1 billion means that they won't be able to offer anything other than improvements to existing aircraft. Improving and/or stretching the C-series might be the most sensible way to go. I don't see the CRJ as having any future. Nobody is buying them anymore, and 1 billion won't give enough improvements to make it satisfactory.

Alternatively:

OA940 wrote:

-A MoM aircraft. Now that Airbus is offering a MoM plane, with not many orders thus far, BBD could jump the gun and offer a 757 replacement/A321LR competitor. If they market it correctly, it could be a successful jet.
-A LH plane. They have always stayed in the regional/lower capacity market, but a long haul aircraft could be likely. The 300-seater market can have another plane, and airlines could take it for its costs. But to compete with the A350/777/787 they will need range (14-15000km), economics and other things that will provide an advantage against the kings of LH.

The new Sino-Russian C929 could use some western participation in order to help it sell in the west. Bombardier already has a significant amount of cooperation with COMAC with the C-series. Another option could be cooperation on the C919. While the C919 slightly overlaps with the CS300, stretching the C919 into a 200-seat C920 or 240-seat C921 would prevent that from happening. The C919 currently sits right between the A319 and A320 (And pretty much the same as that future 737-7.5 thing).

Oykie wrote:

I wonder why the Learjet 85 was cancelled. I guess it would be to risky to relaunch it, it a derivative.

They cancelled it because the fuselage started cracking. It featured an all-new composite fuselage made it Mexico. The two major issues was the completely monocoque fuselage (no stringers and ribs), and the issue with the Mexican factory being located at high altitude, which spoiled the composites somehow. Fixing it will require them to design a completely new fuselage.

What would be the range of a CS100 with CS300 MTOW?

NameOmitted wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

And (strangely) ATR is not (currently) allowed to stretch the ATR-72.

Would you please elaborate on this point?

There have been numerous reports where Airbus a 50% shareholder in ATR has been quoted as being against such stretches of there planes.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/03/03/ceo-i ... s-support/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Passport engines are high compression engines and designed for high Mach, high altitude performance, not RJ work. Plus they are heavy, their weight had to be accounted for on the Global. BBD has sold more business aircraft since the first CRJ than airliners. They need to bring a new Challenger 605 sized plane next--605 cabin a little stretched (24"), new wing for better field performance and 4000nm range at M.83 would be perfect.

Absolutely agree. The Challenger 650 is hobbled by still sharing the same wings as the original 600 which was a far less capable (and heavy) airplane and its RJ engines. It needs something to give it better a better payload range curve, speed, and ceiling. Also agree that the Passport is the wrong engine for the CRJ for the reasons mentioned. The CRJ is going to be hobbled as a viable NEO platform by those tail mounted engines. As we've seen, the newer more efficient engines tend to be bigger and heavier, which is a challenge to make work on a tail mounted platform.

It would be complete waste of money to re-engine the CRJ. E-JET has ko'd the CRJ years ago, there is no coming back. When BBD gets the money they need look into a replacement of the entire CRJ line. As far as this loan is concerned I think it should be used towards a c series stretch.

rocketPower wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Passport engines are high compression engines and designed for high Mach, high altitude performance, not RJ work. Plus they are heavy, their weight had to be accounted for on the Global. BBD has sold more business aircraft since the first CRJ than airliners. They need to bring a new Challenger 605 sized plane next--605 cabin a little stretched (24"), new wing for better field performance and 4000nm range at M.83 would be perfect.

You nailed it, it will likely be a new Challenger. This is the aircraft they need to improve drastically. New engines, leverage the CSeries/Global FBW/flight deck into a next gen architecture they can evolve again to a new airliner later, similar to what Embraer did with Legacy 500->KC390->E2, maybe a CRJneo as many here say. But Challenger will be first, the cabin is already competitive.

rP

GE offered the NG34, which was their airliner version of the Passport, to Emb for the E2. Emb went with the GTF but I have no doubt they still have the capability to produce it. From what I understand, it featured the same core but a somewhat modified low pressure spool, optimized for airliner operations.

Stretching the Q400 is not as simple as adding a few extra fuselage frames. Even in its current form, the Dash 8 suffers somewhat from being too long; on landing for example, a 5-6 degree pitch is already cause for alarm, since you'll be scraping your tail along the runway at only 7.5. This doesn't leave much space for a lot of flaring, so you either have to come in with a bit of extra speed, or put her down so hard you'll make carrier pilots cringe. The long fuselage also makes it quite sensitive to disturbance in yaw, making it uncomfortable in turbulence; though this could be mitigated up to a point with a better yaw damper (such as the FBW unit fitted to the CRJ-1000), integrating it its costly. And unless you go for the optional steps on the 2L door (which are nothing to write home about!), deplaning would take a while (the CRJ-900/1000 manage to work with the same restriction, but it's not ideal).

Of course there's more to stretching the Q400 than adding a few frames, but the structure of the Q does make it easier than on most airframes. For example, they would need longer gear but since the mains are mounted on the wings in the nacelles, no major structure needs to be modded to gain some extra room for longer gear.

The wings and airframe are already strengthened for higher weights and ranges than the ATR so you can trade range for passengers...which isn't much of a thing since very few airlines fly their Q's to max range. If I recall correctly, the Q400 has a 1500nm or so max range, so a true 100 seater with 500-1000nm range is well within the capabilities of the Q engines and wing.

As for the baggage situation...we're only talking 6 or so feet on either side of the wing...about 2 extra steps for baggage handlers. That really shouldn't be a deal breaker.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Of course there's more to stretching the Q400 than adding a few frames, but the structure of the Q does make it easier than on most airframes. For example, they would need longer gear but since the mains are mounted on the wings in the nacelles, no major structure needs to be modded to gain some extra room for longer gear.

The wings and airframe are already strengthened for higher weights and ranges than the ATR so you can trade range for passengers...which isn't much of a thing since very few airlines fly their Q's to max range. If I recall correctly, the Q400 has a 1500nm or so max range, so a true 100 seater with 500-1000nm range is well within the capabilities of the Q engines and wing.

As for the baggage situation...we're only talking 6 or so feet on either side of the wing...about 2 extra steps for baggage handlers. That really shouldn't be a deal breaker.

I'm not saying that it can be built physically - but that given all of its restrictions now, stretching it even further might be pointless. You get an aircraft that is even more difficult to land, with a number of systems that - if not upgraded - would mostly be inadequate for the task... and all for a hefty near-used-RJ price tag. For the cost of this new stretch, you could very likely find a used CRJ-900 or maybe 1000 - which wouldn't be all that more expensive to operate on those 500-1000 NM sectors, and which would be much more comfortable.

CRJ900 wrote:

A refreshed Q300 with 50 seats and the short-runway characteristics of the Q100/200. Widerøe would love a 50 seater that can take off with 50 pax from an 800-metre runway.

I don't think there are very many, if any 800m runways left in Norway.

NameOmitted wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

And (strangely) ATR is not (currently) allowed to stretch the ATR-72.

Would you please elaborate on this point?

ATR wants to invest in new or better aircraft designs, but it's half owned by Airbus which says no.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy ... SKCN0XP1Z7

That might be a reasonable decision, as their current designs are capturing almost all the available market and no one else is working on new designs.

OA940 wrote:

They have 3 chances to jump to.

-The CS500. Many airlines will take it as it'll be cheaper than the 737-A320 most likely, and LCC's could jump to the opprotunity. IMO it'll be successful, just give the whole program a chance.

I'm sorry but this is wrong. No one paying western labor prices knows how to compete on price against the industrial machine that are the 737/A320 production systems. The C-series, if it wins or loses, will do so because it has a unique market niche, and superior operating economics, not because it's cheaper to buy.

OA940 wrote:

-A MoM aircraft. Now that Airbus is offering a MoM plane, with not many orders thus far, BBD could jump the gun and offer a 757 replacement/A321LR competitor. If they market it correctly, it could be a successful jet.

I'm sorry but this is crazy. Bombardier has no where near enough money, facilities, and capabilities to do this. They stretched to the literal maximum to achieve the C Series, and they had to beg for aid because it almost bankrupt them. They were offering to SELL the C-series line for a while they were so desperate.

OA940 wrote:

-A LH plane. They have always stayed in the regional/lower capacity market, but a long haul aircraft could be likely. The 300-seater market can have another plane, and airlines could take it for its costs. But to compete with the A350/777/787 they will need range (14-15000km), economics and other things that will provide an advantage against the kings of LH.

I'm sorry but this is even more crazy than the thing above.

Quantos wrote:

I'm not seeing the Q Series rework happening. As others have said, the Q Series is for many airlines too much aircraft for the purpose. The only way a Q Series would work (and I mean really be successful) is to somehow rework it so it's cheaper. I'm not convinced it's possible to rework the Q Series in a significantly cheaper plane.
.

You don't see the possibility of a Q400 stretch? It was discussed on this board before.
viewtopic.php?t=594819

It would certainly sell better than the existing Q400, and the market is moving to bigger airplanes, and the ATR-72 would be hard to stretch. On the other hand, it's hard to invest money in a failing product, and maybe the improvement would not be *enough* improvement.

kitplane01 wrote:

You don't see the possibility of a Q400 stretch? It was discussed on this board before.
viewtopic.php?t=594819

It would certainly sell better than the existing Q400, and the market is moving to bigger airplanes, and the ATR-72 would be hard to stretch. On the other hand, it's hard to invest money in a failing product, and maybe the improvement would not be *enough* improvement.

Sorry, but I just don't see it either. And I don't buy the premise that the ATR would be significantly harder to stretch either. The Q400 is already 6 meters longer than the ATR. The ATR even has a bigger fuselage.

JoeCanuck wrote:

For example, they would need longer gear but since the mains are mounted on the wings in the nacelles, no major structure needs to be modded to gain some extra room for longer gear.

The landing gear of the ATR isn't located inside the fuselage, it is mounted on the outside of the pressure hull, but in fairings. Fitting longer main landing-gear to the ATR would pretty much "just" entail designing new and slightly bigger fairings.

Kiwirob wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

A refreshed Q300 with 50 seats and the short-runway characteristics of the Q100/200. Widerøe would love a 50 seater that can take off with 50 pax from an 800-metre runway.

I don't think there are very many, if any 800m runways left in Norway.

Yes there are. About 14 out of 46 commercial airports within the Avinor system have an 800m runway (between 800 and 899), in addition several airports have a runway of about 1000m, some a little longer some a little shorter. So short field performance is anyway needed

kitplane01 wrote:

OA940 wrote:

They have 3 chances to jump to.

-The CS500. Many airlines will take it as it'll be cheaper than the 737-A320 most likely, and LCC's could jump to the opprotunity. IMO it'll be successful, just give the whole program a chance.

I'm sorry but this is wrong. No one paying western labor prices knows how to compete on price against the industrial machine that are the 737/A320 production systems. The C-series, if it wins or loses, will do so because it has a unique market niche, and superior operating economics, not because it's cheaper to buy.

OA940 wrote:

-A MoM aircraft. Now that Airbus is offering a MoM plane, with not many orders thus far, BBD could jump the gun and offer a 757 replacement/A321LR competitor. If they market it correctly, it could be a successful jet.

I'm sorry but this is crazy. Bombardier has no where near enough money, facilities, and capabilities to do this. They stretched to the literal maximum to achieve the C Series, and they had to beg for aid because it almost bankrupt them. They were offering to SELL the C-series line for a while they were so desperate.

OA940 wrote:

-A LH plane. They have always stayed in the regional/lower capacity market, but a long haul aircraft could be likely. The 300-seater market can have another plane, and airlines could take it for its costs. But to compete with the A350/777/787 they will need range (14-15000km), economics and other things that will provide an advantage against the kings of LH.

I'm sorry but this is even more crazy than the thing above.

I'm sorry, but its called an opinion.

There remains opportunity in the USA market for a lightweight, low capital cost CRJ. E2--175 and MRJ do NOT meet the scope requirements for weight. In fact E2 isn't even close and MRJ would be limited to 1,000mi or so if derated to fit the MTOW limit.

Although we're several years away from airlines trying to force the scope relief on unions for replacement fleet, it certainly won't be without compromises and costs.

A re-engined CR9 might fit the bill for the couple hundred frames left in the market before replacements are needed. That said, reengining tail mounted engines is a challenge. Mostly likely they'll have to add section(s) forward of the wings and remove one behind for weight and balance.

Question is ... is the protected and limited market big enough to seek reasonable returns?? Seems doubtful to me.

As others have mentioned, a hypothetical CS500 will get destroyed on price from A vs B. Not sure the economics are there to command any level of premium. In fact the shorter range may demand a discount. Had A and B not increased production so substantially, better opportunities probably would have existed. At this juncture, they ought to invest in reducing assesmbly cost as much as possible.

I bet BBD will be bought by a Chinese company soon.

Okcflyer wrote:

As others have mentioned, a hypothetical CS500 will get destroyed on price from A vs B. Not sure the economics are there to command any level of premium. In fact the shorter range may demand a discount. Had A and B not increased production so substantially, better opportunities probably would have existed. At this juncture, they ought to invest in reducing assesmbly cost as much as possible.

A and B have already pushed back hard against the CS100 and CS300. One more model isn't going to make things any worse for BBD, in terms of pushback from the duopoly. However, offering another larger model, a CS500, does increase the opportunities for airlines to move towards an all-CSeries fleet. There are more than a few companies for whom an A321 is too much airplane.

PATristar wrote:

I bet BBD will be bought by a Chinese company soon.

No chance of that. The founder's family owns the majority of voting rights in the company. They will not sell.

Priority #1 - CS500

Not just more sales in and of itself. The CS500 would have a multiplier effect across the entire CSeries family. This has to be their highest priority.

Priority #2 - New turboprop family.

The Q400 is being beaten black and blue by ATR. And in the long run, the CRJ space will just not be competitive. There's pilot shortages. There's climate change concerns driving higher fuel costs. etc. How about a two member turboprop family with 80 and 100 seats?

Priority #3 - Biz jet expansion

The need some serious rationalization and development for their bizjet family.

Sooner787 wrote:

nikeson13 wrote:

If they were to have a new program, it would have to be the CS500. It would easily sell well at great numbers. Or we can see something completely radical, like a MOM model

I'd love to see DL order some CS300's to replace their 717's and MD-80's.

Plus, DL would be a logical launch customer for a CS500 as well.

BTW...when is DL supposed to get their first CS100?

Deliveries begin in 2018 for the 75 CSeries-100's. They have options for 50 additional aircraft, which will probably be CSeries-300's. I think DL would make a strong customer for additional CSeries aircraft and even a potential CSeries-500. In the next 5-10 years, the entire MD-88/90 fleet will be retired, while the A320 and domestic 757's will be approaching retirement age/already be retired. DL probably could get quite a good deal on massive orders especially as the 100-150 seat market become more important with the phasing out of CRJ's. A MOM from Bombardier would be intresting, but Boeing will most likely have a competitive product in this category by this time (757-MAX or 797). Also, if Boeing ever went ahead with a 717 MAX/737-400 MAX type aircraft, the CSeries program would have a lot of difficulty, as I bet DL would place a large order for this aircraft.

Most likely, I see further development in the CRJ series, as there are many routes that just cannot support 100+ seat aircraft, especially in the US. As much as US carriers hate on their CRJ-200's they are key for hubs like DTW, CVG, MSP, CLT, SLC, IAD, DFW, DEN, ect. that are connected to many smaller markets. I wonder if Bombardier will resume the development of the CRJ-500, a 50 seat aircraft with improved economics to replace current CRJ-200's/ERJ135/140/145's.

cvgComair wrote:

A MOM from Bombardier would be intresting, but Boeing will most likely have a competitive product in this category by this time (757-MAX or 797).

A MoM from Bombardier is not happening. It's a $10-15 billion project. Bombardier does not have $10-15 billion, they're a decade or more away from building up that kind of nest egg even if all goes smoothly from here on out, and they can't borrow it. They can't even borrow $2 billion right now.

Regardless of what Boeing does, a jump up a full size class is not an option for Bombardier, because even if they were feeling technically confident and economically daring, they don't have the resources for it.

Rather than stretch the Q400, why not widen it. Keep the wing box and cockpit from the current model and essentially use the C-Series fuselage? You get 25% increased seating and if the engines are 'overpowered' for the current model...well maybe this would work.

VSMUT wrote:

Sorry, but I just don't see it either. And I don't buy the premise that the ATR would be significantly harder to stretch either. The Q400 is already 6 meters longer than the ATR. The ATR even has a bigger fuselage.

My amateur opinion was something like this:

The Q400 would need a longer fuselage, and maybe longer landing gear. It would *not* need a gross weight increase, since they could trade range for capacity and be happy doing so. It would *not* need more powerful engines, since it will not see a gross weight increase and if the longer fuselage generated more drag ... the planes already very fast.

The ATR-72 would need a longer fuselage, and maybe longer landing gear. It *would* need a gross weight increase, which means stronger wing, landing gear, brakes, etc. It would need a more powerful engine, since the plane will have both more drag from the longer fuselage and more weight to lift.

cvgComair wrote:

Most likely, I see further development in the CRJ series, as there are many routes that just cannot support 100+ seat aircraft, especially in the US. As much as US carriers hate on their CRJ-200's they are key for hubs like DTW, CVG, MSP, CLT, SLC, IAD, DFW, DEN, ect. that are connected to many smaller markets. I wonder if Bombardier will resume the development of the CRJ-500, a 50 seat aircraft with improved economics to replace current CRJ-200's/ERJ135/140/145's.

I agree there is a need for an aircraft in the 40-50 seat range but I can't see how BBD or anyone else for that matter are going to be able to do it affordably as a jet aircraft and make it any better than the existing CRJ/ERJ such that it would command a decent amount of orders. And even if that were possible, don't you think Embraer would have already taken a stab at it (given their better financial situation compared with BBD)?

I think a revised Q platform could do well if Americans could get over their irrational fear of props. A 55 seat and a 85 seat option (76 dual class) would be a great option for serving the smaller communities as well as opening markets that can't currently support jet economics.

kitplane01 wrote:

The ATR-72 would need a longer fuselage, and maybe longer landing gear. It *would* need a gross weight increase, which means stronger wing, landing gear, brakes, etc. It would need a more powerful engine, since the plane will have both more drag from the longer fuselage and more weight to lift.

For a short and simple stretch? No. The gross weight increase is just paperwork, no need to strengthen anything other than obviously fitting a new, longer landing gear.
A completely new and more powerful engine? Not necessary. Any power increases can be handled with upgrades to the existing PW127. ATRs already feature a plethora of different variants of the PW127 over the different types, all with different power-levels.
It's not like it needs more power either. The 212A will cruise quite naturally at 250-255 knots in cruise setting, and VMO is 250 knots.

When BBD killed the Q200,Q300 family they essentially killed a large portion of their operators as the Q400 was too much aircraft and expensive for most of the Q200 and Q300 operators. They have essentially lost the turboprop market the question has to be asked do they need to be in the turboprop space? That being said if they do indeed use this money for the Q400 what would it be used for? The current Q400 is almost as long as the 737-700 any additional stretching and you essentially kill it from operating into a fair set of regional airports globally. One can dream but a Q300 nexgen with a 10 foot stretch to fly 60+ passengers fitted with 6 bladed props the Q400 nextgen cabin and flight deck and PW 127's would be a nice regional ride.

They spent so much money to grow into the big guy's terrain with the C Series so this is where - from a market perspective - the most promising business is now within reach.
Small planes just mean high cost and small margins. So develop the C and stretch it.

The only thing BBD is going to be doing for a little while is lick it wounds. Until they fix their executive leadership BBD is in trouble.

I can see a re-engined CRJ-7xx/9xx/10xx, probably with a derivative of the Passport or PW800 and some wing mods, that won't be a huge cost and if they time it right it can pick up alot of the big CRJ operators as the older frames start to high time. And a 50 seat RJ... It wouldn't be that big of a deal to offer a newer CRJ-100/200, but I don't know how much market there would be?

C-Series.... CS-500 has been rumored but i don't think BBD has the money right now... 5 years from now if there are no issue and the CS-100/300 sell then probably they will start pushing it. A shorter CS-100 will never happen, there's too many weight issues with the design for that. A Re-engined CRJ-700 will do that segment far better

There have been rumors galore that BBD wants to sell the rest of the ex-DHC line, Downsview plant and all, to Viking or someone else... though nothing official. The Q400 is generating revenue, and there still is a bit of backlog on the Q400NG. One thing BBD needs to watch though is the biggest Dash 8-100/200/300 operators need a replacement type soon, and ATR is it at the moment... A Dash 8NG would be a good idea IF they can get the operating costs down below the ATR42-600 and keep the price from becoming an issue.

Business Jet side, I think the Lear Jet line is probably toast. I can only see upgraded versions of the 45 and 60 coming... everything else will slowly be dropped.

Global line... probably holds steady for now.

Executive versions of the C-series will probably not sell that many but might help.

So that leaves... the Challenger... and maybe a re-engined version of the original length CL600 and/or CRJ-200, but that's about all i see.

Everything else is done/sold/etc...

The problem is BBD is getting roasted by it's rail division... massive order delays, bad workmanship, cost overruns, etc etc are all hurting BBD's revenues from that side and that's going to hurt R&D funding for Aerospace even if they are supposed to be independent divisions.

I would think they need to catch their breath and work with what they've got for a while. Barring that, they should probably stick with what they know and/or are known for. So, I would say either a "CS90" shrink of the CS100, or a CRJ re-engine?

northstardc4m wrote:

The only thing BBD is going to be doing for a little while is lick it wounds. Until they fix their executive leadership BBD is in trouble.

I can see a re-engined CRJ-7xx/9xx/10xx, probably with a derivative of the Passport or PW800 and some wing mods, that won't be a huge cost and if they time it right it can pick up alot of the big CRJ operators as the older frames start to high time. And a 50 seat RJ... It wouldn't be that big of a deal to offer a newer CRJ-100/200, but I don't know how much market there would be?

C-Series.... CS-500 has been rumored but i don't think BBD has the money right now... 5 years from now if there are no issue and the CS-100/300 sell then probably they will start pushing it. A shorter CS-100 will never happen, there's too many weight issues with the design for that. A Re-engined CRJ-700 will do that segment far better

There have been rumors galore that BBD wants to sell the rest of the ex-DHC line, Downsview plant and all, to Viking or someone else... though nothing official. The Q400 is generating revenue, and there still is a bit of backlog on the Q400NG. One thing BBD needs to watch though is the biggest Dash 8-100/200/300 operators need a replacement type soon, and ATR is it at the moment... A Dash 8NG would be a good idea IF they can get the operating costs down below the ATR42-600 and keep the price from becoming an issue.

Business Jet side, I think the Lear Jet line is probably toast. I can only see upgraded versions of the 45 and 60 coming... everything else will slowly be dropped.

Global line... probably holds steady for now.

Executive versions of the C-series will probably not sell that many but might help.

So that leaves... the Challenger... and maybe a re-engined version of the original length CL600 and/or CRJ-200, but that's about all i see.

Everything else is done/sold/etc...

The problem is BBD is getting roasted by it's rail division... massive order delays, bad workmanship, cost overruns, etc etc are all hurting BBD's revenues from that side and that's going to hurt R&D funding for Aerospace even if they are supposed to be independent divisions.

The 40 series Learjets have already been upgraded to the 70 series. the Lear 60 stopped production a few years ago so with the demise of the 85, they have no midsize offering.

northstardc4m wrote:

The only thing BBD is going to be doing for a little while is lick it wounds. Until they fix their executive leadership BBD is in trouble.

I can see a re-engined CRJ-7xx/9xx/10xx, probably with a derivative of the Passport or PW800 and some wing mods, that won't be a huge cost and if they time it right it can pick up alot of the big CRJ operators as the older frames start to high time. And a 50 seat RJ... It wouldn't be that big of a deal to offer a newer CRJ-100/200, but I don't know how much market there would be?

C-Series.... CS-500 has been rumored but i don't think BBD has the money right now... 5 years from now if there are no issue and the CS-100/300 sell then probably they will start pushing it. A shorter CS-100 will never happen, there's too many weight issues with the design for that. A Re-engined CRJ-700 will do that segment far better

There have been rumors galore that BBD wants to sell the rest of the ex-DHC line, Downsview plant and all, to Viking or someone else... though nothing official. The Q400 is generating revenue, and there still is a bit of backlog on the Q400NG. One thing BBD needs to watch though is the biggest Dash 8-100/200/300 operators need a replacement type soon, and ATR is it at the moment... A Dash 8NG would be a good idea IF they can get the operating costs down below the ATR42-600 and keep the price from becoming an issue.

Business Jet side, I think the Lear Jet line is probably toast. I can only see upgraded versions of the 45 and 60 coming... everything else will slowly be dropped.

Global line... probably holds steady for now.

Executive versions of the C-series will probably not sell that many but might help.

So that leaves... the Challenger... and maybe a re-engined version of the original length CL600 and/or CRJ-200, but that's about all i see.

Everything else is done/sold/etc...

The problem is BBD is getting roasted by it's rail division... massive order delays, bad workmanship, cost overruns, etc etc are all hurting BBD's revenues from that side and that's going to hurt R&D funding for Aerospace even if they are supposed to be independent divisions.

Fixing their executive is pretty much a completed job. Most of the current team was replaced last year results since then shows its was a good thing.

Learjet 40/45 were already upgraded recently to the 70/75, I don't think any upgardes of these is planned for a while. The 60 is out of production since at least 3 years now... its dead.

And no, their Rail division is not all problematic. Obviously the media focus on whats going wrong and in the Toronto area their did screw up with their tramway and LRT project. But most of their other projects, essentially in Europe, are performing just fine. I wouldn't call that division 'the problem at BBD', as its the only division that's been making money all those years when Aerospace was bleeding due to the Cseries/Global/Lear85 developments. If anything, the rail division kept the company afloat all these years.


Source:http://ir.bombardier.com/en/press-releases/press-releases/65855-bombardier-reports-third-quarter-2016-results
"Transportation [...] During the three-month period ended September 30, 2016, the EBIT margin before special items further improved to 7.9%, for an EBIT margin before special items of 6.7% for the nine-month period."

Dash9 wrote:

Let the speculation begin. What could /should by BBD next program once their engineers are done with the global 7K/8K?

'CS500' stretch of the CS300?
'CS90' shrink of the CS100 to keep a presence in the regional sector as the CRJ is slowly dying?
CRJ re-engine? What engines? GE Passport? PW800? PW1000C?
CRJ replacement? If so how different would it be from the MRJ as it would need to slot under the Cseries?
Could they offer to team up with Mitsubishi to help with certification, worldwide support, 2nd FAL @ Mirabel in place of the CRJ line?
Q400 re-engine with a slower engine option that cost less to procure, operate and maintain?
Q400 stretch and shrink to cover 50 to 100 seats?
A new biz jet family to slot under the Global to replaces the venerable Challenger 350/650?
Learjet 85 reborn?
My money is on a CS500 or a CRJ neo/upgrade/replacement, potentialy based on the G7K fuselage that is a bid larger than the CRJ / Challenger / G5K/6K
-Dash9

The void in the market is for aircraft with fewer than 75 seats. There are few broad categories -- the 37-/50-seat jets (CRJs, ERJs) and turboprops (Dash 8-200s/300s, ATR-42s, Saabs, Fokker F-27s) etc.. and the 18-seaters (Beech 1900s, Metroliners). While ATRs are still being built, it's an old design and there really is nothing else new generation in any of these capacity ranges that can meet the needs of the operators with thousands of these aircraft in their fleet and nothing to replace them with. It's a big problem in Canada, where there are a few hundred of these aircraft in operation with a dozen carriers. Jazz alone has nearly 50 Dash 8-100s/300s.

This may not be as sexy as yet another big regional variant, but it is where there is a void in the market today.

TWA772LR wrote:

If BBD can secure another big name airline for the CSeries, they may feel safe enough to launch the CS500.

A new Dash 8, or a cover-all Dash 9 family (to cover the CRJ and Q families), would also do good. A Q300/400neo would do wonders for the regional industry. They need to focus on making their products able to coexist with Embraer to the point where airlines can have them in their fleet to be used for different missions, and not directly compete.

This is actually a really interesting concept. Airlines are once again more comfortable with Regional Jets like before Oil Spiked, but if it goes up again it will make a lot of RJ's less desirable again. Perhaps a larger plane similar to the Dornier 328 approach. One that could accept either a prop or a jet, but with the same wing and fuselage. Obviously, they wouldn't compete with RJ's on speed, but it might strike an economic and comfort balance that could make airlines and pax happy, while replacing 2 aircraft lines with 1 flexible line. That could give BBD an edge against Embraer and ATR in the event of future unforseen market swings. I don't know if what I'm describing is feasible though.

Personally, I am optimistic about the C-Series long term. I think it will pick up a little bit once Delta starts flying it. The A319 and 73G Max are sluggish and we can't have a gap between 76 and 150+ seats forever at every airline.

Keesje's TP400 powered, 150 seat, 485 mph Turboliner!

Do. It.

VSMUT wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The ATR-72 would need a longer fuselage, and maybe longer landing gear. It *would* need a gross weight increase, which means stronger wing, landing gear, brakes, etc. It would need a more powerful engine, since the plane will have both more drag from the longer fuselage and more weight to lift.

For a short and simple stretch? No. The gross weight increase is just paperwork, no need to strengthen anything other than obviously fitting a new, longer landing gear.

How do you know the wing, tail, and landing gear can take more load? I've not seen this in the news. I'm willing to be educated. Do you have a cite?

kitplane01 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The ATR-72 would need a longer fuselage, and maybe longer landing gear. It *would* need a gross weight increase, which means stronger wing, landing gear, brakes, etc. It would need a more powerful engine, since the plane will have both more drag from the longer fuselage and more weight to lift.

For a short and simple stretch? No. The gross weight increase is just paperwork, no need to strengthen anything other than obviously fitting a new, longer landing gear.

How do you know the wing, tail, and landing gear can take more load? I've not seen this in the news. I'm willing to be educated. Do you have a cite?

I hold an ATR type-rating

The ATR 72-202 that I flew during base-training had the old PW124B engines that delivered only 2400 hp at RTO, and 2160 hp at normal take-off. The new ATR 72-600 features the PW127M that can deliver 2750 hp at RTO and 2475 hp at normal takeoff, and with the boost function on top of that - but the aircraft hasn't really grown over that period. At MTOW, the old -202 potentially had available 0.11 hp pr. kg, while the latest -600 will deliver 0.12 hp per kg.

Now if P&W could squeeze a little more power out of the PW127 (which they could, given the age of the design), then you should have more than enough performance for a hypothetical ATR 82/92.

VSMUT wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

For a short and simple stretch? No. The gross weight increase is just paperwork, no need to strengthen anything other than obviously fitting a new, longer landing gear.

How do you know the wing, tail, and landing gear can take more load? I've not seen this in the news. I'm willing to be educated. Do you have a cite?

I hold an ATR type-rating

The ATR 72-202 that I flew during base-training had the old PW124B engines that delivered only 2400 hp at RTO, and 2160 hp at normal take-off. The new ATR 72-600 features the PW127M that can deliver 2750 hp at RTO and 2475 hp at normal takeoff, and with the boost function on top of that - but the aircraft hasn't really grown over that period. At MTOW, the old -202 potentially had available 0.11 hp pr. kg, while the latest -600 will deliver 0.12 hp per kg.

Now if P&W could squeeze a little more power out of the PW127 (which they could, given the age of the design), then you should have more than enough performance for a hypothetical ATR 82/92.

I believe the engine will not be a problem, but what about the wings/landing-gear etc? Structural engineers are not supposed to make the structure any stronger than necessary, because that leads to extra weight. Maybe there is margin beyond the current gross weight in the structure, but I've not heard that. Have you?

A stretch means thousands of extra pounds of structural weight plus the weight of the added passengers and baggage. Without a increase in mtow, the only way to stay legal is to not load fuel.

The -72 has a maximum range of around 800nm. What would the max range be for a 90-100 seat ATR with the same mtow?

The Q is seriously overbuilt for a 70ish seater, a large part due to their quest for speed. With greater range, they have more room to stretch while maintaining current MTOW.

Some of the same structure and weight that allows them to go fast, could be put to better use hauling more people slower.

Would the presence of a CS500 not benefit CS300 sales? There must be airlines in need of a mix of 130 and 150 seat aircraft ie would be interested in operating CS300 but only if the CS500 were available too. And vice versa.

art wrote:

Would the presence of a CS500 not benefit CS300 sales? There must be airlines in need of a mix of 130 and 150 seat aircraft ie would be interested in operating CS300 but only if the CS500 were available too. And vice versa.

Then you may have carriers who may want all three

JoeCanuck wrote:

The -72 has a maximum range of around 800nm. What would the max range be for a 90-100 seat ATR with the same mtow?

The ATR 72-500 has an maximum endurance of 8.5-9 hours at MTOW, and with a cruise speed of 250 knots that translates into at least 2000 nm / 3700 km. Granted, you have to trade some payload to get the tanks that full.

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe the engine will not be a problem, but what about the wings/landing-gear etc? Structural engineers are not supposed to make the structure any stronger than necessary, because that leads to extra weight.

New landing-gear would be needed to prevent tail-strikes, so that answers that bit. As for the wings, well for a starter that would affect a Dash-8 stretch too. I am also pretty sure that the wing can take the extra weight with only minor modifications at most - just like how the -42 and -72 also have slightly different wings. I am basing that on the fact that like the Dash-8, the ATR was built to handle very rough runways, many cycles per day and so on, that it has a lot of fuel to trade for payload, and from my own and other pilots experience with the capabilities of the ATR.

From my estimates based on a load-sheet I just, on the size and weight difference between the ATR 42 and ATR 72 - if they could increase the MTOW to 24.000 kg, then it would give an 88-90 - seater optimized for flights of 200 nm / 45 mins (reserves, alternates and everything included), which is exactly where the ATR excels.

Maybe there is margin beyond the current gross weight in the structure, but I've not heard that.

All aircraft feature a margin, that is part of the certification process after all. Most aircraft are also designed with future growth in mind, and I think it is quite likely that the ATR was too. ATR studied the ATR 82 from the mid-80s right up until 1996.

So Bombardier certainly won't be safe if they stretch the Q400.

aerolimani wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

And (strangely) ATR is not (currently) allowed to stretch the ATR-72.

Would you please elaborate on this point?

As I understand it, Aerospatiale's parent company, Airbus, sees a stretched ATR-72 as potentially competing with the smaller offerings from the A320 series. Of course, that was from a time when they were hoping to sell the A318. Now, there's no A318, and even the A319NEO is not selling terribly well. Given this, you'd think they might consider green-lighting a stretch of the ATR-72.

I do not believe that Aerospatiale had anything to do with ATR. Or did it?

rlwynn wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

I do not believe that Aerospatiale had anything to do with ATR. Or did it?

Sorry… I should have said ATR (or Aerei da Trasporto Regionale or Avions de transport régional). Aerospatiale originally formed ATR together with Aeritalia. Since that time, of course, Airbus absorbed Aerospatiale, and subsequently owns 50% of ATR. Thus, the original point being that Airbus doesn't want its child/asset developing products which could potentially compete with the A320 series. Thus, Airbus has prevented ATR from developing a larger turbprop.

VSMUT wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The -72 has a maximum range of around 800nm. What would the max range be for a 90-100 seat ATR with the same mtow?

The ATR 72-500 has an maximum endurance of 8.5-9 hours at MTOW, and with a cruise speed of 250 knots that translates into at least 2000 nm / 3700 km. Granted, you have to trade some payload to get the tanks that full.

An ATR-72-600 has a maximum range of 825 NM with a full load of passengers (says ATR, at http://www.atr-aircraft.com/datas/downl ... web_27.pdf)

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe the engine will not be a problem, but what about the wings/landing-gear etc? Structural engineers are not supposed to make the structure any stronger than necessary, because that leads to extra weight.

VSMUT wrote:

As for the wings, well for a starter that would affect a Dash-8 stretch too.

Em, that's the point. A Q400 can trade reduced range for increased payload. It has a range of 1144NM (says Bombardier at http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... ities.html). An ATR-72 cannot simply carry less fuel to hold more people, like a Q400 might.


[quote="VSMUT"]
I am also pretty sure that the wing can take the extra weight with only minor modifications at most - just like how the -42 and -72 also have slightly different wings. I am basing that on the fact that like the Dash-8, the ATR was built to handle very rough runways, many cycles per day and so on,
[\quote]

The fact that they were able, with minor modifications of the wing, to go from an ATR-42 into an ATR-72 does not make me think there is even more structural reserve in the ATR-72. In fact, it makes me think maybe they used the structural reserve when going from the ATR-42 into the ATR-72.



[quote="VSMUT"]
that it has a lot of fuel to trade for payload, and from my own and other pilots experience with the capabilities of the ATR.
[\quote]

Again, it has a range of 825 NM with full load. I know most flights are short, but I've never seen a successful airliner of this size with a range lower than 825 NM.

CS500/900 is the most logical next step. However that takes them right into the thick of battle with 2 giants Airbus & Boeing. Plus how much would it cost?

Would they be better served by investing that in marketing & ramping up their production line for more orders? They could have the 100-130 seat market sown up if they get production issues sorted out and invest in a good marketing team.

There is also greater potential on the lower end: perhaps 2 new derivatives off the Q400: a 33 seat Q30 (8 rows), 50 seat (12 rows) Q50 & the existing Q400. Offering a family of aircraft with common type-rating could possibly get them more orders. And the sub-40 seat Turboprop market has very few options left.

The speed of the Q400 comes at the cost of additional fuel and is pretty much useless on most routes. Out here in India, we see the ATR72 & Q400 go head to head on similar routes and passengers are going for the lowest fares - dont think anyone is choosing the Q400 because it gets them to the destination 15 minutes faster.

Therefore good STOL performance & cheaper DOC should be the target. BBD should also work on systematically reducing maintenance costs by increasing Check intervals.

BawliBooch wrote:

The speed of the Q400 comes at the cost of additional fuel and is pretty much useless on most routes. Out here in India, we see the ATR72 & Q400 go head to head on similar routes and passengers are going for the lowest fares - dont think anyone is choosing the Q400 because it gets them to the destination 15 minutes faster.

This is one of the more persistent things people cite as a negative, re the Q400. The truth is, if you fly the plane at ATR speeds, the fuel economy is not so different. Think of a car. Just because your car will go 110 km/h doesn't mean you have to. You could choose routes that take you at 80 km/h and get better fuel economy. The plane is not so different, in this respect.

On the other hand, if you need some extra power for one reason or another, the Q400 has it available; like there was a delay and you want to make up some time, or you need the available superior one-engine-out performance to overfly taller mountain ranges.

BawliBooch wrote:

CS500/900 is the most logical next step. However that takes them right into the thick of battle with 2 giants Airbus & Boeing. Plus how much would it cost?

I actually think it would be to BBD's advantage to more directly compete with A and B. Imagine if an all-CSeries fleet was actually capable enough. An LCC with 2x3 seating on all aircraft??? I would DEFINITELY choose them over the others.