innsertnamehere
Superstar
Interesting how Porter is fine with the restrictions the city is asking for but its the TPA making a fit over them.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
geojesse
New Member
Not sure if this has been posted before, but here is an interesting youtube video showing what the extended runways would look like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F78rFghCvYE&feature=youtu.be). It strikes me how marginal the impact is and how the CSeries is so similar in size to the Q400.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
Respectfully, the impact is anything but marginal. Runway extension will likely require jet blast barriers which will put up 36 foot walls aronud some of the tail end section of the runway blocking off island views. The whine or rev or swoosh noise of the jets coming in and out is also another major point of contention IMO. Planes will be significantly larger too.
Filip
Senior Member
Why would you require jet blast barriers out into the lake? The only use for them (and the way it's applied at Pearson) is for roads directly behind the runway threshold. Unless we're planning to drive automobiles into the lake, the marine exclusion zone will take care of any jet blast coming out of these small aircraft.
geojesse
New Member
I really can't see how they are significantly larger. Even check out the no-jets-TO animation (far from an unbiased source): http://www.nojetsto.ca/size-matters-proposed-jets-twice-heavy-turboprops/ We are talking about a couple meters on each dimension.
Cinnamon
Active Member
Q400 is 64,500 lbs and C100 is 127,800 lbs, therefore power (fuel) required to lift or stop C100 is significantly higher than Q400.
As advertised, C100 is quieter and cleaner than a comparable turbofan (jet) airliner, it is neither quieter nor cleaner than Q400.
So lets say, if we swap all Q400s with C100s and keep the number of flights per day/year unchanged, atmospheric emissions of BBCA will be much higher that what we have now.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The thing is barely longer than one of the new streetcars, to put it in perspective. 3 meters longer than the Q400's.
http://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/billy-bishop-toronto-airport-expansion-study/
http://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/billy-bishop-toronto-airport-expansion-study/
mrxbombastic
Active Member
The jet blast may tip over sail boats and other small watercraft. The MEZ is proposed to stay in place with the runway extension encroaching near its boundaries. It stands to reason then that if the old MEZ was a set length from the runway edge to manage jet blast or other prop vortexes, a longer runway with more powerful jet engines and a comparatively compromised MEZ function would require additional protections for marine users.
Either enlarge the MEZs to accommodate new blast protection requirements or build jet blast barriers to deflect the blast away from mariners.
rbt
Senior Member
Can someone please make a rendering of our new trams with wings and a pantograph wire extending into the clouds over King street?
TFC
Active Member
Have you conducted any research on, or have any knowledge about the Pratt & Whitney PW1500G to say something like "the impact is anything but marginal"? At this point, it seems as though arguments against the CS100 aircraft at Billy Bishop have been made without regard for the aircraft's technical aspects (such as noise levels).
TOareaFan
Superstar
You just have to go to the No Jets web page....that is all the research you need to know that "Porter’s CS100 on Par with Boeing 737".....that 737's and CS100s are "nearly identical" physically.
And that the CS100 ......."It’s not as quiet as you might think. More of an old-school jet roar."
Who needs more research than that.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
The engines have begun being sounded and tested on the CSeries frame. I have looked at some specs and detail about the engines. In bombardiers own video here [video=youtube;SUTOf4oOJRE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUTOf4oOJRE[/video]which takes place in a largely open field with little to no reflective structure which would amplify the sound, the distinctive characteristic Jet engine whine is present. Now i wont claim to know the observed decibel levels in this video because I don't but to argue there isn't an audible difference at least in terms of what it sounds like rather than how loud it sounds would be disingenuous.
When I refer to impact I also mean more than just the affects of the engine, or aircraft, or runway extensions, or traffic impacts, or potential view disruptions, or development possibilities impact, or pollution impacts. I refer to the sum total effect of all of these. I don't think the world will come to an end if jets are allowed and the runways are extended. I'm not of the apocalyptic view as other may be. Rather I'm of the deeply concerned crowd who suspect the compounding affect would be harmful on all fronts and that it would outweigh any potential benefits. In my comments throughout and the one you quoted I did not just mention one aspect. Rather I briefly mentioned at least 3.
TOareaFan
Superstar
^that, frankly, is the same sort of misleading stuff that you can find at the NOjets site...they too have the video of the take off supplied by Bombardier and reach the conclusion that the jet is not quiet and sounds like tradditional jets......but, as you say, there is no measurements to back it up or, in the alternative, no comparable video of, say, a Q400 doing the same thing with the microphone in the same location relative to the plane.
Is the jet in that video loud? Compared to what? I must say if that landing sequence is supposed to make people think the CS100 is loud....it might fail in that goal.
Is the jet in that video loud? Compared to what? I must say if that landing sequence is supposed to make people think the CS100 is loud....it might fail in that goal.
TFC
Active Member
So I just have to go to that one website, which is biased against the jets. When formulating an argument, it is best to hear both sides of the story, hear from experts on both sides and then formulate an opinion on the topic.
I'll acknowledge looking at specs is reasonable research when formulating an opinion, but a YouTube video is not. How scientific would it be to watch that YouTube video and then be like "the CS100 is loud". Would it not be best to listen to the advice of aviation experts and professionals in the field? My comment is directed solely at the noise of the aircraft, and not the other aspects which you've mentioned (traffic impacts, view disruptions, etc). I agree with you that introducing jets at the airport could be negative in a number of ways, but when it comes to aircraft noise, I'd prefer to base my argument on solid numbers and facts.
