Bombardier CS300

Page 4 of 7<1234567>
September 13th, 2017 at 7:32:31 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Pacomartin
I wonder what would be the upper limit in seats of a double decker narrow body? Would you configure with 4 by 4 on the bottom and 3 by 3 on the top (for a 1-class design).


Don't regulations mandate 1 seat away from the aisle at most? if so, you can't have 4-4.

The ill-fated 7J7 design was to be a twin aisle 2-2-2 configuration. I can see that on a double-deck design.

The thing is that any double deck plane has an oval cross-section rather than a circular one. With metal frames, that's bad structurally. But with composite frames, who knows. So let's say you widen the A320 enough for 2-2-2 and add a second deck. With current pitch configurations, that gets you between 300 and 370 passengers.

Yes, that's close to a 767 in width.

I really don't see much point to it, unless the double deck not-quite-wide-body fuselage gains you something over regular wide bodies.

The thing is design ideas tend to persist, sometimes for a very long time. If Boeing had done a double deck narrow body 747 (3-2 on both decks!), that kind of design might have dominated the industry, and wide bodies would have come alter, if they'd come at all.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
September 13th, 2017 at 7:42:50 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 822
Posts: 9887
Quote: Nareed
The thing is design ideas tend to persist, sometimes for a very long time. If Boeing had done a double deck narrow body 747 (3-2 on both decks!), that kind of design might have dominated the industry, and wide bodies would have come alter, if they'd come at all.


I've always read that most executives assumed that by the 1980's supersonic passenger flight would be the norm. They went with the widebody design as they figured that older passenger planes would be converted to freighters.
September 13th, 2017 at 8:53:40 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Pacomartin
I've always read that most executives assumed that by the 1980's supersonic passenger flight would be the norm. They went with the widebody design as they figured that older passenger planes would be converted to freighters.


Maybe so. but the specific reason for a design are not relevant to its longevity.

The QWERTY keyboard common in computers (and phones!) today was first selected for typewriters as a means of minimizing jams by the hammers carrying the actual, inverted letters. This ceased to be an issue for even manual typewriters, but the design has remained.

What makes me laugh is how this claim is usually followed by extolling the virtues fo the Dvorak keyboard. It surely is superior, for typing English. How good is it for other languages, is never specified.

When you consider airplane design, you can wonder about all sorts of things. For example, why are engines on pylons rather than built into the wing? The Brits seemed to favor the latter approach, not only with the Comet but with several military planes. Or why aren't the engines inside the plane as they are inside cars and ships? This isn't unprecedented. Many fighter aircraft have internal engines (F-16, A-6, etc.)

Actually I can answer the latter question: because commercial airplanes need all the inside space for passengers and cargo, whereas fighters carry weapons mostly on the outside on pylons and hard-points (the gun is still internal for those models that have one), especially under the wings.

But this doesn't preclude a commercial plane with internal engines if that can be made to make sense.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
September 27th, 2017 at 11:32:21 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 822
Posts: 9887
Quote: Nareed
But this doesn't preclude a commercial plane with internal engines if that can be made to make sense.



The idea of an engine failing near passengers reminds me of the wheel breaking on the ICE train in Eschede in 1998

About 80 mi and forty minutes away from Hamburg and 3.7 m) south of central Eschede, near Celle, the steel tyre on a wheel on the third axle of the first car broke, peeled away from the wheel, and punctured the floor of the car, where it remained embedded.

What ensued was a series of events that occurred within minutes yet took investigators months to reconstruct. The tyre embedded in the rail car was seen by Jörg Dittmann, one of the passengers in Coach 1. The tyre went through an armrest between where his wife and son sat.

Dittmann took his wife and son out of the damaged coach and went to inform a conductor in the third coach. The conductor, who noticed vibrations in the train, told Dittmann that company policy required him to investigate the circumstances before pulling the emergency brake. The conductor took one minute to go to the site in Coach 1. According to Dittmann, the train had begun to sway from side to side by then.

The conductor did not show a willingness to stop the train immediately at that point and wished to investigate the incident more thoroughly. The crash occurred just when Dittmann was about to show the armrest puncture to the conductor.

101 people dead.

September 28th, 2017 at 6:43:14 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Boeing sucks.

Granted Bombardier struck a deal to sell C Series below production costs. That is common practice with new models. Boeing sold over 100 787s below cost. Further, Boeing does NOT have a plane that directly competes with the C Series.

They're also terribly short-sighted. Delta will need to replace much of their mainline narrow body fleet shortly. If the ridiculous tariff holds, and Delta either overpays or cancels the C Series order, do you think they'll be eager to buy any planes from Boeing, when Airbus has a superior model?

And what happens if Bombardier goes broke and does the very sensible thing to sell itself to COMAC? Unlike the Airbus finishing facility in China, acquiring Bombardier gives COMAC full title and access to modern commercial aviation technology and manufacturing. Add that to China's huge labor base, and Boeing will regret having created a bigger, more dangerous competitor.

I wonder if Delta can transfer the C Series purchase to an overseas lessor and then lease the planes.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
September 28th, 2017 at 10:59:20 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 822
Posts: 9887
Quote: Nareed
And what happens if Bombardier goes broke and does the very sensible thing to sell itself to COMAC? Unlike the Airbus finishing facility in China, acquiring Bombardier gives COMAC full title and access to modern commercial aviation technology and manufacturing. Add that to China's huge labor base, and Boeing will regret having created a bigger, more dangerous competitor.


That's an excellent observation.

Delta signed a 20 year exclusive agreement with Boeing in 1997 followed by a massive order for six models

10. Jun. 1997 737-700 : 10
10. Jun. 1997 737-800 : 132
10. Jun. 1997 767-300ER : 22
10. Jun. 1997 767-400ER : 21
13. Nov. 1997 777-200ER : 8
13. Nov. 1997 777-200LR : 10

But in August 1997 Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas and the courts made them cancel all long term agreements as part of anti-trust negotiations

Delta had an all Boeing fleet, but after the 2008 merger with Northwest they acquired a lot of Airbus jets. Since then they have only made a single Boeing order
24. Aug. 2011 737-900ER : 120
But they also ordered 122 Airbus 321 (Current Engine options). No "new engine option" order has been placed as of today.

But to really piss off Boeing, Delta cancelled the existing Northwest order for 18 Dreamliners, and ordered 50 Airbus widebodies.
September 28th, 2017 at 11:25:38 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Pacomartin
That's an excellent observation.


Thank you. I lifted it right off the Airways News website.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
September 28th, 2017 at 12:44:07 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Pacomartin
But to really piss off Boeing, Delta cancelled the existing Northwest order for 18 Dreamliners, and ordered 50 Airbus widebodies.


Already?

IMO, Airbus offers a superior narrow body plane. Not very superior because it's also a decades-old design.

In wide bodies, the difference is smaller. The 787 is truly revolutionary, but the A350 is close.

For the future, Boeing seems to be betting on a middle-of-the-market plane. I've no idea what airbus is developing. IMO, supersonic is still a few decades away from being easy or profitable.

See, here's my thinking:

As renewable energy sources increase in efficiency and go lower in cost, and assuming a big improvement in battery technology, oil use will drop all over the world in the coming decades. You can make a battery-powered prop plane, sure, but not much more. Absent something like nuclear power (very unlikely) for flight, planes will continue to use oil as long as it's available.

But if the demand for oil drops for such things as cars, trucks, power plants, ships(*) and trains, it will also drop in price. meaning at some point burning huge amounts of fuel for a Mach 3+ design will be economical.

I also can't see a point where electricity can propel aircraft at high speeds. Though you're not limited to propellers. You can easily use compressors in a duct and drive high-pressure air out backwards; essentially what modern turbofan jet engines do today. But I doubt batteries will ever be light enough or have the capacity to sustain long flights at high speeds.

When oil runs out, I can envision two options: 1) synthetic hydrocarbon fuels made from coal and other raw materials, 2) hydrogen. The latter is a problematic fuel. It liquefies only at ultra-low temperatures, and in gaseous form it takes up a lot of volume.


(*) I don't rule out nuclear power in civilian cargo ships.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 9th, 2017 at 10:30:30 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
There's some focus in aviation circles about what Delta can do about the ridiculous C Series tariff. Past trying to kill it, taking the case to the WTO, etc. my suggestion of finding a foreign lessor to take the order seems actually doable. It's been suggested Delta has investments in foreign airlines, who could buy the C Series and dry-lease them to Delta.

Of course, there are complications with this, but it might work.

I wouldn't discount the WTO, either. Consider the tariff affects Canada and the UK (and the US, but for WTO purposes it doesn't count). Unfortunately, the UK is Brexiting, so it would be hard to get EU support (damn).

But suppose the WTO rules Canada and the UK can slap countermeasure tariffs in return. Well, then, the smart thing to do would be to target products from states where Republican Senators are facing reelection in 2018. The EU did exactly that a few years ago in response to US tariffs on steel during the Bush the younger era; only it targeted swing states for the general election of 2004.

At that, I've no idea how long the WTO would take to rule, so this might turn out to be academic. But Delta's order, if memory serves, has the first deliveries in 2018. and Canada is in the midst of renegotiations involving NAFTA. But it would still be worth trying.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 9th, 2017 at 11:46:20 AM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 7
Posts: 1281
Quote: Nareed
There's some focus in aviation circles about what Delta can do about the ridiculous C Series tariff. Past trying to kill it, taking the case to the WTO, etc. my suggestion of finding a foreign lessor to take the order seems actually doable. It's been suggested Delta has investments in foreign airlines, who could buy the C Series and dry-lease them to Delta.

Of course, there are complications with this, but it might work.

I wouldn't discount the WTO, either. Consider the tariff affects Canada and the UK (and the US, but for WTO purposes it doesn't count). Unfortunately, the UK is Brexiting, so it would be hard to get EU support (damn).

But suppose the WTO rules Canada and the UK can slap countermeasure tariffs in return. Well, then, the smart thing to do would be to target products from states where Republican Senators are facing reelection in 2018. The EU did exactly that a few years ago in response to US tariffs on steel during the Bush the younger era; only it targeted swing states for the general election of 2004.

At that, I've no idea how long the WTO would take to rule, so this might turn out to be academic. But Delta's order, if memory serves, has the first deliveries in 2018. and Canada is in the midst of renegotiations involving NAFTA. But it would still be worth trying.


Nareed you seem to think the tariff is a Republican thing. This action started long before Trump got into office. The software lumber crap has been going on for decades. Any WTO action is meaningless as the US has just ignored any rulings from the WTO against it in the past.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
Page 4 of 7<1234567>