Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350XWB Technical Specifications  
User currently offlineBOEING747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5387 times:

I would like to know all the technical specifications of the A350XWB and relevant comparisons with other aircrafts of similar size. Thanks.

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

You'll have to wait for Airbus to release them and even the airlines don't really know yet. All that was released was a great fanfare, telling us range, pax capacity and engine thrusts and that the cabin would be a few inches wider than the 787's.
Now Airbus has to come good on their promises with some real data to prove it is a step beyond the 787 and a leap beyond the 777.
I'll remain sceptical until I see the data, as Mr Leahy was telling all that the previous incarnation of the A350 was also a world beater. It proved to be a bit less than that.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3596 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

Obviously the prople at SQ have been given specifications and performance guarantees. Can we tap a leak to find out what these spec and guarantees are?

I just seems weird to have a "phantom" plane receiving orders (and by phantom, I mean that the specifications are not public information).


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

What Airbus has shared so far with the airlines as some preliminary performance specifications (payload, range, fuel burn, etc.) which are guaranteed as part of the sales contract. Detailed specs (empty weight, MTOW, etc.) will not be available until few months from now.

The performance guarantess that Airbus (or Boeing) shares with customers so early in the game are estimates and consequently involve a calculated risk - they don't have all the numbers in hand, but they are pretty confident that they will be able to achieve them based on current state-of-the-art technologies. Most of the time, the manufacturers get them right, in few but notorious ocassions performance specs have been missed (positively or negatively).


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4862 times:

SQ have said that the fuse diameter of the XWB is 11 inches more than the original A350. I have put together a comparison:

FUSELAGE DIAMETERS OF TWIN ENGINE WIDEBODIES (increasing order)

B767
192 inches
5.03 m

A350 (original) same as A330/A340
222 inches
5.64 m

B787
226 inches
5.74 m

A350XWB
233 inches
5.92 m

B777
244 inches
6.19 m

Note that the A350XWB fuse diameter is exactly in the middle of A330 and B777.

TW



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4845 times:

So how can an airline like SQ order an airplane they know nothing about?


One Nation Under God
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

XWB in not so widebody as advertised it actually lags 777, like 737 lags A320

User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 4):
Note that the A350XWB fuse diameter is exactly in the middle of A330 and B777.

To quote Katekebo "What Airbus has shared so far with the airlines as some preliminary performance specifications (payload, range, fuel burn, etc.) which are guaranteed as part of the sales contract."


all that fuss about 4 inches !!!! (the differance between the old A350 and the 787)


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 7):
all that fuss about 4 inches !!!! (the differance between the old A350 and the 787)

Th extra 11 inches can be used for 1 inch wider seats in economy, and 1 inch wider aisle (1" x 9 seats + 1" x 2 aisles = 11 inches), or use even narrower seats and add in an extra seat span wise for 10 abreast (my guess?).

TW



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4487 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 8):
Th extra 11 inches can be used for 1 inch wider seats in economy, and 1 inch wider aisle (1" x 9 seats + 1" x 2 aisles = 11 inches), or use even narrower seats and add in an extra seat span wise for 10 abreast (my guess?).

The gain will be more than 11". The cabin floor will move below the widest part of the fuselage, allowing a much larger gain in cabin width. I think it will be close to 18-20", which will allow Airbus to make 9Y standard. It is unlikely anyone will put 8Y in the aircraft except in a premium economy format.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 9):
The gain will be more than 11". The cabin floor will move below the widest part of the fuselage, allowing a much larger gain in cabin width. I think it will be close to 18-20", which will allow Airbus to make 9Y standard.

OK, so that means: 9 abreast standard and 10 high density? And lowering the floor to gain (over and beyond the 11") and additional 7"-9" floor width will still make the cargo hold a dream for SQ?

Let's wait and see for the specs. As of today, the Airbus website still has the old A350 Mark IV specs (not the XWB) and has only motherhood type of words with virtually no numbers (specs, performance, etc.) on what SQ signed the LOI for. Certainly some dimensions, weights, etc were made available to SQ, but perhaps Airbus is trying to keep it away from Boeing's marketing army.

TW



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4360 times:

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 6):
XWB in not so widebody as advertised it actually lags 777

Good point. If we are talking about XWB for twin engines, then the A50XWB is not more X-tra W-ide B-ody than the 777. I guess Airbus came up with the term to tell customers that we are listening to your demand of wanting a wider cabin than the A330/A340/A350 Mark IV



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 7):
all that fuss about 4 inches !!!! (the differance between the old A350 and the 787)

Again, someone who doesn't understand the nature of cross sections, interior width, non-circular fuselages, and still likes to spout off nonsense.

The 787 was more than 4 inches wider when it came to putting seats in. Depending on who you listen to, it was on the order of 12 inches of usable width. Others say it was 9 or so. But either way, that turned the really tight 9Y you can fit into an A330 in tourist config, to a functional 9Y in the 787.

By increasing the ROUND fuselage of the 350 to 333in, they are claiming to get 3in more than the 787, but we haven't seen all the cross sections yet. Those 3 inches can mean 17.5 or 17.6" seats on the 9Y 350, still not class leading (777 is more comfortable), but more efficient.

That's all that matters.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNitrohelper From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 469 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Did SQ order the the 350xyz, or was it a "deal" made by Airbus to offset the SQ damages for late delivery? If BMW gives me a car for their mistakes, I wouldn't worry about the specs when they are giving it. If I don't like the operating costs I can sell to someone else for a reduced price.
This method would get a "launch" for the Bus Boys ,and avoid legal action in public!
I would guess the price for the additional WhaleJets didn't have much profit either?


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

AIRBUS A350 XWB-900: KEY FACTS AND FIGURES
Seating: up to 314 passengers
(In manufacturer three class configuration)
subject to operator configuration
Range: 8,500 nautical miles
(15,700 kilometres)
Configuration: Twin aisle
Cross Section: 591 centimetres
(233 inches)
Wingspan: 64 metres
(210 feet)
Length: 64 metres
(210 feet)
Height: 17 metres
(56 feet)
Cruise Speed: Mach 0.85
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 265,000 kilograms (584,200 pounds)
Program Milestones: Entry into service in 2012



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

Quoting Nitrohelper (Reply 13):
Did SQ order the the 350xyz, or was it a "deal" made by Airbus to offset the SQ damages for late delivery?

Wait and see if SQ makes any further noise about compensation.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3745 times:

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 1):
You'll have to wait for Airbus to release them and even the airlines don't really know yet. All that was released was a great fanfare, telling us range, pax capacity and engine thrusts and that the cabin would be a few inches wider than the 787's.
Now Airbus has to come good on their promises with some real data to prove it is a step beyond the 787 and a leap beyond the 777.

 checkmark  Leahy is slick there is no doubt about that but his sales pitch carries Airbus's sagging credibility with it and they have to come up with the goods.

The real winner here is SQ. Airbus have been in a desperate situation to gain credibility in their woeful response to 787. SQ cultivated the perfect oppurtunity to obtain more A380 and A350XWB at a price that would shock michael Oleary of RyanAir. This is a smart move on Airbus's (Leahy) part but you can bet with its locked in with watertight performance guarantees and at a price that will have Airbus battling technical and financial problems trying to build the promised jet. I say good luck to them but based on current(A343/A345/6) form SQ are set to make plenty out of performance contracts.

I suspect the real problem Airbus has is clearly defined in the quote below....

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 1):
I'll remain sceptical until I see the data, as Mr Leahy was telling all that the previous incarnation of the A350 was also a world beater. It proved to be a bit less than that.

10 Billion to recover and I bet these 20 A350 will contribute nothing to recovering investment  scratchchin  but it does give the programme some credibilty. Can the Engineering department match Leahys mouth....I'm with 2wingstips and remain a little sceptical until proven otherwise....


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3643 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):
So how can an airline like SQ order an airplane they know nothing about?

It isn't an order at the moment, it's a 'Memo. of Understanding'. Presumably it says, in terms, that Airbus believe that they can produce an aeroplane with a given performance and SIA has indicated that if Airbus can, they will buy it. Not legally binding on either side.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
It isn't an order at the moment, it's a 'Memo. of Understanding'. Presumably it says, in terms, that Airbus believe that they can produce an aeroplane with a given performance and SIA has indicated that if Airbus can, they will buy it. Not legally binding on either side.

What I find really strange is that SQ say they are happy with the technical specifications and performance guarantees offered by Airbus for the 350XWB, whereas ILFC and EK were quoted at Farnborough this week as saying they thought the 350XWB looked good on paper but needed to see more details before they could make a decision. EK require another 6-12 months to make a decision and they know a fair bit about the 787-10. So, how do SQ get to know all these details at the expense of all others? And ILFC/EK are premium Airbus customers that called for a new 350.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Presumably all the airlines are saying exactly the same to both Boeing and Airbus. "We like the look of your proposed aeroplane on paper, and if it turns out to be as good in reality as it is in theory, we will actively consider buying it."

The only difference between SIA and the others appears to be that SIA has put the thought on paper (in the form of a non-binding 'commitment') instead of just saying it.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25567 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 18):
And ILFC/EK are premium Airbus customers that called for a new 350.

And got trumped by the quiet - classier? - SQ.

I would suspect there is some residual bitterness at Airbus towards Mr. U-H for going public the way he did, and EK's Mr. Clark clearly sees no value in the unexpressed thought.

But what can they say now - that SQ is wrong?

 Smile

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6903 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3225 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):
So how can an airline like SQ order an airplane they know nothing about?

Most likely SQ knows a bit more about the planes than we do.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 15):
Wait and see if SQ makes any further noise about compensation.

Compensation or not, SQ wouldn't accept an aircraft that lacks performance.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 16):
SQ cultivated the perfect oppurtunity to obtain more A380 and A350XWB at a price that would shock michael Oleary of RyanAir.

How do you know that?

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 16):
10 Billion to recover and I bet these 20 A350 will contribute nothing to recovering investment scratchchin but it does give the programme some credibilty.

Not just "some", as SQ is a key "blue chip" customer.


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineBOEING747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

What about powerplant specifications? I would assume between that of A330 and B777 like 75,000-85,000 lbs. thrust per engine but do not know exactly.

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12804 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Nitrohelper (Reply 13):
Did SQ order the the 350xyz, or was it a "deal" made by Airbus to offset the SQ damages for late delivery?

Yes, Airbus gave SQ 48 widebodies because of the A380 delay. sarcastic 

Quoting Nitrohelper (Reply 13):
I would guess the price for the additional WhaleJets didn't have much profit either?

Well it wouldn't would it, because Airbus gives it's planes away. banghead 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12804 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
It isn't an order at the moment, it's a 'Memo. of Understanding'.

Indeed, but just in case you missed it, SQ's "order" for 787s is still only an LOI.

http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...any_info/press_release/NE_2606.jsp



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
25 2wingtips : And weren't SQ just as public about their discontent with the earlier A350? I could have sworn they were told by SQ to go and develop a better, more
26 Post contains images Nitrohelper : I said a "deal" not free ,and small profits. Does the truth hurt ? When I buy 20 trucks for my construction business ,I work over the dealers by the
27 Post contains images Scbriml : Since when was one a.netter's opinion the truth? The fact is, unless you brokered the deal you have no idea how much or little SQ paid for their plan
28 Nitrohelper : [quote=Scbriml,reply=27]Thanks for the lesson on bulk buying. I'll remember that the next time I need to buy trucks. Not a problem, glad I could help
29 Khobar : SQ will buy whatever aircraft are the most profitable in the long run, and if Airbus offers compensation to achieve that goal, why would SQ not go fo
30 Post contains images Mariner : You may be correct, I don't remember reading that. I do remember a lot of claims by other people about SQ being dis-satisfied with A350, but most of
31 Post contains images Halls120 : I believe they signed a Letter of Intent, not a firm order. To some, that's all that matters. I'd gladly give up seat width in exchange for more legr
32 Scbriml : It was an MOU. Their 787 "order" is a LOI.
33 Halls120 : I stand corrected, thanks. Neither an MOU or LOI are firm orders of course, so who knows what will happen - other than SIA using the competition betw
34 TVNWZ : They could, but most likely will say, we hope you can deliver but we shall see. Classier or not, I guarantee you that Airbus is way more interested i
35 Post contains images 787engineer : So has or will A count this on their July order totals? I'll have to check at the end of the month. Absolutely, what's surprising is that SQ has enou
36 Post contains images Calags : I think that SQ likes the current specifications of the 350XWB and think that it will fit some part of their market. Similarly, they seem to like the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FI:Launch Of A350XWB Program Delayed. posted Fri Nov 24 2006 13:59:14 by USAF336TFS
Randy's Blog... Lots About The A350XWB And Airbus posted Wed Nov 22 2006 20:50:38 by BoeingBus
AF/KLM:1 Common Choice : 787 Or A350XWB posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:39:44 by FCKC
If You Could Meet The Head Of Technical Operations posted Thu Nov 9 2006 05:06:50 by HPAEAA
A350XWB, Forced To Go Bleedless? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 12:13:09 by AirSpare
Egyptair's New B738 Specifications posted Wed Oct 4 2006 23:44:33 by MSYYZ
A350XWB Launch Aid At Risk Due To A380 Fiasco? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 11:53:17 by Art
Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 07:20:20 by 2wingtips
380 Testflight Quit: Technical Issues posted Tue Aug 29 2006 12:46:51 by Macc
Flug Revie Article On A350XWB posted Tue Aug 22 2006 18:11:29 by Joni