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: DC-9 and BAC 1-11  (Read 1757 times)

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« on: May 28, 2011, 03:18:43 PM »
Just noticed, why is the DC-9-30 a large aircraft and the BAC 1-11-500 a medium aircraft?

Given the fact the only difference between them (in game anyway) is that the DC-9 needs 10m more runway and is slightly faster. Otherwise they are the same, same crew, same turnaround, 100Y by default, max size of 119Y.

So why the difference?

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2011, 03:38:52 PM »
Just noticed, why is the DC-9-30 a large aircraft and the BAC 1-11-500 a medium aircraft?

Given the fact the only difference between them (in game anyway) is that the DC-9 needs 10m more runway and is slightly faster. Otherwise they are the same, same crew, same turnaround, 100Y by default, max size of 119Y.

So why the difference?

Because British=better
duh
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2011, 03:50:36 PM »
Fair enough, I can deal with that!  ;D

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2011, 04:18:18 PM »
Just noticed, why is the DC-9-30 a large aircraft and the BAC 1-11-500 a medium aircraft?

Given the fact the only difference between them (in game anyway) is that the DC-9 needs 10m more runway and is slightly faster. Otherwise they are the same, same crew, same turnaround, 100Y by default, max size of 119Y.

So why the difference?

I'm guessing it's due to the entire fleet being assigned the "large aircraft" tag.  DC-9's go up from 100Y where the BAC 1-11 goes down from 100Y when you're looking at other variants.

wapp11

  • Former member
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2011, 06:54:09 PM »
Yeah it would be more complicated to separate all the DC-9 AC out to make some medium and some large. If you did it with the DC-9 then you would also have to do it with many other fleet types. I brought this point up before but with other AC like the Boeing 717. It is a "fringe" large AC.

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2011, 07:02:47 PM »
Because British=better
duh
Isn't neccessarily so, sir.  ;)

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2011, 08:20:30 PM »
That's one of the points we could start an endless discussion. DC-9 has only two aircraft types going slightly over 100 pax, 20 pax over BAC 1-11-500 maximum. On the other hand the BACs have a higher range.

I think sami has some "not public statistics" that made him decide in this way and due to the fact nobody is forced to choose the one or the other manufacturer it should be no problem.
Also the difference between medium and large isn't this extreme.

Hopefully in the future there's something like manufacturer commonality - this would boost the not-so-good DC-9 much due to DC-6/7/8/10 and MD-11/80 family while the BAC is for it's own.

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2011, 10:57:28 PM »
Isn't neccessarily so, sir.  ;)

Is definitely so, mate ;)

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2011, 06:40:39 PM »
"Don't Stop Believing" you keep up that faith! ;)

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2011, 08:18:08 PM »
its not belief its fact, british aircraft just completely out class american ones, in everyway throughout history

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2011, 08:47:02 PM »
its not belief its fact, british aircraft just completely out class american ones, in everyway throughout history

Pity the last commercial one we made was back in the 1980s, this country has seen a real decline in the aviation industry.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2011, 08:56:32 PM »
Pity the last commercial one we made was back in the 1980s, this country has seen a real decline in the aviation industry.

very true, unfortunately... however i am still proud that we created the only successful supersonic aircraft, something no other country on the face of the planet has ever been able to do.. we've really led the world in aviation up until recently... :(

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2011, 11:44:37 PM »
very true, unfortunately... however i am still proud that we created the only successful supersonic aircraft, something no other country on the face of the planet has ever been able to do.. we've really led the world in aviation up until recently... :(

TU-144
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2011, 12:30:01 AM »
very true, unfortunately... however i am still proud that we created the only successful supersonic aircraft, something no other country on the face of the planet has ever been able to do.. we've really led the world in aviation up until recently... :(

Hint is in that Bob. TU-144 was used to carry mail more than passengers. Although the Concorde scheme was also a lot less successful that it could have been (look at the orders for the Boeing 2707 to see potential market).
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2011, 12:44:08 AM »
I tried to stick out of this thread because many people here are very into their country and feel offensed very fast. However;
Lockheed SR-71, Rockwell B-1, Tu-22, Tu-160 are very large successful supersonic aircraft too, even they are not civil ones.

The Concorde also was not a success in terms of profit and it was a project involving UK _and_ France. Air France and British Airways operated them, as country flag carrier, with tax money just for prestige. Something the Soviet Union was able to do, too. The fact they didn't makes the Tu-144 not to something unsuccessful.

Every noticable country made good and not so good aircraft. Nothing to argue about and absolutely no reason to say "x is best" or "y sucks hard".

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2011, 02:15:15 AM »
TU-144

The TU-144 disintegrated during flight, it was not a success, and could only fly supersonic for 40 minutes as it couldn't fly supersonic without afterburners on reheat
I tried to stick out of this thread because many people here are very into their country and feel offensed very fast. However;
Lockheed SR-71, Rockwell B-1, Tu-22, Tu-160 are very large successful supersonic aircraft too, even they are not civil ones.

The Concorde also was not a success in terms of profit and it was a project involving UK _and_ France. Air France and British Airways operated them, as country flag carrier, with tax money just for prestige. Something the Soviet Union was able to do, too. The fact they didn't makes the Tu-144 not to something unsuccessful.

Every noticable country made good and not so good aircraft. Nothing to argue about and absolutely no reason to say "x is best" or "y sucks hard".

I agree that peopled get offended and I promise I won't be  ;)... buttttt,

None of the aircraft you mentioned could do what concorde could do without having to do a mid air refuel 5-6 times.  Concorde was really the only aircraft in the world that could fly supersonic for that length of time without having to switch on the afterburners.

Also keep in mind those aircraft were not meant to carry 100 passengers in extreme luxury with champagne ;) they were more like 2 men in space suites cramped in the tiniest space you've ever seen ;)

Concorde was a success to british airways in terms of profit, they made around 30-50 million pounds a year after all operating costs, so in other terms net profit:

http://www.concordesst.com/home.html

^ GREAT WEBSITE :) ^

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2011, 11:56:36 AM »
None of the aircraft you mentioned could do what concorde could do without having to do a mid air refuel 5-6 times.  Concorde was really the only aircraft in the world that could fly supersonic for that length of time without having to switch on the afterburners.

Yeah Concorde was the only aircraft to sustain supersonic climb without the use of afterburners during its time (that means no military aircraft could do that back then - aircraft like the F-22 are capable of that now, many decades later).
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline ljesnjak

  • Members
  • Posts: 80
Re: DC-9 and BAC 1-11
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2011, 07:30:08 PM »
The TU-144 disintegrated during flight, it was not a success, and could only fly supersonic for 40 minutes as it couldn't fly supersonic without afterburners on reheat

sry, but I think it was sabotage! They(west) took it down with rocket or sth :)

I personally love "konkordski"
(I saw both at one place in some musem in Germany, but that's realy off topic now :D !)
CEO
Marko Orehovec


 

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.