Is there any reason to justify that the turn aroun time of the VC10 is 60 minutes and the one of the Il-62 is 100 minutes if they are almost similar planes? (Of course, I know that the game is set to hurt the companies using soviet planes, but I'm asking for a technical reason.)
My guess it's because first versions of Il-62 lacked any cargo bay roller systems (it was Aeroflot's decision afaik). Il-62M and later modifications had all the needed equipment but turnaround time is shared among all models so they are all punished. Rather sad that something like this is in place while famous ease of servicing and longevity of Il-62 is not modeled (Il-62 is punished in this regard as well, having higher maintenance costs).
I agree that the models are heavily biased towards the western planes
The Russian ones have so many downsides but some of them are truly remarkable aircraft in reality
While Soviet designs were solid, they had bad support. Sourcing spare parts was much harder and engines were generally less reliable.
I am glad AWS doesn't punish us with low dispatch reliability rates but rather translates it into longer turn around times and higher staff and maintenance cost.
Always keep in mind, though, that AWS does punish Soviet types in that they are less desirable to passengers. So when competing on a route with a Western
type, all being equal, the Soviet airliner will sadly attract less passengers (which is/was true in real life as well).
Mike
then if follow your logic - it should be banned to to use western type acs in USSR till 1990
otherwise lack of spare parts cannot be arguement - basically they were much cheaper then western ones. but because of trade bans it was difficult to export them.
Maintenance costs need overhaul imho anyway. It would be nice if maintenance costs were directly or indirectly related to:
- Production volume (popular types - cheap, rare aircraft - more expensive to maintain)
- Existence of the manufacturer (still in business? -> cheaper)
- Whether the type is still in production or not
- How much time has passed since the production ended
- Manufacturer recommended flighthours before engine/body/whatever service or overhaul
But that's a topic for another lengthy discussion and (for the last point) a lot of work.
Quote from: MikeS on December 07, 2017, 11:33:22 AM
While Soviet designs were solid, they had bad support. Sourcing spare parts was much harder and engines were generally less reliable.
I am glad AWS doesn't punish us with low dispatch reliability rates but rather translates it into longer turn around times and higher staff and maintenance cost.
Always keep in mind, though, that AWS does punish Soviet types in that they are less desirable to passengers. So when competing on a route with a Western
type, all being equal, the Soviet airliner will sadly attract less passengers (which is/was true in real life as well).
Mike
There are several of that old soviet birds of the 70´s still flying, so maybe they are not so bad or so hard to maintain. Less desiderable than western ones? I'm not sure that passengers of eastern block had many options to choose.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 07, 2017, 04:10:49 PM
then if follow your logic - it should be banned to to use western type acs in USSR till 1990
otherwise lack of spare parts cannot be arguement - basically they were much cheaper then western ones. but because of trade bans it was difficult to export them.
IMO, yes, of course, in order to keep some realism it should be banned to use western planes in the eastern bloc until de 90s.
Quote from: Beni on December 07, 2017, 11:15:52 PM
There are several of that old soviet birds of the 70´s still flying, so maybe they are not so bad or so hard to maintain. Less desiderable than western ones? I'm not sure that passengers of eastern block had many options to choose.
This is how it is programmed in AWS, which is a bit annoying when trying to operate an all Soviet fleet.
I worked as a ramp agent back in the late 90s at Munich Airport. We regularly handled TU-134As from Pulkovo flying to St. Petersburg.
I loved those planes. The navigator position in the glazed nose was just plain cool 8)
The aircraft cabin looked extremely dated, however. They had old style curtains on the windows and open overhead bins. The seats looked very old too.
I would have loved to fly on one but I'd imagine the average German passenger who was used to flying 320s and 737s wasn't too keen.
And yes, they were loud!
Mike
Quote from: MikeS on December 08, 2017, 12:20:11 AM
This is how it is programmed in AWS, which is a bit annoying when trying to operate an all Soviet fleet.
I worked as a ramp agent back in the late 90s at Munich Airport. We regularly handled TU-134As from Pulkovo flying to St. Petersburg.
I loved those planes. The navigator position in the glazed nose was just plain cool 8)
The aircraft cabin looked extremely dated, however. They had old style curtains on the windows and open overhead bins. The seats looked very old too.
I would have loved to fly on one but I'd imagine the average German passenger who was used to flying 320s and 737s wasn't too keen.
And yes, they were loud!
Mike
I think that the "quality" of a plane has not to be measured according to how it has been maintained. I mean that when we saw soviet planes in western Europe during the 90s, what we saw was de decadence of the soviet economy with planes without the basic maintenance and even flying with failures. This fact is different from the original technical quality of the planes.
A different question is the aspect of the plane. Of course the eastern bloc countries had different standars of what could be considered "cool", but once again, this has no effect in the technical quality of the plane. Today we fly in planes full of people with no place for our legs, with no place for our arms and with the crew acting as if they were in Cairo´s street market. This can be (it is) uncomfortable but it does not mean that the plane is unsafe.
My original question was about the higher turnaroun time, the higher maintenance costs, the extremly higher fuel usage,... and this can not be explained without assuming that for any reason (unknown for me and hard to explain with realism) Sami has decided to seriously penalize the soviet planes in AWS.
Quote from: Beni on December 09, 2017, 12:01:28 PM
My original question was about the higher turnaroun time, the higher maintenance costs, the extremly higher fuel usage,... and this can not be explained without assuming that for any reason (unknown for me and hard to explain with realism) Sami has decided to seriously penalize the soviet planes in AWS.
If you dig a bit into google on the subject you will find some reference on the reliability issues. Eastern block airlines, being state operated rarely criticized their
own equipment, but after they started introducing western jets in the 90s the language became clearer. Engines were always a big issue.
This is on the PS90, powering the IL96 and TU204
"The engine has come in for severe criticism recently from Aeroflot general manager Yevgeniy Shaposhnikov, who says that in 1995 Aeroflot technicians replaced 31 faulty PS-90A engines on five Ilyushin Il-96-300 airliners.
Shaposhnikov says: "It is more profitable to give up altogether operating Russian-built aircraft, the Il-96-300 in particular, because all our profit is being spent not on renewing the fleet, not for raising efficiency of services, but for repairing engines."
And this one on the AN148:
"Rossiya claims that remedial work to fix the aircraft did not improve reliability. In the three-month period, the aircraft had removed one Ivchenko-Progress D-436-148 turbofan and two AI-450 APUs. The airline says the aircraft requires 3.8 times more man-hours of Class A maintenance than its 50 hour specified amount"
Both are sourced from Flighglobal.
The support system & network was a lot more efficient in the west. The situation improved a lot with the introduction of the Superjet as they made a big effort in improving the supply chain and worldwide support. And indeed this is also reflected in the game.
This should explain the higher maintenance cost and turn around time in AWS. As for fuel usage, I am sure a big effort was made finding the correct figures. But if you find any numbers are incorrect through a reliable source, you can file a bug report and have it checked.
Cheers!
Quote from: MikeS on December 09, 2017, 12:50:09 PM
If you dig a bit into google on the subject you will find some reference on the reliability issues. Eastern block airlines, being state operated rarely criticized their
own equipment, but after they started introducing western jets in the 90s the language became clearer. Engines were always a big issue.
This is on the PS90, powering the IL96 and TU204
"The engine has come in for severe criticism recently from Aeroflot general manager Yevgeniy Shaposhnikov, who says that in 1995 Aeroflot technicians replaced 31 faulty PS-90A engines on five Ilyushin Il-96-300 airliners.
Shaposhnikov says: "It is more profitable to give up altogether operating Russian-built aircraft, the Il-96-300 in particular, because all our profit is being spent not on renewing the fleet, not for raising efficiency of services, but for repairing engines."
And this one on the AN148:
"Rossiya claims that remedial work to fix the aircraft did not improve reliability. In the three-month period, the aircraft had removed one Ivchenko-Progress D-436-148 turbofan and two AI-450 APUs. The airline says the aircraft requires 3.8 times more man-hours of Class A maintenance than its 50 hour specified amount"
Both are sourced from Flighglobal.
The support system & network was a lot more efficient in the west. The situation improved a lot with the introduction of the Superjet as they made a big effort in improving the supply chain and worldwide support. And indeed this is also reflected in the game.
This should explain the higher maintenance cost and turn around time in AWS. As for fuel usage, I am sure a big effort was made finding the correct figures. But if you find any numbers are incorrect through a reliable source, you can file a bug report and have it checked.
Cheers!
I know that entering politics could be riskly, but this three images resume what Russia became after the fall of USSR.
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2Fimage%2F2530750-3x2-940x627.jpg&hash=922f43b0cdf730a34f2c197dbff1630f02b1b723)(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2009%2F09%2F21%2Farticle-1215101-00F2054400000191-185_468x286.jpg&hash=7affc314183de5a1a7bb0fd79db9e5902575107d)(https://i.redditmedia.com/oIIZvFAlYWpWkfqywUmcioxvyz1ewBFhFJ8ScF_wKl0.jpg?w=993&s=38a2d6a63e10e0134d2582886ddba753)
I´m sorry but IMO no "official" source of that time can be credible with respect to the defense of Russian interests or the Russian industry. Yeltsin was a puppet working for the USA and the american industry interest and he did no effort to modernize or to improve the russian aeronautical industry.
It`s all politics. ;)
I'm not even going to bother to respond to the Yeltsin stuff - but even if it were true, how exactly does that that affect the poor design, build, and maintenance of aircraft engines?
The answer to your question was in the first reply - the original IL-62 did not have cargo bay rollers. Any luggage or cargo was manually loaded/unloaded. While this was changed for the IL-62Ms they would need to become their own fleet to not include the turn penalty which would be a bigger nerf than just keeping them as is.
The IL-62 is also significantly bigger than a VC-10 which is probably also contributing
Quote from: dx87 on December 09, 2017, 11:43:07 PM
I'm not even going to bother to respond to the Yeltsin stuff - but even if it were true, how exactly does that that affect the poor design, build, and maintenance of aircraft engines?
The answer to your question was in the first reply - the original IL-62 did not have cargo bay rollers. Any luggage or cargo was manually loaded/unloaded. While this was changed for the IL-62Ms they would need to become their own fleet to not include the turn penalty which would be a bigger nerf than just keeping them as is.
The IL-62 is also significantly bigger than a VC-10 which is probably also contributing
Then the VC10 should be recategorized to a large aircraft.
Keep in mind that turn times are designed to be relevant to both the time period and typical mission flown for a particular jet. If you compare the IL62 to a 737NG, there's a bit of a difference in time, but no so much in passengers. However, the IL62 is used on long haul routes instead of short haul, where the times can certainly vary...
Quote from: Zobelle on December 10, 2017, 01:20:04 AM
Then the VC10 should be recategorized to a large aircraft.
It was recently reclassified as a very large. The goal of the change (which this also caused the BAC 111 to go from medium to large) was to make it such that the size classes are relevant to that
particular era and not relevant to different time periods. In its time, the VC10 and IL62 are significantly larger than other planes, thus they're now classified as such.
If you extend the logic of making it smaller, then the 707 and DC8 should also go to large class as they have the passenger capacity of a 320/737NG.
I can agree with that change.
The VL shouldn't actually be until Widebodies came
What would be more even more interesting would be a dynamic change in class.
While the 707 and DC-8 are actually very large by the time of their introduction, at the end of the 70s they are not anymore. Same for the BAC when its in front of the 737 Classic rather than Jurassic.
And this is also interesting from a gameplay point of view, as an old plane get a slight help towards the end of its life: while the advantage is not enormous (thus nobody will choose it for that reason), it gives a slight edge to those planes that sits astride both categories when they're becoming old.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 10, 2017, 10:41:13 AM
What would be more even more interesting would be a dynamic change in class.
While the 707 and DC-8 are actually very large by the time of their introduction, at the end of the 70s they are not anymore. Same for the BAC when its in front of the 737 Classic rather than Jurassic.
And this is also interesting from a gameplay point of view, as an old plane get a slight help towards the end of its life: while the advantage is not enormous (thus nobody will choose it for that reason), it gives a slight edge to those planes that sits astride both categories when they're becoming old.
Well yes, if airports can move up and down in their scale of traffic when why not aircraft?
Quote from: dx87 on December 09, 2017, 11:43:07 PM
I'm not even going to bother to respond to the Yeltsin stuff - but even if it were true, how exactly does that that affect the poor design, build, and maintenance of aircraft engines?
The answer to your question was in the first reply - the original IL-62 did not have cargo bay rollers. Any luggage or cargo was manually loaded/unloaded. While this was changed for the IL-62Ms they would need to become their own fleet to not include the turn penalty which would be a bigger nerf than just keeping them as is.
The IL-62 is also significantly bigger than a VC-10 which is probably also contributing
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=250 (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=250)
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=392 (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=392)
¿Significant bigger? Both were quite similar.
The reality is that soviet planes were not bad designed but after the fall of the USSR they were badly maintained. 250 Il-62 were built and some of them are still flying vs. 52 VC-10 flying half time.
Il-62M has the same turnaround time in ASW that Il-62, so maybe such "technical explanation" is not the real reason.
Quote from: Beni on December 10, 2017, 08:57:02 PM
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=250 (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=250)
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=392 (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=392)
¿Significant bigger? Both were quite similar.
The reality is that soviet planes were not bad designed but after the fall of the USSR they were badly maintained. 250 Il-62 were built and some of them are still flying vs. 52 VC-10 flying half time.
Il-62M has the same turnaround time in ASW that Il-62, so maybe such "technical explanation" is not the real reason.
For the third time, the most likely explanation is the lack of cargo rollers. If you want the Il-62 and IL-62M to be in separate fleet groups so that the 62M gets a faster turn time you should petition Sami. You might want to be careful of what you wish for.
The Il-62 has larger dimensions, carries more passengers, and has a higher MTOW than the VC-10. In game that results in slightly higher min turn times. As an example, see the 767-A320/330-777 turn progression. They're all VLA and have increasingly higher turns.
Quote from: dx87 on December 10, 2017, 11:49:27 PM
For the third time, the most likely explanation is the lack of cargo rollers. If you want the Il-62 and IL-62M to be in separate fleet groups so that the 62M gets a faster turn time you should petition Sami. You might want to be careful of what you wish for.
For the third time I can´t accept this possible explanation because if it were true, there should be significant less turnaround time in Il-62M and there is no difference. I'm still waiting for a credible explanation.
Quote from: dx87 on December 10, 2017, 11:49:27 PM
The Il-62 has larger dimensions, carries more passengers, and has a higher MTOW than the VC-10. In game that results in slightly higher min turn times. As an example, see the 767-A320/330-777 turn progression. They're all VLA and have increasingly higher turns.
15% more MTOW, 15% more passengers and 80% more turnaround time. I'm afraid once again that this is not the "technical" reason.
Lets compare now 727-200 and Tu-154. They are very similar planes in MTOW and passengers so, according with your theory, they should have similar turnaround time, but once again the Tu-154 has 25% more.
It is clear that the programmers have decided to punish the use of Soviet aircrafts and also Russian ones (in advanced stages), and it is also clear that the decision is not based on technical issues but is a deliberate fact. What I ask for is a credible explanation on why they have decided to do this. I would like to play a game where differences between planes are due only to technical reasons and not to other type of reasons.
** If you dont like what I propose to discuss, it is easy. Forget my post.**
Quote from: Beni on December 11, 2017, 07:10:01 PM
For the third time I can´t accept this possible explanation because if it were true, there should be significant less turnaround time in Il-62M and there is no difference. I'm still waiting for a credible explanation.
Don't want to interfere too much, as I don't know the technical facts. But in the game, a fleet group almost always gets his settings from the worth plane of the family.
Hence, if the -62 haven't any cargo rollers and the 62M does, no matter what, the TaT will be the one of the -62.
Another example: in future GWs, the conversion of the Super Sixties to Super Seventies will be possible: while IRL the CFM-56 gave quite a nicer speed to the 71-72-73 than previous engines, in AWS they will still have the same speed as the 62 etc, or even as the DC-8-10, as they are all part of the same fleet group.
Yeah, strange, the DC-8-10 was introduced in 59 and the Super Seventies in the 80s, they obviously have quite a lot of difference, but that's how it's organized.
Beni, the only "directed" punishment of Eastern Block aircraft is a) slightly lower desirability from pax perspective and b) higher maintenance costs. Other things are usually caused by lack of reliable sources (and data from manufacturer's website is not really a reliable source - it's both biased and incomplete). If you manage to find a decent source and take time to present this information to Sami, he will implement it ASAP.
As an example, I've researched Yak-40, Il-62M, Il-18, Tu-114, Tu-104 and Il-14P/M. In all cases Sami approved changes (sometimes, however, results were somewhat different because of implementation). I took all data from scanned flight manuals for crews. In case you speak at least some Russian you could help by digging through these docs: http://aviadocs.net/RLE/ -> this is just one webpage of aviation fans in Russia, there are dozens more with documentation of probably every Soviet and Russian aircraft.
Some of them are over 1000 pages long. It is a lot of work to extract proper data and interpret it properly.
Edit: As an example, book 1 of Il-86's documentation is 700 pages long: http://aviadocs.net/RLE/IL-86/CD1/RLYE/IL-86_RLYE_kn1_bl1.pdf
Quote from: chiveicrook on December 12, 2017, 05:48:28 PM
Beni, the only "directed" punishment of Eastern Block aircraft is a) slightly lower desirability from pax perspective and b) higher maintenance costs. Other things are usually caused by lack of reliable sources (and data from manufacturer's website is not really a reliable source - it's both biased and incomplete). If you manage to find a decent source and take time to present this information to Sami, he will implement it ASAP.
Ok, and why are theese "only directed" punishment? I think this is the core of this matter. If I use a Il-18 equiped with the same level of seats as an equivalent western plane, why the system makes Il-18 less attractive than its western counterpart? It is real that eastern bloc airlines equiped their planes with less luxury than western ones, but this can be understood in terms of politics. Nevertheless, AWS is a game that should be apart of political thougts and assume that similar level of seats mean similar planes. Other thing is the maintenance cost; why are they higher? Are they higher only because during the 90s a number of collapsep national airlines flew their planes without the properly mainenance and had numerous incidents? Because if you talk about reliable sources, I can't find no one to explain (once again without politics) why they should be more expensive than similar western planes. Finally, I agree with you that sometimes the info from the manufacturers is not the best one, but I suppose that this is the same with the info from Boeing or Airbus and not only with russian fonts.
Quote from: chiveicrook on December 12, 2017, 05:48:28 PM
As an example, I've researched Yak-40, Il-62M, Il-18, Tu-114, Tu-104 and Il-14P/M. In all cases Sami approved changes (sometimes, however, results were somewhat different because of implementation). I took all data from scanned flight manuals for crews. In case you speak at least some Russian you could help by digging through these docs: http://aviadocs.net/RLE/ -> this is just one webpage of aviation fans in Russia, there are dozens more with documentation of probably every Soviet and Russian aircraft.
Some of them are over 1000 pages long. It is a lot of work to extract proper data and interpret it properly.
Edit: As an example, book 1 of Il-86's documentation is 700 pages long: http://aviadocs.net/RLE/IL-86/CD1/RLYE/IL-86_RLYE_kn1_bl1.pdf
Thank you very much for your info. Unfortunately my level of russian language is very very basic, but I will try to use your links to get some data. Thank you again.
Well, Soviet aircraft are really cheap to buy in this game. You cannot expect them to be cheap, easy to maintain and popular at the same time. In that case no one would buy Boeings anymore and that sure wouldn't be realistic.
I have used Soviet aircraft a lot in this game and they have been very profitable during certain stages. It's all about the right aircraft for the right time and task.
If AWS were more "political", then these birds would've been banned for use in many western countries as they didn't have the appropriate air worthiness certificate.
Mike
Quote from: MikeS on December 13, 2017, 10:17:17 PMIt's all about the right aircraft for the right time and task.
Exactly this. Once you understand their strengths(so cheap to lease/buy) and weaknesses(they don't last long), you can build up proper strategies for growing your company with them. Just don't hope to buy 800 IL-96 and fly them for 24 years as you'd do for a B777 playing in LHR. That's not the proper way to use those birds.