Classic British Flight Sim

Hi Guy's,

I've been trying (still!!) to get my head around the loading dilema we currently have with the VC9. The figures posted in the database are good for business but ultimately, we will fall foul when the client starts loading the models :roll:

To refresh your brainboxes.. these are the present VC9 specs in flightsim
Dry Weight: 38328kg
Payload: As per the database = 28.4T (pax-11.4 + Cargo-17)
Max Gross: 66451kg

28.4T is not really gonna happen as there will be no room left for fuel.. the dry weight + payload weight total 66728kg!! So.. what do we do?? I've found some more information today (based on the 952's) saying that the empty (equipped) weight is 37421kg so there is a possible saving of 907kg.. not a lot but every little helps!! Now.. the known max cargo weight is 40000lbs (18144kg) giving a rough MZFW of 55385kg. MZFW as taken from EP's Flight Manual is listed as 55560kg.. a difference of only 175kg over the rough figure above which put's us clearly in the ball park.

Now.. this is all very well for the Merchantmen but it's not too bad for the others either as Rick made the VC9's with only one station so load up with 18144kg and you're there for both The problem comes when trying to separate pax from cargo for the purposes of the VA!! :think: Should it be divided with the current pax figure of 11.4T staying and cargo taken up from the remainder (6744kg)??

All this of course means that the VC9 will no longer be the 'Jewel' in the fleet as far as earning power goes as each flight will lose a possible 10.25T worth of cargo revenue but.. whatever it earns will be a more accurate figure

Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there as other figures I've found suggest that the 952 should be capable (at max load with no reserves) of attaining a range of 1830miles (1592nm) and the best figure I can come up with on the model is 1428miles (1242nm).. max load and no reserves. Of course.. flying her in the VA means that she will be at max weight on all occassions and massaging the fuel_scalar to fit is not an option as she is currently there or thereabouts with fuelburn now.

OK.. that's a lot to take in (for those that have bothered to read it!!) so I'll leave it with you. No unreasonable comment or reply refused

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Hi Dave,

All valid comments but it's difficult to come up with a reasonable answer until we know how/if loading will be implemented on FlyNET. If the client starts calculating against MZFW as just a calculation then the client will always give us a full payload of pax/cargo regardless of what our fuel requirement is and we can carry on as we are now albeit with a reduced revenue load. If the client additionally adds the payload to FS9 as well as the fuel load then we can have problems on some routes. I would hope Konny would not release anything without consulting the VA's as I am sure other aircraft are affected as well as our own. I have already suggested on the forum that when we programme a 'flightplan', we have the opportunity to restrict pax load if needed so we can carry extra fuel for the longer sectors. Until we know how any changes to the payload calc's are going to be implemented I am not going to worry about it . Oh and something else we found out recently when discussing why some aircraft don't carry any cargo .....................it's because each pax is 'allocated' 25kgs of baggage which is deducted from the possible cargo load. The baggage weight: pax X 25kgs is not shown on the briefing document so effectively you are 'carrying' 139x25kgs extra weight that you don't 'know' about.

Rgds

John

Hi John,

That works for me. Until that time comes, we will continue as-is. As with most of the stuff I jot down, if it's not commited to something a little more permanent, I tend to forget what all the figures I have jotted down all mean so at least there is reference here now should it be necessary

ATB

DaveB :tab: