Based on Boeing's experience with the 787 horizontal stabilizer made by Alenia, I will not be surprised if Bombardier encountered similar issues which resulted in parts being reworked or scrapped. And I'm pretty sure that reworking or scrapping big complicated CFRP structures is rather expensive.

To refresh everyone's memory, Boeing ended up designing and manufacturing the 787-9 horizontal stabilizer in house, after all the issues they had with Alenia and the 787-8 stabilizer.

This is nothing new in the industry, it has happened before and will happen again. Here's another recent example:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...aims-on-gulfstream-jets-to-392479/

[Edited 2014-11-08 11:23:04]

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 49): Based on Boeing's experience with the 787 horizontal stabilizer made by Alenia

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 49): To refresh everyone's memory, Boeing ended up designing and manufacturing the 787-9 horizontal stabilizer in house, after all the issues they had with Alenia and the 787-8 stabilizer.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing. If Alenia can't figure out how to make a H-Stab on their second try, well, they've got no one to blame but themselves. They shouldn't have agreed to a contract they couldn't support.
The 787 had massive delays, and Alenia didn't turn up their nose at Boeing....
I guess we need more information to really make a good call on whose failure this is.

FTV1 airborne on its second flight since it was grounded, now on its way to Wichita.

Damn, flew right over me.....

Quoting jalarner (Reply 52): Damn, flew right over me.....

bet ya' didn't hear it!

Quoting Lostsound (Reply 48): Austrian is pushing LH to order CSeries for their fleet revamp.

That would be welcome! First to certify the CS100...


Lightsaber

Sorry wrong thread...

[Edited 2014-11-09 15:54:47]

While flight testing is finally gathering momentum after delays, the Canadian manufacturer said it will not ramp up the production line until mid-2015 at the earliest.

Quote: Production, meanwhile, remains essentially on hold and is not expected to ramp up soon. “I would say more towards mid-year next year to make that decision, and how much,” said Beaudoin. Bombardier wants to avoid building up an inventory of aircraft that might have to be modified before delivery to incorporate and changes resulting from any discoveries during flight testing. ... “We look at how we can build the parts as late as possible because … there's always risk in flight-test programs. But … maybe the second half of next year, we’re going to have to start bringing in some parts,” Beaudoin said. With production idled, JP Morgan analyst Joseph Nadol said: “The risk … is that the supply chain will not be ready for the ramp up if it sits dormant for too long, and the company will also face a longer period of production at uneconomically low rates.”

Full article:
http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/b...ries-flight-testing-gains-momentum

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 56): While flight testing is finally gathering momentum after delays, the Canadian manufacturer said it will not ramp up the production line until mid-2015 at the earliest.

As noted in the link: With production idled, JP Morgan analyst Joseph Nadol said: “The risk … is that the supply chain will not be ready for the ramp up if it sits dormant for too long, and the company will also face a longer period of production at uneconomically low rates.”

This insures the first year of production will be at a greater loss. This puts the supply chain into stasis just as they are prioritizing NEO, A350, and G500 production ramp and anticipating the ramp on the LEAP-X. This puts the C-series in the same camp as the MRJ... "Sometime in the future to be worried about, not now."

I hope Bombardier realizes the current wait list at the casting vendors. It is *not* possible to ramp up quickly without at least 15 months of notice currently other than small batches. In other words, production for *end* of 2015 (post the US fiscal year) have already been initiated. We talk about the difficulty on ramping the 737, A320, and 787. Well... it is even tougher on a new design where costs are being targeted, the learning curve is being climbed, and production is ramped. IMHO, Bombardier is managing flight test and production by panic and not plan.

This is the downside of a 'low process' culture.

I think the C-series will eventually succeed. But if Bombardier isn't producing at risk... oh, that will make their production ramp that much more challenging...

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 57): I think the C-series will eventually succeed. But if Bombardier isn't producing at risk... oh, that will make their production ramp that much more challenging...

Fully agreed. However it is also possible that their current tight cash situation leaves them no choice but not produce at risk

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 57): But if Bombardier isn't producing at risk... oh, that will make their production ramp that much more challenging...

...So what could possibly be the incentive to not be moving on low-rate production? They were originally thought to be targeting 40 units in the first 12 months of production; it seems hard to believe they can survive without at least producing 6 units between now and EIS; there are a lot of kinks they need to work through on production I am sure.

Are they just trying to conserve cash until they have some (more) firm orders?

Quoting JHwk (Reply 59): Are they just trying to conserve cash until they have some (more) firm orders?

And can they assemble the first jets without launch customer? What cabin parts would you use without knowing the first customers?

Another program update:

http://youtu.be/qDUslbMfgvw

Key points:

- Three aircraft are in the flight test program (FTV 1, 2 and 4)
- Aircraft are equipped with final performance engines
- Interior installation of FTV5 is completed
- The first CS300 is now powered on, painted, engines installed and is being prepared for first flight
- Over 90% of the ground tests are completed

[Edited 2014-11-12 00:46:23]

Quoting apruzesse13 (Reply 58): Fully agreed. However it is also possible that their current tight cash situation leaves them no choice but not produce at risk

Since this drops the ROI, it has to be tight cash flow.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 59): Are they just trying to conserve cash until they have some (more) firm orders?

I'm not sure if it is firm orders or very tight cash flow management. I suspect the later.

Lightsaber

FTV3 flying as of November 14.

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/cseries-...3-is-in-flight-cser-819343942.html

The CS300 test bed is now outside for ground tests.


http://twitter.com/bouroux/status/533779879394025473

Oh how sweet to see it out of the FAL building. Can't wait to see a picture/video of the C300 taking to the air. Now if only UA would place a nice big order for both a/c.

Sorry for the ignorance, but is the CS300 still a narrow body, about the size of an A320/A321???

CS300 has a length of 38.7 meters, A320 is 37.6 meters and A321 is 44.5 meters in length.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 64): The CS300 test bed is now outside for ground tests.

That is good news, I didn't expect the 300 to come along so quickly. It seems that rather than sequential testing & certification of the two models, BBD has will have a near-concurrent program (if only in mostly due to CS100 delays). With such a large test fleet they should hopefully start racking up test hours now... fingers crossed.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67): CS300 has a length of 38.7 meters, A320 is 37.6 meters and A321 is 44.5 meters in length.

Quoting pugman211 (Reply 66): Sorry for the ignorance, but is the CS300 still a narrow body, about the size of an A320/A321???

But bear in mind it's 2-3 seating, so capacity-wise still less than the A320.

Quoting AntonovA330 (Reply 69):

Per this link:

https://theflyingengineer.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/seat_comparisons_a320_e195_cs100_3001.jpg

although it is in 3-2 layout but CS-series seat bottom looks wider than that in A320 3-3 layout

[Edited 2014-11-17 09:18:48]

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42): We can hope. I personally think airlines will continue to wait for more flight test data and due to delays either certification on stiff penalties on future delays...Lightsaber

Lightsaber,

I was perusing the UA/CSeries/E2 thread, when the following line jumped out at me in your most recent post:

"particular if the rumors I've heard on it beating fuel burn are accurate"

Do you have anything that can be posted here? enquiring minds want to know!

[Edited 2014-11-24 13:36:45]

Wing ultimate load test has been performed successfully.

http://cseries.com/fully-loaded-wing...nding-test-takes-on-ultimate-load/

Another photo of the first CS300 aircraft:



http://cseries.com/ftv7-in-the-snow/

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 73):

Strange, according to Transport Canada the first CS300 is registered C-FFDK, while the registration on this one is C-FDDK

This sounds like a first...all 4 FTV's were in the air the same day.


http://www.fliegerfaust.com/cseries-...2-in-flight-all-4-f-845967442.html

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 71): I was perusing the UA/CSeries/E2 thread, when the following line jumped out at me in your most recent post: "particular if the rumors I've heard on it beating fuel burn are accurate" Do you have anything that can be posted here? enquiring minds want to know!

My rumor mill has recently updated me. The original GTFs were beating promise fuel burn. However, Pratt has taken steps to increase margin on other operating characteristics at the expense of fuel burn.
1. Durability
a. increase cooling to ensure high cycle life between overhauls
b. That cooling costs fuel burn
c. I expect this to be undone at a later PIP (better turbine/combustor materials or coatings)
2. Compressor surge margin
a. Map the stators to a more conservative (from a surge standpoint) profile at the expense of fuel burn
b. I fully expect this to be undone after 2 to 3 years in service.   
3. Some fuel burn capability 'in reserve'
a. Not much, but this is to ensure in service 'wear & tear' is within warantee
b. I fully expect, a la the GP7200, a correction in the fuel burn map on the order of 1% in 2 years. This might be done with 2b above or seperately. (Even my rumor mill won't know such detail for 12 to 18 months.)
c. Some of this is to ensure *all* manufacturing tolerances were correctly anticipated in their impact. If not... Pratt will mask this problem.
4. Some of the fuel burn promise was used to open up manufacturing tolerances to cut production costs. As the production process matures, I fully expect tolerances to tighten back up (part of a PIP) and Pratt to claim back that fuel burn promise.

I also expect the PIPs to roll out at a decent rate. Pratt pissed off customers in the past not implementing Performance Improvement Programs (PIPs) on a reasonable schedule. Due to GE *never* doing a fuel burn PIP on the CF-34-8/10, Pratt has an easy opportunity to redeem themselves in the minds of their customers.

With the issues GE is having during LEAPx testing, this is a wise strategy. If the PW1135G goes into service more trouble free than the LEAPx-1A, it will redeem pratt in many ways. The same is true naturally of the PW1524G. But Bombardier shouldn't have delayed into PW1135G flight testing as that is what Pratt engineering is focused on if they are not on the PW814, PW1217G, or PW1717G or PW1922G... Yep, Pratt engineering is swamped right now.

Not to mention there is a new flavor of the PW800 going forward at risk...   

That core on the PW1200, PW1500, PW1700, PW1900, and various PW800s is going to have incredible economies of scale and thus will see PIPs far more frequently (due to six programs justifying the engineering investment in the core) as we've never seen before in a small thrust engine.

Let me be clear, Pratt is focusing on reducing EIS risk since they have margin on fuel burn. As that flood of new engines finishes entering the fleet, the engineers will be diverted to reviewing in service data and reducing fuel burn.    For the engines, due to how Pratt has structured the shared small core programs, it simply isn't possible to discuss just the PW1524G on its own anymore.  

Lightsaber

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 75): This sounds like a first...all 4 FTV's were in the air the same day. http://www.fliegerfaust.com/cseries-...2-in-flight-all-4-f-845967442.html

And 17 flight hours in a single day. Tally goes up fast at such a rate  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76): With the issues GE is having during LEAPx testing . . .

Are you referring here to durability issues? What I understand is that this may become a major headache for (early) operators. Initial durability is very challenging at the moment. TBO (or even Tine Between Hot Section visits) will not be reaching CFM levels for quite some time to come. And there are quite some very expensive hot Section parts that would require premature replacement. I guess the super hot Hot Sections and extreme high pressure ratios are not that easy after all.

Quoting Quantos (Reply 77): And 17 flight hours in a single day. Tally goes up fast at such a rate

This is excellent news. This shows that certain work has 'broken through' and is now racking up burndown on the flight test points. I would love to see the burndown (waterfall) curves of the C-series... That would be fascinating, but obviously unlikely to make it into the public domain.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 78): I guess the super hot Hot Sections and extreme high pressure ratios are not that easy after all.

While I agree to your summary of durability, I'm also hearing about fuel burn. GE went too aggressive on temperature where certain assumptions didn't hold true. Minor characteristics of materials at temperature were off from initial estimates.


Lightsaber

Haven't heard much in a while, however Sylvain has, as usual haha

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/cseries-...5-first-flight-when-858623241.html

FTV7 (First CS300) FF: Jan 2015 sometime

FTV5 (First cabin outfitted aircraft) FF: 20th April 2015

I wonder why FTV5 is taking so long to get in the air?

Quoting Wingtip1005 (Reply 80): FTV5 (First cabin outfitted aircraft) FF: 20th April 2015

There was a time when Bombardier believed all five test vehicles would fly before the end of 2013. Then FTV5 slipped to the end of 2014. Now it will be another four months later.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76): That core on the PW1200, PW1500, PW1700, PW1900, and various PW800s is going to have incredible economies of scale and thus will see PIPs far more frequently (due to six programs justifying the engineering investment in the core) as we've never seen before in a small thrust engine. Let me be clear, Pratt is focusing on reducing EIS risk since they have margin on fuel burn. As that flood of new engines finishes entering the fleet, the engineers will be diverted to reviewing in service data and reducing fuel burn. For the engines, due to how Pratt has structured the shared small core programs, it simply isn't possible to discuss just the PW1524G on its own anymore

Hello Lightsaber
These are very good news

Should I understand that BBD asked for another PW800 variant that will fly lower and much shorter trips ?

Where can I read some more Leap1 stuff ?

I'm just very very curious

will be making its first flight early into 2015

Quoting Wingtip1005 (Reply 80): FTV7 (First CS300) FF: Jan 2015 sometime

Sylvain actually says "will be making its first flight early into 2015". He doesn't say January specifically. Has he or some other source started January elsewhere?

'Early 2015' could be anytime in Q1 2015 to me.

FTV5, painted and with engines:


http://twitter.com/icao/status/542329579927764992/

From Twitter:

"...The ICAO Council and Senior Secretariat staff C-Series tour before being flown to Chicago by @Bombardier #ICAO70 ".

Interesting that they are flying to Chicago...

I don't believe this flight test update was posted here yet: http://airinsight.com/2014/12/15/cse...nsight+%28AirInsight%29#.VJQV-dAEB

Note the graph is estimated flight hours, as the flights are quite hard to track precisely with the aircraft in Wichita, but this does show that the four FTVs have had a good month in November.

Bombardier has found a new launch customer:

Quote: Bombardier Inc. on Friday said it had secured a new launch operator for its CSeries jet, clearing a significant commercial hurdle for the Canadian company’s plan to deliver the new 125-passenger plane in the second half of 2015. Bombardier declined to name the new planned first operator for the CS100 jet. A spokeswoman said it is up to the airline to make it public.

See http://tinyurl.com/mzhdrjz

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 87):

Good news! My guess is GF.

Has to be LX, given how desperate they are to finally replace the Avros.

Or maybe Bombardier is about to clinch a new order, who will become the launch customer? Austrian Airlines is very much interested in the CSeries.

http://airinsight.com/2014/10/15/austrian-cseries/

Somehow I would think that if this launch customer consisted of a new order, Bombardier would announce both the order and launch customer at the same time.

Quoting PhilInBRN (Reply 89): Has to be LX, given how desperate they are to finally replace the Avros.

LH has been steadfast in stating that they will not be the first operator.

Quoting Wingtip1005 (Reply 80): FTV5 (First cabin outfitted aircraft) FF: 20th April 2015 I wonder why FTV5 is taking so long to get in the air?

Not very encouraging news, that gives less time to test the cabin systems (assuming no further delays). That may not be as exciting as flight control laws, but the cabin systems of a modern airliner can be quite complex and give headaches too... Plus, the cabin aircraft are always those with which you test real-world airline operations, route proving, maintenance training, etc.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 93): Not very encouraging news, that gives less time to test the cabin systems (assuming no further delays). That may not be as exciting as flight control laws, but the cabin systems of a modern airliner can be quite complex and give headaches too... Plus, the cabin aircraft are always those with which you test real-world airline operations, route proving, maintenance training, etc.

Not only that but, it will be going to all the air shows and airlines to show off their new bird to get sales, they want it to be in prefect so it will show the best light of the a/c and BBD

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 82): Should I understand that BBD asked for another PW800 variant that will fly lower and much shorter trips ?

Not for BBD. This is Pratt developing the PW812 for anther business jet vendor. I was talking about how improving the economy of scale of engine production would benefit the entire product line.

And there is yet 1 more frame for the PW800 that I haven't hear if it will be PW800 powered or BR700NG. The most expensive part of an engine is the core. GE brilliantly spread the cost of the CF-34 among many platforms where some had high sales volumes and thus the entire engine program had incredibly low overhaul costs per engine as there were a great number of engines to pay for part production, refinement of overhaul work, and engineering overhead. Now Pratt should have that advantage. Interesting times ahead... BBD will benefit. On the platforms that have the smaller PW1000G core.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 82): Where can I read some more Leap1 stuff ?

None of this is getting to the public. Good luck finding any bad news in the press within 2 years of the event. I'm hearing tidbits from my 'rumor mill' about specific details on specific components of the LEAP-X having issues as GE ramps up teams to fix those issues. Some issues require more time to fix than there is until LEAPx-1A certification. So the engine will enter service with a performance miss. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 95): GE brilliantly spread the cost of the CF-34 among many platforms where some had high sales volumes and thus the entire engine program had incredibly low overhaul costs per engine as there were a great number of engines to pay for part production, refinement of overhaul work, and engineering overhead.

Talk about squeezing the life out of an engine design... over 40 years if you consider the TF34.  

CSeries Flight Testing Production Thread (part6) (by American 767 Sep 29 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Part 6 was archived so here is with part 7.

As a quick recap:

• FTV1 to 4, CS100 frames are currently active and have logged around 800-900 flight hours since the first flight on 16SEP13. They are based at Montreal Mirabel (YMX) and Wichita (ICT).


• The beginning was at a very slow pace in terms of flight time, they were doing a lot of ground tests and had a few setbacks including bad weather and an uncontained engine failure during a post-maintenance ground test at the end of May 2014.
  After PW fixed the issue with the lubrication system that caused the failure, restart of flight test happened in September and since then the pace has picked up, achieving around a hundred of flight hours a month.
  Fly by wire has now been fully activated and tests are going on in fbw normal mode since the end of September 2014.


• The objective is to log 2500 flight hours for certification, that includes CS100 and CS300.


• FTV5, the last CS100 FTV and the first equipped with a passenger cabin, is scheduled to start flight testing in April 2015 according to Sylvain Faust.
  It has already done its part in the testing and certification process with some tests, like lightning tests and evacuation test which was seen in Bombardier's last video.


• There will be two CS300 FTVs, the first of them, msn55001, is already out of the FAL and should start flying in the next months "early into 2015" as Bombardier says. the second, msn55002, is in the FAL, structurally complete and undergoing systems installation.


• 2015 will see a CSeries world tour, probably with FTV5.


• EIS with a still undisclosed customer, is scheduled for the second half of 2015, my bet is that it will be the very last part of that half, maybe we'll have a CS100 EIS under the christmas tree.

Cheers and happy new year,
Paolo

What's the planned production rate and delivery schedule, once certification occurs?