Jump to content

Issue Information

  • #002566

  • Issue

Issue Confirmations

  • Yes (5)No (2)
Locked 
Photo

Boeing 777 Family Issues

Posted by CrusadingNinja on 29 September 2015 - 01:31 AM

Firstly, recently the Boeing 777-300's range was changed to 8,168 miles base range. This is incorrect as the base range is significantly shorter. Most sources agree on around 6,000-6,500 statute miles range, as no concrete data is out there because the Boeing page on the -300 no longer exists.

 

Sources:

http://www.airliners...ats.main?id=107

http://www.airlines-...ng-777-300.html

http://www.aircraftc...eing-777-300/22

 

 

Secondly, the -200 and -300 variants should have an end of production date of around 2000-2010, reason being first, the last order for the -200 was in 1997 by Air China, and the last delivery in 2007 to Japan Airlines, with no unfilled orders. The last order for the -300 was in 1996 by AerCap, the last delivery 2006 to Cathay Pacific with no unfilled orders. Secondly Boeing has removed the -200 and -200 variants from their 777 product page and also from the order book under "current models", both the -200 and -300 are not listed.

 

Sources:

http://www.boeing.co...ders-deliveries

http://www.boeing.co...haracteristics/

 

 

 

rip 777-300.PNG

 

RIP 777-200/-300

 

 

Feel free to question my changes, especially the second one.

 

 

-AsianNinja12

 

 

EDIT: After submitting this, I realized that the values of the 777 family and the A340-500 were changed? What's up with that? Mistake or intentional? 


This was recently updated by me, all ranges are accurate as they where taken from official .pdf documents.

 

Thanks for your concern.



This will change a lot of the AE routing and orders done by airlines in my opinion.



The range of the aircraft must be equal to reality, what 's not happening with the family 777 .



This was recently updated by me, all ranges are accurate as they where taken from official .pdf documents.

 

Thanks for your concern.

 

OMG, I can't believe this.    :facepalm:  :negative:   

 

Where did you get that pdf? AsianNinja posted official links, I've just visited a bunch of official Boeing pages and pdfs including this 160 page document, and everything shows that, apart from -300 (non-ER) that needed a correction (but not this much), previous numbers were more accurate than this now, maybe what you did to A340 is not so wrong but when it comes to 777s this is just ridiculous.



I was about to open a new thread because it is so obviously wrong. I only play every few months so did not notice until recently.

 

777-300 (A Market) does not have the same range as the ER (lol) The GE90-115 engine had yet to be invented.

 

777-300ER does not have higher fuel consumption than 747-8I (lol)

 

747-400 does not have greater passenger capacity than 747-8I (...)

 

Unfortunately the companies that keep accurate aircraft data charge large amounts of (real world) $ for it and probably wouldn't sell it at any price to a group that would just post the data publicly within a free game. So we have to use the sniff test to double check any open sources, and these recent changes to the 777 figures do not pass.



I was about to open a new thread because it is so obviously wrong. I only play every few months so did not notice until recently.

 

777-300 (A Market) does not have the same range as the ER (lol) The GE90-115 engine had yet to be invented.

 

777-300ER does not have higher fuel consumption than 747-8I (lol)

 

747-400 does not have greater passenger capacity than 747-8I (...)

 

Unfortunately the companies that keep accurate aircraft data charge large amounts of (real world) $ for it and probably wouldn't sell it at any price to a group that would just post the data publicly within a free game. So we have to use the sniff test to double check any open sources, and these recent changes to the 777 figures do not pass.

Agreed.



locked issue





0 user(s) are reading this issue

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users