Millenium wrote:

According to the link below the A350F will have 319tons MTOW and 250tons MLW. If like the A351 it will have 13tons difference between MZFW and MLW then MZFW will be 237t. That givers us an OEW of 128tons (237-109).

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... -freighter

That like has been updated since I last saw it, the cargo capacities are now listed, I had guessed several months ago the following

Forward Hold 6PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Rear Hold 6 PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Main deck 29 AP/PMC (557 m^3) (A350 upper lobe, i.e above floor is taller than lower lobe)

They now list

Pallet or container General cargo layout - Main deck 30 pallets 96 x 125’’ or 30x AM-base containers
Pallet or container General cargo layout - Lower deck 12 pallets 96 x 125’' or 40x LD3 containers

So one more pallet on the main deck then I guessed, correct number of pallets under floor. Was out by 4 LD3s under floor.

tomcat wrote:

zeke wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

From the Leeham article, the plan is for the A359F to be around 70.7m long. That is only about 3m shorter than the A350-1000. Does 3m of A350 fuselage weigh 8-9 tonnes? That would be roughly 2,6-3 tonnes/m of fuselage.

Correct

I suspect you are not talking about the same thing. How can 3m of A350 fuselage (even fully equipped) weigh 8 tonnes? That would mean that 60m of fuselage weigh 160 tonnes which is over the OEW of the A350-1000.

The fuselage directly in front and behind the wing has by far the largest bending moments to carry, is therefore the strongest and heaviest bit of fuse.

best regards
Thomas

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Qatar "rules out" A350F order following surface degradation issues:

"Speaking today at a meeting of the UK Aviation Club, Qatar’s CEO Akbar Al Baker shed some light on his opinion of the A350F. the ongoing issues with the paint degradation on the A350 passenger jets have caused what he calls a “very large dent” in the airline’s widebody operations. ....Clearly, he is not impressed, and when asked if this issue has closed the door on any order for the A350F, he answered simply,“Yes.”"

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... -interest/

For those who do not trust SF, Reuters carries similar comments:

Asked if this would close the door on buying the new A350 freighter, he said "yes". Asked if the order could reach around 50 freighters, he said nearly, without giving more details.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-30/

A swing of ~50 orders is pretty meaningful, IMO.

Revelation wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Qatar "rules out" A350F order following surface degradation issues:

"Speaking today at a meeting of the UK Aviation Club, Qatar’s CEO Akbar Al Baker shed some light on his opinion of the A350F. the ongoing issues with the paint degradation on the A350 passenger jets have caused what he calls a “very large dent” in the airline’s widebody operations. ....Clearly, he is not impressed, and when asked if this issue has closed the door on any order for the A350F, he answered simply,“Yes.”"

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... -interest/

For those who do not trust SF, Reuters carries similar comments:

Asked if this would close the door on buying the new A350 freighter, he said "yes". Asked if the order could reach around 50 freighters, he said nearly, without giving more details.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-30/

A swing of ~50 orders is pretty meaningful, IMO.

Airbus knew they were at risk of not winning this order if they were not providing a satisfactory answer to QR about the ongoing "paint" issues. I'm wondering what's the rational for considering that it was better to loose these orders (and potentially orders from other customers) than not loosing them. How big was the risk for Airbus in case they would have agreed on a paint fix with QR? Or there is just no easy/cheap fix that the best option was kicking the can down the road as long as they could and remain silent?

If Airbus would really act like some here imply, they would be out of business or is this wishful thinking?

tommy1808 wrote:

tomcat wrote:

zeke wrote:

Correct

I suspect you are not talking about the same thing. How can 3m of A350 fuselage (even fully equipped) weigh 8 tonnes? That would mean that 60m of fuselage weigh 160 tonnes which is over the OEW of the A350-1000.

The fuselage directly in front and behind the wing has by far the largest bending moments to carry, is therefore the strongest and heaviest bit of fuse.

best regards
Thomas

Removing 3 meters of the front fuselage will only reduce by this much the bending moment in the fuselage at the front end of the center wingbox and will barely affect the bending moment just behind the wing.

Highly unlikely that AIB have not made (repeated?) attempts to placate QR. Presumably these have been deemed insufficient. Perhaps QR are asking AIB to write a blank cheque covering much more than paint? No manufacturer aggrevates a high profile, high volume customer and in doing so throws away the chance of a substantial A350F launch order without there being a profound reason. It follows that QR compensation/remedy demands are considered disproportionate and/or unreasonable.

Will QR still manage to obtain a spectacular 777XF launch discount when Boeing know that there is no competition?

Wildlander wrote:

Highly unlikely that AIB have not made (repeated?) attempts to placate QR. Presumably these have been deemed insufficient. Perhaps QR are asking AIB to write a blank cheque covering much more than paint? No manufacturer aggrevates a high profile, high volume customer and in doing so throws away the chance of a substantial A350F launch order without there being a profound reason. It follows that QR compensation/remedy demands are considered disproportionate and/or unreasonable.

Will QR still manage to obtain a spectacular 777XF launch discount when Boeing know that there is no competition?

Assuming there isn’t already a deal in place

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Qatar "rules out" A350F order following surface degradation issues:

"Speaking today at a meeting of the UK Aviation Club, Qatar’s CEO Akbar Al Baker shed some light on his opinion of the A350F. the ongoing issues with the paint degradation on the A350 passenger jets have caused what he calls a “very large dent” in the airline’s widebody operations. ....Clearly, he is not impressed, and when asked if this issue has closed the door on any order for the A350F, he answered simply,“Yes.”"

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... -interest/

Knowing AAB, it's possible that he is actively negotiating behind the scenes a A350F + A350 repair package, and at the last minute make a U-turn and laud Airbus for its planes...
What's his alternative? Order a yet-to-be-offered variant of a yet-to-be-certified plane?

WayexTDI wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Qatar "rules out" A350F order following surface degradation issues:

"Speaking today at a meeting of the UK Aviation Club, Qatar’s CEO Akbar Al Baker shed some light on his opinion of the A350F. the ongoing issues with the paint degradation on the A350 passenger jets have caused what he calls a “very large dent” in the airline’s widebody operations. ....Clearly, he is not impressed, and when asked if this issue has closed the door on any order for the A350F, he answered simply,“Yes.”"

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... -interest/

Knowing AAB, it's possible that he is actively negotiating behind the scenes a A350F + A350 repair package, and at the last minute make a U-turn and laud Airbus for its planes...
What's his alternative? Order a yet-to-be-offered variant of a yet-to-be-certified plane?

It looks so, merry Christmas to boeing, they now have an airline version of Elon musk lusting after their problematic jet and probably some more 787's with manufacturing defects . They're going to need it since 3 of the 777x's orders are in jeopardy and I have doubts about the ANA one too.

2175301 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Folks: Its not a "Paint" issue. The issue is that the protective epoxy layers above the copper mesh are separating and coming off (and those protective layers are part of the overall CFRP composite/grounding grid sandwich).

Do you really think you know better than A350 Chief Engineer what the issue is and its impact on aircraft airworthiness over time ?

So you think that the copper mesh is applied outside of the CFRP sandwich panel; and then filler is gooped over that, and paint is applied over that to look nice?

Please go back and look at the hundreds of pictures of unpainted CFRP components and sections and show me where you can see the copper mesh. I and others will await your pictures showing the mesh on the surface.

Until then, my opinion is that Airbus clearly lied about what the issue was.

Also, please go read page 8 and forward of the specific thread... A lot of things have been discussed there.

The copper mesh is an integral part of the skin layup but depending on the design, it may be visible while the skin is not painted. Here is an example of a test plate where you can see the copper mesh through the resin (see figure 1):
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Non-destructive-inspection-of-composite-specimen-T%C5%99%C3%ADska-Fl%C3%A1%C5%A1ar/003c625f6ad1fdc2da941448b9cac5602756b819

tomcat wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Do you really think you know better than A350 Chief Engineer what the issue is and its impact on aircraft airworthiness over time ?

So you think that the copper mesh is applied outside of the CFRP sandwich panel; and then filler is gooped over that, and paint is applied over that to look nice?

Please go back and look at the hundreds of pictures of unpainted CFRP components and sections and show me where you can see the copper mesh. I and others will await your pictures showing the mesh on the surface.

Until then, my opinion is that Airbus clearly lied about what the issue was.

Also, please go read page 8 and forward of the specific thread... A lot of things have been discussed there.

The copper mesh is an integral part of the skin layup but depending on the design, it may be visible while the skin is not painted. Here is an example of a test plate where you can see the copper mesh through the resin (see figure 1):
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Non-destructive-inspection-of-composite-specimen-T%C5%99%C3%ADska-Fl%C3%A1%C5%A1ar/003c625f6ad1fdc2da941448b9cac5602756b819

Agreed; but the copper mesh is still buried into the composite sandwich. It is not above the skin.

It is viable because they used a clear coating on for the embed and protective cover layer.

If that same plate is later examined and the copper mesh is now above any visible composite layer... that could only occur because the surface and embed composite layers have failed.

tomcat wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Do you really think you know better than A350 Chief Engineer what the issue is and its impact on aircraft airworthiness over time ?

So you think that the copper mesh is applied outside of the CFRP sandwich panel; and then filler is gooped over that, and paint is applied over that to look nice?

Please go back and look at the hundreds of pictures of unpainted CFRP components and sections and show me where you can see the copper mesh. I and others will await your pictures showing the mesh on the surface.

Until then, my opinion is that Airbus clearly lied about what the issue was.

Also, please go read page 8 and forward of the specific thread... A lot of things have been discussed there.

The copper mesh is an integral part of the skin layup but depending on the design, it may be visible while the skin is not painted. Here is an example of a test plate where you can see the copper mesh through the resin (see figure 1):
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Non-destructive-inspection-of-composite-specimen-T%C5%99%C3%ADska-Fl%C3%A1%C5%A1ar/003c625f6ad1fdc2da941448b9cac5602756b819

Have you ever seen a photo of an unpainted 350 that looks that colour ? That is a sample piece to show what the copper mesh looks like.

Please discuss ongoing QR A350 issues here:

Qatar Airways has grounded 13 A350’s at the request of the Qatar Aviation regulator

One question I have about the A350F is the floor beams. I’ve read that part of the process of making the freighter is “Strengthened Floor Beams” to accommodate increased loads over a passenger version. How do they achieve this?

Is it a thicker gauge of metal? A different metal alloy? Or if it is CFRP, more layers applied to make it thicker, and subsequently stronger?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

One question I have about the A350F is the floor beams. I’ve read that part of the process of making the freighter is “Strengthened Floor Beams” to accommodate increased loads over a passenger version. How do they achieve this?

Is it a thicker gauge of metal? A different metal alloy? Or if it is CFRP, more layers applied to make it thicker, and subsequently stronger?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers.

I think they will get someone like Telair to produce a whole new cargo loading system with a completely new floor, that would include rollers, power units, locks.

zeke wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

One question I have about the A350F is the floor beams. I’ve read that part of the process of making the freighter is “Strengthened Floor Beams” to accommodate increased loads over a passenger version. How do they achieve this?

Is it a thicker gauge of metal? A different metal alloy? Or if it is CFRP, more layers applied to make it thicker, and subsequently stronger?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers.

I think they will get someone like Telair to produce a whole new cargo loading system with a completely new floor, that would include rollers, power units, locks.

Thanks for that. Sorry, I’m not trying to be pedantic, just trying to get my head around this.

In the case of an A350 passenger plane, they will build the entire plane, including floor, and then install the buyers preferred equipment. Or alternatively, it’s the buyers responsibility to accept the plane and then take it somewhere to be furnished with whatever applicable configuration they want.

Therefore in the case of the freighter, Airbus are effectively just building a “shell”? A third party, such as Telair you mentioned, provide the heavier duty floor beams in lieu of the originals?

I guess that would make sense. The pics I’ve seen of cargo planes indicate that the floor is both storage as well as a loading facility, rollers, power units, etc.

Thanks and Cheers.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Thanks for that. Sorry, I’m not trying to be pedantic, just trying to get my head around this.

In the case of an A350 passenger plane, they will build the entire plane, including floor, and then install the buyers preferred equipment. Or alternatively, it’s the buyers responsibility to accept the plane and then take it somewhere to be furnished with whatever applicable configuration they want.

Therefore in the case of the freighter, Airbus are effectively just building a “shell”? A third party, such as Telair you mentioned, provide the heavier duty floor beams in lieu of the originals?

I guess that would make sense. The pics I’ve seen of cargo planes indicate that the floor is both storage as well as a loading facility, rollers, power units, etc.

Thanks and Cheers.

Telair is a large organisation I believe the supply the main deck loading systems to most Boeing freighters. I think they also already supply the under floor system on the A350.

For the passenger configuration Airbus have a catalog of different items that can be selected, I would think they will do similar for the freighter.

StTim wrote:

I do not understand why so many on here disbelieve a manufacturer on weights. These are much less likely to be marketing fluff such as per seat economy, range (with passengers etc).

Because manufacturers have a horrible track record on meeting their promised weight targets once the engineering has actually been done...

zeke wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Thanks for that. Sorry, I’m not trying to be pedantic, just trying to get my head around this.

In the case of an A350 passenger plane, they will build the entire plane, including floor, and then install the buyers preferred equipment. Or alternatively, it’s the buyers responsibility to accept the plane and then take it somewhere to be furnished with whatever applicable configuration they want.

Therefore in the case of the freighter, Airbus are effectively just building a “shell”? A third party, such as Telair you mentioned, provide the heavier duty floor beams in lieu of the originals?

I guess that would make sense. The pics I’ve seen of cargo planes indicate that the floor is both storage as well as a loading facility, rollers, power units, etc.

Thanks and Cheers.

Telair is a large organisation I believe the supply the main deck loading systems to most Boeing freighters. I think they also already supply the under floor system on the A350.

For the passenger configuration Airbus have a catalog of different items that can be selected, I would think they will do similar for the freighter.

Cheers, much appreciated.

Francoflier wrote:

Because manufacturers have a horrible track record on meeting their promised weight targets once the engineering has actually been done...

I think you are talking about new aircraft, we are talking about components that have been built that have a known weight, with the aid of CATIA they should be able to get a very accurate handle on the weight of items removed.

Noshow wrote:

Concerning the "Airbus builds just a shell" theory: I consider this highly unlikely.
Floor beams, door frame and skins must be freighter specific. There is no sense in building some interim configuration first and then reconfigure it again. Plus it makes things heavier and this is what matters most.

Absolutely, Airbus isn't going to complete the aircraft then ship it off somewhere else to have half of it ripped out. The aircraft should be complete and the only thing that should be added is the cargo handling system, either installed by the handling system provider, or by Airbus themselves. Either way, this should be done on the final assembly line/or whichever location Airbus uses to complete the fit out of the aircraft.

Where did Airbus do the fit outs for the 330F's they built ?

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I wonder if the reason we have only seen LoIs and MoUs, not firm orders so far, relates to the surface degradation issues and Airbus not yet being able to offer a reliable solution?

Highly unlikely. The surface issue is a technical issue which will be solved one way or the other. One can safely assume that for a newbuild in 2025/26 this issue will have been solved and respective provisions will be in the contract.

I think it has more to do with all parties wanting to milk the media machine several times to ensure all are prominently in the industry´s mind as the "ones going for the new technology". And there might still be some contractual details to be hammered out on both sides, which will required a final go ahead of the contract by respective boards. Nothing unusual.

tomcat wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

tomcat wrote:

I suspect you are not talking about the same thing. How can 3m of A350 fuselage (even fully equipped) weigh 8 tonnes? That would mean that 60m of fuselage weigh 160 tonnes which is over the OEW of the A350-1000.

The fuselage directly in front and behind the wing has by far the largest bending moments to carry, is therefore the strongest and heaviest bit of fuse.

best regards
Thomas

Removing 3 meters of the front fuselage will only reduce by this much the bending moment in the fuselage at the front end of the center wingbox and will barely affect the bending moment just behind the wing.

and that means removing 3 meters in front does not mean 3 meters of the heaviest bit of fuse are removed how?

best regards
Thomas

There are quite a few questions up thread on how Airbus managed to achieve the published A350F weights or differentials https://tinyurl.com/2p8c4afj. Leeham https://tinyurl.com/4zvkb72r claims a big reduction in weight compared to an A350-1000:

A big portion of the 46t increase in payload over the A350-1000 comes from a lighter aircraft. When the passenger cabin is removed, and the aircraft is shortened, a whopping 30t is removed from the empty weight of the A350-1000. This makes the A350F 20t lighter than the 777F.

There has been strikingly little hard information on how Airbus has achieved the weight reductions. Obviously the reduction in fuselage length will be a big contributor, along with removal of windows/doors, seats, galleys, toilets, waste and ventilation systems. But is there an untold story here on further weight reduction eg through expanded use of printed parts, advanced materials, design refinements? Wider use of titanium in main gear? (Looks as if Airbus already makes heavy use of VSMPO castings for main gear components https://tinyurl.com/mbc4ekr3).

One reason it matters is because, as someone asked earlier in the thread, weight savings engineered for the A350F potentially also make the A350-1000 more competitive, particularly for ULR routes of the sort Qantas is planning.

LTEN11 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Concerning the "Airbus builds just a shell" theory: I consider this highly unlikely.
Floor beams, door frame and skins must be freighter specific. There is no sense in building some interim configuration first and then reconfigure it again. Plus it makes things heavier and this is what matters most.

Absolutely, Airbus isn't going to complete the aircraft then ship it off somewhere else to have half of it ripped out. The aircraft should be complete and the only thing that should be added is the cargo handling system, either installed by the handling system provider, or by Airbus themselves. Either way, this should be done on the final assembly line/or whichever location Airbus uses to complete the fit out of the aircraft.

Where did Airbus do the fit outs for the 330F's they built ?

The factory new A330-200Fs were all built and outfitted at the Toulouse site. It’s not like Airbus doesn’t know how to built new freighters; they have delivered many new A300 and A310-freighters.

Cheers!

tealnz wrote:

There are quite a few questions up thread on how Airbus managed to achieve the published A350F weights or differentials https://tinyurl.com/2p8c4afj. Leeham https://tinyurl.com/4zvkb72r claims a big reduction in weight compared to an A350-1000:

A big portion of the 46t increase in payload over the A350-1000 comes from a lighter aircraft. When the passenger cabin is removed, and the aircraft is shortened, a whopping 30t is removed from the empty weight of the A350-1000. This makes the A350F 20t lighter than the 777F.

There has been strikingly little hard information on how Airbus has achieved the weight reductions. Obviously the reduction in fuselage length will be a big contributor, along with removal of windows/doors, seats, galleys, toilets, waste and ventilation systems. But is there an untold story here on further weight reduction eg through expanded use of printed parts, advanced materials, design refinements? Wider use of titanium in main gear? (Looks as if Airbus already makes heavy use of VSMPO castings for main gear components https://tinyurl.com/mbc4ekr3).

One reason it matters is because, as someone asked earlier in the thread, weight savings engineered for the A350F potentially also make the A350-1000 more competitive, particularly for ULR routes of the sort Qantas is planning.

Lots of good questions, but unfortunately, no source of info about it in the public domain that I've read.

Given how these days things are dumbed down to infographics, chances are the questions won't ever be answered in the kind of detail we'd want.

At one point we knew Airbus was working on an A350neo because we had job adverts referenced in one of our threads. Maybe there was a bunch of nascent development that was originally intended for that project that is now redirected towards A350F?

Or maybe the basis for the 30 ton claim is not well understood.

Time will tell.

there seem to have been talk about either a 900F or a 1000F but airbus decided to go for a shorter 1000, why?

thebunkerparodi wrote:

there seem to have been talk about either a 900F or a 1000F but airbus decided to go for a shorter 1000, why?

Because it will match the main structural loads of the -1000, similar maximum weight, same wing and gear configuration.

The forward section of the -900 already had upgraded with many -1000 feature including the same nose gear and door frames.

My opinion is they will be using the -900 front fuselage attached to the -1000 centre and aft sections.

Ok! Founded this flightglobal article showing it was in talk already in 2007, so airbus really took its time to launch it https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a35 ... 81.article

LifelinerOne wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Concerning the "Airbus builds just a shell" theory: I consider this highly unlikely.
Floor beams, door frame and skins must be freighter specific. There is no sense in building some interim configuration first and then reconfigure it again. Plus it makes things heavier and this is what matters most.

Absolutely, Airbus isn't going to complete the aircraft then ship it off somewhere else to have half of it ripped out. The aircraft should be complete and the only thing that should be added is the cargo handling system, either installed by the handling system provider, or by Airbus themselves. Either way, this should be done on the final assembly line/or whichever location Airbus uses to complete the fit out of the aircraft.

Where did Airbus do the fit outs for the 330F's they built ?

The factory new A330-200Fs were all built and outfitted at the Toulouse site. It’s not like Airbus doesn’t know how to built new freighters; they have delivered many new A300 and A310-freighters.

Cheers!

Airbus has not delivered a single new A310F; they were all conversions.
But, yeah, they have experience with freighters (with many A300Fs).

LH could be interested instead of adding more B772F. Translation of a statement by head of cargo:

LH will talk to Airbus about what operational advantages the A350 freighter could yield and what would be potential savings of the full package

But I guess everybody is probably talking at some point. However LH has plenty of A350 in mainline. Maybe they would ship aging B772F to Aerologic at some point.

Original in German
"Lufthansa werde mit Airbus darüber sprechen, welche Vorteile der A350-Frachter im Betrieb und wie viele Kostenvorteile das Gesamtpaket bringe."
From https://www.aero.de/news-41475/Lufthansa-Cargo-will-Frachterflotte-weiter-ausbauen.html

xl0hr wrote:

LH could be interested instead of adding more B772F. Translation of a statement by head of cargo:

LH will talk to Airbus about what operational advantages the A350 freighter could yield and what would be potential savings of the full package

But I guess everybody is probably talking at some point. However LH has plenty of A350 in mainline. Maybe they would ship aging B772F to Aerologic at some point.

Original in German
"Lufthansa werde mit Airbus darüber sprechen, welche Vorteile der A350-Frachter im Betrieb und wie viele Kostenvorteile das Gesamtpaket bringe."
From https://www.aero.de/news-41475/Lufthansa-Cargo-will-Frachterflotte-weiter-ausbauen.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... fleet-hike

Second point. “More 777F orders likely”

This report suggests it could be 350F.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/lufthan ... -expansion


"Von Boxberg’s comments suggest that Lufthansa, one of the world’s biggest cargo carriers, is warming to the A350F after previously indicating that the 777F could meet all of its longhaul needs. The company standardized around the Boeing plane, of which it currently has 11, after retiring the last of its MD-11 freighters during the pandemic.
The executive said it’s too early for Lufthansa to think about ordering a planned successor to the American model based on the coming 777X passenger jet. Boeing has said it’s studying a freighter version but has held back on a formal launch as it grapples with delays to the wider program."


Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

I wonder if there's still a big enough boom in cargo when it's time to order. They were planning on less than 11 B777F before Covid I think.

thebunkerparodi wrote:

Ok! Founded this flightglobal article showing it was in talk already in 2007, so airbus really took its time to launch it https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a35 ... 81.article

I think what delayed the launch is that air cargo demand crashed in 2008. It returned in 2010, but prices were flat for 6-7 years. As more and more 777-300ERs were built and more airlines flying with more belly space out of China, yields on cargo were flat for years. That meant that there was little incentive to add freight capacity except for express freight like UPS and FedEx. The market wasn’t right for a new freighter launch. We saw the 747-8 program suffer as well with freight operators not ordering many new airplanes between 2008 and 2015.

In 2017 freight yields started going up and prices skyrocketed during COVID which brought freight operators an infusion of cash which they can use to invest. Now that the freight operators are financially healthy, they are more interested in a new airplane which is why both Boeing and Airbus are launching new freighters. Ironically if COVID had happened a few years earlier, it may have saved the 747-8F line which would have hurt the business case and market for the A350F.

Singapore Airlines has announced a LOI for 7 A350Fs with 5 options.

Several technical details are mentioned in the stock exchange disclosure linked below.

Aircraft Length: 70.61m
MTOW: 319 tonnes
Payload: 109 tonnes
Volume: 728 cubic metres
Range: 4700nm

SINGAPORE AIRLINES SELECTS AIRBUS A350F TO RENEW FREIGHTER FLEET

109 tonnes is 6 more than the 77F. Quite impressive for an aircraft that's over 30 tonnes less MTOW.

Singapore Airlines selects the world’s newest freighter - the A350F

Airbus PR: https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... -the-a350f

flee wrote:

Singapore Airlines selects the world’s newest freighter - the A350F

Airbus PR: https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... -the-a350f

Waiting for the "It is not an order " crowd in 3, 2, 1... Congratulations to Airbus and SIA.

Interesting to me is that blue chip companies are selecting the A350F. This bodes well for the frame.

[twoid][/twoid]

StTim wrote:

Interesting to me is that blue chip companies are selecting the A350F. This bodes well for the frame.

Deleted

StTim wrote:

Interesting to me is that blue chip companies are selecting the A350F. This bodes well for the frame.

It seems that it is a easy pick for 747F operators, seeing the few orders and marketing material. So, it should do well enough by replacing those birds.

The real question is if it can take over customers with 777F on their fleet. That will be the real litmus test and will determine if it will be highly successful or not…

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Airbus A350F Boeing 747-400F
Max Payload (structural) 109 tonnes 116 tonnes
Range 4,700 nm 4,500 nm

I am guessing those are the MZFW ranges for each type? That would essentially mean the same payload over 4700 miles and more beyond that point.

Not bad for 20% less weight off the runway.

best regards
Thomas

Singapore Airlines signs LOI for seven Airbus A350F Freighters powered by the Trent XWB-97

RR's PR: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... wered.aspx

JonesNL wrote:

The real question is if it can take over customers with 777F on their fleet. That will be the real litmus test and will determine if it will be highly successful or not…

Majority of the 777F fleet is nowhere near replacement, so that litmus test won’t happen for at least a decade. In the meantime Airbus will probably sale a few dozen A350F and keep pressure on the 777XF. As long as the 777XF design isn’t frozen, we don’t know what its USP will be.