Please keep in mind that the configurations for the Super 70s are increased over the -60s. The -71/73 take additional 18 pax and the -72 takes 3 more pax. Thus the range values for the aircraft's would seem "off" in general.
Where are you getting that info from? If you configure any of the seating in the -60 series aircraft to match the "default" seating as the -70 series they are EXACTLY THE SAME!
The default for the -61 is 180-15-6 the default for the -71 is 204-15, guess what happens when you select 15 standard C class seats on a -61? you can install a maximum of 204 standard Y class seats, which means it defaults to the EXACT SAME SEATING CAPACITY.
So no they dont take any more additional pax, and since the MTOW for both aircraft is the same (60 series and 70 series) where would they find the room to stuff additional seats?
At this point its become obvious from the rationalizations and justifications given to refute the evidence I have presented that this is a pointless argument on my part. There wasn't ever any intent to correct the aircraft performance. It would be operationally and scientifically impossible for the 70 series aircraft to perform as poorly as they do in the game. The CFM-56 engines as installed on the 70 series were 28% to 33% more fuel efficient in all phases of flight than the JT-3's they replaced while producing 3000 lbs more thrust. So when you factor the Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption for each engine along with all the other data given (performance charts, POH's, multiple pilot reports that repeatedly point out the DC-8-70's achieved fuel burn within 2% of the 767-200 which in the game is 5020 kg/hr) it would be impossible for the DC-8-73 to have ONLY A 1% INCREASE IN RANGE and ONLY A 15% REDUCTION IN FUEL BURN. How is it that the 70's series can defy physics? The Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption for the 2 engines is:
JT3D-7 0.52 lb/lbf hr
CFM56-2C1 0.35 lb/lbf hr
A difference of 33% less fuel burned while producing 3000lbs more thrust, as stated above.
Unless the DC-8-73 can defy the laws of physics it would be impossible for an aircrew to achieve the performance as it currently sits in the game.
Super 63 - 9350 kg Hr burn, Super 73 - 7990 kg Hr burn, a reduction of 15%
Super 63 - 4970 nm range, Super 73 - 5020nm range, an increase of 1%
So what are they doing with all that fuel they couldnt possible burn even if they wanted to? Just dumping it overboard to get below maximum landing weight (MLW)? How are they remaining at Mach 0.80 / 459 kts TAS with engines that produce MORE THRUST AND BURN LESS FUEL at any given power setting? Kicking the aircraft grossly out of trim and flying with the landing gear down? (Which anyone who knows anything about aircraft airspeed limitations knows is impossible)
I wish you would have told me weeks ago there was never any chance you were willing to correct the data on the 70's series to reflect actual aircraft performance. I wouldn't have wasted a several hours of my time to produce irrefutable evidence in the hopes I would find an open minded audience of Administrators. Hopefully this will serve as a lesson to others who are willing to give freely of there time to help improve the game that its a waste of time and they will face nothing but rationalizations and justifications about why the data already in the game is "correct" even in the face of multiple sets of empirical evidence and the laws of physics (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, structural dynamics)
So thanks anyway
Jay
