Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1726
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 7:51 am

The current availability of cheap 332 and 333 frames would allow building up a mixed fleet comprising new (350F, 330neoF) and used converted frames of different capacities and capabilities.

That option, which would reduce average acquisition cost across a fleet, was not available when the 332F was launched, but may be a useful approach for Airbus today.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 9:45 am

zeke wrote:
Same MZFW is not going to happen, and "expected structural changes" is the understatement of the internet, around 18 meters more fuselage than the base model (62 to 80 m).

O.k., that's a funny point. The -200 is 63,7 m long, but that doesn't change your argument.
With a fuselage width of 6,2 m one should assume that the -300 with 73,8 m is the longest reasonable stretch.
The -9X is 76,7 m, 12,4 times the fuselage width long. 80 m would be 12,9 times fuselage width.
The A321 is only 11,2 times fuselage diameter long.

Maybe making the wall thinner gives extra strength? (Another funny point)

The most obvious recent example would be the 787-10, same MTOW and MLW as the 787-9, however the MZFW is 11 tonnes lower, and OEW is higher than the 787-9.

Interesting. I didn't knew. Sounds like a good plane for long haul holiday charter companies to me.
Why is it often said that the B787-10 would become the transatlantic workhorse?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 11:17 am

Sokes wrote:
The -200 is 63,7 m long


Think that is to the end of the tailplane, its 62 something meters to the end of the fuselage.

Sokes wrote:
With a fuselage width of 6,2 m one should assume that the -300 with 73,8 m is the longest reasonable stretch.
The -9X is 76,7 m, 12,4 times the fuselage width long. 80 m would be 12,9 times fuselage width.


The slenderness parameter/fineness ratio is normally around 10-11, 13 is extreme. That is bigger than the jump made to the DC8.

Sokes wrote:
Maybe making the wall thinner gives extra strength?


Not if you are keeping other things equal,. You can increase skin thickness, the keel beam would need to be significantly stronger, both increase empty weight.

Why is it often said that the B787-10 would become the transatlantic workhorse?


Its fine if you dont want to carry cargo, most of the NA carriers dont carry a lot of cargo.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 12:30 pm

zeke wrote:

Sokes wrote:
Maybe making the wall thinner gives extra strength?


Not if you are keeping other things equal,. You can increase skin thickness, the keel beam would need to be significantly stronger, both increase empty weight.

That was a joke.

Does NA mean North Atlantic?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 1:00 pm

Wasn't Tomcat referring to a possible 777xF with 777-10 360t MTOW but a shorter length?

Isn't that where a potential 777-8F (with 360T MTOW) could still have the same lift as 777F but maybe a little more volume? It might not be able to make it to 69.8m of a passenger 778 but it could make it to few meters longer than an 777F - one would assume a stretch of a little more than 3M to 67M would be the happy medium where it could take 4 more LD3 in the Belly and another two 96"x125" pallets up top and still maintain 102T of lift.

It would probably be hard to up the maximum Cargo past the existing 102T - however the extra 8T should allow for the simple stretch. Yes heavier engines - but the wingbox and gear apparently are stronger.

However the MZFW on the 779 went up by 17T from 238 to 255T. One would assume an 778F at 67M would be more than 255T given Zeke's point above. The 779 was about a 3M stretch - 67 M 778F = 3M stretch. 77F MZFW was 248T - add 17T to 265T doesn't seem that unreasonable. That leaves 95T for fuel.

OEW weight on 77F is about 144T. So as long as a 67M 778F doesn't gain more than 17T it should still be able to lift 102T with 95T of fuel. I can see it adding 10T but not 17T. So at 67M more than 102T seems possible. Maybe the 69.8T 7778F does make sense, at 70M 8 more LD3's and 4 more pallets up top vs 77F but probably the same 102T. It would be less dense but that may be preferred in the future - otherwise an 67M 777Xf may make more sense. You should be able to fly a lot further than 5,000NM with 95T of fuel in an 778F no matter the length.

For reference the A359 is about 195T MZFW and A351 223T - with OEW weights of about 142T and 155T respectively. It would make sense for an A350F to use the structure of the A351 - but with a length chop to either the 359 67M or 70M - so maybe an A350-950F is 150T OEW with a MZFW of 230T giving 80T of lift and then 89T of fuel. It should burn less than an 77XF but not that much less, especially if they have to make the 350 heavier. An 350F in 900 length could lift about 88T with 89T of fuel, or a little bit more lift and less fuel if you bump MZFW more due to the shorter length than an 950F, maybe lift 90T and 87T of fuel.

As I pointed out before basically it appears as though Airbus has to do some major structural work to the A350 if they want to make it into a viable 777F/xF Competitor and they target the same capability. Doable but it won't be cheap and would almost definitely require a big bump in MTOW along with an increase in MZFW to at a least 250T and MTOW to 340T. However one should get one with the other. It may require Thrust bump as well for sufficient runway performance due to the smaller wing than 777x. They may have to wait for the re-engine though as aren't the A351 engines about maxed out?

Basically what I am arguing is is that I doubt we see 350F until the 350 Re-Engine comes along with the 900 and 1000 growing in length substantially along with bump in MTOW and more thrust.

It's too hard to do now without new engines and some big structural changes.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12099
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 1:01 pm

zeke wrote:

Why is it often said that the B787-10 would become the transatlantic workhorse?


Its fine if you dont want to carry cargo, most of the NA carriers dont carry a lot of cargo.

The 787-10 can carry a lot of cargo on a transatlantic hop- at max payload the plane has about the same range as the A321LR’s marketing range. Cargo is one of the reasons why ATL was, pre pandemic, going to be BA’s first 787-10 route (BA use to send dedicated freighters to ATL when they had that operation). East coast NA- Western Europe (aka a vast majority of transatlantic operations) is no problem for the variant with a full or nearly full belly.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:08 pm

morrisond wrote:
Wasn't Tomcat referring to a possible 777xF with 777-10 360t MTOW but a shorter length?

Isn't that where a potential 777-8F (with 360T MTOW) could still have the same lift as 777F but maybe a little more volume? It might not be able to make it to 69.8m of a passenger 778 but it could make it to few meters longer than an 777F - one would assume a stretch of a little more than 3M to 67M would be the happy medium where it could take 4 more LD3 in the Belly and another two 96"x125" pallets up top and still maintain 102T of lift.

It would probably be hard to up the maximum Cargo past the existing 102T - however the extra 8T should allow for the simple stretch. Yes heavier engines - but the wingbox and gear apparently are stronger.

However the MZFW on the 779 went up by 17T from 238 to 255T. One would assume an 778F at 67M would be more than 255T given Zeke's point above. The 779 was about a 3M stretch - 67 M 778F = 3M stretch. 77F MZFW was 248T - add 17T to 265T doesn't seem that unreasonable. That leaves 95T for fuel.

OEW weight on 77F is about 144T. So as long as a 67M 778F doesn't gain more than 17T it should still be able to lift 102T with 95T of fuel. I can see it adding 10T but not 17T. So at 67M more than 102T seems possible. Maybe the 69.8T 7778F does make sense, at 70M 8 more LD3's and 4 more pallets up top vs 77F but probably the same 102T. It would be less dense but that may be preferred in the future - otherwise an 67M 777Xf may make more sense. You should be able to fly a lot further than 5,000NM with 95T of fuel in an 778F no matter the length.

For reference the A359 is about 195T MZFW and A351 223T - with OEW weights of about 142T and 155T respectively. It would make sense for an A350F to use the structure of the A351 - but with a length chop to either the 359 67M or 70M - so maybe an A350-950F is 150T OEW with a MZFW of 230T giving 80T of lift and then 89T of fuel. It should burn less than an 77XF but not that much less, especially if they have to make the 350 heavier. An 350F in 900 length could lift about 88T with 89T of fuel, or a little bit more lift and less fuel if you bump MZFW more due to the shorter length than an 950F, maybe lift 90T and 87T of fuel.

As I pointed out before basically it appears as though Airbus has to do some major structural work to the A350 if they want to make it into a viable 777F/xF Competitor and they target the same capability. Doable but it won't be cheap and would almost definitely require a big bump in MTOW along with an increase in MZFW to at a least 250T and MTOW to 340T. However one should get one with the other. It may require Thrust bump as well for sufficient runway performance due to the smaller wing than 777x. They may have to wait for the re-engine though as aren't the A351 engines about maxed out?

Basically what I am arguing is is that I doubt we see 350F until the 350 Re-Engine comes along with the 900 and 1000 growing in length substantially along with bump in MTOW and more thrust.

It's too hard to do now without new engines and some big structural changes.



We have photos on tech ops of an A359 in flight at 142 tonnes with 6 tonnes of fuel onboard and you still write this stuff. Absolutely none of our -1000s are above 150 tonne.

If 35 tonne for the 359 and 150 for the -1000 that will represent real world figures.

This is so tiresome, this rubbish is getting old.

BTW the reason why the MZFW went up on the 779 is because the empty weight went up, and it went by around 20 tonnes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:11 pm

Polot wrote:
The 787-10 can carry a lot of cargo on a transatlantic hop


It will always carry less than what the 789 can.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12099
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:22 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
The 787-10 can carry a lot of cargo on a transatlantic hop


It will always carry less than what the 789 can.

That depends on factors such as cargo density. Yes a 789 can always lift up more payload than a 787-10 on the same route. Doesn’t really do you any good if you have run out space to put that payload first though.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:23 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
The 787-10 can carry a lot of cargo on a transatlantic hop


It will always carry less than what the 789 can.

https://iagcargomagazine.com/2020/07/28 ... -aircraft/

Do you mean at certain ranges? Because I mean the 789 cannot volumetrically carry more cargo?

Anyway IAG cargo seems to loves its cargo capabilities transatlantic even moreso than any other Dreamliner they operate. But I’m sure you know more than them
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:34 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Wasn't Tomcat referring to a possible 777xF with 777-10 360t MTOW but a shorter length?

Isn't that where a potential 777-8F (with 360T MTOW) could still have the same lift as 777F but maybe a little more volume? It might not be able to make it to 69.8m of a passenger 778 but it could make it to few meters longer than an 777F - one would assume a stretch of a little more than 3M to 67M would be the happy medium where it could take 4 more LD3 in the Belly and another two 96"x125" pallets up top and still maintain 102T of lift.

It would probably be hard to up the maximum Cargo past the existing 102T - however the extra 8T should allow for the simple stretch. Yes heavier engines - but the wingbox and gear apparently are stronger.

However the MZFW on the 779 went up by 17T from 238 to 255T. One would assume an 778F at 67M would be more than 255T given Zeke's point above. The 779 was about a 3M stretch - 67 M 778F = 3M stretch. 77F MZFW was 248T - add 17T to 265T doesn't seem that unreasonable. That leaves 95T for fuel.

OEW weight on 77F is about 144T. So as long as a 67M 778F doesn't gain more than 17T it should still be able to lift 102T with 95T of fuel. I can see it adding 10T but not 17T. So at 67M more than 102T seems possible. Maybe the 69.8T 7778F does make sense, at 70M 8 more LD3's and 4 more pallets up top vs 77F but probably the same 102T. It would be less dense but that may be preferred in the future - otherwise an 67M 777Xf may make more sense. You should be able to fly a lot further than 5,000NM with 95T of fuel in an 778F no matter the length.

For reference the A359 is about 195T MZFW and A351 223T - with OEW weights of about 142T and 155T respectively. It would make sense for an A350F to use the structure of the A351 - but with a length chop to either the 359 67M or 70M - so maybe an A350-950F is 150T OEW with a MZFW of 230T giving 80T of lift and then 89T of fuel. It should burn less than an 77XF but not that much less, especially if they have to make the 350 heavier. An 350F in 900 length could lift about 88T with 89T of fuel, or a little bit more lift and less fuel if you bump MZFW more due to the shorter length than an 950F, maybe lift 90T and 87T of fuel.

As I pointed out before basically it appears as though Airbus has to do some major structural work to the A350 if they want to make it into a viable 777F/xF Competitor and they target the same capability. Doable but it won't be cheap and would almost definitely require a big bump in MTOW along with an increase in MZFW to at a least 250T and MTOW to 340T. However one should get one with the other. It may require Thrust bump as well for sufficient runway performance due to the smaller wing than 777x. They may have to wait for the re-engine though as aren't the A351 engines about maxed out?

Basically what I am arguing is is that I doubt we see 350F until the 350 Re-Engine comes along with the 900 and 1000 growing in length substantially along with bump in MTOW and more thrust.

It's too hard to do now without new engines and some big structural changes.



We have photos on tech ops of an A359 in flight at 142 tonnes with 6 tonnes of fuel onboard and you still write this stuff. Absolutely none of our -1000s are above 150 tonne.

If 35 tonne for the 359 and 150 for the -1000 that will represent real world figures.

This is so tiresome, this rubbish is getting old.

BTW the reason why the MZFW went up on the 779 is because the empty weight went up, and it went by around 20 tonnes.


Well then you need to go change WIKI which is where I got the info from - Airbus no longer has the OEW weights in the ACAP. Wiki would presumably use higher density cabins. Aren't yours less dense than Airbus assumes as normal capacity?

It might have gone up by 20T on the 779 - no one knows for sure yet as they have not published OEW weight yet.

What are your numbers on what a 350F will do or do you just want to keep attacking everyone?

Personally I think it would be neat to see an 350F and it would be great to see it as part of the re-engine and stretch that would severely hurt 777X prospects.

Launch it now to be available in late 2020's after 777F and 767F can't be sold anymore - until then they(Boeing) probably have the cargo market and it doesn't make sense to launch the 350F with existing engines if they are about to change.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:44 pm

Polot wrote:
That depends on factors such as cargo density. Yes a 789 can always lift up more payload than a 787-10 on the same route. Doesn’t really do you any good if you have run out space to put that payload first though.


Use say a typical 789 seating of 290 pax, that’s 29 tonne of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 12 LD3s for bags, room for 12 more pallets
-10, typical seating 330 pax, 33 tonnes of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 14 LD3s for bags, room for 13 more pallets

789 max payload 63 tonnes minus 29 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 33 tonnes for cargo, which is about 7 pallets (they are typically 5-6 tonnes), 5 empty positions.
-10 max payload 57 tonnes minus 33 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 24 tonnes for cargo, which is about 5 pallets, 8 empty positions.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:55 pm

morrisond wrote:
Well then you need to go change WIKI which is where I got the info from - Airbus no longer has the OEW weights in the ACAP.


If you go and have a look at the page history you will see that it has been corrected many times, a fanboy who I know the identity of from this site undoes the edits and increases the weights. Even the so called source document that is based off said 135 tonnes.

This is what the page had before the weights were increased.

Image

Boeing no longer publishes a generic OEW either.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 2:59 pm

morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Wasn't Tomcat referring to a possible 777xF with 777-10 360t MTOW but a shorter length?

Isn't that where a potential 777-8F (with 360T MTOW) could still have the same lift as 777F but maybe a little more volume? It might not be able to make it to 69.8m of a passenger 778 but it could make it to few meters longer than an 777F - one would assume a stretch of a little more than 3M to 67M would be the happy medium where it could take 4 more LD3 in the Belly and another two 96"x125" pallets up top and still maintain 102T of lift.

It would probably be hard to up the maximum Cargo past the existing 102T - however the extra 8T should allow for the simple stretch. Yes heavier engines - but the wingbox and gear apparently are stronger.

However the MZFW on the 779 went up by 17T from 238 to 255T. One would assume an 778F at 67M would be more than 255T given Zeke's point above. The 779 was about a 3M stretch - 67 M 778F = 3M stretch. 77F MZFW was 248T - add 17T to 265T doesn't seem that unreasonable. That leaves 95T for fuel.

OEW weight on 77F is about 144T. So as long as a 67M 778F doesn't gain more than 17T it should still be able to lift 102T with 95T of fuel. I can see it adding 10T but not 17T. So at 67M more than 102T seems possible. Maybe the 69.8T 7778F does make sense, at 70M 8 more LD3's and 4 more pallets up top vs 77F but probably the same 102T. It would be less dense but that may be preferred in the future - otherwise an 67M 777Xf may make more sense. You should be able to fly a lot further than 5,000NM with 95T of fuel in an 778F no matter the length.

For reference the A359 is about 195T MZFW and A351 223T - with OEW weights of about 142T and 155T respectively. It would make sense for an A350F to use the structure of the A351 - but with a length chop to either the 359 67M or 70M - so maybe an A350-950F is 150T OEW with a MZFW of 230T giving 80T of lift and then 89T of fuel. It should burn less than an 77XF but not that much less, especially if they have to make the 350 heavier. An 350F in 900 length could lift about 88T with 89T of fuel, or a little bit more lift and less fuel if you bump MZFW more due to the shorter length than an 950F, maybe lift 90T and 87T of fuel.

As I pointed out before basically it appears as though Airbus has to do some major structural work to the A350 if they want to make it into a viable 777F/xF Competitor and they target the same capability. Doable but it won't be cheap and would almost definitely require a big bump in MTOW along with an increase in MZFW to at a least 250T and MTOW to 340T. However one should get one with the other. It may require Thrust bump as well for sufficient runway performance due to the smaller wing than 777x. They may have to wait for the re-engine though as aren't the A351 engines about maxed out?

Basically what I am arguing is is that I doubt we see 350F until the 350 Re-Engine comes along with the 900 and 1000 growing in length substantially along with bump in MTOW and more thrust.

It's too hard to do now without new engines and some big structural changes.



We have photos on tech ops of an A359 in flight at 142 tonnes with 6 tonnes of fuel onboard and you still write this stuff. Absolutely none of our -1000s are above 150 tonne.

If 35 tonne for the 359 and 150 for the -1000 that will represent real world figures.

This is so tiresome, this rubbish is getting old.

BTW the reason why the MZFW went up on the 779 is because the empty weight went up, and it went by around 20 tonnes.


Well then you need to go change WIKI which is where I got the info from - Airbus no longer has the OEW weights in the ACAP. Wiki would presumably use higher density cabins. Aren't yours less dense than Airbus assumes as normal capacity?

It might have gone up by 20T on the 779 - no one knows for sure yet as they have not published OEW weight yet.

What are your numbers on what a 350F will do or do you just want to keep attacking everyone?

Personally I think it would be neat to see an 350F and it would be great to see it as part of the re-engine and stretch that would severely hurt 777X prospects.

Launch it now to be available in late 2020's after 777F and 767F can't be sold anymore - until then they(Boeing) probably have the cargo market and it doesn't make sense to launch the 350F with existing engines if they are about to change.


Just to be clear on why I used 142T on an existing MTOW A359F. Wiki has an A350 with normal seating density at 142.4T. In the Boeing ACAP an 200LR with typical (high density) seating is about 750KG more than an F. So yes I had the delta on the A350 a little higher than 777. Sorry.

You would have to add a lot of weight to A359/A351 to get MZFW up. On the A359 you would only be able to lift about 60T even with Zeke's low OEW weight number.
Last edited by morrisond on Sun May 02, 2021 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 3:04 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Well then you need to go change WIKI which is where I got the info from - Airbus no longer has the OEW weights in the ACAP.


If you go and have a look at the page history you will see that it has been corrected many times, a fanboy who I know the identity of from this site undoes the edits and increases the weights. Even the so called source document that is based off said 135 tonnes.

This is what the page had before the weights were increased.

Image

Boeing no longer publishes a generic OEW either.


Okay - that makes more sense - however your A359's seem to have 35 seats less than that number - so it might be a little low. But it really is a rounding error in this discussion.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 3:07 pm

Opus99 wrote:
https://iagcargomagazine.com/2020/07/28 ... -aircraft/

Do you mean at certain ranges? Because I mean the 789 cannot volumetrically carry more cargo?

Anyway IAG cargo seems to loves its cargo capabilities transatlantic even moreso than any other Dreamliner they operate. But I’m sure you know more than them

That's IAG cargo's newest aircraft?
Strange. The container on the picture doesn't seem to fit through the passenger door.
That article is from July 20. I guess IAG already paid for the plane, so why not use it for cargo?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12099
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 3:13 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
That depends on factors such as cargo density. Yes a 789 can always lift up more payload than a 787-10 on the same route. Doesn’t really do you any good if you have run out space to put that payload first though.


Use say a typical 789 seating of 290 pax, that’s 29 tonne of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 12 LD3s for bags, room for 12 more pallets
-10, typical seating 330 pax, 33 tonnes of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 14 LD3s for bags, room for 13 more pallets

789 max payload 63 tonnes minus 29 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 33 tonnes for cargo, which is about 7 pallets (they are typically 5-6 tonnes), 5 empty positions.
-10 max payload 57 tonnes minus 33 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 24 tonnes for cargo, which is about 5 pallets, 8 empty positions.


Cargo is not always carried on pallets. And the ULDs they may be in are not always loaded up to their max gross weight...
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 3:53 pm

Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
That depends on factors such as cargo density. Yes a 789 can always lift up more payload than a 787-10 on the same route. Doesn’t really do you any good if you have run out space to put that payload first though.


Use say a typical 789 seating of 290 pax, that’s 29 tonne of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 12 LD3s for bags, room for 12 more pallets
-10, typical seating 330 pax, 33 tonnes of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 14 LD3s for bags, room for 13 more pallets

789 max payload 63 tonnes minus 29 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 33 tonnes for cargo, which is about 7 pallets (they are typically 5-6 tonnes), 5 empty positions.
-10 max payload 57 tonnes minus 33 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 24 tonnes for cargo, which is about 5 pallets, 8 empty positions.


Cargo is not always carried on pallets. And the ULDs they may be in are not always loaded up to their max gross weight...

https://www.anacargo.jp/en/int/specific ... 87_10.html

https://www.anacargo.jp/en/int/specific ... 787_9.html

https://www.anacargo.jp/en/int/specific ... 7_300.html

Data Points on the -9 and the -10 and 300ER

and also a data point from Jay about the -10's capabilities


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457339#p22674677
 
jagraham
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 10:39 pm

mig17 wrote:
tomcat wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

It would be interesting were you get the 360t MTOW from. All my reading shows a 351.5 max.


Here is the link I posted upthread, see slides 35 and 38:
https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%201%20PDF/5-Yonglian-ALACPA%20Presentation%2029%20Nov%202016.pdf

Looking at the current airport compatibility document of the 777-9 the new MLG has a geometry very close to what Boeing was announcing in this presentation published in 2016 and in which they announce a 360t MTOW for the 777-10X. I assume that this 360t MTOW can thus be achieved by the new MLG.

The MTOW is what's limiting the 777-9, making it less capable payload/range wise thant the A35K. If an MTOW upgrade was possible and easy to implement I think we would already know (or spec confidentiality is working here ...). For the 777-10, that upgrade would have been mandatory, so would have happen even if not easy. But since the project of a -10 is not happening anytime soon, would Boeing invest in a 360t MTOW now with the -X cost already throught the top?


A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again
 
tomcat
Posts: 767
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 10:46 pm

Sokes wrote:
zeke wrote:
Same MZFW is not going to happen, and "expected structural changes" is the understatement of the internet, around 18 meters more fuselage than the base model (62 to 80 m).



The most obvious recent example would be the 787-10, same MTOW and MLW as the 787-9, however the MZFW is 11 tonnes lower, and OEW is higher than the 787-9.

Interesting. I didn't knew. Sounds like a good plane for long haul holiday charter companies to me.
Why is it often said that the B787-10 would become the transatlantic workhorse?


I just had a look at the airport planning manual of the 787 (Rev M from March 2018) and it shows that the MZFW of the 787-10 is actually 11.4 tonnes higher than the one of the 787-9 (192.8 tonnes for the -10 vs 181.4 tonnes for the -9). It also shows a 20,000 pounds greater MLW for the -10 than for the -9. For what it's worth, Wikipedia is showing a max payload of 116,000 pounds for the -9 and 126,300 pounds for the -10. Considering the respective MZFWs, if one fills 11.4 tonnes less fuel in the center wingbox tank of the -10 than in the -9 when they are loaded to their respective MZFW, then the same bending moment is achieved at the wing root joint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Specifications
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sun May 02, 2021 11:36 pm

tomcat wrote:
Sokes wrote:
zeke wrote:
Same MZFW is not going to happen, and "expected structural changes" is the understatement of the internet, around 18 meters more fuselage than the base model (62 to 80 m).



The most obvious recent example would be the 787-10, same MTOW and MLW as the 787-9, however the MZFW is 11 tonnes lower, and OEW is higher than the 787-9.

Interesting. I didn't knew. Sounds like a good plane for long haul holiday charter companies to me.
Why is it often said that the B787-10 would become the transatlantic workhorse?


I just had a look at the airport planning manual of the 787 (Rev M from March 2018) and it shows that the MZFW of the 787-10 is actually 11.4 tonnes higher than the one of the 787-9 (192.8 tonnes for the -10 vs 181.4 tonnes for the -9). It also shows a 20,000 pounds greater MLW for the -10 than for the -9. For what it's worth, Wikipedia is showing a max payload of 116,000 pounds for the -9 and 126,300 pounds for the -10. Considering the respective MZFWs, if one fills 11.4 tonnes less fuel in the center wingbox tank of the -10 than in the -9 when they are loaded to their respective MZFW, then the same bending moment is achieved at the wing root joint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Specifications

Thanks for investigating that. so from what i'm seeing is at their MZFW. the -10 will give you more passengers and slightly more cargo tonnage? but obviously reduced range? or have i got it wrong?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 2:44 am

morrisond wrote:
You would have to add a lot of weight to A359/A351 to get MZFW up. On the A359 you would only be able to lift about 60T even with Zeke's low OEW weight number.


I have never run into a MZFW limit with normal operations. I have carried 30 plus tones of perishables plus full passenger cabins over 8 hrs, and the limit was MLW, not MZFW.

morrisond wrote:
Okay - that makes more sense - however your A359's seem to have 35 seats less than that number - so it might be a little low. But it really is a rounding error in this discussion.


And our seats are heavier in 3 class compared to the marketing 2 class. I have tried to be very polite in my descrioption of the wiki data, this is a screenshot from the AW&ST Article "Flying The A350: Airbus’s Most Technologically Advanced Airliner" May 22, 2015 (subscription required https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... d-airliner)

Fair use excerpt of the AW&ST article to show the OEW listed in the article is 135172 kg and not the 142 tonnes that the Wiki entry has been changed to https://ibb.co/ZXTn3y8

Image

This is blatant misrepresentation of the article.

Polot wrote:
Cargo is not always carried on pallets. And the ULDs they may be in are not always loaded up to their max gross weight...


Anyone who carries a lot of cargo loads pallets as many consignments are packed together in one overpack. Generally the cargo that carried in LD3s specialized like pharma to create a micro environment, or packages so they can be interlined easily.


Opus99 wrote:
[
and also a data point from Jay about the -10's capabilities


This is a post JayUnited made before in viewtopic.php?t=1422657

"That is not true at all. 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."

MTOW 254 tonnes
MZFW 192.8 tonnes
OEW 136.4 tonnes

Max payload = MZFW-OEW 56.4 tonnes

Actual passenger + bags payload = 32 tonnes
Cargo Payload = 11.8 tonnes

Now compare that with what I said above

"-10, typical seating 330 pax, 33 tonnes of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 14 LD3s for bags, room for 13 more pallets
-10 max payload 57 tonnes minus 33 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 24 tonnes for cargo, which is about 5 pallets, 8 empty positions."

The information I posted is 100% in alignment with real world data.

jagraham wrote:
A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again


Current data I have seen states the 779 has less range at the marketing payload/rage than the -1000, and the maximum payload Is less than the -1000 (7,285 nm vs 8700 nm). The -1000 has over 35 tonnes lower OEW, it hs more range and payload than todays 77W, in our fleet the 77W carries around 6 tonnes less payload than the -1000 (69 tonnes vs 75 tonnes)

For the 779 to meet the -1000 payload the OEW needs to be under 179 tonnes (779 OEW 254.9 - 75 tonnes payload of the -1000), consensus has it at around 184-185 tonnes ( https://seekingalpha.com/article/407457 ... 777minus-9 )
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 5:09 am

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You would have to add a lot of weight to A359/A351 to get MZFW up. On the A359 you would only be able to lift about 60T even with Zeke's low OEW weight number.


I have never run into a MZFW limit with normal operations. I have carried 30 plus tones of perishables plus full passenger cabins over 8 hrs, and the limit was MLW, not MZFW.

morrisond wrote:
Okay - that makes more sense - however your A359's seem to have 35 seats less than that number - so it might be a little low. But it really is a rounding error in this discussion.


And our seats are heavier in 3 class compared to the marketing 2 class. I have tried to be very polite in my descrioption of the wiki data, this is a screenshot from the AW&ST Article "Flying The A350: Airbus’s Most Technologically Advanced Airliner" May 22, 2015 (subscription required https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... d-airliner)

Fair use excerpt of the AW&ST article to show the OEW listed in the article is 135172 kg and not the 142 tonnes that the Wiki entry has been changed to https://ibb.co/ZXTn3y8

Image

This is blatant misrepresentation of the article.

Polot wrote:
Cargo is not always carried on pallets. And the ULDs they may be in are not always loaded up to their max gross weight...


Anyone who carries a lot of cargo loads pallets as many consignments are packed together in one overpack. Generally the cargo that carried in LD3s specialized like pharma to create a micro environment, or packages so they can be interlined easily.


Opus99 wrote:
[
and also a data point from Jay about the -10's capabilities


This is a post JayUnited made before in viewtopic.php?t=1422657

"That is not true at all. 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."

MTOW 254 tonnes
MZFW 192.8 tonnes
OEW 136.4 tonnes

Max payload = MZFW-OEW 56.4 tonnes

Actual passenger + bags payload = 32 tonnes
Cargo Payload = 11.8 tonnes

Now compare that with what I said above

"-10, typical seating 330 pax, 33 tonnes of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 14 LD3s for bags, room for 13 more pallets
-10 max payload 57 tonnes minus 33 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 24 tonnes for cargo, which is about 5 pallets, 8 empty positions."

The information I posted is 100% in alignment with real world data.

jagraham wrote:
A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again


Current data I have seen states the 779 has less range at the marketing payload/rage than the -1000, and the maximum payload Is less than the -1000 (7,285 nm vs 8700 nm). The -1000 has over 35 tonnes lower OEW, it hs more range and payload than todays 77W, in our fleet the 77W carries around 6 tonnes less payload than the -1000 (69 tonnes vs 75 tonnes)

For the 779 to meet the -1000 payload the OEW needs to be under 179 tonnes (779 OEW 254.9 - 75 tonnes payload of the -1000), consensus has it at around 184-185 tonnes ( https://seekingalpha.com/article/407457 ... 777minus-9 )

Oh nobody is doubting you there. You’re indeed correct but what of the -9? You said it has a payload of 63 tonnes right?

By your same calculation of MZFW-OEW

That is 181.4-128.8(wiki-it was only about one tonne off jays real life OEW for the -10)

So that leaves 52.2 tonnes of payload.

So I mean what of that? Or is there a different calculation for that one. No but from what you said they share the same MZFW (BS) which actually would be 192.8-128.8= 64 tonnes which is just above the 63 tonnes you said.

So you can just admit you were incorrect there. It’s fine.

Unless you want to say there’s another way to calculate payload separate from the 9 and 10
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 5:40 am

Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You would have to add a lot of weight to A359/A351 to get MZFW up. On the A359 you would only be able to lift about 60T even with Zeke's low OEW weight number.


I have never run into a MZFW limit with normal operations. I have carried 30 plus tones of perishables plus full passenger cabins over 8 hrs, and the limit was MLW, not MZFW.

morrisond wrote:
Okay - that makes more sense - however your A359's seem to have 35 seats less than that number - so it might be a little low. But it really is a rounding error in this discussion.


And our seats are heavier in 3 class compared to the marketing 2 class. I have tried to be very polite in my descrioption of the wiki data, this is a screenshot from the AW&ST Article "Flying The A350: Airbus’s Most Technologically Advanced Airliner" May 22, 2015 (subscription required https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... d-airliner)

Fair use excerpt of the AW&ST article to show the OEW listed in the article is 135172 kg and not the 142 tonnes that the Wiki entry has been changed to https://ibb.co/ZXTn3y8

Image

This is blatant misrepresentation of the article.

Polot wrote:
Cargo is not always carried on pallets. And the ULDs they may be in are not always loaded up to their max gross weight...


Anyone who carries a lot of cargo loads pallets as many consignments are packed together in one overpack. Generally the cargo that carried in LD3s specialized like pharma to create a micro environment, or packages so they can be interlined easily.


Opus99 wrote:
[
and also a data point from Jay about the -10's capabilities


This is a post JayUnited made before in viewtopic.php?t=1422657

"That is not true at all. 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."

MTOW 254 tonnes
MZFW 192.8 tonnes
OEW 136.4 tonnes

Max payload = MZFW-OEW 56.4 tonnes

Actual passenger + bags payload = 32 tonnes
Cargo Payload = 11.8 tonnes

Now compare that with what I said above

"-10, typical seating 330 pax, 33 tonnes of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 14 LD3s for bags, room for 13 more pallets
-10 max payload 57 tonnes minus 33 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 24 tonnes for cargo, which is about 5 pallets, 8 empty positions."

The information I posted is 100% in alignment with real world data.

jagraham wrote:
A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again


Current data I have seen states the 779 has less range at the marketing payload/rage than the -1000, and the maximum payload Is less than the -1000 (7,285 nm vs 8700 nm). The -1000 has over 35 tonnes lower OEW, it hs more range and payload than todays 77W, in our fleet the 77W carries around 6 tonnes less payload than the -1000 (69 tonnes vs 75 tonnes)

For the 779 to meet the -1000 payload the OEW needs to be under 179 tonnes (779 OEW 254.9 - 75 tonnes payload of the -1000), consensus has it at around 184-185 tonnes ( https://seekingalpha.com/article/407457 ... 777minus-9 )

Oh nobody is doubting you there. You’re indeed correct but what of the -9? You said it has a payload of 63 tonnes right?

By your same calculation of MZFW-OEW

That is 181.4-128.8(wiki-it was only about one tonne off jays real life OEW for the -10)

So that leaves 52.2 tonnes of payload.

So I mean what of that? Or is there a different calculation for that one. No but from what you said they share the same MZFW (BS) which actually would be 192.8-128.8= 64 tonnes which is just above the 63 tonnes you said.

So you can just admit you were incorrect there. It’s fine.

Unless you want to say there’s another way to calculate payload separate from the 9 and 10

Also incase you were wondering what that meant for cargo, the -10 can haul roughly 2 tonnes more cargo
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 7:59 am

Opus99 wrote:

That is 181.4-128.8(wiki-it was only about one tonne off jays real life OEW for the -10)

So that leaves 52.2 tonnes of payload.

So I mean what of that? Or is there a different calculation for that one. No but from what you said they share the same MZFW (BS) which actually would be 192.8-128.8= 64 tonnes which is just above the 63 tonnes you said.

So you can just admit you were incorrect there. It’s fine.


Yep looks like I am wrong, I used the same MZFW for the 787-9 and -10

Opus99 wrote:
Also incase you were wondering what that meant for cargo, the -10 can haul roughly 2 tonnes more cargo


No, it would still carry less, as the difference in passengers 330-290 is 4 tonnes, take some payload away for catering etc, and take some payload away for the extra LD3s for baggage.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 8:44 am

zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

That is 181.4-128.8(wiki-it was only about one tonne off jays real life OEW for the -10)

So that leaves 52.2 tonnes of payload.

So I mean what of that? Or is there a different calculation for that one. No but from what you said they share the same MZFW (BS) which actually would be 192.8-128.8= 64 tonnes which is just above the 63 tonnes you said.

So you can just admit you were incorrect there. It’s fine.


Yep looks like I am wrong, I used the same MZFW for the 787-9 and -10

Opus99 wrote:
Also incase you were wondering what that meant for cargo, the -10 can haul roughly 2 tonnes more cargo


No, it would still carry less, as the difference in passengers 330-290 is 4 tonnes, take some payload away for catering etc, and take some payload away for the extra LD3s for baggage.



The bear weight of an LD3 is 72KG. How much more will those things weigh? Since you want to be right by force.

In everything they will balance out at the same tonnage. One just has more volume than the other which I assume is very attractive for cargo....

Unless in the LD3 is not included in the extra 4 tonnes? How many extra do you need?

Your argument was pretty much moot when you came with very incorrect information.

You also like to assume that volume is insignificant in cargo operations?

When we look at things like 300ER cargo conversion, its tonnage definitely sits below the 777F but its volume makes it attractive. So volume does matter in as much as it does not support your point. Which was already shaky. Please
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16326
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 10:35 am

Opus99 wrote:
The bear weight of an LD3 is 72KG. How much more will those things weigh? Since you want to be right by force.

In everything they will balance out at the same tonnage. One just has more volume than the other which I assume is very attractive for cargo....

Unless in the LD3 is not included in the extra 4 tonnes? How many extra do you need?

Your argument was pretty much moot when you came with very incorrect information.

You also like to assume that volume is insignificant in cargo operations?

When we look at things like 300ER cargo conversion, its tonnage definitely sits below the 777F but its volume makes it attractive. So volume does matter in as much as it does not support your point. Which was already shaky. Please


LD3s are not all 72 KG, seen them as light as around 60 kg all the way up to 300 kg, Generally speaking the really light ones are only good for baggage, a lot of airlines run ones that are more like 100-120 kg as they can be interchanged and used for baggage or cargo. LD3 are not included in the nominal passenger and baggage weight, a 787-10 would load something like 1.4 tonnes of LD3s just for passenger baggage ontop of the passenger and baggage weights. On a long haul flight, it would not be unusual to add another 15-20 kg per passenger for "catering", that includes everything from magazines, bathroom supplies, blankets, pillows, food, drinks, trays, carts, portable water.

The information I was working on is not from wiki, I was told by Boeing people that they have made the -9 and -10 manufacturing and weights the same to reduce production costs. That weight increase I think was misconstrued by the media to mean the 787-9 was getting a MTOW increase. I had heard they were looking at an 80 tonne capacity for an eventual 787-9 based freighter.

The 77W cargo conversion is and is not attractive, it is not that attractive to general cargo carriers. As it is being done without OEM support by reverse engineering the structure, it will not be an optimized solution, both from a capability and maintenance standpoint. The conversion rate will also be pretty slow, maybe 1 a month.

Where I work our cargo terminal has an annual throughput of something like 2 million tonnes no idea of the volume, It really depends on what you are carrying as to the cargo density. If volume was all that mattered, Fedex and UPS would not have bought 767Fs, they would have bought the A330-400 freighter, the 748F would still be available from Boeing, and the A380F would be flying.

As a side note, please stop the pretty remarks, I used data which is not yet certified that made the aircraft better, not worse, I admitted it, no one else on this thread has been mature enough to do that. Thing is my "mistake" is only a mistake until the higher weight is certified which NZ was supposed to be getting with their GE powered 787-9s.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 10:47 am

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You would have to add a lot of weight to A359/A351 to get MZFW up. On the A359 you would only be able to lift about 60T even with Zeke's low OEW weight number.


I have never run into a MZFW limit with normal operations. I have carried 30 plus tones of perishables plus full passenger cabins over 8 hrs, and the limit was MLW, not MZFW.

morrisond wrote:
Okay - that makes more sense - however your A359's seem to have 35 seats less than that number - so it might be a little low. But it really is a rounding error in this discussion.


And our seats are heavier in 3 class compared to the marketing 2 class. I have tried to be very polite in my descrioption of the wiki data, this is a screenshot from the AW&ST Article "Flying The A350: Airbus’s Most Technologically Advanced Airliner" May 22, 2015 (subscription required https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... d-airliner)

Fair use excerpt of the AW&ST article to show the OEW listed in the article is 135172 kg and not the 142 tonnes that the Wiki entry has been changed to https://ibb.co/ZXTn3y8

Image

This is blatant misrepresentation of the article.

Polot wrote:
Cargo is not always carried on pallets. And the ULDs they may be in are not always loaded up to their max gross weight...


Anyone who carries a lot of cargo loads pallets as many consignments are packed together in one overpack. Generally the cargo that carried in LD3s specialized like pharma to create a micro environment, or packages so they can be interlined easily.


Opus99 wrote:
[
and also a data point from Jay about the -10's capabilities


This is a post JayUnited made before in viewtopic.php?t=1422657

"That is not true at all. 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."

MTOW 254 tonnes
MZFW 192.8 tonnes
OEW 136.4 tonnes

Max payload = MZFW-OEW 56.4 tonnes

Actual passenger + bags payload = 32 tonnes
Cargo Payload = 11.8 tonnes

Now compare that with what I said above

"-10, typical seating 330 pax, 33 tonnes of payload, 25 bags per LD3, expect 14 LD3s for bags, room for 13 more pallets
-10 max payload 57 tonnes minus 33 tonnes of passengers and bags leaves 24 tonnes for cargo, which is about 5 pallets, 8 empty positions."

The information I posted is 100% in alignment with real world data.

jagraham wrote:
A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again


Current data I have seen states the 779 has less range at the marketing payload/rage than the -1000, and the maximum payload Is less than the -1000 (7,285 nm vs 8700 nm). The -1000 has over 35 tonnes lower OEW, it hs more range and payload than todays 77W, in our fleet the 77W carries around 6 tonnes less payload than the -1000 (69 tonnes vs 75 tonnes)

For the 779 to meet the -1000 payload the OEW needs to be under 179 tonnes (779 OEW 254.9 - 75 tonnes payload of the -1000), consensus has it at around 184-185 tonnes ( https://seekingalpha.com/article/407457 ... 777minus-9 )


Sorry - I meant to write A350F. I'm pretty sure you haven't flown one of those yet.

184-185T is the consensus OEW weight? Based on an 2017 article from Simply Alpha that uses interpolated data with a guess on the passenger fraction? Okay then.

At 55% Passenger weight that adds another 5T to the 779 and at 50% it adds another 10T, taking the OEW lower. We have heard through various press reports that the Wingbox is much stronger along with the gear. Which of course they would have to be.

You would have to guess that when Boeing saw how good the A350 is they pulled out all the stops to take more weight out of it.

No one will really know until it debuts.
 
mig17
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 11:36 am

jagraham wrote:
mig17 wrote:
tomcat wrote:

Here is the link I posted upthread, see slides 35 and 38:
https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%201%20PDF/5-Yonglian-ALACPA%20Presentation%2029%20Nov%202016.pdf

Looking at the current airport compatibility document of the 777-9 the new MLG has a geometry very close to what Boeing was announcing in this presentation published in 2016 and in which they announce a 360t MTOW for the 777-10X. I assume that this 360t MTOW can thus be achieved by the new MLG.

The MTOW is what's limiting the 777-9, making it less capable payload/range wise thant the A35K. If an MTOW upgrade was possible and easy to implement I think we would already know (or spec confidentiality is working here ...). For the 777-10, that upgrade would have been mandatory, so would have happen even if not easy. But since the project of a -10 is not happening anytime soon, would Boeing invest in a 360t MTOW now with the -X cost already throught the top?


A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again

A350-1000:
MZFW 223t
OEW 150t
max payload (223-150=) 73t
MTOW 311t / 316t /319t
design range (at 366 pax or 38.5t) 8200nm / 8400/nm / 8700nm
fuel for design range (311-150-38.5=) 122,5t / (316-150-38.5=) 127.5t / (319-150-38.5=) 130.5t
fuel per nm (122.5/8200=) 0.015 / (127.5/8400=) 0.015 / (130.5/8700=) 0.015
fuel at max payload (311-150-73=) 88t / (316-150-73=) 93t / (319-150-73=) 96t
range at max payload (88/0.015=) 5866nm / (93/0.015=) 6200nm / (96/0.015=) 6400nm

777-9:
MZFW 255t
OEW 182t
max payload (255-182=) 73t
MTOW 352t / 360t
design range (at 425 pax or 44.5t) 7285nm / (133.5/0.017=) 7852nm
fuel for design range (352-182-44.5=) 125.5t / (360-182-44.5=) 133.5t
fuel per nm (125.5/7285=) 0.017
fuel at max payload (352-182-73=) 97t / 105t
range at max payload (97/0.017=) 5705nm / (105/0.017=) 6176nm

Even the 311t A350-1000 can take the same max payload of 73t further than the 352t 777-9 while burning less fuel. And after their respective range at max payload, the 777-9 will be trading payload for fuel faster than A350-1000 since it's fuel per nm is higher.
Even an hypothetical 360t 777-9 would not lift it further than a 316t A350-1000 while burning 13% more fuel ...

So unless the 7285nm design range given by Boeing is bullshit, yes the 777-9 is less capable payload-range wise than all A350-1000. The only advantage of the 777-9 is volume, cabin and cargo space. If it is still an advantantage at the extra cost the 777-9 offers it.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 12:18 pm

mig17 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
mig17 wrote:
The MTOW is what's limiting the 777-9, making it less capable payload/range wise thant the A35K. If an MTOW upgrade was possible and easy to implement I think we would already know (or spec confidentiality is working here ...). For the 777-10, that upgrade would have been mandatory, so would have happen even if not easy. But since the project of a -10 is not happening anytime soon, would Boeing invest in a 360t MTOW now with the -X cost already throught the top?


A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again

A350-1000:
MZFW 223t
OEW 150t
max payload (223-150=) 73t
MTOW 311t / 316t /319t
design range (at 366 pax or 38.5t) 8200nm / 8400/nm / 8700nm
fuel for design range (311-150-38.5=) 122,5t / (316-150-38.5=) 127.5t / (319-150-38.5=) 130.5t
fuel per nm (122.5/8200=) 0.015 / (127.5/8400=) 0.015 / (130.5/8700=) 0.015
fuel at max payload (311-150-73=) 88t / (316-150-73=) 93t / (319-150-73=) 96t
range at max payload (88/0.015=) 5866nm / (93/0.015=) 6200nm / (96/0.015=) 6400nm

777-9:
MZFW 255t
OEW 182t
max payload (255-182=) 73t
MTOW 352t / 360t
design range (at 425 pax or 44.5t) 7285nm / (133.5/0.017=) 7852nm
fuel for design range (352-182-44.5=) 125.5t / (360-182-44.5=) 133.5t
fuel per nm (125.5/7285=) 0.017
fuel at max payload (352-182-73=) 97t / 105t
range at max payload (97/0.017=) 5705nm / (105/0.017=) 6176nm

Even the 311t A350-1000 can take the same max payload of 73t further than the 352t 777-9 while burning less fuel. And after their respective range at max payload, the 777-9 will be trading payload for fuel faster than A350-1000 since it's fuel per nm is higher.
Even an hypothetical 360t 777-9 would not lift it further than a 316t A350-1000 while burning 13% more fuel ...

So unless the 7285nm design range given by Boeing is bullshit, yes the 777-9 is less capable payload-range wise than all A350-1000. The only advantage of the 777-9 is volume, cabin and cargo space. If it is still an advantantage at the extra cost the 777-9 offers it.


Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?
 
mig17
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 12:39 pm

morrisond wrote:
mig17 wrote:
jagraham wrote:

A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again

A350-1000:
MZFW 223t
OEW 150t
max payload (223-150=) 73t
MTOW 311t / 316t /319t
design range (at 366 pax or 38.5t) 8200nm / 8400/nm / 8700nm
fuel for design range (311-150-38.5=) 122,5t / (316-150-38.5=) 127.5t / (319-150-38.5=) 130.5t
fuel per nm (122.5/8200=) 0.015 / (127.5/8400=) 0.015 / (130.5/8700=) 0.015
fuel at max payload (311-150-73=) 88t / (316-150-73=) 93t / (319-150-73=) 96t
range at max payload (88/0.015=) 5866nm / (93/0.015=) 6200nm / (96/0.015=) 6400nm

777-9:
MZFW 255t
OEW 182t
max payload (255-182=) 73t
MTOW 352t / 360t
design range (at 425 pax or 44.5t) 7285nm / (133.5/0.017=) 7852nm
fuel for design range (352-182-44.5=) 125.5t / (360-182-44.5=) 133.5t
fuel per nm (125.5/7285=) 0.017
fuel at max payload (352-182-73=) 97t / 105t
range at max payload (97/0.017=) 5705nm / (105/0.017=) 6176nm

Even the 311t A350-1000 can take the same max payload of 73t further than the 352t 777-9 while burning less fuel. And after their respective range at max payload, the 777-9 will be trading payload for fuel faster than A350-1000 since it's fuel per nm is higher.
Even an hypothetical 360t 777-9 would not lift it further than a 316t A350-1000 while burning 13% more fuel ...

So unless the 7285nm design range given by Boeing is bullshit, yes the 777-9 is less capable payload-range wise than all A350-1000. The only advantage of the 777-9 is volume, cabin and cargo space. If it is still an advantantage at the extra cost the 777-9 offers it.


Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?

I can't answer in facts like in the previous post, but I suspect : better engine + better wings - larger fuselage - longer fuselage - 33 (352-319=) tons heavier in the air =~13% less fuel efficient on a ~7 000nm trip ...
Again, all the weight / range "facts" above are based on the design range of Boeing for the 777-9 and a projected OEW of 182t. But more time goes by, more it seems like the 777-9 isn't doing better, maybe even worst than anticipated on those 2 front.

The problem of the 777-X seem to be it is heavy but without extra performance coming from the extra weight.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 12:41 pm

Using numbers to more decimals you are assuming .01722 per NM for the 779 and .01494 NM which is a difference of 15.26%.

Something really doesn't seem right. Say it's a difference in fuel burn of 6% (8% more thrust engines assuming same fraction at altitude and the engines are more efficient) then the range goes to 7922NM for the 779 at 351T.

Or you would only need 115.4T of fuel - does that effectively mean MAX payload could be 10T higher at 83T?

My head is going in circles on this so any help is appreciated.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1726
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 12:56 pm

Apologies if this stretches the topic scope a little, but Airbus and LT will offer a simple temporary conversion for A330s to utilise the main pax deck for freight. Finnair is the first taker for this:

"The new modification offers a volumetric cargo capacity of around 78 cubic meters on the main deck of an A330-200 with 12 PKC pallet positions and 18 nets. Meanwhile, the A330-300’s main deck cargo capacity will total about 86 cubic meters with 15 PKC pallet positions and 19 nets."

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -cargo-mod

I imagine similar could be offered for A350 if there was sufficient demand.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 1:01 pm

mig17 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mig17 wrote:
A350-1000:
MZFW 223t
OEW 150t
max payload (223-150=) 73t
MTOW 311t / 316t /319t
design range (at 366 pax or 38.5t) 8200nm / 8400/nm / 8700nm
fuel for design range (311-150-38.5=) 122,5t / (316-150-38.5=) 127.5t / (319-150-38.5=) 130.5t
fuel per nm (122.5/8200=) 0.015 / (127.5/8400=) 0.015 / (130.5/8700=) 0.015
fuel at max payload (311-150-73=) 88t / (316-150-73=) 93t / (319-150-73=) 96t
range at max payload (88/0.015=) 5866nm / (93/0.015=) 6200nm / (96/0.015=) 6400nm

777-9:
MZFW 255t
OEW 182t
max payload (255-182=) 73t
MTOW 352t / 360t
design range (at 425 pax or 44.5t) 7285nm / (133.5/0.017=) 7852nm
fuel for design range (352-182-44.5=) 125.5t / (360-182-44.5=) 133.5t
fuel per nm (125.5/7285=) 0.017
fuel at max payload (352-182-73=) 97t / 105t
range at max payload (97/0.017=) 5705nm / (105/0.017=) 6176nm

Even the 311t A350-1000 can take the same max payload of 73t further than the 352t 777-9 while burning less fuel. And after their respective range at max payload, the 777-9 will be trading payload for fuel faster than A350-1000 since it's fuel per nm is higher.
Even an hypothetical 360t 777-9 would not lift it further than a 316t A350-1000 while burning 13% more fuel ...

So unless the 7285nm design range given by Boeing is bullshit, yes the 777-9 is less capable payload-range wise than all A350-1000. The only advantage of the 777-9 is volume, cabin and cargo space. If it is still an advantantage at the extra cost the 777-9 offers it.


Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?

I can't answer in facts like in the previous post, but I suspect : better engine + better wings - larger fuselage - longer fuselage - 33 (352-319=) tons heavier in the air =~13% less fuel efficient on a ~7 000nm trip ...
Again, all the weight / range "facts" above are based on the design range of Boeing for the 777-9 and a projected OEW of 182t. But more time goes by, more it seems like the 777-9 isn't doing better, maybe even worst than anticipated on those 2 front.

The problem of the 777-X seem to be it is heavy but without extra performance coming from the extra weight.


Or some of the assumptions are wrong on the 779 and it's better than what is known as the actual fuel burn difference on the published ranges/abilities is 15.26% more.

That doesn't seem right for an aircraft that is only 10.3% heavier, has optimal newer engines, an optimal newer wing vs the A351 which is not optimal (chord lengthened vs A359 - the 779 is 7M wider) and the A351 does not have optimal engines either.

The cross sectional area of the 777 is only 5% more than the A350, it's only 3.9% longer and it seats 12% more. Something really doesn't make sense.

I can't believe the Boeing Engineers are that bad when an A351 has an OEW weight less than 150T and the expectation is that the 779 is over 20% more than that. When the A350 can fly 15% longer.

Other than the mold line on the 779 almost everything else is new. They use a lot of the same suppliers and sub contractors. Boeing parts won't be less weight efficient than Airbus parts.

The 777X is basically an 787 from a systems standpoint (I'm assuming 787 systems are lighter) and an evolution of the 787 wing where they would have learned how to make it lighter (per kG of Lift) and more efficient than the 787 wing. It also uses lighter 787 interior fittings.

Maybe we really need to think of it as a bulked up 787 and start from that basis vs an evolution of the 777.

I suspect the OEW weight will be more in the 172-175T range. Heck if you take an 781 and size it by 25% (414 passengers vs 330) you get to 169T. A larger aircraft should be more structurally efficient - then you have add some more in for the additional range capability. The fuselage on a widebody (the only carryover part and not much of that is carried over) is only 3-5% of the MTOW.

If your numbers are right - the Boeing engineers should be fired.
Last edited by morrisond on Mon May 03, 2021 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 1:03 pm

morrisond wrote:

Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?


How do you come to the conclusion that the current Trent XWB 97 are somewhat pushed? AFAIK they are the current state of the art and significantly more economical than the GE90's. The throughput of the fan over the XWB84 has been increased by running the fan 6% faster and using technology from the European Environmentally Friendly Engine program for new fan blades. The core is not throttled up, but is 5% bigger than on the 84.
I assume there are plenty reserves in the Trent 97XWB and we can expect a PIP in the near future. RR is working at running the core hotter, AKA more efficient.

The fuel consumption on the way has nothing to do with the maximum thrust of either engine, but the at cruise needed thrust and specific fuel consumption under those conditions. The biggest influence on the needed thrust at cruse is the weight of the frame. At MTOW the A350-1000 is 9.2 to 12.5 % lighter than the 777-9 for the same payload and slightly more range. I doubt that a perhaps 5% specific fuel burn advantage of GE9X will overcome the increased fuel burn of the heavier frame.
In regards to wing I assume both frames to be similar, while the A350-1000 will have advantages in regards to the fuselage.

A fuel burn advantage of the GE9X over the Trent XWB97 is expected, but has not been shown yet. It is perhaps significant, that the biggest customer of the 777X, Emirates, has been getting impatient of waiting for real world numbers from the testflights of the 777-9.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 1:09 pm

morrisond wrote:
mig17 wrote:
jagraham wrote:

A 351t 779 is less capable than a 316t A35J??? Think again

A350-1000:
MZFW 223t
OEW 150t
max payload (223-150=) 73t
MTOW 311t / 316t /319t
design range (at 366 pax or 38.5t) 8200nm / 8400/nm / 8700nm
fuel for design range (311-150-38.5=) 122,5t / (316-150-38.5=) 127.5t / (319-150-38.5=) 130.5t
fuel per nm (122.5/8200=) 0.015 / (127.5/8400=) 0.015 / (130.5/8700=) 0.015
fuel at max payload (311-150-73=) 88t / (316-150-73=) 93t / (319-150-73=) 96t
range at max payload (88/0.015=) 5866nm / (93/0.015=) 6200nm / (96/0.015=) 6400nm

777-9:
MZFW 255t
OEW 182t
max payload (255-182=) 73t
MTOW 352t / 360t
design range (at 425 pax or 44.5t) 7285nm / (133.5/0.017=) 7852nm
fuel for design range (352-182-44.5=) 125.5t / (360-182-44.5=) 133.5t
fuel per nm (125.5/7285=) 0.017
fuel at max payload (352-182-73=) 97t / 105t
range at max payload (97/0.017=) 5705nm / (105/0.017=) 6176nm

Even the 311t A350-1000 can take the same max payload of 73t further than the 352t 777-9 while burning less fuel. And after their respective range at max payload, the 777-9 will be trading payload for fuel faster than A350-1000 since it's fuel per nm is higher.
Even an hypothetical 360t 777-9 would not lift it further than a 316t A350-1000 while burning 13% more fuel ...

So unless the 7285nm design range given by Boeing is bullshit, yes the 777-9 is less capable payload-range wise than all A350-1000. The only advantage of the 777-9 is volume, cabin and cargo space. If it is still an advantantage at the extra cost the 777-9 offers it.


Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?


The whole debate around 779 (dating back to 777-X days) centered on whether the engine and wing improvements could offset the additional dead weight from the older all-aluminum fuse and main structures, compared to the lighter composite construction on the A350. Lighter is not always better. Example are wingtips. These add weight but the drag improvement more than offsets above some shorter segment length. There are often tradeoffs between "light" and "maintenance costs / durability". All said, first preference is always to be as light as possible, and this is where the older 777 being refreshed really hurts. So yes, the wing and engines should be better, but is that enough to overcome structural inefficiency elsewhere? The Jury is still out but it's looking increasingly less probable.

In the early days, the A359 was expected to have MTOW of 268T, and while I forget the exact figures for the A35K, it was lower 300's. I seem to recall 304T. The 779 was sized/designed to excel that the longest range/payload conditions, which exceed that of the "publically planned" A35K. Flash forward, the A35K came in under weight and with excess capacities. MTOW has grown to 311T with talk(plans?) of 319T. This is a massive increase against what the original playing field was expected to be.

As a result, at least based upon current information, the 779's market position is shrinking. It's chief benefit over A35K is it's larger cabin size due to 10x Y, and additional length, but with the caveat that market needs for VLA's is ever shrinking.

It could be in trouble or we may be in for a surprise (lower OEW than assumed, better aero than planned, better engine than planned, etc). Jury is out.

However, the 779 was not planned to be optimized for freight. The wing is large (and therefore heavy) to maximize efficiency on very long pax stage lengths. This is not optimal for shorter freight stages. Weight could be taken out of the wing to be better for freight, but the cost to do excess the market value of doing it. Note that the 779 wing weight goal was to be the same as the older 77W wing, despite being larger and therefore more efficient. We don't know if that goal was achieved.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 1:42 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mig17 wrote:
A350-1000:
MZFW 223t
OEW 150t
max payload (223-150=) 73t
MTOW 311t / 316t /319t
design range (at 366 pax or 38.5t) 8200nm / 8400/nm / 8700nm
fuel for design range (311-150-38.5=) 122,5t / (316-150-38.5=) 127.5t / (319-150-38.5=) 130.5t
fuel per nm (122.5/8200=) 0.015 / (127.5/8400=) 0.015 / (130.5/8700=) 0.015
fuel at max payload (311-150-73=) 88t / (316-150-73=) 93t / (319-150-73=) 96t
range at max payload (88/0.015=) 5866nm / (93/0.015=) 6200nm / (96/0.015=) 6400nm

777-9:
MZFW 255t
OEW 182t
max payload (255-182=) 73t
MTOW 352t / 360t
design range (at 425 pax or 44.5t) 7285nm / (133.5/0.017=) 7852nm
fuel for design range (352-182-44.5=) 125.5t / (360-182-44.5=) 133.5t
fuel per nm (125.5/7285=) 0.017
fuel at max payload (352-182-73=) 97t / 105t
range at max payload (97/0.017=) 5705nm / (105/0.017=) 6176nm

Even the 311t A350-1000 can take the same max payload of 73t further than the 352t 777-9 while burning less fuel. And after their respective range at max payload, the 777-9 will be trading payload for fuel faster than A350-1000 since it's fuel per nm is higher.
Even an hypothetical 360t 777-9 would not lift it further than a 316t A350-1000 while burning 13% more fuel ...

So unless the 7285nm design range given by Boeing is bullshit, yes the 777-9 is less capable payload-range wise than all A350-1000. The only advantage of the 777-9 is volume, cabin and cargo space. If it is still an advantantage at the extra cost the 777-9 offers it.


Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?


The whole debate around 779 (dating back to 777-X days) centered on whether the engine and wing improvements could offset the additional dead weight from the older all-aluminum fuse and main structures, compared to the lighter composite construction on the A350. Lighter is not always better. Example are wingtips. These add weight but the drag improvement more than offsets above some shorter segment length. There are often tradeoffs between "light" and "maintenance costs / durability". All said, first preference is always to be as light as possible, and this is where the older 777 being refreshed really hurts. So yes, the wing and engines should be better, but is that enough to overcome structural inefficiency elsewhere? The Jury is still out but it's looking increasingly less probable.

In the early days, the A359 was expected to have MTOW of 268T, and while I forget the exact figures for the A35K, it was lower 300's. I seem to recall 304T. The 779 was sized/designed to excel that the longest range/payload conditions, which exceed that of the "publically planned" A35K. Flash forward, the A35K came in under weight and with excess capacities. MTOW has grown to 311T with talk(plans?) of 319T. This is a massive increase against what the original playing field was expected to be.

As a result, at least based upon current information, the 779's market position is shrinking. It's chief benefit over A35K is it's larger cabin size due to 10x Y, and additional length, but with the caveat that market needs for VLA's is ever shrinking.

It could be in trouble or we may be in for a surprise (lower OEW than assumed, better aero than planned, better engine than planned, etc). Jury is out.

However, the 779 was not planned to be optimized for freight. The wing is large (and therefore heavy) to maximize efficiency on very long pax stage lengths. This is not optimal for shorter freight stages. Weight could be taken out of the wing to be better for freight, but the cost to do excess the market value of doing it. Note that the 779 wing weight goal was to be the same as the older 77W wing, despite being larger and therefore more efficient. We don't know if that goal was achieved.


That is the big debate on the 779 how light is the fuselage and main structures. It does have a new wingbox and we know that at least the upper fuselage frames are new and the gear is new.

On a wide body the fuselage is only 3-5% of the MTOW - so not a whole lot to be saved there by using carbon.

We know the engines are heavier.

Wingbox Box is probably heavier and I saw an article that says it is but with no numbers (to support higher bending moment of longer wings offset by heavier engines and possibly higher 360T MTOW).

Wing is probably close to the same.

Gear might be a little heaver for heavier MTOW if it gets pushed to 360T - but more modern in design so could be a wash.

787 Systems and Interior could possibly take a lot of weight out.

It's a little longer.

Where is the all the weight coming from?

In any case they could probably just hang the Ge9X on the 77F and be done with it, like Fred and I suggested.

However we are supposed to be talking about the 350F - I'm the only one (I think) who has put some numbers up on that.

What do others think about how capable that bird could be?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 2:33 pm

morrisond wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?


The whole debate around 779 (dating back to 777-X days) centered on whether the engine and wing improvements could offset the additional dead weight from the older all-aluminum fuse and main structures, compared to the lighter composite construction on the A350. Lighter is not always better. Example are wingtips. These add weight but the drag improvement more than offsets above some shorter segment length. There are often tradeoffs between "light" and "maintenance costs / durability". All said, first preference is always to be as light as possible, and this is where the older 777 being refreshed really hurts. So yes, the wing and engines should be better, but is that enough to overcome structural inefficiency elsewhere? The Jury is still out but it's looking increasingly less probable.

In the early days, the A359 was expected to have MTOW of 268T, and while I forget the exact figures for the A35K, it was lower 300's. I seem to recall 304T. The 779 was sized/designed to excel that the longest range/payload conditions, which exceed that of the "publically planned" A35K. Flash forward, the A35K came in under weight and with excess capacities. MTOW has grown to 311T with talk(plans?) of 319T. This is a massive increase against what the original playing field was expected to be.

As a result, at least based upon current information, the 779's market position is shrinking. It's chief benefit over A35K is it's larger cabin size due to 10x Y, and additional length, but with the caveat that market needs for VLA's is ever shrinking.

It could be in trouble or we may be in for a surprise (lower OEW than assumed, better aero than planned, better engine than planned, etc). Jury is out.

However, the 779 was not planned to be optimized for freight. The wing is large (and therefore heavy) to maximize efficiency on very long pax stage lengths. This is not optimal for shorter freight stages. Weight could be taken out of the wing to be better for freight, but the cost to do excess the market value of doing it. Note that the 779 wing weight goal was to be the same as the older 77W wing, despite being larger and therefore more efficient. We don't know if that goal was achieved.


That is the big debate on the 779 how light is the fuselage and main structures. It does have a new wingbox and we know that at least the upper fuselage frames are new and the gear is new.

On a wide body the fuselage is only 3-5% of the MTOW - so not a whole lot to be saved there by using carbon.

We know the engines are heavier.

Wingbox Box is probably heavier and I saw an article that says it is but with no numbers (to support higher bending moment of longer wings offset by heavier engines and possibly higher 360T MTOW).

Wing is probably close to the same.

Gear might be a little heaver for heavier MTOW if it gets pushed to 360T - but more modern in design so could be a wash.

787 Systems and Interior could possibly take a lot of weight out.

It's a little longer.

Where is the all the weight coming from?

In any case they could probably just hang the Ge9X on the 77F and be done with it, like Fred and I suggested.

However we are supposed to be talking about the 350F - I'm the only one (I think) who has put some numbers up on that.

What do others think about how capable that bird could be?


The 777 is a big, wide and heavy frame to begin with. Stretching it adds weight. To increase space inside the cabin, stringers and frames have been decreased in height. To get the same strength you need thicker material, that increases weight. Bigger windows, windows are heavier the fuselage skin, more weight.
A bigger wing, we do not yet know if Boeing managed to keep it to the same weight as on the 777, but especially with the added folding wing equipment, I have my doubts. Bigger, heavier engines.
All the above adds weight. The windows of course to not apply for a freighter version.

A 777F just with new engines, would add less weight, than going to the planned 777-8F, but it would still lead to a considerable higher OEW than the 777F with the old engines and so to decreased payload compared to the current 777F.

IMO a A350-900 sized frame with the A350-1000 capabilities, just starts out lighter than the comparable 777. It does not need the same high MTOW for the same payload and range capabilities.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 2:51 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?


How do you come to the conclusion that the current Trent XWB 97 are somewhat pushed? AFAIK they are the current state of the art and significantly more economical than the GE90's. The throughput of the fan over the XWB84 has been increased by running the fan 6% faster and using technology from the European Environmentally Friendly Engine program for new fan blades. The core is not throttled up, but is 5% bigger than on the 84.
I assume there are plenty reserves in the Trent 97XWB and we can expect a PIP in the near future. RR is working at running the core hotter, AKA more efficient.

The fuel consumption on the way has nothing to do with the maximum thrust of either engine, but the at cruise needed thrust and specific fuel consumption under those conditions. The biggest influence on the needed thrust at cruse is the weight of the frame. At MTOW the A350-1000 is 9.2 to 12.5 % lighter than the 777-9 for the same payload and slightly more range. I doubt that a perhaps 5% specific fuel burn advantage of GE9X will overcome the increased fuel burn of the heavier frame.
In regards to wing I assume both frames to be similar, while the A350-1000 will have advantages in regards to the fuselage.

A fuel burn advantage of the GE9X over the Trent XWB97 is expected, but has not been shown yet. It is perhaps significant, that the biggest customer of the 777X, Emirates, has been getting impatient of waiting for real world numbers from the testflights of the 777-9.


How can you run a non-geared turbofan 6% faster without pushing the throttle?

I did say it would need more thrust at altitude and talked about that it didn't really have anything to do with maximum thrust as the different engines could be producing a different percent of maximum thrust at altitude due to the different fan size - however only 9.2-12.5% heavier and 15.26% more fuel burn with newer engines doesn't make sense and yes 5% better than TrentXWB97 seems about right.

Very simple math but 9.2-12.5% heavier - 5% lower SFC is more like 8.74%- 11.875% more fuel burn and with 12.2% more seats (who knows if same density) that would lead to better per passenger numbers and maybe where Boeing is making it's claims from.

8.74% - 11.875% more fuel burn is a lot better than 15.26%.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 2:52 pm

Can't provide facts, but I have my doubts that the A350-1000 is so wonderful. It didn't sell like hot cake.
Maybe the B777-300ER was oversold in the sellers market. Do they mostly start close to MTOW?
And then B787-9 and A350-900 are good competitors. Makes sense to wait till introduction and see real data before ordering.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 2:57 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:

The whole debate around 779 (dating back to 777-X days) centered on whether the engine and wing improvements could offset the additional dead weight from the older all-aluminum fuse and main structures, compared to the lighter composite construction on the A350. Lighter is not always better. Example are wingtips. These add weight but the drag improvement more than offsets above some shorter segment length. There are often tradeoffs between "light" and "maintenance costs / durability". All said, first preference is always to be as light as possible, and this is where the older 777 being refreshed really hurts. So yes, the wing and engines should be better, but is that enough to overcome structural inefficiency elsewhere? The Jury is still out but it's looking increasingly less probable.

In the early days, the A359 was expected to have MTOW of 268T, and while I forget the exact figures for the A35K, it was lower 300's. I seem to recall 304T. The 779 was sized/designed to excel that the longest range/payload conditions, which exceed that of the "publically planned" A35K. Flash forward, the A35K came in under weight and with excess capacities. MTOW has grown to 311T with talk(plans?) of 319T. This is a massive increase against what the original playing field was expected to be.

As a result, at least based upon current information, the 779's market position is shrinking. It's chief benefit over A35K is it's larger cabin size due to 10x Y, and additional length, but with the caveat that market needs for VLA's is ever shrinking.

It could be in trouble or we may be in for a surprise (lower OEW than assumed, better aero than planned, better engine than planned, etc). Jury is out.

However, the 779 was not planned to be optimized for freight. The wing is large (and therefore heavy) to maximize efficiency on very long pax stage lengths. This is not optimal for shorter freight stages. Weight could be taken out of the wing to be better for freight, but the cost to do excess the market value of doing it. Note that the 779 wing weight goal was to be the same as the older 77W wing, despite being larger and therefore more efficient. We don't know if that goal was achieved.


That is the big debate on the 779 how light is the fuselage and main structures. It does have a new wingbox and we know that at least the upper fuselage frames are new and the gear is new.

On a wide body the fuselage is only 3-5% of the MTOW - so not a whole lot to be saved there by using carbon.

We know the engines are heavier.

Wingbox Box is probably heavier and I saw an article that says it is but with no numbers (to support higher bending moment of longer wings offset by heavier engines and possibly higher 360T MTOW).

Wing is probably close to the same.

Gear might be a little heaver for heavier MTOW if it gets pushed to 360T - but more modern in design so could be a wash.

787 Systems and Interior could possibly take a lot of weight out.

It's a little longer.

Where is the all the weight coming from?

In any case they could probably just hang the Ge9X on the 77F and be done with it, like Fred and I suggested.

However we are supposed to be talking about the 350F - I'm the only one (I think) who has put some numbers up on that.

What do others think about how capable that bird could be?


The 777 is a big, wide and heavy frame to begin with. Stretching it adds weight. To increase space inside the cabin, stringers and frames have been decreased in height. To get the same strength you need thicker material, that increases weight. Bigger windows, windows are heavier the fuselage skin, more weight.
A bigger wing, we do not yet know if Boeing managed to keep it to the same weight as on the 777, but especially with the added folding wing equipment, I have my doubts. Bigger, heavier engines.
All the above adds weight. The windows of course to not apply for a freighter version.

A 777F just with new engines, would add less weight, than going to the planned 777-8F, but it would still lead to a considerable higher OEW than the 777F with the old engines and so to decreased payload compared to the current 777F.

IMO a A350-900 sized frame with the A350-1000 capabilities, just starts out lighter than the comparable 777. It does not need the same high MTOW for the same payload and range capabilities.


So a 777 is 244" by 244" in cross section. The A350 Cross section is 240" by 236" - the difference is almost immaterial. Fuselage weights are about 3-5% of MTOW for a wide body so yes there could be more weight there - but it's not going to be radically different.

The Rest of the airplane is state of the art and newer than the A350.

So what are your guesses on a A350F-900 with 1000 capabilities in terms of payload, MTOW and range. Compare them to 77F to make it easier.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 3:01 pm

Sokes wrote:
Can't provide facts, but I have my doubts that the A350-1000 is so wonderful. It didn't sell like hot cake.
Maybe the B777-300ER was oversold in the sellers market. Do they mostly start close to MTOW?
And then B787-9 and A350-900 are good competitors. Makes sense to wait till introduction and see real data before ordering.

I think it’s fantastic but the price may not be worth how fantastic it is. Also there are other things to look at such as maintenance costs etc. We’ve heard the plane is overbuilt and we’ve also heard Akbar complain about Rolls performance on the engine. I don’t think he means fuel burn but maybe maintenance etc

https://aviationanalyst.co.uk/2019/10/2 ... facturers/

Al Baker confirmed the first A321neo delivery to the airline is now pencilled in for September 2020.

It’s not just single-aisle production that is causing a worldwide hold-up. Sitting down with Aviation Analyst in Malaysia, Al Baker slammed A350 XWB engine supplier Rolls-Royce over poor performance. He said “We are very disappointed in Rolls-Royce. They are failing — failing to meet performance, failing to meet the timeline, failing to give us the comfort we require on the reliability of their engines, and so we are very disappointed with Rolls Royce. This is in specific reference to the A350″



Al Baker added “The performance of the engines in service is not what we expected. The turnaround of the overhauls of our engines is not happening”

While Al Baker agreed with me that the dispatch reliability for the A350 remains high, “it’s only ever brought down by part-supply chain, and part-Rolls-Royce” Al Baker explained.
 
mig17
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 3:02 pm

morrisond wrote:

However we are supposed to be talking about the 350F - I'm the only one (I think) who has put some numbers up on that.

What do others think about how capable that bird could be?

Something like that
A350F:
MTOW 319t
MZFW 233t to 243t
OEW ~140t
max payload (233 or 243-140=) 93t to 103t
fuel at max payload (319-140-103 or 93=) 76t to 86t
range at max payload (76 or 86/0.015=) 5066nm to 5733nm
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 3:17 pm

This article just popped up on my Twitter feed although its a few days old, and goes to Aibus's view on launching A350F:

FG: Airbus signals intention to address ‘weak’ presence in freighter market

It quotes Airbus CEO Faury as being anxious to move forward:

But speaking during a first-quarter briefing, chief executive Guillaume Faury acknowledged that Airbus “has been weak on the freight market segment in the past – in particular on our widebodies”.

“I don’t like the idea to remain weak on that segment in the future,” he says. “Indeed we’ll be more aggressive. We believe we have the products to be able to be more aggressive in the future.

“We think it’s not healthy to have only one player exclusively in the market for a segment that is very significant and has been resisting well in the pandemic. So we want to bring our contribution to that market segment.”


Yet his next comments to me suggest the A350F business case isn't close to closing yet:

Faury stresses, however, that the timeframe is “not clear” and “not defined today”.

He believes he has products he wants to bring to the market but the time frame is not clear.

To me this says he simply does not have the orders needed to launch the product at this point in time, and he's not willing to suggest that he's close to getting them.

Despite the strum und drang, we're in no different a position than we were in when the first post of this thread was made.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2366
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 3:51 pm

Revelation wrote:
This article just popped up on my Twitter feed although its a few days old, and goes to Aibus's view on launching A350F:

FG: Airbus signals intention to address ‘weak’ presence in freighter market

It quotes Airbus CEO Faury as being anxious to move forward:

But speaking during a first-quarter briefing, chief executive Guillaume Faury acknowledged that Airbus “has been weak on the freight market segment in the past – in particular on our widebodies”.

“I don’t like the idea to remain weak on that segment in the future,” he says. “Indeed we’ll be more aggressive. We believe we have the products to be able to be more aggressive in the future.

“We think it’s not healthy to have only one player exclusively in the market for a segment that is very significant and has been resisting well in the pandemic. So we want to bring our contribution to that market segment.”


Yet his next comments to me suggest the A350F business case isn't close to closing yet:

Faury stresses, however, that the timeframe is “not clear” and “not defined today”.

He believes he has products he wants to bring to the market but the time frame is not clear.

To me this says he simply does not have the orders needed to launch the product at this point in time, and he's not willing to suggest that he's close to getting them.

Despite the strum und drang, we're in no different a position than we were in when the first post of this thread was made.

I don’t even think we are in a different position from that cargo facts article from last year
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 4:05 pm

Will a A350F end the 772F?

If so does this prompt Boeing to join the 77W freighter conversion and flood the market just enough to stall sales of the A350F?

It’s not a direct replacement but it’s cheap and would be available sooner especially with the state of the world 77W fleet.

Does Boeing compete directly with a 77XF or look to build a comparable 748F replacement (probably closer to a 744ERF).

Discuss.

Personally I think a A350F could be a very successful aircraft.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 4:10 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I don’t even think we are in a different position from that cargo facts article from last year

The FG article points out that Airbus was talking about doing a freighter even when the A350XWB program was launched, so in reality the position hasn't changed for many years.

Airbus knows they can do A350F if/when the market supports it, but that hasn't happened so far, and the CEO isn't even willing to suggest a timeline for when it might happen.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 4:19 pm

mig17 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

However we are supposed to be talking about the 350F - I'm the only one (I think) who has put some numbers up on that.

What do others think about how capable that bird could be?

Something like that
A350F:
MTOW 319t
MZFW 233t to 243t
OEW ~140t
max payload (233 or 243-140=) 93t to 103t
fuel at max payload (319-140-103 or 93=) 76t to 86t
range at max payload (76 or 86/0.015=) 5066nm to 5733nm


That makes sense.

Can MZFW climb that high given the 351 structure is good for 223T and it's only a 7M shrink without OEW weight increasing more - or have you assumed that already?

The 77F was able to be 10T higher in MZFW with a 10M shrink of the 77W.

How much OEW would it have to gain to get to 243T?

It seems like an A350-900F would hold about 36 LD3's in the belly and 29 96"x125" pallets up top - vs 32 Bottom LD3's and 27 Pallets for the 77F.

So cargo density would have to be 10-20% less. Does that make sense?

Is that a non starter and they really need to take MZFW really high up up to 255T and OEW weight at 145T for Cargo to be dense enough for the potential customers who would buy it? With that I would assume would come higher MTOW and may need more thrust.

That leads me back to me theory and based on REV's article he found where Airbus does not appear to be in a rush an 350F will only come when they re-engine the 350 and stretch it and get those MZFW increases for free as part of that effort.

It could be another great use of the Ge9X. What is the period of exclusivity on it? Volumes will be lower than expected on 777X so GE will have incentive to get it on another frame.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 4:27 pm

I think it's pretty clear that any A350-based freighter has technical merits and would/could make a great freighter. The center of discussion is on the business case, i.e. justification of large investment is worthwhile to Airbus, and which single size/combination give Airbus the best chance to be successful.

- Is it worth the additional investment up front for the freight-specific size/config meaning -K weights, some 9.5 length, and if so what length?
- What is the upper limit on acceptable purchase price for new builds. Have propostive customers validated this? I.e.can freight companies afford/finance a $200MM USD new build? If no, it doesn't matter how good the technical merits are, fundamentally the project is a non-starter (as is 77X F)
- Are the operating cost advantages sufficient to drive premium pricing necessary to justify purchase price over possible lower-cost P2F's? Are the efficiency gains sufficient to justify a purchase price which is attractive to Airbus?

Fundamentally, I think we can all agree any A350-based freighter is going to be more efficient with fuel burn per payload pound than any of the existing aircraft.

The question is, is the efficiency gain enough to payback the investment and make it worthwhile to proceed.

My take is that an A350-based freighter, especially with -K weights in a 9.5 length, would be the technically superior aircraft. It should lift similar payload to 77F (current market leader), with additional volume available (major downside of currently 77F, far too many cube-out before they weigh-out). To me, it's probably not worth the additional investment to certify a new fuse length over using the existing A35K length, unless the additional weight savings of the shrink are required to get above that 103T magic payload number). This is the crux of most of the arguing the last few days in this thread. My thought is clearly there must be payload concern within Airbus, despite the bickering here, hence the rumor mill of a 35k shrink.

It's not clear the future freighter market is big enough to justify the extreme investment (relatively) required for this frankenstein model. Further, it's not clear if the burn improvement is enough to justify a high enough premium over alternatives in order to reduce the # total sales to make it economically justified (NPV)
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Mon May 03, 2021 4:46 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Interesting.

The following questions are just because I'm trying to understand - not to be argumentative.

The A351 has 97K engines that are somewhat pushed and probably not as efficient as they could be as the fan size is too small for that thrust range and the core has been throttled up.

The 779 will have sate of the art 105K engines that have a fan of optimal size and are said to be 10% better than the GE90's I believe, and I would have to assume some % better than the A351 engines as they are not optimal.

The 777X has a state of the art wing that has more area, yet the whole aircraft weighs more and would have more drag.

Yet you are showing 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are only 8% more thrust and supposedly more efficient.

Something doesn't seem quite right. Aren't engines basically run at close to 100% of available power at least in the first few hours of cruise (yes I know you don't need 105K thrust at altitude - in reality the engines would be producing 25-30% at that altitude).

Are the 779 engines pumping out a higher percent of sea level thrust than the 351 engines at altitude and that is why the numbers look wonky? Is that what the larger fan allows? Does the 779 need more than 8% more thrust than the A351 at altitude?

To get 13.3% more fuel consumption on engines that are more efficient but only 8% more capable doesn't seem right, unless 15%+ more thrust is needed at altitude and the Ge9X can do that.

What am I missing?


How do you come to the conclusion that the current Trent XWB 97 are somewhat pushed? AFAIK they are the current state of the art and significantly more economical than the GE90's. The throughput of the fan over the XWB84 has been increased by running the fan 6% faster and using technology from the European Environmentally Friendly Engine program for new fan blades. The core is not throttled up, but is 5% bigger than on the 84.
I assume there are plenty reserves in the Trent 97XWB and we can expect a PIP in the near future. RR is working at running the core hotter, AKA more efficient.

The fuel consumption on the way has nothing to do with the maximum thrust of either engine, but the at cruise needed thrust and specific fuel consumption under those conditions. The biggest influence on the needed thrust at cruse is the weight of the frame. At MTOW the A350-1000 is 9.2 to 12.5 % lighter than the 777-9 for the same payload and slightly more range. I doubt that a perhaps 5% specific fuel burn advantage of GE9X will overcome the increased fuel burn of the heavier frame.
In regards to wing I assume both frames to be similar, while the A350-1000 will have advantages in regards to the fuselage.

A fuel burn advantage of the GE9X over the Trent XWB97 is expected, but has not been shown yet. It is perhaps significant, that the biggest customer of the 777X, Emirates, has been getting impatient of waiting for real world numbers from the testflights of the 777-9.


How can you run a non-geared turbofan 6% faster without pushing the throttle?

I did say it would need more thrust at altitude and talked about that it didn't really have anything to do with maximum thrust as the different engines could be producing a different percent of maximum thrust at altitude due to the different fan size - however only 9.2-12.5% heavier and 15.26% more fuel burn with newer engines doesn't make sense and yes 5% better than TrentXWB97 seems about right.

Very simple math but 9.2-12.5% heavier - 5% lower SFC is more like 8.74%- 11.875% more fuel burn and with 12.2% more seats (who knows if same density) that would lead to better per passenger numbers and maybe where Boeing is making it's claims from.

8.74% - 11.875% more fuel burn is a lot better than 15.26%.


The Trent family is a three spool design. So fan speed and spool speed are not depend on each other. The speed of the fan depends on the design of the fan and fan turbine.
The spool is 5% bigger than on the XWB84, so more power and gas, for the fan turbine, at the same RPM.

The bypass ration is 9.6 to 1, the pressure ration is 50:1, same numbers for the 97 and 84, and the thrust to weight ratio is 5.82.
That is a higher bypass ratio and higher pressure ratio than the GE90, 9:1 and 42:1 at a slightly worse thrust to weight ratio, GE90 5.98.
The GEX9 sports 9.9:1, 60:1 and 5.2. Better numbers than the XWB97, but also heavier compared to thrust.

In regards to the fan, it has different blades than the XWB84, based on the European Environmentally Friendly Engine (EFE) research program, and a in diameter smaller hub allowing slightly longer blades.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Mon May 03, 2021 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos