boeing 707 from the download section crashes

[Gary R.]

George.

The sophistication of your creation totally boggles the imagination.

[Nexus]

GC...your 707 panel is absolutely AMAZING!
It's a very long time since I last saw a freeware panel look as good and realistic as yours. I'm very impressed by your work.

Much talk about INS here, the 707 didn't even have INS when it first came out, but rather relied on the LORAN or OMEGA/VLF means of navigate across the oceans or longer routes over remote wastelands.

But as other suggested, the Delco Carousel IV A (a.k.a CIVA) addon works on most panels, The Carousel actually got it's name because the mechanical

[Gary R.]

Well, I stand corrected. Looks like a lot of functionality on the Captain Sim panel. But, George's is still better because the price is right

[RollerBall]

Hmmmm

Most of the Captain Sim detail is in the Engineer's panels. Afraid they don't interest me much  ??? I leave all of that stuff to my Flight Engineer  ;)

I know which view I spend most of my time with and the Captain Sim version leaves much to be desired compared to George's IMO. Looks much like any other good quality freeware panel - I personally think George's is superior and then some.

But I do note that the Captain Sim version has altitude control. I fear that even if this stretches reality slightly it will be a necessity.

Unless of coursde, I just need to hone up my 1960s IFR flying skills  ;D

[Nexus]

Well Roller that's what sets freeware and payware apart: The complexity and many functions of the product, and with all due respect to GC...but his artwork is not in the standard of Captain Sim...not many are infact.

I also appreciate the view angle on Captain Sim, it feels like you're in the leftseat, in GC's panel the ADI and HSI are too much on the left, they are supposed to be almost infront of you. I know that's hard to depict in a 2d panel, but Captain Sim has made a good job on that.

The FE panels interest me quite much since they are vital to the aircraft. To fully appreciate an aircraft you have to understand how it works, same with cars, computers etc....and altitude hold is available in the 707 in real life so it's not "stretching reality".  :)

[Nav]

GC, I don't think the CaptainSim thing is too much competition for you.  If you look on 'Payware Screenshots' you'll find a thread on it (started by nexus, 'TWA 707 Takeoff').  It looks as if it's as full of bugs as a barrackroom, and I take warning from CS saying that you MUST have Windows XP to run it - they seem to have put in so many goodies that the framerate is bound to suffer.   Anyway, IMO, your panels look better.

About your question - "I wonder if the autopilot wheels actually control pitch angle rather than vertical speed?"

Apologies in advance for the fact that this is going to be a long post - but I have finally found some evidence about the way the early 707 autopilot worked.  A guy named  Louis Betti (who is also a sim designer) visited Lufthansa and 'flew' a 707 on  their simulator.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/special/707.htm

He didn't actually use the autopilot.  But he confirms its location (down on the console) and also says, "While later models did have an auto throttle, this was not the norm, and with this 707, speed is controlled the old fashioned way, by pitch / power. TOGA? What's that? Our throttles had no buttons on them."  He also covers Rollerball's point about the 'altitude alert' - "...we did have some modern conveniences installed, such as an altitude alert unit; dial in your desired altitude, and it alerts you when within 700' of it. However, it is not coupled to the autopilot."

'Pitch/power' is the key phrase.  The early autopilots kind of worked in reverse - there was a setting called 'IAS Hold', which responded  to the bug on the ASI.  The pilot would set that to say 240 and put on the 'Hold' after takeoff.   As I said earlier, the autopilot would control the speed by attitude - too fast and it raised the nose.  Thus the pilot could control the rate of climb by adding or subtracting power, NOT by setting the rate of ascent.  On reaching the required height (forewarned by the 'altitude alert') he would have switched on 'Altitude Hold', which would automatically cancel the 'Speed Hold', and then throttle back to cruise power.

To descend, same thing in reverse - cut the power and tell the A/P to hold 240 indicated.  The A/P would lower the nose to the point where the required speed came up on the dial, and hold it at that.

Of course, that 'begs the question' of what the 'rate of climb' wheel is for.  The answer is that it was used for fine-tuning the altitude.  Say you were at 29,800 feet, and wanted to go up to 30,000 - you would set '+200/min.' and a minute later the aeroplane would reach the required height - at which point you would re-engage 'Altitude Hold' but turning it off and on.

Simple and effective, even if 'old-fashioned'.  If you have a look at David Maltby's 1960s Vickers VC-10, which I think is on here, he has exactly that system working on it.

Louis Betti has also done a 707 panel, but he 'cheated' a bit by putting the autopilot panel up on the glare shield - although I believe that that is where it ended up anyway, on later models.

[RollerBall]

That's a really useful article. Shows just what a good job George has done. Very interesting about the altitude alerter - looks like it's gonna be all about improving flying accuracy skills on the approach!

And weren't the guys who originally flew these things so lucky. Must have been one of the last (and the first?) big jets where you had such a fantastic amount of manual flying input even though there were  'automated' systems. Truly satisfying for a pilot.

[GC707]

The sophistication of your creation totally boggles the imagination.  Captain Sim?   who's that?  I've seen the screenies.  what about that panel is better than yours?  If its like their 727 than its an eye candy resource hog.  Heck, i don't even think it has a useful FE panel or an INS period.  Kudos to you George.

It seems from what you say that the Legendary 707 would be too much for my relatively modest rig anyway (AMD Athlon 1.2 GHz, 256 Mb RAM, 128Mb GeForce series graphics card).

You are in that stratospheric league with Milton Shupe, Yannick Lavigne, Lonny Payne and others who put professional level commitment into love of our greatly addictive hobby.  We don't say it often enough to the artists we admire but I will right now.  Thank you and God bless you.  We do appreciate your art and like Roller said, don't give up now.  We are on the cusp of greatness and what might very well become a legend of FS design.  This is how great things are accomplished.  By feedback and communication of like minded peoples.  We, the Fs pilots are your R&D team and hopefully inspiration as well.  Afterall, how many freeware releases have generated a thread this long?  Its because we are enthusiastic and interested in your work and we all want to push it right over top.

If I hadn't ballsed up and uploaded a defective version originally maybe the thread wouldn't be so long...

Wow, thanks for the praise! I'm flattered.

Any thoughts on my FS95 panel?  If you look up FS95 panels on flightsim.com you'll see I pushed that sim to its limit before switching to FS2000 (most of the work for the new 707 panel was done under FS2000 in fact).  In the end I even coded an FS95 autothrottle!

By the way, the GMAX model I had included a very rudimentary VC - which I did not notice originally as I was using an incorrect view-point.  What do you suggest I do here - if I change the viewpoint to use the VC it interferes with some of the 2D views, and I'm not sure I could spare the time to get the VC of the same quality as the 2D panel.  Should I mention this in the next version of the package in the hope that someone with more GMAX experience than myself sorts out the VC, or should I just delete the VC altogether?

[GC707]

I also appreciate the view angle on Captain Sim, it feels like you're in the leftseat, in GC's panel the ADI and HSI are too much on the left, they are supposed to be almost infront of you. I know that's hard to depict in a 2d panel, but Captain Sim has made a good job on that.

The overal view of the gauges on my panel is similar to how I used to do FS95 panels  ;)  Since most users ran FS95 in 800x600 and there was no anti-aliasing, space was at a premium making exact perspective impractical.  I decided to stick with what I was used to - at least it makes the gauges nice and easy to read  ;D

[Nav]

Rollerball - "And weren't the guys who originally flew these things so lucky. Must have been one of the last (and the first?) big jets where you had such a fantastic amount of manual flying input even though there were  'automated' systems. Truly satisfying for a pilot."

Too right!  Not like today, everything 'fly-by-wire' and computerised.

Did you hear that Airbus are working towards having a crew of only two - a pilot and a dog?

The pilot's job is to feed the dog.  The dog's job is to make sure the pilot doesn't touch anything......  :)

The Comet 1 was definitely the first - 1952.  Incidentally, GC, if you want to check out David Maltby's autopilot the one on the Comet 4 is probably the better bet.  Very simple, but works like a charm.

[Nexus]

[quote]
'Pitch/power' is the key phrase.

[GC707]

Why do modern airliner (esp. Airbus) pilots rely so much on the computers anyway?  Are modern pilots lazy, or is it to do with airline bean-counters preferring the superior fuel-management capabilities of a computer?

Glass cockpits do have their advantages, but electronic flight instruments shouldn't be incompatible with hand-flying an aircraft...

[Nexus]

What are you taling about?
Of course you can handfly an airbus or Boeing based on raw data, just as the old days. They would never be certified if they couldn't  ;D

But it's all about safety and reducing the pilot workload so they can concentrate on the most important things.
Do you think it's bad that airbus has an electronic flight envelope that prevents the aircraft from stalling?
Let the pilots worry about the vital things and let the computers handle the "not so" critical things.

real world pilots hate this, but the computers do a better job of flying the airplane, and yes the computers do a better job in fuel management aswell.  :)

[RollerBall]

Ahhhh..

14 or 15 years ago I had the great privilege of flying the British Caledonian DC10 simulator at Gatwick. I was a 150 hrs PPL/IMC on light singles and of course had no time to learn about autopilots and things in the approx 1/2 hour I had.

I was able to quite comfortably take off and land with no problems at all and as I was the only person with flying experience on the FD (there were 3 of us in total) the Instructor switched me over airborne to a night approach to Kai Tak 13 whci I did in 1 attempt manually just by following the lights as the Instructor had told me.

That was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I always wanted to fly from a very early age but was turned down once by BOAC aged 21. I didn't try again and pursued a career in business. I have always regretted that and now I tell any young people - you must do what you want to do, not what other people expect of you.

Roger

Oh yeah - some other things they could do

- day and night time carrier approaches.....with a DC10!

- a giant Snoopy could be called up with a hole like a ring donut in his stomach that you could fly the DC10 through

[Nav]

GC707, there's a bit of a 'culture split' in the industry.

There's everything to be said for 'fly-by-wire' - cheaper, lighter, fewer mechanical parts to go wrong.  But it makes it easy for the manufacturer to take more and more control out of the hands of the pilot.  And since a lot of crashes are deemed to be 'pilot error',  a lot of people think that is the route to greater safety.

Airbus have gone for the concept bald-headed - if the pilot does something 'outside the envelope', like too steep a bank or too sharp a turn, the systems will take control out of his hands.  Boeing are going along more traditional lines - tending to leave the final discretion in the hands of the human pilot.

I tend to agree with Boeing - I read one horrifying transcript of a pilot approaching Taipei who got vectored into a mountainside by ATC.  In a Boeing he might have been able to 'stand it on a wing' and turn away- in an Airbus, he wasn't 'allowed to'.   And there are other examples - a lot of the early Airbus crashes happened on 'go arounds', which are almost completely computerised on those aeroplanes.

Article here if you're interested:-

http://www.aviation-law.net/aviation-law.html