2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14872 times:
Just doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789, because both are listed with a MTOW of 245t.
What is not known is the fuselage length of the 358, but the 359 is 64m, so I would hedge it would be 59-60m.
787-9 A350-800XWB
Length 64m 59-60m?
MTOW 245t 245t
range 8600-8800nm 8500nm
pax 250-290 270
thrust engines 2x 68klb 2x 75klb
I know not a lot is known about the 350XWB family as yet, but a basic comparison of the above 2 models reveals that the 789 is a longer plane that flies more pax over a greater distance using lower thrust engines. And they both weigh the same. Looks good for the 789 to my untrained eyes.
The 783/8 markets are pretty much untouched by the new XWB family and if the 787-10 can do to the 359XWB, what the 789 appears to do to the 358XWB, then I have to seriously question Airbus' promotion that the 350XWB family is a step ahead of the 787. On what grounds?
When will Airbus be technically proficient enough to go with a civil composite fuselage?
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18407 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14845 times:
Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter): I know not a lot is known about the 350XWB family as yet, but a basic comparison of the above 2 models reveals that the 789 is a longer plane that flies more pax over a greater distance using lower thrust engines. And they both weigh the same. Looks good for the 789 to my untrained eyes.
So either Airbus has new super aerodynamics up their sleeve, or are counting on the engines in 2012 being much more efficient than the engines in 2010 (789 EIS). Considering the 358 is the "base" model and the 789 is the "first stretch" it's even more interesting that Airbus claims the plane has better performance...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Baron95 From United States, joined May 2006, 1334 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14815 times:
Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter): 350XWB family is a step ahead of the 787. On what grounds?
I think you just answered your own question. Based on the sketchy info that Airbus released on a plane that is not on offer, the 358XWB will seat about the same number of pax as the 789, will have slightly less range, same MTOW, and yet require 10% more engine thrust.
Good luck to Airbus trying to match the 789 in efficiency. It is just not credible.
Dank From United States, joined Jul 2006, 793 posts, RR: 24 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14815 times:
Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter): Just doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789, because both are listed with a MTOW of 245t.
What is not known is the fuselage length of the 358, but the 359 is 64m, so I would hedge it would be 59-60m.
787-9 A350-800XWB
Length 64m 59-60m?
MTOW 245t 245t
range 8600-8800nm 8500nm
pax 250-290 270
thrust engines 2x 68klb 2x 75klb
I know not a lot is known about the 350XWB family as yet, but a basic comparison of the above 2 models reveals that the 789 is a longer plane that flies more pax over a greater distance using lower thrust engines. And they both weigh the same. Looks good for the 789 to my untrained eyes.
The 783/8 markets are pretty much untouched by the new XWB family and if the 787-10 can do to the 359XWB, what the 789 appears to do to the 358XWB, then I have to seriously question Airbus' promotion that the 350XWB family is a step ahead of the 787. On what grounds?
When will Airbus be technically proficient enough to go with a civil composite fuselage?
I think the seating numbers are a bit off because the airbus numbers is 3-class and the higher end for the boeing numbers are for a denser layout. that said, I think the 358 is going to be the poorest performer of the 350 family and the 789 being the best performer. More to the point, I don't think that can really say anything better until we see more details from Airbus.
As for the 787-10 vs. the 359. we'll have to wait a bit to see how Boeing deals with the new competition. As it stands now, the proposed 787-10 was supposed to have the same MTOW as the 787-9. Right off the bat, you then know that they are trading off range for more capacity. It depends on what the engine manufacturers are willing to give Boeing to play with along with how Boeing modifies the design of the fuselage and wings to accomodate these changes (fuel tanks, modified landing gear, modified wings, etc.).
As for the composite thing. I don't think that weight is the great benefit of carbon fiber vs. other advanced materials like AlLi, but rather the advances in manufacturing that it will allow.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18407 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 14553 times:
Quoting Dank (Reply 3): I think the seating numbers are a bit off because the airbus numbers is 3-class and the higher end for the boeing numbers are for a denser layout.
Both will hold 270 in a typical 3-class configuration with 9Y.
The 789 has a theoretical range of 8700nm in that configuration.
The whole thrust issue has to do with the wing designs. Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.
At least that's how I understand it. So that might be where the efficiency comes? The longer the flight, the balance shifts from the 789 to the 358?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 14401 times:
Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter): When will Airbus be technically proficient enough to go with a civil composite fuselage?
We're comparing two planes neither of which has left the ground yet! But we must be careful on Anet just to assume that because a plane does or doesn't have a particular feature (in this case the comp fuse) it's amazing or rubbish - designing planes is not a "ticking boxes" exercise otherwise it'd be very easy to design them!
I like Ikramerica's theory - which shows comparing planes is not a simple exercise!
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4701 posts, RR: 65 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14292 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): The whole thrust issue has to do with the wing designs. Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.
My personal observation is the opposite is true, the 320 and later aircraft have very good runway performance. I dont know much about pre 320 aircraft so I cannot comment.
The 350 is a paper aeroplane, it does nothing at the moment, just like the 787. Get them flying and you start getting some useful comparisons.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7477 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14226 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): The 350 is a paper aeroplane, it does nothing at the moment, just like the 787.
Well, almost. At this point, both can be considered "paper airplanes", and that is true. Both have "flown" in computer programs that can tell a lot about perfromance, in all aspects of flight. But, at this point, the differences begin. The B-787 is a more mature design, and has been frozen. The A-350 is still new, and is still being defined. The B-787 has completed 1,000s of hours of wind tunnel flight tests, the A-350 has not, although it has had a few wind tunnel tests trying to nail down the final configuration.
Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4701 posts, RR: 65 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14168 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7): Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.
Did they ? I thought one engine manufacturer has shot itself in the foot with Boeing, not able to power the 781 due to restrictions in that class for the 777.
RR has had an engine for over 110 k for some time, they designed it for the 773ER. Boeing did not approach RR for that.
Open that door, its good for all.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
EDDB From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14102 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7): Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.
So you suggest that Airbus will invest some money in the higher thrust engines that Boeing can save later on?
How's that?
First of all, the engine makers are the ones who do the investment! If they see a business case for an engine, they spend some money and develop it!
Second, if those engines are build anyway sooner or later, what's the advantage or disadvantage for either Airbus or Boeing?
And last but not least, if Airbus is the one coming up with the demand for a specific thrust range for a specific flight profile, the engine is more likely tailormade for them than if you come second and get an engine that has to be adapted to your specific needs...
TP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14050 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7): Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10.
If only was as simple as that... to keep competitive with the 359 the 787-10 will require at the very least wing reinforcement and landing gear redesign,
or else Boeing will end up with a limited range design
EbbUK From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 906 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14015 times:
Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter): Just doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789, because both are listed with a MTOW of 245t.
What is not known is the fuselage length of the 358, but the 359 is 64m, so I would hedge it would be 59-60m.
787-9 A350-800XWB
Sorry just explain to me why you are comparing the 789 with the 358XWB? I might have missed something here. I thought it was 8s for 8s 9s for 9s and 1000s for 1000s plus, for Airbus, for 773ER combined?
Also what is your definition of "a step above"? Is there a figure used by the industry? 5 or 6 per cent improvement seat per seat costs
Since both planes are planned in 3 different versions each, this single question of yours may have at least 3 different answers depending on which versions you want to compare.
Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter): Doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789.
It is widely accepted the A350 is optimised for roughly 300 seats, whereas the 787 is a plane clearly optimized for 250 seats only. This becomes obvious when you look at versions which are larger/smaller than this primal focus point of either plane.
It has already been shown by me and other that at its low end, the 787 is in fact an extremely heavy plane for what it is (compared to the A300-600) and only manages to beat this old lady on operating cost thanks to its much newer engines (so not really a merit to the 787 itself), whereas at the high end the proposed 787-10 comes out seriously range limited (compared to the A350-all versions) as a logic consequence of a payload vs range trade off.
As you've pointed out, the A358 is not really beating the 789 through its performance figures, because it is actually a shrink of the baseline A359, whereas the 789 is fully uncompromised in that segment so I think indeed the A358 will not be the best version of the A350.
On the other hand, since the 787 is set somewhat lower in the market it DOES get its but busted when it needs to grow in order to compete with the A350. That's perfectly logic, since composites or not, there is no way you can design an ideal single platform for an entire product range going as wide as 220 to 350 seats, so it is fair to say the 787-10 will not be the greatest version of the 787 either.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7): Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.
Before the A350XWB came along, there was some serious interest in the 787-10, which is basically a stretched 787-9 with the usual payload-range trade off because it was the best option. However, the A350-all versions is set to offer airlines (even more than) what the 787-10 offers them in terms of range-capacity, without any such trade-off meaning the 787-10 has lost much of its appeal.
If Boeing wants to compete with the larger versions of the A350 through their 787 platform (something I doubt, but you seem to be suggesting that), they'll need to seriously tweak the 787-10 to give it more range. Range which indeed requires more powerful engines. However, mind you, simply fitting these engines to the 787-10 will not do the trick: to fly further, you'll need more fuel, meaning both VOLUME and WEIGHT.
The increase of weight is what requires more powerful engines for longer haul planes in the first place, but when looking at the current design, increasing the MTOW of the -10 requires at least a centerline wheel assembly to be added and depending on how much extra fuel will be needed to pump up the range of the 787-10 it might also mean stronger/heavier main gear assemblies and most certainly a serious wingbox re-inforcement!
And then there is the problem of fuel volume. More fuel means more fuel tanks, which on your 787-10LR -if I may call the plane that way for a second- will mean less cargo space, exactly the opposite of what you'd want for a bigger plane competing with the already wider (and thus more voluminous) A350XWB.
Seems that with the 787-10 Boeing was flirting with the limits of its design and anything more might be just too demanding. that's why I am having serious doubts whether Boeing will pursue the 787-10 now that the A350XWB has been announced as the narrower fuselage is clearly beginning to play against it although if demand from 787 cutomers is large enough, they may offer it in a way the 767-400ER made it off the drawing board: Inferior, but still more suitable to some.
Alitalia744 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 4296 posts, RR: 48 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13830 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.
2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13452 times:
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11): Sorry just explain to me why you are comparing the 789 with the 358XWB? I might have missed something here. I thought it was 8s for 8s 9s for 9s and 1000s for 1000s plus, for Airbus, for 773ER combined?
I thought I had explained it. The 789 and the 358XWB have the same MTOW. I think that is a fair grounds for comparison, don't you?
Sabenapilot, thankyou for your considered reply, particularly in regards to the 787-10. I think you are right and the simple 789 trade range for capacity -10, may not occur. I think a 787-10 will now have to be a more expensive to develop model with higher MTOW, higher thrust engines and structural alterations. Capacity wise, it is b/w the 359 and 350-1000. I still think it will happen and Boeing constantly say it is a matter of if and not when. But I don't think a 245t , 7,500nm -10 will cut the mustard against the 350-900/-1000.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): The 350 is a paper aeroplane, it does nothing at the moment, just like the 787. Get them flying and you start getting some useful comparisons.
Fair enough, but airlines have to choose b/w these paper aircraft with data supplied from Airbus/Boeing and paper airplanes are being ordered in great numbers at the moment and no doubt many more 787/350 will be sold this year. I think it's fair enough to do a comparison on the data that is out there, paper airplane or not. It would be more meaningful to see the data on the 787-10 and more detailed data on the 350-800/-1000, however, so both families can be better compared.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10181 posts, RR: 71 Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13339 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): My personal observation is the opposite is true
Zeke is right, you've got that backwards Ikramerica.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): RR has had an engine for over 110 k for some time, they designed it for the 773ER. Boeing did not approach RR for that.
Open that door, its good for all.
No, it's a generation behind. SFC is way too high.
Quoting TP313 (Reply 10): to keep competitive with the 359 the 787-10 will require at the very least wing reinforcement and landing gear redesign,
The B787 wing is good for 640,000 lbs of lift, so no problem there, just strengthening. The landing gear is good for only about 560,000 lbs, so Boeing would have to add a two-wheel centre bogey just like Airbus had to with the A340-500/600. That would also be needed for a B787F, B787-9ER, or B787-11X, so I expect at some point Boeing will add the centre bogey. Anyone know what the main gear on the A350-1000 will look like? I don't see how they can achieve reasonable T/O and landing weights with eight wheels in the main gear.
Anyway, the A350 will kill the B777. I'm having trouble seeing how the B777 will get to 1000 deliveries. The only advantage I see of the B777 over the A350 is early availability.
JayinKitsap From United States, joined Nov 2005, 649 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13325 times:
Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 14): Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.
I had heard exactly the opposite.
So do I. Boeing has designed closer to optimum cruise which improves efficiency once at elevation, however this has put the climb portion at a lower efficiency. Boeing needs higher thrust for takeoff for the same MTOW. But Boeing's planes also tend to be lighter for the same payload/range.
I think the 787-10 went quiet as Boeing watches what Airbus does, also having slightly higher thrust engines may allow the -10 to increase its range but stay just under the wing and gear capacity.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 42 Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13311 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): The whole thrust issue has to do with the wing designs. Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.
You got that backwards. Boeing goes for cruise (and higher speed), Airbus goes for take off performance.
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12): It has already been shown by me and other that at its low end, the 787 is in fact an extremely heavy plane for what it is (compared to the A300-600)
The 787-8/3 is a significantly larger plane than the A306.
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12): Seems that with the 787-10 Boeing was flirting with the limits of its design and anything more might be just too demanding. that's why I am having serious doubts whether Boeing will pursue the 787-10 now that the A350XWB has been announced as the narrower fuselage is clearly beginning to play against it although if demand from 787 cutomers is large enough, they may offer it in a way the 767-400ER made it off the drawing board: Inferior, but still more suitable to some.
The primary limitation on the 787-10 is whether Boeing wants to spend additional money at this time on a more extensively modified variant. That will be in part determined by engine availabilty but more importantly by whether they have the manufacturing line capacity for 3 models intended to sell at high rates. It makes no sense to spend money if the return will be lowered on the other models because you have to build fewer of them to make way for building the 3rd model.
As for the currently defined 787-10, this aircraft will cover the A and B 300 pax markets. This is a large market, and many airlines will be satisified with the capabilities of a ~7500nm -10 if it is more fuel efficient and less costly than the heavier 300 pax A350XWB, for the same reasons the A market A333 sold well despite the 772ER/A343 being more capable. But with the -10 you will have a jet more efficient than the A333 with significantly greater range-payload, so the marketshare division may favor the less capable jet this time.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 42 Reply 25, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 13151 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22): Anyway, the A350 will kill the B777. I'm having trouble seeing how the B777 will get to 1000 deliveries. The only advantage I see of the B777 over the A350 is early availability.
Boeing has a backlog of ~3 yrs that will put them at ~850 777s. The -1000 is 8 years away. I have a hard time imagining that they won't sell an additional ~150 777LRs in 5 years.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
26 Glideslope: Well, we all know the history of these "claims," don't we.
27 Leelaw: In broad legal parlance the terms are essentially synonymous. However, in the context of the aerospace industry, use of the term MOU generally indica
28 F14ATomcat: Maybe it is a step behind the 787 / Y3. I expect it will have a tough time competing on the low end. Smaller is more efficient if that is all you need
29 Stitch: Boeing did indeed approach RR, as well as P&W. However GE and P&W demanded exclusivity as they did not believe the "C market" (772LR) would be very b
30 Zvezda: I think Boeing may have floated the idea of a 540,000 lbs B787-10 to see how the airlines would respond. The response has been lukewarm. I think Boei
31 787engineer: AFAIK since they've switched to XWB, the "base" model will be the A359XWB, and the A358XWB will be a "shrink" that will come a couple years later. On
32 Rheinbote: Even if it were widely accepted (doubt that) it wouldn't prove anything. When was the last time aircraft were optimized for a single design point? Bo
33 Jacobin777: IIRC......because of its double-spool engines, resident A.net engine guru Lightsaber did speak of the limitations of the GE GENx engine...it's basica
34 Stitch: She might not make it to 1000 passenger models (which may very well be what you are focusing on with your statement), but when you add in freighter s
35 Boeing7E7: If it can't do full range and payload from a sub 10,000' runway and stop in 6,000' enabling new service to shorter runway airports, then no - it's jus
36 Dhefty: B777 orders as of July were 851, leaving 149 to reach the 1000 mark, so not as much of a stretch as you imply, especially considering options and fre
37 EbbUK: Perhaps you did but Sabenapilot crystalised it later, I am now up to speed. Still no clearer as to what constitiutes "a step above". Perhaps you or o
38 Texfly101: Not necessarily. Given the time of experience with both the design and construction of the -9, and the fact that the -10 hasn't even been offered, mu
39 Ikramerica: I was trying to find SOME reason why the Airbus requires 20k more of thrust for the same mission at the same weight. There seems to be no reason then
40 Clickhappy: It has already been shown by me and other that at its low end, the 787 is in fact an extremely heavy plane for what it is (compared to the A300-600) a
41 Stitch: The A300 is a bit shorter and the 787-3 has a bit wider wings. I imagine the 787-3 has more cabin floor area, being a wider fuselage. However, the 78
42 Zvezda: I stand corrected. I guess I put in the wrong starting date when I ran the report.
43 Atmx2000: Boeing lists 851 orders, with a back log of 275 aircraft, approximately 32%. If Boeing can get production up to 90/yr, they can clear that in 3 years
44 Thebry: [Yoda speaking to a young trainee] Available earlier than the A350XWB the 777 is. 1000 deliveries it will reach.
45 Brilondon: With all the questions surrounding Airbus these last few months how are we to know for sure what the final A350-whatever will be like any any rate??!
46 TP313: Provided airlines don't care about the further range penalty associated with that: 5 nm per extra passenger...
47 Stitch: Airbus wouldn't have scrapped a design with orders on the books and interest in the field for the heck of it. The 777 continued to build momentum aga
48 Ikramerica: I meant, there seems to be no advantageous reason that the 350X requires larger, more powerful engines to perform the same mission. In other words, a
49 2wingtips: Airbus marketing. The 350XWB was promoted at Farnborough as being a step above the 787 and a leap above the 777. This slogan has been very commonly u
50 Leelaw: Is it an "edge," or an additional cost of securing orders? The only reason Airbus has to offer interim lift "solutions" to potential customers is bec
51 Ikramerica: I do to. And notice, that despite Airbus saying "there's still life left in the 340" we have heard squat about the 340 since the 350X announcement. T
52 Dank: As others have stated, they placed MOUs or LOIs for 20 (+20) 789s and 20 (+20) 359s. These two planes don't directly compete (even though their numbe
53 Dank: I third this. This was by far the best move Airbus could make at this point in time. They went after the place where they could compete best against
54 Stitch: It's still both an immediate sale of an A330 and a future sale of an A350. Getting two airframe sales from a customer is not a bad thing, at least in
55 Leelaw: IIRC, Airbus is leasing the A330s to SQ as part of the A350XWB deal. In my book, Airbus is manufacturing two aircraft in order to sell one. [Edited 2
56 Leelaw: I disagree with your assessment and characterization of Airbus's approach towards development of the A350. IMO, Airbus was forced to "re-think" the "
57 Halibut: The A350 Pickle cost Airbus a great deal of money , a tarnished reputation , the termination of 2 CEOs' & the Twin aisle mid size market . Not only w
58 Baron95: The 787 is an 8-9Y abreast, the A350XWB is a 9Y abreast, the 777 is a 9-10Y abreast. The 787 is a 200-300 seater, the A350XWB is a 250-350 seater, the
59 Stitch: True, but SQ is still paying Airbus monies. And Airbus must feel those A330s will have value when SQ is done with them, which is likely since SQ does
60 Zvezda: It's easy to overstate Airbus' problems. Not only has the size of the A350 improved (by moving away from the strong B787 toward the vulnerable B777) b
61 Boeing7E7: My Boeing data says 64k thrust. Were do you get 55k???
62 Leelaw: True, but the lease rates are likely below "market" rates because they include built-in subsidies to make the cost of operation similar to what would
63 TP313: correction: the A350XWB is an 8500 (800, 900, 1000) - 9500 nm (900R)
64 Leelaw: You may be right. However, if the long-term trend is to move towards CFRP as the primary construction material in commercial aircraft, and Boeing suc
65 EbbUK: Airbus will ensure they deliver on this one, just as they have delivered "technically" on the 380. Your question, therefore, is redundant. Unless it
66 Leelaw: I don't disagree, my point is that "interim lift" lease deals which are/may be a necessary accommodation to garner customers, will be an expense rath
67 Stitch: And that makes sense, frankly. I'm sure if Boeing had 767s available and could discount the rates enough to blunt Airbus from getting their foot in t
68 Zvezda: SQ normally replace their aircraft at 12 years. That assertion is based on a lot of speculation. For starters, it's not clear that there ever will be
70 Zvezda: I wrote "might" while Stitch wrote "will."
71 Ikramerica: The jets AF are going to need to replace in those families are aging 332, 343 and 772, all of which fall within the 787 and 350 families. The idea th
72 Brilondon: I was only implying that we may have not have seen the final version of the A350. I would also like to add as a personal note that I find it getting
73 Rheinbote: A prerequisite for laser welding are weldable alloys, which so far are limited in application to lower lobe skin areas predominantly under compressio
75 Rheinbote: The way I see it, the first generation of CFRP fuselages in terms of design and manufacturing principles was the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft prot
76 Stitch: Yup. If Boeing can stretch/enhance the 787-11 to match the A35G and 773ER in capacity and performance, then yes, that would probably negate the need
77 Zvezda: Boeing almost certainly can produce such a B787-11X, but will they is quite a different question. An 11 or 12 abreast Y3 might allow an approximately
78 YULWinterSkies: The A330 is also stepping in the B market. The 333X is not a short-range airplane. And I would not call the A346 not viable. On the other side, the 7
79 Ikramerica: then you are ignoring reality. the 346 can't sustain airbus in this size class which is why the 350X has been pushed into it's position.
80 AvObserver: I agree with Leelaw & Hallibut you're being a bit too kind to Airbus over their pre-A350XWB debacle. Much of that time was spent on trying to market
81 AvObserver: I agree with Leelaw & Hallibut you're being a bit too kind to Airbus over their pre-A350XWB debacle. Much of that time was spent on trying to market
82 Zvezda: Uh, no, the B787 narrows the gap between the B737-900ER and the B777-200ER, but it does not fill it. A large gap remains between the B777-900ER and t
83 Adria: Well Boeing did the same with the 764 and it took them way longer to come up with the 787. But it is funny how all the 787 fans are putting the A350
84 Stitch: If AF is so anxious to replace the 773ER, why did they take delivery of one in June (watched her depart PAE myself) and why are they taking six more,
85 EbbUK: Well AF is still a big Airbus customer and buying the 350XWB is vital. AF will want the latest technology it can get it's hands on and that swings it
86 Jacobin777: the problem with with AF and the 777-300ER replacement with the A350-1000XWB is that GE right now is balking at developing an engine for it..and if B
87 Thebry: When did Boeing ship the B777-900ER. How'd I miss that? With the 300ER being 242ft long, this one has to be over 300ft! That's an American Football f
88 MD-90: It's an improvement over tradition construction (so is friction stir welding), but can it match the efficiency of CFRP? I doubt it. Raytheon Premier
89 Zvezda: The B787 is by far the best-selling widebody in history. The reason more airlines haven't ordered it yet is that airlines order airliners when they n
90 Baron95: You don't think using the same engines as the A350-1000 or new GE90NGs, plus more composites/titanium in some parts, plus perhaps use of AlLi, combin
91 Zvezda: If Boeing were to do all that the result would cost more than and be inferior to a B787-11X. Those are not Boeing's only options. Yes, but not from t
92 Leelaw: Perhaps, or Boeing wasn't motivated to provide a costly "loss leader"/sweetener because the 787 program was already firmly established. It's possible
93 Baron95: Hummmm.... I doubt it. The things I mentioned are exactly the things that Airbus proposed to do to the A330 to arrive at the A350 that got 100+ order
94 Zvezda: Call it roughly $3B. Given that Boeing will need to develop uprated landing gear for a B787-9ER, B787-10ER, and B787F anyway, a B787-11X would probab
95 Rheinbote: Being of sandwich construction, the Premier 1 is in a different class of CFRP fuselage design - sandwich means a core, usually honeycomb or foam, is
96 Adria: I didn't say the 787 isn't succesful (but we still have to wait a couple of years, who knows what could go wrong) and there are airlines that don't n
97 EbbUK: Oh and because it's Boeing airlines won't ask them to try harder with the their new planes, unlike Airbus was
98 2wingtips: You think 345/356 operators will be happy replacing them around 2012 with a decade or less of service? This is far from ideal and most carriers would
99 EbbUK: It may be less than ideal but if it means minimising running costs then these operators will be at the negotiating table with one thing at the top of
100 Stitch: Do we have any "guestimates" on things like dimensions, performance (range), floorspace, and capacity for a 787-11? I don't believe the A350-1000 wil
101 Zvezda: If Boeing ever build a B787-11X (big IF), it's a good guess that she'll be 20 feet (6 meters) longer than the B787-10, which is expected to be 20 fee
102 Jacobin777: with due respect, we don't know the costs associated with developing a B787-11X....and this point in time, we dont' know if the B787-11X is possible
103 Stitch: Great. Thanks much! Aye. So a 787-11X should be able to pretty much match the 773ER in "standard Boeing" configuration (at the same six/seven/nine ab
104 Zvezda: Of course a B787-11X is possible. That doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. The two major problems are landing gear and thrust. Whatever engines
105 Jacobin777: as I stated previously regarding AF....GE is balking right now...... urealistic comparison......as you know there is no comparison between the Model
106 Keesje: Neither aircraft has even flown so hard to compare anything. Airbus, GE, RR and other OEM´s will have some time to evaluate operational feed-back fr
107 RJ111: Quite simply it's way to early to speculate. We don't even know the A350's OEW. Based on the only stats i'e seen though the A359 and 789 appear to be
108 UAL747-600: This line is getting really old. How do you explain airlines purchasing roughly 500 copies of these 2 families when "so little is known because they
109 Stitch: I wonder if GE is balking at it because the GEnx design might not be able to scale to ~90,000+ lbs of thrust without significant re-work? I believe L
110 TP313: As I remarked above flying the 773ER in 10 abreast config. involves a range trade-off...
111 Thebry: Just a little good-natured ribbing. These comparative discussions can sometimes get pretty heated. I do enjoy your informative and unbiased posts and
112 787engineer: Frankly, the length of an airplane doesn't determine which airplane it competes against. The market that it targets does. The A350XWB's actual length
113 Wah64d: So let me get this straight. In your opinion, Airbus is a blatant purveyor of marketing bulls**t when it states the A350XWB will be a step above the
114 Atmx2000: Especially if they aren't giving cabin length. I'm guessing that engine thrust will be the best indicators of what this aircraft will be economically
115 RJ111: We all know better than to trust manufacturer's seating figures. For example Airbus claims 380 in the A346 and Boeing 365 in the 773ER. IB reckoned t
116 Leelaw: Actually, there is a slight difference in the letters of intent (SQ likes to use this term of art) issued by SQ earlier this summer regarding the 789
117 Stitch: I do not recall who posted these original speculative numbers on the A350XWB family, but I did copy them for reference: The A350X-800 is a 270-seat 85
118 BillReid: I read the first twenty posts and am laughing at the idiots that argue for one against the other. I work on the retial side of the industry where we a
119 Zvezda: Some of us here are able to draw reasonable conclusions about relative CASM from specifications such as OEW, SFC, etc.
120 2wingtips: Without your paranoid emotion, here is what I think: The 350XWB will struggle to be a technological step ahead of the 787. It is clear this is a rush
121 Stitch: A valid question. If SQ does indeed choose the 787 solely, I am going to guess they would do so because the 787-9 better met their intra-Asian operat
122 Jacobin777: sure....but the range is good enough for most of the carriers needing that kind of plane....
123 Baron95: You are right. No one is able to evaluate a plane before it flies. No one orders them. No one buys a house on spec-plans, no one pre-orders a new mod
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States, joined May 2005, 18407 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2732 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4701 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 238 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 146 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2563 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10181 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
