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: [ok] DC-9 variants  (Read 2184 times)

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
[ok] DC-9 variants
« on: February 20, 2014, 09:42:16 PM »
the data and charts you can find on those pages show, that the DC-9 has a bether performance for example you can see that a DC-9-51 can easily fly for more than 1300nm with 135 pax... that's much more than the 990nm for 120 pax in the game... due to the huge amount of options available it's difficult to model it, that's sure, but the overall performance and range was much bether (and not just +2%, but in the range of +50% or even more)

there are many more variants you can model...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9 -> shows the dates of introduction... model dc-9-31,32,33,34 ... the 51 seems to be offered with all versions from the beginning...

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/dc-9/specs.page
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/dc9sec3.pdf
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=276

if you need more precise data, tell me
« Last Edit: January 12, 2015, 08:51:00 PM by sami »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2014, 09:44:05 PM »
if you need more precise data, tell me

Yes please

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2014, 10:17:20 PM »
DC-9-10 ... very difficult to say, because they had 30 versions... but I'd do it like this

DC-9-10, 23. November 1965, 82k lbs MTOW
fuel 26412 lbs

DC-9-15, 21. January 1966, 84k lbs to 90k lbs (but I'd model the 90k only)
fuel 26412 lbs or 39064 lbs (maybe model the 39064 lbs only)

DC-9-21, 25. November 1968, 100k lbs MTOW
fuel 26304 lbs

DC-9-31, 19. December 1966, 102k lbs MTOW
fuel 26304 lbs

DC-9-32, 1. March 1967, 108k lbs MTOW
fuel 26304 lbs to 42316 lbs (if all tanks installed) ... maybe you can model the larger? or both? ... I don't know...

DC-9-34, 3. November 1976, 121k lbs MTOW
fuel 26304 lbs to 42316 lbs (if all tanks instaled) ... and this is really an interesting one... you have to interpolate the range graphs (I've done this, if you want them) ... you can see, that this type was able to fly with the full load over 2200 nm !! it really was a long range DC-9

DC-9-41, 21. February 1968, 114k lbs MTOW
fuel 26304 lbs to 35969 lbs (if all tanks installed) ... do you want to model both?

DC-9-51, 11. August 1975, 122.2k lbs MTOW
fuel 26304 lbs to 38956 lbs (if all tanks installed)

... the range charts you can see from the documents of Boeing.
The data comes from the FAA certification documents that you could find on the FAA website.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/eaa27d3270d91fe2862577dd006a94cc/$FILE/A6WE%20Rev%2028.pdf

It's always the same "problem" if you want, that McDonnell Douglas offered their jets with one MTOW that increased over time but with about 6 additional fuel tanks that could be selected. This needs space in the cargo compartment and can make a difference in real life, but is hard to model in the game... but I think the longest range version should be available.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 01:21:30 AM by meiru »

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2014, 01:24:23 AM »
the DC-9-34 range chart

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2014, 09:10:51 AM »
Wow!

Those additional/changed models really would make the DC-9 line as attractive as 737 or other lines are at the moment. They still would be more inefficient but they would have the advantage of many spezialized variants.

With the new model that counts into navigation fees aircraft MTOW etc. this really would make sense, too!

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2014, 09:28:11 AM »
the DC-9-34 range chart

Source?

And in the previous message, you quoted the weights as "100k lbs" so is that 100 000 lbs or?  (would prefer them in kg but can convert those, just extra time)


And also, you mentioned fuel "xxx to xxx lb" .. Really cannot base more than two models on this (min and max). I would need the exact data for each variant. MTOW, OEW, mZFW, max Payload, max fuel capacity - in kg. And also the cargo hold volume (m3). And the range graph (or range with max payload, range with no payload and one intermediate point, ie. the other corner).


Are the engine variants all there?


With the new model that counts into navigation fees aircraft MTOW etc. this really would make sense, too!

(New? MTOW based fees has been a feature since v.0.1 or something)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 09:33:06 AM by sami »

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2014, 10:00:02 AM »
@ sami

Landing fees based on MTOW etc. are now much more transparent shown in route and airport overview. That's what I meant with "new". ;)

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2014, 11:31:46 AM »
ok, I will convert the data and calculate the chart-points for you

about the DC-9-34 chart... I did build this based on the chart of the DC-9-32 and the data of the DC-9-34. I cannot find any charts for the DC-9-34 on the web. But it's easy to draw them if you have the data. There are 3 limiting factors giving 3 lines ... that's all... and the data for those factors are known... so you can draw it.

(compare the MD-81 with the MD-82  and you can see what the difference is if you increase the MTOW and how to draw the chart)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2014, 11:53:13 AM »
There are 3 limiting factors giving 3 lines ... that's all... and the data for those factors are known... so you can draw it.

Yes, that's how AWS draws those too.

Like mentioned 1) the range (nm) for max payload, 2) the range for some payload/pax amount (ie. 12000 kg payload -> 2500 nm range) and 3) the zero payload range (ie. ferry range).

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2014, 06:48:54 PM »
here is the data how I would use it... (I will draw the chars now and post them in the forum as well)

DC-9-10, 23. November 1965
MTOW 37146 kg
OEW 19930 kg
mZFW 31710 kg
mDP 10200 kg
mFuel 11965 kg
Cargo 17m3

remarks: guessed data, because early data is not available, only data from 90700 lbs version, but not the 82000 lbs version is available

DC-9-15, 21. January 1966
MTOW 41090 kg
OEW 22300 kg
mZFW 33520 kg
mDP 11266 kg
mFuel 11965 or 17695 kg
Cargo 17m3 or 6m3

DC-9-21, 25. November 1968
MTOW 45300 kg
OEW 23879 kg
mZFW 38050 kg
mDP 11501 kg
mFuel 11915 kg
Cargo 17m3

DC-9-31, 19. December 1966
MTOW 46205 kg
OEW 24830 kg
mZFW 38505 kg
mDP 13674 kg
mFuel 11915 kg
Cargo 25.3m3

DC-9-32, 1. March 1967
MTOW 48988 kg
OEW 25789 kg
mZFW 40300 kg
mDP 13674 kg
mFuel 11915 or 19170 kg
Cargo 25.3m3 or 13.5m3

remarks: largest tank is listed in one note as "available only for VC-9C", in the other note as available for the DC-9-32 also (but for

sure available for the DC-9-34)

DC-9-34, 3. November 1976
MTOW 54810 kg
OEW 25789 kg
mZFW 44620 kg
mDP 13674 kg
mFuel 11915 or 19170 kg
Cargo 25.3m3 or 13.5m3
121k lbs MTOW

DC-9-41, 21. February 1968
MTOW 51710 kg
OEW 27821 kg
mZFW 43488 kg
mDP 14363 kg
mFuel 11915 or 16293 kg
Cargo 28.9m3 or 21.3m3

DC-9-51, 11. August 1975
MTOW 55350 kg
OEW 29336 kg
mZFW 44620 kg
mDP 16545 kg
mFuel 11915 kg or 17647 kg
Cargo 33.2m3 or 24.3m3


Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2014, 06:52:06 PM »
general problem with the data

not even data coming from the manufacturer is accurate... on one page you can see a max cargo volume for the DC-9-51 of 33.2m3, on the other 29.2m3 (both pages from the manufacturer) ... plus, over the time the aircrafts changed... this means, the MTOW increased, the fuel capacity increased, the weight got down... all this kind of stuff had to be compensated and I had to do a little bit a mix of all the data... but most of it are +-1% at what you can see in the FAA documents, and I think those are the most accurate (but often talking about the latest version of the aircraft of course)

I hope that's good enough ... and I will do the charts now...

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2014, 06:54:15 PM »
Good.

(The payload vs range data is good enough as numbers only, and no need for the basic variants as those are there already)

And for the variants/models itself I guess best would be just to call them for example dc-9-30 and have multiple weight variants instead of -31, -32, -33 with 1 weight variant per model?  Or .. ? Don't know

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2014, 06:57:43 PM »
Yes, I think that's enough if you see them as variants...

about the engines... you asked if they're all available in the game... I think yes, but I don't have access to DC-9-10 data ... the first ones flew with the JT8D-1 engine ... plus there were a lot of sub-sub-versions of the engine like the JT8D-7A and so on... but I don't think it's worth modeling those

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2014, 07:08:51 PM »
oh, the official maximum passengers for the models (FAA document note 6) are

DC9-10,15,20 -> 109 (early models 79/94)

DC9-30 -> 127 (early models 109)

DC9-40 -> 128
DC9-50 -> 139

... I don't know if you have them like that ...

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2014, 08:43:12 PM »
ok, the numbers for the charts I sugest (most of them are directly from the Boeing document, DC9-10 and -34 is built from numbers)

DC-9-51: 2240, 0 / 1885, 8835 / 680, 16490
DC-9-51: 1385, 0 / 950, 15176 / 750, 16490

DC-9-41: 2100, 0 / 1800, 8018 / 670, 14315
DC-9-41: 1430, 0 / 1070, 12865 / 790, 14315

DC-9-34: 2900, 0 / 2185, 12775 / 2040, 13590
DC-9-34: 1670, 0 / 1265, 12095 / 950, 13590

DC-9-32: 2900, 0 / 2675, 4122 / 695, 13590
DC-9-32: 1670, 0 / 1265, 12095 / 950, 13590

DC-9-31: 1670, 0 / 1345, 9241 / 470, 13590

DC-9-21: 1740, 0 / 1410, 10147 / 1126, 11460

DC-9-15: 2800, 0 / 2730, 1359 / 525, 11325
DC-9-15: 1800, 0 / 1490, 7701 / 730, 11325

DC-9-10: 1800, 0 / 1670, 3126 / 200, 10192

always [nm, kg] ... I didn't calculate a "normal pax load value", those are only the maximum performances

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2014, 04:10:44 PM »
I made the charts anyway... so I thought I can also post them  :)

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2014, 03:15:26 PM »
just a little question... is this already in GW#4 ?? ... and the MD-88 changes too? ... the DC-9 will get out in some years and it would be nice to have it already

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2014, 03:48:57 PM »
No, not in any game yet as the thread is still open.

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #18 on: December 24, 2014, 02:21:56 AM »
Sami,

Any chance we can get this DC-9 upgrade for GW1?

Thanks!
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline TimmyTopper

  • Members
  • Posts: 15
Re: DC-9 variants
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2015, 12:32:43 AM »
Any news on this?

 

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.