Originally Posted by trip

I think the 737's dispatch reliability is directly related to it's lack of EICAS. Sometimes it's better not to know.

Originally Posted by flyallnite

Warning: not an engineer or mathematics major---

As someone recently corrected me, the preview states that we purchased the 134K MTOW version, which is the higher weight version, if there is such a thing. I just got ahold of some technical publications from Bombardier for airport planning. This is what I understand from that:

The engine types are broken out for balanced field performance. As you would expect, those charts vary based on temp, altitude etc, and there is a different chart for each engine.

Here's where it gets interesting though. There's only one chart for payload range, applicable to the CS100. The engine type isn't included as a factor. For a 134K MTOW, the range-- ISA standard sea level day, no wind, is 2760NM. That's assuming 120 passengers. Ours will be configured for 109 pax, according to the preview. That takes the ZFW down another 2400lbs, using the 225lb pax weight that Bombardier assumes. According to the spaghetti chart, that takes the still air range out to 3100NM. So that's 3100NM for a two class configuration, just like the Bombardier sales literature says.

Guess what? The 1950NM range that the preview states matches up on the chart with MZFW, 111K. Is that a realistic, everyday assumption? Not sure.


Also, what you said about SLC, is part of the reason that it would make sense to base the aircraft there, not on a coast that it needs a fuel stop to make it to the other base... but who says any of this needs to make sense?

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Yet two of the most financially successful airlines in the world operate it exclusively. I guess operating cost and dispatch reliability are considered important by some.

Originally Posted by ItnStln

I’m just curious, what two airlines are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Dexter

Looks like the range previewed by Delta is mtow subtract mzfw equaling a theoretical max range fuel number. This number divided by a nominal burn rate (depending on the desired accuracy may include climb and descent burn, and would probably include a standard IFR reserve) would yield a time. That time multiplied by an estimated ground speed would yield the range depicted. Therefor, the delta depicted range is probably accurate.

The actual range is then dependent on the basic operating weight.

My question then, is where did Bombardier get the 3000 nm range that has been so highly touted.

Originally Posted by fbeaulie

(I have not read all comments to see if this particular one had been adressed - just in case):

"Parenthetically, the Delta testimony revealed that its transaction with BBD priced the CS100 as a 1,000-mile airplane. Should Delta begin using the aircraft on longer routes, additional monies will be paid to Bombardier."

https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/25/bo...ms/#more-23528

Originally Posted by sailingfun

SWA and Ryanair.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

That's interesting. Good find.

Originally Posted by Coronado

Seems like my speculative post's in #514 and #541 may not have been all that crazy. I do look at the Leeham free articles periodically and while I don't consciously recall reading about this 'contractual derate' of the cs100 to a 1000 mile route aircraft I am wondering if I glanced at it subconsciously - too weird. . . .