Originally Posted by
The Lev
There would likely be a tradeoff off in the order of 250 miles for the simple stretch judging by the difference between the -100 and -300.
For a real-world use case, Air Baltic flies RIX-DXB, which is 2,684 miles without payload restrictions with the -300. Let's lop of 250 miles for a -500 and that leaves you with a "true" range of at least 2,400 miles. That effectively puts all of North America within range from YYZ and all of Canada within range from YUL. YUL - California might be load restricted but as others have pointed out, if that were the case there are plenty of other options for AC in their existing fleet.
Not sure you can use the CS100 v/v CS300 as an example. The CS300 has a higher MTOW 156k lbs vs. 139k lbs. In a simple stretch there is no expected increase in MTOW so a CS500 would not have the extra capacity for fuel and the extra weight of the stretch, the seats, the PAX and their luggage would remove fuel. The delta in range from a CS500 should be considerably more. BBD designed the programme well as 2 models from day one with comparable range. AB is now squeezing more out of the current product so the offset could be...important.
Please humour me and let's all wait for a pre-launch (still not a launch) and real world figures. Even then...
BBD were in the business of underpromising and over delivering when they launched the C Series (no choice they were fighting the Empire and the 800lb gorilla). Airbus, from what I gather, tend to not follow that path (there's a reference here to my previous comment about the French not knowing what imposter syndrome is, but I digress).
XLR published rage: 4,700 nm. Current longest XLR route: MAD-SDQ. 3,617 nm or basically 25% less. Will more mature frames offer better range? Perhaps. But so far...I'm not buying what Toulouse is selling.
Time will tell.