sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:37 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
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.

Stop spreading wrong information. Straight from Boeing website :

Image

Also, SFO-SIN 290nm less than 7635nm, IAH-SYD is 165nm less. And UA configuration is 252 seats not 290 as per Boeing's specs.

h1fl1er wrote:
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


If there is no demand for >42 business class seats, they'd be making loss operating the ULR on LAX instead of just blocking seats on the standard A359. If SFO had >42 J demand, they'd fly the ULR there as well or configure one of their standard A359 with higher J seat. My point is configuration has very little to do with maximum range, planes are configured as per demand in each classes.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:03 pm

sabby wrote:
Also, SFO-SIN 290nm less than 7635nm, IAH-SYD is 165nm less. And UA configuration is 252 seats not 290 as per Boeing's specs.


boing was saying 253 for since they adjusted the range down to 7635. 3 class. everyone knows this. iah-syd still air is 165nm less the flight runs long westbound. please you don't do yourself a service by quibbling over 100nm. per-lhr exceeds spec range at 236 seats. iah/syd against the wind is typically running flight times as long as or longer than per-lhr. go look at UA101 vs QF9 on flight aware. look the past flights. iah-syd is usually a longer flight esad than per-lhr

it does no good to argue like you're doing.

now show me where the 359 is doing this....find me 325 people 2 class or 290 3 class and 8100 nm. it exists nowhere. you can find 253 seats sfo sin (7330) on a 275t and jfk mnl at 7404 on a 278,but the latter is coming in in the low 16h range, a shorter flight than sq31. plus someone posted numbers for the sq leg at it was averaging only 204 ppl. it's not got 253 on it.

If there is no demand for >42 business class seats, they'd be making loss operating the ULR on LAX instead of just blocking seats on the standard A359. If SFO had >42 J demand, they'd fly the ULR there as well or configure one of their standard A359 with higher J seat. My point is configuration has very little to do with maximum range, planes are configured as per demand in each classes.


dude. nobody is paying extra for a 280t ulr with all the ulr stuff (inc blocked off front cargo) in order to increase business seats. they would reconfigure one of their other cheaper frames. i did not say block seats i said reconfigure

plane configuration isn't for range? the ulr's very existence is- why do you think they only have 170 seats?!, i said that the ulr is for range bc like i mean that's what in the name of the plane man. the ulr flies routes that require U L R. it swaps payload (passengers) to do this.

in fact, i just said that the reason they have premium demand on LAX and EWR is because there is no nonstop alternative. i did not say there was insufficient demand for their business product, i said exactly the opposite. i feel like this is trolling.

the ulr flies ulr routes. it has to have less seats to get the range
 
sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:34 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
sabby wrote:
Also, SFO-SIN 290nm less than 7635nm, IAH-SYD is 165nm less. And UA configuration is 252 seats not 290 as per Boeing's specs.


boing was saying 253 for since they adjusted the range down to 7635. 3 class. everyone knows this. iah-syd still air is 165nm less the flight runs long westbound. please you don't do yourself a service by quibbling over 100nm. per-lhr exceeds spec range at 236 seats. iah/syd against the wind is typically running flight times as long as or longer than per-lhr. go look at UA101 vs QF9 on flight aware. look the past flights. iah-syd is usually a longer flight esad than per-lhr

it does no good to argue like you're doing.

now show me where the 359 is doing this....find me 325 people 2 class or 290 3 class and 8100 nm. it exists nowhere. you can find 253 seats sfo sin (7330) on a 275t and jfk mnl at 7404 on a 278,but the latter is coming in in the low 16h range, a shorter flight than sq31. plus someone posted numbers for the sq leg at it was averaging only 204 ppl. it's not got 253 on it.

If there is no demand for >42 business class seats, they'd be making loss operating the ULR on LAX instead of just blocking seats on the standard A359. If SFO had >42 J demand, they'd fly the ULR there as well or configure one of their standard A359 with higher J seat. My point is configuration has very little to do with maximum range, planes are configured as per demand in each classes.


dude. nobody is paying extra for a 280t ulr with all the ulr stuff (inc blocked off front cargo) in order to increase business seats. they would reconfigure one of their other cheaper frames. i did not say block seats i said reconfigure

plane configuration isn't for range? the ulr's very existence is- why do you think they only have 170 seats?!, i said that the ulr is for range bc like i mean that's what in the name of the plane man. the ulr flies routes that require U L R. it swaps payload (passengers) to do this.

in fact, i just said that the reason they have premium demand on LAX and EWR is because there is no nonstop alternative. i did not say there was insufficient demand for their business product, i said exactly the opposite. i feel like this is trolling.

the ulr flies ulr routes. it has to have less seats to get the range


You claim everyone knows this (253 vs 290 pax for 789 range of 7635nm) and yet can't provide a source, how convenient ! And for A350, all frames produced since ULR development and Iberia deliveries are rated at 280T MTOW. Airlines are, however, free to paper de-rate the MTOWs as per their needs to lower the landing fees. The only difference between the ULR and standard model is the forward cargo shut off and other modification to take more fuel. The A350 ULR with 161 pax has range of 9700nm. If you add 90 pax and bags i.e. 9T payload, you deduct 1.5 hours of flight for 9T less fuel - so still almost 9000nm range. We have a resident pilot who flies the A350 for CX and has provided detailed calculation of actual payload-range instead of trying to establish folklore like you.

Anyway, judging by your post history it is pretty clear you are yet another duplicate username of trav777/moyangmm/BBJ777X/wangjm777 etc. so I'm going to stop wasting my time replying to you.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13694
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:52 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.


8700 nm is greater than 8690 nm, greater than in English is defined as an inequality used to compare two or more numbers, quantities or values. It is used when a quantity or number is bigger or larger than the second or rest quantities or numbers.

This change has multiple elements

1) the increase in MTOW means the maximum payload can be carried further
2) the increase in MTOW means the maximum fuel weight can be carried further
3) the increase in fuel mass increases the maximum ferry range

Image

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


Unlikely, that will be an A220 route.

Should be able to do LAX-PER and JFK-SYD :)

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


There was a small increase in fuel so the maximum ferry range also increased.

Mrakula wrote:
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.


The Airbus curve shows a DOW of around 155 tonnes (MZFW of 233 minus payload of 68t), not OEW.

h1fl1er wrote:
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


You do realise that SQ have operated their normal A350-900s LAX-SIN ?

It seems you change username every week.

astuteman wrote:
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.


Fuel density is a red herring. If we want 100 tonnes of fuel, 100 tonnes of fuel is dialled up on the refuel panel and as much fuel volume that is required to meet that is uplifted. The A350 automatically measures the fuel properties (temperature, volume, capacitance, density etc) in the refuel galley and again once in the tank.

0.82 is typical in NA during winter, NA summer, Europe, and New Zealand typically 0.80, the rest 0.78.

h1fl1er wrote:

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.


Boeing did not reduce the range, they increased the OEW. The reason the OEW increased was they used heavier seats, instead of the old 38" pitch in First Class they went to something like 72", its a heavier seat. Heavier seat, with more pitch means less passengers with an increased OEW.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:55 pm

sabby wrote:
You claim everyone knows this (253 vs 290 pax for 789 range of 7635nm) and yet can't provide a source, how convenient !


all over this forum and on B's website for the past 2 years? 253 3 class. 290 2 class. i love how you totally ignored everything else lol. and you provided no examples of the 359 reaching anywhere near 8100nm with 290 3 class or 325 2-class. don't bother trying, you can't. it doesn't fly that far. there are no cases of the 35k going 8400 either with a full cabin. give it time let's see if QR puts it on AKL-DOH which would seem to be a no brainer.

And for A350, all frames produced since ULR development and Iberia deliveries are rated at 280T MTOW. Airlines are, however, free to paper de-rate the MTOWs as per their needs to lower the landing fees. The only difference between the ULR and standard model is the forward cargo shut off and other modification to take more fuel. The A350 ULR with 161 pax has range of 9700nm. If you add 90 pax and bags i.e. 9T payload, you deduct 1.5 hours of flight for 9T less fuel - so still almost 9000nm range. We have a resident pilot who flies the A350 for CX and has provided detailed calculation of actual payload-range instead of trying to establish folklore like you.


he claims the 359 can fly 25t 9000nm? seriously? i read most of those threads and saw no claim of the kind.

Anyway, judging by your post history it is pretty clear you are yet another duplicate username of trav777/moyangmm/BBJ777X/wangjm777 etc. so I'm going to stop wasting my time replying to you.


have no clue who these people are but whatever. i am not trying to offend anyone by stating facts. i guess i should have taken boing's 8200nm published range for the 789 seriously too

zeke says "You do realise that SQ have operated their normal A350-900s LAX-SIN ?

It seems you change username every week."

1. blocked seats summer time rarely. you know this tho, no idea why you do this on here. this is like "you know ual flew EWR-PEK on a 78x right?"

2. i haven't changed my username just because other people point out the same facts. let them speak for themselves

I've perused some of your posts, zeke, and you pretty consistently state that you cannot give a range number on any aircraft when asked (even the one you fly) bc there are too many variables, temperature, field altitude, flight levels, etc. etc. just can't do it. then you turn right around and say the 35k has a nominal range of 8400 for the sake of argument.

i say i believe the airbus wikiranges to be an hour optimistic and i get attacked from all sides...wow
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13694
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

h1fl1er wrote:

I've perused some of your posts, zeke, and you pretty consistently state that you cannot give a range number on any aircraft when asked (even the one you fly) bc there are too many variables, temperature, field altitude, flight levels, etc. etc. just can't do it. then you turn right around and say the 35k has a nominal range of 8400 for the sake of argument.

i say i believe the airbus wikiranges to be an hour optimistic and i get attacked from all sides...wow


8400 nm is the published design range at 316 tonnes.

I havent said " cannot give a range number on any aircraft when asked (even the one you fly) bc there are too many variables, temperature, field altitude, flight levels, etc. etc." or anything remotely close to that recently.

Considering you username only joined only a week ago, what was your previous username(s) ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:21 pm

zeke wrote:

8400 nm is the published design range at 316 tonnes.

I havent said " cannot give a range number on any aircraft when asked (even the one you fly) bc there are too many variables, temperature, field altitude, flight levels, etc. etc." or anything remotely close to that recently.

Considering you username only joined only a week ago, what was your previous username(s) ?


1. and? it's unrealistic, which you know. airbus should do what boenig finally did and just publish ranges with real world configs.

2. you've been asked point blank how far the very plane you fly will go. i'll ask you now the same question. at a passenger count approaching spec and mtow, what is the actual range QR expects your very 35k aircraft to go in still air? or you can answer in the alternative, what is the estimated weight difference between airbus spec cabin on the published design versus what your operator uses?

3. what previous username? you don't have to sign up to the forum to read it

i read the forum rules and it didn't appear to be mandatory to accept published range specs. if someone said the 789 could go 8200 i'd have had the same objection. i wonder if i would be attacked by everyone for it
 
jimdisme
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:22 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
It seems you change username every week."

1. blocked seats summer time rarely. you know this tho, no idea why you do this on here. this is like "you know ual flew EWR-PEK on a 78x right?"


h1fl1er wrote:
i say i believe the airbus wikiranges to be an hour optimistic and i get attacked from all sides...wow


You should never expect the "Airbus wiki range" in real world. Boeing's range figures are pretty in agreement with real world performance (some would say Boeing tends to under promise and over deliver).
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2753
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:38 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
zeke wrote:

8400 nm is the published design range at 316 tonnes.

I havent said " cannot give a range number on any aircraft when asked (even the one you fly) bc there are too many variables, temperature, field altitude, flight levels, etc. etc." or anything remotely close to that recently.

Considering you username only joined only a week ago, what was your previous username(s) ?


1. and? it's unrealistic, which you know. airbus should do what boenig finally did and just publish ranges with real world configs.

2. you've been asked point blank how far the very plane you fly will go. i'll ask you now the same question. at a passenger count approaching spec and mtow, what is the actual range QR expects your very 35k aircraft to go in still air? or you can answer in the alternative, what is the estimated weight difference between airbus spec cabin on the published design versus what your operator uses?

3. what previous username? you don't have to sign up to the forum to read it

i read the forum rules and it didn't appear to be mandatory to accept published range specs. if someone said the 789 could go 8200 i'd have had the same objection. i wonder if i would be attacked by everyone for it

So there is data on these very forums showing that qf9 is landing with about 4-5t of fuel remaining.

Sq22 inaugural flight took off at 272t and landed with over 10t of fuel on board. If it had taken off at 280t and been able to land at 5t remaining there would have been 13t of extra endurance or 2.5hrs. 2.5hrs at 488Kts is about 1300nm. SIN-EWR IS -8300nm so add an extra 1300nm and you are at 9600nm, remarkably close to the spec range of the ULR at 9700nm.

So... you tell me why you think the airbus numbers are wrong because they seem pretty close to what is actually happening to me.

Keep talking though, it’s funny.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
jimdisme
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:43 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
zeke wrote:

8400 nm is the published design range at 316 tonnes.

I havent said " cannot give a range number on any aircraft when asked (even the one you fly) bc there are too many variables, temperature, field altitude, flight levels, etc. etc." or anything remotely close to that recently.

Considering you username only joined only a week ago, what was your previous username(s) ?


1. and? it's unrealistic, which you know. airbus should do what boenig finally did and just publish ranges with real world configs.

2. you've been asked point blank how far the very plane you fly will go. i'll ask you now the same question. at a passenger count approaching spec and mtow, what is the actual range QR expects your very 35k aircraft to go in still air? or you can answer in the alternative, what is the estimated weight difference between airbus spec cabin on the published design versus what your operator uses?

3. what previous username? you don't have to sign up to the forum to read it

i read the forum rules and it didn't appear to be mandatory to accept published range specs. if someone said the 789 could go 8200 i'd have had the same objection. i wonder if i would be attacked by everyone for it

So there is data on these very forums showing that qf9 is landing with about 4-5t of fuel remaining.

Sq22 inaugural flight took off at 272t and landed with over 10t of fuel on board. If it had taken off at 280t and been able to land at 5t remaining there would have been 13t of extra endurance or 2.5hrs. 2.5hrs at 488Kts is about 1300nm. SIN-EWR IS -8300nm so add an extra 1300nm and you are at 9600nm, remarkably close to the spec range of the ULR at 9700nm.

So... you tell me why you think the airbus numbers are wrong because they seem pretty close to what is actually happening to me.

Keep talking though, it’s funny.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How does the 359ULR perform on the opposite route, EWR-SIN? I am not sure the effect of head/tail winds on polar routes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13694
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:52 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
it's unrealistic, which you know. airbus should do what boenig finally did and just publish ranges with real world configs.


It is not unrealistic, that is the design range and design payload. Over 30 airlines have 60" J class, and 32" economy, including installed on medium/long haul A330, A340, 787, 777, A350, 747.

h1fl1er wrote:
you've been asked point blank how far the very plane you fly will go.


Not sure what your question is here. You can look at our schedule and see the longest flight we do on the A350 is HKG-IAD-HKG, and that is flown with both the -900 and -1000. Both aircraft can do the route with full passenger cabin and some cargo.

h1fl1er wrote:
or you can answer in the alternative, what is the estimated weight difference between airbus spec cabin on the published design versus what your operator uses?


Almost identical.

h1fl1er wrote:
what previous username? you don't have to sign up to the forum to read it


It was zeke also, you will see posts of mine several years before the date it says I joined on the side. It is reasonable that people can be identified fairly accurately by their writing styles, consistent spelling mistakes, incorrect statements/beliefs, and linguistic habits generally.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:09 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
all over this forum and on B's website for the past 2 years? 253 3 class. 290 2 class. i love how you totally ignored everything else lol. and you provided no examples of the 359 reaching anywhere near 8100nm with 290 3 class or 325 2-class. don't bother trying, you can't. it doesn't fly that far. there are no cases of the 35k going 8400 either with a full cabin. give it time let's see if QR puts it on AKL-DOH which would seem to be a no brainer.



Can you point me to where Boeing has the 789 at 253 seats in three classes? The ACAPs has the 789 with 290 seats in two classes and the article that points out that the ranges were changed also shows the previous capacity at 280 seats and the new 2 class at 290. So you would assume that the range they also quote would be for the 290 seats they have in their documents and as a post above points out on their website.

As Zeke points out the reason for the change in range and capacity was Boeing using more realistic configurations and thus weights than they did before. This doesn't mean that they are now more realistic than Airbus as has been claimed on here, just that they are more realistic.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:35 am

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


I will answer my own question;

https://twitter.com/thatjohn/status/1139594097197486081
"Scherer confirms that the current projections Airbus is using for comparisons between the A350 and 777X are ten-abreast to ten-abreast."

Airbus pushes 10-abreast A350 beyond leisure/charter markets
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/05/2 ... r-markets/

“Now, yes, the A350-1000 is the largest model we can offer,” Scherer said in response to a question regarding the demise of the A380. “It is a model that offers absolutely unparalleled economics and productivity to our customers. I don’t know if, on this visit, you all will get a chance to look at the cabin mockup that we have on this airplane. With an enhanced cabin you can very comfortably go to 10-abreast seating in economy class on this airplane for long-range flying, and therefore offer — I use the adjective again, unmatched — capabilities to our airline customers.”

This is a disaster.
It would be a CASK king though.
I would rather not fly a king.
 
jimdisme
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:51 am

h1fl1er wrote:
airbus range estimates are an hour or so optimistic...same shenanigans boineg used to do


This is false. There was a long technical discussion regarding A350 performance, for example:

viewtopic.php?t=1393909&start=300#p21034389

The difference between Airbus range and real range is about 1.5 hour.

PEK-DTW, 48t payload (25/23). TOW 275.4. Drop 25. Add 9 (230->320pax). TOW now 259.4. 20.6t remain needed to go 2337 additional nm to 8100 from 5763. No chance. 20.6t will get you perhaps 1800. Real world 280t (@ 325) pax range is 7500-7600nm
 
jimdisme
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:53 am

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


I will answer my own question;

https://twitter.com/thatjohn/status/1139594097197486081
"Scherer confirms that the current projections Airbus is using for comparisons between the A350 and 777X are ten-abreast to ten-abreast."

Airbus pushes 10-abreast A350 beyond leisure/charter markets
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/05/2 ... r-markets/

“Now, yes, the A350-1000 is the largest model we can offer,” Scherer said in response to a question regarding the demise of the A380. “It is a model that offers absolutely unparalleled economics and productivity to our customers. I don’t know if, on this visit, you all will get a chance to look at the cabin mockup that we have on this airplane. With an enhanced cabin you can very comfortably go to 10-abreast seating in economy class on this airplane for long-range flying, and therefore offer — I use the adjective again, unmatched — capabilities to our airline customers.”

This is a disaster.
It would be a CASK king though.
I would rather not fly a king.


If airlines didn't buy the idea of 11-abreast A380plus, why would they do for 10-abreast A350?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:01 am

sabby wrote:
If SFO had >42 J demand, they'd fly the ULR there as well

...they do.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:06 am

jimdisme wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
airbus range estimates are an hour or so optimistic...same shenanigans boineg used to do


This is false. There was a long technical discussion regarding A350 performance, for example:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... #p21034389

The difference between Airbus range and real range is about 1.5 hour.

PEK-DTW, 48t payload (25/23). TOW 275.4. Drop 25. Add 9 (230->320pax). TOW now 259.4. 20.6t remain needed to go 2337 additional nm to 8100 from 5763. No chance. 20.6t will get you perhaps 1800. Real world 280t (@ 325) pax range is 7500-7600nm


Which remains equally impressive. That'll do SFO-SIN with full pax load most days (only restricted on windy westbound days) and nearly does LAX-SIN with full 320 pax. The 789 can only do LAX-SIN with roughly 200pax.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:59 am

I'll also agree that the Airbus brochure range is 1 hour optimistic and Boeing brochure range is fairly accurate.

Having collected hundreds of data points in a previous argument for the 787 vs A350 I determined the Airbus brochure range is slightly optimisitc.

The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.
 
jimdisme
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:11 am

RJMAZ wrote:

The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.


Not true. Both 254t 787-9 and 280t A350-900 fly about 7500 nmi with respective full cabins. 359 is a bigger plane; it's not fair to compare their range with the same payload. With the same range A359 loads more people but 787-9 burns less fuel. It's not clear which one has per-seat fuel cost advantage.
 
jimdisme
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:17 am

Okcflyer wrote:

Which remains equally impressive. That'll do SFO-SIN with full pax load most days (only restricted on windy westbound days) and nearly does LAX-SIN with full 320 pax. The 789 can only do LAX-SIN with roughly 200pax.


Can you explain why 253-seat SQ "regular" 359 can't do LAX-SIN?
 
xwb565
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:18 am

jimdisme wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.


Not true. Both 254t 787-9 and 280t A350-900 fly about 7500 nmi with respective full cabins. 359 is a bigger plane; it's not fair to compare their range with the same payload. With the same range A359 loads more people but 787-9 burns less fuel. It's not clear which one has per-seat fuel cost advantage.


Wrong-real world the 280t a350 lifts 36t on a 17 hour sector while the 787-9 lifts 25t. If we need further discussion on this let us take it to the thread on techops.
 
xwb565
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:39 am

This mtow increase has nothing to do with project sunwhatever. It has been in the works for since the a35k test program(which delivered better field performance than anticipated) and offers customers the ability to match the 777-9x in terms of payload range. It is no surprise that Airbus is now pushing the 10 abreast configuration harder along with this range improvement. It will certainly take passenger comfort further down the toilet but will absolutely take the a35k to the top in terms of seat mile economics.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:24 am

jimdisme wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:

Which remains equally impressive. That'll do SFO-SIN with full pax load most days (only restricted on windy westbound days) and nearly does LAX-SIN with full 320 pax. The 789 can only do LAX-SIN with roughly 200pax.


Can you explain why 253-seat SQ "regular" 359 can't do LAX-SIN?


More than 3 people told you that non-ULR SQ 359 did LAX-SIN.
You even acknowledged it multiple times.

So I will tell you again, it did. In November 2018.
Out of 23 flights, 1 flight was flown by "regular" non-ULR A350-900.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:00 am

jimdisme wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.


Not true. Both 254t 787-9 and 280t A350-900 fly about 7500 nmi with respective full cabins. 359 is a bigger plane; it's not fair to compare their range with the same payload. With the same range A359 loads more people but 787-9 burns less fuel. It's not clear which one has per-seat fuel cost advantage.

It is true.

The A350-900 has exactly 10% more cabin area than 787-9. So if we put 10% more payload weight into the A350 to keep density the same in both aircraft the A350 can most definitely fly further.

In terms of per seat fuel costs the A350-900 would not burn 10% more fuel on that trip, so the A350 wins comfortably on per seat fuel costs.

A big advantage to the 787-9 is being a smaller aircraft with less trip cost. The trend is smaller aircraft on long haul to increase frequency and open new routes.

The main reason the 787 sells so well is the strength of the family. 8/9/10 has multiple strengths and weaknesses but with one pilot rating you can mix and match to have a very flexible fleet. The 787-8 being quite small allows new thin routes to be opened, the 787-9 is the all rounder that can still do ultra long haul if required. The 787-10 is the most efficient model but it has range limitations.

With the A350 you have two models that are pretty much the same peformance with one just being slightly bigger. The A350-900 is the best widebody available in terms of all round performance.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2753
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:03 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I'll also agree that the Airbus brochure range is 1 hour optimistic and Boeing brochure range is fairly accurate.
well if you agree, a well known non partisan member then it must be so... :rotfl:
RJMAZ wrote:

Having collected hundreds of data points in a previous argument for the 787 vs A350 I determined the Airbus brochure range is slightly optimisitc.
so if I remember correctly you collected(selected is a better word) missions where the 359 was not operating at the edge of the payload-range envelope and determined that meant it wasn’t capable. I have shown above that the brochure range for the ULR is indeed accurate from the first SIN-EWR flight. For you examples the absence of evidence that it can do it does constitute evidence of absence.
RJMAZ wrote:
The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.

The claim you are making is that it’s real world range at standard payload is an hours less flight time ( 450nm) less than what airbus claims in brochure. Please show evidence for this or go home.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:59 am

LAX772LR wrote:
sabby wrote:
If SFO had >42 J demand, they'd fly the ULR there as well

...they do.

Yes, they added the 3 weekly additional sometimes back. That was my point. Thanks :)
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:15 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I'll also agree that the Airbus brochure range is 1 hour optimistic and Boeing brochure range is fairly accurate.

Having collected hundreds of data points in a previous argument for the 787 vs A350 I determined the Airbus brochure range is slightly optimisitc.

The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.



Yeah, you have yourself in a bind here. Brochure range difference between the A359 and 789 is 465 miles, about an hour. But Airbus is an hour optimistic according to you and Boeing fairly accurate, which means you are wrong either way here. Either you are right that Airbus is optimistic with their range but then you are wrong about the A350 flying further, or you are right that the A350 can fly further and wrong about their range being optimistic. Usually it takes another poster to show flaws in an argument over several posts, not a poster themselves doing it in the same post. Well done on that.

I think we know the answer to the question about brochure ranges here, both OEM's make assumptions that favour their products to show them in the best light. This means that in the real world all ranges are being somewhat optimistic. But this doesn't mean that an airline will not be able to fly the brochure range of a product as it is grounded in real world numbers the OEM's have. Boeing had a totally unrealistic range and capacity figure before and they have now changed that, this doesn't mean theirs is now gospel and Airbus is now wrong, but are wrong to a degree, but also right at the same time. Marketing lies basically.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:40 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
This version should be the base for a possible Project Sunrise A35K, with the ULR treatment for fuel (~165000l) and possible some aero tweeks (like the laminar flow testing on the vertical stabilizer)
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:44 pm

ITSTours wrote:
So I will tell you again, it did. In November 2018.
Out of 23 flights, 1 flight was flown by "regular" non-ULR A350-900.


This seems like to be a one-time equipment change, not scheduled operation. All SQ LAX-SIN flights were sold as ULR, so at most 161 seats were sold. So even if a non-ULR plane was used, the payload was the same as the ULR one. It is quite similar to what UA did for IAD-PEK, they swapped a 787-10 for 787-8 several times. It doesn't mean non-ULR can do LAX-SIN consistently with non-ULR payload, just like a full 787-10 can do IAD-PEK.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:19 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
So there is data on these very forums showing that qf9 is landing with about 4-5t of fuel remaining.

Sq22 inaugural flight took off at 272t and landed with over 10t of fuel on board. If it had taken off at 280t and been able to land at 5t remaining there would have been 13t of extra endurance or 2.5hrs. 2.5hrs at 488Kts is about 1300nm. SIN-EWR IS -8300nm so add an extra 1300nm and you are at 9600nm, remarkably close to the spec range of the ULR at 9700nm.

So... you tell me why you think the airbus numbers are wrong because they seem pretty close to what is actually happening to me.

Keep talking though, it’s funny.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


hi fred. so you can certainly take the extra 5t as extra range bc it's already on board. however for the remaining 8, you have a penalty to carry that extra fuel. a third or quarter or more at this range. that lowers endurance by 2-3 more tons, which is a half hour lost or at 488, 244nm. that puts the range then at 9360ish.

which. is. about. an. hour. short. of. spec. that's all i'm saying. i'm not saying the plane can't fly crazy far, but that the specs are optimistic by about an hour.

i am boggled by how this is so "controversial."
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:29 pm

zeke wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
or you can answer in the alternative, what is the estimated weight difference between airbus spec cabin on the published design versus what your operator uses?


Almost identical.


zeke, that's absolutely amazing!

So you're honestly telling me right here, point blank that Qatar's Q suites interior with 46 closed suites at 79" pitch and 281 std econ seats is "almost identical" in DOW to the airbus spec which is (pulling directly off their ACAPS at airbus.com) 54 regular business class seats in 2/2/2 with like 315 econ seats your crew, your FAs, catering all of that. almost identical.

i'm blown away. either this is one of the most amazing coincidences ever or it's actually totally untrue.


fred said "Could you please, please just stick with one account? People here are not stupid."

fred, dunno what you mean but i made my point in response to your post.
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:57 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
zeke wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
or you can answer in the alternative, what is the estimated weight difference between airbus spec cabin on the published design versus what your operator uses?


Almost identical.


zeke, that's absolutely amazing!

So you're honestly telling me right here, point blank that Qatar's Q suites interior with 46 closed suites at 79" pitch and 281 std econ seats is "almost identical" in DOW to the airbus spec which is (pulling directly off their ACAPS at airbus.com) 54 regular business class seats in 2/2/2 with like 315 econ seats your crew, your FAs, catering all of that. almost identical.

i'm blown away. either this is one of the most amazing coincidences ever or it's actually totally untrue.



I believe he or she works for CX, not QR. But anyway, I would be surprised too if the DOW is identical to what Airbus assumes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13694
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:20 pm

mintxwb wrote:
But anyway, I would be surprised too if the DOW is identical to what Airbus assumes.


The “green” weight MWE even on our earliest A350 was within a couple hundred kg of specification, well within guarantees. We have a premium heavy cabin 38J/28W/214Y compared to the marketing configuration of 48J/267Y. I think we have 88” seats in 45” pitch in J and 40” pitch in W and 32”pitch in Y. Airbus marketing configuration is 60” pitch in J and 32” in Y.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:23 pm

zeke wrote:
mintxwb wrote:
But anyway, I would be surprised too if the DOW is identical to what Airbus assumes.


The “green” weight MWE even on our earliest A350 was within a couple hundred kg of specification, well within guarantees. We have a premium heavy cabin 38J/28W/214Y compared to the marketing configuration of 48J/267Y. I think we have 88” seats in 45” pitch in J and 40” pitch in W and 32”pitch in Y. Airbus marketing configuration is 60” pitch in J and 32” in Y.


So even if the CX cabin is premium-heavy, the weight is still identical to Airbus marketing cabin?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13694
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:01 pm

That has already been answered ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:25 am

zeke wrote:
mintxwb wrote:
But anyway, I would be surprised too if the DOW is identical to what Airbus assumes.


The “green” weight MWE even on our earliest A350 was within a couple hundred kg of specification, well within guarantees. We have a premium heavy cabin 38J/28W/214Y compared to the marketing configuration of 48J/267Y. I think we have 88” seats in 45” pitch in J and 40” pitch in W and 32”pitch in Y. Airbus marketing configuration is 60” pitch in J and 32” in Y.


why are you talking about MEW when it doesn't include operator specific items? airbus doesn't guarantee the weight of an operator's cabin

there is no way your dow isn't 6t over the spec weight like everyone else's in the air
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:42 am

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I'll also agree that the Airbus brochure range is 1 hour optimistic and Boeing brochure range is fairly accurate.
well if you agree, a well known non partisan member then it must be so...

I agree with two members.. I'll be the third to state the Airbus range is optimistic. I have looked at the flight data and weights of hundreds of flights.

Multiple Boeing operators fly the 787-9 within 200nm of brochure range yet no Airbus operator flies within 500nm of brochure range. Coincidence? I think not.

h1fl1er wrote:
airbus range estimates are an hour or so optimistic...same shenanigans boineg used to do


jimdisme wrote:
The difference between Airbus range and real range is about 1.5 hour.

PEK-DTW, 48t payload (25/23). TOW 275.4. Drop 25. Add 9 (230->320pax). TOW now 259.4. 20.6t remain needed to go 2337 additional nm to 8100 from 5763. No chance. 20.6t will get you perhaps 1800. Real world 280t (@ 325) pax range is 7500-7600nm
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:21 am

Back to topic, 319t is important to A350-1000. With a realistic range of 8,000 nm, it can finally be a true 77W replacement. Previously it has troubles on existing long 77W routes.

Quoting Al Baker

"They are going to increase the MTOW shortly, and then there will be a second increase... which will be a very huge competitor for the -300ER, from what we can see,"


I guess this 319t is what Al Baker referred to as "second increase" in July 2018?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 00-450406/
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:34 am

enzo011 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I'll also agree that the Airbus brochure range is 1 hour optimistic and Boeing brochure range is fairly accurate.

Having collected hundreds of data points in a previous argument for the 787 vs A350 I determined the Airbus brochure range is slightly optimisitc.

The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.



Yeah, you have yourself in a bind here. Brochure range difference between the A359 and 789 is 465 miles, about an hour. But Airbus is an hour optimistic according to you and Boeing fairly accurate, which means you are wrong either way here.

Airbus brochure range states 8100nm and 9700nm for the A350-900. It is the same aircraft with the same MTOW just swapping payload for fuel.

If you take the lower Airbus range figure then the yes that is one hour more than the 787-9 but it is carrying more payload than the 787-9. With the same payload weight the A350-900 range is moving closer to two hours greater.

So you can say it two ways:
The A350 range is optimistic for that payload.
The A350 payload is optimistic for that range.

Carrying 15% more payload and also carrying it 465nm further is actually a big step up in performance. It is the combination of extra payload and extra range that makes it a big step.

I would estimate from my data the gap is half that. One day we might see a A350-900 flight go within 200nm of brochure range like the 787-9. Until then..
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:38 am

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I'll also agree that the Airbus brochure range is 1 hour optimistic and Boeing brochure range is fairly accurate.

Having collected hundreds of data points in a previous argument for the 787 vs A350 I determined the Airbus brochure range is slightly optimisitc.

The A350 can still fly much further than the 787, just the gap is not as large as the brochure range suggests.



Yeah, you have yourself in a bind here. Brochure range difference between the A359 and 789 is 465 miles, about an hour. But Airbus is an hour optimistic according to you and Boeing fairly accurate, which means you are wrong either way here.

Airbus brochure range states 8100nm and 9700nm for the A350-900. It is the same aircraft with the same MTOW just swapping payload for fuel.

If you take the lower Airbus range figure then the yes that is one hour more than the 787-9 but it is carrying more payload than the 787-9. With the same payload weight the A350-900 range is moving closer to two hours greater.

So you can say it two ways:
The A350 range is optimistic for that payload.
The A350 payload is optimistic for that range.

Carrying 15% more payload and also carrying it 465nm further is actually a big step up in performance. It is the combination of extra payload and extra range that makes it a big step.

I would estimate from my data the gap is half that. One day we might see a A350-900 flight go within 200nm of brochure range like the 787-9. Until then..


quick q. does anyone have any payload/burn/time data from PR's jfk/mnl route? it's 7400nm and would provide a peek into how the 359/278 is doing. it would be pretty easy to figure out the 359/280 from this. the only other long route is the sq sfo one with a 359/275. other than the ulr ones lax and ewr that is
 
cx828
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:08 am

Zeke, will the 35k deliver next year the 319t 8700nm version, is it possible to use it to launch MIA? The great circle is 7812nm, is that enough?

Are the current 12 35k all 316t version?
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:16 am

h1fl1er wrote:

quick q. does anyone have any payload/burn/time data from PR's jfk/mnl route? it's 7400nm and would provide a peek into how the 359/278 is doing. it would be pretty easy to figure out the 359/280 from this. the only other long route is the sq sfo one with a 359/275. other than the ulr ones lax and ewr that is


IIRC PR publicly said the the 278t version enables them to do MNL-JFK without any payload restriction. Which means at 278t with 295 pax it can do ~7400 nmi. With 320 pax and MTOW 280t the range is around 7500 - 7600 nmi. Pretty consistent with your estimate: about 1 to 1.5 hours less than Airbus brochure/wiki range of 8100 nm.

xwb565 wrote:
the 280t a350 carries 36t over 17 hours. The 787-9 carries 25t over the same trip length. Both are at m.85 lrc.


This doesn't quite agree with the data presented in other threads for SQ and DL. Could you provide a source?
 
anrec80
Posts: 1808
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:17 am

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


Isn’t it the exit limit? Then it is probably all Y 10-abreast.
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:19 am

anrec80 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
How can you squeeze 410 seats on A350-1000? This means 10 abreast?


Isn’t it the exit limit? Then it is probably all Y 10-abreast.


Exit limit for both 359 and 35K is 440.
 
xwb565
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:20 am

mintxwb wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:

quick q. does anyone have any payload/burn/time data from PR's jfk/mnl route? it's 7400nm and would provide a peek into how the 359/278 is doing. it would be pretty easy to figure out the 359/280 from this. the only other long route is the sq sfo one with a 359/275. other than the ulr ones lax and ewr that is


IIRC PR publicly said the the 278t version enables them to do MNL-JFK without any payload restriction. Which means at 278t with 295 pax it can do ~7400 nmi. With 320 pax and MTOW 280t the range is around 7500 - 7600 nmi. Pretty consistent with your estimate: about 1 to 1.5 hours less than Airbus brochure/wiki range of 8100 nm.

xwb565 wrote:
the 280t a350 carries 36t over 17 hours. The 787-9 carries 25t over the same trip length. Both are at m.85 lrc.


This doesn't quite agree with the data presented in other threads for SQ and DL. Could you provide a source?


Neither the SQ data nor the DL data shown on this board are even usable in the same sentence because of the difference in payload lifted. Can we please stop this discussion on this thread and continue in the dedicated tech ops thread.
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: a350-1000 range increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:29 am

xwb565 wrote:

Neither the SQ data nor the DL data shown on this board are even usable in the same sentence because of the difference in payload lifted. Can we please stop this discussion on this thread and continue in the dedicated tech ops thread.


If what you said were true, DL doesn't need 275.4t TOW to lift 48t payload over PEK-DTW: PEK-DTW is 13 hours, 4 hours less than 17 so assuming 6t fuel per hour you are at TOW of 256t. Adding 12t more payload you are at 268t. Pretty far way from 275.4t. You can't just throw an assertion here without providing evidence. But I agree with you that this is A350-1000 thread, let's continue the technical discussion elsewhere.
Last edited by mintxwb on Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
xwb565
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:38 am

One cannot roughly estimate anything from two sets of data on opposite ends of the payload scale given the effect it has on fuel burn. I certainly am not going to burn bridges by revealing my sources but the peer reviewed calculations by Zeke are available in the tech ops thread to disprove this whole nonsensical theory about airbus and acaps.
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:44 am

xwb565 wrote:
One cannot roughly estimate anything from two sets of data on opposite ends of the payload scale given the effect it has on fuel burn. I certainly am not going to burn bridges by revealing my sources but the peer reviewed calculations by Zeke are available in the tech ops thread to disprove this whole nonsensical theory about airbus and acaps.


I wouldn't call 36t and 48t as "opposite ends of the payload scale"; they are both at higher end of the scale. Are you really saying the "effect it has on fuel burn" accounts for the 7t difference between your data and DL PEK-DTW flight report?
 
xwb565
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:50 am

mintxwb wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
One cannot roughly estimate anything from two sets of data on opposite ends of the payload scale given the effect it has on fuel burn. I certainly am not going to burn bridges by revealing my sources but the peer reviewed calculations by Zeke are available in the tech ops thread to disprove this whole nonsensical theory about airbus and acaps.


I wouldn't call 36t and 48t as "opposite ends of the payload scale"; they are both at higher end of the scale. Are you really saying the "effect it has on fuel burn" accounts for the 7t difference between your data and DL PEK-DTW flight report?


You were referring to "SQ" data and DL data on this board. The SQ data I remember seeing on this board is for a 25t payload flight and the DL data for a 49t one. I certainly have not said that the 36t data I refer to is from any SQ flight. Let us continue in the techops thread.
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Airbus A350-1000 Range Increase

Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:20 am

xwb565 wrote:
You were referring to "SQ" data and DL data on this board. The SQ data I remember seeing on this board is for a 25t payload flight and the DL data for a 49t one. I certainly have not said that the 36t data I refer to is from any SQ flight. Let us continue in the techops thread.


I assume this is the SQ flight you are talking about: viewtopic.php?t=1408737

and DL: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53

As another member said, PR chart is almost linear. SQ31 and DL188 data points in this board are consistent with each other, and they both disagree with your assertion. Let me show it to you. From SQ31, TOW 271t, 25t payload, 16 hours. Subtract 3 hour (18t fuel) you get 253t TOW. To lift 48t instead of 25t, add 23t, you are at 276t. Almost the same as that DL188 data point (13 hours, 48t payload, 275.4t TOW)

I have started a similar topic on the tech/ops thread, let's discuss there.
Last edited by mintxwb on Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

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