Problem with 1-11

[DaveB]

Hi Tomasz..

Just checked my log and it was 109 for the 500's not 119 although up to 119 could be accommodated on the 500 (5 abreast) at 29in (0.74m) pitch. However, it was more common to have less pax and increased seat pitch

ATB

DaveB

[joefremont]

How much it can carry and how much it does carry are two different things Joe. The numbers Dave posted are the correct numbers. The lower holds are HUGE on the 1-11 and can hold exactly what they state. Have they ever carried that much? Not likely, but it is possible to do. As he showed, this is from an official publication that includes the underfloor capacity, not the capacity in "freighter" configuration, something that the 1-11 has never been used for anyway.

The reason we put in place the MZFW restrictions was because of this very thing. The simulation was loading up the planes well beyond MZFW allowing aircraft which do truly have the capability of lifting large cargo loads when light on passengers as if there was no limit, and that was causing aircraft to make much higher profits than they should, including aircraft like the modern widebodies from Boeing and Airbus. With the MZFW, it doesn't matter how much it can carry, it will only get as much as is allowed between the empty weight and the MZFW.

I have updated the weights on all of the BAC 1-11s so they should be able to carry the right amount of passengers and cargo now.

I am not sure if thats correct, based on the type certificate there is still a limit on what can go into the cargo hold, which would be 4369 for all variants of the 200/400. This is where I am getting my info:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... E/A5EU.pdf

But if the group does not agree, thats fine with me.

[Independance]

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... E/A5EU.pdf

But if the group does not agree, thats fine with me.

That document is valid only for american 1-11-400 which is more restrictive to that used in other part of the world. Don't mix it. Especially MTOW, capacity payload, max EGT temp for climbing etc.

Just checked my log and it was 109 for the 500's not 119 although up to 119 could be accommodated on the 500 (5 abreast) at 29in (0.74m) pitch.

Yup but that 109 would be standard.

It was good as it was in FlyNET times, but as always somebody had to touch it....

Best Regards
Tomasz

[Quantum]

Tomasz,

If you please wait and be patient I think you will be happy. The 1-11-500 at 99 seats will earn you enough income when the ticket factor gets applied.

Regards

John

[Independance]

Tomasz,

If you please wait and be patient I think you will be happy. The 1-11-500 at 99 seats will earn you enough income when the ticket factor gets applied.

Regards

John

I just think that it would be better to earn money with seat and ticket prices, as in real world, rather than with some fictional factors and all this stuff...

Why to change something which was good...

Nevermind,
Let's stop this chatter because going any further is pointless

Regards
Tomasz

[DaveB]

John..

Will we still be able to earn some revenue off cargo on the 500's?? I seem to remember that on certain routes.. the 500 would earn more than the T3, purely because of an income off cargo

I think I have to agree with Tomasz in that a 109 figure was more typical than 99 for the 500 but that could be thrashed out until the end of time

ATB

DaveB

[Quantum]

Hi Dave,

Yes, the 500 will still carry some cargo. The point that a lot of folk are missing is that now, the client will not allow you to take-off with an overladen aircraft. Previously, we reaped the benefit of the early client applications inability to enforce this. People will get a shock when they suddenly see that on routes where they previously had a full passenger load they are now forced to offload. This would put more aircraft into the position of not being able to be operated profitably on FSA and they will sit and rot in peoples fleets or they will be disposed of and they will have to chose alternative types to fly or move to another simulator economy which allows the economic operation of that type. The difficulty is trying to enable all aircraft to be operated happily in a single modern, expensive economy. This new feature of the ticket factor goes some way towards that. The intention is for all types to be able to be operated successfully for the benefit of all FSA users. It has always been the 'policy' that aircraft should be configured with a typical seat capacity rather than high density. Some exceptions were made for certain types and they were allowed to operate at their maximums. With the introduction of the ticket factor, there is little value to having the seat capacity higher especially with the client restrictions which is the reason why they are being reset to a typical number. There are a number of types that have already had seats 'removed' and I can see others that also need reductions - TU-144 162 pax? I think not!

Regards

John

[Independance]

...The point that a lot of folk are missing is that now, the client will not allow you to take-off with an overladen aircraft. Previously, we reaped the benefit of the early client applications inability to enforce this...

Man I just don't understand You.

500 with 109 seat will do as follows

each pax is 77kg+5kg hand luggage+20kg registered luggage gives 102kg per 1 pax

109*102kg gives 11118kg of pax load

DOW of 500 is 24758kg plus above pax load gives 35876kg.
Till MZFW of 36741kg we have 865kg of underload.
But max payload is 11983kg if You subtract pax load you will get also 865kg.

So with max pax of 109 You can take additionally 865kg of cargo.

With MZFW You are restricted on fuel to figure of 10659kg not to exceed the MTOW.
But with pax load of 99 and cargo space of database of 11983kg You will also hit the MZFW.

The only thing on which you are restricted to, is the MLW of figure 39500kg.Cause with MZFW on landing You can have only 2759kg of fuel which in todays environment is very low.
Hold for 30min and 1 go around is around 1600kg, so it gives You only 1159kg for diversion. Rougly for 130NM alternate. But now You don't have any extra for unexpected things.

But most people never look on that, but that it's another story.

So please tell me once again what is the pourpose of lowering the pax load on 500 from more typical 109 number???

Regards
Tomasz

[DaveB]

It's late and thus took me a while to get my head around that Tomasz but yes.. your figures add up too and well done that man

The thing I'm not really sure of here is cargo but.. on the figures we have.. 99x102kg = 10098kg. This will leave an additional cargo revenue opportunity for 1885kg which I have to say will do very nicely as will ANY additional cargo capacity. Try flying a DC10-30 and the only thing that makes money IS the cargo

Now.. if a particular flight requires more fuel, the first thing to go will be cargo as you don't really want to be taking passengers off a flight. 1885kg will take you a considerable way!! With the scenario above (109pax) you have less room to manoeuvre range/distance/hold wise with only 865kg to play with so we end up with swings and roundabouts. You can take fewer people further or take the same amount of people the same distance and earn a good rate off cargo which MIGHT end up with a higher profit on some flights.

The question remains.. will 10 less pax and more cargo yield a better profit I wish I had the time now to try a flight but I don't. It's gonna be the next thing I do when the opportunity arises

ATB

DaveB

[Independance]

Hello Dave

The question remains.. will 10 less pax and more cargo yield a better profit

Answer is simple here.

10 pax less with ticket price close to standard and with more cargo You are earning better, but if ticket price rise it's different story.

The reason why I opted for 109 is that I use my 500 mostly on charter work to sunny countries as Courline or Autair did in CBFS times.

Best Regards
Tomasz

[Quantum]

Hi Tomasz,

When we put a lot of these aircraft onto the database we had to approach Konny to request the maximum seating capacities rather than a 'two-class' capacity. I know the 500 didn't have a 'two-class' seating arrangement but BA operated them in 99 seat config which becomes 'typical'. With the introduction of the ticket factor we didn't want to give the higher ticket price with the higher capacity so it was reduced to get the balance back. The 1-11-500 will not see any reduction in income when the ticket factor is applied to the lower number of passengers. Other aircrafts capacities which are currently 'high density' are also being reviewed.

Regards

John

[DaveB]

Hi John/Tomasz

Yup.. 109 was considered 'high density' though Autair (amongst others) actually specified 119 BEA's 99 started life as 97 as they had 2 rear seats removed and an extra bar fitted. Not sure exactly why they removed the bar but 99 is how they ended up It'll be interesting to see how this all works in practice

ATB

DaveB

[IslandBum]

For what its worth

I know the 500 didn't have a 'two-class' seating arrangement but BA operated them in 99 seat config which becomes 'typical'

John -- BAs seating config was anything BUT typical -- As Thomacz says - Court, Dan-Air, Callie, etc etc ALL operated the
500 in 109 sat config some as high as 119 !!!!

Carrying cargo on ANY Charter/IT flight would be impossible - ask any ramp rat who has load bucket spade brigade bags.

Most IT companies carried at least a spare main tire plus a fly away kit in the front hold - which usually weighed in at about
750kgs total so that would sort of blow your cargo weight.

Folks in "pretend world" are going to have to wise up to the days off loading aircraft to MTOW and flying them half way
round the world are over - Prehaps we might start taking runway length and bearing strengths into effect? so I dont see
A380s sitting on the ramp at Lanai?


1-11-500s were by nature WAT limited - so departing Northern Europe say you might meet MTOW but departing from
warmer climes the TOW would be greatly reduced -- There is a reason why Braniff and American DIDNT operate 1-11s
to places like Denver. The 1-11 500 became restrictve as low as 30 degrees C - are you going to add that into the data
base as well?


Just a thought
Leif

[joefremont]

I think our assumption is that all flights are multi class seating. So while you could put 109 economy seats into the AC, 99 would probably be a more balanced load.

[IslandBum]

If that is the case Joe - then you need to revisit 80% of the aircraft in the FSA database

Leif