Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
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 11:20 am

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.


Yes, I forgot to mention the 787-9, but the list I refereed to includes her. Does not change that there are a lot of frames that are able to do about the same UHL flights.
 
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 11:25 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
ap305 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:

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..


Nope- not dreaming- just looking at the wrong place. The flightradar replays have the wheels up to wheels down time. I never said sfo-sin does not exceed 17hrs.... It does however get a seat block in the winter.
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
 
Vladex
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

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

Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:25 pm

Stitch wrote:
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.



put the numbers , not statistics
 
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 2:32 pm

Riddle me this: If an A350ULR can carry 30+ tons of payload (300+ pax) over 9700nm still air as some here claim. Why haven't SQ got any A350ULRs in their standard A350 configuration? . Are we supposed to believe that there's not enough Y demand from SIN to fill seats to North America?

For that matter, if the ULR is supposed to be that good just through revised winglets and a small MTOW bump, why haven't we seen CX open more nonstops to North America with their 277t A350s? They have repeatedly said that is the most profitable part of their network, 8000nm covers all of NA from HKG, and management has expressed desire to start other locations in the Americas (MIA, Latam). Fancy winglets don't allow an otherwise identical aircraft to lift similar or more payload with 1600+nm more range, any claim otherwise does not pass the smell test.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:35 pm

A 280 seat A350-900 burns around 25 tonnes less fuel over a 12 hr flight compared to the 77W with 275 seats.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27235
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:46 pm

Vladex wrote:
put the numbers, not statistics


Well using an A350-1000 test flight with a blocked time of 11 hours and 22 minutes, the airframe burned an average of 6800kkg an hour. On a similar mission, a 777-300ER will burn an average of 8600kg an hour, which is 21% more.

A TAM A350-900 flying GRU-MXP had a trip fuel of 65,671kg and a trip time of 10 hours and 34 minutes for an average fuel flow of 6254kg per hour. An EK 777-200LR flying GRU-DXB had a trip fuel of 102,000kg and a trip time of 13 hours and 45 minutes for an average fuel flow of 7418kg an hour or 19% more.
Last edited by Stitch on Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

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

Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:54 pm

zeke wrote:
A 280 seat A350-900 burns around 25 tonnes less fuel over a 12 hr flight compared to the 77W with 275 seats.


Not sure what point you are trying to make here but the 359 is a smaller aircaft, configured with 3 cabins vs 4 on the 77W and it's a generation newer....

As for the range of a 359LR, 9700nm is likely with a really light payload. SQ themselves admit during the winter months there could be payload restrictions (mostly on the cargo side) on the LR for some of their flights westbound to SIN.

The routes they'd fly will be less than 9000nm and with 161 seats, they might still need to restrict some payload? 9700nm range would be flown with a payload which is not commercially viable.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:13 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
Riddle me this: If an A350ULR can carry 30+ tons of payload (300+ pax) over 9700nm still air as some here claim. Why haven't SQ got any A350ULRs in their standard A350 configuration? . Are we supposed to believe that there's not enough Y demand from SIN to fill seats to North America?


I have explained that in length above, the nominal configurations used in the marketing numbers are a very bland aircraft that no full service carrier would ever present to customers.

Suggest you search “business class seat weight” you will find a couple of articles from earlier this year describing how heavy business class seats are impacting ULH routes.

JustSomeDood wrote:
For that matter, if the ULR is supposed to be that good just through revised winglets and a small MTOW bump


It is not just winglets, it is wing twist, other aero improvements and engine improvements. The wing twist came in post the A350-1000.
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?

Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:43 pm

zeke wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
Riddle me this: If an A350ULR can carry 30+ tons of payload (300+ pax) over 9700nm still air as some here claim. Why haven't SQ got any A350ULRs in their standard A350 configuration? . Are we supposed to believe that there's not enough Y demand from SIN to fill seats to North America?


I have explained that in length above, the nominal configurations used in the marketing numbers are a very bland aircraft that no full service carrier would ever present to customers.

Suggest you search “business class seat weight” you will find a couple of articles from earlier this year describing how heavy business class seats are impacting ULH routes.


So heavy business class seats explain the difference between being able to lift 30t over ~9700nm vs not being able to lift 25t (250pax ala SQ A350) over ~8500nm (SIN-EWR)? On extra range alone, that distance is very close to 3 hours of still air time, which is at least 15 tons of extra fuel/payload. Unless Airbus nominal ranges and configurations assume an aircraft with no interior at all, I find that weight difference hard to believe.

Not to mention, just about every modern widebody will suffer from this issue of heavy premium seats, but nearly all of them are flying sectors that match their nominal ranges, even with some minor concessions to payload, nothing even close to the large gap between (what you claim) is the A350ULR's nominal payload-range and what SQ is doing with said Aircraft's payload-range.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:33 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:

So heavy business class seats explain the difference between being able to lift 30t over ~9700nm vs not being able to lift 25t (250pax ala SQ A350) over ~8500nm (SIN-EWR)?


Who said that a standard A350 let alone an ULR one can’t lift 30 tonnes over 8500 nm ? That is only 100 tonnes of fuel on the standard version, and less on the ULR. The problem with SIN-EWR is not then SIN-EWR leg it is the return leg that has challenging winds which puts the air nautical miles flown much higher than the ground miles.

I have gone to some length above in a previous reply to outline the various differnaces beween the cabin and services that are onboard a full service carrier compared to the very basic nominal configuration, I am not going to repeat myself.

JustSomeDood wrote:
Not to mention, just about every modern widebody will suffer from this issue of heavy premium seats, but nearly all of them are flying sectors that match their nominal ranges, even with some minor concessions to payload, nothing even close to the large gap between (what you claim) is the A350ULR's nominal payload-range and what SQ is doing with said Aircraft's payload-range.


SQs high premium configuration 77W has 264 seats (used to be back around 240 seats), their high premium A380 with an all business upper deck has 379 seats, their normal A380 has 471 seats, the normal A350-900 has 253 seats, their premium only A350-900 has 161 seats.

Every modern airliner does face the problems of high premium seat weights, see

http://aviationweek.com/aircraft-interi ... ge-flights

“Hiller firmly believes that any additional seat weight can be “mission critical” to Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 customers who had planned to use the ultra-long-range versions of these aircraft to operate routes that had previously not been possible.

“Weight has become even more important due to new aircraft and routes—16-plus-hr. flights were not feasible before, so weight has now become more critical,” he says.

The amount of furniture added to certain business-class seats to provide passengers with an increased level of privacy, combined with the fact that business-class cabins are becoming denser as airlines start to move away from offering an additional first-class cabin, has meant that “a couple of [seating] programs did not meet targets” on weight, says Hiller, without naming names.”
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
kevin5345179
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:08 am

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

Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:37 am

btw Zeke just curious whether you have this information
I'm confused about the Goh's statement on "westbound"
Isn't SQ21/22 always head toward "east" ?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:04 am

I don’t know about always, I would think they would choose whatever gives them the lowest trip costs. That does not mean the lowest flight time, or lowest fuel burn. It is sometimes worth avoiding areas due to high navigational charges.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1086
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

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

Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:28 am

About the payload and the range:

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... -90ULR.png

And in more recent analyses, Leeham has stated:

"Summary:

The A350-900ULR is touted as a 9,700nm range airliner. This is with restrictions on the number of seats and passengers, far from the nominal 325 seats capacity." (March 05, 2018)
https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/08/airbu ... 50-900url/

"Summary:

The A350-900URL has got a higher fuel capacity to extend its range when used as an Ultra Long Range aircraft when loaded with fewer than 250 passengers.
At the passenger counts where Singapore Airlines will operate the aircraft, the additional range is about 1,000nm.
For normal operations, there would be no gains." (April 26, 2018)
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/26/airbu ... ight-test/

The articles are for subscribers only but the summaries are as listed above.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
kevin5345179
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:08 am

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

Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:44 am

MoKa777 wrote:
About the payload and the range:

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... -90ULR.png

And in more recent analyses, Leeham has stated:

"Summary:

The A350-900ULR is touted as a 9,700nm range airliner. This is with restrictions on the number of seats and passengers, far from the nominal 325 seats capacity." (March 05, 2018)
https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/08/airbu ... 50-900url/

"Summary:

The A350-900URL has got a higher fuel capacity to extend its range when used as an Ultra Long Range aircraft when loaded with fewer than 250 passengers.
At the passenger counts where Singapore Airlines will operate the aircraft, the additional range is about 1,000nm.
For normal operations, there would be no gains." (April 26, 2018)
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/26/airbu ... ight-test/

The articles are for subscribers only but the summaries are as listed above.


I don't have subscription so I can only guess what does the "no gain" refers to
Given the "latest" IB's upgraded A350, the MTOW is now 280T with all the aerodynamic upgrades.
That will explain the no gain comment. Compare to the ones in service, I'm sure that's a different story.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:00 am

kevin5345179 wrote:
I don't have subscription so I can only guess what does the "no gain" refers to
Given the "latest" IB's upgraded A350, the MTOW is now 280T with all the aerodynamic upgrades.
That will explain the no gain comment. Compare to the ones in service, I'm sure that's a different story.


Even compared to the IB aircraft, SQs ULH aircraft will be the first to feature the -1000 engine improvements with the XWB EP.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:42 pm

275 tonnes was not the highest MTOW certified to date.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
moyangmm
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:49 pm

Airbus says A350-900 with 280T MTOW can fly 8200 nmi with 325 pax + bags.
 
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?

Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:03 am

So will PT end up with 278t aircraft or will they too try and get the 280t A359 with all the improvements?
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

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

Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:35 am

The IB a350 has all the hardware for 280t but will be delivered at 275t(not even 277t). This was confirmed in the briefing IB gave on their a350 a few months back. 278t for PR will be the highest for the non ulr a350 till it is certified.
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
 
HI442ct
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 11:39 pm

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

Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:59 am

StTim wrote:
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.


I would trust that a professional dispatcher would know more about operational aspects of aircraft performance than a pilot, its what their job is about, just as i would trust that a pilot would know more about the operating and actual flying of an aircraft than a dispatcher would, the issue I believe lies in the slight bias that shows in some of Zekes posts, which he's really entitled to, but then it must be taken with a grain of salt. A flight is conducted with the approval of a Dispatch office and the Captain, it's a joint venture that both parties must agree to before the flight can even begin.
Worked with
B707/727/737/747/757/767
DC8/DC10/MD11/MD80/
A300/L1011/A320/ATR42
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:15 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?


Look at the bottom does it say (C) Boeing or (C) Airbus :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:41 am

HI442ct wrote:
A flight is conducted with the approval of a Dispatch office and the Captain, it's a joint venture that both parties must agree to before the flight can even begin.


That is the case with FAA operators, there is no joint dispatch requirements in most of the world. Fact that you don’t know that and telling others to take my posts with a grain of salt speaks volumes.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:58 pm

ap305 wrote:
The IB a350 has all the hardware for 280t but will be delivered at 275t(not even 277t). This was confirmed in the briefing IB gave on their a350 a few months back. 278t for PR will be the highest for the non ulr a350 till it is certified.


It is a 280 t frame, derated to 275 t. It can be uprated to 280 t if Iberia wants to do that later and pays for the rate change. I assume 277 or 278 would also have been possible.
Another reason could be, what is currently certified.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27235
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:02 pm

I guess the proper term is "280,000kg Capable" since the frame is capable of being re-certified to that MTOW with a paperwork change.

Airbus recently updated the A350-900 ACAP to add two Weight Variants (WV010 and WV013) that are rated at a 280,000kg MTOW.
 
HI442ct
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 11:39 pm

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

Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:03 am

zeke wrote:
HI442ct wrote:
A flight is conducted with the approval of a Dispatch office and the Captain, it's a joint venture that both parties must agree to before the flight can even begin.


That is the case with FAA operators, there is no joint dispatch requirements in most of the world. Fact that you don’t know that and telling others to take my posts with a grain of salt speaks volumes.


Calm down Captain, I wasn't trying to insult you, and yes I do work in the US, so that's the experience I was talking about. MY fault that i did not word it properly, Fact is that no one is perfect, i do enjoy most of the information you provide in most of your posts, except when you post biased information that you've been called out for, remember none of us know everything, sorry to have offended you, wasn't my intention. Wont comment on any more of your post, dont want to turn a.net into bruised ego.net
Safe trips Captain
Worked with
B707/727/737/747/757/767
DC8/DC10/MD11/MD80/
A300/L1011/A320/ATR42
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:29 am

What bias information that I have been called out on ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:44 pm

zeke wrote:
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.


What aero and engine improvements are coming?
 
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 11, 2018 3:06 pm

jagraham wrote:
zeke wrote:
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.


What aero and engine improvements are coming?


New higher sharklets, changed wing twist, lighter wing and fuselage, some other changes to the wing, especially the fairings, and an engine pip.
 
User avatar
LoganTheBogan
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:49 am

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:07 am

mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:
zeke wrote:

The PR aircraft feature aero and engine improvements which are not on the current -900s. The next batch of CX -900s will have them.


What aero and engine improvements are coming?


New higher sharklets, changed wing twist, lighter wing and fuselage, some other changes to the wing, especially the fairings, and an engine pip.


Any idea on how much performance and efficiency improvements will be gained by the engine PIP?
Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:27 am

The wing changes (new sharklet and retwist) apparently give about 1 percent improvement

https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/01/new-p ... lets-a350/

So the other 4 percent has to come from the engine. Haven't heard anything about that. Is it limited to the XWB-97 or will it be on the XWB-84 as well? When is the cutover? Flight test?? With all that is going on with the Trent 1000??? We shall see . . .
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:29 pm

I think the aero improvements are more than 1%, the A350 has a variable camber wing the crux of these improvements are improvements to the distribution.

Another function of the variable camber is to change the distance between the CG and centre of pressure by moving the spanwise distribution which reduces the amount of downforce (hence additional drag) of the horizontal tail.

The Trent XWB EP is all about bringing the -1000 engine improvements back into the -900 engine. Most of that was achieved through aerodynamic improvements in the engine.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10718
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:53 pm

jagraham wrote:
The wing changes (new sharklet and retwist) apparently give about 1 percent improvement

https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/01/new-p ... lets-a350/

So the other 4 percent has to come from the engine. Haven't heard anything about that. Is it limited to the XWB-97 or will it be on the XWB-84 as well? When is the cutover? Flight test?? With all that is going on with the Trent 1000??? We shall see . . .

I might have missed something in this thread, where is this 5% improvement number coming from exactly?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:57 pm

jagraham wrote:
The wing changes (new sharklet and retwist) apparently give about 1 percent improvement

https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/01/new-p ... lets-a350/

So the other 4 percent has to come from the engine. Haven't heard anything about that. Is it limited to the XWB-97 or will it be on the XWB-84 as well? When is the cutover? Flight test?? With all that is going on with the Trent 1000??? We shall see . . .


AFAIK the winglets alone bring over one percent. Than there is the changed wing twist, other aerodynamic changes on the wing and reworked fairings. The frame is lighter, both the wing and the fuselage.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:06 pm

Polot wrote:
I might have missed something in this thread, where is this 5% improvement number coming from exactly?


No idea. 1% was quoted for the aerodynamics and RR quotes another 1% for the engine PIP.

5% on a still quite new design seems like fantasy to me.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10718
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:07 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The wing changes (new sharklet and retwist) apparently give about 1 percent improvement

https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/01/new-p ... lets-a350/

So the other 4 percent has to come from the engine. Haven't heard anything about that. Is it limited to the XWB-97 or will it be on the XWB-84 as well? When is the cutover? Flight test?? With all that is going on with the Trent 1000??? We shall see . . .


AFAIK the winglets alone bring over one percent. Than there is the changed wing twist, other aerodynamic changes on the wing and reworked fairings. The frame is lighter, both the wing and the fuselage.

The winglet is in conjunction with the wing twist changes though, I’m not sure you can separate them out like that. Leeham implies that the wing let and wing changes together bring 1% (https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/31/iberi ... -a350-900/) but of course they could be incorrect.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10718
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:18 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
Polot wrote:
I might have missed something in this thread, where is this 5% improvement number coming from exactly?


No idea. 1% was quoted for the aerodynamics and RR quotes another 1% for the engine PIP.

5% on a still quite new design seems like fantasy to me.

That also matches what was being said about the A350ulr (https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/airbu ... ge-8100nm/)

1% better aerodynamics and 1% better engine PIP. I too find it very difficult to believe that in the short time between the Trent XWB-84 and Trent XWB-97 RR was able to make improvements that boosts the -84’s fuel burn by ~3-4%, and that Airbus was able to find aerodynamic improvements of ~2-3% that quickly. If that is so RR and Airbus made one horribly unoptimized A359 to start with despite ~7 years of development.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27235
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:03 pm

LoganTheBogan wrote:
Any idea on how much performance and efficiency improvements will be gained by the engine PIP?


Around one percent per https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-s ... tomer.aspx
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:28 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
5% on a still quite new design seems like fantasy to me.


IMU Zeke attributed this "5%" to the A350-900ULR.
this could come about as:
1+% aero, 1+% engine sfc, couple percent via OEW reductions?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10718
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:52 pm

WIederling wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:
5% on a still quite new design seems like fantasy to me.


IMU Zeke attributed this "5%" to the A350-900ULR.
this could come about as:
1+% aero, 1+% engine sfc, couple percent via OEW reductions?

Where is Zeke getting this “5%” from though, because he is the only source that I can find that attributes a 5% improvement for the ULR? It would also be great if he linked to where Airbus claimed the ULR can fly 9700 nm with 325 pax too. Have to make sure the base facts are correct first or else you are going to go off on a wild goose chase looking for claimed or inferred improvements that don’t exist.

Some OEW reductions are part of the wing/aero changes that net 1%.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:57 pm

zeke wrote:
I think the aero improvements are more than 1%, the A350 has a variable camber wing the crux of these improvements are improvements to the distribution.

Another function of the variable camber is to change the distance between the CG and centre of pressure by moving the spanwise distribution which reduces the amount of downforce (hence additional drag) of the horizontal tail.

The Trent XWB EP is all about bringing the -1000 engine improvements back into the -900 engine. Most of that was achieved through aerodynamic improvements in the engine.


Leeham covered the spanwise distribution issues nicely, but said the improvement is about 1% (see link)
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:00 pm

WIederling wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:
5% on a still quite new design seems like fantasy to me.


IMU Zeke attributed this "5%" to the A350-900ULR.
this could come about as:
1+% aero, 1+% engine sfc, couple percent via OEW reductions?


OEW rule of thumb is 1/2% fuel consumption improvement for every 1% weight reduction. 3% fuel consumption reduction is a big hurdle to achieve with weight reduction - especially for a new plane being modified for the longest flights.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:06 pm

jagraham wrote:
OEW rule of thumb is 1/2% fuel consumption improvement for every 1% weight reduction. 3% fuel consumption reduction is a big hurdle to achieve with weight reduction - especially for a new plane being modified for the longest flights.


The cabin layout choosen should reduce OEW significantly.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10718
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:59 pm

WIederling wrote:
jagraham wrote:
OEW rule of thumb is 1/2% fuel consumption improvement for every 1% weight reduction. 3% fuel consumption reduction is a big hurdle to achieve with weight reduction - especially for a new plane being modified for the longest flights.


The cabin layout choosen should reduce OEW significantly.

If his rule of thumb is correct then that means 6% weight reduction is needed for 3% fuel reduction. If we accept the current A350 OEW as 135T then that means Airbus has to remove 8T of weight from that. That is one significant diet, especially when you consider Y class seats (what is mostly being removed in these mega-ULH flights to reduce pax payload) can be pretty lightweight and the airline has the catering needs for a large premium cabin over 19+ hours.
 
tomcat
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:13 pm

Polot wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The wing changes (new sharklet and retwist) apparently give about 1 percent improvement

https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/01/new-p ... lets-a350/

So the other 4 percent has to come from the engine. Haven't heard anything about that. Is it limited to the XWB-97 or will it be on the XWB-84 as well? When is the cutover? Flight test?? With all that is going on with the Trent 1000??? We shall see . . .

I might have missed something in this thread, where is this 5% improvement number coming from exactly?


Isn't there a confusion with the A320NEO, for which Airbus states that it's bringing 15% saving (per seat) from day one and 20% by 2020.

"The A320neo Family is reaching new heights, with increased fuel burn savings per seat further improved to 20% across the entire family by 2020. The 20% fuel burn saving is achieved through Airbus’ latest cabin innovations reinforced by further engine efficiency improvements.
“The A320neo Family keeps getting better as we are continuously innovating both in cabin productivity and engine efficiency to stay ahead of the game,” said John Leahy, Airbus Chief Operating Officer Customers. “The NEO will deliver a 15% fuel burn savings from day one in 2015 and we will go up to 20% by 2020, ensuring the A320 maintains its position as the leading next generation single-aisle aircraft family.”"

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... -burn.html
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10718
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:29 pm

Airbus updated their ACAPS (http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... 0-1000.pdf)

They use 173 seats (80 J, 93 Y) for their standard ULR configuration. The forward cargo hold is also deactivated (ie not used) in ULR configuration.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:14 pm

Polot wrote:
Airbus updated their ACAPS (http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... 0-1000.pdf)

They use 173 seats (80 J, 93 Y) for their standard ULR configuration. The forward cargo hold is also deactivated (ie not used) in ULR configuration.


This will help to keep the CG well aft, reducing trim drag. Another 0.5% of the missing 3%?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis

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