Disappointing or Promising? Boeing 707 in MSFS with a Real Boeing Pilot! Review

[@Chrisp707-]

This plane is the first thing from any game that genuinely made me so mad i wanted to write a strongly worded email to the developer.

[@scotty6346]

If you paid £60 fair enough but you can't complain at £12! At least we have a functioning 707 in the sim and for the price they have quite a fair bit right to make it enjoyable👍

[@shinkicker404]

@@scotty6346 I hate this take, just because they're $10 it doesn't mean we should get a buggy, badly modelled mess. The only reason these aircraft are cheap are because MS subsidised them, if it wasn't for that they're be a 'normal' price. Especially because these shoddily made aircraft disincentives other developers from making good renditions (like for example Milviz making an ATR which they stopped with the MS one came out, or more recently the officially partnered with Pilatus PC-24 from IRIS simulations being shelved because of the one being made by Caranado for MS2024 Premium Deluxe). Furthermore, there are freeware that are infinitely better quality than this thing.

[@predatorec]

Absolutely agree with you, it's funny how some people think that as long as you don't pay $60 you don't have the right to complain.... this aircraft is terribly modeled and its not up par to previous local legend models that at least got the aircraft modeled correctly.... this 707 was the most expected local legend and ended up being crap... there are better modeled freeware 707's for FS2004.

[@Crazyitalian997]

@@scotty6346yes you can. Money is money and if you are going to charge for a product it should work. It’s about devs taking pride in their work

[@excessivelysalty_81]

@@scotty6346 Just because it's cheap in price doesn't mean you should have low expectations, especially when there are other high quality aircraft that are fairly cheap as well. Not to mention there are much better local legends and famous flyers priced similarly.

[@VintageAviation737]

Honestly not sure what you guys expected. Aeroplane heaven has made notoriously bad aircraft for MSFS and its a shame that Asobo let this slide as a famous flyer..

[@737-Sim-Pilot]

Yea unfortunately asobo doesn’t care about people that fly irl and want to fly in sim for realism i.e they don’t fix the turbulence model becuase in their words “majority of simmers wouldn’t be able to fly “ and they don’t want to lose money I fly a Cessna in Florida I don’t have any turbulence in the sim remotely close to irl and it’s so frustrating

[@ysteinRnning]

I’ve seen this a lot lately. I agree with the general sentiment, but we should all be aware by now that Asobo has nothing to do with famous flyers and local legends. That is all Microsoft. Asobo is hired by Microsoft to make the sim itself and again have absolutely nothing to do with this aircraft.

[@kazzercise]

there are several other famous/locals available for the same price that are much better than this. Ju-52, Beech 18, Latecoere, Caribou. Microsoft should just stop partnering with Aeroplane Heaven

[@Topofdescent55]

I love the way they modelled the cleaning crew's vacuum cleaner turning on at 11:50, a welcome surprise

[@a.i1137]

oh my god an original dustbuster!!

[@OleandersGamingEmporium]

This is a great payware aircraft...for FS 2004.

[@anthonyvallillo422]

The 707 did not normally use bleed air for air conditioning and pressurization. The air for that came from the turbocompressors, located on engines 2 and 3, and on most of the 707's on 4 also. Number 4 was a spare, installed for international operations so that a failure of a turbocompressor would not ground the airplane at some outlying station halfway around the world. Only two at a time were actually turned on to provide compressed air. Our 707s, intended only for domestic use, had only two turbos, like the 720.

[@coriscotupi]

*"The 707 did not normally use bleed air for air conditioning and pressurization"* Yes it did. The air that went into the cabin did not come directly from engine bleed, it was external, ram air compressed by the turbocompressors. But the turbocompressors themselves were powered by bleed air from the engines. This arrangement was meant to deliver "clean" (not having passed through the engines) air into the cabin. Nevertheless, it was still energy being extracted from the engines in the form of bleed air that made the turbocompressors work.

[@anthonyvallillo422]

@@coriscotupi Technically, yes you are right. I meant that normally bleed air was not introduced directly into the system, although it could have been. The bleed load on the engine from the turbocompressor was apparently less than it would have been had the bleed air gone directly into the system. I'm not sure about the "clean" part - we were never told anything along those lines, and all subsequent airliners AFAIK used bleed air directly. Interestingly, we may have gone back to something like that in the 787. The 787 came out almost a decade after I retired, but I recall it having something like a TC, albeit apparently electric driven rather than driven by bleed. Or so I heard - like I said, I not only never flew it, but have yet to fly on one! Non-revving is nearly impossible these days, on account of the load factors.....

[@lvwpy]

Does this explain the different shape of engine no. 1's pylon?

[@coriscotupi]

@@anthonyvallillo422 The load on the engines couldn't have been lower than direct bleed because there is always some loss in efficiency. Bleeding from the engine to run the turbocompressor, to in turn compress air and yet have less load on the engines would mean having efficiency greater than 100% in the process. As I read it, the "clean" air thing was shown to be a non-issue, so subsequent airliners then used the much simpler direct bleed.

[@coriscotupi]

@@lvwpy Yes. There was no turbocompressor on that different pylon.

[@michaelpowell775]

My first transatlantic flight as a 8 year old boy was on a BOAC 707, and it's always been one of my favourite airliners. I would love a PMDG 707 but this one doesn't cut it and I won't be getting it, way too much of a disappointment. I hope at some point a good study level 707 is released, maybe for MS2024.

[@MaxRank]

Early BOAC 707s had a dedicated navigator that used star shots to navigate. Famous story by John Hutchinson recalls having to use this navigation method to fly to Bermuda. If you missed the islands you were off into the great big blue.

[@freddielaker2707]

I'm currently on a transat flight from HRW to JFK and its lacking a lot. I wanted a 707 as I used to watch them as a kid. I want more textures from the 60's onwards when they can be done. I cant do that although I wish I could, Its beautiful to watch but it is cheap and cheerful and I didnt really expect a lot - and I never got it. Its said that it will get better, lets hope some big designers take these under their wings (see what I did there?!?!?!?) and really make it very special by adding what is missing.

[@atulshenoy4306]

Wow another 1 hr vid! Exciting to see the legend back

[@320SimPilot]

Thanks, I hope you enjoyed it!

[@MrM3rcury]

This plane is exactly what I've been waiting for to transition to MSFS. I want to believe is Promising, looks a bit like it's at an early stage but is much more advanced than I thought it be.. can't wait to see more!!

[@340ACP]

Very promising indeed, it’s great to see more vintage airliners. Purchased it yesterday and really enjoying it. The automatic pilot doesn’t work so well but then again as an old retired airline pilot who didn’t fly the 707 but has lots of time on the DC-8 and B-727 I can tell you that we pretty much only used the autopilot during cruise! Don’t expect this plane to fly like a modern airliner and frankly that’s why it’s more fun and interesting to fly…quick note about the trim, make sure you plan your flight so that the center tank is empty (which it should be) and you’ll have no issues with the trim. Another note about the autopilot: if you select a direct routing from the GPS you have to re-engage NAV. Any issues with the autopilot, turn it off, cycle the yaw damper off then on, re-engage the autopilot.

[@anthonyvallillo422]

Very good review, and a balanced judgment with which I wholeheartedly agree.

[@johnkhan18]

Great video again. I don't know how others feel but, to me, the way an aircraft operates is more important than pretty pictures of the exterior.

[@sundar999]

I never worry about the outside since I am always in the cockpit when flying. It would break the immersion if I was able to watch the outside of my plane. Liveries are for kids ;)

[@svenwd]

Not sure the windows are for star based navigation. I thought the main purpose was to be able to look for traffic in turns.

[@craighopper2698]

The pneu brake has a bottle that holds air pressure higher than regular brake pressure to apply in emergency

[@anthonyvallillo422]

In the real airplane, the inboard and outboard spoiler switches were important in a certain emergency procedure. With the inboard spoiler switch off, extension of the spoiler handle would result in only the outboard spoilers deploying. This reduction of lift only on the outboard portion of the wing resulted in a significant nose up effect, since lift on the inner half of the wing was not reduced. The opposite effect was obtained with the outboard switch off. Our airplanes had a single switch, labeled "inboard off-nose up"/"outboard off - nose down". This effect is the same on any airplane where you have selective activation of spoilers.

[@coriscotupi]

This might have been a legacy from the B-52 event during a high-speed run at lo altitude AGL over mountains in a turbulence test flight, where extreme turbulence ripped off 85% of the vertical stabilizer. Selectively deploying only the external spoilers, well aft of the airplane's CG, helped increase lateral stability during the event. Boeing might have thought it would be a good idea to preserve independent inboard/outboard spoiler control in the 707.

[@WellsSullivan]

Good level headed review. I'm surprised you didn't deploy spoilers immediately upon touchdown and reversers after the nosewheel was down.

[@richardsuttill54]

By far the best review of this product I have seen thus far. So really agree with your comments. There is promise and I do hope there are improvements maybe from other developers. At the moment it is at best a 6 out of 10 for me. So not a buy from me at this time. I would rather pay $35 for it with all the issues you mentioned sorted.

[@Flowmotion-Parkour]

That is very smart 🙂 Sell a shitty plane and save money, because some enthusiastic developers will fix it for free 😅 Its all pathetic 😵‍💫

[@mdhazeldine]

Fair and balanced review. Another issue you didn't mention is that the cockpit side and top windows (at least on the exterior model) look wrong. The nose is such an important bit of the model to get right as it's the plane's "face". I appreciate that it's hard to do, but they really should put some effort in to get that looking 100% right.

[@TheFlying800]

Another fantastic video. Did you say you’re a real world airline pilot? You never mentioned before! 😆

[@b3lt3r-t8q]

Balanced viewpoint, thx. For £10 seems ok I guess - not my thing but some may enjoy hooning it around - as ever whatever floats your boat and decide what works for you. At least with this review available people can make informed decisions. Jorg referred to the lack of polish very clearly in his last stream and I'd not be surprised to see WT parachute in and sprinkle some fairy dust on it.

[@doltBmB]

11:10 you misread the dial, it's labelled 0 .. 20 .. 40, meaning the middle notch is 30, the needle is just about halfway to that, meaning 24-25v, not 22v

[@707liner8]

I saw lots of 707's in the '70's and '80's, and I think the overall external model is pretty good. Like you say, there are some below par textures in places, but overall not too bad. I really want the INS operational, and the sounds need a lot of work - these puppies were loud, and the smoke! The PanAm livery, I think, looks really quite good, and there were so many superb liveries in that era, hopefully the livery creators will get on board. I heard somewhere that MS/Asobo/AH are going to update it, so I really hope they can get it to a standard where it's real value for money. You mention long runway take-off runs - I once saw a TWA 707 take-off at Heathrow on runway 10R, and I seriously thought it wasn't going to get airborne!

[@coriscotupi]

*"overall external model is pretty good"* The engines are all wrong. They might look like anything *_but_* 707 engines. And the engines were a significant part of the airplane's visual signature. Getting them all wrong really blew it for me.

[@EninEn16]

Thank you for your honest review! It's a pretty inexpensive bird, I don't expect to much in regards to system depth, but the things you pointed out surely should be updated, that is, if Aeroplane heaven actually does update there aircraft?

[@ViperPilot16]

Hmm the 707 (atleast the airliners) I don't think had an APU. I know the military versions have one (left main wheel well), but curious that they wouod take a short cut like that opposed to just using a start cart.

[@sholayo]

Well, it looks like FSX, maybe P3D, but definately not like MSFS.

[@holobolo1661]

"A little bit plane in areas, I must say" 🥁

[@edseavervinuesa-mz6gi]

My first 707 was going to Ecuador Quito , Ecuatoriana 1974

[@briancrawley8440]

I quite like this and to be fair Jorg has stated it will receive improvement in updates. Only thing is the cockpit is too bright. I always remember it being darker in the flight deck. Looking at photos of the real plane the horizontal stabilisers look at the correct angle.

[@jonnie2bad]

Jorg says a lot of things

[@jacquesdemolay2699]

Red light feels like photographic labs (when we used chemicals) because this wavelength did not hurt the photographic negatives - but there you go !

[@coriscotupi]

*"this wavelength did not hurt the photographic negatives"* Actually, it's not quite that. Most negatives were panchromatic, meaning they were sensitive o all colors. Negatives had to be processed in total darkness, no red lights for them. Photographic paper (used for enlarged finished photographs), on the other hand, were orthochromatic and as such were insensitive to red light. For that reason, when enlarging photos (from already-developed negatives) onto paper, red light was used in the dark room as the orthochromatic photographic paper would not be spoiled by red light.

[@davidrenton]

have you thought about doing a video, re the upcoming 2024 planes, and what version you think is worth it or not

[@320SimPilot]

Thanks I’ll have a look into this!

[@toddmcdowell5194]

I'd like to see FlightSimStudios (FSS), who developed the 727F, do the 707.

[@MrAlwaysBlue]

Would have loved to fly on one. I did get to fly on a DC 8.

[@normg2242]

I noticed that the wings are flexed upward even when the plane is parked...

[@tf51d]

Found a post on airliners net who seems very knowledgeable of the 707 who states early variants of the 707-320 did not have leading edge flaps. "There were in the 707-320, a few step by step variations. These included the tail skid (size... or even absence), and, the leading devices. We NEVER called them "SLATS"... they are not slats, they are leading edge flaps. The early airplanes, 320 and 420 (JT4 and RCO12) had only 1 surface/wing. xxx Later airplanes had full span leading devices (the 707-320B)... There was a variance in types. Some had 17 degrees takeoff setting, and had a tail skid, full LE flaps. Some has 14 degrees takeoff setting, no tail skid, also full LE flaps. Stop this with your hard questions, I can hardly remember these details. I am just a former 707 pilot, not an aircraft spotter... xxx I got a saucy one for you spotters to confuse YOU further, my turn now... There were the 707-320B... the ones with fan engines JT3D-1 or -3B... There were the 707-320BA... or B Advanced we called then at PanAm... There were the 707-320BAH... or B Advanced Heavy... Then there were the 707-320C... cargo door... The 707-320CC were convertible passenger or freight... PanAm had these. The 707-320CF were freight only, no windows, Flying Tigers (+ others) got some.:

[@kurohone]

Then why are leading edge slats shown in the store promo photos?

[@Beautifulbrokenmusic]

The odd detailing on the exterior makes me wonder if there's a bug or they've not understood how to get the rivets to appear at a sensible distance.

[@anthonyvallillo422]

Some of the animations are on-again-off-again. Cowl doors are one of them, nosewheel steering is another. Sometimes the nosewheel turns 90 degrees just at gear retraction, sometimes not. The one thing that has always been improper for me is the leading edge flaps - haven't seen them extend yet!

[@anthonyvallillo422]

This plane is somewhat more lively in both pitch and roll compared to the real thing. The real 707 flew much like a truck, and most of the pilots flew it with pitch trim rather than deal with the stick forces. No way around it, though, in roll. It was less of a problem when it came out, because all of the propliners flew like trucks!

[@coriscotupi]

In the 70s I managed to get allowed inside Varig's 707 flight simulator during training sessions, no less. From what I recall, that was seen as a bad habit by the 707 instructors. During the full length of the several hour long session, the instructor would constantly repeat, _"don't fly the airplane with the trim! Fly with the elevator, and then trim!"_

[@anthonyvallillo422]

@@coriscotupi This is advice that is still given today by all instructors! In the beginning, most pilots on the 707 came off props, which also did not have hydraulic boost on most of the control axes. They were used to relatively high control forces that are inherent with the anti-servo tab flight controls on the 707's. But by the time I got onto it, in the late 1970's, the 707 was a dowager queen, and occupied a far lower position on the pay hierarchy, significantly below the DC-10 and the 747. Pilots were transitioning from the 727, which had delightfully light control forces, to the old truck 707. It was only the pay increase that drew them upward, and not any inherent desire to fly the 707.

[@DanteJ1s]

707 didn’t have an APU, it was an aftermarket addition. I see the potential for the aircraft though, but I’m sure aerobask are developing a 707

[@coriscotupi]

The engines. What in the world are those? Whoever did the 3D model for this product didn't bother to actually look at 707 photographs.

[@Beautifulbrokenmusic]

What strikes me about the sounds, is the total lack of wind noise. You're doing hundreds of kts and all you can hear is the engines and electronics.

[@tf51d]

The GPS unit is only temporary until their INS system is ready to allow you to navigate in the meantime.

[@320SimPilot]

That’s good to hear!

[@doltBmB]

when? 2028? heard this story far too many times. no deadline = never

[@shinkicker404]

On the leading edge flaps thing, don't the promotional screenshots show them deployed?

[@coriscotupi]

Indeed. For some reason, between then and releasing, they changed their minds.

[@vdioivmvxdstni]

I don't think it deserves the exposure of you covering it. MS/Asobo have already given it too much press for its quality by making it a famous flyer. Plenty of great addons come out that don't get any coverage at all.

[@Delta_NWAB747fan]

I will say this addon isn’t perfect or good especially for the price, but I do think people are being harsh in some places. With that’s said so many details are missing and the quality is just poor. This gorgeous jetliner definitely deserved to be made by PMDG or people who produce great addon aircraft. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but the developers keep making subpar aircraft.

[@richardboll8763]

The engine nacelles are completely wrong. The bypass fan (low bypass) duct and the body of the nacelle are not modeled correctly. Look at any picture.

[@coriscotupi]

Whoever modeled this didn't bother to actually look at 707 pictures. It seems that they just went with whatever shape they had from (bad) memory. Just disgusting.

[@battlevi2927]

Most of the 707 didn’t have apu right? So the makers of the msfs 707 made a model they knew didn’t have an apu. Then just put an apu in it without an exhaust?

[@anthonyvallillo422]

True. Very few had an APU, and the ones that had it were probably mostly retrofits

[@hjr2000]

Live stream when? 😢

[@peterbassey9668]

A lousy disappointment. I have a good mind to ask for my money back.

[@Hagen-HenrikKowalski]

actually me too is that possible ?

[@johnreder8167]

its 707. its a garbage plane regardless. we have 737 and 777 even 787. theres no incentive to waste your time and money with an ancient and underdeveloped 707

[@wg4112]

@@johnreder8167 well the 707 is a great piece of history and very exciting to come to the game, it was just developed poorly for the game

[@scotty6346]

What do you expect for a measly £12?

[@wg4112]

@@scotty6346 they promised things that never came (with photos), and this is piss poor compared to the other famous fliers. Its embarrassing. Its cheaper because it is Microsoft developed and meant to be additions to the base planes with similar quality. This is what I would expect from a marketplace seller for $20

[@vtjake3761]

I've been so busy with school, and during the warmer weather I don't spend as much time in doors simming. I feel like I've missed so much information, updates, new releases, etc. about MSFS *and* MSFS 2024, I'm so lost! Didn't even know a 707 was ever even slated to come!

[@zlm001]

Thanks.

[@filipesiegrist]

29:55 it seems you should have used LON VOR 304 and 325 radials to properly obey the restrictions. Anyway, this wasn't supposed to be flown single pilot. Anyway, it doesn't seems a proper airplane to me. It seems more like a big toy.

[@anthonyvallillo422]

LED's are a major bug.

[@dannyadams2211]

Looks absolutely awful lmao

[@geolpilot7036]

What is with the different shaped engine pylons, especially the two outer engines??? Is that real?

[@sonny3501]

Yes this is correct for this variant. Inside the number 2, 3 and 4 engine pylons there are turbo compressors to pressurize the cabin. Bleed air from the engines took away too much performance so Boeing fitted turbo compressors to provide the pressurized air. Three were fitted to have redundancy in case of failures. On the smaller Boeing 720, a derivative of the 707, only two turbo compressors were fitted one in the number 2 engine pylon and one in the number 3 engine pylon. This being said, the modeling of the engines in particular on this model are absolutely terrible and appear to be a mix of an oversized JT3D and a Rolls-Royce Conway as fitted on the -420 variant.

[@geolpilot7036]

@@sonny3501 Thanks. Yes I googled some 707 pics and I see on some variants pylons are as modelled. Lets hope they can fix the things pointed out in 320's review.

[@320SimPilot]

Great spot!

[@320SimPilot]

Thanks for the detail!

[@coriscotupi]

@@sonny3501 *"Bleed air from the engines took away too much performance so Boeing fitted turbo compressors to provide the pressurized air."* In fact, that was not the reason for using turbocompressors. They did not want to pump air directly from the engine into the cabin, fearing it might be contaminated with foul smells from lubricants. etc. Not to forget that the turbocompressors themselves were driven by engine bleed air, which in itself would defeat the purpose of not taking away performance. If anything, it would take away even more performance than direct bleed into the cabin, because the process of using bleed to drive a turbocomressor that would then compress external air could not be 100% energy efficient. When the smell issue was found not to be really an issue, the turbocompressor was dropped in later Boeing designs.

[@DeltaTristar500]

This plane was not ready for release. So many bugs

[@BlueSky_fur]

I mean, the plane developers in general only throw out stuff like that :/

[@ColinActon-yl6nw]

Great video! Thanks. I live near a train line and the engine sounds remind me of the diesel freighter engines.

[@bagels377]

People expecting a super mega ultra high quality airplane for $12.

[@yowie69]

Not worth almost $22 Aussie. They failed to get the basics right and when you compare to some excellent freeware offerings like the C17, C206H to name 2. This to be blunt is insulting to payware developers and customers.

[@Simple-Flight-Simulation]

Nah Bud!!! I think you're being too critical about the texturing of this plane. I personally think it's a wonderful rendition of this iconic plane. I'm grateful to both Asobo and Aeroplane Heaven for this plane... I remember standing on the tarmac at Jan Smuts Airport watching this airplane coming in to the terminal, covering my ears from that high pitch scream from those jet engines and my passion for aviation was ignited there!!!

[@smithkenny8034]

i can foresee the 99% default aircrafts in MSFS2024 are........quality......

[@FinlandGuy747]

Luckily theyre not developed by Aeroplane heaven.

[@GilbMLRS]

​@@FinlandGuy747They are still on the partner list. And as they churn out plane after plane in a minimum amount of time, that might be enough to stay on that list. Because money.

[@midcon077]

Worries me too.

[@philipg6463]

Say it as it is, absolutely dreadful no matter how much to pay for it imo. I l buy just for the nice shape and looks FROM a distance.

[@Solomon00000]

It looks like an awful 3D scan combined with 1990s graphics - really disappointing.

[@Swaggerlot]

Very average

[@ManuelFSX]

I don't get what's promising from this airplane, the 3d model is garbage, both outside and inside, the texture work same story, shit sounds, shit flight model, atrocious animations with no wingflex, crap effects, trash systems... The Captain Sim 707 for FSX from 2010 is much, much better than this.

[@JohnWick-u2b]

Amazing all the mf in the comments who complain about spending 10 to 15 dollars on an aircraft. They must be broke af.

[@Beautifulbrokenmusic]

They're better with money than you are.

[@JohnWick-u2b]

@@Beautifulbrokenmusic I doubt that, I got investments all over the world. I'm not the one complaining about such a minor expense. Btw two years ago I bought yet another building just from crypto currency profits.

[@peterbassey9668]

@@JohnWick-u2b I'm Nigerian, I fly also from my country Nigeria. Have you heard that millions over here survive on less than a dollar a day? If I can cough up $15 for a product that couldn't pass muster on FS9, isn't that going over and above for a Developer? Shouldn't I get at the very least something passably MSFS2020 and not the trash they dumped on us?!?

[@Beautifulbrokenmusic]

@@JohnWick-u2b And then they clapped.

[@Beautifulbrokenmusic]

@@peterbassey9668 You're talking to someone who is so new-money that they're proud of buying crap, I don't think reason is going to work here. I meet a lot of these people at work, and they rarely hold on to their wealth, they don't have the discipline to manage wealth properly.