I noticed a problem with the necessary takeoff runway length of the Boeing 737-900ER (all 6 variants). For a flight with MTOW the aircraft requires a takeoff runway length between 3.880 m - 4.200 m. This is way to much and leads to the confusing fact, that even the BGW variants can’t transport the maximum load on short-haul routes if the runway is 3.000 m long (and 3.000 m is not exactly a small airport).
To calculate the necessary runway length, Boeing provides the Next-Generation 737 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning guide. Page 104 shows the Values for the 737-900ER. According to these numbers, the runway length for the HGW variant should be around 3.000 m, for the BGW it should be around 2.000 m.
When looking at the 737-900 (without the ER), the necessary runway length is pretty much the same as specified in the Boeing document. So the discrepancies only apply to the ER variants.
It would be great, if someone from the data-team would take a look at this.
This is already known and on my list to address once aircraft performance formulas are how @martin wants them so that we can tailor the input variables to get as close as possible.
Yh this is kind of an issue with range of aircraft. For instance you could take an ERJ 135 & in several cases see larger variants of 320 or 737 outperform it on runway requirements.
Fortunately the performance types that AS added to mitigate this (319/320 SHARP & 737-800 SFP) has proved to be vital where operating on smaller runways. The only limitation is that unfortunately the other types are not useable whereas those types would be operational in the real world
For example in the real world JER which only has a 5597ft runway can operate domestic flights with 737-300/400/500/600/700/800 & 319/320 variants including neo but if you wanted to operate from here in AS then the sensible options would be the performance packages SHARP or SFP. Your even better off operating a larger 320neo SHARP then a 319neo. The ERJ 135/145’s wouldn’t work & the CRJ’s are limited.
I wonder if it would be worth or even feasible to have like a feature where u could order any applicable performance upgrades offered by the manufacturer when ordering a new aircraft which could then tie in with whatever the new performance solutions/formulas maybe?
@numi Those issues are well known but likely won’t be addressed in the current generation of the performance system as I’ve been working on a completely new one over the past few weeks. Taking a lot longer than planned (as always), but I am so far down the rabbit hole now that sunken cost fallacy applies and I am determined to go through with it until I have something working. Check out the past 4 or so issues of the devlog for more context.
Something along those lines might become inevitable down the line, although I dread the complexity this would introduce. See the last paragraph of the most recent devlog: Dev Log Week 2024-47: Relationships built on thrust
I believe we are talking about two different topics. One is the general performance system and gameplay mechanics. I understand that due to the current limitations in the performance system and game balancing, these values can never be perfect.
However, what I was talking about is not general but only concerns only the 737-900ER. The values are just wrong. Probably someone made a copy/paste mistake 15 years ago. First of all, the values for the BGW and HGW variants are the same (which is unlike any other aircraft in Airlinesim). Then there is the 737-900 BGW, which requires 2.500 m. The 737-900ER BGW, which has about the same MTOW but more powerful engines, requires 4.200 m.
But if I understand you correctly @Priller and @martin, with the new aircraft performance calculations, all values concerning runway length will get a makeover anyways. So I guess, the problem should fix itself when the new formulas are being rolled out.
