We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Thanks. It is odd that the company is not more forthcoming with updates. They need some good news. If your numbers are as of 15 July then then should be on the cusp of completion. Some estimated that they will receive 150 hrs credit for ground testing which means less than a month of flight time to go.
By the way, Boeing just updated their “obsolete” range numbers for their planes.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-revises-quotobsoletequot-performance-assumptions-415293/
The 737 Max 7 range declined 500 nm from 3,850nm on the old brochure to 3,350nm. Take this along with the CS100 performance gains and the CS100 now has an equal range with 15% better efficiency.
What I would like to know is the range the CS500 is going to have. I would assume it to be slightly lower than the CS100/300 because it is likely to use the same wing. On the other hand the MAX 8 and MAX 9 share the same range (3515 nm) with a capacity of 162 and 180 passengers respectively. So perhaps the CS500 will also be able to retain the same range as its lower capacity variants after all.
And are you sure you are comparing MAX7 range with CS100 under the same “new updated” assumptions? And 15% better efficiency compared to what? Same size aircraft? Under the same assumptions? This industry should be called greengrocer as people love comparing apples with oranges!
I have to concur with Farmer. You’re assuming the conditions for the range specifications are equal, and we don’t know if that’s really the case.
I’m also curious if the certification requirements will really be completed in 2400 hours of testing. With the early fly-by-wire issues and the engine failure, I’d have expected them not to have covered many of their early certification test points during the planned hours, or have had to repeat to repeat some tests. It makes me wonder if we’ll see Bombardier quietly complete an extra 100-200 hours of testing, and then conclude without ever directly addressing that fact with an exuberant declaration that, “we’ve successfully completed our planned 2500 hours of flight testing.”
From Karel XWB-Airliner, MSN 50006, the first production frame, received test registration C-FFCO: http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/C-FFCO.html
Another plane for Test Flight ? And if the CS500 was as much seats as B737-8Max and A320neo but with a radius of less than 3,000 nm (after all, the market for aircraft with 150-170 seats remaining is below 2,000 nm), capable of landing and take off on short track (and who knows, maybe he will become a regional airline to serve the regional aviation and short runways … ). So, Bombardier’s marketing team could argue that this is not exactly the same type of aircraft (smaller, less far, etc.) that the 8 -Max and 320Neo , etc. So, it is a CS700 could approach the last two : same range or more, same number of seats or more, etc. but with a new wing, to share with a CS900…
assuming they use essentially the same wing…which they claim has more structural margin after testing…it will all depend on the number of passengers and most importantly if it has the same MTOW as the CS300. Bombardier is in a financial weak position right now so if they do build the CS500, it will be a simple stretch and trade range for passenger load. therefore the range of the CS500 could be much less!
Thanks Ken. You may have given me the answer I was looking for. I remember Rob Dewar saying not long ago that they still had fuel volume to spare. If I combine this with what you say about structural margin it would imply that the CS500 could use the same wing while preserving the same range if the existing wing is reinforced in order to increase the MTOW. This would of course be more expensive, but in my opinion a far better solution. For it would put the CS500 on equal footing with the A320 neo and 737 MAX 8.
Bombardier stated that CS300 FTV6 flight test hours would be credited to CS100 certification
The first CS300 is FTV7 and the second one will be FTV8. FTV6 is a fatigue test vehicle based in Germany and will never fly. It is true that some of the hours flown by FTV7 will be credited for the certification of the CS100. We can add to this some of the hours “flown” in CIASTA and its various test rigs.
Some more news about flight test…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ixDalfvK4
A flightGlobal article on 18 Mar reported that: “Away from the runway, preparations are under way for volume production of the two small Pratt & Whitney PW1500G-powered narrowbody airliners. The first production CS100, P1, is structurally complete and will begin flight testing in the autumn. P2, the seventh CS100 to be built, is in final assembly and P3 is at the beginning of assembly. “In the middle of this year, we will gate with our suppliers,” says Dewar”
I recall there was even talk of P1 joining the flight test program. Have you heard anything on the status of the production planes? For all we know they could be sitting as whitetails now and work started on P4-6.
I don’t know what is going on with the production aircraft and I find the situation intriguing. At this stage of the game I don’t know what P1 would bring to the certification programme. What is more important is FTV8. But this one should take a longer time to prepare because it will have the airline configuration, like FTV5. Still, P1, P2, P3 coming off the assembly line one after the other, and we are only in August 2015! How many aircraft will Bombardier have built by the time P1 is delivered to SWISS next Year? I don’t think there is enough space in the hangars to keep them all in. And what is worrying is that the peak is likely to occur in the middle of next winter. Hopefully we will have more information when flight testing is over. Perhaps Bombardier will take that opportunity to give us a full update on the programme.
Perhaps this is part of the reason for the large cash burn? They are paying for engines and parts now but will not get paid for them until the planes are delivered. I cannot imagine why BBD would say that EIS is not until 2016 if they could start deliveries in 2015.
And this news is likely to increase the commercial value of the CSeries …
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pampw-discloses-new-engine-option-for-cseries-415481/
If it’s only a software change, it seems odd that they gave the option its own PW1525G model number.
Anyways, the offering makes sense, considering the ongoing focus of the CSeries marketing to short runway operators.