It is behind a paywall. I can link a dozen articles that say the A350-2000/8000 will have reduced range.
Like I said, the articles you showed above were from March 2016, when Airbus made the announcement. After that announcement they delivered a presentation and proposal which the CX CEO talked about a couple of months later. Eg “Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. is considering a proposal
from Airbus Group SE for a larger version of the newest A350 wide-body model, Cathay CEO Ivan Chu told Bloomberg News in a recent interview. The larger model could potentially allow for a non-stop, direct flight between Miami and Hong Kong — service long coveted by local business leaders.” From https://www.miamiherald.com/news/busine ... 34607.html
That is a longer aircraft, i.e. higher empty weight, with more payload going around 10% further than the current longest flight.
That is 100% BS. When payload weight drops down towards 25t the passenger limit is clearly determined by the payload weight not cabin area. 250 passengers in a A350-1000 is already extremely low density they do not need extra cabin area.
I think it will have around 270 seats in 4 class which is a higher density than SQ and ANA had on some of their their long haul 77Ws.
This is proven by many ultra long haul flights that have to block rows of seats in bad weather. It is the weight of the passengers.
Never had to do that leaving IAD for HKG holding TPE as an alternate in typhoon season.
I'm not sure how fitting fuel tanks in the cabin of a plane for a delivery flight has anything to do with permanent tanks.
Airbus ACTs are temporary tanks, if you read the FAST article in the same post you would know the removable tank is designed to be installed or removed in around 8 hours.
Zeke - is a single act normally loaded in the aft hold? Will there much, if any impact of CoG limitations with the ACT? My guess is the moment arm is short so it’s pretty negligible.
The centre tank moment arm is ahead of the CG, the ACT would go in the aft hold and transfer into the centre tank. Filling the ACT would move the CG aft,. The CG envelope is tight at high weights.
Please find out how they did it for the A340-500 ULR to get a higher fuel capacity.
I think it was for Singapore Airlines. It is possible they want to do it in a similar way.
The A350-500 has a RCT as well as an optional ACT. The RCT is fitted during production between MLG bay as the aft hold, the ACT is the same as the A340-300 in the rear hold and can either be provisioned during production or as a SB later. The A350 does not have the same arrangement, between the centre tank and the rear hold there is just the MLG bay, and that is packed with the extra wheels on the -1000.
And didn’t the interim solution in the form of the 77L require 3x act to make the mission......
It was a 777-9 with ACTs, Boeing also has a ACT solution for the 777.
“The US manufacturer has slowed the development of its longer-ranged 777X-8 and will compensate Qantas for operating the larger 777X-9 with reduced payload to meet the range mission with just below 300 passengers.
The 777X-9 seats more than 400 passengers, depending on an airline’s configuration choices and has a range of 14,185 km with that number aboard.
At a lower passenger number of 300, the range is extended to the 17,000km required for the ultra-long-range missions but additional, palatalized, fuel tanks
may also be needed the sources suggest.” From https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... t-sunrise/
I guess that obviously that plane will need to be Easa and CASA certified. But will it need to be FAA certified? It could add several months to the process.....
Aircraft that come with certification from EASA/FAA/Canada/Brazil and a few other countries get what is know as type acceptance under CASA regulations, CASA will issue a type certificate that says this type certificate is issued on the basis of the foreign type certificate number XYZ.
Eg CASA A320 series type certificate based off the EASA certificate https://www.casa.gov.au/files/a003pdf
QF wants to fly nonstop to JFK so yes it would need to be approved by the FAA
The A350-1000 is already FAA certified. For a foreign airline to operate into the US, the aircraft type does not need a FAA type certificate. They need to have the aircraft type and airports to be used on the FAA Part 129 certificate, essentially a foreign air operators certificate.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News