Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-1000 TrentXWB Gets 5,000lbs Extra Thrust Pt 1  
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 28853 times:

Leeham just broke the news

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011...to-be-announced-at-paris-air-show/

What does this do to the A350-1000 vs. 77W efficiency? Was Airbus too optimistic in their first iteration?


One day there will be 100% polymer plane
264 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30871 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 28812 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And the EIS of the A350-1000 may now slip to 2016 or even 2017, giving Boeing additional years to place 777-300ERs and to work on the 777-300ERX / 777NG.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9999 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 28709 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
And the EIS of the A350-1000 may now slip to 2016 or even 2017

The late 2016 suggested by the article is a 1 year delay.

Rgds


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 28712 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
What does this do to the A350-1000 vs. 77W efficiency?

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.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
Was Airbus too optimistic in their first iteration?

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?
User currently offlineaircanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 28691 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.


User currently offlineQFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 28545 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.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 28419 times:

I wonder how much Boeing knew about this when they started passing around the 787-10X to the public.


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1583 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 28251 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.



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 offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 28169 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.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 28128 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 5):
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.
Quoting something (Reply 8):
It's a little scary though how Airbus looks like Emirates' private planemaker


The globe is not (yet) spinning around DXB and EK.
Plenty of trans-pacific routes can benefit from more range/increased payload to reach further into Asia direct from North America, or vice versa.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 28077 times:

Quoting something (Reply 8):
Look at the missions the 77W is currently used on. They're all extremely long

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.


User currently onlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3181 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 27996 times:

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.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 27973 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.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 27279 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:

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2...-with-more-range-implications.html


User currently offlineRaptor1090 From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 27151 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.



[Edited 2011-06-06 04:46:40]

User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1560 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 27113 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.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12422 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 26947 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
Leeham just broke the news

Nope, AirInsight had this a day earlier:

AirInsight; Expected Paris Order Breakdown (by joecanuck Jun 4 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Maybe not front and center, but there it was.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 26929 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
Nope, AirInsight had this a day earlier:

Posted by...leehamnet!


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12422 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 26897 times:

Quoting sirtoby (Reply 17):
Posted by...leehamnet!

Ah, you are correct! I missed that. My bad...   



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 26686 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.  .

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12422 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 26391 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.

So, I guess, a "win-win" situation?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 26323 times:

Uh-oh.... Does this trigger JL's suicide clause?

User currently offlinePC9 From Germany, joined Nov 2010, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 26171 times:

This move seems to make sense. The increase of thrust by 5k lbs to 98k lbs seems modest given that Emirates and other were indicating a necessary thrust in the range of 100k to 105k lbs.

One would think that this engine needs to have the potential to be scaled up for a potential 80m A350-1100, which I'm sure is on the drawing board.

RR is reported to agree to build a new engine for the A350-1000, so I would assume it is more than just a bigger fan and it is the engine for the A350-1000/1100 family.

Any thoughts on that? How much thrust would a A350-1100 (80m) with meaningful range need?


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 25358 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 5):
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.

You need an 8500 nm plane to fly LAX-DXB, so I don't think your post really contributed anything at all.

NS


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30871 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 24595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


25 Baroque : 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
26 BMI727 : 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
27 gigneil : This plane is much, much, much larger than a 787. I don't think there's any ground to discuss there. NS
28 Post contains links LAXDESI : 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
29 Stitch : 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
30 SolarFlyer22 : 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
31 Post contains links 328JET : 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://
32 328JET : This is the rumour behind the Airbus doors rightnow. A second A350-family consisting of the -1000 and -1100x.
33 mogandoCI : 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
34 Post contains images EPA001 : 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
35 328JET : Yes, which is a perfect year to replace the younger B744s, which are still in service.
36 LAXDESI : My calculations suggest that, for equivalent technology, the efficiency dividing line between 9-abreast and 10-abreast aircraft is around 370-380 sea
37 Post contains images flipdewaf : 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
38 LAXDESI : This is extremely rough, but here it is: General Specifications: ....................................A3511.......................B773ER Fuselage Leng
39 Post contains images 328JET : Could you use metric values...?
40 flipdewaf : Good work, I shall break out the casm calculator... as soon I have finished my cup of tea. Fred
41 LAXDESI : My spreadsheet is in imperial values and it would be a bit of work to change everything to metric values. I grew up with metric system(growing up in
42 Post contains images gigneil : Or he could use Google to convert it, just like the rest of us. NS
43 PC9 : thank you for all the information. Would 104k lbs really be enough thrust for the A350-1100 to reach 8200m design range?
44 LAXDESI : Good point. It may need more thrust, in which case MTOW, OEW may have to be revised too. It is too early to know.
45 Post contains links EPA001 : Also Reuters now has some reports on the latest developments: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...0-engine-red-idUSLNE75503W20110606 http://www.reu
46 Stitch : Be interesting if this finally kicks GE into a comprehensive update of the GE90 to support whatever Boeing decides to do with the 777.
47 Post contains images EPA001 : It sure is interesting. Though I do not expect any announcement on that in Paris already. That will take some more time, and Boeing and GE do not nee
48 LAXDESI : The linked article indicates a development cost of $2 billion for the new engines, which would translate to about $2 million development cost per eng
49 justloveplanes : Boeing has been waiting for a firmed up 3510 spec for some time before committing to a course of action. Airbus has finally played it's cards, so I ex
50 flood : They indicate typical $2 billion development costs for new engines in general, not this particular engine - which I would expect to be considerably c
51 ruscoe : The 350-1000 is having a bit of a torrid time. It has only 75 sales, while the aircraft it should "kill" is still selling well. Airbus lowered the eng
52 Stitch : Depends. GE was said to have spent some $2 billion on the original GE90, and then another $600 million developing the GE90-110 and GE90-115. However,
53 Revelation : No, of course not. How could you think the game is that simple when billions of USD/EUR are on the line? If you look closely, there are no official A
54 Post contains images astuteman : Until we know what they've done to the airframe, we don't know what the effect on shorter range efficiency is. Personally I'd put the risk to commona
55 Post contains images Baroque : Interesting EPA, but still not clear in what ways the "new" engine will be new. They seem to imply that re-fanning is out because Airbus did not desi
56 Post contains images PM : There are echoes here of Boeing's vaccillations regarding the 777 before they (eventually) decided on two really big GE90s. Some of us will recall a p
57 Stitch : The original spec was 95K, then it dropped to 93K and now is being raised to 97K. So based on the original spec, it doesn't sound like too much of a
58 Baroque : All true, except the engine currently on test is not the size of the original proposal. They might produce it in two sizes, but I will bet their pref
59 Raptor1090 : Forgive me if I'm being too naive, but I'm sorta confused on something. The 77L can carry 301 pax to a range of 9380nm, while being much heavier and w
60 PolymerPlane : Heavier airplane allows you to carry more fuel, thus more distance. an A350 with GE90s will have limited efficiency gain. Check out the B777-300 non
61 Post contains images Asiaflyer : It is not only about range and payload. The A350-1000 will probably do the 777 job at significant lower fuelburn. Edit: PMs correction. [Edited 2011-
62 Post contains images frigatebird : Well, if that 2nd A350 family would require a new engine instead of incremental improvements over the current TXWB design, good luck to RR getting it
63 PM : Strictly speaking, the A350-1000 doesn't "do" anything yet. It will be some time before it delivers on the promise.
64 Post contains images KPDX : Haha. Same thing that came to my head.
65 Post contains images EPA001 : If you have worked it out, please let me know as well. Because sometimes I am equally lost as you when this topic comes up here. . Seriously some see
66 ruscoe : True, but I think there is a difference. The 787 suffered "detail design problems" and a lot of development and production problems, whereas the 350-
67 joecanuck : What Airbus does with the -1000 will have a lot to do with how the first two models turn out. By the time they start building -1000's, they will have
68 PM : Hardly unprecedented. To the best of my knowledge 737-600s and 737-900ERs are all powered by the CFM56... I'd say that the 767 and 777 were just as "
69 Post contains images EPA001 : Striking the B787-3, and firmly increasing the MTOW of both the B787-8 and especially the B787-9 (growing to the original B787-10 weight and dimensio
70 Post contains images EPA001 : Well said. There is more then enough time for the A350-1000 to mature to the design which she needs to have (read: what the customers will demand) to
71 Post contains images Baroque : I more had in mind the Airbus cards. (Even where the Airbus offering is a fairly calculable quantity and some notice has been given such as the A32xN
72 Post contains links PC9 : Flightblogger on the flightglobal site now also has an article on this topic. It highlights that this thrust increase is not only important for the A3
73 parapente : Thanks for post PC9. There seems to be a conflict between 2 posts above.One states that since the engine was designed to have a thrust 3,000 higher an
74 scbriml : Is it any different to the "single" GE90 powering 777-200s through to 777-300ERs? Even given this thrust requirement bump, the difference from bottom
75 Post contains links Baroque : This helps in some aspects and not others. Same fan but they too seem to wonder if a larger core would be needed or ??if RR would spring to a larger c
76 Stitch : When GE developed the 110K and 115K models, they went with a new fan that was five inches greater diameter. There were also significant other modific
77 EPA001 : Maybe. But she has the larger wing area while weighing less then a B77W, so it can not be that bad. That said, the B77W also has a bad field performa
78 Post contains links Baroque : Down, up, and now up again in terms of thrust seems to be the history. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...hrust-values-following-weight.html Howe
79 PC9 : Maybe some of the people with more technical understanding could share their views on how the TXWB version for the "2nd" part of the A350 family, e.g.
80 Stitch : I have always heard of it referred to as the Trent XWB in all Airbus and Rolls-Royce PR material. Air China used a different designation when they an
81 Post contains images Baroque : Tried Trent 1800, but there was another number I think you used, Trent 2000 seems to ring a very faint bell. But I suspect the first downsize in thru
82 BMI727 : True, but I can't imagine that it has gotten any better. There would probably have to be some weight increases to go with increased range and MTOW un
83 ikramerica : Do we know of any MTOW creep on the design yet? I would imagine it would approach 700lbs when all is said and done, w/ 100k engines. Now, this is star
84 Stitch : Lightsaber offered some comments on a higher-thrust Trent XWB that I saved: He noted that RR could change the blade materials of the high and mid turb
85 scbriml : Yes, but it's still a GE90. They had to make those changes to create a model that produces something like 50% more thrust than the smallest GE90. The
86 AA777223 : I didn't think this was true. I was under the impression that the fan was only 1" wider, and that it was only able to be that much due to the advance
87 gigneil : Its not true. Its actually quite a different engine and it is, in fact, 5" wider. You can see it clearly with the naked eye. Also the GE90-94B vs the
88 ikramerica : The fan is 5" wider but the engine is overall only 1" wider. I think that's where your confusion comes in...
89 AA777223 : Ah! Thanks! Makes sense. How did they do this? Is the casing on the 11X just 2" thinner all the way around?
90 Stitch : That's a given per the articles, but no actual figure has yet to be stated.
91 Post contains images EPA001 : Maybe "Paris" will shed some light on that as well. .
92 Post contains images lightsaber : I haven't even started this thread and I'm in it. This is interesting. It sounds like a larger core with a same size fan. But it could be RR is ready
93 gigneil : Maybe no more actual range - but there are a lot of 7000 nm flights that see the 777-300ER and I think that would be a primary market for the airfram
94 Burkhard : And why not call it A360-200 and -300 then, to get rid of the high numbers? And even the first 77W...
95 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Airbus Decides On Lower Thrust Requirement On A350 (by Laxintl Sep 22 2007 in Civil Aviation) http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Thrust%20Require
96 Raptor1090 : Okay, compare it to the 773; but there's almost a two decade difference in technologies in the two planes. So, in the twenty years science has develo
97 parapente : Reply 94 Quoting 328JET (Reply 32): This is the rumour behind the Airbus doors rightnow. A second A350-family consisting of the -1000 and -1100x. And
98 PC9 : While it is correct that the A350-1100 is not even a paper airplane (at the moment) and might never become one, it is at least a theoretical possibili
99 Post contains links EPA001 : Flight Global has a preliminary report about what Airbus could/will announce in Paris. Additional changes to the engines, weights and the size of the
100 Post contains images PC9 : Thanks. Flightglobal mentions that the core will be revised as it is problematic to increase the fan size due to ground clearance issues. This doesn't
101 Post contains images parapente : This doesn't sound too good for the A350-1100 Well it wouldn't if Airbus ever had been any intension to build one Mid April quote. Industry sources fa
102 nomadd22 : With RR horning in on GE90 territory, it doesn't seem likely GE can ignore it much longer. Maybe time to look at rolling GenX tech into the big guys.
103 328JET : Why not? I would suggets to compare the range of the B773, A346 and B744 versus the range of the planned A350-1000x. Flightglobal is talking about 85
104 Post contains images EPA001 : That is how I see it too. And it offers improved chances for an A350-900R and F. .
105 r2rho : So should we stop calling it the A350-1000 and start calling it the A360? I fear that Airbus may be sacrificing too much commonality within the A350 f
106 Post contains images Baroque : Not sure if I used that particular search, but plenty that were similar and as best I can tell, none of those links - just like all the other links I
107 Stitch : I have to admit I am very surprised that at least two A350-1000 customers (EK and QR) appear to be more focused on the A350-1000's ~1% payload defici
108 astuteman : The Flightglobal article linked suggests a larger core, and no increase in nacelle diameter. No. Why on earth should we? Airbus will be making the tr
109 Post contains images EPA001 : I can agree to this. So now we "only" have to wait what exactly will be announced by Airbus/RR regarding the modifications on the A350-1000 XWB. .
110 Post contains links PC9 : the Aeroturbo-Power Blog has further thoughts re the recent A350-1000 rumours. They also mention a -1100.... http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/
111 lightsaber : The extra IPT stage will be used to increase the diameter of the 'booster compressor.' In other words, increase the air going to the combustor allowi
112 328JET : I have a guess which airline could be very interested in the 1000/-1100x combo... This A350-aircraft sub-family would be perfect for Lufthansa: -1000
113 mffoda : And as I just posted in the other thread "787/A350 Air France /KL Decision Next Month." 'Be careful what you wish for! If the A350-1000 is as good as
114 Post contains images 328JET : That problem with the A350-1100x is existing and i mentioned it in another thread as well. Airbus really has to look that the A350-1100x is not tooo
115 mffoda : Maybe... But it wouldn't be just a 744 replacement... If as one poster suggested that the larger A350 models are 15% more economical then the 777...
116 Baroque : Aha, now I realise how specific that (non) smilie you inserted about the PW4098 might be. I guess it is possible that RR have learned from that unfor
117 Post contains images flood : At which point they could announce the A389
118 Post contains images EPA001 : Airbus suggested themselves that of all the new airliners coming to the market in the coming years, only the A350-1000 comes awfully close to today's
119 ikramerica : If the A350-1000 were going to be 15% more economical than the 77W, the 77W would have stopped selling already and the A350-1000 would have more than
120 Post contains images mffoda : I was referring to the NEW -1000/-1100 that is be discussed.... New Engines, wings etc...
121 Post contains images astuteman : ???? It's interesting to note that most of the sceptical comments about the weight/thrust growth to the A350-1000 express concers about it being LESS
122 Post contains images EPA001 : I disagree. The 15% will easily be doable, and maybe they reach close to 20%. Superior aerodynamics, less drag, less weight, a larger wing surface, i
123 ikramerica : So Boeing can barely outstrip the A332 on efficiency with the 787, but Airbus will get 15-20% improvement over the 77W? Is it that Boeing is complete
124 LAXDESI : I am not sure what metric is being discussed, but I would not be surprised if the A350-10 ends up with 15% lower GSM(gallon seat mile) than B77W. A35
125 trex8 : B said all along the 787 would be @20% more efficient than a 767. The market at that point was saying the 767 was less efficient than the A332. So th
126 Post contains images EPA001 : No Boeing is building a much more capable airframe with the B787 compared to the A330 and especially the B767. By their own statements the B787 will
127 Post contains images EPA001 : Though the math might be simple, the engineering behind it will be a phenomenal task for all engineers involved. I forgot to put this point into my p
128 BMI727 : The increase in thrust almost certainly means an increase in MTOW and OEW. Carrying more weight than necessary at shorter ranges makes the plane less
129 ikramerica : More economical and more efficient are not the same thing. Efficiency gains alone do not translate into 1:1 economic improvements. But either way, on
130 Stitch : EK have said that they expect the A350-1000 to be 11% more fuel efficient per trip and 21% more fuel efficient per seat, but will lift about 1% less
131 Post contains images astuteman : But meaningful? Leeham reckon that MTOW might go up 12t and OEW by about 2t, per the link in post 110 So if we want to characterise an A350-1000 taki
132 Post contains images EPA001 : That is what I based my statements on as well. But the numbers still need to achieved first, but I guess they are highly believable imho. . You are m
133 LAXDESI : My calculations suggest that B787, with the revised MTOW and MZFW, should have 17% lower GSM(gallon seat mile) than A332. For EK 77W has about 10% mo
134 LAXDESI : Turning the numbers around, if EK's 10-abreast 77W is 11% less fuel efficient per seat than A350-10, then the 9-abreast 77W should be around 15% less
135 Post contains images Stitch : Yup, just checked EK VP-Route and Fleet Planning Richard Jewsbury's quote and it is indeed 11% more per seat and 21% more per trip. CX's fuel burn fi
136 ikramerica : Then why are we hearing that the 788 can barely beat the A332 in economics? Is it all just hot air?
137 Post contains images EPA001 : On the shorter stretches the A330 is still quite competitive, also while Airbus keeps improving the package which is almost incomparable to the origi
138 Stitch : The 787-8 will also undergo updates over her service life, so as the years proceed, the performance delta between the 787-8 and A330-200 should widen.
139 Post contains links EPA001 : See here in the Tech/Ops section. Another fine analysis from LAXDESI. Link: B788 Versus A332 Updated Analysis (by LAXDESI Jun 9 2011 in Tech Ops)
140 Post contains links LAXDESI : Good to know my model is giving me fairly good numbers. Btw, it is being reported that AI may defer its 788 delivery. I have just started a new threa
141 BMI727 : How can you add more weight that is not necessary for carrying fuel loads and not have it be less efficient? Airbus just made a trade off. It is far,
142 astuteman : I don't disagree. I just suspect that the difference is right in the weeds, compared to the increase in capability. Rgds
143 BMI727 : Compared to a 77W, it probably is. But I think that it might not be compared to a stretched 787 (either the 787-10X we saw a week or two ago or some
144 328JET : The -10x does not compete with the A350-1000. "Some other versions" may be planned, but could Boeing could also start new B777 versions.
145 BMI727 : It doesn't compete with anything since it isn't on offer.
146 328JET : It is much smaller airplane with less range and still a study only.
147 Stitch : If launched, the 787-10 will not compete with the A350-1000 across all missions, but it will compete with it on some missions, just as the A330-300 co
148 328JET : I see the B787-10x more to compete with the A359.
149 astuteman : Sorry BMI727. I can't see the "efficiency" difference between the A350-1000 as currently specced, and as it might end up being with this weight and c
150 BMI727 : You do realize that the aircraft market doesn't work like a boxing match, right? So you think Airbus found an extra 500 miles of range for free? What
151 astuteman : I thought I'd explained quite clearly what I think Airbus might or might not have to do. I also referenced what other fairly informed analysts think
152 BMI727 : Which is exactly what I'm saying. There isn't much point increasing thrust if you aren't trying to lift more. And there is a reason Airbus didn't go
153 justloveplanes : It seems as simple as Airbus underestimated the staying power of the 77W and now needs to invest more to get more to justify the 3510 project, which t
154 BMI727 : That's hard to say at this point. The gap could be all but gone by the time the A350-1000 actually enters service, but the efficiency will still be a
155 LAXDESI : With the revised A350-10, Airbus is probably forcing Boeing to give up on the idea of a 77W(NG). The reason is as follows:
156 Post contains images Baroque : Some sure do know but as ever with Airbus and RR information seems to be what the oil industry calls "tight". However, if RR do not do as you suggest
157 Post contains images Baroque : Afterthought. It might be that Airbus is not as fixated on beating the 77W as some here wish to think. They may have had a wish to meet requirements t
158 Stitch : If a 777-300ERX is not going to "cut the mustard" and Boeing instead launches Y3, RR now having a 100k thrust new-generation engine ready to hang unde
159 rheinwaldner : Long before the A350's CASM would be so good to put pressure on the A380 the CASM would be good enough to kill any 777 derivative and the 748. So don
160 Post contains images flythere : seems that they only design and build aircrafts for EK
161 Post contains images frigatebird : Because they're not ready before 2012 and the fan is too big. GE could develop an engine that covers a 787-10ER and either 777NG or RS. And, now that
162 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Alcoa is planning on announcing an all new Al-Li 3rd gen at Paris...offering significant weight and aerodynamic advantages over current aluminum alloy
163 Post contains links JerseyFlyer : It depends on the next iterations of the A350. It seems to me that the airlines using A330s so effectively on regional routes now will need something
164 Post contains images frigatebird : Together with a new CFRP wing, further weight reduction, standard 10 abreast seating and new/updated engines, perhaps If not, a whole new airplane is
165 Post contains links sirtoby : Here is a new aeroturbopower-blogpost how the A350-1000 and -1100 could look like: http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2...000-with-more-range-update-i
166 Post contains images EPA001 : I agree. If the revised A350-1000 XWB will deliver on the promises rumored, then in my opinion Boeing will need a new design to really compete with i
167 Post contains images EPA001 : Very interesting, but imho highly speculative. Though that proposed A350-1100ER would be something. .
168 Post contains images Aircellist : Well, if the core is indeed enlarged, the name will finally mean something, no? Could this material also keep the A330 worthy of manufacturing?
169 Post contains links btblue : That's certainly one way to shed some weight from the 77W and put it on a competitive edge against the 350 in the short term but there is something e
170 Post contains images astuteman : Gads.... Can you imagine the fraught back-pedalling going on on A-net when this becomes the "game-changing" successor which obsoletes the CFRP barrel
171 LAXDESI : Yes, if the claim of 12% reduction in fuel burn is true. It seems to me that this claim is greater than what CFRP B788 has been able to achieve over
172 Post contains images EPA001 : Don't forget the A380-800/900/1000.
173 LAXDESI : Thanks for catching my oversight. I just edited my list to include both A380 and B748.
174 JoeCanuck : For all new designs, (except maybe narrow bodies), composites of some sort will be the way to go...especially with the amazing rate of advances in co
175 Post contains images ferpe : The move by RR to develop a new version of TXWB has changed the 3510 vs 77W fight significantly, here why: BEFORE 3510 was the end stretch for the 350
176 speedygonzales : Are there any indications that the -1000 might get a 5th exit pair to be more attractive to charters and LCCs? I suppose that an -1100 will need it if
177 Revelation : Surely it's not as simple as just changing the materials. The article starts out with: The "structural technologies" part pretty much says we're not
178 Post contains links zeke : I am not sure. More is required than cherry picking on one particular area. The weight delta difference between the 77W and the A350-1000 is over dou
179 Post contains images lightsaber : But wait, there is merit to that line of thought... This isn't a one variable competition. Excited? I know RR has done some great work. The issue is
180 Post contains images EPA001 : Aren't you a bit conservative here? Or are the rumors around the A350-1000 upgrade (still air range of 8.000 NM to increase to 8.500 NM) a bit too op
181 Stitch : I've heard that at least a few carriers saw the (original) A350-1000 as more of a "super 777-200ER", excellent for missions like that, but not up to
182 Post contains images lightsaber : Very conservative. I'm stating the minimum range for a large sales market. Any more range is bonus sales. I've heard similar talk too. I agree that A
183 328JET : That is the Boeing way. First the base model, then a stretch, later an ER version of the stretch. Airbus normally avoids this way.
184 Stitch : Well with the A300 and A330, Airbus started with the baseline then released a shrink to improve range (the "ER" model). They then start adding MTOW to
185 Post contains images 328JET : OH OH OH, so many small mistakes... I assume you are a bit tired...? 1. The A310 was no shrink of the A300, it had a new cockpit, a new wing, new eng
186 Post contains images Stitch : It's a 13-frame shrink of the A300B's fuselage. The 767-400ER also had a new cockpit, new undercarriage (with the wheels, tires and brakes from a 777
187 BMI727 : By those standards you won't find many models that meet your definitions of stretches and shrinks.
188 Post contains images 328JET : With exception of the aft part, which was completely re-designed and later-on introduced in the A300-600 as well. With some more changes, yes. It is
189 BMI727 : You can't seriously tell me that having a center fuel tank and taller tail makes the A330-200 "more than a shrink." The -200 got the extra fuel tank
190 328JET : As i wrote in reply 188: It is a shrink with some changes. Exactly. And that is the normal Boeing procedure which Airbus doesn´t use. In case of the
191 BMI727 : It isn't a difference in philosophy, it's a difference in nomenclature. Airbus MTOWs tend to grow steadily over the life of the program, and they cou
192 Stitch : Airbus uses "HGW" whereas Boeing uses "ER" to define higher MTOW models.
193 PM : I guess you are entitled to "see" whatever you like but it's nonsense to suggest that Boeing evolve their models incrementally but Airbus somehow 'ch
194 BMI727 : Of course Airbus doesn't really roll out prototypes that say as much, and I guess that makes a difference to some people.
195 Baroque : Er fellas, how many of these 777 models (or A32x for that matter) will the TXWB larger or smaller actually power? Sorry to be picky!
196 Post contains links EPA001 : Flightglobal has a new article (with a picture) about how the possible changes to the A350-1000 could look like. Focus remains on the engine core but
197 astuteman : Thanks for the link, my friend. The article mentions speculation that there's a redesign of the HPT, with the addition of an extra stage, so I suspec
198 Post contains images EPA001 : This is not unexpected I guess and it is a relatively small price to pay for: Because in the end that is what its all about. .
199 parapente : thrust growth could most likely be achieved through a redesign of the high-pressure turbine with the addition of another stage. So much for all this n
200 LAXDESI : I wonder if the redesign(engine and pylon) will accommodate an increase to 104K lbf for a possible A350-11?
201 PM : Jeez. That's small change!
202 Post contains images frigatebird : Wasn't the original 777 design not based on Al-Li skins? That might reduce the work involved in redesigning a 777NG with Al-Li. It needs more than ju
203 Stitch : The Trent XWB has a single stage in the HPT, so adding a second would make the 98K model "unique", hence the comments it would affect spares commonal
204 parapente : reply 200 I wonder if the redesign(engine and pylon) will accommodate an increase to 104K lbf for a possible A350-11? I have never personally been a s
205 LAXDESI : It could do what A333 did to B772ER. A350-11(a simple stretch) with around 7,000+ nm range could be an excellent alternative to B77W/B77W(NG) on shor
206 Baroque : Yes, many thanks EPA, extra stage. Hmmm, so really a different engine altogether as Stitch points out. New case too. One negative, is that those kind
207 zeke : I do not think so, it was the latest and greatest alloy at the time, the 2524 for the sides, and 7150 in the crown. If 7000 nm (i.e. 14 hrs) is your
208 LAXDESI : There you go again, missing the forest for trees. A simple stretch will be still lighter, carrying about the same number of passengers as a 77W(10 ab
209 Stitch : Rolls was supposed to have a new Trent 900EP in production this year as the baseline engine, with the upgrades available as a PiP for earlier units.
210 zeke : The A350-1000 already has much lower fuel burn per passenger/payload that the 773/3ER by some margin, it is the size of the 777-300ER with the empty
211 Baroque : Thanks for that update. With two extra stages, it does mean that back migration from the XWB to the T900 is not as direct, not that it was all that d
212 LAXDESI : That everyone expects and exactly what my analysis suggests. Funny how you have called my analysis speculation and not factual when it shows B788 to
213 Post contains images astuteman : Especially as they were going to spend some money on the A350-1000s engines, and have differences anyway.... If you're losing commonality, you may as
214 zeke : Those collections of numbers does not represent an analysis, nor are they based upon manufacturers data. In most cases you made the data up to fit yo
215 Post contains links Baroque : You have me there - not unusual. I thought the latest Trent was: The Package B engine includes a revised six-stage low pressure turbine (LPT) design,
216 LAXDESI : One would think that if I was making up data, my analysis would end up favoring one manufaturer over all others. Here's what my analysis has shown so
217 Stitch : Baroque has already quoted the information I had planned to in regards to the Trent 1000, so I'll just add that for the GEnx, it appears that no addi
218 zeke : The Trent 1000 LPT is 6 stage, you can vary the number of stages and still have the same engine. Some RB211-524s have different number of stages e.g.
219 zeke : Your "estimates" are your own fairy tail, they are numbers you made up in your imagination, they could be higher or lower, that does not mean anythin
220 Stitch : Airbus claims the A350 will have ~20% lower fuel burn then the 777, so just knock 20% off CX's average numbers for the 777-200 and 777-300ER and you g
221 LAXDESI : This is pretty pathetic of you to accuse me of fabricating data. From now on I will completely ignore any comments you make that relate to my post. H
222 zeke : You have said yourself a number of times that your numbers are your estimates, i.e. as you previously posted "my analysis is based on available numbe
223 Post contains links LAXDESI : Thanks for the numbers. Here's what I get for A350-1000(revised MTOW) and B77W for a 6,300 nm mission: ...............GSM(gallon seat mile).......GTM
224 LAXDESI : It is sad that you don't see a difference between estimating and fabricating data. You are on my ignore list from now on. Please don't bother quoting
225 328JET : That would be an amazing achivement. If the A35J really burns 6500Kgs then it would burn exactly todays A343s figure. And the A35J is MUCH bigger.[Ed
226 gigneil : Could you actually show us your work then? These numbers aren't public domain, either, so barring a source I'd be very curious as to your assumptions
227 Post contains images 328JET : I think you did not get my point, so i assume my argumentation could have been better... Name one simple stretched widebody from Airbus with less ran
228 ferpe : If the 359 would burn 5500 kg/hr it would be equal to the numbers PianoX gives the 789 when you increase thrust, weight and drag to 789 values. Not ba
229 Post contains links LAXDESI : I have a spreadsheet model where I take what's available from the aircraft manufacturer on a proposed aircraft, like MTOW, range, fuselage/wing info.
230 zeke : Any decent peer review of your "numbers" comes back with personal attacks on the person questioning the veracity of your data, if we went back a few
231 LAXDESI : I had trouble getting the free PianoX version to accept weights of 789 in the 788 file. I will try again, but I am glad you were able to do it. It sh
232 Stitch : Well the newer and larger wing helps, I am sure. Also, the CX numbers are for a 777-200, which runs a lower-thrust (and likely less-thirsty) engine t
233 parapente : Sometimes on this forum there is a desire for something to be true - even if it is not.The desire at the moment is for the XWB for the 1000 to be a "D
234 gigneil : How could you estimate fuel burn based on even correctly having all of those figures, and what is your methodology for estimating the remaining varia
235 frmrCapCadet : I think this statement is too much of an overstatement. Every new plane, even some of the major updates, has been either a financial R and D disaster
236 BMI727 : It won't matter. If the A350-1000 does what Airbus says it will do commonality won't make much of a difference. Being run on a test stand and being r
237 Post contains images lightsaber : While I wouldn't call that long haul, I'll agree it isn't short. For more than a few airlines (CX, EK) the current A350-1000 will not meet their rang
238 LAXDESI : It is best if we take this discussion to the linked threads in the technical forum that I provided in reply #229 . You may find answers to some of yo
239 Stitch : Indeed. GE's hit the near side of 130,000lbs of thrust on the stand with the GE90-115b, but using the "thrust-bump" option get get an extra ~2% of th
240 Post contains links LAXDESI : [ Thanks. Actually the range estimates are from a flightglobal article that is linked below. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...nce-through-thrust
241 astuteman : True. That said, I'm not sure that pursuing 100% market share is ever going to be the best ROI.... There will be an optima somewhere on that axis. Rg
242 zeke : Flights over 14 hours are known as ULTRA long haul. That naturally depends on where the aircraft is registered and what AOC it works under. Been slig
243 Post contains images Stitch : Okay, then it's a perfect match for CX. True, but high ambients at DXB hurt payload even for the east coast missions flown with the 77W, so I would e
244 LAXDESI : As per my calculations, 773ER loses its cargo advantage over the revised A350-10 (with 98,000 lbf engine and 8,500 nm range) on a 6,300nm(HKG-LAX) mi
245 zeke : I didn’t say that either, it is too much aircraft for some places, and not enough at others. I do not think it hurts EK that much, as long as they
246 dynkrisolo : The great circle distances of all these cities from DXB are under 6500nm, but you should know better that it would require much more than a nominal r
247 zeke : I do indeed, that is why I looked at 6500 nm, and not 8000 nm to account for routes and winds.
248 flipdewaf : But the beauty of the EK model, in my humble opinion, is the triple bank at DXB. It means that aircraft can rotate in multiples of 8hrs (assuming equ
249 Post contains links EPA001 : A very good article is just posted on www.flightglobal.com which addresses the production ramp-up for the Rolls Royce Trent-XWB engines. Link: http://
250 parapente : Re Reply 249 Once again the "real" facts are - well - just fine.The engine is working well.very well - indeed better than spec.It has been shown to gi
251 Baroque : Ooh, nice find, my friend. From that article: "We are beating expectations. Most of that benefit is in the compressors, which are performing very, ve
252 Post contains images lightsaber : Ohhh... Surge margin can always be 'traded away' for further compressor efficiency improvements. Expect that to happen in an early PIP. It is very di
253 Post contains images EPA001 : That could be "the surprise" to be announced in Paris? . Well, maybe Airbus and Rolls Royce will surprise you as well with the upcoming statement whi
254 Baroque : Happy to see your surprise. They do seem to be pushing their previous boundaries a bit. What with one thing and another, things look quite promising
255 Post contains images astuteman : Instead there's mention of removal of a stage........ But from the IP compressor I was fascinated to note that the fan is a mere 25mm bigger in radiu
256 Post contains images Baroque : Might be and might not. Stages of vanes and stages is not exactly the same thing. They might mean they have deleted a stage, but possibly not. Many m
257 ferpe : With that he means he had 4 stages that could change their angle, now he can fix one of these and only have 3 variable angle compressor vanes. So the
258 astuteman : Isn't it? Does it? I don't think they'd be boasting quite so much about the weight and complexity savings if that were the case. I'll of course defer
259 ferpe : One does does not need to be an expert to know what he is talking about, variable stator vanes are a hazzle for any jet engine, the less of these row
260 Post contains images Baroque : I guess we will have to await the expert input, but Ferpe's understanding was closer to mine. The statement can be read a number of ways, but (I think
261 Post contains links Stitch : FlightGlobal is reporting the new thrust will be 97,000 pounds and Rolls-Royce will be the exclusive engine supplier for the A350-1000, which will now
262 Post contains images mffoda : Damn Stitch... The biggest news of day and our European friends getting their beauty rest...
263 ruscoe : Does this mean that to carry the same number of Pax an extra 400 miles, requires an extra 10T in fuel and structure? Is it woth it? Apparently Airbus
264 Post contains links NZ1 : Hi Everyone, Due to the size of this thread, please see link below for Pt 2. A350-1000 TrentXWB Gets 5,000lbs Extra Thrust Pt 2 (by NZ1 Jun 18 2011 in
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...
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
A350-1000 Design Firmed Up With Larger Wing posted Thu Apr 22 2010 22:15:36 by Scipio
New Airbus A350-1000 Order Air Caraïbes posted Mon Sep 15 2008 01:25:37 by PanAm_DC10
Etihad's Order Includes The A350-1000? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 17:45:53 by TriniA340
A350 Switches To 5000psi, Adds Extra LD3 posted Sat Mar 29 2008 04:51:20 by Rheinbote
B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View posted Fri Nov 30 2007 14:59:12 by Singapore_Air