Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FI: Airbus Goes For Extra Width  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8190 times:

Airbus chief salesman John Leahy was like the cat that got the cream at the Farnborough air show when he finally won clearance to unveil the manufacturer's all-new medium-capacity offering - the "A350 Xtra Wide Body [XWB]..."

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...h+Airbus+goes+for+extra+width.html

Fairly nice comparative cabin cross-section illustration in this overview article.

This article appears in FI this week as well:

Farnborough: Cautious welcome for new A350

Airbus's revamped A350 Xtra Wide Body family has been well received by many of the original A350's customers - as well as one key potential buyer - but the manufacturer looks set for some tough negotiations if it is to convince them to pay more for the improved aircraft and to wait up to two or more years longer for their first deliveries...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...utious+welcome+for+new+A350++.html

[Edited 2006-07-24 19:56:54]

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8152 times:

Good article. Early days yet but Airbus seem to have taken at least the first step towards regaining credibility.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8152 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Fairly nice comparative cabin cross-section illustration in this overview article.

Yes, Ive been waiting for this article to appear on the website, its a nice image - wierd shape for the A350XWB! Its not as clear on the website as it is in print, but the upper and lower fuselage look like a less pronounced RAF Nimrod.

Also notable is the loss of the rear end taper  Sad I quite liked that, although it was probably getting impractical.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 905 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8075 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Airbus chief salesman John Leahy was like the cat that got the cream at the Farnborough air show when he finally won clearance to unveil the manufacturer's all-new medium-capacity offering - the "A350 Xtra Wide Body [XWB]..."

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...h+Airbus+goes+for+extra+width.html

Fairly nice comparative cabin cross-section illustration in this overview article.

Thanks for the post. More confirmation that the 900R and F are set for the initial launch. Will be interesting to see how many other airlines are interested.

Cheers.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7797 times:

I notice they compare an eight abreast A350X with a 9 abrest 777.

Quote:
Airbus's plan to push prices up by over 20% because the new A350 is a "much more impressive aircraft" has not been well received by existing customers.

I wonder if they will let these orders go or eat the cost?

[Edited 2006-07-24 22:46:10]

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7691 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):
I notice they compare an eight abreast A350X with a 9 abrest 777.

Is that sort of like comparing "abreast" with "abrest"? You're far too subtle for most of us.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7605 times:

If 350-900R gets less pax than 310 (i.e.250) I don´t see any reason for it not to fly LHR-SYD and back.

Wild guess, but one can hope...

Micke//SWE  wave 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineEridanMan From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7495 times:

Anyone else see the Emb 'double-bubble' in the new 'bus?

Frankly... as long as they can solve the pressurization issues, it seems like the smart idea.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7400 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
s that sort of like comparing "abreast" with "abrest"? You're far too subtle for most of us.

Just a simple typo.

But it's funny that they don't compare apples with apples. Why do you suppose that is?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7367 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 8):
But it's funny that they don't compare apples with apples. Why do you suppose that is?

God knows but I have no doubt that, in your mission to damn Airbus at every opportunity, you'll be quick to tell us. Happily, it won't be your prejudice that counts but the analysis of professionals in places like, oh, Singapore!


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7237 times:

Gee, I point out an obvious truth and you go ballistic!

I sure SQ was not the least bit swayed by that cheesy little Airbus trick--they got a super deal. Compensation, you know...


User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

Quoting BoomBoom

I notice they compare an eight abreast A350X with a 9 abrest 777.


From all the research and posts that I have ran across, I think there are only two airlines that run the B777 in 10 abreast. That would be Emirates and China Airlines (correct me if I'm wrong on this).

The comparison charts shown in the Flight Global Article was excellent. I can't wait to hear what Randy has to say about this.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7152 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 11):
From all the research and posts that I have ran across, I think there are only two airlines that run the B777 in 10 abreast

And your point is what?

Most airlines use 9 across in the 777 and will in the A350X as well.

So the comparison charts shown in the Flight Global Article should have shown 9 across for both models.


User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7133 times:

Hey, regarding the "double bubble" concept, when I look at the "old 350" (o350?) and the A350X the lower section appears to be the same.

Is this possible?? Could they utilize the lower portion of their o350 for the A350X? It seems to me to be a way to save some development cost and be able to utilize some of the tooling. But I don't know much in this area.

I know the cross section's in the article don't really provide a way to definitively answer this but I would like better minds input on this.

Thanks,

Tug

Edited to say: Thanks Dank,reply=14, I am reading the complete article just now.

[Edited 2006-07-25 07:13:44]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 905 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7087 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
Hey, regarding the "double bubble" concept, when I look at the "old 350" (o350?) and the A350X the lower section appears to be the same.

Is this possible?? Could they utilize the lower portion of their o350 for the A350X? It seems to me to be a way to save some development cost and be able to utilize some of the tooling. But I don't know much in this area.

I know the cross section's in the article don't really provide a way to definitively answer this but I would like better minds input on this.

Thanks,

Tug

From said article:

"For the first time in a twin-aisle Airbus, the fuselage will be a double-lobe ovoid design, with the lower section being essentially the same as the A300/A330/A340 and sized to accommodate two standard LD-3 containers side-by-side."

So, it will be quite similar. Whether the engineering from the old 350 translates to the new one is unclear.

Cheers.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7033 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
So the comparison charts shown in the Flight Global Article should have shown 9 across for both models.

Yes, i would have thought they would show 9Y for the 787, 350 and 777 to show how good the 350 is. Problem is, 777 would look roomier. But so what? It's also heavier, 20 years old (by 2013) and far less efficient.

Showing the 8Y 350 shows how impractical it will be for carriers to even consider 8Y. Too luxurious. But it will be a great plane in 9Y and 8Y+.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7029 times:

BoomBoom my point is, the B777 is designed for 9 abreast but can fit 10 abreast. However majority of airlines use it for what it was designed for. The A350XWB is designed as an 8 abreast but can fit 9 abreast. Using the same logic, most airlines will probably configure it for 8 abreast. That is the only basis I have. What basis do you have that most airlines will cram 9 abreast into the A350XWB?

User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7002 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 16):
What basis do you have that most airlines will cram 9 abreast into the A350XWB?

Because that was the whole point of scrapping the old A350 and introducing the wider fuselage A350X--to allow for 9 across seating.

Also 2/3 of airlines ordering the 787 are planning 9 across. There is no way the A350 will be competitive with only 8, given it will be heavier--since it lacks a CRFP fuselage.

What basis do you have that most airlines will use only 8 abreast into the A350XWB?


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10029 posts, RR: 96
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Fairly nice comparative cabin cross-section illustration in this overview article.

Thanks for the link again, Leelaw. The hard copy article also carries a handy little specification comparison table between the A350X, 787, and 777 family members (and also confirms seating numbers are 9-abreast...).

(separate subject - have you managed to find a linkt to the "GEnx offered for future A330s" article yet?)

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):
I wonder if they will let these orders go or eat the cost?

Don't know for certain, but comments by the airlines that have committed, like Finnair, indicate that there is an element of "cost-eating" going on.
Don't suppose Airbus have many choices.
Still, it's amazing how many cost improvements can be delivered in 6 years to restore profitability....  biggrin 

Quoting EridanMan (Reply 7):
Anyone else see the Emb 'double-bubble' in the new 'bus?

Me too

Regards


User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6846 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 17):
Also 2/3 of airlines ordering the 787 are planning 9 across

I've also read and seen this. Is there a list of these airlines?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6786 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
Showing the 8Y 350 shows how impractical it will be for carriers to even consider 8Y. Too luxurious. But it will be a great plane in 9Y and 8Y+.

I'm not sure based on the cross section. It looks like the height is less than the 787, which may make the area similar, but I really can't tell from the FI diagram. The cross sectional area combined with OEW/length will determine whether 8Y is economical or not.

The shape seems a bit odd, and given that it must have a larger radius at some points along the structure due to the larger diameter, it will require more reinforcing. The 787 is composed of two circular arcs, one of a radius below that of the A300 for the lower section, and a 113" radius upper lobe.

The question would be whether that reinforcing plus the additional material required to cover the larger fuselage will result in a significant weight increase over the old A350, or whether a clean sheet design allows them to optimize weight.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10029 posts, RR: 96
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6724 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 20):
The shape seems a bit odd, and given that it must have a larger radius at some points along the structure due to the larger diameter, it will require more reinforcing. The 787 is composed of two circular arcs, one of a radius below that of the A300 for the lower section, and a 113" radius upper lobe.

Looking at the diagrams (particularly in the hard-copy FI magazine, where they are VERY clear) , I perceive the converse to be true.
The A350X is quite simply "double-bubble" - i.e. a larger diameter circle, sitting on a smaller diameter one. The interface between the two circles quite clearly occurs at the deck line, thus allowing an existing structure to provide the necessary reinforcement.
Very sensible  checkmark 

OTOH, from the diagrams, the 787 looks to me like a "pure" ovoid.

Regards


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 8):
But it's funny that they don't compare apples with apples. Why do you suppose that is?

You'd have to ask FI seeing as the article and diagram is theirs and not Airbus's. Good try though.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 10):
I sure SQ was not the least bit swayed by that cheesy little Airbus trick--they got a super deal. Compensation, you know...

So you think Airbus has just paid SQ for the delays to the A380 by giving them 48 widebodies? rotfl 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6003 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 21):
OTOH, from the diagrams, the 787 looks to me like a "pure" ovoid.

Big version: Width: 720 Height: 540 File size: 81kb
Annotated widebodyphotog's 787 cross section diagram


If widebodyphotog cross section is diagram, and my playing around in powerpoint is accurate, the 787 is composed of two circular arcs.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 21):
The A350X is quite simply "double-bubble" - i.e. a larger diameter circle, sitting on a smaller diameter one. The interface between the two circles quite clearly occurs at the deck line, thus allowing an existing structure to provide the necessary reinforcement.

Looking at the electronic edition picture, my feeling is that top section is ovoid and squished vertically, as the distance from the top of the fuselage to the level of the widest point of the fuselage appears to be less than half of the fuselage width. The curvature is greater at the sides than at the top. I don't think the new A350 will get the benefit of the full width increase as a result of that, maybe 5" to 6". Scratch that - they say they only get 8cm of benefit over the 787 despite a 19cm increase, which seems pretty inefficient. That is like due to the high curvature at the sides. It seems to me that the 9 abreast seats will have seat bottoms around 17.6", and not the 18" I expected. On the other hand in 8Y they ought to have greater than 19" seats, though they only quote 48cm or ~18.9".

The numbers they are quoting for capacity don't make sense unless they are for 9 abreast. A 64m A359 (I believe that is the length) isn't likely to have enough cabin length to fit 310 passengers with 8Y if a 64m 772ER can't do so with 9Y, unless Airbus is quoting a high mix of economy passengers, or unless the cabin is a lot longer than I expect.

If the height is about the same, then the cross sectional area is greater for the new A350. Unless they get significant weight savings from a new design and new construction techniques they will end up with a higher weight for the A350.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5903 times:

The comparison chart is to illustrate the new A350 vs the old A350 / A330 / A340. Therefore it's 8 seats across. The 787 / 777 cross-sections are added as a reference.

25 Post contains images Astuteman : Certainly won't pick a fight with you over the 787.......... I'm pretty sure the A350X is a simple double-bubble According to FI, the numbers ARE for
26 Atmx2000 : The article is calling it a double lobe ovoid design. I don't think using the upper end of the range Boeing gave is accurate if a specific configurat
27 Post contains images Astuteman : FWIW, I posted the numbers as I expected you to have an informed commentary as to what they signified. Many thanks for responding as such (thumbsup).
28 MotorHussy : Well it all sounds like good news for airlines and the flying public. Regards MH
29 Zvezda : I think it's a great shape. It's aesthetically pleasing from both a visual and an engineering perspective. I would certainly expect Airbus to honour
30 Leelaw : Ah, now I understand your earlier remark, forgive my boneheaded IM this morning.
31 Ikramerica : Let's fix this a bit to reflect the typical manufacturer numbers and put them in order of size: 787-8º (LR) 187 787-8 224 787-8† (9Y) 237 787-9 260
32 Antares : Gentlemen, I have the scaled drawings of typical 787 configurations Boeing has sent to the airports of the world. The 787 in -3 and -8 is shown as 317
33 Post contains links BoomBoom : What is your source for this? What is the width of an A320 seat anyway? Doesn't it vary from airline to airline? Northwest uses a 17.2" seat. I've re
34 Atmx2000 : If widebodyphotog's cross section diagram is accurate, the top lobe does not have a varying radius, while the bottom lobe does near the floor to allo
35 Antares : Boom boom, That's all true. The 777 cross section is terrific but as I said, under threat from a changed world. You may have noticed that the indicati
36 BoomBoom : How many airlines actually use this?
37 Zvezda : As far as I know, EK and TG are with only airlines with B777s configured 10 abreast.
38 Antares : To Australia Emirates and China Southern. In the pipeline according to the retail trade are Asiana, All Nippon and Japan Airlines. Reminds me of the p
39 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Funny, but these cabin layouts for the 772LR at 301 pax sure look like they have 9 A/B in Y class http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_se
40 Antares : Feeble eyesight. But thank goodness. Can you imagine 20 hours in a 777-200LR in ten abreast...seated next to me....
41 OldAeroGuy : I'm sure it would be a lot of fun.
42 MotorHussy : I just had 4 hrs from APW to AKL with a New Zealand Government Minister snoring on my shoulder on an A320. 20 hrs with you at 10 abreast on a T7 give
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...
EasyJet Goes For Airbus! posted Sat Oct 18 2003 23:07:35 by MD11Lover
Airbus Blamed For Poor French Economic Growth! posted Fri Nov 17 2006 04:18:56 by OU812
FI: Airbus To Ask Board To Approve A350 XWB posted Mon Oct 23 2006 10:21:23 by Leelaw
Airbus Orders For This Year? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 11:28:22 by RootsAir
FI: NW Poised For Big E175 Order. posted Wed Sep 20 2006 02:13:12 by Remcor
FI-Airbus Fight To Hold A380 Certification Schedul posted Mon Sep 18 2006 15:21:21 by Astuteman
Another Chinese 787 Goes For GEnx posted Fri Sep 15 2006 23:08:01 by NDSchu777
Pilot Goes For Xtra Flaps Seconds Before Landing posted Thu Sep 14 2006 16:27:53 by Danild
Airbus Orders For July posted Tue Aug 8 2006 20:02:56 by Flying-Tiger
FI: Airbus Offers Emirates A350/A380 Mix In Place posted Tue Aug 1 2006 07:29:24 by Atmx2000