CSeries launch customer

Have no idea about the MTOW increase, if possible it will be done later in the program I guess.
Anyway the CS100 is offered with 19k, 21k or 23k lbf engines (84.1, 93.4 and 103.6 kN respectively) while the CS300 is only offered with the 21k and 23k lbf engines.

What is the advantage of PW1521 and 1519 over PW1524?

Anyway: comparing the standard CS100 and base CS300:
they have the exact same MTOW (58 967 kg), same wing, and same engines (PW1524G). The difference is fuselage stretch.

Their take-off distance differs: standard CS100 takes off in 1463 m, base CS300 needs 1524 m.
The causes for difference might be:
the fuselage stretch of CS300 causes extra drag during takeoff run;
the maximum coefficient of lift of CS300 is smaller because of lower rotation angle, limited by the stretched tail, and therefore CS300 needs higher speed to lift off.

Is it known how much the takeoff distance of CSeries is stretched by PW1521 and PW1519 engines?

Have no idea about the MTOW increase, if possible it will be done later in the program I guess.
Anyway the CS100 is offered with 19k, 21k or 23k lbf engines (84.1, 93.4 and 103.6 kN respectively) while the CS300 is only offered with the 21k and 23k lbf engines.

Bombardier started with “higher” speed testing (still below 60kt) yesterday. some pictures have been posted by patcard on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/patcard/

On the customers side, two airlines signed preliminary deals with lessor Ilyushin Finance Co. (which has 32 CS300+10 options on order).
Vim Airlines of Russia and UTair-Ukraine will take 5 CS300 on lease, each.

CSeries is allowed to fly:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardier-cseries-approved-for-first-flight-390036/
When will it make use of that permit? Slow speed taxiing has been done, but before flight, there is still need for high speed taxiing, and rejected takeoffs.

The full MTOW of CS100 is quoted at 58,967 t, not 58,5 t.

My point of MTOW increase was: CS300 has exact same wings as CS100, and also exact same engines (PW1524G, with 103,6 kN thrust each). Yet CS300 manages MTOW of 65,317 t. It would therefore seem to me that if there were any demand to increase CS100 loaded range beyond the standard 5463 km, that could be done with relatively modest modifications. So is there a chance to see a CS100LR, if not with the full 65 t MTOW of CS300, then a more modest MTOW bump?

that article was slightly updated, because the flight test program was not stretched but the potential airspace restrictions near Montreal were.
Anyway, that timeframe includes CS100+CS300 test flights and post-certification flights (like ETOPS testing, precision RNP testing and ILS/autoland category increase testing)
The CSX00 and CSeries BJ are still off the shelf so, when (and if, but my guess is mostly when) they are going to be introduced Bombardier will apply for a further extension of the airspace restrictions.

For the MTOW increase, all 5 CS100 FTV already have full MTOW (58,5 tons). There will be a MTOW decrease (restriction) for urban operations.

Bombardier published also a video of the painting process:
A New Look for the CSeries FTV1

The tests have been stretched by 3 months:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cseries-flight-test-programme-extended-into-2015-389738/

Does it mean that CS100 EIS is delayed into 2015? Or does it not? The original 18 month schedule, May 2013 to November 2014, already was supposed to include CS300 – because CS100 was supposed to EIS in June 2014 or so. Does the extension affect CS300 alone, and CS100 is completed in 12 months (by August 2014) or earlier? But why would CS300 then need 9 months testing, and not make do with 6 months as originally planned and adequate for a small stretch of an already tested CS100? Could it be that additional changes have been introduced to CS300, and that would delay CS300 relative to CS100?

Also, how long would Bombardier need to complete as yet undisclosed versions of CSeries, like extra long range (increased MTOW) versions, or CSeries Business Jet? Can they be completed within the May 2015 schedule, or not?

Hi everyone!

CSeries got painted! Almost there for First Flight…

CSeries has taxied!
http://cseries.com/ftv1s-need-for-speed/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardier-delays-cseries-first-flight-again-to-coming-weeks-388672/

Bit of a delay…

But better taking their time and getting it right than end up looking at a smoking crater at the end of a runway!

[also noises about an MRJ delay for Mitsubishi]

Cseries ran engines!

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/engine-power-on-keeps-cseries-on-schedule-for-first-flight-388469/

The CSeries, imho, could be stretched to an A320-like seat capacity version without loosing too much performance (with existing wings), perhaps a 26k thrust version of the PW1500G could help in keeping performance equal.

MD-80 had no engines stronger than JT8D-219, with just 21k lb. CSeries has 23,3k lb out of box. So how much bigger could CSeries be than the 172 seats of MD-80?

The CSeries, imho, could be stretched to an A320-like seat capacity version without loosing too much performance (with existing wings), perhaps a 26k thrust version of the PW1500G could help in keeping performance equal.

Regarding the delay, that’s really a pity… Wish they fly really soon…
Launch customer was advertized as Gulf Air when it was still an undisclosed customer, although till the reveal no one at BBD mentioned anything about it…

Delayed! To the end of July, so far:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cseries-first-flight-delayed-to-late-july-for-software-upgrades-387701/

So who is the launch customer, again? Gulf Air, or Malmö Aviation?

Looking at the images of CSeries at:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5752656/
post 146
The wing area of CSeries is quoted as 112 square m.
The wing area of MD-80 is also 112 square m, although MD-80 has shorter wingspan and therefore wider chord and lower aspect ratio.

How much can CSeries reasonably be stretched with existing wing and engines?

And the launch customer is…. Gulf Air!!!
Bombardier Discloses Gulf Air as Airline Customer for 10 CSeries Aircraft and Options for Another Six

Bombardier Aerospace and Gulf Air disclosed today that a previous firm order for 10 CS100 aircraft, with options for an additional six aircraft, was placed by Gulf Air, the national carrier of the Kingdom of Bahrain.

In other news IFC’s shareholders approved the CS300 order, so it became firm:
Russia’s Ilyushin Finance Co. Firms Purchase Agreement for up to 42 Bombardier CSeries Aircraft

Bombardier Aerospace announced today that its purchase agreement with Moscow-based leasing company Ilyushin Finance Co. (IFC) has been approved by IFC’s shareholders and is now firm.

Bombardier promises to expose the 3 secret customers, including the launch customer, at Paris:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-02/bombardier-says-cseries-spurred-by-hot-high-africa-credentials.html

Also Bombardier is looking for “hot and high” customers in Africa… what about Latin America, also high and hot?

First picture of FTV1 “painted” for first flight appeared on Airliners.net:

First flight is confirmed to be performed by the end of june, but not before Paris Air Show.

As Airbus have found out, the 160 seat airline market is dead! Just look at the A319 sales figures.

Been busy and not around for quite a while.

Just to explain why A319s are selling so poorly – the fuel burn of an A319 is only incrementally more fuel efficient than an A320 – it is quite an inefficient aeroplane relative to the A320 in terms of seat/mile costs. This is consistent for both classic and new engine options.

Thus, airlines are taking the hit on the extra 50-100 kg/hr fuel burn for the greater operational flexibility the larger A320 airframe provides. [For comparison, CSeries would probably have 350-400 kg/hr less fuel burn than an A320NEO.]

*all fuel burns nominal in cruise.

So now there are eager CS100 users at LCY and YTZ.

How about SDU? Over water, and slightly longer than YTZ – 1320 m, whereas YTZ is 1200 m. Then again, SDU is tropical… but summer in eastern North America is almost as hot.

How would the performance of CS100 out of SDU compare against the local E-jets (E170?)?

Since Bombardier and Porter declared the CS100 to be slightly quieter than the Q400, I expect it to fit within LCY category B or C.

The only noise level that I can find on Bombardier’s website (here) is the cumulative noise level 255 EPNdB.
But that’s a different parameter from the reference noise level PNdB that LCY uses.

It depends on which PNdB counts for LCY…
For the Q400, the following EPNdB values are published on Bombardier’s website (here):
Flyover 78.6 EPNdB
Lateral 84.0 EPNdB
Approach 93.1 EPNdB
(average=85.23 EPNdB; cumulative noise level 255.7 EPNdB)

According to LCY categories: (category/EPNdB)
A – 91.6 – 94.5
B – 88.6 – 91.5
C – 85.6 – 88.5
D – 82.6 – 85.5
E – Less than 82.6

So none of the above mentioned values fits into LCY’s table (Q400 listed as category B).
Given the similar cumulative noise level I tend to place the CSeries into LCY noise category B.
Although, looking at the whole operations pages of the LCY website, they look a bit out-of-date… a lot of date references are past (like “By January 2011 there is to be a review of Aircraft Categorisation.” and “[…]by July 2010 it will carry out a Ground Noise Study[…]”) so it could be possible that those values are referenced to the original Q400 (non-NextGen) which was noisier, so that the average value would fit into Category B (and now the Q400NG would fit into C).
In spite of this last evaluation I’d place the CSeries into category C.