xwb565
Topic Author
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:55 pm

Airbus has formalized the expected mtow increase to 319t. Range has increased to 16,100km. Airbus has also revised the 3 class seating figures giving a seating range similar to what Boeing publishes.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf
Last edited by SQ22 on Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo fixed
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:51 pm

Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?

Fred
Image
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:56 pm

Wonder what the payload looks like at those ranges, as the only purpose for that kind of range is ULH which is notoriously low payload, or use the extra MTOW for extra payload on typical long rang flights. Seems Airbus have really created and exceptionally flexible airplane with the A350. It was an impressive execution once they committed to the XWB and has been impressive watching the consistent performance gains already.
Zac
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:04 pm

TranscendZac wrote:
Wonder what the payload looks like at those ranges, as the only purpose for that kind of range is ULH which is notoriously low payload, or use the extra MTOW for extra payload on typical long rang flights. Seems Airbus have really created and exceptionally flexible airplane with the A350. It was an impressive execution once they committed to the XWB and has been impressive watching the consistent performance gains already.
I would imagine that that is the range based on the 350pax figure stated in the document, max ranges tend to be based on typical pax loads as shown with no additional payload.

Fred
Image
 
ist2014
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:43 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:29 pm

Can it do istanbul-sydney nonstop?
 
Airlines0613
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:06 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:58 pm

Airbus numbers tend to be too optimistic, I doubt it can actually reach that range with full pax and bags.
 
Strato2
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:12 pm

If the 779 takes off gives them flebixility for a simple stretch.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2497
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:28 pm

I've noticed QR is flying their A35J's DOH - DFW.

Is that the longest flight a A35J is currently running ?
 
ITSTours
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:35 pm

How can you squeeze 410 seats on A350-1000? This means 10 abreast?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:43 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?


That range figure is likely just 350 passengers and their baggage. So 42,000kg using 100kg per passenger and 20kg per bag (those figures based on results of a 2009 IATA survey of airlines on the averages they use).

ITSTours wrote:
How can you squeeze 410 seats on A350-1000? This means 10 abreast?


Or have very small premium cabins.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:45 pm

Would SQ be better off using this version on their LAX and NYC flights?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
Strato2
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:48 pm

ITSTours wrote:
How can you squeeze 410 seats on A350-1000? This means 10 abreast?


Should be easy as you can put that amount of pax on a A330-300/900.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:03 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
I've noticed QR is flying their A35J's DOH - DFW.

Is that the longest flight a A35J is currently running ?


Pretty sure. Unless CX is still flying the 35K on the IAD flight, but I do remember them saying they were gonna swap it out with the 359
A350/CSeries = bae
 
raylee67
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:09 pm

OA940 wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
I've noticed QR is flying their A35J's DOH - DFW.

Is that the longest flight a A35J is currently running ?


Pretty sure. Unless CX is still flying the 35K on the IAD flight, but I do remember them saying they were gonna swap it out with the 359


CX is flying A350-1000 on HKG-IAD. I think the pattern has been 35K in summer and 359 in winter. So now it is 35K.
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 351 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:12 pm

Stitch wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?


That range figure is likely just 350 passengers and their baggage. So 42,000kg using 100kg per passenger and 20kg per bag (those figures based on results of a 2009 IATA survey of airlines on the averages they use).

ITSTours wrote:
How can you squeeze 410 seats on A350-1000? This means 10 abreast?


Or have very small premium cabins.

I thought the 100kg figure includes the bag?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
RawSushi
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:02 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:50 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?

Fred

It simply means fuel capacity was limited by MTOW instead of volume. After the MTOW increase they'd be able to put more fuel into the plane at the same passenger + cargo payload.
 
TC957
Posts: 3448
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:07 pm

ist2014 wrote:
Can it do istanbul-sydney nonstop?

That's still over 1000 miles more than HKG-IAD or DOH - DFW.
But IST - PER is shorter than these two flights if TK want to test the Australian market.
 
behramjee
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:20 pm

Stitch wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?


That range figure is likely just 350 passengers and their baggage. So 42,000kg using 100kg per passenger and 20kg per bag (those figures based on results of a 2009 IATA survey of airlines on the averages they use).

ITSTours wrote:
How can you squeeze 410 seats on A350-1000? This means 10 abreast?


Or have very small premium cabins.


You are 100% correct.

Realistically speaking with this new increased range, out of the GCC region in summer season when its 43c on average at 0900am, the A351 319MTOW version would be able to fly 12,000km nonstop in a standard configuration using 120kg average pax+baggage weight.

This means if EK got these birds it could fly maximum to ORD or MEL with a full payload.
 
behramjee
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:35 pm

ist2014 wrote:
Can it do istanbul-sydney nonstop?


In a normal 340 seater two class configuration with the increased range, this A351 319T version can do IST-PER nonstop without much hassle but SYD MEL which are an additional 2500km flying distance won’t be possible.

The only way I feel IST-MEL/SYD would be flown with a full payload is if TK configures the aircraft to have somewhere around 252 seats ie 72J + 180Y.
 
SQ317
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:41 pm

Any information on when this 319t variant is available for delivery? AFAIK, 311t was available at EIS (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 00-444543/), 316t available shortly after (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ke-449476/). All I can find on 319t is a year old article suggesting a 319t EIS (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 00-450406/) but not sure if there's anything more recent.
 
xwb565
Topic Author
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:03 pm

behramjee wrote:
Stitch wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?


That range figure is likely just 350 passengers and their baggage. So 42,000kg using 100kg per passenger and 20kg per bag (those figures based on results of a 2009 IATA survey of airlines on the averages they use).

ITSTours wrote:
How can you squeeze 410 seats on A350-1000? This means 10 abreast?


Or have very small premium cabins.


You are 100% correct.

Realistically speaking with this new increased range, out of the GCC region in summer season when its 43c on average at 0900am, the A351 319MTOW version would be able to fly 12,000km nonstop in a standard configuration using 120kg average pax+baggage weight.

This means if EK got these birds it could fly maximum to ORD or MEL with a full payload.


The 316t variant is already carrying 55t payload out of those hot runways for 15:30hrs.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:19 pm

xwb565 wrote:
behramjee wrote:
Stitch wrote:

That range figure is likely just 350 passengers and their baggage. So 42,000kg using 100kg per passenger and 20kg per bag (those figures based on results of a 2009 IATA survey of airlines on the averages they use).



Or have very small premium cabins.


You are 100% correct.

Realistically speaking with this new increased range, out of the GCC region in summer season when its 43c on average at 0900am, the A351 319MTOW version would be able to fly 12,000km nonstop in a standard configuration using 120kg average pax+baggage weight.

This means if EK got these birds it could fly maximum to ORD or MEL with a full payload.


The 316t variant is already carrying 55t payload out of those hot runways for 15:30hrs.

It’s an odd discussion really, it’s like people can make up whatever they want.

I’d wager that with a normal premium seating configuration (~300pax) it would have no trouble doing IST-SYD with full pax and bags, gcmap shows as just over 8000nm and whilst we know the figures appear to be favourable when they are presented by Airbus I don’t think they are that far out.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Starfuryt
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:58 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:01 pm

raylee67 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
I've noticed QR is flying their A35J's DOH - DFW.

Is that the longest flight a A35J is currently running ?


Pretty sure. Unless CX is still flying the 35K on the IAD flight, but I do remember them saying they were gonna swap it out with the 359


CX is flying A350-1000 on HKG-IAD. I think the pattern has been 35K in summer and 359 in winter. So now it is 35K.


A35K has started flying to IAD today, it has previously done the route 3 or 4 times, but otherwise it has been A359.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:19 am

so 352 already doable just waiting ultrafan?
 
speedbird52
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:37 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
so 352 already doable just waiting ultrafan?

That would possibly be the quickest jump in engine technology in a major types history.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:39 am

That takes it up to the 778s current range doesn't it? Really evens the gap. Could this be related to project sunrise?
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:47 am

xwb565 wrote:
Airbus has formalized the expected mtow increase to 319t. Range has increased to 16,100km. Airbus has also revised the 3 class seating figures giving a seating range similar to what Boeing publishes.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf


What are the implications for the 777X and 787? Does this mean that they are finished? :banghead:
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:04 am

ist2014 wrote:
Can it do istanbul-sydney nonstop?
It already could.

Qantas is looking at using the A350-1000 to fly Sydney-London which is 9200nm. Istanbul-Sydney is only 8000nm.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:17 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?

Fred

159,000l definitely isn't enough to do London to Sydney.

Looking at the A350 ACAP at max fuel the A350-1000 can fly 8500nm with 32,000kg of payload. So adding 3T to the MTOW will only add extra payload and no extra range.

It will need approx another 15,000 litres of fuel capacity to do 9200nm plus headroom. 12,000kg of extra fuel weight bringing max payload close to 20,000kg.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:24 am

speedbird52 wrote:
That takes it up to the 778s current range doesn't it? Really evens the gap. Could this be related to project sunrise?

Fuel capacity stays the same so the max range is still stuck at 8500nm at 100% fuel capacity.

The 777-8 range at max fuel would easily be over 9500nm. The 8690nm range figure the 777-8 still has over 10% of its fuel tank empty. So the gap is about the size of the grand canyon.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?

Fred

159,000l definitely isn't enough to do London to Sydney.

Looking at the A350 ACAP at max fuel the A350-1000 can fly 8500nm with 32,000kg of payload. So adding 3T to the MTOW will only add extra payload and no extra range.

It will need approx another 15,000 litres of fuel capacity to do 9200nm plus headroom. 12,000kg of extra fuel weight bringing max payload close to 20,000kg.


The discussion about the project sunrise is on another thread, I would say it should be kept there.

For everybody else, that uses the full payload capabilities of the A350-1000, the 3t MTOW increase is for range, if it does not lift the MZFW.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:19 am

Airlines0613 wrote:
Airbus numbers tend to be too optimistic, I doubt it can actually reach that range with full pax and bags.


Airbus numbers were always rather realistic. Boeing was with the optimistic numbers. Boeing changing its calculation to more realistic figures. Do not just take the numbers, go and look at the payload range graphs in the ACAP.

Boeing changing its numbers to more realistic, did not make the Airbus numbers unrealistic.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13805
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:54 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Looking at the A350 ACAP at max fuel the A350-1000 can fly 8500nm with 32,000kg of payload. So adding 3T to the MTOW will only add extra payload and no extra range.


That is incorrect.

The aircraft is MTOW limited at design payload, increasing the MTOW allows for more range with the same payload, or more payload at the same range.

You will note they have not updated the curve to reflect the increase in either fuel capacity, MTOW, and range.

I think you missed the but where they increased fuel capacity as well slightly.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Very interesting, also noting that the Fuel volume has stayed at 159000l. Is there some games at hand in making the range just top trump the 778X?

Fred

159,000l definitely isn't enough to do London to Sydney.

Looking at the A350 ACAP at max fuel the A350-1000 can fly 8500nm with 32,000kg of payload. So adding 3T to the MTOW will only add extra payload and no extra range.

It will need approx another 15,000 litres of fuel capacity to do 9200nm plus headroom. 12,000kg of extra fuel weight bringing max payload close to 20,000kg.


Indeed the ACAP does say that but the press release does not. If you look to the top of the ACAP chart you will see this is based on a 316t MTOW aircraft. Whilst I agree that the max fuel volume inflection point will not move with regards to range the max payload at that point will move more or less in line with the MTOW increase as stated here suggesting around 35t payload at this range. Of course to move this inflection point one must increase the fuel capacity and the effects of this can be seen in the example above showing how the max fuel volume has changed the shape of the chart.

If we were to increase the maximum available volume to be the same as the A359ULR (a relatively easy mod one would assume) then we can gain at least 7000l to this. I'm not sure the max volume available in the wings of the A35X series.

Fred
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:22 pm

zeke wrote:
That is incorrect.

It is correct. Speedbird52 asked if it takes the aircraft up to the range of the 778. It does not because the A350-1000 is still fuel limited.

Carrying more payload at medium range is not what he asked.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:26 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
zeke wrote:
That is incorrect.

It is correct. Speedbird52 asked if it takes the aircraft up to the range of the 778. It does not because the A350-1000 is still fuel limited.

Carrying more payload at medium range is not what he asked.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/ ... ical-specs
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... -1000.html

I mean, what more is required?

Anybody know if it'll be able to do LAX-SYD? :duck:

Fred
Image
 
sciing
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:11 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
That takes it up to the 778s current range doesn't it? Really evens the gap. Could this be related to project sunrise?

Fuel capacity stays the same so the max range is still stuck at 8500nm at 100% fuel capacity.

The 777-8 range at max fuel would easily be over 9500nm. The 8690nm range figure the 777-8 still has over 10% of its fuel tank empty. So the gap is about the size of the grand canyon.


Range is also weight depended. So your definition of a range at 100% fuel as single value is quite strange.
The range at 100% fuel limit is a curve not a single value, depending on payload/weight.
This curve is the last 3rd part of the payload range curve and it is limited by the MTOW defining the 2nd part curve.

The fuel limit range at zero payload is around 9600nm, this limit is not changed by OEW neutral MTOW increase.

Your single point data of 8500nm is from the 2nd kink where MTOW limited curve and fuel limit hit each other. With an MTOW increase this point is shifted to lower range (at higher payload), payload at 8500nm will be increased. So taking that point just show that you do not understand payload range charts.

As already written the range at design payload point is MTOW limited. I learned on anet that both OEW and payload assumption for Airbuses are unrealistic low. So at „real“ (higher) weights the aircraft is clearly MTOW limited and more MTOW clearly means more range.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:09 pm

sciing wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
That takes it up to the 778s current range doesn't it? Really evens the gap. Could this be related to project sunrise?

Fuel capacity stays the same so the max range is still stuck at 8500nm at 100% fuel capacity.

The 777-8 range at max fuel would easily be over 9500nm. The 8690nm range figure the 777-8 still has over 10% of its fuel tank empty. So the gap is about the size of the grand canyon.


Range is also weight depended. So your definition of a range at 100% fuel as single value is quite strange.
The range at 100% fuel limit is a curve not a single value, depending on payload/weight.
This curve is the last 3rd part of the payload range curve and it is limited by the MTOW defining the 2nd part curve.

The fuel limit range at zero payload is around 9600nm, this limit is not changed by OEW neutral MTOW increase.

Your single point data of 8500nm is from the 2nd kink where MTOW limited curve and fuel limit hit each other. With an MTOW increase this point is shifted to lower range (at higher payload), payload at 8500nm will be increased. So taking that point just show that you do not understand payload range charts.

As already written the range at design payload point is MTOW limited. I learned on anet that both OEW and payload assumption for Airbuses are unrealistic low. So at „real“ (higher) weights the aircraft is clearly MTOW limited and more MTOW clearly means more range.


I do not where did you got Airbuses OEW? From ACAP payload range chart max. structural payload is 67-68t but that indicates 155t OEW roughly, but there is more proof that should be 150t and max payload 73t.

Cheers
 
tomcat
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:47 pm

xwb565 wrote:
Airbus has formalized the expected mtow increase to 319t. Range has increased to 16,100km. Airbus has also revised the 3 class seating figures giving a seating range similar to what Boeing publishes.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf


It's intriguing that the advertised range went up 300nm (from 8400 nm to 8700nm) with that 3t MTOW increase. It would take more than 3t of fuel to cover an extra 300nm. Possible explanations to this increased range would either be the introduction of a PIP or that the 8700nm range is based on a lower payload than the one that was considered for the 8400nm published with the 316t MTOW announcement.

On a side note, the A350 airport planning document (Rev Jun 01/19) doesn't show yet any 319t WV and still shows a usable fuel capacity of 156000 l for the A350-1000.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6861
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:33 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
zeke wrote:
That is incorrect.

It is correct. Speedbird52 asked if it takes the aircraft up to the range of the 778. It does not because the A350-1000 is still fuel limited.

Carrying more payload at medium range is not what he asked.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/ ... ical-specs
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... -1000.html

I mean, what more is required?

Anybody know if it'll be able to do LAX-SYD? :duck:

Fred


A simple calculation suggests that with the same 166 500l of the A359ULR, the fuel limit inflection point for the A350-1000 would be c. 8 900Nm
The increase would take the fuel capacity from c. 127t to c. 133t, implying the payload at that range to be c. 29t-30t for the 319t variant just announced
Just based on the ACAP.
Still feels like the A350-1000 would need another c. 6t fuel to get that inflection point to about 9 300Nm and another 6t of MTOW to keep the payload at around 30t

Once fuel limited, the payload seems to drop at about 27t per 1000Nm of extra range

Rgds
 
tomcat
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:55 pm

astuteman wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
It is correct. Speedbird52 asked if it takes the aircraft up to the range of the 778. It does not because the A350-1000 is still fuel limited.

Carrying more payload at medium range is not what he asked.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/ ... ical-specs
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... -1000.html

I mean, what more is required?

Anybody know if it'll be able to do LAX-SYD? :duck:

Fred


A simple calculation suggests that with the same 166 500l of the A359ULR, the fuel limit inflection point for the A350-1000 would be c. 8 900Nm
The increase would take the fuel capacity from c. 127t to c. 133t, implying the payload at that range to be c. 29t-30t for the 319t variant just announced
Just based on the ACAP.
Still feels like the A350-1000 would need another c. 6t fuel to get that inflection point to about 9 300Nm and another 6t of MTOW to keep the payload at around 30t

Once fuel limited, the payload seems to drop at about 27t per 1000Nm of extra range

Rgds


The MTOW increase might be less than 6t if we account for a potential weight saving related to the de-activation of the forward cargo hold. Or more probably, this weight saving would compensate the dry weight of an auxiliary fuel tank (I assume that to go beyond 166500 l, an aux fuel tank would be required).

Do you have any idea how much higher the MTOW can go without requiring an increased engine thrust?
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:03 pm

tomcat wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Airbus has formalized the expected mtow increase to 319t. Range has increased to 16,100km. Airbus has also revised the 3 class seating figures giving a seating range similar to what Boeing publishes.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf


It's intriguing that the advertised range went up 300nm (from 8400 nm to 8700nm) with that 3t MTOW increase. It would take more than 3t of fuel to cover an extra 300nm. Possible explanations to this increased range would either be the introduction of a PIP or that the 8700nm range is based on a lower payload than the one that was considered for the 8400nm published with the 316t MTOW announcement.

On a side note, the A350 airport planning document (Rev Jun 01/19) doesn't show yet any 319t WV and still shows a usable fuel capacity of 156000 l for the A350-1000.


airbus range estimates are an hour or so optimistic...same shenanigans boineg used to do

for example, if the 359 at 280 could really fly 8100, Singapore would not need the ulr as they have 253 seats. standard published spec is 8100 @ 325 seats. they'd be able to do 8700 which is way more than ewr/sin. certainly lax/sin

this 3t improvmenet probably came out of the sunrise effort. this is about what they needed in extra tow for sunrise to work with like 230, 240 people
 
sabby
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:33 pm

astuteman wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
It is correct. Speedbird52 asked if it takes the aircraft up to the range of the 778. It does not because the A350-1000 is still fuel limited.

Carrying more payload at medium range is not what he asked.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/ ... ical-specs
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... -1000.html

I mean, what more is required?

Anybody know if it'll be able to do LAX-SYD? :duck:

Fred


A simple calculation suggests that with the same 166 500l of the A359ULR, the fuel limit inflection point for the A350-1000 would be c. 8 900Nm
The increase would take the fuel capacity from c. 127t to c. 133t, implying the payload at that range to be c. 29t-30t for the 319t variant just announced
Just based on the ACAP.
Still feels like the A350-1000 would need another c. 6t fuel to get that inflection point to about 9 300Nm and another 6t of MTOW to keep the payload at around 30t

Once fuel limited, the payload seems to drop at about 27t per 1000Nm of extra range

Rgds


QF have dropped the 30T payload requirement. So if the payload is 25T, the range will be close to SYD-LHR. I'd guess they could shave off a bit weight by shutting cargo doors and such. Still might need another MTOW boost and/or seat blocking on the westbound leg.
 
tomcat
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:34 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
tomcat wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Airbus has formalized the expected mtow increase to 319t. Range has increased to 16,100km. Airbus has also revised the 3 class seating figures giving a seating range similar to what Boeing publishes.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf


It's intriguing that the advertised range went up 300nm (from 8400 nm to 8700nm) with that 3t MTOW increase. It would take more than 3t of fuel to cover an extra 300nm. Possible explanations to this increased range would either be the introduction of a PIP or that the 8700nm range is based on a lower payload than the one that was considered for the 8400nm published with the 316t MTOW announcement.

On a side note, the A350 airport planning document (Rev Jun 01/19) doesn't show yet any 319t WV and still shows a usable fuel capacity of 156000 l for the A350-1000.


airbus range estimates are an hour or so optimistic...same shenanigans boineg used to do

for example, if the 359 at 280 could really fly 8100, Singapore would not need the ulr as they have 253 seats. standard published spec is 8100 @ 325 seats. they'd be able to do 8700 which is way more than ewr/sin. certainly lax/sin

this 3t improvmenet probably came out of the sunrise effort. this is about what they needed in extra tow for sunrise to work with like 230, 240 people


Actually, I see that Airbus is now advertising the A351 with a typical 3-class seating of 350-410 seats, while it used to advertise 365 seats previously. Considering 350 pax instead of 365 pax makes 1.5 t available for extra fuel. Together with the 3 extra tons of fuel made possible by the increased MTOW, now I can understand how they got this 300nm range increase. At least this would make sens.

About SQ and their ULR flights, I'm not sure that they don't fit 253 seats because the A359 couldn't make them otherwise. It could be possible that SQ just wanted to go to a very premium cabin to best match the market they're chasing with these ULR flights. Also, ULR flights require more crew, more catering, more service water than "regular" long haul flights. All this extra weight is not available anymore for payload. Last but not least, I wouldn't be surprised that SQ is willing to tank these ULR flights well beyond required to maximize the possible holding time near the destination airport in order to minimize the risk of having to land elsewhere. That would be part of the service level one would expect on these premium flights. It would also make sense that given the small size of their ULR fleet, avoiding diversions can be beneficial.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6861
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:37 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
tomcat wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Airbus has formalized the expected mtow increase to 319t. Range has increased to 16,100km. Airbus has also revised the 3 class seating figures giving a seating range similar to what Boeing publishes.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf


It's intriguing that the advertised range went up 300nm (from 8400 nm to 8700nm) with that 3t MTOW increase. It would take more than 3t of fuel to cover an extra 300nm. Possible explanations to this increased range would either be the introduction of a PIP or that the 8700nm range is based on a lower payload than the one that was considered for the 8400nm published with the 316t MTOW announcement.

On a side note, the A350 airport planning document (Rev Jun 01/19) doesn't show yet any 319t WV and still shows a usable fuel capacity of 156000 l for the A350-1000.


airbus range estimates are an hour or so optimistic...same shenanigans boineg used to do

for example, if the 359 at 280 could really fly 8100, Singapore would not need the ulr as they have 253 seats. standard published spec is 8100 @ 325 seats. they'd be able to do 8700 which is way more than ewr/sin. certainly lax/sin

this 3t improvmenet probably came out of the sunrise effort. this is about what they needed in extra tow for sunrise to work with like 230, 240 people


I'm pretty sure that the ranges are accurate. Whether the payloads at those ranges are accurate is a different matter. Airbus ACAPs use a fuel density 2% lighter than Boeing, so I would typically add 2% to the fuel weight (or deduct 2% of fuel weight from the payload figure) - and I note I forgot to do this in my previous post .... The other major variable is DOW, which of course varies from airline to airline.

The final thing to note is that airlines can have different rules for fuel reserves. The SQ ULR flight seems to be VERY conservative, often landing with 10t or more fuel on board, compared to the 5t or so typical for the 787-9 on PER-LHR.

So if I look at the R/P for the A350-900ULR I would trust the max fuel range inflection point but would deduct about 2t from payload for a more dense fuel assumption (0.8 instead of .785) and 5t for more onerous fuel reserve criteria.
With those adjustments the ACAP fits.

I think the basic 280t A359 can physically fly SIN-EWR without the extra fuel capacity, but doesn't quite comply with SQ's reserves requirement.

And also means that the 280t A350-900ULR can fly 9 300Nm of SYD-LHR with about a 17t-18t payload if we assume similar reserves to the 789 on PER-LHR
Heaven only knows what a 316t A350-900ULR could carry on SYD-LHR. For me that's the real Project Sunrise plane.
But it's not my cheque book :)

Rgds
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:29 pm

tomcat wrote:

Actually, I see that Airbus is now advertising the A351 with a typical 3-class seating of 350-410 seats, while it used to advertise 365 seats previously. Considering 350 pax instead of 365 pax makes 1.5 t available for extra fuel. Together with the 3 extra tons of fuel made possible by the increased MTOW, now I can understand how they got this 300nm range increase. At least this would make sens.

About SQ and their ULR flights, I'm not sure that they don't fit 253 seats because the A359 couldn't make them otherwise. It could be possible that SQ just wanted to go to a very premium cabin to best match the market they're chasing with these ULR flights. Also, ULR flights require more crew, more catering, more service water than "regular" long haul flights. All this extra weight is not available anymore for payload. Last but not least, I wouldn't be surprised that SQ is willing to tank these ULR flights well beyond required to maximize the possible holding time near the destination airport in order to minimize the risk of having to land elsewhere. That would be part of the service level one would expect on these premium flights. It would also make sense that given the small size of their ULR fleet, avoiding diversions can be beneficial.


why buy the ulr then, tho? they could merely change the interior of a base 359/280. if 8100 is accurate with 325 then 8700 is about right with 253. with the pips and twists I've read about maybe even 8800. this would be way more than enough for ewr, much less lax. 253 is SQ regular cabin. 160 something is their ULR cabin. wiki ranges being an hour optimistic fits better with what we see. Singapore has 359/275s and they probably just can't quite do lax. A 359/280 should esp with 253 seats. even in winter
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:53 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
tomcat wrote:

Actually, I see that Airbus is now advertising the A351 with a typical 3-class seating of 350-410 seats, while it used to advertise 365 seats previously. Considering 350 pax instead of 365 pax makes 1.5 t available for extra fuel. Together with the 3 extra tons of fuel made possible by the increased MTOW, now I can understand how they got this 300nm range increase. At least this would make sens.

About SQ and their ULR flights, I'm not sure that they don't fit 253 seats because the A359 couldn't make them otherwise. It could be possible that SQ just wanted to go to a very premium cabin to best match the market they're chasing with these ULR flights. Also, ULR flights require more crew, more catering, more service water than "regular" long haul flights. All this extra weight is not available anymore for payload. Last but not least, I wouldn't be surprised that SQ is willing to tank these ULR flights well beyond required to maximize the possible holding time near the destination airport in order to minimize the risk of having to land elsewhere. That would be part of the service level one would expect on these premium flights. It would also make sense that given the small size of their ULR fleet, avoiding diversions can be beneficial.


why buy the ulr then, tho? they could merely change the interior of a base 359/280. if 8100 is accurate with 325 then 8700 is about right with 253. with the pips and twists I've read about maybe even 8800. this would be way more than enough for ewr, much less lax. 253 is SQ regular cabin. 160 something is their ULR cabin. wiki ranges being an hour optimistic fits better with what we see. Singapore has 359/275s and they probably just can't quite do lax. A 359/280 should esp with 253 seats. even in winter

Saying things in a assertive way doesn’t make them true. The 253seat versions have done (and still do?) operate these routes.

If wiki ranges are an hour down in reality then how is QF operating the 789 PER-LHR?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:17 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Saying things in a assertive way doesn’t make them true. The 253seat versions have done (and still do?) operate these routes.

If wiki ranges are an hour down in reality then how is QF operating the 789 PER-LHR?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


flip - you'l recall that a couple years ago B restated their ranges downward. before the 89 was listed at like 8200, now 7635 (more than an hour lower). the 89 flies routes daily that are in line with its "wikirange." the 359 does not, in fact not even close. so skepticism is warranted. up and down the b product line you can see that their wikiranges are pretty spot on with what real routes are doing.

I said that airbus wikiranges are optimistic by an hour. lax is listed with ulr (maybe the 359/275 in summer but not winter could do it.i think i saw where one user was showing lfs around like 200 people on those SFO flights which shaves 5t off payload)
 
sabby
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:50 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Saying things in a assertive way doesn’t make them true. The 253seat versions have done (and still do?) operate these routes.

If wiki ranges are an hour down in reality then how is QF operating the 789 PER-LHR?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


flip - you'l recall that a couple years ago B restated their ranges downward. before the 89 was listed at like 8200, now 7635 (more than an hour lower). the 89 flies routes daily that are in line with its "wikirange."

Which route does the 789 fly daily that is 7635nm long and with 290 pax and bags ? At the same time, just because an aircraft isn't flown in the advertised configuration to advertised still air range, doesn't mean it isn't capable of it. Airlines configure their planes to maximize profit. If you put more more business class and premium economy class seats, that leaves less number of normal economy seats and hence fewer total number of seats. So QF/SQ/CX are not configuring with fewer seats for range, they are configuring them high premium because the demand is there and they make more profit. There is no empty space at the rear of the cabin in QF 789 or SQ A359.

If SQ find there is a demand for 60+ business class seats daily to let's say AMS but not enough demand for high yield economy, then they will send the A359ULR. That doesn't mean the normal A359 can't do SIN-AMS. They configure their A359s for 253 seats not to extend range but because the demand for J and PY is there. Their 77W are also configured at 264 seats. Doesn't mean they are putting less seats to extend range.

Airlines buy aircraft, configure them and fly them to routes so that they make them more money, they don't buy airplanes to put them on maximum range at maximum possible payload.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:15 pm

sabby wrote:
Which route does the 789 fly daily that is 7635nm long and with 290 pax and bags ?


um the 789 spec is 253 @ 7635. which routes? PER-LHR, IAH-SYD, SFO-SIN. Next question.

If SQ find there is a demand for 60+ business class seats daily to let's say AMS but not enough demand for high yield economy, then they will send the A359ULR. That doesn't mean the normal A359 can't do SIN-AMS. They configure their A359s for 253 seats not to extend range but because the demand for J and PY is there. Their 77W are also configured at 264 seats. Doesn't mean they are putting less seats to extend range.


this is absurd. they would reconfigure a base 359/275 and send that. sin ams is only 5678 still air. they would not overpay for a 280t ulr and send that plane

the rason they fly ulr on routes is bc of range not magic premium demand that is only somehow on LAX but not SFO. the extra premium demand can be satisfied on ewr and lax because there is no nonstop alternative on either of those routes. the reason they send the 359ulr on any route is literally in the name of the model

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