Bombardier CS300

Page 6 of 7« First<34567>
October 12th, 2017 at 11:22:48 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12536
Quote: Pacomartin
Judging by the Bombardier's 238 orders to 50 Boeing MAX-7 orders and 51 Airbus A319neo orders, your conjecture is not true.


I don't have the figures at hand, but I recall that the MAX 7 and the A319 have an empty weight far higher than the CS 300. That's due, I assume, to the former two being shrunken medium jets vs the latter being a scaled up light jet (also perhaps to a more extensive use of composites).

Imagine if Boeing had developed a 727 replacement. Say they bet right and make a clean slate small twinjet with the engines at the back (using turbofans rather than turbojets) for 50 passengers. That's very like the CRJs Bombardier made, of course. But that's the market Boeing either gave up or never was interested in.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 12th, 2017 at 11:45:35 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 867
Posts: 10301
I don't know if you would call that "far higher", but they have a longer range. JFK to LHR is 2,994 nautical miles

CS300
Max. takeoff weight 149,000 lb
Max. landing weight 129,500 lb
Max. zero-fuel weight 123,000 lb
Maximum range 3,300 nmi

B737MAX-7
Maximum takeoff weight 177,000 lb
Maximum landing weight 145,600 lb
Maximum zero fuel weight 138,700 lb
Maximum range 3,825 nmi

A319neo
Max. takeoff weight 166,400 lb
Max. landing weight 140,900 lb
Max. zero-fuel weight 132,900 lb
Maximum range 3,750 nmi

Irkut MC-21-300
Maximum take-off weight 174,720 lb
Maximum landing weight 152,300 lb

C919 specifications
Maximum take-off weight 159,835 lb

======================================
CS100 (smaller plane)
Max. takeoff weight 134,000 lb
Max. landing weight 115,500 lb
Max. zero-fuel weight 111,000 lb
October 12th, 2017 at 12:00:34 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12536
Quote: Pacomartin
I don't know if you would call that "far higher".


The A319 is about 7% higher, which I concede is not "far" higher. The MAX 7 is over 12%, which I maintain is "far" higher.

Max TO weight is even worse, with 18% for the MAX. If you had 10 MAX 7s loaded to capacity, you'd have enough mass for 11.8 CS 300s loaded to capacity.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 12th, 2017 at 12:06:37 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 867
Posts: 10301
Quote: Nareed
The A319 is about 7% higher, which I concede is not "far" higher. The MAX 7 is over 12%, which I maintain is "far" higher.

Max TO weight is even worse, with 18% for the MAX. If you had 10 MAX 7s loaded to capacity, you'd have enough mass for 11.8 CS 300s loaded to capacity.


Which is probably why the Bombardier is far outselling both planes. But the range is shorter with the CS300s (that seems to matter to almost nobody).

JFK to LHR is 2,994 nautical miles

CS300 Maximum range 3,300 nmi
B737MAX-7 Maximum range 3,825 nmi
A319neo Maximum range 3,750 nmi
October 12th, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12536
Quote: Pacomartin
Which is probably why the Bombardier is far outselling both planes.


ergo my observation that scaling down a mid size jet doesn't work as well as designing a smaller, lighter jet.

Full circle! :)

Quote:
But the range is shorter with the CS300s (that seems to matter to almost nobody).


My assumption is that most of these planes have more range than they need for most missions. So paying for extra range with extra mass, meaning extra fuel, is bad operational economics.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 12th, 2017 at 1:14:29 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 867
Posts: 10301
Quote: Nareed
ergo my observation that scaling down a mid size jet doesn't work as well as designing a smaller, lighter jet.


Boeing doesn't think there is much of a market anymore for a smaller lighter jet.
October 12th, 2017 at 1:29:45 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12536
Quote: Pacomartin
Boeing doesn't think there is much of a market anymore for a smaller lighter jet.


Boeing has been wrong before.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
January 7th, 2018 at 11:23:32 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 867
Posts: 10301
Quote: Pacomartin
B737MAX-7
Maximum takeoff weight 177,000 lb
Maximum range 3,825 nmi

An updated fleet plan shows that Southwest airlines will add only seven 737 Max 7s in 2019. They will now receive 12 in 2023 and the remaining 11 in 2024.

Orders for the MAX-7 variant are ridiculously small with Southwest Airlines (30), WestJet (23), Canada Jetlines (5) .

Now with Southwest only taking 7 deliveries and deferring the remaining orders for four years, the production line is getting even shorter.

There seems to be almost no demand for this jet, as well as for the A319neo.

Perhaps with Boeing acquiring Embraer, they will upsize their jets.
Embraer E195 (largest jet)
Maximum takeoff weight 115,280 lb
Maximum range 2,300 nmi
January 7th, 2018 at 12:46:50 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12536
Quote: Pacomartin
Perhaps with Boeing acquiring Embraer, they will upsize their jets.


Doens't that wreck Southwest's fleet strategy?

Remember when they bought ValuJet, they got rid of the all the DC-9 variants very fast, even if some were branded as Boeing 717.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
January 7th, 2018 at 3:08:15 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 867
Posts: 10301
Quote: Nareed
Doens't that wreck Southwest's fleet strategy?


I am actually shocked that they are buying so few of a single variant. I think they are not going to buy any of these, but Boeing doesn't want to tip their hand yet.

Southwest fleet
511 Boeing 737-700 =143 seats
181 Boeing 737-800 = 175 seats Deliveries through 2018.
13 Boeing 737 MAX 8 =175 seats 197 on order
7 Boeing 737 MAX 7 Launch customer; scheduled to enter service in 2019. | 23 aircraft deferred past 2023.
Page 6 of 7« First<34567>