queb
Topic Author
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:57 am

Some news about the CSeries from FlightGlobal:

Bombardier confirm that the CS100 (in all business config) is designed to do non-stop transatlantic flight
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...siness-class-cseries-order-366588/

The CS100 will be certified ETOPS 120 at EIS (ETOPS 180 6 months after) and other flight test program information
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ries-flight-test-programme-366583/

Bombardier to deliver 10 CSeries per month in 2016
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-cseries-per-month-in-2016-366585/

Bombardier begins CSeries Aircraft 0 activation
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ries-aircraft-0-activation-366590/
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:04 am

Thanks for posting the links.

Interesting on the "trans-Atlantic" they say:

Bombardier confirms that customers are discussing an all-business class CSeries CS100 to fly non-stop between London City and New York-John F Kennedy airports.

Why JFK???? What about EWR? Is it that BA is the customer and looking to replace the current 1-stop westbound service on the A318?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4799
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:11 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 1):
Why JFK???? What about EWR? Is it that BA is the customer and looking to replace the current 1-stop westbound service on the A318?

Probably referring to Odyssey airlines:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...ines-odyssey-idUSLNE7BI03X20111219
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:19 am

Quoting polot (Reply 2):

Probably referring to Odyssey airlines:

Yeah, the linked article in the OP mentioned them too - whether that actually happens though....  

I guess, though, with the arrival of the C-series, we'll be seeing RJs eventually flying transcons here in the USA. 
 
boberito6589
Posts: 363
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:09 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:54 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
I guess, though, with the arrival of the C-series, we'll be seeing RJs eventually flying transcons here in the USA.

At that point are they no longer called RJs? haha
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:15 am

CS100 in 4-abreast J seats should have 40 seats, whereas the BA A318 has 32 seats. I expect the CS100 to be 18% lighter than A318, while offering 25% more seats if configured 4-abreast in all J--which translates to nearly 40% lower fuel burn per seat relative to A318.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10006
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:47 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 1):
Why JFK???? What about EWR? Is it that BA is the customer and looking to replace the current 1-stop westbound service on the A318?

I think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type, an order is more a case of when not if in my opinion. The airport's masterplan is to increase passengers to 8 million a year, they can't do all that through adding frequencies alone, so will be keen to have their major operators increase seating capacity instead. Now LCY is already a very costly airport to operate from, the more passengers the better, so I can imagine the airport will seek to achieve this by raising the minimum number of passengers who are charged for towards 50 or higher, making aircraft like the ERJ 170 less attractive.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
GCT64
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:58 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
I think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type, an order is more a case of when not if in my opinion. The airport's masterplan is to increase passengers to 8 million a year, they can't do all that through adding frequencies alone, so will be keen to have their major operators increase seating capacity instead.

I can certainly see that approach working for BA on the London-EDI routes - take out flights and capacity from LHR-EDI (this will happen when BA gets their hands on BMI) and add capacity to LCY-EDI. The overall number of flights from London will go down (releasing slots) but capacity will be maintained by using larger aircraft from both airports.
Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,(..53 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:53 am

Quoting boberito6589 (Reply 4):
At that point are they no longer called RJs? haha

If the guys/gals up front are making regional wages, i'll still call them RJs!  
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:59 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
I think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type, an order is more a case of when not if in my opinion.

So soon after buying the ERJ?

I reckon it's Cityjet / AF this is really being targetted at.
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2262
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:03 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type

Not disagreeing thats what Bombardier are intending to do, but the E-Jets & A318's are relatively recent additions for BA and chosen when the C-Series was on offer, so I cant see them replacing them any time soon.

Wonder if Privatair might be interested?
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:08 am

Quoting queb (Thread starter):
Bombardier confirm that the CS100 (in all business config) is designed to do non-stop transatlantic flight

Thanks for the links. From the 1st link:
"But Bombardier's designers established the non-stop westbound leg across the Atlantic Ocean with an all-business class configuration as a requirement for the CS100, Dwar said.

More incentive for Pratt to beat fuel burn.  
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
which translates to nearly 40% lower fuel burn per seat relative to A318.

Umm... With a more efficient engine, it should do even a little better than that.  

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:29 am

It's nice to hear some real news from the CSeries camp. Progress is happening though I'm still concerned about potential delays.

My guess is the most pressure is on the fly by wire systems. They're a first for BBD. Hopefully Parker Aerospace is up to the task...though they did design the fly by wire systems on the G650...which seems to be working, the accident having nothing to do with fly by wire.
What the...?
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:00 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
Umm... With a more efficient engine, it should do even a little better than that.

You are right. For some reason I was thinking A318NEO which will not be offered. CS100 could have close to 60% lower fuel burn per seat relative to A318.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2742
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:58 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
More incentive for Pratt to beat fuel burn

Could it be that the development has now progressed to the point that Pratt and Bombardier have a better picture to what extent the 4% fuel burn reserve is still required? Could it be that they now think they don't need that 4% to keep as reserve, but are now actually selling it, opening up a new market segment?

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10006
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:25 am

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 9):
So soon after buying the ERJ?
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 10):
Not disagreeing thats what Bombardier are intending to do, but the E-Jets & A318's are relatively recent additions for BA and chosen when the C-Series was on offer, so I cant see them replacing them any time soon.

It might sound odd, but *if* the C series delivers on its promises then I can definitely see them placing an order around 2014/2015, once it's in operation and so delivery fits in with the timetable for LCY upgrading it's facilities to offer more large stands and a parallel taxiway. If they keep the generous pitch it would offer a 25-50% increase in capacity over the ERJs and reduced seat costs, so long as the larger C Series can perform well out of LCY. And if the smaller version performs as expected it would be able to open up new routes from LCY which even the ERJ 170 would struggle with, Moscow immediately comes to mind.

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 9):
I reckon it's Cityjet / AF this is really being targetted at.

I think they are as well, which presents an interesting situation. Unless the LCY masterplan is fast forwarded there isn't enough capacity to accommodate two sizable fleets of the larger C Series at LCY by 2015/16 as the aircraft needs them. So who jumps first, both companies have just replaced their fleets, no doubt CityJet would go with the maximum configuration of 145 pax if they could.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:22 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15):
And if the smaller version performs as expected it would be able to open up new routes from LCY which even the ERJ 170 would struggle with, Moscow immediately comes to mind.

LCY-SVO is only 1341 nm so I don't think the E170 would have a problem with that. But the CS100 should do better on burn and load, for sure.

But if the CS100 can do LCY-JFK/EWR n/s, this opens up some interesting possibilities, particularly if the GTF exceeds expectations:
LCY-DXB/AUH I think would be a natural
LCY-JED/RUH ditto
LCY-DCA (3201 nm) if the fuel burn can support it westbound - there's also the issue of the restrictions on flights departing DCA, which has been discussed before. But this can be negotiated, I suppose.

Fuel burn aside, the ETOPS issue in the end depends on the gearbox, IMHO. What happens if it seizes mid-Atlantic ?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10006
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:05 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
LCY-SVO is only 1341 nm so I don't think the E170 would have a problem with that. But the CS100 should do better on burn and load, for sure.

Yes the range should just about be fine, but I'd question the economics of a 76 seater on the route. It would be better with the 98 seat ERJ 190, but that would be very questionable on range year around, I don't think it could do it with a meaningful payload.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:26 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 17):
Yes the range should just about be fine, but I'd question the economics of a 76 seater on the route. It would be better with the 98 seat ERJ 190, but that would be very questionable on range year around, I don't think it could do it with a meaningful payload.

But what about an all-J E170 ? The RASM there would be pretty decent. Same for an all-J CS100 to SVO.

Is the E190 even approved for LCY ? The glideslope is a lot steeper than normal. If the E190 could get in/out of LCY, I guess it can't carry sufficient fuel for SVO given the runway available.

With a decent runway, range wouldn't be an issue: AC have been using E190s YYZ-SEA (1791 nm) and YYZ-SAN (1874 nm).
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Trucker
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:17 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:16 pm

Kind of off topic from CS100 but since this thread has drifted toward "What aircraft can best operate TATL from LCY" I'm going to ask about something that I've always wondered about. And please, nobody laugh too hard.

Would it be possible to take a C17 and configure it to carry passengers on a route like LCY-JFK. It's suposed to be really good on a short runway and with a passenger load rather than a heavy cargo load I'm thinking it should be able to do LCY-JFK nonstop without any trouble. And you'd be able to carry alot more than 40-50 passengers. I know there's a few C130s out there that have carried passengers so why not a C17?
 
muncc22
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:35 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm

Quoting Trucker (Reply 19):

well...I have flown a C17 in "pax form" multiple times while i was downrange. They take standard air force pallets and bolt economy class seats to them with about 28" seat pitch. IIRC its 12 rows of ten across. Then you also have the normal rows of troops sitting sideways. No pax in his right mind would pay more than 1/10th of what a regular flight costs to fly on a c17. No hot catering, and they are noisy as hell even with ear plugs in. And you can forget about IFE. while this would be theoretically possible, it would NEVER be a money maker.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:50 pm

Quoting Trucker (Reply 19):
Would it be possible to take a C17 and configure it to carry passengers on a route like LCY-JFK.

That's an interesting concept. I think in terms of "could it work" then I think yes. I believe the C-17 could lift enough fuel to do TATL from the runway but I'm not sure of the useful load. Is 10/28 still ~3,500 ft or has it been extended ? I think it has, actually, there was a proposal to get it to about 4,000 ft. if the runway is longer, then likely a C-17 could carry a useful load.

Moot point, of course, as the C-17 is not, AFAIK, JAA/FAA certified for commercial ops, nor is it likely to be.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
shamrock604
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:20 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15):

Cityjet started fleet replacement 5 years ago, and those frames were already 7 years old at that stage. So, they are much further down the line of needing to replace.
 
BrouAviation
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:31 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:29 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
I guess, though, with the arrival of the C-series, we'll be seeing RJs eventually flying transcons here in the USA. 

Fail to see what's wrong with that, I have been in the cabin mock-up in 3-2 config and it was surprisingly comfortable and roomy. Nothing like a CRJ/E145/F70..
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10006
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:56 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 18):
But what about an all-J E170 ? The RASM there would be pretty decent. Same for an all-J CS100 to SVO.

The RASM wouldn't be decent I'm afraid. First off you would have to design an individual BA J seat specially for the narrower cabin of the ERJ and then you could only have 1_1 seating thanks to the cabin bins and double bubble fuselage design. So you would get a maximum of 14 seats in the aircraft whilst still paying for 37 passengers at LCY thanks to their minimum fees structure, and only be looking at fares around £2-3k rtn. Nice idea and it would be a dream to fly in, but that's not going to cover the costs of operating such a flight.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 18):
Is the E190 even approved for LCY ? The glideslope is a lot steeper than normal. If the E190 could get in/out of LCY, I guess it can't carry sufficient fuel for SVO given the runway available.

Yes the entire E-Jet family is certified for LCY, but the ERJ-190 could not make LCY-MOW non stop with a meaningful payload, if at all year around. I think even the ERJ-170 would struggle with a full load, especially in hot weather.

Quoting Trucker (Reply 19):
Would it be possible to take a C17 and configure it to carry passengers on a route like LCY-JFK. It's suposed to be really good on a short runway and with a passenger load rather than a heavy cargo load I'm thinking it should be able to do LCY-JFK nonstop without any trouble. And you'd be able to carry alot more than 40-50 passengers. I know there's a few C130s out there that have carried passengers so why not a C17?

An interesting idea, but the aircraft is not permitted to land at LCY, even considering its STOL and steep approach performance. LCY is a Cat. 2C airport, this means all aircraft using it must have a wingspan of 35.99m or less. Which brings us nicely back on topic; this is why the C Series has been designed practically to the max within Cat. C limits, having a 35.1m wingspan. Also the C17's tail is far too high and would breach the transitional surface of the runway, this projects at a gradient from the side of the (75m wide) clearway and fouling it is not allowed. In cross section form this resembles a sort of triangle and is why aircraft have to park nose facing the runway, in that respect the C Series has a higher tail than the E-Jets but a lower tail than the A318 and could only use the four newest stands built to accommodate the Airbus.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 21):
Is 10/28 still ~3,500 ft or has it been extended ? I think it has, actually, there was a proposal to get it to about 4,000 ft. if the runway is longer, then likely a C-17 could carry a useful load.

It has a 4,948ft/1,508m total strip length, but declared take off/landing distances are capped at 1,319m by CAA/ICAO regs.

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 22):
Cityjet started fleet replacement 5 years ago, and those frames were already 7 years old at that stage. So, they are much further down the line of needing to replace.

And the fact that they went with cheaper second hand aircraft with the same type rating (I think) could suggest they were waiting for something better than the E-Jets and didn't want to use them as a stop-gap.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:14 pm

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 23):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
I guess, though, with the arrival of the C-series, we'll be seeing RJs eventually flying transcons here in the USA.

Fail to see what's wrong with that, I have been in the cabin mock-up in 3-2 config and it was surprisingly comfortable and roomy. Nothing like a CRJ/E145/F70..


CSeries is hardly an RJ. Design range is 2,950 nm for the ER variant of both the CS100 & CS300, i.e., YVR-MBJ. This is not RJ country.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 18):
But what about an all-J E170 ? The RASM there would be pretty decent. Same for an all-J CS100 to SVO.

The RASM wouldn't be decent I'm afraid. First off you would have to design an individual BA J seat specially for the narrower cabin of the ERJ and then you could only have 1_1 seating thanks to the cabin bins and double bubble fuselage design. So you would get a maximum of 14 seats in the aircraft whilst still paying for 37 passengers at LCY thanks to their minimum fees structure, and only be looking at fares around £2-3k rtn. Nice idea and it would be a dream to fly in, but that's not going to cover the costs of operating such a flight.

OK, hadn't thought that deeply. 1-1 only 14 seats is a killer.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 18):
Is the E190 even approved for LCY ? The glideslope is a lot steeper than normal. If the E190 could get in/out of LCY, I guess it can't carry sufficient fuel for SVO given the runway available.

Yes the entire E-Jet family is certified for LCY, but the ERJ-190 could not make LCY-MOW non stop with a meaningful payload, if at all year around. I think even the ERJ-170 would struggle with a full load, especially in hot weather.

Thanks, did not know E190 was certified.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
It has a 4,948ft/1,508m total strip length, but declared take off/landing distances are capped at 1,319m by CAA/ICAO regs.

I looked around the web and it was really hard to find a reference to the runway extension. Several sites said it was "proposed" but none indicated it had been done, although, several times as I recall, AIR International has referred to "4,500 feet" -- which is just about 1,319 m.

Cheers,
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10006
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:43 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 25):
I looked around the web and it was really hard to find a reference to the runway extension. Several sites said it was "proposed" but none indicated it had been done, although, several times as I recall, AIR International has referred to "4,500 feet" -- which is just about 1,319 m.

LCY makes use of a special exception in certification rules, that could be why there are a lot of confused reports about its runway length - one person even assured me it was 1,650m recently! By the rule book the longest a Cat. 2 runway can be certified at is 1,199m, but the CAA can grant a dispensation to increase that by 10% to 1,319m. Plus starter strips.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
queb
Topic Author
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:53 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
LCY-SVO is only 1341 nm so I don't think the E170 would have a problem with that. But the CS100 should do better on burn and load, for sure.

The maximum range for E170 at LCY is 750 nm, 800 nm for the E190 and 2200 nm for the A318.
 
queb
Topic Author
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:55 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
Yes the entire E-Jet family is certified for LCY

No, E170 and E190 only.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10006
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:12 pm

Quoting queb (Reply 28):
No, E170 and E190 only.

Hmm, interesting - you are right thank you. I thought they were all allowed in for two reasons; they are certified as 170-200/190-200 and a year ago I had a booking FRA-LCY on LH 'E95' equipment. Routing got changed so I never flew it, but seems it must have been a typo as checking the LCY site it's definitely not on the list of permitted aircraft.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:19 pm

I can't help but think that the CSeries is the airplane Midwest needed, about a decade too late. It would have had the range to easily reach the west coast from Milwaukee without penalties, had the right cabin dimensions for their signature 2x2 seating, and still been much lighter than the 737s and Airbuses flown by their competition. Does anyone know what the expected seating would have been for them for both the CS100 and CS300? I believe they had around 36" pitch???
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:41 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 14):
Could it be that they now think they don't need that 4% to keep as reserve, but are now actually selling it, opening up a new market segment?

I wonder. It would depend on how confident Bombardier was on weight and their aerodynamics. Pratt certainly has enough flight test data to know if they'll meet promise. However, at this stage the GTF should be at ~3% worse fuel burn than EIS due to improvements that would normally be in work. So Pratt probably wouldn't release all 4%, but if things were going well.. they might increase promise 2%.


However, what I read is that the base CS100 will be certified to a higher takeoff thrust and MTOW. This would allow enough 'belly fuel' in case 'inefficiencies had to be made up.'

On the C17, I couldn't even imagine the community reaction to having that *loud* 4 engine aircraft flying in and out. Doesn't LCY have noise limits? If not, the C-17 would be sure they imposed them!   Also, the C-17 is an incredibly expensive airframe for its passenger payload. I see no way to make the route profitable.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:59 am

LCY-JFK with the CSeries? We are talking about ETOPS certification on a brand new airframe with an all new engine. This is no slam dunk. The only other airplane that met this challenge out of the box was the 777 with the GE90. It will be many years before the CSeries will be qualified to fly 120 minutes ETOPS, but nonetheless once approved, an all business class CSeries on long routes could work.
Only the paranoid survive
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:34 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 32):

BBD is planning ETOPS 120 right out of the box and 180 within 6 months after EIS.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ries-flight-test-programme-366583/

Quote:
Bombardier has designated FTV5 as the cabin demonstrator, and the aircraft will be used for systems functionality and reliability (F&R) and extended operations (ETOPS) testing. Bombardier aims to deliver the aircraft certified for 120min at entry into service at the end of 2013 with its undisclosed launch customer, said Dewar. A further six-month ETOPS testing trial will extend the performance to 180min.
What the...?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:40 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 32):
LCY-JFK with the CSeries? We are talking about ETOPS certification on a brand new airframe with an all new engine. This is no slam dunk.

True. However:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 33):
BBD is planning ETOPS 120 right out of the box and 180 within 6 months after EIS.

Am I the only one who thinks that Pratt is pushing for this to sell GTFs and for Bombardier to sell the C-series? ETOPS out of the box proves not only the airframe but as much the engines. I speculate that Pratt is helping fund the ETOPS effort to prove to airlines the GTFs ability to perform. Note the word 'speculate.' My sources on the GTF right now are smug yet quiet.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:49 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 34):

Am I the only one who thinks that Pratt is pushing for this to sell GTFs and for Bombardier to sell the C-series? ETOPS out of the box proves not only the airframe but as much the engines. I speculate that Pratt is helping fund the ETOPS effort to prove to airlines the GTFs ability to perform.

I have a feeling that there is a well worn path across Mirabel between the Pratt shop and BBD's. The two projects are so closely tied to each other that who is funding exactly what is probably a bit of a blur.
What the...?
 
voodoo
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: CSeries Update

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:38 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 2):

Probably referring to Odyssey airlines:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...11219

---------------------

Interesting what you get when you google the word 'Odyssey' and a current transatlantic airline> the first one is a bit obvious I guess.

http://v-flyer.com/the-toolbox/inflight-entertainment

http://www.virgin.com/lifestyle/news...te-your-senses-with-silver-odyssey

Virgin also seems to have had a financial controller who left for Odyssey Resorts International..and then made his way back to Virgin.

They seem to like the name.... just saying.

[Edited 2012-01-08 12:01:26]
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CSeries Update

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:29 am

Quoting voodoo (Reply 36):
Interesting what you get when you google the word 'Odyssey' and a current transatlantic airline> the first one is a bit obvious I guess.

http://v-flyer.com/the-toolbox/inflight-entertainment

http://www.virgin.com/lifestyle/news...te-your-senses-with-silver-odyssey

Virgin also seems to have had a financial controller who left for Odyssey Resorts International..and then made his way back to Virgin.

Wow.....Look at this .......http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardiers-premium-plan-132471/

In 2001 Virgin looked at an all Premium Class Global Express...."Bombardier is pursuing plans for a "premium passenger" airliner version of the Global Express business jet as interest in the aircraft gathers momentum.The Canadian manufacturer recently held talks with Virgin Atlantic regarding a deal for five aircraft, ......"

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 33):
BBD is planning ETOPS 120 right out of the box and 180 within 6 months after EIS.

I missed that. Thanks.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 34):
ETOPS out of the box proves not only the airframe but as much the engines.

Certainly a nice marketing tack as P&W are leveraging ETOPS for confidence in the engine.
Only the paranoid survive
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: CSeries Update

Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:50 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 37):
I missed that. Thanks.

Your point is still valid...those etops plans are very ambitious, and the more things they promise, the more potential for egg on their face should something go wrong.
What the...?
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: CSeries Update

Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:34 am

IMO, anyone considering the C17 does not appreciate how urban LCY is.
 
bonusonus
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:47 pm

So, the current schedule is first flight at the end of 2012, first delivery at the end of 2013, and 40 deliveries in 2014. Think Bombardier can pull it off?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: CSeries Update

Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:20 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 39):
IMO, anyone considering the C17 does not appreciate how urban LCY is.

Yes, there are better military aircraft for such a target.  

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: CSeries Update

Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 40):

I'm inclined to take BBD at their word...nothing has gone terribly wrong but they have eaten most of their time padding with normal ambitious development stuff.

If the iron bird doesn't discover anything earth shattering, they may meet their deadline. I suspect something will throw a wrench into the gears and 1st flight will be Q1, 2013...which still be mind blowingly successful.
What the...?