Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
Collapse
Just Flight Community Forum
  1. Home
  2. Just Flight
  3. In Development
  4. 747 Classic
  5. Engine variants?

Engine variants?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 747 Classic
15 Posts 6 Posters 5.7k Views 2 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    Delta558
    Developer
    wrote on last edited by
    #6

    @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!

    Just Flight FDE developer

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • J Offline
      J Offline
      Jon_OZ
      wrote on last edited by
      #7

      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?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • MartynM Martyn

        Very busy as always :thumbs_up: 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.

        N Offline
        N Offline
        Noob21
        wrote on last edited by Noob21
        #8

        @Martyn said in Engine variants?:

        Very busy as always :thumbs_up: 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.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J Offline
          J Offline
          Jon_OZ
          wrote on last edited by
          #9

          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.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J Offline
            J Offline
            Jon_OZ
            wrote on last edited by
            #10

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

            R 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J Jon_OZ

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

              R Offline
              R Offline
              Ruddman
              wrote on last edited by
              #11

              @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.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • U Offline
                U Offline
                ual763
                wrote on last edited by
                #12

                alt text

                For those asking what variant of the PW:

                J 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • U ual763

                  alt text

                  For those asking what variant of the PW:

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  Jon_OZ
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #13

                  @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.

                  U 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • J Jon_OZ

                    @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.

                    U Offline
                    U Offline
                    ual763
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #14

                    @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.

                    J 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • U ual763

                      @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.

                      J Offline
                      J Offline
                      Jon_OZ
                      wrote on last edited by Jon_OZ
                      #15

                      @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!!

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users