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?

Ouch. Many New Zealanders across our small nation were either directly or indirectly affected by the Air NZ Erebus crash. Personally, I was involved in strategic airlift operations associated with recovering the loved ones we lost on that mountain that day. Some of my colleagues who were much closer to the carnage suffered mental health issues for some time afterwards. So your comment which you edited, "to add more grisly detail", hits a very raw nerve and bought back some very bad memories. Still, I know people make fun of these sort of things without ever meaning to hurt anyone and I have no doubt your comment was not intended to be taken as anything other than a piece of humour. All good DD_Arthur but I felt compelled to comment because it is a timely reminder for everyone that this is a global forum and that while we may from time to time attempt to simulate accident events to both learn more about how it happened and to satisfy our own curiosity, we shouldn't make fun of real accident events since it is always possible that someone who was close to those events may be reading our forum. Please, I hold nothing against you personally DD_Arthur and enjoy your posts. 👍 Cheers Terry

On aircraft, they are basically a quick release pin especially for latching things like covers or other often opened access points. They come in many different forms and are designed for many different applications not just aviation. However in aircraft terms, flush Dzus fasteners are more widely used today although in saying that, some do look like pins as well!! With such a large number of designs to suit many varied applications, Google is your friend for this one. Here is an AI answer which explains the key elements of a toggle pin, that is a pivot point on which to 'toggle' back and forth and a spring mechanism to help secure it in the locked toggle position. A "toggle pin" is called such because it has a mechanism that allows it to "toggle" or flip back and forth on a pivot point, essentially acting like a small lever that can be easily engaged and disengaged, often with a spring mechanism to secure it in place; this design is particularly useful for quickly connecting or disconnecting parts in various applications like rigging, marine hardware, or industrial machinery. Key points about toggle pins: "Toggle" action: The key feature is the ability to flip or "toggle" the pin to securely fasten or release it. Spring mechanism: Many toggle pins incorporate a spring to maintain tension and ensure a secure connection. Applications: Used in situations where quick and reliable fastening is needed, like connecting sections of containment boom during an oil spill or attaching rigging lines on a boat. Cheers Terry

I also confirm that the landing page doesn't work for me. I know it did previously so one of the updates must have toasted it. Cheers Terry Edit: Whoa...I need back up the bus. The Landing page did have problems I think before 1.0.6 and 1.0.7 updates but it works fine for me now. It is the Flight page that never works for me. Sometimes the altitude is not there and I cant set the required altitude. Other times I can but then when I press start it give me an 'Invalid VS' error. I try to enter the reqd VS but it wont let me. Again, it has worked in the past but doesn't seem to now. So my problem is the Flight page not the Landing page. I am on version 1.0.7 + patch which is the latest at time of writing.

Deleted

Hi Guys, Subject update has been released by FSS for the B727-200F. Available on Aerosoft and Contrail (which is much simpler). https://flightsim-studio.com/news/b727-update-1.0.7 In short: Brand-New GNS XLS Navigation Suite Reworked Sound System Modern Radio System (8.33kHz spacing) Bug Fixes & Overall Improvements And here is another link which gives more info on the GNS XLS suite and FSS plans for moving the B727 to 2024. Note: I also read somewhere that the 2020 B727 will be free in 2024 for current users but they are also looking at making a native 2024 version that will allow features of 2024 to be used. This native version will be a payware version though. https://fselite.net/content/flightsim-studio-b727-update/ Hopes this helps some of the guys who don't visit FSS's website, their Discord, or FS Elite. Cheers Terry

LOL. Username checks out! 😄.

I think you might be confusing real world preflight safety and readiness checks (including aircraft walk rounds) with MSFS2024's gaming challenge where the avatar has to complete certain tasks before they get to go flying. By all accounts (I'm not a 2024 user), the challenge is to simply reach the cockpit level by completing the click points, the only consequence of which is that you don't get to go flying unless this challenge is completed correctly. In many ways this is a lead in challenge not unlike a patsy question in a quiz show that any dummy can answer and earn $100 before the game levels get tougher. Challenges have purposes including being a motivating factor and if the gauntlet is thrown at you, there is a natural instinct to take it up. The drive to prove yourself motivates people to join in. Participation in activities out of the norm for us is a way to show ourselves as brave, honorable, strong or just plain interesting. They may also have educational purposes. None of which has any bearing on the average flight simmer who simply wants to go flying. So yes. It is extremely 'gamey' because: 1. There is no way to bypass this challenge level. 2. You will never find anything wrong with the aircraft that could really affect safety of flight and so there is no purpose to the walkaround beyond creating an introductory challenge. Meanwhile your concerns over proper walk rounds is overshadowed by the elephant in the room, ie lack of acceptable ATC. If you really want to talk safety of flight, security and operational implications, then ATC is where the effort should have been placed. But no. MSFS chose the low hanging 'gamey' fruit instead. Of course, there are much larger strategic reasons for this but they are of no relevance to this thread. Cheers Terry

This is right Mr Fuzzy. Remember in 2020 when we had aircraft that would turn left and bank right? Uggggh! It took them ages, but it was eventually fixed and now AI is mostly enjoyable to watch in MS2020. So it seems it starts again from scratch in MS2024. A backwards flying airplane is like a large billboard advertisement for Regressions 'r' Us !! If 2020 was anything to go by, I imagine it will take them a while to fix these things since they will have a low priority against their flagship but buggy Career mode and of course misplaced daisies and pebbles. I am being a bit facetious with that last comment but the fact is many of us expected an significant improvement in the Flight Simulator from FS2020 that met the purity of a flight simulator where MS2020 was badly bereft of ie , in simulating clouds, an acceptable ATC solution and realistic wx effects etc. And, we expected most of this out of the gate (notwithstanding stretched servers at release). We didn't get any of it. (Put's hand up. I don't have 2024 so my take on clouds is from some who reported no change or even worse. I see the volcanic ash clouds still exist. Some have said clouds have improved immensely.) It all sounds like the 20 page cloud topics we had in MSFS 2020, it's so subjective. I'm waiting for the majority to say, wow, the cloud modelling is brilliant then I'll know we've moved forward. Don't get me wrong. I am enthused about where this double world of MS can take us. That I can potentially climb up a beautifully modelled Acacia tree and tickle a giraffe under the chin with a daisy, or drive my Ranger through some rugged terrain to shoot deer (ok take photos of them,) or role play as a passenger on a VIP jet, imagining I have just won lotto. Space...the new frontier etc etc. The mind boggles. I'm not serious all the time. Like @andy1252, I'll fly Harry Potters Anglia around a PG London just because I can. But, when I am serious, I expect the Flight Simulator to be so too. Now, I know many have listed the improvements for Flight Simulation in MSFS2024 including: (this is not my list, it was compiled by someone else with far more knowledge than me). - improved flight dynamics and CFD, improved aircraft creation/development tools - much improved and revamped ground handling and related physics, water physics - much improved ground details (which also goes hand in hand with the ground physics above) - new atmospheric photometric lighting engine, ray-traced cockpit lighting - default birds like the ini A330, ini A321LR etc which by all accounts are of considerable fidelity for default, along with the various other default birds that have improved FMs/systems/avionics/etc - improved rendering of clouds, clouds density, clouds lighting, new cloud types, etc - 24hr historical snapshot of the MSFS world (not just all the MSFS weather served for the past 24 hrs but also traffic/other data) - seasons, 3D trees, multiple diverse biomes - a default capable and complex flight planner, LIDO charts, etc - native dx12 support - better multi-threading - aviation activities, and related new physics (soft-body, load carrying, etc) and interaction with flight dynamics - an already payware-grade avionics suite default in 2020 further improved in 2024.. and new Primus Epic 2 & Universal UNS-1 - new default EFB, improved default systems, wear and tear - more and diverse type of AI traffic aircraft types and better livery matching - thin client But, I'm not sure all of these 'improvements are genuine improvements to the Flight Simulator genre'. I have bolded those that unquestionable are, I have italicized those that must invariable make the sim run better and I have underlined those for whom the jury is still out in reaching any sort of verdict other than guilty. Many of the others related to visualizations and ground/water effects are certainly helpful to our VFR, helo and bush pilots, but they need ATC, acceptable clouds and working AI traffic in real life too. But most of the other stuff is no real improvement to the pure Flight Sim genre when I'm in a Cessna at 5000' after a missed approached on the East Coast of the US in appalling wx and encroaching darkness , my confidence shaken that my alternates were too close and affected by the same wx, and I'm approaching bingo fuel. I need help from ATC, not a smelly giraffe trying to wrap its tongue around my head. At least I have some pebbles I can throw at it! So what is my point. That MS is using the Flight Simulator genre as a leading experiment in testing their gaming technologies with Asobo as a reasonably renowned games studio leading that push. The aviation stuff including default aircraft , avionics etc is there of course, but it's further down the list and simply contracted out. I expect ATC will be eventually be too. Goodness knows what will happen with AI traffic. We also know this is about making money for MS through the Career mode and the Marketplace and is justified as a bringing on a new set of younger gamers and inviting them to consider aviation as a career. Objectively, MSFS works in this regard. I had a young 10 year old boy visiting my wife and I recently, with his Mum and Dad, none of whom I had met before, and this young man took to the flight simulator and by the time we prized his sweat covered fingers from the Thrustmaster yoke, he was begging his Dad to buy it! It's as though to some extent Asobo are abrigating some of their responsibilities to pure flight simulation in favour of advancing pure gaming technologies but relying on 3PD and contractors to create the flight simulator parts and encouraging them into the Marketplace. Perhaps the best indication of all this is @Abriael whose extremely supportive comments regarding PMDG were stickied below RSR's: "Some still have a big chip on their shoulder because Microsoft broke their little walled garden of flight simulation by making it available to a much wider audience". That's absolutely correct. They have broken the 'walled garden of flight simulation' by making this an Xbox title and as a priority, creating a game that appeals to gamers even though some are saying the challenges are too hard!! As Scotty in Star Trek would say..." Its a flight Simulator Jim, but not as we know it!".

Well certainly nothing changes for me. MSFS 2024 Internet specs are higher than I can ever achieve so I'll be remaining with 2020 for a long time to come. The only thing that has changed is that folks suggested there may be an offline opportunity for those with low internet download speeds, in which case I would be in like Flynn. However, now the new sim is out, that possibility appears to have been a false hope. Which makes me wonder, how many people complaining about MSFS servers and streaming in general, have launched into MSFS 2024 either unwittingly or with false hopes that somehow 20Mbps or less will be absolutely fine? The 'Minimum' requirement is 10 Mbps while the ideal is 100Mbps. That's a huge difference. In a similar vein, I wonder about those who say their video cards are maxed out to 100%, and are overheating and who are experiencing random CTD's. Is this not because of the improvement in multithreading? I expect that a suite of capable CPU's are now working wonderfully, finally achieving their capacity and pushing out way more data at speed to the GPU's which have now become the limiting factor. The ideal spec for MSFS 2024 is an i7-14700K and a RTX 4080 and (or the AMD equivalent) . If you have less than that and try running ultra everything (which we all do, don't we), then it may be that we are indeed playing with fire!! So get it back down to medium or even low depending on your CPU/Video card combo. But then the attractiveness of MSFS 2024 visuals takes a hit and following this we get mini meltdowns, illogical tantrums and post purchase depression, all of which seems liberally sprinkled around this forum lately. My take on developers recommended specs has always been that 'Minimum' means the software will run, barely. Compare this to not loading at all. 'Recommended' means you may get to experience most of what the software has to offer but it will be less than optimal. 'Ideal' is ...well... just that. Ideal! Edit: I'm not saying MSFS 2024 isn't buggy. I'm sure it is even for those with great specs. But being buggy is not necessarily why some people are having issues. The bugs will be sorted in due course but the performance specs and 'Ideal' hardware requirements won't change. In the meantime, 'a buggy mess' may just be a convenient excuse.

Release of the B777F to MSFS 2020 is fantastic. I could never understand why after building the model for 2020 and initially claiming they would release it 2020, PMDG then suggested they might only release it in 2024. That caused some considerable angst amongst those of us who for technical reasons remain 2020 bound and had no interest in the ER. Anyway, just glad circumstances changed fortuitously. I made need to install a defibrillator prior to seeing the price though!! Quite agree although not the long boring flight part. I'll do those when I have the time and the short ones too. But the freighter gives the ability to make up your own challenges when you decide the reason for the flight eg heavy engineering spare parts for the oil industry, disaster relief supplies, military contract, Formula One racing cars to the next GP venue, spare engine for another u/s aircraft etc etc....almost anything and anywhere you can imagine and no two flights are the same, rarely to the same airport and certainly anything but just another scheduled bus run full of pax. Part of the satisfaction is selecting the nearest airfield that can take the B777 at its predicted landing weight, planning the alternate and familiarising yourself with both airfields and their procedures neither of which you have seen before let alone landed at. Of course you can do scheduled freight flying too. I sometimes do FedEx 75 from Oakland, CA to Honolulu, HI to Auckland, NZ to Sydney, AU and finally to GuangZhou, CN and a few of their other B777 routes as well. If I had another life, I'd come back as a Freight Dog, a midnight prowler type who utilises the unglamorous parts of airports that most never get to see!! Cheers Terry