Lord Farringdon

So take this with a grain of salt, but as a non-pilot, I have actually flown the B727 in couple of holding pattern events which due to the nature of operations meant we had to remain overhead for 2 hours while awaiting the primary aircraft's departure. We were the back up if anything went wrong. This was a long time ago, with just our crew aboard and no passengers and long before the rules became much stricter. I recall quite clearly, that the aircraft was not light on the controls but that the roll into the turns was easily attained without attendant over or under roll which with my lack of experience, would have resulted in roll snaps. Roll out and straight line flying was rock solid unlike my attempts to remain within 100 feet of altitude!!! So in that regard, I experienced a very stable aircraft that really didnt allow me to mess it up no matter my lack of flying experience. There are plenty of real pilots who have attested to the stability of the B727 especially in relation to approach and landing. I/we would love to hear their view on this for which I believe there are a number reasons. Wing dihedral on a swept wing aircraft like the B727 aircraft tends to lead to a convergent (as opposed to divergent) yaw stability. However the B727 was famously known for its tendency to 'Dutch Roll', especally at higher speeds and altitude. This was associated with its rear engine and T-Tail configuration. To overcome this, yaw dampers were fitted to the upper and lower rudders. (Question: I wonder if the -100 was more susceptible to this than the -200?). But at lower altitudes and especially on approach, the clean wings (ie, no engines), with Kruger flaps, slats and Fowler flaps lead to a stable approach. So as I say, take my experience with a grain of salt but I personally think FSS have a done a fairly good job of replicating the flying feel of the B727 to the extent that yes, when its speeds are correct, there is little turbulence and the aircraft is trimmed correctly, it does sometimes feel like the FSS 727 is flying on rails.

Is your question "Which one should you use? ie Auto throttle or IAS hold mode, it is a bit of conundrum. IAS HOLD if you want to fly the aircraft as it intended when it was first built. Auto throttle if you want to replicate those later retrofits. Beyond Fuel Cut-Off levers I have not setup bindings on my Honeycomb Bravo for IAS so I have to use the pitch wheel which is located on the pedestal and is a particularly annoying manipulation to get right in a critical phase of flight and in turbulence. I only fly with CIV-A INS so I don't know how well IAS HOLD works with other nav systems. So even though the Auto Throttle feature was only fitted to some B727's in their later lives, I find it much easier to use because you need only to move the airspeed speed bug while still being heads up watching everything else. However FSS notes the Auto Throttle feature is only partly implemented, so I guess it doesn't work too well with RNAV procedures?

I think the stubbies are designed partly with the 'Golden Ratio' aesthetic in mind. Every extension after that gradually destroys it!

Despite the opprobrium FSS have bought upon themselves with there E jet releases, it must be a different team working on the B727 series because they have fixed and patched quite regularly while also improving the product. The aircraft is not an automated, FMS, follow the magenta line type of aircraft that most people are familiar with today and consequently requires a bit of patience to understand it's old school approach. Things like manually selecting radios on and selecting NAV not GPS when using auto glide slope. I'm not saying there weren't problems with the initial release and indeed the handling was well off with excessive pitching but many of the issues were user related as a result of not reading the documentation that came with the model. Things like the crew manager not working, the EFB (well a clipboard anyway), not working properly, lighting issues, sound issues and texture gaps were all issues that FSS has plugged, fixed and improved. At the wishes of those mostly familiar with newer aircraft means of navigation, FSS have provided options for a range of GPS aids that can be selected to the point that there is nothing fundamental (except the inoperative radar) that would destroy your desire to fly the aircraft. So a lot of issues you may have seen have either been fixed or are being brought up by people not reading the documentation completely or not setting up their control options correctly especially in relation to fuel cut-off levers and using the CIV-A INS. Not saying it's perfect. Just as the winglets are a more modern option, I would love to see a classic option with clamshell reversers. There is still some issues with starting the APU that requires the test alarm to be activated twice. Perhaps they have fixed this in the latest update or maybe I'm missing something? But the aircraft is a good looker, systems are well modelled (without failure options though) and it fly's really well and importantly, it keeps your interest. Still some niggles but there is nothing major that would make you regret the purchase especially as you say, you love the B727. Go for it.

You have a crew manager (like a smartphone) that you select preflight, before start, after start, before taxi checklists etc and the Flight Engineer (FE) conducts all these along with callouts. So no, you don't have run the FE's panel..but you can if you want to. I haven't flown the BAE 146 but I understand it fairly high up the study level meter. I wouldn't say the B727 is study level, the crew manager and checklists can pretty well do it all for you and there is no advanced failure simulation. But in terms of navigation in these old aircraft there is a lot to do and it's a real thriller getting this bird through weather and into some tight fields surrounded by high terrain all on VOR's and DME arcs. The flight deck texturing is well done and from my experience on type (non pilot) it gives me goosebumps especially in VR. The aircraft is also stable to fly and feels like it is doing what you tell it to. it's a good experience if you like old school navigation.

So I purchased through Aerosoft and carried out my first flights in the -100 and -100F. ( haven't flown the Super 27 yet). Having now packaged the 100, 100F and the Super 27 in one download, the FSS price was rather hefty. But this aircraft was a must for me no matter what it cost so I can't be a good judge in that regard. A 20 percent discount was awarded as purchaser of the -200 and so at Euro 43, this did alleviate the pain somewhat. The download, install and activation process was very seamless especially when compared to the PMDG activation circus that many of us have experienced. The download went straight to Contrail who provide me with the activation code and away I went. I carried out some instrument approaches which worked well with sensible VOR LOC and ILS captures. The model is more sprightly and agile than the -200 (non Super 27) with better climb performance. This is real world realistic with the aircraft being shorter and lighter but with the same engines as the -200. The 727-100 is the original pocket rocket and FSS seems to have captured the performance difference well. The -100 seems easier to land but perhaps that was just me getting speeds right for once! I selected the United livery since our B727's were ex United and was pleased (not pleased) to see the gaudy colour scheme in the passenger cabin. This was exactly how we first saw our aircraft on delivery with United seating still in them. The cabin layout was particularly memorable with accessible toilets front and rear, baggage locker, mid cabin galley and the operable rear door and aft airstair. While the textures could perhaps be better, I think the balance between cabin ambience and software performance is about right. External sounds and levels were sensible and true to type within the constraints of audio recordings. Newer updates to the Flight Engineers callouts has significantly improved the clarity of those callouts. There are some minor instrument and configuration differences between the -100 and -200 but nothing that makes it more difficult to fly or find your way around than the -200. I haven't conducted a long flight with the -100 using CIV-A INS but expect it will be no different to the -200 overall. The EFB and Crew Manager tablet are essentially the same as the -200 with some difference for the passenger version. It is worth the price? Well there is not really a ot of difference between the types but you get three aircraft and liveries that match them. I was impressed with the noticeable performance difference in the -100. If you want some photo/video opportunities with the -100 then this is the only way you are going to do it. So, on an initial and quick test, I'm impressed with it so far and if you can get past the price, I think it is very worthwhile!

It's a bit confusing but Boeing certainly did produce new -100 F's . And of course a lot of passenger -100's were converted into freighters (F) in their later lives including the QF (Quiet Freighter) for UPS. The 100-F's, either built from new or converted from the passenger version were dedicated freighters and that's where they differed from the QC's and C's which could carry both passengers and freight. The 100-C (Combi/Cargo) could carry passengers, cargo or both but role changes were time consuming and required floor roller and pallet locking systems to be entirely removed and then seats installed into seat tracks. In contrast, the QC (Quick Change) had the same cargo door and strengthened freight floor as the 100-C except it utilised palletised seating and galleys that could be quickly rolled in an out of the aircraft to change roles. This enabled the aircraft to primarily carry passengers during the day and within 30 min's be reconfigured for carrying freight during the night. While our particular B727-100's were QC's in their United life, the cargo systems were removed before delivery to us and we installed a different roller system that allowed half pallets down the side of the aircraft with passengers seated alongside in seats connected to the seat tracks. The aircraft could also be completely reconfigured for carrying VIP's. It was no longer Quick Change and so these aircraft were redesignated as a Combi/Cargo B727-100C.

Interestingly, our B727-100's were ex United QC's and I first started crewing on them Jan 20 1981. You are right. It would be good if FSS offered a QC. Boeing apparently delivered 111 B727-100QC's. I'm guessing United and Fed Ex were the primary benefactors of this interesting version.

When the FSS 727-200F was first released it actually had the 'clamshell' reversing buckets which was correct for the actual -100's and the early 200's. But later 727-200's were produced or early models re-engined with the JT8D-2xx series of engines (the Super 27) that had longer tailpipes and were fitted with 'cascade' reversers. At the same time, and to meet Stage 3 mandated noise restrictions, many of the older -100's were fitted with hush kits, developed by Fed Ex for their fleet I think. So the 'clamshell' reversers became an increasingly rare sight and it seems FSS responded to demand from customers many who only remembered the 727-200's being fitted with cascades. Accordingly, FSS moved the clamshell reverser buckets from the model. Great to see them back on the -100!

Make sure you setup a controls profile specifically for the B727-200F. I have found it doesn't like sitting on a default Asobo aircraft profile for example. Terry

I quite agree. It doesn't surprise anyone that with the way these two forums are bundled together the rapid degeneration into attack posts on posts that are otherwise offering a respectful opinion directly related to the OP's topic, has become endemic. I have opined on this because I am one of the possible reasons (among many others) why the uptake in MS2024 may not be as good as everyone expected because I am one of those users who have not taken up 2024. And that's valid and on topic. But you know what? Who cares? The days of reasoned argument on this forum appear to be well over. I wouldn't be the first person wondering if contributing to this forum is worth the angst. Cheers Terry

Nah, that sounds like , as you say, 'POPPYCOCK'. Either that or MS don't know what the min/recommended and ideal specs for their programs actually are and that of course is very unlikely. What you are proffering is that if someone is running recommended specs in 2020, and having "at least decent performance" (which they most likely are) then without needing to upgrade they would now be running on min specs for 2024 (ignoring the fact that a CPU upgrade would be required to actually meet that min spec) and they "should have at least decent performance in v2024". Sorry but I don't subscribe to that theory. Min specs are always bad for user experience and if you have to dial things back in 2024 where you didn't in 2020, it is not the same experience is it? But hey, I dont have the program so can't reasonably make a comment about that except I would have thought there would have been plenty of hoopla if FS 2024 recommended specs were the same as 2020's!! In any case my comment was primarily related to address the access issue which occurs because many users around the world simply can't meet the recommended streaming speeds let alone the ideal speeds, on a consistent basis if at all, and my point was that this may have affected MS2024 uptake. To write that off by simply stating that MS2020 is ALSO a streaming game suggests you severely misunderstand the different approach now being taken in FS 2024. But then, you did say "a BUNCH of highly experienced simmers right here in AvSim... clearly have no idea what's going on upstream of their computer..." 😄. Cheers Terry

Invoking a little bit of Mark Twain regarding the OPs stats; 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'. We can argue all day over MSFS stats but you could do a doctorate on worldwide gaming stats and still be the subject of considerable misrepresentation in some areas, so complex and huge are the numbers and of course competitive information is not always available to give fair and reasonable balance. But we can take the OP's stats as shedding some actual light on what is possibly occurring and it is not as promising as perhaps many of us hoped it would be. There was some suggestion that MSFS 2024 XBox games pass users and PC users who are not using Steam haven't been taken into account in the OPS stats. But then again, neither have the MSFS 2020 users in those categories and so I see no reason why we can't simply assume a similar picture ie one which shows the uptake of MS2024 simply not as high as MS would have hoped for. This forum has discussed ad infinitum what the reasons for that might be but I also wonder if scant regard is being given to worldwide users who simply can't stream MS2024 with any reasonable prospect of a good user experience. Let alone poorly served VR users and many who simply can't afford the upgrade in video cards or other hardware, which worked fine in MSFS2020 but offer no benefit on 2024 and especially so if suitable streaming cannot be achieved. Cheers Terry

Good to see the vehicles are mostly driving on the correct side of the road too!!

Well, if the paid a couple of hundred bucks for it and deleted 2020, then....I guess they're compelled to, no?