Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15278
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:23 am

Revelation wrote:
Seems dubious to me. Since you provided no link I did a bunch of Google searches and found nothing like what you report with regards to workers moving from NMA to MAX. Maybe there is something in German language google.de but I could find nothing on google.com. Also seems this is best discussed in a MAX or NMA thread, not an A350 thread.


For a 2022 EIS the long lead time components of the 777-8 should be a in production.

There is a “source” (not that I would call it that) on the sunrise thread.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15278
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:24 am

Erebus wrote:
zeke wrote:
...and added the -1000 nose gear.


I always thought it was just the MLG that were different for the types. What differences are there between the -900 and -1000 nose gear?


Essentially the -1000 nose gear is certified for higher weights.

The ULR has a higher MTOW plus additional fuel volume in the centre tank which increases loads on the nose gear. This is standard now on all -900s.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:40 am

zeke wrote:
Erebus wrote:
zeke wrote:
...and added the -1000 nose gear.


I always thought it was just the MLG that were different for the types. What differences are there between the -900 and -1000 nose gear?


Essentially the -1000 nose gear is certified for higher weights.

The ULR has a higher MTOW plus additional fuel volume in the centre tank which increases loads on the nose gear. This is standard now on all -900s.


IS there is list of "backports" from the A35K to the A359 around?

what I seem to have seen mentioned:
* CFRP doorframes
* electric nose gear doors
* ?wingtwist?
* changed winglets

you add:
* full nose gear assembly. ( beyond beefing up: is there a further design change involved?)

imu:
Loads on the nose gear shouldn't be too different between 900 and 1000.
slightly higher loading is compensated by a longer moment arm ( NLG MLG distance increased )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13338
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:47 am

BaconButty wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
The -900 ulr was a little bit more than that iirc. The largest MTOW at the time it was announced was the 278 tonne variant built for PR, so there was a 2 tonne increase. The wing twist and sharklet revision was for the ULR but flight testing the ULR meant it reached service with an IB frame first.

That's not accurate: Airbus was promising 280T with modified door lining, empennage, etc for the standard A359 for nearly half a decade. It wasn't supposed to be available until 2020, and the modified winglets+twist were not part of the initial proposal.... but weights above the 278T ordered by the likes of PR was never reserved solely for the -ULR.

The SIA order was the first order for a 280T version. Whether some improvements were mooted in advance, the SIA order was clearly the catalyst for bringing them into service.

You're conflating two different things. No one's arguing that SQ wasn't first to order for range, but what I'm trying to tell you is that Airbus' proposal to increase the standard A359 beyond 275T wasn't dependent on the -ULR, and in fact, the -ULR benefited from some improvements (already mentioned) that were first marketed for the standard A359 to appear next year.

The two iterations we have now are more or less an amalgamation of planning.

Image



flyingclrs727 wrote:
The 777-200LR was more like a 777-300ER shrunk down to the same length as a 777-200.

While the 772LR was brought to market after the 773ER, it's not a shrink. It's still on the original 772 frame, for which the 773/77W are stretches.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:04 am

LAX772LR wrote:
You're conflating two different things. No one's arguing that SQ wasn't first to order for range, but what I'm trying to tell you is that Airbus' proposal to increase the standard A359 beyond 275T wasn't dependent on the -ULR, and in fact, the -ULR benefited from some improvements (already mentioned) that were first marketed for the standard A359 to appear next year.


The [email protected] was announced by Airbus:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... 0-900.html
at a time when the regular -900 was still at 269t MTOW ( WP historic snapshot from Oct 2015) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ifications

Though I do think that the 280t proposal was nice "fallout" ( or was it vice versa ) from looking at increasing MTOW for the base version
to compensate for initial OEW overweight.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15278
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:11 am

WIederling wrote:
IS there is list of "backports" from the A35K to the A359 around?



Yes there is, it’s a large PDF over 100 pages long that is Airbus proprietary.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:14 am

Boeing has put development of the long-ranging 777-8 on hold, and did not give any indication of how long, when asked by FlightGlobal. In other words, the variant is on hold until a new decision is made. This is not just a regular delay or schedule update.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-460286/

Looks like Qantas has made a decision, and the ME3 is reconsidering their 777X-8 orders. Development of the 777X-8 might never be resumed.
Last edited by reidar76 on Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:15 am

zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
IS there is list of "backports" from the A35K to the A359 around?



Yes there is, it’s a large PDF over 100 pages long that is Airbus proprietary.


So we're not getting that then.. There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.
BV
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:17 am

reidar76 wrote:
Boeing has put development of the long-ranging 777-8 on hold, and did not give any indication of how long, when asked by FlightGlobal. In other words, the variant is on hold until a new decision is made. This is not just a regular delay or schedule update.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-460286/

Looks like Qantas has made a decision, and the ME3 is reconsidering their 777X-8 orders. Development of the 777X-8 might never be resumed.


If its anything like the A350-800 the development is on hold until all customers can be persuaded to switch orders and then its cancelled.
BV
 
Opus99
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:17 am

What are the possibilities of the A350-1000ULR carrying over 300 passengers whilst being able to deliver that London to Sydney route?
 
Opus99
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:18 am

Also will the A350-1000ULR be more efficient on a standard long haul route e.g. LHR to JFK than the standard A350-1000?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:31 am

zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
IS there is list of "backports" from the A35K to the A359 around?



Yes there is, it’s a large PDF over 100 pages long that is Airbus proprietary.


thanks for the heads up :-) so we will die dumb. :-)))

I suppose mostly details or are their larger modules included?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:44 am

Opus99 wrote:
Also will the A350-1000ULR be more efficient on a standard long haul route e.g. LHR to JFK than the standard A350-1000?

It depends - the ULR is all about being able to carry sufficient fuel for the flight without sacrificing too much revenue earning capability. On a LHR-JFK flight, there is no need to tank so much fuel - so payload is increased due to its higher MTOW. The standard A35K with lower MTOW will not be as profitable if the airline can fill up the planes to full revenue earning capacity.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:45 am

BoeingVista wrote:
zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
IS there is list of "backports" from the A35K to the A359 around?



Yes there is, it’s a large PDF over 100 pages long that is Airbus proprietary.


So we're not getting that then.. There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.


The available hollow body volume of the full wing assembly (wing box, center wing box) should be more or less fixed.
I'd imagine minimal changes ( low single digit % ) from strengthening for the heavier type.

What changed was how much of that volume is used as tankage
( apparently just by changing filling levels, fiddling with surge arrangements and beefing up the inerting system.
no tanks external to the existing hollow body were added )

ULR specs indicate that the hollow volume is equal to or bigger than 165kl.
the "bigger" aspect is unknown. Could be maxed out already or not.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15278
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:22 am

BoeingVista wrote:

So we're not getting that then.. There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.


The ACAPS does have the tank volumes, you need to go towards the end in the hazardous materials and fire fighting section.

As far as I am aware the -1000 has less volume available in the centre tank, the four wheel bogies bay is 4.1 m long where the -1000 has a 4.7 m bay for the 6 wheels.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
T4thH
Posts: 1102
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:22 am

Revelation wrote:
T4thH wrote:
It is not only this, what is stopped or is on hold. Boeing seems to have stopped already everything, with exception of to get the B777-X into the air. All engineers seems now to work on the B737 Max to fix all the issues. In one German news (an interview) it was recently announced, also the NMA program is on hold and all engineers are working now on the B737 Max program. And only few of the Boeing staff still believes the NMA program will be restarted, when the MAX issues have been solved.

Seems dubious to me. Since you provided no link I did a bunch of Google searches and found nothing like what you report with regards to workers moving from NMA to MAX. Maybe there is something in German language google.de but I could find nothing on google.com. Also seems this is best discussed in a MAX or NMA thread, not an A350 thread.

I think, I will be able to find the source again. But this I can only do, when I will be back home.
 
tomcat
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:15 am

zeke wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Your estimates for the A35K payload over 7600nm seem on the low end. The 316t A35K can haul 35t over 8400nm. Limiting the range to 7600nm allows to trade at least 9t of fuel for payload.


The design range was increased yet again from 8400 nm to 8700 nm.

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... -1000.html


Indeed, I'm aware of this but I'm not sure for which MTOW this extended range is achievable. It's my understanding that this 8700nm was announced together with the 319t MTOW. In this case, the 8400nm is still valid when considering a TOW of 316t.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:18 am

zeke wrote:
The ACAPS does have the tank volumes, you need to go towards the end in the hazardous materials and fire fighting section.

As far as I am aware the -1000 has less volume available in the centre tank, the four wheel bogies bay is 4.1 m long where the -1000 has a 4.7 m bay for the 6 wheels.


the gear bay of either -900 or -1000 does not intersect the center wing box
the center wingbox is "fuel".
The numbers in the "Hazardous Materials" graphic only give max fuel values for the types tankage.
not the hollow box volume ( -900 has 2 values 81kl (base) and 107kl ( ULR ) with no structural differences. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:58 am

I am sure I read at the time that the ULR used the same tank volume as the -1000 and that it was not maxed out.

Of course I cannot find that now.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:10 am

Question: What would be the order potential of the A350-1000ULR? Because I don't see a lot of routes that are interesting for such a long range. Maybe some of the freedom routes might become obsolete, but beyond that and the routes to Australia and New Zealand I am not seeing many routes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15278
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:15 am

WIederling wrote:
zeke wrote:
The ACAPS does have the tank volumes, you need to go towards the end in the hazardous materials and fire fighting section.

As far as I am aware the -1000 has less volume available in the centre tank, the four wheel bogies bay is 4.1 m long where the -1000 has a 4.7 m bay for the 6 wheels.


the gear bay of either -900 or -1000 does not intersect the center wing box
the center wingbox is "fuel".
The numbers in the "Hazardous Materials" graphic only give max fuel values for the types tankage.
not the hollow box volume ( -900 has 2 values 81kl (base) and 107kl ( ULR ) with no structural differences. )


The center tank is extends out from the fuselage into the wings, it is not just the center wing box.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:35 am

zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
zeke wrote:
The ACAPS does have the tank volumes, you need to go towards the end in the hazardous materials and fire fighting section.

As far as I am aware the -1000 has less volume available in the centre tank, the four wheel bogies bay is 4.1 m long where the -1000 has a 4.7 m bay for the 6 wheels.


the gear bay of either -900 or -1000 does not intersect the center wing box
the center wingbox is "fuel".
The numbers in the "Hazardous Materials" graphic only give max fuel values for the types tankage.
not the hollow box volume ( -900 has 2 values 81kl (base) and 107kl ( ULR ) with no structural differences. )


The center tank is extends out from the fuselage into the wings, it is not just the center wing box.


That is known. ( contrast to the A330 )
Still it does not intersect with the gear bay.
and the wing tank volume is the ~same (30kl) over the full range of types.
indicates that the fuel tight frames/structures separating wing and center tank space are in the same place.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:39 am

JonesNL wrote:
Question: What would be the order potential of the A350-1000ULR? Because I don't see a lot of routes that are interesting for such a long range. Maybe some of the freedom routes might become obsolete, but beyond that and the routes to Australia and New Zealand I am not seeing many routes.


Asia-South America and Africa-Nth America routes spring to mind. JNB, ADD and MEX long haul also.
come visit the south pacific
 
ewt340
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:41 am

JonesNL wrote:
Question: What would be the order potential of the A350-1000ULR? Because I don't see a lot of routes that are interesting for such a long range. Maybe some of the freedom routes might become obsolete, but beyond that and the routes to Australia and New Zealand I am not seeing many routes.


Well they would probably being used for it's higher payload capability. More passengers and revenue cargo for normal long-haul flights. Sometimes Airlines bought this aircraft so they could crammed in more people and cargo to generate extra profits while on popular routes.

They don't necessarily used this ULR plane for actual ULR routes.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:07 pm

WIederling wrote:
imu:
Loads on the nose gear shouldn't be too different between 900 and 1000.
slightly higher loading is compensated by a longer moment arm ( NLG MLG distance increased )

True, but over time the supply chain is made simpler by standardizing on one part when the differences are small, so that may also be a factor.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tomcat
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:48 pm

ewt340 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Question: What would be the order potential of the A350-1000ULR? Because I don't see a lot of routes that are interesting for such a long range. Maybe some of the freedom routes might become obsolete, but beyond that and the routes to Australia and New Zealand I am not seeing many routes.


Well they would probably being used for it's higher payload capability. More passengers and revenue cargo for normal long-haul flights. Sometimes Airlines bought this aircraft so they could crammed in more people and cargo to generate extra profits while on popular routes.

They don't necessarily used this ULR plane for actual ULR routes.


ULR capabilities don't automatically translate into a greater payload capability. The payload capability depends on the MZFW and MLW which don't always go up with a MTOW increase. If you look at the A359 weight variants for example, you will see that the WV018 comes with the max 207t MLW while it only has a 217t MTOW. Also, the variant with the highest MZFW has a 275t MTOW, not 280t.
 
estorilm
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:59 pm

This, combined with Boeing's announcement of the suspension of the long-range 777X variant, certainly seems to imply that QF have made up their minds.

Wasn't there also a separate (ie third) press release or story stating that QF's "project sunrise" airframe decision announcement was imminent?

The all-composite A350 core design certainly seemed to be at an advantage from the start, along with Airbus' continued demonstration of their ability to squeeze additional performance (in most cases, MANY performance / MTOW bumps) out of a given design.

I have to give Airbus credit for pushing the larger variants and MTOW bumps long before project sunrise considerations - it seems to have placed them in a great position here with a known-product that was a good & flexible starting point for such a sales pitch.

In a relatively boring wide-body twin market (let's face it, for 50+ years now) - this could be the first truly "ultimate" twin as far as range/performance is concerned. That's at least a little exciting. I suppose the first 777 was more of a game-changer, but this is still pretty cool.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:20 pm

tomcat wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Question: What would be the order potential of the A350-1000ULR? Because I don't see a lot of routes that are interesting for such a long range. Maybe some of the freedom routes might become obsolete, but beyond that and the routes to Australia and New Zealand I am not seeing many routes.


Well they would probably being used for it's higher payload capability. More passengers and revenue cargo for normal long-haul flights. Sometimes Airlines bought this aircraft so they could crammed in more people and cargo to generate extra profits while on popular routes.

They don't necessarily used this ULR plane for actual ULR routes.


ULR capabilities don't automatically translate into a greater payload capability. The payload capability depends on the MZFW and MLW which don't always go up with a MTOW increase.


Even if MZFW remains the same, higher MTOW still pushes the range you can do with the aircraft loaded up to the maximum.

While not many routes require 9000+ nm range, there are probably many beyond the 5500 ~6000nm MZFW range of most current frames.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:34 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
Why would all these airlines suddenly be interested in this frame when they were not in the base 35K? Extra range via increased tankage does not improve economics nor reduce the apparently excessive cost of the aircraft. Flying UULR is a niche endeavor.

It does improve the economics significantly.

Lets say the A350-1000 was flying with 50T of payload and burning 120T of fuel on a trip. A 5T MTOW increase might allow it carry say 4T of extra payload with 1T of extra fuel needed over the trip due to the higher flying weight.



? in no way does 1T fuel fly 4T payload. You can review the slope of the PR chart in the MTOW limited portion of the graph to see this dispositively.

At long distances, from the ACAPS, every 12t of MTOW increase nets a roughly 700nm range increase. This means 12 extra tons fuel just to fly the same payload a bit further. Reducing range proportionally, you might get 7t extra payload out of the 12.

What I said was extra range via increased tankage does not improve economics. this is not the same as increasing MTOW.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:01 pm

tomcat wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Question: What would be the order potential of the A350-1000ULR? Because I don't see a lot of routes that are interesting for such a long range. Maybe some of the freedom routes might become obsolete, but beyond that and the routes to Australia and New Zealand I am not seeing many routes.


Well they would probably being used for it's higher payload capability. More passengers and revenue cargo for normal long-haul flights. Sometimes Airlines bought this aircraft so they could crammed in more people and cargo to generate extra profits while on popular routes.

They don't necessarily used this ULR plane for actual ULR routes.


ULR capabilities don't automatically translate into a greater payload capability. The payload capability depends on the MZFW and MLW which don't always go up with a MTOW increase.


Even if MZFW remains the same, higher MTOW still pushes the range you can do with the aircraft loaded up to the maximum.

While not many routes require 9000+ nm range, there are probably many beyond the 5500 ~6000nm MZFW range of most current frames.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:24 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
Reducing range proportionally, you might get 7t extra payload out of the 12.

That still improves economics. I'll use your numbers of a 12t MTOW increase giving 7t of payload requiring 5T of extra fuel.

Lets compare the original 308t MTOW versus a higher 320t weight. Assuming a 155t empty weight for both.

50T payload over 103t of fuel burn is 2.06
57T payload over 108t of fuel burn is 1.90

So with a 12t MTOW increase it is burning 8% less fuel per ton of payload. A massive improvement it would take a decade of engine improvements to get a 8% fuel burn reduction.

Even if the 320t MTOW gained 2t of empty weight to beef things up there is still a 6% fuel burn improvement.

The 308t A350-1000 only had a range of 5100nm at max payload. A 320t MTOW could fly max payload 6000nm. That is a huge improvement and many routes between 5000-6000nm can carry more cargo.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:48 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
Reducing range proportionally, you might get 7t extra payload out of the 12.

That still improves economics. I'll use your numbers of a 12t MTOW increase giving 7t of payload requiring 5T of extra fuel.

Lets compare the original 308t MTOW versus a higher 320t weight. Assuming a 155t empty weight for both.

50T payload over 103t of fuel burn is 2.06
57T payload over 108t of fuel burn is 1.90

So with a 12t MTOW increase it is burning 8% less fuel per ton of payload. A massive improvement it would take a decade of engine improvements to get a 8% fuel burn reduction.

Even if the 320t MTOW gained 2t of empty weight to beef things up there is still a 6% fuel burn improvement.

The 308t A350-1000 only had a range of 5100nm at max payload. A 320t MTOW could fly max payload 6000nm. That is a huge improvement and many routes between 5000-6000nm can carry more cargo.


I think there is confusion here-

I said "extra range via increased tankage does not improve economics."

I did not say that increasing MTOW does not. I merely took issue with your ratio on MTOW fuel/payload ratio.

A 35KU vs equivalent MTOW 35K is not economically compelling except in the edge cases where extreme range is the raison d'etre of the aircraft
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:29 pm

BoeingVista wrote:
There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.


According to Leeham.net, in an interview with Airbus about the fuel system of the A350 family, they were told by Airbus that the center tank capacity of a standard (non-ULR) A350-900 is 80,947 liters and the center tank capacity of the A350-1000 is 109,244 liters.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:56 pm

Stitch wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.


According to Leeham.net, in an interview with Airbus about the fuel system of the A350 family, they were told by Airbus that the center tank capacity of a standard (non-ULR) A350-900 is 80,947 liters and the center tank capacity of the A350-1000 is 109,244 liters.


EASA type certificate show the same 80,947 liters for the standard A359 center tank and 107,036 liters for the ULR. Regarding the A35K it only shows 99,917 liters for the center thank. So the 109,244 liters mentioned could mean that the thank may still have some extra usable space with the same type of inerting system of the ULR, or is this the maximum?
Last edited by AECM on Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
sabby
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:57 pm

Stitch wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.


According to Leeham.net, in an interview with Airbus about the fuel system of the A350 family, they were told by Airbus that the center tank capacity of a standard (non-ULR) A350-900 is 80,947 liters and the center tank capacity of the A350-1000 is 109,244 liters.


Hmm, just did a quick back of the hand calculation - using that full 109kl centre tank plus 2X30kl = ~169kl capacity. That's 8T of extra fuel than a regular A35K. If we trade 80 passengers for that 8T of extra fuel, the range of A35K becomes ~9350nm @ 289 passengers (sea level take off, still air range). A higher premium config of 250 seats should be able to fly SYD-LHR (9200nm gc, 70nm more to avoid chinese overflight) except on terrible wind days when they may have to block a few seats. Eastbound LHR-SYD should be breeze, maybe even a couple tonnes of cargo. I'm sure some more aerodynamic and other improvements would be part of the A35KULR package just like A359ULR.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:10 pm

AECM wrote:
EASA type certificate show the same 80,947 liters for the standard A359 center tank and 107,036 liters for the ULR. Regarding the A35K it only shows 99,917 liters for the center thank. So the 109,244 liters mentioned could mean that the thank may still have some extra usable space with the same type of inerting system of the ULR, or is this the maximum?

Somehow we need to account for the difference in gear that Zeke points out:

zeke wrote:
As far as I am aware the -1000 has less volume available in the centre tank, the four wheel bogies bay is 4.1 m long where the -1000 has a 4.7 m bay for the 6 wheels.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:33 pm

sabby wrote:
Stitch wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.


According to Leeham.net, in an interview with Airbus about the fuel system of the A350 family, they were told by Airbus that the center tank capacity of a standard (non-ULR) A350-900 is 80,947 liters and the center tank capacity of the A350-1000 is 109,244 liters.


Hmm, just did a quick back of the hand calculation - using that full 109kl centre tank plus 2X30kl = ~169kl capacity. That's 8T of extra fuel than a regular A35K. If we trade 80 passengers for that 8T of extra fuel, the range of A35K becomes ~9350nm @ 289 passengers (sea level take off, still air range). A higher premium config of 250 seats should be able to fly SYD-LHR (9200nm gc, 70nm more to avoid chinese overflight) except on terrible wind days when they may have to block a few seats. Eastbound LHR-SYD should be breeze, maybe even a couple tonnes of cargo. I'm sure some more aerodynamic and other improvements would be part of the A35KULR package just like A359ULR.

FWIW Leeham a year or two back reported, after talking to QANTAS, that the Sunrise aircraft would need a still air range of ~9500nm for SYD-LHR. Seems QF would use a northerly polar route, roughly over Anchorage.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:43 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
I'm sure they are cashing in on Boeing's troubles, along with the next generation 777 delays they are expecting. Airbus is playing a game of chess, and winning at the moment.


If there had to be a game of chess, there would be an A320.5. America guarantees security in Europe. There is competition, but Airbus won't push Boeing in a corner. It's half politics, half business. I assume in pure business Airbus would expand A320 manufacturing far more.
Airbus is winning at the moment with A350 vs B777-9X and with A321Neo. Boeing is winning with B787 vs A330Neo.
While not likely, I consider it possible that in three years A330Neo wins against B787 and B777-9X against A350. As always, it all depends on the engine.

A350 had first flight in 2013 and several MTOW increases since then. It would be a sad sign for Airbus if the A350 wouldn't beat the B777X for at least 3 years after the B777X enters service. That apart we don't know yet how the new GE engine will perform.
I don't think the problem of the A380 was too much capacity. It was too much capacity because CASM difference to smaller models wasn't good enough.
If the GE9X is good, the B777-9X will be fine.


T4thH wrote:
And as seen somewhere prior (just remind the A380), again half of all B777X orders were done by one airline; Emirates.


Yes, that's something to think of.


A payload-range chart for the 316t MTOW A350-1000:
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf
(go to 3-2-0, rougly 40% down in the PDF)
Roughly:
10.000km range with maximum structural payload (roughly 68t)
15.500 km with 366 passengers
So a MTOW increase is welcome for all flights longer than (10.000 km - reserves), even if MZFW remains the same.

The article in the OP mentions "...an A350-1000ULR that will be able to fly further, and heavier than the existing A350-900ULR"
That's not exactly hard data.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
EK77WNH
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:48 pm

If Airbus goes ahead with the 1000ULR to win 'Sunrise,' isn't that a fool's errand? I mean, who besides Qantas and Singapore would want this plane? Development costs could only be spread among those carriers, who would 'expect' favorable pricing from Airbus I would reckon. Is there any money to be made on this?
Next Trip:
JAL 7-8 BOS-NRT-BOS, 787-9
September
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:01 pm

ethernal wrote:
Longer range than the A350-900ULR? I'd be impressed but call me skeptical. I realize it has a slightly larger wing but it's pretty rare that a stretch has longer range than the smaller aircraft when keeping the engine family and other main components the same. But hey, if they pull it off, kudos to them.



I don’t see it either.
 
tomcat
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
AECM wrote:
EASA type certificate show the same 80,947 liters for the standard A359 center tank and 107,036 liters for the ULR. Regarding the A35K it only shows 99,917 liters for the center thank. So the 109,244 liters mentioned could mean that the thank may still have some extra usable space with the same type of inerting system of the ULR, or is this the maximum?

Somehow we need to account for the difference in gear that Zeke points out:

zeke wrote:
As far as I am aware the -1000 has less volume available in the centre tank, the four wheel bogies bay is 4.1 m long where the -1000 has a 4.7 m bay for the 6 wheels.


I highly respect Zeke's contributions to this forum but on this instance, I don't see the point he is trying to make. I cannot believe that the center wingbox of the A35K has been made 0.3m shorter in order to accommodate the longer wheel well of the A35K. The only way to have an effect on the integral tank volume is indeed to modify the position of the wing spars, with major structural consequences. In this instance, the rear spars of the center wingbox and the outer wingbox should have been moved forward (compared to the A359) to explain the reduction in available fuel volume. Is this what we are talking about when pointing at the consequences of the longer wheel well? Reducing the wingbox chord on a heavier airplane would have been a huge challenge.

My understanding of the different fuel capacities between the A350 family members was more related to the optimization of the inerting systems and of the unusable fuel volume and possibly, variations of the fuel tank boundaries within the wingboxes boundaries. In support of this understanding, the main structural differences that I'm aware of between the A359 and A351 wings are at the trailing edge level, the trailing edge of the A351 being bigger. I would think that if the A351 had incorporated a change of the rear spar position, this would have been reported as well.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-opts-for-larger-wing-on-a350-1000-through-tra-341004/

On a side note, I'm wondering what was the reasoning behind the concept of having the center tank extending to the outer wingbox. Looking at its planform boundaries, it seems that its boundaries have been located within the potential engine debris trajectories. In case of engine debris penetration of the wingbox, the outer fuel tanks would likely remain intact and the damages would only affect the center tank, with the benefit of avoiding any potential fuel load asymmetry resulting from a tank penetration? Or is it just a way to reduce the fuel systems complexity by reducing the number of fuel tank compartments?
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:14 pm

EK77WNH wrote:
If Airbus goes ahead with the 1000ULR to win 'Sunrise,' isn't that a fool's errand? I mean, who besides Qantas and Singapore would want this plane? Development costs could only be spread among those carriers, who would 'expect' favorable pricing from Airbus I would reckon. Is there any money to be made on this?


I expect a lot of the key improvements that go into the ULR development to be offered on regular variants as well. Some possibilities include increased MTOW, fuel, revised winglets or other wing mods, engine thrust increase/improvements. And also, Airbus has been seen flight testing HLFC on their A350 prototype. Expect that too.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:16 pm

EK77WNH wrote:
If Airbus goes ahead with the 1000ULR to win 'Sunrise,' isn't that a fool's errand? I mean, who besides Qantas and Singapore would want this plane? Development costs could only be spread among those carriers, who would 'expect' favorable pricing from Airbus I would reckon. Is there any money to be made on this?


Development costs are probably minimal - we're mainly talking adjusting the fuel management software and adding some additional plumbing to support inerting a larger tank volume and additional fuel venting. So even if only a handful are sold, the development cost will be low enough that it will either be recovered in full or will be so low that the cost won't impact Airbus' earnings.
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:39 pm

Stitch wrote:
EK77WNH wrote:
If Airbus goes ahead with the 1000ULR to win 'Sunrise,' isn't that a fool's errand? I mean, who besides Qantas and Singapore would want this plane? Development costs could only be spread among those carriers, who would 'expect' favorable pricing from Airbus I would reckon. Is there any money to be made on this?


Development costs are probably minimal - we're mainly talking adjusting the fuel management software and adding some additional plumbing to support inerting a larger tank volume and additional fuel venting. So even if only a handful are sold, the development cost will be low enough that it will either be recovered in full or will be so low that the cost won't impact Airbus' earnings.


Also the prestige, you can be sure if that Airbus wins the Project Sunrise competition that travel bloggers, traditional media, and the YouTubers will be talking all about the aircraft.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:39 pm

There’s some conviction in me that Airbus has something up their sleeve with the A35KULR that will allow it keep most of it seating capacity whilst achieving the range it needs for LHR to SYD. There so much untapped technology I feel like they’ll have release this tech on the A350-1000 and sell it to other operators
 
sabby
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:48 pm

Sokes wrote:

A payload-range chart for the 316t MTOW A350-1000:
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf
(go to 3-2-0, rougly 40% down in the PDF)


Thanks for that link. It seems the standard 280T A359 can do 8500nm still air with ~250 pax and bags. Wonder why SQ would need that extra fuel capacity of the ULR for carrying only 161 pax and bags to EWR (~8300nm).
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:53 pm

sabby wrote:

Hmm, just did a quick back of the hand calculation - using that full 109kl centre tank plus 2X30kl = ~169kl capacity. That's 8T of extra fuel than a regular A35K. If we trade 80 passengers for that 8T of extra fuel, the range of A35K becomes ~9350nm @ 289 passengers (sea level take off, still air range). A higher premium config of 250 seats should be able to fly SYD-LHR (9200nm gc, 70nm more to avoid chinese overflight) except on terrible wind days when they may have to block a few seats. Eastbound LHR-SYD should be breeze, maybe even a couple tonnes of cargo. I'm sure some more aerodynamic and other improvements would be part of the A35KULR package just like A359ULR.


that's making a lot of assumptions about the weight of the cabin being off the ACAPS. It'll run quite a few tons heavier. For ex, even with the 789's updated ACAPS, they're still showing [email protected], whereas in real life on a city pair about that far apart, UAL can only carry 250. A 4t discrepancy. Real world examples show similar discrepancies between brochure ranges and actual. This is argued about extensively in techops; it comes down to cabin, catering, crew weight and real pax weight vs mfr assumed.

I did the math and thought the 35KU could get there @320t and 230 pax. Respectable but not earth shattering. I expected the 778 due to sheer size to be able to carry 280-300 over the same distance. Again, expecting Boeing's range number to be reasonable and not 10t off.

Remember that the 77L was *already* this plane airbus is launching...albeit less fuel efficient. It had niche sales, and *0* for the 3ACT variant that could have done Sunrise when it was offered. The L came configurable with 0-3 ACTs, or in other words, increased tankage swapped for payload. No airline bought more than 1 ACT and it was maybe 1 or 2 that even did that.

First adopter status would be great for QF, but if the route is profitable or even marginal, and the 778 is released and is more capable on the route, BA might end up undermining them.

Thanks for that link. It seems the standard 280T A359 can do 8500nm still air with ~250 pax and bags. Wonder why SQ would need that extra fuel capacity of the ULR for carrying only 161 pax and bags to EWR (~8300nm).


thus the repeated arguments about range specs and why I maintain the position I do on it.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8499
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:57 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Question: What would be the order potential of the A350-1000ULR?


Dozens of frames! Not dozens per month, or dozens per year - just dozens. Niche of a niche. Look at all the 777-200LRs and A345s sold! (Fewer than 100 combined.)
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:09 pm

Stitch wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
There seems to be confusion as to whether the -900 and -1000 center tanks are the same size, the ACAP doesn't give tank sizes just total load, could you point us to public information on if this is true or not.


According to Leeham.net, in an interview with Airbus about the fuel system of the A350 family, they were told by Airbus that the center tank capacity of a standard (non-ULR) A350-900 is 80,947 liters and the center tank capacity of the A350-1000 is 109,244 liters.


That is volume used ( and locked by gauges ) and not volume available.
Only thing we know is that 165kl fits. could be more empty volume still available . .. or not.
Murphy is an optimist
 
T4thH
Posts: 1102
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:51 pm

T4thH wrote:
Revelation wrote:
T4thH wrote:
It is not only this, what is stopped or is on hold. Boeing seems to have stopped already everything, with exception of to get the B777-X into the air. All engineers seems now to work on the B737 Max to fix all the issues. In one German news (an interview) it was recently announced, also the NMA program is on hold and all engineers are working now on the B737 Max program. And only few of the Boeing staff still believes the NMA program will be restarted, when the MAX issues have been solved.

Seems dubious to me. Since you provided no link I did a bunch of Google searches and found nothing like what you report with regards to workers moving from NMA to MAX. Maybe there is something in German language google.de but I could find nothing on google.com. Also seems this is best discussed in a MAX or NMA thread, not an A350 thread.

I think, I will be able to find the source again. But this I can only do, when I will be back home.


And as promised, here they are. Both are in German, it is aeroTelegraph, so good enough.
Boeing 777X UIR is on ice, according link below, Boeing has already confirmed to Reuters.
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/boeing-stoppt-entwicklung-der-ultralangstrecken-777x

Boeing 797/NMA on ice.
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/boeings-neues-flugzeugprojekt-nma-797-liegt-auf-eis
This is not an official statement by Boeing, potential customers of the NMA are saying this (Steven Udvar-Hazy, Ceo of Air Lease Corporation and it seems also others), And this is already from 20-Jun-2019. NMA on ice as also the engineers of the NMA project are involved to fix the MAX issue. I have also seen another source in German news-paper (online) saying the same, but this I do not remember any more, which one it was. "Süddeutsche Zeitung " perhaps? So one of the major ones.

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