Engine variants?



  • It mentions here the engine options but is there any more info on exactly what options there is?

    747-100 (JT9D) -3A / -7A etc?

    • 747-200 (JT9D, CF6 and RB211)
    • 747-200F (JT9D, CF6 and RB211, functioning main deck cargo doors)


  • Having the JT9D-70A, while niche and pretty uncommon, would also be quite a nice addition. It bears a striking resemblance to the CF6-50 but it is very much visually different.
    alt text



  • At the very least, you’d hope the -100 had the JT9D-7A.
    The -200 maybe the -7J, Or -7Q.
    And the -200F perhaps the -7R4G2 etc.

    It will be interesting what will be offered and how they managed to get all the performance data for them.



  • The developers must be busy. hmmm


  • JF Staff

    Very busy as always 👍 As per the forum rules this is an area for people to discuss our products and we can't guarantee a reply to every thread, although we do our very best!

    I've replied to another thread with screenshots showing the three available engine variants - https://community.justflight.com/topic/252/wonky-animations/5

    We don't intend to include sub-variants of the three engine types, unless there is sufficient demand for them post-release, as we need to strike a balance between achieving absolute accuracy across the three aircraft types (100/200/200F) and delivering a finished product in a reasonable time-frame that will meet the expectations of the majority of customers. As you can appreciate, the 747 with its many variants, and engine variants within those, could keep us busy for the next decade if we didn't draw the line somewhere.



  • @Jon_OZ said in Engine variants?:

    It will be interesting what will be offered and how they managed to get all the performance data for them.

    To give you an idea on where some of the performance data has been obtained, the RB211 has been created using the graphs and charts from a hardcopy of the BA RB211-524D4 Cruise Control manual (part of a set of original flight engineer manuals I own). That's a lot of pages of really fine detail!



  • Thanks for the reply. Can also understand the work involved in developing this.
    I was particularity curious in the JT9D version you're going to use, you're also modelling the -100?



  • @Martyn said in Engine variants?:

    Very busy as always 👍 As per the forum rules this is an area for people to discuss our products and we can't guarantee a reply to every thread, although we do our very best!

    I've replied to another thread with screenshots showing the three available engine variants - https://community.justflight.com/topic/252/wonky-animations/5

    We don't intend to include sub-variants of the three engine types, unless there is sufficient demand for them post-release, as we need to strike a balance between achieving absolute accuracy across the three aircraft types (100/200/200F) and delivering a finished product in a reasonable time-frame that will meet the expectations of the majority of customers. As you can appreciate, the 747 with its many variants, and engine variants within those, could keep us busy for the next decade if we didn't draw the line somewhere.

    I think the only one that would really need to be added to the already existing list is the JT9D-70A, as it had a completely different cowling, so it would be a nice addition for accuracy related to the planes that did have those engines. Visually the other JT9D variants were the same, aside from the earliest variants which had blow-in doors behind the outside leading edge. However, they're probably suited for a cheap expansion pack after the fact, along with other missing 747 classic variants. Trying to cram them all into one pack released at once would make for an expensive addon that probably would never come out in a timely fashion.



  • The reason I ask is it would be a shame the -100 had engines it never had in real life. It would loose credibility pretty quick.



  • Still a little concerned as to what PW is fitted to the -100/200. Here's hoping you guys dont get it wrong.



  • @Jon_OZ
    -3A, -7, 7A, were the engine variants for the -100.
    The previous JF 747-100 had the JT9D- 74RG2 which was a wrong and an embarrassing option.
    Hopefully they don’t make the same ill-I formed choice.



  • alt text

    For those asking what variant of the PW:



  • @ual763 said in Engine variants?:

    alt text

    For those asking what variant of the PW:

    Thats a shame. So they decided to not be realistic. What else is wrong I wonder.



  • @Jon_OZ

    How is that not realistic? How do we know this isn’t just for the -200 model? There were a number of -200 operators that did have the -7R4G2, including United. Also, keep in mind it looks like the flight deck was modeled after the JAL/TRANSAERO 747-300 which also had the -7R4G2 in real life. I’m sure their 747-100 with PW will have the -7A or similar. Really all they’d need to do for that is reduce some thrust. But, the -7R4G2 is perfectly fine for the -200, even though the -7J was more popular.



  • @ual763 said in Engine variants?:

    @Jon_OZ

    How is that not realistic? How do we know this isn’t just for the -200 model? There were a number of -200 operators that did have the -7R4G2, including United. Also, keep in mind it looks like the flight deck was modeled after the JAL/TRANSAERO 747-300 which also had the -7R4G2 in real life. I’m sure their 747-100 with PW will have the -7A or similar. Really all they’d need to do for that is reduce some thrust. But, the -7R4G2 is perfectly fine for the -200, even though the -7J was more popular.

    Because mosrt -200's - modeled from original release time didnt have the -7R. That was certified until 1980 onwards. I think the -7Q was around 1979.
    Even many earlier -200's had the -3AW, before upgrading to the -7/ -7AW / -7F. As did the early -100's.

    But like you said, other varients were used in the early to mid 70's. Seems developers love to model early models, then throw in the most pwoerful, much later released engines for some strange, lazy reasons,

    Lets hope the -100 does't have the -7R!!