Most bought aircraft

Blue Sky Mine · **on:** October 23, 2007, 07:04:49 pm

I don't get it, why are the Martin 4-0-4 and the Lockheed Super Constellation so popular on AM? I mean, the Martin 2-0-2 has a longer range for a small surcharge on the price of the 4-0-4. And with the super connie: For its price you could get a plane with nearly the same range and 60 more seats or you could buy a DC6b for 20 mio. less. Why is that plane so popular than?

Scandalian Airlines · **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2007, 08:27:13 pm

Because the Connie is a gorgeous looking plane that no fleet can be without

ALFC · **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2007, 08:40:25 pm

Quote from: "Scandalian Airlines"

Because the Connie is a gorgeous looking plane that no fleet can be without

i am doing ok without it

KampfHase · **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2007, 08:46:20 pm

Must be the faster cruise speed of the Martin 4-0-4. Most new founded airlines don't need extra range, but more speed, espacially in Europe. So they can fly short routes, but more frequencies.

Blue Sky Mine · **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2007, 10:56:32 pm

Quote from: "KampfHase"

Must be the faster cruise speed of the Martin 4-0-4. Most new founded airlines don't need extra range, but more speed, espacially in Europe. So they can fly short routes, but more frequencies.

Connie also has more speed than RV6. But would you prefer +60 seats or a faster speed?

LOT 737-300 · **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2007, 11:00:52 pm

Well, I can say that the M 4-0-4 is popular due to the fact that it has more speed. Most of my routes probebly will not over-run the 1000nm mark till much later. So the M 4-0-4 is a godsend. As for 60 seats vs more range? Depends on what needs the airline needs, along with other factors (crew, fuel burn, range.)

Blue Sky Mine · **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2007, 11:03:01 pm

Strange thing is, fuel burn on Connie is higher (unrealistic?)

LOT 737-300 · **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2007, 11:34:47 pm

Quote from: "Blue Sky Mine"

Strange thing is, fuel burn on Connie is higher (unrealistic?)

I just had a looksee, since the Connie goes 380, it'll naturally have the higher fuel burn of the 2 (DC-6 and Connie.) Just like slower planes have slower fuel burns. I'd myself buy the plane because of the higher speed, that quickly makes up for the higher fuel burn (remember, thats unit (I'm assuming gallons) per hour.)

ALFC · **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:19:34 am

cost per seat on a mission of x length , considereing all factors:

0-500 bellanca aircruiser
500-1000 martin 404
1000-1500 martin 202
1500-3000 curtis cw-20
3000-4000 dc-4-1009
4000+ R6V

it does however not consider what the competition does, hence a good bunch of these planes will NOT be the best when competition comes along

Max2147 · **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:26:28 am

Quote from: "Blue Sky Mine"

Strange thing is, fuel burn on Connie is higher (unrealistic?)

The Connie wasn't the most economic aircraft out there by a long shot. It was fast and luxurious, but that's it.

It was also notoriously unreliable - it was referred to as "The Finest 3-engine Airliner in the World". Too bad reliabilty isn't a factor in AM yet.

Max2147 · **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:28:01 am

Quote from: "ALFC"

cost per seat on a mission of x length , considereing all factors:

0-500 bellanca aircruiser
500-1000 martin 404
1000-1500 martin 202
1500-3000 curtis cw-20
3000-4000 dc-4-1009
4000+ R6V

it does however not consider what the competition does, hence a good bunch of these planes will NOT be the best when competition comes along

It also doesn't take into account the plane's speed, which is where the Martin 4-0-4 and the Connie really come into their own. More speed = more routes per plane, which means that you don't have to buy as many planes.

LOT 737-300 · **Reply #11 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:28:48 am

Quote from: "Max2147"

Quote from: "Blue Sky Mine"
Strange thing is, fuel burn on Connie is higher (unrealistic?)

The Connie wasn't the most economic aircraft out there by a long shot. It was fast and luxurious, but that's it.

It was also notoriously unreliable - it was referred to as "The Finest 3-engine Airliner in the World". Too bad reliabilty isn't a factor in AM yet.

I seem to remember seeing something about hte connie's bad rep in the film "The Aviator." I think that there was one that crashed and TWA was forced to ground them for the investigation I think.

Max2147 · **Reply #12 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:30:53 am

Quote from: "LOT 737-300"

Quote from: "Max2147"
Quote from: "Blue Sky Mine"
Strange thing is, fuel burn on Connie is higher (unrealistic?)

The Connie wasn't the most economic aircraft out there by a long shot. It was fast and luxurious, but that's it.

It was also notoriously unreliable - it was referred to as "The Finest 3-engine Airliner in the World". Too bad reliabilty isn't a factor in AM yet.

I seem to remember seeing something about hte connie's bad rep in the film "The Aviator." I think that there was one that crashed and TWA was forced to ground them for the investigation I think.

Early in its career it had an unfortunate tendency to burst into flames mid-flight. It was grounded until the problem was fixed.

ALFC · **Reply #13 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:50:49 am

Quote from: "Max2147"

It also doesn't take into account the plane's speed, which is where the Martin 4-0-4 and the Connie really come into their own. More speed = more routes per plane, which means that you don't have to buy as many planes.

your statement is nothing but an assumption, as i have NOT given the exact formula used. i precisely stated what was taken into account, i have not excluded speed.

LOT 737-300 · **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2007, 02:38:40 am

My opinion is that every airline has differnt needs, and with that, fleet choices are going to be very different. In terms of cost per seat, I guess you can say ALFC's list is accurate, but there are also other things to consider, such as if the plane can operate under certain capacities and so on.