• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21743
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:10 pm

T4thH wrote:
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.

As you say the 1st topic (778X) is already confirmed.

Another member kindly PM'd me the 2nd link, but thank you too for following up.

I'm less dubious about it than I was before, but its sole source is one guy who is managing director of a aviation consulting firm in Germany whom I am not familiar with.

NMA's big issue all along has been getting the business case to close, and of course now with MAX sucking away all of Boeing's cash, their need for a solid business case only increases.

Yet recently QF'S CEO told the media that NMA is the perfect plane for Australia's domestic market because its twin aisles allow for quick turn around to maximize slot/gate usage along with of course state of the art economics.

I think I would say NMA's chances get dimmer the longer MAX stays grounded, but I haven't read anything as dire as the info in your 2nd link from any other source.
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
 
Opus99
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:13 pm

I have a feeling that the A35KULR is going to deliver a large capacity (about 300) using more tech, wing changes and increased MTOW and more tech. I have no sources or no technical data backing this, just hope and the conviction that the 900ULR was sort of a quick fix just for SQ but if multiple airlines are showing interest, they're going to want a full load especially emirates and Qatar.

On another hand, these issues with the GE-9X engine may prove that the engine may not be able to deliver as promised? will it affect efficiency? not a boeing hater just wondering
 
T4thH
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
T4thH wrote:
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.

As you say the 1st topic (778X) is already confirmed.

Another member kindly PM'd me the 2nd link, but thank you too for following up.

I'm less dubious about it than I was before, but its sole source is one guy who is managing director of a aviation consulting firm in Germany. He may have some insider knowledge passed to him or he may not.

NMA's big issue all along has been getting the business case to close, and of course now with MAX sucking away all of Boeing's cash, their need for a solid business case only increases.

Yet recently QF'S CEO told the media that NMA is the perfect plane for Australia's domestic market because its twin aisles allow for quick turn around to maximize slot/gate usage along with of course state of the art economics.

I think I would say NMA's chances get dimmer the longer MAX stays grounded, but I haven't read anything as dire as the info in your 2nd link from any other source.


Still searching and found....
http://www.airliners.de/neuentwicklung-797-thema-boeing/51301
Is this already the confirmation, the NMA is dead? No. Is it a statement, the NMA is on Ice as they are busy with the Max issue; yes, And it seems, the Boeing workers/employees seems not any more to believe, it will come. (with few low number of exceptions)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13275
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:38 pm

"Overwhelming interest" and enthousiasm from a string of airline CEO's doesn't mean they'll commit. They like choice, innovation and competition among manufacturers. Commiting a billion is something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattl ... 051553.php
Last edited by keesje on Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:46 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
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.)
Sunrise is trying to open up a new mode of flying. If it works then other companies will follow and hundreds could be sold. If it doesn't then dozens could be the result. It is a shame Sunrise is taking so long to implement. We won't know the answer for several years.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think I would say NMA's chances get dimmer the longer MAX stays grounded...


I wouldn't say that about the NMA's chances. It's just the 2025 time frame that is going to be impacted. I'm still of the position that the NMA will still happen regardless.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:01 pm

Revelation wrote:
T4thH wrote:
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.

As you say the 1st topic (778X) is already confirmed.

Another member kindly PM'd me the 2nd link, but thank you too for following up.

I'm less dubious about it than I was before, but its sole source is one guy who is managing director of a aviation consulting firm in Germany whom I am not familiar with.

NMA's big issue all along has been getting the business case to close, and of course now with MAX sucking away all of Boeing's cash, their need for a solid business case only increases.

Yet recently QF'S CEO told the media that NMA is the perfect plane for Australia's domestic market because its twin aisles allow for quick turn around to maximize slot/gate usage along with of course state of the art economics.

I think I would say NMA's chances get dimmer the longer MAX stays grounded, but I haven't read anything as dire as the info in your 2nd link from any other source.
Boeing is also acquiring Embraer. They have created a perfect storm for themselves. They have compromised cash flow and cut to many essential engineering staff. Right at a time when there is panic developing in global financial markets and there is a trade war on. Financial managers always try to trim off all the fat and then cut to the bone, to boost profits. However you need that extra bulk to be able to cope with the inevitable problems that arise.
 
SelseyBill
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:06 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?


......A380 replacement?
 
Opus99
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:18 pm

SelseyBill 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?


......A380 replacement?

I think Airbus might be marketing it along this route too. If they are then it must be keeping it's current seating config or at least slightly below it
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:44 pm

flee wrote:
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.

LHR-JFK the standard A350-1000 could be at max payload weight already. A MTOW increase would then only allow for more fuel.

The 1000ULR would work best on flights over say 6000nm. Where the MTOW increase will allow significantly more payload for a minor fuel burn increase.

As a few people have posted most airlines would buy it for the extra MTOW increase not for the extra fuel capacity. Just like with the A350-900ULR it introduced the 280t MTOW now airlines are buying the A350-900 with that MTOW but without the extra fuel capacity.
 
moa999
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:48 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I think Airbus might be marketing it along this route too. If they are then it must be keeping it's current seating config or at least slightly below it

What does that mean? In seat count the 777-9 will be the closest to the A380. Both have more range.

The point of the ULR is opening up additional routes that weren't previously possible.
 
ewt340
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:19 am

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?


Actually it's a really smart moves by them. -1000ULR would kill B777-8.
They got extremely similar capacity, except for the fact that -1000ULR use composite materials, have newer technology, cheaper list price and commonality with the popular A350-900 and similarity with A330neo.

Project sunrise is just a cherry on top.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14056
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:54 am

tomcat wrote:
[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.


You are putting words in my mouth, I said nothing about the wing box. The -1000 gear bay is one frame different to -900. The centre tank volume is around 10,000 liters less on the -1000. Please note I have been saying centre tank, not centre wing box. The wing tank on the -1000 is also slightly smaller than the -900.


RJMAZ wrote:
LHR-JFK the standard A350-1000 could be at max payload weight already. A MTOW increase would then only allow for more fuel.


That city pair is a very short flight for the -1000. An airline using the aircraft on that city pair probably would have paid for the reduced MTOW option of 270 tonnes to take advantage of lower operating costs and still full payload capability. That is the sort of sector your are more likely to be MLW limited as to how much fuel can be loaded at maximum payload. The maximum fuel you can land with at maximum payload is around 13 tonnes, otherwise you end up over MLW.

When Airbus increased the A330 MTOW to 233 tonnes, the MZFW and MLW also increased, the MZFW/MLW increase followed through to other weight variations later.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1005
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:14 am

Opus99 wrote:
I have a feeling that the A35KULR is going to deliver a large capacity (about 300) using more tech, wing changes and increased MTOW and more tech. I have no sources or no technical data backing this, just hope and the conviction that the 900ULR was sort of a quick fix just for SQ but if multiple airlines are showing interest, they're going to want a full load especially emirates and Qatar.

On another hand, these issues with the GE-9X engine may prove that the engine may not be able to deliver as promised? will it affect efficiency? not a boeing hater just wondering

I think your hunch is quite reasonable. Airbus had to keep the A35K's capabilities in check when the A380 was in production. Now that the A380 is dead, it is time for Airbus to develop the A35K to its full and true potential.
 
Dave05
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:16 am

Airbus A359ULR is an all premium seating aircraft that seats less than 160. So the A350k- ULR will seat 200 seats?? What will the range of a 200 seats 777- 8x be?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:03 am

Dave05 wrote:
Airbus A359ULR is an all premium seating aircraft that seats less than 160. So the A350k- ULR will seat 200 seats?? What will the range of a 200 seats 777- 8x be?

Lets do the math.

The 777-8 has a massive fuel capacity. The longer 777-9 with its fuel tanks fully filled can carry only 11t of payload or 100 passengers before hitting MTOW.

With 200 passengers the 777-8 would be able to have its fuel tank fully filled with 198,000litres of fuel. So it is simply exhanging passenger weight for fuel weight. The 777-8 is 8730nm with 384 passengers. Assuming 100kg per passenger and 8500kg fuel burn per hour. We gain an hour of range for every 85 passengers removed. An hour of range is 480nm based on the 777 cruise speed.

384 passenger = 8730nm
299 passengers = 9210nm
214 passengers = 9690nm
200 passengers = 9770nm

Even if we assume the fuel burn is 5% higher or we allocate 110kg weight per passenger the range is still above 9500nm. That is why the 777-8 can do London to Sydney completely standard. No extra fuel tank or MTOW increase is required.

The A350-1000 needs a significant increase in fuel capacity. The extra volume from the A350-900ULR is still not enough. It will need a complex ACT tank in the cargo hold. With the A350-1000's 155t empty weight and 200 passengers (20t) once you add the 124t of maximum fuel we are only at a takeoff weight of 299t. So it needs 20t of extra fuel or three LD3 containers worth of fuel. This is no simple upgrade.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14056
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:08 am

Just for the record, Airbus has standard ACTs already certified and flying on many narrow and wide body aircraft
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11122
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:05 am

DL757NYC wrote:
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.


Unless the A351 runs out of fuel volume it already flies further than the A359ULR. It has 39t of TOW on top for just ~12t or so more OEW. Add 40 pax, since it is bigger, and it can still load 22t more fuel ~3 hours of flight.

It is not just a stretch, it is a stretch with way, way higher MTOW, stronger engines and slightly bigger wing. The 77W also is a stretch of a smaller type that it out ranges slightly..... despite OEW delta being ~30t.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Opus99
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:23 am

moa999 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I think Airbus might be marketing it along this route too. If they are then it must be keeping it's current seating config or at least slightly below it

What does that mean? In seat count the 777-9 will be the closest to the A380. Both have more range.

The point of the ULR is opening up additional routes that weren't previously possible.

the 777-9 doesn't have more range than the A380. which is why the article says that airbus are (could be) marketing the A350-1000ULR as the aircraft that can deliver high demand long haul routes. obviously not as many but way way more efficient, making it worth it i suppose.
 
Opus99
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Dave05 wrote:
Airbus A359ULR is an all premium seating aircraft that seats less than 160. So the A350k- ULR will seat 200 seats?? What will the range of a 200 seats 777- 8x be?

Lets do the math.

The 777-8 has a massive fuel capacity. The longer 777-9 with its fuel tanks fully filled can carry only 11t of payload or 100 passengers before hitting MTOW.

With 200 passengers the 777-8 would be able to have its fuel tank fully filled with 198,000litres of fuel. So it is simply exhanging passenger weight for fuel weight. The 777-8 is 8730nm with 384 passengers. Assuming 100kg per passenger and 8500kg fuel burn per hour. We gain an hour of range for every 85 passengers removed. An hour of range is 480nm based on the 777 cruise speed.

384 passenger = 8730nm
299 passengers = 9210nm
214 passengers = 9690nm
200 passengers = 9770nm

Even if we assume the fuel burn is 5% higher or we allocate 110kg weight per passenger the range is still above 9500nm. That is why the 777-8 can do London to Sydney completely standard. No extra fuel tank or MTOW increase is required.

The A350-1000 needs a significant increase in fuel capacity. The extra volume from the A350-900ULR is still not enough. It will need a complex ACT tank in the cargo hold. With the A350-1000's 155t empty weight and 200 passengers (20t) once you add the 124t of maximum fuel we are only at a takeoff weight of 299t. So it needs 20t of extra fuel or three LD3 containers worth of fuel. This is no simple upgrade.

For Qantas to have picked the A350-1000ULR it must be sitting way more than 200 passengers at 9770nm right? I wonder what upgrades Airbus implemented
 
Opus99
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:29 am

RJMAZ wrote:
flee wrote:
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.

LHR-JFK the standard A350-1000 could be at max payload weight already. A MTOW increase would then only allow for more fuel.

The 1000ULR would work best on flights over say 6000nm. Where the MTOW increase will allow significantly more payload for a minor fuel burn increase.

As a few people have posted most airlines would buy it for the extra MTOW increase not for the extra fuel capacity. Just like with the A350-900ULR it introduced the 280t MTOW now airlines are buying the A350-900 with that MTOW but without the extra fuel capacity.

But the extra MTOW can mean more cargo right? without the need for a full tank to go to New York? just want to clarify
 
waly777
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:46 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Dave05 wrote:
Airbus A359ULR is an all premium seating aircraft that seats less than 160. So the A350k- ULR will seat 200 seats?? What will the range of a 200 seats 777- 8x be?

Lets do the math.

The 777-8 has a massive fuel capacity. The longer 777-9 with its fuel tanks fully filled can carry only 11t of payload or 100 passengers before hitting MTOW.

With 200 passengers the 777-8 would be able to have its fuel tank fully filled with 198,000litres of fuel. So it is simply exhanging passenger weight for fuel weight. The 777-8 is 8730nm with 384 passengers. Assuming 100kg per passenger and 8500kg fuel burn per hour. We gain an hour of range for every 85 passengers removed. An hour of range is 480nm based on the 777 cruise speed.

384 passenger = 8730nm
299 passengers = 9210nm
214 passengers = 9690nm
200 passengers = 9770nm

Even if we assume the fuel burn is 5% higher or we allocate 110kg weight per passenger the range is still above 9500nm. That is why the 777-8 can do London to Sydney completely standard. No extra fuel tank or MTOW increase is required.

The A350-1000 needs a significant increase in fuel capacity. The extra volume from the A350-900ULR is still not enough. It will need a complex ACT tank in the cargo hold. With the A350-1000's 155t empty weight and 200 passengers (20t) once you add the 124t of maximum fuel we are only at a takeoff weight of 299t. So it needs 20t of extra fuel or three LD3 containers worth of fuel. This is no simple upgrade.


8.5tons per hour?? that's roughly the fuel burn of the A340-500. I'm assuming that's a typo..
Last edited by waly777 on Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
waly777
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:49 am

Opus99 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
flee wrote:
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.

LHR-JFK the standard A350-1000 could be at max payload weight already. A MTOW increase would then only allow for more fuel.

The 1000ULR would work best on flights over say 6000nm. Where the MTOW increase will allow significantly more payload for a minor fuel burn increase.

As a few people have posted most airlines would buy it for the extra MTOW increase not for the extra fuel capacity. Just like with the A350-900ULR it introduced the 280t MTOW now airlines are buying the A350-900 with that MTOW but without the extra fuel capacity.

But the extra MTOW can mean more cargo right? without the need for a full tank to go to New York? just want to clarify


Yes, it could mean more cargo on a route (where it is payload restricted due to fuel uplift required) especially if MZFW is increased along with MTOW.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:57 am

I wonder if the 1000ULR will get a new conformal tank a la 321XLR?. Obviously that would eliminate the flexibility to convert back to a regular 35K, as is the case for the 359ULR
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:18 am

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?


Depends how far they have to go in mods for the range alone.

As others have said, increasing MTOW increases payload-range of the frame at ranges >~5500nm, so that is adding value to the airframe for the bulk of its missions.

The A350 tankage has not been fully utilised to date as far as I am aware, so changes may not be as radical as some would envisage. Maybe just adding an ACT and a few aero clean ups (which can of course be rolled across to non ULR versions) will get the job done.
Last edited by Amiga500 on Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:23 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Assuming 100kg per passenger and 8500kg fuel burn per hour.


I'd maybe take a tonne/hr off that.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:24 am

Erebus wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think I would say NMA's chances get dimmer the longer MAX stays grounded...


I wouldn't say that about the NMA's chances. It's just the 2025 time frame that is going to be impacted. I'm still of the position that the NMA will still happen regardless.


Everytime Boeing should have put a major effort into an NB replacement they either sunk their design capacity in
finding convoluted ways to leverage grandfathering for keeping up an ancient design
or are (now) swamped with work from having to go over this design with a fine comb to de-mine the grandfathering killing fields.

From the "Mystical Man Month" : bringing lots of people into a late/urgent project makes it later.
Cost of having your workforce moved to another project is just on its own expensive.
787 <> 748 shew that.
If the MAX rework now sucks up humungous amounts of Man Years away from 778 and NMA, NSA, whatnot ...
B management should pray for the 779X problems not going beyond some piddling engine issues.
( someone here elsewhere said "fuselage upright integration" shines less than expected? )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1613
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:24 am

DL757NYC wrote:
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.


As has been stated already, the A350-1000 already has a longer range than the A350-900, so there goes the idea that the "longer" aircraft can't fly further.
@DadCelo
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:27 am

h1fl1er wrote:
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.


How many other 778 sales would Boeing get to justify the development cost?

Would freighters really sell enough to offset a unique model number for maybe <50 sales?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17644
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:37 am

Dave05 wrote:
Airbus A359ULR is an all premium seating aircraft that seats less than 160.


161 in SQ's premium-heavy configuration. That doesn't mean it can't carry more.

Dave05 wrote:
So the A350k- ULR will seat 200 seats??


What? No, it will seat however many the airline decides to fit

RJMAZ wrote:
Lets do the math.
.

Ooh, lets. :bouncy:

gatibosgru wrote:
DL757NYC wrote:
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.


As has been stated already, the A350-1000 already has a longer range than the A350-900, so there goes the idea that the "longer" aircraft can't fly further.


And the 77W out-ranges the 77E. So double proof, if it were needed, that the idea a stretch can't outperform its smaller brother is laughable.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
juliuswong
Moderator
Posts: 1839
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:20 am

The current A359ULR SQ is using for non-stop SIN-US route has only 161 seats because they made it that way for passengers comfort, i.e more space for passengers to move about during flight to reduce DVT. Not because it is less capable, they can add more if they want.

https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... 00-ULR.pdf
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11122
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:53 am

scbriml wrote:
Dave05 wrote:
Airbus A359ULR is an all premium seating aircraft that seats less than 160.


161 in SQ's premium-heavy configuration. That doesn't mean it can't carry more.


if they wanted to they would like to remove the Tennis court in the back. :)

Any Cargo on those flight to get beyond 16t payload?

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tomcat
Posts: 429
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:44 am

zeke wrote:
tomcat wrote:
[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.


You are putting words in my mouth, I said nothing about the wing box. The -1000 gear bay is one frame different to -900. The centre tank volume is around 10,000 liters less on the -1000. Please note I have been saying centre tank, not centre wing box. The wing tank on the -1000 is also slightly smaller than the -900.


Dear Zeke, I'm just trying to get one point clear: how can the gear bay length affect the fuel tank capacity? I was just explaining how this could be the case and why I find it highly unlikely. As a consequence, I don't think that the fuel tank differences are related to the respective gear bay length. If I'm wrong on this, I'd like to understand what I am missing. Also, it is my understanding that the A350 centre tank includes the centre wingbox and some volume in the inboard part of the wings. A modification of the centre wingbox would thus affect the volume of the centre tank (and again, until proven wrong, I don't think that the centre wingbox length is different between the -900 and -1000).
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:38 am

The -1000 has an extra bogie to the main u/c, but this won't be stored forward of the "aft spar", so has no impact on the centre wing box internal volume.

The A350-900ULR incorporates a number of necessary changes over the standard A350-900. These include a higher capacity fuel system within the existing fuel tanks, increasing fuel carrying capacity from 141,000 litres to 165,000 litres.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... 0-900.html

So the EIS A350-900 likely had a tank limited by software to reduce wing bending moment.

The -1000 has a fuel volume capacity of ~156,000 litres.


This is stretching my memory a bit, but I think on A350, there are UERF zones around the pylons that are not fuel tank.

With the bigger engine, I'd suspect these zones are not equivalent across the two aircraft. But 9m3 is a lot - around 6% total tank volume of -1000, so I don't believe this could be the sole source of the discrepancy. Perhaps they cleaned up the installation a bit too for -900 ULR and found bits and pieces here and there that added up. These changes can then be carried back across to -1000 ULR. But again, I doubt these two added together is where the 9 m3 is coming from.

More likely is that the "rear spar" of the centre wing box contains some perforations which allows unused volume immediately aft of the wingbox to be used for fuel. In the -900 ULR, there is an empty volume immediately ahead of the wheel wells which was used for fuel. In the -1000, this space is occupied by the extra bogie. Which would then reduce -1000 tank capacity by a margin that would start to make sense.



But I don't think a -1000 ULR tank volume of ~160,000 litres is going to cut it. Which means they must be installing an ACT (or integral alternative like A321 XLR).
Last edited by Amiga500 on Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:41 am

i thought 350 have a plenty of room for more tanks if needed
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21743
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:11 pm

WIederling wrote:
Everytime Boeing should have put a major effort into an NB replacement they either sunk their design capacity in
finding convoluted ways to leverage grandfathering for keeping up an ancient design
or are (now) swamped with work from having to go over this design with a fine comb to de-mine the grandfathering killing fields.

You don't know your history:

Image

WIederling wrote:
From the "Mystical Man Month" : bringing lots of people into a late/urgent project makes it later.
Cost of having your workforce moved to another project is just on its own expensive.
787 <> 748 shew that.
If the MAX rework now sucks up humungous amounts of Man Years away from 778 and NMA, NSA, whatnot ...
B management should pray for the 779X problems not going beyond some piddling engine issues.
( someone here elsewhere said "fuselage upright integration" shines less than expected? )

We do know 778X is being "mothballed" and the duration is now said to be two years delay.

We do not know there is a massive migration of engineering talent 778X -> MAX, that is just speculation.

The mothballing could just be to defer spending money building and testing the 8X prototype since I would think it has largely been designed already.

Since it probably is already largely designed already I would not think there is a massive engineering crew to shift over to MAX.

Also, unless there is another large blowout in terms of scope of work, MAX is said to be on its way to RTS in Q4.

So my guess is the 8X mothballing is just to shift some work forward two years to show the board that management is tightening the belt.
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: 429
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:26 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
The -1000 has an extra bogie to the main u/c, but this won't be stored forward of the "aft spar", so has no impact on the centre wing box internal volume.

The A350-900ULR incorporates a number of necessary changes over the standard A350-900. These include a higher capacity fuel system within the existing fuel tanks, increasing fuel carrying capacity from 141,000 litres to 165,000 litres.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... 0-900.html

So the EIS A350-900 likely had a tank limited by software to reduce wing bending moment.

The -1000 has a fuel volume capacity of ~156,000 litres.
(...)
More likely is that the "rear spar" of the centre wing box contains some perforations which allows unused volume immediately aft of the wingbox to be used for fuel. In the -900 ULR, there is an empty volume immediately ahead of the wheel wells which was used for fuel. In the -1000, this space is occupied by the extra bogie. Which would then reduce -1000 tank capacity by a margin that would start to make sense.


Thank you for the link which by the way also states:
The A350-900ULR has an MTOW of 280 tonnes. The extended range capability is achieved without installation of additional fuel tanks


Although what you say about an empty volume ahead of the wheel wells makes perfect sens, this link doesn't confirm what you suggest unless this space was already designed on the -900 as a fuel tank but just not used.

But I don't think a -1000 ULR tank volume of ~160,000 litres is going to cut it. Which means they must be installing an ACT (or integral alternative like A321 XLR).


Adding an ACT to make the -1000 ULR work wouldn't be a big deal other than the dead weight that it would add to the aircraft. It's not like the -1000 ULR would lack of cargo volume anyway. Somehow in the discussions about the -1000 ULR the addition of an ACT has been considered as a taboo. All that matters is that the -1000 ULR offers a competitive answer to Qantas requirements.
 
DCA350
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:20 pm



But I don't think a -1000 ULR tank volume of ~160,000 litres is going to cut it. Which means they must be installing an ACT (or integral alternative like A321 XLR).


This was always my thinking from the start.. Basically they are going to supersize the XLR tech. It's not like these flights are going to be hauling much cargo and from the XLR presentations the weight gain is minimal.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:10 pm

Revelation wrote:


Now did this ever go beyond the drawing board? on par with the sonic cruiser as phantom projects go?
( Was the primary purpose dangling "cooperation" towards the Japanese industry? )
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:26 pm

DCA350 wrote:


But I don't think a -1000 ULR tank volume of ~160,000 litres is going to cut it. Which means they must be installing an ACT (or integral alternative like A321 XLR).


This was always my thinking from the start.. Basically they are going to supersize the XLR tech. It's not like these flights are going to be hauling much cargo and from the XLR presentations the weight gain is minimal.


IMU you don't get it.
The A350 wingboxes and center wing box provide a hollow volume.
Center Tank and wing tanks are compartmented via solid staggered webbing/frames in the wing.
( This is different to A330, A380 where the center wing box boundary also represents the tankage walls.)

together this volume is equal or larger than 165kl or 165m³
available fuel is determined by how you set the cut off values for the fuel gauges installed to control refueling.

Airbus: beyond the changed inerting the ULR can be returned to -900 state at no effort.

No ACT or related product was created or maimed in this project.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:35 pm

WIederling wrote:
DCA350 wrote:


But I don't think a -1000 ULR tank volume of ~160,000 litres is going to cut it. Which means they must be installing an ACT (or integral alternative like A321 XLR).


This was always my thinking from the start.. Basically they are going to supersize the XLR tech. It's not like these flights are going to be hauling much cargo and from the XLR presentations the weight gain is minimal.


IMU you don't get it.
The A350 wingboxes and center wing box provide a hollow volume.
Center Tank and wing tanks are compartmented via solid staggered webbing/frames in the wing.
( This is different to A330, A380 where the center wing box boundary also represents the tankage walls.)

together this volume is equal or larger than 165kl or 165m³
available fuel is determined by how you set the cut off values for the fuel gauges installed to control refueling.

Airbus: beyond the changed inerting the ULR can be returned to -900 state at no effort.

No ACT or related product was created or maimed in this project.


~165 m3 is around the max available internal volume of A350 current tank config. There are no more software changes to make (otherwise they would have made them for -900 ULR).

Since we know that the -900 ULR has 165 m3 and cannot fly enough people far enough to meet the needs of QF, why would a -1000 that has 165 m3 (if they were able to make it volume equivalent to -900 ULR) be any better?

Airbus need to find one of (A) additional tank volume outside of the two outer wing tanks and the centre-wing tank, (B) magic engines that sip less fuel or (C) magic surfaces which have zero skin friction drag.

Assuming they are going for option (A), their additional fuel must be stored in either (i) ACTs or a (ii) permanently integrated fuselage fuel tank like A321 XLR.


Now, whether the limited sales of a ULR version will be sufficient to justify (ii) instead of (i) is a question I'm not convinced of. I'd veer toward Airbus actually implementing option (i) as its (1) cheaper, (2) quicker & (3) the cargo space isn't needed as use patterns are going to be well back from MZFW operations so no real worries over sub-optimal use of belly space.
 
seat64k
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:48 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:41 pm

BoeingVista wrote:
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.


All this talk of the improvements in the current -900, -1000 and the ULR variations makes me wonder what the A350-800 would be like if it was built now with all those improvements worked in.
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:59 pm

scbriml wrote:
And the 77W out-ranges the 77E. So double proof, if it were needed, that the idea a stretch can't outperform its smaller brother is laughable.


Not a great comparison considering the 77W was a variant of the Next Generation 777 with updated engines.
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:25 pm

seat64k wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
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.


All this talk of the improvements in the current -900, -1000 and the ULR variations makes me wonder what the A350-800 would be like if it was built now with all those improvements worked in.


The -800 would still be too heavy compared to the 787-9 even with the improvements.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:38 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
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.)


lower. Maybe a dozen. The reason is that there are so many twins now with 7000+ nm range. When the 77L came out there were effectively none.

so for the barest few routes does a plane with this range make sense.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Dave05 wrote:
Airbus A359ULR is an all premium seating aircraft that seats less than 160. So the A350k- ULR will seat 200 seats?? What will the range of a 200 seats 777- 8x be?

Lets do the math.

The 777-8 has a massive fuel capacity. The longer 777-9 with its fuel tanks fully filled can carry only 11t of payload or 100 passengers before hitting MTOW.

With 200 passengers the 777-8 would be able to have its fuel tank fully filled with 198,000litres of fuel. So it is simply exhanging passenger weight for fuel weight. The 777-8 is 8730nm with 384 passengers. Assuming 100kg per passenger and 8500kg fuel burn per hour. We gain an hour of range for every 85 passengers removed. An hour of range is 480nm based on the 777 cruise speed.

384 passenger = 8730nm
299 passengers = 9210nm
214 passengers = 9690nm
200 passengers = 9770nm

Even if we assume the fuel burn is 5% higher or we allocate 110kg weight per passenger the range is still above 9500nm. That is why the 777-8 can do London to Sydney completely standard. No extra fuel tank or MTOW increase is required.

The A350-1000 needs a significant increase in fuel capacity. The extra volume from the A350-900ULR is still not enough. It will need a complex ACT tank in the cargo hold. With the A350-1000's 155t empty weight and 200 passengers (20t) once you add the 124t of maximum fuel we are only at a takeoff weight of 299t. So it needs 20t of extra fuel or three LD3 containers worth of fuel. This is no simple upgrade.


good math, but I think 8.5t per hour...the LR already burns in the neighborhood of 6.7 or so on these LH sectors.

I still think it does Sunrise with around 300, maybe 280.

This plane isn't built for this niche case, however, it is the basis for a future freighter as well as a 772/L replacement. Intended to haul massive weight massive distance. As things stand, the 77L can take 52t out past 7500nm. No other plane has remotely that level of capability and this ability to haul insane payloads long ranges is why the type is even in use.

The 35KU won't be able to do that...it will be like the 35U, a passenger ULR jet. The reason EK wanted -8s or any of the other airlines was not range, but crazy cargo at range.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:49 pm

Kindanew wrote:
seat64k wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
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.


All this talk of the improvements in the current -900, -1000 and the ULR variations makes me wonder what the A350-800 would be like if it was built now with all those improvements worked in.


The -800 would still be too heavy compared to the 787-9 even with the improvements.

That probably is a faulty assessment. The heavier A359 seems to match or outperform the 789.
The A358 was supposed to be a fully optimized smaller frame.
Will probably dance rings around the 789. :-))
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3470
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:58 pm

They changed the 358 to be a simple shrink. That was when it became uncompetitive
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14056
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:18 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Since we know that the -900 ULR has 165 m3 and cannot fly enough people far enough to meet the needs of QF


The -900/-900ULR/-1000 are all MTOW limited at their desired ranges. If the MTOW was raised on the -900ULR it would be capable of well over 10500 nm with the existing fuel volume. Please refer to the ACAPs range payload diagrams.

Amiga500 wrote:
Airbus need to find one of (A) additional tank volume outside of the two outer wing tanks and the centre-wing tank, (B) magic engines that sip less fuel or (C) magic surfaces which have zero skin friction drag.


There are options for increasing fuel volume. Moving the wing vent task outboard and using the existing vent tank volume for fuel, this would reduce wing engine moment and facilitate higher MTOW. Fuel in the HTP like the 747 and A330/A340 (complex/costly however reduces drag with CG being aft). ACTs (cheap quick solution, however does not address wing bending moment)

Yes there is another area of low hanging fruit which would be laminar flow to the tail.

Engines, will see further improvements from the Advance3 flight testing. In 5 years I would expect to see Ultrafan installed on the A350 reducing block fuel burn by around 10-15%. I could see the -1000 being pitched at 275 pax now, and an upgraded aircraft in 2025 capable of 300 pax with the Ultrafan. The original -1000 with ACTs reconfigured for 350 seat high density (reactivate forward hold, remove ACTs, install water/waste tanks/ install door 2 galley, install door 3 toilets and then replace the A380 on one stop services

Other low hanging fruit. Remove toilets/galleys/water/waster in the -1000 designed for the high capacity. Deactivate the forward hold, with 300 pax on an ULR flight they would only need around 12 LD3. For sunrise they would only need the forward and aft galleys, they could remove the galley at door 2, and remove the toilets at door 3 (toilets at Door 1/2/4 left) to reduce weight.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Opus99
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:42 pm

zeke wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Since we know that the -900 ULR has 165 m3 and cannot fly enough people far enough to meet the needs of QF


The -900/-900ULR/-1000 are all MTOW limited at their desired ranges. If the MTOW was raised on the -900ULR it would be capable of well over 10500 nm with the existing fuel volume. Please refer to the ACAPs range payload diagrams.

Amiga500 wrote:
Airbus need to find one of (A) additional tank volume outside of the two outer wing tanks and the centre-wing tank, (B) magic engines that sip less fuel or (C) magic surfaces which have zero skin friction drag.


There are options for increasing fuel volume. Moving the wing vent task outboard and using the existing vent tank volume for fuel, this would reduce wing engine moment and facilitate higher MTOW. Fuel in the HTP like the 747 and A330/A340 (complex/costly however reduces drag with CG being aft). ACTs (cheap quick solution, however does not address wing bending moment)

Yes there is another area of low hanging fruit which would be laminar flow to the tail.

Engines, will see further improvements from the Advance3 flight testing. In 5 years I would expect to see Ultrafan installed on the A350 reducing block fuel burn by around 10-15%. I could see the -1000 being pitched at 275 pax now, and an upgraded aircraft in 2025 capable of 300 pax with the Ultrafan. The original -1000 with ACTs reconfigured for 350 seat high density (reactivate forward hold, remove ACTs, install water/waste tanks/ install door 2 galley, install door 3 toilets and then replace the A380 on one stop services

Other low hanging fruit. Remove toilets/galleys/water/waster in the -1000 designed for the high capacity. Deactivate the forward hold, with 300 pax on an ULR flight they would only need around 12 LD3. For sunrise they would only need the forward and aft galleys, they could remove the galley at door 2, and remove the toilets at door 3 (toilets at Door 1/2/4 left) to reduce weight.

Thanks for bringing the advance3 into this discussion. I have been a bit confused about it. Is it possible that airbus may be applying it to the a35KULR? Because it is due to launch next year (advance3)
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11

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