according to the BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50850242 , Rolls is working on an ultra fan engine with a fan case diameter or 3.7 meters.. is there any current aircraft than can handle that?

The good thing I guess ia that the engine is going to be proofed and rendered serviceable before a plane is put into production.

Just a bit over 12 feet in diameter.

Boeing 777-9 holds a pair of 3.9m-diameter GE9X engines.

Trent XWB is 3m. The A350s need ~.4m / 15" extra ground clearance, can this engine be fit to the A350neo ? To the naked eye, it looks possible and Airbus usually keep room for future in their design.

Interesting, would the the A350 need LG adjustments? Or could they just move it closer to the wing?

Re-engining a current aircraft...hopefully they'd do it well. I know it's often said that engine tech is what holds back development of new aircraft. But is it necessary to think of improving the A350 or 787 already? The other side of it is I guess GE, RR, et al. continue to advance capabilities as in other industries (e.g. auto).

Here's how it will look.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... -test-bed/

Seems too big for the A350neo concept...

With the issues that the MAX is having, and future big twins getting ever larger fans. Is it not possible to ditch the pylon altogether, and cut-away the wing and make these huge engines an integral part of the wing itself?

Possibly with the exhaust split above and below the surface.

A common engine mounting could make engine swaps easier, and make it possible to change manufacturer, because the engine would be a standard size, the front fan diameter could vary slightly by OEM.

Time for the quads to come into play.. A380neo anyone?

uta999 wrote:

With the issues that the MAX is having, and future big twins getting ever larger fans. Is it not possible to ditch the pylon altogether, and cut-away the wing and make these huge engines an integral part of the wing itself?

Possibly with the exhaust split above and below the surface.

A common engine mounting could make engine swaps easier, and make it possible to change manufacturer, because the engine would be a standard size, the front fan diameter could vary slightly by OEM.

However, if the engine is an integral part of the wing, don't you lose the safety aspect of the engine making a clean break from the wing in the event of a catastrophic failure..?

uta999 wrote:

With the issues that the MAX is having, and future big twins getting ever larger fans. Is it not possible to ditch the pylon altogether, and cut-away the wing and make these huge engines an integral part of the wing itself?

Possibly with the exhaust split above and below the surface.

A common engine mounting could make engine swaps easier, and make it possible to change manufacturer, because the engine would be a standard size, the front fan diameter could vary slightly by OEM.

You mean like the de Havilland Comet series?

Is this indicating some 777X competitor from Airbus is coming? A big twin after the A380? Sounds possible.

sabby wrote:

Trent XWB is 3m. The A350s need ~.4m / 15" extra ground clearance, can this engine be fit to the A350neo ? To the naked eye, it looks possible and Airbus usually keep room for future in their design.

They can just move the engine a little forward if it doesn't fit.

Antaras wrote:

Boeing 777-9 holds a pair of 3.9m-diameter GE9X engines.

According to this the GE9X has a fan diameter of 3.35 meters:

https://www.ge.com/reports/video-ge-sta ... et-engine/

Although the BBC article talks about fan cylinder diameter so I'm not quite sure whats what.

I think studies on a bigger, more capable A350 variants have been communicated over the years. https://www.executivetraveller.com/airb ... -a350-2000

New wing pylons, landings gear mods, wing strenghtening etc. would be required. It seems Airbus is not in a hurry..


https://youtu.be/yJ2Hm-3qZHc?t=317

Jetty wrote:

sabby wrote:

Trent XWB is 3m. The A350s need ~.4m / 15" extra ground clearance, can this engine be fit to the A350neo ? To the naked eye, it looks possible and Airbus usually keep room for future in their design.

They can just move the engine a little forward if it doesn't fit.

as long as there are no drag exploding interference they can move the engine quite a bit up before they have to move forward....

keesje wrote:

wing strenghtening etc. would be required.

is the Ultrafan lighter?

best regards
Thomas

Airbus has already hired staff/engineers in Madrid and Toulouse in Nov-2018.for the A350 program including for a re-engine Neo A350 version. They are prolonged time in discussion with RR and are interested in the RR-Ultrafan, Airbus is the driving force for the RR Ultrafan program to re-engine the A350. The RR Ultrafan has been constructed to re-engine the A350, so pretty sure, the Ultrafan and the A350 Neo will fit.
Neither Airbus nor RR are stupid. Original source is behind a paywall.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/airbus-reveals-plans-for-all-new-narrow-body-re-engined-a350

Also GE has offered now the GEnx-1 in Nov-2019 for the A350 neo.
Original source and again paywall.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ge-talks-airbus-over-potential-a350neo

uta999 wrote:

With the issues that the MAX is having, and future big twins getting ever larger fans. Is it not possible to ditch the pylon altogether, and cut-away the wing and make these huge engines an integral part of the wing itself?

Possibly with the exhaust split above and below the surface.

A common engine mounting could make engine swaps easier, and make it possible to change manufacturer, because the engine would be a standard size, the front fan diameter could vary slightly by OEM.

Engine needs to be able to do a clean break before disintegrating itself and the wing.

If 3.7m fan case diameter is the nacelle diameter then it is slightly smaller than the GE9X.

If the bypass ratio is 14:1 then with that diameter the thrust level would be perfect for the current A350NEO.

This is 100% for the A350NEO.

A 3.7m nacelle will fit under the A350 without any problems.

Checklist787 wrote:

Seems too big for the A350neo concept...

Maybe not.
Design an Intake and Cowl ala 737 CFM (with the flat bottom), tuck the engine closer to the wing, maybe extend the landing gear a bit; et voila.

RJMAZ wrote:

If 3.7m fan case diameter is the nacelle diameter then it is slightly smaller than the GE9X.

If the bypass ratio is 14:1 then with that diameter the thrust level would be perfect for the current A350NEO.

This is 100% for the A350NEO.

A 3.7m nacelle will fit under the A350 without any problems.

Currently, the A350 has 3-meter diameter engines, and 0.7 meter clearance under the engine cowls. increasing the engine diameter to 3.7 meter will require some planning. Not impossible, but not completely straightforward.

tommy1808 wrote:

keesje wrote:

wing strenghtening etc. would be required.

is the Ultrafan lighter?

best regards
Thomas

Usually bigger engines are heavier. This one probably has a lighter carbon fan instead of XWB titanium one.
That also lightend up the cowling (required to absorb a seperation). Not sure how things add up.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/rolls-royceplc/12972812894

uta999 wrote:

With the issues that the MAX is having, and future big twins getting ever larger fans. Is it not possible to ditch the pylon altogether, and cut-away the wing and make these huge engines an integral part of the wing itself?

The MAX was only an issue because it was an old pre-FBW aircraft that had been jury-rigged with a half-thought out system. You could pull it off a 787 or A350. It's "only" a matter of coding the FBW software to take the aerodynamic issues into consideration. But either way, between the existing space under the engine and the clearance between engine and wing, I don't think they would have to go that far.

Checklist787 wrote:

Seems too big for the A350neo concept...

I'd suggest that you take a look at the Airbus Airport and Maintenance Planning and the Boeing Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning.

When looking at the documents in the links below, you can see that the A350-900/-1000 don't have a lower fuselage ground clearance at Maximum Ramp Weight (MRW) than the 77L/77W/777-9. Also, the distance between the engine centre-line and the fuselage centre-line on the A350-900/-1000 is 10.5 metres. On the 77L/77W that distance is 9.61 metres and on the 777X the distance between the engine centre-line and the fuselage centre-line is 10.64 metres. Hence, it's important to note that the further out the engine is mounted, the greater the engine ground clearance.

In FIGURE-2-3-0-991-010-A01 in the A/C A350-900/-1000 document, you can see that the ground distance for the retracted Slat-1 inboard is minimum 4.63 metres (i.e. Slat-1 is just outboard of the engine pylons). If Airbus were to put an UltraFan engine on the A350 and if it would be mounted as high as the GE9X engine is hung on the 777X wing, the ground distance from the top of the nacelle would have a ground distance of around 5 metres and a nacelle diameter of around 170 inches. If the Ultrafan engine would be hung as high on the A350 wing as the LEAP-1B engine is mounted with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX, the nacelle diameter could be increased to 185 inches, while maintaining an engine nacelle ground clearance of 70 centimetres (27.6").

The Trent XWB-84/-97 engines on the A350-900/-1000 have a fan diameter of 118 inches and a nacelle diameter of 155 inches. Thus, a nacelle diameter of around 185 inches would allow for a fan diameter of 150 inches -- and that's with the current nacelle set-up with integrated thrust reversers etc.

Now, if the UltraFan engine is outfitted with a variable pitch fan system, the thrust reverser can be eliminated and it would thus be possible to design a much slimmer nacelle. In fact, a 185 inch-diameter nacelle for an UltraFan outfitted with a varible pitch fan system would allow for a fan diameter of 170 inches.

Finally, Airbus is already working with Rolls Royce on UltraFan nacelle and engine/aircraft integration architectures.
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/21207-airbus-rolls-royce-sign-ultrafan-engine-agreement

-

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support-services/airport-operations-and-technical-data/aircraft-characteristics.html

A/C A350-900/-1000: https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A350-900-1000.pdf

-

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page

777-200LR/-300ER/777F: https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf
777X (777-9): https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/777-9_RevA.pdf

+

737 MAX: https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/737MAX_RevE.pdf

RJMAZ wrote:

If 3.7m fan case diameter is the nacelle diameter then it is slightly smaller than the GE9X.

If the bypass ratio is 14:1 then with that diameter the thrust level would be perfect for the current A350NEO.

This is 100% for the A350NEO.

A 3.7m nacelle will fit under the A350 without any problems.

As I indicated in my previous comment, a 185 inch-diameter (4.7 m) nacelle would fit under the A350 wing if the engine is hung as high as the LEAP-1B is hung with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX.

In fact, the GE9X has a a 14.5 foot wide nacelle -- 174 inches, or 4.44 metres.

https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/19086/GEs-Massive-GE9X-Engine-Is-Ready-To-FlyAt-Last.aspx

Baldr wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

If 3.7m fan case diameter is the nacelle diameter then it is slightly smaller than the GE9X.

If the bypass ratio is 14:1 then with that diameter the thrust level would be perfect for the current A350NEO.

This is 100% for the A350NEO.

A 3.7m nacelle will fit under the A350 without any problems.

As I indicated in my previous comment, a 185 inch-diameter (4.7 m) nacelle would fit under the A350 wing if the engine is hung as high as the LEAP-1B is hung with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX.

What I understand is that it will require an MCAS system also ?

Checklist787 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

If 3.7m fan case diameter is the nacelle diameter then it is slightly smaller than the GE9X.

If the bypass ratio is 14:1 then with that diameter the thrust level would be perfect for the current A350NEO.

This is 100% for the A350NEO.

A 3.7m nacelle will fit under the A350 without any problems.

As I indicated in my previous comment, a 185 inch-diameter (4.7 m) nacelle would fit under the A350 wing if the engine is hung as high as the LEAP-1B is hung with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX.


What I understand is that it will require an MCAS system also ?

Nope, is already FBW. No need for a pinch of FBW for the edges of the envelope.

Best regards
Thomas

Perhaps, Airbus is coming out with the twin-engined A380X with a folding wing. haha very much like the A340 ended up as an A330 success.

tommy1808 wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

As I indicated in my previous comment, a 185 inch-diameter (4.7 m) nacelle would fit under the A350 wing if the engine is hung as high as the LEAP-1B is hung with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX.


What I understand is that it will require an MCAS system also ?

Nope, is already FBW. No need for a pinch of FBW for the edges of the envelope.

Best regards
Thomas

Very well, But a question comes to my mind ...

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

Checklist787 wrote:

What I understand is that it will require an MCAS system also ?

I think a missile collision avoidance system.(MCAS) would only be needed if flying into Iran.

Checklist787 wrote:

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

My guess would be 2 hrs or around 950 nm.

Checklist787 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

If 3.7m fan case diameter is the nacelle diameter then it is slightly smaller than the GE9X.

If the bypass ratio is 14:1 then with that diameter the thrust level would be perfect for the current A350NEO.

This is 100% for the A350NEO.

A 3.7m nacelle will fit under the A350 without any problems.

As I indicated in my previous comment, a 185 inch-diameter (4.7 m) nacelle would fit under the A350 wing if the engine is hung as high as the LEAP-1B is hung with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX.

What I understand is that it will require an MCAS system also ?

Not even the GE9X engine mounting on the fully FBW 777X aircraft require any sort of MCAS system -- and the GE9X's fan diameter is 134.5" while its nacelle diameter is 174". Why then would an UltraFan powered A350 require a MCAS system with equally -- or larger -- engines than what the 777X has got.

boeingbus wrote:

Perhaps, Airbus is coming out with the twin-engined A380X with a folding wing. haha very much like the A340 ended up as an A330 success.

The +400 seats market (VLA's) is suffering. No one would come to invest in this segment, it's suicide. There is already the 777-X and would have been very risky to come there...

I think it is obviously for the A350neo. But I am pretty sure it would fit under a 777-10X wing as well? Would GE let it?

Jeebus people. I am pretty sure the B777/X does not require MCAS as it is already fully FBW. It may need revision to existing programming but not a new program. Whether the former means new handling and therefore new training and certification is the greater question at hand.

zeke wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

My guess would be 2 hrs or around 950 nm.

Does anyone else agree with this?

Checklist787 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

As I indicated in my previous comment, a 185 inch-diameter (4.7 m) nacelle would fit under the A350 wing if the engine is hung as high as the LEAP-1B is hung with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX.


What I understand is that it will require an MCAS system also ?

Nope, is already FBW. No need for a pinch of FBW for the edges of the envelope.

Best regards
Thomas

Very well, But a question comes to my mind ...

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

The A388 needs 168k lbf per wing. UltraFan is supposed to be up to 100K lbf. Still 68k lbf short. Unless you want to still use four of them for an A389 or A38K.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, is already FBW. No need for a pinch of FBW for the edges of the envelope.

Best regards
Thomas

Very well, But a question comes to my mind ...

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

The A388 needs 168k lbf per wing. UltraFan is supposed to be up to 100K lbf. Still 68k lbf short. Unless you want to still use four of them for an A389 or A38K.

If 1 engine fails at V1, on a A380, it still has 210k lbs left to clear the fence at MTOW.

If one of 2 engines on a twin engined variant would fail, that also should be available (even more; asymetrical).

Checklist787 wrote:

boeingbus wrote:

Perhaps, Airbus is coming out with the twin-engined A380X with a folding wing. haha very much like the A340 ended up as an A330 success.

The +400 seats market (VLA's) is suffering. No one would come to invest in this segment, it's suicide. There is already the 777-X and would have been very risky to come there...

Sarcasm: "a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain"...

Checklist787 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

As I indicated in my previous comment, a 185 inch-diameter (4.7 m) nacelle would fit under the A350 wing if the engine is hung as high as the LEAP-1B is hung with respect to the wing on the 737 MAX.


What I understand is that it will require an MCAS system also ?

Nope, is already FBW. No need for a pinch of FBW for the edges of the envelope.

Best regards
Thomas

Very well, But a question comes to my mind ...

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

Well, the UltraFan engine should have a 10 percent lower Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) than what is currently the most efficient turbofan engine -- the Trent XWB engine on the A350.

10 percent lower TSFC means roughly that you can fly 10 percent longer, or using 10 percent less fuel per flight. However, more range is not what's really needed for the A350-900.

10 percent lower TSFC means, however, that a 5.7 metre stretched A350-2000X -- i.e. stretched by 9 fuselage frames: 5 frames forward of the wing, 4 frames aft of the wing -- would not have a higher trip fuel consumption than the current A350-1000. The 79.5 metre long A350-2000X would have about the same cabin floor area as that of the 777-9, but it would have a slightly higher capacity due to the longer cabin and less wasted space in the premium cabins -- which together with a 10+ percent lower trip fuel consumption than the 777-9 would render the 777-9 totally noncompetitive (i.e. significantly lower CASM for the A350-2000X).

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, is already FBW. No need for a pinch of FBW for the edges of the envelope.

Best regards
Thomas

Very well, But a question comes to my mind ...

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

The A388 needs 168k lbf per wing. UltraFan is supposed to be up to 100K lbf. Still 68k lbf short. Unless you want to still use four of them for an A389 or A38K.

Actually, the power gear box on the UltraFan should be good for up to 120,000 pounds of thrust.

High-power testing of the PGB, which involves more than 500 lines of instrumentation, has been under way since May 2017 on attitude ("tipping and turning") and power rigs at R-R's Dahlewitz plant in Germany. Running started in 2016 and now has begun on the fifth—of a planned seven or eight—test articles, with a sixth one "on build." Some 250 hours' testing had been completed by late last month as endurance and reliability running continues.

The PGB involves an outside ring gear, five internal "planet" wheels running around a central "sun" gear. In 2017, the company demonstrated a maximum power output of 70,000 to 80,000 pounds of thrust, although the gearbox is thought to be good for up to around 120,000 pounds of thrust—"whatever airframe manufacturers may require," said Curnock.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2019-06-20/rolls-royce-lines-greener-future-ultrafan

Baldr wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, is already FBW. No need for a pinch of FBW for the edges of the envelope.

Best regards
Thomas

Very well, But a question comes to my mind ...

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

Well, the UltraFan engine should have a 10 percent lower Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) than what is currently the most efficient turbofan engine -- the Trent XWB engine on the A350.

10 percent lower TSFC means roughly that you can fly 10 percent longer, or using 10 percent less fuel per flight. However, more range is not what's really needed for the A350-900.

10 percent lower TSFC means, however, that a 5.7 metre stretched A350-2000X -- i.e. stretched by 9 fuselage frames: 5 frames forward of the wing, 4 frames aft of the wing -- would not have a higher trip fuel consumption than the current A350-1000. The 79.5 metre long A350-2000 would have about the same cabin floor area as that of the 777-9, but it would have a slightly higher capacity due to the longer cabin and less wasted space in the premium cabins -- which together with a 10+ percent lower trip fuel consumption than the 777-9 would render the 777-9 totally noncompetitive (i.e. significantly lower CASM for the A350-2000X).

If a bigger, heavier A350-2000 would gain 10-15t extra empty weight over the A350-1000, it would still weigh ~20t less empty than a 777-9..
That's what I always wondered about in the 777X business case. Aircraft: OEW=costs. https://seekingalpha.com/article/276143 ... 350-part-1

keesje wrote:

Baldr wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Very well, But a question comes to my mind ...

How further would fly the A350-900 neo concept with these new engines?

Well, the UltraFan engine should have a 10 percent lower Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) than what is currently the most efficient turbofan engine -- the Trent XWB engine on the A350.

10 percent lower TSFC means roughly that you can fly 10 percent longer, or using 10 percent less fuel per flight. However, more range is not what's really needed for the A350-900.

10 percent lower TSFC means, however, that a 5.7 metre stretched A350-2000X -- i.e. stretched by 9 fuselage frames: 5 frames forward of the wing, 4 frames aft of the wing -- would not have a higher trip fuel consumption than the current A350-1000. The 79.5 metre long A350-2000 would have about the same cabin floor area as that of the 777-9, but it would have a slightly higher capacity due to the longer cabin and less wasted space in the premium cabins -- which together with a 10+ percent lower trip fuel consumption than the 777-9 would render the 777-9 totally noncompetitive (i.e. significantly lower CASM for the A350-2000X).

If a bigger, heavier A350-2000 would gain 10-15t extra empty weight over the A350-1000, it would still weigh ~20t less empty than a 777-9..
That's what I always wondered about in the 777X business case. Aircraft: OEW=costs. https://seekingalpha.com/article/276143 ... 350-part-1

Well, the 777X business case is just another example of Boeing seriously underestimating the growth capability of an Airbus product.

Baldr wrote:

keesje wrote:

Baldr wrote:

Well, the UltraFan engine should have a 10 percent lower Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) than what is currently the most efficient turbofan engine -- the Trent XWB engine on the A350.

10 percent lower TSFC means roughly that you can fly 10 percent longer, or using 10 percent less fuel per flight. However, more range is not what's really needed for the A350-900.

10 percent lower TSFC means, however, that a 5.7 metre stretched A350-2000X -- i.e. stretched by 9 fuselage frames: 5 frames forward of the wing, 4 frames aft of the wing -- would not have a higher trip fuel consumption than the current A350-1000. The 79.5 metre long A350-2000 would have about the same cabin floor area as that of the 777-9, but it would have a slightly higher capacity due to the longer cabin and less wasted space in the premium cabins -- which together with a 10+ percent lower trip fuel consumption than the 777-9 would render the 777-9 totally noncompetitive (i.e. significantly lower CASM for the A350-2000X).

If a bigger, heavier A350-2000 would gain 10-15t extra empty weight over the A350-1000, it would still weigh ~20t less empty than a 777-9..
That's what I always wondered about in the 777X business case. Aircraft: OEW=costs. https://seekingalpha.com/article/276143 ... 350-part-1

Well, the 777X business case is just another example of Boeing seriously underestimating the growth capability of an Airbus product.

guys calm down ...

You went so far and quickly.

An A350-900neo flying 17.000 km is useless.

Venturing to want to do something other than a 777-X (A350-2000X concept) is also a suicide as I explained above it would be a VLA market.

Quite frankly I would rather see something very similar for a 787-10ERX concept.
No doubt it will serve the market better

Right?

The high bypass turbofan to put perspective, would offer a comfortable 5 abreast single aisle seating platform similar the the width of an A220 fuselage,

if Rolls Royce ever was to consider a stretch. (;

Checklist787 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

keesje wrote:

If a bigger, heavier A350-2000 would gain 10-15t extra empty weight over the A350-1000, it would still weigh ~20t less empty than a 777-9..
That's what I always wondered about in the 777X business case. Aircraft: OEW=costs. https://seekingalpha.com/article/276143 ... 350-part-1

Well, the 777X business case is just another example of Boeing seriously underestimating the growth capability of an Airbus product.

guys calm down ...

You went so far and quickly.

An A350-900neo flying 17.000 km is useless.

Venturing to want to do something other than a 777-X (A350-2000X concept) is also a suicide as I explained above it would be a VLA market.

Quite frankly I would rather see something very similar for a 787-10ERX concept.
No doubt it will serve the market better

Right?

Airbus could in the mid-term have four A350neo family members:

A350-800neo: Re-defined A358; identical length to that of the A350-1000 and MLG with four-wheel bogies; identical 280 metric tonnes MTOW to that of the A350-900.
A350-900neo: MTOW of 280 tonnes
A350-1000neo MTOW of 319-322 tonnes
A350-2000neo: 5.7 m stretch, or by 9 fuselage frames, over that of the A350-1000. MTOW of 325 tonnes -- NB: the A350-1000, in contrast, is stretched by 7 metres (i.e. 11 fuselage frames) over that of the A350-900.

Checklist787 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

keesje wrote:

If a bigger, heavier A350-2000 would gain 10-15t extra empty weight over the A350-1000, it would still weigh ~20t less empty than a 777-9..
That's what I always wondered about in the 777X business case. Aircraft: OEW=costs. https://seekingalpha.com/article/276143 ... 350-part-1

Well, the 777X business case is just another example of Boeing seriously underestimating the growth capability of an Airbus product.

guys calm down ...

You went so far and quickly.

An A350-900neo flying 17.000 km is useless.

Why is it useless? That's slightly above the Qantas Project Sunrise; so, it would appear there is a demand for it (albeit small)

Checklist787 wrote:

Venturing to want to do something other than a 777-X (A350-2000X concept) is also a suicide as I explained above it would be a VLA market.

Quite frankly I would rather see something very similar for a 787-10ERX concept.
No doubt it will serve the market better

Right?

So, the VLA market is a Boeing-exclusive one? Now that the 747 pax is gone, the crown has to be worn by the 777-9?
If Airbus can do a better product than Boeing, why deny the airlines the opportunity to buy it?

RJMAZ wrote:

If 3.7m fan case diameter is the nacelle diameter then it is slightly smaller than the GE9X.

If the bypass ratio is 14:1 then with that diameter the thrust level would be perfect for the current A350NEO.

This is 100% for the A350NEO.

A 3.7m nacelle will fit under the A350 without any problems.

But less so under a 787. Many years back I already said, that the 787 one day will be prone to the 737 suffering: not enough ground clearance.

Baldr wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

Well, the 777X business case is just another example of Boeing seriously underestimating the growth capability of an Airbus product.

guys calm down ...

You went so far and quickly.

An A350-900neo flying 17.000 km is useless.

Venturing to want to do something other than a 777-X (A350-2000X concept) is also a suicide as I explained above it would be a VLA market.

Quite frankly I would rather see something very similar for a 787-10ERX concept.
No doubt it will serve the market better

Right?

Airbus could in the mid-term have four A350neo family members:

A350-800neo: Re-defined A358; identical length to that of the A350-1000 and MLG with four-wheel bogies; identical 280 metric tonnes MTOW to that of the A350-900.
A350-900neo: MTOW of 280 tonnes
A350-1000neo MTOW of 319-322 tonnes
A350-2000neo: 5.7 m stretch, or by 9 fuselage frames, over that of the A350-1000. MTOW of 325 tonnes -- NB: the A350-1000, in contrast, is stretched by 7 metres (i.e. 11 fuselage frames) over that of the A350-900.

you have imagination ...

Similar engines for
787 New family

Greenliner

787-10ERX: 15,200km / 2 class 323 seats.

787-11X : 2 class 350 seats 13,000km (good for Asian market) same MTOW as the 787-10 Dreamliner

787-9ERX : same MTOW as the 787-8 Dreamliner 2 class 280 seats, 15.200 km range

787-8LRX : 2 class 242- seats 16,000 km.

787-FX (Freighter, same base as 787-8LRX) 9.500 km range

Realy better for the market

WayexTDI wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

Well, the 777X business case is just another example of Boeing seriously underestimating the growth capability of an Airbus product.

guys calm down ...

You went so far and quickly.

An A350-900neo flying 17.000 km is useless.

Why is it useless? That's slightly above the Qantas Project Sunrise; so, it would appear there is a demand for it (albeit small)

Checklist787 wrote:

Venturing to want to do something other than a 777-X (A350-2000X concept) is also a suicide as I explained above it would be a VLA market.

Quite frankly I would rather see something very similar for a 787-10ERX concept.
No doubt it will serve the market better

Right?

So, the VLA market is a Boeing-exclusive one? Now that the 747 pax is gone, the crown has to be worn by the 777-9?
If Airbus can do a better product than Boeing, why deny the airlines the opportunity to buy it?

Reread yourself.
You have given yourself the answer!