737-400 Seating Error

deltafan · **on:** January 24, 2007, 12:18:47 pm

Has anyone else noticed that the 734 has 3 less seats than the 733? It's capacity says 146 when I should be in the 160s.

deltafan · **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2007, 12:59:02 pm

Also, A330-600, A320, Fokker F50, and Fokker F100 have no cost per hour.

Danny · **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:10:31 pm

Quote from: "deltafan"

Also, A330-600, A320, Fokker F50, and Fokker F100 have no cost per hour.

No cost:
A300-600
A320-200
Fokker-50
Fokker-100
BaE146-300
BaE ATP

On the other hand:
A310 - all versions have way to high cost.

SCA CEO · **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:14:35 pm

I like it the way the A320's are, it should stay.

Danny · **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:45:25 pm

Actually they are too expensive. Even Airbus list price is lower, not talking about discounts that are so common in this industry.

SCA CEO · **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:46:28 pm

Shouldn't the 737-400 seating capacity be somewhere between 160 and 170?

Danny · **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:00:56 pm

Quote from: "SCA CEO"

Shouldn't the 737-400 seating capacity be somewhere between 160 and 170?

It should be 188 as the game uses maximum possible capacity not the typical one.

StephenM · **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2007, 04:09:13 pm

Updated with 188 pax.

Danny · **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2007, 12:56:36 am

Why would 400 burn less fuel than 300?

StephenM · **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2007, 12:58:48 am

Quote from: "Danny"

Why would 400 burn less fuel than 300?

Less pax in the formula.

Danny · **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2007, 12:59:39 am

So fuel burn depends on pax? I

deltafan · **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2007, 02:23:46 am

Yeah, same fuel storage as 733, bigger plane, heavier plane, more people...all affect fuel performance and range. If I'm not mistaken, the -400 was fitted with slightly more updated engine compared to the -300 and was more fuel efficient overall, but sacrificed range for capacity.

StephenM · **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2007, 10:11:25 am

Quote from: "Danny"

So fuel burn depends on pax? I

Yes, I'm sure you'll find that a B747 will use more fuel per hour than a C152! Thats the first assumption, secondly older planes are not as economic as newer planes. Third assumption, turboprops are more economic than turbofans, finally 4 engines are not more economic than 2.

Note; these are all general statements and do not factor in the "quirks" that are there in real life.

Danny · **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2007, 11:28:34 am

Sorry Steven but that is ridiculous. What is the point in upgading from Comet to A320 then? None :shock: