New long range aircraft

Seems like we have another totally unrealistic long range aircraft to complement the 737-900 already in the books.

Enter the C Series 100 and 300...

Wonder why no real world airlines have picked up that idea...

Except for airlines such as Norwegian and WOWair doing transatlantic flights with 737max and Airbus aircraft?

I understand your point; though sometimes the bigger aircraft are more difficult to fill and the smaller types with long range are the profitable alternative. Also, in AS frequency > capacity.

I wonder why it catches your attention right now, after two years the CS100 has been in AS.

Bombardier has stated though that it can operate short transatlantic routes, so I don't see the problem of too much range ingame here.

There is a problem (in my personal opinion). The ranges stated are the real ranges, although what is wrong in the game, is the actual flight distance. AS calculates with the great circle distance, whereas in real life, you have to fly certain via certain way points, have the departure and arrival procedures, wind (i.e. jet streams) and other weather influences, reserves, aging aircraft that get heavier/less powerful, heavy cabins with IFE, extra crew, double crews, etc. etc.

All these factors lead to much shorter real life ranges that what the published ranges by the OEMs are. Therefore airlines can't use a 737 to cross the Atlantic as everybody does here in the game.

So why no correction of the great circle distances in AS, using a calculation factor for correction, from tomorrow on… :wink:

Because there is no hard and fast rule. Some routes may only be 2% off great circle, and others 40%...

In reality i don't know any flight longer than 6000km with a320. Ingame you can easily do 7500km economically with an airbus a320 neo heavy. That's really unrealistic and needs to be changed in my opionion. Just scratch 10-15% of each planes max range for factors like fuel reserve or safety reasons.

Some of the tank configurations are incorrect in AS. This leads to unrealistic ranges.

For example: I just ran a flight from IST to JFK using the A320neo Heavy in the performance check tool. Fuel burn is 29,340 l. The maximum tank capacity of the A320neo is around 23 700 l. This figure is straight from an A320neo FCOM. This route is almost 800 km shy of the in-game limit of 8843 km.

As stated above, a narrow-body would normally need somewhere between 2 and 3 tons of fuel on arrival for alternate and final reserve fuel.

Because AS is unable to simulate the real fuel burn in a way that happens in real life (different cruising altitudes, approaches, fuel burn to carry fuel, etc.) and in order to have reasonable fuel burn levels (shorter trip burns less fuel per ASK as longer trip because of not burning fuel to carry fuel) etc. there are some values that had to be slightly adjusted in AS in order for the overall performance output be at least somewhat logical. It is my understanding the new fuel performance system which had been in development for many years by an outside third party is currently on hold. This is as good as it can get for now.

Isn't it possible to limit the amount of fuel an aircraft is able to carry? 

Having just had a look at the airport planning manual, A320-neo has an optional version for 29,659 liters fuel capacity, so I would say it's OK as it is.

...

For example: I just ran a flight from IST to JFK using the A320neo Heavy in the performance check tool. Fuel burn is 29,340 l. The maximum tank capacity of the A320neo is around 23 700 l. This figure is straight from an A320neo FCOM. ..

I only hope you don't use the FCOM as a professional.

Anyone remember the Gimli Glider?

I think the issue is that because the AS system does not calculate real life issues such as reserves, diversion fuel, airways, and routings, aircraft have a useful range greater than what they do in real life. The problem is HOW do you calculate these random, changes day to day, accurately?

I think the issue is that because the AS system does not calculate real life issues such as reserves, diversion fuel, airways, and routings, aircraft have a useful range greater than what they do in real life. The problem is HOW do you calculate these random, changes day to day, accurately?

I don’t think these changes are very random. And even then, you could use seasonal averages or do it as airlines, use a percentage (let’s say 95% of the year is possible) that enables a given route during a “normal” year. Include a mix in your fleet to stay within that 95%, then your actual range will shrink quite a bit and it’ll be much more realistic.

Will it make the game more difficult? I would believe so. Do we want that? Probably the die hard addicts do, the average player maybe not, the new user might give up even faster.

No, I agree, on a specific route with a certain then changes are less random, but creating a rule for every aircraft on every route in the world...slightly harder

The FCOM states the amount of fuel the tanks can hold in KG, LBS, US gallons and liters. DSC-28-10-20. It holds 18600 kg of fuel at a standard density of 0.785 kg/l which is 23700 liters. I know how to use the FCOM and conversions ;)

 

If you use it professionally you might consider having a look at it again yourself.

I’m glad I don’t have to, obviousely. Airbus piloting never was my biggest wish;)

I just had the rough number for the 2ACT fuel cap for the 320 family in mind which matched roughly the numbers you stated - in kg, not liters.

Didn’t consider you were probably looking at a manual for a basic 32N.

Funny:)

Isn't it possible to limit the amount of fuel an aircraft is able to carry?

In AS, fuel capacity determines consumption over a given distance, but it's not a factor for calculating range.

There are ways to shorten ranges in AS, but their outcome might not necessarily be more realistic.

Anyways, this discussion should only be limited to new servers. Applying such changes to existing worlds would wreck havoc.

I wonder why it catches your attention right now, after two years the CS100 has been in AS.

Bombardier has stated though that it can operate short transatlantic routes, so I don't see the problem of too much range ingame here.

I noticed one guy on Hoover running multiple JFK-AMS rotations with a CS100...

It is a remarkable aircraft, no argument there. But I believe it is a thin route aircraft that has at best transcon ability. Using it on something like JFK-AMS is totally unrealistic.

Combining this unrealistic range with the (another unrealistic) fact that AS passengers are actually willing to pay extra for better seats leads to this equation where it makes more sense to run intercontinental flights with commuter jets.

I noticed one guy on Hoover running multiple JFK-AMS rotations with a CS100...

It is a remarkable aircraft, no argument there. But I believe it is a thin route aircraft that has at best transcon ability. Using it on something like JFK-AMS is totally unrealistic.

Combining this unrealistic range with the (another unrealistic) fact that AS passengers are actually willing to pay extra for better seats leads to this equation where it makes more sense to run intercontinental flights with commuter jets.

Still this does not seem to be the most efficient way for long range flights, if you look at several airlines on Hoover that already have 100+ widebodys flying long range only.

A range of more than 8000km with an A319 can only be reached by using several ACT's in the cargo compartments which then is not applied in this game if you look at all A319/20/21 have the same cargo space here. 

As long as this is only a game I suggest everyone should play it in his style, whether if its realistic or totally unrealistic just to be successful. 

*ok, lets say close to 100 widebodys ;)