Could it?
Looks like there is space to add MTOW to CS100:
CS100 shares the wing and engines of CS300, which has higher MTOW
CS100 has very short takeoff distance compared to most other narrowbodies.
Meaning that Bombardier could at low development costs build a CS100HGW, which would still have decent runway performance.
Would any market demand exist?

1) That would depend if the CS100's range is currently limited by available volume or available weight. If it is fuel volume increasing the MTOW does not increase the range, you need to physically give the aircraft more fuel capacity. Granted it appears the CS100 is weight limited.

3) I doubt the market demand exists. The CS100's performance is already excellent (some may say too good relative to its size), especially compared to the competition. The number of airlines that need even greater performance is limited.

For comparison, take A319:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... _Jun16.pdf
payload/range pages 131-133.
A319 takes payload hit at ranges over 3000 nm, but A319NEO with 1 ACT can cover 4000 nm with 12 t payload.
Who, if anyone, is actually using A318 or A319 for ranges between 3000 and 4000 nm?

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

Just for this case, people may not mind the SNN stop-over as they clear US customs there, which provides a much better experience than at JFK.

However, if a CS100HGW can allow flying non-stop from LCY to Halifax, which in theory then would enable LCY-LGA via Halifax, that may be an attractive thing. Halifax is within the parameter limit of LGA and Halifax has pre-clearance, so LCY-YHZ-LGA should be feasible, as long as a plane with that capability is found.

chornedsnorkack wrote:

For comparison, take A319:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... _Jun16.pdf
payload/range pages 131-133.
A319 takes payload hit at ranges over 3000 nm, but A319NEO with 1 ACT can cover 4000 nm with 12 t payload.
Who, if anyone, is actually using A318 or A319 for ranges between 3000 and 4000 nm?

Qatar Airways flies A319LR, which has a range of over 8000km.
ANA flies 737-700ER from Tokyo to Mumbai. They used to use it on Yangon too.

raylee67 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

Just for this case, people may not mind the SNN stop-over as they clear US customs there, which provides a much better experience than at JFK.

However, if a CS100HGW can allow flying non-stop from LCY to Halifax, which in theory then would enable LCY-LGA via Halifax, that may be an attractive thing. Halifax is within the parameter limit of LGA and Halifax has pre-clearance, so LCY-YHZ-LGA should be feasible, as long as a plane with that capability is found.

The only problem with this is the return nonstop LGA-LCY would be outside the LGA perimeter, which would require another stop at YHZ on the eastbound leg.

raylee67 wrote:

flyingclrcs727 wrote:

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

Just for this case, people may not mind the SNN stop-over as they clear US customs there, which provides a much better experience than at JFK.

However, if a CS100HGW can allow flying non-stop from LCY to Halifax, which in theory then would enable LCY-LGA via Halifax, that may be an attractive thing. Halifax is within the parameter limit of LGA and Halifax has pre-clearance, so LCY-YHZ-LGA should be feasible, as long as a plane with that capability is found.

But it would have to go through YHZ both directions.

The CS100 is already offered as a Max version with MTOW of 60,781 kg. With 125 pax and their baggage (one-class) realistic range should be around 4,500 km (i.e. OSL-LPA). A BA LCY-style all-J 50-seat CS100 will probably have 6,000 km range.

SWISS operates the Base version with MTOW 52 tonnes, 125 seats and 3,650 km range, in comparison.

The CS100 and CS300 will have several aerodynamic tweaks and engine PIPs - like every other aircraft - and they will be even better and more capable in just five years.

raylee67 wrote:

ANA flies 737-700ER from Tokyo to Mumbai.

Not anymore.

raylee67 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

Just for this case, people may not mind the SNN stop-over as they clear US customs there, which provides a much better experience than at JFK.

However, if a CS100HGW can allow flying non-stop from LCY to Halifax, which in theory then would enable LCY-LGA via Halifax, that may be an attractive thing. Halifax is within the parameter limit of LGA and Halifax has pre-clearance, so LCY-YHZ-LGA should be feasible, as long as a plane with that capability is found.

And there were once two daily A318 flights LCY-SNN-JFK. Then US CBP cut down the staffing at SNN so there was nobody there to preclear the second flight. The second flight remained for a while, with conventional immigration at JFK, but it has now been suspended. The surviving flight has to have a question mark over it once the opening of Crossrail in 2019 provides a quick and change-free train from much of London's financial district direct to LHR. Then BA/AAs almost hourly LHR-JFK frequency may attract enough of the LCY passengers away to make the route non-viable.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

Not LCY.
Takeoff distances at MTOW, sea level:
CS100: 1463 m
CS300: 1890 m
A318: 1780 m
A319: 1850 m
A320: 2100 m
LCY is under 1400 m, so even CS100 takes a MTOW hit.
But a CS100HGW could beat the range of A318 from some less restricted airports. Like BMA, or LGA.

chornedsnorkack wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

Not LCY.
Takeoff distances at MTOW, sea level:
CS100: 1463 m
CS300: 1890 m
A318: 1780 m
A319: 1850 m
A320: 2100 m
LCY is under 1400 m, so even CS100 takes a MTOW hit.
But a CS100HGW could beat the range of A318 from some less restricted airports. Like BMA, or LGA.

Keep in mind BA's arrangement will have substantially lower takeoff weight. With only 50 seats it will require less runway. These numbers use the weights for 125 pax and bags I believe. Using standard weights in BA arrangements it would be roughly 17,250 lbs lighter. I don't know how much that would reduce the takeoff roll of a CS100 but it should bring it down quite a bit.

BBD has marketed the CS100 as being capable of LCY-NYC nonstop in an all-business configuration (35 seats or so). Odyssey Airlines' business model, such as it is, is predicated upon this capability. Given the prevailing westbound headwinds, it's safe to say the same distance in the eastbound direction should be no problem.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lcy-jfk&R= ... MP=o&DU=nm

INFINITI329 wrote:

chornedsnorkack wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What if a CS100 HGW could fly LCY-JFK non-stop so it wouldn't have to make a technical stop in SNN?

Not LCY.
Takeoff distances at MTOW, sea level:
CS100: 1463 m
LCY is under 1400 m, so even CS100 takes a MTOW hit.

Keep in mind BA's arrangement will have substantially lower takeoff weight.

And therefore not need to be HGW - it can be done with existing CS100. QED.

wrongwayup wrote:

BBD has marketed the CS100 as being capable of LCY-NYC nonstop in an all-business configuration (35 seats or so). Odyssey Airlines' business model, such as it is, is predicated upon this capability. Given the prevailing westbound headwinds, it's safe to say the same distance in the eastbound direction should be no problem.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lcy-jfk&R= ... MP=o&DU=nm

40 seats to be exact. CS100 range at LCY in standard configuration is 2200 nm. By comparaison, it's 800 nm for the E190-E1.


http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... ities.html

CSeries no longer has Airport Planning Documents, and therefore no longer has payload-range diagram...
So: out of LCY, CS100 is limited by MTOW, and therefore the range of 2200 nm can be stretched by decreasing payload.
What could be CS100 range out of BMA?

chornedsnorkack wrote:

CSeries no longer has Airport Planning Documents, and therefore no longer has payload-range diagram...
So: out of LCY, CS100 is limited by MTOW, and therefore the range of 2200 nm can be stretched by decreasing payload.
What could be CS100 range out of BMA?

Here's the official Bombardier page with all the latest documents: Bombardier eServices - CS100/CS300 Series Publications
excerpt from the CS100 payload/range page:


Utilizing these figures for BMA: 5000ft rwy (rounding down), 0ft pressure altitude - ISA conditions
RTOW: 132000 lbs (59.87 tons) -- that is 2000lbs (0.9 t)reduction from MTOW.
It would result in roughly 250nm penalty in range.

Paolo92 wrote:

Here's the official Bombardier page with all the latest documents: Bombardier eServices - CS100/CS300 Series Publications

Thanks!
Directly to CS100 APP:
https://eservices.aero.bombardier.com/w ... OD=AJPERES
From page 59, I read the takeoff distance as perhaps 5150 feet at MTOW. While Bromma runway is 5470 feet.
Even at ISA+15 (page 60), meaning +30 degrees, the takeoff distance would be perhaps 5350 feet.
Sounds that a CS100 with standard 134 000 pound MTOW can operate out of BMA in all weather fully loaded.
How the officially quoted 3100 nm range of CS100 comes is not clear to me. The payload-range diagram at page 53 points at 2750 nm range with nominal payload of 26 400 pounds, making 120 passengers.
For 3100 nm, I count about 23 600 pound payload, meaning about 108 passengers with luggage.
At full tanks, CS100 has about 95 200 pounds ZFW, and thus 17 500 pounds payload (about 80 passengers and luggage), for range of about 3850 nm.

chornedsnorkack wrote:

How the officially quoted 3100 nm range of CS100 comes is not clear to me. The payload-range diagram at page 53 points at 2750 nm range with nominal payload of 26 400 pounds, making 120 passengers.
For 3100 nm, I count about 23 600 pound payload, meaning about 108 passengers with luggage.

120 pax is the standard single class config and 108 (100 + 8) pax is the standard dual class config.

I read an article discussing the CS100 recently and that it could operate non-stop LCY - JFK with a 45 pax business class layout, 10 more than BA's existing A318 service.

It would not be close to MTOW in this configuration so I don't see why not

LCY-JFK is 3017 nm great circle.
What is the normal air distance, considering the foul winds?

This isn't about the CS100 or 300 but if and when Bombardier starts the CS500, I wonder what the range will be and if they will have a long version as well. One that will flirt with a 4,000nm.

I suppose we'll see how successful Norweigian and now Aer Lingus is with A321LR routes

WaywardMemphian wrote:

This isn't about the CS100 or 300 but if and when Bombardier starts the CS500, I wonder what the range will be and if they will have a long version as well. One that will flirt with a 4,000nm.

A problem with CS500 is that it would be heavy. To increase its range would require increasing MTOW.
Whereas CS100 has spare capacities to increase MTOW because of the wing, engines and short takeoff distance.
A 45 seat CS100 would not reach MTOW unless it has extra fuel tanks. But with standard tanks, I read range of 4100 nm.

chornedsnorkack wrote:

LCY-JFK is 3017 nm great circle.
What is the normal air distance, considering the foul winds?

Probably add another 200-300nm for winds, plus another 200-300nm for alternate airport if the weather is bad in JFK.

At ISA and PW1524G engines, the CS100 TOW with 40 seats (Odyssee Airlines config) at LCY (4000 feet) is 116000lb (MTOW - 18000lb).

OWE 77650lb + Pax 9000lb = 86650lb, still enough place for 29350lb of fuel.

How far can an Odyssey CS100 fly from a longer runway?

queb wrote:

At ISA and PW1524G engines, the CS100 TOW with 40 seats (Odyssee Airlines config) at LCY (4000 feet) is 116000lb (MTOW - 18000lb).

OWE 77650lb + Pax 9000lb = 86650lb, still enough place for 29350lb of fuel.

If BA could get a waiver from the 100,000 lb limit at teterboro (TEB) would it make sense to opertate the flight to there, persumably most of the business passengers are going to work or home in NYC not catching connections and in theory border control at a business airport would be more civilsed there than JFK, you could always chopper people to other NYC airports anyway.

BoeingVista wrote:

queb wrote:

At ISA and PW1524G engines, the CS100 TOW with 40 seats (Odyssee Airlines config) at LCY (4000 feet) is 116000lb (MTOW - 18000lb).

OWE 77650lb + Pax 9000lb = 86650lb, still enough place for 29350lb of fuel.

If BA could get a waiver from the 100,000 lb limit at teterboro (TEB) would it make sense to opertate the flight to there,

What could be more useful - an exception from weight limit at TEB or from perimetre limit at LGA?

chornedsnorkack wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

queb wrote:

At ISA and PW1524G engines, the CS100 TOW with 40 seats (Odyssee Airlines config) at LCY (4000 feet) is 116000lb (MTOW - 18000lb).

OWE 77650lb + Pax 9000lb = 86650lb, still enough place for 29350lb of fuel.

If BA could get a waiver from the 100,000 lb limit at teterboro (TEB) would it make sense to opertate the flight to there,

What could be more useful - an exception from weight limit at TEB or from perimetre limit at LGA?

A lot of delays into LGA even though, TEB also has a wingspan limit that its unclear if the CS100 is under, some say its 100m some say according to FAA its 116m.