EPOCH Aircraft Data

Aircraft                      Useful Load   Pax Dr   T/O Dist   Land Dist   C   #

Antonov AN-2                        4,200   12   M    1,600*       1,400*        F    4  

Aviat A1-A Husky                      700     1   S       625*          350         F     4

Beech 17                                   855     5   S    1,608*       1,837*        F    1

Beech 18                                2,900     7   S    2,072*        1,480*       F     3

Beech Baron B58                   1,730     5    S   2,643*        2,427*      S     1

Beech Bonanza A36              1,356      5   S    1,913*        1,400*      L     2

Beech Bonanza F33               1,219     3   S    1,700*        1,325*      L      2

Beech Bonanza V35               1,219     5   S    1,320*        1,177*     S      1

Beech KingAir C90B               3,475     7   S    2,259*        3,500*      F     2

Bombardier Challenger 300    7,350     8   S    4,810*        2,600*      L     1

Canso/Cat Waterbomber        10,161    1  M    3,000?       4,000?      S     1

Cessna 152                              552      1   S     1,385*        1,075*       F     2

Cessna 172                              881      3   S     1,825*        1,280*       F     2

Cessna 180                           1,498      5   S     1,300*        1,267*      S     1

Cessna 185                           1,602      5   S     1,430*         1,400*     F     7

Cessna 195                           1,300      3   S     1,605*         1,495*     S     1

Cessna 207 Turbo                 1,628      7   M    1,970*         1,500*    F      1

Cessna 207 Turbine              1,825      7   M    1,970*         1,500*     S     3

Cessna 208 Grand Caravan  4,150      9   M    2,420*         1,795*    F      3

Cessna 208 SuperCargoMst  4,150      1  M    2,500*         1,740*      F     2

Cessna T210                         1,494      5   S     2,030*         1,500*     L     1

Cessna 337                           1,801      3   S     1,490*         1,500*     S     1

Cessna 340II                         2,133      3   S     2,175*         1,850*     L      1

Cicada Mk III                            500      0   S        550*          1,100*     F      1

Douglas DC-3                        8,010    21   L    3,900*          2,080*     F      5

Douglas DC-4                      33,376     50  L    4,650*          3,900*     F      2

DHC2 Beaver                        2,122      3   M      920*            870*     F      1

DHC3 Otter                           3,519    10   M    1,155*            880*      F      2

DHC3 Turbine Otter              3,500    10   M    1,725*            500*      F      4

DHC4 Caribou                     11,581    32   L     1,040*            590*     F       2

DHC6 Twotter                        5,223    20   M    1,200*          1,050*    F      3

DHC-8 100                           13,652    37   L     3,110*          2,427*    F      2

Eclipse 550                            2,366      4   S     2,345*          2,250*    L      1

Eurocopter AS350                 2,372      5   M       n/a               n/a       S      1

Grumman Goose                   2,529      7   M    3,000?         2,800*     F      1

Helio Courier                          1,320      5   S       610*             520*     F      1

Kaman K1200                        6,855      0    S       n/a               n/a       S      1

Lear 36A                                8,181      8    S    5,300*         4,400*     F       1

MD 902                                  3,125      5    S       n/a               n/a       S       1

Misibushi MU-2                      3,725      8    S    2,170*         2,200*     F       1

Mooney M20J                        1,100      3    S    1,870*         2,408*    L       1

Noorduyn Norseman             2,622     10    M   1,645*         1,300*    F       2

Pilatus PC-12                        3,930       7    M    2,650*         1,830*    F       1

Piper PA-11 Cub                      440        1    S       700*             470*    F       1

Piper PA-18 SuperCub          1,050       1    S       500*             725*    F       3

Piper PA-28 Archer                  870        3    S    1,600*          1,400*    F       2

Piper PA-31 Cheyenne          3,295       5    S    1,980*          2,480*    S       1

Piper PA-32 Saratoga           1,329       5    S     1,810*          1,700*    L       1

Piper PA-34 Seneca II           1,782       5   S      1,240*          2,090*    S      1

Piper PA-38 Tomahawk            582       1   S      1,440*          1,462      S      1

Sherpa K650T                       3,000       4    S        219*            120*      F      1

Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter       5,854     18   M        n/a               n/a        S      1

Yakvolev 40                        17,500     32    L      2,067*          2,297*     S      1

EPOCH Aircraft Data V2 Description (Thumbnail)

Legend :

Useful Load is w/o crew, fuel or pax. We shall use the difference between Maximum Gross and Empty Weight as reported in Weights & Balances in the simulator. Data may be taken from R/W research but may vary based on the fidelity of the model built. In all possible cases, the payware version has been used to report this. Your experience may vary.

#Pax is from the X-Plane model only. In all possible cases, the payware version has been used to report this. In all cases, the co-pilot seat is considered here as a passenger seat (even if it is supposed to be crewed).

Takeoff Distance/Landing Distance in feet, is drawn from real world performance data and shall be used as the standard.     * = Over 50 foot obstacle, if data supplied, otherwise all runway utilized.

Door = frame size for Cargo size.

Notes:

1. The following aircraft have not yet been tested in the sim for the appropriate values: Challenger 300, AS350, MU-2, Sik S-92 and Yak 40. If you own these, please supply the numbers from the sim to bc.

2. Question marks indicate uncertainty or "best guess". Appeals for correction with verifiable data are welcome.

3. There are often discrepancies in data between different sources. When possible, manufacturer's data is used, then encyclopedic and then forum or anecdotal resources. If the sources seem at all questionable, then the data shown here is the most conservative of the choices presented.

Colours: The aircraft listed in Orange are not yet released as job-ready but can be flown for personal training or pleasure.

The data supplied above is to be used when planning EPOCH flights and capacity.

Requests for inclusion, correction or deletions may be made in this thread.

EPOCH Alaska Air Fleet Classification :

There are 49 aircraft in the data list above. Some are classified as being standard EPOCH holdings, some as joint holdings, long term lease or special contract purchases and others as available short-term lease aircraft.

F = Fleet (Standard Holding)

S = Special Fleet (joint/longterm/contract bought)

L = Available for Lease

Location :

To Be Announced

Please Note:

The scrappy "post-view" of the data in Post #1 will give way to a full-fledged database, but not until we move the site. Please bear with me. Cheers, Joel

Thanks for the reference, this will be very useful. I do have a couple questions: 

Several of these have more than one version available (sometimes both freeware); any preference as to which we should use, or is it up to us? . 

How about the Yak-40? Stretching the point to have one operating in Alaska, I know, but Felis's one is a really excellent model & none of the others listed fit the same category (basically a bush regional jet). It's a very interesting aircraft to fly, I think, and I'd love to have an excuse to use it more often. 32 pax, useful load something like 5 or 10000 lbs if I recall. 

Can we use the freeware PA-11 from .org? I seem to remember seeing an Epoch livery for it but maybe that was for the STMA Super Cub, I forget. 

TH

Hi TH,

So the Yak-40 may be quite a stretch, but how about I leave it up to you to show me the way :). We had a similar issue and concerns with the Antonov AN-2, as neither the US or Canada would sign off on it for commercial use since it was made in Russia. Further deep research howver uncovered 2 facts about it (see appropriate thread in Forum) that allow us to use the craft.

Can you find similar?

If not, I'm sure down the line we can figure it out in some fashion.

Now, as far as the freeware versions versus payware versions issue. I'm sure there are discrepancies in weight data between models, but this is why I went with RW data so I didn't have to specifically list developers along with models. And this is why one also has to consider the numbers presented above as being the 'datum' from which we can work. So by all means, break out the freeware. We all do in many cases (in point- the DHC-8 which is getting a livery file tonight is an older freeware file)

Lastly, the PA-11 has exactly the same useful weight as the 18, so I shall make a small amendment in the list above. Thank you.

bc

Sorry for all the questions, like I've said I'm still figuring out how things are done around here (VA's in general and Epoch in particular). 

"Can you find similar?

If not, I'm sure down the line we can figure it out in some fashion."

As far as I know no Yak-40 was ever certified or operated in the US, Canada, or much of anywhere else in the West for that matter, at least not in regular airline or military service. I haven't done any real research so it's not inconceivable that there is an exception somewhere but I'm inclined to doubt it. The only justification I can offer for flying one in Alaska is, I think it would be REALLY FUN cause it's such an nice model of such an interesting (and technically appropriate) aircraft. I personally enjoy the fantasy world of X-Plane where I don't have to worry about the government (mine or anyone else's) being difficult, but on the other hand I totally understand if blowing off real-world considerations kills the immersion factor, so no worries either way. 

"Now, as far as the freeware versions versus payware versions issue."

I was actually thinking of situations where there are two different freeware models (or in the case of the DC-3, payware models) of the same aircraft. For instance: Jacques Brault & Bernd Sieker both have freeware Caribous, both of which are very good in my opinion. I guess if you're going with real-world specs we can just assume they're both OK unless you specify otherwise, which sounds good to me. Just making sure!

"PA-11 has exactly the same useful weight as the 18,"

Cool. 

TH

Hey TH, never be sorry for questions. That's how we love it around here. Gives us all a chance to bone up and learn more anyhow

As far as the Yak - why of course. I did say that we'd find a way. It is the immersion factor that keeps us from flying anything at all, being a bush outfit and all. But that need never detract from fun... that's what we do mostly   But let me dig around in my sources and see if I can't dig up a way that it could be done as per regs, if you don't mind. Failing that, we'll just bribe some officials

The idea behind using the conservative RW specs is so that all of the vagaries between various models can be covered. This keeps us away from absolute maximums, not that we won't see the odd pilot tucking an extra couple hundred pounds in past max. allowable

Cheers,

bc

I went back and checked my numbers again, looks like 5500 is doable with 4 hrs fuel, so 5800 isn't too much of a stretch for local missions with the LES Bird. Perhaps Heinze's "3" carries a little more? The KSGY AN-2 might push 2900 with a lightened fuel load. With the "standard" load of 633 lb per tank though it goes into the red at just a hair over 2600, And you won't be doing any Immelmans with that load out!

Not :nit picking" I hope you understand, just trying to be sure what the two most likely medium-heavy bush haulers I will be flying will be able to do.

With 4 hours of fuel (2,728#), Heinz's DC-3 can haul 5,282 lbs. of cargo.

With 2 hours of fuel it can haul about 6,650 lbs. for about 200 nm. and still stay legal VFR with a 30 minute reserve.

Nit-picking is awesome. In aviation, the devil is in the details for sure

bc

True enough, and I suppose one could always schedule a gas stop or two if need be. Why didn't I think of that? Looks like Heinze and LES are prtty much on the same page. Maybe I should carry a little less "push water" and start getting paid for more cargo!

True enough, Mr. Dare. The only time it really makes sense to tanker fuel is when there is none available where you need to go or the price difference is worth the added weight/cost of hauling along more than you need.

I do believe that both DC-3s are relatively accurate to each other. Usually discrepancies between X-Plane models and RW craft are found in the need to compromise due to slightly skewed SFC values not always lining up with all of the other variables affected and affecting the specific fuel consumption.

bc

I remeber a driver at CR England who was notoriuos for getting caught overweight. His dispatcher told him if he was so found of hauling fuel he should get a job driving for Shell.

YAK 40 gets EPOCH-Certified!

see "Aircraft Locator Links" for details.

bc

Hey BC, would the Pilatus PC-12 be in for the running? I reckon STMA's PC-12 is probably one of the most underrated models in X-Plane. It has complex systems, is extremely versatile and flies extremely well (it's an STMA ... say no more, say no more!).

Also I would have thought it's design would've made it a popular plane in Alaska .. not so in reality?

If you think it's worth a shot, I'll check the vital statistics for this plane (@ work currently - lunch ;)) and post them tonight ...

Yeah, I see you found the spot by the time I had replied to you.

Good navigator eh?

So, Useful Load, # Pax should do it. I know that it has airstairs but not if it has a separate cargo door. Unless it does, and it's larger than the entryway, then it will be considered a Small door.

btw...there are some in Alaska (not all that many). Frontier has a couple in their fleet and a couple charter operators, like Alaska Air Transit, but they are not prevalent.

bc

The Pilatus PC-12 has a standard 9 seater setup + 1 for the pilot making 10 all up.
This does vary depending on model ... and there's a freighter only option if I'm not wrong.

The PIM lists it's Max freight load as 1500kg (3300lbs), though I'd guess that's with no pax on board.

Is that enough info for you bc?

P.S - Here's an interesting blurb on the PC-12 for anyone who's interested.

It's got a pretty big cargo door. It also seems to eat FPS for lunch but there may be a more recent update than what I have. Mine's only good for 32 bits.

Roger that regarding the FPS ... I reckon it's the PC-12 systems that does it (CPU bound), because GPU-Z tells me I'm not stressing my GPU ... and the texturing is pretty basic in the PC-12 :D.

I have the 64 bit version! Just redownload from the Org and apply the STMA plugin + the SASL plugin that  STMA avail on their site.

The Royal Flying Doctor Service uses them here in Australia. It appears to be a popular choice ... the other plane the RFDS use a lot is the B200 KingAir.

Perfect aircraft for the Flying Doctor's Service, as I recall reading a couple of years ago in a bush magazine with an Aussie bent.

It is now formalized in the Stats page (first post) and shown with a Medium Door.

bc

Thanks BC! Testing it now ... hypothetical medevac

Yknow the 737 was fitted with gravel guards at one point, and was making 2000 landings a year on gravel runways... Might see if I can actually get one down and stopped at CYXQ. Even if BC doesn't want us crashing humongous jets into his brand new scenery, it would be nice to put one or two jets in the rotation for long flights, even if it meant landing them at Whitehorse and taking the Caribou the rest of the way... Could make the 7 hour flight from Vancouver into a 4 or 5 hour flight...