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: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions  (Read 380 times)

Offline wilian.souza2

  • Members
  • Posts: 521

The 4 people who like this post:
Currently only freight versions of medium a/c can carry std cargo and  freight large a/c can carry heavy cargo. This capability of carrying higher classes of cargo intended for their size class should be extended to combi versions of tese aircraft, which would make more sense as combi a/c can carry cargo in much more space. If a DC9-15F with 78.2 m3 of cargo volume can carry heavy cargo, why a 727-100C with 59.2 m3 can't?

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 540

The person who likes this post:
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2018, 10:12:12 PM »
Safety would be one, and turnaround speed would be one.

Heavy cargo is often dangerous cargo, either the nature of the cargo itself, or by it's weight/distribution etc.

Thus, a heavy artilary tank might be transported in a small freighter DC-9, but not a combi 727.

Makes perfect sense, passenger planes should not be able to carry heavy.

Offline wilian.souza2

  • Members
  • Posts: 521
Not every heavy cargo is dangerous cargo or weapons. By this rationale, we could also claim that light cargo and medium cargo has some dangerous cargo, too (= biohazard material for example) and AWS doesn't make this distinction among the nature of the cargo. So it should be permitted for combis to carry heavy cargo.

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 540
That is true - but the other things about heavy cargo is time to load, location of cargo and ability to load.

Heavy cargo is a specialist operation that cannot be combined with the running of a passenger airline. If it could, there wouldn't be a need for freighter only airlines.

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 667

The person who likes this post:
I think it's more of a in-game balance issue. Combi aircraft when used on routes that take full advantage of their capabilities are simply OP. They can gross far more then a regular pax configured aircraft can. For that reason alone, I would be against it.

However, I do think there could be one or two exceptions. A Combi with nose cone and Lg cargo door (historically accurate ofc) should be able to handle HC as well. Simply because of the duel loading option and ability to take on cargo that would not otherwise fit. I could see the argument points for that case.

Not sure how many Combi aircraft there are that match that profile, so it would be a very small list, if any at all.


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

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 888
The 10-30 is one of these isnít it?

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 3807
Smaller but combis with relatively large cargo (not comparable to bags of mail)
Bristol 170 Wayfarer (cars and their drivers)
ATL-98 Carvair (heavy transformation of a DC-4, with pax at the rear)
And probably some others around.

So the Bristol combi (medium size class) basically caries what it considered as HC...

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 6871
Why do we have 2 threads for the same subject?

As I said in another thread:
-------------------------------------------

Under this scenario, Combi Aircraft would be too overpowered.

Since the allocation algorithm of pax and cargo can be exploited by with increased frequency (and increase from 0 to 1 is the infinite increase in frequency) of smaller aircraft. Combi aircraft would then serve as +1 flight on another type of cargo, and would likely decimate pure cargo aircraft on routes that have both pax and cargo demand.

If the allocation was different, say by price rather than number of flights, it would not be a problem, but under the current rules, it would likely be a problem.

Any cargo aircraft larger than 763F is already a white elephant, slaughtered by frequency rape strategy.  Enabling Combi, and you can pretty much remove MD-11F, 332F, 747F, 777F from the database....

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2475

The person who likes this post:
That is true - but the other things about heavy cargo is time to load, location of cargo and ability to load.

Heavy cargo is a specialist operation that cannot be combined with the running of a passenger airline. If it could, there wouldn't be a need for freighter only airlines.

I disagree...if you ever get an opportunity to fly American from ORD in the afternoon while the KLM 747-400C is being handled at terminal 5...you will see the beauty of this well oiled machine.  ORD has been the destination for a good portion of the European airlines widebody combis since the 1970s.  this is how they made 767 routes work before there were 767s...and in KLMs case have been doing so for over 30 years!.  We've also see the Korean airlines flying combis.  If the airline/airport are prepapared it doesn't add much more to the turn time...given AWS 747 already needs over 3 hours to not have a delay probability.

I posted this in the general (talentz thanks for noting this thread, appreciated!)...if the combis can't carry heavy cargo then I don't really get the point of having them in the game even though they work in RW...at least the wideboday ones.   someone else pointed out the requency issue, but I'd hope we have similar small aircraft penalties as I assume most folks are going to fly a DC-10 or 747 on an international long haul where it would not make sense to run 20 727 flights a day...even though I'm sure somoene will try ;)

anyway...this was my other post with links...and my vote is true pax combis (DC-10, 747) should be able to do a mix of both and not be penalized from carrying heavy cargo if one chooses to operate them

(from general forum thread)
Now that we have the cargo planes in all world's...can someone who gets the pallet math work with Sami on the cargo mix/capacity on the widebody combis?  Right now the DC-10 type has no heavy cargo capacity...which doesn't seem right given it take on main deck cargo pallets and probably still have more heavy cargo lift than a narrow-body freghter that does allow heavy..   This wiki has some specs around air cargo containers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_load_device#Main-deck_ULDs

KLM has flown 747combis to ORD for years and this bird is definitely taking on heavy cargo if you've ever seen the activity around it when it arrives/readied to depart.  It's clearly less capcity than a full 747F...but the section between doors 4 and 5 has a massive cargo door that takes on main deck cargo. the seat guru map gives some perspective on size for main deck heavy cargo. the -100/200 versions are the same layout with the main deck for cargo aft of door 4
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/KLM/KLM_Boeing_747-400_combi_B.php

this article has a picture and some perspective on the Sabena DC-10 combi.  they actually loaded cargo between doors 1 -2 and the pax cabin went from 2-4...accorfing to this 4 main deck cargo pallets could be carried.
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=605349
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 09:59:32 PM by spiff23 »

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2475
Why do we have 2 threads for the same subject?

As I said in another thread:
-------------------------------------------

Under this scenario, Combi Aircraft would be too overpowered.

Since the allocation algorithm of pax and cargo can be exploited by with increased frequency (and increase from 0 to 1 is the infinite increase in frequency) of smaller aircraft. Combi aircraft would then serve as +1 flight on another type of cargo, and would likely decimate pure cargo aircraft on routes that have both pax and cargo demand.

If the allocation was different, say by price rather than number of flights, it would not be a problem, but under the current rules, it would likely be a problem.

Any cargo aircraft larger than 763F is already a white elephant, slaughtered by frequency rape strategy.  Enabling Combi, and you can pretty much remove MD-11F, 332F, 747F, 777F from the database....

other thread was my bad...as I didn't know this was a feauture request

I don't agree.  Assuming the projected cargo demand materializes you still would need a lot of lift from widebodies and you can't make 727s work..  ORD today easily has 25+ 747Fs not including the FedEX D10s and UPS + a few airlines running combis.  In fact the number s are growing as we keep getting wave after wave of China airlines flying 747-200Fs into Chicago.   If definitely could be a way to make 2010-2030 era routes works to the emerging mega cities in China that never seem to have enough pax demand to make work in AWS (assuming the cargo made the difference).  These planes still cost a lot of money to run so I don't see an explosion of frequencies.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 6871
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2018, 10:49:46 PM »
other thread was my bad...as I didn't know this was a feauture request

I don't agree.  Assuming the projected cargo demand materializes you still would need a lot of lift from widebodies and you can't make 727s work..  ORD today easily has 25+ 747Fs not including the FedEX D10s and UPS + a few airlines running combis.  In fact the number s are growing as we keep getting wave after wave of China airlines flying 747-200Fs into Chicago.   If definitely could be a way to make 2010-2030 era routes works to the emerging mega cities in China that never seem to have enough pax demand to make work in AWS (assuming the cargo made the difference).  These planes still cost a lot of money to run so I don't see an explosion of frequencies.

I am talking AWS, not real life.  In real worl, you do see 747Fs, DC-10F/MD-11F, and soon 777Fs.  They are viable.

But in AWS Cargo, none of this aircraft is viable (as we will all find out soon).  Iit all about the greatest number of flights with the smallest viable aircraft.

For LH, right now, only 757F is a viable aircraft.  With addition to Combis being able to carry all types of cargo, we will just increase the number of ways large cargo aircraft gets slaughtered.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 01:15:57 AM by JumboShrimp »

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3815

The person who likes this post:
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2018, 11:30:38 PM »
LOL. Too small warning for cargo incoming.

This cargo prefers the comfort of a widebody.

Offline wilian.souza2

  • Members
  • Posts: 521
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2018, 03:07:26 AM »
But in AWS Cargo, none of this aircraft is viable (as we will all find out soon).  Iit all about the greatest number of flights with the smallest viable aircraft.

I disagree with that. I supply cargo on routes that my opponent oversupply heavily with B727s (on both volume and frequency) and I'm still able to get a good market share by supplying just what is demanded.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 6871
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2018, 03:19:13 AM »
I disagree with that. I supply cargo on routes that my opponent oversupply heavily with B727s (on both volume and frequency) and I'm still able to get a good market share by supplying just what is demanded.

I don't see into GW2.

But can you give me examples where the allocation is substantially different than:

Allocation per aircraft = Actual Demand / Number of flights

Allocation per player = Allocation per aircraft * Number of flights

In cases where the routes are oversupplied (so that none of the aircraft is full to distort the picture).  Also, make sure that none of the aircraft is in B/C/D check, and you both have RI=100 (not a newly added flight).

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 540
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2018, 05:41:25 AM »
I am talking AWS, not real life.  In real worl, you do see 747Fs, DC-10F/MD-11F, and soon 777Fs.  They are viable.

But in AWS Cargo, none of this aircraft is viable (as we will all find out soon).  Iit all about the greatest number of flights with the smallest viable aircraft.

For LH, right now, only 757F is a viable aircraft.  With addition to Combis being able to carry all types of cargo, we will just increase the number of ways large cargo aircraft gets slaughtered.

I disagree with almost everything you've said here - it's absolute mindless drivel so please stop.

Just quickly on the point of the 757 - it's definitely a great aircraft on certain missions. But the effectiveness is highly negated by its ineffectual nature as a PAX plane. To dismiss the 747F (which you haven't flown), the 777f which you haven't flown, and the MD-11 which you have flown, and makes you a lot of money, but comes up short on the routes you're against a 757 (not for frequency spamming reasons but simply the demand allocation that doesn't differentiate size)... makes me pretty mad.

The fact is cargo has made flying the 747, 777 and MD11 actually viable in the new world, and saying they're not viable s simply misleading to people who read this thread and is a blatant lie.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 6871
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2018, 07:56:10 AM »
I disagree with almost everything you've said here - it's absolute mindless drivel so please stop.

Just quickly on the point of the 757 - it's definitely a great aircraft on certain missions. But the effectiveness is highly negated by its ineffectual nature as a PAX plane.

Just a little bit of AWS history:

757, the pax version had to be nerfed 2 or 3 times, so that it would not annihilate just about every single Very Large Aircraft in the game.  Simply because Allocation per #of flights emptied all of the Very Large Aircraft (leaving them half empty, their operators eventually bankrupt), while 757 was full and profitable.

757 Cargo is the same as 757 Pax was, before the triple nerf.

I was around back then.  And since Sami just would not back off the basic formula of allocation by # of flights (that overwhelmingly favors smaller aircraft over larger aircraft), I was one of the people who suggested "Too Small" penalty.  So that AWS players could enjoy the game where flying Very Large Aircraft is not a death sentence for the airline.

As flawed as the idea of "too small" is, it is infinitely better than AWS, where LH could be flown safely only by 757, A321, 739ER (tech stopped where needed).

Just prior to introduction of "Too Small", a few of us discovered that tech stopped A321 + 739ER were even more deadly to Very Large Aircraft than 757.  Basically, the game was well on the way to be completely ruined, since more and more people would copy this strategy.

This is where Cargo stands now.  Where AWS pax version was approx 5-6 years ago, the race to the bottom.  Just because not everyone yet knows how to destroy a potential 747F, 777F, MD-11F operator by deploying 1, 2 even 3 flights against this VL aircraft, it is only a question of time until it happens.

I think it would be a good idea to finally throw out the window the single variable allocation by flights and embrace a world where there are number of different variables to tinker with, not just 1.

Here is one of the old threads:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,38007.0.html

To dismiss the 747F (which you haven't flown), the 777f which you haven't flown, and the MD-11 which you have flown, and makes you a lot of money, but comes up short on the routes you're against a 757 (not for frequency spamming reasons but simply the demand allocation that doesn't differentiate size)... makes me pretty mad.

It's not that difficult to project.  If 748F is 50% larger than MD-11F, it will be 50% more vulnerable.  Basically dead against a swarm of 757.
777F being 10% larger will be 10% more vulnerable to 757.

And that is from a starting point where MD-11F is already not a viable aircraft on competitive, oversupplied against 757.
MD-11F can hold its own a little bit better against 767, A306F and likely future A332F, since at least staff cost wise, it is in the same class, rather than having a class level disadvantage against 757F.

And, BTW, I AM playing around with 757F in BW2

the MD-11 which you have flown, and makes you a lot of money, but comes up short on the routes you're against a 757 (not for frequency spamming reasons but simply the demand allocation that doesn't differentiate size)... makes me pretty mad.

Let me complete the sentence for you, and let's see if we can move from word thinking to substance:

but simply the demand allocation that doesn't differentiate size, demand allocation only differentiates by #of flights

Number of flights being [0, 1, 2, 3, ..., N)

In addition to not differentiating by size, the allocation does not differentiate much by:
- prcie
- flight duration
- seating quality
- connecting traffic (future versions of AWS)
- time of flight, for connections etc days of flights for less than daily (future versions of AWS)
While the allocation does not differentiate these variable either, demand allocation only differentiates by #of flights

You may notice one curious thing: All the other variables are aircraft size agnostic.  Only one type of allocation overwhelmingly favors small aircraft over large, and that is the current AWS allocation.

The fact is cargo has made flying the 747, 777 and MD11 actually viable in the new world, and saying they're not viable s simply misleading to people who read this thread and is a blatant lie.

I see it differently.  GW3 started with huge cargo demand from some airports and zero supply.  Stock of LH Cargo Aircraft was non-existent.  It took 10 years for supply to catch up.

So it would be a mistake to view GW3 in 1996-2006 as a normal situation.  It was completely abnormal.  Being able to get away with flying Very Large Aircraft in abnormal situation does not mean one will be able to get away with it in a normal situation.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3815

The person who likes this post:
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2018, 03:05:35 PM »
The issue with the 757 as a passenger plane back in the day was not the frequency component. It was the fact that its per seat cost of flying TATL flights is/was significantly lower than any very large aircraft of that era. So, 2x 757s flying nose to tail would cost you less than flying a single 744. A 752 vs a 762 is also not a fair fight as a single 752 costs far less to fly than a single 762, even though they have roughly the same capacity and range (revenue potential).

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 6871
Re: Make combiplanes carry the same cargo classes as its freighter versions
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2018, 06:50:23 PM »
2x 757s flying nose to tail would cost you less than flying a single 744

That's on the cost side and setting aside the AWS class difference in staffing (probably excessive), that's what it is.

But the real killer was that that AWS would take 2/3 of the passengers out of 744 and put them in 757.

That is why 747 developped reputation in AWS as an airline killer, and (with some exceptions) it is still the case.  In real world, airlines are still, to this day, flying 747s.  They have reasons, which are not modeled in current AWS.

 

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.