On shorter ranges, it most likely hurts efficiency.
But I do think that this move potentially torpedoes the future of the 777. Previously, the A350-1000 would have left a distinct opening for the 77W with carriers that need extreme range capability and those that want to fit ten seats across in coach. If this new iteration of the A350-1000 does what it says in the article, that market has been cut down to basically just those who want more capacity. So now, I think that rather than being able to tweak the plane and engines to widen the payload range gap, Boeing is going to have to do something more. At this point, I'd guess that the best route is continue to roll out PIPs for the 77W and sell freighters until the A350-1000 enters service. Around the middle of the decade, I think that Boeing will have to look at more involved solutions than a 777NG which would basically be a higher gross weight 787NG or the Y3.
I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. I think that Airbus is modifying the design mission in line with Emirates' wishes as much as anything. I understand why they did it, but I still think that Airbus would have been better off keeping the A350-1000 lighter and more optimized for shorter missions to compete better with the 787 rather than chasing the payload range of the 77W. It will be interesting to see how Rolls gets the extra thrust and what it does to on wing time considering what we heard earlier about then looking at a Plan B.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
aircanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 29111 times:
I was just comparing the specs on both a/c and wondering if A350-1000 can pull it off?
we know the thrust for RR trent will be 97,000lbs vs GE 115,300lbs, is 97,000lbs thrust is enough to work on A350?
fuel capacity on A350 is 156,000 L for 77W is 181,200 L.. Is it possible the bigger engines burn more fuel for 77W?
where as smaller engines burns less fuel for A350? The Dimension is very close. As for range A350 just a tad bit more than 77W? Do you think this will work? Well 77W max take off weight is roughly 387.5 tonnes vs 298.0 tonnes for A350.
Cabin width on 77W is 5.86m vs 5.61m A350. Interesting that the cabin width on A350 is slightly wider than A340-600 but a bit smaller than 77W.
QFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 28965 times:
What a joke. The 350-1000 has never been an 8,000nm plane and that's been well known for a long while within the industry. Even with this heavier, higher thrust engine, it still isn't an 8,000nm plane and won't be able to do LAX/SFO-DXB.
Weren't all members of the 350 family supposed to have 8,000nm range?
No wonder it's not a big seller.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1777 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 28671 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter): What does this do to the A350-1000 vs. 77W efficiency? Was Airbus too optimistic in their first iteration?
I'm pretty sure they were. Certainly as far as EIS was concerned, which I have never believed to be 2015 (not 2014, as the article suggests). Conveniently, Airbus has shifted the focus to RR to deliver 5k lbs additional thrust, while Airbus themselves IMO need that extra time to get the A35J on spec anyway.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): I think that Airbus is modifying the design mission in line with Emirates' wishes as much as anything. I understand why they did it, but I still think that Airbus would have been better off keeping the A350-1000 lighter and more optimized for shorter missions to compete better with the 787 rather than chasing the payload range of the 77W
Not just EK's wishes I don't think. As usual, they have been rather vocal about it, but I believe other potential buyers (QF, BA, SQ, CX) may very well behind it as well.
Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 5): Weren't all members of the 350 family supposed to have 8,000nm range?
No wonder it's not a big seller.
This may may very well change now, with a far more credible time plan and engine thrust. The additional thrust may impede some of the A35J's projected efficiency, but in its previous form it was outsold heavily by the 77W. If sales of the A35J will indeed pick up again, Boeing will have to start thinking seriously about improving the 77W. New engines, a new CFRP wing, Al-Li fuselage and further weight reduction all could be necessary. And if airlines decide that's not enough (a CFRP fuselage perhaps), an all new model might even be required.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 28589 times:
I gave these developments and some thought and came up with the following: It's the right thing to do!
Look at the missions the 77W is currently used on. They're all extremely long, with many of them pushing the limits of the airplane. Shorter missions will either be okay with smaller aircraft on higher frequencies, or they'll be hub to hub connections for which the A380 is tailor made. By increasing the A350s range, Airbus is effectively diversifying their fleet portfolio.
It's a little scary though how Airbus looks like Emirates' private planemaker :S It sounds far fetched, but if EK can tell Airbus what do build, they can also tell them to build something that will be disadvantageous for the competition and only work well for EK themselves.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 28393 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 10): Not sure I agree with that. EK, to name just one, use them on relatively short routes. I've seen EK 77Ws at Athens, for example.
I'm not an engineer and all I can offer is a naive miscalculation. I look at this improvement, and I see it as such, of the 77W as something similar to winglets on the 744. The airplane gets heavier and uses more fuel during certain stages of the flight, but in turn saves fuel during others. So how much heavier will the A351 become as a result of this, and how long would a flight have to be to compensate for the additional fuel burnt on acceleration/climb? And my uneducated guess would be around the 4-5 hours mark.
There are shorter flights than that and there will be many flights that won't require this added range. But the majority of them is well long enough to make this improvement worth the while.
But please engineers and calculators.. correct me if I'm wrong. My results derive from nothing but extrapolation and rough estimations.
sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 432 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 27699 times:
Quoting something (Reply 12): The airplane gets heavier and uses more fuel during certain stages of the flight, but in turn saves fuel during others.
I doubt that you can find a mission where the aircraft with the new spec will be more fuel efficient than before. If only the thrust would increase, there would be an advantage as step climbs could be carried out earlier. If thrust/weight keeps the same, this "option" disappears and you always have higher fuel burn as the aircraft is always heavier and always needs more thrust. You can find more details here:
Raptor1090 From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2011, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 27571 times:
Quoting something (Reply 8): Look at the missions the 77W is currently used on. They're all extremely long, with many of them pushing the limits of the airplane. Shorter missions will either be okay with smaller aircraft on higher frequencies, or they'll be hub to hub connections for which the A380 is tailor made.
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 11): Quoting PM (Reply 10):
I've seen EK 77Ws at Athens, for example.
Possibly to use the craft in otherwise 'down-time' similar to how they're used as add-ons across the Tasman from BNE, SYD and MEL to AKL and CHC.
The 77W is hugely profitable on shorter routes and EK uses its 2-class, 442/427 pax 77W aircraft on those routes.
Most of EKs 77Ws are NOT used to it's full range capabilities. Their 77Ws fly a big chunk of flights to all the six continents it flies to. The average flight cycle time for only their 77Ws is around 7 hours. This is hardly at full range. EK flies to only a few ULH routes in comparison to its entire route network.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1881 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 27533 times:
Well if you are going to change specifications as a result of detainled discussions with your customers (and potental customers) now is thie time to do it (in the planning stage)- is it not? If the aircraft needs a liitle more thrust so that it can travel further (into a Goldylocks zone) as dictated by customes then (as long as you can do it) - then do it.Clearly Rolls/Airbus can so they are!
Far better this than having to create a Mark 1B at some later stage.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 5427 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 27106 times:
In the end I think this is a good move for the A350-1000. It gets a range now beyond that of the B77W, and since it will be at least 1 year later on the market, it will also be closer to replacement time frames for the earlier B77W customers. Though I am not sure how the customers who already ordered the plane will react, but this change is certainly pleasing EK which are the prime customer I guess. .
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 13840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 26811 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 19): In the end I think this is a good move for the A350-1000. It gets a range now beyond that of the B77W, and since it will be at least 1 year later on the market, it will also be closer to replacement time frames for the earlier B77W customers.
Boeing seems to be in "wait and see" mode, so it should give them another year of waiting.
In the mean time, 777W backlog is healthy and production rate is high and IIRC planned to be getting higher.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32528 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 25015 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6): I wonder how much Boeing knew about this when they started passing around the 787-10X to the public.
Well they didn't increase 777 production (which the majority will very likely be 777-300ERs) on a whim. I think they're belief the A350-1000 won't EIS until 2019 is optimistic, but...
Quoting astuteman (Reply 2): The late 2016 suggested by the article is a 1 year delay.
True, but that means any airline not already an A350-1000 customer may have to wait a year (or more) longer than they thought they would. And if the A350 production ramp is not to plan, that delay will only extend.
Meanwhile, Boeing will have 777-300ER delivery positions in hand to offer them.
: Neither of the links given seems to say if the TXWB has been scaled up in size rather than power - does it?? Re-sizing the core a year after testing
: Except that I'm not sure that they are pushing it into the a Goldilocks zone as much as chasing the requests of a few customers for a relatively smal
: This plane is much, much, much larger than a 787. I don't think there's any ground to discuss there. NS
: Thanks for the link. Applying the analysis and assumptions from the link to my estimates from the following thread: A350-10 Versus B773ER Updated Ana
: EK has said 37 less, so figure 12F, 38C (lose one per row across six rows) and 31Y (one per center row across 30 rows and then probably one from the
: I agree and it could be anti-competitive down the road. EK's business model is different from a lot of airlines and they tend to operate at higher ma
: Compare the facts. The B787-10 is half a class below the A350-1000 in both range and capacity. Leaham knows a bit more than the german press: http://
: This is the rumour behind the Airbus doors rightnow. A second A350-family consisting of the -1000 and -1100x.
: after missing out on the huge boom on the 77W, i guess RR learnt their lesson and is willing to do anything to make up ground with the A350 (since 78
: If this is true, EIS of the second variant would surely be close to 2018 or so. . But it is an interesting rumor for sure. I guess you are right with
: Yes, which is a perfect year to replace the younger B744s, which are still in service.
: My calculations suggest that, for equivalent technology, the efficiency dividing line between 9-abreast and 10-abreast aircraft is around 370-380 sea
: Any chance you could splice a A350-1100 projection in there somewhere? LOL! I think they should make a worse one that costs more. Fred
: This is extremely rough, but here it is: General Specifications: ....................................A3511.......................B773ER Fuselage Leng