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: aircraft configuration/capacity question  (Read 2957 times)

SuriProf4

  • Former member
aircraft configuration/capacity question
« on: March 22, 2013, 11:03:55 PM »
i have played around with different configuration while waiting for the beginner world to start. i noticed a few things and didnot see an answer or explanation in search forums.

how do some larger aircraft (a340) series have so much very similar capacity? i did each of the a340 series and the a345 ended up with fewer total seats than the a342 and a343. i did 3f/24c/max-y on them and the max-y on the a345 was less than the a342/a343, even though the a345 is a longer aircraft. i also did the a346 and ended up with more max-y, but not alot more. is this normal that some longer aircraft donot hold as many pax as real life? i also noticed this with the md90 against the md80 series.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2273
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2013, 11:23:55 PM »
As far as the A340 goes, I had to do a forum search to find my old thread  :laugh:

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,35338.0.html

Some discussion and explanation there for you
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

SuriProf4

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2013, 11:48:01 PM »
As far as the A340 goes, I had to do a forum search to find my old thread  :laugh:

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,35338.0.html

Some discussion and explanation there for you


thanks

that would make the a345 almost a waste to operate. i like that aircraft personally. it is the right proportion for all of the a340 series.

Jona L.

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2013, 12:20:36 AM »
Well A340-500 is actually longer than an A330-300, but the CABIN LENGTH is like 4m shorter because the A345 consists more of fuel tanks than anything else :P

It is the only a/c apart from the 77L than can do 9500NM+ routes. Just the 77L goes farther, goes faster and is a bit bigger (~A343 sized). But apparently 777 doesn't work as well in the game as it does IRL, mainly because the supplement cargo income is missing.

cheers,
[SC] Jona L.

SuriProf4

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2013, 12:33:24 AM »
there is also something to do with the door types regarding capacity on a340 aircraft.

@Jona L. ....it sounds like you are saying the bigger/longer range aircraft are penalize for using in this sim. i will have to find out as i learn to play and get to a point to try that out.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2013, 12:41:15 AM »
Very long routes only pay off when fuel is cheap, because aircraft needs to carry so much of it with it. Default (accepted) fares donīt reflect that as they donīt rise the same way as fuel consumption.

Jona L.

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2013, 01:54:48 AM »
Problem is that 777 is somewhat of poorly modeled in reference to A330/340s in the sim.

There have been a couple of discussions about this, I don't want to re-run nor restart them. Point is nonetheless, that w/o the supplement cargo income all LH and especially the 777 is in a bad position.
Biggest advantage for airlines in real world using the 777 over the 330 is that despite a full PAX load they can carry more cargo due to higher MTOWs.

Anyways, despite that, the 777 is more advantageous than A340 in terms of fuel burn vs. seats. But in AWS it is the other way around.

cheers,
[SC] Jona L.

SuriProf4

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2013, 02:41:12 AM »
thats interesting about a340 & b777. economics: 2 engines beats 4 engines everyday on similar capacity in reality.

it sound like i have alot to learn about the sim. i have done fairly well in learning how to setup flights and manage things in the demo world. but reading the forums and playing with the different settings waiting on beginner world, i think it is alot more to the sim.

the capacity question came about because i was seeing how it works and notice the a340 and md80/md90 differences.

is it something that the sim is based off reality or is it more a combination of reality and something else or all based off something else? i have send sami a few pm about something i noticed with my home airport smjp passenger demand...and its not reality. and i was wondering if the capacity setups were the same. capacity setups seem to have come from wikipedia.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 02:45:59 AM by SuriProf4 »

Offline xyeahtony

  • Members
  • Posts: 690
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2013, 02:45:53 AM »
We should not be surprised all Airbus aircraft are skewed with superior stats towards their boeing counterparts because the programmers and administrators of this game all reside in Europe and/or fly airbus aircraft themselves.

But yeah, this discussion has been done to death many times. All aviation experts in reality know the 777 is superior to the A340 in every measurable point possible. But then again, this is just an online game subject to its own twisted version of reality, so we all play along nicely :D

Jona L.

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2013, 02:46:36 AM »
thats interesting about a340 & b777. economics: 2 engines beats 4 engines everyday on similar capacity in reality.

it sound like i have alot to learn about the sim. i have done fairly well in learning how to setup flights and manage things in the demo world. but reading the forums and playing with the different settings waiting on beginner world, i think it is alot more to the sim.

the capacity question came about because i was seeing how it works and notice the a340 and md80/md90 differences.

is it something that the sim is based off reality or is it more a combination of reality and something else? i have send sami a few pm about something i noticed with my home airport smjp.

Well, the game is mostly reallity based, though some may argue this. And the Airbus vs. Boeing thing has been talked about a lot....

Not going to get any more detailed, coz this only caused me trouble in the past.

Offline xyeahtony

  • Members
  • Posts: 690
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2013, 02:48:36 AM »
Well, the game is mostly reallity based, though some may argue this. And the Airbus vs. Boeing thing has been talked about a lot....

Not going to get any more detailed, coz this only caused me trouble in the past.

i too would be insulted if someone questioned my all-encompassing greatness haha its okay jona.

SuriProf4

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2013, 02:53:15 AM »
Well, the game is mostly reallity based, though some may argue this.

from this screenshot, the sim isnot reality. we have on most days we have ~330+ pax between amsterdam. but maybe thats for another day to deal with.

Offline xyeahtony

  • Members
  • Posts: 690
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2013, 02:55:16 AM »
from this screenshot, the sim isnot reality. we have on most days we have ~330+ pax between amsterdam. but maybe thats for another day to deal with.

also there are at any given time ~ 40 flights between KSFO-KLAX...a simple search on any travel website or flightaware.com will show this; indicating at least 4000 pax/daily demand. Wanna guess what the demand in AWS is indicated as between these two cities?

Point is this game is close, but not 100%. Oh well, its the best we got...for the moment ;)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16486
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2013, 04:27:43 AM »
We should not be surprised all Airbus aircraft are skewed with superior stats towards their boeing counterparts because the programmers and administrators of this game all reside in Europe and/or fly airbus aircraft themselves.

Yeah right... The fuel usage data for modern planes here is not made up stuff you know. (the amount of models and variations means that there can be irregularities but these have been mostly ironed out with bug reports I think - and again if you have some hard facts, and something is wrong, a bug report should ...or must... be posted about it).

The main issue for 777 currently is that cargo is not modelled, and that does play a big role in the longhaul traffic. (and 777 is a relatively expensive plane too, to buy/lease, in comparison to other longhaulers). But this too has been talked before also.

Offline xyeahtony

  • Members
  • Posts: 690
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2013, 09:44:26 PM »
Yeah right... The fuel usage data for modern planes here is not made up stuff you know. (the amount of models and variations means that there can be irregularities but these have been mostly ironed out with bug reports I think - and again if you have some hard facts, and something is wrong, a bug report should ...or must... be posted about it).

The main issue for 777 currently is that cargo is not modelled, and that does play a big role in the longhaul traffic. (and 777 is a relatively expensive plane too, to buy/lease, in comparison to other longhaulers). But this too has been talked before also.

That should not play a role in fuel burn, since A340s also carry cargo. Balancing the game is one thing, but the 777 is already expensive plus a fuel hog (compared to the A340s).  I think its simple logic and one does not need an aeronautical engineering degree to comprehend the fact that a 2 engined plane that is newer, flies further and faster, carries more payload, and is more efficient uses less fuel than a 4-engined plane of similar specifications. All things aside, the 77L weighs less than the A340-500, with similar payload capacity. (actually the A340-500 has a greater MTOW), yet the A345 uses less fuel than the 77L? interesting concept.

I do realize that a lot of the other aircraft models are realistically modeled (to a degree), but the 777/A340 is a blatantly misrepresented. It is no secret the 777 uses less fuel than an A340, cargo or not. The only airlines still running A340s are those who still have leases or because they want the commonality with other Airbus aircraft.

Multiple sources:


http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2347298/
Boeing's own estimates have the 777-200LR 20% more efficient than the A340-500. Of course its from Boeing itself, so that's to be taken with a grain of salt, but even a 10% difference is substantial.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2010/12/08/boeing-777-way-much-better-than-a330/

Quote
Indeed, in a 3,000 nm mission profile, the A340-300 burns 3.25 L of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers, whereas the 777-200ER burns 2.89L, a 11% reduction. In a 6,000 nm mission profile, meanwhile, the 777-200ER burns 3.08L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, also 11% less than the A340-300′s 3.49L fuel burn figure.

Quote
and again if you have some hard facts, and something is wrong

i'd be hard pressed to find "hard facts" saying the A340 uses less fuel than a 777.


Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16486
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2013, 10:20:56 PM »
Nice image, but irrelevant data mostly. The airlines.net link had discussions related to 777LR version which at that time hadn't ever flown yet, so pure speculation. And the blog link is also based on Boeing marketing claims it seems by a quick look, didn't find any actual figures there that would be "independent". (and to be noted, all the same to me if the links would have been to blogs based on Airbus' marketing data.. each party always poofs their product)

I checked the data source used for AWS performance model on A340 and 777 series, and it says for example that in cruise level flight at FL310 a mid-weight A340-300 burns approx 6600kg/hr fuel, while same conditions for 777-200 results in a burn of 7100 kg/hr, A330 would do it for ~5500kg/hr and 777-300 ~7700kg/hr. (These example numbers cannot be compared directly the AWS displayed kg/hr burn directly, as AWS displayed value is calculated on a typical mission profile and is not a static value, but just gives a comparison - and to be noted; all of the numbers are just single random samples from a single level). Have no personal experience on these planes, but for the planes I know myself and have actual data to check on, the source data is accurate.

The source model is however generic (ie. all 777s as whole, no engine variation etc), and didn't have data on the latest variants like 340-600 when the performance model was built. But still for the models it includes it has seemingly detailed information for various conditions, and given the data source etc. I don't have any reason to doubt it really ....

And as I said, if there's some actual data that can be used to improve the system (ie. real data on fuel flow and fuel burns and none of the marketing people jargon who all claim superiority over the competitor) then please post it as a bug report (not to these general forums).

Simplest way would actually to know actual and true fuel burns for flights on some sectors and see what AWS calculates to the same sector for that plane variant .. any 777 pilots around?  ;D    (I've used this method to verify some of the flight time etc. calculations when I was coding it back then)


Oh, and to add, since you misunderstood it on my previous message. The thing about 777 is that it has better payload/range capabilities over a standard A340, so it can carry more cargo etc. on the routes (in general). And this is what makes it attractive to real world airlines since cargo plays an important role on the longhaul markets (and 2 vs 4 engines saves maintenance wise too). And as I said, since cargo is not modelled here yet, 777 is not so good as it would be.


edit: quickly googled, and here are some hard and actual numbers for a 777300er burn: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/278677/   (avg. some ~8100kg/hr .. though just single examples, but these exact and actual figures of actual flights is the easiest way to verify the data really if there's a lot of them)

edit2: fixed typos.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 10:37:48 PM by sami »

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2013, 10:24:27 PM »
And there we go again, that old Airbus/Boeing kind of complain, and then again, thereīs always one expert that definitely knows better.
So what if one aircraft of those many is behind itīs (true?) values ? You just donīt have to buy or lease it, or you do so, because nobody else does. We are not playing 100% reality here, we just donīt want to play with totally irrational numbers. Whatīs a few liters of kerosine this or that airliner is needing less ? Or a few thousands more downpayment for buy/lease  in relation to the whole game concept? Nothing.
And please donīt go onto Samiīs nerves constantly by reporting some demand levels here or there are differing from RL observations !
City based demand is in the making, alongside with some national-relations tweaking, so just let that go for a while.
You always complain about low demand levels here or there, why donīt you complain of too much traffic elswhere and asking Sami to skip all unrealistic high demands between small airports where no form of air transport existed ever.

Offline xyeahtony

  • Members
  • Posts: 690
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2013, 11:31:53 PM »
Nice image, but irrelevant data mostly. The airlines.net link had discussions related to 777LR version which at that time hadn't ever flown yet, so pure speculation. And the blog link is also based on Boeing marketing claims it seems by a quick look, didn't find any actual figures there that would be "independent". (and to be noted, all the same to me if the links would have been to blogs based on Airbus' marketing data.. each party always poofs their product)

I checked the data source used for AWS performance model on A340 and 777 series, and it says for example that in cruise level flight at FL310 a mid-weight A340-300 burns approx 6600kg/hr fuel, while same conditions for 777-200 results in a burn of 7100 kg/hr, A330 would do it for ~5500kg/hr and 777-300 ~7700kg/hr. (These example numbers cannot be compared directly the AWS displayed kg/hr burn directly, as AWS displayed value is calculated on a typical mission profile and is not a static value, but just gives a comparison - and to be noted; all of the numbers are just single random samples from a single level). Have no personal experience on these planes, but for the planes I know myself and have actual data to check on, the source data is accurate.

The source model is however generic (ie. all 777s as whole, no engine variation etc), and didn't have data on the latest variants like 340-600 when the performance model was built. But still for the models it includes it has seemingly detailed information for various conditions, and given the data source etc. I don't have any reason to doubt it really ....

And as I said, if there's some actual data that can be used to improve the system (ie. real data on fuel flow and fuel burns and none of the marketing people jargon who all claim superiority over the competitor) then please post it as a bug report (not to these general forums).

Simplest way would actually to know actual and true fuel burns for flights on some sectors and see what AWS calculates to the same sector for that plane variant .. any 777 pilots around?  ;D    (I've used this method to verify some of the flight time etc. calculations when I was coding it back then)


Oh, and to add, since you misunderstood it on my previous message. The thing about 777 is that it has better payload/range capabilities over a standard A340, so it can carry more cargo etc. on the routes (in general). And this is what makes it attractive to real world airlines since cargo plays an important role on the longhaul markets (and 2 vs 4 engines saves maintenance wise too). And as I said, since cargo is not modelled here yet, 777 is not so good as it would be.


edit: quickly googled, and here are some hard and actual numbers for a 777300er burn: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/278677/   (avg. some ~8100kg/hr .. though just single examples, but these exact and actual figures of actual flights is the easiest way to verify the data really if there's a lot of them)

edit2: fixed typos.

Interesting Points. Since both Airbus and Boeing don't exactly post fuel burn figures, and the figures aren't even static due to different mission profiles, an apples-apples comparison is pretty difficult. I don't know if your source data is 100% accurate or not, im not qualified to do that. All i know is that airlines are dumping A340s in favor of 777 because of fuel costs. Now if this has to do with because the 777 is inherently more efficient (which i believe it is) or because the 777 makes more money because it has better payload performance, oh well. This point can be argued to death.

There are conflicting values on google searches. AWS data shows A340 < 777 in fuel burn, and some google searches seem to confirm this too. But other google searches show 777 < A340, so yeah. Since this is a game, nobody is obliged to use one aircraft vs another, so the consequence is irrelevant.

And there we go again, that old Airbus/Boeing kind of complain, and then again, thereīs always one expert that definitely knows better.
So what if one aircraft of those many is behind itīs (true?) values ? You just donīt have to buy or lease it, or you do so, because nobody else does. We are not playing 100% reality here, we just donīt want to play with totally irrational numbers. Whatīs a few liters of kerosine this or that airliner is needing less ? Or a few thousands more downpayment for buy/lease  in relation to the whole game concept? Nothing.
And please donīt go onto Samiīs nerves constantly by reporting some demand levels here or there are differing from RL observations !
City based demand is in the making, alongside with some national-relations tweaking, so just let that go for a while.
You always complain about low demand levels here or there, why donīt you complain of too much traffic elswhere and asking Sami to skip all unrealistic high demands between small airports where no form of air transport existed ever.

What are you talking about. I almost never post on the public forums. I brought up one example, once regarding demand.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2013, 01:11:01 AM »
The remarks are not aimed at you personally,that 777/334 problem is as old as their uses in this game and you were not the only one to come up with figures from somewhere to prove game wrong. Who cares about those marginal differences?Second part of reply of course aims at that person, that brought up demand figures.Who cares if you know that double the people fly Suriname-Netherlands ? More likely you are able to link Suriname to a lot of airports of that region, where in reality there is no demand or noone is serving it.Why donīt you complain about this, too? Because you shouldnīt. First, thereīs a fixed  formula that produces demand figures, based on real life airport data, not on RL flight connection data. This formula mixes all figures  in a logical way to come up with suggested demand figures. This algorithm naturally canīt reflect reality and we should take data as they are, at least until that new "city-based demand" produces new ones.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 01:33:13 AM by exchlbg »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16486
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: aircraft configuration/capacity question
« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2013, 01:46:12 PM »
Just to add, here's some data on the A340 (either -300 or -300E) - just single samples of real data of operations on a certain day:

HEL-BKK, A340-300, TOW 223tn (max 271tn), 9h 20min, trip fuel 57tn  (avg. ~6000kg/h)
HEL-PEK, A340-300, TOW 232tn (max 257tn), 8h 30min, trip fuel 52tn  (avg. ~6100kg/h)
HEL-CKG, A340-300, TOW 214tn (max 271tn), 8h 00min, trip fuel 47tn  (avg. ~5900kg/h)
(For a fully loaded flight (271tn) the HEL-BKK would burn approximately 67tn (~7100kg/h), a rough calculation)
(each flight above has a wind component of around +30 to +60 kts)

Do note that they're all less than MTOW, so fuel burn displayed is less what AWS average displays. But the AWS "mission average" of about 6800kg/h for the 340-300 is fairly accurate there (that's the mtow burn in aws, less load - less burn).


If you compare it to the link of airliners.net I pasted earlier the difference of 340 vs 777 is rather big. But there it was the ER model and a 13hr flight which does make a difference since you end up hauling fuel just to haul the fuel, so those two cannot be directly compared. But my source data for A340 seems to be accurate there at least (in the ballpark).
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 01:51:37 PM by sami »

 

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.