• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:01 pm

Opus99 wrote:
[
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)



No Advance3 is a engineering test vehicle to demonstrate technology for the Ultrafan. The Trent XWB 97 and XWB 84EP both feature Advance 3 technology in them.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Opus99
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:28 pm

other than to launch a kangaroo route i'm not sue what else BA would really use this aircraft for, though some people on the forum have pointed out to me that it will still be very efficient on a standard LH route, BA is said to be interested in this aircraft. The CEO is pleased with the "Flexibility" of the aircraft. But how flexible will it be?
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:47 pm

T4thH wrote:
T4thH wrote:
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.

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.


In fact it is the opposite. It word-by-word quotes Steven Udvar Hazy as saying “[...] Hundreds of engineers are working on it [the 797] [...]” and Exactly NOT that they are all on the -Max.

Which - clear for anyone having a clue about such a project - would make ZERO sense until ones assume they are already working on significant STRUCTURAL changes to the-Max. But that’s not the case.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
Kindanew wrote:
seat64k wrote:

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.


at what? Not ULH fuel burn per hour with 220+ pax.

Not on fly away price.

What you guys say every day here is completely refuted by the overwhelmingly lopsided sales of these aircraft.

Even the vaunted ULR, it's goin out from EWR at what, 272t or something? 270? And still burning 5.85t/hr. UA is sending 101 from IAH to SYD, 17.5 hours, pushing 8000nm still air on that and reporting 5.4t/hr. The plane is lighter, simple physics. And the ULR's only carrying 161 pax! Swap 60 of them for 6 t of fuel and it's not performing as well over the same distance on fuel burn with equivalent passenger payload. The plane is heavier, that's why.

Tack on the $20+M increased cost of the frame vs a stock 789 and...you end up with 5:1 or worse sales disparities. It's really not even close...not even remotely so.

What you're claiming is akin to saying the 737 Max 9 was a better plane than the 321Neo as the sales figures have been as lopsided on that contest as on this one.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2147
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:54 pm

dare100em wrote:
T4thH wrote:
T4thH wrote:
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.


In fact it is the opposite. It word-by-word quotes Steven Udvar Hazy as saying “[...] Hundreds of engineers are working on it [the 797] [...]” and Exactly NOT that they are all on the -Max.

Which - clear for anyone having a clue about such a project - would make ZERO sense until ones assume they are already working on significant STRUCTURAL changes to the-Max. But that’s not the case.


In fairness, the google translation said the engineers "would" work on it, not "working on".
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 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.


Good point - its not cabin volume that is the limit, its still payload range.


zeke wrote:
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.


I think we can dismiss the trim tank in the tail - the complexity that would introduce would be hideously expensive. Vent tank is an option of limited scope, also an expensive one at that. Vent or surge tank design is not a trivial thing - there are numerous factors that go into it - a few that I remember from my time in fuel systems being minimising drag from the (now no longer NACA but custom designed) duct, the flame arrestor, arcing within the tank, refuel overflow, cross-venting in cross-winds.


Apparently (this all happened since I've departed, so going on what I read) the A350 uses the flaps and slats (at very small deployments) to adjust the static margin of the aircraft in cruise and does a job every bit as good as the old trim tank. I find it a bit hard to believe, but there you go. I assume you'd know more about that?

ACTs or the integral tank in the fuselage is by far the least elegant solution, but also by far the most practical (especially given the very limited market to amortise the development costs over).


They've been testing HLFC on the vertical tail for a while now - dunno whether they are confident enough in it to put onto a production run though.


re. the forward hold - I had read pieces on them (whether it was Airbus or Qantas I can't remember) talking about installing passenger modules into the hold - meeting rooms, showers, beds etc - they wouldn't be too heavy and might be useful revenue streams.


[and 15% on ultrafan is probably a bit too optimistic]
 
majano
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:28 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Kindanew wrote:

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.


at what? Not ULH fuel burn per hour with 220+ pax.

Not on fly away price.

What you guys say every day here is completely refuted by the overwhelmingly lopsided sales of these aircraft.

Even the vaunted ULR, it's goin out from EWR at what, 272t or something? 270? And still burning 5.85t/hr. UA is sending 101 from IAH to SYD, 17.5 hours, pushing 8000nm still air on that and reporting 5.4t/hr. The plane is lighter, simple physics. And the ULR's only carrying 161 pax! Swap 60 of them for 6 t of fuel and it's not performing as well over the same distance on fuel burn with equivalent passenger payload. The plane is heavier, that's why.

Tack on the $20+M increased cost of the frame vs a stock 789 and...you end up with 5:1 or worse sales disparities. It's really not even close...not even remotely so.

What you're claiming is akin to saying the 737 Max 9 was a better plane than the 321Neo as the sales figures have been as lopsided on that contest as on this one.

Can you please provide some proof of your claims about the UA loads and fuel burn. Not sure it is helpful to keep making claims without back up.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:37 pm

majano wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
WIederling wrote:
That probably is a faulty assessment. The heavier A359 seems to match or outperform the 789.


at what? Not ULH fuel burn per hour with 220+ pax.

Not on fly away price.

What you guys say every day here is completely refuted by the overwhelmingly lopsided sales of these aircraft.

Even the vaunted ULR, it's goin out from EWR at what, 272t or something? 270? And still burning 5.85t/hr. UA is sending 101 from IAH to SYD, 17.5 hours, pushing 8000nm still air on that and reporting 5.4t/hr. The plane is lighter, simple physics. And the ULR's only carrying 161 pax! Swap 60 of them for 6 t of fuel and it's not performing as well over the same distance on fuel burn with equivalent passenger payload. The plane is heavier, that's why.

Tack on the $20+M increased cost of the frame vs a stock 789 and...you end up with 5:1 or worse sales disparities. It's really not even close...not even remotely so.

What you're claiming is akin to saying the 737 Max 9 was a better plane than the 321Neo as the sales figures have been as lopsided on that contest as on this one.

Can you please provide some proof of your claims about the UA loads and fuel burn. Not sure it is helpful to keep making claims without back up.


Not going to happen, we've seen so many threads ruined...
 
DCA350
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:40 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
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.


I could see triple that. It won't be a huge seller but we have to see what happens with 778 orders.. Emirates could be a candidate so they can finally launch more non stop LA Routes, Cathay will probably take a few for Miami, Qatar, Turkish so they can finally launch Australia NS, and of course Qantas will reshape it's LH fleet around it, that could be 15+ orders alone.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:02 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Kindanew wrote:

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.


at what? Not ULH fuel burn per hour with 220+ pax.

Not on fly away price.

What you guys say every day here is completely refuted by the overwhelmingly lopsided sales of these aircraft.

Even the vaunted ULR, it's goin out from EWR at what, 272t or something? 270? And still burning 5.85t/hr. UA is sending 101 from IAH to SYD, 17.5 hours, pushing 8000nm still air on that and reporting 5.4t/hr. The plane is lighter, simple physics. And the ULR's only carrying 161 pax! Swap 60 of them for 6 t of fuel and it's not performing as well over the same distance on fuel burn with equivalent passenger payload. The plane is heavier, that's why.

Tack on the $20+M increased cost of the frame vs a stock 789 and...you end up with 5:1 or worse sales disparities. It's really not even close...not even remotely so.

What you're claiming is akin to saying the 737 Max 9 was a better plane than the 321Neo as the sales figures have been as lopsided on that contest as on this one.


Oh god, please take that distraction to the A350 vs 787 thread where we discussed that over and over and over and over ..
 
CowAnon
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:32 pm

WIederling wrote:
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? )

We're way off topic now, but Boeing tested a propfan on its 727 in preparation for the 7J7. SAS wanted to buy 100 of the aircraft months after Boeing postponed the 7J7 indefinitely, so I'd say that it went a lot farther than the Sonic Cruiser.


I think that getting burned on the 7J7 is one reason why Boeing is so conservative about replacing the 737. If the 7J7 had entered service, Airbus probably would've been forced to replace the A320 when oil started spiking in the 2000s, yet the airlines in the 80s skipped the more fuel-efficient 7J7 to buy the 320 and stretched 737 models.

BTW, Boeing had 1,000 people working on the 7J7 at one point, too.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:08 pm

CowAnon wrote:
WIederling wrote:
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? )

We're way off topic now, but Boeing tested a propfan on its 727 in preparation for the 7J7. SAS wanted to buy 100 of the aircraft months after Boeing postponed the 7J7 indefinitely, so I'd say that it went a lot farther than the Sonic Cruiser.


I think that getting burned on the 7J7 is one reason why Boeing is so conservative about replacing the 737. If the 7J7 had entered service, Airbus probably would've been forced to replace the A320 when oil started spiking in the 2000s, yet the airlines in the 80s skipped the more fuel-efficient 7J7 to buy the 320 and stretched 737 models.

BTW, Boeing had 1,000 people working on the 7J7 at one point, too.


7j7 seems to have been B's reaction to the A320 offer and development.
Similar to the "just around the corner" NSA as answer to the NEO.
Just Boeing PR.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:56 pm

majano wrote:
Can you please provide some proof of your claims about the UA loads and fuel burn. Not sure it is helpful to keep making claims without back up.


There is no need to provide proof we had a very long thread in tech ops over this, the real fuel burn data from the 787-9 and A359 were compared for the same payload over the same distances. The claims being made are baseless, they don’t match real Boeing FCOM data. The fuel burns between the 787-9 and A359 are near identical, if anything the numbers suggest at very long ranges the A359 had a small advantage if the 787, and at shorter ranges the 787-9:had an advantage. IAD-SYD is something a standard A359 can do, no need for a ULR.

That was before the Trent XWB 84 EP came along.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:53 am

zeke wrote:
majano wrote:
Can you please provide some proof of your claims about the UA loads and fuel burn. Not sure it is helpful to keep making claims without back up.


There is no need to provide proof we had a very long thread in tech ops over this, the real fuel burn data from the 787-9 and A359 were compared for the same payload over the same distances. The claims being made are baseless, they don’t match real Boeing FCOM data. The fuel burns between the 787-9 and A359 are near identical, if anything the numbers suggest at very long ranges the A359 had a small advantage if the 787, and at shorter ranges the 787-9:had an advantage. IAD-SYD is something a standard A359 can do, no need for a ULR.

That was before the Trent XWB 84 EP came along.


sure man.

there were multiple operators for whom fuel burn data was disclosed on ULH segments. The 789 returns 5.4t/hr. The ULR 5.85t/hr. UA, QF, and one other airline. SQ (obv) for the ULR.

despite your claims, zeke, nor whatever was hashed about in Techops, the 359's base weight incurs a fuel burn penalty. Goalseeking a 40t payload to make a claim about equivalent fuel burn simply does *not* comport with what has been disclosed right here on anet as far as real burn rates on real flights. Your assertions expect that the many ton heavier 359 simply magically burns the same fuel as a much lighter aircraft. There is simply no precedent for this in the real world.

IAD-SYD is 8466nm- once again you are straining the bounds of credulity with your claims by asserting a base 359 could do this route. It's 366nm even above Airbus' range claims.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:43 am

The title of the thread is "Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR". Don't need to talk about 789 vs A359 again....
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12491
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:56 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
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

There's nothing to change in the physical dimension of the tanks, just fuel sensors and jettison.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:04 am

h1fl1er wrote:
there were multiple operators for whom fuel burn data was disclosed on ULH segments. The 789 returns 5.4t/hr. The ULR 5.85t/hr. UA, QF, and one other airline. SQ (obv) for the ULR.


Yes however the data points are useless without knowing the payload being carried, this has been covered in detail in that other thread.The point of that other thread to to finally put to bed the silly squabbling on a.net and these claims of unrealistic fuel burns.

For example "Whatsaptudo" posted " Tonight’s QF9 has a flight time of 16:54 with a flight fuel burn of exactly 91.0. Take off weight is 249.3/ 254.0, and it arrives with 4.5T of fuel. Carrying 210 POB so 26 empty seats all of which are in economy.". That is a very light payload of under 20 tonnes, no alternate fuel on arrival, to achieve a fuel burn of 5.38 tonnes per hour. You cannot then compare that to an A350 carying 10-15 tonnes more payload and alternate fuel, it simply is not an apples to apples comparison.

h1fl1er wrote:
despite your claims, zeke, nor whatever was hashed about in Techops, the 359's base weight incurs a fuel burn penalty.


The techops thread shows that, it shows the 789 has an advantage (very slight) at shorter ranges. The 787-8 empty weight is 30 tonnes heavier than the 763 with winglets, the 767 has a slight advantage at shorter ranges (>200 nm), however the 788 clearly has the advantage over long haul, this is a dramatic example how a large difference in empty weight does not alone impact long haul performance significantly. The weight difference between the 789 and A359 are not that significant, the A359 is heavier, however it is more capable being able to fly further and carry more payload, to put it another way it offers airlines more flexibility for very little penalty. Fuel burn has 3 components, the :L/D, the engine, and the natural log of the initial weight over the final weight.. It is not just a function of final weight (which includes the empty weight and payload). The aerodynamics which the A350 was designed primarily for long haul with its wing where the 787 was not with its smaller wing. That large wing killed the 358.

h1fl1er wrote:
Goalseeking a 40t payload to make a claim about equivalent fuel burn simply does *not* comport with what has been disclosed right here on anet as far as real burn rates on real flights. Your assertions expect that the many ton heavier 359 simply magically burns the same fuel as a much lighter aircraft. There is simply no precedent for this in the real world.


The 40t payload was not selected by me, it was selected by "thepinkmachine" as that is the sort of payload he normally flies on the 789. He has checked my numbers, so has oldaeroguy.

The data we had in tech ops also compares well with independent published research, "Baxter, Glenn & Srisaeng, Panarat & Wild, Graham. (2018). The Air Cargo Carrying Potential of The Airbus A350-900XWB and Boeing 787-9 Aircraft on Their Ultra-Long-Haul Flights: A Case Study for Flights from San Francisco to Singapore. Transport and Telecommunication Journal. 19. 301-314. 10.2478/ttj-2018-0025. "

In that paper they said

"As can be seen, the payload potential of the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB aircraft is always slightly greater than the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 aircraft, particularly when there are no prevailing wind penalties.Specifically, the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB on average offers 5.5 tonnes more than United Airlines Boeing 787-9. Based on the current air cargo proxy yield ($0.375/tonne/km)(Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2016), and the distance (13,596.09 km) then there could be an additional $27,900 in revenue potential when the aircraft operates daily services. This equates to an annual revenue potential of $USD 20.3 million."

furthermore they say

The introduction of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft have enabled airlines to operate ultra-long-haul (ULR) services. This study has examined the air cargo carrying potential of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft deployed by Singapore Airlines and United Airlines, respectively. The study focused on the San Francisco (SFO) to Singapore (SIN) and Singapore (SIN) to San Francisco (SFO) air routes. Despite the very long flight stage length of 13,596.09 kilometres both aircraft types offer a meaningful air cargo payload. If the flights are not impacted by any prevailing winds, then Singapore Airlines Airbus A350-900XWB potentially offers an air cargo payload of 14.7 tonnes and United Airlines Boeing 787-9 a payload of 12.8 tonnes.

If we consider the available air cargo capacity when there is the maximum passenger compliment on board, the difference between the A350-900XWB in Singapore Airlines cabin configuration and the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 is 5.3 tonnes (in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB), which increases slightly to 5.4 tonnes in the east bound direction and reduced slightly to 5.2 tonnes in the west bound direct.However, if we utilise the typical load factors of each airline, the difference becomes 5.6 tonnes in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB aircraft, which increases to 5.7 tonnes in the east bound direction (and remains at 5.6 tonnes in the west bound direction)."

h1fl1er wrote:
IAD-SYD is 8466nm- once again you are straining the bounds of credulity with your claims by asserting a base 359 could do this route. It's 366nm even above Airbus' range claims.


From the A350 ACAPS https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf

Their published data says it can do a payload of 284 passengers and baggage (calculated it to be 26,997 kg by the Breguet range equation) over 8466 nm.

Image
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:09 am

LAX772LR wrote:
There's nothing to change in the physical dimension of the tanks, just fuel sensors and jettison.


Fuel jettison is a customer option on the A350, the aircraft is certified to land following an immediate return taking off at MTOW without jettison.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
marcelh
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:10 am

h1fl1er wrote:
zeke wrote:
majano wrote:
Can you please provide some proof of your claims about the UA loads and fuel burn. Not sure it is helpful to keep making claims without back up.


There is no need to provide proof we had a very long thread in tech ops over this, the real fuel burn data from the 787-9 and A359 were compared for the same payload over the same distances. The claims being made are baseless, they don’t match real Boeing FCOM data. The fuel burns between the 787-9 and A359 are near identical, if anything the numbers suggest at very long ranges the A359 had a small advantage if the 787, and at shorter ranges the 787-9:had an advantage. IAD-SYD is something a standard A359 can do, no need for a ULR.

That was before the Trent XWB 84 EP came along.


sure man.

there were multiple operators for whom fuel burn data was disclosed on ULH segments. The 789 returns 5.4t/hr. The ULR 5.85t/hr. UA, QF, and one other airline. SQ (obv) for the ULR.

despite your claims, zeke, nor whatever was hashed about in Techops, the 359's base weight incurs a fuel burn penalty. Goalseeking a 40t payload to make a claim about equivalent fuel burn simply does *not* comport with what has been disclosed right here on anet as far as real burn rates on real flights. Your assertions expect that the many ton heavier 359 simply magically burns the same fuel as a much lighter aircraft. There is simply no precedent for this in the real world.

IAD-SYD is 8466nm- once again you are straining the bounds of credulity with your claims by asserting a base 359 could do this route. It's 366nm even above Airbus' range claims.

@h1fl1er:
Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the A359 fuelburn, instead of contaminating this thread with your posts. Thank you very much.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:56 pm

Being ignorant about fuel consumption of planes I so far stayed out of the discussion if B787 or A350 is better. However I can't resist:
Common sense tells me that a lighter OEW plane with shorter wings is better on shorter routes and for less payload.
Common sense tells me that a heavier OEW plane with longer wings is better on longer routes and for more payload.
If B777-9X wouldn't be superior on even a few ULR routes, why would Boeing develop it?
That's not to say that Qantas won't buy A350-ULR. It will still be useful on other routes when in five years or so a MTOW increased B777-9X becomes available.
After a few years in service and a MTOW increase for the B777-9X it will be interesting to see if A350 or B777-9X will be better on 12 hour routes.
I think there is a common sense answer for 18 hours routes. At any rate the -9X hasn't flown yet. We have nothing beyond common sense to speculate.
I also wonder how cargo traffic will change.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10868
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:09 pm

Sokes wrote:
if B777-9X wouldn't be superior on even a few ULR routes, why would Boeing develop it?


For the same reason Airbus continued with the A345/6 ... not knowing how good the 77W would be.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:20 pm

Sokes wrote:
If B777-9X wouldn't be superior on even a few ULR routes, why would Boeing develop it?


Boeing won't have a problem making a frame that is slightly better at the absolute far edge of the payload-range envelope.

Their problem will be that it is worse at 99% of missions that don't require that capability.

Which then leaves them having a kerb appeal to very very few airlines (which may indeed operate a sub-fleet to meet that need).

The cost of development is then spread over relatively few frames (compared to the other aircraft that are better at 99% of missions) which enters a vicious circle of pushing unit cost up and reduced airframe orders.

We already can see what production volumes are doing in the A350 vs B787 unit cost - the difference between 789 and 359 (on a per seat basis) would become negligible if Airbus doubled their production rate if that rate followed rule of thumb cost efficiency improvements.
 
mig17
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:34 pm

Sokes wrote:
Being ignorant about fuel consumption of planes I so far stayed out of the discussion if B787 or A350 is better. However I can't resist:
Common sense tells me that a lighter OEW plane with shorter wings is better on shorter routes and for less payload.
Common sense tells me that a heavier OEW plane with longer wings is better on longer routes and for more payload.
If B777-9X wouldn't be superior on even a few ULR routes, why would Boeing develop it?
That's not to say that Qantas won't buy A350-ULR. It will still be useful on other routes when in five years or so a MTOW increased B777-9X becomes available.
After a few years in service and a MTOW increase for the B777-9X it will be interesting to see if A350 or B777-9X will be better on 12 hour routes.
I think there is a common sense answer for 18 hours routes. At any rate the -9X hasn't flown yet. We have nothing beyond common sense to speculate.
I also wonder how cargo traffic will change.

You are on something with the MTOW limiting the 777-X. The matter is for now, the 777-X MTOW is the same as the 77W for structural reasons and it doesn't seem Boeing may be able to increase it soon.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:46 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
if B777-9X wouldn't be superior on even a few ULR routes, why would Boeing develop it?


For the same reason Airbus continued with the A345/6 ... not knowing how good the 77W would be.


I had to laugh reading your answer. We shall see.


Amiga500 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
If B777-9X wouldn't be superior on even a few ULR routes, why would Boeing develop it?


Boeing won't have a problem making a frame that is slightly better at the absolute far edge of the payload-range envelope.

Their problem will be that it is worse at 99% of missions that don't require that capability.


I referred to the Project Sunrise discussions.
One can see a lot of capable planes on comparatively short routes. And why is there not more rush for the A321XLR?
It seems there is nothing wrong to have a little higher initial cruise altitude.
I assume it will depend on the engine if you are right with your remaining post. Again: We shall see.


mig17 wrote:
...The matter is for now, the 777-X MTOW is the same as the 77W for structural reasons and it doesn't seem Boeing may be able to increase it soon.


Can you expand on that? Do you have a source?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
mig17
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:03 pm

Sokes wrote:
mig17 wrote:
...The matter is for now, the 777-X MTOW is the same as the 77W for structural reasons and it doesn't seem Boeing may be able to increase it soon.


Can you expand on that? Do you have a source?

The 777-X share some 77W figures and so it is a compromise. That is why the 777-9 is heavy not being in carbon fiber like a new design would have been. And The structural limits of the 777-300ER also applies, so 777-X and 77W share the same MTOW wich is already very high. Without structural change at least to the landing gear it is impossible to raise the MTOW of those frame and we also have to considere pressure on the ground with "only" 12 main gear wheels, is already at a maximum.
The MTOW of the 777-X did not increase since it's announcement in 2013 ...
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10868
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:34 pm

Sokes wrote:
And why is there not more rush for the A321XLR?
It seems there is nothing wrong to have a little higher initial cruise altitude.


The 77W, as a plane that basically can only lift of at MTOW at sea level and ISA because of tire speed limits and burn of fuel to get up high, sold quite ok.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:36 pm

Sokes wrote:
If B777-9X wouldn't be superior on even a few ULR routes, why would Boeing develop it?


If one were to look at the distribution of seats vs range the majority of large aircraft demand is not for ULH.

These ULH routes are a niche, it is not where the mainstream demand is.

The 77X will cover 90+% of the market.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Opus99
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:37 pm

Just on the Use of the A350-1000ULR. There seems to speculation that BA are interested and I wondered how it will fit into their fleet? And I had a thought. The current 77Ws are being converted into super high Js with the new club suite (72 business class seats) to replace the 747 high Js (86 business class seats) it’s very high premium. The 77Ws after the config will sit only 264 people. By the time you add the 77Ws with the A35K and the 777-9 the 747 replacement is complete. But the 77W routes remain vacant. This is where the A35K ULR could come in for BA. It would be a perfect replacement. Given that the ULR is able to keep around 300 passengers which Hopefully Airbus seems to be offering alongside other improvements. MTOW increase, new winglets etc
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:55 pm

zeke wrote:
The data we had in tech ops also compares well with independent published research, "Baxter, Glenn & Srisaeng, Panarat & Wild, Graham. (2018). The Air Cargo Carrying Potential of The Airbus A350-900XWB and Boeing 787-9 Aircraft on Their Ultra-Long-Haul Flights: A Case Study for Flights from San Francisco to Singapore. Transport and Telecommunication Journal. 19. 301-314. 10.2478/ttj-2018-0025. "

In that paper they said

"As can be seen, the payload potential of the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB aircraft is always slightly greater than the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 aircraft, particularly when there are no prevailing wind penalties.Specifically, the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB on average offers 5.5 tonnes more than United Airlines Boeing 787-9. Based on the current air cargo proxy yield ($0.375/tonne/km)(Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2016), and the distance (13,596.09 km) then there could be an additional $27,900 in revenue potential when the aircraft operates daily services. This equates to an annual revenue potential of $USD 20.3 million."

furthermore they say

The introduction of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft have enabled airlines to operate ultra-long-haul (ULR) services. This study has examined the air cargo carrying potential of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft deployed by Singapore Airlines and United Airlines, respectively. The study focused on the San Francisco (SFO) to Singapore (SIN) and Singapore (SIN) to San Francisco (SFO) air routes. Despite the very long flight stage length of 13,596.09 kilometres both aircraft types offer a meaningful air cargo payload. If the flights are not impacted by any prevailing winds, then Singapore Airlines Airbus A350-900XWB potentially offers an air cargo payload of 14.7 tonnes and United Airlines Boeing 787-9 a payload of 12.8 tonnes.

If we consider the available air cargo capacity when there is the maximum passenger compliment on board, the difference between the A350-900XWB in Singapore Airlines cabin configuration and the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 is 5.3 tonnes (in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB), which increases slightly to 5.4 tonnes in the east bound direction and reduced slightly to 5.2 tonnes in the west bound direct.However, if we utilise the typical load factors of each airline, the difference becomes 5.6 tonnes in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB aircraft, which increases to 5.7 tonnes in the east bound direction (and remains at 5.6 tonnes in the west bound direction)."


Hi Zeke,

Interesting find. Is that paper available online? I’m actually quite surprised the payload advantage for the 350 is actually so low, given that it has 25T higher MTOW...
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:25 pm

mig17 wrote:
Without structural change at least to the landing gear it is impossible to raise the MTOW of those frame and we also have to considere pressure on the ground with "only" 12 main gear wheels, is already at a maximum.


Good point. Any solutions in sight?


tommy1808 wrote:
The 77W, as a plane that basically can only lift of at MTOW at sea level and ISA because of tire speed limits and burn of fuel to get up high, sold quite ok.


As compared to A340/ A380.
But yes, you are right.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:54 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
Interesting find. Is that paper available online? I’m actually quite surprised the payload advantage for the 350 is actually so low, given that it has 25T higher MTOW...


Sent you a PM for the paper on research gate.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:11 pm

The A350-1000 currently has ~ 180 orders, 16 of those are the Iranian Order which is either officially or unofficially cancelled. ~ 40 of those are with Qatar. While the A350-1000 is an awesome plane, who's time may not have yet arrived (e.g. 77W replacement cycles), it's not running away with the market. Time will tell, but suspect 779 and A351 will split the market for replacement of larger capacities (77W,A380,747). Even that is a huge accomplishment for Airbus, to take significant market share from a segment that 77W dominated for more than a decade. Airbus has a talent for maximizing the potential of their stretches (A321XLR, A351ULR).
learning never stops.
 
olle
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:25 pm

WIederling wrote:
Kindanew wrote:
seat64k wrote:

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. :-))



I still have the sensation when 330 neo is doomed and it will be, at latest when 787 get max treatment - new engines, a true 358 with optimized wing will come back in the game.

The option is to airbus to respond with a clean sheet 797 sized airplane. I have the impression that airbus do not consider 797 style airplane the correct move but will go for a 322 rewinged path.
 
olle
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:34 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
The A350-1000 currently has ~ 180 orders, 16 of those are the Iranian Order which is either officially or unofficially cancelled. ~ 40 of those are with Qatar. While the A350-1000 is an awesome plane, who's time may not have yet arrived (e.g. 77W replacement cycles), it's not running away with the market. Time will tell, but suspect 779 and A351 will split the market for replacement of larger capacities (77W,A380,747). Even that is a huge accomplishment for Airbus, to take significant market share from a segment that 77W dominated for more than a decade. Airbus has a talent for maximizing the potential of their stretches (A321XLR, A351ULR).


I tend to agree. What I see as risk for the 77x is that it seems to be equal efficient as 350 that has one generation older engines. Probably the major replacement cycle for 77w, a380 will come timed second half 2020s when I can see that both RR and Airbus can consider to make A350 with neo treatment. Then A350 will have one generation newer engine or at best equal generation with an reengined 77x.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10868
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:39 pm

zeke wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
Interesting find. Is that paper available online? I’m actually quite surprised the payload advantage for the 350 is actually so low, given that it has 25T higher MTOW...


Sent you a PM for the paper on research gate.


And its 21t, its comparing the 275t A359 vs. the 254t 787-9. Probably without the ULR aero upgraded that came with it either.

Also from the last paragraph

A limitation of the current study was that it was not possible to calculate the incremental fuel burn
costs to accommodate the air cargo loads
on the Singapore to San Francisco and San Francisco to Singapore
sectors operated by Singapore Airlines and United Airlines as the airline and sector specific fuel costs were
not available in the public domain. Should such data become available then a future study could quantify
the incremental fuel burn cost to carry air cargo vis-à-vis the potential revenue that could be earned from
the carriage of this air cargo traffic.


If it is true that the A359 gets a bigger advantage at range, that would shift it at least some.

Beat regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10868
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:43 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
The A350-1000 currently has ~ 180 orders, 16 of those are the Iranian Order which is either officially or unofficially cancelled. ~


Could still be delivered 1H2021, but replacement cycle will be where the sales come from, not those 16 orders.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
ITSTours
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:12 pm

What is a typical replacement cycle? I know for a few airlines it is only 10 years; Korean airlines have 20 years (government forced); I don't know about others.

The first 77W EIS was in 2004 so only 15 years have passed, and the majority were delivered in 2010s (peaked in 2016). It seems that most of the 77Ws will be replaced after mid-2020s. A350-1000 will sell a few years later? Since current A350K can fly all routes that 77W flies, no ULR is needed. Then the ULR only caters a few 77L routes and the Sunrise?

Also after late-2020s, we might see a A350neo...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10868
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:17 pm

ITSTours wrote:
What is a typical replacement cycle? I know for a few airlines it is only 10 years; Korean airlines have 20 years (government forced); I don't know about others.


Depends ;)

10 or 12 years seems to be fairly normal for airlines that lease, then there is the likes of Lufthansa, that often fly aircraft OEM assembly line to part-out.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
ITSTours
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:26 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
What is a typical replacement cycle? I know for a few airlines it is only 10 years; Korean airlines have 20 years (government forced); I don't know about others.


Depends ;)

10 or 12 years seems to be fairly normal for airlines that lease, then there is the likes of Lufthansa, that often fly aircraft OEM assembly line to part-out.

Best regards
Thomas


I forgot about the lease. We will surely see more A350-1000s or 777-9X in about 5-7 years.
 
MPadhi
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:31 pm

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


Why is it that Boeing have managed to implement laminar flow tails into production 787s since around 2015 but Airbus hasn't managed to?
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:16 am

zeke wrote:
"Baxter, Glenn & Srisaeng, Panarat & Wild, Graham. (2018).
The Air Cargo Carrying Potential of The Airbus A350-900XWB and Boeing 787-9 Aircraft on Their Ultra-Long-Haul Flights: A Case Study for Flights from San Francisco to Singapore.
Transport and Telecommunication Journal. 19. 301-314. 10.2478/ttj-2018-0025. "

In that paper they said
"...Specifically, the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB on average offers 5.5 tonnes more than United Airlines Boeing 787-9. Based on the current air cargo proxy yield ($0.375/tonne/km)(Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2016), and the distance (13,596.09 km) then there could be an additional $27,900 in revenue potential when the aircraft operates daily services. This equates to an annual revenue potential of $USD 20.3 million."
furthermore they say
"... Despite the very long flight stage length of 13,596.09 kilometres both aircraft types offer a meaningful air cargo payload. If the flights are not impacted by any prevailing winds, then Singapore Airlines Airbus A350-900XWB potentially offers an air cargo payload of 14.7 tonnes and United Airlines Boeing 787-9 a payload of 12.8 tonnes. ..."


mig17 wrote:
Without structural change at least to the landing gear it is impossible to raise the MTOW of those frame and we also have to considere pressure on the ground with "only" 12 main gear wheels, is already at a maximum.


ODwyerPW wrote:
The A350-1000 currently has ~ 180 orders, 16 of those are the Iranian Order which is either officially or unofficially cancelled. ~ 40 of those are with Qatar. ...


O.k., I'm wrong about my expected MTOW increase for B777-9X.
It's true that 352 t MTOW is very heavy/ a huge difference to A350-900. Moreover increasing MTOW didn't lead to runaway orders for A350-1000.

popularity of the different models:
A330-800: 10 orders
A330-900: 238 orders

B787-9.: 829 orders
B787-10: 189 orders

A350-900.: 733 orders
A350-1000:180 orders

B777-8X....: 45 orders
B777-9X....: 280 orders

That leaves us with following main models:
A330-900: 63,6m length, 8 abreast, OEW 137 t, MTOW 251 t, MTOW - OEW = 114 t
....B787-9: 62,8m length, 9 abreast, OEW 129 t, MTOW 254 t, MTOW - OEW = 125 t
A350-900: 66,8m length, 9 abreast, OEW 142 t, MTOW 280 t, MTOW - OEW = 138 t
..B777-9X: 76,7m length,10 abreast, OEW 181 t, MTOW 352 t, MTOW - OEW = 171 t

In most cases the secondary model has only around 20% orders of the main model. Is the length difference between them too much?

About B777-300ER replacement: I wasn't asking which airline will discontinue when?
I was wondering when the seating capacity will have to be replaced globally. In other words: will they be used more like 20 or more like 30 years?


I finally found something about belly cargo capacity. For the enthusiasts among you:
"The bellyhold capacity of the new A350-900s, at 16 tonnes, is right on that average, as are QR’s A340-600s. At the lower end of the spectrum are its A330-300s with 13 tonnes of cargo capacity, while at the high-end are its 777-300s which he says offer 19 tonnes of belly freight payload."
https://cargofacts.com/the-a350-brings- ... the-world/
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26388
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:03 am

MPadhi wrote:
Why is it that Boeing have managed to implement laminar flow tails into production 787s since around 2015 but Airbus hasn't managed to?


I imagine it's more a case of Airbus has chosen not to implement it, as yet, rather than an inability to do so.
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:54 am

Stitch wrote:
MPadhi wrote:
Why is it that Boeing have managed to implement laminar flow tails into production 787s since around 2015 but Airbus hasn't managed to?


I imagine it's more a case of Airbus has chosen not to implement it, as yet, rather than an inability to do so.


Airbus have been test flying laminar flow tails this year.

https://aviationweek.com/site-files/avi ... rpromo.jpg
 
kevin5345179
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:08 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:01 am

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


Why is it that Boeing have managed to implement laminar flow tails into production 787s since around 2015 but Airbus hasn't managed to?


same question for you
how come Airbus has BTV on A380 back in 2007 while Boeing's first plane to have BTE is 777X which won't EIS as early as next year
FBW will be another example

All about development choices .....
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:01 am

olle wrote:
I still have the sensation when 330 neo is doomed and it will be, at latest when 787 get max treatment - new engines, a true 358 with optimized wing will come back in the game.

The option is to airbus to respond with a clean sheet 797 sized airplane. I have the impression that airbus do not consider 797 style airplane the correct move but will go for a 322 rewinged path.

With the A330NEO's departure the capability gap between the A321 and A350-900 is huge! Making a A322 on the low end and an semi-optimised A350-800 does little to close the gap.

Airbus would be best off launching a cleansheet exactly half way between the A321 and A350-900. A lightweight 8ab aircraft fits the bill. Something like an A300NEO in terms of size and weight with the latest engines giving a range well above 5000nm. Short and medium haul efficiency would be 20+% better than the A330NEO due to it being optimised for that mission.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:57 am

WIederling wrote:
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? )


CFRP Sonic Cruiser fuselage trenches were producted in 2002 ...
 
MPadhi
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:32 am

kevin5345179 wrote:
MPadhi wrote:
zeke wrote:
Yes there is another area of low hanging fruit which would be laminar flow to the tail.


Why is it that Boeing have managed to implement laminar flow tails into production 787s since around 2015 but Airbus hasn't managed to?


same question for you
how come Airbus has BTV on A380 back in 2007 while Boeing's first plane to have BTE is 777X which won't EIS as early as next year
FBW will be another example

All about development choices .....


Interesting point. Still surprises me a little because BTV seems to be more a convenience thing whereas I assumed a laminar flow tail would reduce fuel burn by a reasonable amount.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3204
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:18 am

For an airline like QF, the main benefit that I see for the A350-1000 as a whole is the versatility it could bring, compared to the larger, heavier 777X.

If the A350-1000ULR does meet the mission requirements, I do think that QF ordering the standard -1000 model would also be on the cards. It would then give it a fleet of the following:

A380 - likely retired around 2030 but will be used on high volume routes
A350 - Ultra Long haul and medium to longer haul destinations requiring extra lift from the 787
A330 - Likely to be retired by 2030 but medium haul and domestic
787 - Medium to long haul thinner routes

A fairly solid overall fleet, which will begin to see significant changes during the next decade.

The 777X is a great aircraft, but I don’t know if I see it being great for QF’s network as it continues to fragment its network. More destinations and frequency seems to be the way they are moving, which seems to fit the -1000 better overall IMHO.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:00 pm

Pretty much every in depth analysis in the tech ops thread showed the 777-8 could fly 5t of extra payload between London and Sydney.

An extra 50 passengers can easily justify a greater trip fuel burn. I'm not sure what has changed to make the A350-1000 the front runner.

The fuel burn estimates were wrong?
The XWB is performing better than expected?
The 777-8 is overweight?
The A350-1000 is getting a bigger MTOW increase than expected?
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3204
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:07 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Pretty much every in depth analysis in the tech ops thread showed the 777-8 could fly 5t of extra payload between London and Sydney.

An extra 50 passengers can easily justify a greater trip fuel burn. I'm not sure what has changed to make the A350-1000 the front runner.

The fuel burn estimates were wrong?
The XWB is performing better than expected?
The 777-8 is overweight?
The A350-1000 is getting a bigger MTOW increase than expected?


Given that the A350-1000 is actually flying, unlike the 777X, it is a fair way down the road where operational data can be analysed. Based on that, and the ongoing improvements that are being made, all of the above could well be factors.

If Boeing do decide not to go ahead with the -8 version, there would have to be good reason for not building it. It has other priorities at the moment, but if it saw enough potential in that version it would stick with it.

The evolution of the A350 is certainly impressive. Can only hope it continues to find ways to enhance the offering.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

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