chornedsnorkackThe chart is the great circle distance. What would the still air distance be YTZ-SFO?
chornedsnorkackSorry, my mistake. From the brochure:
http://media.bombardiercms.com/cseries/medias/cseries/galleries/cseries_download_high_en_7a1759.pdf
the range is quoted at the standard payload of 110 passengers after all. 125 passengers would have shorter range.
chornedsnorkackThe odd thing I find though is the take-off distance for the CS100 is 1,509m,
Was.
As mentioned in the other thread, on occasion of the CS100 rollout it was disclosed that the take-off distance had been shrunk to 1463 m. With full MTOW.
Bombardier also offers “Basic” version – with 1219 m take-off distance.
yet the runway length at YTZ is only 1,216m long (almost 300m short!), so I am assuming that they are going to have to reduce the overall passenger capacity of the aircraft in order to be able to operate it?!
They could reduce the range instead. CS100 range with 1463 m BFL and 125 seats no frills is 2950 nm still air (but inclusive of required reserves).
They DO reduce the overall passenger capacity. The standard MTOW, range and take-off distance of CS100 are defined at the no-frills maximum 125 seats@30´´ pitch. The standard all-coach seating at 32´´ is just 110, however. And standard 2 class interior is 108.
Porter has specified 107 seats on 2 classes.
And Porter is also applying to extend YTZ by 336 m.
chornedsnorkackAlready discussed at some length:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=116627&page=3
chornedsnorkackSo 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?)?
chornedsnorkackFor the classification of noise by LCY, see:
http://www.lcacc.org/noise/index.html#Monitoring
5 categories, A to E, where E is all quieter planes.
The list of planes is at
http://www.lcacc.org/operations/operations.html#Limitations
Note that:
All jets so far existing are A. Including Falcons and Citations.
Of propellers, DHC-6 is A, DHC-8 is B, and DHC-7 is D. E is so far empty.
What would CS100 category be?
chornedsnorkackAre you sure the miles are nautical?
I get:
SFO-YTZ – 1974 nm
YTZ-YYT – 1141 nm
YYT-LCY – 2031 nm
LCY-JFK – 3017 nm
How many seats do you think CS100 could carry LCY-YYT (still foul winds westbound), compared to LCY-JFK? No one is claiming to extend LCY, for now….
chornedsnorkackAnyway, considering that their Q400s are configured with a 34″ pitch, a similar seating configuration on the CSeries would result in 20 rows, for a total of 100 seats.
such reduction could already make the difference for the runway required, if we take the basic “urban operations” specs by BBD (CS100 at MTOW with 125 pax goes 1500nm from LCY) then the 25 pax reduction would give a margin to compensate for the slightly shorter runway at YTZ (or even prove in a greater range from there).
Porter is specifying 107 seats in two classes.
Not Porter… but how much payload could CS100 carry YTZ-YYT-LCY?
chornedsnorkackI suspect a logical purpose to the purposeful untruth.
Not disclosing the cannibalization.
I mean, the frames were leased. The lease agreements presumably required the lessee (Kingfisher) to keep the frames in returnable condition at lessee´s cost.
It makes perfect sense that if Kingfisher had financial trouble, then Kingfisher may have paid the lease price (not paying that would have been an obvious reason to seize the frames) but deferred the maintenance they were obliged to pay for. And cannibalized lessor´s property.
Activity presumably forbidden by lease agreements and grounds to return the frames – if the lessor found out.
Therefore the logical thing to do would have been to NOT log the cannibalization – so that the fact of cannibalization could only have been discovered by inspection of the actual frames. Whereas inspection of the maintenance logs should have contained nothing inconsistent with the cover story – that the flying frames still consist of their original parts or officially bought and logged spares, and these parts just happened not to break recently.
Whereas in underlying truth, parts of the flying frames did need replacement, and were replaced with parts from cannibalized frames – with no log created to attest to the fact of replacement, or which frame the replacement parts came from.
Does this make sense? There have been rumours of cannibalization and maintenance log falsification in other late airlines, including Pan Am… is the methodology described above SOP for financially distressed airlines?
chornedsnorkackThe worth of any aircraft is in the paperwork. If the paperwork is incomplete or missing, it is very expensive to get an aircraft flying again. If you can’t ascertain the history of a part, it would need to go for overhaul and have a new release certificate certifying if for use.
“Incomplete” or “missing”… where would you classify “purposefully untrue”?
And which frames are the bigger problem – the flying frames, or the grounded ones?
I mean… if a flying frame has paperwork which looks fine, and says every part is in place and is either an original or an officially bought replacement… but the paperwork is suspected to be deliberately false. Then some of the parts are not, in fact originals – they are cannibalized from some of the grounded frames. But since the said cannibalization officially, as per paperwork, did not happen, there is absolutely no papers which of the parts are in fact cannibalized replacement. And if you do identify a part which is not original and which instead is a replacement, the paperwork will also not tell you which specific of the 15 cannibalized frames it came from.
What is easier to discover during a thorough check of an airframe – missing parts on a grounded frame, or replaced and therefore undocumented parts on a frame that had been kept flying?
chornedsnorkackDo you think everything put IN the flying frames was well-documented in logs, either?
What do you think happened to known broken parts taken out of flying frames and replaced with the cannibalized parts? Were the known broken parts carefully put in place into the grounded planes being cannibalized? Or were the broken parts thrown away, and left missing in the grounded frames?
chornedsnorkackPorter orders!
12 firm, 18 options:
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/08/porter-reportedly-planning-to-announce-order-for-bombardier-planes/
How loud would a CS100 Basic be out of YTZ? Compared to Q400?
chornedsnorkackAbout front bedrooms, I have no idea.
The thing is, at 328 cm at widest, CSeries is 25 cm narrower than the 353 cm width of 737 (and 757, 727 and 707).
That´s why I am not sure whether front bedrooms are a comfortable option on CSeries.
They definitely are an option of CSeries. This is proven because a middle bedroom has been done on at least one MD-83, and MD-83 at 313 cm is 15 cm narrower than CSeries.
This is the old interior of that frame:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(JetAlliance)/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-83/0357333/L
The corridor at the rear (right of picture, left of plane) passes the bedroom.
I have found a picture inside the bedroom, too, but that has a poor field of view, so it is inconclusive as to the comfort of the said bedroom.
For comparison, a corridor on existing Royal Jet 737:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Royal-Jet/Boeing-737-7BC-BBJ/2051313/L
And a full beam view of a rear bedroom on Royal Jet:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Royal-Jet)/Boeing-737-7BC-BBJ/2029402/L
As you see, a narrowbody bedroom faces issues of space. The full beam of CSeries is 328 cm, but the curving sidewalls narrow to 310 cm at floor level, and even less at head level… but how much? What is the stand-up width of the CSeries fuselage?
The limited height part can be used for cupboards and shelves. But the corridor of adequate width must be cut out of the stand-up width. Then the thickness of the partitioning wall… How much usable width is left for the bedroom (or other rooms like bathroom, private lounge, private office)?
As stated above, MD-83 proves that something can be squeezed in, I just wondered if it would be comfortable.
Edit – found better interior pictures of that MD-83 bedroom
http://www.abi.gr/en/aircrafts/20
Of the thumbnails to the right, third row from top, the left is the corridor, and the right is the bedroom. Here you can account for the full width of the bedroom, from the edge of the wall to the right, past the nightstand and footwell to the bed. Heart shaped pillow… what is your estimate for the width of the bed surface? Would you fit there with a bedmate?
And how much different is CSeries bed?
chornedsnorkackCustomer for Bombardier BJ!
Royal Jet wants it. See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/abu-dhabi-air-expo-royal-jet-considers-options-as-it-looks-to-replace-six-strong-bbj-fleet-by-2016-383162/
What kind of range is Bombardier offering for CS100 BJ?
The existing Royal Jet fleet of 6 737-700 frames has 7 different interiors, from 19 seats (DFR) to 52 (RJZ).
Are front bedrooms comfortable options on CSeries BJ?
chornedsnorkackFor comparison, see the effect of weather on take-off weight on A318:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A318-Jun2012.pdf
compare pages 135 and 138.
It is hard to read – lack of fine divisions. Could you agree with my estimate that an A318
at 130 000 pound take-off weight
at sea level
needs about 200 feet extra distance at +30 compared to +15 (4500 feet vs 4300)?
Sign In
