Jump to content

Photo

Aircraft Thrust


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1
Nat.

Nat.

    Mile High Club member

  • Member
  • 40 posts

When judging the speed of an aircraft is it better to look at thrust or its max speed?
 

I'm trying to figure out which aircraft is better in this comparison. And in terms of speed, I want to say it's the DC-7. However, the Stratocruiser does have higher thrust. 

 

Long story short, I'm confused. Which one do you think is better for coast-to-coast?

 

 

Boeing 377 Stratocruiser 

14lil5f.jpg

 

Douglas DC-7

243hht0.jpg

 

 

 

Thanks in advance! 



#2
ffxxmz

ffxxmz

    Air Galicia's CEO and future pilot

  • Member
  • 254 posts
I think it's just technical data

RmzvjWC.jpg


#3
PiggyWhiskey

PiggyWhiskey

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 80 posts

http://www.airline-e...low-calculated/

 

AE does this calculation:
(Total Fuel Flow) = (Engine Thrust) * [TSFC] * (Number of Engines)
which is:
(Total Fuel Flow) = (Engine Thrust) * [(Fuel Flow) / (Engine Thrust)] * (Number of Engines)
which cancels down:
(Total Fuel Flow) = (Fuel Flow) * (Number of Engines)
which suffices as an approximation for now


And that is pounds per hour, in answer to a question above. 

 

 

I usually rate possible planes using this formula:
MAX SEATS * ENGINE SPEED / FUEL FLOW
Higher is Better
For 1956 this is the list of AC in order
 
 
Name - MaxSeats - AdjustedPayloadRange - Rating
Vickers Viscount 700D - 63 - 1268 - 8.12
Douglas DC-7C - 100 - 3660 - 7.16
Convair CV-440 - 52 - 1254 - 6.24
Douglas DC-7B - 100 - 3192 - 5.98
Douglas DC-7 - 100 - 2880 - 5.98
Douglas DC-6 - 86 - 2542 - 5.96
Lockheed L-1649 Starliner - 106 - 4710 - 5.53
Convair CV-340 - 44 - 1164 - 4.93
Convair CV-240 - 40 - 1170 - 4.5
Beechcraft Bonanza - 5 - 643 - 3.82
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser - 100 - 2794 - 3.32
Bristol 170 Mk32 - 60 - 1105 - 3.27
Ilyushin Il-14M - 36 - 1293 - 2.01
Antonov An-2 - 12 - 341 - 1.7
Ilyushin Il-14P - 26 - 1293 - 1.41
Tupolev Tu-104 - 100 - 1069 - 1.25
De Havilland DH 114 Heron - 17 - 1151 - 0.46
 
 

The DC-7 has more speed, range and better fuel efficiency.

All combine to lower costs.

The Stratocruiser also stops being sold earlier, so you'll need to jump to a different plane, possibly a different Family, which drives up Monthly Maintenance costs.



#4
Nat.

Nat.

    Mile High Club member

  • Member
  • 40 posts

Ahh okay. 

 

I'm definitely going to use your formula and reevaluate my fleet. I was just looking at Speed + Seats + Fuel Eff. + Lease to make my decision. Probably not the smartest way. 

 

Thank you for the detailed answer and formula... I feel like I have a cheat sheet now! 



#5
v35n

v35n

    Hi

  • Member
  • 224 posts

User's Awards

           
I usually go with fuel efficiency. I don’t really bother about the thrust or the speed though as I don’t see the purpose. If I’m wrong can someone correct me? Thank you and hopefully I can change my strategy

#6
pinq

pinq

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 47 posts

True. Speed doesn't really matter unless you have two planes of comparable role and fuel flow and one of them is significantly faster than the other. But still I'd probably get both to boost my expansion.



#7
Quintus_Istari

Quintus_Istari

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 18 posts

User's Awards

     

in very basic terms and using basic math, considering the distance between LAX and JFK, and the total number of potential pax in the route (per week) and the announced fuel flow.

 

The Stratocruiser would take 1782 hours to transport all the pax, consuming 16 million pounds of fuel

Although it carries the same number of pax, the DC-7 would take 1503 hours because it is faster, consuming 9 million pounds of fuel.

 

Out of curiosity, the DC-6 would need 2002 hours, and would consume roughly the same fuel the DC-7 does.

 

Even more curious, the 737-MAX-7, needs 683 hours, and would consume 9.6 million pounds of fuel.

 

Better yet, we should wait for the CL-44 Yukon, which with 5.7 million pounds of fuel spent on the route, is unbeatable.

 

 

So: If the speed does not count, we should order a gazillion DC-7's , use them on all routes under 3000 miles and keep replacing the older ones.



#8
PiggyWhiskey

PiggyWhiskey

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 80 posts

in very basic terms and using basic math, considering the distance between LAX and JFK, and the total number of potential pax in the route (per week) and the announced fuel flow.

 

The Stratocruiser would take 1782 hours to transport all the pax, consuming 16 million pounds of fuel

Although it carries the same number of pax, the DC-7 would take 1503 hours because it is faster, consuming 9 million pounds of fuel.

 

Out of curiosity, the DC-6 would need 2002 hours, and would consume roughly the same fuel the DC-7 does.

 

Even more curious, the 737-MAX-7, needs 683 hours, and would consume 9.6 million pounds of fuel.

 

Better yet, we should wait for the CL-44 Yukon, which with 5.7 million pounds of fuel spent on the route, is unbeatable.

 

 

So: If the speed does not count, we should order a gazillion DC-7's , use them on all routes under 3000 miles and keep replacing the older ones.

 

You can't use Route Demand to work out the most efficient plane. It fluctuates throughout the ingame year and throughout time.

 

But for your comparison...

Per Flight $Fuel:

1. DC-6 (18,997) 

2. DC-7 (22,036)

3. CL-44 (23,699)

4. 737-MAX-7 (35,055)

5. 377 Stratocruiser (39,613)

 

Per PAX $Fuel: 

1. CL-44 (141)

2. DC-7 (220)

3. DC-6 (221)

4. 737-MAX-7 (235)

5. 377 Stratocruiser (396)

 

You can't compare the 737-MAX-7 to the DC-6, DC-7, 377, CL-44. It's from a totally different time.

You're comparing antiques to modern production.

 

And the CL-44 is known to be the most efficient, enough that it's considered bugged.

However no-one should wait until the CL-44 comes out to get the most efficient plane.

I mean R0 started in 1950. You're telling someone to wait 11 in-game years (33 IRL days) just to start playing the game.



#9
Quintus_Istari

Quintus_Istari

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 18 posts

User's Awards

     

Well, we have to know how many persons are going to be transported from point A to point B, and the question was about the most adequate plane to fly coast-to-coast, assuming we are talking about the US. So, in route X-Y we really have to use the available data at the time of the comparison.

 

Although the demand is variable, the truth is, it's the only thing we can use, and all things being equal, we need to establish a logical point of comparison.

 

One of the things that is most important in the decision about which plane to use is fuel consumption, as sometimes fuel represents 80% or even more of the whole operational costs.

 

Therefore, I atempt to calculate as accuratelly as possible, how much would a plane spend in fuel terms. The fuel flow is important, but the number of passangers and speed affect the calculation.

 

So, I calculated how long would the plane need to be flying (and consuming fuel) in order to complete a certain task (transport an X number of passengers).

I concluded that there are old planes that although flying much slower, have such a low fuel consumption rate, that they still would be more fuel efficient than far more modern planes.

 

I should know a 737 of the NEO series is from a different generation from the CL-44 Yukon,  :D  my point is, that the faster speed and confort of the 737-NEO are not apparently taken in consideration (at least as IMO they should).

 

It seems to be a distortion of the game.

You have people happily flying DC-8-40's and 707-420's, when noise regulations would have banned them. You have hundreds and sometimes thousands of Tupolev Tu-114, when we know that the plane was literally painfully noisy to travel in.

 

The situation is such, that even a 20 year old Yukon, can be used if competition and ticket prices plumet, and if you have ordered some hundreds for delivery during 20 years, far long after the plant actually have closed, you can still use brand new planes, although from an oder generation.

 

I agree that there are some planes that have characteristics that are inconsistent with realty, the CL-44 being one of them, the Tu-114 another and the IL-18D probably. (russian aircraft fans are going to have a stroke)

 

 

And I was joking about waiting for the CL-44 Yukon, of course … :P



#10
Nat.

Nat.

    Mile High Club member

  • Member
  • 40 posts

Yeah I wasn't clear enough, I apologize for that. But I meant coast-to-coast in the United States. Any route would do such as LGA to LAX would be a good example. 

 

The 707-120's just started accepting pre-orders in my world. Plan is to hold off a couple more years for the Vickers Vanguard and CL-44. (Might actually buy the 44's)

 

I know this might just be a game but it inspired me to start making a spreadsheet rating each aircraft throughout the decades. Is there any other good formulas or ways to judge an aircraft? 

 

 

Attached Files



#11
Quintus_Istari

Quintus_Istari

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 18 posts

User's Awards

     

Well, I am playing this for some time, altough with a different account. (I changed computer and lost passwords :S ) and some weeks ago found my spreadsheet and gave it a try, by returning to AE. I have since added more planes (I think they are all in) and am now entering the helicopters.

 

I have a number of dropdown menus, in order to facilitate things. Since it is a spreadsheet, all figures are in the same columns, in case one wants to make calculations.

I even added an option in one or two markets, to have a cell turn red when planes cant be used in an airport.

 

Believe me, I have ordered planes sometimes, to understand later  that only two airports in the country could receive then ... :lol:

So. I would advise to take in consideration also the runway length, should that be a possible issue to you.

 

 

 

I have an airline in that world to, and probably will be ordering the 707-120, but only in very small numbers. I don't think it can cope with the Bristol Britannia's fuel consumption, although, going back to the KJFK-KLAX example, the B707-120 actually does quite well when compared with other jets.

 

As follows:

 

B707-120 = 18 776 lb

B707-220 = 27 690 lb

B707-320B = 15 931 lb (JT3D-1 engine)

B707-320B = 17 741 lb (JT3D-7 engine)

B707-320C = 15 873 lb

 

The first DC-8's

 

DC-8-10 = 19 418 lb

DC-8-20 = 27 217 lb

 

The Bristol Britannia = 10 162 lb

 

The problem, from an airline customer point of view, would be that the Britannia takes 1177 hours to transport all those people, while the fastest jet would be the B707-320C would do the same job in just 516 hours (including rotation time).

 

And the issue of confort and speed preference just is not apparently considered.

 

Important in this issue: The Britannia can use 5.500 ft runways the B707-120 uses 6.200ft and the others go from 7.100 to 9.550.

 

If one has potential 4000 mile routes connecting one airport with less than 6000 ft, rwy, then the big jets are useless.

 

The only competitors would be the CL-44 Yukon, the B747-400D (1990), B737-700ER(2006), B777-200 (1994), A319-100LR (2002) and A350-800 (2016).

 

30 years of peace.

Unless the darn competitors also buy the same plane :disgusted:



#12
v35n

v35n

    Hi

  • Member
  • 224 posts

User's Awards

           
Okay so in the jet era I don’t really care about fuel efficiency when there are lots and lots of planes I just go for runway, capacity and price (like the a340 is very very good to make money in as its capacity isn’t too high and the game is unrealistic and it is actually rather fuel efficient)
However, when most of the planes are turboprops or piston-engined until 1980 I would see fuel efficiency. Same follows for jet engines aircraft but only until 1990. Lets take the 741. It is more expensive, more costly to buy and lease, but is very very fuel efficient as compared to the 742. It also requires 2000ft less runway which is a big big difference. I used it in an experiment in the sandbox world for beginners and it made 60k more daily. This equivalents to 1.44million a month which more than covers up for the more expensive lease cost (btw a month in airline empires is 24 days)
Fuel efficiency can make a big difference as you can see but why I don’t care in the later stages of the game is because there are less aircraft to choose from and the main separation is actually the capacity, range and runway requirement

#13
Nat.

Nat.

    Mile High Club member

  • Member
  • 40 posts

Interesting. That does makes sense. I've been comparing aircraft by it's fuel efficiency followed by its capacity and turn time. I don't know if that's the smartest way of doing it but it seems to be working so far in the late 1950's that I'm in. I honestly never really though much about the runway requirements but you guys do make valid points. Needless to say, I'll start factoring that in.  

 

 

Okay so in the jet era I don’t really care about fuel efficiency when there are lots and lots of planes I just go for runway, capacity and price (like the a340 is very very good to make money in as its capacity isn’t too high and the game is unrealistic and it is actually rather fuel efficient)
However, when most of the planes are turboprops or piston-engined until 1980 I would see fuel efficiency. Same follows for jet engines aircraft but only until 1990. Lets take the 741. It is more expensive, more costly to buy and lease, but is very very fuel efficient as compared to the 742. It also requires 2000ft less runway which is a big big difference. I used it in an experiment in the sandbox world for beginners and it made 60k more daily. This equivalents to 1.44million a month which more than covers up for the more expensive lease cost (btw a month in airline empires is 24 days)
Fuel efficiency can make a big difference as you can see but why I don’t care in the later stages of the game is because there are less aircraft to choose from and the main separation is actually the capacity, range and runway requirement

 

Nice to know I'm not the only one with a spreadsheet! You think it would be possible to PM yours? I understand if you're trying to keep it secretive. 

 

I was eyeing the 707-120's but for the price their going for I figured I'll rather wait a couple more years and go long with the CL-44's and even the Tupov's 114. 

 

I haven't put much thought on runway requirements and I would've most likely ran into the same mistake you did with ordering aircraft that'll only be accepted by a few airports. I'll definitely keep those aircraft recommendations in mind. What's your airline in-game? I'll do best to steer clear from your routes due to your kind tip. 

 

 

 

Well, I am playing this for some time, altough with a different account. (I changed computer and lost passwords :S ) and some weeks ago found my spreadsheet and gave it a try, by returning to AE. I have since added more planes (I think they are all in) and am now entering the helicopters.

 

I have a number of dropdown menus, in order to facilitate things. Since it is a spreadsheet, all figures are in the same columns, in case one wants to make calculations.

I even added an option in one or two markets, to have a cell turn red when planes cant be used in an airport.

 

Believe me, I have ordered planes sometimes, to understand later  that only two airports in the country could receive then ... :lol:

So. I would advise to take in consideration also the runway length, should that be a possible issue to you.

 

 

 

I have an airline in that world to, and probably will be ordering the 707-120, but only in very small numbers. I don't think it can cope with the Bristol Britannia's fuel consumption, although, going back to the KJFK-KLAX example, the B707-120 actually does quite well when compared with other jets.

 

As follows:

 

B707-120 = 18 776 lb

B707-220 = 27 690 lb

B707-320B = 15 931 lb (JT3D-1 engine)

B707-320B = 17 741 lb (JT3D-7 engine)

B707-320C = 15 873 lb

 

The first DC-8's

 

DC-8-10 = 19 418 lb

DC-8-20 = 27 217 lb

 

The Bristol Britannia = 10 162 lb

 

The problem, from an airline customer point of view, would be that the Britannia takes 1177 hours to transport all those people, while the fastest jet would be the B707-320C would do the same job in just 516 hours (including rotation time).

 

And the issue of confort and speed preference just is not apparently considered.

 

Important in this issue: The Britannia can use 5.500 ft runways the B707-120 uses 6.200ft and the others go from 7.100 to 9.550.

 

If one has potential 4000 mile routes connecting one airport with less than 6000 ft, rwy, then the big jets are useless.

 

The only competitors would be the CL-44 Yukon, the B747-400D (1990), B737-700ER(2006), B777-200 (1994), A319-100LR (2002) and A350-800 (2016).

 

30 years of peace.

Unless the darn competitors also buy the same plane :disgusted:



#14
Adam41krob

Adam41krob

    Hello

  • Member
  • 4 posts
  • WLM ID:USA
  • AIM Screen Name:Adam41krobYL
  • Skype Name:USA
  • ICQ Number:Atlanta
  • Website:http://121343
I will be visiting Doha soon.I dont have a Qatar airways aircraft model. Can anyone help me by telling that are there any shops at Doha airport to buy aircraft model????? Thanks




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users