Porter and the CSeries

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:49 pm

pointyertoe wrote:And do you think that Porter would dare make this order without having a reasonable assurance of some of the the most basic performance criteria?
Well I think there is a lot at stake for both companies. Both BBD and Porter have much to gain over the publisity alone.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
fingersmac
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:17 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by fingersmac » Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:12 pm

Fanblade wrote:This says 4800' TO roll. Yeah I know its Wikipedia but the refenence section looks well researched.
How about just comparing the numbers Bombardier published in their fact sheet for the C Series with other Bombardier aircraft fact sheets? All three fact sheets use the same format.

Max Take Off Field Length

CS100 - 4,800' @ 129,000lbs

http://media.bombardiercms.com/cseries/ ... 7a1759.pdf

CRJ700 Next Gen - 5,271' @ 72,750lbs

http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_6/p ... tsheet.pdf

CRJ1000 Next Gen - 6,549' @ 91,000lbs

http://crj1000nextgen.bombardier.com/pd ... tsheet.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade » Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:45 pm

fingersmac wrote:
Fanblade wrote:This says 4800' TO roll. Yeah I know its Wikipedia but the refenence section looks well researched.
How about just comparing the numbers Bombardier published in their fact sheet for the C Series with other Bombardier aircraft fact sheets? All three fact sheets use the same format.

Max Take Off Field Length

CS100 - 4,800' @ 129,000lbs

http://media.bombardiercms.com/cseries/ ... 7a1759.pdf

CRJ700 Next Gen - 5,271' @ 72,750lbs

http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_6/p ... tsheet.pdf

CRJ1000 Next Gen - 6,549' @ 91,000lbs

http://crj1000nextgen.bombardier.com/pd ... tsheet.pdf
Those numbers convinced me even more the numbers are only TO roll. Flown a 700 at MTOW? Like playing chicken with the weeds. Skinny wing and all. To be 400' shorter with 50,000 lbs more? Great achievement. Still needs a 6000 plus runway.

You have to remember it is impossible to provide balanced numbers without terrrain.

For some reason Porter is asking for a runway extention equal to the TO roll of a CL100 but not long enough to operate one??????????
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by photofly » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:37 pm

Read this carefully, it's from Porter's PR site. There are already plans to extend the runway. porter just wants them even longer.
Airports around the world are adopting new enhanced aviation standards, led by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). As part of this, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport may extend its main runway to accommodate a runway end safety area. Porter would like to increase that extension by an additional 10% at each end of the runway, continuing to stay within the airport's current boundaries.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:54 pm

photofly wrote:Read this carefully, it's from Porter's PR site. There are already plans to extend the runway. porter just wants them even longer.
Airports around the world are adopting new enhanced aviation standards, led by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). As part of this, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport may extend its main runway to accommodate a runway end safety area. Porter would like to increase that extension by an additional 10% at each end of the runway, continuing to stay within the airport's current boundaries.
Read this carefully? You're funny.

Are you in the industry? Runway safe area is NOT part of the runaway length. It is for over run safety.

There are a few technologies out there. EMAS the most common. Not sure what YTZ has in mind.

But read this carefully. It doesn't count as runway length. Doesn't count in a balanced field calculation. Therefore irrelevant.

This is what happens when you use a runway safe area.

http://crankyflier.com/2010/01/22/34-pe ... love-emas/

Face it. Bare minimum Porter needs another 2000' to operate SHORT haul out of YTZ. That's 2000' of real pavement. Trans Con they need a minimum of 3000' more. Runway safe area on top to be ICAO compliant.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by photofly » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:15 pm

Face it...
You're right. BobD is on the line, btw, wants your advice. He's asking why none of his Ops people have told him his runways won't be long enough. I told him "f*cked if I know, but why not wait and see what the actual plans look like?" He said, no, can't wait for that, get me the guy from that AvCanada who already knows it isn't going to work. I need more people like him on my team.

(He also called the technical team from Bombardier who went over the performance figures with him "lying scumbags who'd sell their grandmothers to Saddam Hussein for a bag of jelly beans" but I don't think it would be polite of me to mention that.)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Gino Under » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:15 pm

Fanblade

I think your suppositions are reasonable. However, the wingspan and performance projections for this C Series are such that the 4100 foot runway should be sufficient. Reality still has to be demonstrated. I get that. Even the landing distances and I appreciate that too. Remember, this isn't a re-engined CRJ. it's a clean sheet design. Unlike the re-engined pretenders from B-wing and Blunderbus. The numbers still need to be validated.
The C will lift a full load off YTZ and fly them to L.A. quite comfortably off 4100 feet of runway. That's NOT a short haul flight.
Show me another 109 pax aeroplane with similar weights and performance numbers.

Gino :drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
ptc
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:30 am
Location: Ottawa

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by ptc » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:20 am

here are the stats for the "urban operations" CS100 so if they have 5000 it can be done

Max takeoff weight 53,060 kg (117,000 lb)
Max landing weight 49,895 kg (110,000 lb)
Maximum cargo payload 3,629 kg (8,000 lb)
Maximum payload (total) 13,676 kg (30,150 lb)
Max range 2,778 km (1,500 nmi)
Take off run at MTOW 1,219 m (3,999 ft)
Landing field length at MLW 1,341 m (4,400 ft)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Mapleflt » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:18 am

Not being well versed in the Q400 performance requirements I sense a lot of political posturing and lobbying in order to secure a runway extension. An extension that will forever elliminate any and all operational restrictions for the Q400 (i.e. wet/contaminated runway, adverse weather) or even fuel uplift/tankering requirements; I believe Porter owns the Esso fuel concession at CYTZ, saves buying expensive fuel elsewhere.

Thereafter either a "cancelled order" claiming failed performance of the C Series or base them elsewhere, CYHZ and feed back into the now "unrestricted" Q400 routes. A runway extension may in addition open up new Q400 routes with no intentions of every operating a C Series from CYTZ.

Hmmmmm,

Mapleflt
---------- ADS -----------
  

mulligan
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by mulligan » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:30 am

"The C will lift a full load off YTZ and fly them to L.A. quite comfortably off 4100 feet of runway."

Then it is a quantum leap in performance in a field where gains are usully incremental. The 319 needs 7000' to do that with alternates usually being no more than 100 miles away (not a problem in California). It does that fairly comfortably. The 320 is not really a comparable but things can get very tight in one of those.
I have been doing this so long that I might just have trouble thinking such dramatic improvements are possible. My first YYZ-LAX trips were in a 737-200 with an aux tank. Now THAT was tight:-)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Mig29 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:38 am

double post
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Mig29 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Mig29 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:39 am

.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Mig29 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Mig29 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:40 am

I like your theory Maplefit:)

Sounds too risky for all players involved, but if we are just brainstorming here - why not then?


How about this version: they get the approval for the extensions as per plan, but then a year or more now well into construction, they get first real numbers from Bombardier's C-prototype and it turns out they need another 1000'? The city council huffs and puffs again, but because they are far into construction phase now, and like with any preliminary costs, the actual budget always exceeds the estimates, they have no other choice but to approve the further expansion and we have a 6000' runway :D

Wouldn't that be funny 3 years from now?
---------- ADS -----------
  

mulligan
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by mulligan » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:52 am

"An extension that will forever elliminate any and all operational restrictions for the Q400 (i.e. wet/contaminated runway, adverse weather"

Can I take it from this that even the Q400 is sometimes restricted at YTZ? If so then adding 168 metres at each end would solve this?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:59 am

Gino,

Your making claims BBD isn't. The only thing they have provided is:

4950 TO roll target

Wind tunnel testing is meeting expectations.

Show me where BBD is promising an Accelerate Stop Distance of 4100' at MTOW.

With a TO roll of 5000 feet at ISA an acceleration to VR and then stop will be roughly 7000'. At 30c it will be longer. Factor in playing with V1? I could buy into a 6000' ASD. At 30c more. Still best in class numbers.

problem is braun works against V1 reductions. It is why manufacturers have employed derate to pull more weight off a limited runway. That can't be done here.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade » Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:03 am

Photofly

No one is suggesting that Mr Deluce is not a very shrewed businessman. Exactly the opposite.

All I am saying is my BS meter is on overload.

His end game is not the depicted route structure out of a 4800' strip.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Gino Under » Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:31 am

fanblade, thanks.

The devil is always in the detail and right now I have no accurate idea what performance figures Bombardier are likely come up with. The aircraft has yet to fly and has yet to be certified so I'm taking some numeric liberties, like others, for sure. Without details I'm only guessing, I know that.
That said, their C series website published 4950 feet and I'd read some time ago London City is expanding to accommodate the C unlike YTZ. Again, without the detail, my first assumption was if LCYs 4948 foot long runway was adequate then YTZs numbers aren't likely to be far off.
I thought the island was around 5000 feet already, so I looked it up. Oops.
4100 feet probably is a stretch on my part. (I don't know what their final numbers will be. Maybe 4100 will work for this aircraft)
Other numbers from their fact sheet:
MTOW 58,967 kg
MLW 50,802 kg
Takeoff run at MTOW 4800 ft
Landing field length at MLW 4449 ft
For Urban Ops:
MTOW 53,060 kg
MLW 49,895 kg
Takeoff run at MTOW 1219 ft
Landing field length at MLW 1341 ft
I misread misread that article a couple of months. I now stand corrected.
Both airports will need a runway extension to accommodate the C series.
But on the order of a 6 or 7000 foot runway?
In my opinion, that's a bit much. (I don't know what their final performance numbers will be. Maybe 5000 feet will be sufficient)
If it gets extended to accommodate A318s and B737-600s (this aeroplanes closer competition) then you're probably right. These two aircraft are much heavier than C with less capable engines.
We'll see how it performs over the next year.

cheers :drinkers:
Gino
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Gino Under on Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Beach 200
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:10 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Beach 200 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:56 am

It's a bit more technical than just field length boys. Remember there is also a steep approach to one end. It will need to be amended to accommodate any runway addition east of 08/26 for a new glide slope angle unless they come up with an LPV approach. As far as I know the C will be certified for LCY of 5.5 as is the Q. Porter just lost the LPV to 08 because of a technicality and I can just see the approach to 26 will become more complicated should they get an extension.
Honestly I would be lobbying for other things than just a longer strip. Porter needs better approaches into that airport. Is the C going to fall into the Cat C requirement for approach speeds, Most likely! Shit this hasn't even begun, pavement is one thing, but there's other factors to making this all work. Frankly sending the C to YYZ every time the weather craps out is just a pain in the ass. I would lobby to get that stack blown up!
As for keeping the runway clean in winter. Yes they do a good job now, but as the runway gets longer and there are more slots, than that effort to keep a clean runway during winter storms is gonna be more complicated to address with less time between departures and arrivals.

My two cents and food for thought.
---------- ADS -----------
  

365TAS
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:59 am

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by 365TAS » Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:56 am

Hmmm..blow up the stack...but then there's a problem of where to put all that debris from not only the stack but from the demo of the whole plant. Hmmmm. Any suggestions? :rolleyes:

In other news I loved the Rob Ford-hating Toronto Star' s editorial the other day coming out in favour of the jets...and for those who remember the bridge battle and AC came out with the declaration saying they will fly their noisy jets into the Island when they knew they wouldnt be able to but still helping kill the deal and ensuring Miller won the vote...seems a bit déjà vu hearing about certain 737's ready to fly. My how far some have fallen...in the race to the bottom.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by YYZSaabGuy » Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:44 am

365TAS wrote:In other news I loved the Rob Ford-hating Toronto Star' s editorial the other day coming out in favour of the jets...and for those who remember the bridge battle and AC came out with the declaration saying they will fly their noisy jets into the Island when they knew they wouldnt be able to but still helping kill the deal and ensuring Miller won the vote...seems a bit déjà vu hearing about certain 737's ready to fly. My how far some have fallen...in the race to the bottom.
I hear you, 365TAS. David Miller is the former mayor of Toronto for any number of very good reasons, not least of which was his over-the-top pandering to those tree-hugging NIMBYs enjoying their long-term Toronto Island land leases.

Much as it pains me to find myself on the same side of any argument as the Toronto Star and Rob Ford (a combination from Hell if there ever was one), in this case my enemy's enemy is my friend.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
aileron
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 394
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:53 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by aileron » Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:39 am

Fanblade, et al, the quoted figures are for balanced field ops - straight from the CP. A lot of homework was done prior to this decision, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck you know! WRT Runway End Safety Areas, NPA 2010-012, is not exclusively EMAS systems (Engineered Materials Arresting System). Therefore, one end can be included as a part of the TORA... see RESA Explained in Canada, GENIVAR Inc.

Also, what all of you are forgetting - or unaware, is that the engine (PW1524G) drives a fan by the "FDGS" (Fan Drive Gear System); what does this mean... well it means all your conventional knowledge of ducted by-pass performance is not transferrable. Like they say, this is a game changer! What could this mean... well more responsive power for one, not to mention one helluva air brake. Quicker power, less all-up weight and electric brakes - better balance...

Beach 200, This aircraft is RNP capable out the box... who cares about the Hearn stack.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
FenderManDan
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:40 am
Location: Toilet, Onterible

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by FenderManDan » Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:24 pm

Hmmmm far too much in the box speculation. How about this scenario, expand 08/26 as advertized to lets say 5000 ft that way q400 won't dip in the water for sure. Rename the runway 08L/26R and build 8000 ft 08R/26L south of the island where there are no noise restrictions and use underutilized 15/33 as a connector. Far fetched. How bout build terminal 2 south field and expand the island.

Has been done on a larger scale look at HK. I fail to see much usefulness of the lake Ontario. Water intake for the city has to be reworked anyways to supply other parts of GTA.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Realitychex
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:37 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Realitychex » Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:35 pm

I'm trying to think of any aircraft that has ever performed in real life precisely to letter of specifications on paper.

It's pretty risky to bet the farm on BBD's numbers and then find out there's been an oopsie.

"Did we say we needed to pave over another 15,640 square metres of Lake Ontario's surface? Um, we kinda need twice that. In fact to be really safe cause it does tend get snowy and icy there and we don't want to do a Lion Air at DPS every year or two, so how about an extra 325 meters off each end?"

Ahh 6,000 feet. That's about 1,800 feet longer and about 250m lower than SDU, operated by GOL with 187 seat capacity 737-800's, to Vitoria, Belo Horizonte, Brasilia and Sao Paulo. With that range, WJ could operate out of YTZ to pretty much all Porter's current destinations.

And from what I've been told, WestJet's last few -800 deliveries are the same config as Gol's, with the exception of about a dozen fewer seats. With standard weights, that's what, about 2,000lbs lighter, eh?

The plot thickens...

:lol:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade » Sat Apr 13, 2013 6:36 pm

aileron wrote:Fanblade, et al, the quoted figures are for balanced field ops - straight from the CP.
Straight from who? Someone employed by Porter?

I am in no way suggesting anyone fell off a turnip truck. I have already stated that twice. Mr Deluce is a shrewd business man.

Like I said. Someone. Anyone. Provide anything from BBD that says they are promising the CS100 will have a 4950 balanced field length at MTOW.

Crickets, that is all I hear.

My understanding is this performance data does not exist as of yet. Nor has BBD provided expectations.

The only thing that exists is a 4950' TO run "target " at MTOW on an ISA day. That is a heck of a short run by the way at that weight and range.

But it is not a balanced field length nor is it meant to approximate one. It is simply a "target" for a max performance TO Roll at MTOW.

Asking for a runway extent ion equal to TO roll is rediculous. Since we have already established Mr Doluce is shrewd? It begs the question. What is the real end game?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade » Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:24 pm

Gino Under wrote: I misread misread that article a couple of months. I now stand corrected.
Both airports will need a runway extension to accommodate the C series.
But on the order of a 6 or 7000 foot runway?
London City center is already 4948'. The BBD target of 4950 for the CS100 was specifically meant to attract buyers for that market. As you already mentioned it has been reported in the media in London that the current runway length likely won't accommodate the CS100's full range. A runway extention (very contravertial there too) would be needed.

However the runway doesn't need to be extended to operate the 737, 318 or CS100. All that happens is range is traded for TO performance. The CS100 will have the superior range of all three but still limited.

Same will apply to YTZ if Porter gets its wish to extend to just under 5000'
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”