twinpratts wrote:Can anyone in the know confirm or deny the rumor that the whole C-series order is conditional on the Airport expansion being approved/ completed at City Center Airport in Toronto?

It's all in the press release bud, no need to be in the "know". It is a conditional order based on the ability to fly jets in/out of CYTZ and to lengthen the Runway.

So, I’ve spent some time searching the Bombardier website and Press Releases but I can’t find any performance claims as far as accurate takeoff and landing requirements are concerned, except this one statement.
“The aircraft needs at least 4,000ft (1,220m) to take off and 4,400ft to land.”

I’m guessing these numbers came from performance engineers earlier on in the C Series program when setting performance expectations for this new aircraft which they may be hoping to achieve once it actually flies. I don’t take away from these numbers that it automatically implies only a takeoff run of 4,000ft and since there is no accurate performance data yet to support these numbers they may be reasonable expectations for an aircraft that hasn’t yet flown and isn’t necessarily STOL capable. The PW1524G is definitely a game changer and as it was mentioned previously, this isn’t a FAN engine. At 3000 rpm and a ratio of 12 to 1 it’s going to have lots of thrust when it comes to takeoff run and lots of reverse thrust when it comes to stopping distance. I believe.

We all know Bombardier aren’t selling this new aircraft specifically for London City or Toronto Island operations. Porter will undoubtedly have their battles to get this aircraft operational off the island but I sure hope they can make it work.
Interesting times ahead.

Gino Under

Looks like porter doesn't like the idea of anyone else flying jets out of the island.
"Porter is asking the City of Toronto for an exemption from the jet ban in place at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, only for the CS100 whisper jet. With this approval, no other jet aircraft would be allowed to fly from the airport."

Gino,

Tried a new search with your numbers. Found this.

Looks like BBD is saying 1/2 range out of YTZ after a runway extention. London City center is already 4948'. So a 5000' strip will restrict the CS100 to half its range. Note the term TO run below.

So a range of 2778km. After taking into account seasonal winds, Alternates, TO performance above ISA and TO performance wet. I would suggest a realistic operational range out of a 5000' strip is substantially less than 2000km.


Bombardier released the following reduced performance specifications, regarding operations from urban airports with short runways and steep approaches, like London City Airport and Toronto Island Airport.

Urban Operations
CS100
Max takeoff weight 53,060 kg
Max landing weight 49,895 kg
Maximum cargo payload. 3,629 kg
Maximum payload (total) 13,676 kg
Max range 2,778 km
Take off run at MTOW (3,999 ft)
Landing field length at MLW (4,400 ft)

Fanblade

Sounds like you're suspicions are pretty close then. With those numbers, I can appreciate your numbers, the aircraft will need additional feet beyond (3999) 4000ft to get off the ground. I wasn't aware that any reduction in load was needed to accomplish certain expectations (YTZ-LAX) but it only stands to reason, if Bombardier have presented this option with these numbers, that would be the case. Less fuel = less weight = better runway performance, but less range.
I also read somewhere that the engine thrust rating could be adjusted up or down. That would also come into play when you start messing around with derates and FLEX. Hard to say without flight test data though. So, I better stop sticking my neck out.
If I were better at understanding product marketing though, I might better understand why an airline would accept operating an extremely capable aircraft such as the C series at anything less than a full load with appropriate fuel quantity and find it acceptable just to maintain its fleet out of a particular base or hub? It probably explains why I don't run an airline as well.

Maybe Hamilton or Oshawa are better suited for the C series than YTZ. After all these years I find it hard to believe those dozen or so home owners on Centre Island, Hanlan's Point and Ward's Island continue to hold a gun to the heads of Toronto City council.

cheers,
Gino Under

Because in Canada we cater to the minority.

If I were better at understanding product marketing though, I might better understand why an airline would accept operating an extremely capable aircraft such as the C series at anything less than a full load with appropriate fuel quantity and find it acceptable just to maintain its fleet out of a particular base or hub

Because that's where the customers are.

The purpose of an airline isn't to fly cool airplanes. It's to earn money!

"The purpose of an airline isn't to fly cool airplanes. It's to earn money!"
There's the gold nugget I was missing. Who knew airlines wanted to make money? Certainly not someone like me who's been in the airline industry for over 35 years.

If an airline's purpose is to fly passengers off Toronto island, AND make a profit, great. To my way of thinking, why spend $50 million on a 109 passenger aeroplane and not use it to it's fullest capability because the runway isn't long enough?

Simple. Make the f**in' runway longer, don't buy the aeroplane or go somewhere you're welcome.

...that's why I don't own or run an airline. WTF do I know?
Maybe Porter's just another break even airline.


Gino Under

As fanblade has shown above, there is plenty of reason to be highly skeptical of the numbers.

I support Porter, but even as a CPL/IFR student, the published takeoff run/range numbers from BBD and Porter's plans to go as far as LAX seem unrealistic. That said, we are all assuming the plans are to go YTZ-WestCoast NON-STOP. Sounds like these YTZ-WestCoast routes could be similar to the LCY-JFK route. Re-fuel on the outbound leg, non-stop inbound.

Also, the additional 1000ft may open up some new routes for the Q.

just my 2 cents...

Deluce defends against "Takeover" speculation.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... eculation/

Deltawidget wrote:As fanblade has shown above, there is plenty of reason to be highly skeptical of the numbers.

I support Porter, but even as a CPL/IFR student, the published takeoff run/range numbers from BBD and Porter's plans to go as far as LAX seem unrealistic. That said, we are all assuming the plans are to go YTZ-WestCoast NON-STOP. Sounds like these YTZ-WestCoast routes could be similar to the LCY-JFK route. Re-fuel on the outbound leg, non-stop inbound.

Also, the additional 1000ft may open up some new routes for the Q.

just my 2 cents...

Well here is your answer: Range Capabilities - Straight from the source

aileron wrote:Well here is your answer: Range Capabilities - Straight from the source

What it doesn't answer is the amount of payload it can lift to make that range estimate.

FICU wrote:

aileron wrote:Well here is your answer: Range Capabilities - Straight from the source

What it doesn't answer is the amount of payload it can lift to make that range estimate.

Okay, here is your easy button: Range Capability Assumptions

So they are assuming they can fly full pax with bags from 5000 feet of runway off Billy Bishop at 14.5 degrees to Vancouver non-stop with 85% average head winds?

Good luck!

I doubt they're just assuming. I bet there may be some maths involved.

Edit: Yes I know they say "assumption" on the website, but I take as a mathematical term, i.e. a logical base upon which to built a mathematical theory, and not the English word assumption as in "I just assumed nice new plane would be awesome and perform great!".

It's all about sales and marketing and I suspect they are reaching to get clients interested. I think there will be a large payload reduction to make those numbers work from Billy Bishop once reality sets in.
I'll only believe it when I see it.

I'm with you FICU...the performance of this aircraft has to be something that no one saw coming to make it work. Unless I missed it here, we have not even considered wet or contaminated runway issues.

learcapt wrote:I'm with you FICU...the performance of this aircraft has to be something that no one saw coming to make it work. Unless I missed it here, we have not even considered wet or contaminated runway issues.

Wet runway - it will be grooved
Contaminated runway - Great snow removal equipment and a short runway, I've had 1 day in 3 winters that it wasn't %100 bare and dry.

justwork, does CARS 705 negate a wet runway condition because of grooving? I have not heard of that, but Im 704/604.

What do you fly?

learcapt wrote:justwork, does CARS 705 negate a wet runway condition because of grooving? I have not heard of that, but Im 704/604.

What do you fly?

I couldn't tell you, compared to other avcanada members I am far from a CAR's aficionado. It is however my understanding that a grooved runway maintains effectively dry braking during periods of rain fall.

Wonder the reason(s) why the CS was complete flop for NEW sales at the recent Paris Show. Others filled their demos with cash deposits. BBD virtually came home empty

BBD virtually came home empty

Its like bringing kobe beef to Calgary for a barbeque..........

BTW interest has already been expressed for a corporate C series.

Just work, I thought I was missing something there..how can you make a statement about a wet runway when you obviously know nothing about it. Wet and contamination will be an issue.

learcapt wrote:Just work, I thought I was missing something there..how can you make a statement about a wet runway when you obviously know nothing about it. Wet and contamination will be an issue.

Maybe you should email bob and let him know.

What a stupid response...All I was trying to say here is that we were all looking at numbers that were already tight, never mind contaminated ones. You pipe up with a dumb ass response.