Hi,
the first A330-800 (the NEO equivalent to the A330-200) was delivered to Kuwait Airways a few days ago and thus has entered commercial service.
Will it be introduced into the game shortly?
1 Like
If all goes well, it should be part of the next data patch (expected for early December).
4 Likes
Any idea if on the upcoming patch will be also the A321PF?
There are no conversions in Airlinesim and 321PF is s conversion aircraft. Conversions, though, were promised two years ago at the end of 2018 along with the credits cost increase, were meant for 2019 and AFAIK have not materialized yet even though we are almost in 2021.
2 Likes
What is the B737-300F then? AFAIK the Bobby was never built as a cargo aircraft out of the factory.
Also 757ptf is available on some servers
80x 757 PF (Production freighter) were produced by Boeing and delivered directly as new aircraft.
Hmm, december patch is there, A330-800 not… Really pity, I have high demand on them!
1 Like
You seem surprised. We are still waiting on stuff promised in 2018.
1 Like
I’m still waiting on stuff promised in 2015-2016. Honestly at this point i stopped expecting things, and just have to settle for whatever. I know that isn’t the best mindset, but I figured since we aren’t getting through, we might as well just settle for what we’ve got and decide to use it or not from there, not from any kind of promises.
There are people who disagree with me on this, though.
1 Like
Booking classes… for example.
3 Likes
Conversions… for example
1 Like
I really hope it can be introduced into gameworld. In my opinion it can replace Boing787 perfectly.It is cheaper than other wide-body aircraft.
I am looking forward to have it in the game too but I would not expect that much. The a330-900 was already disappointing. So the smaller -800, which is less efficient will most likely flop in the game the same way the -900 did
1 Like
There are numerous aircraft types missing and I would not expect them too soon as the development of AS is at zero. Promises and price raises are there, but that is about it.
Just a few of the missing aircraft:
PC-12NGX
SHARP Versions for all A320 family members
incresed MTOW for CS3 to 69,9 tons
Inceased MTOW for A339 (and A338) to 251 tons
Suchoi SSJ with Saberlets
…
Feel free to send us an e-mail with data for those aircraft types you’d like to see implemented in the game.
In which way do you think the data will differ significantly if the MTOW is raised? With the limited possibilities of the present performance formula with some exteme strange numbers it will not make any change if you simply increse the range accordingly, would it?
Just an example for the strange data:
An A321LR does not burn any fuel from 7500km onwards until his max range of 9.295km? Is there a new sailing function I have never heart of (beside, the same mistake is with most of the aircraft available)? So why do you request precise data for a simple MTOW change if aircraft with existing manuals are represented that unrealistic?
Look at here:
and you see the same graphs as in airlinesim and some calculations and examples.
Or look here
https://catsr.vse.gmu.edu/SYST660/aircraft_payload_range_analysis_for_financiers___v1.pdf
and at section 3 you find also an explanation why the Payload-Range graphs look as they do.
Along points “C” and “D” fuel is maxed out therefore the trade-off is one of compromising payload in order to achieve greater range.
Point C on the A321LR is ingame at 7500km, Point D is a bit over 9000km. So between this points the aircraft does not consume more fuel because of (heavily) reduced payload (and maxed out fuel capacity).
You also find an explanation of how a greater MTOW (or something else) changes these graphs.
AS-performance is static, so that it always calculates along the graph as posted by Robert73. The observation on the 321LR beyond 7500 is correct. Same goes for all other aircraft in game - correct for max. weights only.
Again: AS is always calculating along those graphs. The area below this graph would be dynamic. That’s reduced fuel burn for reduced weights (payloads) for example.
If the above numbers for the A321LR would be correct it would mean, that from point C in your graph the aircraft can fly another 1800km (more than 2 hours) by simply reducing the fuel burn enroute with leaving about 19 tons of payload aside. Is there any specific reason why e.g. the B737-900ER scimitar can also transport 19 tons of payload for 7300km but afterwards does only safe enough fuel for only about 400km (about 30mins) by leaving the payload aside? Size, engines… everything comparable? Should the payload/range tradeoff not be the same for the same types or at least only differ marginal? Here the A321LR increases the range by 19,4% with reducing the weight by 19,6% of the MTOW. The 737-900ER scimitar increases range by 5,2% with reducing the weight by 23,5%. Correct? I am not sure.