Sign In
Create Account
I don't mean to do disservice to the great work britabroad did to get all these new planes for the 1960s game, but the Tu 114 figures seem absurd to say the least. Compared to an A321-200, it has less power, heavier engines, far greater range, same PAX payload, but is FASTER in flight and burns 40% less fuel. While not having researched this aircraft beforehand I could be wrong and this could be a great aircraft, the figures seem to far fetched.
That's not to say I don't love all the new varieties of planes, but this plane looks on the face of it's figures immensely out of place for the sixties.
Back to top
#2
Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:35 PM
BritAbroad
-
- Data Manager
-
- 1,677 posts
Moderator and Data Collector
The Tu-114 was taken from sourced data. I can't speak for the A321 which was in game before I had my current position.
I know that a significant number of aircraft in game are using incorrect data (particularly knots instead of mph - hence why the A321 is slower in game)
I plan to go through everything and fix it all when I find the time.
Naturally, I do encourage all members to do their research and all sourced data will be considered in correcting existing aircraft (including the Tu114).
I know that a significant number of aircraft in game are using incorrect data (particularly knots instead of mph - hence why the A321 is slower in game)
I plan to go through everything and fix it all when I find the time.
Naturally, I do encourage all members to do their research and all sourced data will be considered in correcting existing aircraft (including the Tu114).
#3
Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:57 PM
kievthegreat
-
- Member
-
- 11 posts
AE Addict To-Be
I don't know particularly what you would classify as a source, but using these found by googling:
http://www.airliners...tats.main?id=24
http://www.flugzeugi...ata_a321_en.php
It would suggest the cruise speed should be ~514mph. Do you subtract for climb and approach?
I also don't know what your units for fuel flow and these sites don't have any numbers anyhow. Do you calculate it from the other figures which seem easier to come by or do you have better sources?
If you want help I'm more than willing to help collect or sort data as it would appear from your reply that there are disparities between your figures (which on research seem reasonable for speed at least, didn't check other parameters) and those entries like the A321 which you didn't do.
http://www.airliners...tats.main?id=24
http://www.flugzeugi...ata_a321_en.php
It would suggest the cruise speed should be ~514mph. Do you subtract for climb and approach?
I also don't know what your units for fuel flow and these sites don't have any numbers anyhow. Do you calculate it from the other figures which seem easier to come by or do you have better sources?
If you want help I'm more than willing to help collect or sort data as it would appear from your reply that there are disparities between your figures (which on research seem reasonable for speed at least, didn't check other parameters) and those entries like the A321 which you didn't do.
#4
Guest_BigRosstheBoss_*
Posted 19 December 2011 - 11:33 PM
Guest_BigRosstheBoss_*
Guest_BigRosstheBoss_*
-
- Guests
I don't mean to do disservice to the great work britabroad did to get all these new planes for the 1960s game, but the Tu 114 figures seem absurd to say the least. Compared to an A321-200, it has less power, heavier engines, far greater range, same PAX payload, but is FASTER in flight and burns 40% less fuel. While not having researched this aircraft beforehand I could be wrong and this could be a great aircraft, the figures seem to far fetched.
That's not to say I don't love all the new varieties of planes, but this plane looks on the face of it's figures immensely out of place for the sixties.
You are comparing two different planes. the TU 114 was designed for LH services.... Moscow-Cuba types... not the SH/MH the A321 does. It has the most powerfull turboprops ever made..... so its fast and burns less fuel.
#5
Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:30 AM
kievthegreat
-
- Member
-
- 11 posts
AE Addict To-Be
You are comparing two different planes. the TU 114 was designed for LH services.... Moscow-Cuba types... not the SH/MH the A321 does. It has the most powerfull turboprops ever made..... so its fast and burns less fuel.
I did let myself down by not originally knowing and assuming the tu-114 was an early jet, but it shouldn't be faster than a A321.
Although having looked into it and being intrigued it's failing was quite obvious, but not demonstrable in the game. It apparently had cabin noise levels of over 100 dB due to contra-rotating propellers and transonic propeller blades. However in game it's not got this drawback and is outrageously popular considering only 32 were made in real life and the 1960 start has over a thousand of them. Noise isn't really something that can be factored in to the game though at least at the moment.
#6
Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:02 AM
The fuel flow calculations are this:
Thrust x Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption x Engines.
This is inaccurate at best and ridiculous at worst.
The A330-200 burns more than the -300 and the 767-200ER burns more than the -300ER.
This formula essentially discounts anything other than the engines.
This also gives earlier turboprops a large advantage, even though 8 of them may have been made in real life.
Therefore, to prevent these, a 'major failings' category could be added to the offending aircraft.
This could decrease passenger load by a reasonable margin...
That was a lot of lines starting with 'T'.
Thanks for reading.
That was unnecessary, but I just had to start another line with 'T'...
Thanks.
Thrust x Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption x Engines.
This is inaccurate at best and ridiculous at worst.
The A330-200 burns more than the -300 and the 767-200ER burns more than the -300ER.
This formula essentially discounts anything other than the engines.
This also gives earlier turboprops a large advantage, even though 8 of them may have been made in real life.
Therefore, to prevent these, a 'major failings' category could be added to the offending aircraft.
This could decrease passenger load by a reasonable margin...
That was a lot of lines starting with 'T'.
Thanks for reading.
That was unnecessary, but I just had to start another line with 'T'...
Thanks.
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#7
Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:46 AM
zeroinfiniti
-
- Member
- 1 posts
New Member
The Tupolev Tu-114 is strangely efficient aircraft. Aeroflot had a significant lead on the worlds airlines with their russian manufactured Turbo Prop aircraft at the time.
The values for this particular aircraft are fairly accurate in AE, the same cannot be said for most of the Boeing 747's in the game. Qantas used 747-300's for years on particular routes but when I try and implement said routes in AE I get a shock with their weight restriction. What's up with that?!? The range on most of the of the 747's in the game is completely off.
Needs to be addressed.
The values for this particular aircraft are fairly accurate in AE, the same cannot be said for most of the Boeing 747's in the game. Qantas used 747-300's for years on particular routes but when I try and implement said routes in AE I get a shock with their weight restriction. What's up with that?!? The range on most of the of the 747's in the game is completely off.
Needs to be addressed.
#8
Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:43 AM
Well, how heavy is the weight restriction?
If the restriction only takes away 100 or 200 passengers, there's a reasonable chance that QF operated the route with the weight restriction, especially as they operate a lower density config.
If you operate it with 10F/20C/505Y like most people, don't be surprised if you get hit with a weight restriction. If you use a config identical to QF's, however, then there may be some merit in your point.
If the restriction only takes away 100 or 200 passengers, there's a reasonable chance that QF operated the route with the weight restriction, especially as they operate a lower density config.
If you operate it with 10F/20C/505Y like most people, don't be surprised if you get hit with a weight restriction. If you use a config identical to QF's, however, then there may be some merit in your point.
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#9
Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:49 PM
BritAbroad
-
- Data Manager
-
- 1,677 posts
Moderator and Data Collector
I don't know particularly what you would classify as a source, but using these found by googling:
http://www.airliners...tats.main?id=24
http://www.flugzeugi...ata_a321_en.php
It would suggest the cruise speed should be ~514mph. Do you subtract for climb and approach?
I also don't know what your units for fuel flow and these sites don't have any numbers anyhow. Do you calculate it from the other figures which seem easier to come by or do you have better sources?
If you want help I'm more than willing to help collect or sort data as it would appear from your reply that there are disparities between your figures (which on research seem reasonable for speed at least, didn't check other parameters) and those entries like the A321 which you didn't do.
As I said, a review is coming soon.
I will be checking all information in game and correcting all errors as soon as a decent system is put in place (I am about to implement one) and data starts coming in.
If you are interested in data collection, keep an eye on the forums - I may need some new people on my team to help with that review!
I did let myself down by not originally knowing and assuming the tu-114 was an early jet, but it shouldn't be faster than a A321.
Although having looked into it and being intrigued it's failing was quite obvious, but not demonstrable in the game. It apparently had cabin noise levels of over 100 dB due to contra-rotating propellers and transonic propeller blades. However in game it's not got this drawback and is outrageously popular considering only 32 were made in real life and the 1960 start has over a thousand of them. Noise isn't really something that can be factored in to the game though at least at the moment.
I'm all for this, but the AE background is fairly simplistic. There is room for improvement, and I am all in favour of your suggestion.
For the record though, some very efficient and "good" long range props (Britannia, Tu114) would probably have lasted longer, had there not been a sense of national prestige riding on flying jets only internationally. Again, another factor that is not included, but probably ought to be.
The Tupolev Tu-114 is strangely efficient aircraft. Aeroflot had a significant lead on the worlds airlines with their russian manufactured Turbo Prop aircraft at the time.
The values for this particular aircraft are fairly accurate in AE, the same cannot be said for most of the Boeing 747's in the game. Qantas used 747-300's for years on particular routes but when I try and implement said routes in AE I get a shock with their weight restriction. What's up with that?!? The range on most of the of the 747's in the game is completely off.
Needs to be addressed.
As Sheepy quite rightly says, lower seating means aircraft travel further.
However, I do plan an aircraft review soon, so errors ought to be picked up on.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
