Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FlyHPN
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:15 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:12 pm

This was reported in the production/delivery thread yesterday but wanted to cross-post here as it seems to fit the topic.

AECM wrote:
Yesterday, 4/01/2022, EASA TCDS for the A350 was updated with a new weight variant for the A359:

Variant: 020
Mod Number 115156

MTOW: 283 t
MLW: 207 t
MZFW: 195,7 t


Link (Page 10): https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/17736/en

I wonder how far back for the 280 birds this will be mod-able for and who the intended customers will be.

EDIT: Removed reverence to Delta JNB-ATL
Last edited by FlyHPN on Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
gloom
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:20 pm

FlyHPN wrote:
I could see this helping Delta with their JNB-ATL headaches.


How?

Out of JNB, A350 is limited by hot&high conditions, and resulting TOW, not by hitting MTOW.

The 280t birds included wing twist and some other minor improvements that helped JNB case (for example, lower fuel burn allows higher payload), but I don't think VW020 is more than simple MTOW raise.

Cheers,
Adam
 
FlyHPN
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:15 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:41 pm

gloom wrote:
FlyHPN wrote:
I could see this helping Delta with their JNB-ATL headaches.


How?

Out of JNB, A350 is limited by hot&high conditions, and resulting TOW, not by hitting MTOW.

The 280t birds included wing twist and some other minor improvements that helped JNB case (for example, lower fuel burn allows higher payload), but I don't think VW020 is more than simple MTOW raise.

Cheers,
Adam


Thanks for the correction.
 
hloutweg
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:57 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:31 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
Chipmunk1973 wrote:
If I understand the article correctly, the freighter is based on the 1000, minus 5 frames ahead of the wing.

So is this an A350-1000F or is it an A350-950F?

Cheers.


I’m surprised that they would remove frames from in front of the wing. Wouldn’t that put it at risk for tail tipping?

Image

https://theloadstar.com/look-dhl-planes-nose-parked/



The difference between those two is the loads come in from the rear fuselage into the front of the fuselage on the A350 vs. the A300’s reverse system putting the load on the front first as opposed to the back.
 
tomcat
Posts: 1074
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:24 pm

FlyHPN wrote:
This was reported in the production/delivery thread yesterday but wanted to cross-post here as it seems to fit the topic.

AECM wrote:
Yesterday, 4/01/2022, EASA TCDS for the A350 was updated with a new weight variant for the A359:

Variant: 020
Mod Number 115156

MTOW: 283 t
MLW: 207 t
MZFW: 195,7 t


Link (Page 10): https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/17736/en

I wonder how far back for the 280 birds this will be mod-able for and who the intended customers will be.

EDIT: Removed reverence to Delta JNB-ATL


Pretty much at the same time, Boeing mentioned they are working on a higher gross weight variant of the 787-10 "to better compete with the A359". Good to see both OEMs extracting all the potential of their respective aircraft.
 
tealnz
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:12 pm

Can anyone take a stab at what the new MTOW does for payload at max fuel? It’s relevant to information Boeing has released today on performance of higher weight 789 and 787-10: given the much higher fuel capacity of the A359 it’s hard to see how Boeing could achieve the claimed range advantage with the 789HGW.
 
gloom
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:18 am

tealnz wrote:
Can anyone take a stab at what the new MTOW does for payload at max fuel?


3 tons more ;)

Yeah, I know you probably ask for estimated payload at max fuel. MTOW is 283t, assuming 135-136t as consensus for "ready to go" empty weight, and 110t for fuel (it's actually 110.5, but a rough estimation anyways), I'd say we're looking at (283-136-110)=37t region, give or take a ton. Full pax and bags at 300, plus a few tons of cargo. It's different story for ULR though, where max fuel is 130t (130.6 just as above), and payload reduced accordingly, down to around 17t, once we see such upgrade on ULR or see a new 283t ULR bird.

I have not checked details against MLW/MZFW, but in "all fuel config" it should not be affected.

Numbers above are rough estimation and not based on any particular bird data. At this point I guess no one is sure if 283t birds are straight MTOW upgrade, or using structure mods.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:29 pm

I wonder what capacity the additional fuel tank option for Qantas will have on the A350-1000. Current specification 159 000 litres, MTOW 319t. An increase a fuel capacity by 12.000 litres, MTOW rise of 6t, OEW up with 1.5t ? Have to put in in my excels to see how that pans out on payload-range curves.. Interestingly the outcome range is already set :biggrin: (SYD-LHR nett 9200NM, an hour reserves: 9700NM) The rest to be filled in (MTOW, OEW, Fuel capacity, passenger capacity).

Image
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/is-the-a350-1000-ulr-or-777-8-x-favorite-for-qantas-project-sunrise/


MTOW bump projects benefit A350-1000, ULR, but also A350F and possibly a A350 stretch later this decade. I expect it to coincide with the new geared engine. No doubt RR is negotiating launching the new engine with Airbus. Timing is strategic though.. https://airinsight.com/xwb-extension-se ... -the-a350/
 
texl1649
Posts: 2243
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:47 pm

Well sure, but no one is going to launch a new geared engine for a widebody anytime too soon, with the market basically depressed, and quite likely some of Pratt’s patents haven’t expired yet somehow. RR also still just had a negative $259 million annual operating income, so I really think they will be wont to launch a new engine for the A350 anytime remotely soon, even if Airbus did want to revamp the aircraft, which with the launch of the A350F I really don’T see happening. Eventually, sure.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:55 pm

RR has developed a very different design to PW's gear - so no patent lawyers necessary!

"(The gear system) is a planetary-style gearbox with a ring gear on the outside and five planet gears inside, rotating around a central sun gear. The design drives the fan from a centrally mounted planet carrier unlike the star-style gear system used in Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan."

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... wer-record

https://www.airlinerwatch.com/2021/09/r ... -tops.html
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:33 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
RR has developed a very different design to PW's gear - so no patent lawyers necessary!

"(The gear system) is a planetary-style gearbox with a ring gear on the outside and five planet gears inside, rotating around a central sun gear. The design drives the fan from a centrally mounted planet carrier unlike the star-style gear system used in Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan."

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... wer-record

https://www.airlinerwatch.com/2021/09/r ... -tops.html

Links are broken
 
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:51 pm

Airbus published an A350F data sheet last month.

https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... 2022_0.pdf
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... l-2022.pdf

It says the A350 fleet as an average 3.17 Years Average Aircraft Age

I think the A350 push for more payload, MTOW and MLW are help the reaching the same goals.
Qantas Sunrise requirements pushed Arbus on the A350-1000 but those modifications also helped on the A350F.
 
accentra
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2021 11:35 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:35 pm

keesje wrote:
Airbus published an A350F data sheet last month.

https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... 2022_0.pdf
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... l-2022.pdf

It says the A350 fleet as an average 3.17 Years Average Aircraft Age

I think the A350 push for more payload, MTOW and MLW are help the reaching the same goals.
Qantas Sunrise requirements pushed Arbus on the A350-1000 but those modifications also helped on the A350F.


Airbus has always had a distinct talent for that: constant evolution of the platform. The A330ceo is the classic example. But it's also very much in play here with the A350.
 
tomcat
Posts: 1074
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:05 pm

keesje wrote:
Airbus published an A350F data sheet last month.

https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... 2022_0.pdf
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... l-2022.pdf

It says the A350 fleet as an average 3.17 Years Average Aircraft Age

I think the A350 push for more payload, MTOW and MLW are help the reaching the same goals.
Qantas Sunrise requirements pushed Arbus on the A350-1000 but those modifications also helped on the A350F.


Too bad for the conversion mistake in the A350F data sheet:

146,5’’ x 124’’ / 3810mm x 3721 mm


Converting the dimensions from inches to mm gives me 3721 x 3150. I'd be curious to know where the 3810mm came from. Could it be a length coming from the 777X spec?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue May 03, 2022 2:55 pm

For Qantas A350-1000 ULH operations a new fuel tank is included.

- This tank will carry 20,000 liters of fuel, adding to the standard A350-1000 fuel load of 159,000 liters.
- The range capability of the Qantas aircraft will be boosted to about 9,700 nm, compared to 8,700 nm for the standard A350-1000.
- The lower seat density will decrease weight and help with range.
- There will be no change to the engines or thrust on the Qantas version.

Airbus confirmed the A350-1000s delivered to Qantas would theoretically be able to fly between Sydney and London while avoiding Russian airspace.
- The additional fuel tank will not compromise performance on routes that do not need the extra range, Airbus said.

Image
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/297982/qantas-to-launch-project-sunrise-flights-in-2025/#:~:text=This%20will%20carry%2020%2C000%20liters,weight%20and%20help%20with%20range.

It would be interesting to see how this fuel tank is integrated. Probably not removable, taking the place of a few LD3 positions behind the center wing box.
https://pdf.aeroexpo.online/pdf/airbus/ ... 1-_13.html
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13648
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue May 03, 2022 3:06 pm

keesje wrote:
For Qantas A350-1000 ULH operations a new fuel tank is included.

- This tank will carry 20,000 liters of fuel, adding to the standard A350-1000 fuel load of 159,000 liters.
- The range capability of the Qantas aircraft will be boosted to about 9,700 nm, compared to 8,700 nm for the standard A350-1000.
- The lower seat density will decrease weight and help with range.
- There will be no change to the engines or thrust on the Qantas version.

Airbus confirmed the A350-1000s delivered to Qantas would theoretically be able to fly between Sydney and London while avoiding Russian airspace.
- The additional fuel tank will not compromise performance on routes that do not need the extra range, Airbus said.

Image
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/297982/qantas-to-launch-project-sunrise-flights-in-2025/#:~:text=This%20will%20carry%2020%2C000%20liters,weight%20and%20help%20with%20range.

It would be interesting to see how this fuel tank is integrated. Probably not removable, taking the place of a few LD3 positions behind the center wing box.
https://pdf.aeroexpo.online/pdf/airbus/ ... 1-_13.html


It’s probably changing the usable size of the center tank via sensors/pumps/sealant more than adding a “new” tank, which is why Airbus is saying it has no effect on routes not needing the range. Adding a new integrated tanks adds weight (structure needs to be able to support weight of fuel in area that may have never been designed for that) and engineering/certification effort.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:02 pm

After months of sneak previews and teases, German national carrier Lufthansa has established its first-ever CleanTechFlyer as the particular Airbus A350 has taken off on its maiden scheduled flight from Munich Airport. The aircraft will be the flying ambassador for the Lufthansa Group CleanTech Hub.


Image
https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-clea ... 50-munich/

Reading through the article, it mostly seems a marketing campaign for building perceptions LH is really moving forward taking sustainability initiatives.
 
DartHerald
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:39 pm

Looks as though (unsurprisingly!) Sir Tim Clark wants the A350-2000 to go ahead...... (https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2 ... 67.article).
 
Aseem747
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:53 pm

A further A350 stretch would no doubt be quite popular, the current A35K's size puts it as an unwanted aircraft for Emirates and wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with Singapore, Lufthansa. Cathay would've definitely removed 779 from their future plans and maybe Qatar wouldn't have ordered 779 too back when they were in love with 350. A35K has already done enough damage over the past decade for Airbus in large wide body sector and if they do not stretch it in time the 351 may give the 779 more free passes to getting huge orders seeing airlines like Turkish, Korean, etc are yet to order a 77W successor.
 
LH320MUC
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2022 9:57 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:03 pm

Aseem747 wrote:
A further A350 stretch would no doubt be quite popular, the current A35K's size puts it as an unwanted aircraft for Emirates and wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with Singapore, Lufthansa. Cathay would've definitely removed 779 from their future plans and maybe Qatar wouldn't have ordered 779 too back when they were in love with 350. A35K has already done enough damage over the past decade for Airbus in large wide body sector and if they do not stretch it in time the 351 may give the 779 more free passes to getting huge orders seeing airlines like Turkish, Korean, etc are yet to order a 77W successor.


Tell that Qantas who just ordered some 351s for their Project Sunrise. Please explain what kind of damage this type has done to Airbus.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:45 pm

An A350-2000 seems possible based on the latest QF A350-1000 specs, trading range for capacity. But still with a very acceptable long haul range..

And 777-10 also. But the business cases have to look good.

Image
keesje
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:53 pm

Aseem747 wrote:
A further A350 stretch would no doubt be quite popular, the current A35K's size puts it as an unwanted aircraft for Emirates and wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with Singapore, Lufthansa. Cathay would've definitely removed 779 from their future plans and maybe Qatar wouldn't have ordered 779 too back when they were in love with 350. A35K has already done enough damage over the past decade for Airbus in large wide body sector and if they do not stretch it in time the 351 may give the 779 more free passes to getting huge orders seeing airlines like Turkish, Korean, etc are yet to order a 77W successor.


Airbus would need more power though and the TWXB is maxed out. Ultrafan could obviously do it but that would cost RR real money.
 
Kikko19
Posts: 933
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:03 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Looks as though (unsurprisingly!) Sir Tim Clark wants the A350-2000 to go ahead...... (https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2 ... 67.article).

More wars, inflation and unknown calamities will make the a35k more than sufficient aircraft of next decade
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 908
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:10 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Looks as though (unsurprisingly!) Sir Tim Clark wants the A350-2000 to go ahead...... (https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2 ... 67.article).


of course he 'wants' it to go ahead. he also 'wanted' an A380 re-engine... but he wouldn't commit to ordering it. he's gone soon anyway.... so no one really cares what he wants.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 2088
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:06 pm

keesje wrote:
An A350-2000 seems possible based on the latest QF A350-1000 specs, trading range for capacity. But still with a very acceptable long haul range..

And 777-10 also. But the business cases have to look good.

Image
keesje


Just a quick one on your seating numbers, we have two examples of real world layouts of the 789 and A333 at two airlines with similar seats and layouts being used at both and at those airlines we have the seating density the in favour of the A333 whereas your list has a 20 seat advantage to the 789 over the A339. I would guess you made a standard calculation to make it easy for all frames but this doesn't seem to correspond with real world examples and would skew the other numbers like the OEW/per seat.

Just an observation.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3548
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:06 pm

enzo011 wrote:
keesje wrote:
An A350-2000 seems possible based on the latest QF A350-1000 specs, trading range for capacity. But still with a very acceptable long haul range..

And 777-10 also. But the business cases have to look good.

Image
keesje


Just a quick one on your seating numbers, we have two examples of real world layouts of the 789 and A333 at two airlines with similar seats and layouts being used at both and at those airlines we have the seating density the in favour of the A333 whereas your list has a 20 seat advantage to the 789 over the A339. I would guess you made a standard calculation to make it easy for all frames but this doesn't seem to correspond with real world examples and would skew the other numbers like the OEW/per seat.

Just an observation.

The 787-9 seats more than the a330
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4527
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:09 pm

Opus99 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
keesje wrote:
An A350-2000 seems possible based on the latest QF A350-1000 specs, trading range for capacity. But still with a very acceptable long haul range..

And 777-10 also. But the business cases have to look good.

Image
keesje


Just a quick one on your seating numbers, we have two examples of real world layouts of the 789 and A333 at two airlines with similar seats and layouts being used at both and at those airlines we have the seating density the in favour of the A333 whereas your list has a 20 seat advantage to the 789 over the A339. I would guess you made a standard calculation to make it easy for all frames but this doesn't seem to correspond with real world examples and would skew the other numbers like the OEW/per seat.

Just an observation.

The 787-9 seats more than the a330

Doesn’t the A339 have a larger cabin (more floor area)?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
gloom
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:22 pm

BoeingVista wrote:
Airbus would need more power though and the TWXB is maxed out.


Seriously? Read slow from the first post again.

It's a longer A350 with 35K MTOW. Trade some of fuel/extra cargo for body capable to take 30-40-50 persons more. If you're good with trading 40 extra seats for only just below 5000nm at MTOW, this is the target for such a concept.

Ironically, how much more thrust did the 78J need next to 789? ;) It's also 30+ seats longer...

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:13 pm

enzo011 wrote:
keesje wrote:
An A350-2000 seems possible based on the latest QF A350-1000 specs, trading range for capacity. But still with a very acceptable long haul range..

And 777-10 also. But the business cases have to look good.

Image
keesje


Just a quick one on your seating numbers, we have two examples of real world layouts of the 789 and A333 at two airlines with similar seats and layouts being used at both and at those airlines we have the seating density the in favour of the A333 whereas your list has a 20 seat advantage to the 789 over the A339. I would guess you made a standard calculation to make it easy for all frames but this doesn't seem to correspond with real world examples and would skew the other numbers like the OEW/per seat.

Just an observation.


Don't get your point, look again. You seem to validate my assumptions and calculations.

I used seats across, cabin lenght and same galley, lavatory rates for all aircraft. Often 787-9 are used for longer flights, on average increasing the number of premium seats, classes, reducing seatcounts.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13648
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:27 pm

keesje wrote:
An A350-2000 seems possible based on the latest QF A350-1000 specs, trading range for capacity. But still with a very acceptable long haul range..

And 777-10 also. But the business cases have to look good.

Image
keesje

Your wing areas are completely off, likely due to different wing area measurements types (there are several ways to calculate wing area that will give you different numbers) being applied to different aircraft. The A330neo does not have a larger wing than the A350-1000 as your numbers imply. The 787 and A330 wing area are similar.

Also it says your cabin length is calculated. How are you calculating that.
Last edited by Polot on Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:41 pm

enzo011 wrote:
keesje wrote:
An A350-2000 seems possible based on the latest QF A350-1000 specs, trading range for capacity. But still with a very acceptable long haul range..

And 777-10 also. But the business cases have to look good.

Image
keesje


Just a quick one on your seating numbers, we have two examples of real world layouts of the 789 and A333 at two airlines with similar seats and layouts being used at both and at those airlines we have the seating density the in favour of the A333 whereas your list has a 20 seat advantage to the 789 over the A339. I would guess you made a standard calculation to make it easy for all frames but this doesn't seem to correspond with real world examples and would skew the other numbers like the OEW/per seat.

Just an observation.


Becareful when comparing the A333 and B789 seat counts at a lot of these airlines. In a lot of cases the 2 aircraft aren't using the same type of seats and a bigger impact is that you will typically see the 789 in a 4 abreast configuration in J while the A333 is in a 6 abreast configuration.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14723
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:54 pm

Polot wrote:
It’s probably changing the usable size of the center tank via sensors/pumps/sealant more than adding a “new” tank, which is why Airbus is saying it has no effect on routes not needing the range

That's what was done to create the A359ULR, but it has its drawbacks as well: most notably the inability to utilize the forward cargo bay, which would be detrimental to an operation like what QF is planning.

Add to this that the A35K's center tank is slightly modified from the A359's, in order to fit the longer landing gear.

But most importantly of all: Airbus has already clarified that it will be an additional tank.




Aseem747 wrote:
A35K has already done enough damage over the past decade for Airbus in large wide body sector

What on Earth are you talking about?
 
Aseem747
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:00 am

LH320MUC wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
A further A350 stretch would no doubt be quite popular, the current A35K's size puts it as an unwanted aircraft for Emirates and wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with Singapore, Lufthansa. Cathay would've definitely removed 779 from their future plans and maybe Qatar wouldn't have ordered 779 too back when they were in love with 350. A35K has already done enough damage over the past decade for Airbus in large wide body sector and if they do not stretch it in time the 351 may give the 779 more free passes to getting huge orders seeing airlines like Turkish, Korean, etc are yet to order a 77W successor.


Tell that Qantas who just ordered some 351s for their Project Sunrise. Please explain what kind of damage this type has done to Airbus.

Your acting as if they placed a major order when it was just a dozen A35K. It's small enough that the A35K has less orders than it did in 2015 still.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 2088
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:05 am

Opus99 wrote:
The 787-9 seats more than the a330


I was looking at 2 real world airlines using the same seats, this is what I could find. Do you have examples that contradicts this?

keesje wrote:
Don't get your point, look again. You seem to validate my assumptions and calculations.

I used seats across, cabin lenght and same galley, lavatory rates for all aircraft. Often 787-9 are used for longer flights, on average increasing the number of premium seats, classes, reducing seatcounts.


As mentioned in my post I compared 2 airlines that seem to use the same layout and seats. This is EY and VS and when comparing their A333 and 789. It seems to me VS uses the same seats in J and while the layout is different in that some seats are forward facing and others face backward for EY, it is the same 1-2-1 layout in J as in the A330. If anything you would think the seats in the 789 saves space as it was introduced later and I don't know of many airlines that would willingly reduce seats in their aircraft by giving passengers more space. It is all about fitting in more seats in the space they have and making it seem like they are not taking away from passengers.

In fact the VS layout has more W seats and less Y seats and still the A330 has more seats in total. For Etihad, while they do not have the A330 in their fleet their layout as per seatguru confirms that the A330 seemingly in a similar layout with similar seats do not have a 20 seat disadvantage as you seem to have. In fact the seatguru layout seems to have more seats than the EY website for the 789 in Y, just a handful mind you. The A330 is not listed on the EY website any longer but I have found a A333 layout they had as per their website.

I know seatguru is not 100% accurate, that is why I linked to the airlines websites to confirm if they are accurate. As mentioned the Etihad layout has less seats for the 789 than seatguru but not that much. The EY 78X on seatguru is not accurate at all, with almost 30 seats difference in Y. But for reference as per seatguru has the following capacities for these aircraft as they seem to be accurate, even with a slight difference between the EY layout for the 789 (3 or 4 seat less).

EY A333 - 231 seats in 3 classes including F (8F and 32 J)
EY 789 - 231 seats in 3 classes including F (8F and 28J)
VS A333 - 264 seats in 3 classes but no F (31J and 48W)
VS 789 - 258 seats in 3 classes but no F (31J and 35W)

As per numbers above the premium heavy 789 is not reflected either, as the A333 has more premium seats than the 789 but doesn't seat less. But again this is not a criticism of your sheet or numbers, just an observation of real world layouts.

Etihad A330-300 3 Class

Etihad 787-9 3 Class

Virgin Atlantic A330

Virgin Atlantic 787

ikolkyo wrote:
Becareful when comparing the A333 and B789 seat counts at a lot of these airlines. In a lot of cases the 2 aircraft aren't using the same type of seats and a bigger impact is that you will typically see the 789 in a 4 abreast configuration in J while the A333 is in a 6 abreast configuration.


I have been careful to avoid making comparisons that uses different layout or seats. Both EY and VS seems to use the same seats in F, J, W and Y so it seems a fair comparison. It is only 2 airlines though, but still food for thought I would think. I think it does go against what we automatically assume, that the 789 is bigger than the A339 because it can seat one extra per row in Y when using similar layouts.

All my observations are just that, observations. I am more than happy to be corrected if this is not the case.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3548
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:26 am

enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
The 787-9 seats more than the a330


I was looking at 2 real world airlines using the same seats, this is what I could find. Do you have examples that contradicts this?

keesje wrote:
Don't get your point, look again. You seem to validate my assumptions and calculations.

I used seats across, cabin lenght and same galley, lavatory rates for all aircraft. Often 787-9 are used for longer flights, on average increasing the number of premium seats, classes, reducing seatcounts.


As mentioned in my post I compared 2 airlines that seem to use the same layout and seats. This is EY and VS and when comparing their A333 and 789. It seems to me VS uses the same seats in J and while the layout is different in that some seats are forward facing and others face backward for EY, it is the same 1-2-1 layout in J as in the A330. If anything you would think the seats in the 789 saves space as it was introduced later and I don't know of many airlines that would willingly reduce seats in their aircraft by giving passengers more space. It is all about fitting in more seats in the space they have and making it seem like they are not taking away from passengers.

In fact the VS layout has more W seats and less Y seats and still the A330 has more seats in total. For Etihad, while they do not have the A330 in their fleet their layout as per seatguru confirms that the A330 seemingly in a similar layout with similar seats do not have a 20 seat disadvantage as you seem to have. In fact the seatguru layout seems to have more seats than the EY website for the 789 in Y, just a handful mind you. The A330 is not listed on the EY website any longer but I have found a A333 layout they had as per their website.

I know seatguru is not 100% accurate, that is why I linked to the airlines websites to confirm if they are accurate. As mentioned the Etihad layout has less seats for the 789 than seatguru but not that much. The EY 78X on seatguru is not accurate at all, with almost 30 seats difference in Y. But for reference as per seatguru has the following capacities for these aircraft as they seem to be accurate, even with a slight difference between the EY layout for the 789 (3 or 4 seat less).

EY A333 - 231 seats in 3 classes including F (8F and 32 J)
EY 789 - 231 seats in 3 classes including F (8F and 28J)
VS A333 - 264 seats in 3 classes but no F (31J and 48W)
VS 789 - 258 seats in 3 classes but no F (31J and 35W)

As per numbers above the premium heavy 789 is not reflected either, as the A333 has more premium seats than the 789 but doesn't seat less. But again this is not a criticism of your sheet or numbers, just an observation of real world layouts.

Etihad A330-300 3 Class

Etihad 787-9 3 Class

Virgin Atlantic A330

Virgin Atlantic 787

ikolkyo wrote:
Becareful when comparing the A333 and B789 seat counts at a lot of these airlines. In a lot of cases the 2 aircraft aren't using the same type of seats and a bigger impact is that you will typically see the 789 in a 4 abreast configuration in J while the A333 is in a 6 abreast configuration.


I have been careful to avoid making comparisons that uses different layout or seats. Both EY and VS seems to use the same seats in F, J, W and Y so it seems a fair comparison. It is only 2 airlines though, but still food for thought I would think. I think it does go against what we automatically assume, that the 789 is bigger than the A339 because it can seat one extra per row in Y when using similar layouts.

All my observations are just that, observations. I am more than happy to be corrected if this is not the case.

Turkish Airlines - with the 787 having more premium seats and a 1-2-1 config sits about 11 more
KLM same thing same no of premium seats but in a 1-2-1 sits about 4 more
Qatar Airways same story
Air canada same story
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 2088
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:42 am

Opus99 wrote:
Turkish Airlines - with the 787 having more premium seats and a 1-2-1 config sits about 11 more
KLM same thing same no of premium seats but in a 1-2-1 sits about 4 more
Qatar Airways same story
Air canada same story



I was talking about airlines using similar layout and seats and you give me airlines that uses different seats in J between the A333 and the 789 (QR, KL TK) and while AC is a good comparison as it seems to use the same seats it seems to agree with what I am trying to point out. The wider 789 allows an extra seat per row in both J and Y and yet AC only has 6 more seats in the 789.

You are correct, the 789 does seat more than the A333 at some airlines, but I have shown it is also not the case at others. Seems to me you are able to get one extra row of J in the front cabin in the A333 and Air Canada has 26 full rows in Y in the 789 and 27 full rows of Y in the A333. The difference then is the taper in the A333 allows for 4 further rows of 7 abreast in the A330, hence the small difference in capacity between the aircraft.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3548
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:46 am

enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Turkish Airlines - with the 787 having more premium seats and a 1-2-1 config sits about 11 more
KLM same thing same no of premium seats but in a 1-2-1 sits about 4 more
Qatar Airways same story
Air canada same story



I was talking about airlines using similar layout and seats and you give me airlines that uses different seats in J between the A333 and the 789 (QR, KL TK) and while AC is a good comparison as it seems to use the same seats it seems to agree with what I am trying to point out. The wider 789 allows an extra seat per row in both J and Y and yet AC only has 6 more seats in the 789.

You are correct, the 789 does seat more than the A333 at some airlines, but I have shown it is also not the case at others. Seems to me you are able to get one extra row of J in the front cabin in the A333 and Air Canada has 26 full rows in Y in the 789 and 27 full rows of Y in the A333. The difference then is the taper in the A333 allows for 4 further rows of 7 abreast in the A330, hence the small difference in capacity between the aircraft.

Ah right, fair enough
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:55 am

enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Turkish Airlines - with the 787 having more premium seats and a 1-2-1 config sits about 11 more
KLM same thing same no of premium seats but in a 1-2-1 sits about 4 more
Qatar Airways same story
Air canada same story



I was talking about airlines using similar layout and seats and you give me airlines that uses different seats in J between the A333 and the 789 (QR, KL TK) and while AC is a good comparison as it seems to use the same seats it seems to agree with what I am trying to point out. The wider 789 allows an extra seat per row in both J and Y and yet AC only has 6 more seats in the 789.

You are correct, the 789 does seat more than the A333 at some airlines, but I have shown it is also not the case at others. Seems to me you are able to get one extra row of J in the front cabin in the A333 and Air Canada has 26 full rows in Y in the 789 and 27 full rows of Y in the A333. The difference then is the taper in the A333 allows for 4 further rows of 7 abreast in the A330, hence the small difference in capacity between the aircraft.


Exactly the reason I tried to make seat capacity more objective. A339 8 abreast but longer cabin, 787-9 shorter cabin but 1 seat wider (in practice).

Removing a few lavatories/galley positions, put in seats instead and the aircraft looks more efficient.. and than somebody jumps in with a 9 abreast A339, 28-29 inch pitch ultra slim seats. Airbus and Boeing marketing love to boost seat counts / CASM too.

To get a credible, comparable seat counts I checked with seatguru many configurations to determine realistic average lavatory and galley space ratios and a correction factor for multi class cabins.
Last edited by keesje on Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13648
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:57 am

keesje wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Turkish Airlines - with the 787 having more premium seats and a 1-2-1 config sits about 11 more
KLM same thing same no of premium seats but in a 1-2-1 sits about 4 more
Qatar Airways same story
Air canada same story



I was talking about airlines using similar layout and seats and you give me airlines that uses different seats in J between the A333 and the 789 (QR, KL TK) and while AC is a good comparison as it seems to use the same seats it seems to agree with what I am trying to point out. The wider 789 allows an extra seat per row in both J and Y and yet AC only has 6 more seats in the 789.

You are correct, the 789 does seat more than the A333 at some airlines, but I have shown it is also not the case at others. Seems to me you are able to get one extra row of J in the front cabin in the A333 and Air Canada has 26 full rows in Y in the 789 and 27 full rows of Y in the A333. The difference then is the taper in the A333 allows for 4 further rows of 7 abreast in the A330, hence the small difference in capacity between the aircraft.


Exactly the reason I tried to make seat capacity more objective. A339 8 abreast but longer cabin, 787-9 shorter cabin but 1 seat wider (in practice). Removing a few lavatories & put in seats instead and the aircraft looks more efficient.. and than somebody jumps in with a 9 abreast A339, 28-29 inch pitch ultra slim seats. Airbus and Boeing love to boast seatcounts/ CASM too. To get a credible seat counts I checked with seatguru many configurations to determine realistic average lavatory and galley space ratios and a correction factor for multi class cabins.

But your corrections are not giving accurate numbers for the A330 vs 787. The 787 is not seating ~20 more pax in comparable layouts.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:47 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
The 787-9 seats more than the a330


I was looking at 2 real world airlines using the same seats, this is what I could find. Do you have examples that contradicts this?

keesje wrote:
Don't get your point, look again. You seem to validate my assumptions and calculations.

I used seats across, cabin lenght and same galley, lavatory rates for all aircraft. Often 787-9 are used for longer flights, on average increasing the number of premium seats, classes, reducing seatcounts.


As mentioned in my post I compared 2 airlines that seem to use the same layout and seats. This is EY and VS and when comparing their A333 and 789. It seems to me VS uses the same seats in J and while the layout is different in that some seats are forward facing and others face backward for EY, it is the same 1-2-1 layout in J as in the A330. If anything you would think the seats in the 789 saves space as it was introduced later and I don't know of many airlines that would willingly reduce seats in their aircraft by giving passengers more space. It is all about fitting in more seats in the space they have and making it seem like they are not taking away from passengers.

In fact the VS layout has more W seats and less Y seats and still the A330 has more seats in total. For Etihad, while they do not have the A330 in their fleet their layout as per seatguru confirms that the A330 seemingly in a similar layout with similar seats do not have a 20 seat disadvantage as you seem to have. In fact the seatguru layout seems to have more seats than the EY website for the 789 in Y, just a handful mind you. The A330 is not listed on the EY website any longer but I have found a A333 layout they had as per their website.

I know seatguru is not 100% accurate, that is why I linked to the airlines websites to confirm if they are accurate. As mentioned the Etihad layout has less seats for the 789 than seatguru but not that much. The EY 78X on seatguru is not accurate at all, with almost 30 seats difference in Y. But for reference as per seatguru has the following capacities for these aircraft as they seem to be accurate, even with a slight difference between the EY layout for the 789 (3 or 4 seat less).

EY A333 - 231 seats in 3 classes including F (8F and 32 J)
EY 789 - 231 seats in 3 classes including F (8F and 28J)
VS A333 - 264 seats in 3 classes but no F (31J and 48W)
VS 789 - 258 seats in 3 classes but no F (31J and 35W)

As per numbers above the premium heavy 789 is not reflected either, as the A333 has more premium seats than the 789 but doesn't seat less. But again this is not a criticism of your sheet or numbers, just an observation of real world layouts.

Etihad A330-300 3 Class

Etihad 787-9 3 Class

Virgin Atlantic A330

Virgin Atlantic 787

ikolkyo wrote:
Becareful when comparing the A333 and B789 seat counts at a lot of these airlines. In a lot of cases the 2 aircraft aren't using the same type of seats and a bigger impact is that you will typically see the 789 in a 4 abreast configuration in J while the A333 is in a 6 abreast configuration.


I have been careful to avoid making comparisons that uses different layout or seats. Both EY and VS seems to use the same seats in F, J, W and Y so it seems a fair comparison. It is only 2 airlines though, but still food for thought I would think. I think it does go against what we automatically assume, that the 789 is bigger than the A339 because it can seat one extra per row in Y when using similar layouts.

All my observations are just that, observations. I am more than happy to be corrected if this is not the case.


EY does not use the same seats on the A333 and B789, both are a 3 class configuration but not the same product. Especially in J. Your best comparison I see is VS. (Interesting that they're still using a 3 abreast layout!!)

This comparison is tough to truly compare because the sample size of same generation seats on both aircraft is very limited, seems like only AC and VS are the only ones that actually provide a good comparison. I will agree however that a 20 seat difference is a bit much
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:54 am

gloom wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
Airbus would need more power though and the TWXB is maxed out.


Seriously? Read slow from the first post again.

It's a longer A350 with 35K MTOW. Trade some of fuel/extra cargo for body capable to take 30-40-50 persons more. If you're good with trading 40 extra seats for only just below 5000nm at MTOW, this is the target for such a concept.

Ironically, how much more thrust did the 78J need next to 789? ;) It's also 30+ seats longer...

Cheers,
Adam


Yeah, so no, not good with trading seats for range aircraft wont sell into the 78J space, it needs to attack the 777X space, so Airbus will need more power.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4527
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:19 am

BoeingVista wrote:
gloom wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
Airbus would need more power though and the TWXB is maxed out.


Seriously? Read slow from the first post again.

It's a longer A350 with 35K MTOW. Trade some of fuel/extra cargo for body capable to take 30-40-50 persons more. If you're good with trading 40 extra seats for only just below 5000nm at MTOW, this is the target for such a concept.

Ironically, how much more thrust did the 78J need next to 789? ;) It's also 30+ seats longer...

Cheers,
Adam


Yeah, so no, not good with trading seats for range aircraft wont sell into the 78J space, it needs to attack the 777X space, so Airbus will need more power.


Well you may be starting from the wrong space to start with. The A35K significantly out-payload ranges the 779X. If we model the performance of an increased length A35k (often referred to as the A350-2000) to 80m then it will have the same cabin area as the 779X. If we increase the relevant weights such that the maximum payload of the A35k is maintained then at 316t MTOW the aircraft would be able to match the spec performance (426pax to 7285nm) and at 319t MTOW would be capable of taking the 426pax to ~7500nm.

The limitation of this aircraft may well be rotation angle but at its current thrust levels are not an issue. An A359 stretched to A35k lengths would be playing in the same space as the B78J but the A35K plays in the performance space of the B778 and in the fuel burn per seat space of the B779X.

Fred
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:47 am

flipdewaf wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
gloom wrote:

Seriously? Read slow from the first post again.

It's a longer A350 with 35K MTOW. Trade some of fuel/extra cargo for body capable to take 30-40-50 persons more. If you're good with trading 40 extra seats for only just below 5000nm at MTOW, this is the target for such a concept.

Ironically, how much more thrust did the 78J need next to 789? ;) It's also 30+ seats longer...

Cheers,
Adam


Yeah, so no, not good with trading seats for range aircraft wont sell into the 78J space, it needs to attack the 777X space, so Airbus will need more power.


Well you may be starting from the wrong space to start with. The A35K significantly out-payload ranges the 779X. If we model the performance of an increased length A35k (often referred to as the A350-2000) to 80m then it will have the same cabin area as the 779X. If we increase the relevant weights such that the maximum payload of the A35k is maintained then at 316t MTOW the aircraft would be able to match the spec performance (426pax to 7285nm) and at 319t MTOW would be capable of taking the 426pax to ~7500nm.

The limitation of this aircraft may well be rotation angle but at its current thrust levels are not an issue. An A359 stretched to A35k lengths would be playing in the same space as the B78J but the A35K plays in the performance space of the B778 and in the fuel burn per seat space of the B779X.

Fred


7250-7500nm is fine, if you can get that range with a A350-1200 (tm) at the same weights it shouldn't be a problem. As I understand it A359 MTOW is limited by landing gear so you can stretch a A359 to A35K lengths but you are not going to get A35K MTOW.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4527
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:52 pm

BoeingVista wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:

Yeah, so no, not good with trading seats for range aircraft wont sell into the 78J space, it needs to attack the 777X space, so Airbus will need more power.


Well you may be starting from the wrong space to start with. The A35K significantly out-payload ranges the 779X. If we model the performance of an increased length A35k (often referred to as the A350-2000) to 80m then it will have the same cabin area as the 779X. If we increase the relevant weights such that the maximum payload of the A35k is maintained then at 316t MTOW the aircraft would be able to match the spec performance (426pax to 7285nm) and at 319t MTOW would be capable of taking the 426pax to ~7500nm.

The limitation of this aircraft may well be rotation angle but at its current thrust levels are not an issue. An A359 stretched to A35k lengths would be playing in the same space as the B78J but the A35K plays in the performance space of the B778 and in the fuel burn per seat space of the B779X.

Fred


7250-7500nm is fine, if you can get that range with a A350-1200 (tm) at the same weights it shouldn't be a problem. As I understand it A359 MTOW is limited by landing gear so you can stretch a A359 to A35K lengths but you are not going to get A35K MTOW.

Ah yes, I see keeping the A359MTOW and getting A35k length. This will still get you just above 7knm with a full pax load. It’s still closer to 779x spec range than to 78J spec range however.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:09 pm

A359 now has 283t MTOW - every little helps for a "simple stretch"
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:10 pm

There was talk of an engine PiP in the context of Sunrise but whatever that may comprise may not be applicable to the TXWB 84 on the 359
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:07 pm

I think aircraft like the A350-1000 arr underused on e.g. TATL flight up to 4000NM. But they carry 25t of freight to compensate. A light -900 stretch wouldn't that revenue opportunity.
 
CowAnon
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:24 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
RR has developed a very different design to PW's gear - so no patent lawyers necessary!

"(The gear system) is a planetary-style gearbox with a ring gear on the outside and five planet gears inside, rotating around a central sun gear. The design drives the fan from a centrally mounted planet carrier unlike the star-style gear system used in Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan."


PW tested planetary-style gear systems in the 1990s. Maybe some of their patents cover that style of gearing, or are agnostic to the specific type of gearing system?

There are a couple of good diagrams that show how the planetary-style and star-style gearboxes operate in a Pratt & Whitney-authored book chapter here:

    Green Aviation (2016)
    Chapter 11: Geared Turbofan Engine: Driven by Innovation
    https://books.google.com/books?id=0E8eDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA107

    The gear arrangements in Figure 3 are referred to as epicyclic systems. Input torque from the low turbine shaft drives the sun gear in both configurations. The sun gear then drives an intermediate gear (star or planet), which then engages a ring gear. When the carrier is fixed in a Star system, the star gears drive a ring gear which in turn drives the fan shaft. The star arrangement is best suited for reduction ratios between 1.5 and 3.0 and also when counterrotation is desired between the fan and the low turbine. The Planetary system utilizes a fixed ring gear and allows the carrier to rotate the fan shaft. The Planet system is best suited for higher reduction ratios from 3.0 to 5.0 and when it is desired to have the fan and low turbine corotate. Sheridan and Hasel (2014a, 2014b) describe the mathematical relationships between the different components. The PW1000G family of engines selected the Star system because the gear ratio for these engines fell within the desired range and the counterrotation effects of the fan and the low turbine were aerodynamically favorable to the turbo-machinery configuration of each application.

Interestingly, PW chose the star-style system even though the reduction ratio for its GTF is 3.0625, just outside of the 1.5-3.0 range that they determined was optimal for the star-style gearing. With the reduction ratios supposedly needing to be increased for larger widebody twin engines, maybe PW will have to change to the planetary-style system too?

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