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

Discussion on the 3 best planes in airwaysim.

Started by Aerlingus1916, November 03, 2012, 06:37:06 PM

chiveicrook

Hmhmmm

1. BAC 1-11-500
Because of long-term profitability and great flexibility. It's still profitable even in the early 90s...

2. Tu-114
Because it is THE Turboprop of JA :-)

3. Il-18D
I had a fleet of those in JA5 which I replaced with 737-200Adv - profits and schedules were practically identical. At a quarter price.

Pilot Oatmeal

My best airlines have made my favourites the following;

ATR 72-500
Embraer 170-195
A330-300
-------------------

However the BAC 1-11s have to be mentioned, as well as the Fokker 27s! :)

Aerlingus1916


Hwoarang

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 04, 2012, 01:37:19 PM
Depends on what 'best' is...  the following are the best at ruining an airline
CRJ1
777-200

Anything Soviet
JA7 is actually the first JA game which I didn't start with Soviet aircraft, but I must say they can be very usefull to start your airline with (as long as you know when you need to replace them...)

swiftus27

Erly ja is when id maybe consider a soviet plane.  The tu 104 can be useful.  After that avoid the hammer and sickle.  Sure, you can start a game with some 204s only if you get rid of them quickly.  The only reason you can start with them is because sami doesn't ever start a game with a hard setting.   Don't fool yourself, they're crap.

TPMP

I have found the ATR 72-500 and the Fokker 100 great for me. Perfect for short haul routes. 737-800 for the medium haul routes.

DiCH

1) A32x series. Good fuel burn and interchangable family - A319/320/321.
2) A330-300. Best for long-haul because of fuel burn/capacity.
3) Dash 8-400Q. Superb for short-haul. Because of capacity and cruise speed.
4) Antonov An-140. Superb for short-haul also.

Maarten Otto

1- Saab 2000
2- EMB 170 to 195 family
3- Fokker 100

Troxartas86

#28
Quote from: swiftus27 on November 04, 2012, 01:37:19 PM
Depends on what 'best' is...  the following are the best at ruining an airline
CRJ1
777-200
Anything Soviet

AHEM!

8)

swiftus27

proving to me once more that the only use for Soviet metal is either a gimmick or a short term solution. 

Your maint costs must be epic on those old 154s.

Troxartas86

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 05, 2012, 12:02:37 PM
proving to me once more that the only use for Soviet metal is either a gimmick or a short term solution. 

Your maint costs must be epic on those old 154s.

That may be but I'm in no danger of bankruptcy so I dispute your claim that anything Soviet is a fast track to BK. I actually have one of my first two Tu-134As from day one still flying for me. I've had nothing but Soviet birds in the air since 1977 and this is hardly a well managed airline. I made a ton of mistakes, especially in the mid-80's when I had to lease out the 154s to an ally and take a gigantic loan but all of that was just me being an idiot; it had nothing to do with my planes. I've D-Checked everything twice without breaking a sweat.

There's nothing short-term or gimmicky about 20 years flying the same Soviet planes. I respect veterans such as yourself but sometimes you all can be a little to certain of your opinions.

Curse

Veteran has nothing to do with skill.

It's the same Soviet Aircraft diskussion as ever. Yes, some Soviet Aircraft are good. Yes, some Western aircraft suck too. Yes, biggest problem of Soviet aircraft is, at least for most models, the slow production line that makes Tu-114 for example from a good aircraft to a no-go.

It's the same stupid black and white thinking of Boeing and Airbus fanboys. Both offer good aircraft, it depends on what you want to do with them and when.

exchlbg

#32
Troxartas has clearly proven not theoretically, but by performing, that predictions of guaranteed BK are wrong.Same goes to CRJ discussions. It depends how you use them and if you consequently stick to your decisions. Maybe you won´t be able to rule the world with your airline. It always leads to the question, how you define the word "success" for yourself.
So yes, some of our beloved veterans tend to be a bit too sure about themselves, even after being proven wrong.

swiftus27

#33
Quote from: exchlbg on November 05, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Troxartas has clearly proven not theoretically, but by performing, that predictions of guaranteed BK are wrong.Same goes to CRJ discussions. It depends how you use them and if you consequently stick to your decisions. Maybe you won´t be able to rule the world with your airline. It always leads to the question, how you define the word "success" for yourself.
So yes, some of our beloved veterans tend to be a bit too sure about themselves, even after being proven wrong.


Hence why I never fly from a 'main' airport any more.  I've flunked out of my past few games trying to do something different or new.  Now Im in NZ at Auckland's old airport.  I have to wait until January (human time) before I can really do anything there.  

And I hardly consider one airline doing this as 'success'.   Good for him for doing it. I've been reading the posts about the test.  There are too many other variables to consider, though, to consider this a complete success.    I could make an all 772 and CRJ1 fleet successful under the right circumstances.  It wouldn't mean that they're any good in AWS... they're not.   I ran a profitable airline out of the Bahamas only using Fairchild a/c.  The airline made money but never excelled.  You can't call that a success either.  Lastly, show me the company value and cash position of a airline.  You can't judge an airline solely off of its fleet list.  To me, he owns a ton of metal.

I agree with Curse above, we're often forced to go to the Boeing/Airbus model because there's simply nothing else in AWS that plays within the game model.   Sure the TU104/B is a great plane if leased for a 5-7 year span before being replaced by better planes.  The 114 is awesome but suffers from lack of availability.    

I will GLADLY stand by my stance that the CRJ1, 772, and all things Soviet are the worst planes in AWS.  

Kadachiman

I have to agree with swiftus27 on this one......there is very little that is positive about Soviet Aircraft.

In general compared to it's Western equivalent -

Negatives
Fuel use is higher
Turn around times are greater = less efficient
Production lines are slower
Maintenance is higher

Positive (maybe)
Airframes are cheaper....but is this a classic case of you get what you pay for?

But this is nothing new as we all know this and avoid them like the plague.

Sure ... as a different self challenge a person may decide to go into a game world trying to 'be successful' using Russian Birds .... but I guess that depends on what your term of success is and if you meet your goal.

I admire the all Soviet airlines ... but I am sure that the same players would have been 'even more successful' with Western Birds.... so regardless of their gameplay this does not make the Russian Birds a good plane in this Sim.

Zombie Slayer

Quote from: JonesyUK on November 04, 2012, 03:54:06 PM
My favourites:

1. BAC 1-11 -500 (I never understand why people prefer the 737-100)
2. A330-300
3. DC10-30

I'm also fond of the VC-10 when it's launched, although the DC8-63 makes it obsolete.

People prefer the 737-100 because it is followed by the 737-200 Adv. The BAC 1-11-500, and, IMHO, the entire BAC line, are excellent planes and are very competitive with the 737-1/2 line, but the 732 Adv does offer a better cost per seat mile than the B15 and offers an additional 500nm range (although that advantage has been essentially negated with the new "too small" rule...)

Don
Don Collins of Ohio III, by the Grace of God of the SamiMetaverse of HatF and MT and of His other Realms and Game Worlds, King, Head of the Elite Alliance, Defender of the OOB, Protector of the Slots

exchlbg

#36
Of course you are right about the economical facts. I was just talking about sure BK.
Soviet aircraft can´t be good in this game because it doesn´t reflect the fact that during their era they didn´t have a competition, fuel for them was free and there were no "airlines" flying it, only gouvernment departments.777´s are bad because we can´t fly additional cargo.
Small birds in Western hemispheres (like CRJ) were often used on routes subsidized and regulated by gouvernments, leaving them without real competition. So, game-wize, they are "bad birds", that´s right.
But this shows one of the problematic parts of the game, where it is as real as it can be about the technical facts in some part and being impossible to reflect the correct economical/political situation around them, tending to be a bit unbalanced likewise.

chiveicrook

Soviet aircraft can't be good in this game because lots of data is simply wrong ;-)

See my Yak-40 update (2-3 times lower fuel consumption and faster), Il-14P/M (wrong pax numbers, wrong range), Tu-204-100 introduction was few years late, IL96-300 had way too short range, Tu-144 in AWS was/is modeled after "flying laboratory" used by NASA and equipped with Tu-22M engines and Tu-154M had too short range too.
And these are just my bug reports, there are still a lot of soviet/Russian planes with hourly fuel consumption higher than total fuel capacity* :-)

Maintenance is higher on soviet aircraft.. but why exactly is it higher? There were very few places able to service soviet planes outside SU because soviet planes were used mainly "close to home".
At the moment there are still few places able to service modern Russian planes. Why? Because no one uses them. Why is that? Because maintenance is cumbersome :-)
AWS reflects it by having predefined maintenance costs. That's following real world usage; but should it? Is it not conceivable that had there been hundreds of orders there would also be a significant service base?
Hmm.. maybe I should put it in feature requests.... C/D check costs directly tied to aircraft production numbers... rare planes being more expensive, common planes being cheaper... more expensive after production lines close...

Turnaround times are also completely arbitrary.. For example standard Il-62 was designed around the concept of manual baggage loading but M and K variants were able to turn around in half the time. But they are grouped together because that's how the system works...


*slight exaggeration :-)



exchlbg

#38
Soviet aircraft were designed and used under "what the hack, I don´t care"- circumstances and were just perfect for that.Maybe those incorrect data reflect that, who really cared about exact deliveries,fuel burn ,runway length, turn-arounds? (And those who did, kept it a secret!)
Western aircraft,especially nowadays, need to meet the "I´ll squeeze every possible cent out of your ribs"- standard. Simply not possible to harmonize that.

Absolutis

1. Airbus A318/319/320/321
2. De Havilland Canada DHC-8 (Love those little planeys.)