Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
2wingtips
Topic Author
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:20 pm

Just doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789, because both are listed with a MTOW of 245t.
What is not known is the fuselage length of the 358, but the 359 is 64m, so I would hedge it would be 59-60m.
787-9 A350-800XWB

Length 64m 59-60m?

MTOW 245t 245t

range 8600-8800nm 8500nm

pax 250-290 270

thrust engines 2x 68klb 2x 75klb


I know not a lot is known about the 350XWB family as yet, but a basic comparison of the above 2 models reveals that the 789 is a longer plane that flies more pax over a greater distance using lower thrust engines. And they both weigh the same. Looks good for the 789 to my untrained eyes.
The 783/8 markets are pretty much untouched by the new XWB family and if the 787-10 can do to the 359XWB, what the 789 appears to do to the 358XWB, then I have to seriously question Airbus' promotion that the 350XWB family is a step ahead of the 787. On what grounds?
When will Airbus be technically proficient enough to go with a civil composite fuselage?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:34 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
I know not a lot is known about the 350XWB family as yet, but a basic comparison of the above 2 models reveals that the 789 is a longer plane that flies more pax over a greater distance using lower thrust engines. And they both weigh the same. Looks good for the 789 to my untrained eyes.

So either Airbus has new super aerodynamics up their sleeve, or are counting on the engines in 2012 being much more efficient than the engines in 2010 (789 EIS). Considering the 358 is the "base" model and the 789 is the "first stretch" it's even more interesting that Airbus claims the plane has better performance...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:46 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
350XWB family is a step ahead of the 787. On what grounds?

I think you just answered your own question. Based on the sketchy info that Airbus released on a plane that is not on offer, the 358XWB will seat about the same number of pax as the 789, will have slightly less range, same MTOW, and yet require 10% more engine thrust.

Good luck to Airbus trying to match the 789 in efficiency. It is just not credible.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:47 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
Just doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789, because both are listed with a MTOW of 245t.
What is not known is the fuselage length of the 358, but the 359 is 64m, so I would hedge it would be 59-60m.
787-9 A350-800XWB

Length 64m 59-60m?

MTOW 245t 245t

range 8600-8800nm 8500nm

pax 250-290 270

thrust engines 2x 68klb 2x 75klb


I know not a lot is known about the 350XWB family as yet, but a basic comparison of the above 2 models reveals that the 789 is a longer plane that flies more pax over a greater distance using lower thrust engines. And they both weigh the same. Looks good for the 789 to my untrained eyes.
The 783/8 markets are pretty much untouched by the new XWB family and if the 787-10 can do to the 359XWB, what the 789 appears to do to the 358XWB, then I have to seriously question Airbus' promotion that the 350XWB family is a step ahead of the 787. On what grounds?
When will Airbus be technically proficient enough to go with a civil composite fuselage?

I think the seating numbers are a bit off because the airbus numbers is 3-class and the higher end for the boeing numbers are for a denser layout. that said, I think the 358 is going to be the poorest performer of the 350 family and the 789 being the best performer. More to the point, I don't think that can really say anything better until we see more details from Airbus.

As for the 787-10 vs. the 359. we'll have to wait a bit to see how Boeing deals with the new competition. As it stands now, the proposed 787-10 was supposed to have the same MTOW as the 787-9. Right off the bat, you then know that they are trading off range for more capacity. It depends on what the engine manufacturers are willing to give Boeing to play with along with how Boeing modifies the design of the fuselage and wings to accomodate these changes (fuel tanks, modified landing gear, modified wings, etc.).

As for the composite thing. I don't think that weight is the great benefit of carbon fiber vs. other advanced materials like AlLi, but rather the advances in manufacturing that it will allow.

I have a bad feeling about this thread...

 scared 

cheers.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:46 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 3):
I think the seating numbers are a bit off because the airbus numbers is 3-class and the higher end for the boeing numbers are for a denser layout.

Both will hold 270 in a typical 3-class configuration with 9Y.

The 789 has a theoretical range of 8700nm in that configuration.

The whole thrust issue has to do with the wing designs. Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.

At least that's how I understand it. So that might be where the efficiency comes? The longer the flight, the balance shifts from the 789 to the 358?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:57 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
When will Airbus be technically proficient enough to go with a civil composite fuselage?

We're comparing two planes neither of which has left the ground yet! But we must be careful on Anet just to assume that because a plane does or doesn't have a particular feature (in this case the comp fuse) it's amazing or rubbish - designing planes is not a "ticking boxes" exercise otherwise it'd be very easy to design them!

I like Ikramerica's theory - which shows comparing planes is not a simple exercise!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:38 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
The whole thrust issue has to do with the wing designs. Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.

My personal observation is the opposite is true, the 320 and later aircraft have very good runway performance. I dont know much about pre 320 aircraft so I cannot comment.

The 350 is a paper aeroplane, it does nothing at the moment, just like the 787. Get them flying and you start getting some useful comparisons.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:54 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
The 350 is a paper aeroplane, it does nothing at the moment, just like the 787.

Well, almost. At this point, both can be considered "paper airplanes", and that is true. Both have "flown" in computer programs that can tell a lot about perfromance, in all aspects of flight. But, at this point, the differences begin. The B-787 is a more mature design, and has been frozen. The A-350 is still new, and is still being defined. The B-787 has completed 1,000s of hours of wind tunnel flight tests, the A-350 has not, although it has had a few wind tunnel tests trying to nail down the final configuration.

Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:11 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.

Did they ? I thought one engine manufacturer has shot itself in the foot with Boeing, not able to power the 781 due to restrictions in that class for the 777.

RR has had an engine for over 110 k for some time, they designed it for the 773ER. Boeing did not approach RR for that.

Open that door, its good for all.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
EDDB
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:46 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:28 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.

So you suggest that Airbus will invest some money in the higher thrust engines that Boeing can save later on?
How's that?
First of all, the engine makers are the ones who do the investment! If they see a business case for an engine, they spend some money and develop it!
Second, if those engines are build anyway sooner or later, what's the advantage or disadvantage for either Airbus or Boeing?
And last but not least, if Airbus is the one coming up with the demand for a specific thrust range for a specific flight profile, the engine is more likely tailormade for them than if you come second and get an engine that has to be adapted to your specific needs...

See ya!
 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:39 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10.

If only was as simple as that... to keep competitive with the 359 the 787-10 will require at the very least wing reinforcement and landing gear redesign,
or else Boeing will end up with a limited range design
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:48 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
Just doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789, because both are listed with a MTOW of 245t.
What is not known is the fuselage length of the 358, but the 359 is 64m, so I would hedge it would be 59-60m.
787-9 A350-800XWB

Sorry just explain to me why you are comparing the 789 with the 358XWB? I might have missed something here. I thought it was 8s for 8s 9s for 9s and 1000s for 1000s plus, for Airbus, for 773ER combined?

Also what is your definition of "a step above"? Is there a figure used by the industry? 5 or 6 per cent improvement seat per seat costs
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3333
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:10 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Since both planes are planned in 3 different versions each, this single question of yours may have at least 3 different answers depending on which versions you want to compare.

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
Doing some comparative studies between the A358XWB and the 789.

It is widely accepted the A350 is optimised for roughly 300 seats, whereas the 787 is a plane clearly optimized for 250 seats only. This becomes obvious when you look at versions which are larger/smaller than this primal focus point of either plane.

It has already been shown by me and other that at its low end, the 787 is in fact an extremely heavy plane for what it is (compared to the A300-600) and only manages to beat this old lady on operating cost thanks to its much newer engines (so not really a merit to the 787 itself), whereas at the high end the proposed 787-10 comes out seriously range limited (compared to the A350-all versions) as a logic consequence of a payload vs range trade off.

As you've pointed out, the A358 is not really beating the 789 through its performance figures, because it is actually a shrink of the baseline A359, whereas the 789 is fully uncompromised in that segment so I think indeed the A358 will not be the best version of the A350.

On the other hand, since the 787 is set somewhat lower in the market it DOES get its but busted when it needs to grow in order to compete with the A350. That's perfectly logic, since composites or not, there is no way you can design an ideal single platform for an entire product range going as wide as 220 to 350 seats, so it is fair to say the 787-10 will not be the greatest version of the 787 either.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.

Before the A350XWB came along, there was some serious interest in the 787-10, which is basically a stretched 787-9 with the usual payload-range trade off because it was the best option. However, the A350-all versions is set to offer airlines (even more than) what the 787-10 offers them in terms of range-capacity, without any such trade-off meaning the 787-10 has lost much of its appeal.

If Boeing wants to compete with the larger versions of the A350 through their 787 platform (something I doubt, but you seem to be suggesting that), they'll need to seriously tweak the 787-10 to give it more range. Range which indeed requires more powerful engines. However, mind you, simply fitting these engines to the 787-10 will not do the trick: to fly further, you'll need more fuel, meaning both VOLUME and WEIGHT.

The increase of weight is what requires more powerful engines for longer haul planes in the first place, but when looking at the current design, increasing the MTOW of the -10 requires at least a centerline wheel assembly to be added and depending on how much extra fuel will be needed to pump up the range of the 787-10 it might also mean stronger/heavier main gear assemblies and most certainly a serious wingbox re-inforcement!

And then there is the problem of fuel volume. More fuel means more fuel tanks, which on your 787-10LR -if I may call the plane that way for a second- will mean less cargo space, exactly the opposite of what you'd want for a bigger plane competing with the already wider (and thus more voluminous) A350XWB.

Seems that with the 787-10 Boeing was flirting with the limits of its design and anything more might be just too demanding. that's why I am having serious doubts whether Boeing will pursue the 787-10 now that the A350XWB has been announced as the narrower fuselage is clearly beginning to play against it although if demand from 787 cutomers is large enough, they may offer it in a way the 767-400ER made it off the drawing board: Inferior, but still more suitable to some.

[Edited 2006-09-01 14:19:17]
 
jfk777
Posts: 7367
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:29 pm

I just wonder why SIA purchased 20 789 and 10 A350 XWD?
 
Alitalia744
Posts: 3800
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 8:22 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:32 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.

I had heard exactly the opposite.
Some see lines, others see between the lines.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:37 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said.

Isn't it the other way around? Hence Boeings faster cruise speeds?
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:10 pm

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 13):
I just wonder why SIA purchased 20 789 and 10 A350 XWD?

isn't it 20 of each?
 
WINGS
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:17 pm

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 13):
I just wonder why SIA purchased 20 789 and 10 A350 XWD?

No that's not correct. SQ signed a MOU with with Boeing for the purchase of 20+20 B789. Two weeks latter they also signed a MOU for 20+20 A359XWB.

The B789 does not compete directly with the A359XWB. Only the proposed B787-10 would compete directly with the A359XWB.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:43 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 17):
Two weeks latter they also signed a MOU for 20+20 A359XWB.

Actually, SQ has "signed" LOIs (Letters of Intent) for both the 787 and the A350XWB, on 14 June and 21 July respectively.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
F14ATomcat
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:26 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:44 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
When will Airbus be technically proficient enough to go with a civil composite fuselage?

Not any time soon.
 
2wingtips
Topic Author
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:44 pm

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11):
Sorry just explain to me why you are comparing the 789 with the 358XWB? I might have missed something here. I thought it was 8s for 8s 9s for 9s and 1000s for 1000s plus, for Airbus, for 773ER combined?

I thought I had explained it. The 789 and the 358XWB have the same MTOW. I think that is a fair grounds for comparison, don't you?
Sabenapilot, thankyou for your considered reply, particularly in regards to the 787-10. I think you are right and the simple 789 trade range for capacity -10, may not occur. I think a 787-10 will now have to be a more expensive to develop model with higher MTOW, higher thrust engines and structural alterations. Capacity wise, it is b/w the 359 and 350-1000. I still think it will happen and Boeing constantly say it is a matter of if and not when. But I don't think a 245t , 7,500nm -10 will cut the mustard against the 350-900/-1000.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
The 350 is a paper aeroplane, it does nothing at the moment, just like the 787. Get them flying and you start getting some useful comparisons.

Fair enough, but airlines have to choose b/w these paper aircraft with data supplied from Airbus/Boeing and paper airplanes are being ordered in great numbers at the moment and no doubt many more 787/350 will be sold this year. I think it's fair enough to do a comparison on the data that is out there, paper airplane or not. It would be more meaningful to see the data on the 787-10 and more detailed data on the 350-800/-1000, however, so both families can be better compared.
 
WINGS
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:44 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 18):
Actually, SQ has "signed" LOIs (Letters of Intent) for both the 787 and the A350XWB, on 14 June and 21 July respectively.

So what exactly is the main difference between a MOU and LOI?

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:10 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
My personal observation is the opposite is true

Zeke is right, you've got that backwards Ikramerica.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
RR has had an engine for over 110 k for some time, they designed it for the 773ER. Boeing did not approach RR for that.

Open that door, its good for all.

No, it's a generation behind. SFC is way too high.

Quoting TP313 (Reply 10):
to keep competitive with the 359 the 787-10 will require at the very least wing reinforcement and landing gear redesign,

The B787 wing is good for 640,000 lbs of lift, so no problem there, just strengthening. The landing gear is good for only about 560,000 lbs, so Boeing would have to add a two-wheel centre bogey just like Airbus had to with the A340-500/600. That would also be needed for a B787F, B787-9ER, or B787-11X, so I expect at some point Boeing will add the centre bogey. Anyone know what the main gear on the A350-1000 will look like? I don't see how they can achieve reasonable T/O and landing weights with eight wheels in the main gear.

Anyway, the A350 will kill the B777. I'm having trouble seeing how the B777 will get to 1000 deliveries. The only advantage I see of the B777 over the A350 is early availability.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:13 pm

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 14):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.

I had heard exactly the opposite.

So do I. Boeing has designed closer to optimum cruise which improves efficiency once at elevation, however this has put the climb portion at a lower efficiency. Boeing needs higher thrust for takeoff for the same MTOW. But Boeing's planes also tend to be lighter for the same payload/range.

I think the 787-10 went quiet as Boeing watches what Airbus does, also having slightly higher thrust engines may allow the -10 to increase its range but stay just under the wing and gear capacity.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:16 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
The whole thrust issue has to do with the wing designs. Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.

You got that backwards. Boeing goes for cruise (and higher speed), Airbus goes for take off performance.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12):
It has already been shown by me and other that at its low end, the 787 is in fact an extremely heavy plane for what it is (compared to the A300-600)

The 787-8/3 is a significantly larger plane than the A306.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12):
Seems that with the 787-10 Boeing was flirting with the limits of its design and anything more might be just too demanding. that's why I am having serious doubts whether Boeing will pursue the 787-10 now that the A350XWB has been announced as the narrower fuselage is clearly beginning to play against it although if demand from 787 cutomers is large enough, they may offer it in a way the 767-400ER made it off the drawing board: Inferior, but still more suitable to some.

The primary limitation on the 787-10 is whether Boeing wants to spend additional money at this time on a more extensively modified variant. That will be in part determined by engine availabilty but more importantly by whether they have the manufacturing line capacity for 3 models intended to sell at high rates. It makes no sense to spend money if the return will be lowered on the other models because you have to build fewer of them to make way for building the 3rd model.

As for the currently defined 787-10, this aircraft will cover the A and B 300 pax markets. This is a large market, and many airlines will be satisified with the capabilities of a ~7500nm -10 if it is more fuel efficient and less costly than the heavier 300 pax A350XWB, for the same reasons the A market A333 sold well despite the 772ER/A343 being more capable. But with the -10 you will have a jet more efficient than the A333 with significantly greater range-payload, so the marketshare division may favor the less capable jet this time.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:36 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Anyway, the A350 will kill the B777. I'm having trouble seeing how the B777 will get to 1000 deliveries. The only advantage I see of the B777 over the A350 is early availability.

Boeing has a backlog of ~3 yrs that will put them at ~850 777s. The -1000 is 8 years away. I have a hard time imagining that they won't sell an additional ~150 777LRs in 5 years.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:53 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
So either Airbus has new super aerodynamics up their sleeve, or are counting on the engines in 2012 being much more efficient than the engines in 2010 (789 EIS). Considering the 358 is the "base" model and the 789 is the "first stretch" it's even more interesting that Airbus claims the plane has better performance...

Well, we all know the history of these "claims," don't we.  bored 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:57 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 21):
So what exactly is the main difference between a MOU and LOI?

In broad legal parlance the terms are essentially synonymous. However, in the context of the aerospace industry, use of the term MOU generally indicates that the parties to a nascent contract are further along in their negotiations, and closer to the final terms of a binding agreement than would be the case if such a "preliminary memorialization" is characterized as a LOI.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
F14ATomcat
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:26 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:05 am

Maybe it is a step behind the 787 / Y3. I expect it will have a tough time competing on the low end. Smaller is more efficient if that is all you need. And it will have a hard time competing agianst a lighter larger Y3. So yes while there will be a nitch for it in the middle, it will will out matched on both ends. Composites are the future and any family that uses more will win out.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27235
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:20 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
RR has had an engine for over 110 k for some time, they designed it for the 773ER. Boeing did not approach RR for that.

Boeing did indeed approach RR, as well as P&W. However GE and P&W demanded exclusivity as they did not believe the "C market" (772LR) would be very big. They were right, but they evidently didn't plan on the 773ER and 777F progams, which were/should be big. Only RR was happy to share. So since only one manufacturer was going to win, regardless, Boeing picked the one most willing to risk-share, and that was GE. Now, if RR had made the better deal, chances are GE would have developed the GE90-11X down the road, but RR would have had a solid head start with the Trent 8104.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12):
...the A350 is optimised for roughly 300 seats, whereas the 787 is...optimized for 250 seats only.

True, but only because Airbus re-scaled the A350XWB to better compete with the 777 since that is where their current product line is weakest, competitively. The A350NSWB was essentially identical to the 787 as it was based on the A330. One needs to take that into account both in the mid-term against the 787 and the long term against Y3, which will be a direct competitor (at minimum) with the A350XWB.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12):
It has already been shown by me and other that at its low end, the 787 is in fact an extremely heavy plane for what it is (compared to the A300-600) and only manages to beat this old lady on operating cost thanks to its much newer engines (so not really a merit to the 787 itself), whereas at the high end the proposed 787-10 comes out seriously range limited (compared to the A350-all versions) as a logic consequence of a payload vs range trade off.

Again, the A306 was not designed to be a medium to long range plane (that mission was the realm of the A310). Compared to the A333 (Airbus' closest replacement model), for example, the 787-3 looks pretty good, being some 35,000lbs lighter, but that's understandable and reasonable because the A333 was designed to be a medium to long range plane so she needs more structure to perform that mission role.

The "original" 787-10 was mostly just a fuselage stretch of the 787-9 with little changes, since MTOW was identical. Fuel volume, for example, was unchanged between the 787-9 and 787-10. As Zvezda has noted, the wings can take more weight and so can the undercarriage (with some additions and/or changes). So Boeing is perfectly capable of putting more fuel volume into the plane which would increase her range.

Quote:
(T)he A358 is not really beating the 789 through its performance figures, because it is actually a shrink of the baseline A359, whereas the 789 is fully uncompromised in that segment so I think indeed the A358 will not be the best version of the A350.

Yet the A358 will be the model most likely baselined against the 787-9, just as the A359 will be baselined against the 772 and the A35G against the 773. The 787-9 may have advantages over the A358, but the A359 and A35G will have advantages over the 772 and 773.

Quote:
On the other hand, since the 787 is set somewhat lower in the market it DOES get its but busted when it needs to grow in order to compete with the A350.

See above - the A350XWB was redefined and enlarged to compete better against the 777 family. Should Y3 aim for the 773 and 747 markets, the A350SWB will get it's "butt busted" trying to grow to compete for the same reasons, as it will be a smaller plane. That's just the way it is, and should not be viewed as an inherent weakness of the A350XWB family no more then the fact the 787 is a smaller plane then the A350XWB should be viewed as an inherent weakness. Afterall, if Airbus had kept with the original A350NSWB, they too would be "busted" trying to scale up to compete with the 772LR/773ER/777F programs.  

[Edited 2006-09-01 17:24:14]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:48 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 23):

I think the 787-10 went quiet as Boeing watches what Airbus does, also having slightly higher thrust engines may allow the -10 to increase its range but stay just under the wing and gear capacity.

I think Boeing may have floated the idea of a 540,000 lbs B787-10 to see how the airlines would respond. The response has been lukewarm. I think Boeing may have gone back to the engine makers for another 3,000 lbs or so of thrust so that they can take the MTOW up to about 560,000 lbs and the range to 8000nm. This can be done with just more thrust, but is about the upper limit before the landing gear needs more wheels.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 25):
Boeing has a backlog of ~3 yrs that will put them at ~850 777s.

Total B777 orders to date are 739. Backlog is about 2 years. Can Boeing win another 261 B777 orders? Maybe, but it's hard to see how. 800 is a given. 900 is probable. But 1000 is a stretch. So far this year Boeing has 24 B777 orders in 7 months.
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:58 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Considering the 358 is the "base" model and the 789 is the "first stretch" it's even more interesting that Airbus claims the plane has better performance...

AFAIK since they've switched to XWB, the "base" model will be the A359XWB, and the A358XWB will be a "shrink" that will come a couple years later.

Quoting Dank (Reply 3):

As for the composite thing. I don't think that weight is the great benefit of carbon fiber vs. other advanced materials like AlLi, but rather the advances in manufacturing that it will allow.

One on one, Al-Li vs composite part there's not too much of a weight savings, but with composites there are also a lot fewer parts. Manufacturing will end up being the biggest difference maker.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
The whole thrust issue has to do with the wing designs. Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said. That means for the Airbus to have the same climb performance with 1 engine out, it needs more thrust, but in cruise the engines will be running lower than the engines on the 789.

You have it backwards. . . anyways, I thought Airbus has shifted over to designing wings more optimized for cruise for the A350XWB. It's probably for the best considering fuel prices these days. A thinner more efficient "cruising" wing will save more fuel since these are long-range jets and spend most of their flight time cruising.

Quoting EDDB (Reply 9):
And last but not least, if Airbus is the one coming up with the demand for a specific thrust range for a specific flight profile, the engine is more likely tailormade for them than if you come second and get an engine that has to be adapted to your specific needs...

Frankly, engines can be fairly easily adapted to another similar plane with a negligible lost in performance. Like the GenX from 787 to 748, and some 744 engines to the 764. Both of those are much different from each other than the A350XWB and 787.

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11):

Sorry just explain to me why you are comparing the 789 with the 358XWB? I might have missed something here. I thought it was 8s for 8s 9s for 9s and 1000s for 1000s plus, for Airbus, for 773ER combined?

Where have you been? The XWB is a larger plane period. The smaller 350XWB (-800, -900) minor models overlap the larger B787 minor models (-9, -10). A quick look at pax capacity shows that the A358XWB matches up with the B789 and the A359XWB matches up with the B787-10.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):

RR has had an engine for over 110 k for some time, they designed it for the 773ER. Boeing did not approach RR for that.

I'm sure if RR had an engine with the right thrust at the time, it would've been taken into consideration. Obviously there had to have been an issue with the engine whether it wasn't efficient enough, too difficult to make compatible, contract with GE, etc for Boeing not to approach RR. It's ridiculous to say that Boeing simply didn't consider what RR had.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Anyone know what the main gear on the A350-1000 will look like? I don't see how they can achieve reasonable T/O and landing weights with eight wheels in the main gear.

They might go with a center bogey from the beginning or six wheel bogeys like the 777.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12):
It is widely accepted the A350 is optimised for roughly 300 seats, whereas the 787 is a plane clearly optimized for 250 seats only.

Even if it were widely accepted (doubt that) it wouldn't prove anything. When was the last time aircraft were optimized for a single design point?

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 12):
If Boeing wants to compete with the larger versions of the A350 through their 787 platform (something I doubt, but you seem to be suggesting that), they'll need to seriously tweak the 787-10 to give it more range.

Boeing might not like the 781 at all and rather bank on the Y3 to deal with the larger 350s?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Airbus build more efficient cruise wings, Boeing more efficient takeoff wings, from what others have said.

Like most generalizations, that's probably wrong. I presume your personal assessment is different from 'what others have said' so far, anyway.  Wink

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
My personal observation is the opposite is true

Zeke is right, you've got that backwards Ikramerica.

see above

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 20):
The 789 and the 358XWB have the same MTOW. I think that is a fair grounds for comparison, don't you?

Everything else being equivalent, maybe. I'd rather compare MEWs to get a clue on structural efficiency first and then fuel burn for overall efficiency, including aero and propulsive efficiencies. The latter shouldn't be fundamentally different, at least in terms of uninstalled engine performance.

I wouldn't get too fixated on the 245to MTOW quoted for A358XWB in the first place, as it may just be a case of chinese (french) copy...

Using the above approach, the numbers so far quoted for A350XWB don't add up for me. But then what do I know...
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:30 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Well, almost. At this point, both can be considered "paper airplanes", and that is true. Both have "flown" in computer programs that can tell a lot about perfromance, in all aspects of flight. But, at this point, the differences begin. The B-787 is a more mature design, and has been frozen. The A-350 is still new, and is still being defined. The B-787 has completed 1,000s of hours of wind tunnel flight tests, the A-350 has not, although it has had a few wind tunnel tests trying to nail down the final configuration.

Airbus may have killed the A-350 before anything has left the ground, yet. Why? Boeing needs higher thrust engines for growth versions of the B-787, like the B-787-10. Airbus, by forcing the engine makers to come up with a newer, higher thrust engine for the A-350, may have just given Boeing what they needed.

IIRC......because of its double-spool engines, resident A.net engine guru Lightsaber did speak of the limitations of the GE GENx engine...it's basically closing in on its maximum thrust....where as the RR-triple-spooled engines will be able to achieve a higher thrust.....

that might be one of the reasons GE is balking right now to develop a new higher thrust engine for the A350-1000 ( along with the fact it doesn't want to cannabalise its -300ER, -200LR/F market either)...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):

Anyway, the A350 will kill the B777. I'm having trouble seeing how the B777 will get to 1000 deliveries. The only advantage I see of the B777 over the A350 is early availability.

Given that the A350XWB is almost 8-10 years away, Boeing will certainly not stand still in this segment....Once the A350XWB will be finalised, I could see Boeing taking steps to lower the weight of the plane quite a bit....

of course, the RR engines for the A350-1000 will be much more efficient than the GE's engines for the -300ER....

Finally, if carriers decided to go 10 abreast like EK has, then the -300ER will be much more effective given that it has a wider fuselage than the A350XWB...

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 25):
I have a hard time imagining that they won't sell an additional ~150 777LRs in 5 years.

 checkmark ....
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27235
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:33 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Anyway, the A350 will kill the B777. I'm having trouble seeing how the B777 will get to 1000 deliveries. The only advantage I see of the B777 over the A350 is early availability.

She might not make it to 1000 passenger models (which may very well be what you are focusing on with your statement), but when you add in freighter sales, the whole program should surpass the 1000-frame benchmark.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:46 am

If it can't do full range and payload from a sub 10,000' runway and stop in 6,000' enabling new service to shorter runway airports, then no - it's just a more efficient A330. In that respect, the 787 is a smoker. Particularly the -8 that with a high thrust engine can perform at max payload and range from 7,600' and 5,500' landing. It's clearly no medium haul answer to the 787-3 that can carry 280 pax from Orange County's 5,900' runway to any airport within 3,000 nautical miles.
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:23 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 30):
Total B777 orders to date are 739. Backlog is about 2 years. Can Boeing win another 261 B777 orders? Maybe, but it's hard to see how. 800 is a given. 900 is probable. But 1000 is a stretch. So far this year Boeing has 24 B777 orders in 7 months.

B777 orders as of July were 851, leaving 149 to reach the 1000 mark, so not as much of a stretch as you imply, especially considering options and freighters.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...pageid=m25065&RequestTimeout=20000
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:25 am

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 20):

I thought I had explained it.

Perhaps you did but Sabenapilot crystalised it later, I am now up to speed.

Still no clearer as to what constitiutes "a step above". Perhaps you or others can elaborate?

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 31):
Where have you been?

I have been on an enforced leave from the site and missed all the action. I am now tuned in.
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:34 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 3):
As it stands now, the proposed 787-10 was supposed to have the same MTOW as the 787-9. Right off the bat, you then know that they are trading off range for more capacity.

Not necessarily. Given the time of experience with both the design and construction of the -9, and the fact that the -10 hasn't even been offered, much less the design frozen, it is forseeable that the -10 could benefit from a lightened structure. How could one ask? Well, in the current design of the -9, frozen now for some time, the suppliers hold a safety margin of material due to unknowns in the airplane as a whole. After the actual design and build of the -9, each supplier will be required to sharpen their pencils and give up those margins since the unknowns are now knowns and an experience base has been established. Add in enhanced systems, simplified construction methods, and material advances that are normal to any new design. That will enable a weight reduction where the -10 could actually end up with both the same weight and the promised performance without a drop in range or capacity. Every design goes thru this process. That's why the advanced models are so much more efficient than the original offerings. I would say that when the -9 goes thru an upgrade in, say 2014, call it the -9ER, we will see it shed weight accordingly and add range and capacity.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:36 am



Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
Isn't it the other way around? Hence Boeings faster cruise speeds?



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Zeke is right, you've got that backwards Ikramerica.



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 24):
Boeing goes for cruise (and higher speed), Airbus goes for take off performance.

I was trying to find SOME reason why the Airbus requires 20k more of thrust for the same mission at the same weight.

There seems to be no reason then.

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 31):
AFAIK since they've switched to XWB, the "base" model will be the A359XWB, and the A358XWB will be a "shrink" that will come a couple years later.

That only makes it worse for the 358X. Not sure how a higher thrust shrink is more efficient than a lower thrust stretch all else being equal (range, payload, MTOW, etc.)
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:08 am

It has already been shown by me and other that at its low end, the 787 is in fact an extremely heavy plane for what it is (compared to the A300-600) and only manages to beat this old lady on operating cost thanks to its much newer engines...

The Airbus A300-600R is a 270 seat, 2-class plane that flys 4,000nm and has a max takeoff weight of 375,000 pounds. It has 2 engines that each produce 60k of thrust, 120k total.

The Boeing 787-3 will be a 296 seat, 2-class plane that flys 3,500nm and has a max takeoff weight of 360,000 pounds. It has 2 engines that each produce 55k of thrust, 110k total.

The 783 carries more and uses less thrust. Am I missing something? I see the A306R is lighter, by about 10%, but the 783 is a larger plane, correct?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27235
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:26 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 40):
The 783 carries more and uses less thrust. Am I missing something? I see the A306R is lighter, by about 10%, but the 783 is a larger plane, correct?

The A300 is a bit shorter and the 787-3 has a bit wider wings. I imagine the 787-3 has more cabin floor area, being a wider fuselage.

However, the 787-3 is based on the heavier, more capable 787-8, which explains why she weighs a bit more. If the A306 was based on the A330, for example, she'd not be as light, either, because you can only take out so much extra structure, I imagine.  Smile
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:05 am

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 36):
B777 orders as of July were 851

I stand corrected. I guess I put in the wrong starting date when I ran the report.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:18 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 30):
Total B777 orders to date are 739. Backlog is about 2 years. Can Boeing win another 261 B777 orders? Maybe, but it's hard to see how. 800 is a given. 900 is probable. But 1000 is a stretch. So far this year Boeing has 24 B777 orders in 7 months.

Boeing lists 851 orders, with a back log of 275 aircraft, approximately 32%. If Boeing can get production up to 90/yr, they can clear that in 3 years, but if they stay around 70/yr, it will take them four years. Then there are options which might tie up delivery slots. Boeing may not be selling much this year because they can't offer many near term slots.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 39):
I was trying to find SOME reason why the Airbus requires 20k more of thrust for the same mission at the same weight.

There seems to be no reason then.

Drag, parasitic. Widebodyphotog indicated that cruise thrust was rather high for the A340NG.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
thebry
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:50 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:17 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 23):
Anyway, the A350 will kill the B777. I'm having trouble seeing how the B777 will get to 1000 deliveries. The only advantage I see of the B777 over the A350 is early availability.

[Yoda speaking to a young trainee] Available earlier than the A350XWB the 777 is. 1000 deliveries it will reach.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3163
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:29 am

With all the questions surrounding Airbus these last few months how are we to know for sure what the final A350-whatever will be like any any rate??!
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:13 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 33):
Finally, if carriers decided to go 10 abreast like EK has, then the -300ER will be much more effective given that it has a wider fuselage than the A350XWB...

Provided airlines don't care about the further range penalty associated with
that: 5 nm per extra passenger...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27235
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:15 am

Quoting Brilondon (Reply 45):
With all the questions surrounding Airbus these last few months how are we to know for sure what the final A350-whatever will be like any any rate??!

Airbus wouldn't have scrapped a design with orders on the books and interest in the field for the heck of it. The 777 continued to build momentum against the A340 and the 787 was starting to build it against the A330. The A350NSWB was protecting the A330 market within reason, but was not resonating with A340 operators who were starting to shift to the 777.

Frankly, I think Airbus did the right thing by trying to address the A333/A343/772/773 market with the A350XWB. The A332 has sold well (better then the A333 which itself has been no slouch), but the A342/A343 has been rather lackluster as a combo with 247 orders between them. The 787 will hurt the A330 down the road (and could give the A358 grief, as well), but as we have seen with "transitioning orders" from SQ and others, she still has plenty of life left in her in the short term and it does give Airbus an edge over Boeing in such "transition orders", which can only offer the 763ER (and maybe not even then, considering the glacial build rates) at the lower end and the 772ER at the upper.

So I expect the A350XWB will be designed to maximize efficiencies not only over the Boeing products, but their own, to both attract new customers and ensure existing ones upgrade "within the family".
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:19 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 43):
Drag, parasitic. Widebodyphotog indicated that cruise thrust was rather high for the A340NG.

I meant, there seems to be no advantageous reason that the 350X requires larger, more powerful engines to perform the same mission. In other words, any claim by Airbus that the 358X is more efficient than the 789 is pretty hard to demonstrate with the numbers as provided by the two carriers.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
2wingtips
Topic Author
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:26 am

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 37):
Still no clearer as to what constitiutes "a step above". Perhaps you or others can elaborate?

Airbus marketing. The 350XWB was promoted at Farnborough as being a step above the 787 and a leap above the 777. This slogan has been very commonly used by Leahy and his henchmen. From what I have seen I would still believe the 787 doesn't look technically inferior in comparison, but the 777 is definitely compromised.
Airbus have the big problem of gaining enough of the 777 market before Y3 EIS, which is estimated in the 2016-18 timeframe. Cycle times may prove to be the biggest handicap for the 350XWB, particularly the -1000. Y3 is the Boeing planned 777/747 replacement. You can bank on the fact it will be a leap above the A350.

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