Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16317
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 2:35 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Do you believe your own numbers?

If they are ture, it's means the B779 would be 8% more fuel per pax on a 1500m shorter trip.

Do you believe any airline, including your own, would have signed up for that? Bigger airplane that burns more per seat?


I think the numbers must be close are very close, Boeing claims the 777-9 is 20% better than the 77W, when I extend the table out to include the 77W and make that the baseline, the 777-9 with an OEW of 184 tonnes works out to be 19% better per passenger.

https://i.ibb.co/FxcwZ9k/777-9-per-passenger.jpg

Image
“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

Thu May 06, 2021 2:46 pm

zeke wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Do you believe your own numbers?

If they are ture, it's means the B779 would be 8% more fuel per pax on a 1500m shorter trip.

Do you believe any airline, including your own, would have signed up for that? Bigger airplane that burns more per seat?


I think the numbers must be close are very close, Boeing claims the 777-9 is 20% better than the 77W, when I extend the table out to include the 77W and make that the baseline, the 777-9 with an OEW of 184 tonnes works out to be 19% better per passenger.

https://i.ibb.co/FxcwZ9k/777-9-per-passenger.jpg

Image

I think you have an error, the A35k range should be 8400 for 316t MTOW or 8700nm for 319t MTOW?

FRED


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 2:49 pm

morrisond wrote:
A lot of A351's have been switched to A359 which may be due to the 351 engines having issues and reports of operators wanting more thrust - which leads me back to the 350F may need a MTOW boost and bump in thrust.

What combined 777X and 351 sales in the last 5 years are also telling us is that there is not much demand for expensive large aircraft. Operators bought a lot of 77W which are still quite young and not materially different in size than A351 or 779. Until we get to that replacement cycle (later this decade) I doubt we will see much demand for either.

It's interesting that UA not only switched from A35K to A359 but also deferred that long standing order till 2027 while buying factory fresh 77W opportunistically ever since.

I think the "not much demand for expensive large aircraft" issue may make it hard for Airbus to close their A350F business case.
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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:00 pm

Eagleboy wrote:
alberchico wrote:
Considering that there will be plenty of second hand 777-300's available at attractive prices for freighter conversions, this might not be the best time to launch a A350 cargo variant.

And A330ceo's if the want to maintain some commonality.


No it may not be the best time to Launch a low density 350F based on the existing A351 engines and MTOW.

A 340T A359.5F at 70M with OEW weight of about 145T and MZFW of about 260T so that it could lift 115T and heavier 105K engines could be the ticket if launch now for EIS later this decade.

It could replace of lot of the remaining 211 747-400F's which are getting a lot of hours on them right now. Plus the 115 MD-11F and Conversions still flying.

An MD-11F can lift 91T and has room for 32 LD3's in the belly and 26 pallets up top.

The 744F can lift about 122T with space for 32 LD3's in the belly and 29 pallets up top.

A 70M A359.5F should be able to take 36 LD3's in the belly and 31 pallets up top with density a little less than 744F but better than MD11F.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2348
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:07 pm

zeke wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Do you believe your own numbers?

If they are ture, it's means the B779 would be 8% more fuel per pax on a 1500m shorter trip.

Do you believe any airline, including your own, would have signed up for that? Bigger airplane that burns more per seat?


I think the numbers must be close are very close, Boeing claims the 777-9 is 20% better than the 77W, when I extend the table out to include the 77W and make that the baseline, the 777-9 with an OEW of 184 tonnes works out to be 19% better per passenger.

https://i.ibb.co/FxcwZ9k/777-9-per-passenger.jpg

Image

Surely 350-1000 per passenger fuel burn has to be higher than 8% over the 77W?

What you have in the GE9X certification thread is different
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:16 pm

Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Do you believe your own numbers?

If they are ture, it's means the B779 would be 8% more fuel per pax on a 1500m shorter trip.

Do you believe any airline, including your own, would have signed up for that? Bigger airplane that burns more per seat?


I think the numbers must be close are very close, Boeing claims the 777-9 is 20% better than the 77W, when I extend the table out to include the 77W and make that the baseline, the 777-9 with an OEW of 184 tonnes works out to be 19% better per passenger.

https://i.ibb.co/FxcwZ9k/777-9-per-passenger.jpg

Image

Surely 350-1000 per passenger fuel burn has to be higher than 8% over the 77W?


The big problem is calculating fuel not for the same mission.

Who knows - maybe Airbus is using the same weight for Passengers and bags as it's using on the XLR to make it look like it is better than it is in reality - 90kG per passenger vs the normal 100KG.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2348
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:22 pm

morrisond wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:

I think the numbers must be close are very close, Boeing claims the 777-9 is 20% better than the 77W, when I extend the table out to include the 77W and make that the baseline, the 777-9 with an OEW of 184 tonnes works out to be 19% better per passenger.

https://i.ibb.co/FxcwZ9k/777-9-per-passenger.jpg

Image

Surely 350-1000 per passenger fuel burn has to be higher than 8% over the 77W?


The big problem is calculating fuel not for the same mission.

Who knows - maybe Airbus is using the same weight for Passengers and bags as it's using on the XLR to make it look like it is better than it is in reality - 90kG per passenger vs the normal 100KG.

If the fuel burn per seat reduction is truly only 8 percent, that’s why a cheap brand new 77W will be favourable over a brand new 35K. But I think those numbers are wrong because 8% is a bit low. Maybe he made a mistake
 
mig17
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:27 pm

morrisond wrote:
The reason we are even talking about the 77X in this thread is to find out how capable a potential 777XF would be to see where the 350F needs to be roughly.

We are talking a lot about the 777-X and potential XF but what about a 777-F "neo"? Can GE9X be fitted under a 77L/W/F wings? What would be the gain?
A30B IW/TG, A313 EK, A318/9/20/1 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A35K QR, A388 AF, AT72 A5/TX, B722 AT, B734/8 UX/SK/TO/SS, B742/3/4 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, B762 UA, B77E/W AF/QR, C-150/72, CRJ1/7/X A5, E145/70/90 A5/WF, DH8D WF, PC-6.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:35 pm

morrisond wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:

I think the numbers must be close are very close, Boeing claims the 777-9 is 20% better than the 77W, when I extend the table out to include the 77W and make that the baseline, the 777-9 with an OEW of 184 tonnes works out to be 19% better per passenger.

https://i.ibb.co/FxcwZ9k/777-9-per-passenger.jpg

Image

Surely 350-1000 per passenger fuel burn has to be higher than 8% over the 77W?


The big problem is calculating fuel not for the same mission.

Who knows - maybe Airbus is using the same weight for Passengers and bags as it's using on the XLR to make it look like it is better than it is in reality - 90kG per passenger vs the normal 100KG.


Exactly, Zeke should normalize for a 7200 trip, which means A35k is not at MTOW.

Regards,
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:43 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

On sales.

Ignoring of course the BA order in 2019 for 18 firm and of course this little event called COVID.


In general it shows that there is no run on the airframe, even if you order now, you will not get your hands on until 2025 probably later due to the very low production rate. Many people here believe demand will have recovered until than. So no airline sees the need to order because there are enough open production slots available. This means that offer outstrips demand. One reason is that the offer seems not compelling enough to drive sales in bad times.

Even the MAX was able to generate sales during this pandemic, LH just bought 787s and A350s (though they are far out). This frames get ordered in the worst of times because the demand is there. The 77X saw one positive conversion (SQ) since 2019 all the other news were order reductions.

So if the 77X would be so good (technically) or so economic (price + operating cost) we would see orders even now, but what we see is a massive reduction in the order book, the biggest one from the main customer who decided to invest in proven aircraft (787 and 350) because their specs are known and solid instead on investing in a product that should outcompete both due to technological advances.

Boeing also seems unable to stimulate demand by offering better performance than promised or cheaper pricing.


The reason we are even talking about the 77X in this thread is to find out how capable a potential 777XF would be to see where the 350F needs to be roughly.

So not that it matters - But Yes order reductions due to Covid - a lot due to ASC 606 which Airbus does not report on. I can't find any Airbus sales of the A351 in the last 5 years other than 8 to a start-up - Starlux airlines - lets see how many of those get delivered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries

A lot of A351's have been switched to A359 which may be due to the 351 engines having issues and reports of operators wanting more thrust - which leads me back to the 350F may need a MTOW boost and bump in thrust.

What combined 777X and 351 sales in the last 5 years are also telling us is that there is not much demand for expensive large aircraft. Operators bought a lot of 77W which are still quite young and not materially different in size than A351 or 779. Until we get to that replacement cycle (later this decade) I doubt we will see much demand for either.


And I think the concern you are raising is the big problem for the 77X besides the capabilities. If it does not reach economics of scale due to poor sales it will be too expensive to operate long time. The tale of the A380. No sales for the 779, no economy of scale for the XF.

The fact that the 361 does not sell too is a strong indication that there is no market for large aircraft especially when the performance is not outstanding (hmm A380). The XF will therefore suffer massively and might never be launched. If Airbus has a hard time finding a business case with the A350F (a family that already has many) that already has economy of scale, Boeing will even have a harder time especially when the performance is not better than the 77F (Max Payload), nor better than what Boeing set as minimum standard to offer the product in the first place (779).
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4168
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 3:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think the "not much demand for expensive large aircraft" issue may make it hard for Airbus to close their A350F business case.

I think that might actually be the play, if the A350F can be as pat of a higher production family then it could be cheaper than the 77XF. It is however a bit like stating that when times are hard people want more efficient aircraft except that when times are hard maybe people actually want NO aircraft.

morrisond wrote:
Great find on the weight of the Wingboxes - so an A350XWB 319T Wingbox only weighs 5.1T? Yet Fred has the 352T 77X gaining 4T on top of the 77W
WTF! No I didn't! Show where I said that?

morrisond wrote:
which presumably would be about 7T as it lifts more but metal making it weigh about the same as the A380 wingbox that can lift what 575T?
Did you get confused between a wing box and a centre wing box?

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 4:13 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think the "not much demand for expensive large aircraft" issue may make it hard for Airbus to close their A350F business case.

I think that might actually be the play, if the A350F can be as pat of a higher production family then it could be cheaper than the 77XF. It is however a bit like stating that when times are hard people want more efficient aircraft except that when times are hard maybe people actually want NO aircraft.

morrisond wrote:
Great find on the weight of the Wingboxes - so an A350XWB 319T Wingbox only weighs 5.1T? Yet Fred has the 352T 77X gaining 4T on top of the 77W
WTF! No I didn't! Show where I said that?

morrisond wrote:
which presumably would be about 7T as it lifts more but metal making it weigh about the same as the A380 wingbox that can lift what 575T?
Did you get confused between a wing box and a centre wing box?

Fred



I think in jest you said the missing 4T to get to 9T was in the wing box. Mine was in jest as well.

I take the terms as somewhat interchangeable as they are often mixed on this site - but are you talking about the internal part of the wing - the box section?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 4:25 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think the "not much demand for expensive large aircraft" issue may make it hard for Airbus to close their A350F business case.

I think that might actually be the play, if the A350F can be as pat of a higher production family then it could be cheaper than the 77XF. It is however a bit like stating that when times are hard people want more efficient aircraft except that when times are hard maybe people actually want NO aircraft.

As was pointed out earlier, a lot of this would depend on how solid the A350 backlog really is. If it's solid, there's no need to spend R&D money to add a new family member any time soon. If it's weak and if A330neo stays weak while of course A380 has disappeared they may need to double down on A350, it'd be the only reliable wide body product they have.

I think the recent A220 at WN saga suggests Airbus isn't going to go too far down the path of buying their way into markets so they will need to find some solid launch orders. Positioning themselves to replace MD-11 at FX seems to be one possibility, but Team B will not want to lose that market so they may not find it too easy to secure a big order. It feels to me we're years away from the issue of A350F introduction being resolved one way or the other. Same goes for the war of the spreadsheets we have on this thread, lol!
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
 
Strato2
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 4:47 pm

It amuses me that an aircraft family that has 913 orders is in all sorts of trouble to launch a freighter variant but an aircraft family that according to it's manufacturer has only 193 firm orders can launch freighter variant at will and everybody will line up.

BTW 913/193 :shock:
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 4:47 pm

Quick fact when I was looking up 744F capabilities the 747-400 passenger model has an OEW weight of 178T and and seats 416 in 3 class vs 349 for 779 and has the exact same brochure range of 7,285 as the 779.

So OK - an aircraft that is 35 years newer - that seats 20% less - has two engines vs 4 (albeit very heavy ones) - two main landing gear vs 3, one deck vs two - a MTOW 55T less - uses carbon for the Wing and tail and somehow weighs 6T more in OEW weight.

Why does that not make sense?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14521
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 4:50 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
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


Traditionally cargo conversions make up the majority of cargo fleets. But with even 767 and 777F no longer meeting future requirements, I can see Airbus taking the opportunity to launch a A350F relatively early. The fact they are even willing to fine tune deck size for pallets/ containers, shows some confidence.

Possible customers?
:splat: Atlas Air / Southern 25,
:splat: AF/KLM 8,
:splat: Qatar 6,
:splat: Emirates SkyCargo 8,
:splat: Cathay Pacific Cargo 6,
:splat: LH Cargo 10,
:splat: China Southern Cargo 4

Yes throw in Fedex & UPS, DHL for dozens. Not now, but at some point. They have aging, non compliant fleet types too.
Globally many MD11's, DC10's, 767s, 747s up for replacements later this decade.

A350s slash envorinmental foodprints & noise. Increasingly a topic.
Global taxpayers, governments got more influence recently, whether we like it or not..

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/atlas ... lout-funds
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... e-package/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... us-flights
Last edited by keesje on Thu May 06, 2021 4:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 4:51 pm

Strato2 wrote:
It amuses me that an aircraft family that has 913 orders is in all sorts of trouble to launch a freighter variant but an aircraft family that according to it's manufacturer has only 193 firm orders can launch freighter variant at will and everybody will line up.

BTW 913/193 :shock:


As REV pointed out apply ASC 606 to the backlog on the A350 and see how many of the remaining 380 359's and 114 351's are good.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 5:01 pm

Strato2 wrote:
It amuses me that an aircraft family that has 913 orders is in all sorts of trouble to launch a freighter variant but an aircraft family that according to it's manufacturer has only 193 firm orders can launch freighter variant at will and everybody will line up.

BTW 913/193 :shock:

It amuses me that people talk about A321 having advantages because it is a member of the A320 family, but don't recognize any future 77XF would have huge advantages because so much of the market has strong 777 infrastructure in place and strong relationships with Boeing and GE.
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
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14630
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 5:56 pm

morrisond wrote:

So OK - an aircraft that is 35 years newer - that seats 20% less -


Floor space difference is much less than 20%.

a MTOW 55T less - uses carbon for the Wing and tail and somehow weighs 6T more in OEW weight.


probably some of the same reasons that had the 748 gain 42tons over the 744 for a small stretch.

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

Thu May 06, 2021 6:16 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think the "not much demand for expensive large aircraft" issue may make it hard for Airbus to close their A350F business case.

I think that might actually be the play, if the A350F can be as pat of a higher production family then it could be cheaper than the 77XF. It is however a bit like stating that when times are hard people want more efficient aircraft except that when times are hard maybe people actually want NO aircraft.

morrisond wrote:
Great find on the weight of the Wingboxes - so an A350XWB 319T Wingbox only weighs 5.1T? Yet Fred has the 352T 77X gaining 4T on top of the 77W
WTF! No I didn't! Show where I said that?

morrisond wrote:
which presumably would be about 7T as it lifts more but metal making it weigh about the same as the A380 wingbox that can lift what 575T?
Did you get confused between a wing box and a centre wing box?

Fred



I think in jest you said the missing 4T to get to 9T was in the wing box. Mine was in jest as well.

I take the terms as somewhat interchangeable as they are often mixed on this site - but are you talking about the internal part of the wing - the box section?


It was perfectly clear from the link that I provided that I was talking about the centre wingbox -- also known as the wing-carry-through-structure.

The primary load carrying structure of the wing consists of a centre wing box and outer wing box (left and right).

Furthermore, the weight of the centre wing box is always included as part of the empty weight of the centre fuselage -- as shown on page 12 and 13 in this link (i.e. weight breakdown of A380 sub-assemblies):

https://www.aviation.tu-darmstadt.de/media/arbeitskreis_luftverkehr/downloads_6/kolloquien/13kolloquium/05druckvorlage_morales.pdf

-

As already mentioned, the weight saved on the A350's fifty-percent-composite-by-content centre wing box is 1 tonnes over that of an all metal centre wing box; or a weight saving of 16 percent. That figure is on top of the weight savings achieved on the A350's CFRP outer wingbox (left and right) -- and again, the 777X has an all metal centre wing box; or just like the all metal centre wing box of the 777/772/773/77W/77L/77F.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2348
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 6:57 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

So OK - an aircraft that is 35 years newer - that seats 20% less -


Floor space difference is much less than 20%.

a MTOW 55T less - uses carbon for the Wing and tail and somehow weighs 6T more in OEW weight.


probably some of the same reasons that had the 748 gain 42tons over the 744 for a small stretch.

Best regards
Thomas

Small stretch? LOL. The 747-8 grew by 20FT, the hump grew by another God knows how many feet. Do doubt it was heavy. But please that is not a small stretch
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 7:34 pm

Baldr wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I think that might actually be the play, if the A350F can be as pat of a higher production family then it could be cheaper than the 77XF. It is however a bit like stating that when times are hard people want more efficient aircraft except that when times are hard maybe people actually want NO aircraft.

WTF! No I didn't! Show where I said that?

Did you get confused between a wing box and a centre wing box?

Fred



I think in jest you said the missing 4T to get to 9T was in the wing box. Mine was in jest as well.

I take the terms as somewhat interchangeable as they are often mixed on this site - but are you talking about the internal part of the wing - the box section?


It was perfectly clear from the link that I provided that I was talking about the centre wingbox -- also known as the wing-carry-through-structure.

The primary load carrying structure of the wing consists of a centre wing box and outer wing box (left and right).

Furthermore, the weight of the centre wing box is always included as part of the empty weight of the centre fuselage -- as shown on page 12 and 13 in this link (i.e. weight breakdown of A380 sub-assemblies):

https://www.aviation.tu-darmstadt.de/media/arbeitskreis_luftverkehr/downloads_6/kolloquien/13kolloquium/05druckvorlage_morales.pdf

-

As already mentioned, the weight saved on the A350's fifty-percent-composite-by-content centre wing box is 1 tonnes over that of an all metal centre wing box; or a weight saving of 16 percent. That figure is on top of the weight savings achieved on the A350's CFRP outer wingbox (left and right) -- and again, the 777X has an all metal centre wing box; or just like the all metal centre wing box of the 777/772/773/77W/77L/77F.


I knew you were talking the centre wingbox. Interesting that it is included as part of the weight of the fuselage.

I'll post more on that later.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12080
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 7:46 pm

Opus99 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

So OK - an aircraft that is 35 years newer - that seats 20% less -


Floor space difference is much less than 20%.

a MTOW 55T less - uses carbon for the Wing and tail and somehow weighs 6T more in OEW weight.


probably some of the same reasons that had the 748 gain 42tons over the 744 for a small stretch.

Best regards
Thomas

Small stretch? LOL. The 747-8 grew by 20FT, the hump grew by another God knows how many feet. Do doubt it was heavy. But please that is not a small stretch

Yes, the 747-8 stretch is about the same difference as between the 787-8 and 787-9, and almost equal to the difference between the A350-900/-1000. It was not a small stretch like the 777X. The MTOW of the 748 is also 35-51t higher than the 744 (depending on whether you are talking about ER or base -400). The OEW also did not grow by 42t, unless you are comparing a 744F to a 748i or something which is not exactly a good comparison due to difference in hump length between passenger and cargo variants. The difference is closer to 30t.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2348
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 8:02 pm

Opus99 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

So OK - an aircraft that is 35 years newer - that seats 20% less -


Floor space difference is much less than 20%.

a MTOW 55T less - uses carbon for the Wing and tail and somehow weighs 6T more in OEW weight.


probably some of the same reasons that had the 748 gain 42tons over the 744 for a small stretch.

Best regards
Thomas

Small stretch? LOL. The 747-8 grew by 20FT, the hump grew by another God knows how many feet. Do doubt it was heavy. But please that is not a small stretch

meant to say "don't doubt"
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16317
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 8:05 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
I think you have an error, the A35k range should be 8400 for 316t MTOW or 8700nm for 319t MTOW?


Thanks I updated the table to 8400/316 it makes very little difference to the percentage difference

Okcflyer wrote:
Exactly, Zeke should normalize for a 7200 trip, which means A35k is not at MTOW.

Regards,


If I do the numbers at 7285 nm for the A350-1000 I have two choices, either drop the TOW back to 290 tonnes and just have the passenger payload or add 17 tonnes of cargo to the payload to keep the 316 tonne TOW, the numbers then look a lot even more favorable towards the A350-1000, that is not something Boeing would be doing when it makes comparisons. Likewise Airbus when comparing the A350 to the 779 would not be doing so over the same range as the 779 as it then negates the additional capability the airframe has.

The comparisons of airframes and payloads over various ranges in a route network for a specific carrier is what airlines will do when looking at fleet planning.

Baldr wrote:
Furthermore, the weight of the centre wing box is always included as part of the empty weight of the centre fuselage -- as shown on page 12 and 13 in this link (i.e. weight breakdown of A380 sub-assemblies):


This is incorrect, the A380 center wing box is a sub assembly in its own right, with a weight if 11 tonnes, they were made in Nantes then taken by river barge to the Saint-Nazaire facility to be integrated into the fuselage center section. The same process is followed for the A350, the wing box is made in Nantes and then taken to the Saint-Nazaire facility. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... zaire.html
“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
 
Eiszeit
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 8:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
It amuses me that an aircraft family that has 913 orders is in all sorts of trouble to launch a freighter variant but an aircraft family that according to it's manufacturer has only 193 firm orders can launch freighter variant at will and everybody will line up.

BTW 913/193 :shock:

It amuses me that people talk about A321 having advantages because it is a member of the A320 family, but don't recognize any future 77XF would have huge advantages because so much of the market has strong 777 infrastructure in place and strong relationships with Boeing and GE.


Yeah but what commonality with 777s does it have? MLG? ok! what else some fuselage stuff? maybe. what else.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 8:33 pm

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I think you have an error, the A35k range should be 8400 for 316t MTOW or 8700nm for 319t MTOW?


Thanks I updated the table to 8400/316 it makes very little difference to the percentage difference

Okcflyer wrote:
Exactly, Zeke should normalize for a 7200 trip, which means A35k is not at MTOW.

Regards,


If I do the numbers at 7285 nm for the A350-1000 I have two choices, either drop the TOW back to 290 tonnes and just have the passenger payload or add 17 tonnes of cargo to the payload to keep the 316 tonne TOW, the numbers then look a lot even more favorable towards the A350-1000, that is not something Boeing would be doing when it makes comparisons. Likewise Airbus when comparing the A350 to the 779 would not be doing so over the same range as the 779 as it then negates the additional capability the airframe has.

The comparisons of airframes and payloads over various ranges in a route network for a specific carrier is what airlines will do when looking at fleet planning.

Baldr wrote:
Furthermore, the weight of the centre wing box is always included as part of the empty weight of the centre fuselage -- as shown on page 12 and 13 in this link (i.e. weight breakdown of A380 sub-assemblies):


This is incorrect, the A380 center wing box is a sub assembly in its own right, with a weight if 11 tonnes, they were made in Nantes then taken by river barge to the Saint-Nazaire facility to be integrated into the fuselage center section. The same process is followed for the A350, the wing box is made in Nantes and then taken to the Saint-Nazaire facility. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... zaire.html


I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 9:00 pm

Eiszeit wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
It amuses me that an aircraft family that has 913 orders is in all sorts of trouble to launch a freighter variant but an aircraft family that according to it's manufacturer has only 193 firm orders can launch freighter variant at will and everybody will line up.

BTW 913/193 :shock:

It amuses me that people talk about A321 having advantages because it is a member of the A320 family, but don't recognize any future 77XF would have huge advantages because so much of the market has strong 777 infrastructure in place and strong relationships with Boeing and GE.


Yeah but what commonality with 777s does it have? MLG? ok! what else some fuselage stuff? maybe. what else.

Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.
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
 
mig17
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Thu May 06, 2021 9:15 pm

morrisond wrote:
I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.

Even per seat it would be a lie ...
A30B IW/TG, A313 EK, A318/9/20/1 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A35K QR, A388 AF, AT72 A5/TX, B722 AT, B734/8 UX/SK/TO/SS, B742/3/4 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, B762 UA, B77E/W AF/QR, C-150/72, CRJ1/7/X A5, E145/70/90 A5/WF, DH8D WF, PC-6.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16317
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 9:19 pm

morrisond wrote:
I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.


It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php

Revelation wrote:
Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.


Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:
“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: 2348
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 9:22 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.


It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php

Revelation wrote:
Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.


Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:

That configuration will then no longer be proportionate and so on and so forth....

Like QR and their 311 seater 787-9 and their 280 seater 350-9. We know the 359 better per seat economics than the 787-9 but in QR it doesn’t. So these are the things one has to consider
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 9:31 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.

Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:

FX and 5X won't have to worry about wasting pilot training, mechanic training and spares because they have zero A330Fs and zero A350Fs...
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
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16317
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 9:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
FX and 5X won't have to worry about wasting pilot training, mechanic training and spares because they have zero A330Fs and zero A350Fs...


Everyone is in total agreement with you as FX and 5X are the only airlines out there, 5X in particular has so many 77Fs in service it would be a big change to add an A350. :sarcastic:
“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
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 10:10 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
FX and 5X won't have to worry about wasting pilot training, mechanic training and spares because they have zero A330Fs and zero A350Fs...

Everyone is in total agreement with you as FX and 5X are the only airlines out there, 5X in particular has so many 77Fs in service it would be a big change to add an A350. :sarcastic:

Thank you for magnanimously speaking for everyone, but all I need is FX and 5X to agree with me, which I think they will.
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
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16317
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 10:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
Thank you for magnanimously speaking for everyone, but all I need is FX and 5X to agree with me, which I think they will.


5X in particular, their 777 fleet is substantial, as large as their A330 and A350 fleets. :sarcastic:

The penny still hasn't dropped obviously....
“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
 
783211
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 10:31 pm

zeke wrote:
Baldr wrote:
Furthermore, the weight of the centre wing box is always included as part of the empty weight of the centre fuselage -- as shown on page 12 and 13 in this link (i.e. weight breakdown of A380 sub-assemblies):


This is incorrect, the A380 center wing box is a sub assembly in its own right, with a weight if 11 tonnes, they were made in Nantes then taken by river barge to the Saint-Nazaire facility to be integrated into the fuselage center section. The same process is followed for the A350, the wing box is made in Nantes and then taken to the Saint-Nazaire facility. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... zaire.html


As per the Airbus document regarding the A380 Transport Project and Logistics, which I provided a link to above, the 11.3 tonnes centre wing box is, in fact, included in the weight for the A380's centre fuselage (44 metric tonnes).

https://www.aviation.tu-darmstadt.de/media/arbeitskreis_luftverkehr/downloads_6/kolloquien/13kolloquium/05druckvorlage_morales.pdf

Major component weights for the A380:

Forward Fuselage (Sections 11/12/13): 24.5 metric tonnes
Centre Fuselage (Section 15): 44 metric tonnes (NB: 11.3 tonnes centre wing box included)
Rear Fuselage (Section 18, Section 19): 24 metric tonnes
Left Wing: 45 tonnes
Right Wing: 45 tonnes
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu May 06, 2021 10:33 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Thank you for magnanimously speaking for everyone, but all I need is FX and 5X to agree with me, which I think they will.


5X in particular, their 777 fleet is substantial, as large as their A330 and A350 fleets. :sarcastic:

The penny still hasn't dropped obviously....

Your petty retort isn't worth a penny.

In case it isn't clear, I'm saying I'm confident FX and 5X will end up with large 777XF fleets.
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
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 1:41 am

Revelation wrote:
zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Thank you for magnanimously speaking for everyone, but all I need is FX and 5X to agree with me, which I think they will.


5X in particular, their 777 fleet is substantial, as large as their A330 and A350 fleets. :sarcastic:

The penny still hasn't dropped obviously....

Your petty retort isn't worth a penny.

In case it isn't clear, I'm saying I'm confident FX and 5X will end up with large 777XF fleets.


I don't understand the details in the retort, and won't go into that, but I do have a question and a comment.

You are saying that UPS, which don't have any 777F in service or on order, will choose a potential 777XF over a potential A350F due to good relations to Boeing and GE?

Fedex have the 777F in service, and 10 more on order last time I checked. I'm uncertain how much benefit that would bring to a potential 777XF. The jury is still out concerning certification of the 777X, and whether it will be certified as just another derivative of the original 777-200 (or not). Yes, the 777F and 777X will have the same fuselage, nose and share many other parts and systems etc. but how much will that really count?

FedEx and UPS are the largest Airbus A300F operators in the world, with more than 100 A300F in service. That fact didn't do the A330F any favors, even if the A300 and A330 basically share the same fuselage, nose and many other parts and systems. Good relations to the airframer and even engine choice wasn't enough to sell the A330F to Fedex or UPS.

I think a potential 777XF would be just as similar/different from a 777F, as the A300F is from an A330F, both from a certification standpoint and related to common parts etc.

Maybe Boeing would compete better against a potential A350F with a 787F instead of a 777XF? The last 767F and 777F will be delivered in just 6 years. There is a long lead time, so there isn't much time left for last orders. An 787F could be one way to replace then both the 767F and 777F in one go. The 777P2F will also be competing in the market place, and can complement a 787F.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 4:57 am

Neither the Dreamliner, nor the MAX were introduced smoothly. Is it possible airlines don't trust Boeing anymore to execute trouble free? That they take a wait and see approach?
Both the -1000 and the -9 don't sell.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14630
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 5:03 am

Polot wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Floor space difference is much less than 20%.



probably some of the same reasons that had the 748 gain 42tons over the 744 for a small stretch.

Best regards
Thomas

Small stretch? LOL. The 747-8 grew by 20FT, the hump grew by another God knows how many feet. Do doubt it was heavy. But please that is not a small stretch

Yes, the 747-8 stretch is about the same difference as between the 787-8 and 787-9, and almost equal to the difference between the A350-900/-1000. It was not a small stretch like the 777X. The MTOW of the 748 is also 35-51t higher than the 744 (depending on whether you are talking about ER or base -400). The OEW also did not grow by 42t.


The stretch is just 8% compared to 11% between the 788 and 789, and isn´t 20 feet either. .....

From Boeings ACAP a GE Power 744 passenger jet with has 178.7t OEW, the 748 has 220.1t, while that isn´t 42t, i was working from the users 178t, its 41.4t.
That is a whooping 23% increase for 8% more length...

And yes, i know, there was a lot more done to the 747-8 that just a stretch, but that is the point, since the question was "how does a more advanced, more economic plane gain so much weight". It gained MTOW, but not nearly the same wing-stretch as the 777x.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16317
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 5:20 am

Baldr wrote:
As per the Airbus document regarding the A380 Transport Project and Logistics, which I provided a link to above, the 11.3 tonnes centre wing box is, in fact, included in the weight for the A380's centre fuselage (44 metric tonnes).


I did read that document, however it does not do as you claim, all it is explaining is how they are getting various assembled sections to the FAL. The centre wing box as I posted previously is it’s own sub assembly, it is an essential part of the wing design. You can also add up the weights of the left and right wings and the centre wing box to calculate the total wing assembly weight.

If you are interested in the sort of process that is used to design a wing this paper is a good overview of the modern techniques used to arrive at an optimised design. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2010.08.005

In that paper they were able to calculate the primary and secondary wing components via an multidisciplinary process, this is what they came up with for an A340-200 style wing.

https://i.ibb.co/dWTXfqR/87-AC2300-A472 ... -F45-C.jpg

Image

The centre wing box is generally the first sub assembly completed on any Airbus aircraft. On the A350 it’s then moved and incorporated into section 15, then section 15 is moved to the FAL. Trying to suggest that the centre wing box is not part of the wing structure or design and its part of the fuselage just because of the way they choose to optimise their assembly process is disingenuous.

reidar76 wrote:
You are saying that UPS, which don't have any 777F in service or on order, will choose a potential 777XF over a potential A350F due to good relations to Boeing and GE?


He was also saying they commonality with the existing fleet, “Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.”

They were obviously totally unaware that 5X don’t have any 77Fs.

tommy1808 wrote:
From Boeings ACAP a GE Power 744 passenger jet with has 178.7t OEW, the 748 has 220.1t, while that isn´t 42t, i was working from the users 178t, its 41.4t.


The OEW difference between the 744ERF and 748F where I work is around 30 tonnes. The weight increase ended up with an aircraft that carries more further for lower fuel burn. Similar with the 787, it’s 30 tonnes heavier than the 767 they replace and are able to carry more further for less fuel burn.
“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
 
783211
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 1:11 pm

zeke wrote:
Baldr wrote:
As per the Airbus document regarding the A380 Transport Project and Logistics, which I provided a link to above, the 11.3 tonnes centre wing box is, in fact, included in the weight for the A380's centre fuselage (44 metric tonnes).


I did read that document, however it does not do as you claim, all it is explaining is how they are getting various assembled sections to the FAL. The centre wing box as I posted previously is it’s own sub assembly, it is an essential part of the wing design. You can also add up the weights of the left and right wings and the centre wing box to calculate the total wing assembly weight.

If you are interested in the sort of process that is used to design a wing this paper is a good overview of the modern techniques used to arrive at an optimised design. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2010.08.005

In that paper they were able to calculate the primary and secondary wing components via an multidisciplinary process, this is what they came up with for an A340-200 style wing.

https://i.ibb.co/dWTXfqR/87-AC2300-A472 ... -F45-C.jpg

Image

The centre wing box is generally the first sub assembly completed on any Airbus aircraft. On the A350 it’s then moved and incorporated into section 15, then section 15 is moved to the FAL. Trying to suggest that the centre wing box is not part of the wing structure or design and its part of the fuselage just because of the way they choose to optimise their assembly process is disingenuous.


Come on, this is ridiculous. Of course, the centre wing box is part of the wing structure and I've never suggested otherwise. However, that's not the issue here.

The fact of the matter is that the weight of the centre wing box is counted as part of the centre fuselage if the centre fuselage arrives at the final assembly line with the centre wing box fully integrated into its structure. That's typically the case for low wing aircraft. On high wing aircraft, such as the A400M, the outer wing (left and right) is mated to the centre wing box before being joined to the centre fuselage. Hence, the weight breakdown of the A400M's centre fuselage at its arrival at the FAL does not include the weight of its centre wing box.

Furthermore, this is a standard method of component weight breakdown, at the point of entering the FAL, for all aerospace vehicles (i.e. airliners, fighter aircraft, space shuttles etc.)

With respect to the Space Shuttle Orbiter, for example, here are relevant excerpts from the Orbiter Weight Statement for OV-103*

----------------------------------------------------------------Weight (lbs)

Wing Group
Outer Panel Interim Section_________________2,291.4
Outer Panel Torque Box____________________6,236.4
Outer Panel Leading Edge___________________188.2
Outer Panel Trailing Edge__________________1,306.7
Secondary Structure______________________2,413.7
Operating Mechanisms and Controls___________549.4
Miscellaneous Provisions and Support__________112.8
Elevon Inboard Surface____________________1,291.0
Elevon Inboard Support Mechanism___________278.2
Elevon Outboard Surface____________________921.6
Elevon Outboard Support Mechanism__________339.6

Total Wings____________________________15,929.0

Body Group
Forward Fuselage_______________________4,281.7
Crew Module___________________________4,189.2
Mid-Fuselage _ ________________________10,974.0 NB: Including the wing carry-through structure.
Aft-Fuselage (body)______________________7,250.4
Aft-Fuselage (thrust structure)______________3,182.4
.
.
.

Total Fuselage_________________________44,239.0


* Page 440
Dennis R. Jenkins: SPACE SHUTTLE, The History of the National Transportation System, The First 100 Missions
ISBN: 0-9633974-5-1, April 2001

-

https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_coord.html

WING
The wing is an aerodynamic lifting surface that provides conventional lift and control for the orbiter. The left and right wings consist of the wing glove; the intermediate section, which includes the main landing gear well; the torque box; the forward spar for mounting the reusable reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge structure thermal protection system; the wing/elevon interface; the elevon seal panels; and the elevons.

The wing is constructed of conventional aluminum alloy with a multirib and spar arrangement with skin-stringer-stiffened covers or honeycomb skin covers. Each wing is approximately 60 feet long at the fuselage intersection and has a maximum thickness of 5 feet.

The forward wing box is an extension of the basic wing that aerodynamically blends the wing leading edge into the midfuselage wing glove. The forward wing box is a conventional design of aluminum ribs, aluminum tubes and tubular struts. The upper and lower wing skin panels are stiffened aluminum. The leading edge spar is constructed of corrugated aluminum.

The intermediate wing section consists of the conventional aluminum multiribs and aluminum tubes. The upper and lower skin covers are constructed of aluminum honeycomb. A portion of the lower wing surface skin panel includes the main landing gear door. The intermediate section houses the main landing gear compartment and reacts a portion of the main landing gear loads. A structural rib supports the outboard main landing gear door hinges and the main landing gear trunnion and drag link. The support for the inboard main landing gear trunnion and drag link attachment is provided by the midfuselage. The main landing gear door is conventional aluminum honeycomb.

The four major spars are constructed of corrugated aluminum to minimize thermal loads. The forward spar provides the attachment for the thermal protection system reusable reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge structure. The rear spar provides the attachment interfaces for the elevons, hinged upper seal panels, and associated hydraulic and electrical system components. The upper and lower wing skin panels are stiffened aluminum.

The elevons provide orbiter flight control during atmospheric flight. The two-piece elevons are conventional aluminum multirib and beam construction with aluminum honeycomb skins for compatibility with the acoustic environment and thermal interaction. The elevons are divided into two segments for each wing, and each segment is supported by three hinges. The elevons are attached to the flight control system hydraulic actuators at points along their forward extremities, and all hinge moments are reacted at these points. Each elevon travels 40 degrees up and 25 degrees down.

The transition area on the upper surface between the torque box and the movable elevon consists of a series of hinged panels that provide a closeout of the wing-to-elevon cavity. These panels are of Inconel honeycomb sandwich construction outboard of wing station Y w 312.5 and of titanium honeycomb sandwich construction inboard of wing station Y w 312.5. The upper leading edge of each elevon incorporates titanium rub strips. The rub strips are of titanium honeycomb construction and are not covered with the thermal protection system reusable surface insulation. They provide the sealing surface area for the elevon seal panels.

The exposed areas of the wings, main landing gear doors and elevons are covered with reusable surface insulation thermal protection system materials except for the elevon seal panels.

Thermal seals are provided on the elevon lower cove area along with thermal spring seals on the upper rub panels. Pressure seals and thermal barriers are provided on the main landing gear doors.

The wing is attached to the fuselage with a tension bolt splice along the upper surface. A shear splice along the lower surface in the area of the fuselage carry-through completes attachment interface.

Prior to the manufacturing of the wings for Discovery (OV-103) and Atlantis (OV-104), a weight reduction program resulted in a redesign of certain areas of the wing structure. An assessment of wing air loads was made from actual flight data that indicated greater loads on the wing structure. As a result, to maintain positive margins of safety during ascent, structural modifications were incorporated into certain areas of the wings. The modifications consisted of the addition of doublers and stiffeners.

The wing, elevon and main landing gear door contractor is Grumman Corp., Bethpage, N.Y.


MIDFUSELAGE
The midfuselage structure interfaces with the forward fuselage, aft fuselage and wings. It supports the payload bay doors, hinges, tie-down fittings, forward wing glove, and various orbiter system components and forms the payload bay area.

The forward and aft ends of the midfuselage are open, with reinforced skin and longerons interfacing with the bulkheads of the forward and aft fuselages. The midfuselage is primarily an aluminum structure 60 feet long, 17 feet wide and 13 feet high. It weighs approximately 13,502 pounds.

The midfuselage skins are integrally machined by numerical control. The panels above the wing glove and the wings for the forward eight bays have longitudinal T-stringers. The five aft bays have aluminum honeycomb panels. The side skins in the shadow of the wing are also numerically control machined but have vertical stiffeners.

Twelve main-frame assemblies stabilize the midfuselage structure. The assemblies consist of vertical side elements and horizontal elements. The side elements are machined; whereas the horizontal elements are boron/aluminum tubes with bonded titanium end fittings, which reduced the weight by 49 percent (approximately 305 pounds).

In the upper portion of the midfuselage are the sill and door longerons. The machined sill longerons not only make up the primary body-bending elements, but also take the longitudinal loads from payloads in the payload bay. The payload bay door longerons and associated structure are attached to the 13 payload bay door hinges. These hinges provide the vertical reaction from the payload bay doors. Five of the hinges react the payload bay door shears. The sill longeron also provides the base support for the payload bay manipulator arm (if installed) and its stowage provisions, the Ku-band rendezvous antenna, the antenna base support and its stowage provisions, and the payload bay door actuation system.

The side wall forward of the wing carry-through structure provides the inboard support for the main landing gear. The total lateral landing gear loads are reacted by the midfuselage structure.

The midfuselage also supports the two electrical wire trays that contain the wiring between the crew compartment and aft fuselage.

Plumbing and wiring in the lower portion of the midfuselage are supported by fiberglass milk stools.

The remainder of the exposed areas of the midfuselage is covered with the reusable surface insulation thermal protection system.

Because of additional detailed analysis of actual flight data concerning descent stress thermal gradient loads, torsional straps were added to the lower midfuselage stringers in bays 1 through 11. The torsional straps tie all stringers together similarly to a box section, which eliminates rotational (torsional) capabilities to provide positive margins of safety.

Also, because of additional detailed analysis of actual flight data during descent, room-temperature vulcanizing silicone rubber material was bonded to the lower midfuselage from bay 4 through 12 to act as a heat sink and distribute temperatures evenly across the bottom of the midfuselage, which will reduce thermal gradients and ensure positive margins of safety.

The contractor for the midfuselage is General Dynamics Corp., Convair Aerospace Division, San Diego, Calif.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Fri May 07, 2021 1:34 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.


It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php

Revelation wrote:
Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.


Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:


No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS. They have about the same distance between the L1 and L2 doors for the front cabin less the room they are taking for galleys.

Just doing some interprolation this morning. Be kind as I might have screwed up something somewhere.

Using your numbers and fuel burn and adjusting for 8,400 NM at 316 Tons and assuming in the last hours A351 fuel bun is down to about 6.1 T per hour (if I remember correctly from what you have posted previously)- that works out to about 94.464T for the 6,000 NM trip on the A351.

Taking that number and grossing it up by 15.4% for more passengers on the 779 (426 vs 369) and then taking off 11% better fuel burn per passenger gets me back to 97.020 T for the 777X. Which is not that surprising (777X takes 3% more fuel to go the same distance) as the engines are 5% better in SFC - and 8% more thrust in cruise if the ratio at cruise of an 105 vs 97K engine holds and kind of makes sense given the higher weight but much bigger wing. I think I also remember reading that the GE9X is 103.5K continuous at sea level - 110K for take off. Which is only an 6.7% difference if an Ge9X produces the same percent of thrust at altitude as the XWB97.

The MZFW for the 779 is 254.9T. MTOW is 351.5T (a difference of 96.6T) - meaning it can carry its max payload out to just about 6,000NM.

The MZFW for the 316t A351 is 220T leaving 96T for fuel - meaning it can carry its max payload out to about 6,100NM.

By Zeke's numbers an A351 is about 148T - meaning it can lift about 72T with an 316T MTOW. It has a usable Fuel Capacity of 122.5T. At 6.1T in the last hours of long distance flights that gives you about 2217 NM more range - about 8,317 NM - almost equal to the 8,400 brochure Range and that should give you enough MTOW margin to lift an additional 7.1T of Cargo.

The 77X should burn more per hour in its last hours let's call it 6.5T per hour. It has a usable fuel capacity of 159T. So it is not fuel limited. BTW for Ferry Flights the 777X could go about 10,600NM or about 22 hours!

Even if you assume its OEW weight is 184T and you assume 42.6 T for passengers that leaves 124.9T for Fuel. At 6.5T per hour for the last hours you would have another 4.3 hours of fuel left or 2073 NM range, taking you to about 8,100NM vs 7,285 Brochure range.

Boeing is sandbagging. The OEW weight for the 77X would have to be about 195T if Boeing claims about 11% better per passenger at 6,000 NM is not make believe.

Yes it is heavier - but I don't think anyone believes it's that heavy!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14630
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 1:43 pm

morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.


It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php

Revelation wrote:
Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.


Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:


No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS.


That would be at 5% higher density, with same space/passenger it's only 408.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
JonesNL
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 2:11 pm

morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.


It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php

Revelation wrote:
Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.


Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:


No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS. They have about the same distance between the L1 and L2 doors for the front cabin less the room they are taking for galleys.

Just doing some interprolation this morning. Be kind as I might have screwed up something somewhere.

Using your numbers and fuel burn and adjusting for 8,400 NM at 316 Tons and assuming in the last hours A351 fuel bun is down to about 6.1 T per hour (if I remember correctly from what you have posted previously)- that works out to about 94.464T for the 6,000 NM trip on the A351.

Taking that number and grossing it up by 15.4% for more passengers on the 779 (426 vs 369) and then taking off 11% better fuel burn per passenger gets me back to 97.020 T for the 777X. Which is not that surprising (777X takes 3% more fuel to go the same distance) as the engines are 5% better in SFC - and 8% more thrust in cruise if the ratio at cruise of an 105 vs 97K engine holds and kind of makes sense given the higher weight but much bigger wing. I think I also remember reading that the GE9X is 103.5K continuous at sea level - 110K for take off. Which is only an 6.7% difference if an Ge9X produces the same percent of thrust at altitude as the XWB97.

The MZFW for the 779 is 254.9T. MTOW is 351.5T (a difference of 96.6T) - meaning it can carry its max payload out to just about 6,000NM.

The MZFW for the 316t A351 is 220T leaving 96T for fuel - meaning it can carry its max payload out to about 6,100NM.

By Zeke's numbers an A351 is about 148T - meaning it can lift about 72T with an 316T MTOW. It has a usable Fuel Capacity of 122.5T. At 6.1T in the last hours of long distance flights that gives you about 2217 NM more range - about 8,317 NM - almost equal to the 8,400 brochure Range and that should give you enough MTOW margin to lift an additional 7.1T of Cargo.

The 77X should burn more per hour in its last hours let's call it 6.5T per hour. It has a usable fuel capacity of 159T. So it is not fuel limited. BTW for Ferry Flights the 777X could go about 10,600NM or about 22 hours!

Even if you assume its OEW weight is 184T and you assume 42.6 T for passengers that leaves 124.9T for Fuel. At 6.5T per hour for the last hours you would have another 4.3 hours of fuel left or 2073 NM range, taking you to about 8,100NM vs 7,285 Brochure range.

Boeing is sandbagging. The OEW weight for the 77X would have to be about 195T if Boeing claims about 11% better per passenger at 6,000 NM is not make believe.

Yes it is heavier - but I don't think anyone believes it's that heavy!


While you bring interesting points, your conclusion seems counter intuitive for any commercial company in dear need of orders/winning: Boeing sandbagging. You see sandbagging when an organization is so far ahead you do not want to wake up competitors or authorities…
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26561
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 4:11 pm

reidar76 wrote:
You are saying that UPS, which don't have any 777F in service or on order, will choose a potential 777XF over a potential A350F due to good relations to Boeing and GE?

Fedex have the 777F in service, and 10 more on order last time I checked. I'm uncertain how much benefit that would bring to a potential 777XF. The jury is still out concerning certification of the 777X, and whether it will be certified as just another derivative of the original 777-200 (or not). Yes, the 777F and 777X will have the same fuselage, nose and share many other parts and systems etc. but how much will that really count?

FedEx and UPS are the largest Airbus A300F operators in the world, with more than 100 A300F in service. That fact didn't do the A330F any favors, even if the A300 and A330 basically share the same fuselage, nose and many other parts and systems. Good relations to the airframer and even engine choice wasn't enough to sell the A330F to Fedex or UPS.

I think A300F just got out-classed by options with better payload/range, no relationship was going to save it. In fact there was a lot of bad blood between UPS and Airbus because UPS wanted to get out from its A380F order and Airbus made that difficult. It's also another reason why UPS has so many A300Fs, Airbus made them take them as a part of getting out from the A380F order, it was the least bad choice of the two available to UPS.

reidar76 wrote:
I think a potential 777XF would be just as similar/different from a 777F, as the A300F is from an A330F, both from a certification standpoint and related to common parts etc.

Maybe Boeing would compete better against a potential A350F with a 787F instead of a 777XF? The last 767F and 777F will be delivered in just 6 years. There is a long lead time, so there isn't much time left for last orders. An 787F could be one way to replace then both the 767F and 777F in one go. The 777P2F will also be competing in the market place, and can complement a 787F.

I think six years is a long time to sort things out. We have some intel saying Boeing is already working on a 764F and we're all presuming they're working on a 77XF and should have time to address it in 2023. 787F would be ten to twenty percent smaller than A350F (sorry, no spreadsheet math) and just as expensive so IMO it's not going to happen. The customers willing to buy new will want bigger rather than smaller, IMO.
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

Fri May 07, 2021 4:24 pm

JonesNL wrote:
morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:

It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php



Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:


No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS. They have about the same distance between the L1 and L2 doors for the front cabin less the room they are taking for galleys.

Just doing some interprolation this morning. Be kind as I might have screwed up something somewhere.

Using your numbers and fuel burn and adjusting for 8,400 NM at 316 Tons and assuming in the last hours A351 fuel bun is down to about 6.1 T per hour (if I remember correctly from what you have posted previously)- that works out to about 94.464T for the 6,000 NM trip on the A351.

Taking that number and grossing it up by 15.4% for more passengers on the 779 (426 vs 369) and then taking off 11% better fuel burn per passenger gets me back to 97.020 T for the 777X. Which is not that surprising (777X takes 3% more fuel to go the same distance) as the engines are 5% better in SFC - and 8% more thrust in cruise if the ratio at cruise of an 105 vs 97K engine holds and kind of makes sense given the higher weight but much bigger wing. I think I also remember reading that the GE9X is 103.5K continuous at sea level - 110K for take off. Which is only an 6.7% difference if an Ge9X produces the same percent of thrust at altitude as the XWB97.

The MZFW for the 779 is 254.9T. MTOW is 351.5T (a difference of 96.6T) - meaning it can carry its max payload out to just about 6,000NM.

The MZFW for the 316t A351 is 220T leaving 96T for fuel - meaning it can carry its max payload out to about 6,100NM.

By Zeke's numbers an A351 is about 148T - meaning it can lift about 72T with an 316T MTOW. It has a usable Fuel Capacity of 122.5T. At 6.1T in the last hours of long distance flights that gives you about 2217 NM more range - about 8,317 NM - almost equal to the 8,400 brochure Range and that should give you enough MTOW margin to lift an additional 7.1T of Cargo.

The 77X should burn more per hour in its last hours let's call it 6.5T per hour. It has a usable fuel capacity of 159T. So it is not fuel limited. BTW for Ferry Flights the 777X could go about 10,600NM or about 22 hours!

Even if you assume its OEW weight is 184T and you assume 42.6 T for passengers that leaves 124.9T for Fuel. At 6.5T per hour for the last hours you would have another 4.3 hours of fuel left or 2073 NM range, taking you to about 8,100NM vs 7,285 Brochure range.

Boeing is sandbagging. The OEW weight for the 77X would have to be about 195T if Boeing claims about 11% better per passenger at 6,000 NM is not make believe.

Yes it is heavier - but I don't think anyone believes it's that heavy!


While you bring interesting points, your conclusion seems counter intuitive for any commercial company in dear need of orders/winning: Boeing sandbagging. You see sandbagging when an organization is so far ahead you do not want to wake up competitors or authorities…


They could be telling there customers something else entirely than what they are publishing.

You could also get the 7285 NM range with about 11T of Cargo and 184T MTOW, 17T at 178T MTOW. Which kind of makes sense as it seems the A351 has enough lift for 7.1T of cargo at its brochure range - or Zeke's assumption on how much the passengers weigh or what is added to OEW is low.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Fri May 07, 2021 4:28 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:

It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php



Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:


No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS.


That would be at 5% higher density, with same space/passenger it's only 408.

Best regards
Thomas


No - using same pitch of 32" in the back and 60" up front. Y seats a little less width, Business class 1.5" more. Technically to get the same ratio of Y to Bus you would probably need to take out two rows of Y (-20 seats) and add another of Business(+6) so 412 in total but then that just makes the fuel burn on the 77X look better vs the 351 vs worse.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Fri May 07, 2021 7:34 pm

morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't know if this helps but on the Boeing 777X website they are saying the 779 will have 11% better cash operating costs than an A351 on an 6,000NM trip, 2 class, standard rules. They are also saying the 779 is 426 seats in 2 class configuration on the specs page.


It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php

Revelation wrote:
Certainly a lot more pilot training, mechanic training and spares than an A350F with RRs will have.


Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:


No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS. They have about the same distance between the L1 and L2 doors for the front cabin less the room they are taking for galleys.

Just doing some interprolation this morning. Be kind as I might have screwed up something somewhere.

Using your numbers and fuel burn and adjusting for 8,400 NM at 316 Tons and assuming in the last hours A351 fuel bun is down to about 6.1 T per hour (if I remember correctly from what you have posted previously)- that works out to about 94.464T for the 6,000 NM trip on the A351.

Taking that number and grossing it up by 15.4% for more passengers on the 779 (426 vs 369) and then taking off 11% better fuel burn per passenger gets me back to 97.020 T for the 777X. Which is not that surprising (777X takes 3% more fuel to go the same distance) as the engines are 5% better in SFC - and 8% more thrust in cruise if the ratio at cruise of an 105 vs 97K engine holds and kind of makes sense given the higher weight but much bigger wing. I think I also remember reading that the GE9X is 103.5K continuous at sea level - 110K for take off. Which is only an 6.7% difference if an Ge9X produces the same percent of thrust at altitude as the XWB97.

The MZFW for the 779 is 254.9T. MTOW is 351.5T (a difference of 96.6T) - meaning it can carry its max payload out to just about 6,000NM.

The MZFW for the 316t A351 is 220T leaving 96T for fuel - meaning it can carry its max payload out to about 6,100NM.

By Zeke's numbers an A351 is about 148T - meaning it can lift about 72T with an 316T MTOW. It has a usable Fuel Capacity of 122.5T. At 6.1T in the last hours of long distance flights that gives you about 2217 NM more range - about 8,317 NM - almost equal to the 8,400 brochure Range and that should give you enough MTOW margin to lift an additional 7.1T of Cargo.

The 77X should burn more per hour in its last hours let's call it 6.5T per hour. It has a usable fuel capacity of 159T. So it is not fuel limited. BTW for Ferry Flights the 777X could go about 10,600NM or about 22 hours!

Even if you assume its OEW weight is 184T and you assume 42.6 T for passengers that leaves 124.9T for Fuel. At 6.5T per hour for the last hours you would have another 4.3 hours of fuel left or 2073 NM range, taking you to about 8,100NM vs 7,285 Brochure range.

Boeing is sandbagging. The OEW weight for the 77X would have to be about 195T if Boeing claims about 11% better per passenger at 6,000 NM is not make believe.

Yes it is heavier - but I don't think anyone believes it's that heavy!


Just thinking through in terms of implications for a 350 Freighter and how it could offer something more to break into the market.

If it's 97T to go 6,000 NM at as MZFW of 254.9T for the 779 and they can bump this to 267.9T for a 70 M 778xF that still gives them 5,000NM range.

An 62M 772F weighs about 144.4T OEW weight - an 164T 70M 778xF should be able to carry about 104T, 170T - 98T of lift. An 772F is 10 M shorter than 773ER and 23.5T lighter or about 2.35T per meter. 2.35T x 6 meters =14.1 T - so it just depends if you think the 779 is 178T or 184T.

So that I think is the boggie Airbus has to hit 70M long (so it fits at least the same amount of containers as an 778F) and more than 104T of lift. If it wants to break into the market it has to offer something more and it has to protect itself if Boeing goes to 360T MTOW.

Which leads me back to an 350F 70M 340T MTWOW 105K engines that can lift 115T.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

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

Fri May 07, 2021 8:52 pm

morrisond wrote:
morrisond wrote:
zeke wrote:

It doesn’t, that 11% delta is purely based upon having more seats installed, there is nothing stopping an airline putting 426 seat in the A350-1000, and it’s not like you could argue that no airline would ever do that when the Air Caraibes' A350-1000 are configured with 429 seats. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_C ... 0-1000.php



Absolutely agree, would have no commonality at all with the other A330s and A350 out there. :sarcastic:


No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS. They have about the same distance between the L1 and L2 doors for the front cabin less the room they are taking for galleys.

Just doing some interprolation this morning. Be kind as I might have screwed up something somewhere.

Using your numbers and fuel burn and adjusting for 8,400 NM at 316 Tons and assuming in the last hours A351 fuel bun is down to about 6.1 T per hour (if I remember correctly from what you have posted previously)- that works out to about 94.464T for the 6,000 NM trip on the A351.

Taking that number and grossing it up by 15.4% for more passengers on the 779 (426 vs 369) and then taking off 11% better fuel burn per passenger gets me back to 97.020 T for the 777X. Which is not that surprising (777X takes 3% more fuel to go the same distance) as the engines are 5% better in SFC - and 8% more thrust in cruise if the ratio at cruise of an 105 vs 97K engine holds and kind of makes sense given the higher weight but much bigger wing. I think I also remember reading that the GE9X is 103.5K continuous at sea level - 110K for take off. Which is only an 6.7% difference if an Ge9X produces the same percent of thrust at altitude as the XWB97.

The MZFW for the 779 is 254.9T. MTOW is 351.5T (a difference of 96.6T) - meaning it can carry its max payload out to just about 6,000NM.

The MZFW for the 316t A351 is 220T leaving 96T for fuel - meaning it can carry its max payload out to about 6,100NM.

By Zeke's numbers an A351 is about 148T - meaning it can lift about 72T with an 316T MTOW. It has a usable Fuel Capacity of 122.5T. At 6.1T in the last hours of long distance flights that gives you about 2217 NM more range - about 8,317 NM - almost equal to the 8,400 brochure Range and that should give you enough MTOW margin to lift an additional 7.1T of Cargo.

The 77X should burn more per hour in its last hours let's call it 6.5T per hour. It has a usable fuel capacity of 159T. So it is not fuel limited. BTW for Ferry Flights the 777X could go about 10,600NM or about 22 hours!

Even if you assume its OEW weight is 184T and you assume 42.6 T for passengers that leaves 124.9T for Fuel. At 6.5T per hour for the last hours you would have another 4.3 hours of fuel left or 2073 NM range, taking you to about 8,100NM vs 7,285 Brochure range.

Boeing is sandbagging. The OEW weight for the 77X would have to be about 195T if Boeing claims about 11% better per passenger at 6,000 NM is not make believe.

Yes it is heavier - but I don't think anyone believes it's that heavy!


Just thinking through in terms of implications for a 350 Freighter and how it could offer something more to break into the market.

If it's 97T to go 6,000 NM at as MZFW of 254.9T for the 779 and they can bump this to 267.9T for a 70 M 778xF that still gives them 5,000NM range.

An 62M 772F weighs about 144.4T OEW weight - an 164T 70M 778xF should be able to carry about 104T, 170T - 98T of lift. An 772F is 10 M shorter than 773ER and 23.5T lighter or about 2.35T per meter. 2.35T x 6 meters =14.1 T - so it just depends if you think the 779 is 178T or 184T.

So that I think is the boggie Airbus has to hit 70M long (so it fits at least the same amount of containers as an 778F) and more than 104T of lift. If it wants to break into the market it has to offer something more and it has to protect itself if Boeing goes to 360T MTOW.

Which leads me back to an 350F 70M 340T MTWOW 105K engines that can lift 115T.


I don't think it needs to carry 115T over 5000nm. 4200nm or so is sufficient at max payload. This puts your MTOW about 330T which is getting more realistic.

I still think that falls into the "technically feasible" but commercially not viable category. Increasing MTOW 11T, let alone 21T, is an expensive proposition and not an investment-wise decision. If they start changing the length, that's a crap-ton of flight testing for aero performance validation that has to be repeated. If they keep existing lengths, those can be done empirically, with the flight testing focusing on a much narrow scope.

No freight airline is going to pay a $50M premium upfront for a highly optimized freighter vs a A35KF or A359F. The payback isn't there.

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