It seems Airbus is not sitting on their hands on the A350 it launched 15 years ago. Continued investment seems the road ahead despite the production rate only slowly recovering to 60-75 per year and a backlog of ~440. A slowly evolving mid life upgrade it seems~to meet new/ changed market requirements.

Cockpit
Programs are ongoing with airlines and authorities to enable reduced crew (single pilot) during stages of flight. Communication systems, cockpits, crew rests and even lavatories would be adjusted to ensure enhanced monitoring and awareness is created for all involved. https://www.flyingmag.com/story/news/ca ... ong-hauls/

Engines
Following contract extension with RR, new engine technology matures, new fan technology, gearboxes and materials being tested. https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ecord.aspx

Cabin
New cabin technologies which could be featured in the future in all Airspace cabins, are tested on a A350 for development and certification purposes. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news ... t-aircraft

New derivatives
Freighter. Airbus is actively promoting a A350-950F freighter variant, a 100t~, the first all composite freighter I guess. EIS is foreseen in 2025 and we might hear more next week in Dubai. https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 81.article

Capacity. Over the years Airbus looked at stretching the A350, to a 400 seat 777-9 competitor. This development was shelved in recent years, with other priorities prevailing. But would be restarted if demand recovers for large widebodies in a few years. Meanwhile capacity improvement programs are commencing (new galleys, lav's) https://www.executivetraveller.com/airb ... -a350-2000

Payload-Range Demand for additional payload-range seems present in Qantas' upcoming Sunrise A350 order. A350 would connect Australia East Coast to US East coast and Europe. A higher A350 MTOW would enable enhanced capacity, payload, range or a combination. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ ... index.html


source: keesje

It seems in the second half of this decade we slowly see an A350 Next Gen production standard evolving from all ongoing developments, consolidating marketshare in the central 300-350 seat long haul segment. Still many A330s, A340s and 777s will come up for replacement this decade and worldwide government show a reduced flexibility towards aircraft emissions.

I could imagine a 283T A350-950 or 1000 (simple stretch).
A 319-325t A350-1050 or 1100 simple stretch possibly with folding wing tips.

Below it would depend on the fate of the A330NEO and subsequently Airbus willingness to create a lighter/smaller A350 derivative to more effectively compete with an updated 787.

I’m struggling to figure out what single pilot A350 operations means. My understanding is that Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to allow only one pilot in the flight deck during cruise so that they don’t need to fly with augmented crews for long flights. Whether Airbus can convince the regulators that 8+ hour flights are acceptable with only two pilots on the plane is a mystery to me. Anyone know if any regulatory authority will actually buy off on the concept?

Is it actually feasible or is it marketing bluster?

keesje wrote:

Following contract extension with RR, new engine technology matures, new fan technology, gearboxes and materials being tested. https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ecord.aspx

TFA says:

This makes the engine very efficient, making the UltraFan engine 25% more fuel efficient than the first generation of Rolls-Royce Trent engines.

Presumably this 1st gen engine is T700 with EIS in 1995 ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... #Trent_700 ). Suggests fuel burn improvement is going to be 0.8% per year whereas most sources would suggest historical fuel burn improvement has been more like 1.3% per year ( ref: https://theicct.org/publications/fuel-e ... -1960-2014 ). Suggests what I've read earlier that the low hanging fruit for fuel burn improvement has been harvested and future gains will be smaller and harder to realize relative to historical norms.

Personally I have a hard time seeing a cash-strapped company like RR decide to put an all-new engine into production for a plane they already have an exclusive franchise on. It would unfortunate to have to pour money into a program that you already have an exclusive on at a time when cash flow is so low.

I guess time will tell if that's how things play out.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I’m struggling to figure out what single pilot A350 operations means. My understanding is that Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to allow only one pilot in the flight deck during cruise so that they don’t need to fly with augmented crews for long flights. Whether Airbus can convince the regulators that 8+ hour flights are acceptable with only two pilots on the plane is a mystery to me. Anyone know if any regulatory authority will actually buy off on the concept?

Is it actually feasible or is it marketing bluster?

Here's six pages of posts from only four months ago:

viewtopic.php?t=1461873

Hopefully it all doesn't get typed in all over again.

I think you will find that EASA is actively involved in refining the concept.

Airbus needs to do something to the A350 to win orders. The 787 has outsold it 296 to 95 in the past 5 years.

158 777 orders in the same timeframe versus 95 A350s also don’t bode well for the A350 unless the freighter version becomes a smash hit.

Revelation wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I’m struggling to figure out what single pilot A350 operations means. My understanding is that Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to allow only one pilot in the flight deck during cruise so that they don’t need to fly with augmented crews for long flights. Whether Airbus can convince the regulators that 8+ hour flights are acceptable with only two pilots on the plane is a mystery to me. Anyone know if any regulatory authority will actually buy off on the concept?

Is it actually feasible or is it marketing bluster?

Here's six pages of posts from only four months ago:

viewtopic.php?t=1461873

Hopefully it all doesn't get typed in all over again.

I think you will find that EASA is actively involved in refining the concept.

That thread didn’t have a whole lot of technical detail about what they are doing to the A350. There may be no actual new information in this thread

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I’m struggling to figure out what single pilot A350 operations means. My understanding is that Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to allow only one pilot in the flight deck during cruise so that they don’t need to fly with augmented crews for long flights. Whether Airbus can convince the regulators that 8+ hour flights are acceptable with only two pilots on the plane is a mystery to me. Anyone know if any regulatory authority will actually buy off on the concept?

Is it actually feasible or is it marketing bluster?

I think the challenge is to convince the regulator a new design / interface / communications can make a flight safer, despite 1 pilot in the cockpit seat. From what I read it would include cockpit instrument modifications, enhanced crew monitoring (both automated & ground), crew rests, lav's positioned so that a second crew member can be warned & back in his seat at short notice if required. In practice e.g. with one pilot in the lavatory while the other has a heart attack, both would be noticed, as well as ATC.

Compared to 25 years ago, we already saw autoland, brake to vacate, emergency autoland (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSMPduA0vH8), and Autonomous Taxi, Take-Off and Landing (ATTOL). https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ight-tests .

So the possibilities to convince authorities reserve crew on board can be reduced, seem to be growing. Airbus and airlines are trying to certify this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXj3NfEIWfA

I just ran a model on a 80m A350 (a lengthened A35K), this gives almost identical cabin area to the 779X.

I assumed an OWE of 158t with a MZFW of 233t and MTOW of 323t and it had a range with 420 pax and bags of ~7700nm.

I have done an analysis on a stretch of the A359 to A35K length (simple stretch but I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

keesje wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I’m struggling to figure out what single pilot A350 operations means. My understanding is that Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to allow only one pilot in the flight deck during cruise so that they don’t need to fly with augmented crews for long flights. Whether Airbus can convince the regulators that 8+ hour flights are acceptable with only two pilots on the plane is a mystery to me. Anyone know if any regulatory authority will actually buy off on the concept?

Is it actually feasible or is it marketing bluster?

I think the challenge is to convince the regulator a new design / interface / communications can make a flight safer, despite 1 pilot in the cockpit seat. From what I read it would include cockpit instrument modifications, enhanced crew monitoring (both automated & ground), crew rests, lav's positioned so that a second crew member can be warned & back in his seat at short notice if required. In practice e.g. with one pilot in the lavatory while the other has a heart attack, both would be noticed, as well as ATC.

Compared to 25 years ago, we already saw autoland, brake to vacate, emergency autoland (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSMPduA0vH8), and Autonomous Taxi, Take-Off and Landing (ATTOL). https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ight-tests .

So the possibilities to convince authorities reserve crew on board can be reduced, seem to be growing. Airbus and airlines are trying to certify this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXj3NfEIWfA

If Airbus can do it on A350, then others probably won’t be that far behind since it is about the regulatory authority. I don’t see single pilot flying in cruise addressing the lack of orders for the A350 recently compared to the competitors.

flipdewaf wrote:

I just ran a model on a 80m A350 (a lengthened A35K), this gives almost identical cabin area to the 779X.

I assumed an OWE of 158t with a MZFW of 233t and MTOW of 323t and it had a range with 420 pax and bags of ~7700nm.

I have done an analysis on a stretch of the A359 to A35K length (simple stretch but I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Interesting.
Do you have an estimate of how this OEW compares to that of the 777X-9?
What about the induced drag with both at max TOW?
The range of about 7700nm, that is still a bit more range than the 777X-9, correct?

Revelation wrote:

Personally I have a hard time seeing a cash-strapped company like RR decide to put an all-new engine into production for a plane they already have an exclusive franchise on. It would unfortunate to have to pour money into a program that you already have an exclusive on at a time when cash flow is so low.

I guess time will tell if that's how things play out.

It's no use having an exclusive on a program where sales are going to be stagnating if the product is not improved and made competitive against updated competition (787NG with higher MTOW and more efficiency). Not happening short term, but eventually it will.

flipdewaf wrote:

I just ran a model on a 80m A350 (a lengthened A35K), this gives almost identical cabin area to the 779X.

I assumed an OWE of 158t with a MZFW of 233t and MTOW of 323t and it had a range with 420 pax and bags of ~7700nm.

I have done an analysis on a stretch of the A359 to A35K length (simple stretch but I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head.

Fred

Fuel use numbers?

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I’m struggling to figure out what single pilot A350 operations means. My understanding is that Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to allow only one pilot in the flight deck during cruise so that they don’t need to fly with augmented crews for long flights. Whether Airbus can convince the regulators that 8+ hour flights are acceptable with only two pilots on the plane is a mystery to me. Anyone know if any regulatory authority will actually buy off on the concept?

Is it actually feasible or is it marketing bluster?

I think the challenge is to convince the regulator a new design / interface / communications can make a flight safer, despite 1 pilot in the cockpit seat. From what I read it would include cockpit instrument modifications, enhanced crew monitoring (both automated & ground), crew rests, lav's positioned so that a second crew member can be warned & back in his seat at short notice if required. In practice e.g. with one pilot in the lavatory while the other has a heart attack, both would be noticed, as well as ATC.

Compared to 25 years ago, we already saw autoland, brake to vacate, emergency autoland (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSMPduA0vH8), and Autonomous Taxi, Take-Off and Landing (ATTOL). https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ight-tests .

So the possibilities to convince authorities reserve crew on board can be reduced, seem to be growing. Airbus and airlines are trying to certify this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXj3NfEIWfA

If Airbus can do it on A350, then others probably won’t be that far behind since it is about the regulatory authority. I don’t see single pilot flying in cruise addressing the lack of orders for the A350 recently compared to the competitors.

What competitors would that be? Far out C929, production stop 787, slow selling A330NEO, 5 yrs delayed 777x? 767 freighter/KC46?

Apparently Airbus is working with customers on this certification. Indeed other aircraft could probably be modified for it too. Most airliners have two pilots, it's just extendeding the scope. Valuable when costs can crew reduced or there's a shortage..

flipdewaf wrote:

I just ran a model on a 80m A350 (a lengthened A35K), this gives almost identical cabin area to the 779X.

I assumed an OWE of 158t with a MZFW of 233t and MTOW of 323t and it had a range with 420 pax and bags of ~7700nm.

I have done an analysis on a stretch of the A359 to A35K length (simple stretch but I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head.

Fred

That would be a likely development when business recovers in a few years. Years ago discussions were ongoing with Cathay and SQ on a stretch.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Airbus needs to do something to the A350 to win orders. The 787 has outsold it 296 to 95 in the past 5 years.

158 777 orders in the same timeframe versus 95 A350s also don’t bode well for the A350 unless the freighter version becomes a smash hit.

Fallacious to make either comparison, as a standalone.

The first being that while there's indeed overlap in between what 787s and A350s are used for; a 254tonne 789/78X is not evaluated on 1:1 footing with a 280tonne A359, much less a 319tonne A35K. So it doesn't make much sense to just throw 787 against A350 numbers, particularly while ignoring the 251tonne A330Ns, which also compete in the same overlapping segment.

On a more humorous note: seeing as Boeing hasn't even been able to deliver a 787 for over a year, I'm not sure that Airbus is the one who desperately needs to "do something," as orders don't do anyone much good without delivery.
____________________________
As for 777s.... um, not sure that's a great program to be bragging on either, seeing as the only one that's being delivered right now is a freighter, with which the A350 doesn't yet currently compete. The original 777s and re-engined 777s are all but defunct, and the 777X hasn't exactly had a problem-free certification, coming in nearly a half-decade late, if that.

So yeah, not sure where the worry to be seen on Airbus' behalf really is here.

On the need for Airbus to do somethjng, two things:

1 Aviation fuel will get very expensive, very soon.

It has been 2016 since the PW single aisle GTF was introduced into commercial service. The world is changing. The higher the percentage of SAF mixed in the higher the cost. Let alone possible kerosine taxation. We just had Glasgow where many countrues have abandoned fossil energy investment. Companies not addressing that issue will be left behind. Widebody GTF's are long overdue one could say.

2 These developments are not for introduction next year and take time to bring to market.

The current 787 and it's current predicament will have very little to do with where the program will be in 7 years time. The 787 entered into service 10 years ago. In seven years that will be 17 years. Don't count on Boeing still selling the same configuration by that time.

So yes, I reckon Airbus most definitately will need to look at their A350 program future and have not a single doubt they are doing just that.

flipdewaf wrote:

I just ran a model on a 80m A350 (a lengthened A35K), this gives almost identical cabin area to the 779X.

I assumed an OWE of 158t with a MZFW of 233t and MTOW of 323t and it had a range with 420 pax and bags of ~7700nm.

I have done an analysis on a stretch of the A359 to A35K length (simple stretch but I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wonder if they would do a full length stretch or half length. Advantages of half length:

- Better payload preservation.
- "950" freighter and passenger length in sync again (although the value of that might be limited).
- More room for the A330NEO underneeth or, if that programs stalls, say a lightened 260T "A350-850".

LAX772LR wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Airbus needs to do something to the A350 to win orders. The 787 has outsold it 296 to 95 in the past 5 years.

158 777 orders in the same timeframe versus 95 A350s also don’t bode well for the A350 unless the freighter version becomes a smash hit.

Fallacious to make either comparison, as a standalone.

The first being that while there's indeed overlap in between what 787s and A350s are used for; a 254tonne 789/78X is not evaluated on 1:1 footing with a 280tonne A359, much less a 319tonne A35K. So it doesn't make much sense to just throw 787 against A350 numbers, particularly while ignoring the 251tonne A330Ns, which also compete in the same overlapping segment.

On a more humorous note: seeing as Boeing hasn't even been able to deliver a 787 for over a year, I'm not sure that Airbus is the one who desperately needs to "do something," as orders don't do anyone much good without delivery.
____________________________
As for 777s.... um, not sure that's a great program to be bragging on either, seeing as the only one that's being delivered right now is a freighter, with which the A350 doesn't yet currently compete. The original 777s and re-engined 777s are all but defunct, and the 777X hasn't exactly had a problem-free certification, coming in nearly a half-decade late, if that.

So yeah, not sure where the worry to be seen on Airbus' behalf really is here.

Will I agree that it is not a apples to apples comparison, the general theme is that Boeing sells more widebodies compared to Airbus and visa versa in narrowbodies where Airbus has the upperhand...

JonesNL wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

So yeah, not sure where the worry to be seen on Airbus' behalf really is here.

Will I agree that it is not a apples to apples comparison, the general theme is that Boeing sells more widebodies compared to Airbus and visa versa in narrowbodies where Airbus has the upperhand...

Sure, but that's even more pointless from the standpoint of "Airbus needs to do something," considering which sector generates the overwhelming majority of airliner manufacturing revenue.......

It is highly unlikely that Airbus will do much in the way of A35K enhancements to capture the Sunrise order. Most likely scenario is that they'll offer a ULR version similar to the -900, i.e. plugging the forward hold and making more of the existing fuel capacity available. Any investment beyond that wouldn't make sense for such a minute market. Keep in mind both the -900 and -1000 are easily capable of being 15-hour machines, and that is more than enough to satisfy 99% of the market.

I don't see any chances of the UltraFan making it to the pylons either, at least not within the next 5-10 years. RR has a monopoly as it is, the engines are performing flawlessly delivering excellent performance, and RR doesn't have two pennies to rub together for R&D.

A -1100 might be a possibility within the next 5-10 years. All depending on how the market develops and whether Boeing can prove there's a market for such a size with the -9X. If the market is there, an -1100 would blow the -9X clean out of the water owing to a much lighter frame, lower fuel consumption, lower maintenance costs (fuel consumption and MX costs are directly proportional to OEW) and superior performance. Airbus will not, however, fit folding wing tips to anything; any -1100 would have to make to with the existing wing. But that would still make for an excellent 10-12 hour machine with industry leading CASM. Question is whether there is a market for a plus-400 seat aircraft. Current sales of the -9X seems to suggest that market is not only limited but is, indeed, shrinking.

The freighter will be most likely be based on the -900, with a small chance of a slight increase in fuselage length to become the -950. If that happens, the -950 fuselage length will be limited to the freighter. However, since MLW is king in the freighter world, could be that they'll create a hybrid using the centre box and gear from the -1000 bolted to a -950 fuselage. That would indeed be the optimum solution: 100 tons payload, 27/28 main-deck ULD positions, 11 hours endurance, 20% lower DOC than the 777F. Basically the freighter equivalent to the 777-200ER and A350-900 "competition" in the passenger world.

No chance of lengthening the -900 to equal the -1000; a fuselage of that length would need a stronger gear to preserve payload performance and, well, that's what the -1000 offers.

SteinarN wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I just ran a model on a 80m A350 (a lengthened A35K), this gives almost identical cabin area to the 779X.

I assumed an OWE of 158t with a MZFW of 233t and MTOW of 323t and it had a range with 420 pax and bags of ~7700nm.

I have done an analysis on a stretch of the A359 to A35K length (simple stretch but I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Interesting.
Do you have an estimate of how this OEW compares to that of the 777X-9?

My estimates put the 779X somewhere about184t

SteinarN wrote:

What about the induced drag with both at max TOW?

at top of climb the A350 is at about 318t and 32000ft with an induced drag of 60.5kn the 779X at 345t at 33000ft has an induced drag of 62.1kn.

The range of the 779x flight was ~7200nm. For reference my model reckons it will go further than Boeing specs.

SteinarN wrote:

The range of about 7700nm, that is still a bit more range than the 777X-9, correct?

according to the specs, yes, but I think the 779X will beat the range specs by a couple of hundred at least.

Taxi645 wrote:

Fuel use numbers?

~111t. for the 7700nm "A350-2000".

At ~7200nm the 779X uses about 110t.
At ~7200nm the A350-2000 uses about 103t

Note, all these models assume a reserve of 70mins at 1500ft on landing.

Fred

Interestingly, RR has been going full speed on the ultrafan, e.g. inflight testing of a geared carbon fan started 4 yrs ago on the companies 747. They build a new test cell and are completing a big Ultrafan variant this year with variable pitch fanblades, seemingly.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... fan-engine

A dedicated Ultrafan could be ready by 2025, but doesn't seem to have a launching platform at this stage. RR secured A350-900 exclusivity until 2030, fighting off GE for now. (Developing a GE engine for A350 would take 5 yrs anyway).

As Revelation said, RR boosts 25% better efficiency over (likely) Trent700. I guess a 95k lbs Ultrafan would do ~10% better sfc than a Trent XWB. But that depends on lots of variables.

In the OP I pasted a slightly larger blueish Carbon Ti fan engine on a company A350-1000 proto. Fanblade technology that RR has developed over the last decade. It would save 1500lbs.


Source: keesje

RR still says Ultrafan will have variable pitch fanblades. People said thrust reverse could be done. Thinking about the airflows and compressor-stall gave me a headache, so probably not.. still optimized angles for TO/climb and cruise could be beneficial.

B777LRF wrote:

A -1100 might be a possibility within the next 5-10 years. All depending on how the market develops and whether Boeing can prove there's a market for such a size with the -9X.

I guess a huge 777-300ER replacement market is upcoming and it seems Boeing might have opened the door by not offering a lean long haul 350 seat replacement. The heavy unlaunched 777-8, range restricted 787-10 and bigger, heavier 777-9 seem to address slightly different market segments.

Agree though that would probably be late this decade earliest. It would likely be driven by requirements of current A350 customers like AF CX, SQ, DL and EK.

JonesNL wrote:

the general theme is that Boeing sells more widebodies compared to Airbus and visa versa in narrowbodies where Airbus has the upperhand...

Yes, you are correct, but it is important to note that the difference is in freighters, and that's why Airbus have launched the A350F.

If we exclude military aircraft and freighters, and look at deliveries of pax widebodies the last 5 years (2017-2021), Boeing have delivered 634 widebodies (50.6%) and Airbus have delivered 620 widebodies (49.4%).

(Narrowbody deliveries the last 5 years (2017-2021): Boeing 1376 (32.8%), Airbus 2817 (67.2%)).

There will never be a way to compare the companies completely fairly. Selected time frame etc., groundings, ramp-up phase, looking at deliveries or orders etc., will all influence the results. Unfilled widebody pax orders are also almost 50/50. So again, the difference is military tankers and freighters.

I think we will see Airbus working hard, and willing to take initial losses, in order to penetrat the freighter market. Key will be extended single-pilot operations in cruise, as an important differentiator. This can't be easily copied by Boeing.

Further down the road we could see the A350 beeing stretched to 80 meters, but I think reviving the A350-800 have a higher priority. The optimised variant of the -800 was cut due to need for cost reductions and to avoid delays on the A350 programme. Next the variant that was just a shorter -900 was also cut. The latter wasn't competitive enough against the 787-9, especially due to the oversized engines and extra weight. I think we will see a highly optimized A350-800 when it is time to re-engine the A350 family with the ultrafan. The exact timing will also depend on what will happen to the A330. If Airbus accually wins the next US tanker contract, the A330 will be in production for at least 15 more years. That could delay the A350-800.

The A350-1000 Sunrise is an intersting topic. 2 years ago, Airbus assured everybody no additonal fuel capacity would be required for the Australia UK routes (9200NM+)

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/10/1 ... t-sunrise/

Earlier this year Airbus upped A350-1000 MTOW to 319t. Probably for the QF and freighter requirements.

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 72.article

Most recent articles mention a special additional fuel tank for the QF A350s. If it will be a removable ACT or a fixed one like on the A321XLR's is unclear to me.

A stretched A359 to A35K length would already be capable of taking 365 pax (35k capacity) ~7000nm. with 143t OWE and using 92t of fuel. MZFW (Assuming the same ~73t of the A35k) would be about (4100nm).

Fred

I think the 1000 variant is not a strong seller - most airlines preferred the 900 variant. I wish GeNX(like on the 787 Dreamliner) can power the A350 besides RR.

LAX772LR wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

So yeah, not sure where the worry to be seen on Airbus' behalf really is here.

Will I agree that it is not a apples to apples comparison, the general theme is that Boeing sells more widebodies compared to Airbus and visa versa in narrowbodies where Airbus has the upperhand...

Sure, but that's even more pointless from the standpoint of "Airbus needs to do something," considering which sector generates the overwhelming majority of airliner manufacturing revenue.......

I view it as more important for Airbus to invest in its widebodies since otherwise the backlog will continue to dwindle and production rates then will go down and hurt Airbus’ balance sheet.

95 orders in the past 5 years for the A350 is a problem when Boeing has far more orders for the each of its three widebodies 767, 777 and 787. Perhaps the freighter version will address this sales gap.

flipdewaf wrote:

A stretched A359 to A35K length would already be capable of taking 365 pax (35k capacity) ~7000nm. with 143t OWE and using 92t of fuel. MZFW (Assuming the same ~73t of the A35k) would be about (4100nm).

Fred

Then imagine Ultrafans strapped to it. Fuel burn per seat would be in another league and with acceptable range for many airliners.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Will I agree that it is not a apples to apples comparison, the general theme is that Boeing sells more widebodies compared to Airbus and visa versa in narrowbodies where Airbus has the upperhand...

Sure, but that's even more pointless from the standpoint of "Airbus needs to do something," considering which sector generates the overwhelming majority of airliner manufacturing revenue.......

I view it as more important for Airbus to invest in its widebodies since otherwise the backlog will continue to dwindle and production rates then will go down and hurt Airbus’ balance sheet.

95 orders in the past 5 years for the A350 is a problem when Boeing has far more orders for the each of its three widebodies 767, 777 and 787. Perhaps the freighter version will address this sales gap.

I think the A350 deliveries, backlog & outlook are relatively ok.


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

The last two years saw an unprecedented aviation crisis, generalizing that seems a bit impractical.
Current A350 production rate is 60/yr, growing to 74/yr in two years. Backlog 443. So there's a buffer.

Market recovery, aging fleets, competitor issues and a strong satisfied A350 customer base should assure normal sales over the years.


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

Two A350 prototypes are completing a test flight flying in close formation across the Atlantic, to YUL. Apparently to study fuel reductions of close formation flying.
An A350-900 and a -1000

https://www.radarbox.com/flight/AIB02

Taxi645 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Personally I have a hard time seeing a cash-strapped company like RR decide to put an all-new engine into production for a plane they already have an exclusive franchise on. It would unfortunate to have to pour money into a program that you already have an exclusive on at a time when cash flow is so low.

I guess time will tell if that's how things play out.

It's no use having an exclusive on a program where sales are going to be stagnating if the product is not improved and made competitive against updated competition (787NG with higher MTOW and more efficiency). Not happening short term, but eventually it will.

Where you see stagnation, I see monetization. They really need to convert the backlog into dollars/pounds/euros and get some balance back to the balance sheets after the T1000 disaster led into COVID stagnation. Power by the hour is great, except when the longhaul market goes on pause for a year or two due to a pandemic. Right now they've built out a lot of power that's not generating many hours. Hopefully things like the recent US border openings will lead to a good summer 2022 and a better understanding of what the new norm will be.

B777LRF wrote:

I don't see any chances of the UltraFan making it to the pylons either, at least not within the next 5-10 years. RR has a monopoly as it is, the engines are performing flawlessly delivering excellent performance, and RR doesn't have two pennies to rub together for R&D.

They're doing the right thing, keeping the tech development moving forward via demonstrators. Sooner or later it'll make sense to move that investment into production, but more later than sooner. T1000 shows what can happen if you release tech too aggressively.

flipdewaf wrote:

A stretched A359 to A35K length would already be capable of taking 365 pax (35k capacity) ~7000nm. with 143t OWE and using 92t of fuel. MZFW (Assuming the same ~73t of the A35k) would be about (4100nm).

Fred

I don't have much knowledge of aviation technology, but when you say stretching the A359 to A35K length, my first reaction is that the stretched A359 would BECOME an A35K. Obviously not, so what would the difference be and how would this be advantageous to an airline under the right requirements?

spinotter wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A stretched A359 to A35K length would already be capable of taking 365 pax (35k capacity) ~7000nm. with 143t OWE and using 92t of fuel. MZFW (Assuming the same ~73t of the A35k) would be about (4100nm).

Fred

I don't have much knowledge of aviation technology, but when you say stretching the A359 to A35K length, my first reaction is that the stretched A359 would BECOME an A35K. Obviously not, so what would the difference be and how would this be advantageous to an airline under the right requirements?

There are a number of changes from the A359->A35k.
Increased length
Increased wing area by virtue of a trailing edge extension
Increase weights all round (MZFW from ~198-> 223t, MTOW from 280->319t, OWE 135->149t)
the resulting increase in weights needs an increase in landing gear and the A35k has a 6 wheel main bogey as opposed to the A359s 4.
The engines on the A35k are also more powerful giving up to 97klb of thrust as compared to the 359s 84,200lb.

There are more changes under the surface but these are the big ones that really change the performance and are noticeable.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

spinotter wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A stretched A359 to A35K length would already be capable of taking 365 pax (35k capacity) ~7000nm. with 143t OWE and using 92t of fuel. MZFW (Assuming the same ~73t of the A35k) would be about (4100nm).

Fred

I don't have much knowledge of aviation technology, but when you say stretching the A359 to A35K length, my first reaction is that the stretched A359 would BECOME an A35K. Obviously not, so what would the difference be and how would this be advantageous to an airline under the right requirements?

There are a number of changes from the A359->A35k.
Increased length
Increased wing area by virtue of a trailing edge extension
Increase weights all round (MZFW from ~198-> 223t, MTOW from 280->319t, OWE 135->149t)
the resulting increase in weights needs an increase in landing gear and the A35k has a 6 wheel main bogey as opposed to the A359s 4.
The engines on the A35k are also more powerful giving up to 97klb of thrust as compared to the 359s 84,200lb.

There are more changes under the surface but these are the big ones that really change the performance and are noticeable.

Fred

Thank you. Great answer and I learned something today.

trends seem to be towards downsizing. when the 77W replacements really start in earnest, it will be interesting to see what buyers prefer... 789, 7810 or A359, A35K. Of course some will upgauge to the 779, but most will probably go smaller.

Discussions on this thread referred to the relative strength of Boeing and Airbus in the passenger widebody sector.

Checked the figures and they are very close with Boing slightly on top.

In 2019, the year before the pandemic devastated the travel industry Boeing delivered 178 frames and Airbus 168.

Current unfilled order books are Boeing 817 ( 488 787s and 329 777s ) and Airbus 758 ( 470 A350s and 288 A330s ).

Geoff

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Personally I have a hard time seeing a cash-strapped company like RR decide to put an all-new engine into production for a plane they already have an exclusive franchise on. It would unfortunate to have to pour money into a program that you already have an exclusive on at a time when cash flow is so low.

I guess time will tell if that's how things play out.

It's no use having an exclusive on a program where sales are going to be stagnating if the product is not improved and made competitive against updated competition (787NG with higher MTOW and more efficiency). Not happening short term, but eventually it will.

Where you see stagnation, I see monetization. They really need to convert the backlog into dollars/pounds/euros and get some balance back to the balance sheets after the T1000 disaster led into COVID stagnation. Power by the hour is great, except when the longhaul market goes on pause for a year or two due to a pandemic. Right now they've built out a lot of power that's not generating many hours. Hopefully things like the recent US border openings will lead to a good summer 2022 and a better understanding of what the new norm will be.

Zoomed in on RR itself I would agree. If we zoom out a bit, the perspective changes. The world won't wait for RR for ever. As said, SAF and taxation will dramatically change aviation fuel cost. Yes, SFC improvements have become increasingly difficult to attain, but also, ROI on fuel efficiency improvements will improve. The competitive advantage of efficient designs will increase and conversely, less efficient design will stall in sales more quickly.

That's the economic pressure. Then there is the politic pressure. Changes are demanded from every industry, just carry-on doing what everyone is doing is not an option. Not updating (the efficiency of) the A350 just because a engine manufacturers has financial difficulty and likes to improve it's financial situation by underinvesting from the outside will be viewed as a micro-argument. Outside the aviation cosmos there will be little tolerance for it.

flipdewaf wrote:

SteinarN wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I just ran a model on a 80m A350 (a lengthened A35K), this gives almost identical cabin area to the 779X.

I assumed an OWE of 158t with a MZFW of 233t and MTOW of 323t and it had a range with 420 pax and bags of ~7700nm.

I have done an analysis on a stretch of the A359 to A35K length (simple stretch but I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Interesting.
Do you have an estimate of how this OEW compares to that of the 777X-9?

My estimates put the 779X somewhere about184t

SteinarN wrote:

What about the induced drag with both at max TOW?

at top of climb the A350 is at about 318t and 32000ft with an induced drag of 60.5kn the 779X at 345t at 33000ft has an induced drag of 62.1kn.

The range of the 779x flight was ~7200nm. For reference my model reckons it will go further than Boeing specs.

SteinarN wrote:

The range of about 7700nm, that is still a bit more range than the 777X-9, correct?

according to the specs, yes, but I think the 779X will beat the range specs by a couple of hundred at least.

Taxi645 wrote:

Fuel use numbers?

~111t. for the 7700nm "A350-2000".

At ~7200nm the 779X uses about 110t.
At ~7200nm the A350-2000 uses about 103t

Note, all these models assume a reserve of 70mins at 1500ft on landing.

Fred

Thank you for more information

You numbers must mean that an 80m A350 with the same capacity as the 777-9X have considerably less parasitic drag (but considerably more induced drag per weight unit). The wings have less surface ofc, so less parasitic drag there. I dont know the fuselage...
Your numbers do suggest about 6 percent less fuel consumption per passenger seat miles if they have the same number of seats. This with a half generation older engines.
An A350 @80m lenght with a RR Ultrafan would pretty much make the B777X completely obsolete. More than 10 percent reduction in seat/mile fuel consumption?

Geoff1947 wrote:

Discussions on this thread referred to the relative strength of Boeing and Airbus in the passenger widebody sector.

Checked the figures and they are very close with Boing slightly on top.

In 2019, the year before the pandemic devastated the travel industry Boeing delivered 178 frames and Airbus 168.

Current unfilled order books are Boeing 817 ( 488 787s and 329 777s ) and Airbus 758 ( 470 A350s and 288 A330s ).

Geoff

Boeing hardly delivered 777x or 787 last year, so that put them ahead on unfilled orders? Interesting..

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

when the 77W replacements really start in earnest, it will be interesting to see what buyers prefer... 789, 7810 or A359, A35K. Of course some will upgauge to the 779, but most will probably go smaller.

That's just it: there won't really be any one. You'll see the market segment, because airlines will be able to choose a model that pinpoints their targeted usage for their 77Ws.

Go back 20yrs and you didn't have much choice for replacing a 747: you went A346, 77W (which were almost two sides of the same coin) or A380.
That was pretty much it. Maybe a 772ER, if you just plain didn't need the capacity.

Nowadays, that's not the case. You have all the models you listed, as well as some (e.g. A339) that you didn't, all of which can replace various aspects of what airlines used their 77Ws for.

And don't be surprised if you see plenty of splits: because of the number of competitive options, there's far less reason for the "1 manufacturer/model fits all"

Taxi645 wrote:

Zoomed in on RR itself I would agree. If we zoom out a bit, the perspective changes. The world won't wait for RR for ever. As said, SAF and taxation will dramatically change aviation fuel cost. Yes, SFC improvements have become increasingly difficult to attain, but also, ROI on fuel efficiency improvements will improve. The competitive advantage of efficient designs will increase and conversely, less efficient design will stall in sales more quickly.

That's the economic pressure. Then there is the politic pressure. Changes are demanded from every industry, just carry-on doing what everyone is doing is not an option. Not updating (the efficiency of) the A350 just because a engine manufacturers has financial difficulty and likes to improve it's financial situation by underinvesting from the outside will be viewed as a micro-argument. Outside the aviation cosmos there will be little tolerance for it.

No need to zoom out, Airbus has committed itself to RR exclusively on the A350 for the next decade.

RR isn't under investing in the technology, they're developing it to the demonstrator level, with no risk of anyone else bumping the off the A350 for the next decade.

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Zoomed in on RR itself I would agree. If we zoom out a bit, the perspective changes. The world won't wait for RR for ever. As said, SAF and taxation will dramatically change aviation fuel cost. Yes, SFC improvements have become increasingly difficult to attain, but also, ROI on fuel efficiency improvements will improve. The competitive advantage of efficient designs will increase and conversely, less efficient design will stall in sales more quickly.

That's the economic pressure. Then there is the politic pressure. Changes are demanded from every industry, just carry-on doing what everyone is doing is not an option. Not updating (the efficiency of) the A350 just because a engine manufacturers has financial difficulty and likes to improve it's financial situation by underinvesting from the outside will be viewed as a micro-argument. Outside the aviation cosmos there will be little tolerance for it.

No need to zoom out, Airbus has committed itself to RR exclusively on the A350 for the next decade.

RR isn't under investing in the technology, they're developing it to the demonstrator level, with no risk of anyone else bumping the off the A350 for the next decade.

There is a need to zoom out. Even a legal contract can become obsolete if the context in which it was created and the world to which it applies does not exist anymore in the same form.

Lot's of car manufacturers might have lot's of legal contracts whith combustion engine related suppliers. If they're not selling or producng meaningful numbers of combustion engjnes cars in a few years than those contracts have been outdated by a new reality.

In aviation, because of weight is everything, change will be more graduate, but still things won't be the same as 5 years ago.

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Zoomed in on RR itself I would agree. If we zoom out a bit, the perspective changes. The world won't wait for RR for ever. As said, SAF and taxation will dramatically change aviation fuel cost. Yes, SFC improvements have become increasingly difficult to attain, but also, ROI on fuel efficiency improvements will improve. The competitive advantage of efficient designs will increase and conversely, less efficient design will stall in sales more quickly.

That's the economic pressure. Then there is the politic pressure. Changes are demanded from every industry, just carry-on doing what everyone is doing is not an option. Not updating (the efficiency of) the A350 just because a engine manufacturers has financial difficulty and likes to improve it's financial situation by underinvesting from the outside will be viewed as a micro-argument. Outside the aviation cosmos there will be little tolerance for it.

No need to zoom out, Airbus has committed itself to RR exclusively on the A350 for the next decade.

RR isn't under investing in the technology, they're developing it to the demonstrator level, with no risk of anyone else bumping the off the A350 for the next decade.

To add, I think Airbus is not particularly unhappy with the current split in WB. It could be better, but the next couple of years will be in slow post-pandemic mode. The freighter market will bring some relief, but the need for a NEO is not there. Same for Boeing, they need to monetize this decade and minimize Covid damages on supply chain…

Keesje, why do you always put a fly on the pictures?

smithhaddon123, these days it's easy to create make high quality graphics and they spread quickly without the disclaimers. The fly is an effort to prevent fake news / miss information. If it's removed it's deliberate and becomes a new creation / source.

keesje wrote:

I think the A350 deliveries, backlog & outlook are relatively ok.


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

The last two years saw an unprecedented aviation crisis, generalizing that seems a bit impractical.
Current A350 production rate is 60/yr, growing to 74/yr in two years. Backlog 443. So there's a buffer.

Market recovery, aging fleets, competitor issues and a strong satisfied A350 customer base should assure normal sales over the years.

I think that Wikipedia chart explains why Airbus NEEDS to invest in the A350 to make it better. The freighter version could provide change the trajectory

Does Airbus really view less than 100 gross orders since 2013 as relatively ok?

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the A350 deliveries, backlog & outlook are relatively ok.


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

The last two years saw an unprecedented aviation crisis, generalizing that seems a bit impractical.
Current A350 production rate is 60/yr, growing to 74/yr in two years. Backlog 443. So there's a buffer.

Market recovery, aging fleets, competitor issues and a strong satisfied A350 customer base should assure normal sales over the years.

I think that Wikipedia chart explains why Airbus NEEDS to invest in the A350 to make it better. The freighter version could provide change the trajectory

Does Airbus really view less than 100 gross orders since 2013 as relatively ok?

I think it's a bit of an industry thing. You can't just select time frame, cherry pick types confirming what you like & generalize.

Airbus might be happy with the A350 where they are anno 2021. Airlines like Korean, Qantas, Air France and ANA have to order big twins soon, and some bigger A350/777x customers like SQ, CX, BA, EK and Lufthansa might be reviewing their risk positions. `

The A350 ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030, aren't for closing a gab or addressing a need to invest. It seems they ensure Airbus is ready to further strengthen the portfolio when the market asks / is willing to invest. E.g. next week in Dubai, Scherer probably presented A350 proposals to the local airline, like he did 2 years ago.

Stop toying with us Keejse, bring out the Airbus A350 Ecoliner version.

william wrote:

Stop toying with us Keejse, bring out the Airbus A350 Ecoliner version.

Ecoliner was more of a metal fuselage Boeing 777 derivative, http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160 ... 1192486395, development time 7 years would have seen EIS in 2014 . Instead they decided to stretch & rewing / re-engine the 777, EIS 2025?

keesje wrote:

Airbus might be happy with the A350 where they are anno 2021. Airlines like Korean, Qantas, Air France and ANA have to order big twins soon, and some bigger A350/777x customers like SQ, CX, BA, EK and Lufthansa might be reviewing their risk positions. `

The A350 ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030, aren't for closing a gab or addressing a need to invest. It seems they ensure Airbus is ready to further strengthen the portfolio when the market asks / is willing to invest. E.g. next week in Dubai, Scherer probably presented A350 proposals to the local airline, like he did 2 years ago.

If you think Airbus is happy that the 767, 777 and 787 are all outselling the A350 in recent years, then I think you are looking through rose colored glasses. There is a sales gap, which requires investment and enhancements to the A350 to close otherwise Boeing is headed towards having over 60% of the widebody market.

keesje wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I’m struggling to figure out what single pilot A350 operations means. My understanding is that Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to allow only one pilot in the flight deck during cruise so that they don’t need to fly with augmented crews for long flights. Whether Airbus can convince the regulators that 8+ hour flights are acceptable with only two pilots on the plane is a mystery to me. Anyone know if any regulatory authority will actually buy off on the concept?

Is it actually feasible or is it marketing bluster?

I think the challenge is to convince the regulator a new design / interface / communications can make a flight safer, despite 1 pilot in the cockpit seat. From what I read it would include cockpit instrument modifications, enhanced crew monitoring (both automated & ground), crew rests, lav's positioned so that a second crew member can be warned & back in his seat at short notice if required. In practice e.g. with one pilot in the lavatory while the other has a heart attack, both would be noticed, as well as ATC.

Compared to 25 years ago, we already saw autoland, brake to vacate, emergency autoland (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSMPduA0vH8), and Autonomous Taxi, Take-Off and Landing (ATTOL). https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ight-tests .

So the possibilities to convince authorities reserve crew on board can be reduced, seem to be growing. Airbus and airlines are trying to certify this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXj3NfEIWfA

If they want this to rollout without too much pain then they need to make sure that various pilot unions are properly involved and have an actual say. Without pilot buy-in trying to roll such a thing out will take decades longer. I'd be totally ok doing a SIN-LHR flight with only one pilot in the cockpit during cruise. But ONLY if the pilots were happy with the implementation.

I could even see it turn into something like ETOPS/EROPS where an airline has to meet extra requirements to be approved to operate flights in such a form.