Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
OA940
Topic Author
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:25 pm

https://www.ausbt.com.au/the-secret-to- ... ource=hero

So after reading that I started wondering: How far could an A350-900ULR fly with a standard configuration of a 359 (say 280-310 seats)? Can it carry all those pax before reaching MTOW? Can an airline actually use the ULR with a standard config to reach further?
A350/CSeries = bae
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:57 am

Should be the same as a regular 280t 359. There’s no extra weight in the ULR apart from a minimal amount of extra plumbing as far as we’ve been told. In fact they’re supposed to be taking some weight out of the airframe. There’s been debate before about impact on MZFW but if structurally the ULR is the same as the regular airframe apart from the plumbing the trade-off between payload and fuel will presumably end up the same for both aircraft, at least up to the level of the fuel capacity of the standard aircraft.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:31 am

OA940 wrote:
So after reading that I started wondering: How far could an A350-900ULR fly with a standard configuration of a 359 (say 280-310 seats)? Can it carry all those pax before reaching MTOW? Can an airline actually use the ULR with a standard config to reach further?


Airbus themselves have said you can operate an A350-900ULR as a "normal" A350-900 by just paying the money to certify the relevant operating weights higher, so the payload-range chart would be the same as a 280,000kg TOW A350-900. So that would be north of 8000nm design range (325 passengers and their luggage in an Airbus three-class OEW configuration with no cargo).
 
User avatar
Boeing757rb211
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:24 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:56 am

Maybe slightly off topic, BUT I feel i gotta just jump in and say that i am 100% a Boeing fan, i always have been and i probably always will be,,, but i gotta give it to Airbus... the A350 is one VERY "sexy" looking aircraft. It just looks incredibly sleek and fast, and absolutely LOVE the shape and curvature of the wings.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:00 pm

Back to the question...
The Airbus rep quoted in the ausbt article confirms what I thought was now the common understanding: the ULR is essentially just the new standard configuration -900 with a bit of "additional piping and additional venting.” Unless someone can tell us otherwise the weights are basically also going to be the same. I think we're still waiting for MZFW numbers for weights above 275t - and for ULR with fuel loads above 140,000l.

If your question is what a ULR can do if it is reconfigured as a 280t regular -900 with 280-310 pax, the answer should be that it will have the same range as that regular -900.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:25 pm

Regarding the A350-900 with augmented tankage, all other changes are flowing into the standard frame. The other changes seem to be, new winglets, new wing twist, some other aerodynamic work and some weight reduction.
Airbus declares the A350-900 to be able to fly 9,300 nm in the ULH version with pax and bags. I have not seen what the actual passenger numbers would be.
If we assume full fuel, an OEW around 140 t, that would give us a payload of 15.5 t at max fuel of 124.5 t. 124.5 t should give us more than 21 hours flight, that would mean about 10,500 still air range with some reserves. A very rough guess.
Payload would depend on the weight of the chosen configuration of the frame. Today the OEW seems to range between 135 and 145 t for different configurations.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:10 pm

TheRedBaron wrote:
I really wonder how the payload on a A350 will be affected on such long flights, specially then the A345 had such a few seats and was not a great business case for Singapore Airlines.


Bjorn at Leeham.net speculates that MZFW will be around 190,000kg, which is a bit under WV000 (192,000 kg).

Airbus uses a figure of 95kg per passenger and their luggage so at 162 seats, that would be a payload of just over 15,000kg. SQ Baggage Allowances are 40kg for Business and 35kg for Premium Economy so assuming a 60/102 split that would be 2400kg for Business passengers and 3500 for Premium Economy. If we went with 100kg per passenger for convenience, that would be another 16,000kg. So total would be just under 22,000kg of payload.

162 seats is well below a standard two-class operator density, but it's all Business Class and Premium Economy so the per-seat weight will be (relatively) high plus catering / pantry will be heavy so I'm going for a DOW of 135,000kg. So all-in with some cargo say a speculative ZFW of 160,000kg which means she could tank 120,000kg of fuel which is about 75% tank capacity.


rbavfan wrote:
So what is the capacity of the 3 ACT tanks? can't find that info anywhere I have looked.


Three ACTs provides an additional 17,095 liters (so just under 5700 liters per ACT).
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:09 pm

Both Boeing and Airbus have talked about shrinks to both the A359 and the 778 to fly true ULH as well as other structural changes. According to Leeham Boeing has talked to Quantas about this if bundled with additional sales of 787's.

I think one or the other manufacturers will build a derivative to fly virtually any mission the airlines can come up with. The question is how many frames they will sell and is it financially worth while. Leeham estimates the the market will be 50-60 frames. I guess time will tell.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:21 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Both Boeing and Airbus have talked about shrinks to both the A359 and the 778

The only shrink of the A359 I've ever heard them talk about is the A358, which currently seems as dead as the Dodo. Has it been mentioned recently?

I've never heard anything at all about a shrunk 778. Source?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:36 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Both Boeing and Airbus have talked about shrinks to both the A359 and the 778

The only shrink of the A359 I've ever heard them talk about is the A358, which currently seems as dead as the Dodo. Has it been mentioned recently?

I've never heard anything at all about a shrunk 778. Source?




Flightglobal and Leeham. I can't find the Leeham article....maybe you can. This is from Flightglobal. The idea of a shrink of the 359 for an ultra long range role has been around for well over a year. Key quote from Flightglobal.



"While the Boeing efforts to meet the requirement are focused on the smaller 777-8 variant of the 777X, Airbus is still evaluating whether to adopt the A350-900 as the platform or whether it needs to revisit a shorter “-800” variant to achieve the required payload/range performance." “Both Airbus and Boeing are protecting slots for us, so we could get it in 2022-23.”

Joyce is unsure if Boeing will have to modify the 777-8 to achieve the performance, but adds that Airbus is “saying they may” consider a shorter-fuselage A350 variant if the standard A350-900 cannot meet mission requirements. A once-planned ultra-long-range “shrink”, the A350-800, has been in limbo for several years while Airbus focused on introducing the baseline -900 and -1000 stretch versions.



The full article is here: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lo-443664/
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
aw70
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:20 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:52 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
The A350ULR is basically a payload restricted A 359 with a few minor modifications.

True ULH flights are niche and right now the only true ULH frame now without payload restrictions is the 77L.


Right, but the A350 being payload restricted DOES NOT MATTER MUCH for ULH flights. You cannot coop up people in normal Economy for 18+ hours: you need at least Premium Economy. And even that is borderline inhumane and medically dangerous, if you ask me - anything short of true lie flat on an 18 hour sector is asking for thrombosis and such.

And if you have way more lie flat (or at least premium econ) seats in there, compared to a "regular" A350,... poof, any payload disadvantage instantly disappears.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:53 pm

So yeah, basically just an A358 with the -ULR fuel system?

Makes sense. Though they can surely forget about their 300+ requirement (which IMO, they're not going to get anyway) with that.

Only way that that seems likely is if Airbus makes a 590T A380 with an active center tank, and then they short *that* to 300 pax. Seems like a lotttt of metal for such a task, though.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 pm

aw70 wrote:
Right, but the A350 being payload restricted DOES NOT MATTER MUCH for ULH flights. You cannot coop up people in normal Economy for 18+ hours

And yet EK, QR, and UA are currently doing just that... so obviously, you can.

AKL-DOH, AKL-DXB, and LAX-SIN are all 17.5-18hr flights, and each offers regular Y.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ERJ135
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 4:04 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:04 pm

On the radio news this morning (June 4th) was a short tail end story that Qantas is "Working" with Airbus to see if SYD-LHR could be achieved. At this time I'd have to assume that they were talking about optimising the A359ULR for such duty. QF seemed very interested when the A350-1000 came to visit them in SYD some months ago now and the rumour mill seems to suggest the remaining orders for the A380 will be switched for the ULR, (Rumour, not my opinion). The current 359ULR is little different to the standard 359 so there may be room for a range boost but at what payload cost is the question. Naturally if SYD-LHR can be non stop so too can JFK.
I so want to fly on SCAT one day!
 
Antarius
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:26 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
aw70 wrote:
Right, but the A350 being payload restricted DOES NOT MATTER MUCH for ULH flights. You cannot coop up people in normal Economy for 18+ hours

And yet EK, QR, and UA are currently doing just that... so obviously, you can.

AKL-DOH, AKL-DXB, and LAX-SIN are all 17.5-18hr flights, and each offers regular Y.


At the right price, its amazing what people will put up with.

There is a market. I flew IAH-DOH 6 times last year and the aircraft was packed every single time. Packed.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:27 pm

I don't get why people keep saying the A350ULR is payload limited (any more than any other aircraft)? WV010 has an MTOW of 280T and a MZFW of 195.7T - 3.7T more than WV000 the original 268T variant. Obviously, if you fill up the entire additional fuel it can tank, 24,000l or 19.5T that will eat into payload, but that's true of just about any aircraft isn't it? But you can trade fuel for payload, it's not like the MZFW is lower.
http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... t-2017.pdf
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1773
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:33 pm

aw70 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The A350ULR is basically a payload restricted A 359 with a few minor modifications.

True ULH flights are niche and right now the only true ULH frame now without payload restrictions is the 77L.


Right, but the A350 being payload restricted DOES NOT MATTER MUCH for ULH flights. You cannot coop up people in normal Economy for 18+ hours: you need at least Premium Economy. And even that is borderline inhumane and medically dangerous, if you ask me - anything short of true lie flat on an 18 hour sector is asking for thrombosis and such.

And if you have way more lie flat (or at least premium econ) seats in there, compared to a "regular" A350,... poof, any payload disadvantage instantly disappears.


While I do agree to an extent that more than 18 hours in regular Y is basically torture, I don't think that's why SQ doesn't have it. I think it has more to do with the profile of the pax flying the route.
@DadCelo
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:06 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
So yeah, basically just an A358 with the -ULR fuel system?

Pretty much the last thing heard on the A358 (albeit 2014!) was that they were looking at making it longer, so the length wouldn't be set in stone:
The -800, as currently planned, has space for 276 passengers in typical three class layout. It is 60.54m long and has a range of 8,250 nm. By comparison, the A350-900 is 6.3m longer and seats 315 passengers. The baseline A350 has a range of 7,750 nm, according to Airbus.

Leahy makes clear that even if changes are decided Airbus will not go for an all-new design of the -800 and that it will still be a shrunken version of the -900. The redesigned -800 would likely move close to just under 300 seats while its range would be below the current target, but still above the -900, if no other changes are incorporated. Leahy says that since talks with customers are continuing it has not yet been decided how many rows of seats would be added.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... a350-800-0

If they are close now maybe an e.g. 4m shrink would meet in the middle, and have a little more niche appeal elsewhere. Obviously the supposed 300 pax requirement wouldn't be met, but I've always taken that as indicative of market size rather than a hard limit. Surely 270 pax, say, at substantially lower trip cost would act to derisk the operation. Zodiacs sleeper berths in the lower cargo hold might help mitigate lack of main deck space.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/fl ... 502365002/

On the other hand, surely having what would be an off the shelf A359 (albeit customised interior, fuel mods etc) has to have it's own charms if things don't work out how they expect.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:29 pm

rbavfan wrote:
Not true Airbus state 8700nm with 325 passengers & 9700 with reduced seating. Singapore had noted for quite some time it is 162 seats.


That is not correct, the 8700 nm number came from
A350ULR launch statement, it represents the distance from New York to Singapore that the launch customer SQ is going to use the route over. Airbus never quoted that as being the range, we had a discussion on here about that back when the 9700 nam figure was stated by Airbus. Airbus themselves clarified that the 8700 nm was the city pair distance and never represented the design range.

Additionally the ULR features engine PIP, and aerodynamic improvements which reduces the fuel burn by 5%.

The nominal marketing configuration for the A350-900 is 315 or 325 passengers, in their normal 2 or 3 class configurations.

The reason SQ is going for a lower seat count comes down to their choice just to offer a premium only configuration. The nominal aircraft congratulations have economy seats which are just 7kg each, when you offer a premium only configuration like SQ has you are replacing a rather basic seat with a something like a 150 kg luxury seat. The luxury seat not only takes up more floor space, it takes up more payload.

This is common for all aircraft, not something unique to the A350.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:22 am

BaconButty wrote:
I don't get why people keep saying the A350ULR is payload limited

Because it doesn't offer any particular performance that the standard won't (eventually) be able to duplicate, other than increasing available fuel volume (usage).... but to use it, you'd have to significantly short ZFW.

If the -ULR had been given the 298-308T projected weight of the original -R proposal: THEN you certainly wouldn't hear people saying that.


BaconButty wrote:
that will eat into payload, but that's true of just about any aircraft isn't it?

Many such models would be FVL before their fuel weight ate so significantly into payload, which is probably why you don't hear it as much.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:23 am

zeke wrote:
Airbus themselves clarified that the 8700 nm was the city pair distance and never represented the design range.

The nominal marketing configuration for the A350-900 is 315 or 325 passengers, in their normal 2 or 3 class configurations.

But are you just assuming that that's what they used to come to the 9700nm figure with the -ULR, or have they specifically mentioned that somewhere (or run it through software)?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:11 am

LAX772LR wrote:
But are you just assuming that that's what they used to come to the 9700nm figure with the -ULR, or have they specifically mentioned that somewhere (or run it through software)?


Sorry I don’t quite follow your post, are you saying I am just assuming Airbus used the aero and engine improvements in computer simulations to get the 9700 nm ?

It is more than computer simulations, they have flight tested various improvements as well, and I am hearing good things about the first SQ ULR aircraft that has started flight testing.

Lowering the hourly fuel burn and drag by 5% translates to more than a 5% increase in range as you need to carry less fuel over the distance, or travel a longer distance with the same fuel burn. It costs fuel to carry fuel.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:36 am

Zeke, your not convincing anybody that the ULR is taking the same payload (325 pax) as a standard 280t A350 1600nm further, knock it off.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:38 am

zeke wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
But are you just assuming that that's what they used to come to the 9700nm figure with the -ULR, or have they specifically mentioned that somewhere (or run it through software)?

Sorry I don’t quite follow your post, are you saying I am just assuming Airbus used the aero and engine improvements in computer simulations to get the 9700 nm ?

No, I'm just asking how you know that those were the numbers used for the -ULR to find that specific distance. Because on the face of it, it doesn't seem realistic.

Did Airbus ever say that the used 315-325pax in their calculation of 9700nm range? ...or is that a figure that you deduced (or calculated or assumed or ran in some manner of software)?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2992
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:54 am

zeke wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Not true Airbus state 8700nm with 325 passengers & 9700 with reduced seating. Singapore had noted for quite some time it is 162 seats.


That is not correct, the 8700 nm number came from
A350ULR launch statement, it represents the distance from New York to Singapore that the launch customer SQ is going to use the route over. Airbus never quoted that as being the range, we had a discussion on here about that back when the 9700 nam figure was stated by Airbus. Airbus themselves clarified that the 8700 nm was the city pair distance and never represented the design range.

Additionally the ULR features engine PIP, and aerodynamic improvements which reduces the fuel burn by 5%.

The nominal marketing configuration for the A350-900 is 315 or 325 passengers, in their normal 2 or 3 class configurations.

The reason SQ is going for a lower seat count comes down to their choice just to offer a premium only configuration. The nominal aircraft congratulations have economy seats which are just 7kg each, when you offer a premium only configuration like SQ has you are replacing a rather basic seat with a something like a 150 kg luxury seat. The luxury seat not only takes up more floor space, it takes up more payload.

This is common for all aircraft, not something unique to the A350.


You're trying to tell me the A359ULR is carrying 315-325 9700nm? The aircraft would have already won Project Sunrise if that was even close to being true. C'mon Zeke you're smarter than this.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:56 am

The A359 is a great plane, but is just does not push out range to new levels beyond the 77L or the A340-500. Again, no disrepect, but I do not remotely believe the 9700 nm number with any kind of meaningful payload.

Either Airbus or Boeing will meet Project Sunrise requirements. My guess is the 778 with modifications, but certainly a shortened A358ULR could probably do it as well with moderately less than the 300 pax requirement. Say 260-270 pax.

Folks get excited when a new subtype is introduced. I understand that. But the enthusiasm should be tempered with facts.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:11 am

One other quick thing. The current longest flight in the world is DOH-AUK which is flown using a 77L. The distance is 7848 nm. The flight westbound is 18 hours 20 minutes.

If the 9700 nm number is to be believed than the A359ULR should currently be able to fly SYD-LHR with full pax and bags. If so, than the poster above is correct and the existing A359ULR has already won Project Sunrise and fully meets its requirements.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:42 am

There are three variables to consider when discussing maximum possible range that seems to be misunderstood or ignored in this discussion:
1- Wight : which include the frame itself, and payload. Both are estimations and there is no hard data about how much they are exactly. Also, it differs for carrier to another.
2- Fuel capacity : Which is - as far as I know - the only different variable between the new 280T A350 and the A350ULR
3- Fuel burn : Which also is an estimation, especially since the ULR has aerodynamic modifications. It's especially risky to make and estimation for fuel burn since Wight is a variable in it

Any slight error in any of the three will cause the estimation of the max. range significantly off. It amazes me how confident some are regarding which is "capable," and what is possible. It's either they base it on hard data they don't want to reveal, or just fanboy-sim .

ElroyJetson wrote:
....... But the enthusiasm should be tempered with facts.


The way you try to enforce the 778/772 into a topic that has nothing to do with it is nothing but nonfactual, non-necessary enthusiasm !
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:45 am

ikolkyo wrote:
You're trying to tell me the A359ULR is carrying 315-325 9700nm? The aircraft would have already won Project Sunrise if that was even close to being true. C'mon Zeke you're smarter than this.


Yes in their nominal configuration, however the nominal configuration does not matter who produces the aircraft is not really that close to a configuration a passenger would expect from a full service carrier. It would be a very basic no frills aircraft.

Customers expect catering, and those expectations change depending on the class of travel, they also expect IFE to be entertained, they also expect comfy seats. A comfy seat with a passenger and baggage (40kg) in it in a real world configuration can weigh the same as 3 passengers and seats in the nominal configuration (where a passenger, baggage and seat can nominally weigh 103kg).

These things dig into the real world payload available. For example we would carry around 6000 kg of catering and 1000 kg of portable water for a 12-16 hr trip. That is equivalent to around 70 nominal passengers.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:06 am

Even the ULR will face cargo restrictions during the winter west bound to Singapore...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ul-449158/

He adds that carrier has substantial data based on its previous nonstop services to New York and Los Angeles that used A340-500s.


He also gives a hint that the present standard a350 sfo operation is doing well enough to stay on. I guess they are looking at replacing the one stop 777 with the ULR?
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:44 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
One other quick thing. The current longest flight in the world is DOH-AUK which is flown using a 77L. The distance is 7848 nm. The flight westbound is 18 hours 20 minutes.

If the 9700 nm number is to be believed than the A359ULR should currently be able to fly SYD-LHR with full pax and bags. If so, than the poster above is correct and the existing A359ULR has already won Project Sunrise and fully meets its requirements.


So what is your point?

The A350-900 will fly SIN - EWR, 8285 nm, and that is further than DOH - AKL, 7,484 nm.

The 777-200LR is given up for 9,200 nm pax and bags. Should therefore be able to do SIN - EWR, but is not bought or used for it. The point is not about a frame being able to do something, but is the frame able to do that flight economicaly, with the configuration and load the airline specifies.

It is no question the 777-200LR can do rather long distances, but it uses a lot of fuel to do it. It seems nobody uses the full up 3 ACT version. The new frames will do similar distances with less cost aka lower fuel burn.

If you look at the longest 10 flights today and what frames are used.

1 the longest 777-200LR 7,848nm
2 787-9 7,829nm
3 A380 7,668nm
4 787-9 7,621nm
5 787-9 7,470 nm
6 A380 7,454
7 777-300ER 7,403
8 777-200LR 7,384
9 A350-900 7,340
10 777-200LR 7,334

So you have quite a few different frames, 777-200LR, 777-300 ER, A380, A350-900, doing the long flights, with more coming in. You can add the A350-1000 and soon the 251 t A330-800, as frames possible to do the current flights. Even the 787-8 should be able to stretch its legs so far.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2992
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:03 pm

zeke wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
You're trying to tell me the A359ULR is carrying 315-325 9700nm? The aircraft would have already won Project Sunrise if that was even close to being true. C'mon Zeke you're smarter than this.


Yes in their nominal configuration, however the nominal configuration does not matter who produces the aircraft is not really that close to a configuration a passenger would expect from a full service carrier. It would be a very basic no frills aircraft.

Customers expect catering, and those expectations change depending on the class of travel, they also expect IFE to be entertained, they also expect comfy seats. A comfy seat with a passenger and baggage (40kg) in it in a real world configuration can weigh the same as 3 passengers and seats in the nominal configuration (where a passenger, baggage and seat can nominally weigh 103kg).

These things dig into the real world payload available. For example we would carry around 6000 kg of catering and 1000 kg of portable water for a 12-16 hr trip. That is equivalent to around 70 nominal passengers.


I see what you are trying to get at but I highly doubt the aircraft is going to carrying to equivalent load of a standard A350. I’d love to see some actual numbers from SQ’s aircraft though.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:04 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
I have not seen a direct comparison of fuel burn between an A359ULR and a 77L on let's say a 7000 nm mission. However, I would feel comfortable in saying the 359 will burn considerably less fuel.


Around 20% less per hour.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:05 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
One other quick thing. The current longest flight in the world is DOH-AUK which is flown using a 77L. The distance is 7848 nm. The flight westbound is 18 hours 20 minutes.

If the 9700 nm number is to be believed than the A359ULR should currently be able to fly SYD-LHR with full pax and bags. If so, than the poster above is correct and the existing A359ULR has already won Project Sunrise and fully meets its requirements.


So what is your point?

The A350-900 will fly SIN - EWR, 8285 nm, and that is further than DOH - AKL, 7,484 nm.

The 777-200LR is given up for 9,200 nm pax and bags. Should therefore be able to do SIN - EWR, but is not bought or used for it. The point is not about a frame being able to do something, but is the frame able to do that flight economicaly, with the configuration and load the airline specifies.

It is no question the 777-200LR can do rather long distances, but it uses a lot of fuel to do it. It seems nobody uses the full up 3 ACT version. The new frames will do similar distances with less cost aka lower fuel burn.

If you look at the longest 10 flights today and what frames are used.

1 the longest 777-200LR 7,848nm
2 787-9 7,829nm
3 A380 7,668nm
4 787-9 7,621nm
5 787-9 7,470 nm
6 A380 7,454
7 777-300ER 7,403
8 777-200LR 7,384
9 A350-900 7,340
10 777-200LR 7,334

So you have quite a few different frames, 777-200LR, 777-300 ER, A380, A350-900, doing the long flights, with more coming in. You can add the A350-1000 and soon the 251 t A330-800, as frames possible to do the current flights. Even the 787-8 should be able to stretch its legs so far.



It is interesting in your comments regarding ULH flights you failed to mention the 789 (see bolded above) which currently flys the second longest commercial flight in the world 3 of the top 5 longest flights. Must have been an oversight. However, I agree with your point regarding the economics of various frames. I have not seen a direct comparison of fuel burn between an A359ULR and a 77L on let's say a 7000 nm mission. However, I would feel comfortable in saying the 359 will burn considerably less fuel. SQ is one of the best airlines in the world. They already know the SIN-EWR flight from the A340-500 days. I have no doubt they made the best choice in terms of existing aircraft to fly the route....that being the A359ULR.

My point is the A359ULR does not push out the range envelop beyond existing technologies. It does does meet QL's requirements, they have made that clear. So the question is which of the airframe manufacturers will make the next big leap in range because the A359ULR does not cut it, at least in terms of Qantas requirements.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:37 pm

From comments by QF management on several occasions it's clear that neither the 359ULR nor the 778 in their current forms gives them quite what they want for Sydney-London. Equally it's clear that the 789 is not in the same class as the 359 at the further reaches of the payload/range envelope – meaning Qantas has never considered it as an option for Project Sunrise and NZ is not considering it for its ULH/77E replacement selection. The significance of the 280t 359 and the 778 seems to be that both promise a big leap in economic range by comparison with the 345 and 77L.
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:56 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
One other quick thing. The current longest flight in the world is DOH-AUK which is flown using a 77L. The distance is 7848 nm. The flight westbound is 18 hours 20 minutes.

If the 9700 nm number is to be believed than the A359ULR should currently be able to fly SYD-LHR with full pax and bags. If so, than the poster above is correct and the existing A359ULR has already won Project Sunrise and fully meets its requirements.


So what is your point?

The A350-900 will fly SIN - EWR, 8285 nm, and that is further than DOH - AKL, 7,484 nm.

The 777-200LR is given up for 9,200 nm pax and bags. Should therefore be able to do SIN - EWR, but is not bought or used for it. The point is not about a frame being able to do something, but is the frame able to do that flight economicaly, with the configuration and load the airline specifies.

It is no question the 777-200LR can do rather long distances, but it uses a lot of fuel to do it. It seems nobody uses the full up 3 ACT version. The new frames will do similar distances with less cost aka lower fuel burn.

If you look at the longest 10 flights today and what frames are used.

1 the longest 777-200LR 7,848nm
2 787-9 7,829nm
3 A380 7,668nm
4 787-9 7,621nm
5 787-9 7,470 nm
6 A380 7,454
7 777-300ER 7,403
8 777-200LR 7,384
9 A350-900 7,340
10 777-200LR 7,334

So you have quite a few different frames, 777-200LR, 777-300 ER, A380, A350-900, doing the long flights, with more coming in. You can add the A350-1000 and soon the 251 t A330-800, as frames possible to do the current flights. Even the 787-8 should be able to stretch its legs so far.



It is interesting in your comments regarding ULH flights you failed to mention the 789 (see bolded above) which currently flys the second longest commercial flight in the world 3 of the top 5 longest flights. Must have been an oversight. However, I agree with your point regarding the economics of various frames. I have not seen a direct comparison of fuel burn between an A359ULR and a 77L on let's say a 7000 nm mission. However, I would feel comfortable in saying the 359 will burn considerably less fuel. SQ is one of the best airlines in the world. They already know the SIN-EWR flight from the A340-500 days. I have no doubt they made the best choice in terms of existing aircraft to fly the route....that being the A359ULR.

My point is the A359ULR does not push out the range envelop beyond existing technologies. It does does meet QL's requirements, they have made that clear. So the question is which of the airframe manufacturers will make the next big leap in range because the A359ULR does not cut it, at least in terms of Qantas requirements.



The point of the matter is, the discussion is about the A350-900ULR specifically and its range in typical pax configuration/layout...there is absolutely no point in bringing the 777/787 into it.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:38 pm

ap305 wrote:
I guess they are looking at replacing the one stop 777 with the ULR?

What'd be the point of that? ...especially since SQ001 historically does quite well, and the fact that they've never withdrawn the JFK and LAX 1stops even in the near decade that the nonstops ran alongside them.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:57 pm

The 278 ton PR a350(for all purposes a ULR in standard config except for the fuel tank software) will shortly face the toughest long range challenge that either the 787 or the a350 has faced. The westbound return leg for Jfk-Mnl will be 17hr plus - the same as the Per-Lhr flight. Only difference being these flights are expected to be carrying 295 odd pax and bags. The 5% fuel burn improvement should help.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:45 am

ap305 wrote:
The 278 ton PR a350(for all purposes a ULR in standard config except for the fuel tank software

Huh? They aren't any more so than CX's 277T birds or several other aircrafts'.


ap305 wrote:
will shortly face the toughest long range challenge that either the 787 or the a350 has faced.

That's also not true, as UA's LAX-SIN is 250mi longer, and also has more of an east-west component than JFK-MNL.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:02 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
The 278 ton PR a350(for all purposes a ULR in standard config except for the fuel tank software

Huh? They aren't any more so than CX's 277T birds or several other aircrafts'.


ap305 wrote:
will shortly face the toughest long range challenge that either the 787 or the a350 has faced.

That's also not true, as UA's LAX-SIN is 250mi longer, and also has more of an east-west component than JFK-MNL.


The current cx aircraft are batch 3. The PR airctraft(all a350 after IB's first one) are based on the ulr air frame (revised wing twist, lighter wing, bigger winglets and landing gear for 280t). The UA flights take seat blocks in the winter- The PR will not(unless the imporvements miss the target which Zeke has confirmed is not the case).
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:27 am

ap305 wrote:
seat blocks in the winter- The PR will not

I sincerely doubt that that'll be the case, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:30 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
seat blocks in the winter- The PR will not

I sincerely doubt that that'll be the case, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.


Ok let us do some math.... 137t oew (probably even lighter), 278t mtow, 17hr @ 5.8t per hour plus 7 ton reserve.... that gives us 35t of payload. More than sufficient for 295 passengers, bags,catering and crew.
Last edited by ap305 on Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:36 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Huh? They aren't any more so than CX's 277T birds or several other aircrafts'.


The PR aircraft feature aero and engine improvements which are not on the current -900s. The next batch of CX -900s will have them.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:42 am

ap305 wrote:
137t oew (probably even lighter)

Where's that figure from? I thought the OEW for the current A359 was 145T?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:49 am

ap305 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
seat blocks in the winter- The PR will not

I sincerely doubt that that'll be the case, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.


Ok let us do some math.... 137t oew (probably even lighter), 278t mtow, 17hr @ 5.8t per hour plus 7 ton reserve.... that gives us 35t of payload. Moe than sufficient for 295 passengers, bags,catering and crew.


I would love to know how you came to the conclusion that JFK-MNL will only be blocked for 17 hours maximum when JFK-HKG, a route both more Polar and 450 miles shorter, is already showing up as taking ~16.5+hours on many occasions right now, in June.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:58 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Where's that figure from? I thought the OEW for the current A359 was 145T?


Well you thought wrong.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:08 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
ap305 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I sincerely doubt that that'll be the case, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.


Ok let us do some math.... 137t oew (probably even lighter), 278t mtow, 17hr @ 5.8t per hour plus 7 ton reserve.... that gives us 35t of payload. Moe than sufficient for 295 passengers, bags,catering and crew.


I would love to know how you came to the conclusion that JFK-MNL will only be blocked for 17 hours maximum when JFK-HKG, a route both more Polar and 450 miles shorter, is already showing up as taking ~16.5+hours on many occasions right now, in June.


The worst that the ewr-jfk flight has seen since the a350 took over is 15 hrs and 35 min. The yyz-mnl flight on the 777w has seen 16hrs40 mins in the worst of the winter- I assumed 30 mins extra to jfk. The a350 cruises faster so you can subtract 10 mins from that figure- approx 17 hrs.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
137t oew (probably even lighter)

Where's that figure from? I thought the OEW for the current A359 was 145T?


Between 135 and 145 t, depending on the airline's configuration, and batch 3 frames have shed some weight.
 
StTim
Posts: 3731
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 am

Strange how someone who flies the A350 for a living is described as a liar. I suspect he knows far more about the operational aspects of the type than the rest of the posters on this thread do together.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: How far could an A350-900ULR go with a standard config?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:18 am

ap305 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
ap305 wrote:

Ok let us do some math.... 137t oew (probably even lighter), 278t mtow, 17hr @ 5.8t per hour plus 7 ton reserve.... that gives us 35t of payload. Moe than sufficient for 295 passengers, bags,catering and crew.


I would love to know how you came to the conclusion that JFK-MNL will only be blocked for 17 hours maximum when JFK-HKG, a route both more Polar and 450 miles shorter, is already showing up as taking ~16.5+hours on many occasions right now, in June.


The worst that the ewr-jfk flight has seen since the a350 took over is 15 hrs and 35 min. The yyz-mnl flight on the 777w has seen 16hrs40 mins in the worst of the winter- I assumed 30 mins extra to jfk. The a350 cruises faster so you can subtract 10 mins from that figure- approx 17 hrs.


Oh I guess I must be dreaming when I saw ~16 hours pop up as the flight time of CX899 on flightaware then :roll: indeed, over the past few flights it appears that YYZ-MNL has already exceeded your worst case scenario several times. For reference, SFO-SIN westbound already exceeds 17hours flight time on a regular basis..

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos