Started by jamespetts, December 29, 2010, 08:02:08 PM
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: el_slapper A340Quote Consommation d'un AIRBUS A340 - 300 de 271 T au décollage, en montée initiale et en croisière: Décollage, rotation jusqu'à 1.500 feets: 2,2 T Montée initiale de 1.500 feets à 31.000 feets: 5,8 T Croisière: 1 tonne par 70 Nm ==> This plane, ideal for flights between 300NM & 6000NM, drinks, when full, 8T of petrol for reaching his flight level. The same amount is enough to cover 560NM. When it pushes to 7000NM, it drinks 108T in total.I did find here a calculator (not accurate, unfortunately), but also a few interesting figures concerning fuel - figures that are averages seen on true flights.For cargo planes,_when the MTOW is below 100 tons, count 107,3 liters(not tons) drunk per 100km per ton transported for a flight below 1000km, and only 76,4 liters when the distance is between 1000 & 4000km._When the MTOW is between 100 & 250 tons, count 64 liters drung below 1000km, and 50,8 liters drunk between 1000 & 4000km._When the MTOW is above 250 tons, only distance over 4000km are considered. And the total consuption between 4000km & 7000km is 21 liters(per 100km per pessenger), while it's 21,4 above 7000km.In short : around 7000km(3780NM or so), the excess of distance begins to cost you more than the take-off. That's for the big birds like the A340 of the other link.Fuel can be up to 35% of the expenses of a plane...when fuel prices are high, which was true a few years ago, but no more today. For more easy years, you can count around 35% in personal, 10% in airport fees, 5% in navigation fees, 20% in fuel, 15% in marketing(not taken in account in simutrans), 10% in maintenance, and the rest in misc. Airport fees are per landing, navigation fees & personal expenses are linear. The 10% of maintenance are really 90% linked to take-off and landing. Flying nearly does not wear the plane. The tough beast to count is fuel.And my numbers are roughly accurate today. Very roughly.
QuoteWith a team of four Yorkshire Coach horses, a coach could average ten miles an hour on the open road, while on the better stretches, a top speed of nearly twenty miles an hour, for short bursts, was possible. With a four-horse hitch, the trip between York and London was routinely accomplished in less than twenty-four hours. But to keep the York to London coaches moving at top speed and have enough horses for all the stages along the route, at least two hundred horses were needed, stabled at the various coaching inns along the Great North Road. Despite the fact that Yorkshire Coach horses, like their Cleveland Bay cousins, were very long-lived, most public coach horses lasted only about three years in service before they had to be retired. Therefore, the need for fresh horses to keep the coaches moving was never-ending.
Quote from: Vladki on December 29, 2016, 11:38:51 PMI have found a book about Linz-Budweis horse railway (1830's) with quite a load of economic data. Would you be interested in that, even if the money used is Austrian Gulden?
Quote from: jamespetts on January 01, 2017, 05:38:24 PMAccording to the website Heritage Commercials, the Sentinel steam 'bus consumes 50 gallons of water and 110lb of coal for every 10 miles travelled, and can reach speeds of up to 40mph (although can run more sustainably at 25-30mph). Although the steam 'bus was not a success and only four were ever built, three of which were exported to Czechoslovakia and one of which was used to transport the Sentinel works brass band, the 'bus consisted in effect of a passenger body on a lorry chassis, and the DG4 lorry was one of Sentinel's major types, and a type that we use in the pakset, so these speed and coal consumption figures should be useful for calibrating the steam lorries.
Quote from: jamespetts on January 01, 2017, 09:41:42 PMInteresting - thank you very much. Have you any idea to which model of Sentinel steam lorry that those figures were referring? There were a great many different models all with quite different specifications.