DC9-40

yourefired · **on:** April 10, 2008, 06:21:10 pm

Apparently, it's supposed to hold 125 seats, not 90.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC9
http://www.boeing/com/commercial/airports/acaps/dc9sec2.pdf (page 16, 2.4.1 interior arrangements)

If you look at the citations and take a look at the PDF of the specifications from Boeing/McDonnell Douglas, it says 125. And I'm not just saying that because I'm planning to operate them.

dskluz · **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2008, 07:14:11 pm

He's correct, I was about to report this problem myself. Oddly enough, I just flew on one a couple of hours ago - I'd forgotten how loud the cabin is on those old planes.

I don't know about -50 because they're not available yet in my world, and "view_all_aircraft.php" doesn't have data...

yourefired · **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2008, 07:17:10 pm

The data on the -50 is correct, it seats 139. There's just a mistake on the -40.

dskluz · **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2008, 05:32:15 am

One more thing: the -30's speed seems to be given as its economic/normal cruising speed, 430 kt, whereas the -40 and -50 are using nearly the max speed. As a result, they perform in-game as if they were much faster than the -30, which is not the case. Their speed should be 443 kt.

Also please fix the -40's seating and change the price to be more then the -30, not less.

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=276
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=277

dktc · **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2008, 11:08:02 pm

-40 fixed.... forgot to check -30

yourefired · **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2008, 04:42:54 am

I think the -30's correct. But seriously, the -40's now more expensive than the -50......how can this be? The -40 has about 400 miles less range, has 14 fewer seats, but is about 40kts faster, but still.

dktc · **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2008, 04:52:37 am

You guys asked for it (sarcarstic grin) :twisted:

Anyway, it is calculated by a formula in which I have no control of. (so yes... you guys asked for it in a sense

)

yourefired · **Reply #7 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:01:26 am

I was hoping and expecting that it would be in the 45 million range, but okay, I'll let it go, since it's unreasonable for me to expect you to fix something that's beyond control

dskluz · **Reply #8 on:** April 27, 2008, 11:00:54 pm

Quote from: "yourefired"

I think the -30's correct. But seriously, the -40's now more expensive than the -50......how can this be? The -40 has about 400 miles less range, has 14 fewer seats, but is about 40kts faster, but still.

Well, then the speeds should be changed, because they're not supposed to be different - once again, the -40 and -50 have the same cruising speed in reality, 443 kt.

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=277

Don't mean to seem super-picky, but if you could just make that one change, I think the DC-9's will be all correct. Thanks.

Air Elbonia · **Reply #9 on:** April 27, 2008, 11:04:55 pm

we've refuted airliners.net data before, but We'll look into it.

dktc · **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2008, 02:00:52 am

What Will said.

Airliner.net could be really really wrong at times.... but as I have implied above, I need to look again. Most probably -30 and -50 should already be correct.... but then humans always make mistakes...

dktc · **Reply #11 on:** May 03, 2008, 09:31:53 pm

http://stephenm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62986#62986

Skyfox · **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2008, 12:36:45 am

Out of a gameplay standpoint all the DC-9 prices seem fairly rediculous. The 10 and 20 are very overpriced. Given thier utility, which is between the caravelle and the 737. Some Caravelles match the DC-9s performance and are much cheeper, which is odd. The DC-9-30 is definatly a 737 competator, but its range is greatly inferior. The DC-9-40 is about right, though its range still sucks.

Ill also compain about the price hike on the 727-200, its performance just isnt worth that price. It was better where it was before it was changed. The 727-100 also is highly overpriced. Variants of the trident outperform it in every way, inludeing fuel effeciancy. This is not only counter intiutive, it is also unrealistic, the trident was known as a gas guzzeler, and the region it never sold well was because it couldnt match the 727 variants in performance.

Its just a wierd system at the moment. could i please simply request fewer nerfs?

Blue Sky Mine · **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2008, 09:18:48 am

Well, such is life- you gotta select the best plane for your money. For example, I'd never ever buy an Il 86- it costs about €60-70 mio more than the A306 or the B763 but it only carries 30 more pax, is a gas guzzler and has a whopping range of 2850 nm

(but this is realistic, the lack of range was the reason why the East German airline Interflug refused to take their Il 86s and instead bought two A310s.