AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Newly identified STOL aircraft:  (Read 6575 times)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2010, 05:57:57 PM »
Maximum capacity is not the same as maximum takeoff weight, in larger aircraft.

In larger aircraft you can have max payload and fuel for a short flight and still be tens of tons under the MTOW. (Takeoffs are hardly ever with the MTOW in real world, in short haul traffic at least)

ICEcoldair881

  • Former member
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2010, 12:46:34 AM »
largest passenger route in the world SBSP-SBRJ

wrong. RJTT to RJCC. 20000 PAX a day in ATB (2018). beats that measly 9000/day on SBSP-SBRJ. ;)

Cheers,
ICEcold

highlander1715

  • Former member
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2010, 03:25:20 AM »
Maximum capacity is not the same as maximum takeoff weight, in larger aircraft.

In larger aircraft you can have max payload and fuel for a short flight and still be tens of tons under the MTOW. (Takeoffs are hardly ever with the MTOW in real world, in short haul traffic at least)

OK this has been the standard answer to all the very large aircraft dropping into smaller regional airports for most of this and other threads and it is starting to wear a little thin.

1.  Ask an experienced 4 bar captain to take a vla into a less than appropriate airport and see how far you get - remember it is his responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and his passengers and crew.

2.  Ask the operating authority of a small regional airport if you can bring a vla full of passengers and luggage into their airport on a regular basis and after they get over their initial surprise and stunned silence the laughter will ensue - go on call the British Airport Authority and tell them you would like to set up a twice daily service with a 747 from Heathrow to Dyce and they will laugh in your face or ear if you are on the phone it is a total piece of nonsense that has no possibility of success in real life.

OK I know it is a "simulation" and it is great although not perfect what thing in life is but stop with the its ok if the aircraft isn't full of fuel and cargo s***, just admit the damned thing isn't perfect and there will be some anomalies and then I can stop seething and ranting.

Kindest regards

Graham

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2010, 08:27:12 AM »
Trust me, I know exactly how the runway requirements and payloads that can be lifted off runways are calculated. I do that every day at work.

Modeling the capacity of luggage belts (or other terminal capacity) in airports however is a bit more than impossible ;)   However some improvements to the HUB system will introduce a certain airport capacity calculation and it could be used for this purpose too. Since of course it's not feasible to operate large aircraft periodically at the airport if facilities are made for <100 pax planes.


(But again, like I hinted previously, just search airport info and pics for example for Finnish regional airports in north like Oulu, Ivalo or Kittilä. A330 and A340 are regular visitors in winter ski season (or were at least a few years ago when they were flying the FAM flights for new crews, haven't check this winter's schedule yet).  ==> one link)
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 08:44:40 AM by sami »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2010, 09:30:51 AM »

btw. just to confirm, I calculated if a B744 can takeoff from 1900m runway with all 430 pax onboard, to a short <2 h flight:

- 1,5h flight requires some 14tn (kg) fuel, assuming reserves are 5.0 tn, we'll have total fuel on takeoff 19000 kg.
- Empty weight is about 180 000 kg.
- 435 pax á 95 kg (pax + bag) brings in ~41500 kg.

=> Total takeoff weight is 240500 kg.

Then looking at the B744 takeoff performance chart (assuming pressure altitude 0, 0-wind, ISA conditions and for example CF6 engines), I will get the lowest possible takeoff rwy requirement for this aircraft which is about 1770 meters.

So in other words, yes it can, and there's margin for adding more weight (= fuel), if you see the green line on the chart.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2010, 05:17:45 PM »
Sami was that a 744 or a 744D?

And if it assumes for a standard day, what would happen if it wasnt?   In this sim, does the weather take this into account?

highlander1715

  • Former member
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2010, 07:11:43 PM »
Thanks for the reply Sami but you simply repeated the albeit more scientifically worked out stock answer.  Just because something is theoretically possible does not mean that it can happen on a twice daily basis.  The main and only runway at ABZ is just under 50m wide, Aberdeen is located on the North Sea coast at a latitude north of Moscow to say it is sometimes a little windy would be a serious understatement making the landing of a 747 however light an interesting proposition.  I would be willing to bet that spring and autumn operations would be cancelled more than 30% of the time for weather alone.

It is however a totally moot point the single terminal building as presently configured, ramps, taxiway and ground handling capability could not cope with half the daily passenger load to our highest demand destination arriving or departing in just two tranches.  It would completely screw up any or all other operations while that aircraft and its passengers were processed.   

I look forward to any modelling in future versions which either forces airlines wishing to operate very large aircraft into small regional airports to either pay for massive capital programme improvements to terminal facilites at those airports through slot fees/increased facility rental costs at the departure base or a reduced profitability on seats on vla s operating to smaller fields (a small terminal improvement tax).

Kindest regards,

Graham


Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2010, 07:20:16 PM »
I'm going to agree with the above poster.  I don't think that you'd find 744s at airports where you have 10 to 20 meters of wings over the side of the runway.  The outboard engines are hugging the sides of the runway in this case.

I suggested this in the forums awhile back.  Classify lanes with a *.  Some can fly into airports like london city and others would be restricted from smaller airfields like this.

I think this could evolve out of the noise system sami is implementing.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2010, 10:28:53 PM »
Thought this earlier today along with other v.1.3 things, and one easy way to fix would be simply limit operations for all aircraft classified as "very large" in airports that are size class 1 or 2. And same other way, limit "very small" planes in class 5 airports (ie. 19pax pipers at EGLL). No need to do worldwide airport-per-airport checking.


Yet again do note that runway requirement is the only thing what is calculated here so far. Runway width, aprons etc are not modeled and impossible to do them in worldwide scale either. So what is theoretically possible becomes possible here (since it's possible ;D) because the various restrictions of real operations can never be fully modeled (nor it is intended as that is ..well, impossible).


---
edit: only problem with the "small aircraft at very large airport ban" is that for example EMB-120 is a class 1 (small) aircraft, and it can be still seen at such large airports like Barcelona etc. And the list of "very large" (class 5) airports is very long (250 airports). So I don't know if that's smart.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 10:33:18 PM by sami »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2010, 11:28:36 PM »
May help with slothogginng if you do.

Sami, not everything has to be authentic

Offline Tiberius

  • Members
  • Posts: 235
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2010, 08:18:32 AM »
If small planes were banned in big airports, regional services intra-state would be difficult to continue to do.

I know you said its not reasonable, but surely there must be a way to get runway width information into the sim.  The rest of the airport might be a pain, but surely the runways could be included.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2010, 08:26:36 AM »
Width of the runway is actually really never restrictive in that way. If runway is long enough for some plane it usually is wide enough too.


The width info does exist in database already though, but comparing width vs. aircraft size isn't feasible. For example in company X's fleet group Y the nominal required runway width is 60m but approval on special cases for 45m width is also possible. But the actual minimum rwy width for this aircraft type set by the manufacturer can be something else. Finding all such data isn't possible. And like I already mentioned even on large planes the width is rarely restrictive compared to other items.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 08:28:54 AM by sami »

Offline MidlandDeltic

  • Members
  • Posts: 225
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2010, 12:11:40 PM »
I realise that trying to code all parameters which affect aircraft operation would be impossible worldwide.  However, to come back to LCY there are very specific limits on aircraft which can be used there which is a combination of runway length and the steep approach / departure procedures, which require specific certification to operate there.  I suspect there are a (relatively small) number of airports around the world with similar restrictions.  I would therefore as a user welcome specific restrictions such as this being modelled, else those of us who try to play as realistically as possible will always be blown out of the water when someone decides to use a totally inappropriate aircraft at these locations. 

I personally would not like a blanket restriction on the basis of aircraft category / airport size, because as has already been stated it would prevent regional operations into main hubs. 

MD

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2010, 01:33:34 PM »
Kinda funny how on one hand people always complain that small planes and frequency are the sure-fire way to beat your competition in this game while simultaneously complaining that big planes flying into little airports blows little planes out of the water.

You can't have it both ways.

If someone's flying big aircraft into your airport, who cares?  Throw a bunch of your "realistic" little planes on there and you'll fill them up every single time and empty that large plane of passengers in a hurry.  That'll teach 'em to mess around in the 'little guys' territory.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2010, 01:47:34 PM »
Kinda funny how on one hand people always complain that small planes and frequency are the sure-fire way to beat your competition in this game while simultaneously complaining that big planes flying into little airports blows little planes out of the water.

You can't have it both ways.

If someone's flying big aircraft into your airport, who cares?  Throw a bunch of your "realistic" little planes on there and you'll fill them up every single time and empty that large plane of passengers in a hurry.  That'll teach 'em to mess around in the 'little guys' territory.

Sigma, in the case of London City, there's some purists here who use the airport legally.

That airport requires those planes which can do a greater than 3 degree downslope.   You will find other threads on the subject. 

While I am one of the biggest proponents of the need for frequency change, I feel for those people who want to play those few airports the right way.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 01:50:43 PM by swiftus27 »

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2010, 01:51:01 PM »
Sigma, in the case of London City, there's some purists here who use the airport legally.

That airport requires those planes which can do a greater than 3 degree downslope.  

While I am one of the biggest proponents of the need for frequency change, I feel for those people who want to play those few airports the right way.


From the 'purist' perspective I understand.  As a 'big planes blow me out of the water' perspective I do not.

And remember, the "not everything has to be authentic" thing works both ways.  You can use it as an excuse for blanketing aircraft types allowed to operate from different sized airports or you can use it as an excuse for why 747s can land at LCY.  The question is which has the potential to do more benefit and/or harm to the greatest number of players and, to some extent, which one is more realistic.  I know which camp I'm in given those 2 options, and that involves 747s landing at LCY all day long ;)
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 01:57:23 PM by Sigma »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2010, 01:54:54 PM »
From the 'purist' perspective I understand.  As a 'big planes blow me out of the water' perspective I do not.

You can't flood routes from LCY, there just isnt enough demand.

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2010, 02:00:41 PM »
You can't flood routes from LCY, there just isnt enough demand.

Whoops, you beat my edit up there.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "flood" as that term has been changing lately.  Do you mean there's not enough gross pax for large planes to fly in or not enough demand for high frequency.  Both of which seem like odd statements to make since clearly there's enough demand for large planes, that's the reason for the complaint, and there must be enough demand for high frequency because if there's enough demand for a 747 (or 330 or whatever) then there's likewise enough demand for 10 EMB flights.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2010, 02:27:55 PM »
Sigma,

It is simple illegal in real life to fly many types of planes at LCY.   London is insane for airplane rules.    I DO agree with you about the big planes statement, though.

From Wikipedia:

The airport has stringent rules imposed to limit the noise impact from aircraft  operations. This, together with the physical dimensions of the 1,508 m (4,948 ft) long runway and the steep glideslope, limits the aircraft types that can use London City Airport.

Mid-range airliners seen at London City include the ATR 42 (both -300 and -500 variants), ATR72, Airbus A318, DHC Dash 8, BAe 146, Dornier 328, Embraer ERJ 135, Embraer 170,[12], Embraer 190 and Fokker 50. On 30 January 2009, trials were completed successfully with the ATR72-500, leading to its approval for use at the airport.[13] The Embraer 190SR underwent trials from 28 March 2009, and thereafter gained approval.[13] The Fokker F70, BAe Jetstream 41, Saab 340 and Saab 2000 also have approval for scheduled operations at the airport.

Here is a BAE (I think) slomo landing from youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG8HfLsZqs0

This is just wrong: (FSX)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCIqxh2doq4&feature=related
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 02:33:13 PM by swiftus27 »

highlander1715

  • Former member
Re: Newly identified STOL aircraft:
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2010, 01:13:05 AM »
Nice try sigma but the reason some people are using unrealistic vla ops into regionals is slot unavailability so how can we be expected to schedule frequent realistic sized aircraft ops into large international hubs when slots are at a premium?

In my particular case BA the largest seat provider from LHR to ABZ uses several of it's available slots daily to serve the route with it's largest unit being the 757 twice daily coupled with 6-8 other flights with Smaller Airbus and 737s.

But in the game my main competitor concentrates half the daily demand into just two slots by flying a 434 seat 747 in twice a day - answer to the slot problem YES realistic in terms of airport operations in Aberdeen HELL NO.

I scour the slot availability at LHR and have squeezed in as many dailies as poss with realistic a/c when airlines based there have bk'ed etc but still have covered only a third of the demand.  I guess it is play realistically or game the rules.

Kind regards

Graham

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.