sabby
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

If there is another stretch of the A350 for a sort of A380 replacement for trunk routes, I think it would come from the 280T A359 at same MTOW.

Let's do a rough calculation - If the A359 is stretched to 77.59m for keeping same exit limit and with same wing as well as MLG, the OEW would increase another 12-14T approximately. Consider 9-10T extra payload for additional 90 pax and bags. To compensate these, the max fuel would be limited to 24T less which is around 4 hours of flight for the A359 at MTOW. So the theoretical range comes to ~6000nm which means a practical range of 11 hours max. With the Ultrafan engines, the practical range would be increased to 12-13 hours with better efficiency.
Most of the (very) large aircrafts (A380, 77W, 747 etc) seem to be operating in 7-12 hours range. Another reason Airbus seems reluctant to introduce the simple A350 stretch before 2025 is that the hypothetical A350-1100/2000 would take a chunk of the A35K sales. After Ultrafan, A35K will have significant higher range that would separate itself from the simple stretch and 77W replacement cycle would kick in as well sp airlines can choose if they want simply capacity of long range. Obviously if they want both, they will probably buy 777X.

keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

sabby wrote:
If there is another stretch of the A350 for a sort of A380 replacement for trunk routes, I think it would come from the 280T A359 at same MTOW.

Let's do a rough calculation - If the A359 is stretched to 77.59m for keeping same exit limit and with same wing as well as MLG, the OEW would increase another 12-14T approximately. Consider 9-10T extra payload for additional 90 pax and bags. To compensate these, the max fuel would be limited to 24T less which is around 4 hours of flight for the A359 at MTOW. So the theoretical range comes to ~6000nm which means a practical range of 11 hours max. With the Ultrafan engines, the practical range would be increased to 12-13 hours with better efficiency.
Most of the (very) large aircrafts (A380, 77W, 747 etc) seem to be operating in 7-12 hours range. Another reason Airbus seems reluctant to introduce the simple A350 stretch before 2025 is that the hypothetical A350-1100/2000 would take a chunk of the A35K sales. After Ultrafan, A35K will have significant higher range that would separate itself from the simple stretch and 77W replacement cycle would kick in as well sp airlines can choose if they want simply capacity of long range. Obviously if they want both, they will probably buy 777X.

Taking the A350-1000 as reference, a 40 passenger/ 5m stretch seems most likely, together with a MTOW growth. It would still be tens of tons lighter than a 777-9 and have newer Ultrafan engines. The -1000 already has the larger wing and bigger landing gears.

Cathay flies the A350-1000 HKG-IAD but asked for a bigger version for e.g. HKG-MIA a few years ago.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

rheinwaldner wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
...you are using strategem 25 in order to win the point

No idea how that is related to what I wrote.

Also, please notice that the discussed topic is alleged slot reduction due to "point-to-point", and not "point-to-point" market dynamics in itself.

flipdewaf wrote:
the major point being that a smaller long range jet can be used to effectively change the market dynamics away from the super hub system to a more dynamic second tier hub system. This has been occurring in many transport and logistic systems for a long time trying to minimise fuel use and time in motion as well as network increases.

Smaller long range jets exist since the nineties and for TATL ranges since the eighties. Tell me which super hub saw less market dynamic since then? Back up your claim with just one ICAO code of a hub.

Everyone of the top 30 busiest airports in the US has lagged behind global air traffic growth figures for at least 10 years although I'm sure this isn't what you were referring to. The WOW air hub appears to be a prime example of what can occur.

The point RJMA was making was less around point to point vs hubs but more towards a shift away from Point-hub-hub-point towards point-hub-point. We cannot do a a full study in to how those works because the noise from the real world gets in the way but a useful comparison would be : how many people were one-stopping from MAN-MEL 15 years ago?

It was wrong of me to say it was 25. It was in fact 37 that you used:
Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way which bad advocates lose a good case. If no accurate proof occurs to the opponent or the bystanders, you have won the day.

RJMAZ: I would advise that in order to avoid these issues Call Place Hub A and Hub B and the like, then we can have a useful albeit abstract discussion

Fred

rheinwaldner
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

flipdewaf wrote:
It was wrong of me to say it was 25. It was in fact 37 that you used:

Which number is it, if Finn350, RJMAZ and I discussed about slots and you continue to talk about "point-to-point" in general?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

sabby
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

keesje wrote:
sabby wrote:
If there is another stretch of the A350 for a sort of A380 replacement for trunk routes, I think it would come from the 280T A359 at same MTOW.

Let's do a rough calculation - If the A359 is stretched to 77.59m for keeping same exit limit and with same wing as well as MLG, the OEW would increase another 12-14T approximately. Consider 9-10T extra payload for additional 90 pax and bags. To compensate these, the max fuel would be limited to 24T less which is around 4 hours of flight for the A359 at MTOW. So the theoretical range comes to ~6000nm which means a practical range of 11 hours max. With the Ultrafan engines, the practical range would be increased to 12-13 hours with better efficiency.
Most of the (very) large aircrafts (A380, 77W, 747 etc) seem to be operating in 7-12 hours range. Another reason Airbus seems reluctant to introduce the simple A350 stretch before 2025 is that the hypothetical A350-1100/2000 would take a chunk of the A35K sales. After Ultrafan, A35K will have significant higher range that would separate itself from the simple stretch and 77W replacement cycle would kick in as well sp airlines can choose if they want simply capacity of long range. Obviously if they want both, they will probably buy 777X.

Taking the A350-1000 as reference, a 40 passenger/ 5m stretch seems most likely, together with a MTOW growth. It would still be tens of tons lighter than a 777-9 and have newer Ultrafan engines. The -1000 already has the larger wing and bigger landing gears.

Cathay flies the A350-1000 HKG-IAD but asked for a bigger version for e.g. HKG-MIA a few years ago.

It is definitely possible but unlikely if only CX wants it. HKG-MIA is further than what CX operate today. If a 6m stretch is added to A35K, the range will reduce significantly unless a new larger wing is produced which I think is very unlikely. The A35K is already 35T lighter than 777X so it has advantages in terms of fuel and operations cost. Think of the cost advantage and CASM cut if the stretch is based on 280T A359 which is further 36T lighter. Most of the Hubs which are/will be slot restricted are pretty much within 5-6000nm so I doubt a larger than A35K frame with even longer range will be much in demand

I know CX want to launch HKG-MIA but do they really want a larger plane than A35K ? I don't know how much premium demand is there on that route and if they want to serve vacation crowd, they should buy some second hand A380s only for that route.

flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

rheinwaldner wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It was wrong of me to say it was 25. It was in fact 37 that you used:

Which number is it, if Finn350, RJMAZ and I discussed about slots and you continue to talk about "point-to-point" in general?

So to answer the question you need to see the trend(s) in route frequency (slots) tied with aircraft type over years to determine the relevance. I don't think that's going to happen.

Fred

frigatebird
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

keesje wrote:
.

Scott believes the likelyhood of a stretch grew.

The prospect of a new, Rolls-Royce Ultra Fan engine for the A350 around 2025 will give the -2000 significantly superior economics to the 777-9 and a longer range, a preliminary analysis by LNA shows.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/18/a380-end-opens-opportunity-for-a350-2000/

Technically, an A35K stretch would be not much of an issue. But I remain sceptical about how large the market for 400 seater will be.
Even if the RR Ultrafan would be ready for EIS in 2025 (which would require an A350neo first flight in 2024, 5 years from now), Airbus will start with existing models first. So, A359neo in 2025, A35Kneo in 2026 (or the other way around, depending on market demands), A35Kneo stretch in 2027. The 777-9 will have been available 7 years in 2027, will there be much demand for 400 seaters left by then? A large part of the market will have been taken by the 777-9, I'm not sure if the business case for an A35K stretch would be there. A few years ago Airbus looked at it, and decided against it. Even John Leahy didn't see enough opportunities, which says a lot

Right now, the sweet spot of the market is centered around 300 seaters like the 787-9 and A350-900. In 2025, I can see it being shifted towards 350 seaters like the 787-10 and A350-1000. It's still 6 years from now, so it may shift further and be centered around 400 seaters like 777-9 and A350-2000(?). Not impossible, but not likely IMHO.

keesje wrote:

Cathay flies the A350-1000 HKG-IAD but asked for a bigger version for e.g. HKG-MIA a few years ago.

And they consequently ordered the 777-9.
CX has downgauged HKG-IAD to the A359 IIRC, starting a new route with the A35K was a tad optimistic, even for CX. More realistic was to open the route with A359s and try to upgauge to A35K if proven a success.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70

Richard28
Posts: 2746
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

frigatebird wrote:
Technically, an A35K stretch would be not much of an issue. But I remain sceptical about how large the market for 400 seater will be.
Even if the RR Ultrafan would be ready for EIS in 2025 (which would require an A350neo first flight in 2024, 5 years from now), Airbus will start with existing models first. So, A359neo in 2025, A35Kneo in 2026 (or the other way around, depending on market demands), A35Kneo stretch in 2027. The 777-9 will have been available 7 years in 2027, will there be much demand for 400 seaters left by then? A large part of the market will have been taken by the 777-9

If Airbus were to officially launch such a plane, and if it did offer much greater efficiency, then it is quite possible that potential new 777-9 operators would want to defer orders and wait for the A350Kneo stretch, especially so the nearer to 2027. The question I agree is how many potential new operators in this class there could be.

However, with this same time frame the A35Kneo stretch would also then have 3 years service by the time leases start to get reviewed on the 777-9's already sold, providing a lower risk and lower cost option for 777-9 operators who operate them on a lease basis.

If airbus did launch this then it could be the early death knell for the 777-9, which could suffer a similar fate to that of the A380, forcing Boeing to throw their resources and time to this segment in order to compete... if indeed they saw the business case.

keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Airbus held off a bigger A350 to protect their A380 sales cases. At least that's what Scott thinks. And Airbus said they would need new engine technology to justify a further A350 stretch. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-stretch-would-need-further-engine-evolution-br-444920/

Those restrictions have now fallen away, They could now go all out for the bigger 350+ seats segment, where the 777-9 sits too.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

I really don't think we're looking at a A35K stretch, I think we will be looking at an A359 stretch to A35k lengths. The A35k to my mind has too much performance in a sub par (read lower AR) wing compared to the A359. A simple replacement of the engines for the advance will push the payload range curves right out of the optimal areas giving ~7-7500nm max payload range for them ad pushing on to 9000nm reasonable typical pax ranges. By my modelling a stretch to the A359 to A35k lengths with an engine of ~8% lower fuel burn will be able to cover ~7300nm with 365pax and using an MTOW of 282T (93t of fuel).

Fred

Edit: the interesting thought now makes less sense when I realise that we should size everything based of the MZFW range and then let the max pax range fall out at a high level. 4600nm MZFW rage might not cut it.

WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

LDRA wrote:
Reduce hub size for more fan face area. The fan spins slower in GTF application, so less structural load on hub

Looking at a frontal picture of the Trent 900 the spinner is about 1/rd of the fan diameter?

going from a hub 1/3rd of the fan diameter to one that is 1/5th
reduced the hub obstruction from 9% by 5% to 4%
going from a hub 1/5th of the fan diameter to one that is 1/10th
reduced the hub obstruction from 4% by 3% to 1%
Murphy is an optimist

Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

flipdewaf wrote:

The A35k to my mind has too much performance in a sub par (read lower AR) wing compared to the A359. .

Increasing the chord length of A35K (and hence decreasing its AR) does not mean that its wing is sub par when compared to A359.

On the contrary, the performance of A35K improved when its aspect ratio got lowered while maintaing its wing span. This resulted in a more optimized lift coefficient for its weight and mission. Had the AR been reduced by reducing span, then I would have agreed with you. This is another example on why we shouldn't compare the aspect ratios of different airplanes that have different weights and wing areas, a habit that's pretty common around these forums.

The wing of 779 isn't so efficient because of its high aspect ratio, it is efficient because of the long span compared to its wing area, lift coefficient, and weight, and that resulted in a high numerical value of aspect ratio as a by-product. Big difference.

There's a good reason why Airbus increased the wing area of A35K, it simply suited the A35K better than the A359 wing. Getting the highest numerical value of aspect ratio isn't the ultimate goal of a designer. If that was the case, you will see most planes designed with the smallest possible wing area in order maintain a high aspect ratio. You know, 779 would still be able to take off even if its wing area was considerably smaller, it would have a higher AR by doing that. Does that mean the current 779 wing is sub par? Boeing could've achieved the same AR the 779 currently has by simply keeping the 77W span and reducing its cord length/wing area. Why bother with the folding wingtip then if it's all about aspect ratio? Optimizing L/D for a given size and mission isn't governed by a single design parameter.

The wings of A350 were refined after 4000 hours of wind tunnel testing. Airbus and Boeing engineers know better than simply reading the wiki page on induced drag (hint: induced drag is governed by span loading, not aspect ratio).

flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

flipdewaf wrote:

The A35k to my mind has too much performance in a sub par (read lower AR) wing compared to the A359. .

Increasing the chord length of A35K (and hence decreasing its AR) does not mean that its wing is sub par when compared to A359.

On the contrary, the performance of A35K improved when its aspect ratio got lowered while maintaing its wing span. This resulted in a more optimized lift coefficient for its weight and mission. Had the AR been reduced by reducing span, then I would have agreed with you. This is another example on why we shouldn't compare the aspect ratios of different airplanes that have different weights and wing areas, a habit that's pretty common around these forums.

The wing of 779 isn't so efficient because of its high aspect ratio, it is efficient because of the long span compared to its wing area, lift coefficient, and weight, and that resulted in a high numerical value of aspect ratio as a by-product. Big difference.

There's a good reason why Airbus increased the wing area of A35K, it simply suited the A35K better than the A359 wing. Getting the highest numerical value of aspect ratio isn't the ultimate goal of a designer. If that was the case, you will see most planes designed with the smallest possible wing area in order maintain a high aspect ratio. You know, 779 would still be able to take off even if its wing area was considerably smaller, it would have a higher AR by doing that. Does that mean the current 779 wing is sub par? Boeing could've achieved the same AR the 779 currently has by simply keeping the 77W span and reducing its cord length/wing area. Why bother with the folding wingtip then if it's all about aspect ratio? Optimizing L/D for a given size and mission isn't governed by a single design parameter.

The wings of A350 were refined after 4000 hours of wind tunnel testing. Airbus and Boeing engineers know better than simply reading the wiki page on induced drag (hint: induced drag is governed by span loading, not aspect ratio).

I am aware of the spanwise loading being the driver rather than direct AR issue but by its very virtue of being derived, I am aware of the reasons the wing area and why it has been increased in the way it has been. Span is a good driver of aero performance but it is an absolute killer in terms of weight, the increase in wing wieght is tied to span^3 and at a given wing area to AR^4. Freed from semi artificial constraints (cost, time, certain regulations etc) the mission of the A35k is effectively that of the A359 only scaled up then one would expect an optimised A35k to have a higher span. My guess is that as the wing box is effectively geometrically identical then the A35K will benefit from better high altitude/High mach conditions because of higher area reducing the required Cl away from buffet regions and Lower T/C helping with a better Mcrit. If the wing had been optimised then I believe that the wing box would have been extended to get better more efficient carrying of the loads for the wing and adding stiffness to the fuse.

My main point is (or rather was) that using the Ultrafan to add capability to the A50 family would be better suited to the lower version as this would enable a stretch to the frame to maintain it i the sweet spot. However this pushes the MZFW range below the sweet spot.

Its a tricky one, as engines and airframes get more efficient the second segment of the payload range curves get flatter and flatter and so the difference between MZFW range and typical pax range gets larger and larger. The issue in this case as I modeled it was that in the large winged form the Typical pax range would go north of 9000nm (great for one airline I would guess) and the MZFW range going up to 6000nm+ (a lot of routes will have wasted capability) and utilising the A359 underpinnings with an A35k fuselage and payload gives you a very useful typical pax range of 7300nm but a not so fun MZFW range of 4600nm.

Horses for courses, I would g ofo rthe small end of things as everything in aerospace seems to want to grow as it matures so to me it would be prudent to aim at the bottom and let the other categories be derived in time as the tech develops.

Fred

keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

It is not about the maximum range passenger & luggage under standard conditions. It is about the many 10-14 hour flights with 20t of cargo to/from Asia. With headwinds & diversion reserves. There the extra payload-range capability of the larger -1000 comes in.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

keesje wrote:
It is not about the maximum range passenger & luggage under standard conditions. It is about the many 10-14 hour flights with 20t of cargo to/from Asia. With headwinds & diversion reserves. There the extra payload-range capability of the larger -1000 comes in.

Agreed, the rise of the 8000nm jets wasn't a design choice it was a result of the more efficient designs aimed at 5500nm MZFW range.

Fred

LH707330
Posts: 2210
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

The real question I wonder about is whether RR would push to make it backward-compatible and simply strap the new engines on the existing frames.

ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

flipdewaf wrote:
Channex757 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Pavement has little or nothing to do with aircraft length but around weight and landing gear geomentry. A simple stretch would not increase pavement loading.

Fred

Stretches don't come for free. You are contradicting yourself. Those fuselage plugs and cabin furnishings, wing changes and possible engine changes all add up.

Thanks for playing. Try again.

It has been stated many times that the 777 is at the limits for its undercarriage at 775,000lb and that any stretch to the -10 would have to be done within this limit, of course those items will affect empty weight, I was several kg lighter before I started eating so much but my shoes don't know or even care just like the the airport ground services don't.

Playing is always fun when you are winning!

Fred

Sorry to break it to you but if your shoes are anything like mine, your shoes know and they care.

Lol
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.

RJMAZ
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

You can't start with the A350-900 and stretch it to 1000 or even 1100 length.

It is not as simple as keeping the same MTOW weight. It is the landing weight that is also a concern. The landing forces are greatest on landing, not on takeoff.

Keeping the same landing weight as the A350-900 for a 73+m version would severely limit the max payload capacity.

Also the stength of the centre wingbox is determined by the wingroot bending moment (WRBM). The wings lifting up and the fuselage pushing down. The WRBM is highest when the wings are near empty and the fuselage is at maximum payload. When you have the wings full of fuel it reduces WRBM. The stretched A350-900 would have a much higher WRBM and would require most of the A350-1000 centre section.

In summary making a A350-1000 regional based off the A350-900 would maybe result only a minor weight saving (2-3%) but a massive reduction in range (15-20%).

Making the A350-1100 you would definitely build it as a simple stretch of the A350-1000

kmz
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:55 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

As with the A330neo vs B787, Airbus has the problem of competing against a/c which are wider and implement one more seat per row at more comfort. So for me the question is can a A350XWB 9 abreast compete against a B777x 10 abreast? The A330neo obviously has its problems competing with 8 abreast against a B787 9 abreast

XT6Wagon
Posts: 2723
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

So... 2030 for it to be a reliable engine that stays on the wing an appropriate length of time and produced in sufficient quantity?

RR of today is not a company I'd bet money on meeting their goals, internal or announced.

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sizing the Ultra Fan will be interesting process.

It has been said many times on this site that the 777-9 is missing the sweet spot and has poor sales prospects since it is too big..

If this is the case, why would RR size the Ultra Fan at the A350-2000 end of the market? Wouldn't it make sense for them to maximize their market prospects by sizing the initial Ultra Fan to work as a neo engine for the 787X/A359?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis

ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

RJMAZ wrote:
You can't start with the A350-900 and stretch it to 1000 or even 1100 length.

It is not as simple as keeping the same MTOW weight. It is the landing weight that is also a concern. The landing forces are greatest on landing, not on takeoff.

Keeping the same landing weight as the A350-900 for a 73+m version would severely limit the max payload capacity.

Also the stength of the centre wingbox is determined by the wingroot bending moment (WRBM). The wings lifting up and the fuselage pushing down. The WRBM is highest when the wings are near empty and the fuselage is at maximum payload. When you have the wings full of fuel it reduces WRBM. The stretched A350-900 would have a much higher WRBM and would require most of the A350-1000 centre section.

In summary making a A350-1000 regional based off the A350-900 would maybe result only a minor weight saving (2-3%) but a massive reduction in range (15-20%).

Making the A350-1100 you would definitely build it as a simple stretch of the A350-1000

Sounds logical. It seems like the "regional" version of A350-1000 would just ended up with less MTOW and reduced thrust. I don't think using A350-900's landing gears or wings would make sense either.

Same goes for A350-1100. It probably gonna be simple stretch with new ultrafan. Probably around 2.5m at most.

Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

cpd wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
A350NEO, especially with a stretch, means Airbus sets the 777X expiration date prior to its EIS.
That means long-term planners may opt into the A350 family in the interim rather than ordering 777X.

Hopefully this means Boeing launches a new VLA soon.

VLAs are dead. Simple as that. The A380 proves it.

"Small longhaulers are dead - The 77W vs. 77E/A345 proves it."
-Somebody applying your level of analysis circa 2005.

The bare minimum of analyzing a product category's market potential should be evaluating the quality of the current offerings in that product category.
You didn't do that, so let me help you: The A380 was/is a plainly terrible VLA. Garbage in, garbage out.
Just as the 300-seaters (77E/L and A345) available for delivery in 2005 were inconclusive about 300-seaters generally, so with A380 and VLA's.

JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

I make predictions because I don't mind getting thought exercises wrong...and it can be interesting. For me, the process is the entertaining bit...more so than the result. That being said...

It seems to me that we are seeing a kind of a VLA hangover in the airline industry. The bigger the plane...the bigger the pain. The 380 is the latest victim, but lackluster sales of the 350-1000 and 77X, coupled with the brisk sales of the 787 and 350, indicate to me where the fat part of the market is.

My seat of the pants guess on the future of the biggest twins is that Airbus and Boeing, (along with RR and GE), will focus more on engines than stretches. As it is, the 350-1000 and the 779 allow each maker to have a bit of a niche of their own. Each is better at some things, which provides differentiation in the market, gives each maker some room to play around in, and offers a clearer choice to the airlines. I believe both Airbus and Boeing are better served by NOT exactly copying their products...instead overlapping in some, but not all, areas.

As it is, I don't think there is, (or will be), a huge demand for either the 779 or the 350-1000 reducing the chances that even more investment would pay off.

I don't think a 350-2000 will ever see the light of day. Yes...it will be studied to death by Airbus, and customers may make approving noises, but no airline, (or at least not enough airlines), will be willing to pony up the dough, relegating it to 380neo status.

I suspect EK will be the launch customer of the 350Ultra, and won't take any of the current engines. It fits pretty closely with when they are planning on taking 350 deliveries and the EIS of the Ultrafan. It would be silly to start a brand new fleet one gen behind in crucial technology, when the good stuff is right behind the door.

I think the GE-9X will be very efficient at rollout and after a few PIP's, will be close to the Ultrafan in efficiency...basically giving us a larger version of the LEAP vs GTF duel on the narrow bodies. Of course, the Ultra will also have PIP's...and down the road we go.

I have long thought that every engine maker would have a gearbox, and I believe GE is working diligently on one, on the down low...which will leave Pratt as odd man out on the big engines and threatens them in the single aisle market if GE decides to do a GTF/LEAP hybrid in the future.

Of course...I could be wrong.
What the...?

Channex757
Posts: 2358
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Sizing the Ultra Fan will be interesting process.

It has been said many times on this site that the 777-9 is missing the sweet spot and has poor sales prospects since it is too big..

If this is the case, why would RR size the Ultra Fan at the A350-2000 end of the market? Wouldn't it make sense for them to maximize their market prospects by sizing the initial Ultra Fan to work as a neo engine for the 787X/A359?

You mean like the Trent 700 and Trent 800?

No reason why they can't do both projects. Even the lower thrust Trent 500 was a scaled version. There is already a CF-Ti fan in flight test for engines of 787 size using a Trent 1000 as donor core.

Rolls Royce is happy to scale its designs. The big move to carbon-titanium fans should be interesting. They are already flight-testing modules which will find their way into Ultrafan and the mood music from Rolls Royce Deutschland seems to be good regarding the gearing. Seems to me there will be three members of the Ultrafan family eventually as the design scales well.

flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

RJMAZ wrote:
You can't start with the A350-900 and stretch it to 1000 or even 1100 length.

It is not as simple as keeping the same MTOW weight. It is the landing weight that is also a concern. The landing forces are greatest on landing, not on takeoff.

Keeping the same landing weight as the A350-900 for a 73+m version would severely limit the max payload capacity.

Also the stength of the centre wingbox is determined by the wingroot bending moment (WRBM). The wings lifting up and the fuselage pushing down. The WRBM is highest when the wings are near empty and the fuselage is at maximum payload. When you have the wings full of fuel it reduces WRBM. The stretched A350-900 would have a much higher WRBM and would require most of the A350-1000 centre section.

In summary making a A350-1000 regional based off the A350-900 would maybe result only a minor weight saving (2-3%) but a massive reduction in range (15-20%).

Making the A350-1100 you would definitely build it as a simple stretch of the A350-1000

I would regard a stretch of the 359 to 35k length as a simple stretch in the same way that the 7810 is a simple stretch of the 789. The 789 is at the limits of its gear in the same way as the 359 is and the wing needs strengthening for higher MZFW in both cases but with reduced range.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

JoeCanuck wrote:
I make predictions because I don't mind getting thought exercises wrong...and it can be interesting. For me, the process is the entertaining bit...more so than the result. That being said...

It seems to me that we are seeing a kind of a VLA hangover in the airline industry. The bigger the plane...the bigger the pain. The 380 is the latest victim, but lackluster sales of the 350-1000 and 77X, coupled with the brisk sales of the 787 and 350, indicate to me where the fat part of the market is.

My seat of the pants guess on the future of the biggest twins is that Airbus and Boeing, (along with RR and GE), will focus more on engines than stretches. As it is, the 350-1000 and the 779 allow each maker to have a bit of a niche of their own. Each is better at some things, which provides differentiation in the market, gives each maker some room to play around in, and offers a clearer choice to the airlines. I believe both Airbus and Boeing are better served by NOT exactly copying their products...instead overlapping in some, but not all, areas.

As it is, I don't think there is, (or will be), a huge demand for either the 779 or the 350-1000 reducing the chances that even more investment would pay off.

I don't think a 350-2000 will ever see the light of day. Yes...it will be studied to death by Airbus, and customers may make approving noises, but no airline, (or at least not enough airlines), will be willing to pony up the dough, relegating it to 380neo status.

I suspect EK will be the launch customer of the 350Ultra, and won't take any of the current engines. It fits pretty closely with when they are planning on taking 350 deliveries and the EIS of the Ultrafan. It would be silly to start a brand new fleet one gen behind in crucial technology, when the good stuff is right behind the door.

I think the GE-9X will be very efficient at rollout and after a few PIP's, will be close to the Ultrafan in efficiency...basically giving us a larger version of the LEAP vs GTF duel on the narrow bodies. Of course, the Ultra will also have PIP's...and down the road we go.

I have long thought that every engine maker would have a gearbox, and I believe GE is working diligently on one, on the down low...which will leave Pratt as odd man out on the big engines and threatens them in the single aisle market if GE decides to do a GTF/LEAP hybrid in the future.

Of course...I could be wrong.

The thing with VLA or larger widebody in general is the fact that there isn't enough slots on certain airports. So in a sense you are quite correct. But the other thing we need to look at is the replacement cycles.
By the mid to late 2020's. We would see many of the remaining B747-400, A380 and B777-300ER getting retired. Now, this is the time to really see the true test of the VLA market.

If by this time A350-1000 and B777X didn't shine, then we know for a fact that the VLA is dead. It might be because of Airport expansion around the world, allowing more slots. Or maybe secondary cities starting to take the heavy loads from the main one.

Again, I personally think B777-300ER probably hit the sweetest spots in recent decades for large wide-bodies. This aircraft might be the Biggest aircraft that the market as we know today could actually absorbed.

Which mean, All Airbus could do then is to focus on the re-engined A350.

ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You can't start with the A350-900 and stretch it to 1000 or even 1100 length.

It is not as simple as keeping the same MTOW weight. It is the landing weight that is also a concern. The landing forces are greatest on landing, not on takeoff.

Keeping the same landing weight as the A350-900 for a 73+m version would severely limit the max payload capacity.

Also the stength of the centre wingbox is determined by the wingroot bending moment (WRBM). The wings lifting up and the fuselage pushing down. The WRBM is highest when the wings are near empty and the fuselage is at maximum payload. When you have the wings full of fuel it reduces WRBM. The stretched A350-900 would have a much higher WRBM and would require most of the A350-1000 centre section.

In summary making a A350-1000 regional based off the A350-900 would maybe result only a minor weight saving (2-3%) but a massive reduction in range (15-20%).

Making the A350-1100 you would definitely build it as a simple stretch of the A350-1000

I would regard a stretch of the 359 to 35k length as a simple stretch in the same way that the 7810 is a simple stretch of the 789. The 789 is at the limits of its gear in the same way as the 359 is and the wing needs strengthening for higher MZFW in both cases but with reduced range.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think one of the problem with that simple stretch solutions would be the fact that the length between the A350-900 and the -1000 is around 7 meters. While the length difference between B787-9 and the -10 is around 5.5m

Also, B787-9 have quite some differences to B787-8. The commonality only stands at 50% because of all the modifications that the -9 required to get optimized. So for Boeing to get to B787-10, there are many major changes to the baseline model and to the first stretched model.

So Airbus might have to done pretty big changes for the regional version since at the end of the day, the "simple stretch" wouldn't be soo simple.

keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Another article, little news: https://simpleflying.com/airbus-777x-rival/

UltraFan features a new engine core architecture and lean-burn combustion system which will contribute to improved fuel burn efficiency and lower emissions, along with a carbon titanium fan blade system and composite casing which reduce weight. The engine also introduces a geared design to deliver efficient power at high-bypass ratios.

Lots of UltraFan® Demonstrator activities are in receipt of co-funding support from a combination of European CleanSky and UK & German state schemes. I wonder how Rolls will be "benefiting" for Brexit.. Mainland engines & material specialist in the R&D programs will need to be financed differently.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Revelation
Posts: 21379
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

keesje wrote:
Lots of UltraFan® Demonstrator activities are in receipt of co-funding support from a combination of European CleanSky and UK & German state schemes. I wonder how Rolls will be "benefiting" for Brexit.. Mainland engines & material specialist in the R&D programs will need to be financed differently.

What makes you suggest RR sees a benefit from Brexit? https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... to-germany says they've had to already start stockpiling parts and shifting approval processes around just for it. Businesses hate uncertainty, a hard Brexit is the worst case outcome for them.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

seabosdca
Posts: 6508
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

keesje wrote:
Scott believes the likelyhood of a stretch grew.

The prospect of a new, Rolls-Royce Ultra Fan engine for the A350 around 2025 will give the -2000 significantly superior economics to the 777-9 and a longer range, a preliminary analysis by LNA shows.

Not a surprise that a stretch with a new engine would beat a (nearly) existing aircraft. My question is how it would do against a 777-10 with a PIP.

I believe neither Airbus nor Boeing has committed to a stretch of its largest twin because each knows the other will immediately respond in kind, leaving them both with products that remain evenly matched in operating economics averaged across all long-haul missions, but are even farther outside the size range that works for most airlines. New engines may force Airbus's hand, though.

Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Are any airlines actually asking for larger planes? The largest 350 and two 777Xs are available and not seeing great sales. I think both will do something between OK and well. New engines on this latest generation (787/350) are going to make some pretty awesome models.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)

jagraham
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

If RR delivers on the Ultrafan, GE must respond. If GE is successful in its response the A35J / 77x / 787 battle continues unabated. Except if RR gives an Airbus exclusive RR loses its 787 business. It will be difficult for RR to abandon that business.

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Channex757 wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Sizing the Ultra Fan will be interesting process.

It has been said many times on this site that the 777-9 is missing the sweet spot and has poor sales prospects since it is too big..

If this is the case, why would RR size the Ultra Fan at the A350-2000 end of the market? Wouldn't it make sense for them to maximize their market prospects by sizing the initial Ultra Fan to work as a neo engine for the 787X/A359?

You mean like the Trent 700 and Trent 800?

No reason why they can't do both projects. Even the lower thrust Trent 500 was a scaled version. There is already a CF-Ti fan in flight test for engines of 787 size using a Trent 1000 as donor core.

Rolls Royce is happy to scale its designs. The big move to carbon-titanium fans should be interesting. They are already flight-testing modules which will find their way into Ultrafan and the mood music from Rolls Royce Deutschland seems to be good regarding the gearing. Seems to me there will be three members of the Ultrafan family eventually as the design scales well.

Yep, it could be like the Trent 700 and Trent 800.

While you could argue it was a case of scaling, the Trent 800 had a 13% larger fan (247cm vs 280cm), 31% higher thrust (71.1K lb vs 93.4K lb) and 4 stage vs 5 stage LPT. More importantly, the Trent 800 first run date was 3 years later than the Trent 700.

If RR starts with the 787/A350 lower thrust UltraFan for use in 2025, a higher thrust A350-2000 UltraFan might not be available until the late 2020's. This would provide more breathing room for the 779/GE9X.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis

Erebus
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

So, as per the rumours, RR is said to be working closely with Airbus for the A350neo and some here have suggested that the UltraFan may also end up on the 787. The question is where does GE stand wrt Airbus's future widebody lineup? Will they continue to be locked out or will they fight for a place on the A350 this time?

Taxi645
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

flipdewaf wrote:
Edit: the interesting thought now makes less sense when I realise that we should size everything based of the MZFW range and then let the max pax range fall out at a high level. 4600nm MZFW rage might not cut it.

What components of the current 900 would be the limiting factor for the MZFW range? Is their scope to introduce a sort of hybrid to increase the weight capabily of a 1000NEO beyond the current 900 but well below the current 1000?

Also a strong weight reduction program could benefit both an 800 and 900NEO. The 316T capability could then be used for something beyond the 1000. However that would mean three hardware weight variants. Not cheap.

It's a pity the current capability of the A350 was required (at least Airbus thought so) to also compete with the 777 (and perhaps keep some distance to the A330). In the long term less capability would've been better, given it would increase in time with SFC improvements. Now the NEO is more capable than needed or is efficient for it's wingspan limitation.

260T MTOW:
A350-800NEO
A350-900NEO

290T MTOW:
A350-1000NEO

316/9T MTOW:
A350-1100
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.

Taxi645
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Taxi645 wrote:

260T MTOW:
A350-800NEO
A350-900NEO

290T MTOW:
A350-1000NEO

316/9T MTOW:
A350-1100

Thinking a bit more about it to following might make more sense:

280T MTOW:
A350-900NEO, 66.8m
A350-1000NEO, 71,8m (-2m shorter than the current 1000)

316/9T MTOW:
A350-1100, 77,8m (4m longer than the current 1000)

Advantage of this approach would be:

1 You won't have to do any new weight hardware variants.
2 The slightly shortened 1000 can more effectively use the 280T weight. It's closer to the sweet spot and CASM would be really good. Also it would be a very good 77W replacement.
3 The 1100 effectively trades SFC for capacity improving CASM from both sides. It would compare very favourable against the 779 or even a 10.

I know it doesn't seem to make sense to to shrink a model just two meters. However in the larger context of the total A350 range it could make sense.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.

flee
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Lets hope that the UltraFan will save some weight over the XWB. Lately, the trend is for new engine designs to be a lot heavier than their predecessors.

ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Taxi645 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:

260T MTOW:
A350-800NEO
A350-900NEO

290T MTOW:
A350-1000NEO

316/9T MTOW:
A350-1100

Thinking a bit more about it to following might make more sense:

280T MTOW:
A350-900NEO, 66.8m
A350-1000NEO, 71,8m (-2m shorter than the current 1000)

316/9T MTOW:
A350-1100, 77,8m (4m longer than the current 1000)

Advantage of this approach would be:

1 You won't have to do any new weight hardware variants.
2 The slightly shortened 1000 can more effectively use the 280T weight. It's closer to the sweet spot and CASM would be really good. Also it would be a very good 77W replacement.
3 The 1100 effectively trades SFC for capacity improving CASM from both sides. It would compare very favourable against the 779 or even a 10.

I know it doesn't seem to make sense to to shrink a model just two meters. However in the larger context of the total A350 range it could make sense.

The first mistake you'll ever make is to Shrink an aircraft from their original model. Shrinked A350-1000 would be uneconomical at best. What they should do instead is to do "Simple Stretched" on A350-900 instead. Not shrinking A350-1000. Maybe 2-4 frames at max. A350-900 already have a great capability, adding simple short stretch would be easier and more logical compared to shrinking the -1000.

And for the A350-1100/-2000, it should have at least 319t MTOW. Airbus need to get the range up to 7,600 nmi. Which is the same as B777-9. Otherwise it would be "underpowered" for long-haul operations.

Taxi645
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

ewt340 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:

260T MTOW:
A350-800NEO
A350-900NEO

290T MTOW:
A350-1000NEO

316/9T MTOW:
A350-1100

Thinking a bit more about it to following might make more sense:

280T MTOW:
A350-900NEO, 66.8m
A350-1000NEO, 71,8m (-2m shorter than the current 1000)

316/9T MTOW:
A350-1100, 77,8m (4m longer than the current 1000)

Advantage of this approach would be:

1 You won't have to do any new weight hardware variants.
2 The slightly shortened 1000 can more effectively use the 280T weight. It's closer to the sweet spot and CASM would be really good. Also it would be a very good 77W replacement.
3 The 1100 effectively trades SFC for capacity improving CASM from both sides. It would compare very favourable against the 779 or even a 10.

I know it doesn't seem to make sense to to shrink a model just two meters. However in the larger context of the total A350 range it could make sense.

The first mistake you'll ever make is to Shrink an aircraft from their original model. Shrinked A350-1000 would be uneconomical at best. What they should do instead is to do "Simple Stretched" on A350-900 instead. Not shrinking A350-1000. Maybe 2-4 frames at max. A350-900 already have a great capability, adding simple short stretch would be easier and more logical compared to shrinking the -1000.

And for the A350-1100/-2000, it should have at least 319t MTOW. Airbus need to get the range up to 7,600 nmi. Which is the same as B777-9. Otherwise it would be "underpowered" for long-haul operations.

So basically you agree then with my 2nd post I assume?
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.

WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

ewt340 wrote:
Also, B787-9 have quite some differences to B787-8. The commonality only stands at 50% because of all the modifications that the -9 required to get optimized. So for Boeing to get to B787-10, there are many major changes to the baseline model and to the first stretched model.

The commonality issue is more of a Mk1 to Mk2 suboptimal features removal/replace than the beefing up that went hand in hand.
But munging of the two design objectives apparently made an easy backport difficult, unattractive.

A359 to A3510 should show much higher commonality. Now. Even more when the optimizations of the -1000 are ?easily? backported to the -900. ( CFRP door frames, ... )
Murphy is an optimist

JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

This suggests an order for 50 - 80 stretched A35ks would make early development viable for an "A350-1200" with EXISTING engines.

That would allow the market to be tested in terms of size soon, as not all airlines want or need to wait till 2026++, and take the pressure off RR as the limiting step in development of a viable stretch.

https://aviationnews.online/2019/02/20/ ... velopment/

ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

JerseyFlyer wrote:
This suggests an order for 50 - 80 stretched A35ks would make early development viable for an "A350-1200" with EXISTING engines.

That would allow the market to be tested in terms of size soon, as not all airlines want or need to wait till 2026++, and take the pressure off RR as the limiting step in development of a viable stretch.

https://aviationnews.online/2019/02/20/ ... velopment/

There are few false informations in that article. What is A350-1200? we know the name A350-1100 or A350-2000, but not the -1200.

A350K have a similar length to B777-300ER. Not A340-600.

flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

ewt340 wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
This suggests an order for 50 - 80 stretched A35ks would make early development viable for an "A350-1200" with EXISTING engines.

That would allow the market to be tested in terms of size soon, as not all airlines want or need to wait till 2026++, and take the pressure off RR as the limiting step in development of a viable stretch.

https://aviationnews.online/2019/02/20/ ... velopment/

There are few false informations in that article. What is A350-1200? we know the name A350-1100 or A350-2000, but not the -1200.

A350K have a similar length to B777-300ER. Not A340-600.

Yes, there looks to be a certain amount of hubris with this announcement, similar to the "drug like rush" that surrounded the 787 where that was going to have an "-11" and "-12" variant. Its easy and fun to speculate when someone else writes the cheques.

Fred

Taxi645
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

JerseyFlyer wrote:
This suggests an order for 50 - 80 stretched A35ks would make early development viable for an "A350-1200" with EXISTING engines.

That would allow the market to be tested in terms of size soon, as not all airlines want or need to wait till 2026++, and take the pressure off RR as the limiting step in development of a viable stretch.

https://aviationnews.online/2019/02/20/ ... velopment/

Apart from being false it also doesn't make sense. Why work on a wing for a heavier MTOW for an 2023 plane at the earliest (and with worse L/D) when around 2025-2026 you appently you can have ultrafan
and you don't need any MTOW increase?
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.

WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

ewt340 wrote:
There are few false informations in that article. What is A350-1200? we know the name A350-1100 or A350-2000, but not the -1200.

You can give it any name you want.
Airbus apparently never went public with a name for an A350 model longer than the -1000.
https://www.google.com/search?q="A350-1200"+site%3Aairbus.com -> zero hits
https://www.google.com/search?q="A350-2000"+site%3Aairbus.com -> zero hits.
Murphy is an optimist

WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

The way that article is written would hint at a major upsize for the A350(-2000)
in relation larger than the A359 -> A3510 increase ? workable?
Murphy is an optimist

ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

WIederling wrote:
The way that article is written would hint at a major upsize for the A350(-2000)
in relation larger than the A359 -> A3510 increase ? workable?

The name of -1100 and -2000 are being used by many people, analysts and news organisations.
Some of the informations stated in that article are false, such as:

- A350-1000 length is shorter compared to A340-600.
- Both aircraft also have different doors configurations.
- Nobody know how many orders Airbus need to keep the production of the stretched version alive. Although 50-80 orders for that variants seems a bit low and could only sustain the program for 2-3 years at max if we compared it to the current production rates of other A350 variants.

tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

The idea of a further stretch of the A350 might be bit of a distraction. Seems the real story from Ostrower's piece is the prospect of an early launch of an A350neo, whether that's for the 359 or 35K or further variant on one or both. And then the question of whether/when/how Boeing responds on the 787.

A lot of comment further up the thread seems to assume that neo versions of the 787 will turn both the 789 and the 77J into A350 killers - turning the 789 into a true ULH aircraft at lower cost than the 359 and turning the 78J into a highly efficient trans-Pacific machine rather than the mid-range aircraft it is today.

Right now we don't have any numbers apart from suggestions we're looking at 5 - 5.5% fuel savings on an Ultrafan or a potential GE competitor. There is speculation about weight increases even if thrust stays the same or drops (bigger fan, difficult pylon engineering to allow ground clearance etc). But taking the weight out of the equation for the moment (fuel weight for a given payload and range will drop substantially anyway) has anyone had a go at some comparative numbers? Where would the sweet spot lie for the neo versions? Put another way, what happens to MZFW range for a 789, 78J, 359 and 35K with new engines offering a 5% improvement over current generation?

nz2
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

### Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Quoting SteinarN

+++

Bingo!

I have also said that Boeing got it completely wrong when they got themselves in a position where their largest long range wide body have a metallic fuselage while their next largest one are fully composite. And the next largest one will be a 7-8 year older aircraft, while the largest, metallic fuselage will be the newest one.

Airbus was lucky and got this right with the largest one beeing full composite, even if they got in this situation more by chance and luck than by carefull planning. I am discarding the A380 as this aircraft was designed around 1997 to 2000 before a full composite aircraft was seen as a safe and feasible approach.[/quote]
+++

I always understood the A350 to be panels over an aluminium frame, in other words old tech construction. The only modern piece being the panels were composite. For true cutting edge or a manufacturing leap, only the 787 fits the bill being truly all composite construction - for the fuselage that is. Stand to be corrected.....

### 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