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: Missing aircraft models from database  (Read 30387 times)

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #160 on: January 27, 2018, 12:23:33 AM »
Boeing 767-200F

The Boeing 767-200SF and -200ER/SF are being researched. There is no 762 production freighter currently. Some will argue that the 767-2C is a factory variant offered at one point, but until some hard data surfaces, only the P2F 762s will be added.


Talentz
Co-founder and Managing member of: The Star Alliance Group™ - A beta era, multi-brand alliance.

Offline drhyed (Crash Airline)

  • Members
  • Posts: 126
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #161 on: January 30, 2018, 05:21:24 PM »
dreading up a few months old topic of the DC-8 super 70s ;D


The numbers I pulled for each aircraft were from several hours spent searching the internet, from information on airliners.net and other pilots sights like it, some Boeing and Douglas POH information, pilot reports, CAMcorp literature ect. The fuel burn numbers went from 8000 kg an hour at MTOW right after takeoff down to reports of dual qualified check airman who often got fuel burns within 2% of 767's so around 4800-5200 kg an hour at cruise altitude. On top of this fuel burn reduction over the 60's, they all had greatly increased range, if you research "Cammacorp" there is a ton of good information on performance specifics from when they had to get the aircraft re certified by the FAA, including setting the DC-8 non stop world record distance of 8800 miles with the standard MTOW/fuel tank's as a DC-8-62. I really appreciate that they were added to the game, but there performance doesn't really come close to reflecting the true aircraft. Even if you use the fuel burns as they are in the game their RANGE would increase proportionate to the decreased fuel burn. So even as the fuel burn sits the ranges would be 4200 nm for the DC-8-71, 6000 nm for the DC-8-72 and 5700nm for the DC-8-73.
 




Заказы нашей компании авиационным заводам СССР поддерживают экономику супердержавы с 1950 года.

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #162 on: January 30, 2018, 08:37:49 PM »
Hmmm interesting.

8800 miles is something like 7600-ish nm. I doubt that's a normal operating range if required reserves in pax operation. Probably a max ferry with some very favorable winds. But I do get your point. You feel the ranges are still off by about 300-600nm each.

I'll look through it deeper and see what docs support this.


Talentz
Co-founder and Managing member of: The Star Alliance Group™ - A beta era, multi-brand alliance.

Offline drhyed (Crash Airline)

  • Members
  • Posts: 126

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #163 on: January 31, 2018, 12:53:39 AM »
I strongly suggest using

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/index.html -

you can search all their back articles for decades, they are a commercial aircraft magazine which has been an industry guide for a very long time.

Ive attached 3 different charts they provided I'll summarize as follows and come from the Oct 8 1988 edition pages 72 and 73

DC-8-71 burns 5012 kg/hr - Range 7250 nm mi
DC-8-72 burns 4890 kg/hr - Range 6225 nm mi
DC-8-73 burns 4881 kg/hr - Range 6050 nm mi

links

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998%20-%202157.html - direct link to JPG

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%202938.html -  direct link to PDF 1

 https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%202939.html - direct link to PDF 2

http://atv.seti.org/DC8handbook.pdf - NASA Semi POH for their DC-8-72

Boeing is now the cert holder for the DC-8 and still supplies many parts, they are a wealth of information

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/dc8.pdf - Boeing DC-8 aircraft planning guide with pages DIRECTLY from DC-8-70's POH

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/dc8-passenger.pdf - Sales Material

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/DC-8F.pdf - Freighter and Combi Sales/conversion Material with data DIRECT from POH

Delta did their own conversions but bought the kits from CAMMACORP

http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dl_digest_198203_article_dc-8-71.pdf?sfvrsn=2 - Delta historical reference

I forwent most of the Pilot Reports, Forum posts ect but did include the most complete I could find

https://www.yesterdaysairlines.com/airline-history-blog/united-dc-8s-pt6-super-70s-into-the-80s


If you need any more specific information Ill be happy to dig it up, hopefully you will find my efforts worthy enough to get the information updated in the game.

Thanks
Jay











Заказы нашей компании авиационным заводам СССР поддерживают экономику супердержавы с 1950 года.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5246

The person who likes this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #164 on: January 31, 2018, 06:39:35 AM »
Further info on the Super 70s

I found this documentation which is rather interesting as it comes from an actual operator (ie, less likely to be twisted than the manufacturer data).
http://ialcargo.com/specs/DC8_GE.pdf

Another one from the US authorities (Civil Aircraft Reserve Fleet)
http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/amc/publication/amcpam24-2v4_add-a/amcpam24-2v4_add-a.pdf
Page 9 - the range with max ACL (Aircraft Cabin Load) seems twisted, but the max ferry range might be accurate. That's for the AF variants.

Could someone please cross-check those informations with those of GW#3?

Note 1
Jay probably made a typo on the 71 max range. No way it can be 7250, exceeding the range of both the 72 and the 73.

Note 2
The range at max payload I found, taken from Jay's docs are:
71: ~ 3400 nm @ 27000 kg so a 800 nm range increase compared to GW#2's 61 at the same payload
72: ~ 5800 nm @ 20000 kg so a 1000 nm range increase compared to GW#2's 62 at the same payload
73: ~ 4200 nm @ 29000 kg so a 900 nm range increase compared to GW#2's 63 at the same payload
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 07:02:22 AM by Tha_Ape »

Offline NovemberCharlie

  • Members
  • Posts: 961

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #165 on: January 31, 2018, 02:20:21 PM »
And let's not forget the A321LR
Manufacturer             Airbus
Fleet group                Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Model                        Airbus A321LR
Size class                  Large aircraft

Project launched       21st October 2017
First deliveries          2018
Area of production    Europe (joint project)
Description               "The A321LR is a long range medium sized aircraft intended to open new smaller routes over longer distances."

Cruise speed             Mach 0.79 / 450 kts TAS   
Runway requirement Slightly more than A321NEO(@ MTOW)[/i]
Turn-around time      40 mins   
Minimum crew           Pilots: 2, Cabin crew: 4
Seating configuration   Y: 186, C: 15, F: 0 (Factory default), Maximum 240   


MTOW                      97000kg
Payload                    Slightly more than A321NEO
Range                      3900nm
Average fuel burn     Slightly more than A321NEO
List price                  Slightly more than A321NEO
   
https://leehamnews.com/2014/10/21/exclusive-airbus-launches-a321neolr-long-range-to-replace-757-200w/
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/airbus-launches-long-range-a321neo-version

Today the A321LR made it's maiden voyage: http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/01/first-a321lr-successfully-completes-maiden-flight.html
Seems like it should be in the game for at least the current GW3...

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #166 on: February 04, 2018, 02:17:30 AM »
I strongly suggest using

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/index.html -

you can search all their back articles for decades, they are a commercial aircraft magazine which has been an industry guide for a very long time.

Ive attached 3 different charts they provided I'll summarize as follows and come from the Oct 8 1988 edition pages 72 and 73

DC-8-71 burns 5012 kg/hr - Range 7250 nm mi
DC-8-72 burns 4890 kg/hr - Range 6225 nm mi
DC-8-73 burns 4881 kg/hr - Range 6050 nm mi

links

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998%20-%202157.html - direct link to JPG

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%202938.html -  direct link to PDF 1

 https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%202939.html - direct link to PDF 2

http://atv.seti.org/DC8handbook.pdf - NASA Semi POH for their DC-8-72

Boeing is now the cert holder for the DC-8 and still supplies many parts, they are a wealth of information

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/dc8.pdf - Boeing DC-8 aircraft planning guide with pages DIRECTLY from DC-8-70's POH

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/dc8-passenger.pdf - Sales Material

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/DC-8F.pdf - Freighter and Combi Sales/conversion Material with data DIRECT from POH

Delta did their own conversions but bought the kits from CAMMACORP

http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dl_digest_198203_article_dc-8-71.pdf?sfvrsn=2 - Delta historical reference

I forwent most of the Pilot Reports, Forum posts ect but did include the most complete I could find

https://www.yesterdaysairlines.com/airline-history-blog/united-dc-8s-pt6-super-70s-into-the-80s


If you need any more specific information Ill be happy to dig it up, hopefully you will find my efforts worthy enough to get the information updated in the game.

Thanks
Jay







Thank you for your time in looking up this data. Most of these docs have been reviewed and are part of the docs sourced that Sami has in his storage.

Overall, I see no huge holes in the ranges of the Super 70s. The majority of the docs show ranges in "still air, no reserves". Thus, the number adjust by Sami would be lower then what the docs show to reflect "winds and typical reserve fuel (1hr)". While Im sure airlines in the early 80s managed to stretch there fuel to make a flight work, AWS can't replicate that...

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.

That said, I will make a bug report for the DC-8-72. It seems its max payload range should be increased by about 225nm and its max range should be about 7225nm.

Talentz
Co-founder and Managing member of: The Star Alliance Group™ - A beta era, multi-brand alliance.

Offline crayola

  • Members
  • Posts: 575
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #167 on: February 04, 2018, 11:35:28 AM »
It's interesting all the work that has gone in to finding these details on the DC-8, given these planes are nerfed by the too small warning in the late 70s, making how far they can fly and how economically almost entirely redundant  ;D

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5246
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #168 on: February 04, 2018, 12:28:06 PM »
It's interesting all the work that has gone in to finding these details on the DC-8, given these planes are nerfed by the too small warning in the late 70s, making how far they can fly and how economically almost entirely redundant  ;D

As for where I'm flying from, I don't know what's worse, either the "too small" penalty I might get, or the 3/4 empty larger bird I would get if selecting something more recent. ;D

Offline drhyed (Crash Airline)

  • Members
  • Posts: 126
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #169 on: February 04, 2018, 03:59:50 PM »
Quote
  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

   




Заказы нашей компании авиационным заводам СССР поддерживают экономику супердержавы с 1950 года.

Offline MikeS

  • Members
  • Posts: 663
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #170 on: February 04, 2018, 04:50:38 PM »
Hi Jay,

I understand your frustration. It does take a lot of time to find data sometimes, but I think you should post it under "Bug Reports" in order to get the data reviewed.
I made another search on the subject and came up with the Boeing document for airport planing:

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/dc8.pdf

Accordingly, as an example, the payload range of DC8-63 vs 73 in proper operational conditions (with reserves, alternate etc) is:

DC8-63: ~ 4050nm at 259 pax with baggage (page 69 of PDF)
DC8-73: ~ 4550nm at 259 pax with baggage (page 73 of PDF)   ~12.5% increase in range

So, it would apear, ranges would need to be reduced in AWS!?

Cheers!

Mike

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16592
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #171 on: February 04, 2018, 09:08:24 PM »
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

What on earth are you talking about here?

I have made absolutely no comment on anything talked here about these aircraft so far.

Offline crayola

  • Members
  • Posts: 575

The person who likes this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #172 on: February 05, 2018, 02:40:09 PM »
Any indications when the changelog to insert the aircraft added in the database in the last week will  happen?  :)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16592
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #173 on: February 06, 2018, 02:44:50 PM »
Regionals will be added today, others later.

Offline NovemberCharlie

  • Members
  • Posts: 961
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #174 on: February 12, 2018, 08:16:43 AM »
Data:
CR929-600: length 63.07m, wingspan 61m, height 17.91m. Fuelsage height 6.068m and fuelsage width 5.920m, cabin width: 5.588m, range 12000km is with a payload of 28.84t and typical seating of 280, MTOW 234t, MLW 190t
Proposed to use RR or GE engine at launch but will offer Chinese CJ2000 engine or/and Russian PD35 engine when they're developed.
Project expected to take 10 years' time until delivery although the most ambitious plan call for first flight at 2021.
CR929-500: 250 seats 14000km
CR929-700: 320 seats 10000km
LNC (independant analysist) has posted some articles regarding the CRC929 Series:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/15/chinese-russian-widebody-project-takes-shape/
https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/18/chinese-russian-widebody-takes-shape-part-2/
https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/25/chinese-russian-widebody-takes-shape-part-3/
https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/01/chinese-russian-widebody-takes-shape-part-4/
https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/12/chinese-russian-widebody-takes-shape-part-5/#more-26269

Highlights:
Quote
- The Chinese and Russian widebody program has taken off after the joint company was established spring 2017.
- The organization of the company is set, with the Chinese taking the rudder by the power of a five times larger market and economy and a 10 times larger population.
- The joint company, CRAIC, issued its first vendor RFP to GE and Rolls-Royce before Christmas for the aircraft’s propulsion system.
- The CR929-600 is closely modelled after the Boeing 787-9. The overall design and dimensions are similar.
- The major difference to the 787-9 is in cabin width, allowing comfortable nine abreast seating, and the Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW).
- The decision to design CR929-600 for a lower MTOW has restricted range to 6,500nm with the nominal cabin capacity of 280 passengers.
- The Chinese and Russian widebody program has high ambitions. The structure shall be composites and the systems state of the art.
- The Chinese and Russian widebody program needs engines in the 75,000lbf thrust class.
- The project’s engine specification is closely modeled after the engines available from the Boeing 787 project.
- In addition to the available 787 engines, the Chinese and Russian engine industry is trying to unite behind a joint engine proposal.
- The CR929-600 is modeled closely after the 787-9. The technology for structures, systems, engines and aerodynamics are similar.
- With a similar payload capacity, the fuel consumption should be better as the CR929 is defined with a lower maximum range.
- It’s wider cabin eats up the weight and drag advantage, however.
- There will be little difference between the efficiency of the 787-9 and the 15 years younger CR929.

Offline Jetsetter

  • Members
  • Posts: 888
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #175 on: February 14, 2018, 10:56:23 PM »
The BAe Jetstream 31 is in the game, but the predecessor Handley Page Jetstream 1 and Series 200 is missing.

Jetstream 1
Cruise - 244kt
Turn time - 15 minutes
Seating - 18 pax
Max range - 410NM
Powerplants - X2 Turbomeca Astazou XIV
MTOW - 5657 kg
Max payload - 1814 kg
Minimum runway - 777 m
Fuel burn - 312 kg/hr
Crew - 2
Announced 1967
EIS 1969

I don't have pricing and I'm not sure how you usually determine that...but I found list for the 200, so maybe it can be generated from that.

Source - https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1969/1969%20-%203021.PDF

Jetstream 200
Cruise - 248kt
Turn time - 15 minutes
Seating - 18 pax
Max range - 420NM
Powerplants - X2 Turbomeca Astazou XVI
MTOW - 5670 kg
Max payload - 1740 kg
Minimum runway - 792 m
Fuel burn - 310 kg/hr
Crew - 2
Announced 1969
EIS 1972
Cost - $800,000 in 1972

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%201927.html?search=%22jetstream%20200%22

Offline crayola

  • Members
  • Posts: 575
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #176 on: February 16, 2018, 09:29:06 AM »
Sami, do you have any timeline for the 747 cargo models which have been on the aircraft in game page for a couple of weeks now. This is something I've been waiting for for such a long time, it'd be great to get them in :)

Offline crayola

  • Members
  • Posts: 575

The person who likes this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #177 on: February 27, 2018, 03:40:52 PM »
Sorry to keep banging this drum, but the 747 freighters were added to the "aircraft in game" page towards the end of January, yet they are nowhere to be seen and the scent has gone quiet.

They 747-200fs are a key part of my airlines strategy in gw1, and the 747-400fs are key to pending/in development strategy in gw2.

I don't need either right now (gw1 3-4 game years) and gw2 10 years from now. But in gw1 I'm getting very nervous about their availability.

Please can we have some kind of timeline as to when they  might be arriving. The 747 freighters were hugely important IRL, and the most frequently flown long range freighter of the 70s and 80s. It's pretty odd that so much effort has gone into researching and adding minor freighter variants of other aircraft and these have taken so long. I really appreciate the complexities and you're doing a great job increasing the database so much recently, but lets fill in the big gaps.

On that note and just to add, if they are not going to be added within the next real life month, that's OK. But tell me so I can change airline planning. When you run an airline of several hundred aircraft, you are learning cargo, and you are limited to 3 fleet types (effectively 2 with space for a switch), planning is super important. Not knowing if the cargo variant for the long haul plane I went for is going to be added affects decisions on switching out the short haul planes... both what type and more important when it can be done. 

I don't want anything added that isn't ready, and I don't want anything rushed. But please offer some kind, even tentatively of a timeline, as having been added to the in game aircraft page, I assumed they'd be here already. The game I'm playing atm is the guessing game, and with the DC-10 having a brilliant and known about cargo variant that my rivals chose, it's just isn't fair that I don't know if I'll have a plane available to compete at all, when in reality I went with that aircraft thinking it was a given as they were added to the in game aircraft game a long time ago.

If they aren't likely to come in the next few weeks, just say (and remove them from the in game aircraft page). It's imperative I know however.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 09:19:32 PM by yearofthecactus »

Online jezbanks

  • Members
  • Posts: 319

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #178 on: February 28, 2018, 07:05:59 PM »
Why no Antonov cargo birds?

AN124-100
AN74TK-300 (Combi cargo/pax)
AN148 Frieghter option


 

Offline MidWorld

  • Members
  • Posts: 555

The person who likes this post:
Re: Missing aircraft models from database
« Reply #179 on: March 01, 2018, 03:04:05 PM »
And Antonov-225!

 

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.