Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Reveals A350-1000 OEW  
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7793 times:

Airbus had this breifing to their investors at this years Paris airshow, they then publizied this chart together with the following figures:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...AFQjCNFDqMQa94Ap-ysYpZEbnIe2XSclMA

Airbus 2011-06 A350-1000 payload-range chart


A350-1000 revised
MTOW 308t
MZFW 220t

Now if one adds a MSP of 67t gleaned from the chart to that one get the OEW at 153t. The MZFW went up 1,5t (218,5t to 220t) with the same MSP for the old and the new version so it cost them 1,5t to raise the MTOW from 298t to 308t. This is plausible as most of that MTOW increase was fuel (8,5t of the 10t hike). So now we have the complete data set:

A350-1000:
MTOW 308t
MLW 233t
MZFW 220t
OEW 153t

Range @MZFW 5600nm
Range @350 Pax 8400nm
Range @maxfuel 8600nm

[Edited 2011-11-03 09:10:46]


Non French in France
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1609 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7539 times:

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
A350-1000:
MTOW 308t
MLW 233t
MZFW 220t
OEW 153t

So the A350 OEW will be roughly 14tons lighter then 777-300ER OEW (167,800 kg) but 8 tons heavier the the 777-200LR.

Somehow i'm dissapointed. I expected more weight savings.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7474 times:

We have had the same reaction and discussion in the 787 threads. I think the CFRP influence is overestimated by us all, if one does a little math it becomes clearer:

1. The CFRP typically saves about 20% compared to an AL part.

2. The INCREASE of composites is from say 10 > 50% between the 777 and the 350-1000.

3. The 50% is 50% of the structure, not the OEW or even the MEW. Say the structure composes 70% of the MEW or 60% of the OEW, then we would have:

40% of 60% of the OEW would be 20% lighter = > the OEW decreases 4,8% i.e. 8t for a 777.

The additional 6t in the case of the 777 vs 35J would come from Engines demanding some 15-20% less fuel, ie you don't need the structure for the 35t extra fuel the 77W needs for a 8000nm mission vs the 35J and you carry some 15-20 pax less.

So the wonder of CFRP shall bring us about 5% weight advantage, once one digest this things get a little more leveled (I was also trapped in the CFRP maze before doing the math   ).

[Edited 2011-11-04 05:20:16]


Non French in France
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7455 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 2):
So the wonder of CFRP shall bring us about 5% weight advantage, once one digest this things get a little more leveled (I was also trapped in the CFRP maze before doing the math).

Although despite that 5% may look small this is in fact a "wonder". The related fuel tankage reduction has also to be accounted as a gain.

Bringing down overall weight by a comparable dimension is hardly possible by any other technology...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31394 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7402 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-300ER has a Maximum Structural Payload of 70t, so the 67t MSP of the A350-1000 tracks with reports/claims/speculation that the 77W has the edge in raw lift. The 77W also has a slight edge in range at MZFW (150nm), but comes up about 350nm short at the 30t nominal (pax+bags) payload of the A350-1000.

[Edited 2011-11-04 07:27:35]

User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7193 times:

From the chart can also be derived (initial) cruise fuel burn is 5,5t/h. How does that compare to 787 or 77W?

Apart from longer fuselage, 6 wheel MLG and larger wing area, what are other major differences for the -1000?


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7145 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):

Although despite that 5% may look small this is in fact a "wonder". The related fuel tankage reduction has also to be accounted as a gain.

Bringing down overall weight by a comparable dimension is hardly possible by any other technology...
Quoting Autothrust (Reply 1):
So the A350 OEW will be roughly 14tons lighter then 777-300ER OEW (167,800 kg) but 8 tons heavier the the 777-200LR.

Somehow i'm dissapointed. I expected more weight savings.

From structural perspective, 777-300A is closer to the A350-1000 than the ER version. A350 is only about 7 tons lighter compared to the 300A.



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7059 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 5):
From the chart can also be derived (initial) cruise fuel burn is 5,5t/h. How does that compare to 787 or 77W?

Can you explain how you reached this figure, here the ones that my calculation gives for their average fuel burn doing their respective spec range missions:

77W....8,1t/hr....@7930nm mission
788.....4,8t/hr....@7800nm mission
789.....5,2t/hr....@8200nm mission
358.....5,2t/hr....@8500nm mission
359.....5,5t/hr....@8100nm mission
35J.....6,3t/hr....@8400nm mission



Non French in France
User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6999 times:

Trading 4,5t of payload for fuel (the oblique line is MTOW limiting, but you know that already, don't you  ), gives you 400nm extra range. This translates in a fuel burn of 5,5t/hr at M0,85. This should be ± initial cruise fuel burn as the "extra fuel" is used first.

Of course It depends on the accuracy of the "400nm" figure Airbus provided. If it's only 350nm in reality, this would mean a 6,3t/hr fuel burn. That gets quite close to your number... (and seems more realistic to me)

A figure for the 77W I just found in another thread, 7,6t/hr avg.

Btw, how did you get your numbers? (Just out of curiosity)  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6986 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 8):
This should be ± initial cruise fuel burn as the "extra fuel" is used first.

The extra fuel is there to run the last bit (the frame flies exactly the same profile until then, it only extends the last step climb leg with say 400nm, therefore you have to assume that this is the fuel for this extension). So your reasoning is correct IMO but this is the fuel burn at the end of the cruise.

Quoting sf260 (Reply 8):
Btw, how did you get your numbers?

It is quite simple, the framers gives you the MTOW, Payload (Pax+bags@210lb) and the ensuing spec range. The only thing you then need to calculate how much fuel they use for that mission is the OEW which we just got.

Now MTOW -payload -OEW = fuel including reserves. Reserves are 5% of the total trip consumption + 45 min holding + 200nm diversion, it makes an almost perfect 10% of trip fuel. So now you have trip fuel, divide with range and you have kg/nm, multiply with groundspeed and you have kg/hr.



Non French in France
User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6970 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):

Now MTOW -payload -OEW = fuel including reserves. Reserves are 5% of the total trip consumption + 45 min holding + 200nm diversion, it makes an almost perfect 10% of trip fuel. So now you have trip fuel, divide with range and you have kg/nm, multiply with groundspeed and you have kg/hr.

Just out of curiosity what groundspeed are you using, as I am also not getting anywhere close to your numbers.

With your MTOW of 308, payload of 32t (estimated from chart), and OEW of 153t, I'm getting a fueling including reserves of 123t. Minus the 10% reserve fuel gives you 110.7t. Divide by 8400nm gives you 0.01318t/nm. Now this is where groundspeed comes into play. I have no clue what the A35J ground speed is, so I just used an estimated 0.85 mach, which is 562.25 knots (nm/hr). Multiplying that by 0.01318 is giving me 7.4t/hr. Better than the 77W, but no where near as much as you are saying. Where is my math going wrong?

I only checked the A35J by the way, I don't know if there are discrepancies with the other models.


User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6910 times:

Quoting polot (Reply 10):
so I just used an estimated 0.85 mach, which is 562.25 knots (nm/hr)

here you go wrong, speed of sound depends on temperature, so M0.85 at -56.5ºC (ISA at cruise alt >11km) it is ± 487knots.

@ferpe, it isn't. Think about it the other way around, taking off with MTOW - 4,5t will get you 400nm less far away. That is basically on the chart.
Fuel that you need at the end of the flight needs to be carried, that's why your fuel burn in the beginning of the flight will be higher than at the end.
So it should be initial fuel burn, more or less.


User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6880 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 11):
here you go wrong, speed of sound depends on temperature, so M0.85 at -56.5ºC (ISA at cruise alt >11km) it is ± 487knots.

I see, thank you. I completely forgot to take temperature into account.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6792 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 11):
@ferpe, it isn't. Think about it the other way around, taking off with MTOW - 4,5t will get you 400nm less far away. That is basically on the chart.
Fuel that you need at the end of the flight needs to be carried, that's why your fuel burn in the beginning of the flight will be higher than at the end.

I am with you there, I thought about that after my post. The induced drag (drag due to lift) will be higher when you start with a higher TOW basically all the way. But there you are comparing 2 different frames with different MTOW, you can't use this to conclude about the average fuel burn for an A/C, see my post how to get average fuel burn. Now the slope describes something else (IMO):


The slope of a payload-range graph after the max range @MZFW is the area where your trade x ton of payload swapped for the same weight amount of fuel. Reduce payload and fill her up to the same TOW and you fly longer time and therefore further (this is indeed the graph part for constant TOW, before and after you vary TOW, before you have constant payload but reduces fuel for less needed range and after this part you reduce payload with constant (full) fuel to fly further.

Say we swap 6t from payload to fuel, then you have the same TOW in both cases and the same induced drag for both flights until you in one flight can fly about 1 hour longer on the last cruise height. The negative slope of this diagram will be your weight vs nm swap ratio for the last cruise leg, i.e. your fuel burn for this range extension, you can express it in t/nm or as the groundspeed is reasonably constant as t/hr.

I think my reasoning makes sense but stand happily corrected otherwise.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6511 times:

With the chart from As Paris briefing I could see that my extrapolations did not fit 100% @MZFW range, it turned out I did not treat the trip fuel contingency of 5% correctly when doing the average fuel burn estimations for the extrapolations. Here a more correct chart where the old, new 350-1000 and the 77W is compared:

Payload range 35J vs 35JN vs 77W


A few interesting things can be seen (the calculations I do are now pretty close to reality, have also checked my estimations with PianoX for the 787):

1. It is now more clear why the 77W is a better lifter as Stich said, it was better all the way to spec range for the original 35J and now it is better until say 7300nm. The 35JN is now closer matched to the 77W.

2. Look at the MTOW slopes, they show you the fuel burn per nm, the more vertical slope of the 77W (higher fuel burn) is obvious. The 35JN also burn 150kg/hr more then the 35J, this can also be gleaned from the chart.

3. The A Paris chart is simplified to emphasize the differences to an investor community, therefore the MTOW slopes are shown as identical (they are not) and the max fuel range has the same curve down to 0 payload. In reality they have burned 90% vs 97% of their max fuel at spec range, thus the 35J can fly that much further (9100nm) when one trades more fuel for less payload.

As can be seen you don't gain without losses, the 35JN can start with a higher MTOW. Therefore it needs more thrust, it pays with a 2,4% higher fuel burn then the original 35J.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6318 times:

So you agree with me that the slope that first "vertical line" is fuel burn @ initial cruise?

(I gave it some thought yesterday, changed my mind twice and lost it somewhere, but now I think I was right in the beginning)  

Thanks for that updated diagram, btw!


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6193 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 15):
the slope that first "vertical line" is fuel burn @ initial cruise?

Final, not initial. Thought experiment: imagine the airplane carries a sealed vault that contains 5 tons of fuel or 5 tons of payload, except you don't know which one at departure. At the end of the flight, you open the vault and either descend if it's payload, or burn the fuel to fly further if it turned out to be fuel. The difference between these 2 cases determines the slope of the payload-range curve. Initial cruise fuel burn, when you didn't know what was in the vault, is irrelevant.


User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6152 times:

That was indeed one of the thoughts I had, but I can't figure where I go wrong in the following: if you take off with previous MTOW (so new MTOW - 4.5t), you end up being 400nm closer.... Can anyone help please?  

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6097 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 16):
Final, not initial. Thought experiment: imagine the airplane carries a sealed vault that contains 5 tons of fuel or 5 tons of payload, except you don't know which one at departure. At the end of the flight, you open the vault and either descend if it's payload, or burn the fuel to fly further if it turned out to be fuel. The difference between these 2 cases determines the slope of the payload-range curve. Initial cruise fuel burn, when you didn't know what was in the vault, is irrelevant.

Nice explanation, but remind me not to fly with you over water, just in case your thirst for empiricism overtakes wisdom!  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31394 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sf260 (Reply 17):
Can anyone help please?

Airbus did increase the MZFW by a number of tons (probably to increase the maximum structural payload closer to the 777-300ER) and since that chart is at MZFW, it's possible that even with the MTOW increase, total fuel load (by weight) at MZFW has gone down, which would impact range.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 16):
Final, not initial. Thought experiment: imagine the airplane carries a sealed vault that contains 5 tons of fuel or 5 tons of payload, except you don't know which one at departure. At the end of the flight, you open the vault and either descend if it's payload, or burn the fuel to fly further if it turned out to be fuel. The difference between these 2 cases determines the slope of the payload-range curve. Initial cruise fuel burn, when you didn't know what was in the vault, is irrelevant.

Are we going to have a cat and a geiger counter as well?

Fred


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6040 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 17):
if you take off with previous MTOW (so new MTOW - 4.5t), you end up being 400nm closer.... Can anyone help please?

There is only one MTOW. If you take off 4.5 tons short of MTOW, your range performance will not fall on the line we are discussing.


User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5996 times:

Ok, I see now where I went wrong. Thanks all!  

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5996 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 17):
if you take off with previous MTOW (so new MTOW - 4.5t), you end up being 400nm closer

WingedMigrator said it, here another version of the same thing:

- When an OEM publicizes the payload-range chart in e.g. the ACAP (AirCraftAirportPlanning guide) they only give you one version, the one where you start as heavy as it gets = MTOW. The chart envelope then show the frames maximum performance all the way out until you fly with 0 payload and full fuel at some +10000 nm.

- You got mixed up because A put 2 charts on top of each other, one with the old 35J with a MTOW of 298t and the new with 308t. You can only use the 4,5t diff in payload capability at a given range >5600nm as a comparison between the two variants. The values 4,5t and 400nm also gives you the slope of the curve for the heavier frame and somewhat wrongly the lighter frame (they generalize quite freely in this slide, but what the heck it was financial analysts in the audience, don't confuse them with facts    ). You can use this slope to understand your fuel burn at that range.

-Stitch, the MZFW was increase with 1,5t to cover for the fact that the 35JNew has a higher MEW. They fool you into thinking +1.5t with the graph but they said to Flightglobal at Paris it was 2.4t in reality. So the MSP should have been lowered for 35JN with a ton in the graph. As said a generalized "investor" graph    .



Non French in France
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wonder how Airbus sees the A350-1000... as an ultra-long-haul aircraft or a big people mover on normal long-haul routes, like BKK-FRA or LAX-LHR. Or both?


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
25 Baroque : Over in Civil, RR are saying that the bigger engine has the same SFC (must mean TSFC) as the smaller engine. Previously a 1% or so penalty had been as
26 ferpe : The old version of the engine was spinning faster with changes to IMO the fan and high turbine only, i.e. the IP, HP, IP, LP was indentical to the 84
27 Post contains images ferpe : This is of course a serious case of brain fade , should read "IC, HC, IT and LT" or read out: intermediate compressor, high compressor, intermediate
28 Post contains images Baroque : Now I am totally confused. You were actually quoting yourself not me. And I am not that sure about the correction. Do we actually know what they are
29 ferpe : Sorry Baroque, I made a fault with the reference, of course it was my part of the post I referenced, not yours. To your questions: My calculations ar
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus Reveals A350-1000 OEW
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Reveals Self-Powered Landing Gear, Braking posted Wed Mar 25 2009 08:29:33 by 2H4
RR Reveals Trent XWB Upgrade Plan For A350-1000 posted Tue Mar 3 2009 05:24:53 by Aviationbuff
A350-1000 New Wing To Support 4 Engines F0r -1100? posted Fri May 23 2008 00:09:17 by Panais
Airbus A350 Flaps posted Mon Jun 25 2007 05:13:16 by Eaglewarrior
Airbus A350 Cfrp Panel Construction posted Fri Jun 22 2007 05:00:09 by WingedMigrator
787/A350: Efficiency From Lasting Slickness posted Mon Oct 31 2011 10:55:33 by faro
A350 Engine Testing. posted Sat Oct 22 2011 06:21:00 by flyvabb
Should Airbus Had Launch Their RJ Design? posted Tue Oct 11 2011 15:59:33 by 747400sp
Trent XWB V. -1000 posted Sat Oct 8 2011 21:56:00 by JoeCanuck
Airbus "Land Mode" posted Wed Sep 28 2011 02:09:21 by AirPacific747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format