|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Feb 13, 2015 16:43:33 GMT 1
-FTV5 (1st aircraft with interior) completed the passenger evacuation test How was the result? How many seats in CS100, how many seconds to evacuate (A380 passed in 79 seconds out of 90) and how many injuries? |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 13, 2015 23:00:28 GMT 1
We'll know the answer when the CSeries is certified, unless BBD leaks it out, which I don't expect.
|
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Feb 14, 2015 7:31:31 GMT 1
While the details of the evacuation process might be not so relevant (seconds count, injuries, etc.), the specific evacuation interior (seat count, seat pitch, space left for exit rows, space for galleys and "toilets" represented by cameras) are directly relevant for the airlines who consider buying CSeries, especially if they are pressing the assumptions of evacuation test.
Has the seat count of CS100 evacuation test been confirmed to have been 125?
|
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Feb 14, 2015 8:19:17 GMT 1
I was eyeing possible exits from CS100. The facts of exits: airshows.bombardier.com/sites/default/files/cseries_factsheet_cs100_en.pdfSummarizing: Left front door - 74x32´´ Left back door - 72x30´´ Right service doors - both at 60x30´´ Overwing exits - on CS100 one pair, at 42x23´´ And now the FAA classification of exits: www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-807.htmlTypes: Required floor level A >=72x42´´ B >=72x32´´ C >=48x30´´ I >=48x24´´ Steps allowed: II >=44x20´´, up to 10´´ up and 17´´ down III >=36x20´´, up to 20´´ up and 27´´ down. Now, remember that since blocking of half exits must be allowed for, the bottleneck is the lower category of a pair. CS100 has one B exit (left front door) so it is useless. The service doors are C exits, and they would have to be expanded to 72´´(12´´ missing)x32´´(2´´ missing) to create a B exit pair. How about overwing exits? 42x23´´ is plenty for Type II they are (6´´extra x3´´extra), but looks they barely miss Type II, at 2´´ missing x 3´´extra. How are the step heights? If the CSeries overwing exits were made these 2´´ higher, would they at 44x23´´ size meet the step requirements of Type II, and would that be any use? |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Mar 3, 2015 20:39:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Mar 3, 2015 21:21:00 GMT 1
Really happy to read this positive results. Hopefully this will help the program with new orders
|
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Mar 3, 2015 21:23:10 GMT 1
So, a significant range bump, to be disclosed in Paris.
Quite independent of that, how much range bump does Odyssey get out of their lighter payload?
|
|
|
|
Post by peter on Mar 5, 2015 17:36:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Mar 5, 2015 20:35:04 GMT 1
For comparison:
CS100 before the discovered and as yet unspecified range increase: 2950 nm, takeoff distance 1463 m
CS100 at "urban" weights, also without range increase: 1700 nm, takeoff distance 1219 m
A318, old wing: 3100 nm, takeoff distance 1828 m
A318, sharklets: 3200 nm
A319OEO, old wing: 3600 nm, takeoff distance 2164 m
A319OEO, sharklets: 3700 nm
A320OEO, old wing: 3100 nm, takeoff distance 2090 m
A320OEO, sharklets: 3300 nm
A321OEO, old wing: 3000 nm, takeoff distance 2560 m
A321OEO, sharklets: 3200 nm
B737-600, old wing: 3050 nm, takeoff distance 1750 m
B737-600, winglets: 3225 nm
B737-700, old wing: 3365 nm, takeoff distance 1600 m
B737-700, winglets: 3440 nm
B737-800, old wing: 3060 nm, takeoff distance 2400 m
B737-800, winglets: 3115 nm
MD-87: 2370 nm, takeoff distance 2300 m
E1-190AR: 2400 nm, takeoff distance 2056 m
E1-195AR: 2200 nm, takeoff distance 2179 m
A319NEO: 4200 nm
A320NEO: 3700 nm
A321NEO: 3650 nm
A321NEOLR: 4000 nm
B737MAX7: 3800 nm
B737MAX8: 3620 nm
B737MAX9: 3595 nm
E2-190: 2800 nm, takeoff distance 1800 m
E2-195: 2000 nm, takeoff distance 1950 m
|
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Mar 6, 2015 18:26:27 GMT 1
|
|
