We should all remember that the product is still in beta. Whilst it's nearing completion, it isn't a finished product yet.

 

Wait and see would be my advice on the matter.

...but that's without a First Class, which means you lose the low density seating, so yeah, it's definitely going to be low.

 

Remember that this is the LR, too. While, yes, it can certainly be used for density, it's made for range, and to get that range, you generally have to sacrifice weight (and therefore seats).

 

Just because the 747-400 is used by a few Asian carriers as a gigantic bus packed full of people doesn't mean that everyone else's capacities are "low."

 

Again:

If you want more "people" than are allowed by the breakdown, just add them as weight. The FAA standard is about 170 per person (averaged between males and females). I can put 200 people back there, or tie 34 cows back there and the plane will behave the same.

 

 

 

 

Weight is weight. It seems that people's own obsessive compulsions about the passenger numbers are getting in their way. The pax numbers are just there if that's easier for you. If you don't like it, use another method like ZFW. A full Delta loadout is 45730 using standard weights. That plus however many bags and - boom! - it's just like you had a Delta loadout instead.

You don't know about Delta. Delta's "business class" is their first class product. They call it "businesselite". Their seats are lay flat individual suites. This cabin goes all the way to the front part off the wing.

 

And your part of weight being sacrificed for range hence the low density seating PMDGs emulating? Rubbish. That Delta 77L with the 269 seats flies one of the top five longest routes in the world, ATL-JNB. And no, they are not weight restricted on that route.

 

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

Makes no difference to me im only in it for the Freighter.

I have to agree I'd rather have the option to seat around 300 pax in the CDU. It's a lot easier to enter 280 passengers out of 300 if the airline only seats 280 than it is to calculate the additional weight needed to get up to a 300-pax config.

 

I realize this may add a lot more complication with tuning the flight dynamics, so I won't mind if they don't change it.

As reference, here are the real-world configurations. Data may be incorrect or outdated and only serve as a guideline to get the 'bigger picture.'

 

Air Austral

14-32-316

Total: 362

 

Air Canada

44-228

Total: 270

 

Air India

8-35-195

Total: 238

 

Delta

45-36-188

Total: 269

 

Emirates

8-42-216

Total: 266

 

Ethiopian Airlines

8-287

Total: 321

 

Pakistan International Airlines

5-275

Total: 310

 

Qatar

42-217

Total: 259

 

Average = 298

 

Incorrect way of averaging for this context - I just did a weighted average calculation (which takes into account how many actual airplanes of each configuration exist in service) and it comes out to pretty much exactly 270, which seems to be much more in line with what I'd expect. 300+ in this airplane is cattle-car with no lie-flat seats etc. 

*Emphasis added.

 

You don't know about Delta. Delta's "business class" is their first class product. They call it "businesselite". Their seats are lay flat individual suites. This cabin goes all the way to the front part off the wing.

 

Delta's BusinessElite is industry-standard Business Class, not First Class; just like how Air Canada's ExecutiveFirst or United's BusinessFirst is still Business Class even though it has the word "First" in it. Just marketing hype.

Edited August 6, 201312 yr by appleair

Thank you for this answer! Ok. And there is really no option like in ngx? I mean the PMDG T7 will be my dream aircraft and it´s not a big problem for me because it´s like you said: Weight is weight. But i don´t really undertand the 14/48/172 because even delta carry up to 293 passengers with this airplane. Maybe more possible configurations in the FMC settings would be great. 

Yeah, but i think it would be better if PMDG just set a maximum of passengers in the fmc payload page (301 passengers for example), and everyone could choose the wanted value. 

 

Delta does not fly LRs with 293 pax, it's 269:

 

http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/airports-and-aircraft/Aircraft/boeing-777-200lr-77l-fb.html

 

 

You don't know about Delta. Delta's "business class" is their first class product. They call it "businesselite". Their seats are lay flat individual suites. This cabin goes all the way to the front part off the wing.

 

Okay, but that really doesn't matter much to the issue at hand.  People are weight.  I can guarantee PMDG found this layout off of a real aircraft somewhere (they're not quite prone to just doing things "just because").  So, while you're right, I don't know much about Delta.  Of my 83 flights as a passenger, I've flown them a grand total of 9 times, and most of that when they still flew an L1011...

 

 

 

And your part of weight being sacrificed for range hence the low density seating PMDGs emulating? Rubbish. That Delta 77L with the 269 seats flies one of the top five longest routes in the world, ATL-JNB. And no, they are not weight restricted on that route.

 

Just because DAL flies a certain route doesn't mean that you're not sacrificing range when you add more seats.  More seats means more weight.  With full fuel, you're going to have to cut back on weight in order to utilize the max range of that fuel.  That's all I was saying.  If you can show me a flight booked 100% to capacity on that route, I'll believe you.  Until then, the standard rule applies: full fuel, or full passengers, but not both.

@ appleair you are correct with Delta numbers. The 36 is the Economy Comfort amount seats.

 

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

Average = 298

 

Incorrect way of averaging for this context - I just did a weighted average calculation (which takes into account how many actual airplanes of each configuration exist in service) and it comes out to pretty much exactly 270, which seems to be much more in line with what I'd expect. 300+ in this airplane is cattle-car with no lie-flat seats etc. All the airlines who are using this thing for constant mainline service on ultra longhaul routes (Delta, Emirates, Qatar, Air India etc) are much closer to the weighted average value, which treats the ultra high capacity ones like Air Austral as the outliers they are.

 

Also - Boeing's config is assuming no lie-flat I'm pretty sure - that pic looks like the business seats are packed in pretty tightly.

 I can put 200 people back there, or tie 34 cows back there and the plane will behave the same.

 

Until the fire alarms go off maybe :lol:

Okay, but that really doesn't matter much to the issue at hand. People are weight. I can guarantee PMDG found this layout off of a real aircraft somewhere (they're not quite prone to just doing things "just because"). So, while you're right, I don't know much about Delta. Of my 83 flights as a passenger, I've flown them a grand total of 9 times, and most of that when they still flew an L1011...

 

 

Just because DAL flies a certain route doesn't mean that you're not sacrificing range when you add more seats. More seats means more weight. With full fuel, you're going to have to cut back on weight in order to utilize the max range of that fuel. That's all I was saying. If you can show me a flight booked 100% to capacity on that route, I'll believe you. Until then, the standard rule applies: full fuel, or full passengers, but not both.

Full fuel or full pax? What? They fly full pax and the fuel required for the trip. I am saying that the 77L is capable of ULH flights with 269+ seats with a butt in everyone of them. You know nothing of flight planning if you think full fuel is needed.

 

Back on topic, based on appleair figures, clearly IMO the 77L as modeled with respect to seats is too low. Unless pmdg is after the Emirates crowd.

 

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

 

 

I am saying that the 77L is capable of ULH flights with 269+ seats with a butt in everyone of them.

 

Then you would probably sacrifice cargo. 

 

 

Just because DAL flies a certain route doesn't mean that you're not sacrificing range when you add more seats.  More seats means more weight.  With full fuel, you're going to have to cut back on weight in order to utilize the max range of that fuel.  That's all I was saying.  If you can show me a flight booked 100% to capacity on that route, I'll believe you.  Until then, the standard rule applies: full fuel, or full passengers, but not both.

 

To add, cargo is also very important on long-haul sectors for urgent deliveries. I don't know what Johannesburg or Atlanta has but here in Canada we've got a lot of fresh produce and fish heading over to Asia.

 

 

 

Incorrect way of averaging for this context

 

I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

 

 

Back on topic, based on appleair figures, clearly IMO the 77L as modeled with respect to seats is too low. Unless pmdg is after the Emirates crowd.

 

My average is no longer valid. Refer to Ryan's average of 270; I didn't account for the low cost or other high-density operators with only 1-2 frames of the aircraft.

 

 

You know nothing of flight planning if you think full fuel is needed.

 

To fly the max range you would probably need full tanks, for a quick hop from ORD-CDG then no you could have heavy pax and cargo loads with no penalties. 

BTW, u can't carry any passenger in a airplane wich is only Software. :-) so u can't fly out all ur friends On vacation with the pmdg777...

 

 

 

Greets Marcus Popp