StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stas Bush wrote:This is ridiculous. You're offering engines and craft far in excess of his any need, and with a price that would make his budget creak.

Il-96 (400)
Max to weight 265.000 kg
Max passngers 435
Cruise speed 870 kph
Max speed 900 kph
Flight range 10.000 km
Engine: PS-90A ($2 mil per, $8 mil for 4x plane suite)

Price: $100 mil (discount at domestic prices, meaning $70 mil and $30 mil economy)

Boeing 777
Max to weight 250.000 to 360.000 kg
Max passengers: 300 to 450
Cruise speed: 905 kph
Max speed: 945 khp
Flight range: 6000 to 14000 km
Engine: GE-90 ($14 to 20 million depending on type)

Price: $200-250 million (depending on complectation)

The Boeing loses that.

Sure, if you use a quote for a plane designed as a Royal transport. Use a figure of $155-160 million for a B777-200. Also factor in maintenance costs. And your fuel costs are wrong. In the US, it's currently $1600/metric ton. It's not a $4800/day savings. It's a $4800/hour savings. Which results in a savings in about 6 years.

Beowulf wrote:Stas, you might actually want to place his country on the map.

I placed Fingolfin on the map a loong time ago . RedLeader34 and Vedra are pending placement

Oops

Beowulf wrote:Sure, if you use a quote for a plane designed as a Royal transport. Use a figure of $155-160 million for a B777-200. Also factor in maintenance costs. And your fuel costs are wrong. In the US, it's currently $1600/metric ton. It's not a $4800/day savings. It's a $4800/hour savings. Which results in a savings in about 5 years.

Oh sure, I can sell Il-86s too if he wants it cheaper. The 100 million disparity will remain.

And my fuel costs aren't wrong.

Did you miss what is said in the OP? Oil is plentiful. Assuming extraction tech is at XX century levels and there's shitloads of oil still, it's prices should be at least somewhere at the 1989-1990 levels - which means, well, no shit, $160 per ton (it used to cost $100 per ton, which if factored to 2007 dollars, would give $160)

Did you miss the whole "it makes sense to use the Boeing in the real world"?

Sorry, but it's the "oil is cheap" times all over again, and your plane simply loses it. End of story.

Beowulf wrote:Use a figure of $155-160 million for a B777-200.

Oh? And why the hell should I?
Prices all variants - ($ in Millions)
Boeing 777-200 178,0 - 195,0
Boeing 777-200ER 190,0 - 212,5
Boeing 777-200LR 219,0 - 243,0
Boeing 777-300 210,0 - 234,0
Boeing 777-300ER 237,0 - 264,5

Except the concept of the 777 came in 1988. You're missing the fact that it's not all about gas cost. There's maintenance costs as well, and the Russian ones will take more simply because of the engines. Quadjets went out of style in the 70s, simply because even then, they cost more than tri- and twinjets.

Except the concept of the 777 came in 1988.

Um... so? We can use XX century tech, but Zor explicitly stated oil and fossil fuels are abundant in this "paradise" world.

You're missing the fact that it's not all about gas cost.

Right; so I think because you've been outperformed due to cheap oil in this world, you're now bitter and grasping at straws.

Well, here's the simple deal: a fucking 14-20 million ENGINE will have maintenance costs on the order of it's price. A 1,5-2 million engine will too.

There's maintenance costs as well, and the Russian ones will take more simply because of the engines.

Um... you're ready to actually prove that 4 PS-90A, each costing say 2 million, will lose maintenance to your twinjet? There was an analysis which has shown that the only real edge Boeings have over the Il-96 is fuel consumption (admittedly, at $600 to $1400 per ton that's a big issue).

Quadjets went out of style in the 70s

Yep, they fucking did. They should have, with the prices being that high. But really let's look at one of the most modern airliners:

Who the fuck are you kidding, Beowulf?

And don't fucking tell me that he needs to blow money on a fucking GENx type engine to make widebody craft run at twinjet

Show me the economy if you're so smart; but I'll tell you, really it's the fuel (up to 40%), and I've read the papers. But with avia bensin at $160 ton, that's not a huge factor. Welcome to reality.

As for Il-96-400 engines - the ones I propose, PS-90A - I'm basing this on Aeroflot's experience of exploiting them.

It exploits a park of 51 PS-90A engine, and the costs to maintain the entire park are ~10,63 million USD annually (for 2005, close enough), which results in 0,2 million maintenance costs per engine per year.

I find it dubious a 14-20 million engine could have only $0,4 million maintenance costs.

~EDIT: I found removal and repair costs for a GE-90 (B767, 777 gen) engines, and they are $675,000-1,000,000 per engine. Now, how the hell can that compete with 400,000 per 2x engines?

Um, Stas, did you nuke Zablania?

Um, Stas, did you nuke Zablania?

No. It was just very thoroughly bombed by vacbombs, IIRC. We didnt' want to contaminate it.

It is used as a waste dump now, anyway.

~EDIT: Setzer I need a map!! As for RedLeader34, the Rail Republic has been added to the nations map, renew to see him!

Hey Setzer I think you overstated your Air Force there. Principlaities get a "couple" jet fighters. You've got basically three squadrons. Unless you've sunk a lot of money somewhere I didn't notice, if this is your "original" compliment you're going to have to scale back some.

That is true. If he wants a huge airforce, he'd need to orient his entire bugdet to it and quickly place orders for jets for the next year.

Are we allowed to expand beyond our original starting fleet?

As for the passenger airliners, I think I will wait for you guys to duke it out sufficiently before I foot the bill. My concern is fuel efficiency really. My economy should be enough to foot both bills (I mean, my economy is even bigger than Sweden, and they have a national carrier that operates heck of a lot of airplanes.)

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Are we allowed to expand beyond our original starting fleet?

Yes, so long as you can afford it. Or you can tank your economy if you really, really want to. But I don't think anyone will recommend that.

But you can't have more than what you're supposed to have magically appear at the onset, either.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:My concern is fuel efficiency really.

Why? It's not offering much of an economy in a world with plenty of oil.

But I'm not forcing your hand, anyway. Beowulf did conceed on oil prices; the only thing he has left is engines, but 2 million engines, even 4 of them, and 2x 14-20 million ones are very much in the same repair cost ballpark; and in fact the PS-90A wins that due to it's cheapness.

If Beowulf can explain how two twenty-million engines are cheaper to maintain than 4 two-million ones, and how this figures to a 100 million USD economy before plane life is over, I'll gladly take my bid off.

Here's my deal:

RogueIce wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Are we allowed to expand beyond our original starting fleet?

Yes, so long as you can afford it. Or you can tank your economy if you really, really want to. But I don't think anyone will recommend that.

But you can't have more than what you're supposed to have magically appear at the onset, either.

Alright. As I was considering another Nimitz equivalent carrier for a while though that will force me to build more escorts, or I could budget it over the course of the next few years or so.

Shepnukistani-ordered FCS "Highly Enriched Uranium" being launched at the National Shipyards, Shadow Republic

Goddamn it, when did my people kill me and transform my empire into a republic?

I'm amused so many people are pissing away billion to duplicate satellite networks I've already launched instead of pay a few pantry millions to access said networks.

Not to mention the Comm system Shroomia built and were launched by the UKB which as far as I know are open access to all nations yet people are still wasting billions just because it's OMSK doing the launching, even if it's not our own satellites.

It's actually maintenance in general, though engines are a big chunk of that. Sure, it's cheaper to maintain your engines. After all, Russia's per capita GDP is 1/4 that of the US. But it gets worse: that's average, not median, and is distorted by oligarchs. In actuality, the median income is closer to US$500/year(about 10,000 rubles/year) apparently, not US$10,000/year. Compared to a US median of US$46k/year. This marked difference in incomes drastically changes how expensive it is to actually build and maintain the aircraft. There's other factors in maintenance costs, such as how many hours of maintenance/flight hour for each type.

The 777 is built to western standards of passenger comfort. Amongst other things, we include overhead bins to fit the carry-on luggage of passengers.

Buy MESS! We don't consider people to be targets merely due to accidents of location of birth. And we don't low ball our prices to get your business, only to jack it up later in cost over-runs!

Mr Bean wrote:I'm amused so many people are pissing away billion to duplicate satellite networks I've already launched instead of pay a few pantry millions to access said networks.

Not to mention the Comm system Shroomia built and were launched by the UKB which as far as I know are open access to all nations yet people are still wasting billions just because it's OMSK doing the launching, even if it's not our own satellites.

You're just pissed that no one wants to be beholden to you in the event of a conflict.

Lonestar wrote:
You're just pissed that no one wants to be beholden to you in the event of a conflict.

That would be a valid excuse if every single one of those satellites were UKB produced and run. But some of them like the afformentioned communication satellites were built by Shroomia, paided for by Shroomia and run by Shroomia, thus it's a FUGAL Axis system, not a UKB or OMSK system

Mr Bean wrote:That would be a valid excuse if every single one of those satellites were UKB produced and run. But some of them like the afformentioned communication satellites were built by Shroomia, paided for by Shroomia and run by Shroomia, thus it's a FUGAL Axis system, not a UKB or OMSK system

As far as I can tell, Shroomia has a satellite television network, which is a vastly different system than generalized satellite communications. In particular, it's a one-way system only.

phongn wrote: As far as I can tell, Shroomia has a satellite television network, which is a vastly different system than generalized satellite communications. In particular, it's a one-way system only.

It's a two part system one is a pure communications(think modern Satellite cell-phones) and the second is a satellite TV broadcasting system.

Now if your talking about high capacitively satellites dedicated purely to Internet communication those are going up next. If your talking a low-bandwidth applicate like pure voice, those are up now.

RL situation has come up. Currently I'm stoned, and probably will be for the next couple of days, pain killers from my back injury yesterday. I can't process to role play too well right now, because, well I'm fucked up and in and out of sleep while my back heals.

Mr Bean wrote:It's a two part system one is a pure communications(think modern Satellite cell-phones) and the second is a satellite TV broadcasting system.

Now if your talking about high capacitively satellites dedicated purely to Internet communication those are going up next. If your talking a low-bandwidth applicate like pure voice, those are up now.

I was looking through the game and I only found references to satellite television; I didn't find any references to LEO communications satellites other than mine.

phongn wrote: Now if your talking about high capacitively satellites dedicated purely to Internet communication those are going up next. If your talking a low-bandwidth applicate like pure voice, those are up now.

I was looking through the game and I only found references to satellite television; I didn't find any references to LEO communications satellites other than mine.[/quote]
My main reference was to the Mess's duplicate private GPS system not to your system. I do admit I failed to label all my satellites fully in the FY'08 post.

The information was mostly in PM's and did not make it onto the thread until now.

The GPS is largely because we don't trust you. Of course, we've also made ours completely free for low accuracy use (high accuracy signals are still restricted, but hey, that's life). And it's not so strange when you realize that in real life, there's currently 3 separate systems in space (GPS, Galileo, GLONASS). Oh, and there's another two systems that will be launched as well (China and India). I think we're doing good to only have two systems.

Beowulf

Beowulf wrote:In actuality, the median income is closer to US$500/year(about 10,000 rubles/year) apparently, not US$10,000/year.

WHAT? Beowulf, I'm living in Russia. US $500 a year? It's about US 350-500 a month, sure, but nowhere close to US $500 a year. Per year, we get around $4-8K depending on the sector, region, etc. Aviation production plants have to pay huge sums of money due to many plants' not operating at full capacity, like in Soviet times. And the GNP/c in my country the RT, is around $25K, but since most of it comes via subsidies, et cetera, run through the state sector, I can actually dump prices.

Hehehe. Now, time to deal the final blow.

Beowulf wrote:The 777 is built to western standards of passenger comfort. Amongst other things, we include overhead bins to fit the carry-on luggage of passengers.

Overhead bins are common in Russian planes What's so surprising about that?
Interior, Il-96: >>
Interior, 777: >>

Look at those LCD panels. Comfort! They alone must be jacking up the cost of the plane as mad

Beowulf wrote:Buy MESS! We don't consider people to be targets merely due to accidents of location of birth.

Tell that to Lonestar

Beowulf wrote:And we don't low ball our prices to get your business, only to jack it up later in cost over-runs!

Hehe. This is capitalism, Beowulf. I price-dump, I get the deals, I crush the opponents and rise as a prominent hardware trader.