Zitat

The No. 4 prototype had 9,000 lb. of fuel onboard, some 66.8% of its maximum 14,100 lb. The gross weight of the aircraft at the ramp was 33,645 lb., 68.4% of its new maximum takeoff weight of 38,500 lb. We had calculated the V1 decision speed to be 115 kt., with a rotate speed of 116 kt. The V2 speed was 122 kt. on the 29C (85F) afternoon. Airport elevation is 1,330 ft.

The two AS907 engines were engaged using the start control on the center panel, and both peaked at 405C internal turbine temperature, well below the maximum. Agostino said that during flight test the engines had performed flawlessly, even in the high-angle-of-attack regime.

The Collins MFDs were easily read in bright sunlight. The Challenger 300 can be dispatched with one display inoperative. At this point, Agostino transferred the navigation data and engine system display from the two other displays and combined them with the primary flight information on my one display. While it took a little closer read with my glasses on, the aircraft could be flown and navigated with one display working.

STARTED THE TAXI to Runway 19. The nose wheel handle on the left was easy to grasp and the rack-and-pinion nose wheel steering allows 65 deg. from centerline; rudder pedals allow a 7-deg. turn from centerline. The brake-by-wire-activated Goodrich carbon brakes were efficient in slowing the aircraft without grabbing. According to Bombardier, the brakes are designed for 2,000 landings.

Thirteen minutes had elapsed since engine start and the takeoff roll, with 80 lb. of fuel used. Acceleration was rapid down the 10,300-ft. runway, with a takeoff roll near 2,800 ft. The gear was raised and the one-piece Fowler flaps were raised from their 20-deg. takeoff position. An altitude of 10,000 ft. was reached in 3 min. after takeoff with a 4,700 lb./hr. total fuel flow. It took another 3 min. to reach 20,000 ft., while the fuel flow had dropped to 3,670 lb./min. Even though the rate of climb was near 3,000 ft./min., the deck angle of the cockpit was fairly flat.

During the turns required to meet air traffic control requirements, I found the roll control to be responsive and precise. The ailerons are manually activated by a conventional cable system. The spoilers are not used for roll control, but there are multifunction spoilers that act like speedbrakes and ground spoilers. The elevators are hydraulically powered with a manual reversion in the case of dual hydraulic failure. Pitch control also was very positive.

We were held at FL280 for 2 min. by air traffic control. Once climbing again, we passed through FL300 in 10 min., not counting the altitude hold. Fuel flow was 2,950 lb./hr. and a total of 780 lb. had been used since takeoff. Rate of climb by now was below 3,000 fpm. at a climb speed of Mach 0.75; at FL350 it was 1,400 fpm. It required 6 min. more to achieve FL400 where the fuel flow was 2,140 lb./hr. The initial cruising altitude of FL430 was reached in 20 min., excluding the 2 min. in altitude hold. Total fuel to reach cruising altitude was 1,380 lb.

With the maximum power available of 90.2% N1, it took 2.2 min. to reach Mach 0.82 and 3 min. to reach Mach 0.83 from Mach 0.75. The optimum cruise speed of the Challenger is near Mach 0.80, Agostino said, and at that speed Bombardier says it can carry eight passengers a range of 3,100 naut. mi.

While still at FL430 and Mach 0.805, I rolled into a 45-deg. bank and as I slowed and applied more g-force to maintain altitude, we experienced some very slight buffet. I finished the 360-deg. turn at Mach 0.78 and I had been able to stay within 50 ft. of my starting altitude. The 300 was very stable at this altitude. Its pitch-coupling capability appeared to make pitch input unnecessary while in this flight regime.

Climbing to the aircraft's maximum altitude of FL450, we found that at Mach 0.80 fuel flow was 1,530 lb./hr. Weight was near 31,500 lb. and the outside temperature was -3 deg. from standard. Agostino said that at this altitude he uses an average of 1,650 lb./hr. over the duration of a flight, while at Mach 0.82 he uses 1,850 lb./hr. as an average fuel flow. To demonstrate the range of the aircraft, the No. 5 prototype was flown from Miami to Seattle, a 2,957-naut.-mi. trip by a great circle route against 65-kt. headwinds. The trip took 5.8 hr. at an average of Mach 0.82 and there were eight passengers onboard.

At the higher altitude, Agostino disconnected the primary aileron control, and I found that there was less feel in the yoke to the roll, but was still able to establish a set bank angle with only a slight overshoot.

A descent was started, and using maximum spoiler, there was a slight buffet as we crept past MMO at near Mach 0.83-0.84, a procedure not normally used. There was no pitch trim with the deployment of the spoilers at this time, or when I used them later to get to a lower altitude prior to nearing the airport.

I FOUND THE COCKPIT to be a comfortable size. There will be a jump seat installed in production aircraft, but it will not be cleared for use during takeoff and landings. The noise level was relatively quiet, even during descent at maximum speed. But there were times in the flight when I would have preferred a lower side windowsill for better visibility.

At an altitude of 18,000 ft., power was reduced to idle in the clean configuration, and at a deceleration rate of 1 kt./sec. the shaker activated at 125 kt. and the 60-lb. pusher went off at 113 kt. Both Agostino and Dwyer said that during flight test the aircraft had very benign stall characteristics, although there were some small stall strips installed for certain icing conditions. With gear extended and flaps set at 30 deg., the shaker started at 104 kt. and the pusher activated at 97 kt. The Collins speed display gave ample warning of impending limits as we reached the pre-stall condition. All in all, symbology on the primary flight display was clear and very understandable. Even the vertical speed symbology was evident, a condition I have not always found in some displays.

Roll and pitch control at the lower altitudes were well harmonized as I found the aircraft responsive to the altitude and heading changes needed to get back to the Wichita airport. Two approaches were performed--an instrument landing, then a visual one. Agostino said Bombardier had considered installing an autothrottle system, but would wait to see if customer demand dictates one. He said it would most likely take 6-9 months to get approval for the system.

Throttle response was very good during the approach at 125 kt., with a reference speed of 119 kt. The navigation display made it easy to understand where I was in the approach and, using the chevron V-bars, I was able to stay extremely close to the glideslope to Runway 19. Agostino had told me to reduce throttles to idle at the automatic call-out of 20 ft. and then, while thinking of flare, not to flare. I over-controlled slightly, resulting in a landing that was firmer than I had anticipated. Landing distance was some 2,500 ft. with the use of moderate brakes and thrust reversers. Unlike some aircraft I have flown, activation of thrust reversers was easily accomplished.

We taxied back to the approach end of the active runway. The takeoff reference speeds were now 113, 116 and 122 kt. at a takeoff weight of 31,000 lb. The good balanced field length for Challenger 300 is provided by a supercritical, aft-loaded wing design, with winglets and area ruling of the aft fuselage. Bombardier did not believe the addition of leading edge slats would help the aircraft's landing performance appreciably.

After V2, Agostino pulled power on the right engine and I compensated by slow insertion of rudder referencing the position of the hat below the roll indicator, a display I have finally become used to after missing the traditional needle and ball indicator. Using rudder trim to compensate for the engine-out, I found that I did not need to vary trim input much during the downwind and low flyby to a go-around. I did have to think consciously about activating the pitch trim during approach by first depressing the arming button on the top of the yoke.

During the downwind leg in the VFR pattern, I again was impressed by the situational awareness provided by navigation and primary flight information on the MFDs. While I did not have much time to work with the flight management system, Agostino said input of information and extraction of data were very intuitive and made flight planning easy, even with last-minute changes.

THIS APPROACH FLOWN WAS visual with a reference speed of 113 kt. and a flatter glidepath angle than the standard ILS, and when I reduced power at 20 ft. and thought about flaring, the touchdown was a "squeaker" and an improved landing over the first one. Of course, the landing was helped by the trailing link main landing gear. Again, the thrust reversers were effective and the aircraft was slowed to taxi speed, without heavy braking, in less than 2,500 ft.

As I taxied back to the Bombardier ramp, I noted that this aircraft, with its benign handling characteristics, seemed easy to fly. I also understood that flying with Agostino, a professional instructor and skilled pilot, could have made it appear easier than it was. But overall, this aircraft should have a wide appeal to time-share customers and single- and multiple-aircraft operators as a very flexible aircraft for either short- or long-range flights. Total flight time was 1.9 hr. and block time was close to 2.2 hr. The total fuel used was slightly more than 4,000 lb.

Bombardier has 125 orders for the 300, including 25 from the company's Flexjet operation. Many of the orders are from operators of single aircraft, with some of them trading up from Learjet 55s and 60s, according to the company. It also estimates that 63% of its business will be from domestic operators and 37% from international orders.

A break in the production line between the first six production aircraft, ending at No. 11, allowed Bombardier to ensure that the next group of production aircraft incorporated all the latest configuration changes. The current production rate is two aircraft monthly and the intent is to match production rates with market demand. The capability exists for a 4-5 aircraft monthly rate. At one time, the company had anticipated delivering 10-20 green aircraft in 2003, 30-40 in 2004 and slightly more in 2005. Those numbers may have been lowered somewhat, but with the first available aircraft from the line available in 2006, the estimate is not much off the mark.

Bombardier has taken care to learn from its mistakes with previous aircraft. It now makes sure partners are involved from the beginning. Besides Honeywell, DeCrane and Rockwell Collins, partners included Messier Dowty for landing gear, Liebherr for pressurization and flaps, Moog for flight controls, Goodrich for wheels and brakes and MHI for wings. The early input it had from its own and other operators' pilots is evident in the cockpit layout.

It also is making spare parts provisions for twice the number of aircraft in service at the outset and ensuring that all technical manuals are completed by the in-service date, according to Jim Ziegler, vice president of Bombardier Business Aircraft Services. The company is spending $3.5 million to ready its seven service centers, six domestic and one in Berlin, for the introduction of the Challenger 300.

Zitat von »mhe«

Schon klar, zu viel Leistung kann ein Bizjet nie haben. Aber fürs gemütliche Cruisen ist der CL300 schon eine verdammt feine Sache...

YouTube

YouTube

Zitat

Die neue Challenger 350 ist das steigfreudigste Modell in Bombardiers Business-Jet-Familie. Die neue Challenger spurtet in 18 Minuten auf 41000 Fuß und hängt damit sogar den Learjet 60 ab.

Die neue Challenger 350 hängt sie alle ab, sie ist das steigfreudigste Modell im Bombardier-Programm. In 18 Minuten ist der Business Jet auf 41000 Fuß, er kannn auf 43000 Fuß direkt durchsteigen. Mit acht Passagieren an Bord fliegt die Challenger 3200 NM weit und ist dabei Mach 0.80 schnell.

Bombardier hat Challenger 350 im Mai vorgestellt, sie ist eine Weiterentwicklung des Erfolgsmodells Challenger 300 mit neuen Tragflächen, stärkeren Triebwerken, größeren Fenstern und einer neu gestalteten Kabine.

Die ersten Flugzeuge werden schon nächstes Jahr an den Erstkunden gehen, den Fractional-Ownership-Anbieter Netjets, der an der Entwicklung des Modells maßgeblich beteiligt war. Das neue Modell kostet zirka 25,8 Millionen Dollar und damit eine Million mehr als die Challenger 300.

Die Challenger 350 besitzt neu konstruierte Tragflächen mit Winglets, die Spannweite beträgt 21 m und ist damit gut eineinhalb Meter größer als bei der Challenger 300. Dadurch fällt das MTOW um 1750 lbs (794 kg) höher aus und beträgt 40600 lbs (18415 kg). Dies ermöglicht dem Jet eine um 135 NM größere Reichweite, als sie die Challenger 300 hat.

Für den Vortrieb sorgen zwei HTF7350 von Honeywell mit je 7323 lbs (32,57 kN) Startleistung (Challenger 300: HTF7000 mit 6826 lbs/30,4 kN).

Die Kabine ist völlig neu gestaltet. Dank um 20 Prozent größerer Fenster gelangt mehr Tageslicht hinein. Bombardier wird das „niceHD“-Kabinenmanagementsystem von Lufthansa Technik installieren. Im Cockpit werden die Piloten eine neue Version des Pro-Line-21-Systems von Rockwell Collins vorfinden, das Synthetic Vision und „Multi Scan“-Wetterradar bietet. Es wird zudem komplett papierlos sein.

Bombardier hat eine Challenger 300 auf den aktuellen Standard umgerüstet und unternimmt damit seit März Testflüge.


Weitere Daten:

High-speed: Mach 0.82, 470 KTAS, 871 km/h
Long-range speed: Mach 0.80, 459 KTAS, 850 km/h
Takeoff distance (SL, ISA, MTOW): 4835 ft, 1474 m
Landing distance (SL, ISA, MLW): 2710 ft, 826 m
Maximum Operating Altitude: 45000 ft, 13716 m
Initial cruise altitude (MTOW): 43000 ft, 13106 m
Length: 20,9 m
Wingspan: 21 m
Wing area (basic): 48,5 m2
Height overall: 6,1 m
Cabin length: 8,72 m
(cockpit divider to end of pressurized compartment)
Cabin width centerline: 2,19 m
Cabin width floorline: 1,55 m
Cabin height: 1,86 m
Floor area (excluding cockpit): 13,6 m2

Cabin volume (excluding cockpit and baggage): 24,4 m3

Maximum ramp weight: 18484 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 18416 kg
Maximum landing weight: 15490 kg
Maximum zero fuel weight: 12791 kg
Typical basic operating weight: 11249 kg
Maximum fuel weight: 6418 kg
Maximum payload: 1542 kg
Payload - maximum fuel: 817 kg
Fuel with maximum payload: 5693 kg