By: Anonymous
- 22nd February 2013 at 20:53Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
I agree with you on the all-business seating analysis, but even at the same seating config the CS100 beats the A318 in economy. Well, some extra revenue would be a plus :)
By: chornedsnorkack
- 22nd February 2013 at 22:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you think would be MTOW of CS100 at LCY?
With PW1524 engines, the take-off distance was quoted as 1509 m for CS100ER at MTOW 58 151 kg, and 1890 m for CS300ER at its MTOW 63 322 kg. CS300XT, before its abolition, was offered at MTOW of 59 557 kg and takeoff distance 1661 m.
All these distance apply at SL and ISA.
LCY is 1318 m. And while LCY is at sea level, it is not always at ISA. The temperatures in London do exceed +15 at summer days.
PW1524G is flat rated to ISA+15, and London rarely exceeds +30. But wings are not flat rated.
What would be the MTOW hit for CS100 at LCY and worst conditions (+30)?
Considering the all-business 32 seat payload, which also saves a lot from the standard payload... would CS100 take off with full tanks (or indeed extra fuel tanks) or suffer a fuel and range penalty?
New
By: Anonymous
- 23rd February 2013 at 10:08Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
I guess that the speculated all-business CS100 would fly un-restricred, in terms of payload, in all probable ISA conditions.
For other versions I'll wait for the performance data coming from the flight tests, but I guess that it would not need an excessive restriction.
Furthermore Bombardier declared that the CS100 will be LCY-certified "out of the box".
Its nominal range, of 7900 nm, is defined at payload of just 8 passengers. This obviously means that G8000 is, at that range, restricted in terms of payload because its maximum payload is 19 passengers.
With CS100, you can always pick a destination which is so far that it can only be reached at a payload restricted even from the already small all-business one. And since at LCY the MTOW is always restricted and dependent on weather, even for CS100, there will be conceivable destinations which CS100 can reach at full all-business payload in favourable weather, but only at payload restricted from that low level in case of bad weather.
So what I´d like to figure out is - what is the still air range which CS100 with PW1524G can reach out of LCY at the worst likely weather there (+30, no wind) with the full 36 seat all business payload?
New
By: Anonymous
- 23rd February 2013 at 20:17Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
I have no idea on what will the degradation in performance for the CSeries be, and as such, I have no idea of what could those ranges/regulated weights be.
Although, since Swiss will operate the CS100 from LCY (replacing Avros), and they plan a relatively short hop (ZRH), for small ranges I guess no restriction will apply, unless prohibitive ISA conditions.
On a side note Lufthansa is considering, according to CH-Aviation, to convert its options to replace Austrian Airlines (Tyrolean) Fokkers.
By: ThreeSpool
- 23rd February 2013 at 21:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good see progress on the mini-787.
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th March 2013 at 11:07Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
Rollout of the first CSeries aircraft, plus program update scheduled for Thursday at 3pm GMT.
The event, which will take place at the Montreal-Mirabel Final Assembly facility and test facility, will also be followed from Belfast, where Bombardier builds several major structures for the CSeries (like wings).
The windows are not only the largest on any narrow body, but are close in size to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and upcoming Airbus A350XWB.
False. The window size 11´´x16´´ is big, but DC-8 has 14´´x18´´. And at 351 cm cabin width, DC-8 is a narrowbody.
But CSeries specifications have been changed - notably, the plane is stretched, CS100 inside and CS300 inside and out.
The current specifications:
CS100:
List price 62 million US$
Cabin length stretched from 22,7 m to 23,7 m. Outer length unchanged at 34,9 m
Cabin aisle height lowered from 213 cm to 211 cm. Centerline width unchanged at 328 cm, and so is floorline width at 310 cm.
Floor area increased from 70 to 72 square m
Slight MTOW increase, from 58 151 kg to 58 513 kg.
A "Base" version added, with the lower MTOW of 52 617 kg
Range at 110 passengers at 102 kg each unchanged at 5463 km.
The "Base" version, with the same payload, has range of 2778 km
The takeoff distance, despite increased MTOW, is decreased from 1509 m to 1463 m (SL, ISA).
The "Base" version manages takeoff in 1219 m, at SL, ISA.
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th March 2013 at 16:01Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
Bombardier, among the new data released, specifies in the general brochure (link here) that the specs of the "base" version are related to "urban operations" (specifically shows LCY), so the "max" would be the actual maximum weights/distances that the aircraft uses on an un-restricted airport.
Talking about the XCS (eXtra Capacity Seating) Lufthansa and Swiss also expressed intrest, as reported by Flightglobal.
Meanwhile, on the topic of this thread's title, the name of the 1st operator is still undisclosed.
By: chornedsnorkack
- 13th March 2013 at 20:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that the specs of the "base" version are related to "urban operations" (specifically shows LCY), so the "max" would be the actual maximum weights/distances that the aircraft uses on an un-restricted airport.
How does the performance of "base" version compare against the performance of "max" version with light fuel load and takeoff weight equal to that of "base" version aximum takeoff weight?
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th March 2013 at 20:52Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
From what I see the difference base/max is simply the reduced MTOW (that leads to reduced takeoff/landing distances and reduced range).
So basically the same aircraft, no structural differences.
By: chornedsnorkack
- 14th March 2013 at 14:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LCY is said to have TORA of 1199 m, but ASDA/TODA of 1319 m.
And CS100Base needs just 1219 m runway at MTOW.
Does it mean that LCY could operate CS100Max at restricted take-off weight? The 100 m which a lightly loaded CS100Max can use but CS100Base cannot would mean some additional take-off weight and range....
New
By: Anonymous
- 14th March 2013 at 18:48Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
That's exactly what I think.
Talking about today's LH order for 35 A320neo + 35 A321neo + 30 A320ceo, I guess that either the mainline is shifting away from the A319-sized aircraft, or is waiting for the CSeries' 1st flight to place orders for the CS300 in which showed interest.
By: chornedsnorkack
- 14th March 2013 at 19:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another jet which can operate out of 1200 m runway is Bring Another Engine 146.
But the contrast is range. From a 1200 m runway at SL, ISA, a BAE 146-300 cannot operate at all (with nominal payload), BAE 146-200 can cover 600 nm, and BAE 146-100 can fly 900 nm.
Whereas CS100Base can fly about 1400 nm at these conditions.
New
By: Anonymous
- 16th March 2013 at 15:50Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
With that range, an airline could easily do Moscow, that's a destination that would feature a lot of business passengers (see British going there with the 747 from LHR)
Also Istanbul fits within that range.
I wonder if that mysterious "Odyssey" reported by Reuters (officially by Bombardier just "an european airline 1st time buyer of BBD aircraft") is just a "project name" for BA, expanding from LCY.
The CS100 with its range would boost both business and leisure destinations.
By: ThreeSpool
- 16th March 2013 at 17:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure, A319 is a dog, but 737-700 did perfectly fine. Overall, I think there is a tendency to move towards the higher capacity end of the scale, but 737-700 shows this niche is/was valued: more than 1400 sales.
There have been more than 1,522 orders* for the A319(s), and 1,457 orders** for the 737-700(s) to date. Neither a bad aircraft (in terms of sales), and neither an inconsiderable market.
The lack of interest in the newer A319NEO/737-7MAX might be to do with the higher OEW and the one flight attendant per 50 passengers rule making the larger A320NEO/737-8MAX more desirable.
By: Anonymous
- 17th March 2013 at 10:11Permalink- Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
The main thing that is killing 319neo and MAX7 sales is their further increase in structural weight... considering that they are already heavier that the competition, they will be even heavier. IMHO that's the point.
Side note: within the 1522 A319 sales there are also the 26 A319neo ordered by Qatar and Republic.
By: ThreeSpool
- 18th March 2013 at 11:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree. The CS300 makes much better sense if you don't need the range/payload of the 737-7MAX/A319NEO. As the numbers above show, there is a market for the 130-150 seater. Ultimately, some will be replaced by the new Airbus/Boeing models. But, for the most part, it is for Bombardier to win.
Are Embraer any closer to launching a 190 stretch?
By: Anonymous - 22nd February 2013 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
I agree with you on the all-business seating analysis, but even at the same seating config the CS100 beats the A318 in economy. Well, some extra revenue would be a plus :)
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 22nd February 2013 at 22:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you think would be MTOW of CS100 at LCY?
With PW1524 engines, the take-off distance was quoted as 1509 m for CS100ER at MTOW 58 151 kg, and 1890 m for CS300ER at its MTOW 63 322 kg. CS300XT, before its abolition, was offered at MTOW of 59 557 kg and takeoff distance 1661 m.
All these distance apply at SL and ISA.
LCY is 1318 m. And while LCY is at sea level, it is not always at ISA. The temperatures in London do exceed +15 at summer days.
PW1524G is flat rated to ISA+15, and London rarely exceeds +30. But wings are not flat rated.
What would be the MTOW hit for CS100 at LCY and worst conditions (+30)?
Considering the all-business 32 seat payload, which also saves a lot from the standard payload... would CS100 take off with full tanks (or indeed extra fuel tanks) or suffer a fuel and range penalty?
By: Anonymous - 23rd February 2013 at 10:08 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
I guess that the speculated all-business CS100 would fly un-restricred, in terms of payload, in all probable ISA conditions.
For other versions I'll wait for the performance data coming from the flight tests, but I guess that it would not need an excessive restriction.
Furthermore Bombardier declared that the CS100 will be LCY-certified "out of the box".
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 23rd February 2013 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does not make sense.
Compare Global 8000:
http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_2/pdf/global_8000_factsheet.pdf
Its nominal range, of 7900 nm, is defined at payload of just 8 passengers. This obviously means that G8000 is, at that range, restricted in terms of payload because its maximum payload is 19 passengers.
With CS100, you can always pick a destination which is so far that it can only be reached at a payload restricted even from the already small all-business one. And since at LCY the MTOW is always restricted and dependent on weather, even for CS100, there will be conceivable destinations which CS100 can reach at full all-business payload in favourable weather, but only at payload restricted from that low level in case of bad weather.
So what I´d like to figure out is - what is the still air range which CS100 with PW1524G can reach out of LCY at the worst likely weather there (+30, no wind) with the full 36 seat all business payload?
By: Anonymous - 23rd February 2013 at 20:17 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
I have no idea on what will the degradation in performance for the CSeries be, and as such, I have no idea of what could those ranges/regulated weights be.
Although, since Swiss will operate the CS100 from LCY (replacing Avros), and they plan a relatively short hop (ZRH), for small ranges I guess no restriction will apply, unless prohibitive ISA conditions.
On a side note Lufthansa is considering, according to CH-Aviation, to convert its options to replace Austrian Airlines (Tyrolean) Fokkers.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 23rd February 2013 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good see progress on the mini-787.
By: Anonymous - 4th March 2013 at 11:07 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
Rollout of the first CSeries aircraft, plus program update scheduled for Thursday at 3pm GMT.
The event, which will take place at the Montreal-Mirabel Final Assembly facility and test facility, will also be followed from Belfast, where Bombardier builds several major structures for the CSeries (like wings).
There will also be a live webcast on the event webpage: Bombardier CSeries Program Update
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 7th March 2013 at 15:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CS300 Extra Crowded launched!
Bombardier now officially has a launch customer for CS300 Extra Crowded:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardier-launches-high-density-cs300-with-air-baltic-383179/
Air Baltic, 148 seats out of the 160 seat maximum.
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 10th March 2013 at 19:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What a nice bird ...
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3A7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3A20922ce4-38e3-470b-9e76-6f4a975faf5e
http://airchive.com/blog/2013/03/08/the-bombardier-cseries-rolls-out-but-is-it-a-game-changer/
Deino
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 10th March 2013 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
False. The window size 11´´x16´´ is big, but DC-8 has 14´´x18´´. And at 351 cm cabin width, DC-8 is a narrowbody.
But CSeries specifications have been changed - notably, the plane is stretched, CS100 inside and CS300 inside and out.
The current specifications:
CS100:
List price 62 million US$
Cabin length stretched from 22,7 m to 23,7 m. Outer length unchanged at 34,9 m
Cabin aisle height lowered from 213 cm to 211 cm. Centerline width unchanged at 328 cm, and so is floorline width at 310 cm.
Floor area increased from 70 to 72 square m
Slight MTOW increase, from 58 151 kg to 58 513 kg.
A "Base" version added, with the lower MTOW of 52 617 kg
Range at 110 passengers at 102 kg each unchanged at 5463 km.
The "Base" version, with the same payload, has range of 2778 km
The takeoff distance, despite increased MTOW, is decreased from 1509 m to 1463 m (SL, ISA).
The "Base" version manages takeoff in 1219 m, at SL, ISA.
By: Anonymous - 13th March 2013 at 16:01 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
Bombardier, among the new data released, specifies in the general brochure (link here) that the specs of the "base" version are related to "urban operations" (specifically shows LCY), so the "max" would be the actual maximum weights/distances that the aircraft uses on an un-restricted airport.
Talking about the XCS (eXtra Capacity Seating) Lufthansa and Swiss also expressed intrest, as reported by Flightglobal.
Meanwhile, on the topic of this thread's title, the name of the 1st operator is still undisclosed.
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 13th March 2013 at 20:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How does the performance of "base" version compare against the performance of "max" version with light fuel load and takeoff weight equal to that of "base" version aximum takeoff weight?
By: Anonymous - 13th March 2013 at 20:52 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
From what I see the difference base/max is simply the reduced MTOW (that leads to reduced takeoff/landing distances and reduced range).
So basically the same aircraft, no structural differences.
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 14th March 2013 at 14:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LCY is said to have TORA of 1199 m, but ASDA/TODA of 1319 m.
And CS100Base needs just 1219 m runway at MTOW.
Does it mean that LCY could operate CS100Max at restricted take-off weight? The 100 m which a lightly loaded CS100Max can use but CS100Base cannot would mean some additional take-off weight and range....
By: Anonymous - 14th March 2013 at 18:48 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
That's exactly what I think.
Talking about today's LH order for 35 A320neo + 35 A321neo + 30 A320ceo, I guess that either the mainline is shifting away from the A319-sized aircraft, or is waiting for the CSeries' 1st flight to place orders for the CS300 in which showed interest.
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 14th March 2013 at 19:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another jet which can operate out of 1200 m runway is Bring Another Engine 146.
But the contrast is range. From a 1200 m runway at SL, ISA, a BAE 146-300 cannot operate at all (with nominal payload), BAE 146-200 can cover 600 nm, and BAE 146-100 can fly 900 nm.
Whereas CS100Base can fly about 1400 nm at these conditions.
By: Anonymous - 16th March 2013 at 15:50 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
With that range, an airline could easily do Moscow, that's a destination that would feature a lot of business passengers (see British going there with the 747 from LHR)
Also Istanbul fits within that range.
I wonder if that mysterious "Odyssey" reported by Reuters (officially by Bombardier just "an european airline 1st time buyer of BBD aircraft") is just a "project name" for BA, expanding from LCY.
The CS100 with its range would boost both business and leisure destinations.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 16th March 2013 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There have been more than 1,522 orders* for the A319(s), and 1,457 orders** for the 737-700(s) to date. Neither a bad aircraft (in terms of sales), and neither an inconsiderable market.
The lack of interest in the newer A319NEO/737-7MAX might be to do with the higher OEW and the one flight attendant per 50 passengers rule making the larger A320NEO/737-8MAX more desirable.
*Source: Airbus Orders & Deliveries (Airbus_Feb_2013_Orders_Deliveries.xls)
**Source: Boeing Orders and Deliveries
By: Anonymous - 17th March 2013 at 10:11 Permalink - Edited 2nd January 2024 at 13:44
The main thing that is killing 319neo and MAX7 sales is their further increase in structural weight... considering that they are already heavier that the competition, they will be even heavier. IMHO that's the point.
Side note: within the 1522 A319 sales there are also the 26 A319neo ordered by Qatar and Republic.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 18th March 2013 at 11:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree. The CS300 makes much better sense if you don't need the range/payload of the 737-7MAX/A319NEO. As the numbers above show, there is a market for the 130-150 seater. Ultimately, some will be replaced by the new Airbus/Boeing models. But, for the most part, it is for Bombardier to win.
Are Embraer any closer to launching a 190 stretch?