Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-800 To Be Developed As -900 Shrink  
User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14506 times:

Article in Flightglobal
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...to-be-developed-as-900-shrink.html
[/quote] Airbus has opted to develop its A350-800 as a shrink version of the -900, an adjustment aimed at simplifying the programme. By optimising the A350 around the -900 as a baseline the airframer is adopting a similar strategy to its development of the A330-200/300. It will potentially provide the -800 with a 3t increase in payload or extend its range by 250nm - although it will also raise the fuel-burn..by "a couple of percent" .[/quote]

Interesting to concede a couple of % to simplify design / make, is that confidence that the 358 will have better fuel burn then 789 or fear of EIS miss?


Jambrain
93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14508 times:



Quoting Jambrain (Thread starter):
Interesting to concede a couple of % to simplify design / make,

i'm guessing it brings down the purchase price for airlines making it worth it


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I thought it was always supposed to be just a shrink?

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting post. To standardize more makes the design easier and possibly cheaper. But if the penalty is a couple of percentage points, the question is "how many"? Or they know already quite well that they have a margin on promised performance, and they can save cost with the standardization of the design and manufacturing of the A350-800 and A350-900.  Wink It sounds sensible to me.  Smile

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14331 times:



Quoting Jambrain (Thread starter):
Interesting to concede a couple of % to simplify design / make, is that confidence that the 358 will have better fuel burn then 789 or fear of EIS miss?

I guess that's about the same "couple of %" in fuel burn that Boeing conceded by reducing 787-9 wing span to that of the -8 in order to save 1,800kg in wing weight and simplify design / make.

But somehow defies intuition, as, everything else being equal, a stretch of a smaller aircraft should be more efficient structurally than a shrink of a larger one.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8403 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14263 times:



Quoting Jambrain (Thread starter):
Interesting to concede a couple of % to simplify design / make, is that confidence that the 358 will have better fuel burn then 789 or fear of EIS miss?

Maybe it makes the fuel burn % worse for the A358 but a couple % better for the A359, thanks to "optimization." This is probably a good call if you consider which is going to sell more (A359).


User currently offlineMogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14230 times:

good news for Boeing.... they should totally hammer on this point to their customers that their 789 stretch will be more efficient than a 358 shrink.

except that there aren't that many customers who are 358-only to begin with, so if they can successful convert a few people over, it won't be more than 20-30 frames.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 4):
I guess that's about the same "couple of %" in fuel burn that Boeing conceded by reducing 787-9 wing span to that of the -8 in order to save 1,800kg in wing weight and simplify design / make.

Did Boeing actually state they would be taking a fuel burn penalty, or are we just repeating the a.net speculation it would?

According to the public statements Boeing has made on the issue, they undertook the shrink to help them meet contractual obligations in areas, including fuel burn. So it seems odd they would undertake a decision that would work against them meeting those guarantees...

[Edited 2010-01-12 14:43:22]

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12892 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jambrain (Thread starter):
Interesting to concede a couple of % to simplify design / make, is that confidence that the 358 will have better fuel burn then 789 or fear of EIS miss?

I think it is to allow flexibility. By having one wing, Airbus can break off that team for other work (for example, the A389).

From an engineering standpoint, neither the -800 nor -900 (nor -1000) have (yet) enough sales to each have their own custom wing (the -900 is arguably close though). To me, this makes the A358 too much like the 762ER. A nice plane, but one that will be "shoved asside" by the 'bigger brother.'


Ok, how seriously should thsi comment be taken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350

Quote:
A 10-abreast high density is also available.

How wide would the seats, armrests, and isles be 10 abreast? And did the EK seating designer slip in that comment onto Wikipedia?  duck 

The reason I ask is that I feel Airbus should have gone for 10-across. Ok, 20/20 hindsight (in other words, not what I thought at the time), I think Airbus should have done the original A350 and a 10-across XWB (A370?).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14062 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 3):
Interesting post. To standardize more makes the design easier and possibly cheaper. But if the penalty is a couple of percentage points, the question is "how many"?

Of course the payload boost of 3t or range boost of 250nm does equate to around 5% more payload or range which may well lead to higher revenue.



Jambrain
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8403 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14027 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8):
To me, this makes the A358 too much like the 762ER. A nice plane, but one that will be "shoved asside" by the 'bigger brother.'

 checkmark 

That's exactly what is in their minds, too. But Boeing did extremely well on the 763ER. They are not sad.

To top it off, the A358-1000 is likely to be a success. The A350 should bias toward the heavy end of the spectrum. That's why people were right about the A332-NG being a possibility, down under the A350.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jambrain (Reply 9):
Of course the payload boost of 3t or range boost of 250nm does equate to around 5% more payload or range which may well lead to higher revenue.

Though I am not sure how much the A350XWB-800 is going to be able to utilize that payload with only 75% of the hold volume of the 787-9 (per the data I have seen).


User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13871 times:

I can't get my brain in gear this time of night, what does this mean for OEW and or MZFW?

astuteman has quoted a 10:1 ratio on OEW to MZFW boost does this data suggest .3 tonne increase in OEW and 3 tons on MZFW? I can't make 3 tons and 240 nm compute



Jambrain
User currently offlineTomcat From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13850 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8):
I think it is to allow flexibility. By having one wing, Airbus can break off that team for other work (for example, the A389)

I wouldn't be so optimistic. Airbus just stated that they already had plans to move their "scarce" engineering resources from the A400M to the A350 program, in case the A400M would be dropped. This is a sign that there is a need for more engineering resources for the A350, ie that they're already running late. There's obviously no resources available for any new serious project, like the A389 for instance. Especially at a time where the A388 manufacturing is just a big mess. There's still a lot to do in that department before thinking adding a layer of complexity.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Now that the A350XWB-800 looks to be morphing into a straight shrink, one wonders if it will incur the economic penalties that Boeing discovered with the 777-100X?

The last I heard, the A350XWB-800 would omit six frames forward of the wing and four aft. The initial 777-100X was a 9.5 frame shrink, though the final development increased that to 12 frames. MTOW would have been the same 298 tons of the 777-200IGW and the range was aimed between 12,200km and 14,800km. I wonder if Airbus will also be boosting the MTOW of the A350XWB-800 from the current 248t to something closer to the 268t of the A350XWB-900.

The 777-100X was expected to weight several tons more than the 777-200IGW (due to increases in the wing structure to support more fuel weight) which worked out to seat mile costs projected to be almost 10% higher, at which point every customer but SQ walked away and Boeing cancelled further development.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13665 times:



Quoting Jambrain (Thread starter):
Interesting to concede a couple of % to simplify design / make, is that confidence that the 358 will have better fuel burn then 789 or fear of EIS miss?

This always happens with shrinks, unless you cleansheet all the structure gauges.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I thought it was always supposed to be just a shrink?

That was what I thought too...if the -900 is coming first, I just assumed the -800 was shrink, although I can't say I ever saw that written down.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 4):
But somehow defies intuition, as, everything else being equal, a stretch of a smaller aircraft should be more efficient structurally than a shrink of a larger one.

That depends on where they started out optimizing. If an aircraft was always built with a stretch in mind, then you'll have the same penalty in the smaller airplane. The only way to avoid a penalty, regardless of which direction you go, is to re-engineer the structure for each size. There's always going to be a cost/benefit tradeoff for doing that, and the market strongly suggests that a full structural redesign doesn't pay.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Did Boeing actually state they would be taking a fuel burn penalty, or are we just repeating the a.net speculation it would?

I've never seen them say it...the only basis I've seen is the wide assumption that induced drag will go up (possible, but not necessarily).

Tom.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I thought it was always supposed to be just a shrink?

It sounds to me like the A350-800 just got heavier and more capable...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Did Boeing actually state they would be taking a fuel burn penalty, or are we just repeating the a.net speculation it would?

Yes they did, although they didn't necessarily say they would miss the fuel burn target.
They said the 1.8t saving in OEW more than offset the higher fuel burn to maitain range/payload

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 12):
astuteman has quoted a 10:1 ratio on OEW to MZFW boost does this data suggest

That was OldAeroGuy actually, in a debate with me..  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13467 times:



Quoting Jambrain (Reply 12):
astuteman has quoted a 10:1 ratio on OEW to MZFW boost doelbs this data suggest



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 16):
That was OldAeroGuy actually, in a debate with me..

Yes, but what I actually said is that for the same basic airframe, an increase in MTOW (not MZFW) requires that the MEW/OEW increase by approximately 10% of the MTOW increase.

So if MTOW increases by 15t, the MEW/OEW will increase by about 1.5t.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12892 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13352 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
That's exactly what is in their minds, too. But Boeing did extremely well on the 763ER. They are not sad.

Airbus won't be sad. Nothing wrong with 'baby steps.' But this is like the A388. I'm more interested in the 'natural growth.'  Wink

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
To top it off, the A358-1000 is likely to be a success.

I definitely think so!

Quoting Tomcat (Reply 13):

I wouldn't be so optimistic. Airbus just stated that they already had plans to move their "scarce" engineering resources from the A400M to the A350 program, in case the A400M would be dropped. This is a sign that there is a need for more engineering resources for the A350, ie that they're already running late.

Hmmm... Interesting alternate scenario. Believable.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):

So if MTOW increases by 15t, the MEW/OEW will increase by about 1.5t.

Interesting 'rule of thumb.'

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 868 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13251 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Did Boeing actually state they would be taking a fuel burn penalty, or are we just repeating the a.net speculation it would?

I'm pretty sure that it was stated somewhere (can't remember where exactly) that the 1,800 kg weight saving almost make up for the change to the 787-8 wing. Presumably the "almost" means that there is a penalty, but it doesn't give us a good idea of its magnitude.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13197 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 19):
I'm pretty sure that it was stated somewhere (can't remember where exactly) that the 1,800 kg weight saving almost make up for the change to the 787-8 wing.

Per the FlightGlobal article, an unnamed "observer" estimated that a common span between the two aircraft could save more than 1,800kg in empty weight and claimed that would yield almost as much range as the loss in [aerodynamic] efficiency costs.

Also, the original plan was to have the same span, but Boeing increased it prior to performing detailed analysis of the wing. Now having performed that detailed analysis, they seem to believe the original span is sufficient.


User currently offlinePanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12876 times:



Quoting Jambrain (Thread starter):
By optimising the A350 around the -900 as a baseline the airframer is adopting a similar strategy to its development of the A330-200/300. It

This is the A320 strategy not the A330.

It is simple. Manufacturers and airlines need to be more efficient and learn some new lessons mostly from the LCCs (Lean Commonality Carrier).

For the airlines is to have more planes of the same type with same engines that can be used in a variety of tasks. The A320 series to carry up 200 passengers up to 3,000nm. The A350 series to carry up to 400 passengers up to 8,000 nm.

For the manufacturers is to have fewer products where resources can be used to continuously optimised each series that can run longer, be profitable and keep competitors away.

Airbus is doing this with the A320, A350 and A380.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 15):
This always happens with shrinks, unless you cleansheet all the structure gauges.

This is the case with the aluminum tube. This has not been tested on the plastic tube which might be or not be the case.


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12749 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 18):
Quoting Tomcat (Reply 13):

I wouldn't be so optimistic. Airbus just stated that they already had plans to move their "scarce" engineering resources from the A400M to the A350 program, in case the A400M would be dropped. This is a sign that there is a need for more engineering resources for the A350, ie that they're already running late.

Hmmm... Interesting alternate scenario. Believable.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case either. FWIW, I believe Airbus have given themselves enough time to have EIS of the A350-900 in 2013. But by introducing two more variants within the next two years, I think they've bitten way more off than they can chew. Now, the 'simple' variant, the A350-800 already needs compromises in its design not to be late. But, I've always maintained that the schedule for the A350-1000 - which is quite a bit more than just a simple stretch - is far too ambitious. I'd be surprised very if Airbus can EIS it before 2016.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12599 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8):
How wide would the seats, armrests, and isles be 10 abreast? And did the EK seating designer slip in that comment onto Wikipedia?

Actually, Air Asia X will have 10 abreast in the a350. Airbus made that possible, specifically for them. IIRC, it will be like 9 abreast in the a330/a340 now. Not comfortable at all...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 15):
This always happens with shrinks, unless you cleansheet all the structure gauges.

There are indeed few shrinks that are very successfull. The a332 is a notable exception. The a319 has also seen considerable sales. So has the 73G (was this the baseline or the 738, I don't remember). But mostly, shrinks are not so successfull. It can indeed be debated what is a shrink. Is the a388 a shrink of the a389? Is the 762 a shrink of the 763? Even though these were built first, if they are built with the stretch in mind they could be considered a shrink version. And then there are the shrink versions that have been proposed, but never built, like the 771, 751, a331 (granted, that would be a double shrink).

Quoting Panais (Reply 21):
Airbus is doing this with the A320, A350 and A380.

Not to mention the a330/a340 family. The a332/a333/a342/a343 share IIRC 90% of the parts.

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 22):
I'd be surprised very if Airbus can EIS it before 2016.

I really hope you are wrong, but we'll have to wait and see I guess. Let them start to get the a359 in the air on time. I agree that they seem to have given themselves enough time for this version. I remember how people were asking why the heck they need so much time when Boeing could deliver the 787 so quickly. This was before the delays of course.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11218 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
A358-1000

Which one?

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 15):
If an aircraft was always built with a stretch in mind, then you'll have the same penalty in the smaller airplane.

Do you mean the A388?


25 JBirdAV8r : Heavier, most likely. "More capable" depends on your definition of "capability"--in practice it could be a liability in the long run. For one thing,
26 BMI727 : I'm pretty sure they are just repeating speculation. ...which is why shrinks are not often huge sellers. They generally turn out to be really nice pl
27 Lightsaber : Oh... what I was afraid of. Cest la vie. There are multiple markets and AirAsiaX has their niche. Lightsaber
28 Parapente : whatever %age loss in fuel burn and whatever %age gain in range either way it further opens the gap between it and the 788/330 even further. Airbus wi
29 Kappel : Indeed. Not a niche I will find myself in, but a niche nonetheless. That's the good thing about being an aviation enthusiast. You know exactly what a
30 Ikramerica : Yep, me too. I was under the impression that the 350-900 was baseline, -800 was shrink and -1000 was stretch. This compared to the 787, where the -8
31 Astuteman : Answer is in the article - 3t more payload, or 250Nm more range It sounds like the fuel burn penalty is incremental. Airbus have 180 odd orders for t
32 BMI727 : It seems that the better performance of the wing has closed the gap to where there isn't enough reason to build the new one. Add in the incremental i
33 Parapente : For Boeing the real issue is at the other end.What to do about the 351 before it gains real traction (which it will if Boeing do not offer anyhing).Th
34 BMI727 : I would much rather go ahead with a Y3, but the way engineering resources may be allocated may not allow that, in which case a 777NG starting at 77W
35 Parapente : No doubt the "should" have gone Y3 ie stuck to their Y1,2,3 guns but the silly boys got dragged into the 380 competition (locking them both into losse
36 Kappel : Indeed, performance appears to be good enough not to bother with the bigger wing. You could say they have done terrible.
37 R2rho : I'm one of those who have always thought that the A358 was a -900 shrink, so I'm surprised at this news. I guess this implies that Airbus originally h
38 EPA001 : Well, if you are bringing something new to the market, you better aim high. How high the bar will be raised by the B787 is yet to be determined of co
39 Rheinbote : There are facts that OEMs do not like to talk about explicitly in the public. If you clip a wing and come out with span squared reduced by more than
40 BMI727 : I was being nice. I am aware of that. But other than one report saying that the current wing will "almost" match the potential new one, I've seen lit
41 HawkerCamm : From what I understand both the B787-8 (>LN20) and B787-9 have an equal standard passenger payload range. And it's a disapointing 6200-6300nm. No car
42 HawkerCamm : Please correct if I am wrong but I would be very very surprise if the B787-8 and B787-9 are not different wings. Each aircraft has a significantly dif
43 Stitch : The 787-9 wing would have some strengthening to support the higher MTOWs, but it's still effectively the same wing as the 787-8. And Boeing might dec
44 Jambrain : So what does this new Airbus data tell us about OEW and MTOW? using simple Range = U/g / TSFC x (L/D) ln(mi/me) if I assume that TSFC and L/D don't c
45 Lightsaber : Nitpick: 73G has a customized wing. So it would be a 'shrink' as in the previous planned A358. Instead, this is like the 73GLR with the 738 wing. Use
46 Brons2 : The 767 hasn't been in favor in recent years, but Boeing has sold over 1000 of them overall. Are you talking about at MZFW??
47 Stitch : Well for some reason the latest Boeing presentation showed the 787-9 as having slightly less fuel tank capacity than the 787-8, but I am guessing it'
48 XT6Wagon : No, in fact from the range/payload chart, The 788 has the same range it allways had. It did lose quoted range when they went to 9Y as the standard wh
49 Stitch : The 15th wingbox has been sent to PAE and will be modified during final assembly. Starting with the 16th wingbox, the modifications will be performed
50 Tdscanuck : It has been tested on the plastic tube and, even if you hadn't done the testing, it would still be true. If you're sized for a particular fuselage, t
51 Astuteman : That's pretty much the same numbers that I have come up with I get similar enough numbers. Whether my "model" is any better or not is open to specula
52 Kappel : Haha, indeed. But it should be noted that these are "double shrinks". So while a shrink may work, the shrink of a shrink is a really bad idea. That's
53 EPA001 : I am not sure either where I have read this Kappel, but I am sure that I have read somewhere that the optimal wing span for the A388 would be around
54 Baroque : Can someone list where we are at with the design and freezes? Something was frozen ?last year, was that A350-900 only? On a sort of parallel path, Lig
55 Post contains links Aircellist : About desing and freeze, or closely related... Flightblogger has a post about the A350's schedule: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...350-xwb-sche
56 Stitch : Today we learned that the A380 is suffering from the same "travel work" that slowed the initial production of the 787 test frames, and now we learn t
57 Rheinbote : Does the analogy go as far as to extrapolate that the A350XWB is going to be 2-3 years late? Or that the production ramp-up of the 787 is going to fa
58 N328KF : I am not in a position to state with any certainty, but A350 first-flight is supposed 22-23 months away, and have they fabricated any part of the fus
59 Post contains images Stitch : At this point in time, we can't really know that, although I suppose you could argue that it could raise concerns about such slippages happening. Whe
60 Rheinbote : It sure does. p.s. funny how the "mischievous" smiley I added to my post changed to "irked" in the quote.
61 BMI727 : That depends on your definition of a shrink. The 737-700 was actually the first 737NG built, so whether or not it is really a shrink is somewhat ques
62 Astuteman : It was in a flightglobal special back in 2005 "83m - 84m" I think was the quote I think they've raised it more than that - I think they've accounted
63 777236ER : So your evidence that Airbus has problems is that Boeing had problems? Ridiculous.
64 Stitch : I apologize for that. When one quotes, the smiley doesn't come over so I picked the first one that looked like it - which was "irked". Airbus raised
65 Stitch : Hold up there. I'm just noting parallels in the A380, A350XWB and 787 programs. The last thing I am interested in is starting a bitchfest about the A
66 Jambrain : But are they spending the time on identicall(ish) changes to 788 and 789 or on optimising them to be different (frame reduce excepted obviously)? It'
67 Ikramerica : That's an interesting observation. Because Airbus now says that the schedule is getting tight, they may not have the "free time" they thought to get
68 Stitch : Boeing have stated that improvements found in the final design of the 787-9 will be introduced as "block point" changes in the 787-8 production line.
69 Aircellist : Those decisions on different vs. similar wings have been going for as long as commercial aviation has existed, I believe. I say, "believe" because I'm
70 Ikramerica : 767 has the same wing all across the line. The 764 has a wingtip device extending the wingspan, but the wing is the same. This is one reason the 764E
71 Lightsaber : I recall customers were unhappy with the 764 concept as Boeing never promised 736ER range. I'm not aware of Boeing over-promising on the 764. Rather,
72 BMI727 : Boeing was planning on offering a 767-400ERX for a while, and I think that KQ even committed to it, but Boeing dropped it and KQ got 77Es instead.
73 Stitch : The 767-400ERX would have stored a bit over 8000 liters of fuel in the rear horizontal stabilizer, which Boeing claimed would extend the range close t
74 Kappel : Yes, that souds about right. Yes they have various test parts and fuselage panels, it was reported as well (definitely in Flight Global and also disc
75 Aircellist : Then, is the A380 a candidate for winglets? (this may not be the best thread to ask that question, but hey, the subject popped here...)
76 BMI727 : I don't see why not, but Airbus has not been nearly as supportive of winglets as Boeing. They tried them before on the A320 (before the sharklets) an
77 Tdscanuck : That would be ridiculous...but it's not what he said. *Airbus* has said that Airbus has problems. He's just observing that they're, for the most part
78 Ikramerica : It was originally marketed as having SYD-LAX range for QF. Then a whole lot of bean counting and compromising took place. By the time the aircraft wa
79 Astuteman : Here's a question..... Does the fact that the A350-800 is now an "identikit" shrink of the A350-900 mean that a 268t MTOW is a no-brainer? Some plane
80 Stitch : It would be possible, but would it be necessary or even beneficial? Even if a 268t A350XWB-800 could fill it's hold and fill it's tanks to the brim,
81 Trex8 : the A320 wing was much more efficient than the 737s to begin with so winglets were not as necessary early in the program and with their recent testin
82 Astuteman : But if its essentially exactly the same aircraft as the bog-standard "xxx" tonne A350-800, selling in the same space generally as the 787-9, who care
83 Stitch : I suppose it depends on what the operator places more importance on - cargo volume or range. If you favor cargo volume, the 787-9 will offer you 25%
84 Astuteman : The cargo volume example you have cited is a function of the A380-800 whatever its range, isn't it? It's nothing to do with ULR capability. Please te
85 Stitch : Directly, no, it does not. No 777-200LR operator purchased the model for it's maximum range (as, to my knowledge, they have all been delivered with z
86 Astuteman : completely agree I do think the penalty for extra capability decreases with every new generation of aircraft... Here's another random thought. If JB
87 Stitch : Indeed. If Airbus is correct and the 787-9 has an MWE of 108t, that makes it probably around 5t lighter than the A350XWB-800. * - Interesting enough,
88 Post contains links Scipio : The MTOW has been hiked to 259t. Qatar and other customers approve. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...us-rethink-on-a350-800-design.html
89 Astuteman : Wow! didn't think it was going to be as heavy as that. Interestingly, my modelling shows that the fuel burn difference caused by the change is not mu
90 Post contains links Jambrain : Being as the parts are into stores in Jan I rather hope RR have the design fixed! http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/Tr...01000%20Newsletter_tcm92-126
91 EPA001 : That is also a surprise to me. The A350 really sits in the middle between the size of a B787 and a B777. Maybe both manufacturers had the same idea,
92 Astuteman : Me too. One of the two airframes has come out with substantially enhanced capability. I know some people (including Richard Aboulaifa) have expressed
93 Post contains links Baroque : Thanks for alerting me to these links - a.net definitely needs more lerts. How could I have been looking at those engine pages for this long and not
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...
CRJ700/900 To Be Offered As Bizjets posted Fri May 26 2006 09:59:15 by Flying-Tiger
A350-800 To Cost $154M, A350-900 To Cost $170M-WSJ posted Wed Dec 15 2004 19:19:07 by N328KF
This App Seems To Be Just As Intersting As SXM posted Tue May 6 2008 15:26:28 by Rscaife1682
Finmeccanica: A350 Talks To Be Completed Soon posted Wed Aug 22 2007 16:26:55 by EI321
A350 , Half To Be Outsourced posted Wed Nov 29 2006 00:12:49 by Trex8
Air Luxor To Be Reincarnated As Fly3x2.com posted Thu Nov 2 2006 20:55:40 by BuyantUkhaa
A350 Revamp: To Be Or Not To Be At Farnborough? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 12:32:57 by Leelaw
FI: Embattled Airbus A350 Rethink To Be "Dramatic" posted Mon May 8 2006 10:00:34 by Leelaw
A350 Needs To Be Competitive With 787 posted Sat Apr 29 2006 01:23:18 by AeroPiggot
747 To Be Used As A Home In LA posted Fri Jan 13 2006 06:48:17 by Geoffthomas