The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: vickers-vanguard-952/953  (Read 375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3724
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
vickers-vanguard-952/953
« on: January 07, 2021, 09:42:03 PM »
At the moment we have the following vickers-vanguard variants in the pakset:
Code: [Select]
name=vickers-vanguard-952
power=8270
freight=Passagiere
payload=127
upgrade to 952-piece, 953-piece, 952-cool, 953-cool
---
name=vickers-vanguard-952-piece
power=8270
freight=Bucher
payload=24
upgrade to 952-piece (self) and 952-cool
---
name=vickers-vanguard-952-cool
power=8270
freight=fish
payload=46
upgrade to 952-piece and 952-cool (self)
---
name=vickers-vanguard-953-piece
power=7853
freight=Bucher
payload=40
upgrade to 953-cool
---
name=vickers-vanguard-953-cool
power=7853
freight=fish
payload=78
upgrade to 953-piece
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Vanguard#Variants there were the following variants:
950 - prototype
951 - 127 passengers (18+109) - this is used as the capacity in DAT file, although without the class split.
952 - more powerful engine and stronger fuselage and wing for higher weights: Crew 3, Capacity 139, Power 4x Mk512 @ 4,135 kW (double than what is in DAT file), Cruise speed 679 km/h (DAT says 675).
952 Cargoliner - prototype cargo update, payload 19 t, but gross-empty weight is 25 t
953 - engines same as 951, but stronger body of 952: Capacity either 135 or 139 (all economy) or 18+109.
953C Merchantman - cargo upgrade from 953

From that I think we should not have any upgrades from 952 to 953 (different engines), only upgrade from passenger model to cargo model(s).
Also other specs (power, speed, cargo capacity) need double checking from some other sources, especially 953 - it has weaker engine so a higher payload than 952 is not probable.
It is questionable if the difference between 952 and 953 is worth implementing in Simutrans, IMHO it would be enough to have only one type (952 or 953) in 4 variants: 139 passengers, 18+109 passengers, piece cargo, cooled cargo.

https://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/explore/our-collection/aircraft/vanguard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Tyne
951/953: four Tyne Mk.506 of 4,985 e.s.h.p. = 3717.314 kW (DAT says 2x 3926.5 kW)
cruise speed 400 mph = 643.7 km/h (DAT says 634 km/h)
Payload 19.5 t

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 20805
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: vickers-vanguard-952/953
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2021, 10:41:21 PM »
Thank you for that. I have changed the 952 type to the 951 and added the multiple class configuration; I must have forgotten to do this when I added class capacities for other aircraft. I have also added the all economy version of the 953 (using the same graphics as the 951).

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3724
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: vickers-vanguard-952/953
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2021, 11:01:40 PM »
There is a small bug: the new 953 has freight=Buecher, should be passagiere.

For the cargo - the capacity of 953 is non-sense (32 tonnes). The capacity of 952 (renamed to 951) is OK (19 tonnes).
Otherwise the 953 is the same as 951 (power, speed, etc), so only one of them is needed, and should be named 953 merchantman
Cargoliner was derived from 952 which had stronger engines (and only one such modification was done). There was no 951-cargo modification, although it would be theoretically possible.

Also the upgrade paths should be limited appropriately.

Thank you anyway.

Oh and BTW, how do you get translation updates from simutranslator to GIT ?  I did/fixed  some translations in simutranslator, but they have not been propagated to the pakset.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 20805
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: vickers-vanguard-952/953
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2021, 01:59:44 AM »
Thank you for the bug report - now fixed.

I hesitate a little in relation to the cargo capacity: I have given an exact number and cited a source, which suggests that that number comes from that source, although unfortunately the source is now a dead link, so it is difficult to check. But this is not by itself a reason to discard the existing figure. Does your research definitely state that all versions of the Vanguard had a cargo capacity of 19 tonnes?

As to the translations, I should be grateful if you could start a fresh thread about that, since issues are unmanageable when they are mentioned in unrelated threads. Thank you.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3724
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: vickers-vanguard-952/953
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2021, 11:13:38 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Vanguard#Cargo_operations

- In 1966, Air Canada removed all the seats from one of its aircraft and refitted for pure cargo work, in which role it could carry 42,000 lb (19,050 kg) of freight. Known by the airline as the "Cargoliner," it was the only such conversion, but survived to be the last Canadian Vanguard to be retired in December 1972.  (Canada Airlines had type: 952)
- BEA operated nine Vanguards modified to the V953C "Merchantman" all-cargo layout from 1969, ... no info about the payload.
- Specs for 952:
Empty weight: 85,000 lb (38,555 kg)
Gross weight: 141,000 lb (63,957 kg)
Difference is 25,402 kg (and that is the stronger model)

https://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/explore/our-collection/aircraft/vanguard
- exhibited Vickers Vanguard 953C originally from BEA, Payload: 43,000 lb (19,505 kg) of freight

And just a logic thought: 952 had stronger engine than 953, so it is very doubtful that a plane with weaker engine could carry 1.7x more cargo

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3724
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: vickers-vanguard-952/953
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2021, 08:07:40 PM »
This is still not OK.  Most importantly I found that the empty weight is 56 t (in DAT file), while the specs (wikipedia) for 952 say 38.5 t.
Or is that including some estimate for fuel, staff, catering provisions, etc?
Gross weight (max takeoff weight) is 66.4 - slightly different values for 952 (wiki) and 953 (brooklands museum).
So was that counted as 66.4 t - 80 kg * 127 passengers = 56.2 t?
And should similar calculation be used for cargo version (66.4 - 19.5 = 46.9) ?
In any case, empty cargo plane should be lighter than empty passenger plane (no seats, kitchen, etc...)
Also I notice that some planes in the range of 100-150 passengers are implemented with weights 30-40 tons, while others are around fifty.
Could it be some inconsistency in using the real world specs? Dry vs. Curb weight ?

Also the upgrade plans are wrong.
Should be only within one version: 953 pax -> 953 cargo and 952 pax -> 952 cargo. And maybe 951/953 change of seats from 18+109 to 139

Also how about catering? should be level 3 in all variants? I think hot meals were standard at hose times even in economy/tourist class, right?

I'm preparing a new patch for these planes. At the moment it is quite messy (internal name is 952, translated name 951, and thus nonexistent 951 cargo version, power specs all the same, cargo payloads far off from what I could find...

From the information I have collected is:

950 - prototype, not implemented
951 - available 12/1960 - 7/1974 (operation at british airways), capacity 18+109, power 14869 kW, speed 644 km/h, should be lighter than 953, but no exact data...
953 - available 12/1960 - 7/1974 (operation at british airways), capacity 139, power 14869 kW, speed 644 km/h
952 - available 02/1961 - 1/1973 (operation at canadian airways), capacity 139, power 16540 kW, speed 679 km/h, should have higher running costs

951 never had a cargo version (bad description in translation)
952C - Cargoliner, 1/1966 - 1/1973 (air canada), capacity 19 t (23 piece, 46 cooled) - was only one piece - is it worth implementing at all, or let it in (what was possible) and perhaps extend its retire date a little?
953C - Merchantman, 1/1969 - 10/1996 (british, went to museum in 1996), capacity 19.5 t (24 piece, 48 cooled)

I wonder how the costs (purchase, running, fixed) were specified for these - is it also from that big spreadsheet using complex formulas?