Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is The A350XWB Market Area?  
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

Airbus has said that the A350XWB is designed to compete with both the 787 and the 777. However, consider this points based on the information available on the A350XWB:

1) The A358 based on its passenger count is most closely comparable to the 789.

2) The most numerous sold version of the 787 is the 788 with 410 orders (other orders are 783 @ 43 and 789 @ 114) through the end of April '07.

3) The A358 will follow the A359 to market by at least a year.

4) The A359 is comparable to the 772ER/LR in passenger count.

5) The wing area of the A350 is larger than that of the 773ER, 442 sq m vs 427.8 sq m even though the A3510 MTOW is considerably less (295t vs 351.5t) See the thread below for a discussion of A350 wing area.

A350 Wing Area (by WingedMigrator May 6 2007 in Tech Ops)

From the above information, it appears to me that the A350 is meant to compete with two Boeing models, but these two models are the 777 and the Y3. Sizing and timing indicate that the presently described A350 series will cover the 777 market primarily, with no attempt to counter the area where the 787 has had the bulk of its sales, ie the -3/-8. In addition, the A350 wing is sized to allow considerable growth beyond the A3510. This looks like a preemptive strike against a Boeing launch of the Y3.

Comments?


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5818 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Thread starter):
2) The most numerous sold version of the 787 is the 788 with 410 orders (other orders are 783 @ 43 and 789 @ 114) through the end of April '07.

The B789 did come out much later than the B788, and recent sales of the B787 series suggests (I'll use that term loosely) that B789 will possibly sell just as well. This suggests (again, I'll use the term loosely) that the A358 as the lower end of the A350 model will do quite well.

However, I think the A359 will probably be the best selling A350 model followed by the A358.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5801 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
The B789 did come out much later than the B788, and recent sales of the B787 series suggests (I'll use that term loosely) that B789 will possibly sell just as well. This suggests (again, I'll use the term loosely) that the A358 as the lower end of the A350 model will do quite well.

Based on Jan - April '07 sales, the 787-8 has outsold the -9, 92 to 27, over 3 to 1. As noted above, Airbus has no ready answer to the -8 other than discounted A330's.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5792 times:

I'm probably over-simplifying, but my impression is that Airbus finds itself in the position of having to produce one aeroplane to compete with two Boeing products. So they've aimed the A350 between the two - carrying more passengers than most marques of 787s, carrying fewer than most 777 models - and hope to 'make a market' for their own offering in the 'gap' between the two.


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
So they've aimed the A350 between the two - carrying more passengers than most marques of 787s, carrying fewer than most 777 models - and hope to 'make a market' for their own offering in the 'gap' between the two.

The problem is that they have picked a wing area that is larger than their largest competitor in these two markets. This is not necessary based on their projected MTOW and makes it even harder to compete at the low end of the market or even fill the gap. Why would they do this unless they intended to grow to reach a market space with a larger passenger count than the larger competitor?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9228 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5741 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
carrying fewer than most 777 models

350-900 carries more than the 772, 350-1000 is very close to the 773, even closer if you increase the seat pitch of the 773 to be the same as the 350.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5736 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 2):
Based on Jan - April '07 sales, the 787-8 has outsold the -9, 92 to 27, over 3 to 1. As noted above, Airbus has no ready answer to the -8 other than discounted A330's.

..again, the B787-8 series was being offered much earlier than the -9. Take a look at recent B787 sales, IIRC, the majority have been for the -9.


..while the A358 might not "directly compete" with the B787-8, if a carrier is looking for a family of planes, costs, m/x, future growth rates, ect. the A358 might be a better solution.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

I think it is unfair to say the A350 goes after 2 markets at the same time, since it will be covering a continuous segment of the market just like most of the planes really. Just because Boeing has decided to position its own products in such a way that they will cover this specific segment of the market with 2 planes, doesn't make the A350 plane spanning 2 different markets.

Saying so just proves you are looking at the market purely from a Boeing perspective.

If we were to do the same from an Airbus perspective for instance, we'd see that Boeing is also trying to compete with 2 products of Airbus at the same time with their 777, nl the A333 and the A340, yet this is a comment you never hear, mainly because it is just as pointless as the above remark on the A350 really.

As a side note:
If there is one plane aimed at 2 different markets at the same time, it surely is the 787, with on one side the much discussed 787-8/9/10 long haul products (competing with the fabulous A330) and on the other hand the 787-3 aimed at replacing the medium haul A300; the way in which Boeing intends to cover those 2 different markets with one plane is in essence the same as the main structural differences between the A300/A330: wing span.

The failure to find any real takers apart from 2 Japanese airlines which were in the bag even before the plane was launched and the latest news Boeing isn't even going to present the 787-3 for certification to EASA probably mean there isn't much left from this original idea... a real pity IMO since I have a weak spot for re-usable designs like the A300/A330/A340 fuselage, the A330/A340 wing, the Airbus cockpits, the 767/777 nose section etc

[Edited 2007-06-03 18:59:29]

User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5687 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Thread starter):
In addition, the A350 wing is sized to allow considerable growth beyond the A3510. This looks like a preemptive strike against a Boeing launch of the Y3.

There might be some truth to that. But, and I think this is a big but...; it depends on the AL frame/panel approach working out to be nearly as good, equal, or better than the Boeing barrel approach.

If Boeing does not execute the barrel approach properely it will likely be a huge win for Airbus. However, if the Boeing barell approach is executed right and if it is a real winner in overall service and maintenance cost.... The Airbus A350 will not be very competitive with the older 789/10 not to mention the future Y3.

Overall though, there is a logic on Airbus making a bet like your theory. Given their current difficulties; lets hope that they can execute well on such a bet. Otherwise, I don't see much future for Airbus in 15-20 years - not even in the A320 family as China and others are likely to enter that market in a big way to compete with Boeing and Airbus for planes in this market (note: I doubt there is a market for more than 250 - 300 A380's in the world - and would not be surprised if in the end the realy usefulll market for the A380 is about 100 - 150 aircraft).


User currently offlineKaran69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2893 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5667 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 6):
gain, the B787-8 series was being offered much earlier than the -9. Take a look at recent B787 sales, IIRC, the majority have been for the -9.

I quite agree, because the 788 hit the peak of the 767 replacement market.

The 789 will hit the peak of the lower end of the 777 replacement market which should be around the 2010-2012 mark.

The 359 is very well placed for the 772ER replacement markets unfortunately a majority of the replacement airlines are Boeing loyalist like AA UA etc,

Karan


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5655 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 6):
Take a look at recent B787 sales, IIRC, the majority have been for the -9.

The first 4 months of '07 aren't recent sales? As I said, in this time period, the -8 has over a 3 to 1 edge.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
350-1000 is very close to the 773, even closer if you increase the seat pitch of the 773 to be the same as the 350.

In a nine abreast configuration, the A350XWB has an 17.5" seat while the 777 has an 18.5" seat. One way you can get away with a narrower seat is to increase the pitch. This what Emirates does on their 10 A/B 777's to make a 17.0" seat tolerable and what Airbus does for the A3510 17.5" seat.

While you could increase the 773ER pitch to get closer to the A3510 seat count, you wouldn't be flying at the same comfort level. The 777 would be much more comfortable.

[Edited 2007-06-03 19:43:01]


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
Just because Boeing has decided to position its own products in such a way that they will cover this specific segment of the market with 2 planes, doesn't make the A350 plane spanning 2 different markets.

Funny, I'm not the only one that has said this.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn071806.pdf

Besides, Airbus has said the same thing. See the Leahy quote on page 2 in this article.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Leahy.pdf

I think the main question is what two markets the A350XWB is spanning. Why to you think the A350XWB wing is larger than that of a 777 if the A350XWB will compete with the 787?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9228 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5590 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):

In a nine abreast configuration, the A350XWB has an 17.5" seat while the 777 has an 18.5" seat. On way you can get away with a narrower seat is to increase the pitch. This what Emirates does on their 10 A/B 777's to make a 17.0" seat tolerable and what Airbus does for the A3510 17.5" seat.

While you could increase the 773ER pitch to get closer to the A3510 seat count, you wouldn't be flying at the same comfort level. The 777 would be much more comfortable.

Pitch is the distance between rows.

The 350 can have 18.5" seats, it just narrows the isle.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
Pitch is the distance between rows.

Duh

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
The 350 can have 18.5" seats, it just narrows the isle.

And how are you going to get a service cart down an aisle that is less than 15" wide? Or does the A350XWB have a unique smaller width cart?

[Edited 2007-06-03 20:16:02]


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5507 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
carrying fewer than most 777 models

350-900 carries more than the 772

Only slightly though. I think CASM will be much more important. For instance, both the A350-800 & A350-900 are bigger than their predecessors (A332,333,343) but the lower CASM will by and large offset the slight increase in passenger capacity. Same same applies to the 787 being bigger than its predecessor (767).


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5503 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Thread starter):
From the above information, it appears to me that the A350 is meant to compete with two Boeing models, but these two models are the 777 and the Y3

I think that's a somewhat simplistic view. The only plane the A350 doesn't directly compete with is the 787-8. It certainly competes with the -9 and -10.
As per your quoted thread, the wing optimised for the whole range adds c. 3t to the OEW.
The extra 3t or so OEW of the A358 vs the 789, offset by slightly better engine SFC, results in the A358 being (we think, but don't know) fractionally less capable than the 789, but with the same fuel burn.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
The B789 did come out much later than the B788, and recent sales of the B787 series suggests (I'll use that term loosely) that B789 will possibly sell just as well.

The thing that makes me think the A358/B789 models popular in the long run is that a) they have lower CASM than the 788, and b) they offer some 50% more avaialble seat mile capability than the A330-200 whilst burning less fuel (no more fuel, even than a 767 on a 6 000Nm mission).
Airlines CAN have their cake and eat it with these planes.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 4):
The problem is that they have picked a wing area that is larger than their largest competitor in these two markets. This is not necessary based on their projected MTOW and makes it even harder to compete at the low end of the market or even fill the gap. Why would they do this unless they intended to grow to reach a market space with a larger passenger count than the larger competitor?



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 11):
Why to you think the A350XWB wing is larger than that of a 777 if the A350XWB will compete with the 787?

For me, the primary reason that the wings have grown, relative to the MTOW, is that they can.
I believe that CFRP moves the trade-off point between wing span and weight significantly.
The "old" A350 had the A330's wing in CFRP, but IMO one of the biggest strengths of the 787 was a much bigger wing, designed from the outset to take full advantage of CFRP construction, and yet take advantage of the benefits a bigger wing provides.
The A350XWB wing obviously also takes this route.
I expect Y3 to have a wingspan near-on the same as the A380, despite being way lighter, for the same reason.

If you look carefully, the ratio of wing area to MTOW is the same for the 245t 787's as it is for the 295t A350-1000.
I don't think that's an accident.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 8):
Overall though, there is a logic on Airbus making a bet like your theory

It's just an opinion, but I think that Airbus have aimed at the "sweet-spot" where the combination of aircraft price, aircraft margin, and sales volume provide (in theory) maximum profit.
The 788 may sell lots, but it's not particularly high value, and probably carries lower margin.
The A350XWB-1000 is very high value, and high margin, but won't be the largest numerical seller.
The A358/A358, B789/B7810 are positioned right in the middle
Just my  twocents 

Regards


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
If we were to do the same from an Airbus perspective for instance, we'd see that Boeing is also trying to compete with 2 products of Airbus at the same time with their 777, nl the A333 and the A340, yet this is a comment you never hear, mainly because it is just as pointless as the above remark on the A350 really.

Yes, and Boeing has been pretty successful at it.

Combined sales for the A333 and A342/3 through April '07.

A333: 281
A342/3: 252
Total: 533

Combined sales for the 772, 772ER, and 773 through April '07.

772: 88
772ER: 430
773: 60
Total: 578

If you want to go to other models of the A340.

A345: 32
A346: 122
Total: 154

And the 777LR

772LR: 47
773ER: 256
Total: 303

Grand totals:

A333/A340: 687
777: 881

Models not included were A332 (since you limited it at the A333), and the A330F and 777F since they are not direct competitors.

However, that's not why I started this thread. The real question is where Airbus is going with the A350XWB. Note that in the comparison above, Boeing was able to use the same wing for all these derivatives (small span extensions for the 777LR's). Airbus had to grow the A340 wing considerably to create the A345/6. Note also that Boeing did not try to use the 777 to compete with the A332. Its wing would have been too large and the airplane would have been too heavy. Airbus appears to be in the same position with the A358 relative to the 788.

What airplane do you think Airbus is planning to utilize the large A350XWB wing? If this hypothetical A3511 had the same takeoff wing loading as the 773ER, its MTOW would be around 363t at a wing loading of 821.6 kg/ sq m. Airbus has demonstrated they are capable of dealing with such wing loadings since the A346 wing loading is 883.7 kg/ sq m.

Is Airbus planning to develop an A3511 with a passenger count of around 450 seats? An MTOW of 363t would enable such an airplane. This could beat Boeing to the punch with Y3 and be much more attractive than the 748. It would also address the 200 seat count gap between the A3510 and the A380.

Any comments on this line of thinking?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5428 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15):
The extra 3t or so OEW of the A358 vs the 789, offset by slightly better engine SFC, results in the A358 being (we think, but don't know) fractionally less capable than the 789, but with the same fuel burn.

Remember, these are our back of the envelope musings that shows the two airplanes about equal. A carefully assessed wetted area analysis could easily give the 789 a 2% advantage.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15):
The thing that makes me think the A358/B789 models popular in the long run is that a) they have lower CASM than the 788,



This is the normal situation for larger airplanes. You don't see A333/772A's flying A332/763ER missions even though they have lower CASM's. The size of an airplane in a given market does matter.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15):
For me, the primary reason that the wings have grown, relative to the MTOW, is that they can.
I believe that CFRP moves the trade-off point between wing span and weight significantly.

While CFRP does allow span to grow, excess wing area is still excess drag. Why build a penalty into an airplane by reducing wing aspect ratio from the middle 10's to the lower 9's at the same span unless you are going to need that area for higher operational weights later on?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4087 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5416 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 16):
Boeing was able to use the same wing for all these derivatives (small span extensions for the 777LR's). Airbus had to grow the A340 wing considerably to create the A345/6.

From Airbus.com:
A340-200/300 wing span: 60.31m
A340-500/600 wing span: 63.45m

Difference: 3.14m

From Boeing.com:
777-200/200ER/300 wing span: 60.9m
777-200LR/300ER wing span: 64.8m

Difference: 3.9m


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9228 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5396 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 13):
Duh

Duh right back at you, my comments were about pitch, not seat width. Boeing uses a lower seat pitch for its calculations on all models in F & J over Airbus.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 13):
And how are you going to get a service cart down an aisle that is less than 15" wide? Or does the A350XWB have a unique smaller width cart?

I see you have taken a leaf out of the randy book of marketing mathematics, the XWB cabin is not 195-200" wide.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 14):
Only slightly though.

The difference is fairly big, the total payload uplift over a more typical 5000-6000 nm trip is closer to a 772LR/773ER for the 358/359 respectively, whilst the CATK is low, the TATK is relativity higher, the 350-1000 has a higher payload capability than the 773ER, reducing the numbers back to total available tonne km for costs and yield is interesting.

[Edited 2007-06-03 21:28:32]


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5367 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Duh right back at you, my comments were about pitch, not seat width. Boeing uses a lower seat pitch for its calculations on all models in F & J over Airbus.

And did you state that any where? The comments about width were all Y related as were my comments about pitch. I don't think there are many 17.5" wide seats in F & J.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
I see you have taken a leaf out of the randy book of marketing mathematics, the XWB cabin is not 195-200" wide.

Don't forget you need to add the arm rest widths to the seat bottom and aisle widths. For a 3-3-3 interior, this means an additional 24" is required. How wide do you think the aisle is in the A350XWB with 9A/B and 17.5" seat bottoms?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 18):
From Airbus.com:
A340-200/300 wing span: 60.31m
A340-500/600 wing span: 63.45m

Difference: 3.14m

From Boeing.com:
777-200/200ER/300 wing span: 60.9m
777-200LR/300ER wing span: 64.8m

Difference: 3.9m

The wing area for the A346 changed much more than the 773ER.

Wing Area Comparison

A343: 361.6 sq m
A346: 439.4 sq m - 21.5% increase

772ER: 427.8 sq m
773ER: 436.9 sq m - 2.1% increase

The A346 changes included a chord increase and a root insert. This was much more complicated than the 773ER wing tip extensions.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineKaran69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2893 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5295 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
This is the normal situation for larger airplanes. You don't see A333/772A's flying A332/763ER missions even though they have lower CASM's. The size of an airplane in a given market does matter.

An argument that can be made to that is both the A333 and 772A do not posses economical range as compared to A332/763ER and would be load restricted which would effect CASM on longer routes.

However in case of 788/789/358 they all possess range within 500nm of each other.

Karan


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5253 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
You don't see A333/772A's flying A332/763ER missions even though they have lower CASM's. The size of an airplane in a given market does matter

I understand that, but as Karan69 points out, these new models provide much more capability, particularly in terms of range, with a much lower penalty in operating costs compared to previous generation aircraft.
The risks of "oversizing" slightly are lower, but the "opportunity" is higher.
Obviously that's just my opinion, but the work we've done together recently has convinced me indeed that these new generation planes are game-changers......

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
Remember, these are our back of the envelope musings that shows the two airplanes about equal. A carefully assessed wetted area analysis could easily give the 789 a 2% advantage.

True 'nuff. That doesn't really change the fact that the A358 pretty much directly competes with the B789 in terms of mission capability.... (IMO..  Smile )

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
While CFRP does allow span to grow, excess wing area is still excess drag. Why build a penalty into an airplane by reducing wing aspect ratio from the middle 10's to the lower 9's at the same span unless you are going to need that area for higher operational weights later on?

In the absence of any other logical explanation, I'm going to surmise that "operator" feedback has led to Airbus constraining the wingspan within the 65m allowed by ICAO Cat.E
I'll stand by my earlier comment, that, area for area, the wing loadings for the 787 family are the same as for the A350-1000 - i.e. the A350 wing has been designed for the A350-1000 in the same manner that the 787 wings have.
I therefore don't perceive any great growth potential beyond 295t.

The A358 and A359 are just overwinged, and, as you point out, somewhat compromised by this.
I'd still have been more comfortable (as I said in Tech/Ops) seeing this wingspan increased to the full 65m, and the aspect ratio in the high 9's, to give the same area. I see no reason for this not to happen.
IMO it would endow the aircraft with c. 2% less drag for an utterly nominal OEW increase (if any)
But.......
Puzzled as I am, I'm presuming that Airbus know more about designing wings than I do, and that, as discussed in another thread, there are constraints placed on the designers that I'm (we're) not aware of.....

As an aside, talking of growth potential, the "fag packet" tells me that another 6" or so increase in fuselage diameter (beyond the -XWB) should result in the same seating width as a 777.
Allied to my preferred 65m wingspan, for (by my calculation) only a 3t increase in OEW, and 0.5% increase in fuel burn, true 10Y (i.e. 10Y at 17.2" capability) could have been delivered out of the design.
A 300t MTOW would have been all that was needed to restore the range (of the -1000)
Now that would be a plane....
(Wet-dreaming on my part - sadly)

Regards


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3592 posts, RR: 66
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 23):
I'll stand by my earlier comment, that, area for area, the wing loadings for the 787 family are the same as for the A350-1000 - i.e. the A350 wing has been designed for the A350-1000 in the same manner that the 787 wings have.

This where we must differ. Let's look at some MTOW wing loadings:

788: 219540 kg/ 346.9 sq m = 632.9 kg/ sq m

789: 245000 kg/ 359.2 sq m = 682.1 kg/ sq m

A358: 245000 kg/ 442.0 sq m = 554.3 kg/ sq m

A3510: 295000 kg/ 346.9 sq m = 667.4 kg/ sq m

Note that the A3510 has wing loading is 2.2% lower than the 789, but the 789 has a potential stretch coming in the 7810 which will use the same wing area.

This is what leads me to believe there is a potential A3511 in the works. Either that or Airbus has built a drag penalty into the A350 series in the form of excess wing area.

Oh well, time will tell.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
25 EI321 : It appears from this data that an A350-1100 would be possible without major changes to the wings. Airbus should have called the A350 varients the -50
26 Atmx2000 : Not a very good argument given that the A333 and A343 are the same length, and it is Airbus who is creating the overlap here between two related mode
27 EI321 : I think 18'' seats and 17'' aisles would be more realistic. As we know, CASM is not the only reason that the A380 gets ordered. As I said above, ther
28 Atmx2000 : With a 450 seat aircraft from Airbus, a lot of customers considering the A380 would have little reason to stick with that choice, particularly if it
29 EI321 : Only problem there is, It would not have 450 seats. It would be 6m longer than the -1000, which will come in at about 385-390 seats.
30 Post contains images AirFrnt : Of course it's not unfair. Boeing thrashes Airbus in this space right now. Airbus is the vendor that reacting to Boeing's offering. Leahy and Udvar-H
31 EI321 : The A350 competes directly with the 787. The 777 just wont hold up against it (or against the 787), but like the A330 its still attractive as its ava
32 Grantcv : How come is everything always defined in terms of Boeing? It seems to me that the A350 is positioned to be a single model to ultimately replace the A
33 OldAeroGuy : They compete in that a buy of one soaks up airline money that might be used for the other, but there aren't many head-to-heads with the 787 out there
34 Zeke : reply 5, I was talking about pitch, hence I used the word pitch. better than 9 across in the 330 with 17" seats, the XWB is a foot wider than the 330
35 AirFrnt : Because the replacement cycle that is hitting is mainly 757/767 and a few A300. Carriers don't just change their average aircraft size because the ma
36 Astuteman : I just don't accept that at all. The A358 is eminently capable of being an A330 replacement. It has 6% higher MTOW It has 8% more seats than the A332
37 Atmx2000 : Actually OAG was right originally. The aisles would be under 14" with 18.5" seats on the A350XWB. 18" seats would yield a 16-16.5" aisle. More likely
38 Kaitak744 : Regarding seats: -All of Boeing's 787 "benefits" data is based on a 2-4-2 economy layout. -If aircraft has more seats, the airline can spread the cos
39 OldAeroGuy : I typed in the wrong number, but the calcualtion for 295000 kg/ 442 sq m was still correct at 667.4 kg/ sq m. Doesn't change the point I was making.
40 Post contains images Zvezda : I would not be at all surprised if Airbus were to eventually launch an A350-1100.
41 OldAeroGuy : All true unless there is a better competitor out there. Hence my puzzlement as to why Airbus wants to give away competitive advantage by oversizing t
42 Post contains images Astuteman : If you believe that the 787 wing has growth engineered in (and I've no reason to doubt you), then it stands to reason that the A350's does too.   
43 Zeke : Nor do I, that assumes a stagnant market with zero passenger growth in the future, when realistically passenger growth is increasing by everyone's ac
44 Zvezda : Perhaps Airbus left the extra meter in order to be able to add larger wingtip extensions to increase the swept area of possible future heavier varian
45 Post contains links and images Keesje : Agree, as I the market keeps growing at 5% per year, the effort put into further improving the -9 after the 787 was launched and recent orders for th
46 Karan69 : Altough your point about the 350 being too big to compete with the 788 is very debatable but i would disagree with the fact that the 350 is too large
47 Post contains images Zvezda : I think Airbus are hoping to match (or edge) the 787's CASM but with substantially better payload/range performance. That would allow the A350 to com
48 HughesAirwest : I read somewhere that Airbus claims that the larger wing enables the A350 to product more lift and less drag and burn less fuel. If you look at Airbu
49 Zvezda : For that to work, the A350-800 would have to match the 787-8 in trip costs (as the WhaleJet did the 747-400).
50 Karan69 : Airbus has to adress the situation in terms of its competitor, Boeing would have also done the same if Airbus had beat them to the game. Infact the 7
51 HughesAirwest : IMO Boeing will improve the 777 before launching Y3. With the lessons learned from the 787 and drawing on Airbus as a model of how to reuse a good fr
52 Post contains images Astuteman : The only plausible suggestion I can think of Given that I have no real knowledge of wing design, there may be others I'm not aware of... And it certa
53 AirFrnt : This is the problem that I always have with Airbus logic. Seats are hard to fill. More seats are harder to fill. The plane may be cheaper to fill the
54 Zvezda : The 777 would need to lose roughly about 80,000 lbs to be competitive with the A350. That's not going to happen. Many airlines are interested in the
55 Scbriml : So what is Boeing's logic for replacing 762s and A310s? The 787 is a much bigger step up in capacity for replacing these planes. Replacing existing p
56 Stitch : And that is the trick. If Airbus can get the A350's trip costs down to or below the A330's and A340's then those extra passengers become "gravy" sinc
57 Zvezda : The longest variants of Y1/737RS. It should be easy to stretch Y1 to at least the length of the 757-300. The A350 will not be competing against the A
58 DAYflyer : The flaw with your argument is that the 777 is pointed at two Airbus products; it is not. It is a replacement for the early 747's, DC-10 etc, and the
59 Post contains images Stitch : Similar trip costs with much better revenue potential (same as Airbus with the A350). To replace A330s and A340s. So airlines currently operating eit
60 Post contains images Scbriml : Do you think this plane will have the range of a 762ER or A310? Which was exactly my point (but you put it better!)
61 Zvezda : I expect some variants of the next generation single aisle aircraft, from both Airbus and Boeing, to have range exceeding that of the 737-700ER. I th
62 EI321 : like on the 787, It does not make much business sense putting 18.5'' seats in normal economy. This would start to cannibalise Economy plus and even B
63 NAV20 : I think that's a very good point. Apart from anything else, most routes are seasonal - I suspect that Qantas, for example, will be using their 787s t
64 OldAeroGuy : Does it really say that? Nine (3-3-3) A/B @ 18.5" seat width has total width of 229" as I stated in Reply 39. Let's do the math. For each triple: Sea
65 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I went back and looked at the numbers and you were correct, so kudos to you.. ......but some have been converting their orders to the -9 form the -8
66 AirFrnt : Ah. Leahy math. Take dissimilar models and compare their seat count to make a point that looks good statistically. Try this on for size: On the 767 t
67 Atmx2000 : If the market size is large, as it apparently is for the 788, building the optimized product should payoff as the increased engineering costs will be
68 Zeke : Nope, that comment should say 9 abreast as per the ACAPS, my mistake. Run your numbers on a 2-4-2 config with the 18.5" seat you will see they easily
69 OldAeroGuy : No issue, we all make typos.
70 WingedMigrator : I think it is a reasonable line of thought... the A350 appears to have the potential to grow a bit larger than the 773ER. I don't think you'll see an
71 Zvezda : I figure the same. The problem is that with a CASM advantage of only 10%, a larger Y3 would only sell a few hundreds. That's not enough to cover deve
72 Grantcv : The Y3 is more than likely still a decade or more away. Knowing what it might be at this point is mere speculation. But when it comes out, it will mo
73 Zvezda : That's why we believe that Boeing won't bother.
74 Astuteman : FWIW I think your OEW and MTOW are a tad pessimistic. I get these at 152t and 320t, for the 80m A350-1100. I also support Zvezda's hypothesis that wi
75 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..would love to see that.... ..given its size range, I think it certainly can sell 500-1000 frames....IMHO of course...
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...
What Is The Largest O & D Market? posted Sun May 9 2004 21:09:34 by Nycfuturepilot
What Is The Biggest Airline In The LA Area? posted Wed Feb 4 2004 02:12:28 by AA787
What Is The Market For? posted Sat Jun 3 2000 16:30:09 by Jsheldon
What Is: The Best Trip For Travel To Germany? posted Wed May 30 2007 08:58:31 by Tugger
What Is The Future Of Meigs Field? posted Mon May 21 2007 21:49:55 by Alberchico
What Is The Largest A/C To Fly In/out Of DCA? posted Wed May 9 2007 03:33:51 by 777fan
GIG Terminal 1 - What Is The Deal? posted Sun May 6 2007 17:55:43 by LongHaul67
LGW Vs LHR: What Is The Deal? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 02:51:23 by Centrair
What Is The Latest On Lynx(F9)? posted Wed Apr 4 2007 19:02:17 by Clickhappy
What Is The Point Of B787-300 And B787-800? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 02:12:33 by 8herveg