www.airliners [dot] net/photo/Flying-Tigers/Boeing-747-132%28SF%29/1523348/L/&sid=7951f0b337cf70051d4cc7ed0d49d73ehope this helps you out.Sander net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-747-132/1934998/L/&sid=7951f0b337cf70051d4cc7ed0d49d73e

ever tried the SGA MD-95 (717)? it doesn't contain a panel, but in my opinion it's still the best 717 model out there (same goes for their DC-9,MD-80 and MD-90'syou can find the base pack as: sga95.zip at flightsim.com

some new photo's have just been posted on a.net, of the recovery of the vertical stabilizer:©http://www.fab.mil.brit doesn't look like a clean break at all, from this angle.

alright, my bad then, thought you was implying there's a flaw in Airbus's tailfin/rudder assembly design.btw, it seems to have snapped off above the Atachment bolts. so according to you the other major European, Asian etc airlines don't fit that discription?I think a lot of people will take offence with that statement (including me) that one was directed at gman :(

first of all, we don't know that yet, seccond the A330's FBW rudder mechanism works in a totally different fassion then the non-FBW A300-600's any good reasson for this? AA587's rudder came off when passing 187% of it's design load (150% is required), and thats after it had been weakened by the severe yawing of the first (pilot induced) rudder reversals.I have a hard time believing that's not "tough enough"....

Not an endorsement per se, but the (freeware) Project Tupolev TU-154B2 is used as an procedual (sp?) trainer by Tupolev themself.Don't know about the TU-154M though.

There is still a lot to be developed for FS9, particulary in the aircraft department.While the modern glass cockpit airliners are mostly there, the same can't be said about the classic jets. So far I haven't seen any sophisticated/up-to-date DC-10, L-1011, DC-8, DC-9, 720B, CV880(M), CV990(A) or A300B2/B4-200, these girls deserve to be done in detail.Another thing, how in the world would the release of yet another 737NG for FSX only, mean the end of FS9?The FS9 version is still heralded as one of the best things since sliced bread, so why the need for yet another version of it? When there are still a lot of deserving aircraft that haven't been done in detail (freeware or payware)

Am I the only one concerned about this?granted with the demise of ACES this scenario will certainly not play out, but if that is the direction FS would be moving into (which they already tried a bit with FSX), then they sure as heck would have lost at least one custommer.just my 0,02$

I have no reason at all to believe that the US gov was involved in 9/11 at all, but let's speculate shall we;-An operation of this magnitute would require several years of planning, as we all know the Bush administration was sworn into office 9 months before this,so that would mean they either had this planned well before they even went campaigning, or it was planned in the Clinton years, which both seem verry unlikely to me.-remember, this was the same governament that tried to sell the WMD storry to the world, as wel as trying to tie Saddam to Al Qaida, both of which failed.So why would they be able to succesfully plan and execute a higly complex operation like 9/11, and not have it come out to the press after 7 years? (remember they wouldn't only have needed to convince the US, they needed to convince the world, something they couldn't with Iraq, wo why would it have worked in this case?)why is the world still convinced the official story is true then?-where in the world are the people of these flights? where are the actual airframes? what happened to them?-What would be they try to archieve by killing their own people? this in my opinion is one of the largest faults in all 9/11 conspiracy theories (which says a lot, as I think not even 1% on sites like this is true)-planting explosives in a building with the magnitute of the WTC towers takes a lot of work, you have to drill holes in all of the support collums to get the exlosives planted, an operation that could take days or weeks.trust me, in a city like New York, in a building where thousands of people worked, someone would have noticed something was wrong.-hologram projectors, nice one, did they have soundsets as well? I remember the distinctive sound of CF6-80A and JT9D-7R4D engines, in full doplar effect, on the home videos released after 9/11. I guess they where tampered with as well?And where would those projectors be placed? seems odd nobody would notice something like that before hand...-Now there is a document on that side that shows that the Twin Towers where build to withstand a DC-8 or 707 type aircraft flying into it at 600 mph, and that would conclude it was a setup.newsflash! a 762 is no 707, and was loaded to the brim with aviation fuel. and in Fact the Towers did survive the impact, they fell after slightly less than an hour, long enough for the fire to weaken the structure enough for it to fail. exactly the reasson why the seccond tower fell before the first.and there's probably a lot more that needs to be debunked....It's worse enough what happened that day, let's not make it any worse by spreading false theories.Sander

I have been following the develpoments around the closure of ACES, and to be honest I'm kinda dumbstruck by the reaction of the comunity.while MSFS has been fun over the years, it sill has many flaws, expecially in the resources department, remember, it took hardware about 4 years to catch up with FS9, 4 years! and it still has the occasional CTD or OOM isuess, on hardware that nobody even thought possible when FS9 was developped! I think this is a good time to reflect, as a community, on what we really want with the FS franchise. do we really want to keep upgrading our systems for 1000's of dollars every year, just to gain a small increase in FPS on the latest FS? do we really want to spend hundreds of dollar on every FS version just to get it to look, function, feel like it should?or do we we want a sim that:-Performs and looks well, on a wide range of systems-makes effecient use of system and GPU memory, instead of just swallowing all memory untill there is none left.-Is stable in all regimes of flight.-is customizable, but also has enough under the hood to keep even the more serious simmers happy-Has an ATC system that is at least convincing-smarter AI-A convincing flight model, whithout the need for all kind of tricks to get it to feel right.-A realistic weather engine, and dito graphics (it is inexcusable that visability isn't reduced while flying through clouds in FS9 and X) etcOr do we want to steer the old course, and keep tweeking, upgrading, cursing untill the end?Now is the right moment to have our voices heard (sp?), either by another company (ubi Soft has quite a few sollid simulators), ot to bundlle all the talent we have in this comunitty and start for ourself.Back in 1999 when I got my first flightsim (Fly!), there where still quite a few option, MSFS 98, Fly! and Pro Pilot and maybe some others.Nowdays it's all MSFS, I switched to FS2000 because of the amount of add-on Aircraft, and that has actually been the only reason to remain an MSFS pilot, nothing more nothing less... -Sanderbtw, I do feel sorry for the people at ACES who lost their jobs this week, that is never a good thing.

http://www.protu-154.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3547that should do the trick.Sander

also:PT TU-154B-2PT IL-62MSCS TU-134 V1.0SCS/Samdim TU-124Samdim/Lviv design team Yak-42Samdim TU-114Tolmachevo Team UNNT, USSSand quite a few other Russian freeware scenery.Sander

Dancer's UUDD Domodedovo, although payware, is recommended as well.make sure you have the RSBN Scenery data as well (either CIS or USSR)RSBNhttp://www.protu-154.com/files/rsbnforfs9.zipsome know how, must have files, from forum member Ap0pHiS:http://rossiya.123.fr/e-mainanyway have fun, always nice to see someone else interested in Russian aviation.Sander

It's a great model and all, and it's FDE isn't as bad as previous Posky planes, but it's still a posky plane meaning it's mainly eye candy. nothing is wrong with that, but to say they raised the freeware bar is kinda insulting to the tallented people who gave us highly complex freeware aircraft, people like David Maltby, Benoit Gaurant (sp?) Richard Probst, Samdim the guys and galls of Project Tupolev, SCS and not to forget AFG whom with their excelent Caravelle have earned a place at the hall of fame. and yes I like the new 777 (even though I'm no fan of the real aircraft at all) but it is in no way high quality freeware, it looks really nice and flies kinda OK thats it.just my 0.02$Sander

point taken, but then again in my opinion most FS payware aircraft are overpriced. for me it was worth it, as I haven't enjoyed a new FS aircraft in a long time.<

I just got it today, and I must say that even tough it's no LDS/PMDG (which in my opinion are overated anyway, but thats another topic) I'm really having fun with it! the immersion factor is there, system moddeling seems fine, easy to use (which I'd expect from a regional/small mainline jet), FDE seems fine, can't compare it with a real EMB though obviously, and is really fun to fly, engine sounds are ok and the VC/Virtual Cabin combo is verry nice, with the nice lass as a nice bonus ;)haven't tested Autoland and VNAV though, and I probably never will either, handflying an aproach is much more fun to me :-wedgeI have to say it's a good buy if you like this kind of plane, and it's one of the verry few modern airliners I'd like to fly :-beerchug-Sander

<

I have to say it's an amazing Add-on that really does Kai Tak justice, I never tried the 9Dragons version, so I can't compare it to that one.the detail is amazing, has anybody noticed the hulk of B-165 (the China Airlines 744 that overan the runway and ended up in the bay) next to one of the hangars?-Sander

>>I am really, really surprised. I did not expect this. But another competition between the same players - where can it possibly lead?>>most probably a new RFP from the AF, an a re-do of the competition...with the loser again filing a protest probably...remember tough, the GAO's upholding of Boeing's protest doesn't mean they concluded the KC767 is the best offer, it only means there where some flaws in the sellection process, the A330 based tanker could still win round 2.-Sander

Speedbyrd wrote:<< I mean their FDE's are tweaked to 'feel real', if that's possible on a desktop computer. I've never flown an A340 but based on other models I've flown, this one has that 'heavy, lumbering' feel that I would expect from a huge jet. They lift off easily, but require a LOT of room for maneuvering and it just a pleasure to "drive" <

92. SCS TU-134 V1.093. Project Tupolev IL-62M (a forgotten beauty!)94. Samdim/SCS TU-12495. Samdim/Lyiv (don't know the full name) Yak-42-Sander

Mike Maarse uses some pretty good ground roll sounds for his soundsets.the one from his PW4060 soundset (the latest) is the best imo, you might have a look at them.

>>I think you better check your facts again, the 767-200 only requires 5600ft to takeoff MTOW, while the A330-200 requires 7300ft. A B767-300 requires 7900 ft. So even with this critical criteria the 767-200 beats the Airbus!<http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdfhave a look at paragraph 3.3.1, some of the other paragraphs show an even greater length of RWY needed dependend on weather and runway condition (dry/wet)the 763ER with CF6-80C2B7 engines has a ballanced field requirement of around 8600 feetat 3.3.25 you can see that the 764ER has a balanced field requirement of more then 10,000 feetnow for the 777, the 777-200LR charts, as a hypothetical KC777 would be based on the 777-200LRF, shows that a 777-200LR at MTOW has a balanced field requirement of slightly more then 11,000 feet.http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdfsee paragraph 3.3.1