TP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 230 posts, RR: 8 Posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2228 times:
I find the current ideas floating about on the A350 issue not very good
concepts. So here is my opinion on what the A350 should be:
1 - Whole new plane, not A330 derivative, with the most advanced
technologies. Same Airbus wide body fuselage cross-section.
2 - Two versions: one aimed at A306 replacement (with 4200 n.m. range) the
other at B767ER (with 6800 n.m. range) replacement. 8000 n.m. range figures
like those quoted for the 7E7 and the 350 are IMHO a complete nonsense for
this market segment. Bigger range + Same speed -> lower flight frequency ->
-> bigger capacity -> B777 or A340.
3 - long range version with the same passenger capacity of the 763 or slightly higher.
Same wingspan of the 764. Short range version with same passenger
capacity of A332 or slightly higher. Slightly modified wing for the SR version.
4 - Requirements of points 2 and 4 would result for the LR version in a
lighter aircraft than the 7E7, doing all the aircraft it replaces could
do at a lower operating cost than the Dreamliner.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2184 times:
Same wingspan of the 764.
This would doom it. Part of the reason the 764 is a bad aircraft is because of insufficient span.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2116 times:
1 - Whole new plane, not A330 derivative, with the most advanced
technologies. Same Airbus wide body fuselage cross-section.
They'd miss out on the 7E7's ability to seat 9 abreast in comfort. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but in high density seating, the 7E7 will blow the A330-200/300 away in seat/mile cost. This matters big for charter carriers and LCCs.
4 - Requirements of points 2 and 4 would result for the LR version in a
lighter aircraft than the 7E7, doing all the aircraft it replaces could
do at a lower operating cost than the Dreamliner.
This point is moot, the 7E7 isn't significantly heavier than the 763ER yet has longer range and more payload. The beauty of composite structures are their versatility... a 7E7-8 will be able to economically fly everything from 5,000-8,000 nm
And there is a reason Boeing is only offering the 7E7-8 with 8500 nm of range: resale value. With previous aircraft of all types, the initial customers usually get screwed as more capable versions come out at later dates. Boeing wants to keep the ERs and LRs to an absolute minimum with the 7E7.... look at the resale values of 767ER/777ER versus their non-ER counterparts.
8000 n.m. range figures
like those quoted for the 7E7 and the 350 are IMHO a complete nonsense for
this market segment. Bigger range + Same speed -> lower flight frequency ->
-> bigger capacity -> B777 or A340.
Then maybe you don't understand this market. Extra range allows more payload to be carried on flights below 8000nm. This means more cargo and fewer/no payload restrictions relative to today's aircraft. This means more profit.
And in theory, the 7E7 could begin to open up many new city pairs too distant and too thin for today's aircraft. These routes couldn't sustain the 777 and A340, but they could sustain a 767-sized aircraft.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1960 times:
Interesting speculation, TP313. I agree with you it should be a completely new design but there are valid reasons why Airbus won't do that just yet. An all-new design, in addition to being substantially more costly at a time when Airbus has other priorities, as well (the new A30X shorter-haul widebody to replace the A300/310 and at least a major mid-life updating of the A320 family, as well as continued running upgrades of the existing A330/340 line), would also reach the market several years later than the 7E7, allowing more time for Boeing to corner more buyers. For Airbus to now plunge into the same scale R&D program as Boeing has done to come up with a one to one semi-composite equivalent would take long enough to largely undermine the business case, as well as forcing Airbus to request another large chunk of government launch aid before that for the A380 is paid off, a politically risky tact made more uncertain by the current U.S./E.U. subsidies dispute. Though the A350, as detailed thusfar, is not the airplane they really need in the longrun, it's their best realistic prospect for this market, at the moment. They also feel it's not truly possible to address both the short and long-haul medium-size widebody market with one aircraft type, even using a different wing design on each version, as Boeing is trying to do with the 7E7. They want the A350 for the long-range twin market while they develop the A30X, perhaps based largely on the A300 fuselage, as a lighter, dedicated shorter-range airliner. It stands to reason, however, that the eventual A330/350 replacement will be a lot closer to the 7E7 than the envisioned A350 being touted now but they see no need to rush such a design to market with all else they've to do when the A350 should be able to rack up significant sales as is at far lower cost, while prolonging production of the basic A330 design. I do, however, question your contention they could do a significantly lighter aircraft than the 7E7, even by going with an all-new design. To do that, they'd have to use an even higher proportion of composites in the design, a very risky proposition at this stage of experience, given that Boeing is already pushing it at 50% and Airbus, itself, is even taking a risk at 25% for the A380, a much larger structure. To go even farther, right now, without a long-term track recond for large composite structure durability in airline use, would be dangerous. In ten years or so, however, when Airbus may be designing the A330/350 replacement, this will likely not be nearly as big a concern and they could well then produce a new design which will go beyond the 7E7 in those areas and be more efficient; it's just not prudent yet for them to attempt that ambitious a design.
"Part of the reason the 764 is a bad aircraft is because of insufficient span."
Guess you can blame Boeing for too closely designing the 764 for Delta's specific needs to win their order. As I've read (in the 1999 Norris and Wagner book, Modern Boeing Jetliners), one of their requirements was gate commonality with DC-10/L-1011 size airliners, meaning wingspan couldn't be much greater. Keeping the 764 to a 170' span met that need, as well as saved development costs by using the basic 767 wing with the new raked tip extensions but hobbled its range against the A332, its main competitor. BCA was lucky Continental had similar needs to Delta but found out with all others this strategy was unsound, hopefully the last time they'll make such an error.
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1408 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
Airbus want the 350 but does EADS.
I think we will see a deferral, rather than a straight no, so Airbus can keep the presure on, in what is an exercise akin to Boeings tactics with the 747 prior to the launch of the 380.
DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1880 times:
Ohhh poor 767-400... why do you all always have to pick on this plane
However, its a cool aircraft to fly in!
So if understood TP313 correctly, he would have the A350 in one version the size of the 7E7-8 (A300)? Yes, Airbus should finally replace the A300, since the shorter version of the A350 will only have the size of the A330-200, B767-400, and therefor will only really compete with the 7E7-9, whereas the bigger version of the A350 will more or less be aimed at the 777-200ER.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
TP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 230 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
DfwRevolution says:
"1 - Whole new plane, not A330 derivative, with the most advanced
technologies. Same Airbus wide body fuselage cross-section."
They'd miss out on the 7E7's ability to seat 9 abreast in comfort. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but in high density seating, the 7E7 will blow the A330-200/300 away in seat/mile cost. This matters big for charter carriers and LCCs.
We're not discussing A332/333 here
"4 - Requirements of points 2 and 4 would result for the LR version in a
lighter aircraft than the 7E7, doing all the aircraft it replaces could
do at a lower operating cost than the Dreamliner."
This point is moot, the 7E7 isn't significantly heavier than the 763ER yet has longer range and more payload. The beauty of composite structures are their versatility... a 7E7-8 will be able to economically fly everything from 5,000-8,000 nm "
A mainly composite airframe designed for a similar capacity but for a 1,700
n.m. shorter maximum range would have significantly lower operating
costs in all current non-stop 767 routes, period.
"Then maybe you don't understand this market. Extra range allows more payload to be carried on flights below 8000nm. This means more cargo and fewer/no payload restrictions relative to today's aircraft. This means more profit."
Well finally an argument that makes sense. But you have to take into
account the average density of cargo payloads. 7E7's cargo hold volume
is not infinite, you know?
Pelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2530 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1319 times:
I think it would be better for airbus to keep their widebody cross-section.
While a comfortable 8 abreast seating layout is the standard, a 9 abreast seating layout is possible.
They'd miss out on the 7E7's ability to seat 9 abreast in comfort. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but in high density seating, the 7E7 will blow the A330-200/300 away in seat/mile cost. This matters big for charter carriers and LCCs.
You forgot that many charter airlines fly airbus widebodies with 9 seats abreast by now. I can tell you it's a pain in the ar** but this doesn't bother such airlines.
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 230 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 789 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1408 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11362 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2530 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
