Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26553
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon May 03, 2021 4:51 pm

Meanwhile, the A vs B thing in the wide-body freighter market isn't really a thing till A gets itself into the game.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 03, 2021 4:52 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
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)


The only problem with 9.5 and K lengths will be density and lift. At 900 lengths it is going to be 93-103T making it 20 and 10% less dense respectively - go longer and that capacity number goes smaller and the density gets significantly worse. A K length could only be 75T and 30-40% less dense.

I think Airbus really should do this - but it really may make more sense in a re-engine effort when they may stretch it beefing up the structure and MTOW and then take a shrink of that as the F.

Why spec a frame for the existing engines that may only be in production another 8-10 years in any volume?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26553
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon May 03, 2021 5:06 pm

morrisond wrote:
I think Airbus really should do this - but it really may make more sense in a re-engine effort when they may stretch it beefing up the structure and MTOW and then take a shrink of that as the F.

Why spec a frame for the existing engines that may only be in production another 8-10 years in any volume?

As per the FG article, Airbus has been talking up the ability to do the A350F with the current tech since the program launched, and they have made good strides at strengthening the frame since it launched, so things should be even more favorable for the A350F since then.

It all comes down to getting enough customers willing to buy what Airbus can produce.

I don't think old engines are an impediment, Boeing is still able to sell 767Fs with 80s/90s era engine tech, and will be able to keep doing so for another six years or so, then presumably will market a 764F with 00s era engines.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 03, 2021 5:22 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

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.


Got it - forgot about the three spools - so the spool has enough power to drive the fan 6% faster. I'd assumed they were adding more fuel an air to the existing spool.

So how can the GE90 have a slightly worse Thrust to weight at 5.98 vs 5.82 on XWB97? Doesn't that ratio mean it has a better thrust to weight ratio?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 03, 2021 5:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I think Airbus really should do this - but it really may make more sense in a re-engine effort when they may stretch it beefing up the structure and MTOW and then take a shrink of that as the F.

Why spec a frame for the existing engines that may only be in production another 8-10 years in any volume?

As per the FG article, Airbus has been talking up the ability to do the A350F with the current tech since the program launched, and they have made good strides at strengthening the frame since it launched, so things should be even more favorable for the A350F since then.

It all comes down to getting enough customers willing to buy what Airbus can produce.

I don't think old engines are an impediment, Boeing is still able to sell 767Fs with 80s/90s era engine tech, and will be able to keep doing so for another six years or so, then presumably will market a 764F with 00s era engines.


Yes they may not the latest and greatest engines - but will it sell if it can only lift cargo at 10-20% less density? Aren't the big potential customers the ones who carry the denser cargo?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26553
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon May 03, 2021 5:35 pm

morrisond wrote:
Yes they may not the latest and greatest engines - but will it sell if it can only lift cargo at 10-20% less density? Aren't the big potential customers the ones who carry the denser cargo?

We won't know the answer to this till they get actual paying customers to commit one way or another.

For instance on the 747-8i, both LH and EK were interested in the program but LH wanted more pax at the cost of less range and EK wanted the opposite. LH was willing to put their money where their mouth was, thus we have the 748i as we know it. Boeing proposed the near-supersonic smaller streamlined version of 787, customers wanted efficiency and something as big as A330, that's what they got. Boeing wanted the 757 to be a straight 727 replacement, EA and BA wanted something bigger, that's what we got.

Airbus thinks customers want an A350-950F, the only way we'll know if this concept worked or not is if enough customers order it and it gets launched.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

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

Mon May 03, 2021 5:42 pm

morrisond wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
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)


The only problem with 9.5 and K lengths will be density and lift. At 900 lengths it is going to be 93-103T making it 20 and 10% less dense respectively - go longer and that capacity number goes smaller and the density gets significantly worse. A K length could only be 75T and 30-40% less dense.

I think Airbus really should do this - but it really may make more sense in a re-engine effort when they may stretch it beefing up the structure and MTOW and then take a shrink of that as the F.

Why spec a frame for the existing engines that may only be in production another 8-10 years in any volume?


I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.

1) The fallout of the MAX debacle hasn't been realized yet. The changing regulatory environment and testing will significantly drive up the cost of these programs (my opinion)
2) The neo & MAX were heavily, if not entirely, influenced by unexpectedly high oil prices as the result of "peak oil hysteria 2.0" from 2008-2014. The value proposition of these is highly dependent on fuel cost, and stable & affordable oil prices are here to stay. No more peak oil and supply constraints to artificially inflate prices to insane levels.
3) Increasing influence of sustainable/reproducible energy sources. While it's impossible to have a major shift in aviation energy source by 2035, if the thinking is it's possible by 2045, it will make the business case on a reengine ever difficult to close considering the first two reasons, and the shorter operating window.
4) Technology headroom. Despite entering service 18 years later, GE9X is 10% more efficient than the GE90-115 it replaces. That's pretty poor improvement considering GE90-115 itself was a derivative (a major one I grant) of the original GE90 from late 80/early 90s, entering service in 1995. We're basically looking at less than 15% efficiency improvement over 28 years (1995 to 2023). The pace of improvement on burn has slowed rapidly, largely focused on durability and related maintenance costs.
5) Diminishing returns: Efficiency improvements lead to lower total returns. Example: Assume a series of engines with same characteristics running 6,000 hours a year. Engine A burns 7 T/Hr. Engine B is 10% more efficient than Engine A, burning 6.3 T/hr. Over 6000 hours, Engine B saves 4,200 tonnes of fuel. Lets say that Engine C is 10% more efficient than engine B, burning 5.67 T/hr. For the same 6000 hours, Engine C only saves 3,780 tones of fuel. As engine efficiency has increased, the raw potential of savings of further improvements decrease.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26553
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon May 03, 2021 6:11 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.

1) The fallout of the MAX debacle hasn't been realized yet. The changing regulatory environment and testing will significantly drive up the cost of these programs (my opinion)
2) The neo & MAX were heavily, if not entirely, influenced by unexpectedly high oil prices as the result of "peak oil hysteria 2.0" from 2008-2014. The value proposition of these is highly dependent on fuel cost, and stable & affordable oil prices are here to stay. No more peak oil and supply constraints to artificially inflate prices to insane levels.
3) Increasing influence of sustainable/reproducible energy sources. While it's impossible to have a major shift in aviation energy source by 2035, if the thinking is it's possible by 2045, it will make the business case on a reengine ever difficult to close considering the first two reasons, and the shorter operating window.
4) Technology headroom. Despite entering service 18 years later, GE9X is 10% more efficient than the GE90-115 it replaces. That's pretty poor improvement considering GE90-115 itself was a derivative (a major one I grant) of the original GE90 from late 80/early 90s, entering service in 1995. We're basically looking at less than 15% efficiency improvement over 28 years (1995 to 2023). The pace of improvement on burn has slowed rapidly, largely focused on durability and related maintenance costs.
5) Diminishing returns: Efficiency improvements lead to lower total returns. Example: Assume a series of engines with same characteristics running 6,000 hours a year. Engine A burns 7 T/Hr. Engine B is 10% more efficient than Engine A, burning 6.3 T/hr. Over 6000 hours, Engine B saves 4,200 tonnes of fuel. Lets say that Engine C is 10% more efficient than engine B, burning 5.67 T/hr. For the same 6000 hours, Engine C only saves 3,780 tones of fuel. As engine efficiency has increased, the raw potential of savings of further improvements decrease.

1) Fallout is being reckoned with right now, MAX10 and 779 took a two year hit to reboot the relationship with the regulators.
2) 764neoF will happen before 2027 according to this site because new 763F cannot be sold after then due to pollution regulations already agreed to.

If 764neoF is too much to ask regulators to pass, then we really have to ask if the A322 or A350-950F has a chance of passing regulatory muster as well.

764neoF uses existing 748F engines, system tech and planform, should be less change in scope than a new wing or new fuse length.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 03, 2021 8:05 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
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)


The only problem with 9.5 and K lengths will be density and lift. At 900 lengths it is going to be 93-103T making it 20 and 10% less dense respectively - go longer and that capacity number goes smaller and the density gets significantly worse. A K length could only be 75T and 30-40% less dense.

I think Airbus really should do this - but it really may make more sense in a re-engine effort when they may stretch it beefing up the structure and MTOW and then take a shrink of that as the F.

Why spec a frame for the existing engines that may only be in production another 8-10 years in any volume?


I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.

1) The fallout of the MAX debacle hasn't been realized yet. The changing regulatory environment and testing will significantly drive up the cost of these programs (my opinion)
2) The neo & MAX were heavily, if not entirely, influenced by unexpectedly high oil prices as the result of "peak oil hysteria 2.0" from 2008-2014. The value proposition of these is highly dependent on fuel cost, and stable & affordable oil prices are here to stay. No more peak oil and supply constraints to artificially inflate prices to insane levels.
3) Increasing influence of sustainable/reproducible energy sources. While it's impossible to have a major shift in aviation energy source by 2035, if the thinking is it's possible by 2045, it will make the business case on a reengine ever difficult to close considering the first two reasons, and the shorter operating window.
4) Technology headroom. Despite entering service 18 years later, GE9X is 10% more efficient than the GE90-115 it replaces. That's pretty poor improvement considering GE90-115 itself was a derivative (a major one I grant) of the original GE90 from late 80/early 90s, entering service in 1995. We're basically looking at less than 15% efficiency improvement over 28 years (1995 to 2023). The pace of improvement on burn has slowed rapidly, largely focused on durability and related maintenance costs.
5) Diminishing returns: Efficiency improvements lead to lower total returns. Example: Assume a series of engines with same characteristics running 6,000 hours a year. Engine A burns 7 T/Hr. Engine B is 10% more efficient than Engine A, burning 6.3 T/hr. Over 6000 hours, Engine B saves 4,200 tonnes of fuel. Lets say that Engine C is 10% more efficient than engine B, burning 5.67 T/hr. For the same 6000 hours, Engine C only saves 3,780 tones of fuel. As engine efficiency has increased, the raw potential of savings of further improvements decrease.


Makes sense - there might not be enough improvement to justify another new engine for quite some time.

Which leads me back to the Ge9X if Airbus ends up upping the MTOW on the A350f so it can carry more. Am I correct in remembering that it is exclusive on 777X for only a definitive period of time? How long?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Mon May 03, 2021 8:28 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

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.


Got it - forgot about the three spools - so the spool has enough power to drive the fan 6% faster. I'd assumed they were adding more fuel an air to the existing spool.

So how can the GE90 have a slightly worse Thrust to weight at 5.98 vs 5.82 on XWB97? Doesn't that ratio mean it has a better thrust to weight ratio?


The 97 core is larger than the 84 core. More fuel and more air for more power.

The GE90 has a higher, better power to weight ratio. More efficiency brings a heavier engine at the same power.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 03, 2021 9:56 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

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.


Got it - forgot about the three spools - so the spool has enough power to drive the fan 6% faster. I'd assumed they were adding more fuel an air to the existing spool.

So how can the GE90 have a slightly worse Thrust to weight at 5.98 vs 5.82 on XWB97? Doesn't that ratio mean it has a better thrust to weight ratio?


The 97 core is larger than the 84 core. More fuel and more air for more power.

The GE90 has a higher, better power to weight ratio. More efficiency brings a heavier engine at the same power.


Sorry I wasn't reading your previous sentence correctly - it makes sense now that I reread it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 12:11 am

morrisond wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
morrisond wrote:

The only problem with 9.5 and K lengths will be density and lift. At 900 lengths it is going to be 93-103T making it 20 and 10% less dense respectively - go longer and that capacity number goes smaller and the density gets significantly worse. A K length could only be 75T and 30-40% less dense.

I think Airbus really should do this - but it really may make more sense in a re-engine effort when they may stretch it beefing up the structure and MTOW and then take a shrink of that as the F.

Why spec a frame for the existing engines that may only be in production another 8-10 years in any volume?


I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.

1) The fallout of the MAX debacle hasn't been realized yet. The changing regulatory environment and testing will significantly drive up the cost of these programs (my opinion)
2) The neo & MAX were heavily, if not entirely, influenced by unexpectedly high oil prices as the result of "peak oil hysteria 2.0" from 2008-2014. The value proposition of these is highly dependent on fuel cost, and stable & affordable oil prices are here to stay. No more peak oil and supply constraints to artificially inflate prices to insane levels.
3) Increasing influence of sustainable/reproducible energy sources. While it's impossible to have a major shift in aviation energy source by 2035, if the thinking is it's possible by 2045, it will make the business case on a reengine ever difficult to close considering the first two reasons, and the shorter operating window.
4) Technology headroom. Despite entering service 18 years later, GE9X is 10% more efficient than the GE90-115 it replaces. That's pretty poor improvement considering GE90-115 itself was a derivative (a major one I grant) of the original GE90 from late 80/early 90s, entering service in 1995. We're basically looking at less than 15% efficiency improvement over 28 years (1995 to 2023). The pace of improvement on burn has slowed rapidly, largely focused on durability and related maintenance costs.
5) Diminishing returns: Efficiency improvements lead to lower total returns. Example: Assume a series of engines with same characteristics running 6,000 hours a year. Engine A burns 7 T/Hr. Engine B is 10% more efficient than Engine A, burning 6.3 T/hr. Over 6000 hours, Engine B saves 4,200 tonnes of fuel. Lets say that Engine C is 10% more efficient than engine B, burning 5.67 T/hr. For the same 6000 hours, Engine C only saves 3,780 tones of fuel. As engine efficiency has increased, the raw potential of savings of further improvements decrease.


Makes sense - there might not be enough improvement to justify another new engine for quite some time.

Which leads me back to the Ge9X if Airbus ends up upping the MTOW on the A350f so it can carry more. Am I correct in remembering that it is exclusive on 777X for only a definitive period of time? How long?


The GE9X is a very heavy engine. I do not expect to see it on the A350 ever. The three spool concept makes for lighter engines at a similar power and efficiency. For higher power needs I would look for an evolved Trent XWB. Later I would rather expect the Ultrafan.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5396
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 12:34 am

Revelation wrote:
2) 764neoF will happen before 2027 according to this site because new 763F cannot be sold after then due to pollution regulations already agreed to.

If 764neoF is too much to ask regulators to pass, then we really have to ask if the A322 or A350-950F has a chance of passing regulatory muster as well.

764neoF uses existing 748F engines, system tech and planform, should be less change in scope than a new wing or new fuse length.


So we've heard this claim a lot here on good ol A.net. But is it true? Because if it is, I'd think we'd be seeing Boeing doing a last call on freighter orders soon, and not much happening there right yet.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 12:38 am

morrisond wrote:
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.


Where I work the -1000 has a 21 tonne lighter OEW than the 77W, it is already massively more efficient the the 77W, so much so that almost all of the 77W fleet is parked while the A350s are flying. Airbus came under a lot if criticism for the panel method, what it means is for the forward and aft barrels of the aircraft they are still only made of 4 panels. If they decide to do a dedicated freighter they can just change the side panels to be without windows or doors, and to incorporate a cargo door. Because of the panel design, the longer fuselage can actually be made more efficiently (the -1000 and -900 are made from the same number of barrels) than by joining individual barrel section like done on the 777.

We also know that Two GE9X engines weigh about 5 tonnes more than two Trent XWB-97 engines.

morrisond wrote:
When the A350 can fly 15% longer.


The major contributor to range we know from the Breguet range equation is the natural log of the ratio of takeoff weight to landing weight, here I have assumed a landing weight of OEW plus 10 tonnes.

-1000 = ln(316000/160000) = 0.680568398
-9 = ln(352400/195000) = 0.591767335

Using that parameter alone, the -1000 should have 15% more range.


morrisond wrote:
Other than the mold line on the 779 almost everything else is new.


I am not sure who told you this or its 787 systems, the systems on the 777X is very similar to the 77W, same sort of electrical distribution, same sort of pneumatics', same sort of hydraulics, even similar flight control system with the addition of the folding wingtips. What they have done is replaced the AIMS that was on the 77W with something 787 style cabinet. I am not aware for example of using 787 systems like the electrical network, electric packs, or 5000 psi hydraulics on the 77X.

morrisond wrote:
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.


The 77W OEW is 169 tonnes, the 779 has a 5 tonne fuselage plug to make it longer, heavier engines, keel beam needs strengthening as the nose gear and tail are further from the CG, and extra seats and systems to install, bigger wing.

morrisond wrote:
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.


Engines are rated against their takeoff thrust, that takeoff thrust is used to climb a TOW on one engine, where in cruise the thrust is used to oppose the drag in level flight. When flying an A350-900 and A350-1000 at the same altitude, at the same weight there is next to no difference in fuel burn, because the amount of drag that they need to overcome is about the same. The largest contributor to drag in the cruise if surface area, and the bits that have laminar flow on the -900 and -1000 have the same surface area in cruise.

Okcflyer wrote:
I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.


If RR continues to defer working on Ultrafan, I see them offering the Advance3 core upgrade which has already flown to the XWB similar to what they did with the 744 when they offered the Trent 700 core from the A330 engine as a core upgrade to the RB211-524. This will at least get the some return on investment on the R&D spent on Ultrafan, and would bring the pressure ratio of the Trent XWB above the GE9X.

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?


The weight the aircraft takes off at is a function of what payload they are lifting over what range, on shorter legs they will not be taking off at MTOW.

What I find very odd is that the 777-9 was already supposed to be in service this year, not once since it was launched have I seen Boeing ever put in public a maximum payload or range payload curve. In contrast before the A350-1000 was built, range payload curves were provided at various airshows.

If the 777-9 was so good, you don't think Boeing would be showing their jet has superior range/payload to get more sales ? Meanwhile numerous operates have reduced their orders for the type.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14624
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 4:52 am

Okcflyer wrote:
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.


I think it is a pretty safe bet that the A350/787 generation will see a significant Engine update at some point. Unless Airbus wants to turn the A359 into a plane with range to go LHR-AKL non stop at the time, they will have to stretch the fuselage anyways, essentially the same problem for the A35k. Having a ~3.75m Stretch certified in ~2025 will very likely be a lot easier and cheaper than doing so in 2035. Its not playing lego, but a headstart for making a 280t Passenger Version of the 950F as a structural downgrade with ~same range but room for 36 extra pax and 4x LD3/2x pallets.
After all, the A350 was designed with a variant in mind that combines a shorter fuse with the A35K wing/gear as ULR variant in mind.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 6:32 am

Okcflyer wrote:
I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.

I'm surprised and shocked if you think that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are referring to the future how engines will get smaller more frequent upgrades (PIP) instead of one major upgrade every decade or more that is called a "new engine".

Do you consider the GE90-110B a new engine compared to the GE90-94B? 5 years difference between first entering service. Both are fitted to the 777 with the same engine family name. The 110B got a new larger fan, new larger nacelle, extra LP compressor In front of the same core. It is by definition a brand new engine.

Do you consider the Trent 500 a new engine to the Trent 700? Unlike the previous example they both share the same nacelle and front fan yet the Trent 500 has a much smaller/newer core giving a higher bypass ratio. A large 10 years between first entering service. The Trent 500 is fitted to the A340-500/600 and is clearly a new engine.

Now the Trent 1000 TEN changed 80+% of the parts compared to the Trent 1000. It entered service 8 years later. It kept the same front fan and nacelle like the Trent 500/700 but it was publicly not considered a new engine. My opinion here is that was done for PR purposes. Passing it as a minor upgrade is much better saying "We need a brand new engine because we are incompetent". They wanted to reduce as much flight testing as possible.

The 787 will most likely get a brand new engine before 2030. Rumours were around 5 years time. If I was a betting man, it would be a repeat of the 777 where GE got sole source with the GE90-110B.

Now this new 787 engine might be called the GenX-1B-76/P3 or the GenX-3B-76. It might keep the same nacelle but with 90+% new parts. Some people might be silly enough to say it is not a new engine.

The rumour in 2019 was the A350 was receiving Ultrafan in 2025. To now go all the way to receiving no new engine before 2035 is a bit ridiculous.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2340
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 7:11 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.

I'm surprised and shocked if you think that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are referring to the future how engines will get smaller more frequent upgrades (PIP) instead of one major upgrade every decade or more that is called a "new engine".

Do you consider the GE90-110B a new engine compared to the GE90-94B? 5 years difference between first entering service. Both are fitted to the 777 with the same engine family name. The 110B got a new larger fan, new larger nacelle, extra LP compressor In front of the same core. It is by definition a brand new engine.

Do you consider the Trent 500 a new engine to the Trent 700? Unlike the previous example they both share the same nacelle and front fan yet the Trent 500 has a much smaller/newer core giving a higher bypass ratio. A large 10 years between first entering service. The Trent 500 is fitted to the A340-500/600 and is clearly a new engine.

Now the Trent 1000 TEN changed 80+% of the parts compared to the Trent 1000. It entered service 8 years later. It kept the same front fan and nacelle like the Trent 500/700 but it was publicly not considered a new engine. My opinion here is that was done for PR purposes. Passing it as a minor upgrade is much better saying "We need a brand new engine because we are incompetent". They wanted to reduce as much flight testing as possible.

The 787 will most likely get a brand new engine before 2030. Rumours were around 5 years time. If I was a betting man, it would be a repeat of the 777 where GE got sole source with the GE90-110B.

Now this new 787 engine might be called the GenX-1B-76/P3 or the GenX-3B-76. It might keep the same nacelle but with 90+% new parts. Some people might be silly enough to say it is not a new engine.

The rumour in 2019 was the A350 was receiving Ultrafan in 2025. To now go all the way to receiving no new engine before 2035 is a bit ridiculous.

I think ultimately it will depend on fuel price and timing retirements on first generation 350s and 787s.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 9:02 am

morrisond wrote:
Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I think Airbus really should do this - but it really may make more sense in a re-engine effort when they may stretch it beefing up the structure and MTOW and then take a shrink of that as the F.

Why spec a frame for the existing engines that may only be in production another 8-10 years in any volume?

As per the FG article, Airbus has been talking up the ability to do the A350F with the current tech since the program launched, and they have made good strides at strengthening the frame since it launched, so things should be even more favorable for the A350F since then.

It all comes down to getting enough customers willing to buy what Airbus can produce.

I don't think old engines are an impediment, Boeing is still able to sell 767Fs with 80s/90s era engine tech, and will be able to keep doing so for another six years or so, then presumably will market a 764F with 00s era engines.


Yes they may not the latest and greatest engines - but will it sell if it can only lift cargo at 10-20% less density? Aren't the big potential customers the ones who carry the denser cargo?


If the A350F lifts about the same weight as it's competition, it does not matter if it has more volume too. It is rather an advantage.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 12:20 pm

zeke wrote:
What I find very odd is that the 777-9 was already supposed to be in service this year, not once since it was launched have I seen Boeing ever put in public a maximum payload or range payload curve. In contrast before the A350-1000 was built, range payload curves were provided at various airshows.

If the 777-9 was so good, you don't think Boeing would be showing their jet has superior range/payload to get more sales ? Meanwhile numerous operates have reduced their orders for the type.

It's also possible that both A350-1000 and B777-9X aren't good.
I guess the world can do with only B787s and A350-900s. Add a -950 with 280 t MTOW for medium ranges.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 12:37 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I think ultimately it will depend on fuel price and timing retirements on first generation 350s and 787s.

That is not how it worked with the 777.

For the next 1000 787 aircraft, 60% of those might get fitted with GenX engines. If GE is willing to fund the cost of a GenX-3B engine with 5% better fuel burn than the current engines then Boeing will most likely offer them sole source. This is a win for GE as they now sell more engines and they quickly recoup their development costs.

Boeing also wins by going sole source. Without going sole source both engine suppliers might only offer 2% better fuel burn through a PIP. Going sole source and getting a 5% improvement will capture many sales against the A350. GE might end up selling twice as many engines which makes this a highly likely scenario. They will simply offer a GenX engine with all of the mature Ge9X technology added with a few extras.

Rolls Royce has already added the XWB tech in the Trent Ten.

The retirement cycle thing is a bit of a myth. New 777 and A330 aircraft have been coming off the the line continuously for the last couple decades. So the replacement cycle is a constant stream. The early production 787/A350 aircraft retiring will just add to this stream from 2030. The 787NEO will be launched long before that.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 1:50 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.


Where I work the -1000 has a 21 tonne lighter OEW than the 77W, it is already massively more efficient the the 77W, so much so that almost all of the 77W fleet is parked while the A350s are flying. Airbus came under a lot if criticism for the panel method, what it means is for the forward and aft barrels of the aircraft they are still only made of 4 panels. If they decide to do a dedicated freighter they can just change the side panels to be without windows or doors, and to incorporate a cargo door. Because of the panel design, the longer fuselage can actually be made more efficiently (the -1000 and -900 are made from the same number of barrels) than by joining individual barrel section like done on the 777.

We also know that Two GE9X engines weigh about 5 tonnes more than two Trent XWB-97 engines.

morrisond wrote:
When the A350 can fly 15% longer.


The major contributor to range we know from the Breguet range equation is the natural log of the ratio of takeoff weight to landing weight, here I have assumed a landing weight of OEW plus 10 tonnes.

-1000 = ln(316000/160000) = 0.680568398
-9 = ln(352400/195000) = 0.591767335

Using that parameter alone, the -1000 should have 15% more range.


morrisond wrote:
Other than the mold line on the 779 almost everything else is new.


I am not sure who told you this or its 787 systems, the systems on the 777X is very similar to the 77W, same sort of electrical distribution, same sort of pneumatics', same sort of hydraulics, even similar flight control system with the addition of the folding wingtips. What they have done is replaced the AIMS that was on the 77W with something 787 style cabinet. I am not aware for example of using 787 systems like the electrical network, electric packs, or 5000 psi hydraulics on the 77X.

morrisond wrote:
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.


The 77W OEW is 169 tonnes, the 779 has a 5 tonne fuselage plug to make it longer, heavier engines, keel beam needs strengthening as the nose gear and tail are further from the CG, and extra seats and systems to install, bigger wing.

morrisond wrote:
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.


Engines are rated against their takeoff thrust, that takeoff thrust is used to climb a TOW on one engine, where in cruise the thrust is used to oppose the drag in level flight. When flying an A350-900 and A350-1000 at the same altitude, at the same weight there is next to no difference in fuel burn, because the amount of drag that they need to overcome is about the same. The largest contributor to drag in the cruise if surface area, and the bits that have laminar flow on the -900 and -1000 have the same surface area in cruise.

Okcflyer wrote:
I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.


If RR continues to defer working on Ultrafan, I see them offering the Advance3 core upgrade which has already flown to the XWB similar to what they did with the 744 when they offered the Trent 700 core from the A330 engine as a core upgrade to the RB211-524. This will at least get the some return on investment on the R&D spent on Ultrafan, and would bring the pressure ratio of the Trent XWB above the GE9X.

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?


The weight the aircraft takes off at is a function of what payload they are lifting over what range, on shorter legs they will not be taking off at MTOW.

What I find very odd is that the 777-9 was already supposed to be in service this year, not once since it was launched have I seen Boeing ever put in public a maximum payload or range payload curve. In contrast before the A350-1000 was built, range payload curves were provided at various airshows.

If the 777-9 was so good, you don't think Boeing would be showing their jet has superior range/payload to get more sales ? Meanwhile numerous operates have reduced their orders for the type.


Amazing that you pluck out one of the higher OEW weights for the 777W at 169T - when almost all other sources have it at 167T and I'm not sure the 167T takes into the 2ishT weight loss program after 2015 from removing the tail skid and reengineering the crown, and optimizing a number of other measures.

Yes the 777X does not use all 787 systems however the avionics and a lot of the electrical system has gone to 787, you would have to assume they went to 787 style or even more modern/lighter cabin systems.

Supposedly the 777X wing is the same weight.

Yes it is odd they have not shown anything in terms of range performance - however it could also be them playing possum to keep Airbus from Re-engining the 350 sooner rather than later and steal any sales that Boeing is expecting upon EIS if the performance turns out to be better than expected. As EIS is pushed back we probably won't se anything until after such time.

I expect that re-engined 350 to put real pressure on future 777X especially if they do an 1100.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14624
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 2:40 pm

morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.


Where I work the -1000 has a 21 tonne lighter OEW than the 77W, it is already massively more efficient the the 77W, so much so that almost all of the 77W fleet is parked while the A350s are flying. Airbus came under a lot if criticism for the panel method, what it means is for the forward and aft barrels of the aircraft they are still only made of 4 panels. If they decide to do a dedicated freighter they can just change the side panels to be without windows or doors, and to incorporate a cargo door. Because of the panel design, the longer fuselage can actually be made more efficiently (the -1000 and -900 are made from the same number of barrels) than by joining individual barrel section like done on the 777.

We also know that Two GE9X engines weigh about 5 tonnes more than two Trent XWB-97 engines.

morrisond wrote:
When the A350 can fly 15% longer.


The major contributor to range we know from the Breguet range equation is the natural log of the ratio of takeoff weight to landing weight, here I have assumed a landing weight of OEW plus 10 tonnes.

-1000 = ln(316000/160000) = 0.680568398
-9 = ln(352400/195000) = 0.591767335

Using that parameter alone, the -1000 should have 15% more range.


morrisond wrote:
Other than the mold line on the 779 almost everything else is new.


I am not sure who told you this or its 787 systems, the systems on the 777X is very similar to the 77W, same sort of electrical distribution, same sort of pneumatics', same sort of hydraulics, even similar flight control system with the addition of the folding wingtips. What they have done is replaced the AIMS that was on the 77W with something 787 style cabinet. I am not aware for example of using 787 systems like the electrical network, electric packs, or 5000 psi hydraulics on the 77X.

morrisond wrote:
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.


The 77W OEW is 169 tonnes, the 779 has a 5 tonne fuselage plug to make it longer, heavier engines, keel beam needs strengthening as the nose gear and tail are further from the CG, and extra seats and systems to install, bigger wing.

morrisond wrote:
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.


Engines are rated against their takeoff thrust, that takeoff thrust is used to climb a TOW on one engine, where in cruise the thrust is used to oppose the drag in level flight. When flying an A350-900 and A350-1000 at the same altitude, at the same weight there is next to no difference in fuel burn, because the amount of drag that they need to overcome is about the same. The largest contributor to drag in the cruise if surface area, and the bits that have laminar flow on the -900 and -1000 have the same surface area in cruise.

Okcflyer wrote:
I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.


If RR continues to defer working on Ultrafan, I see them offering the Advance3 core upgrade which has already flown to the XWB similar to what they did with the 744 when they offered the Trent 700 core from the A330 engine as a core upgrade to the RB211-524. This will at least get the some return on investment on the R&D spent on Ultrafan, and would bring the pressure ratio of the Trent XWB above the GE9X.

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?


The weight the aircraft takes off at is a function of what payload they are lifting over what range, on shorter legs they will not be taking off at MTOW.

What I find very odd is that the 777-9 was already supposed to be in service this year, not once since it was launched have I seen Boeing ever put in public a maximum payload or range payload curve. In contrast before the A350-1000 was built, range payload curves were provided at various airshows.

If the 777-9 was so good, you don't think Boeing would be showing their jet has superior range/payload to get more sales ? Meanwhile numerous operates have reduced their orders for the type.


Amazing that you pluck out one of the higher OEW weights for the 777W at 169T -


He can look at the weights at his employer for both types. There may be airlines flying lighter 77W, but if they had A35Ks, they'd equally lighter. The delta remains.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
marcelh
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 2:56 pm

Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.


Where I work the -1000 has a 21 tonne lighter OEW than the 77W, it is already massively more efficient the the 77W, so much so that almost all of the 77W fleet is parked while the A350s are flying. Airbus came under a lot if criticism for the panel method, what it means is for the forward and aft barrels of the aircraft they are still only made of 4 panels. If they decide to do a dedicated freighter they can just change the side panels to be without windows or doors, and to incorporate a cargo door. Because of the panel design, the longer fuselage can actually be made more efficiently (the -1000 and -900 are made from the same number of barrels) than by joining individual barrel section like done on the 777.

We also know that Two GE9X engines weigh about 5 tonnes more than two Trent XWB-97 engines.

morrisond wrote:
When the A350 can fly 15% longer.


The major contributor to range we know from the Breguet range equation is the natural log of the ratio of takeoff weight to landing weight, here I have assumed a landing weight of OEW plus 10 tonnes.

-1000 = ln(316000/160000) = 0.680568398
-9 = ln(352400/195000) = 0.591767335

Using that parameter alone, the -1000 should have 15% more range.


morrisond wrote:
Other than the mold line on the 779 almost everything else is new.


I am not sure who told you this or its 787 systems, the systems on the 777X is very similar to the 77W, same sort of electrical distribution, same sort of pneumatics', same sort of hydraulics, even similar flight control system with the addition of the folding wingtips. What they have done is replaced the AIMS that was on the 77W with something 787 style cabinet. I am not aware for example of using 787 systems like the electrical network, electric packs, or 5000 psi hydraulics on the 77X.

morrisond wrote:
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.


The 77W OEW is 169 tonnes, the 779 has a 5 tonne fuselage plug to make it longer, heavier engines, keel beam needs strengthening as the nose gear and tail are further from the CG, and extra seats and systems to install, bigger wing.

morrisond wrote:
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.


Engines are rated against their takeoff thrust, that takeoff thrust is used to climb a TOW on one engine, where in cruise the thrust is used to oppose the drag in level flight. When flying an A350-900 and A350-1000 at the same altitude, at the same weight there is next to no difference in fuel burn, because the amount of drag that they need to overcome is about the same. The largest contributor to drag in the cruise if surface area, and the bits that have laminar flow on the -900 and -1000 have the same surface area in cruise.

Okcflyer wrote:
I will be very surprised & shocked if new engines are hung on the 787/A350 before 2035, if ever.


If RR continues to defer working on Ultrafan, I see them offering the Advance3 core upgrade which has already flown to the XWB similar to what they did with the 744 when they offered the Trent 700 core from the A330 engine as a core upgrade to the RB211-524. This will at least get the some return on investment on the R&D spent on Ultrafan, and would bring the pressure ratio of the Trent XWB above the GE9X.

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?


The weight the aircraft takes off at is a function of what payload they are lifting over what range, on shorter legs they will not be taking off at MTOW.

What I find very odd is that the 777-9 was already supposed to be in service this year, not once since it was launched have I seen Boeing ever put in public a maximum payload or range payload curve. In contrast before the A350-1000 was built, range payload curves were provided at various airshows.

If the 777-9 was so good, you don't think Boeing would be showing their jet has superior range/payload to get more sales ? Meanwhile numerous operates have reduced their orders for the type.

A350-1000 had something to prove. 777 did not. Does it now? Yeah probably. Customers would’ve seen the expected payload at range but that doesn’t matter till Boeing delivers that data. But they won’t release it till testing has finished. They will share with customers when they have it. But I don’t expect that to be soon as the aircraft has been delayed by 2 years and is going through changes. The thing is. The jet is lucky in the sense that they’ve bought themselves time to make changes if they want to improve the performance both from an airframe and engine perspective.

Using cancellation of orders to equate to performance will not work for your argument. A350-1000 has been cancelled multiple times. Both by United, Emirates. Cathay pacific originally ordered 26 now they’re only taking 18. Etihad ordered about 20. They’re not taking more than 5. But I don’t doubt the plane is very good. So....

In fact the 777X even received orders this year. 1000 since it entered service. Nothing. QF, yes but that has not materialised yet. But their requirements are specialised. The 1000 is better suited.

The last time the two came head to head (BA) 350-1000 lost.

But yes 350-1000 is fantastic but I won’t be quick to call it a home run against the 777X.

Many major -900 users have pushed away from it. In fact SQ being the largest operator has rejected it as they even added 11 more 777X this year. Let’s not even forget how inflated the order book is. I think Airbus still counts Iran air and some others that are clearly not going to happen. I’ll be shocked if Asiana takes them seeing as they’re now folding into Korean and they plan to let go of a lot of their aircraft as they’re all leased.

I’m not here to say one is more efficient than the other but the 1000 is not a home run (at least yet) and nobody has given a definite answer as to why.

A kind of simplistic approach.
UA doesn’t know what it wants with the A350 order, EK walked away because they wanted a less capable version, Cathay downsized because of the slower growth of traffic, EY just bite more than they could chew.
I beg to differ the A350-1000 “lost” when it came head to head with the N779 at BA. BA has different purposes for both planes and needs the “real estate” of the B779. SQ wanted less 78X, so they traded it in for some additional 779.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 3:09 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:

Where I work the -1000 has a 21 tonne lighter OEW than the 77W, it is already massively more efficient the the 77W, so much so that almost all of the 77W fleet is parked while the A350s are flying. Airbus came under a lot if criticism for the panel method, what it means is for the forward and aft barrels of the aircraft they are still only made of 4 panels. If they decide to do a dedicated freighter they can just change the side panels to be without windows or doors, and to incorporate a cargo door. Because of the panel design, the longer fuselage can actually be made more efficiently (the -1000 and -900 are made from the same number of barrels) than by joining individual barrel section like done on the 777.

We also know that Two GE9X engines weigh about 5 tonnes more than two Trent XWB-97 engines.



The major contributor to range we know from the Breguet range equation is the natural log of the ratio of takeoff weight to landing weight, here I have assumed a landing weight of OEW plus 10 tonnes.

-1000 = ln(316000/160000) = 0.680568398
-9 = ln(352400/195000) = 0.591767335

Using that parameter alone, the -1000 should have 15% more range.




I am not sure who told you this or its 787 systems, the systems on the 777X is very similar to the 77W, same sort of electrical distribution, same sort of pneumatics', same sort of hydraulics, even similar flight control system with the addition of the folding wingtips. What they have done is replaced the AIMS that was on the 77W with something 787 style cabinet. I am not aware for example of using 787 systems like the electrical network, electric packs, or 5000 psi hydraulics on the 77X.



The 77W OEW is 169 tonnes, the 779 has a 5 tonne fuselage plug to make it longer, heavier engines, keel beam needs strengthening as the nose gear and tail are further from the CG, and extra seats and systems to install, bigger wing.



Engines are rated against their takeoff thrust, that takeoff thrust is used to climb a TOW on one engine, where in cruise the thrust is used to oppose the drag in level flight. When flying an A350-900 and A350-1000 at the same altitude, at the same weight there is next to no difference in fuel burn, because the amount of drag that they need to overcome is about the same. The largest contributor to drag in the cruise if surface area, and the bits that have laminar flow on the -900 and -1000 have the same surface area in cruise.



If RR continues to defer working on Ultrafan, I see them offering the Advance3 core upgrade which has already flown to the XWB similar to what they did with the 744 when they offered the Trent 700 core from the A330 engine as a core upgrade to the RB211-524. This will at least get the some return on investment on the R&D spent on Ultrafan, and would bring the pressure ratio of the Trent XWB above the GE9X.



The weight the aircraft takes off at is a function of what payload they are lifting over what range, on shorter legs they will not be taking off at MTOW.

What I find very odd is that the 777-9 was already supposed to be in service this year, not once since it was launched have I seen Boeing ever put in public a maximum payload or range payload curve. In contrast before the A350-1000 was built, range payload curves were provided at various airshows.

If the 777-9 was so good, you don't think Boeing would be showing their jet has superior range/payload to get more sales ? Meanwhile numerous operates have reduced their orders for the type.


Amazing that you pluck out one of the higher OEW weights for the 777W at 169T -


He can look at the weights at his employer for both types. There may be airlines flying lighter 77W, but if they had A35Ks, they'd equally lighter. The delta remains.

Best regards
Thomas


No the point is that I think most of Cathay's 77W's were delivered very early in the program and based on what I found most of them before the 2015 changes plus whatever changes came before that.

It has improved a lot since EIS. The 777X will have all those changes as well.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2340
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 3:30 pm

marcelh wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:

Where I work the -1000 has a 21 tonne lighter OEW than the 77W, it is already massively more efficient the the 77W, so much so that almost all of the 77W fleet is parked while the A350s are flying. Airbus came under a lot if criticism for the panel method, what it means is for the forward and aft barrels of the aircraft they are still only made of 4 panels. If they decide to do a dedicated freighter they can just change the side panels to be without windows or doors, and to incorporate a cargo door. Because of the panel design, the longer fuselage can actually be made more efficiently (the -1000 and -900 are made from the same number of barrels) than by joining individual barrel section like done on the 777.

We also know that Two GE9X engines weigh about 5 tonnes more than two Trent XWB-97 engines.



The major contributor to range we know from the Breguet range equation is the natural log of the ratio of takeoff weight to landing weight, here I have assumed a landing weight of OEW plus 10 tonnes.

-1000 = ln(316000/160000) = 0.680568398
-9 = ln(352400/195000) = 0.591767335

Using that parameter alone, the -1000 should have 15% more range.




I am not sure who told you this or its 787 systems, the systems on the 777X is very similar to the 77W, same sort of electrical distribution, same sort of pneumatics', same sort of hydraulics, even similar flight control system with the addition of the folding wingtips. What they have done is replaced the AIMS that was on the 77W with something 787 style cabinet. I am not aware for example of using 787 systems like the electrical network, electric packs, or 5000 psi hydraulics on the 77X.



The 77W OEW is 169 tonnes, the 779 has a 5 tonne fuselage plug to make it longer, heavier engines, keel beam needs strengthening as the nose gear and tail are further from the CG, and extra seats and systems to install, bigger wing.



Engines are rated against their takeoff thrust, that takeoff thrust is used to climb a TOW on one engine, where in cruise the thrust is used to oppose the drag in level flight. When flying an A350-900 and A350-1000 at the same altitude, at the same weight there is next to no difference in fuel burn, because the amount of drag that they need to overcome is about the same. The largest contributor to drag in the cruise if surface area, and the bits that have laminar flow on the -900 and -1000 have the same surface area in cruise.



If RR continues to defer working on Ultrafan, I see them offering the Advance3 core upgrade which has already flown to the XWB similar to what they did with the 744 when they offered the Trent 700 core from the A330 engine as a core upgrade to the RB211-524. This will at least get the some return on investment on the R&D spent on Ultrafan, and would bring the pressure ratio of the Trent XWB above the GE9X.



The weight the aircraft takes off at is a function of what payload they are lifting over what range, on shorter legs they will not be taking off at MTOW.

What I find very odd is that the 777-9 was already supposed to be in service this year, not once since it was launched have I seen Boeing ever put in public a maximum payload or range payload curve. In contrast before the A350-1000 was built, range payload curves were provided at various airshows.

If the 777-9 was so good, you don't think Boeing would be showing their jet has superior range/payload to get more sales ? Meanwhile numerous operates have reduced their orders for the type.

A350-1000 had something to prove. 777 did not. Does it now? Yeah probably. Customers would’ve seen the expected payload at range but that doesn’t matter till Boeing delivers that data. But they won’t release it till testing has finished. They will share with customers when they have it. But I don’t expect that to be soon as the aircraft has been delayed by 2 years and is going through changes. The thing is. The jet is lucky in the sense that they’ve bought themselves time to make changes if they want to improve the performance both from an airframe and engine perspective.

Using cancellation of orders to equate to performance will not work for your argument. A350-1000 has been cancelled multiple times. Both by United, Emirates. Cathay pacific originally ordered 26 now they’re only taking 18. Etihad ordered about 20. They’re not taking more than 5. But I don’t doubt the plane is very good. So....

In fact the 777X even received orders this year. 1000 since it entered service. Nothing. QF, yes but that has not materialised yet. But their requirements are specialised. The 1000 is better suited.

The last time the two came head to head (BA) 350-1000 lost.

But yes 350-1000 is fantastic but I won’t be quick to call it a home run against the 777X.

Many major -900 users have pushed away from it. In fact SQ being the largest operator has rejected it as they even added 11 more 777X this year. Let’s not even forget how inflated the order book is. I think Airbus still counts Iran air and some others that are clearly not going to happen. I’ll be shocked if Asiana takes them seeing as they’re now folding into Korean and they plan to let go of a lot of their aircraft as they’re all leased.

I’m not here to say one is more efficient than the other but the 1000 is not a home run (at least yet) and nobody has given a definite answer as to why.

A kind of simplistic approach.
UA doesn’t know what it wants with the A350 order, EK walked away because they wanted a less capable version, Cathay downsized because of the slower growth of traffic, EY just bite more than they could chew.
I beg to differ the A350-1000 “lost” when it came head to head with the N779 at BA. BA has different purposes for both planes and needs the “real estate” of the B779. SQ wanted less 78X, so they traded it in for some additional 779.

We are arguing the same point. We can’t use order cancellation to judge performance. Zeke seems to be linking the two.

The point is. You can’t right the 779 off
 
DL220MSP
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:10 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 3:48 pm

Opus99 wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
A350-1000 had something to prove. 777 did not. Does it now? Yeah probably. Customers would’ve seen the expected payload at range but that doesn’t matter till Boeing delivers that data. But they won’t release it till testing has finished. They will share with customers when they have it. But I don’t expect that to be soon as the aircraft has been delayed by 2 years and is going through changes. The thing is. The jet is lucky in the sense that they’ve bought themselves time to make changes if they want to improve the performance both from an airframe and engine perspective.

Using cancellation of orders to equate to performance will not work for your argument. A350-1000 has been cancelled multiple times. Both by United, Emirates. Cathay pacific originally ordered 26 now they’re only taking 18. Etihad ordered about 20. They’re not taking more than 5. But I don’t doubt the plane is very good. So....

In fact the 777X even received orders this year. 1000 since it entered service. Nothing. QF, yes but that has not materialised yet. But their requirements are specialised. The 1000 is better suited.

The last time the two came head to head (BA) 350-1000 lost.

But yes 350-1000 is fantastic but I won’t be quick to call it a home run against the 777X.



Many major -900 users have pushed away from it. In fact SQ being the largest operator has rejected it as they even added 11 more 777X this year. Let’s not even forget how inflated the order book is. I think Airbus still counts Iran air and some others that are clearly not going to happen. I’ll be shocked if Asiana takes them seeing as they’re now folding into Korean and they plan to let go of a lot of their aircraft as they’re all leased.

I’m not here to say one is more efficient than the other but the 1000 is not a home run (at least yet) and nobody has given a definite answer as to why.

A kind of simplistic approach.
UA doesn’t know what it wants with the A350 order, EK walked away because they wanted a less capable version, Cathay downsized because of the slower growth of traffic, EY just bite more than they could chew.
I beg to differ the A350-1000 “lost” when it came head to head with the N779 at BA. BA has different purposes for both planes and needs the “real estate” of the B779. SQ wanted less 78X, so they traded it in for some additional 779.

We are arguing the same point. We can’t use order cancellation to judge performance. Zeke seems to be linking the two.

The point is. You can’t right the 779 off


Why did you start a topic about a new potential widebody freighter by Airbus when you talk about the capabilities of the Boeing 777? The topic on hand is a potential A350F.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2340
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 3:51 pm

DL220MSP wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
marcelh wrote:
A kind of simplistic approach.
UA doesn’t know what it wants with the A350 order, EK walked away because they wanted a less capable version, Cathay downsized because of the slower growth of traffic, EY just bite more than they could chew.
I beg to differ the A350-1000 “lost” when it came head to head with the N779 at BA. BA has different purposes for both planes and needs the “real estate” of the B779. SQ wanted less 78X, so they traded it in for some additional 779.

We are arguing the same point. We can’t use order cancellation to judge performance. Zeke seems to be linking the two.

The point is. You can’t right the 779 off


Why did you start a topic about a new potential widebody freighter by Airbus when you talk about the capabilities of the Boeing 777? The topic on hand is a potential A350F.

I was responding to a comment
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 4:05 pm

Is Wiki right on Engine Weight?

XWB97 7,550 KG per side
GE90-115 8,762 KG per side
Ge9X 9,630 KG per side

The -9 grew by a little less than 3M - 5T extra weight for the base fuselage seems like a lot when it's only grown by 4% in length. If the bare fuselage is 5% of the MTOW or about 17,500 KG that would imply an increase of only 700KG. That is probably way too low but one way of looking at it. An entire A320 KG fuselage is about 5,000 KG.

Based on the OEW delta between 200LR and 300ER which is 22T and a 10M stretch would get a total increase of 6.6T including everything - however the 300ER is beefed up a lot more than 200LR with a MTOW of 351 vs 347 and MZFW of 238T vs 209T, so that ratio should not hold.

The increase in length in -9 should be nowhere what some are assuming.

Take 167T 77W weight (and it could be closer to 165T for the last ones off the line) - add another 3T for extra length, 1.7T for heavier engines - puts you in the low 170's. Gear I think is a bit heavier, wingbox heavier, systems saved a bunch of weight - somewhere in the mid 170's is not inconceivable. It's hard to see it over 180T OEW.

That could put an -8f 70M freighter at 155T ish with MZFW of 265T meaning an A350 would need to lift 110T to be in the same ballpark.

Which takes me around to me my comment that the A350F needs to grow in MTOW to be competitive. GE is trying to get on the 350 - with higher MTOW maybe the Ge9X could work.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26553
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 4:17 pm

Spacepope wrote:
Revelation wrote:
2) 764neoF will happen before 2027 according to this site because new 763F cannot be sold after then due to pollution regulations already agreed to.

If 764neoF is too much to ask regulators to pass, then we really have to ask if the A322 or A350-950F has a chance of passing regulatory muster as well.

764neoF uses existing 748F engines, system tech and planform, should be less change in scope than a new wing or new fuse length.


So we've heard this claim a lot here on good ol A.net. But is it true? Because if it is, I'd think we'd be seeing Boeing doing a last call on freighter orders soon, and not much happening there right yet.

Well, what I did see yesterday on Twitter was FX's 100th 763F taking off at KPAE, and Wiki suggesting another 31 are to follow, not to mention USAF tankers.

5X fleet is at 70 heading to 72 according to Wiki.

I don't think we're close to seeing a last call, they can keep making them up till 2027.

In the short term, Boeing needs to get MAX7 delivered this year and MAX10 and 777X delivered in 2023.

It's more than enough for them to keep busy while they decide what they are going to do next, but I suspect it will be something to keep their franchise at FX and 5X from defecting to the competition.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1330
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 4:20 pm

Israel Aerospace Industries is intending to establish a Boeing 777 passenger-to-freighter conversion facility in South Korea, specialising in both -200ER and -300ER modification, so less need for new freighters

https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/ ... 83.article
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 4:40 pm

morrisond wrote:
No the point is that I think most of Cathay's 77W's were delivered very early in the program and based on what I found most of them before the 2015 changes plus whatever changes came before that.

It has improved a lot since EIS. The 777X will have all those changes as well.


This is not true, something like 20 were delivered in the last 10 years, last ones in 2015, and those are about 21 tonnes heavier then the first A350-1000s delivered in 2018.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 4:56 pm

Opus99 wrote:
We are arguing the same point. We can’t use order cancellation to judge performance. Zeke seems to be linking the two.

The point is. You can’t right the 779 off


You were making claims like the market wants volume for freighters, I.e, converted 77W freighters, and I gave examples of where the market has turned away from VLAs in both passenger and freighter roles and is after smaller more versatile aircraft.

If you have a factual basis for not agreeing with it, I would like to see the evidence.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 5:06 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
No the point is that I think most of Cathay's 77W's were delivered very early in the program and based on what I found most of them before the 2015 changes plus whatever changes came before that.

It has improved a lot since EIS. The 777X will have all those changes as well.


This is not true, something like 20 were delivered in the last 10 years, last ones in 2015, and those are about 21 tonnes heavier then the first A350-1000s delivered in 2018.


So 30 early in the program and 20 from 2010-2015?

That's what I said - you don't seem to have frames from after 2015 when they lost weight due to a number of changes that apparently dropped the weight by about 2% and had aero improvements and PIP's.

You seem to have multiple 77W versions on property some with quite high density. Which ones are 169T and what year are they from?
 
marcelh
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 5:08 pm

Opus99 wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
A350-1000 had something to prove. 777 did not. Does it now? Yeah probably. Customers would’ve seen the expected payload at range but that doesn’t matter till Boeing delivers that data. But they won’t release it till testing has finished. They will share with customers when they have it. But I don’t expect that to be soon as the aircraft has been delayed by 2 years and is going through changes. The thing is. The jet is lucky in the sense that they’ve bought themselves time to make changes if they want to improve the performance both from an airframe and engine perspective.

Using cancellation of orders to equate to performance will not work for your argument. A350-1000 has been cancelled multiple times. Both by United, Emirates. Cathay pacific originally ordered 26 now they’re only taking 18. Etihad ordered about 20. They’re not taking more than 5. But I don’t doubt the plane is very good. So....

In fact the 777X even received orders this year. 1000 since it entered service. Nothing. QF, yes but that has not materialised yet. But their requirements are specialised. The 1000 is better suited.

The last time the two came head to head (BA) 350-1000 lost.

But yes 350-1000 is fantastic but I won’t be quick to call it a home run against the 777X.

Many major -900 users have pushed away from it. In fact SQ being the largest operator has rejected it as they even added 11 more 777X this year. Let’s not even forget how inflated the order book is. I think Airbus still counts Iran air and some others that are clearly not going to happen. I’ll be shocked if Asiana takes them seeing as they’re now folding into Korean and they plan to let go of a lot of their aircraft as they’re all leased.

I’m not here to say one is more efficient than the other but the 1000 is not a home run (at least yet) and nobody has given a definite answer as to why.

A kind of simplistic approach.
UA doesn’t know what it wants with the A350 order, EK walked away because they wanted a less capable version, Cathay downsized because of the slower growth of traffic, EY just bite more than they could chew.
I beg to differ the A350-1000 “lost” when it came head to head with the N779 at BA. BA has different purposes for both planes and needs the “real estate” of the B779. SQ wanted less 78X, so they traded it in for some additional 779.

We are arguing the same point. We can’t use order cancellation to judge performance. Zeke seems to be linking the two.

The point is. You can’t right the 779 off

Time will tell……
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 5:10 pm

morrisond wrote:
bigger wing that is supposedly about the same weight as the existing ones


That is your opinion not supported by any evidence.

morrisond wrote:

What are your estimates on an 350F?


I think they could offer freighter versions of the -900 and -1000 and let the market sort out what it wants.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2340
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 5:17 pm

zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
We are arguing the same point. We can’t use order cancellation to judge performance. Zeke seems to be linking the two.

The point is. You can’t right the 779 off


You were making claims like the market wants volume for freighters, I.e, converted 77W freighters, and I gave examples of where the market has turned away from VLAs in both passenger and freighter roles and is after smaller more versatile aircraft.

If you have a factual basis for not agreeing with it, I would like to see the evidence.

I said volume is important. It’s not the only thing. But it’s important. I did not say the market wants volume for freighters. The 77W freighters is just an example of how volume is important because that is it’s USP and makes it interesting.

When did I make market analysis about freighters.

Also what does this have to do with using orders to judge performance. Anyway. All I said is volume is important in cargo. You seemed to downplay the role volume has to play in making the 78X more favourable on that front. But I mean say what you want
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue May 04, 2021 5:47 pm

morrisond wrote:
So 30 early in the program and 20 from 2010-2015?

That's what I said - you don't seem to have frames from after 2015 when they lost weight due to a number of changes that apparently dropped the weight by about 2% and had aero improvements and PIP's.


Have less than 30 in total left, oldest delivered in 2007. I checked with another airline that had a number of deliveries in 2016 and 2017, they don’t have 2% I.e. 3400 kg (equivalent to 1.5 meters of fuselage) lower OEW to their earlier aircraft.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4168
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 6:11 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
bigger wing that is supposedly about the same weight as the existing ones


That is your opinion not supported by any evidence.



My estimates put the 779x at about 17t heavier than the 77W. Just under 3t from the engines, just over 2t from the longer fuselage about 1t of extra furnishings 9t from the wings and everything else just scattered around.

I can’t fathom why it’s assumed that the 787 systems would be lighter?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 7:16 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
bigger wing that is supposedly about the same weight as the existing ones


That is your opinion not supported by any evidence.



My estimates put the 779x at about 17t heavier than the 77W. Just under 3t from the engines, just over 2t from the longer fuselage about 1t of extra furnishings 9t from the wings and everything else just scattered around.

I can’t fathom why it’s assumed that the 787 systems would be lighter?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I saw an article years ago talking about a significant weight savings just going to the 787 cockpit and avionics. As in 1-2T weight savings. You would have to assume lighter cabin systems and interior using 787 tech.

According to the TCDS sheet the engines are 1.7T more and the nacelles are the same diameter. I'll try to dig up an article but there were many reports that the wings would gain nothing.

3T for the longer length makes a lot of sense.

I know it's not only a 4.7T ton increase but somewhere around 7-10 seems doable so 174-177ish.

OEW weight in the 2015 Boeing ACAP is 167.4T on the 77W from 2015. I don't know if that weight loss from the after 2015's is baked in to that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN90SXMM1q4

Look at Page 26 - it would seem to suggest that the structural weight has fallen by about 3,000 lbs since EIS - and the 2015/2016 changes increased payload ability by 5,000.

They took weight out of things like lighter insulation, lighter toilets, lighter hydraulic fluid, lighter tires.

It would be investing to know the real OEW of one of the last ones off the line.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 9:51 pm

morrisond wrote:

OEW weight in the 2015 Boeing ACAP is 167.4T on the 77W from 2015. I don't know if that weight loss from the after 2015's is baked in to that.



Zeke's weight figures for the 77W are entirely resonable.

Our 77Ws which have a lower ave age than the CX fleet have a range between 167-175t empty. The 2 class Y heavy configs ordered by KLM, AF and Kenyan will be much lighter.

A cabin in a 772/359 size aircraft can be 10t of fixtures and fittings. I would expect any freighter based directly on the 359 to be 125t ish empty - perhaps a little lower. At most 135t for stretched variant with the -1000s MLG.

I understand the mlg on the 350 was switched from Ti to steel for cost savings some years ago. That's a whole lot of mass waiting to come out from there too.

I have no doubts a 350 based freigher would be a good performer. However, I have reservations about the market and whether it would be a good value proposition. With the plethora of conversions becoming available, it will be squeezed from top and bottom.

Timing has rarely been an ally of the Airbus product development teams.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 11:18 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
morrisond wrote:

OEW weight in the 2015 Boeing ACAP is 167.4T on the 77W from 2015. I don't know if that weight loss from the after 2015's is baked in to that.



Zeke's weight figures for the 77W are entirely resonable.

Our 77Ws which have a lower ave age than the CX fleet have a range between 167-175t empty. The 2 class Y heavy configs ordered by KLM, AF and Kenyan will be much lighter.

A cabin in a 772/359 size aircraft can be 10t of fixtures and fittings. I would expect any freighter based directly on the 359 to be 125t ish empty - perhaps a little lower. At most 135t for stretched variant with the -1000s MLG.

I understand the mlg on the 350 was switched from Ti to steel for cost savings some years ago. That's a whole lot of mass waiting to come out from there too.

I have no doubts a 350 based freigher would be a good performer. However, I have reservations about the market and whether it would be a good value proposition. With the plethora of conversions becoming available, it will be squeezed from top and bottom.

Timing has rarely been an ally of the Airbus product development teams.


Are those 77W's some of the last one's off the line with all the weight savings?

Yes you lose the weight of the cabin but you have to add back in a lot of weight to strengthen the floor and bump up the MZFW. The big cargo doors aren't light either.

It appears as though the 77F uses the heavier 77W structure vs the lighter 77L structure - consequently the OEW weight per the ACAP is only 700 KG less for the 77F vs the 77L. I think you have to more take an A351 and shrink that. If it is A359 length that is only a 7m shrink vs a 10M shrink of the 777 so OEW weight could still be north of 140T. Which might only give you about 90T of lift without upping structure more and MTOW (to load on enough fuel at a MZFW weight of 240T or above) and thrust, etc..

Personally I think the A350F would be a fantastic performer - but as you just pointed out they switched the gear to Ti to save cost- but there still is a whole bunch of that in the frame that is very expensive. The 350 is very much a hot rod - but it is very expensive to build due to uber expensive materials. They won't be adding more of them for the freight market.

However if they need to beef things up and switched out parts from Ti and other costly materials that might give them the necessary strength while lowering cost. If the passenger models also put on a few tons (which could be offset by a PIP) that might bring the cost down materially and improve its sales prospects.

Boeing had to go through that process on the 787 - subbing out more expensive materials for cheaper ones - and that allows them to price it quite well.

That may be a little of what is going on with the 777x (using heavier materials to keep cost low) if it does prove to be a tank - but that should keep the cost relatively low.

Airbus structural engineers can't do magic vs Boeing Engineers if given the same materials budget to work with - unless of course one manufacturer allows themselves to get closer to the margins of what a material is capable of.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Tue May 04, 2021 11:24 pm

So back to the Opening Post. Airbus needs at least 50 orders to launch. As the new built freighter market is much smaller than the passenger models, so expecting orders from from airline will be in the 10 or less number. So which 5 airlines are ready to order 10 freighters each.

UPS passed on adding 748F's last year, haven't ordered any new freighters for a while.
FedEx could be interested.
Cargolux seems to be satisfied
Amazon has not ordered any new aircraft, just conversions with the largest being 767.
Qatar could do 5 to 10

Who are likely potentials to order 50 new freighters? Discuss
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12071
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
FedEx could be interested.

I imagine FedEx would rather wait and see how the 77Wp2F shakes out and performs. If it meets specs it would be very attractive to them, and fit in perfectly with their large 777F fleet.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Wed May 05, 2021 1:26 am

Polot wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
FedEx could be interested.

I imagine FedEx would rather wait and see how the 77Wp2F shakes out and performs. If it meets specs it would be very attractive to them, and fit in perfectly with their large 777F fleet.


That's the big issue for an Airbus launch decision - who would buy it? We know efficiency which is the 350's strength is not the number one issue for Freighters - Capital cost and capability are usually the bigger selling points.

That is a problem when cheap very capable end of line 77F are available for another 6 years and it's not like Boeing is capacity limited on the 777 production line - you can get one whenever you want. Boeing would probably cut you a pretty keen deal to keep the line humming.

Airbus would have a really hard time getting close to the price - and they would have to get pretty close on price as the lower fuel burn would not offset as much as on a passenger aircraft.

I really don't think the A350F comes until later when Boeing can't build the 77F anymore - however I think a 340T 70M 350F with 105K Ge9X's (or 105K Ultrafan) could lift about the same as an 360T 70M 777xf - it's whether or not the bigger wing on the xF offsets the lower weight of the 350F and what price could each be produced at. Ultrafan should be able to beat the Ge9X but the Delta shouldn't be huge as the Ge9x will get better over time.

So a 340T 350 with Ultrafan should be quite the aircraft - but at what price will they be able to offer it vs 777xF?

So maybe the better question is - what does the big freighter replacement market look like at the end of this decade? What will need to be replaced then?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 05, 2021 4:45 am

morrisond wrote:
According to the TCDS sheet the engines are 1.7T more and the nacelles are the same diameter.


My understanding is the nacelle diameter is 4.42 meters on the 779 and 3.96 m on the 77W. I doubt you found the nacelle information in the TCDS as it is normally not part of the engine, engines are tested without a nacelle.

morrisond wrote:
Look at Page 26 - it would seem to suggest that the structural weight has fallen by about 3,000 lbs since EIS - and the 2015/2016 changes increased payload ability by 5,000.


Your claim a few posts back was in 2016 that the OEW dropped 2%, that would be 7-7500lb, now you are saying a total of 3000lb since EIS, I think you should stop posting contradictory and misleading information. I went back and had a look at the Boeing presentations from 2016, and they said they were aiming for about 550 kg reduction. On an aircraft the size of the 77W it is very common for aircraft to have a few hundred kg difference in weight even if they were built right after each other.

Chaostheory wrote:
A cabin in a 772/359 size aircraft can be 10t of fixtures and fittings. I would expect any freighter based directly on the 359 to be 125t ish empty - perhaps a little lower. At most 135t for stretched variant with the -1000s MLG..


Our 359s have a MEW just under 120 tonnes, with about 15 tonnes for the cabin fit out. Back when the A350 was launched, Airbus was aiming at a 90t payload for the A359F essentially a MD11F replacement for volume and payload.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a35 ... 81.article

morrisond wrote:
That's the big issue for an Airbus launch decision - who would buy it? We know efficiency which is the 350's strength is not the number one issue for Freighters - Capital cost and capability are usually the bigger selling points.

That is a problem when cheap very capable end of line 77F are available for another 6 years and it's not like Boeing is capacity limited on the 777 production line - you can get one whenever you want. Boeing would probably cut you a pretty keen deal to keep the line humming.


The future of the 77F is really at the mercy of airports, as more restrictive noise measures are brought in the 77F as well as most other production or converted freighters flying today will not be allowed to operate at night.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed May 05, 2021 10:43 am

morrisond wrote:
Airbus structural engineers can't do magic vs Boeing Engineers if given the same materials budget to work with - unless of course one manufacturer allows themselves to get closer to the margins of what a material is capable of.


Not all engineers are created equal.

Another item is starting with the more appropriate material from the get go
creates a more homogeneous, better optimized design.

there are limits to what you can achieve with postfix solutions.

787 today is a bunch of disjunct changes, fixes for errors made, warts to fix too expensive material selection....
Murphy is an optimist
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14624
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed May 05, 2021 11:09 am

morrisond wrote:
Airbus structural engineers can't do magic vs Boeing Engineers if given the same materials budget to work with -.


:checkmark:
You are correct, Airbus engineers couldn´t add 7m of span without driving weight up quite a bit any more than Boeing engineers can.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Wed May 05, 2021 11:50 am

tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Airbus structural engineers can't do magic vs Boeing Engineers if given the same materials budget to work with -.


:checkmark:
You are correct, Airbus engineers couldn´t add 7m of span without driving weight up quite a bit any more than Boeing engineers can.

best regards
Thomas


Yes there is no benefit of going from Aluminum to Carbon...It might have gone up a bit but 9T seems rather extreme.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14624
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed May 05, 2021 12:12 pm

morrisond wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Airbus structural engineers can't do magic vs Boeing Engineers if given the same materials budget to work with -.


:checkmark:
You are correct, Airbus engineers couldn´t add 7m of span without driving weight up quite a bit any more than Boeing engineers can.

best regards
Thomas


Yes there is no benefit of going from Aluminum to Carbon...


it makes such a long wing viable for optimizing towards minimum fuel burn, which is a goal not always pulling in the same direction as driving up payload.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
783211
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

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

Wed May 05, 2021 12:13 pm

morrisond wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Airbus structural engineers can't do magic vs Boeing Engineers if given the same materials budget to work with -.


:checkmark:
You are correct, Airbus engineers couldn´t add 7m of span without driving weight up quite a bit any more than Boeing engineers can.

best regards
Thomas


Yes there is no benefit of going from Aluminum to Carbon...It might have gone up a bit but 9T seems rather extreme.


Please do keep in mind that the wing of the A350-1000 has about a 3 percent larger area than the 777-300ER -- i.e. per Airbus Gross Definition: 464.4 m2 vs. 450 m2.

The 777X wing, on the other hand, is around 20 percent larger in area than that of the wing of the 777-300ER and significantly heavier than the A350 wing -- i.e. 540 m2 per Airbus Gross Definition.

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