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: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?  (Read 1369 times)

Mascalzone

  • Former member
Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« on: January 01, 2015, 12:34:32 AM »
Just to know: are these turboprops going to be avialable?

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2136
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2015, 05:49:42 AM »
it's probably a question for Sami or search forum on re-engine or hush kit (not sure best key word).

there was a thread on the original long world game that Sami was trying to build in the ability to upgrade the engines.  beyond those that got hushkits like the 727, in theory this should have allowed for DC-8-super 60s--> super 70s and the Convairs to upgrade to the 500-600 series. 

to my knowledge this is a feature that has not been implemented.  worth looking for the re-engine post or getting Sami's attention...but i would put the odds of re-engining Convairs in this game to be low.

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3083
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2015, 06:00:53 AM »

Offline Teadaze

  • Members
  • Posts: 777
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2015, 12:30:08 PM »
if you want those to be implemented, there is a thread about adding new aircraft(use search) and provide real world data in it(from creditable source). It will help speed up and increase the chance when sami decides to add more aircraft.

Online saetta

  • Members
  • Posts: 537
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2015, 09:06:03 AM »
I think at least the 580 option should exist...it's quite competitive. Prob never going to happen !

Mascalzone

  • Former member
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2015, 01:26:48 PM »
Here is the thread from last year someone mentioned about the upgrades:

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,16458.40.html

But the question here is about what I think are new models (since, at least, the aircafts have different names) that simply can be added to the game, even if it would be not so realistic in terms of historical accuracy, but I just guess it's not such a problem. The point is to get those aircrafts for these years we're playing: as I said it's a mess we cannot get these turboprops that have the potential to be the best choice for many.

I've found some data for the 580:

http://nolinor.com/en/convair-580/

These is something more specific but for the cargo variant that, incredibly, is still in use:

http://www.aircharterservice.com/aircraft/cargo/convair-cv-580

And here is something for the 600-640:

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/convair_600.php

Also here for the 5800:

http://www.flightcraft.ca/maintenance_mods_stretch.asp

Since I've not made any of this type of research if someone wanna help finding something more accurate maybe we can elaborate an "official" request to Sami.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 01:33:45 PM by Mascalzone »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14544
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2015, 08:40:47 PM »
I think conversions are not worth modelling, but since we have the prototype model option here anyway, we could model them as such. = new plane models (available for new orders) but tagged as 'prototypes' (ie. that never perhaps flew, or future models, or unrealible data etc.)

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3922

The person who likes this post:
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2015, 11:02:15 PM »
Not all conversions are worth modeling, but if two are worth it it's the DC-8-7X and CV conversions since both saw significant commercial service. Other conversions that never got past prototype or saw no commercial service, such as the 727 re engine, may not be worth the effort.
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Mascalzone

  • Former member
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2015, 02:24:43 AM »
[WIP] Tried to get some datas just as example usable for the game from the links below and this one http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=169:

Convair 540 (CV-340, CV-440 conversion)
Engines: 2x Napier Eland, turbo-prop
Speed: ?
MTOW: ?
Range: ?
Average fuel burn: ?
Seating configuration ?

Convair 580 (CV-340, CV-440 conversion)
http://www.hermantheduck.org/pages/aircraft%20section%20pages/cv580.html
Engines: 2x  Allison 501-D13H, turbo-prop
Speed: 295 kts
MTOW: 26371 kg
Range: 1215 NM
Average fuel burn: 1042 kg / hr
Seating configuration Y: 48, C: 0, F: 0

Convair 600 (CV-240 conversion)
Engines: 2 x Rolls-Royce RDa. 10/1, turbo-prop
Speed: ?
MTOW: ?
Range: ?
Average fuel burn: ?
Seating configuration ?

Convair 640 (CV-340, CV-440 conversion)
http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/convair_600.php
Engines: 2 x Rolls-Royce RDa. 10/1, turbo-prop
Speed: 260 kts
MTOW: 25855 kg
Range: 1070 NM
Average fuel burn: 1080 kg / hr
Seating configuration Y: 56, C: 0, F: 0

Maybe some of these engines are already present and it's possible to already have data for speed and fuel consumption?

Offline CarlBagot

  • Members
  • Posts: 342
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2015, 05:54:58 AM »
I strongly agree with ZombieSlayer but not for the same reasons. The CV re-engines are not very interesting to me but a DC-8 and 707 re-engine are (DC-8-7X and a 707 derivatives with CFM see E-6 Mercury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury, and the KC-135R also could count but is technically a slightly different air frame IIRC ).

They would be naturally squashed out anyways due to their high maintenance  costs and due to the narrow-body demand penalty as demand goes up but they would make the game very interesting as the DC-10 rush may become much more convoluted, with many more waiting it out and perhaps getting L-1011's or waiting for the 767.

Also historically it is very unique and a worthwhile phenomena to model considering their popularity.

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2136
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2015, 03:38:03 AM »
I think the question with the DC8 super 70s would be about how you set the wide body penalty? 

 Most airlines weren't flying them on premier routes like JFK-LHR past the mid 70s once the first wide bodies come out.  However they were used on seconday TATL routes and were in widespread use until early 1990s and United even delayed retirement of theirs until they got more 757s in the late 1980s/early 1990s.  Think Delta flew theirs pretty late into the 1980s too.  Avianca and many other LatAM carriers were flying re-engined 707 and DC-8s well into the 1990s as well.

That might be a little complex. But seems like any routes where you can fly a 757/767 without penalty could stay DC-8 super 70 penalty free until say 1990-1994 range.

Not sure how much more fuel efficient the CFM engines where...definitely quieter, but it seems like the engine fix came out fairly soon after the program launched and most 60s were re-engined by 1975 or so. 

Maybe a solution would be have them delivered new as 70s after 1974/5 with an option to pay for re-engine at the same time for those with the -60s.

If SAMI wants to try an experiment, my vote would be to try it with the Dc-8 super 60 to 70 conversions.  Happy to give it a try in a (this) game.

Offline CarlBagot

  • Members
  • Posts: 342
Re: Convair CV-540-580-600-640?
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2015, 05:13:07 AM »
Could have up to 25% better fuel consumption see http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6289311/1/#1 reply 42

and from wiki (needs citation) "The Super Seventies were a great success: roughly 70% quieter than the 60-Series and, at the time of their introduction, the world's quietest four-engined airliner. As well as being quieter and more powerful, the CFM56 was roughly 20% more fuel efficient than the JT3D, which reduced operating costs and extended the range"

and (max ferry range):
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/467439/


6690 kg/h (25% better) to 7136 kg/h  (20% better) fuel burn for a 767-200 sized aircraft (250 pax max) (DC-8-63)  which  comparatively has a 4 140 kg/h to 4 750 kg / hr fuel burn makes it viable depending on cost and needed range, quite a lot better than even latter Soviet designs such as the 767-300 sized (300 pax) Il-96-300 which burns 9 680 kg / hr.

So while somewhat flawed to go by max pax due to door restrictions, etc. It can still give an idea to floor space:
16 to 20 kg/h per max pax for 767-200ER and 767-200 (best and worst case)
25 to 27 kg/h per max pax for DC-8-73

16 to 18  kg/h per max pax for 767-300ER and 767-300  (best and worst case)
32  kg/h per max pax Il-96-300

the -71 should be more efficient than the -73 but be very short ranged and the -72 would be the long range but the bad CASM one at 34 to 36   kg/h per max pax which is slightly worse than the Il-96-300, which I managed to have success with from the 90's to now the 2000's but am phasing out in favor of the Il-96M ( 23 kg/h per max pax) and the Il-96-400 (fractionally lower than 23 kg/h per max pax, mostly for fun due to short range and late availability).

 

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.