So I'm looking at my OKA-IAH route, where I have a340-200 and 777-200er flying.

 

A340-200 has 4 engines, each with a fuel flow of 39,936, and the per-flight fuel cost is $283,404

 

777-200er has 2 engines, each with a fuel flow of 45,203, and the per-flight fuel cost is $325,084

 

How in the world is the a340 cheaper? By my estimation it should use almost twice as much fuel, especially considering it travels slower than the 777.

This is also a good example that these raw engine datas are misleading to calculate the actual fuel consumption of an aircraft.

Here are the raw datas:

A340-200

engines: 4 x CFM56-5C2

thrust: 4 x 31200 lbs

TSFC: 0,32

Fuel flow: 4 x thrust x TFSC-> 39936

777-200ER

engines: 2 x Rolls-Royce Trent 877

thrust: 2 x 80720 lbs 

TSFC: 0,28

Fuel flow: 2 x thrust x TSFC-> 45203

As you can see Fuel Flow Rate calculated from the efficiency and the maximum thrust of the engines.

But in the real world this maximum performance won't be used even in take off, climb out conditions the engines will operate at a much lower thrust. During the majority of the flight time, the engines will operate in cruise mode.

This cruise mode is used for 80-90% of a flight, and this depends on much more parameters, than the above mentioned raw engine datas:

-aerodinamics of the aircraft (wingspan, design, engine cross section, winglets)

-weight of the aircraft (passengers, baggage, cargo, aircrafts own weight, fuel and reserves, engine weight)

-engine parameters (cruise SFC)

-service ceiling

etc. etc.

In this example, these aircrafts required to handle the fault of an engine at take off. This is why the two engine equipped Boeing required to use a much higher maximum thrust engine vs. the four engine equipped Airbus. Also all two engine equipped aircraft has a certification, which determines how long it can fly with one engine. When you assign a route to a two engine aircraft you have to calculate with this one engine max. operation time, to always have a diversion airfield within that one engine operation range.

ETOPS certification

In real world normal operating conditions Boeing 777-200ER's huge 160000lbs thrust won't be used (this is a built in spare performance for take off and ETOPS), and this misleads the fuel calculations here. In this metrics the four engine aircraft have better raw engine data.

Actually the Boeing 777-200ER has a better fuel consumption here, but the A340-200 also good.

You can compare the datas here with a 6000nm example: http://theaviationsp...ion_dataset.gif

(burn off fuel, passenger only)

Also to give an example about the cruise fuel consumption you can check this picture:

This is an actual fuel flow measurement during a flight of a Fokker F100 aircraft where both engines measured separately (blue/red dots). The fuel consumption measured in KG/hours (1kg/hour means 2,2 pounds/hour)

You can clearly see the three main stages of the flight:

- take off / climb out,

- cruise, 

- descent,

I like these demo pictures too.

I think the physical aircraft cabin sizes will be an interesting addition to the new version. As the fuel flow, speed, turn time, required runway lenght and other parameters currently have to be considered, the actual cabin size and the chosen seat configuration will be at least as important in the game, and also balances some aircraft types which I mentioned before.

I dislike taking a specific target on "old", given many airlines have had successful business models while using old planes. [ValuJet, Allegiant, Very likely Ryanair during their BAC-1-11/737-200 period. ].

The quoted approach is still very soft. For 15 years depreciation would remain the same, then from 15 years increasing maintenance costs would kick in, and after 25 years of age, the not worth it period would start.

So this would penalize extremely large, irrealistic fleets and also extremely old, not maintained fleets.

In 2003 Ryanair was operated 21 737-200 aircrafts with age between 21-24 years, then they sold their aircrafts in 2004 to have one of the the youngest fleet with their new 737-800's.

So this is fully matches with the recommended profile.

Also here is an article about their latest order of 175 Boeing 737-800:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100827382

Ryanair's announcement will see 75 of the 737-800s replacing old stock with the other 100 representing totally new aircraft. The 175-strong order will be delivered over four years between 2014 and 2018.

1) realistic order queues 
2) limiting IFS prices (eliminating scam ifs but still making profit possible)
3) realistic utilisation (I know aircraft technically can keep their aircraft going that long but how many people are going to want regional flights at 3am   ? I can tell you now: pretty much nobody   )
4) loadfactors: very rare do you actually get 100% loadfactors so even with the default price (which brings me onto my next point), airlines should only manage 80-90%
5) the default price is fairly high... I don't need to say any more 
Feel free to sum up   those are a couple of main things because anything I can think of is nitpicking 

Good ideas, just would like to extend these with the following two points:

1, The current depreciation rates are good for approx. 10-15 years, but they need to be corrected after an aircraft becomes older.

Here is an example about a top4 airline with 35 years old average fleet age in 2015, working successfully regarding economics.

In the real world, different engine maintenance, airframe integrity, C, D checks are very expensive. Lots of aircraft scrapped, because its simply not ecnomically viable to maintain them anymore.

Easy solution from programmers point of view to better simulate these increasing costs:

-the current depreciation rates should be doubled after an aircraft reach 15 years of age

-the current depreciation rates should be tripled after an aircraft reach 25 years of age

-here is an examle: http://img854.images...4/8138/v51k.jpg

suspected effects in the game:

-this change would make it harder to maintain extremely large fleets economically

-also you have to replace your aircrafts regularly, if you want to stay competitive

(if you have 2-300 aircrafts from one type, you will simply won't be able to replace them with 2-4 weeks production rates)

-small airlines with younger fleets could race better against big airlines with their lower maintenance costs

-old and higher depreciation rate aircrafts would have to be replaced even faster with modern ones

-if we consider that most of the aircrafts in AE runs between 120-140 hours a week, it means higher utilisation than in the real world

2, legroom should be taken into account more strictly on long range (over approx. 2500 miles flights)

-a fully crowded 28" tiny seat pitch aircraft should be nearly empty on intercontinental routes

-for long range flights, passengers cares more about legroom compared to short range flights

 

 

But then again there are different size seats

We have the actual cabin floor area in the quoted parameter: Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters.

If we take this as a reference for example with 34" seat pitch, we can compare the different seat configurations to this.

-B777-300ER: Cabin floor area: 3555 square feet Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 330,4

If I configure 550Y it will be 67% (550/330,4) denser than our 34" reference. --> legroom parameter

If I configure 16F 40C 200Y it will be 29% (256/330,4) more spacious than our 34" reference.

-A340-600: Cabin floor area: 3380 square feet Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 315

If I configure 375Y it will be 19% denser than our 34" reference.

If I configure 16F 40C 200Y it will be 23% more spacious than our 34" reference.

The actual dimensions of the aircraft taken into account in this calculation, this is why the full Y config get better results for the A340 and the same three class seating is better for the 777-300ER.

Of course if we use different types of seat pitch not just 3-6 different classes with preconfigured values, it will make this much more sophisticated, as you have to know the dimensions of the seats etc. eetc.

Here is a method of describing the actual cabin floor area on different long range aircrafts:

http://theaviationspecialist.com/master_lh_mission_dataset.gif

-Cabin floor area in square feet/meters

-Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters

Two examples:

-A340-600:

Cabin floor area: 3380 square feet

Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 315

-B777-300ER:

Cabin floor area: 3555 square feet

Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 330,4

Mod Note: Thread Cleaned

ex

On topic, dzsoki I believe the current issue in regards to the way seating configurations work is also the lack of distinction between different types of F, C and Y seats used by airlines, for instance the "16F" in the Alaskan example you have shown is in reality equivalent to a business class seat rather than an actual long-haul first class, but as AE currently does not make this distinction (nor in fact takes into account differing pitches of seats at all) it results in situations where the RL config can't be replicated.

I agree with that, in the real world much more different classes exist between the standard three, (business economy, premium economy, closed suites etc.) and it's quite hard to replicate all of them.

Some additional examples, where using the FAA exit limit falsify the actual cabin space of an aircraft.

1, B747 classics vs. 747-400:

In AE Boeing 747-100, 747-200 series has "550 seats capacity" vs.

Boeing 747-400 series has "660 seats capacity".

In the reality: passenger capacity increased by only 10 percent by extending the upper deck and relocating the new straight stairway to the rear of the upper deck. There is no 20 percent cabin space difference between these aircrafts.

2, B747-400 vs. 747-8I:

In AE Boeing 747-400 series has "660 seats capacity" vs.

747-8I has "605 seats capacity".

In the reality: The 747-8 Intercontinental is the only jetliner in the 400- to 500-seat market, stretched 5.6 m (18.3 ft) from the 747-400 to provide 467 seats in a three-class configuration and a 14,815-km (8,000-nmi) range.

So the 747-8I actually has bigger cabin space just the company not certified it for bigger passenger number.

747-400 typical 3 class configuration 416 seats

747-8I typical 3 class configuration 467 seats

With 51 additional seats and 26% more revenue cargo volume than the 747-400, the Intercontinental was designed for the heart of the premium market offering more range, more payload and more fuel efficiency than any previous 747. 

While in AE a 747-8I is 10% smaller than the 747-400, just because the FAA exit limits....

3, Narrowbody Boeing 737-800 vs. A319-100:

Boeing 737-800 has a 189 seat FAA exit limit, but this is not limited by the actual cabin space, the exit door capability limits this value.

If you check the following seatmap from Ryanair, you can see that they have 30" seat pitch and still have one galley in the passenger area. So this plane has bigger cabin space than the FAA exit limit.

http://www.seatguru....ing_737-800.php

A319-100's 160 seat exit limit matches the possible max. seats (at just 28-29" pitch) and the actual cabin space:

http://www.seatguru....Airbus_A319.php

Because of this, if you are using two or three class configurations the relative productivity will be much better for an A319 vs. B738, or 747-400 vs. 747-8I / 747 classics.

4, The whole A350 series is affected too

This series intended for long range use, so the FAA certificate is declared for fewer passengers, and does not match with the actual cabin size and the Airbus recommended two class seat capacity.

A330-300 as reference:

cabin width: 5,28 meters

cabin lenght: 50,35 meters

Airbus recommended seat capacity (two class): 300

FAA exit limit: 440

A350-900 with approx. 10% larger cabin space than the A330-300

cabin width: 5,61 meters

cabin lenght: 51,8 meters

Airbus recommended seat capacity (two class): 315

FAA exit limit: 420

A350-1000 with approx. 20% bigger cabin space than the A330-300

cabin width: 5,61 meters

cabin lenght: 58,8 meters

Airbus recommended seat capacity (two class): 369

FAA exit limit: 450

An example how the quoted additional cabin space parameter would handle these aircrafts:

You are saying that the FAA exit limit is not suitable to describe the cabin size and the possible cabin configurations of an aircraft, because this FAA exit limit does not always match the cabin capacity of an aircraft. But, AE is trying to be semi-realistic here, and therefore uses the FAA exit limit capacities.

 

This brings up an interesting point, and I think Northern and BritAboard may be able to clear this up a bit.

 

Can you please clarify your request?

Yes, this FAA exit limit cause some irrealistic cabin configurations in AE. I think the above recommended method can be easily implemented, and adds more reality to the game.

My request is to use one additional parameter for all aircraft:

Also if you will have further developments in the game separation of the FAA exit limit and the actual cabin size will be inevitable. The best practise would be to use the actual cabin area as cabin size parameter, and you could build your cabin layout substracted from this value as every object would have it's given area/size value:

-lavatory (passenger will revolt if the ratio will be under 100:1 )

-galley

-28-30-32...40" seats

Currently in AE we have a Max Seats parameter to describe the seating capacity of an aircraft.

This Max Seats parameter equals the maximum certified evacuation seat number of an aircraft. (FAA exit limit)

This FAA exit limit not suitable to describe the cabin size and the possible cabin configurations of an aircraft, becuse this FAA exit limit does not always match the cabin capacity of an aircraft.

Max seats = cabin capacity = exit limits

Please check the following example for the Airbus A340 series aircrafts:

Airbus factory datas: http://www.airbus.co...aft/a340family/

A340-200

Max seats in AE: 420

Cabin lenght: 46,06 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

A340-300

Max seats in AE: 440

Cabin lenght: 50,35 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

A340-500 (this aircraft intended for ultra long range flights)

Max seats in AE: 375

Cabin lenght: 53,56 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

A340-600

Max seats in AE: 475

Cabin lenght: 60,98 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

An Airbus A340-500 cabin is bigger than a A340-200 by more than 6 meters, in the reality if I configure

- 20F 60C 274Y (354) for both aircraft I will have more space in the A340-500.

Currently in AE I can configure only the following cabin config for A340-500, which has larger cabin than the A340-200:

- 20F 60C 229Y (309)

Using FAA exit limits to determine the actual seating capacity of an aircraft can be misleading in some cases. For bigger planes the max passengers certification process depends on the manufacturers strategy, let's see a simple example. We have two planes Airbus_1, and Boeing_1ER, both plane have the same cabin size, both designed for ultra long range flights.

EuroAiport is located in France, in the tri-national Upper Rhine Region, i.e. very near to Switzerland and to Germany.

http://www.euroairpo.../faq/#faq_50099