Opus99 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I found an interesting link on predicted fuel burn for a whole bunch of widebodies (but no A380). It helps to talk to numbers:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

Very interesting indeed. I was expecting the A350-1000 to have a much higher performance over the 777-300ER

The A350-1000 burns 16.4% less fuel and should carry a few more people. The 9 across might or might not improve yield. What is surprising is how it is barely cheaper per passenger than the A350-900.

I have a spreadsheet to compare and the 777-9 is good enough to eliminate the A350-1000 business case and push A380s into early retirement. The A359/787-10/779 will push the 777-300ER into retirement or to freight conversion.

What is interesting is the A332 and A359 burn basically the same fuel with the A359 carrying not only more passengers , but about 10 tons more lower deck cargo! It also shows the 787-10 makes the A333 obsolete (9% less fuel while carrying 8 tons more lower deck cargo and 63 more pax).

I'm not saying old aircraft will disappear, they will fade to lower utilization as they have forever.

I will note the missions selected favor the 787-10. I could pick missions that favor the A359 more.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I found an interesting link on predicted fuel burn for a whole bunch of widebodies (but no A380). It helps to talk to numbers:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

Very interesting indeed. I was expecting the A350-1000 to have a much higher performance over the 777-300ER

The A350-1000 burns 16.4% less fuel and should carry a few more people. The 9 across might or might not improve yield. What is surprising is how it is barely cheaper per passenger than the A350-900.

I have a spreadsheet to compare and the 777-9 is good enough to eliminate the A350-1000 business case and push A380s into early retirement. The A359/787-10/779 will push the 777-300ER into retirement or to freight conversion.

What is interesting is the A332 and A359 burn basically the same fuel with the A359 carrying not only more passengers , but about 10 tons more lower deck cargo! It also shows the 787-10 makes the A333 obsolete (9% less fuel while carrying 8 tons more lower deck cargo and 63 more pax).

I'm not saying old aircraft will disappear, they will fade to lower utilization as they have forever.

I will note the missions selected favor the 787-10. I could pick missions that favor the A359 more.

Lightsaber

Agreed; the A35K should be much better, usually a stretch gets significant better numbers. Apparently Airbus didn't do is homework properly or it has build future improvements into the frame which causes it to lag right now. Sales have been stale for the A35k and these number seem to support the rational behind it...

lightsaber wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I found an interesting link on predicted fuel burn for a whole bunch of widebodies (but no A380). It helps to talk to numbers:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

Very interesting indeed. I was expecting the A350-1000 to have a much higher performance over the 777-300ER

The A350-1000 burns 16.4% less fuel and should carry a few more people. The 9 across might or might not improve yield. What is surprising is how it is barely cheaper per passenger than the A350-900.

I have a spreadsheet to compare and the 777-9 is good enough to eliminate the A350-1000 business case and push A380s into early retirement. The A359/787-10/779 will push the 777-300ER into retirement or to freight conversion.

What is interesting is the A332 and A359 burn basically the same fuel with the A359 carrying not only more passengers , but about 10 tons more lower deck cargo! It also shows the 787-10 makes the A333 obsolete (9% less fuel while carrying 8 tons more lower deck cargo and 63 more pax).

I'm not saying old aircraft will disappear, they will fade to lower utilization as they have forever.

I will note the missions selected favor the 787-10. I could pick missions that favor the A359 more.

Lightsaber

I think this addresses the pre-covid "why do airlines buy both A359 and 779" question quite well.

It also suggests that post-covid Airbus may really need RR's UltraFan to make headway against the 779.

lightsaber wrote:

The A350-1000 burns 16.4% less fuel and should carry a few more people.

Well, there's one funny thing.

Am I missing something, or is 35J carrying more (paid) cargo, than 773ER?

How's comparing ASM worth anything if one plane carries (more) cargo, yet less seats?

Makes me smell tricks to prove a assumed thesis, especially when you compare 78J against 327 seat 1000 version, loaded with 5000pounds cargo more per average. That's a plenty of those percent more, not included in final fuel ASM.

Just a remark here.

Cheers,
Adam

Revelation wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Very interesting indeed. I was expecting the A350-1000 to have a much higher performance over the 777-300ER

The A350-1000 burns 16.4% less fuel and should carry a few more people. The 9 across might or might not improve yield. What is surprising is how it is barely cheaper per passenger than the A350-900.

I have a spreadsheet to compare and the 777-9 is good enough to eliminate the A350-1000 business case and push A380s into early retirement. The A359/787-10/779 will push the 777-300ER into retirement or to freight conversion.

What is interesting is the A332 and A359 burn basically the same fuel with the A359 carrying not only more passengers , but about 10 tons more lower deck cargo! It also shows the 787-10 makes the A333 obsolete (9% less fuel while carrying 8 tons more lower deck cargo and 63 more pax).

I'm not saying old aircraft will disappear, they will fade to lower utilization as they have forever.

I will note the missions selected favor the 787-10. I could pick missions that favor the A359 more.

Lightsaber

I think this addresses the pre-covid "why do airlines buy both A359 and 779" question quite well.

It also suggests that post-covid Airbus may really need RR's UltraFan to make headway against the 779.

I see GE PiP'ing the GEnX for the 787 with GE9x tech which mean RR must counter. The big cost of these PiPs will be the new factories as a CMC foundary is a very custom shop.

The Ultrafan requires a brutally expensive test period and multiple new factory due to details in the fan (this could be repurposed space, but expensive new custom machines).

To put in perspective, Pratt had to buy new custom friction welders that were the heaviest machine tools the company had ever ordered to economically produce the new Blisk compressors in volume. I'm an AvGeek, I wish I could find links with why these 115 ton beasts are worth every penny of their cost. (Yes, GE and RR not only have machines, it looks like MTI supplied basically the same machines to all 3 engine vendors, Pratt received tooling after GE...).

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pr ... AP&PC=U316

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pr ... AP&PC=U316

The Ultrafan will require new, heavy, and incredibly expensive tooling.

I see T1000 & Txwb PiPs first. RR doesn't have the money to develop the Ultrafan for years.

Lightsaber

Late addition:

It cost GE $1.5 billion to develop CMCs, $200 million to build a factory:

https://www.madeinalabama.com/2017/02/ge-aviation-cmc/

Rumors are the factory has a 30% yield rate. That is fine for the current production rates and initial 777x. I would expect a slow increase in yield until that eureka moment when yield shoots up and makes this new tech far more common. If you read the link, the LEAP CMC content is 1 kg per engine.

I cannot find the weight if CMCs per GE9x, but we know in the combustor and turbine:
https://www.aircosmosinternational.com/ ... -ge9x-1746

Basic math, factory produces 20,000 kg with 30% yield is 6,000 kg/yr. If LEAP production was all out, that would need 2,000kg/yr ir a third of today's production capacity. That 'rations' initial GE9x to 33kg per engine at 60 777x/yr or about double what I guess (honestly, just my best guess) the weight if CMCs in each GE9x.

So next step us more CMCs in the GEnX, but if about 12kg/engine and the LEAP goes to 8kg/engine, GE will need more CMC factories soon. I read somewhere 3 were planned. RR (and Pratt) must respond.

Oh, to put in perspective, I estimate this one CMC factory costs $200 to $250 million usd per year to opperate.

RR will have to delay the Ultrafan and they have publicly acknowledged that as well as outsourcing the spare engine profit center!

https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/ ... 18.article

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I found an interesting link on predicted fuel burn for a whole bunch of widebodies (but no A380). It helps to talk to numbers:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

787-9 with an OEW of 121,000 kilograms and an A350-900 with 139,000 kilograms? I agree it helps to look at numbers, but not the ones in that article.

majano wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I found an interesting link on predicted fuel burn for a whole bunch of widebodies (but no A380). It helps to talk to numbers:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

787-9 with an OEW of 121,000 kilograms and an A350-900 with 139,000 kilograms? I agree it helps to look at numbers, but not the ones in that article.

From my link:

The dry operating weights (DOWs) or
operating empty weights (OEWs) used in
this analysis are based on a sampling of
such weights used in service. Although
they should fit within a realistic in-service
range, OEW will vary per individual
aircraft as well as by average fleet for a
specific operator. These weights are
influenced by a number of factors,
including cabin configuration, engine
variant, crew numbers and associated
belongings, catering and cabin service
items. Also, manufacturers often find
ways to reduce OEWs for later
production line numbers of a particular
aircraft variant, and it is quite common
for early production aircraft to have
higher OEWs than later-built examples.

I'll take a sampling with the shown caviats. If you gave a better source, please share. I've found the site to be good if you read the details. The 789 weight is 1.5 to 2 tons heavier than what I would use and the A359 2 to 3 tons heavier, so there doesn't seem to be any intentional bias, some airlines have heavy seats. Since aircraft gain weight in service (patches, doublers, food in carpet and seats), these seem like reasonable numbers all in all.

So I'll discuss using this link until I find an unbiased better link and for purposes of RR, compare their engine competitiveness.

Lightsaber

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Pratt & Whitney may show some interest in Rolls Royce. However, I think that P&W has some of their own issues to take care of and they also may be buy into RR when they are in more dire straits and the price is low enough to make an offer to acquire or merge with Rolls Royce. The British are going to need to watch for front companies, that may be controlled by the Chinese, trying to acquire a controlling interest in RR just so they can gain priority information for their own use. Then the British government would need to bail RR out and possibly nationalize RR again.

I don't think Pratt and Whgitney will actually want to buy Rolls Royce, However? United Technologies might very well want Rolls Royce as a stand alone Business where they can add to the quality of their business by having Pratt add to their Design. That Rolls took some risky moves? Is a given. But? Were the risks on proven technologies. or speculations? Rolls has and Has had many good designs in the past including the contributions made to the V2500 which was and is a very successful engine program. I do think the Rolls Royce 3 spool engine designs are long in the tooth as compared to the GE and PWA designs and they have been working on their GTF design which may well be a game changer if they were to put it into a Large diameter engine. So with PWA working the smaller GTF and Rolls working the Larger GTF? That could very well be a Formidable Design for years to come. IF they are in fact in dire straights ( which I seriously Doubt.) Their only flop as it stands is on the 787 platform. and? That can and will be fixed,

ltbewr wrote:

Will the current UK government give them a bailout ? Too many jobs are at stake for politicians to ignore and could do it easier as not part of the EU anymore so no worries of pesky anti-subsidy rules.

Almost certainly not its not in the nature of Tory government’s.however they will need to seek a partnership to protect the Nuclear defence operations (transfer to BAe ?)

Demerger of ITP Aero and possibly sale of Marine to BAe seem logical

strfyr51 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Pratt & Whitney may show some interest in Rolls Royce. However, I think that P&W has some of their own issues to take care of and they also may be buy into RR when they are in more dire straits and the price is low enough to make an offer to acquire or merge with Rolls Royce. The British are going to need to watch for front companies, that may be controlled by the Chinese, trying to acquire a controlling interest in RR just so they can gain priority information for their own use. Then the British government would need to bail RR out and possibly nationalize RR again.

I don't think Pratt and Whgitney will actually want to buy Rolls Royce, However? United Technologies might very well want Rolls Royce as a stand alone Business where they can add to the quality of their business by having Pratt add to their Design. That Rolls took some risky moves? Is a given. But? Were the risks on proven technologies. or speculations? Rolls has and Has had many good designs in the past including the contributions made to the V2500 which was and is a very successful engine program. I do think the Rolls Royce 3 spool engine designs are long in the tooth as compared to the GE and PWA designs and they have been working on their GTF design which may well be a game changer if they were to put it into a Large diameter engine. So with PWA working the smaller GTF and Rolls working the Larger GTF? That could very well be a Formidable Design for years to come. IF they are in fact in dire straights ( which I seriously Doubt.) Their only flop as it stands is on the 787 platform. and? That can and will be fixed,

I do not think Raytheon Technologies (Pratt's parent company) can afford RR.

I also agree that the Chinese want RR tech. Let's not forget the Mig-15/17/19/21 were all powered by one line of engines developed from technology stolen from RR that they (RR) considered obsolete.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

If you gave a better source, please share.

How about own, iconical thread?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387
DOWs cited were 127t vs 135t. I don't think going from DOW to OEW descreases ones weight by six tons, and increasing other by four. The math just doesn't add up.

Sorry, the source seems not credible, no matter how hard they try.

Cheers,
Adam

lightsaber wrote:

majano wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I found an interesting link on predicted fuel burn for a whole bunch of widebodies (but no A380). It helps to talk to numbers:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

787-9 with an OEW of 121,000 kilograms and an A350-900 with 139,000 kilograms? I agree it helps to look at numbers, but not the ones in that article.

From my link:

The dry operating weights (DOWs) or
operating empty weights (OEWs) used in
this analysis are based on a sampling of
such weights used in service. Although
they should fit within a realistic in-service
range, OEW will vary per individual
aircraft as well as by average fleet for a
specific operator. These weights are
influenced by a number of factors,
including cabin configuration, engine
variant, crew numbers and associated
belongings, catering and cabin service
items. Also, manufacturers often find
ways to reduce OEWs for later
production line numbers of a particular
aircraft variant, and it is quite common
for early production aircraft to have
higher OEWs than later-built examples.

I'll take a sampling with the shown caviats. If you gave a better source, please share. I've found the site to be good if you read the details. The 789 weight is 1.5 to 2 tons heavier than what I would use and the A359 2 to 3 tons heavier, so there doesn't seem to be any intentional bias, some airlines have heavy seats. Since aircraft gain weight in service (patches, doublers, food in carpet and seats), these seem like reasonable numbers all in all.

So I'll discuss using this link until I find an unbiased better link and for purposes of RR, compare their engine competitiveness.

Lightsaber

I read the details. I was not suggesting it's biased, but that it was inaccurate on the two examples I gave on which we have seen plenty of real world examples here on A-net.

lightsaber wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Pratt & Whitney may show some interest in Rolls Royce. However, I think that P&W has some of their own issues to take care of and they also may be buy into RR when they are in more dire straits and the price is low enough to make an offer to acquire or merge with Rolls Royce. The British are going to need to watch for front companies, that may be controlled by the Chinese, trying to acquire a controlling interest in RR just so they can gain priority information for their own use. Then the British government would need to bail RR out and possibly nationalize RR again.

I don't think Pratt and Whgitney will actually want to buy Rolls Royce, However? United Technologies might very well want Rolls Royce as a stand alone Business where they can add to the quality of their business by having Pratt add to their Design. That Rolls took some risky moves? Is a given. But? Were the risks on proven technologies. or speculations? Rolls has and Has had many good designs in the past including the contributions made to the V2500 which was and is a very successful engine program. I do think the Rolls Royce 3 spool engine designs are long in the tooth as compared to the GE and PWA designs and they have been working on their GTF design which may well be a game changer if they were to put it into a Large diameter engine. So with PWA working the smaller GTF and Rolls working the Larger GTF? That could very well be a Formidable Design for years to come. IF they are in fact in dire straights ( which I seriously Doubt.) Their only flop as it stands is on the 787 platform. and? That can and will be fixed,

I do not think Raytheon Technologies (Pratt's parent company) can afford RR.

I also agree that the Chinese want RR tech. Let's not forget the Mig-15/17/19/21 were all powered by one line of engines developed from technology stolen from RR that they (RR) considered obsolete.

Lightsaber

why would Ratheon Not want to invest in Rolls? They don't have to out and out Buy Rolls. But they could invest in them with a strategic investment that might not only keep them solvent but put them on a solid path to prosperity and in return reap a huge benefir from not only them but the British Government since it is HIGHLY unlikely the Chinese might be allowed to invest in them as they might risk their ties to the US market. And say what you will? British aerospace as a whole has more ties in the USA than in China. as just as many British engineers are trained here than anywhere else including England.

strfyr51 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

I don't think Pratt and Whgitney will actually want to buy Rolls Royce, However? United Technologies might very well want Rolls Royce as a stand alone Business where they can add to the quality of their business by having Pratt add to their Design. That Rolls took some risky moves? Is a given. But? Were the risks on proven technologies. or speculations? Rolls has and Has had many good designs in the past including the contributions made to the V2500 which was and is a very successful engine program. I do think the Rolls Royce 3 spool engine designs are long in the tooth as compared to the GE and PWA designs and they have been working on their GTF design which may well be a game changer if they were to put it into a Large diameter engine. So with PWA working the smaller GTF and Rolls working the Larger GTF? That could very well be a Formidable Design for years to come. IF they are in fact in dire straights ( which I seriously Doubt.) Their only flop as it stands is on the 787 platform. and? That can and will be fixed,

I do not think Raytheon Technologies (Pratt's parent company) can afford RR.

I also agree that the Chinese want RR tech. Let's not forget the Mig-15/17/19/21 were all powered by one line of engines developed from technology stolen from RR that they (RR) considered obsolete.

Lightsaber

why would Ratheon Not want to invest in Rolls? They don't have to out and out Buy Rolls. But they could invest in them with a strategic investment that might not only keep them solvent but put them on a solid path to prosperity and in return reap a huge benefir from not only them but the British Government since it is HIGHLY unlikely the Chinese might be allowed to invest in them as they might risk their ties to the US market. And say what you will? British aerospace as a whole has more ties in the USA than in China. as just as many British engineers are trained here than anywhere else including England.

I didn't say want, I said afford.

I agree with your points, except the business case for Raytheon Technologies. Due to the spending spree Raytheon has been on, they borrowed too much to buy RR.

Lightsaber

gloom wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

If you gave a better source, please share.

How about own, iconical thread?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387
DOWs cited were 127t vs 135t. I don't think going from DOW to OEW descreases ones weight by six tons, and increasing other by four. The math just doesn't add up.

Sorry, the source seems not credible, no matter how hard they try.

Cheers,
Adam

And an A.net thread is? If you don’t have an actual source then please. Since the maths doesn’t add up please re calculate it for us

There are some really weird seat counts in that article - it lists the A332 as 248 Dual Class Seats - Wiki has it at 246 - (36J @ 60 in + 210Y @ 32 in), and the article has the 788 at only 220 - which does not make a lot of sense as it's only 2M shorter and I think it has less wasted space in the Nose and Tail and it's 9W vs 8W.

Wiki has the 788 at 242: 24J @85" + 218Y @32" - at the same seat pitch in the front the 788 should hold more. Yet it is burning about 20% less than the A332 but carrying about 20-25 more passengers in weight in Cargo.

Therefore it is about 20% more efficient.

Opus99 wrote:

gloom wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

If you gave a better source, please share.

How about own, iconical thread?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387
DOWs cited were 127t vs 135t. I don't think going from DOW to OEW descreases ones weight by six tons, and increasing other by four. The math just doesn't add up.

Sorry, the source seems not credible, no matter how hard they try.

Cheers,
Adam

And an A.net thread is? If you don’t have an actual source then please. Since the maths doesn’t add up please re calculate it for us

Look, you are free to believe that the 787-10 will carry more passengers and more cargo than the A350-900 on the LHR-SCL route (as an example), but don't expect everybody else to do the same.

majano wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

gloom wrote:

How about own, iconical thread?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387
DOWs cited were 127t vs 135t. I don't think going from DOW to OEW descreases ones weight by six tons, and increasing other by four. The math just doesn't add up.

Sorry, the source seems not credible, no matter how hard they try.

Cheers,
Adam

And an A.net thread is? If you don’t have an actual source then please. Since the maths doesn’t add up please re calculate it for us

Look, you are free to believe that the 787-10 will carry more passengers and more cargo than the A350-900 on the LHR-SCL route (as an example), but don't expect everybody else to do the same.

I was more so focusing on general fuel burn numbers. I believe the -10 has an edge on shorter routes. Short long haul to medium long haul. But again as you can tell my focus is more on the 1000 and the 300ER

lightsaber wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I do not think Raytheon Technologies (Pratt's parent company) can afford RR.

I also agree that the Chinese want RR tech. Let's not forget the Mig-15/17/19/21 were all powered by one line of engines developed from technology stolen from RR that they (RR) considered obsolete.

Lightsaber

why would Ratheon Not want to invest in Rolls? They don't have to out and out Buy Rolls. But they could invest in them with a strategic investment that might not only keep them solvent but put them on a solid path to prosperity and in return reap a huge benefir from not only them but the British Government since it is HIGHLY unlikely the Chinese might be allowed to invest in them as they might risk their ties to the US market. And say what you will? British aerospace as a whole has more ties in the USA than in China. as just as many British engineers are trained here than anywhere else including England.

I didn't say want, I said afford.

I agree with your points, except the business case for Raytheon Technologies. Due to the spending spree Raytheon has been on, they borrowed too much to buy RR.

Lightsaber

Affording is not a matter of money, Affording is a matter of strategic financing where OPM is as good as Cash (opm=Other people's money) You can never count out the big defence who Might NOT want to see Rolls Royce in Dire Straights. and that includes GE as well. . Hell!! We've gone to WAR for less reason than this! so?
it only maters as to what the company needs to stay afloat and is there a good enough reason to NOT want to see them Go under? I say yes it Is. What say you?

gloom wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

If you gave a better source, please share.

How about own, iconical thread?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387
DOWs cited were 127t vs 135t. I don't think going from DOW to OEW descreases ones weight by six tons, and increasing other by four. The math just doesn't add up.

Sorry, the source seems not credible, no matter how hard they try.

Cheers,
Adam

That thread uses Zekes weight for one airline. In that thread there was acknowledgement of using early (heavy 789) numbers. The 127t DOW for a 789 is incredibly heavy. On fact, not a little, but so heavy as to be implausible except for first builds that were known to be overweight.

I've found the source to be pretty good when compared to numbers I had under NDA for prior articles.

I always double check my numbers versus sales and public information. The A359 gains 2,488 kg just due to a pair of Txwb from T1000 (7277kg vs. 6033kg).
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2010.pdf

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... %20XWB.pdf

If Airbus was able to add that much wing and body for only 5.8 tons. The A359 wing is 64.75m span and 442m^2 vs. 60.12m span and 377m^2. That alone should be about 4.5 to 5.5 tons of wing.

Also, that thread has numbers way below any other numbers I could find for the A350 and numbers 6 tons heavier for the 787-9.

So for RR, the A359 is very competitive for longer missions. The 787-10 is incredibly competitive for missions within its shorter range. Note this is a 12 t lighter MTOW A359. An A359 selected to compete with the 787-10, not the A359 MTOW most airlines buy.

We know from sales on the 787 and missions (UA and ANZ going GE and QF's 789 missions, AI currently flying BOM-EWR on the 788) that longer missions favor GE on the 787.

The SQ A359LR shows the A359 doing well at range. As noted, that link compared mostly on shorter missions that favor the 787-10. An airframe that competes on empty weight (the A359 has more efficient engines, but heavier and a wing optimized for range).

I'm all for discussion on efficiency. But sales tend to reflect aircraft performance. Feel free to compare the last few years sales. Yes, Airbus was hurt by backlog (as Boeing was prior to 2017). Since the overall backlogs are dang close (about 5% difference), I have trouble believing numbers that do not reflect sales.

So I believe the link is a bit heavy for both, perhaps the A359 should get as much as a 2 ton reduction,. But if the 789 weights 127t vs. 135t and the 787-10 weights 6 tons more than the 789... I'm quite certain a 133t 787-10 would not have sold one example.

Now when I look at the longest missions, I cannot believe people aren't looking at the details!!! A590,839lb MTOW for the A359?!?. That is the original promise 268t. Don't get overly excited. The current MTOW is 280t (errr... EIS was increased to 269t, but I digress). Also the 777-200ER is low by 43.5 tons... They were picking variables for shorter missions!

So of course the A350 was handicapped, but only at range, I saw that oversight and ignored the longest missions as another 12,000 kg of capacity would totally change those conclusions for LHR-SCL/EZE.

So a good link with minir caviats: set MTOW right for long missions and correct the A350 by a small reduction in empty weight (I think 2t is accurate IMHO after review). It is still a better starting point for discussion.

It puts RR's prospects in perspective. The 787 comparisons seem accurate (RR to GE). 777-300ER to A350-1000 is accurate. 787-10/-9 to A359, give the A359 2 tons and a small fuel difference and for LHR-SCL/EZE, yes the numbers are off by 14 tons. No need to discuss unless comparing to the absolute first A359 to enter service.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I found an interesting link on predicted fuel burn for a whole bunch of widebodies (but no A380). It helps to talk to numbers:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

The A350-1000 has higher DOW per seat than the 900? I assume that is if they calculate with 327 versus 318 seats?

Many planes in different engine configurations and on top of it different seating configurations?
One should vary only one factor at a time.

strfyr51 wrote:

Rolls has and Has had many good designs in the past ...
Their only flop as it stands is on the 787 platform. and? That can and will be fixed,

I rather agree.
8 billion £ net debt is a lot, but then it was only 3 billion £ half a year ago. These are exceptional times and if the solution to the Trent 1000 is really found, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

lightsaber wrote:

I'll take a sampling with the shown caviats. If you gave a better source, please share. I've found the site to be good if you read the details. The 789 weight is 1.5 to 2 tons heavier than what I would use and the A359 2 to 3 tons heavier, so there doesn't seem to be any intentional bias, some airlines have heavy seats. Since aircraft gain weight in service (patches, doublers, food in carpet and seats), these seem like reasonable numbers all in all.

So I'll discuss using this link until I find an unbiased better link and for purposes of RR, compare their engine competitiveness.

If that's what you want....
Boeing themselves have listed the OEW of the 787-9 as 129 tonnes in the past in the ACAP. Curiously the latest version avoids OEW, but the exact same number that was in the earlier ACAPs appears here..
i.e.284,000lb (128.85 tonnes)

https://wileysaviation.com/how-much-does-a-787-weigh/

And that's OEW.
DOW will be comfortably north of 130 tonnes

So where the article gets 267 800lb (121 tonnes) from is a mystery.

Whilst I haven't linked directly from Boeing, I have saved versions of the ACAP that show EXACTLY the same numbers.
I don't know if Boeing themselves class as "unbiased" - I'll leave that to you.

You really think that an A350-900 is 20 tonnes heavier than a 787-9?
And that a 787-10 is in reality lighter than Boeing themselves say the 787-9 is?

The article comes across as little more than a sales brochure for the 787-10
The market shows the 787-9 and A350-900 as the widebodys of choice today - considerably at odds with the data and conclusions in the article

Sorry. But I smell BS

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I'll take a sampling with the shown caviats. If you gave a better source, please share. I've found the site to be good if you read the details. The 789 weight is 1.5 to 2 tons heavier than what I would use and the A359 2 to 3 tons heavier, so there doesn't seem to be any intentional bias, some airlines have heavy seats. Since aircraft gain weight in service (patches, doublers, food in carpet and seats), these seem like reasonable numbers all in all.

So I'll discuss using this link until I find an unbiased better link and for purposes of RR, compare their engine competitiveness.

If that's what you want....
Boeing themselves have listed the OEW of the 787-9 as 129 tonnes in the past in the ACAP. Curiously the latest version avoids OEW, but the exact same number that was in the earlier ACAPs appears here..
i.e.284,000lb (128.85 tonnes)

https://wileysaviation.com/how-much-does-a-787-weigh/

And that's OEW.
DOW will be comfortably north of 130 tonnes

So where the article gets 267 800lb (121 tonnes) from is a mystery.

Whilst I haven't linked directly from Boeing, I have saved versions of the ACAP that show EXACTLY the same numbers.
I don't know if Boeing themselves class as "unbiased" - I'll leave that to you.

You really think that an A350-900 is 20 tonnes heavier than a 787-9?
And that a 787-10 is in reality lighter than Boeing themselves say the 787-9 is?

The article comes across as little more than a sales brochure for the 787-10
The market shows the 787-9 and A350-900 as the widebodys of choice today - considerably at odds with the data and conclusions in the article

Sorry. But I smell BS

Rgds

It’s possible that the -9 might at a point have been 20 tonnes lighter. In STCs latest interview that’s why they cancelled the 70 A350s they had on order. The jet was overweight from what they had agreed. He says the 2019 order was proof that Airbus is only now getting close to the numbers they agreed. I don’t know what that number was.

Also does Airbus provide their own DOW numbers, been trying to look for it

The weight delta I have seen for the 789 to a359 is 7-8t depending on certain factors. It was NEVER above that. Both air frames have gotten lighter and continue to get lighter. I don't know what EK was originally promised but in terms of fuel burn the a359 came in better than guarantee and closer to nominals than the 787 did. Performance has never been an issue for either.

xwb565 wrote:

The weight delta I have seen for the 789 to a359 is 7-8t depending on certain factors. It was NEVER above that. Both air frames have gotten lighter and continue to get lighter. I don't know what EK was originally promised but in terms of fuel burn the a359 came in better than guarantee and closer to nominals than the 787 did. Performance has never been an issue for either.

Wiki is showing as high as 14. I don’t want to use that as a source but I can’t find Airbus figures. Wiki says a “typical” weight is 314 and weight can vary from 299 to 320

Opus99 wrote:

It’s possible that the -9 might at a point have been 20 tonnes lighter.

It certainly is if you declare it to be 10t lighter than BOEING says it is .....
We need to get back to a reality conversation at some point .....

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It’s possible that the -9 might at a point have been 20 tonnes lighter.

It certainly is if you declare it to be 10t lighter than BOEING says it is .....
We need to get back to a reality conversation at some point .....

Rgds

LOOL fair enough

As usual there are lots of posts with different DOW numbers for our favorite widebodies.

While looking at this article lightsaber found:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

I'm thinking the RR Trent XWB97 engine just isn't good enough?

(In addition to the numbers for the A350-1000 probably is for one of the first frames coming of the production line).

astuteman wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It’s possible that the -9 might at a point have been 20 tonnes lighter.

It certainly is if you declare it to be 10t lighter than BOEING says it is .....
We need to get back to a reality conversation at some point .....

Rgds

Agree. They're silly numbers plucked out from ?

127-129t empty weights for us. 2 class Y heavy will get you down to 125-126t at most.

121t empty on the 789 is impossible.

reidar76 wrote:

As usual there are lots of posts with different DOW numbers for our favorite widebodies.

While looking at this article lightsaber found:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

I'm thinking the RR Trent XWB97 engine just isn't good enough?

(In addition to the numbers for the A350-1000 probably is for one of the first frames coming of the production line).

With all respect the numbers in that article are plain wrong. The trip fuel delta between the 77w and the a35k is 20-22% depending on trip length, cruise conditions etc. The a35k has only marginally higher fuel burn than the a359 but carries a lot lot more for a lot further.

xwb565 wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

As usual there are lots of posts with different DOW numbers for our favorite widebodies.

While looking at this article lightsaber found:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

I'm thinking the RR Trent XWB97 engine just isn't good enough?

(In addition to the numbers for the A350-1000 probably is for one of the first frames coming of the production line).

With all respect the numbers in that article are plain wrong. The trip fuel delta between the 77w and the a35k is 20-22% depending on trip length, cruise conditions etc. The a35k has only marginally higher fuel burn than the a359 but carries a lot lot more for a lot further.

I am yet to see the numbers that back this claim of anything higher 18%. I saw something of 6.3 tonnes per hour or so on BA. The 77W isn’t it something like 7.5/7.6 tonnes per hour or so. 20-22% That’s almost 787 improvement over the 777-200ER. The article certainly has its issues. But this 20-22% I don’t know how a jet with that kind of fuel burn can sell so poorly. So for example WW says the 77W burns 24% down from the 747 and the 350 comes down to 38%. So what we are telling me is that the 350 brings the fuel savings that the 777-300ER brought over the 747? Come on.

These are facts- same sector length(15.5hrs for 77w 15.25 a35k), similar payload- 6.9/hr for a35k and 8.6/hr for 77w. And this despite the a35k not getting clearance for appropriate flight levels during the initial part.

xwb565 wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

As usual there are lots of posts with different DOW numbers for our favorite widebodies.

While looking at this article lightsaber found:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

I'm thinking the RR Trent XWB97 engine just isn't good enough?

(In addition to the numbers for the A350-1000 probably is for one of the first frames coming of the production line).

With all respect the numbers in that article are plain wrong. The trip fuel delta between the 77w and the a35k is 20-22% depending on trip length, cruise conditions etc. The a35k has only marginally higher fuel burn than the a359 but carries a lot lot more for a lot further.

This is on RR, but it effects competitiveness.

Airlines haven't bought the A35K as it isn't saving much over the 777-300ER. 777-309ER26,095 gallons vs. A35K 22,266 for the missions. I keep seeing dismissal of the article, but the only faults:
1. Uses low MTOW fir 777-209ER, A359, and A35K.
2. Uses about 2t high empty weight for the A350 (both), which would impact efficiency about 1%.

If planes or engines are as good. Only on a.net do I see claims the A350-1000 burns 20% less than the 777-300ER. If that were the case, EK would have bought the type, the 779 would have sold zero, and the 787-10 wouldn't have sold.

The Txwb is a good engine that justifies the 1,244kg of weight per engine over the T1000 (higher pressure ratio thanks to 2 turbine stages powering the booster compressor) as well as higher bypass ratio.

But back to RR, they are really only selling on the A350, so it is very important on how competitive that airframe is. The A330NEO has some sales, but with rumors AirAsiaX will downsize to 21 aircraft, the production is too high. So RR should see if they can recover on the 787 via a PiP and this will benefit the A330NEO sales campaigns.

We are enthusiasts who want our favorites to succeed. RR has almost stopped selling on the 787 and reliability doesn't explain ANZ jumping ship, they needed range

The assertions on 787 performance (with GEnX) would make PER-LHR impossible, yet Qantas flies 236 with cargo:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton ... 7e2cd8289d

Or UA flying 787-10 SFO-PEK:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417469

If you cannot accept that link is just a little off and using low MTOW as it is trying to do the most economical variants in the 787-10 space, so be it. But overall, it is matching observed real world performance (except low A350 MTOW, clearly noted and current A350 are a little lighter).

If you have a better link, please post it. I am always looking for better public links.

But as to RR, what do you suggest? Right now A350s are piling up at Airbus as the production rate is too high. Long haul will take time to recover. The T1000 might bankrupt the company as the first fix failed.

I'm going over to the other RR thread on fixes as I missed a good link on them.

Lightsaber

xwb565 wrote:

These are facts- same sector length(15.5hrs for 77w 15.25 a35k), similar payload- 6.9/hr for a35k and 8.6/hr for 77w. And this despite the a35k not getting clearance for appropriate flight levels during the initial part.

Well, I guess it is a slightly smaller aircraft with a new generation engine over the 777-300er. But I am also assuming on longer distances the difference increases? because from what BA are saying, it does not seem to bringing in 20% improvement on their routes.

lightsaber wrote:

xwb565 wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

As usual there are lots of posts with different DOW numbers for our favorite widebodies.

While looking at this article lightsaber found:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sampl ... TOPS_A.pdf

I'm thinking the RR Trent XWB97 engine just isn't good enough?

(In addition to the numbers for the A350-1000 probably is for one of the first frames coming of the production line).

With all respect the numbers in that article are plain wrong. The trip fuel delta between the 77w and the a35k is 20-22% depending on trip length, cruise conditions etc. The a35k has only marginally higher fuel burn than the a359 but carries a lot lot more for a lot further.

This is on RR, but it effects competitiveness.

Airlines haven't bought the A35K as it isn't saving much over the 777-300ER. 777-309ER26,095 gallons vs. A35K 22,266 for the missions. I keep seeing dismissal of the article, but the only faults:
1. Uses low MTOW fir 777-209ER, A359, and A35K.
2. Uses about 2t high empty weight for the A350 (both), which would impact efficiency about 1%.

If planes or engines are as good. Only on a.net do I see claims the A350-1000 burns 20% less than the 777-300ER. If that were the case, EK would have bought the type, the 779 would have sold zero, and the 787-10 wouldn't have sold.

The Txwb is a good engine that justifies the 1,244kg of weight per engine over the T1000 (higher pressure ratio thanks to 2 turbine stages powering the booster compressor) as well as higher bypass ratio.

But back to RR, they are really only selling on the A350, so it is very important on how competitive that airframe is. The A330NEO has some sales, but with rumors AirAsiaX will downsize to 21 aircraft, the production is too high. So RR should see if they can recover on the 787 via a PiP and this will benefit the A330NEO sales campaigns.

We are enthusiasts who want our favorites to succeed. RR has almost stopped selling on the 787 and reliability doesn't explain ANZ jumping ship, they needed range

The assertions on 787 performance (with GEnX) would make PER-LHR impossible, yet Qantas flies 236 with cargo:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton ... 7e2cd8289d

Or UA flying 787-10 SFO-PEK:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417469

If you cannot accept that link is just a little off and using low MTOW as it is trying to do the most economical variants in the 787-10 space, so be it. But overall, it is matching observed real world performance (except low A350 MTOW, clearly noted and current A350 are a little lighter).

If you have a better link, please post it. I am always looking for better public links.

But as to RR, what do you suggest? Right now A350s are piling up at Airbus as the production rate is too high. Long haul will take time to recover. The T1000 might bankrupt the company as the first fix failed.

I'm going over to the other RR thread on fixes as I missed a good link on them.

Lightsaber

Worst part is EK actually bought the type and cancelled the entire order.

UPDATE: lets not also forget United cancelled their 1000s completely in 2017 and then did a top up of 4 777-300ERs two years later after already having 18 300ERs.

Opus99 wrote:

Also does Airbus provide their own DOW numbers, been trying to look for it

Not really, but sometimes we get lucky to see a photo.


It is quite difficult to read for grain, but this particular flight seems to say:
GW 146180KG
FOB 18100KG

Someone would need to elaborate on that, as I'm not 350 driver, but could this indicate OEW at 128t? Or something else?

Cheers,
Adam

Lightsaber those numbers are just wrong and you referring to them repeatedly makes no sense. Zeke has a table up on the ge engine certification thread which literally lays out the performance figures as they are. The real world data is consistently 20% or better for the a35k vs 77w. The aircraft in fact performs better than promised. That article you quote is just unfounded data to be honest. Real world data-a35k on a 15hr 45min flight with 42t payload the fuel burn is 6.9/hr. The 77w for a similar profile is 8.6-7t per hour.

xwb565 wrote:

Lightsaber those numbers are just wrong and you referring to them repeatedly makes no sense. Zeke has a table up on the ge engine certification thread which literally lays out the performance figures as they are. The real world data is consistently 20% or better for the a35k vs 77w. The aircraft in fact performs better than promised. That article you quote is just unfounded data to be honest. Real world data-a35k on a 15hr 45min flight with 42t payload the fuel burn is 6.9/hr. The 77w for a similar profile is 8.6-7t per hour.

Yeah Zekes data is consistent. Is there any other one. The other one I have is BA pilots and that is not in line with Zekes data so yikes...unless you have to go 16 hours to get a 20% improvement in fuel burn. I understand the longer you go the more improvement you get which makes sense as QR has the 1000 on routes to Australia and the US. Europe is heavily 300ER. I want to assume because the aircraft doesn’t provide as much improvement in fuel burn as you would expect.

Like I’ve said. The aircraft has been cancelled outright multiple times. Entered service. Orders have not come to fruition. In fact the aircraft has been cancelled AND then the 300ER ordered. So is the aircraft worth the money?

THEN you have RR coming with their cracks on the XWB...anyway watch that space!

Opus99 wrote:

Worst part is EK actually bought the type and cancelled the entire order.

UPDATE: lets not also forget United cancelled their 1000s completely in 2017 and then did a top up of 4 777-300ERs two years later after already having 18 300ERs.

Yes, BA did a similar thing, ordering three top off 77Ws despite being a A350-1000 customer ( ref: https://simpleflying.com/british-airway ... eing-777s/ ). Apparently the superiority of the A350 comes at a price. Also late period 77Ws had some PIPs from 77X development to eek out a small percentage improvement and keep the customers sweet.

xwb565 wrote:

Lightsaber those numbers are just wrong and you referring to them repeatedly makes no sense. Zeke has a table up on the ge engine certification thread which literally lays out the performance figures as they are. The real world data is consistently 20% or better for the a35k vs 77w. The aircraft in fact performs better than promised. That article you quote is just unfounded data to be honest. Real world data-a35k on a 15hr 45min flight with 42t payload the fuel burn is 6.9/hr. The 77w for a similar profile is 8.6-7t per hour.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I very much respect Zeke's contributions, but everyone has a bias and if Zeke's numbers were correct, RR wouldn't be facing bankruptcy and 787 sales wouldn't be where they are. Oh, the A350 has a huge advantage at lower payloads, the link you don't like is at maxed out payload only, which does benefit the 77W comparison. I look at real world, if the A350 advantage was that much, sales would have accelerated more despite the backlog.

Sanity check:
if 789 is 127t
and A359 is 135t
that makes the 787-10 133t (6t heavier than 789) which is unsellable as the far better engines add about 2.5t. I've gone through that analysis and the GE powered aircraft wouldn't be selling what so ever if the data was accurate. Since GE was doing really well, in fact RR was getting into trouble pre-Covid19, I will have to agree to disagree.

I gave a summary on the 787 in real world performance doing better than that analysis. I could do the 77W too, e.g. EK DXB to LAX where we've discussed cargo and the 27 blocked seats that are unblocked weather permitting.

So that begs the question, if the A350 is that good, where is the backlog, why only 5% better than the 787 whose sales were constrained by options? If inaccurate and RR beats on takeoff and climb (where the triple spool will defeat all other architectures) and matches cruise, why would ANZ defect.

You are allowed to disagree and I learn off that. I took the time to go through the link's issues/assumptions. We must agree to disagree.

For the record, the Txwb is an amazing engine that makes the A350. I do not believe any other engine vendor could have done a better engine at that time.

I also believe the 779 will end A35K sales. There are 168 A35K sales vs. 309 777x (which will drop, I'm a realist). But that means more competition for RR.

IMHO, if GE does a significant GEnX PiP, I believe they will lock RR off the 787 (all models), that hurts RR. That also really hurts T7000 and Txwb sales.

Is the A359 good? Yes, there is a reason its backlog exceeds the 789.

Is the A35K good, yes, with caviats. Everything I've read outside of a.net is it barely has a lower cost per passenger than the A359. The backlog reflects that

Undelivered (yea lagging, so off by a trivial number)
788: 48 (best frame for RR)
A35K: 122
787-10: 145 (Airlines defecting in mass to GE)
789: 333
A359: 429

I excluded the A330NEO as between the disproportionate Leasing orders and AirAsiaX downsizing to 21 widebodies, I'm not sure of the real backlog.

Assertions of performance have to match real world data. I an assertion states the 77W burns so much fuel it couldn't do DXB-LAX, I know there is an issue. If an assertion says UA could not fly the 787-10 SFO-PEK with the payloads we've seen, I ignore it. The same with PER-LHR (that we can estimate closely due to impacts of closed Iranian airspace requiring a fuel stop and prior known payloads).

And tes, I look at Singapore's payloads on SIN-LAX to adjust my A350 models.

I have reasons to be confident in my assumptions.

I see a market where RR continues to sell on the A359, the A35K becomes a niche aircraft, where GE needs to PiP the GEnX to keep selling, and the 779 has a good market, but much smaller than the 77W.

I see no widebody dominating the market.

Feel free to disagree, but if I plug in that links numbers for a QF PER-LHR flight, I miss unless I lighten the 787 just a little, about 1.5 tons So that is dang good! Same with UA SFO-PEK. But no more as we know how quickly these routes become payload restricted.

If I take the 280t MTOW SQ SIN-LAX, I need to take iff more weight. About 3.5 tons, but otherwise the link works to match in service data.

So overall, that link is the best I've found, I just will subtract 2 more tons from the A350.

This just doesn't bode well for RR az the 779 will compete. Some airlines, if my performance assumptions are accurate, who currently opperate the 77W will buy the type and even the 778 for hit high (e.g., Ethiopian cannot buy the A35K). I even expect Qantas to revisit project Sunrise, but that needs to be its own thread (LOI was not confirmed timely and GE9x data is so far indicating that GE will once again slightly beat promise as they did on their last 4 engines).

My assertions do not have either the 787 or 777x taking over the market. They do reduce future RR engine sales, almost exclusively the A35K has except for a few more 787-10 GEnX sales to all 787 opperators. I see nothing out of trend with the last 3 to 5 years of engine sales for RR.

I do acknowledge the 777x has not one Leasing company order. Then again, I only see 12 A35K leasing company orders and I do not believe those were speculative. Only one of those two airframes, in my opinion, will win and we will know when the speculative leasing company orders roll in. That will determine if RR or GE wins due to the exclusive engines.

For RR's sake, I hope you are right on the A350 and I am wrong. But with that, please explain the ANA and ANZ 787-10 orders with GEnX engines. Seriously, if the A350/787 was as bad as the thread you linked to, I cannot explain either airline not going A359.

Lightsaber

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Worst part is EK actually bought the type and cancelled the entire order.

UPDATE: lets not also forget United cancelled their 1000s completely in 2017 and then did a top up of 4 777-300ERs two years later after already having 18 300ERs.

Yes, BA did a similar thing, ordering three top off 77Ws despite being a A350-1000 customer ( ref: https://simpleflying.com/british-airway ... eing-777s/ ). Apparently the superiority of the A350 comes at a price. Also late period 77Ws had some PIPs from 77X development to eek out a small percentage improvement and keep the customers sweet.

Both were treated as top ups of previous tranches, and therefore accrued 'end of order' retrospective credits. Interesting if Airbus have the capacity to repay the favour persuading X customers to cancel and top up with A350 / A330 family.

Maybe this can help with the OEW discussion

If you look at what jayunited posted in viewtopic.php?t=1422657

"Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235.

The block time for UA85 is 11 hours 9 minutes"

From posts in the forum regarding covid cargo related flights we have the following figures:

TOW - FOB - Payload

Finnair A359, C32W42Y262, DOW ~ 135,500 Kg
Air Canada B789, C30W21Y247, DOW ~ 127,000 Kg

AECM wrote:

From posts in the forum regarding covid cargo related flights we have the following figures:

TOW - FOB - Payload

Finnair A359, C32W42Y262, DOW ~ 135,500 Kg
Air Canada B789, C30W21Y247, DOW ~ 127,000 Kg

Thanks AECM, this info allied to Data we have from qf9/10 and sq 21/22 show how much codswallop that Aircraft commerce article is. Have to be careful however as there may be a.net members involved in its production....

I know a few people working for RR who are worried for their jobs right now. I don't personally think the UK government would allow it to go under, non core assets may be sold and internal services hived off to agencies. In times of crisis companies really Look hard at their USPs.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

lightsaber wrote:

Oh, the A350 has a huge advantage at lower payloads, the link you don't like is at maxed out payload only, which does benefit the 77W comparison. I look at real world, if the A350 advantage was that much, sales would have accelerated more despite the backlog.

Plus do we speak of 12 or 15 hours flights?
I can't judge about weights, but I believe there are too many variables. It's complex enough to compare two planes. One has to limit one's topic to get meaningful statements.

Edit:
I started a new topic about A350-1000 versus B777-300ER:
viewtopic.php?t=1452967

flipdewaf wrote:

I know a few people working for RR who are worried for their jobs right now. I don't personally think the UK government would allow it to go under, non core assets may be sold and internal services hived off to agencies. In times of crisis companies really Look hard at their USPs.

Fred

RR is a large diversified engineering and technology company (3-5 major sub-divisions). The only sub-division that is doing poorly is the "Aviation Engine" group.

RR will not fail - and will continue to exist. The areas of RR that are most vital to the UK are in the other groups.

There is a real question if the Aviation Engine group will survive or not as part of RR.

I'm not sure the Aviation Engine group even has a net positive value to be sold to anyone (huge amount of debt and liabilities). It may be broken up, and it may go through a scheduled shut down (finish producing engines for another few years). Someone will be left holding the long term maintenance support bag if its shut down. I'm not sure how that would play out.

We will all have to see how this plays out.

I doubt that RR in general can continue to support the Aviation Engine group for long in the current climate.

Also, I think the Ultrafan is currently comatose; and unlikely to be revived at this point.

Have a great day,

lightsaber wrote:

xwb565 wrote:

Lightsaber those numbers are just wrong and you referring to them repeatedly makes no sense. Zeke has a table up on the ge engine certification thread which literally lays out the performance figures as they are. The real world data is consistently 20% or better for the a35k vs 77w. The aircraft in fact performs better than promised. That article you quote is just unfounded data to be honest. Real world data-a35k on a 15hr 45min flight with 42t payload the fuel burn is 6.9/hr. The 77w for a similar profile is 8.6-7t per hour.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I very much respect Zeke's contributions, but everyone has a bias and if Zeke's numbers were correct, RR wouldn't be facing bankruptcy and 787 sales wouldn't be where they are. Oh, the A350 has a huge advantage at lower payloads, the link you don't like is at maxed out payload only, which does benefit the 77W comparison. I look at real world, if the A350 advantage was that much, sales would have accelerated more despite the backlog.

Sanity check:
if 789 is 127t
and A359 is 135t
that makes the 787-10 133t (6t heavier than 789) which is unsellable as the far better engines add about 2.5t. I've gone through that analysis and the GE powered aircraft wouldn't be selling what so ever if the data was accurate. Since GE was doing really well, in fact RR was getting into trouble pre-Covid19, I will have to agree to disagree.

I gave a summary on the 787 in real world performance doing better than that analysis. I could do the 77W too, e.g. EK DXB to LAX where we've discussed cargo and the 27 blocked seats that are unblocked weather permitting.

So that begs the question, if the A350 is that good, where is the backlog, why only 5% better than the 787 whose sales were constrained by options? If inaccurate and RR beats on takeoff and climb (where the triple spool will defeat all other architectures) and matches cruise, why would ANZ defect.

You are allowed to disagree and I learn off that. I took the time to go through the link's issues/assumptions. We must agree to disagree.

For the record, the Txwb is an amazing engine that makes the A350. I do not believe any other engine vendor could have done a better engine at that time.

I also believe the 779 will end A35K sales. There are 168 A35K sales vs. 309 777x (which will drop, I'm a realist). But that means more competition for RR.

IMHO, if GE does a significant GEnX PiP, I believe they will lock RR off the 787 (all models), that hurts RR. That also really hurts T7000 and Txwb sales.

Is the A359 good? Yes, there is a reason its backlog exceeds the 789.

Is the A35K good, yes, with caviats. Everything I've read outside of a.net is it barely has a lower cost per passenger than the A359. The backlog reflects that

Undelivered (yea lagging, so off by a trivial number)
788: 48 (best frame for RR)
A35K: 122
787-10: 145 (Airlines defecting in mass to GE)
789: 333
A359: 429

I excluded the A330NEO as between the disproportionate Leasing orders and AirAsiaX downsizing to 21 widebodies, I'm not sure of the real backlog.

Assertions of performance have to match real world data. I an assertion states the 77W burns so much fuel it couldn't do DXB-LAX, I know there is an issue. If an assertion says UA could not fly the 787-10 SFO-PEK with the payloads we've seen, I ignore it. The same with PER-LHR (that we can estimate closely due to impacts of closed Iranian airspace requiring a fuel stop and prior known payloads).

And tes, I look at Singapore's payloads on SIN-LAX to adjust my A350 models.

I have reasons to be confident in my assumptions.

I see a market where RR continues to sell on the A359, the A35K becomes a niche aircraft, where GE needs to PiP the GEnX to keep selling, and the 779 has a good market, but much smaller than the 77W.

I see no widebody dominating the market.

Feel free to disagree, but if I plug in that links numbers for a QF PER-LHR flight, I miss unless I lighten the 787 just a little, about 1.5 tons So that is dang good! Same with UA SFO-PEK. But no more as we know how quickly these routes become payload restricted.

If I take the 280t MTOW SQ SIN-LAX, I need to take iff more weight. About 3.5 tons, but otherwise the link works to match in service data.

So overall, that link is the best I've found, I just will subtract 2 more tons from the A350.

This just doesn't bode well for RR az the 779 will compete. Some airlines, if my performance assumptions are accurate, who currently opperate the 77W will buy the type and even the 778 for hit high (e.g., Ethiopian cannot buy the A35K). I even expect Qantas to revisit project Sunrise, but that needs to be its own thread (LOI was not confirmed timely and GE9x data is so far indicating that GE will once again slightly beat promise as they did on their last 4 engines).

My assertions do not have either the 787 or 777x taking over the market. They do reduce future RR engine sales, almost exclusively the A35K has except for a few more 787-10 GEnX sales to all 787 opperators. I see nothing out of trend with the last 3 to 5 years of engine sales for RR.

I do acknowledge the 777x has not one Leasing company order. Then again, I only see 12 A35K leasing company orders and I do not believe those were speculative. Only one of those two airframes, in my opinion, will win and we will know when the speculative leasing company orders roll in. That will determine if RR or GE wins due to the exclusive engines.

For RR's sake, I hope you are right on the A350 and I am wrong. But with that, please explain the ANA and ANZ 787-10 orders with GEnX engines. Seriously, if the A350/787 was as bad as the thread you linked to, I cannot explain either airline not going A359.

Lightsaber

Boom or bust...

Seeing your analysis leads to only one conclusion; They need to knock it out of the park with the Ultrafan or they will lose every WB order in the next 10-15 years.

lightsaber wrote:

I'm all for discussion on efficiency. But sales tend to reflect aircraft performance. Feel free to compare the last few years sales. Yes, Airbus was hurt by backlog (as Boeing was prior to 2017). Since the overall backlogs are dang close (about 5% difference), I have trouble believing numbers that do not reflect sales.

Is sales reflect aircraft performance, why is the 78X selling so poorly compared to the 789? According to the article you linked it compares very well on cost to all other models? I know the A35K sales are poor, but what does that tell us about the very good 78X only having a few more sales?

enzo011 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I'm all for discussion on efficiency. But sales tend to reflect aircraft performance. Feel free to compare the last few years sales. Yes, Airbus was hurt by backlog (as Boeing was prior to 2017). Since the overall backlogs are dang close (about 5% difference), I have trouble believing numbers that do not reflect sales.

Is sales reflect aircraft performance, why is the 78X selling so poorly compared to the 789? According to the article you linked it compares very well on cost to all other models? I know the A35K sales are poor, but what does that tell us about the very good 78X only having a few more sales?

Because there are not that many routes that need the extra 71 (+/-) seats that the 787-10 has over the 787-9. The study assumes that by and large that you can fill the aircraft.

If you can routinely fill (or nearly fill) a 787-10 then its an obvious choice. If not and your normal passenger load is closer to 266 then the 787-9 is a much better choice. If around 315 the A350-900. There is no reason to buy a larger aircraft than routinely needed. That is not economical. I'm surprised that you could not see this.

Have a great day,