Are boeing aircrafts datas really WRONG???

[im359]

Recently, one of the boardmate, Cheung Airlines, suggested that some of the aircraft datas of boeing was wrong,
including B707, B720, B727, B737, B757, DC-8, DC-8.
At the same time, Cheung had also provided the sources he found.
This became the hot issue (or argument) in the last few days.

I don't want to attack anyone, but now I must ask some questions:
Are the datas really wrong?? Or is the "correct data" suggested by Cheung wrong??

DC-10
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10121.0
In this topic, Cheung suggested that the pax data of DC-10 is 399. However,
in another boeing page, it suggested that the max pax for all DC-10 is only 380.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/dc-10/tech.html

B727
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10120.0
In this topic, Cheung suggested that the pax data of B722Adv. is 155. However,
in another boeing page, it suggested that the max pax for B722Adv. is 189. That means the current data is correct.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/product.html

B757
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10124.0
In this topic, Cheung suggested that the pax data of B757-300 is 279. However,
in another boeing page, it suggested that the max pax for B757-300. is 280.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/product.html

Out of these three types of aircrafts, I had also found other datas from the similar sources:
DC9
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/dc9sec2.pdf
This source is coming from in the way Cheung found it.
From here, the pax data is correct in AM database now. 80 / 90 / 115 / 125
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/dc-9/specs.html
But from here, the max pax data of DC-9 are all 90.

B737
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec2.pdf
This source is suggested by Cheung.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_600tech.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_700tech.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_800tech.html
These sources are found by me, also in boeing homepage. The results are:
B736: 130 VS 132
B737: 148 VS 149
B738: 184 VS 189

========

The sources suggested by the boardmate and me are all coming from Boeing, but why they are different?
Is there anything that we all don't know??
From the above, at least we can know that there are also differences among Boeing itself.
So, is there any method to prove that the datas provided by Cheung must be correct, and should be followed??
I have no answer at all.
The thing I want to figure out is no one should treat the sources as bible, neither Cheung's nor mine.
When anyone tried to find out the data bugs, it is better to find out more first.

[dktc]

Believe me, we know that the data on Boeing's website is inaccurate. As the admin previously helping with aircraft data, I would say that no one single manufacturer gives correct specs on their website.

Boeing tends to have comflicts and inconsistency.
Airbus is overly simplfied.
Bombardier, Dassult, Embraer, Cessna, Gulfstream tends to give inconsistent specs, stating data with varying basis from one model to another, in an attempt to produce a good marketing image.

Which source is correct? We have been debating that and we do not have an answer. It is like there are rumours that some airports are exaggerating their pax and cargo data to gain investors. On one hand, with all those inconsistancies and conflicts, the data may not seem reliable. On the other hand, they are the manufacturer / owner / management of an aircraff model / an airport, and who are we to doubt them? This is a dilemma.

One possible reason for conflicts is that there are different specifications ordered by different airlines / companies. However, that might seem to be a wishful thought, because the inconsistancy is not limited to the one type posted above.

The question still arises, as to which source we should use. This I would leave for MrOrange to answer, as he is the admin responsible for aircrafts now.

[CHR]

Perhaps the problem is that the plane is theoretically allowed to carry a certain number of passengers, but in reality never has (due to airlines simply not fitting planes out with that many seats).

What would be the AM policy here? On one hand, if the option to have more seats was open to airlines, shouldn't it be open to AM airlines. On the other hand, where do you draw the line; perhaps a manufacturer would have designed a long range version of a plane if it had any orders, but didn't, etc...

[Cheung Airlines]

Theoratically, yes, you can fill an ATR with 100 seats. Same goes for Boeing's page.
Theoratically, yes, 189 person is allowed to get into 737-800, as FAA exit limit is, in fact, 189
But the seats may be 24", or even worse. I don't think people will even think of travelling inside such a cramped seat for hours and hours. The result would be something like Ryanair - very cheap price to attract people to take your flight.

And im359, Im thinking of using engine varient to temporarily solve the problem.

Yo can get:
737-800: [engine varient selection step]

Code: [Select]

CFM-56  (189 seats)
CFM 56  (184 seats)


[im359]

Theoratically, yes, you can fill an ATR with 100 seats. Same goes for Boeing's page.
Theoratically, yes, 189 person is allowed to get into 737-800, as FAA exit limit is, in fact, 189
But the seats may be 24", or even worse. I don't think people will even think of travelling inside such a cramped seat for hours and hours. The result would be something like Ryanair - very cheap price to attract people to take your flight.

AM does not care about the comfort of the passengers, that's why we are using max pax capacity.
If you do care their comfort, the thing admins need to do is to allow players to set their own capacity,
2-class or 1-class, the no. of seats... Of course in a fixed range of no. of seats.

[dktc]

Multi-class is in our to-do list. Please do realize that we have very limited man-power.

As for the whole issue that we are arguing, regarding some posts I have seen in other forums posted by the same group of people who are objecting the changes, I have several points that I would like to make.

First, what is done is done. Could we just move on and look at the future? We cannot possibly undo the changes because people have been buying the 737's with the new specs. If you want to keep dwelling on it, then go ahead. Just to make it clear, there is nothing we could do about it even if you were to keep on moaning and whining.

Second, it is unfair to for you to put the blame on one player. Some of you have questioned his motive, but you have forgotten one thing with this whole heated discussion, the fact that the modification on 737 was an old request that we, as admins, have been putting off for a long time. There is no reason for the player to believe that the new changes would be made anytime soon, or even according to his posts. I cannot say whether we would be holding off with the new posts or not, because I do not know the answer. However, putting that one player on spot is totally unfair, both to the player, and to our game, in the sense that this whole outburst is deterring our volunteers from helping us out, and thus hinderring our future growth.

As to which side of the argument represents the majority of our players, quite frankly, neither. If you think that the other party is manipulating the game, or that they are being inconsiderate / disrespectful to the twenty thousand AM players, you are not only over-estimating the other party, but also yourself. As far as I could see, the majority of our players are indifferent to this particular discussion. Granted, the change in data could have been better implemented with less impact on our players. However, we do see that most of our players are adapting and moving on.

I would like to stress again that we have figured out a way to change aircraft data in the future without affecting the aircrafts already in operation / on order. This method is readily available. That being said, I would like those people who are still confused, due to whatever reasons, to stop spreading inaccurate information regarding this situation. At the same time, I would like to urge people to post this post in whatever third party forum they are members of, which have a dedicated thread for AM, in order to clear any confusion.

Finally, a personal comment from myself, I really hate to see the political culture in the region where I am from. Everythings are about blames and personal interests. Reading some of the posts here, or in other forums around the world, I would have to say that I am not proud of the behavior of our citizens, as a whole, comparing to members of other societies. If we were to continue this way, we would not have a future at all.

[bmibabyrule]

just go on a plane and count seats???

[dktc]

Your credit account information please, sir. We would need that to purchase our tickets. Thank you for your generous offer.

[MrOrange]

just go on a plane and count seats???

If we could financially support that, I'd be more than happy to be Aircraft Data officer. I could do Airport Data as well, just go to an airport and count passengers

Let's be realistic here, we cannot do things that way.

[CHR]

It would be easy to look up a website and find an airline's seating plans, but that wouldn't give you data for old planes, nor would it give you consistent data (as different airlines use different amounts of first/business/economy).

[Pilgrim]

perhaps the better question to answer here is what capacity to use pending multi-class...

in my opinion the easiest to use is the certification maximum capacity. For example on the Dc-10-10/30/40 thats 380 seats, I checked that in both JAWA 74-75 and a MCDD DC-10 specs card i have. I'm sure it's possible to check certifications online somewhere too.

Most of the commuter class aircraft are already set to that capacity.

But the jetliners in many cases are totally out of whack... so... I think ill pull a good list of capacities from my JAWAs and send it in... if you choose not to use it well... *shrug*

[Pilgrim]

Jackpot...

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/CurModProdType!OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=1.4#1.4

[CHR]

That's some pretty good data. Quite standardised, although there aren't that many planes.

On a side note, considering the fact that the nautical miles in game actually appear to be real miles, is this factored in when doing range data.