Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 21508 times:
A little more wing span and range.
Bombardier Inc. said yesterday it has revised the designs of its CSeries commercial jet family, increasing wingspan, reducing length, improving range and adding the "hot and high" 130XT for shorter and high-altitude runways.
IMO at some point when the program is established (financing, subcontractors, backlog) Bombardier will pull a C150 out of the drawer.. making the 737 & A320 look like SUV's and having Airbus and Boeing rethink "2020" for a new NB.
Connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 21357 times:
Especially with the XT version, it looks increasingly like the Chinese will launch CSeries (and soon). Would be a good performer in many regions of that country, esp. Tibet and Xinjiang. I wonder what this says about their confidence in AVIC I ?
I agree that with the bigger wing, a C150 looks almost certain. I believe this meets the definition of an aircraft 'family'.
R2rho From Spain, joined Feb 2007, 2908 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 8 hours ago) and read 20638 times:
If Bombardier is smart, they will design this a/c to be easily stretchable beyond the 130 in the future. A 5-abreast cross-section allows for lots of possibilities. A stretched CSeries would be a low cost, low risk way for Bombardier to sneak into A&B's turf without having to bet the company on a new design. This announced design change is certainly a step in the right direction.
I think AVIC will offer affordable capasity to build the relatively conventional fuselage structure, a labor intensive part. AVIC can keep down production costs.. Then the Chineese have the money to be risk sharing partners & sit on a huge growth market. Only consideration is AVIC is also developing / building the similar seized ARJ...
Yes, the promise of this new commercial aircraft, also the biggest risk. Soon prototypes of the engines will take to the air. Hopefull the bunch of hot rotating gears and bearings in front of the engine will prove realiable..
Quoting Flighty (Reply 9): Boom. This will be the most fuel efficient 120-150 pax jet in the sky.
If the GTF delivers, and Bombardier succeeds in keeping the weight significantly under the NB's is should be possible to go at least 15% down in fuel consumption compared to the CFM56 /V2500 powered 737 and A320.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3225 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 20033 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): IMO at some point when the program is established (financing, subcontractors, backlog) Bombardier will pull a C150 out of the drawer.. making the 737 & A320 look like SUV's and having Airbus and Boeing rethink "2020" for a new NB.
I've only been calling for that/cautioning that A&B need to mind BBD and EMB since I joined the site Many are quick to dismiss BBD and EMB as unable to get into the A&B space, but it wasn't long ago that Airbus wasn't much more than BBD... look what happened.
As a Canadian, (yes I carry two passports by birth) I hope BBD pulls it off.. not many people understand how far advanced Canada was at one time in the aerospace sector (hints: Avro Jetliner, Avro Arrow).
*If* BBD can establish in the 150 seat market, it could spell long-term trouble for A&B.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19743 times:
I think what Bombardier needs is a strong western ally that puts critical weight behind the project and can really take care of share of the development.
Dassault, BAE, Northrop Grumann, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Kawasaki..
Upto 150 seats maybe 5 abreast is struturally more efficient. Upfront it is if a middle seat in First is hard to sell. AVIC, Bombardier, Sukhoi, Mc Donalds, Fokker, Dornier etc thought so. Half are gone however..
LawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 980 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19665 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 11): all Bombardier has to do to make this airplane a hit right out of the box is to agree to take back 1 CRJ for every C series acquired. DL/NW and many other carriers will buy it in a heartbeat.
I've made that point in the past (2 CRJs for 1 C Series)...while that would be a heck of an inducement for airlines like AA / DL / UA, it would probably be an insurmountable cost for Bombardier.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): Upto 150 seats maybe 5 abreast is struturally more efficient.
One of the great ideas that Bombardier has come up with in the 5-abreast cross section is that the middle seat on the three-seat side is about one inch wider than the other 2 seats.
If you've got to sit in the penalty box, here's a consolation prize...
Drgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 722 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19526 times:
Upto 150 seats maybe 5 abreast is struturally more efficient. Upfront it is if a middle seat in First is hard to sell. AVIC, Bombardier, Sukhoi, Mc Donalds , Fokker, Dornier etc thought so. Half are gone however..
I miss the days when McDonald's was building airplanes. Anybody remember the Mc DC-3? What a classic!
Certainly I would think that passengers would prefer five abreast to six abreast. The DC-9 series (and MD-80 series) wouldn't be categorized as commercial failures. McDonnell Douglas' problems were more MD-11 related.
ElBandGeek From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 761 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 19344 times:
Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 20): Certainly I would think that passengers would prefer five abreast to six abreast.
Exactly....if given the choice I'd take an MD-80/717 over a 737/A320 anyday. For my trip to Florida next month on DL, out of of 4 planes, only 1 requires me to sit in a 3 across row. (MD88, 763, 738, CR9)
Maybe it´s just me but wouldn´t that increase weight/reduce capacity? This doesn´t bode well for fuel efficiency I suppose.
Also BBD takes 2 steps back and the C-Series can again be called transcontinental. As far as I remember, airlines weren´t interested in a 110/130 seat transcon a/c. What has changed beside the price of oil?
: Well said.. As always, a good post Keesje. I really like your photos, they make your posts very interesting. Could you propose a range for the C-150,
: NZ is announcing an order for 12-17 aircraft in the next few weeks for its NZ Link operation. Maybe the C Series is being offered by Bombardier along
: Is BBD aiming for the CSeries to have a mostly-composite fuselage like the B787 or will there be more aluminium-lithium than composites? I wonder if t
: The C-Series has never been mentioned by NZ - they say their choice is between the E190, AT7 and DH4. But NZ surely has to be a prime target for Bomb
: I really hope this works and BBD starts putting some pressure on A&B who are comfortably sitting back in their perfect duopoly and intend to milk thei
: Larger wing (with-in reason) vs. fuse lower weight = less drag = *better* fuel efficiency.
: Bombardier specifies the biggest version with a 2900nm range. I think a stretched C150 wouldn't be allowed to increase too much on MTOW. So I guess a
: Regarding the upper limits on seating capacity, wouldn't that be controlled by the number of emergency exits ? Seem to recall EasyJet had to have 2 ex
: Two overwing escape exits like bigger 737 an a320 versions doesn't seem a showstopper. Pratt has been very upbeat over the geared turbo fan over the
: " target=_blank>http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/t....html I like it, just like Qantas' new A380 interior!