tvh
Topic Author
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:41 am

A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:19 pm

Would there be a market for a A351 lite. Meaning a aircraft with the lenght of the A350-1000 but the wings engines and undercarige of the A350-900. It would have MTOW of 280 and a range similar to the B787-10. It would be ligther than a normal A350-1000 and have lower landing feess. It would not need to be a big market as it is not that expansive for airbus to develop.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

you can start from this topic:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421673
 
AirbusA322
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:38 am

Re: A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:20 pm

I think we are going to see a lot of unique varieties that will be modified for the customers needs. Bit like QF and it’s upcoming Project Sunrise aircraft which will need an extra tank and obvious higher MTOW.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:53 pm

tvh wrote:
Would there be a market for a A351 lite. Meaning a aircraft with the lenght of the A350-1000 but the wings engines and undercarige of the A350-900. It would have MTOW of 280 and a range similar to the B787-10. It would be ligther than a normal A350-1000 and have lower landing feess. It would not need to be a big market as it is not that expansive for airbus to develop.


I think there might be yes, perhaps in a slightly shorter form (still a simple stretch version of the 900). This in order to increase useful payload within the 280t MTOW restriction and to make room for an 1100 above based on the current 319t MTOW without that model having to become too much of a stretch.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
mwhcvt
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:01 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:52 pm

What your describing is a whole new sub-type, it’s going to need the same degree of certification as any other sub-type, which is still fairly substantial also do we have any particular information on the weight savings?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-440766/

The above link suggests the change of engines would offer just about half a tonne

Is there really a lot of difference in the wings or landing gear beyond the obvious 4 wheel vs 6 wheeled bogies so unless the wings offer a massive saving they might still need that original main gear for loading reasons
Must think up a new one soon, slow moving brain trying to get into gear ;)
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:32 pm

mwhcvt wrote:
What your describing is a whole new sub-type, it’s going to need the same degree of certification as any other sub-type, which is still fairly substantial also do we have any particular information on the weight savings?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-440766/

The above link suggests the change of engines would offer just about half a tonne

Is there really a lot of difference in the wings or landing gear beyond the obvious 4 wheel vs 6 wheeled bogies so unless the wings offer a massive saving they might still need that original main gear for loading reasons



The alternative is that the SFC saving from an ultrafan engine will provide range no airline will be asking for while the plane is already heavy for it's span causing increased levels of induced drag. Moving to the 900 MTOW solves both the over-capability and reduces the span wise loading penalty of the current 1000. Sure you could go folding wing types, but that cost development, weight and still leaves the plane over capable.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:25 pm

Maybe a stretch of the -900 to around 70m?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26237
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A351 Lite

Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:30 pm

tvh wrote:
Would there be a market for a A351 lite. Meaning a aircraft with the lenght of the A350-1000 but the wings engines and undercarige of the A350-900. It would have MTOW of 280 and a range similar to the B787-10. It would be ligther than a normal A350-1000 and have lower landing feess. It would not need to be a big market as it is not that expansive for airbus to develop.


You can certify the A350-1000 with lower Operating Weights to save on airport and navigation fees. You can even have a "Flex-OW" that is higher for when you need the performance (like on a trans-oceanic mission) and lower when you do not (like on a regional mission). The original A350-1000 wing was an A350-900 wing with different leading and trailing edge devices - if this is still the case, you're likely not to save much weight going to the pure A350-900 wing. Same with the undercarriage. And it would just complicate the assembly process which would likely result in minimal cost-savings to the airline in terms of ASPs.
 
tvh
Topic Author
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:41 am

Re: A351 Lite

Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:37 am

Stitch wrote:
tvh wrote:
Would there be a market for a A351 lite. Meaning a aircraft with the lenght of the A350-1000 but the wings engines and undercarige of the A350-900. It would have MTOW of 280 and a range similar to the B787-10. It would be ligther than a normal A350-1000 and have lower landing feess. It would not need to be a big market as it is not that expansive for airbus to develop.


You can certify the A350-1000 with lower Operating Weights to save on airport and navigation fees. You can even have a "Flex-OW" that is higher for when you need the performance (like on a trans-oceanic mission) and lower when you do not (like on a regional mission). The original A350-1000 wing was an A350-900 wing with different leading and trailing edge devices - if this is still the case, you're likely not to save much weight going to the pure A350-900 wing. Same with the undercarriage. And it would just complicate the assembly process which would likely result in minimal cost-savings to the airline in terms of ASPs.


If the 900 wing is not lighter they would make the 1000 wing the standard for the 900 too.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26237
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A351 Lite

Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:25 pm

tvh wrote:
If the 900 wing is not lighter they would make the 1000 wing the standard for the 900 too.


I am sure it is lighter (just the additional strengthening to support the higher A350-1000 operating weights would do that even if the wings were effectively identical). According to a briefing from one of the major wing suppliers, the A350-1000 wing has the same span of the A350-900, but 90% of the parts have been modified and the trailing edge has been extended to resize the wing for the additional payload and range.

Personally, I would not be surprised if airlines would prefer to take the weight penalty of the current A350-1000 for the much greater flexibility it offers due to the ability to support higher operating weights. That way they could use their frames for any mission.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:47 am

Stitch wrote:
tvh wrote:
If the 900 wing is not lighter they would make the 1000 wing the standard for the 900 too.


I am sure it is lighter (just the additional strengthening to support the higher A350-1000 operating weights would do that even if the wings were effectively identical). According to a briefing from one of the major wing suppliers, the A350-1000 wing has the same span of the A350-900, but 90% of the parts have been modified and the trailing edge has been extended to resize the wing for the additional payload and range.

Personally, I would not be surprised if airlines would prefer to take the weight penalty of the current A350-1000 for the much greater flexibility it offers due to the ability to support higher operating weights. That way they could use their frames for any mission.


I agree, as we have seen with 773 vs. 77W.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:10 am

SQ22 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
I am sure it is lighter (just the additional strengthening to support the higher A350-1000 operating weights would do that even if the wings were effectively identical). According to a briefing from one of the major wing suppliers, the A350-1000 wing has the same span of the A350-900, but 90% of the parts have been modified and the trailing edge has been extended to resize the wing for the additional payload and range.

Personally, I would not be surprised if airlines would prefer to take the weight penalty of the current A350-1000 for the much greater flexibility it offers due to the ability to support higher operating weights. That way they could use their frames for any mission.


I agree, as we have seen with 773 vs. 77W.


I agree.

The only thing an airline gets with an A351 Lite is reduced flexibility.


Historically, sales have always favoured the higher weight and more capable version of the same model.

767-300 vs 767-300ER
777-200 vs 777-200ER
777-300 vs 777-300ER
Early build, lower weight A330-300 vs Newer, higher weight A330-300 (as the A333 capability grew, so did its sales)

So, airlines have shown that they value flexibility (whether in their own fleet and for their own needs OR for greater resale opportunities and value down the road) over a lower weight/capability that one would assume to better match needs (on the surface/at face value).

In my opinion, an A350-1000 Lite vs A350-1000 contest would be no different.

In my opinion, the 787-10 (as a simple stretch into a medium-haul people-mover) does relatively well enough and makes sense as it is because it does not have an available 787-10ER to contend with.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:16 am

MoKa777 wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
I am sure it is lighter (just the additional strengthening to support the higher A350-1000 operating weights would do that even if the wings were effectively identical). According to a briefing from one of the major wing suppliers, the A350-1000 wing has the same span of the A350-900, but 90% of the parts have been modified and the trailing edge has been extended to resize the wing for the additional payload and range.

Personally, I would not be surprised if airlines would prefer to take the weight penalty of the current A350-1000 for the much greater flexibility it offers due to the ability to support higher operating weights. That way they could use their frames for any mission.


I agree, as we have seen with 773 vs. 77W.


I agree.

The only thing an airline gets with an A351 Lite is reduced flexibility.


Historically, sales have always favoured the higher weight and more capable version of the same model.

767-300 vs 767-300ER
777-200 vs 777-200ER
777-300 vs 777-300ER
Early build, lower weight A330-300 vs Newer, higher weight A330-300 (as the A333 capability grew, so did its sales)

So, airlines have shown that they value flexibility (whether in their own fleet and for their own needs OR for greater resale opportunities and value down the road) over a lower weight/capability that one would assume to better match needs (on the surface/at face value).

In my opinion, an A350-1000 Lite vs A350-1000 contest would be no different.

In my opinion, the 787-10 (as a simple stretch into a medium-haul people-mover) does relatively well enough and makes sense as it is because it does not have an available 787-10ER to contend with.



My counter point would be to look at the capability comparisons of the above examples and the capability comparison between an ULTRAFAN A350-1000 at 280t MTOW and one at 319t. We would be talking about a wholly different payload-range bracket. Al the given examples are within range of what many airlines use. An ultrafan 319t A350-1000 would exceeds the needs of the vast majority of airlines. So in my opinion you can't just extrapolate the stated logic one on one to a ultrafan A350-1000 situation.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:54 am

Taxi645 wrote:
My counter point would be to look at the capability comparisons of the above examples and the capability comparison between an ULTRAFAN A350-1000 at 280t MTOW and one at 319t. We would be talking about a wholly different payload-range bracket. Al the given examples are within range of what many airlines use. An ultrafan 319t A350-1000 would exceeds the needs of the vast majority of airlines. So in my opinion you can't just extrapolate the stated logic one on one to a ultrafan A350-1000 situation.


True, introducing the UltraFan to the discussion does change a lot BUT I will counter your counter by saying that the OP did not mention the UltraFan in any of their posts in this thread.

Yes, I agree that an UltraFan 319t A350-1000 will likely offer more range than is realistically required at most airlines.

My extrapolation was based on what the OP brought forward in the OP and what was mentioned by Stitch and SQ22
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:26 am

MoKa777 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
My counter point would be to look at the capability comparisons of the above examples and the capability comparison between an ULTRAFAN A350-1000 at 280t MTOW and one at 319t. We would be talking about a wholly different payload-range bracket. Al the given examples are within range of what many airlines use. An ultrafan 319t A350-1000 would exceeds the needs of the vast majority of airlines. So in my opinion you can't just extrapolate the stated logic one on one to a ultrafan A350-1000 situation.


True, introducing the UltraFan to the discussion does change a lot BUT I will counter your counter by saying that the OP did not mention the UltraFan in any of their posts in this thread.

Yes, I agree that an UltraFan 319t A350-1000 will likely offer more range than is realistically required at most airlines.

My extrapolation was based on what the OP brought forward in the OP and what was mentioned by Stitch and SQ22


We prolly agree then that a current engine A350-1000 lite is highly unlikely. :)
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:50 am

Taxi645 wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
My counter point would be to look at the capability comparisons of the above examples and the capability comparison between an ULTRAFAN A350-1000 at 280t MTOW and one at 319t. We would be talking about a wholly different payload-range bracket. Al the given examples are within range of what many airlines use. An ultrafan 319t A350-1000 would exceeds the needs of the vast majority of airlines. So in my opinion you can't just extrapolate the stated logic one on one to a ultrafan A350-1000 situation.


True, introducing the UltraFan to the discussion does change a lot BUT I will counter your counter by saying that the OP did not mention the UltraFan in any of their posts in this thread.

Yes, I agree that an UltraFan 319t A350-1000 will likely offer more range than is realistically required at most airlines.

My extrapolation was based on what the OP brought forward in the OP and what was mentioned by Stitch and SQ22


We prolly agree then that a current engine A350-1000 lite is highly unlikely.


Absolutely! :checkmark:
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5415
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:00 am

I started a thread a while ago asking if the A350 was offering too much range. And the anemic sales of the A350-1000 was one of the things that inspired it. Note that EK had ordered a bunch of them when it was first announced as a simple stretch of the A359. Then Airbus decided to modify it and give it even more range than the A359. EK then canceled their order saying this was not the plane they wanted. The original version is what tvh is really talking about in his original post. And he may be onto something. Has the A3510 gotten as many orders yet as EK canceled? The 7810 has done much better than the A3510, I believe even in comparison to the base model. But the dilemma for Airbus is that it is quite expensive to design and certify a new variant, even if it is basically just using already certified components, and doing so would just dilute sales of the already poor selling A3510. Boeing is in a different position; the 7810 is selling quite well and they could consider a long range version, although they probably won’t because it will take sales away from the 777X. But the A3510 vs. the 7810 is much like the 77E vs. the A333; the A333 started with not enough range, and so the 77E substantially outsold it. But as the A333 improved its range it took more and more sales from the 77E, even though it never came close to matching its range. But it got to the point where it had enough range for most operators, and was substantially cheaper to operate than the 77E. I think that sweet spot is where the 7810 is now, and Airbus missed it by giving the A3510 too much range (at great cost). Yes, airlines that have long range routes will prefer to have as much of their fleet as possible capable of handling all of their routes, but many airlines do not have such routes. And they don’t need extremely long range planes.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26237
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:34 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
My counter point would be to look at the capability comparisons of the above examples and the capability comparison between an ULTRAFAN A350-1000 at 280t MTOW and one at 319t. We would be talking about a wholly different payload-range bracket. Al the given examples are within range of what many airlines use. An ultrafan 319t A350-1000 would exceeds the needs of the vast majority of airlines. So in my opinion you can't just extrapolate the stated logic one on one to a ultrafan A350-1000 situation.


However, the A350-1000 offers MTOWs other than 319t and this will be the case if and when UltraFan engines become an option. So if an operator desires a 280t MTOW UltraFan A350-1000, Airbus will gladly provide it (well, maybe not gladly since they charge less for lower MTOWs :biggrin: ).
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:40 pm

According to EASA the current lowest weight variant is 005 with a MTOW of 270 Ton
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2680
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:07 pm

I will say no, because you have the problem of the exit door limit. It would still be 440, the same as the Airbus A350-900. Currently, one carrier, E9, is brushing up close to that in an all-Y configuration (Y432). This is unlike the B773/B77W, with a 550 person exit door limit.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: A351 Lite

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:23 pm

Regarding exit door limits...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-modified-exit-doors-key-to-460-seat-cebu-a330-459203/

If each pair of this Type A-Plus exit door can provide emergency exit capability for 120 passengers, then 4 pairs can achieve a maximum of 480
 
User avatar
mfranjic
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:54 am

Re: A351 Lite

Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:16 pm

……
Image.The Image.A350-1041 aircraft, powered by two Image.Trent XWB-97, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC〨1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 431,48 kN / 44.000 kgf / 97.000 lbf, entered the commercial service with Qatar Airways in February 2018, in the Weight Variant WV000 * Mod number Basic (MTOW: 308.000 kg / 679.024 lb), and in the meantime its MTOW ( WV002 * Mod number 110134 and WV011 ) has grown to 316.000 kg / 696.661 lb.(IMG.2). I presume the new Weight Variant WV003 could be intended for the increased MTOW of 319.000 kg / 703.275 lb.(IMG.7).

…...In the recent issue of the type-certificate data sheet (TCDS) of the Image.A350 aircraft: Image.TCDS.EASA.A.151 Issue 19, dated on 02. July 2019, it is visible.(IMG.1) that for the Image.A350-1000 model some new Mod numbers have been added in this document’s issue, and related to the different Weigt Wariants of the aircraft.

……......Image
…….…..IMG.1 - Airbus A350-1000 TCDS - Maximum Certified Weights

…...On the other side, in the recent issue of the Image.A350 aircraft’s factory document - A350. ACAaMP Issue: Nov 01/16 Rev: Jun 01/19, besides those recently added, and in the TCDS visible Weigt Wariants of the aircraft - WV005 * Mod number 112751 (MTOW: 270.000 kg / 595.248 lb), WV009 * Mod number 114124 (MTOW: 290.000 kg / 639.341 lb) and WV010 * Mod number 114125 (MTOW: 300.000 kg / 661.387 lb), there are two more Weigt Variants visible.(IMG.2) in this factory document, and those are: WV007 (MTOW: 260.000 kg / 573.202 lb) and WV011 (MTOW: 316.000 kg / 696.661 lb).

……Image
……IMG.2 - Airbus A350-1000 ACaMP - Maximum Certified Weights

………….Image
………….IMG.3 - Airbus A350-1000 ACaMP – Payload / Range chart

One of the Japanese main airlines, Japan Airlines, plans to replace their entire fleet of 40.Boeing 777s (23.Boeing 777-200 and 17.Boeing 777-300) with the Image.A350 aircraft. In 2013 the airline placed an order for 18 Airbus A350-900s and 13 Airbus A350-1000s with the options for an additional 25 aircraft.

The Japan Airlines is the first airline to operate derated Image.A350-900 frames; WV018 * Mod number 112498 / 114858 (MTOW: 217.000 kg / 478.403 lb).(IMG.5), aimed for those domestic routes, thus allowing the aircraft many more flight cycles. Since the aircraft are powered by Image.Trent XWB-75, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 330,06 kN / 33.657 kgf / 74.200 lbf, in one moment the different sources were indicating the possibility the aircraft will be certified as the type Airbus A350-942, rather than as the existing Airbus A350-941 powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans rated at 374,54 kN / 38.192 kgf / 84.200 lbf, but that has not happened. I myself was also thinking we’ll see the new model, A350-942, of the Airbus A350-900 aircraft certified…

Unlike the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-75 and the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 engines (Engine Electronic Control ver. XWB-3.5.3; Engine Monitoring Unit ver. EX5.0) that completely share the same engine’s design and mass of 7.277 kg / 16.043 lb, the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engine (Engine Electronic Control ver. XWB-5.3.1; Engine Monitoring Unit ver. EX6.1) has a mass of 7.549 kg / 16.643 lb.

In the recent and above mentioned issue of the type-certificate data sheet (TCDS) of the Image.A350 aircraft: TCDS.EASA.A.151 Issue 19, dated on 02. July 2019, it is also visible.(IMG.4) the Image.A350-941 model, besides with the Image.Trent XWB-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans, rated at 374,54 kN / 38.192 kgf / 84.200 lbf, has been also certified with the Image.Trent XWB-75, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 330,06 kN / 33.657 kgf / 74.200 lbf, but it is also visible the way the Mod numbers are connected with the different Weight Variant (WV) in this document -.IMG.5.

………....Image
….………IMG.4 - Airbus A350-900 TCDS - Engines

………….Image
………....IMG.5 - Airbus A350-900 TCDS - Maximum Certified Weights

……Image
……IMG.6 - Airbus A350-900 ACaMP – Payload / Range chart

Leading myself by a comparable analogy, and related to the JAL’s derated Image.A350-900 frames, I am thinking out loud that one day we might also see derated Airbus A350-1041 frames: WV005 (MTOW: 270.000 kg / 595.249 lb) or/and WV007 (MTOW: 260.000 kg / 573.202 lb).(IMG.2), powered, instead of Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines, rated at 431,48 kN / 44.000 kgf / 97.000 lbf, by two Image.Trent XWB-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 374,54 kN / 38.192 kgf / 84.200 lbf, and instead of the data shown in the.IMG.1, we might see the table.(IMG.7) with the different Weight Variants looking like this:

…………...Image
…….……..IMG.7 - Airbus A350-1000 TCDS – Possible Maximum Certified Weights

Consequently, it would mean that besides with a Rolls-Royce XWB-97 three-shaft turbofans.(IMG.8)

……….....Image
….………IMG.8 - Airbus A350-1000 TCDS - Engines

…the Airbus A350-1000 aircraft could be also certified with a Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 three-shaft turbofans, primarily intended for the Airbus A350-900 aircraft.(IMG.9)

……….....Image
….………IMG.9 - Airbus A350-1000 TCDS – Possible Engine Options

On the technical side there are no obstacles for the ‘A351 Lite’ to see the light of the day, and whether it will happen depends on if someone will need it. The Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 engines could be used without any possible problem, but for the wings and the landing gear I do not expect to be redesigned or taken over from the A350-900 aircraft.

Mario
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile" - Albert Einstein
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: A351 Lite

Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:28 pm

SEPilot wrote:
I started a thread a while ago asking if the A350 was offering too much range. And the anemic sales of the A350-1000 was one of the things that inspired it. Note that EK had ordered a bunch of them when it was first announced as a simple stretch of the A359. Then Airbus decided to modify it and give it even more range than the A359. EK then canceled their order saying this was not the plane they wanted. The original version is what tvh is really talking about in his original post. And he may be onto something. Has the A3510 gotten as many orders yet as EK canceled? The 7810 has done much better than the A3510, I believe even in comparison to the base model. But the dilemma for Airbus is that it is quite expensive to design and certify a new variant, even if it is basically just using already certified components, and doing so would just dilute sales of the already poor selling A3510. Boeing is in a different position; the 7810 is selling quite well and they could consider a long range version, although they probably won’t because it will take sales away from the 777X. But the A3510 vs. the 7810 is much like the 77E vs. the A333; the A333 started with not enough range, and so the 77E substantially outsold it. But as the A333 improved its range it took more and more sales from the 77E, even though it never came close to matching its range. But it got to the point where it had enough range for most operators, and was substantially cheaper to operate than the 77E. I think that sweet spot is where the 7810 is now, and Airbus missed it by giving the A3510 too much range (at great cost). Yes, airlines that have long range routes will prefer to have as much of their fleet as possible capable of handling all of their routes, but many airlines do not have such routes. And they don’t need extremely long range planes.


A few things I'd say in response to this:

Firstly: the 78X and A35K are different sizes, the 78X is about A359/77E size, the A35K is about 77W size give or take. The A35K will make its name as a 77W replacement, and that simply hasn't started yet, which is also something affecting the 777X. The 78X will take over a fair amount of A333 flying

Secondly: the 78X hasn't sold at lightning speed, compared to the 789 and A359 especially. It's got a couple of orders recently, but we can't tell yet if this is the start of a trend. It's done OK, but not vastly better than the A35K.

I think the 78X will get range improvements, it's small enough to be differentiated from the 777X, and it'll put some squeeze on the A359, although the A359 I expect will still have an edge on the longest missions, and if Boeing choose to match it they risk narrowing the efficiency advantage.

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