Originally Posted by
PLeblond
Not sure. The most cost effective way to build the CS500 would be a simple stretch. Same wings, same engines just add some fuselage either end of the wingbox and more seats. Theoretical range aside (see actual XLR routes versus published range) I highly doubt YUL/YYZ to YVR/SFO/LAX are in the cards without sacrificing loads. If The Emipre are building this jet it's for DL, AF et. al ...not AC; DL & AF have both indicated they don't want/need the range of the CS300 for their purposes.
Most analysis echos this, example here from industry analysis (not a points blogger site) "The trade-off for higher seating density would be a reduction in range compared with the A220-300. Airbus appears to view this as an acceptable compromise, particularly as many operators priortise efficiency on short-to medium-haul routes rather than maximum range capacity."
I'm seeing a real world use case maximum range for a CS500 in the maximum 2k mile range. Which is gravy for DL & AF.
The only way I see AC buying a CS500 is if it has a higher MTOW than the CS300 and an engine with more thrust (I'm assuming a re-wing is out of the question for costs reasons). And I don't see Airbus investing that any time soon...until Boeing forces them to do so, at least.
At the moment Airbus is too busing making A321s and thus Boeing is picking up orders that would normally be in competition with the A320neo. The CS500 sounds like Airbus' plan to block potential sales of a MAX and on that front, it could not compete with airlines who need the added range, like AC.
I would agree with no new wing. But no matter what the gross weight will go up. Still, with marginal wing and engine improvements, they should be able to get the sort of range that AC would want.
I have read these "analysts" speculation and I don't think I agree with them. Alas, I am not even convinced they are really qualified to make these sorts of comments.
I am not totally convinced either with these rumors about range restrictions for the 321XLR. What is true of course is that for hot/high locations there is and always was a range penalty, no matter what plane you are looking at. And it seems some airline bean counters were not aware of that obvious fact... (What did they do with their engineers? Maybe they did not like them because they did not let the bena counters indulge in wishful thinking? :-))
Obvious reason being that engine power is proportional to air mass flow into the engine. With turbomachinery being essentially volume devices. The compressor produces a volumetric flow. If air density is less (ideal gas law is pressure equals a constant times density, times temperature, so if pressure is lower and/or temperature is higher, density is less), engine power/thrust is lower.
Take Calgary, typical atmospheric pressure is a bit less than 90% of sea level. So if your choice is between an Audi with naturally aspired six cylinder or a turbo four cylinder one, you may well end up with as much, maybe more power with the four cylinder one... (The turbo feeds the engine at a pressure that does not depend upon atmospheric pressure).
Anyway, if the AC folks had forgotten about that, raise some issues about how competent they are with this kind of decisions.