Pilot Report Challenger 300

Zitat

Bombardier's Challenger 300, now being delivered to customers in the green configuration, will still resemble the business aircraft they ordered four years ago.

The then-named Continental had its official launch at the Paris air show in 1999. The corporate jet has seen its schedule slip by about six months and its payload with full fuel capacity has declined slightly. However, the twin-engine business jet appears to be meeting all other initial goals, including range, price and field performance.

The Challenger 300 was conceived to fill a gap between the Learjet series, including the Lear 45 and 60 and the larger Challenger 604. Bombardier felt there was a need in its stable for an aircraft with a medium-large cabin and transcontinental range for about $16 million. That there were other aircraft vying for this same corporate jet market did not deter the Canadian company, which already had an aggressive program in place to develop new business aircraft.

Gulfstream already has more than 50 Gulfstream 200s in service. The former Galaxy has a cabin size and performance parameters akin to that of the Challenger 300 and the Raytheon Aircraft Hawker Horizon. While the Horizon was announced about two years prior to Challenger 300, it will not appear in service until late next year. The Dassault Falcon 2000 has comparable performance figures, but larger cabin size than the other medium-large cabin aircraft, and its cost structure is somewhat higher. With a slightly smaller cabin size and less range, but $3-4 million less than the larger aircraft, the Cessna Sovereign falls between the Lear 60 and Challenger 300. The Sovereign is expected to enter initial service early next year.

The Challenger 300 is an evolutionary aircraft, with standard metal construction and current state systems. However, it does carry the first application of Honeywell AS907 turbofan engines and one of the first uses of Rockwell Collins Pro Line 21 units with four 12 X 10-in. active matrix liquid crystal displays in a business jet. Both the new systems seem to be working extremely well.

My prelude to flying the Challenger 300 on an evaluation flight started in Dallas at the Bombardier training center, near the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Customer training is provided on the Learjet 31A, 45, 60 and Challenger 600/601 and 604. Flight simulators meeting FAA Level D requirements are used for pilot training in all these aircraft.

The Challenger 300 simulator was manufactured by NLX of Sterling, Va., and is equipped with an Evans and Sutherland visual system. Level D certification for the simulator is planned for third-quarter 2004. It recently received Level C certification.

According to Hank Blasiak, general manager, customer training for Bombardier's business jet division, it is the only corporate aircraft manufacturer performing its own customer training. All others use contract-training companies, most notably FlightSafety International and CAE SimuFlite. Blasiak said Bombardier's type of arrangement provides up-to-the-minute production configurations, ease of access to technical manuals and aircraft parts, and qualified instructors rated in Bombardier aircraft.

I "flew" the Challenger 300 simulator with Bob Agostino, director of flight operations for the business jet division, and Jim Dwyer, senior test pilot on the Challenger 300. While most of the simulator time involved acquainting myself with displays and system symbology, I did do one takeoff and landing. Because the simulator was recently installed and all the software parameters had yet to be incorporated, both Agostino and Dwyer warned me not to equate simulator performance to that of the aircraft. I did find roll control in the simulator to be very sensitive, which was not the case in the aircraft. Overall, it was clear that this cockpit design had a great deal of pilot input into human engineering and situational awareness.

The flight in the No. 4 Challenger the following day was made from Bombardier's facility in Wichita, Kan. Following a thorough preflight briefing, Agostino, Dwyer and I headed for the aircraft on the ramp. The corporate jet has the right proportions. While no single feature of the aircraft stands out as distinctive, the wing, engine nacelle and vertical tail appear to be in harmony.

Agostino gave me a walk around the prototype. All system panels on the aircraft's exterior are designed to be very accessible. The single-point fuel panel instructions in the aircraft were easily understood and there is an overwing fueling option to reach 13,000 lb., some 1,100 lb. short of the maximum fuel. The hydraulic refill system was within easy reach, as were the two batteries powering the DC electrical system, making them easy to detach when a replacement is needed. The aircraft is an all-DC electric system. The attention to detail was evident with the dual wing navigation lights, an important fail-safe if one burns out.

The air door was solid and fit well into the fuselage. The prototype was not equipped with a standard interior; instead it had one test-flight monitoring position, along with some other seating. The standard interior for the 28.5-ft.-long cabin--from cockpit divider to end of pressurized compartment--is a double club seating for eight. A side-facing three-place divan can be installed in place of two seats in all but the rear right side. A lavatory is in the rear of the cabin and from there the 106-cu.-ft. baggage bay can be accessed in flight.

DeCrane Aircraft provided the complete prefit cabin interior. The El Segundo, Calif., company offered modularity and reduced cycle times, allowing Bombardier to adhere to a nearly 16-week completion schedule. Interior completions for the Challenger 300 are done at Bombardier's Tucson facility.

Dwyer had the Honeywell 36-150BD auxiliary power unit operating by the time we arrived at the cockpit. I took the left seat, Agostino occupied the right. While we had spent considerable time going over the cockpit presentations and systems in the simulator, we hit the highlights prior to engine start. I immediately noted the lack of indicators or system controls in an overhead panel. That area is completely clean, and the center and front panels do not seem to be overloaded with extra instrumentation. This feature demonstrates the value of multifunction displays (MFDs).

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.

Alles anzeigen

Quelle

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]