• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

FS2004 Boeing 747 Classic

Jon_aus said:
Probably not although most airlines did go from the -3/-3A to the -7/7A for some improved performance. I'm recalling most -100's did have those fairly soon when PW made it available. To quote an engineer/pilot/management (not sure) "We had a celebration when the last -3 model engine was replaced by the so much better -7A models." 😁

However, it WOULD be fun to have the -100 with those -3A's that are struggling to perform well. I recall reading from a controller that out of LHR, 747-100's with the -3A's would still be below 10,000 ft by Manchester. 😲 Thats 130+ nm away. Slow climb!
Click to expand...
I think that would be really difficult to do; both the panel and the flight deck would need to be created, as they are different on the early -100.(autopilot and other)
It would also require modifications to the fuselage behind the upper deck to account for the hump where the systems are housed.
 
Jon_aus said:
Difficult decision to spend many many hours on modeling something so few airlines used. Quite the rare mod!

Interesting even with the JT9D-7R4G2 motors and how many airlines used it :
The following 747-200 (-B and -F) are delivered with PW JT-9D-7R4G2 engines, however several earlier built PW powered 747-200 aircraft were later re-engined with spare engines or engines from early retired 747-300 aircraft :

Air China : L/N 591, 628, 670, 814
China Airlines : 752, 462 (re-engined),
Korean : 718, 720
JAL : 579, 581, 635, 754, 684
Singapore : 710
NWA : 594, 595, 642, 644, 651 (many engines changes at NWA , most freighters -7Q, all late built 251B to -7R)
United : 673, 675
SAA : 154, 158, 160, 194, 198, 301 (all re-engined)

Commercial Jet Aircraft Census by Bill Harms, update September 1998.
Click to expand...
Yes, its a waste of time to make these sub-variants.
As far as I know, the 7Q and 70A are very similar internally (maybe identical?).
The best thing about it was the long cowl, which made it look better than the standard JT9.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top