Porter/Bombardier set to announce CS100 order . . .

[Kosiw]

With the main news being the CS 100's wasn't there also an announcement for "purchase rights" for 6 more Q400's ?

And just what does "purchase rights" entail?

[hawker driver]

I hope the jet ban is ended, all the Corporate jets and fractionals will gladly start flying into the island rather than YYZ. It will be nice to see some Gulfstreams, Falcons and even some BBj's coming in there.
The FBO's at YYZ will lose lots of business.

The over nights will be a lot more fun downtown rather than on airport road.

[photofly]

It will be nice to see some Gulfstreams, Falcons and even some BBj's coming in there.

Riiight.... and where are they all going to fit, exactly!?

[hawker driver]

It will be nice to see some Gulfstreams, Falcons and even some BBj's coming in there.

Riiight.... and where are they all going to fit, exactly!?

Exactly my point.

When you open up the airport to jets you don't think the rich folks with biz jets will want to fly there as well?

[goingmach_1]

There are very few, if any corporate jets presently in production that meet the noise profile currently imposed by Toronto.

Further if you even tried to park a whole bunch of biz jets on the FBO ramp there, you will run out of space in a hurry.

At best, with some creative noise sensitive approach and and departure procedures, you might, in the far off future, see biz jets access this airport. Very slow approach speed aircraft like a Citation can use this available runway. I know there are some serious other performers out there like Dassault Falcon, Global Express, and Gulfstream. But when they try to depart on a contaminated runway that available length starts to shorten their available take-off weight.

On a side bar, I was quite impressed to find out the official numbers on a Dassault Falcon 900EX runway balanced field lengths for a 20C take-off at seal level. This machine could travel 3000nm with 4 people and 200lbs of luggage. Again when the runway gets wet, numbers go out the window.

Its really too bad that Canada, the freezing Capital of the World, refuses to "groove" thier runways.

The way I see it, we have a tired lobby group who are weaker than they were 10 years ago, who have a potential threat to throw a stick into the spokes. Assuming the three levels of goverment sign off on the Porter deal, then Tornto has a chance to be a truly real international city.

A downtown airport is a intangible benefit that is so hard to compute. But we all know, benificial.

You can run out of breath arguing about the pro's and con's of it. But at the end of the day its a benifit, no matter how you slice, dice or cut it.

Can you imagine as a passenger, departing from a foreign destination and arrive into a metro city centre like Toronto, and only be 20 minutes at best from downtown!

Yeah Baby!

[xsbank]

It could be like London City where you can only stay a couple of hours. 605s are pretty quiet and can handily do a steep approach but I doubt if you would get permission.

[bizjets101]

Caveat; if I were a Bay Street CEO/biz jet operator - I'd seriously be considering ordering a CSeries - if the rules are amended in your favour - awesome - if not you can always sell it before delivery.

Any successful amending of the rules, should require engines as quiet as the PW's on the CSeries - which would mean no bizjet current - would qualify.

Of course the rules could be amended to specifically state, zero bizjets.

On the other hand, isn't the lease up for renewal at Downsview - you could put a FBO on the South East side of the field, right next to Wilson Subway Station!!

[YYZSaabGuy]

On the other hand, isn't the lease up for renewal at Downsview - you could put a FBO on the South East side of the field, right next to Wilson Subway Station!!

Interesting idea, Biz - Wiki says BBD has owned Downsview since 1994 - is that incorrect?
Much as I'd love to see the facility used more intensively, I suspect the idea would be a non-starter given the residential development in the area and the inevitable outcry over noise levels, etc.

[teacher]

Getting in and out of downsview on a VFR day can be interesting. On an IFR day can be near impossible. We do a charter out of Downsview for Bombardier and it can be a 45 minute or 5 minute positioning flight from Pearson depending on the weather and traffic at YYZ.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Sitting just outside the Pearson CZ isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be, I guess. It does raise a question, though: if Downsview were actually to be opened up to GA traffic, would the Pearson CZ be extended to incorporate Downsview, with existing NavCanada control services extended to manage both facilities concurrently? Or would it be more likely that Downsview would be set up and managed as a separate CZ, although obviously coordinated with YYZ?

[photofly]

On the other hand, isn't the lease up for renewal at Downsview - you could put a FBO on the South East side of the field, right next to Wilson Subway Station!!

If the lease is up, then it will go for housing. The Buttonville site went for $300m. Why should Downsview be worth significantly less?

[NeverBlue]

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1080717 ... n-and-jobs


http://www.wingsmagazine.com/content/view/7961/

[bizjets101]

I believe Bombardier own the area were their hangars are, however the actual runway and surrounding land is owned by the Federal Government and leased to Bombardier exclusively for 25 years, not sure the year the lease was signed.

North East corner is Downsview Subway Station, you could actually have a underground entrance right to the subway!!

After all it's not like Buttonville is busy or anything, here's a shot from 3pm today.

[Gino Under]

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

[bizjets101]

Traditionally, in a jet engine, the fan and the turbine are connected. They spin and rotate at the same speed, creating bypass air that runs around the engine, delivering most of the thrust.

With Pratt and Whitney’s geared technology, the fan is larger and can move at a different speed than the turbine. The fan moves at slower speed, while the turbine moves three times faster, generating more bypass air.

“The larger fan makes it quieter, and if you have more air coming through the fan, and bypassing the core, that’s quieter,” she said. “The turbine can rotate more quickly, offering better fuel performance.”

Pratt & Whitney Pure Power PW1000G website

PurePower Engine Facebook Page

[xsbank]

Wrong, sorry.
In a "normal" jet engine, such as the GE family of engines on the Challengers and RJs, the fan is driven by a long shaft that is connected to a turbine wheel that is virtually on the end of the engine, driven by the exhaust, the so-called low-speed turbine. The fan is not directly connected to the engine and the fan can freewheel in the wind and not turn the compressor, as we have all heard when jets are parked on the ramp without plugs; we can see them turn and rattle as the blades are a loose fit in the hub. This is also why the engine core can lock up if the engine quits at too low an airspeed and why you need to dive at Vno to get the fan to spin fast enough to drive the low-speed turbine, to draw air through the compressor for an air start.

Some Garretts have a shaft that is directly connected to the propellor (fan) so that every turn of the prop (with gearing) turns the compressor about 30 rotations.

[photofly]

In a "normal" jet engine, such as the GE family of engines on the Challengers and RJs, the fan is driven by a long shaft that is connected to a turbine wheel that is virtually on the end of the engine, driven by the exhaust, the so-called low-speed turbine. The fan is not directly connected to the engine

If the fan is connected to the LP turbine, then in what sense is it not connected to the engine?

[xsbank]

Its exactly like a PT6 - you can hold the propellor blade while you start the engine and its only the flow of exhaust that drives the fan. I think its called a "free turbine."

The old Lycoming engines, as used on the BAE 146 and the Challenger 600 were also geared fans, there was a planetary gearbox that provided about 2.3:1 reduction. However, they were still not direct drive but also free turbines.

I do not know if the PW geared fan engine is direct drive as I can't figure out the diagrams and the video won't run, but it has a 12:1 bypass ratio and runs much cooler than a conventional engine which is why it will be so much quieter.

[xsbank]

Bizjets, the bypass air is the air (thrust) generated by the fan. Think of the fan as a ducted propellor, the prop provides most of the thrust and the jet exhaust provides only a small proportion of the thrust. Ideally, in a 100% efficient engine, all the thrust would be generated by the fan and there would be none generated from the exhaust. In the P&W engine, the bypass is 12:1 and they are approaching 90% thrust from the fan.

Another way to think of it, cascade vane reversers only reverse the flow from the fan, there is no attempt to reverse the exhaust plume because it has little effect on forward thrust.

In a pure turbojet engine, all the thrust is derived from the exhaust plume and none is derived from a fan, as there isn't one. Think of a rocket, for example, which has no turbine to compress the combustion nor a fan. Or a fighter using after-burn; there is no contribution from a fan as a fighter has little interest in fuel consumption but prefers high thrust.

[xsbank]

OK, the Purepower is a free turbine design with a reduction gear tossed in there to slow the fan and to eliminate some of the turbine stages so the speed of the fan is determined by the gearbos ratio, not the angle or number of the low speed turbine blades...

Enough of this, Miller (actually, Guinness!) Time. TTFN.

[bizjets101]

Wrong, sorry.

No problem, was just posting quote from Toronto Star article posted on Pratt & Whitneys Engine website.

Toronto Star article, which was posted on the PurePower 2nd link left side 'Toronto Star'.

But thanks for the updated info !!!

[Gino Under]

You forgot to mention the shafts are counter-rotating.
The fan spins one way and the compressor spins the opposite way.
Unlike a typical Fan engine. Or any jet engine for that matter.

Better engine?
Gino Under

[mulligan]

Give me JT8D any day:-)

[linecrew]

Give me JT8D any day:-)

...which is actually a turbofan engine as well. The noise level makes a lot of people think that it's a tubojet.

[bizjets101]

Click Here Richard Aboulafia blog post on Porters CSeries Order.

Who is Richard Aboulafia click here.

If the Canadian Government chooses to approve Porter’s terms, opening Billy Bishop and paving the way for a firm CSeries buy, it needs to issue a statement along the following lines: “We are opening this airport to jets. Not just to the CSeries, but to any jet with similar noise and other operating characteristics regardless of where that jet is built. And not just to Porter, but to any airline, as long as they operate an approved jet.”

I've no doubt this is exactly how the current Airport agreement will be amended.