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: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...  (Read 1934 times)

L1011fan

  • Former member
I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« on: April 25, 2011, 04:28:43 PM »
and although tempting, as I could get a couple on direct purchase right now, I'd rather wait for the 737's or DC-9's. The first delivery dates on the BAC's is 1965 and to the best of my recollection, the DC-9 was available for ordering at close to the same time. Also seems like the 727-100 should be appearing for sake of ordering soon too.Will the U.S. twin jets become available for ordering sooner rather than later? The BAC wouldn't be so bad, in fact Braniff's original fleet compliment had BACs rather an Boeings or Douglas in that category and they did fine (well until being driven to destruction by a certain carrier at DFW and trying to grow to fast toward the end).  Just trying to plan ahead a bit. Thanks! :)

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2011, 07:31:00 PM »
IMO, BAC 1-11 is far better than its competitors because it has similar operating costs (higher, yes, but they are low enough for the fuel prices) and it has a lot of availability (no worries about waiting 2 months for your next plane).

Also it is much cheaper upfront.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline JonesyUK

  • Members
  • Posts: 653
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2011, 08:37:09 PM »
Get the BAC's. The -500 is an excellent plane so when it's released in a couple of years you can easily switch your -200's over.

The only reason to go for the 737 is if you need the range of the 200Adv, otherwise I'd take the 1-11 every time.

IMO the 727 is in a different category and comparible to the HS Trident rather than the 1-11.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2011, 09:34:47 PM »
Get the BAC's. The -500 is an excellent plane so when it's released in a couple of years you can easily switch your -200's over.

The only reason to go for the 737 is if you need the range of the 200Adv, otherwise I'd take the 1-11 every time.

IMO the 727 is in a different category and comparible to the HS Trident rather than the 1-11.

I couldn't have put that any better.  Excellent points and imho all right!

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2011, 09:36:26 PM »
I've always liked the BAC in previous jet age games.  Yeah you pay a bit more maintenance, but the fuel usage is so much lower, availability is usually better, and the -500 has a bit more reach than the DC-9-30 iirc.   Only reason I'm not sure if I'll use them in this game is I think I need a bit more range than they have at my current base.  If the -500 has the reach for your routes though, there imo is no better aircraft in that size category.

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2011, 02:32:08 AM »
Wow! How can I argue with all those endorsements????!!!!! Ok then, I think I'll go ahead with a couple of 111-200's to start and gradually get the larger models asey come out. :)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2011, 03:20:14 AM »
im holding out for the dc9 myself... got convair 880s on real short term leases. 

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2011, 06:26:55 AM »
I can't agree some statements people wrote here.

If you just need an aircraft for short routes the BAC-1-11 is ok. Not great, but ok. It has just seats 70 pax (1-11-500 has 100 pax) and the same problem as the Caravelle has - small and can't fly from coast to coast in the US. In fact it can't even fly everywhere if you are based at Chicago or Atlanta. I understand this isn't a big problem for Europe based airlines.
The biggest advantage of BAC-1-11 is clearly the medium size, which makes it cheap in pilot salary, you can get them fast and maintenance is short. On the other hand I can't understand why people discuss about maintenance costs. They are nearly all times very small, DC-8 are also a bit more expensive in this term than B707, but nobody is complaining about.

B737 and DC-9 are large aircraft. I don't like the DC-9, because it's small(also just 110 pax version available for a very long time and this version is limited to 1180nm). If you want to fly the DC-9-50 with 120 pax and even smaller range, get ready to wait to the end of 1970s, so it's nothing one can plan with.

The B737 1st gen isn't also a perfect aircraft. The -100 variant isn't very well. But you can transport 96 pax up to 1300nm (and you can choose your MTOW variant!) for just a bit more fuel consumption than DC-9-10 (which is the DC-9 version with lowest fuel cost, around 3370kg/hr). The -200 offers you just 6 pax more, but up to 2200nm range and much better engines, only 3300kg/hr in the maximum MTWO variant. The -200Adv is available ~mid game and offers you 120 seats, nearly the range of the -200 and consumes just a bit more fuel than the BAC-1-11 (in it's less fuel consumpting version, which is 75 seater BAC-1-11-475 and not -500!).


The Trident is clearly faster and bigger (132 pax) in the last version than the B737, consumes endless more fuel (>2x as B737) and the range is limited like BAC-1-11, so maybe it's clever if you use BAC-1-11 in combination with the Tridents.

However, even the DC-9 isn't this bad one shouldn't use it and it's really hard to compare aircraft because every body has some other focus and needs.

Convair 880/990 do ok if you have many flights a day and if you replace them soon enough.


The only other medium size aircraft in jet age era AWS is btw the Fokker F.28 series, available in the 70s.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 06:29:21 AM by Curse »

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2011, 08:32:45 AM »
Eh, yes the range is not optimal for every base airport.  However, I don't get the gripe about it being only 70/75 seats, as I'd look on the 1-11-200/300/400s as just interm units until the arrival of the -500 which has greater range than all of them, better fuel consumption, and 100 seats. 

Obviously you have to be careful about ordering an aircraft with enough range to fly the routes you need, but for a lot of airports the 1-11-500 will do that for almost everywhere you'd want to fly a 100 seat aircraft, the coasts of NA being the big exceptions.  If it's got the reach for your needs however, I stand behind my preference for the 1-11-500.  Heck, if you're based at ATL, ORD (to use the examples you provided), or LAX I suspect the main way the 1-11 is going to come up short is size.  Those airports have a lot of domestic demand, and tend to suffer from slot shortages well before people start running out of places to fly large aircraft  :laugh:

IMO the availability question weighs heavily against the 737 except where you need the extra range or at the very largest airports where that extra 20 pax per slot might be important.  If you don't get in early and have the cash to order often you wind up waiting years for a 737, but the 1-11 queue usually doesn't wind up that slammed. 
 
If you're not going to do the 737, it really comes down to the 1-11 and the DC-9 (I'd consider the Trident and 727 to be a different category of aircraft, even though it's doubtful you'd want both unless you have an absolutely huge domestic airline), and given that choice I'll take the 1-11 9x out of 10x.  Pretty much the only area, iirc, that the DC-9 has an edge in is the range of the 75pax variants, and as I said above, I would regard those as only interim solutions until the arrival of the -30 (I'll exclude the -40 and -50 from the comparison since they have such a short range).  IIRC the range on the DC-9-30 and the 1-11-500 are very close, so that's not usually a deciding factor.  They're the same size as well.  So given the choice between slightly higher maintenance costs and higher fuel consumption, I'd go with the slightly higher maintenance.  If for no other reason than the lower fuel consumption means the 1-11s will be useful longer than the DC-9s when fuel starts to rise.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2011, 08:45:31 AM »
Like I said, that's not really how things in AWS are. The 1-11-475 has much more range (130nm more, >+10%), and there's nearly no difference in fuel consumption between -300, -400, -475 and -500, but -475 consumes 20kg/hr less than -500 (which consumes only 20kg/hr less than -400 and -300). This doesn't make it to a bad aircraft, but as you Miami based know 1480nm aren't much.

(aircraft, pax standard, pax maximum, pilots, crew, speed kts, range nm, fuel kg/hr)
BAC-1-11-475             75     89   2   3   35   409   1610   2370 Medium
BAC-1-11-500           100   119   2   3   35   409   1480   2390   Medium
Douglas DC-9-30   100   119   2   3   35   440   1360   3430   Large   

I agree to nearly all of your points. BAC 1-11 is ok for most airlines, but I prefer B737 because of range. In Europe etc. I'd always go for 1-11, but however I see no point why going for DC-9 except the - maybe - short queue. The only advantage to the B737 is the higher speed, but I don't think this is a major point.
Boeing 737-200Adv   120   136   2   3   35   413   1670-1940-2050   2730-2790-2890        Large


Edit:
Forget to say. DC-9 is much cheaper than B737 and BAC-1-11s are also much cheaper than DC-9. In my plans I haven't thought about limited money. So if you are short on money, things might change.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2011, 04:10:10 AM »
Also, you have to take into effect speed over distance. The BAC is slower then 737 and even more so compare to the dc-9.

Speed starts to play a difference once you go beyond 500nm. With the BAC not only will you top out (heavy config) around 690nm, at that range its fairly slow and you start to be real limited in what you can do, profit margin wise. Where's a 737 will take a higher payload farther and faster within the same block time. Naturally, the DC-9 will be faster and take a similar payload the same distance. Difference being that at a certain range, you can get more trips out of the dc-9 which will lower the overall operating costs compared to the 737.

Overall, selection of an aircraft is relevant to your base situation and will be quite different for everyone. No one aircraft is better then the other as long as you use its strengths to your advantage.


Talentz

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: I see the BAC-111-200 is ready for orders...
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2011, 11:38:11 PM »
I will be using them between my base at SJU and other Caribbean Islands. It would fit those routings pretty well because thats all they're going to fly. I'm only planning on winding up with 2 aircraft at most where Inter-Caribbean flights are concerned.

 

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.