Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Ponders Slightly Larger A350-1000  
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 19687 times:

Leeham News and Commentary reports that Airbus may redefine the A350-1000 to up-size the 777-300ER. Boeing has always stated that they will respond to the XWB when it is truly defined. Assuming this latest definition becomes true, might it raise the bar significantly enough to force Boeing to go with a clean sheet replacement of the 777 vs. the refresh/NG approach?

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011...is-by-six-months-name-that-tanker/

[Edited 2011-03-20 22:04:48]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
115 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3197 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 19650 times:

It's happening.
Now look for either RR or PW to be pushed to provide a higher thrust engine, as it appears
GE wont be willing to do it. RR has a big incentive to get this one right and to it... if they
can stay exlcusive engine ont his and the thing trumps the 77W, thats a rather big market
they can make up for some of their recent stuff ups on.


User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 19639 times:

I'd like to know the weight penalty required for this and it appears to be a direct request from EK, which is not surprising in the least. I'd like Airbus to do it and see how Boeing responds.

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 19587 times:

The earlier versions of the TXWB would have been just fine, but the core has been shrunk a bit since then. I can imagine what RR will be saying. Includes the words "make" "mind" and "up" probably another one beginning with b and much heard in this part of the world. Perhaps as a celebration of this proposal they could call the TXWB the Trent - Spey, probably more memorable???

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 19506 times:

I think Airbus is having to deal with the trend of the 777 operators going to 10Y which is murdering thier economic advantage with the A350 being stuck at 9Y. Now mind its my opinion that 10Y in a 777 isn't a good thing today, but what I think Airbus fears most is the next gen 777 will manage to carve out a couple inches of shoulder room making it much the same as any other 17.2" Y class. Not great, but when you are trying to sell seats for the bottom dollar on orbitz and the like, few if any of the customers will pay attention to what the plane is.

Regardless of the merits of going bigger, I have to ask... where are they getting the engine from? GE won't commit to an engine for it unless Boeing plans to return to the 777-200ER/777-300 MTOW class with the next generation. RR can't even hit the thrust ratings Airbus was wanting for the current A351, so do they really want to do a whole new engine?


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 19482 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
RR can't even hit the thrust ratings Airbus was wanting for the current A351

Fact? Or a.net factoid?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29686 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 19394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well it would probably compel Boeing to move the "777-300ERX" forward and also probably push GE to update the GE90-11xB.

I wonder if this would push the A350-1000's EIS back, however?


User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 19370 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 1):
RR has a big incentive to get this one right and ... make up for some of their recent stuff ups on.

Their "recent stuff ups" have been somewhat blown out of proportion.

In my VHO...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
RR can't even hit the thrust ratings Airbus was wanting for the current A351.

Source?

RR's ability to design, build and deliver an engine for a bigger, heavier A35K is not in doubt. But first Airbus need to nail down what it is they want and then make a business case for it. Then, I have no doubt, RR will do their part.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 19313 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Fact? Or a.net factoid?

Well there is 3 explanations for the sudden reduction of thrust on the A351.

1. Airbus can't figure out how to build a plane with 85K lbs thrust engines, one engine out operation is just too hard to compensate for (0% chance)

2. Airbus hates having good field performance with thier planes. (1% chance they found the reduction in performance worth it)

3. RR in the heart of thier development troubles with The A380 engines, the 787 engines, AND the A350 engines found it in thier best interests to restrict the trentXWB to 82K lbs at this time. (99.999%)

Which isn't to say it will be there forever, the GE90-115 has gotten several bumps in max thrust for hot and high takeoffs over the last few years. RR might even be able to kick the max thrust back up by the time the A351 is delivered to its customers, we have alot of years till then.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 19201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
I think Airbus is having to deal with the trend of the 777 operators going to 10Y which is murdering thier economic advantage with the A350 being stuck at 9Y.

"Murdering"?

The A350-1000 has what is in all probability a c. 15% operating cost advantage over the 773ER in its current spec.
And going 10-across in a 3-class 777 adds what? c 4% to revenue?

Sure. It makes a difference. "Murders"? I doubt that

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
RR can't even hit the thrust ratings Airbus was wanting for the current A351

There's never been any question that RR can't hit the thrust.

There's been some question as to whether the thrust is enough, and a thread running now which contributes some answers (as in "yes, it is")
The A350-1000 going up in size would of course re-ignite that question.

It would be nice to add some specifics from the article.....

[quote]The A350-1000 is aimed directly at the Boeing 777-300ER, but it is slightly smaller at 350 passengers vs 365 in typical three-class. Boeing, and others, question whether Rolls-Royce’s Trent XWB engine is big enough for the -1000 (Airbus, not surprisingly, said that it is). But we learned that Airbus is considering a 380 passenger -1000 and 50 miles more range to make it sure to do Dubai-Los Angeles non-stop. For this, the Trent XWB needs 5,000 lbs more thrust, and Rolls has been asked to figure this out.[quote]

Rgds


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 19155 times:

The link in OP suggests that Airbus is looking at A350-10 with 380 seats. My model suggests that a 9-abreast aircraft, for comparable technology, should outperform a 10-abreast aircraft up to 370-380 seats. I expect a 380 seat A350-10 to be about 20000 lbs lighter than 77w.

A 380 seat A350-10 will be about 78m long, so one would not expect any further stretch beyond that.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 19030 times:

Isn't the GE-90-115B "capable" of 127,000lbs of thrust? Just right now certified up to 115,000lbs?

UAL


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29686 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 18990 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 11):
Isn't the GE-90-115B "capable" of 127,000lbs of thrust? Just right now certified up to 115,000lbs?

It benched that. I doubt it can maintain it as static thrust.



EK needs an extra 37 seats out of the A350-1000 to match the 777-300ER's capacity. So that is (effectively) four extra rows of Economy (for 36 seats) which would need a stretch of about 4m, taking the A350-1000 to 79m.


User currently offlineaviationbuff From India, joined Mar 2008, 1425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 18908 times:

Emirates seeks B777 surrogate in A350-1000

http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...-b777-surrogate-in-a350-1000/page1


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 18822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
EK needs an extra 37 seats out of the A350-1000 to match the 777-300ER's capacity. So that is (effectively) four extra rows of Economy (for 36 seats) which would need a stretch of about 4m, taking the A350-1000 to 79m.

Airbus list the length of the A350-1000 as 73.88m. So I'm inclined to go with LAXDESI's c78m length for a 4 row extension.

Cabin area, though, would be about 340m2, 10m2 bigger than the 773ER

I'm fascinated to know how they plan to do that on 5k lb extra thrust (which implies to me a c. 10t MTOW increase).

There's a bit of which wonders whether this is as much about range/payload as physical size.....

Rgds


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 18767 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):
"Murdering"?

The A350-1000 has what is in all probability a c. 15% operating cost advantage over the 773ER in its current spec.
And going 10-across in a 3-class 777 adds what? c 4% to revenue?

Sure. It makes a difference. "Murders"? I doubt that

In the Anet golden standard of aircraft performance "fuel burn per seat" its a huge difference. It narrows the gap on normal 777 sold today. A reworked 777 with GEnX level improvements to the engines and other tweeks it would leave the current A351 in a world of hurt to complete head to head IMO. Too many existing 777 operators to make even an economic tie all that appealing for Airbus to contemplate. Yet, thats 1/2 of what has me confused about making the A351 even larger. Seems like it would lose the market appeal of being a "777" sized plane with low trip costs. The market differentiation is something Airbus and Boeing both have liked in the past.


User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 18669 times:

I assume that part of the trick is to make the A35K bigger and better and more muscular (i.e. a true equal of the 77W) while still close enough to the A350-900 to enjoy a good deal of commonality. By the time the A346 was flying, it had left the A343 far behind and there wasn't much overlap left. (VS grumbled that they'd ordered a derivative but ended up flying a new plane.) If they can achieve this, then A350 customers (of whom there are now a good number) are more likely to keep it in the family rather than mix and match A350s and 777NGs.

So will RR's engine be "just" a bigger TXWB or will it end up being almost a new model? My guess is that it'll be the latter.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29686 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 18631 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
Airbus list the length of the A350-1000 as 73.88m. So I'm inclined to go with LAXDESI's c78m length for a 4 row extension.

I believe Airbus has tweaked the A350XWB dimensions as the design has been defined, adding roughly one meter of length to each model. So my data shows 62m for the A358, 68m for the A359 and 75m for the A35J.

Then again, maybe that was something Airbus planned, and then later rescinded, as I don't have a link to where I saw those extensions in my notes. *shrug*


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 18485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I believe Airbus has tweaked the A350XWB dimensions as the design has been defined, adding roughly one meter of length to each model.

They added 1m to the wingspan a while back when it went up to 65m from 64m, but I've always understood the A350-1000 to be a 74m long aeroplane

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 15):
In the Anet golden standard of aircraft performance "fuel burn per seat" its a huge difference.

Just bear in mind that the extra "Y" seats are your lowest paying seats, and that the extra payload may be carried at the expense of payload elsewhere (e.g. cargo).

It's obviously worth doing in some circumstances, as airlines do it. It's equally obvious that it's not ALWAYS worth doing, as there are a lot of airlines that don't.

Like most of these things, it's not, in my book, a "digital" situation.....

I certainly won't argue with you that the 777 having the capability is definitely an advantage. I'm just not convinced that it makes a "murdering" change to economics

Rgds


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 18315 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Well it would probably compel Boeing to move the "777-300ERX" forward and also probably push GE to update the GE90-11xB.

Boeing have recently announced that the new 797 (if launched) will take precendence over any 777NG. I also remeber reading that the 787-10 will take precendence over a 777NG.

Then again - things can change.


Cheers,
StickShaker


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 18232 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8):
2. Airbus hates having good field performance with thier planes. (1% chance they found the reduction in performance worth it)

Eh? Pretty sure that's not the case.

Numbers from wiki. Runway length required.

B738=2400m A320=2090m.
B763ER=2410m. A332=2220m
B77W=3100m. A346=3100m
B748i=3090m. A388=2750m

Hmmm, Airbus' are so underpowered.

Fred


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 18185 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Fact? Or a.net factoid?

Well there is 3 explanations for the sudden reduction of thrust on the A351.

As PM wrote, what is your source so we know what you are on about. The only "sudden reduction" I know of was when Airbus reduced the required thrust on some of the models causing RR to downsize the engines a smidge.

From Wiki

Rolls-Royce has reached an agreement with Airbus to supply a new variant, currently called the Trent XWB, for all versions of the Airbus A350 XWB.[32] Originally announced with a static thrust range of 75,000–95,000 lbf (330–420 kN), by September 2007 Airbus had revised their requirements down to 75,000–93,000 lbf (330–410 kN).[33] Certification is planned for 2011, with the 84,000 lbf (370 kN) Trent XWB-83's entry into service on the A350 XWB-900 expected in 2013. This will be followed by the 75,000 lbf (330 kN) Trent XWB-74 in 2014 on the A350 XWB-800, and finally the 93,000 lbf (410 kN) Trent XWB-92 on the A350 XWB-1000 in 2015.[

Is it the 95 to 93 you mean? Or is it something else I do not know about? I stress again "requirements". It was not that RR could not get 95k - or not as far as was known.

I might add that this history does not appear to resemble any of your three reasons. It was a deliberate plan was it not?


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 18119 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
777 operators going to 10Y which is murdering thier economic advantage with the A350 being stuck at 9Y

Then tell me why the A350 has already murdered the "10Y" 772ER?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
Regardless of the merits of going bigger, I have to ask... where are they getting the engine from? GE won't commit to an engine for it unless Boeing plans to return to the 777-200ER/777-300 MTOW class with the next generation. RR can't even hit the thrust ratings Airbus was wanting for the current A351, so do they really want to do a whole new engine?

GE is free to participate on the market they had with the 777. On the A350. But the 777 will at one time no longer be the plane that carries any engine in that market.

Even a A351 that falls short somewhat in range compared with the 77W (or even more the 77NG) still covers the overwhelming majoriy of routes that airlines desire. Consider how small the niche would be that a 773LR would secure in addition to what the 77W gets now.

The A351 stresses efficiency and does not aim for the highest peaks of LR ranges. IMO this focus will generate more sales than the focus on performance.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 18079 times:

Re Reply 41. No not if you live in the world of A-Net factoids. You dream up the result you want based on some pathelogical bias then invent "facts" to support your new found "truth". Yup everyone who can read knows that in 2007 the thrust requirement was lowered by Airbus a smidge but for other(s) it was sudden/ recent and demanded by RR. Best ignored really.

Having said this it does not mean that Airbus may have pitched the aircraft wrongly and that a bigger aircraft may (or maynot) be required. If they have got it wrong then of course the engines power output may well be an issue.But there again it may open up a huge can of worms across the whole aircraft if it was not designed for these lengths and weights. It ain't just an engine issue it would be everything as they are all linked.Vicious circle.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3197 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 17910 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 23):
.But there again it may open up a huge can of worms across the whole aircraft if it was not designed for these lengths and weights. It ain't just an engine issue it would be everything as they are all linked.Vicious circle.

If they go to 380 seats you basically have a perfect 744 replacement in terms of size but one that's design should enable more in the cargo hold (like the 777). RR should be able to get this extra bit of thrust out of it. its not a huge increase...mearly 5000lbs. you get that kind of difference in CFM56 engine varients. making it closer in size to the 748 would probably do a good job of killing off future 748 sales, while still fair enough away from the a380s capacity. They can then stretch the A380 a tad and they'll have the market covered.

What they need to do strategically is make both the 77W and the 748 weak in this regard. The extra length is needed because there is no way boeing is going to resist the idea of making the 77W ten abreast finding a tad more space as the standard, especially if it appears its customers don't mind the narrower seats. when the 777 was designed to fit oversized economy seats, oil was dirt cheap.that is gonna matter a lot less to airlines now then it did 15 years ago.


25 RayChuang : I wonder will Airbus admit that it needs a really powerful Rolls-Royce Trent XWB for the A350-100. I wouldn't be surprised that Rolls-Royces announces
26 Post contains images astuteman : As yours was reply #23, some clarification might not go amiss, my friend I get where you're going with that. It would demand a whole heap of re-engin
27 parapente : Reply 26. Astuteman. You could well be right.I have no idea.But I do know this.If the "rest of the plane" is engineered to take the stretch it will on
28 flipdewaf : Well the A350-1000 is lighter than the 77W and it has a larger wing so thrust that high is totally over doing it. There is a thread aroud here or in
29 astuteman : There is indeed a thread around that discusses this topic. I'd question why anyone believes that a 298 tonne plane with a 460m2 wing (443m2 plus 4%)
30 imiakhtar : I'm really struggling to understand the apparent infatuation with size and power in this thread. As it current stands, the A351 has a MTOW of 298t. R
31 Post contains images SeJoWa : About how planes compete capacity wise, based on some basic parameters of design, I've been thinking lately that Airbus was pretty smart in positionin
32 par13del : Really does not take much to confuse me. Airbus desiged the initial A351 at a size which they knew covered less than 100% of the 777W capability but
33 Post contains links Revelation : Seems in 2009 the target was 92k: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...wb-upgrade-plan-for-a350-1000.html Seems to me that it's not a huge leap to
34 packsonflight : I guess Airbus is pretty comfortable about the A351 vs 77W, but they probably want to make the aircraft more tolerant against B77W NG.
35 Post contains images Baroque : Or maybe not another huge leap to invent another Email from RR to Airbus saying that they were so disappointed that Airbus did not "want the 105 k ve
36 Post contains images Revelation : There's a large body of evidence showing they are growing the 84k base engine to the 93k thrust mark. Well, since Keesje doesn't seem to be around he
37 astuteman : That is indeed, a healthy debate that our "fixation" with the "773ER vs A3510" seems to have sidelined for now.. Funnily enough, I suspect that the T
38 Post contains links parapente : Re Reply 37 I think this recent article road maps out RR's engine developments for the next few years. (Both conventional and unconventional). http://
39 Baroque : A challenge, yes but the question is what tense to apply to the challenge. So "is" that particular improvement a challenge or "was" it a challenge, i
40 Revelation : Agreed. Everything learned from T1000 will help TXWB. Yes, but it seems to be talking about the times after T1000 and TXWB:
41 Post contains images mffoda : Not counting lessors... 18 Airlines have ordered the A350-900/1000. 12 of them, have 777's already or on order. (not counting 787's)... " keep it in
42 Post contains links Revelation : What I've read is mostly about GE's travails on the GEnX: Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...hird-genx-improvement-package.html The part I'v
43 AirNZ : So all three of your 'explanations' are opinion, but you're passing them off as fact. You haven't provided a factual source for any of them.
44 zeke : Can someone verify this trend actually exists ? As far as I am aware operators using 77W on long hauls routes (i.e. above 5500 nm) are not trending t
45 Post contains images cosmofly : If ture, Airbus will save Boeing's agony of having to do a 777NG and drive Boeing to do a 787-11, which can match the A350-1000's capacity with better
46 AustrianZRH : EK's DXB-SFO, DXB-LAX, AF's CDG-SIN come to my mind...
47 Glideslope : While a good idea, RR will never be able to produce the thrust. GE is out, and Pratt is too busy with the PW1133G to develop a larger version if even
48 flipdewaf : Yeah but then air bus will just build the A350-76592 and it will have the RR "ESK" 4000 with extra smeg boosters!!!! SO THERE!!! Why wont they produc
49 zeke : Over 20 77W operators, a trend I would hope to mean to show what the majority of the industry is doing.
50 LAXDESI : My estimates for the proposed 380 seat A350-10, with a 78m long fuselage and a design range of 8,050 nm. A350-10(380 3 class) and B773ER(365 3 class 9
51 Post contains images tistpaa727 : Sarcasm. Read his post with a bit of sarcasm. He is saying that is not the case. That would make sense. Or they are catering to the needs of EK who w
52 Post contains images astuteman : I think its great having industry insiders here on a-net to give us the true picture........ Lucky us For extra seats AND range, the A350-1000 HAS to
53 LAXDESI : Adding Thrust/MTOW and MTOW/Wing Area ratios for the proposed A350-10(380 seat) with 95,000 lbf engines: ....................A350-10(380 3 class) 773E
54 Pihero : Don't have the data on the wings performance of both aiirplanes... But ... One thing is for sure : In about all cases of modern airliners, the absolu
55 AirbusA370 : So maybe there will be an A350-1000 "as is" and an A350-1100 "EK Edition"? If EK orders 200-300 of them, Airbus has to earn only 10m per plane to pay
56 nomadd22 : Is there some point in comparing a 10 abreast 350 with a 9 abreast 777?
57 LAXDESI : I am comparing a 9 abreast A350 to a 9 abreast 777.
58 frmrCapCadet : I always appreciate someone updating those charts that show the sweet spots of the various competing and proposed planes. It would be particularly nic
59 Post contains images EPA001 : Bingo, that is the post I was waiting for. Some years ago Keesje already proposed that an A350-1100 is quite well possible. And by Astuteman's argume
60 CFBFrame : I think this is a customer driven request? EK seems to enjoy pushing the design envelop of every product proposed, and you can't blame them for tryin
61 Post contains images EPA001 : I think this is incorrect. The current A350-1000 has more range then the B77W, but has less max. payload range. But it does about 95% of what the cur
62 LAXDESI : That would be a 370-380 seat aircraft that can not be beat by a 10-abreast aircraft with similar technology. Boeing would have to go higher than 395
63 2707200X : I don't think this would be a bad idea if I where on the Airbus design team as the A340-600 is slightly longer and thinner than the A350-1000.
64 CFBFrame : Okay, but the -1000 has not had a sale for a number of years. Being sold out is based on those first sales while the -300ER has been winning everythi
65 Post contains images EPA001 : But just as the sales succes of the A330 against the B787 (I believe she beat the B787 the last 3 years) the availability of an airplane is a factor
66 BoeingVista : Neither is true. They are just both speculation that you are trying to pass off as fact.
67 CFBFrame : Where did I say that either was fact? I copied my comment so you can see they were nothing more than topics for discussion? If and only if the -1000
68 PM : Why?
69 mham001 : These kind of statements bug me. It does not have more range. It does not have 20% less operational costs and it does not burn 20% less fuel because
70 astuteman : These are the kind of statements that bug me, in all honesty. They imply that there's no form of engineering input behind the specifications that are
71 zeke : Did similar statements also bug you when they were made by Boeing in relation to the 787 or 747-8 ? Of course it does not exist, everyone knows it is
72 BlueSky1976 : Had Boeing chosen RR for 77L/77W/77F, you'd be singing a different tune. RR offered 115k thrust Trent, but AFAIK was unwilling to share the developme
73 burkhard : Since I hate the -1xxx numbers, I think Airbus should market the large XWB family under an own name, A360. There I see an A360-200, with 75m length an
74 rheinwaldner : I like the idea. Never forget: the A358, A359 and A351 are the first version of this product. Like 788 and 789. Future versions of the A350 could inc
75 PolymerPlane : Maybe for take off, but the climb performance remains to be seen. The beauty of GE90 engines is that the continuous rating is fairly close to the "no
76 PolymerPlane : In reality, There hasn't really been any real phyisical lengthening of aircraft. Most improvements that's taken place is take-off growth. In fact, in
77 PC9 : To me this makes a lot of sense. Does anyone have a good estimate what payload/range would be for a 78m/79m A350-1000 with the normal Trent XWB (e.g.
78 rheinwaldner : ? phyisical lengthening = stretching 722 -> a stretch 734 -> a stretch 738 -> a stretch 743 -> a stretch 748 -> a stretch 753 -> a
79 TP313 : If Airbus wants to stretch the A350-1000, the two most efficient alternatives would be: - Adding 2 passenger rows (about 365 in 3 classes, 1 LD3 row),
80 Revelation : The real question is which family has done three fuse sizes without dropoff on the high end? Both A321 and 737-9ER are not particularly good airfield
81 XT6Wagon : Not so much of an issue given the -900 is the base, the -800 is now a straight shrink, and the -1000 is a partialy new plane much like the 789 was(is
82 tsugambler : I agree... I don't know what possessed them to start with -800 and -900, instead of doing the logical thing and starting from -100 or -200 (-200 woul
83 zeke : Does it ? Those airlines do not have some sort of magical 77W, I suspect that they compromise their cabin layout to meet the majority of their sector
84 parapente : Reply 82 I agree... I don't know what possessed them to start with -800 and -900, instead of doing the logical thing and starting from -100 or -200 (-
85 Post contains links imiakhtar : And how many airlines do you know that use Max Climb/Continuous thrust to the top of climb? I'm not sure about GE, but RR recommends using climb dera
86 Post contains links zeke : It is not a new wing, they extened the trailing edge aft. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/ai...key-changes-of-a350-1000-over.html
87 CFBFrame : Really find it useful. A few things I did not understand 1) If an engine is designed to perform at a certain thrust rating, would not overall perform
88 328JET : I know Airbus is working on studies of an A350-1100x behind the scenes. So maybe we will see a family of two or three subtypes of the A350 with differ
89 r2rho : Already as it is, the A351 is the somewhat different member of the family in the sense that it has some modifications with respect to the -900, while
90 PolymerPlane : Well people were talking about the climb performance of A3510 vs. 77W. Whether it is economical or not, it is up to the airlines to decide. It is the
91 328JET : Pardon?
92 Post contains links PolymerPlane : Designing 5 different variants of A350 is much much easier said than done. There is almost no chance of it happening. They are better off segmenting
93 panais : And what kind of experience you have to make this statement? And how do you know since none of them have even been assembled yet?
94 CFBFrame : And, if they don't do it well it could impact the overall A350 program. Which, for those who are calling for a separate name, may make very good sens
95 rheinwaldner : No, the A350 and the A357 would relate like the A330 and the A300/A310 do. Except the reversed order of creation. Basically the A350 cross section an
96 zeke : They did build 6 versions of the A330/A340.
97 CFBFrame : Kind of supports what I said about your original post don't you think? If Airbus wants that space then the -1000 plays a host of roles the 77W does n
98 parapente : They did build 6 versions of the A330/A340. Yup but how many made money? And IMHO how much better would the A330 family have been if they had not comp
99 wingman : I suggested this myself for the new 737 or 797 (2-3 fuselage lengths and two wing sets per model) and was blasted for the astronomical investment it w
100 PolymerPlane : Speculation? Numbers that Boeing and Airbus give? Isn't it the whole point of this thread? or the whole a.net? By your logic I can claim that all tho
101 328JET : I am not so sure. Airbus could replace the A332 and A333 with mediumhaul variants of the A350 with all possible technical changes like smaller wings,
102 Stitch : The A350-800 is the A330-200 replacement, just as the A350-900 is the A330-300's replacement. Both models offer similar cabin lengths, which allows a
103 Post contains images astuteman : The A330 sub-optimised by the A340.. now there's a thought you can chase down a whole series of avenues...... I disagree, for a whole host of reasons
104 astuteman : The A350-800 is 3m longer than the A330-200 and 3m shorter than the A330-300, wider than both, and nearer to the A333 than the A332 in terms of cabin
105 XT6Wagon : Though honestly any airline replacing thier A332 with a A358 is likely going to be very happy. I can't imagine the trip costs are going to be massive
106 qfa787380 : So it's not OK to upgauge capacity re 330/350 when everyone is talking about Boeing that re 797/737? Surely, the newer, more efficient type can affor
107 PolymerPlane : Cross section is not really a function of technology (newer is better). It's more about the capacity. For the 200-300 8 across seems to be efficient,
108 328JET : That, of course, would be the perfect solution.
109 zeke : I like to think of the A350-800 as the A330-300 product replacement and giving it A330-200 range, the A350-900 as the A340-500 replacement, and the A
110 Stitch : Looking at the cabin length data I have, and not the overall fuselage length, the A350-800 is about a half-a-meter longer than the A330-200 (and 4.5
111 Post contains images astuteman : It isn't. And it wasn't me that said it was It isn't, nor did I say it was. But the new technology plane in this instance has a better cross-section
112 Stitch : The A330 data is available on Airbus' site. I did a Google search for the A350 data and found it (and the 787) on a German aircraft data site. Their
113 LAXDESI : Airbus has a product compare feature on its site, but it is still missing cabin length information. However, it does have 3 class seat numbers as fol
114 Post contains links and images panais : Thanks for clarifying this, for a moment I thought that A.net was a serious place to read and post. "The A350-800 has got about 1,400nm [2,590km] mor
115 rheinwaldner : You are correct of course. In my opinion a rewinged A350 short range version would deserve a new name. A330/A340's are rightfully a different aircraf
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...
New Airbus A350-1000 Order Air Caraïbes posted Mon Sep 15 2008 01:25:37 by PanAm_DC10
Udvar-Hazy - A350-1000 Won't Achieve Performance posted Thu Mar 17 2011 05:58:28 by NAV20
RR "Plan B" For A350-1000 posted Wed Dec 1 2010 06:29:13 by JerseyFlyer
GE Engines For The A350-1000? posted Tue Nov 30 2010 04:34:10 by aviationweek
EK Defines It's A350-1000 And 77W Requirement posted Thu Nov 25 2010 13:32:53 by sunrisevalley
Goodrich To Supply A350-1000 Landing Gear posted Wed Nov 17 2010 02:46:08 by aviationweek
A350-1000 Any Further Stretch Likely? posted Sat Jul 10 2010 11:30:26 by ACES320
Emirates Improved 773ER Vs A350-1000 Competition posted Tue Jun 22 2010 03:09:45 by keesje
Etihad's Order Includes The A350-1000? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 17:45:53 by TriniA340
FI - Airbus Targets Aug For A350 Work Packages posted Mon Mar 31 2008 03:39:56 by Astuteman
New Airbus A350-1000 Order Air Caraïbes posted Mon Sep 15 2008 01:25:37 by PanAm_DC10
Etihad Cancels Six A350-1000 posted Tue Jan 17 2012 10:02:09 by LAXDESI
A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How? posted Tue Nov 15 2011 08:36:07 by WarpSpeed
RR "Plan B" For A350-1000 posted Wed Dec 1 2010 06:29:13 by JerseyFlyer
GE Engines For The A350-1000? posted Tue Nov 30 2010 04:34:10 by aviationweek
EK Defines It's A350-1000 And 77W Requirement posted Thu Nov 25 2010 13:32:53 by sunrisevalley
Goodrich To Supply A350-1000 Landing Gear posted Wed Nov 17 2010 02:46:08 by aviationweek
A350-1000 Any Further Stretch Likely? posted Sat Jul 10 2010 11:30:26 by ACES320
Emirates Improved 773ER Vs A350-1000 Competition posted Tue Jun 22 2010 03:09:45 by keesje
Etihad's Order Includes The A350-1000? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 17:45:53 by TriniA340