Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11011 times:
Airbus is studying a “-900X” growth version of the A350, with weight increases of up to 20t and power possibly from larger-diameter engines, to counter Boeing’s plan to launch a larger 787 derivative, the -10.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10971 times:
So... The A350 encroaches further into the A340 space. I think that's a good thing. Developing the A350 to perform more A340 missions makes more sense to me than adapting A350 developments to the A340.
“Customers are shown Boeing’s proposed 787-10 stretch and we then get asked what we can do with the A350,” says the programme’s chief engineer, Dougie Hunter.
I wonder what airlines could be meant by that
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Shamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6107 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10831 times:
I think the larger the A350 gets the more likely current A340 operators might be interested in it. Take VS, there was rumor that they were thinking about the A350, a larger one would work better with the A340-600.
Kaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10757 times:
I haven't heard anything about this yet so it might just be PR. If we went for a 20t heavier A359 my guess is that a lot of strengthening would be required to the wings and a center landing gear or a 777 style gear would be needed. So far the current A350 MTOW stands at 245t. On the other hand, this would be the definite 772ER killer.
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10708 times:
So this would be 580-590,000 lbs MTOW aircraft. That is a substantial increase in take off weight. I wonder if it is all for fuel or if there is a payload increase, and what type of range they expect to get out of it. With that much extra fuel, they should get 772LR range.
Interesting that GE is proposing a GP7200 derivative for this aircraft. That would eliminate commonality between the GEnx A358 and the A359HGW. Would they offer an A359 that is GEnx powered if they did go with the GP7200 engine?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10593 times:
or how about derating the GP7000 for the A358?
I vaguely remember in some previous thread that it was explained that an engine with x thrust for a 4 engine requirement is not good for a 2 engine situation with the same TO thrust requirement due to different cruise thrust levels necessary for the 2 situations.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10580 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5): Interesting that GE is proposing a GP7200 derivative for this aircraft. That would eliminate commonality between the GEnx A358 and the A359HGW. Would they offer an A359 that is GEnx powered if they did go with the GP7200 engine?
Could that be considered an advantage for RR if they are (as some say) "growing" the T1700 to these levels?
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10530 times:
I wonder how the GP7000's compete with GEnx for fuel burn?
I'm not sure the heavier A350-900 is any more of a 772ER killer than 787-10. I think Boeing is more or less conceding 772ER is just about done for buy building 787-10, just like Airbus is saying A340-300 and A330-300 are done by building A350-900.
The issue Airbus has is their old cross section, which is narrow enough it can only hold 8-abreast in coach class, vs 9 abreast on 787 and 777. Meaning, say an A340 or A350 is a little over 200 feet long, has 40-some odd rows of seats, and then say a 777 or 787 is a little over 200 feet long, 40-some odd rows of seats as well, that's another 40 some seats the Boeing is holding, and comperably speaking, isn't a heavier plane than the airbus either.
Airbus should have gone with a wider cross-section for A350. They just won't let it die.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10530 times:
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 4): I haven't heard anything about this yet so it might just be PR. If we went for a 20t heavier A359 my guess is that a lot of strengthening would be required to the wings and a center landing gear or a 777 style gear would be needed. So far the current A350 MTOW stands at 245t. On the other hand, this would be the definite 772ER killer.
265t TO weight is still less than a A343 (275t), maybe they can just use the center gear of the A343, its likely to be only a minor problem for them to sort out
A319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10501 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): 265t TO weight is still less than a A343 (275t), maybe they can just use the center gear of the A343, its likely to be only a minor problem for them to sort out
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2576 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10472 times:
How will this affect Airbus plans for a A340 enhanced? In my opinion stretching and making the A350 more powerful seems like a much better idea IMO. Although it might be difficult to stretch the A350 as long as the A340-600. That would require a new wing.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10444 times:
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 4): this would be the definite 772ER killer.
The A350-900 as currently defined is already a B777-200ER killer.
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 8): I wonder how the GP7000's compete with GEnx for fuel burn?
The GP7000 has nearly 10% higher SFC than the GEnx. About 0.561 vs 0.515. A GP7000 reworked for the A350 would probably be somewhat lower than 0.561 but I doubt they would get down to 0.515 and still be able to recoup development costs.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10444 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): 265t TO weight is still less than a A343 (275t), maybe they can just use the center gear of the A343, its likely to be only a minor problem for them to sort out
How much weight is saved from the Al-Li fuselage and composite wings compared to the a343? Doesn't that cover the difference?
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10355 times:
IIRC Airbus was saying the A350s new materials would save something in the order of <10 tons, maybe even half that, and then you lose 2+ tons worth from the heavier new GEnx and Trent1000 engines.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11363 posts, RR: 50 Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10300 times:
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 4): and a center landing gear or a 777 style gear would be needed
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): maybe they can just use the center gear of the A343
Did you actually read the article?
Quote: “We could achieve this with the existing gear using larger wheels and tyres without running into ACN [runway weight loading] problems,” he says.
Shortly after the A350 was launched, Airbus stated that they were "beefing up" the undercarriage to cope with higher weight variants.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10279 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 14): IIRC Airbus was saying the A350s new materials would save something in the order of <10 tons, maybe even half that, and then you lose 2+ tons worth from the heavier new GEnx and Trent1000 engines.
OK thanks, so that weight saving, coupled with this quote:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 15): �We could achieve this with the existing gear using larger wheels and tyres without running into ACN [runway weight loading] problems,�
should cover the increase in weight. Good to see Airbus is reacting.
BoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1588 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10187 times:
But the biggest problem for the A350 still lies in the fuselage width. This alone will prove to be a problem even after new models are introduced.
Again, I don't seem to understand Airbus' reluctance to go all new design for the A350. I believe if Airbus were to do this they would for sure have a wider fuselage to better compete with the 777/787.
N328KF From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10120 times:
Quoting Kappel (Reply 16): should cover the increase in weight. Good to see Airbus is reacting.
Not really. The whole story of the A350 has been "react, react, react." They should be proactive, and get Boeing to react for a chance.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10042 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): 265t TO weight is still less than a A343 (275t), maybe they can just use the center gear of the A343, its likely to be only a minor problem for them to sort out
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 15): Shortly after the A350 was launched, Airbus stated that they were "beefing up" the undercarriage to cope with higher weight variants.
Quite correct. I'd also assert that 2 "beefed up" gear are both lighter and less complex than 3 "lesser" gear.
Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 17): Again, I don't seem to understand Airbus' reluctance to go all new design for the A350.
After all this, me neither
Actually, I tell a lie. The whole widebody manufacturing process is geared to this X-section, and it saves Airbus a LOT of money in production costs, and particularly tooling. Those profits don't come from nowhere .
There is a big cost to exit for Airbus on this issue,
BUT............... there comes the day........
(and maybe it's already here...)
A
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10694 posts, RR: 100 Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9992 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12): The GP7000 has nearly 10% higher SFC than the GEnx. About 0.561 vs 0.515. A GP7000 reworked for the A350 would probably be somewhat lower than 0.561 but I doubt they would get down to 0.515 and still be able to recoup development costs.
True. But by the Alliance contract, GE has their hands tied on the GenX at those thrust levels. Bwaaa haa haa.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7): Could that be considered an advantage for RR if they are (as some say) "growing" the T1700 to these levels?
Unless the Alliance agrees to develop a contra-rotating F119/GenX derived engine.
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 11): How will this affect Airbus plans for a A340 enhanced? In my opinion stretching and making the A350 more powerful seems like a much better idea IMO.
This and the 787-10 in reality kills what is left of the space the A340E would compete in. If its possible to do an aircraft with two engines, its just not economical to compete with another 8 to 10 tons of weight that a four engine design must carry about.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9992 times:
Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 17): Again, I don't seem to understand Airbus' reluctance to go all new design for the A350. I believe if Airbus were to do this they would for sure have a wider fuselage to better compete with the 777/787.
If they go for an all new design, they end up spending $10 billion or more, push EIS back even further, and lose any manufacturing commonality advantage. Moreover, the refresh of the entire product line from the 250 to 350 pax market will take even longer. And they probably lose type rating commonality if they still have it at this point. Plus they limit their ability to respond to Boeing moves in other categories. And they consume resources that might want to deploy on the A320 replacement and A389.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
PlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9946 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 15): Shortly after the A350 was launched, Airbus stated that they were "beefing up" the undercarriage to cope with higher weight variants.
I think Airbus hinted at this almost from the beginning with the original A350 proposal. This aircraft really should have enough growth to cover most of the A340 market as others have said.
Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 17): Again, I don't seem to understand Airbus' reluctance to go all new design for the A350. I believe if Airbus were to do this they would for sure have a wider fuselage to better compete with the 777/787.
In my opinion, modifying the A300 fuselage specification would require very extensive and costly retooling of the entire Airbus manufacturing and deliver process. Such costs, time and disruption would then need to be absorbed by the A350 program. I don't see that happening.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9946 times:
Good to see GE and RR working up higher thrust engines. Now perhaps this will enable the 787-10 to be launched with EK as a result of Airbus action, since the only thing stopping the -10 was the need for larger engines.
A good example of Boeing being able to take full advantage of a new Airbus developement.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9893 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 18): Not really. The whole story of the A350 has been "react, react, react." They should be proactive, and get Boeing to react for a chance.
They were proactive, and Boeing reacted with the higher MTOW 787-9 and 787-10X. Now they are reacting back.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 20): True. But by the Alliance contract, GE has their hands tied on the GenX at those thrust levels. Bwaaa haa haa.
Really? I hadn't heard that here before... So how is GE restricted?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
25 TinkerBelle: There was also a rumor that they were seriously looking at the 777. Heck, the rumor said they even sent ther pilots to Seattle to check it out. Don't
26 KLMcedric: It's my understanding that the 787-10 IS a reaction on Boeing's behalf to counter the A359. A359HGW is a further reaction against 787-10! Correct me
27 Killjoy: I wonder if this affected Finnair's decision to go with RR. GE should have been the clear favorite. Perhaps Airbus already has a customer for the new
28 BoeingBus: Yes, retooling is expensive but you need to offer what airlines want and additionaly you need to void your competitors advantages. Simple as that. Lo
29 Killjoy: What load was the 787-9 wing optimized for, btw? How much can Boeing stretch it before modifications are needed? If they reach the limit before Airbu
30 Zvezda: Lightsaber! Welcome to my RU list! I should have added you some time ago. It's more complex than that. Boeing extended the B787's wingspan back in 200
31 BlueSky1976: IMO they are doing the right thing. Even though the 2+4+2 in A350 will not have as much seat width as 2+4+2 in 787, given the fact that 80% of 787 or
32 PM: Interesting indeed. It means that GE must 'share' this part of the programme (and also, of course, share the cost of development) with PW. Perhaps mo
33 FlyDreamliner: A new wing like the one being developed for A346E? Why not kill the A346E (since the A340 is basically on life support already) and use the 246ft Li-
34 N328KF: Think about where Boeing's going next. Likely, the next move is Y1/737RS, which is downmarket. After that, they will go upmarket to the Y3. The Y3 is
35 Johnny: Hmm, GP7000 Engines..? That could be an advantage in combined A380/A350 sales campaigns. The extra 20to TOW would create a real A 340-500 and B777-200
36 DfwRevolution: Question: Circa 1999, I vaguely recall the GP7000 has trade restrictions that, for the time being, only allow application on the A380 and 747-X. Am I
37 Gigneil: Not really... the A340E would have been primarily an A340-600E, and this doesn't come close to responding to that. N
38 Aerokiwi: And still airbus has nothing in the 200-250 seat medium haul range of aircraft. Aren't they focusing on the wrong end of the market here?
39 N328KF: Well, Airbus positioned the A350 "between" the 777 and 787, so it competes with the low end of the former and the high end of the latter. I personall
40 Aircellist: Hum... I would gladly like to hear more from you, about that subject. Why would they loose rating commonality? Don't they already have cross-crew qua
41 Zvezda: The B787 wing will support a MTOW up to about 600,000 lbs, perhaps a bit more.
42 Shenzhen: Having a commone type rating, like the 737 minor models has is a lot different then cross crew qualification or mixed fleet flying, where the pilot h
43 FlyDreamliner: Anyone ever stop to considder Airbus just leaks they're studying a heavier A350-900 (which may or may not even make sense) to cool or delay orders fo
44 Astuteman: But perhaps not as much of an advantage as newer and more efficient Trent 1700's applied to both the A350 and A380..... (Which of course RR can do wi
45 Manni: That would make a lot of sense, if, with this in mind Airbus 'leaked' this information. Not? Airbus would be stupid not to tell airlines, what they i
46 Atmx2000: Yes, but I'm sure Boeing is happier with any delay to the A359 program, which increases the likelihood that Boeing will finish the -9 and -3 and get
47 OyKIE: Maybe they end up not buying anything ever, because they will always wait for that next model to arrive. Almost the same problems I faces with comput
48 Kappel: Has this been confirmed by Airbus? I can find nothing of the kind on their website. In fact, the a350 portal still states 2010 as EIS. The 2011 has b
49 OyKIE: AviationWeek quotes someone from Airbus when they states EIS late 2010 or early 2011. I don't have the copy at hand here, but I will come back with t
50 FlyDreamliner: My point was, what if they leaked this information - just to delay and cool 787-10 sales, and no such "heavier" A350-900 exists? Maybe they are just
51 Trex8: maybe it will but just as Boeing may want to see the 787-10 kill the 772ER rather than an Airbus product, Airbus would rather have its A350-9HGW kill
52 Art: Does it matter if you kill off one of your own products by developing another that is more attractive? Better than the competition picking up the pro
53 Zvezda: Not exactly. Boeing would like to (and almost certainly will) freeze the B787-10 design only after the B787-8 enteres flight testing.
54 Atmx2000: No, I think Boeing would really only want to commit to anything more after the 787 enters flight testing.
55 OldAeroGuy: The A345HGW appears to be dead already. The 772LR has done an effective job of killing it off.
56 OyKIE: Aviation Week, March 13th "Configuration changes already have forced Airbus to delay the in-service date of the aircraft by several months. It now is
57 N328KF: So now we have the two leading industry publications reporting on this delay, despite protestations from Airbus. What's next...Noel saying "2011" and
58 FlyDreamliner: How many A340-500's did they sell? Hardly any. It's only been on the market a few years. It would be like Boeing next year announcing a 787-11 to rep
59 Astuteman: What's next? Probably the A350 programme chief engineer telling us exactly what's happening....... Quote:- "Hunter confirms that the A350 programme h
60 N328KF: The difference here is that the 777-200LR shares nearly all of its development costs with the -300ER and 777F, neither of which can be replaced as re
61 Trex8: well maybe they won't need to put GP7000s on it, check out the story about the GEnX putting out 80500lb thrust on its first run. http://www.defense-ae
62 Astuteman: " target=_blank>http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...dc_34 IIRC the Trent 900 made 88 000 lb on its first run. Doesn't necessarily mean much. A
63 Zvezda: The B787-10 design is already slightly larger than the B777-200LR. A B787-11X, if produced, would be slightly larger than the A340-600 and slightly s
64 OyKIE: Isn't the reason why they do this to see how far they can push the engine design? So that in the future, when the 787-10 is launched they can just up
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6801 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6107 posts, 
From Greece, joined May 2005, 719 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2576 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
, 6222 posts, 
Unless the Alliance agrees to develop a contra-rotating F119/GenX derived engine. 
Printer friendly format 
