Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:47 am

zeke wrote:
The way these ACT STCs work is the frames under the ACT are modified to handle the weight.

That sounds expensive. The A350 being composite will require new techniques.


zeke wrote:
Airbus has already got this sorted, I have seen CATIA renderings in a presentation pitched at a different evolution on the A350 that is coming. What QF is getting something akin of a 787-9, there is something akin to the 787-10 in the works, ie keeping fuel and weights the same and making the fuselage longer. That evolution has been discussed on here a number of times.

There is no way Airbus thought any future A350 design would eventually require an ACT.

I highly doubt any of these studies covered adding extra fuel. The rumoured A350-1100/2000 design would not require fuel capacity greater than the 1000. The combined OEW increase and typical payload weight increase would be higher than any MTOW increase. Available takeoff weight for fuel would then be significantly lower than the 1000.

The 787-9/10 is the perfect example. With both aircraft fully fueled the 787-9 can carry 250 passengers but the 787-10 can carry only 150. To fit 250 passengers in the 787-10 the fuel has to be reduced. Even if just the MTOW of the 787-10 was increased by 6t higher it could not carry the same fuel load with the same passenger load as the 787-9.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
That sounds expensive. The A350 being composite will require new techniques.


The cargo hold frames and rails, and main deck floor beams on the A350 are not composite.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... all_ml_0-1


ZAMJR wrote:
There is no way Airbus thought any future A350 design would eventually require an ACT.


Given that you have stated earlier on this thread “Even a basic amateur could predict the performance to within a few percent”

Without increasing fuel capacity and MTOW how does a stretched A350-1000 go further than the current A350-1000 with more payload ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... i-non-stop
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:27 am

I'll admit, I'm still bitter over the situation.

I've posted multiple times before asking what role exactly the 777X family plays, and specifically the 777-8.

If the 777-8 isn't the more economical solution for this much flight time, are there any routes for which it is more economically viable?
 
DCA350
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:14 am

tigerotor77w wrote:
I'll admit, I'm still bitter over the situation.

I've posted multiple times before asking what role exactly the 777X family plays, and specifically the 777-8.

If the 777-8 isn't the more economical solution for this much flight time, are there any routes for which it is more economically viable?


It was the overall economics that won it for the A350. Remember Qantas stated that the PS fleet will also do shorter "regional" turns. So while it's quite possible the 778 was slightly more efficient on ULR flights, the A350 due to it's much lighter weight would eat it alive on these shorter routes.. You also have to factor in growth potential, the A350 is a new frame with 25+ years ahead of it and a NEO coming before the end of the next decade. The 777X is almost certainly the last of the 777 family so why not go with the airframe at the beginning of its life instead of the end.
 
moa999
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:50 am

DCA350 wrote:
Remember Qantas stated that the PS fleet will also do shorter "regional" turns.


Not sure it's part of the initial operating plans, but it's definitely in the future or risk mitigation.

Late 2020s - Order 350neo1000 for the Sunrise routes, and shift the original aircraft to replace 333s to Asia
Risk mitigation - In the event of large rise in fuel price, Sunrise routes probably become uneconomical and you go back to 1-stop.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:56 am

zeke wrote:
Without increasing fuel capacity and MTOW how does a stretched A350-1000 go further than the current A350-1000 with more payload ?

10 years ago project sunrise didn't exist. Airbus would not have designed the A350-1000 back then to carry ACT's.

It is only the recent MTOW increases that have caused the current fuel capacity to be reached with a realistic low density cabin layout.

Working out how to strengthen the A350 cargo floor, adding plumbing and certifying everything will cost money. Airbus will not have much change left from $100 million in my opinion. Spread over 6 Qantas frames that will clearly result in a loss.

I am optimistic and believe the entire Qantas business model will be based around non stop ultra long haul. I expect 10 ultra long haul routes and 25+ aircraft in 10 years time. So Airbus could eventually get a return on their investment.

tigerotor77w wrote:
If the 777-8 isn't the more economical solution for this much flight time, are there any routes for which it is more economically viable?

The 777-8 clearly lost due to it arriving late to the fight. IF the 777-8 enters service AND beats the fuel burn target it would easily outperform the A350-1000ULR on a 9000nm flight. By outperform I mean less fuel burn per kg of payload. If Qantas does want to open 10 ULR routes then 25 aircraft is easily enough to justify more than one aircraft type. 777-8 could then take over the most demanding routes.

Airbus will now have the advantage if the A350-1000ULR is already in the Qantas fleet. The 777-8 will have to beat it by many percentage points to justify a split fleet.

My opinion is Boeing will tweak their long term strategy. The trend I am seeing is that airline preference seems to be moving more towards trip cost over seat cost. The smaller and lighter aircraft keeps winning the competitions. Taking this trend into account means the 787-8ER would be a better long term option than the 777-8.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
10 years ago project sunrise didn't exist.


The name of the internal project has changed over the years, the concept has not.

QF rejected the proposals from Boeing and Airbus well over 10 years to operate SYD-LHR with the 777-200LR (2005) and A340-500 (2002) respectively.

https://m.seattlepi.com/business/articl ... 189976.php

You didn’t answer the question I asked, how does a stretched A350-1000 fly further and with more payload as it was presented in the Bloomberg article without an increase in MTOW and fuel capacity ?

If it’s been done before on the 744ER, 77L, A300/A310/A321/A340 why is it impossible for the A350 ?

Is sour grapes a new certification limit ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:31 am

RJMAZ wrote:
zeke wrote:
Without increasing fuel capacity and MTOW how does a stretched A350-1000 go further than the current A350-1000 with more payload ?

10 years ago project sunrise didn't exist. Airbus would not have designed the A350-1000 back then to carry ACT's.

It is only the recent MTOW increases that have caused the current fuel capacity to be reached with a realistic low density cabin layout.

Working out how to strengthen the A350 cargo floor, adding plumbing and certifying everything will cost money. Airbus will not have much change left from $100 million in my opinion. Spread over 6 Qantas frames that will clearly result in a loss.

I am optimistic and believe the entire Qantas business model will be based around non stop ultra long haul. I expect 10 ultra long haul routes and 25+ aircraft in 10 years time. So Airbus could eventually get a return on their investment.


I don't think designing an ACT for the A350 would be a major issue or very expensive to do. They wouldn't get their money back from selling a few to QF, but securing a larger standard A350 order from them would more than justify it.

The 777-8 clearly lost due to it arriving late to the fight. IF the 777-8 enters service AND beats the fuel burn target it would easily outperform the A350-1000ULR on a 9000nm flight. By outperform I mean less fuel burn per kg of payload. If Qantas does want to open 10 ULR routes then 25 aircraft is easily enough to justify more than one aircraft type. 777-8 could then take over the most demanding routes.

Airbus will now have the advantage if the A350-1000ULR is already in the Qantas fleet. The 777-8 will have to beat it by many percentage points to justify a split fleet.

My opinion is Boeing will tweak their long term strategy. The trend I am seeing is that airline preference seems to be moving more towards trip cost over seat cost. The smaller and lighter aircraft keeps winning the competitions. Taking this trend into account means the 787-8ER would be a better long term option than the 777-8.


I can't see the 777-8 ever beating the A350-1000 on fuel burn given it's a much heavier airplane to start with. The only advantage it could have would be a better payload range curve towards the right of the graph, earlier availability(?) and possibly a cheaper purchase price.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:40 am

zeke wrote:
You didn’t answer the question I asked, how does a stretched A350-1000 fly further and with more payload as it was presented in the Bloomberg article without an increase in MTOW and fuel capacity ?

It doesn't fly further.. Please just stop.

"Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier indicated in a recent Aviation Week interview that the -2000 would be a relatively simple stretch of the -1000. If that were the case, the aircraft would likely lose some range over the smaller version"

http://m.aviationweek.com/shownews/airb ... -a350-2000

"However it would sacrifice some range compared with the 8,000-mile A350-1000"

The following articles mention the A350-2000/8000 will sacrifice range even with a MTOW increase.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/airbus- ... liner.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... liner.html

https://de.reuters.com/article/airbus-a ... KL8N1696FZ

The A350 would never have been designed to handle an ACT.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:59 am

Francoflier wrote:
I don't think designing an ACT for the A350 would be a major issue or very expensive to do. They wouldn't get their money back from selling a few to QF, but securing a larger standard A350 order from them would more than justify it.

That is exactly much what I said. $100 million is fairly cheap but it is major cost for such a small order. A clear loss in the short term.

Francoflier wrote:
I can't see the 777-8 ever beating the A350-1000 on fuel burn given it's a much heavier airplane to start with. The only advantage it could have would be a better payload range curve towards the right of the graph, h.

That is exactly what i said.

"It would easily outperform the A350-1000ULR on a 9000nm flight. By outperform I mean less fuel burn per kg of payload."

Number wise it would be like this:
777-8 = 30t of payload with 150t of fuel.
A350-1000ULR = 26t of payload with 140t of fuel.

This mean the A350-1000ULR has 7% better fuel burn. It burns 10t less fuel. But the 777-8 has 7% better fuel burn per kg of payload it can carry 4t extra payload. The latter is more important on a 9000nm route so the 777-8 clearly outperforms the A350-1000ULR.

For the vast majority of flights including everything under 8000nm the A350-1000 is superior across the board compared to the 777-8.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:55 am

RJMAZ wrote:
It doesn't fly further.. Please just stop.


I have been asking you for a reason how does a stretched A350-1000 can fly further and with more payload as it was presented in the Bloomberg article without an increase in MTOW and fuel capacity. HKG MIA vv is about 10% further than HKG-IAD vv. You are being intellectually dishonest by avoiding the question, which has the answer in it. Everyone assumes you can work this out as you have stated earlier in this thread “Even a basic amateur could predict the performance to within a few percent”.

RJMAZ wrote:
"Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier indicated in a recent Aviation Week interview that the -2000 would be a relatively simple stretch of the -1000. If that were the case, the aircraft would likely lose some range over the smaller version"


Yes that was in March 2016, subsequent to that Airbus presented to CX a proposal which could out perform the 777-9. After that presentation the Bloomberg interviewed the CX CEO. The information has been in plain sight all the time.

RJMAZ wrote:
The A350 would never have been designed to handle an ACT.


Neither was the 737/747/777/A300/A310/A319/A321/A340 yet they all have them. Their A350 roadmap assumes engine and airframe improvements which will make the ACT a temporary measure, which is fine as the ACT can be unloaded and the stations reverted to normal cargo. The A350 was never designed to seat 480 seats either, however they have recently certified that.

RJMAZ wrote:
That is exactly much what I said. $100 million is fairly cheap but it is major cost for such a small order. A clear loss in the short term.


It doesn’t cost $100 million to install an additional tank, many aircraft including large airliners have tanks installed for one off flights, that just would not be possible if it cost $100 million each time. For example SAA flew a 747SP from SEA to JNB on a delivery flight non stop with the use of additional tanks. Hawaiian Air Install tanks in the cabin for ferry flights to get 717s back to the lower 48 for maintenance.


This FAST magazine outlines the ACTs on Airbus narrow body and wide body aircraft, under the provisions they are installed, what gets modified, and how the system works. https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... FAST35.pdf

RJMAZ wrote:
This mean the A350-1000ULR has 7% better fuel burn. It burns 10t less fuel. But the 777-8 has 7% better fuel burn per kg of payload it can carry 4t extra payload. The latter is more important on a 9000nm route so the 777-8 clearly outperforms the A350-1000ULR.


The intellectually dishonest part of that for PS is that QF want a 4 class cabin, and it is floor area which is driving the payload they are interested in which is the number of passengers. The cargo hold will be relatively empty on PS flights, QF have been asking questions like can they move some above floor monuments below deck to increase available floor area. Again this is something Airbus has a turnkey solution for on the wide bodies. Already in use on A330s and A340s.

Image
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VV
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:17 am

Baldr wrote:
...
Let's see, Airbus launched the development of the A330-200 in November 1995. First flight was on August 13 1997, with certification and first customer deliveries in April 1998 -- that's 2 1/2 years from launch to EIS for a major derivative of the A330-300.

Hence, any reasonably competent observer of this industry would conclude that installing an extra fuel tank in the A350-1000 and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes, is a much smaller undertaking than what the development of the A330-200 was.

Yet you manage, unsurprisingly, to vastly exaggerate the technical and certification issues involved with integrating the extra fuel tank into the A350-1000. Who would have thought that.....

Of course, in your "famous Bermuda Triangle" you have the A350 boxed in by the 787-10, 777-9 and the terminally ill 777-8. According to you, "the threat" from the 787-10, 777-9 and 777-9 to the A350-1000 is more than just a sandwich strategy, but rather a “treble trouble” strategy -- LOL!
....


Let's say this.

The proof is in the pudding. It is only three years to the end of 2023. if Qantas decides to go ahead with the Project Sunrise and if it starts before the end of 2023 then I would say that my opinion was wrong.

At this point, I am not convinced the A350-1000 with the required modifications mentioned by Qantas to make it viable for Project Sunrise would be available by the end of 2023.


As far as the 787-10, 777-9 and 777-8 are concerned, they are indeed in the same market space of the A350. As of the end of November 2019, the total orders for each aircraft is the following.
  • 787-10: 193 orders of which 45 have been delivered. 787-9: 868 orders of which 505 have been delivered
  • 777-9/777-8: 309 orders - still in development

Obviously things can change in the future, especially with the possible economic slowdown. Even then the biggest aircraft currently flying today (A380, 747) started to go to retirement already.
Let us not forget the 777-9 will be the biggest aircraft in production when the A380 production will stop in 2021.

And yes, according to my opinion, the A350 is still surrounded by other options. Three aircraft around the A350 have each a specificity. The 787-10 is good from cost on per seat basis perspective despite the fact it may not be able to fly routes longer than 6,700 nm with maximum passenger load or if the departure airport is difficult. The 777-9 will be the biggest aircraft when it enters into service. Finally the 777-8 has an outstanding payload-range capability.

The 777-8 is probably in a niche market where a high payload requirement for normal routes is required or for those airlines that have a hub in difficult airport like Johannesburg, Mexico or Bogota.

Emirates that still retains 25 orders for the 777-8 seems to be willing to keep them for their long haul operations. In general, it is likely several current 777-200LR operators would opt for 777-8 in the future. Current 777-200LR operators are: Emirates, Air India, Delta, Emirates, Ethiopian and Qatar. It is a small market, but it would simply allow the 777-9/-8 to put a foot in the door.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:28 am

zeke wrote:
I have been asking you for a reason how does a stretched A350-1000 can fly further and with more payload as it was presented in the Bloomberg article

It is behind a paywall. I can link a dozen articles that say the A350-2000/8000 will have reduced range.

zeke wrote:
The intellectually dishonest part of that for PS is that QF want a 4 class cabin, and it is floor area which is driving the payload

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.

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.

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.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:29 am

Lol, this thread has mostly turned hilarious.
$100m for ACTs? Show us how you got to that figure? RJMAZ, you sour grapes have obviously started to digest and are now smelling like BS.

Maybe of course the ACTs do cost 100m and even with that on cost it was preferable over the 778, meh, either way QF selected Airbus (caveats of course included).

My understanding for developing loading loops is that any station in the hold (pair of ULDs ) is good for 6800kg maximum weight.

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.

Fred




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
VV
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:57 am

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.

If you find an article on that then please post it here.

There are several differences between A340 and A350.

Some things of the system might have to be re-routed and/or modified.

Wait! I found it.

https://www.flightglobal.com/faa-forces ... 48.article

Although the -500 shares much commonality with the larger A340-600, it is unique in having a 19,930 litre (5,260USgal) rear centre tank (RCT). According to Airbus, this is a permanently installed fuel tank located in the lower fuselage outside the pressurised area, aft of the centre landing gear bay.

As originally designed, the integral fuel tank used the fuselage skin as its outer wall, but Flight International has learned the FAA was concerned about the crashworthiness of this configuration.


I am not sure if the A350-1000 was initially designed with extra fuel capacity in mind. If there was no provision for it then it would take some time to design and do it.
 
checklist350
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:40 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
zeke wrote:
Without increasing fuel capacity and MTOW how does a stretched A350-1000 go further than the current A350-1000 with more payload ?


Working out how to strengthen the A350 cargo floor, adding plumbing and certifying everything will cost money. Airbus will not have much change left from $100 million in my opinion. Spread over 6 Qantas frames that will clearly result in a loss.



Sour grapes galore... Where does the $100 milion come frome? And there will be up to 12 frames ordered if it goes ahead, not 6.

Seeing the 777-8X is about $50milion more expensive compared to the A35K (list prices) there seems to be plenty room for a significant pricing premium for the ULR version. Not expecting Airbus to loose any money over this, that's for sure.
Last edited by checklist350 on Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19043
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:14 am

zeke wrote:
Is sour grapes a new certification limit ?


It might be. :lol:

It's funny how Boeing can produce all manner of paper planes with mythical MTOW increases and models that even Boeing hasn't thought of and how Boeing would be able to make $40million profit on each 797 built, but Airbus will struggle to increase the fuel capacity of a plane despite having done it for numerous other models.

flipdewaf wrote:
Lol, this thread has mostly turned hilarious.


You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment! :wink2:

I'm sure it would have been different if only Qantas had made the "correct" decision. In hindsight, reading through all the previous PS threads, it was obvious what would happen if Qantas went with Airbus. After all, the 777-8 was the only possible solution to PS according to so many posters.
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.
 
checklist350
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:40 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:18 am

scbriml wrote:
zeke wrote:
Is sour grapes a new certification limit ?


It might be. :lol:

It's funny how Boeing can produce all manner of paper planes with mythical MTOW increases and models that even Boeing hasn't thought of and how Boeing would be able to make $40million profit on each 797 built, but Airbus will struggle to increase the fuel capacity of a plane despite having done it for numerous other models.

flipdewaf wrote:
Lol, this thread has mostly turned hilarious.


You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment! :wink2:

I'm sure it would have been different if only Qantas had made the "correct" decision. In hindsight, reading through all the previous PS threads, it was obvious what would happen if Qantas went with Airbus. After all, the 777-8 was the only possible solution to PS according to so many posters.


Yup adding a fuel tank is insurmountable yet the 778:
a) is still a paper plane
b) the regular version isn't even certified and is having structural issues
c) the engines aren't certified either and are having issues

It's comedy alright, I agree.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:34 am

checklist350 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
zeke wrote:
Is sour grapes a new certification limit ?


It might be. :lol:

It's funny how Boeing can produce all manner of paper planes with mythical MTOW increases and models that even Boeing hasn't thought of and how Boeing would be able to make $40million profit on each 797 built, but Airbus will struggle to increase the fuel capacity of a plane despite having done it for numerous other models.

flipdewaf wrote:
Lol, this thread has mostly turned hilarious.


You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment! :wink2:

I'm sure it would have been different if only Qantas had made the "correct" decision. In hindsight, reading through all the previous PS threads, it was obvious what would happen if Qantas went with Airbus. After all, the 777-8 was the only possible solution to PS according to so many posters.


Yup adding a fuel tank is insurmountable yet the 778:
a) is still a paper plane
b) the regular version isn't even certified and is having structural issues
c) the engines aren't certified either and are having issues

It's comedy alright, I agree.

And didn’t the interim solution in the form of the 77L require 3x act to make the mission......

I have found a leak in my roof this morning and I for one hope the usual candidates keep posting because it’s really lifting my spirits.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
VV
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:56 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Lol, this thread has mostly turned hilarious.
$100m for ACTs? Show us how you got to that figure? RJMAZ, you sour grapes have obviously started to digest and are now smelling like BS.
...



Well, $ 100 million for the development and certification of the extra fuel capacity does not seem excessively expensive.
WE do not know how much the Flight Management Computer vendor would charge for the modification.

We do not know how many engineering hours is needed for the detailed design and so on. It is not like building a rain water tank in your garden.

I think it is not sour grapes but RJMAZ was just stating the obvious.


While I agree it is not insurmountable, the additional fuel capacity was not initially designed in to the basic aircraft and hence the installation might require extra work for re-routing of existing system. I really do not know how the A350 is actually built in detail, but I do not think the additional fuel capacity is as trivial as some people here think.

I would just add that in my opinion an entry into service of the modification for the end of 2023 seems to be overly optimistic.

Perhaps Qantas will delay the Project Sunrise to 2024 or so. We need to wait only three years, it is not a big deal. So let's wait to see how it evolves.

A lot of people did not believe things until finally the reality proves it.
 
Strato2
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:05 am

VV wrote:
I would just add that in my opinion an entry into service of the modification for the end of 2023 seems to be overly optimistic.


So you think it takes Airbus over three years to put a fuel tank on an existing aircraft. At the same time you think it takes Boeing around six to seven years to design and certify a clean sheet aircraft.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:12 am

VV wrote:
It is only three years to the end of 2023. if Qantas decides to go ahead with the Project Sunrise and if it starts before the end of 2023 then I would say that my opinion was wrong.

If Qantas was as concerned about that as you are, it is at least clear why the 778X had no chance from the beginning.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Ellofiend
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:19 am

What a fantastic thread, I don't know why QF even bother having bean counters when we clearly have the most experienced and best informed right here on airliners.net! The answer is so obvious and clear as pointed out here!
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:20 am

VV wrote:
We do not know ........
..........
I would just add that in my opinion an entry into service of the modification for the end of 2023 seems to be overly optimistic.

You seem too adamant about your opinions despite not knowing a lot of things . hmmmm
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:22 am

I actually think 3 years is plenty of time to fit an ACT into an aircraft that was never designed for an ACT. This program would be small enough that Airbus could get it done within a year if they made it a company priority.

No wine making over here. I'm simply pointing out the cost is spread over so few frames. This is not like fitting an ACT to the A321 which had thousands of aircraft to recoup the initial development cost.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:26 am

VV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Lol, this thread has mostly turned hilarious.
$100m for ACTs? Show us how you got to that figure? RJMAZ, you sour grapes have obviously started to digest and are now smelling like BS.
...



Well, $ 100 million for the development and certification of the extra fuel capacity does not seem excessively expensive.
WE do not know how much the Flight Management Computer vendor would charge for the modification.

We do not know how many engineering hours is needed for the detailed design and so on. It is not like building a rain water tank in your garden.

I think it is not sour grapes but RJMAZ was just stating the obvious.


While I agree it is not insurmountable, the additional fuel capacity was not initially designed in to the basic aircraft and hence the installation might require extra work for re-routing of existing system. I really do not know how the A350 is actually built in detail, but I do not think the additional fuel capacity is as trivial as some people here think.

I would just add that in my opinion an entry into service of the modification for the end of 2023 seems to be overly optimistic.

Perhaps Qantas will delay the Project Sunrise to 2024 or so. We need to wait only three years, it is not a big deal. So let's wait to see how it evolves.

A lot of people did not believe things until finally the reality proves it.


Interesting that you did never cast any doubt about EIS when Boeing´s proposal was still in the race but on the other hand it is not surprising...
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:36 am

VV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Lol, this thread has mostly turned hilarious.
$100m for ACTs? Show us how you got to that figure? RJMAZ, you sour grapes have obviously started to digest and are now smelling like BS.
...



Well, $ 100 million for the development and certification of the extra fuel capacity does not seem excessively expensive.
WE do not know how much the Flight Management Computer vendor would charge for the modification.

But yet you’ve put a figure on it?
VV wrote:

We do not know how many engineering hours is needed for the detailed design and so on. It is not like building a rain water tank in your garden.

I think it is not sour grapes but RJMAZ was just stating the obvious.

No, it seemed obvious that the sun went round the earth. “Meme-ification” is a powerful issue for those who don’t question.
VV wrote:

While I agree it is not insurmountable, the additional fuel capacity was not initially designed in to the basic aircraft and hence the installation might require extra work for re-routing of existing system.

There are many aircraft (a lot of which have been mentioned in this thread) that we’re not designed with acts in mind but have been modified to allow their use. It is common practice, with standard solutions. It’s not an exercise in design solutions it’s an exercise in due-diligence to ensure that the standard solution is implemented and integrated correctly. Airbus and the regulatory authorities know what and how this works and have a lot of prior knowledge and seeing as QF are still stating their start date as 2023 then it would seem to fit that Airbus see very low risk in the timeline for the work required.
VV wrote:
I really do not know how the A350 is actually built in detail,

But you seem happy to assert figures that correlate with a previously established world view?
VV wrote:
but I do not think the additional fuel capacity is as trivial as some people here think.

It’s not that it’s trivial, it’s that it has low program risk.

When I build a factory the actual portal frame structure is not a trivial task, but it generally isn’t a risk for the project as it’s standard engineering processes and delivery. Bush-bash-bosh!! Is the phrase we use.
VV wrote:

I would just add that in my opinion an entry into service of the modification for the end of 2023 seems to be overly optimistic.

Any evidence?
VV wrote:

Perhaps Qantas will delay the Project Sunrise to 2024 or so.

Maybe they will, broken clocks and all that though.
VV wrote:
We need to wait only three years, it is not a big deal. So let's wait to see how it evolves.

No, let’s be sensible and use reasonable and stated assumptions backed up with suitable evidence to make reasonable guesses at what will happen.
VV wrote:
A lot of people did not believe things until finally the reality proves it.
because reality turns out to be suitably reliable source of evidence, prior to this we’ll use other sources. Believe whatever you want but if you assert something without evidence you will be rightly dismissed without evidence.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
tomcat
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:42 am

I know that we don't live all in the same timezone but I'm pretty sure that anywhere in the world, 3 years from now will be end of 2022, while end of 2023 will be 4 years from now. I'm confident that Airbus can deliver the first QF plane by early 2023.
 
VV
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:53 am

sadiqutp wrote:
VV wrote:
We do not know ........
..........
I would just add that in my opinion an entry into service of the modification for the end of 2023 seems to be overly optimistic.

You seem too adamant about your opinions despite not knowing a lot of things . hmmmm


True enough, I was also adamant about the market size of VLA (and especially A380) despite the protests of many people. Well, it happens exactly as I thought.

Indeed I do not know much about the A350, but I have just the feeling the Project Sunrise as it is proposed today cannot enter into service in 2023.

Honestly I have no fact and data to support my assertion, but Qantas might well decide either to not go ahead with the Project Sunrise as it is defined today or they might postpone the entry into service until 2024 or so for divers reasons, inclusding the availability of the aircraft.

As I said, let us wait until the end of 2023 to see what will happen on this topic.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:00 am

VV wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
VV wrote:
We do not know ........
..........
I would just add that in my opinion an entry into service of the modification for the end of 2023 seems to be overly optimistic.

You seem too adamant about your opinions despite not knowing a lot of things . hmmmm


True enough, I was also adamant about the market size of VLA (and especially A380) despite the protests of many people. Well, it happens exactly as I thought.

Indeed I do not know much about the A350, but I have just the feeling the Project Sunrise as it is proposed today cannot enter into service in 2023.

Honestly I have no fact and data to support my assertion, but Qantas might well decide either to not go ahead with the Project Sunrise as it is defined today or they might postpone the entry into service until 2024 or so for divers reasons, inclusding the availability of the aircraft.

As I said, let us wait until the end of 2023 to see what will happen on this topic.


Lol, Ok, you go wait with your feelings for 3 years and us bigger boys will have a more interesting conversation about the aircraft selection and ensuing potential technical and business challenges.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
VV
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:02 am

tomcat wrote:
I know that we don't live all in the same timezone but I'm pretty sure that anywhere in the world, 3 years from now will be end of 2022, while end of 2023 will be 4 years from now. I'm confident that Airbus can deliver the first QF plane by early 2023.


Yes, sorry for the mistake. It is indeed four years from now.

However, I stand by my opinion that the A350-1000 with all the required modifications for Project Sunrise would not be reeady for an entry into service in 2023.

Again I repeat that I do not know much about the A350, but my gut feel tells me Project Sunrise would not start its revenue service in 2023.
 
P1aneMad
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:17 am

Hell hath no fury like an ex-employee scorned!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19043
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:23 am

VV wrote:
I was also adamant about the market size of VLA (and especially A380) despite the protests of many people. Well, it happens exactly as I thought.


Not that you like to blow your own trumpet or keep mentioning it. Not at all. :sarcastic:
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.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12910
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:24 am

VV wrote:
However, I stand by my opinion that the A350-1000 with all the required modifications for Project Sunrise would not be reeady for an entry into service in 2023.


Put the existing ACT in for 175kl fuel, certify that an a minuscule MTOW raise. Done. Sit four years on hands or what is the "all the modifications"?

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
RalXWB
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:31 am

So the A350-1000 would not be ready for EIS in 2023 is the new I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program. :white:
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12910
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:39 am

scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
I was also adamant about the market size of VLA (and especially A380) despite the protests of many people. Well, it happens exactly as I thought.


Not that you like to blow your own trumpet or keep mentioning it. Not at all. :sarcastic:


I think unless he also correctly predicted the global financial crisis and the post 2003 fuel prices at time of program start it is not much to be proud about in any case.

RalXWB wrote:
So the A350-1000 would not be ready for EIS in 2023 is the new I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program. :white:


Don't underestimate the challenges involved in reusing a almost ~30 years old ACT on a new aircraft...

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Baldr
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:39 am

VV wrote:
Baldr wrote:
...
Let's see, Airbus launched the development of the A330-200 in November 1995. First flight was on August 13 1997, with certification and first customer deliveries in April 1998 -- that's 2 1/2 years from launch to EIS for a major derivative of the A330-300.

Hence, any reasonably competent observer of this industry would conclude that installing an extra fuel tank in the A350-1000 and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes, is a much smaller undertaking than what the development of the A330-200 was.

Yet you manage, unsurprisingly, to vastly exaggerate the technical and certification issues involved with integrating the extra fuel tank into the A350-1000. Who would have thought that.....

Of course, in your "famous Bermuda Triangle" you have the A350 boxed in by the 787-10, 777-9 and the terminally ill 777-8. According to you, "the threat" from the 787-10, 777-9 and 777-9 to the A350-1000 is more than just a sandwich strategy, but rather a “treble trouble” strategy -- LOL!
....


Let's say this.

The proof is in the pudding. It is only three years to the end of 2023. if Qantas decides to go ahead with the Project Sunrise and if it starts before the end of 2023 then I would say that my opinion was wrong.

At this point, I am not convinced the A350-1000 with the required modifications mentioned by Qantas to make it viable for Project Sunrise would be available by the end of 2023.


As far as the 787-10, 777-9 and 777-8 are concerned, they are indeed in the same market space of the A350. As of the end of November 2019, the total orders for each aircraft is the following.
  • 787-10: 193 orders of which 45 have been delivered. 787-9: 868 orders of which 505 have been delivered
  • 777-9/777-8: 309 orders - still in development

Obviously things can change in the future, especially with the possible economic slowdown. Even then the biggest aircraft currently flying today (A380, 747) started to go to retirement already.
Let us not forget the 777-9 will be the biggest aircraft in production when the A380 production will stop in 2021.

And yes, according to my opinion, the A350 is still surrounded by other options. Three aircraft around the A350 have each a specificity. The 787-10 is good from cost on per seat basis perspective despite the fact it may not be able to fly routes longer than 6,700 nm with maximum passenger load or if the departure airport is difficult. The 777-9 will be the biggest aircraft when it enters into service. Finally the 777-8 has an outstanding payload-range capability.

The 777-8 is probably in a niche market where a high payload requirement for normal routes is required or for those airlines that have a hub in difficult airport like Johannesburg, Mexico or Bogota.

Emirates that still retains 25 orders for the 777-8 seems to be willing to keep them for their long haul operations. In general, it is likely several current 777-200LR operators would opt for 777-8 in the future. Current 777-200LR operators are: Emirates, Air India, Delta, Emirates, Ethiopian and Qatar. It is a small market, but it would simply allow the 777-9/-8 to put a foot in the door.


This is getting ever more ridiculous.

The proof is in the pudding. It is only three years to the end of 2023


Actually, it's four years to the end of 2023. So, you believe that you'll only be wrong if Qantas is commencing Project Sunrise at the end of 2023?

At this point, I am not convinced the A350-1000 with the required modifications mentioned by Qantas to make it viable for Project Sunrise would be available by the end of 2023.


Of course, you're not convinced. In your world the government-supported Airbus is incompetent and can't seem to get anything right, while Boeing always come out on top due their intelligent and shrewd planning that tricks Airbus into doing stupid mistakes, such as launching the A380.

So, now it's going to take four years to get the A350-1000 ready for the Sunrise missions -- which BTW is what Boeing originally thought they needed for the 787, from programme launch to EIS; .... four years, which according to you, is questionable whether if that's even possible.

Now, for the first time in 50 years, Airbus has no major ongoing aircraft development -- the A321XLR not included. So according to you, Airbus apparently won't have the resources available for a minor development of the A350-1000 -- go figure.

As far as the 787-10, 777-9 and 777-8 are concerned, they are indeed in the same market space of the A350. As of the end of November 2019, the total orders for each aircraft is the following.


The 787-10 is closer in size to the A350-900 than to the A350-1000. Due to its subpar payload/range capability, airlines won't be able to fill all of the 40 LD-3 positions in the cargo hold of the 787-10, on routes exceeding 4,000 nm. In contrast, the 319 metric tonnes MTOW version of the A350-1000 can fly 6,000 nm with a full load in the cargo hold (i.e. 44 LD-3 positions). Hence, the 787-10 and the A350-1000 are two aircraft with very different performance characteristics.

The 777-9 appears to be losing orders fast, while the 777-8 appears to be quenched by the A350-1000 before its even been fully defined -- not a good place to be for the 777X programme. In fact, the 777X is set to go down in history as a major strategic mistake by Boeing. They appear to have believed in their own hubris and thought that they could easily continue the success of the 777-300ER with the 777-9 -- ignoring, apparently, that the 77W had no real competition in its market segment, for more than a decade. Of course, underestimating the A350 hasn't helped matters either.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am

VV wrote:
tomcat wrote:
I know that we don't live all in the same timezone but I'm pretty sure that anywhere in the world, 3 years from now will be end of 2022, while end of 2023 will be 4 years from now. I'm confident that Airbus can deliver the first QF plane by early 2023.


Yes, sorry for the mistake. It is indeed four years from now.

However, I stand by my opinion that the A350-1000 with all the required modifications for Project Sunrise would not be reeady for an entry into service in 2023.

Again I repeat that I do not know much about the A350, but my gut feel tells me Project Sunrise would not start its revenue service in 2023.


I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Qantas said they wanted to start PS flights in the first half of 2023. If SYD-LHR is the first it most likely start at the start of the Northern Summer season so we will see a delivery schedule similar to the 787-9's which means the first delivery will be in late 2022 and SYD-LHR would start once QF has about 4 frames in the fleet as they did with PER-LHR

Also can you stop repetitive comments, apart from sounding like a parrot its not adding anything constructive to the thread
Forum Moderator
 
Baldr
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:14 pm

VV wrote:
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.

If you find an article on that then please post it here.

There are several differences between A340 and A350.

Some things of the system might have to be re-routed and/or modified.

Wait! I found it.

https://www.flightglobal.com/faa-forces ... 48.article

Although the -500 shares much commonality with the larger A340-600, it is unique in having a 19,930 litre (5,260USgal) rear centre tank (RCT). According to Airbus, this is a permanently installed fuel tank located in the lower fuselage outside the pressurised area, aft of the centre landing gear bay.

As originally designed, the integral fuel tank used the fuselage skin as its outer wall, but Flight International has learned the FAA was concerned about the crashworthiness of this configuration.


I am not sure if the A350-1000 was initially designed with extra fuel capacity in mind. If there was no provision for it then it would take some time to design and do it.


The A340-500 required a much larger increase in fuel capacity over that of the A340-600 than what is required for the A350-1000. That's why Airbus developed an integrated rear centre tank for the A340-500. Interestingly, the rear centre tank on the A321XLR is patterned after the rear centre tank on the A340-500.

Nice try, though.

-

Now, Airbus could be looking at the option of putting fuel (i.e. trim tank) in the horizontal tail plane (HTP) of the A350-1000URL. In contrast to the HTP of the A350, the A306/A313/A330/A340/A380 were all designed using a “wet” trim tank integrated within the horizontal tail planes.

Interestingly, the surface area of the vertical tail planes of the A333/A343, A350 and A346, is 73 m2, 82 m2 and 93 m2, respectively. The span of the respective HTPs is 19 metres, 19 metres and 21.5 metres, respectively. The fuel capacity of the trim tank on the A332 and A345/A346 is 4890 kg (6113 litres) and 6563 kg (8204 litres), respectively. I would estimate, therefore, that the usable fuel volume for a “wet” trim tank integrated within the horizontal tail plane of an A350-1000ULR would be around 5500 kg (6,900 litres); or about the same fuel volume as one auxiliary fuel tank in the cargo hold. Hence, the fuel capacity of an A350-1000ULR could be increased from 165,000 litres (132,470 kg), which is the max fuel volume on the A350-900URL, to around 172,000 litres on an A350-1000ULR -- and this could be done without having to put an auxiliary fuel tank in the forward position of the aft lower hold.
 
olle
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Anyone knows whats is the limit of 350 mtow increases?

Why did not Boeing see this increases in the cards when defining the 778?

If Boeing do not have any cards to play will the 777x be considered the new 340NG?
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:39 pm

olle wrote:
Why did not Boeing see this increases in the cards when defining the 778?

If Boeing do not have any cards to play will the 777x be considered the new 340NG?

IIRC, the limiting factor is the landing gear - it cannot be upgraded further without a new design. A new design will increase development costs and take more time.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:40 pm

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.....
Sentence from Belgian PM at press conference forbidden due to new rules
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:48 pm

Olddog wrote:
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.....


QF wants to fly nonstop to JFK so yes it would need to be approved by the FAA
Forum Moderator
 
Olddog
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:00 pm

Yes but I was thinking the first months were to be only between Australia and Europe.
Sentence from Belgian PM at press conference forbidden due to new rules
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
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.

RJMAZ wrote:
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.

RJMAZ wrote:
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.

RJMAZ wrote:
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.

flipdewaf wrote:
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.

VV wrote:
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.

flipdewaf wrote:
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/

Olddog wrote:
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

qf789 wrote:
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
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4111
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:25 pm

VV wrote:
Baldr wrote:
...
. . . .


Let's say this.

The proof is in the pudding. It is only three years to the end of 2023. if Qantas decides to go ahead with the Project Sunrise and if it starts before the end of 2023 then I would say that my opinion was wrong.

It is only three years to the end of 2023
You may want to revisit your calculations and spreadsheets here . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:30 pm

tigerotor77w wrote:
I'll admit, I'm still bitter over the situation.

I've posted multiple times before asking what role exactly the 777X family plays, and specifically the 777-8.

If the 777-8 isn't the more economical solution for this much flight time, are there any routes for which it is more economically viable?


I think the 777-8 will just quietly disappear. It is no match for the far lighter A350-1000. The claim that any weight deficiencies of the 777-8 would be compensated by the more modern engines, forgets, that yes the GE9x will be more advanced, but hardly a next generation. The Trent XWB doing better than expected has produced a moving target.

The needed extra fuel has two solutions, adding an ACT or a fixed tank like in the A321XLR.

I assume it will be one or two ACT in the form factor of a LD6 (double LD3) already used on the A340. It would be a simple solution and with a capacity of 44 LD3, the A350-1000 would not be bothered by losing 2 or 4 of them. One ACT (LD6 sized) brings about 7200 l more fuel.

I would assume certification of an ACT for the A350-1000 would be done inside a year. If the solution favors a fixed or extended center tank, it could take a few years.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:43 pm

PW100 wrote:
It is only three years to the end of 2023
You may want to revisit your calculations and spreadsheets here . . .


To be fair I think they would want at least 3 aircraft delivered before attempting a ULH route, and would need to operate the type for a while for training pilots, cab8n crew, and mechanics as well as to gain CASA EDTO approval for the type. That could easily be a 3-6 months prior to the launch of the new route.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:42 pm

VV wrote:
Yes, sorry for the mistake. It is indeed four years from now.

However, I stand by my opinion that the A350-1000 with all the required modifications for Project Sunrise would not be reeady for an entry into service in 2023.


WAIT! You just got shown that your entire “three years” premise is completely wrong, and that there is an entire extra year in the schedule, and yet you simply double down, shrug, ignore it, and claim it STILL isn’t enough time. Dude! Seriously, your cognitive dissonance is astounding. It’s sad really, that you are so married to your ideas that you refuse to adapt. SMDH!
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:30 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I think the 777-8 will just quietly disappear. It is no match for the far lighter A350-1000.


This has been my fear since the 777X family was announced. :-/

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