KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 16090 posts, RR: 45
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 65638 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
A statement from Bombardier:
Quote: FTV1 Reaches New Heights
CSeries FTV1 took to the skies yet again, just two days after its follow-up test flight on Oct. 1. Today’s four-hour flight took FTV1 to new heights as the flight crew expanded the performance envelope to reach an altitude of just over 7,620 metres (25,000 feet), at speeds of Mach 0.60 (740 km/h) near Mirabel, Québec.
“The test flight today was helpful in demonstrating the performance of the aircraft at higher altitudes and going forward, we will be combining our flight tests with activities on the ground as we further validate systems data at our CIASTA (CSeries Integrated Aircraft Systems Test Area) where we expect to compare tests and ready the systems for further in-flight analysis,” said Rob Dewar, Vice President and General Manager, CSeries Program.
rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1777 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 63902 times:
Quoting kmot (Reply 4): Will we see any additional u.s. sales?
Hopefully, as favourable results start being confirmed, more interest in the aircraft is inevitable. To see the sales results the original CRJ-100/200 had is possibly unrealistic. To see a solid and steady increase in sales, I feel, is more realistic.
Paolo92 From Italy, joined Oct 2007, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 62140 times:
Nordic Aviation Capital, a Scandinavian aircraft lessor already Bombardier's customer with the Q-Series and CRJ aircraft, is eyeing a CSeries order, according to Flightglobal.
I remember, but I can't find the article atm, that when NAC ordered 12 CRJ1000 last year (for Garuda), the CEO, interviewed about the CSeries said that he saw it as a matter of when, not if, NAC will order the CSeries (which is what he is saying again today).
czbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 1006 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 61483 times:
Just out of curiosity... has there been more than 3 flights?
How impatient am I to say that at the rate they're going, it seems like this project isn't going to see any EIS until about 2073. (But they're going to have several Academy Awards for their videos in the meantime....)
I think there is a major difference in the flight test equipment set-up and it's capabilities between A, B and BBD. A and B have the capability to test in real time if they are approaching flutter boundaries, a very very dangerous condition that can set on very sudden if you've got something wrong an which can destroy the aircraft. I suspect BBD has a procedure and setup which is much more conservative here and therefore this early part of clearing the flight envelope will take more time, it will be more stretch the envelope, go back a check for the next stretch, fly it and so on. A clearly have a very strong telemetry link where the checking is done in real time at the flight test center, B has more capabilities on-board instead.
With only one flight engineer on board (B has more then 10! at certain cases) and a rather rudimentary flight test center compared to A I think BBD is more classical style here. Once BBD is past this phase things will progress at a more normal pace me thinks
golfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 888 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 60853 times:
I am not sure about YMX but here in southern ontario the weather has been wet for the past few days. Not sure how much of a factor weather is at this early stage of testing. Do they still need VMC weather or can they start testing in IMC?
YYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1054 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 hours ago) and read 60174 times:
Quoting MANYUL (Reply 10): First noise test carried out on 2nd flight fly-by.
Does anyone have any idea when the results will be released? I presume that there will be many further such tests, but was hpping for an early glimpse (it came to mind as I was reading about the ongoing debate re the Porter / YTZ runway extension).
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2911 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 58267 times:
Hmm, I'm wondering, the slow flight test progress may suggest to me that they still have significant software challenges in the FWB department. Vibration tests, flutter, low speed, medium altitude, few configuration changes in the first flights all seem to point into defining (not even yet fine-tuning) FBW algorithms and logic patterns.
Hope they can get things going, but even getting other FTV's in the air soon, they don't seem to getting any meaningful flight hours per frame at the moment.
Looks more like a Norwegian 787 operation than the Shinkansen-like A350 flight test operation . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 14574 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 58189 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Paolo92 (Reply 6): Nordic Aviation Capital, a Scandinavian aircraft lessor already Bombardier's customer with the Q-Series and CRJ aircraft, is eyeing a CSeries order, according to Flightglobal.
The question is will Bombardier staff up sufficiently to get going?
I used to work in a system software lab. After almost every flight test the test team wants a software rebuild (I did when I was in flight test). But a new software build must pass in the lab before installation in the aircraft. I suspect Bombardier didn't pay for redundant test benches to debug software before it goes on a main bench. Boeing and Airbus will have 4+ main benches in the system center lab. Only one will be hooked up to the 'iron bird where hydraulics and full control boxes will be actuated (see if there is feedback from power draw to the control system). They will each also have 4 to 8 sub benches. Each bench is expensive for one needs real flight computers, real flight radios, and usually the sub-parts of the aircraft navigation system (e.g., GPS receiver, but not all benches will do simulated GPS transmission onto the actual GPS receivers). I suspect Bombardier needs more benches and is thus having to wait much longer for new software builds.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 57453 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22): I suspect Bombardier needs more benches and is thus having to wait much longer for new software builds.
Yes, the difference between the Airbus 350 flight tests and the Cseries is striking. Both said they need a year to do the test, then delivery. The Cseries is systems wise less complex then an A350 but not with much. I think it is time for some aviation Journalist to ask BBD why things are progressing so slowly.
On another tack, better slow then taking risks but then the timeplan will not hold. Not that it matter much, the Cseries will be a 30 years program, better be a few more months late then doing imprudent things .
r2rho From Spain, joined Feb 2007, 3193 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 57288 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 23): Yes, the difference between the Airbus 350 flight tests and the Cseries is striking.
Agree, but as lightsaber mentions, due to their size, A&B can afford much larger test infrastructure. Also, the A350's "dispatch reliability" is surprising and definitely more than one would expect from your average flight test aircraft; they are flying it almost like an airline. The CSeries is indeed disappointing in this aspect, but the comparison to A350 could hurt even Boeing (or the A380 at the time).
One major difference in the test programs (assuming all is on time) is that BBD was planning to have all its test aircraft in the air much earlier than Airbus, who just now has MSN3 but MSN2&4 won't arrive until early 2014. If the remaining CSeries FTV's arrive quickly, they could (partially) compensate their lower dispatch rate per a/c with having more a/c flying sooner.
: Airchive.com has an article about the CSeries factory, including some nice pictures of FTV4 and 5: http://airchive.com/blog/2013/10/13/...ries-bombard