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: Saab 340 specs are wrong  (Read 558 times)

Offline Lambert_M

  • Members
  • Posts: 564
Saab 340 specs are wrong
« on: April 08, 2016, 08:34:44 AM »
Hi folks,

I am a Saab 340 pilot in real life. I know this is a game and is not necessarily meant to mirror the truth, but the tech specs for the Saab 340 in this game is nowhere near the real figures. Fuel consumption is less in real life and the range is way more than what is listed in the game.

Would game admins consider tweaking figures based on real life numbers, or are we stuck with what we have? I am sure there are pilots type rated on other planes who would also perhaps have something to add about other types if we open up for the discussion.

Offline [SC] - King Kong

  • Members
  • Posts: 598

The person who likes this post:
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2016, 10:14:48 AM »
It would be nice if you have some official proof that can be used to provide proper information.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14536
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2016, 05:41:07 PM »
All the Saab specs are directly from the manufacturer's material. (Source data file for ranges, weights etc says "Copyright 2004 Saab Aircraft Leasing" .. So I would consider that to be 100% correct)

Just compared the 340B payload-range chart of that source vs. AirwaySim and they are pretty much identical.
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/Payload/112/88/164/
http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/prod/datasheets/340b_jar.pdf

Fuel flow values are also from a very reliable source. But you have to keep in mind that AWS calculates the fuel usage in much more complex way than just "kg/hr *flighthours". It's separated into several climb and descent segments and cruise segment. (fuel flow at cruise level is marked to be around 475kg/hr)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 05:44:36 PM by sami »

Offline Lambert_M

  • Members
  • Posts: 564
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2016, 05:25:56 AM »
Ok, then its probably the fuel consumption figures that wrecks the math. And I also calculate the fuel usage in a more complex way than just kg/hr x flight hours by the way :-)

Because 475 kg/hr is what we would use in an "aggressive" climb. On cruise its more like 350 kgs/hr. A very conservative estimate when doing rough calculations of endurance is 500 kgs for the first hour and 400 kg/hr after that.

Bear in mind these planes are now almost 30 years old. When they were fresh out of the factory the engines were supposed to be even less thirsty.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2016, 07:10:20 AM »
Because 475 kg/hr is what we would use in an "aggressive" climb.

Is there any other way  ???  ::)
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14536
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2016, 09:26:08 AM »
If you have the performance tables from the AFM that shows the fuel flow values (in cruise mainly), then it would be nice if you could send them to me so I can adjust the FF values if needed.

Offline LWIEV

  • Members
  • Posts: 49
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2016, 05:34:09 AM »
Because 475 kg/hr is what we would use in an "aggressive" climb. On cruise its more like 350 kgs/hr. A very conservative estimate when doing rough calculations of endurance is 500 kgs for the first hour and 400 kg/hr after that.

With 475 at aggressive climb, how would 500 figure come up? Is there something more fuel consuming than the climb? Or is this just an approximation?

Offline Lambert_M

  • Members
  • Posts: 564

The person who likes this post:
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2016, 06:43:57 AM »
alexgv1: Yes, the climb does not have to be what I call aggressive. You can climb with highest ITT temperature or a more shallow climb with higher ground speed but less vertical speed.

LWIEV: How does the figure 500 come up? Well, pilots are lazy and 500 is a nice and easy, round number for mental calculations :-)

sami: I will have a look at the AFM and see what I can find. In the mean time I enclose a pic I took yesterday of our (full) flight, showing OPS calculations of 711 kgs of fuel for a 1:47 flight. That equals 400 kgs/hr, and includes the higher climb consumption. Although it is an 340A, not 340B. The latter I know has better performance and more powerful engines. The consumption would most likely be a little bit higher.

Offline 11Air

  • Members
  • Posts: 433
Re: Saab 340 specs are wrong
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2016, 07:52:42 AM »
Most pilots will fill in the company form and make sure they have that amount on board.  Many pilots will then do a quick check, just like that given, to make sure nothing was missed out of the maths and the figure is a reasonable match.
The pilot also has to carry fuel for a divert to nearest available (or preferred) diversion airport which may vary when weather is difficult (strong winds are easier to cope with if the runway lines up with the wind for example) and that extra weight can affect passenger load.
There are Old Pilots and Bold Pilots but few Old and Bold Pilots.

 

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.