MZFW now considered in loading calculations

Check here to keep abreast of FSAirlines updates.

Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry

User avatar
Chris Trott
Vintage Pair
Vintage Pair
Posts: 2588
Joined: 26 Jun 2004, 05:16
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by Chris Trott »

Leif -

First, I doubt we'll be hard coding in the information. I just deny any changes to established aircraft in the database. I will suggest to our guys that we deny any requests for aircraft edits that does anything other than add information not currently in the aircraft's profile.

Any "exceedance" that you're seeing are for one of two reasons - the flights occurred before MZFW was calculated or the aircraft being flown did not have an MZFW entered.

As for the calculation, the way you describe is the way that it's being done. I'm not sure what we could add other than the option for the airline's managers to put in weight restrictions based on leg length to allow for additional fuel. Unfortunately there isn't any way to force FS to load the aircraft the way we want them without some serious programming that I know that neither Konrad, nor Claudio are going to be willing to do.

User avatar
Chris Trott
Vintage Pair
Vintage Pair
Posts: 2588
Joined: 26 Jun 2004, 05:16
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by Chris Trott »

Okay, it's been about a week of operation under the new system. Everyone okay with it so far? Has it made it impossible to make a profit on any aircraft? We want to know! :smile:

User avatar
TSR2
The Ministry
Posts: 15648
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 14:32
Location: North Tyneside, UK
Contact:

Post by TSR2 »

Been flying 146-200 all week Chris and I'm still managing to make money :lol:

Haven't tried any of the others yet.
Ben.:tunes:

ImageImageImage

User avatar
MALTBY D
The Gurus
Posts: 1491
Joined: 18 Jun 2004, 19:40
Contact:

Post by MALTBY D »

Just checking the VC10 & it must have been edited wrong.
It's displaying:-
Max Take Off Weight 18334 kg
Cargo Capacity 12000 kg

That MTOW value is really the payload.
It should be:-
Max Take Off Weight 142400 kg
Cargo Capacity 18334 kg

I've put in an update request on FlyNet.

DM
ImageImage

User avatar
DanKH
Battle of Britain
Battle of Britain
Posts: 3526
Joined: 02 Dec 2004, 10:53
Location: EKCH, Denmark
Contact:

Post by DanKH »

That explains everything ... :lol:

That and the high fuel prices....
Best Rgds
Dan
Image
Image Image
Who's General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?

User avatar
RAF_Quantum
The Gurus
Posts: 2745
Joined: 04 Jul 2004, 23:36
Location: NE Lincolnshire UK
Contact:

Post by RAF_Quantum »

Hi DM,

Thanks for the edit, yep the MTOW was as submitted but not picked up on being wrong. Luckily the MZFW was input correctly from day one so the incorrect MTOW would have had no affect on payload if we've had a Standard VC10 flight since MZFW calcs have been incorporated. The increase in cargo capacity will not see an increase in cargo carried as it will hit the MZFW way before the original figure. However, with the SVC10 given the cargo figure is input also at 12000kgs there is room for an increase in cargo carriage before we hit MZFW. Currently we are hitting max cargo of 7650kgs (after baggage weight is deducted) as we have stated cargo capacity of 12,000kgs. We can add an extra 989kgs to the capacity before we hit MZFW. Can we confirm the SVC10 cargo capacity is above 12,000kgs? Given the cargo hold volume is larger on the SVC10 I think we can safely assume it is, we just need to come up with a figure - DM ?

Rgds

John
Image

User avatar
MALTBY D
The Gurus
Posts: 1491
Joined: 18 Jun 2004, 19:40
Contact:

Post by MALTBY D »

Ah not so fast Dan, that was the Standard not yours. :lol:

Going back to VC10 weights, there's a slight complication with the cargo thing.
Something that Leif also mentioned, the added cargo element should perhaps be optional. Or could it possibly be adjusted when the fuel load is entered?
Take our longest Super VC10 route as an example:-
MYNN Nassau - EGLL at 3765 nm
Estimated fuel burn for that is around 54000kg

Using the calculation...
MZFW - DOW - (PAX x 102)
97524 - 71137 - 17748 = 8639kg of extra cargo would be loaded.
But really you'd want all of that weight to be left for fuel on this trip.
151953 (MTOW) - 97524 (MZFW) = 54429 kg of fuel to make MTOW

The overlap between max fuel & max payload is big on the VC10.
Max fuel capacity for the Super is 70181 kg & with that it could go 6000 nm.
Max payload range is more like 4000 nm.

DM
ImageImage

User avatar
MALTBY D
The Gurus
Posts: 1491
Joined: 18 Jun 2004, 19:40
Contact:

Post by MALTBY D »

John, max payload for the Super is 26369 kg, so it should be ok to bung that in for max cargo. The max amount should never be reached anyway.

DM
ImageImage

User avatar
RAF_Quantum
The Gurus
Posts: 2745
Joined: 04 Jul 2004, 23:36
Location: NE Lincolnshire UK
Contact:

Post by RAF_Quantum »

Hi David,

I suppose we are heading in the right direction with the MZFW implementation, the next step is to factor in MTOW at some point. I'd like to see an option which gives the pilot the choice when loading fuel. If the fuel load causes an overload then a warning should pop up advising of such. If the fuel loaded is required then there should be an option to reduce the payload. Until that happens we'll have to 'virtually' offload some cargo but still collect the revenue. It's nice to see the client devloping like this but it is painfully slow. There is so much on the 'to-do' list which would greatly enhance FlyNET and make things easier all round. But at the rate of change we are currently experiencing it is going to be some considerable time before it comes out of beta.

Rgds

John
Image

User avatar
RAF_Quantum
The Gurus
Posts: 2745
Joined: 04 Jul 2004, 23:36
Location: NE Lincolnshire UK
Contact:

Post by RAF_Quantum »

I've submitted the edit for max cargo. If we ever have a catastrophe where we lose rep to such a low extent that we carry very low pax figures then we'll be removing seats, installing a bulkhead and loading as much cargo as we can :wink: . In reality with the extra capacity submitted we will in effect only gain extra revenue from an additonal 989 kgs :cool:

Rgds

John
Image

Post Reply