Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Airbus Widen The A350 - Even Now?  
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10110 posts, RR: 97
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20646 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Alternatively "What would happen if Airbus made the A350-XWB the same fuselage width as the 773ER?"

A speculative question about which I have no fixed opinion. Nevertheless...

Some cursory calculations suggest that, all other things being kept equal, increasing the fuselage diameter of the A350-XWB by 250mmm, or 10", would
a) add c. 4 tonnes to the OEW (for the -1000, or about 3 tonnes for the -800)
b) add about 2% to overall drag (i.e. fuel burn).

This being the case, the typical range reduction would be around 400 Nm for each variant.

As far as I can calculate, this shortfall could be recovered by adding c. 5 tonnes (for the -800) to 6 tonnes (for the -1000) to the MTOW.

Assuming the current specs are a given (just an assumption), you might see:-

An A350-1000 at 301 or 302 tonnes, 8 000 Nm, 330m2 cabin, the same as the 773ER (a veritable "chinese copy", no less  stirthepot  ) , 10Y capable to at least 777 standard (it might even be better with some intelligent contouring of the fuselage), still burning 19% less fuel (in EK spec) than the 773ER

An A350-900 at 270 tonnes, 8 100Nm, 290m2 cabin at least the equal of the 787-10 as currently proposed in area, 10Y capable to at least 777 standard (it might even be better with some intelligent contouring of the fuselage)

An A350-800 at 250 tonnes, 8 300Nm, 255m2 cabin at least the equal of the 787-9 in area, 10Y capable to at least 777 standard (it might even be better with some intelligent contouring of the fuselage)

The price, as far as I can tell, would be c. 5-6 tommes on MTOW, and a 2% rise in fuel burn

The questions are:-
Would it be a worthwhile change?
Is it too late?

Idle speculation, but interesting, I hope.

Rgds

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20583 times:

There has been a lot of people on A.net that have given good reason for the 777 fuselage width being uneconomical due to the fact that it has a lot of wasted crown and belly space due to the curvature - on this basis, I would have to say 'no'.

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1576 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20536 times:

IMO Airbus have got the 350 diameter wrong.
Leahy is saying the 787 is too narrow, however,the 350 is wider without allowing an exta seat for all but the most inhumane airlines. Therefore the weight and drag increases just do not make economic sense to me.

The 350 is in "no mans land" between the narrower 787 and the wider 777.

I think airbus would be wise to narrow it. The market below the 777 is larger than the 777 , and whilst the 350-1000 is a 777 killer now, there is plenty of potential to improve the 777.

Boeing kept the 737 competitive with the 320, and I am convinced, that they are convinced , they can do the same with the 777.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4802 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 20423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting questions Astuteman. I am not sure how to answer them. Compared to the B787 the A350 has the right size to me. Compared to the B777 it might be a bit too small. Make it wider, and Airbus would probably loose out more against the B787-800, although the A330 is doing very well even against the B787.

I tend to say the A350 has the right size to compete against both the B787 and B777. Even if the B777 receives an upgrade, only at the upper end of the flights she will perform she could have an advantage against the A350-1000. That is if the airline can fill the plane to use that advantage, otherwise it will be less economical then an A350-1000.

The smallest B787 will be hard to target with the A350, but therefore Airbus has the A330, which they are still tweaking to increase its performance. And who knows, they might do what you suggested with the new wing and new engines, Glareskin, and so making it almost the original A350. That would be a tough combination of planes to beat in the next decade or so.

So I say it is too late to redesign the hull (again) and I say I do not think it to be necessary.

Kind regards.


User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 20304 times:

My feeling is that Airbus shouldn't widen (or narrow) the XWB - here's why.

There's a lot of talk about 17.2" seats, but that's just seat back width (see the 787 airport planning document, p14):

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec2.pdf

Humans generally have arms which means they need shoulder and elbow room, and the width of the armrests provides some space for this. When I started thinking about this, I asked what would happen if airlines allowed 1" (2.5cm) each side of each passenger to accommodate their shoulders and elbows. I found that you would get something like the 777 10-abreast, in other words 10*19.2" (48.8cm) seats incl. armrests and 2*19.2" (48.8cm) aisles in Y. I am a fairly slight European guy - I tried measuring the width across my body and arms (with clothes) and it came to more than 19".

For comparison - simply dividing the available width by seats+aisles:

737 6 seats incl. armrests and 2 aisles at 19.9" (50.6cm)
A320 6 seats incl. armrests and 2 aisles at 20.8" (52.9cm)

(I realise there is some loss of headroom at the window seat in these narrowbodies)

787 9 seats incl. armrests and 2 aisles at 19.6" (49.9cm)
A350XWB 9 seats incl. armrests and 2 aisles at 20.1" (51.0cm)

A350XWB 10 seats incl. armrests and 2 aisles at 18.4" (46.8cm)
777 10 seats incl. armrests and 2 aisles at 19.2" (48.8cm)

777 9 abreast incl. armrests and 2 aisles at 21.0" (53.3cm)

As the expert posters on airframe design are saying, there must be a tradeoff between operating cost and comfort when sizing a fuselage. As a simple passenger (and economist), I am wondering if Boeing has fixed the 787 just slightly too small for leading airlines to offer an acceptably comfortable 9 abreast - even if lots of them are proposing it on paper. With the A350XWB, I think Airbus may just have scraped in at the right size.

I realise mean body sizes vary around the globe, but again I am wondering if (despite recent publicity about 10 abreast), Airbus has actually sized the A350XWB just right so that it can give an acceptable standard of comfort at 9 abreast right around the globe, with more margin in some regions than others. Would be interested to know what others think.

Cheers,
ER

[Edited 2008-06-07 04:42:38]

[Edited 2008-06-07 04:46:58]

[Edited 2008-06-07 04:47:29]

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 20104 times:

Everyone knows that neither Boeing nor Airbus place seats in the a/c - 8, 9 or 10 abreast - but everyone knows that Airbus and Boeing place seats in the a/c. No I did not type this incorrectly, perception is what I'm talking about. The number of post talking about Boeing or Airbus cramming seats in their a/c leads me to believe that the perception is that the OEM's are doing it and not the airline themselves, and you do hear this at airports also, mis-informed these person may be, they are also the travelling public.

Maybe I'm off the beaten track, but lets for argument sake say the OEM's in their preliminary study's on their new build a/c consider the "cramming aspect" what exactly can they do about it? If you design an a/c with a cabin width to comfortably seat 9 abreast you can bet someone will go for 10, if you do 10, then 11 and so on. Once the aerodynamic issues are addressed, sizing a comfortable 8 with a squeeze for 9 - B-787 - is similar to sizing a comfortable 9 with a squeeze for 10 - A350 -. Boeing designed the B-787 to replace and improve the B-767, so they made it larger, but not large enough to erase their existing product the B-777. Airbus decided to to design its competitor slightly larger but slightly smaller than the B-787 and B-777, product differences, a trade off has to be made somewhere, is anyone at Airbus really thinking about a copy of a Boeing product if they are same sized or is that something only us fans do? Interesting that no a/c in either stable is same sized, go figure.

Caveat in this whole post is that at some level, after the engineering is considered, they also look at pax comfort and make a determination, if they don't, everything I posted above is just drivel.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31119 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 20083 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe it is too late to do so now, but I am on record as saying I think Airbus should have gone with a width close to the 777.

I understand that the 777 has wasted crown and belly space, but Airbus could have worked with that for new packaging options for crew rest, systems, galley cart storage, and such. This would have opened more hold space even with the larger wingbox, which would have allowed the A350 to not only carry more passengers, but also offer more hold volume.


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20024 times:

for one, I think it's way too late.... I don't think A could go through a new round of redefining the aircraft again without majorly angrying their customers...

that said, I will be glad if they won't do it.... a 777 in 3x4x3 is something I go great length to avoid to have to fly in - and I am tall, but certainly not a "big" guy... so I think A might actually have something that customers will like with the 350, assuming that airlines will put 3-3-3 in both the 787 and the 350...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineOkie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20001 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I understand that the 777 has wasted crown and belly space

The 777 has moved toward using the space overhead with crew rest areas. I wonder if that concept could be taken futher. Add more sleeping space up there and sell it to your premium passengers.


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19938 times:



Quoting Okie73 (Reply 8):
I wonder if that concept could be taken futher. Add more sleeping space up there and sell it to your premium passengers.

Boeing tried that with the 747-8I.... afaik there was not a single airline remotely interested...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19927 times:

I think that is one of the biggest issues for the A350. First of all i think they need to drop the XWB name, it's not extra wide, it's not even wider than the 777 (cabin) so why is it an XWB? But fitting 9 abreast in a cabin that is smaller than the 777 seems pretty uncomfortable, like squeezing 10 abreast in a 777 or even worse 9 abreast in a 787. If Airbus made it as wide as the 777 9 abreast would be fine but right now that seems pretty cramped. The A350XWB just seems like it's going through it's akward phase, like a middle schooler, it just hasn't found the right size yet.

User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19878 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 10):
If Airbus made it as wide as the 777 9 abreast would be fine but right now that seems pretty cramped. The A350XWB just seems like it's going through it's akward phase, like a middle schooler, it just hasn't found the right size yet.

If so, that makes the 787 "cramped" plus some, at 9 abreast. Did Boeing mean for it to turn out this way?

ER

PS: my error in earlier post - 737/A320 should have said one aisle, but my figs were right

 embarrassed 


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10110 posts, RR: 97
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 10):
But fitting 9 abreast in a cabin that is smaller than the 777 seems pretty uncomfortable,

I seriously don't buy that, as one of the key selling point of the even smaller 787 is its ability to seat 9 abreast "comfortably".........

Rgds


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19818 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
I seriously don't buy that, as one of the key selling point of the even smaller 787 is its ability to seat 9 abreast "comfortably".........

well, airlines are claiming that 10 abreast in the 777 is comfortable as well.... B***s***!



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19748 times:

Here's another way to look at it... where in this ranking do you personally get 'too uncomfortable' on a long haul flight?

Ranking more to less cramped:

48.8cm (777, 10 abreast)
49.9cm (787, 9 abreast)
50.6cm (737, 6 abreast)
50.8cm (747, 10 abreast)
51.0cm (A350XWB, 9 abreast)
52.9cm (A320, 6 abreast)
53.3cm (777, 9 abreast)
54.8cm (A380, 10 abreast)

(figures are cabin width / (seats abreast + aisles))

Cheers,
ER


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19641 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 1):
There has been a lot of people on A.net that have given good reason for the 777 fuselage width being uneconomical due to the fact that it has a lot of wasted crown and belly space due to the curvature

I think any argument that the 777 is uneconomical falls on its face in light of sales of the type and profitability with its use.

That said, there is a lot of crown and bilge space that isn't currently used. The crew rests, if fitted, take care of much of the crown space (theyr'e fantastic...I'd fly up there in a heart beat). However, it's not clear that that's actually an economic problem. Any fuselage cross-section other than round requires additional structure to resist the tendency to become round. Shrinking the 777 fuselage width would reduce payload, which would really hurt economics. Changing the cross-section to remove the crown and belly space wouldn't impact payload, but might impact range due to weight increase.

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 11):
If so, that makes the 787 "cramped" plus some, at 9 abreast. Did Boeing mean for it to turn out this way?

That's unclear. There's no way I can see that Boeing wouldn't have realized that you could get 9 seats across in there. That said, the 787 was configured under much lower fuel cost. Boeing may not have realized how many operators would go for 9 abreast.

Tom.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 898 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19624 times:



Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 14):
Ranking more to less cramped:

48.8cm (777, 10 abreast)
49.9cm (787, 9 abreast)
50.6cm (737, 6 abreast)
50.8cm (747, 10 abreast)
51.0cm (A350XWB, 9 abreast)
52.9cm (A320, 6 abreast)
53.3cm (777, 9 abreast)
54.8cm (A380, 10 abreast)

(figures are cabin width / (seats abreast + aisles))

Nice figures. Would you be able to add the A330/340 (8-abreast) and 8-abreast configurations of the 787 and A350?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19433 times:



Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 4):
There's a lot of talk about 17.2" seats, but that's just seat back width (see the 787 airport planning document, p14):

You are wrong. 17.2" in is the width between armrests. Boeing configurations assume 2" arm rests flank those seats. You can calculate that for yourself. A 3 seat unit is 59.5" wide in the 787 in 9Y. Take away 3 x 17.2" for the inter-armrest seat width, and you get 7.9", which when divided over 4 arm rests is 1.975", which is basically 2 in.

The space for one's shoulders extends from the midpoints of the flanking arm rests, so the shoulder to shoulder spacing is 19.2" for the 9Y seats. In 9Y the 787 aisles are 18" between armrests, which allows for 20" from the midpoint of the armrests. Of course people are standing up in aisles, so this is somewhat irrelevant.

So in other words, the 9Y 787 configuration was designed with your specs in mind.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19306 times:



Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 11):
If so, that makes the 787 "cramped" plus some, at 9 abreast. Did Boeing mean for it to turn out this way?

That's what i mean, i thought the 787 was originally intended for 8 abreast but airlines liked the 9 abreast option better.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
I seriously don't buy that, as one of the key selling point of the even smaller 787 is its ability to seat 9 abreast "comfortably".........

Which doesn't make much sense to me, the 787 is 1ft and 3in smaller in cabin width than the 777. The 777 to me fits 9 abreast comfortably so how can a 787 fit 9 abreast comfortably, did they do something to make that section of the plane as wide as the 777. 1ft 3in may not seem like a lot but when you think that economy seats are around 17-18 inches wide thats a lot of space


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10110 posts, RR: 97
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19296 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I believe it is too late to do so now, but I am on record as saying I think Airbus should have gone with a width close to the 777.

My view is that you're absolutely right, Stitch, on both counts.

I think the A350XWB, sized some 2-3 inches or so below the 777 cross-section would have been an incredible aircraft.
I believe that the latest materials, manufacturing and design techniques may have delivered an interior cross-section remarkably similar to the 777 - at least close enough to make no material difference.

I think it's too late now to change. The A350XWB is indeed, IMO, defined.

I think that in hindsight, in conjunction with the A350, the A330-200 and -300 could have soldiered on (as they are demonstratin now) until being re-engined with the 787's engines and a proportion of the changes envisaged for the original A350 at some appropriate time in the future.
The larger A350 would improve the differentiation between the two.
They would make at least as formidable a pairing as the 787 and a rejuvenated 777  yes 

I also think they're "too light". What? I hear you say.
I think the 787 and A350 will be great planes, but I think they've been pared down so much that their payload capability vis-a-vis a comparable current generation aircraft suffers as a consequence.

I think the A350XWB should have been engineered out to somewhere in the 315 -325 tonne region - and with a -1100 in mind too.
(I'm assuming it hasn't been of course - who knows. Wing size indicates it might have been. Engine size indicates it hasn't, to me anyway).
I think an extra 5 tonne on MZFW wouldn't hurt the 787's either..

It isn't going to happen now.
Just my  twocents 

Rgds


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10110 posts, RR: 97
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 18):
Which doesn't make much sense to me, the 787 is 1ft and 3in smaller in cabin width than the 777. The 777 to me fits 9 abreast comfortably so how can a 787 fit 9 abreast comfortably

concurrently posted... -

I see where you're going.

Glass half full - the 787 is 9Y ok, the A350 is 9Y comfortable, the 777 is 9Y extremely comfortable.

Glass half empty - the 777 is 9Y comfortable, the A350 is 9Y a bit cramped, and the 787 is 9Y very cramped (and A330 incredibly so)...

In reality, I suspect different cross-sections will suit different airline's needs and market conditions.
We're BOUND to see 10Y A350's - it's inevitable, but uncomfortable.
But not in as great a proportion as 10Y 777's, which will be a bit more comfortable.
Don't think we'll see 10Y 787's

I just think the "warmed over" A330 was written off too soon, and would have been good enough for Airbus to move the A350 a bit further "upstream".

Rgds


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19177 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
Alternatively "What would happen if Airbus made the A350-XWB the same fuselage width as the 773ER?"

Here is an old leeham.net photo of what the XWB should have been.


2006-05-10

Quoting Moo (Reply 1):
There has been a lot of people on A.net that have given good reason for the 777 fuselage width being uneconomical due to the fact that it has a lot of wasted crown and belly space due to the curvature - on this basis, I would have to say 'no'.

Given that besides QF are the only carrier which participated in the "Dream Design" of the B777 and didn't purchase it (thus Boeing getting a lot of input from different carriers), and given the fact it has sold >1000 frames, I think Boeing did quite well. Also, as mentioned by some other members here, Airbus could have maximised the "wasted" space.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 2):
Leahy is saying the 787 is too narrow, however,the 350 is wider without allowing an exta seat for all but the most inhumane airlines. Therefore the weight and drag increases just do not make economic sense to me.

 checkmark 

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 4):

There's a lot of talk about 17.2" seats, but that's just seat back width (see the 787 airport planning document, p14):

Carriers such as EK, AF and KL now have 10-across. It hasn't hurt them one bit.. no 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
"comfortably".........

I'm glad you put comfortably in quotes. I'm not so sure it will be all too "comfortable"... Sad Fortunately my wife and I are "narrow" people.  yes 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):

I think the A350XWB, sized some 2-3 inches or so below the 777 cross-section would have been an incredible aircraft.
I believe that the latest materials, manufacturing and design techniques may have delivered an interior cross-section remarkably similar to the 777 - at least close enough to make no material difference.

 checkmark 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineSpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19144 times:

Added some more configurations:

46.8cm (A350, 10 abreast)
47.0cm (A380, 12 abreast)
48.0cm (A330/A340, 9 abreast)
48.8cm (777, 10 abreast)
49.9cm (787, 9 abreast)
50.6cm (737, 6 abreast)
50.6cm (A380, 11 abreast)
50.8cm (747, 10 abreast)
51.0cm (A350XWB, 9 abreast)
52.8cm (A330/A340, 8 abreast)
52.9cm (A320, 6 abreast)
53.3cm (777, 9 abreast)
54.8cm (A380, 10 abreast)
54.9cm (787, 8 abrest)
56.1cm (A350, 8 abreast)



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 18570 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
e it is too late to do so now, but I am on record as saying I think Airbus should have gone with a width close to the 777.

My view is that you're absolutely right, Stitch, on both counts.

In the past I have said the 777 is 9.5 in economy and 6.5 in business. Looking at the 777 cross section it seems just inbetween. Inefficient comfortable in economy 9 abreast, a bit too narrow 10 abreast. Up to the airline to choose..



In Business and First the extra space gives flexibility, e.g. 7 abreast in Business, but who wants to risk being seated in a middle seat? So many airlines choose 6 abreast ( with wide aisles.)

The cargo deck height is determined by the height of LD3 containers, the passenger deck by passenger lenght / ability to reach the luggage bins.

Result is a big space left above the cabin. Used for overhead crew rest nowadays. At least 8 UHC's could fit in.. Using the "revenue frontal area" economicaly has been largely unsuccesfull.



Apart from this, a 250 seat version with a 777 cross section fuselage & the A350 XWB wings would have been pretty short, requiring a very big tail etc.

It think both Boeing and Airbus choose the better cross sections, stretching them a bit seem smarter then going wider..

Another issue: Some time ago I did a quick check if the A350 XWB fuselage would fit in Beluga (can't find it anymore). I think so, upside down if the upper fuselage is indeed flattened a bit.



Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 22):
Added some more configurations:

46.8cm (A350, 10 abreast)
47.0cm (A380, 12 abreast)
48.0cm (A330/A340, 9 abreast)
48.8cm (777, 10 abreast)
49.9cm (787, 9 abreast)
50.6cm (737, 6 abreast)
50.6cm (A380, 11 abreast)
50.8cm (747, 10 abreast)
51.0cm (A350XWB, 9 abreast)
52.8cm (A330/A340, 8 abreast)
52.9cm (A320, 6 abreast)
53.3cm (777, 9 abreast)
54.8cm (A380, 10 abreast)
54.9cm (787, 8 abrest)
56.1cm (A350, 8 abreast)


Thnx Speedy, interesting. Could you give A380 upperdeck 8 and 9 abreast. I have the feeling many airlines will go to 11 abreast maindeck with premium economy (higher booking classes / frequent flyers) winning further ground..

[Edited 2008-06-07 13:46:46]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25652 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 18510 times:

[quote=ElbowRoom,reply=14]Ranking more to less cramped:

Why don't you include the 767? It has by far the most comfortable Y class layout (2-3-2) in my opinion. The 1 in 7 chance of a middle seat is unmatched by any other jet type larger than a regional jet.


25 Ken777 : It's an interesting ides, but I wonder how Boeing would have reacted to it. Right now they are only upgrading the 777, but if Airbus had come out with
26 XT6Wagon : I've long thought the current A350 width is the worst of all worlds. More wieght than the 787's 9Y width, yet not wide enough to do 10Y in anything re
27 ElbowRoom : OK: 52.4cm (767, 7 abreast) ...agreed Viscount724, what a great layout from a passenger's point of view Atmx2000 - in the Boeing 787 airport planning
28 SEPilot : It's never too late (see the history of the 707) but I suspect that in practical terms it is. But if they make it the size of the 777, and it becomes
29 Pnwtraveler : I find it amusing that Airbus made such a big deal about only ever being one seat away from the aisle and that passengers favoured that head over heal
30 Astuteman : But it shouldn't do. As I said in the OP, the diameter increase should be accommodateable within a c. 6 tonne (c. 2%) MTOW increase without any degra
31 FrmrCAPCADET : In about 5 years I think the energy situation will have become clear, we wil be used to either the high prices or the ever increasing high prices. The
32 ElbowRoom : ... and would make it more difficult to offer an efficient 270 seater (A358 / 789 sized plane). I think Airbus have done well to develop something wh
33 Abba : Two ways of saying this is: "The 777 is flexible between 9 or 10 abrest in Y" "The 777 isn't optimized for either configuration" Flexibility comes at
34 SEPilot : I think it's important to remember that the 777 was designed to be comfortable at 9Y, and was never intended to be 10Y. It's only after some customer
35 XT6Wagon : the 777 in 10Y isn't "designed" in. It requires custom seats that are both narrower than the traditional 17.2" and that the window seats get custom ba
36 WingedMigrator : I've got to give Airbus engineers the benefit of the doubt: for the first time since the late 1960s (when they baselined the cross section of the A30
37 Post contains images Keesje : I think you need more pitch between rows of Thomson seat then between conventional straight line seat rows. The window passneger must be able to get
38 Post contains links and images Scbriml : Not according to the seat manufacturer. http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/ts_economy_cap.html The airline would have a choice between increasing cap
39 Keesje : Common sense and the picture you show say the window passenger needs a gab to get out. If the seat has to have any recline (not the seat back) the se
40 Slz396 : And just how does that lady at the window gets out of her cocoon WITHOUT the 2 other pax getting out for her too? On the picture you can clearly see h
41 Post contains images Slz396 : Indeed, yet it is missing on the single side-view Thomson provides on their website... Have a look at this picture... Would you want to be in that la
42 Scbriml : She can't, but how is that different to any conventional row of three seats? Really not that different from a conventional arrangement. I managed a 1
43 Revelation : Indeed. God forbid we have to rely on the humanity of others to get up off their arses so we can go have a pee. The inhumanity of it all! Maybe the E
44 Keesje : Some can. I remember being in an economy middle seat on a long night flight to HKG. The agile, light chinese young women sitting next to me silently
45 RedFlyer : Definitely. As it is, the A350 will be coming to market just as the first gen buyers of the 777 will be looking for replacement aircraft. If Airbus w
46 EA772LR : I think they were trying to tackle the upper 787 market and 777 market at once. I think think Astuteman is right about the 350-10, if they had made t
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...
Should Airbus Put The A380 Style Interior On A330? posted Sun Apr 1 2007 15:15:03 by EI321
Can Airbus Afford The A350? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 22:58:28 by OU812
Should Airbus Re-launch A350 Non XWB? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 11:33:24 by OyKIE
Why Did Airbus Make The A350 Wider? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 02:22:34 by 787KQ
WSJ: Airbus Redesigns The A350 - Mr. U-H's C-note posted Fri Jul 14 2006 11:58:55 by Leelaw
Can Airbus Send The A350 Back To Redesign? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 08:09:41 by MrComet
Where Will Airbus Build The A350? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 20:57:57 by Kaitak744
Could Airbus Offer The A350 To The Majors? posted Tue May 10 2005 22:48:18 by RockyRacoon
Airbus Should Dump The A350 Program posted Thu Apr 28 2005 03:01:01 by B752fanatic
Is Airbus Struggling With The A350? posted Wed Jan 16 2008 11:38:08 by Virgin747LGW
Can Airbus Afford The A350? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 22:58:28 by OU812
Should Airbus Re-launch A350 Non XWB? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 11:33:24 by OyKIE
Why Did Airbus Make The A350 Wider? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 02:22:34 by 787KQ
WSJ: Airbus Redesigns The A350 - Mr. U-H's C-note posted Fri Jul 14 2006 11:58:55 by Leelaw
Can Airbus Send The A350 Back To Redesign? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 08:09:41 by MrComet
Where Will Airbus Build The A350? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 20:57:57 by Kaitak744
Could Airbus Offer The A350 To The Majors? posted Tue May 10 2005 22:48:18 by RockyRacoon