Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:52 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 198):

yes.

".. essentially a clean sheet..."

It was not a standalone statement but made in relation to the 777X.
You have to keep that scope limitation in sight.

think about what would go as "clean sheet" in scope of 777 and 777X
777X is the third warm over of the 777 base line frame.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:32 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 194):
There are a few of our friends on here that like to predict the death of programs before they have ever flown. I may be guilty of it too, but it certainly is too early to talk about the A350 turning 777x orders into a house of cards or eating the 777x for dinner. The A350 in its present and future forms is a direct competitor to the 777. Competing products can coexist. It is statements like these which don't make much logical sense unless you are a fervent fan of Airbus products:

Did you not see my smilies? I find it ridiculous that on one thread the talk is that there isn't any chance for further A380 orders, yet when a competitor to the 777X is talked about it is turned around, where all of a sudden the A380 that will not have any more orders will lose those (none existent) orders. The 777X will be fine though, but the A380 which is in a class above will be the one that suffers. There will be silly posts on here about either OEM and their products. That is what fans will do.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 198):
When Airbus says it is essentially a clean sheet. it could easily be a simple stretch of the 1000 as they would claim that the A350 is a clean sheet and the 1100 is not limited in any way by the A350 basis.

He said compared to the 777X it will be a clean sheet design. Basically it will be a derivative of the newest clean sheet out there, IMO.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:50 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 199):
Lighter and more economical at the same range and payload.

I find it hard to believe that you know that for an airplane that hasn't even been launched yet. If the A350-1100 is 35 tons lighter and more economical than the 777-9 with the same range and payload, then Boeing should just close down and give up making airplanes. The 777-9 has over a 10 ton payload advantage over the A350-1000. Some serious engineering work is going to be required to get the A350-1100 to match the 777-9 payload and range.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 199):
Than be it and the A380 is dead or perhaps it gets neoed and lives on. But if the 777X is that good it does not need the A350-1100 to kill the A380. The A350-1000/1100 are competing directly with the 777-8/9 and that would be the aim of a hypothetical A350-1100.

I am not someone who talks about dead and living programs. These large twins are going to compete with the A380 on CASM and that is going to hurt sales for most customers.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 201):
Did you not see my smilies? I find it ridiculous that on one thread the talk is that there isn't any chance for further A380 orders, yet when a competitor to the 777X is talked about it is turned around, where all of a sudden the A380 that will not have any more orders will lose those (none existent) orders. The 777X will be fine though, but the A380 which is in a class above will be the one that suffers. There will be silly posts on here about either OEM and their products. That is what fans will do.

I believe there are chances for more A380 orders. The 747-8I was able to sell airplanes even though its CASM was very close to the 777-300ER. I believe that the A350-1000 and 777x CASM will be close to the A380. A direct comparison is hard though since configurations change so much.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:07 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 191):
My guess is the large initial commitments came with contract language that allows easy backing out which would only be prudent after the 787 debacle.

And I would guess that Boeing would not launch a multi-billion dollar program on sales contracts that would be at easy risk of cancellation even if they execute properly. So if Airbus launches a larger A350 and it is significantly better than the 777X across the board, unless Boeing stuffs the execution, those customers will have to take delivery or pay significant penalties for cancelling.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:13 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 203):

We'll know more in 5 years time  
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:29 pm

If I may jump in without having re-read every last comment - in designing the 777 LAG [latest & greatest], Boeing has consistently and seemingly confidently traded considerable weight gain for benefits only the engineers involved can fully elucidate.

From the choice to forgo CFRP for the center wing, to leaving the gains from improved Al-Li for the fuselage on the table, it looks like Boeing is very confident in optimizing for parameters other than weight.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 202):
I find it hard to believe that you know that for an airplane that hasn't even been launched yet. If the A350-1100 is 35 tons lighter and more economical than the 777-9 with the same range and payload, then Boeing should just close down and give up making airplanes. The 777-9 has over a 10 ton payload advantage over the A350-1000. Some serious engineering work is going to be required to get the A350-1100 to match the 777-9 payload and range.

Your argument against the 35 tons difference is that nobody can be sure of the numbers yet, but you are completely sure of a payload advantage for the 777-9.
We have some numbers for the A350-1000 and the 777-9.

MTOW A350 308t versus 777 351.5t delta 43.5t
OEW A350 155t versus 777 188t delta 33t
MZFW A350 220t versus 777 239t delta 19t

The difference between MZFW and OEW gives us the maximum payload.
A350 65t and the 777 51t, that tells me that the A350-1000 has the higher max payload capability.
I expect something of that to roll over to the A350-1100.

Everything else depends really on numbers we do not yet have like fuel burn per hour flight for example.
But I can well imagine that the A350-1000 will be able to move 51t the same distance as the 777-9 with less fuel.

We can start to interpolate this numbers to a hypothetical A350-1100. IMO Boeing should be worried.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:42 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 203):
Quoting WIederling (Reply 191):
My guess is the large initial commitments came with contract language that allows easy backing out which would only be prudent after the 787 debacle.

And I would guess that Boeing would not launch a multi-billion dollar program on sales contracts that would be at easy risk of cancellation even if they execute properly. So if Airbus launches a larger A350 and it is significantly better than the 777X across the board, unless Boeing stuffs the execution, those customers will have to take delivery or pay significant penalties for cancelling.

But Airbus has to expect A380 orders to be canceled nilly willy. It would be bad enough for Boeing if the orders for the 777X would stop flowing inn.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10391
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:14 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 201):

He said compared to the 777X it will be a clean sheet design. Basically it will be a derivative of the newest clean sheet out there, IMO.

If you see the 777X as the third version of the 777, you could easily call the A350-1100 more of a clean sheet even if the difference to the A350k is small.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:51 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 206):

We can start to interpolate this numbers to a hypothetical A350-1100. IMO Boeing should be worried.

I think it is fair to say Boeing should be worried. Since 2014, which roughly coincides with the 777X and A330neo launches, A350 orders have been negative. I have no doubt that such an airplane will attract orders. The Boeing widebody market share will be affected. Airbus has an opportunity to grow the A350. What isn't realistic is directly interpolating the numbers for the A350-1000 to A350-1100 to get that it will match payload and range while having a significant weight advantage. The A350-1000 went through a few iterations and redesigns. I don't think many people know how much margin is in that existing airplane for more payload. Wing loading is only one part of the story.

There is a progression from the 787 to A350 to 777x. The airplane capabilities do not line up perfectly. Some airbus fans say that the A350 will destroy the 777x, but I don't think that is true. There is a lot of interpolating to get to those numbers. There are plenty of Airbus fans that think anything Airbus will destroy anything Boeing. There is some overlap, but there is also some separation.

[Edited 2016-02-21 11:53:37]

[Edited 2016-02-21 11:57:36]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:12 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 208):
If you see the 777X as the third version of the 777, you could easily call the A350-1100 more of a clean sheet even if the difference to the A350k is small.

What else is it other than the third version?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:40 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 207):
But Airbus has to expect A380 orders to be canceled nilly willy.

Except no customer has cancelled an A380 order willy-nilly.



Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 207):
It would be bad enough for Boeing if the orders for the 777X would stop flowing inn.

Yes, the current order book is probably not sufficient to generate a decent RoI. But I am not sure the total order book is going to be 3-4 times the current one. Boeing would certainly like that, but I expect they're RoI numbers look good if they can double their current order book.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:52 pm

Boeing needs to focus delivering the 777 on time and spec to the ME3 and LH, rather than be side tracked with Airbus possible developments.

With the four above representing an enormous percentage of the current order book, the contracts will be very tight in favour of the customer, financial penalties so great, and ability to cancel very real, Boeing Commercial needs no other focus or distractions.

The stakes are very high for Boeing Commercial.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:22 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 211):
Except no customer has cancelled an A380 order willy-nilly.

So why stop counting them.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:32 pm

Why are there 6 versions of the 350 on offer so early in the program and with only 15 deliveries.? (ulr,Regional,3 MTOW variants, proposals for an 1100)

It can't be because the production line needs new orders, they still have many years of production.

IMO, the 350 variants, are a reflection of the need to keep the lid on Boeings offerings, and the 1100 an attempt to make airlines question ordering the 777X, rather than a serious attempt to enter the large capacity long haul market.
I doubt Airbus actually knows they can build a direct 777X competitor based on the 350, but they can throw a spanner in 777X offering. (as any good company would). Without some sort of alternative the 777X will continue to grow modestly from this point, filling the 747 and 380 space.
But high capacity, medium range? That Airbus can do easily.
Ruscoe
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:43 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 211):
Except no customer has cancelled an A380 order willy-nilly.

I'm not sure in what way this can be considered right.

And besides, if mjoelnir is talking about expected cancellations, I can think of at least a couple of customers.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20131
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:51 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 214):
Why are there 6 versions of the 350 on offer so early in the program and with only 15 deliveries.? (ulr,Regional,3 MTOW variants, proposals for an 1100)

With the exception of the ULR, these are all just MTOW variants. The Regional is just a derated A350 at a lower MTOW to reduce ATC nd landing fees for regional flying.

It's called giving the customer what they want. Airbus has always offered MTOW variations. Boeing does the same.
 
MPadhi
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:59 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 216):
With the exception of the ULR, these are all just MTOW variants. The Regional is just a derated A350 at a lower MTOW to reduce ATC nd landing fees for regional flying.

It's called giving the customer what they want. Airbus has always offered MTOW variations. Boeing does the same.

Are the lower MTOW versions physically different in any way, or is it purely certification differences?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:34 pm

Quoting MPadhi (Reply 217):

Are the lower MTOW versions physically different in any way, or is it purely certification differences?

Most of the changes are software. From the flight management computers to the engine control units, there are some changes depending on weight. Sometimes the heavier planes have extra fuel capacity. Landing gear is typically certified up to a certain weight. The landing gear has to be built for the higher weight. Heavier gear can be substituted on lighter planes. Many weight changes can be retrofitted.

[Edited 2016-02-21 15:38:45]
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:35 pm

Quoting MPadhi (Reply 217):
Are the lower MTOW versions physically different in any way, or is it purely certification differences?

No one really knows for sure on the A350 but if the A330 is anything to go by its effectively paper changes. With the exception of the regional variants (which presently dont actually exist in a330 or 350 form yet) which may have some hardware differences to allow higher cycles ( I read somewhere things like eg MLG may have some slight differences though again whether its an actual different part number or simply different mx schedule I dont know) and even more likely very different cabin setups (less galleys etc) the airframes are basically the same. Airbus is already onto 25 weight variants WV for the pax ceo A333 and 24 for the A332
http://www.airbus.com/support/mainte...cal-data/aircraft-characteristics/
Though practically since hardware is constantly changing, minor tweaks as well as slightly more than minor eg the aerodynamic changes on the new 242t A330, the earlier lower weight versions from the 90s are probably physically different in terms of parts to present day production ones. I would think if an airline wanted an earlier (lower weight) WV today, its all paper changes to a high weight in production variant.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:26 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 187):
I'd think a bigger A350 would just make a nice complete family of the Airbus line up and therefore help sell the A35J and A35K, because no one would need to buy the 779 for its capacity nor range, just strictly where both are needed.

I think that is largely correct.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 195):
Weighing 35 tons less does present a rather compelling argument, whether it fits your idea of 'logic' is something else entirely.

If it weighs 35 tons less it won't fly as far nor carry the same payload.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 207):
It would be bad enough for Boeing if the orders for the 777X would stop flowing inn.

It would be but I bet if they execute as planned they already have enough orders to make it profitable. The 77W is a very capable and efficient aircraft. The 779 is a 14% improvement on it. If they execute it well there will be a market.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:39 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 211):
Except no customer has cancelled an A380 order willy-nilly.
Quoting Erebus (Reply 215):
I'm not sure in what way this can be considered right.

In what way can it be considered wrong?

Skymark was in default of their contract when Airbus cancelled their order.

Transaero went bankrupt so they are financially and legally unable to complete their sales contract.

Air Austral, Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic all exercised or will exercise the cancellation clauses in their contracts and would have incurred / will incur whatever penalties were / are defined in those contracts for doing so. LH likely took A320neos in exchange, VS is said to be taking A350-1000s in exchange and I don't know what Air Austral's plans are as their fleet is Boeing and ATR.




Quoting MPadhi (Reply 217):
Are the lower MTOW versions physically different in any way, or is it purely certification differences?

All of them involve the contractual operating weight the airframe is certified for. In the case of the A350-900ULR, there is also a change to the fuel control software package to allow it to load more fuel (the physical tank capacity is the same in both the A350-900 and A350-1000 - it is just how much the system will allow to be loaded that differentiates the two's usable capacities).
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:13 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 221):
In what way can it be considered wrong?

Because of this?

http://centreforaviation.com/news/il...-to-lack-of-secondary-market-92739

Quote:
ILFC CEO Henri Courpron reportedly stated the leasing company cancelled its order for 10 A380s due to uncertainty about the secondary market for the aircraft (Bloomberg, 14-Mar-2011). ILFC had orders for a first lease of its A380s but "no visibility" on leases for 10-12 years following.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:15 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 220):
If it weighs 35 tons less it won't fly as far nor carry the same payload.

If the numbers up threat are correct, an A35K with a 51 Ron payload can carry 102 tons of fuel vs. 112.5 tons for the 777-9. It is not that hard to believe that an aircraft weighing 10 to 13% less during the flight will fly that mission with 10% less fuel. That means it flies as far with the same payload.

The 7.40 Meter stretch from the A345 to the A346 was 7 tons, and that was a heavy stretch. If Airbus manages 6 meters more at 7 tons, with the rest unchanged:

Structural payload would be 58 tons, 7 more than the 777-9, hold 95 tons of [email protected] ton payload vs. The same 102.5 tons. That would mean 15% less fuel and 95% fuel per ton tow at take off. Not that unreasonable to think it will fly well over 90% of the distance. To get to 100% fuel per ton tow, such an A35K would need to carry 4 tons less cargo.
That means between the fringes of its ranges it carries between 0 and 4 ton, or zero to 8% less payload, for an average of 4%, at a 10% fuel burn advantage.
On shorter sectors it can carry up to 7 tons more payload, with the same fuel burn advantage.

Best regards
Thomas
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:42 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 223):
If the numbers up threat are correct, an A35K with a 51 Ron payload can carry 102 tons of fuel vs. 112.5 tons for the 777-9. It is not that hard to believe that an aircraft weighing 10 to 13% less during the flight will fly that mission with 10% less fuel. That means it flies as far with the same payload.

But the smaller wing will really hurt on the longer missions. I agree it will have an advantage on the shorter missions...much like the 78X. We need to see what Airbus will do to the wing/MTOW to see what it will be capable of but I don't think, right now, they are thinking about a substantial investment.

The 77X wing has substantially more span than the A350 wing. In the A330neo thread we see how important that is vs a cfrp wing. The 77X is a CFRP wing with 7m more span. Larger than the A350 vs the A330. The 77X could even have lower thrust on newer engines if we think they will use an XWB derivative that matches 77X range.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 223):
The 7.40 Meter stretch from the A345 to the A346 was 7 tons, and that was a heavy stretch. If Airbus manages 6 meters more at 7 tons, with the rest unchanged:

The 787-8-9 was a light stretch and that was 8t. Its not about the weight of the stretch but where the weight goes to. The 77X weight add vs the 77W largely goes to the wing which only improves its efficiency otherwise it wouldn't have been done. But again that only helps at long range. Clearly the A350-1100 will have an advantage on regional flights.

tortugamon
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:55 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 220):

If it weighs 35 tons less it won't fly as far nor carry the same payload.

Well, we know that the efficiency delta from 777-300ER to A350-1000XWB will be 22..25% for the same capabilities.

The delta in capacity from ~-300ER to -9X seems to ring up 35t extra weight. ( the new wing, mostly?)
That is expensive.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:27 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 224):
The 77X wing has substantially more span than the A350 wing.

It is also significantly heavier and needs the longer wing. It also has a smaller Area and a hence a much higher loading. Length is relevant, but you can not compare different weight frames one for one by wing length.

Also the wingtips of the 777x are basically flat, while the A350 has those enormous Winglets on them, the effective difference in Wing length is nowhere near 7m, probably closer to half that. Being heavy as it is, the 777x needs that as lift surface, the lighter A350 does not.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 224):
. In the A330neo thread we see how important that is vs a cfrp wing.

That was where you refused to believe that 4 Meters more Wingspan plus enormous winglets can be on par with the 787 Wing, right? Which was the position i maintained? Actually i think i said it may still be slightly worse.
Hence i don´t have to do a 180° turn to think that the A350 and the 777x wing are roughly on par as well, you on the other hand....
The 777x will have the edge on engine sfc, but that will be in the low single digits and not offset a 10+% weight difference.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 224):
We need to see what Airbus will do to the wing/MTOW to see what it will be capable of but I don't think, right now, they are thinking about a substantial investment.

I think they will evaluate lots of configurations between 308 ton MTOW and whatever MTOW they think they can get out of the airframe with "just" modifications (so, no NEW Wing, Engines and MLG, just modifications to the existing ones).

They will also consider how easily and to what effect they can port the changes back onto the A35J. If they can find more MTOW w/o making structural changes, lets say 313-314 tons can be done without making the frame heavier, that may be attractive just because those modifications can flow back into the smaller sister without ill effect on its performance. And get it closer to the 777-8 in Terms of Payload Range.

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:51 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 185):
This is the way to go, give the 350 the fuselage it should always have had.
IMO a totally new 777X competitor will never happen, but if it did, a slightly wider fuselage, to just allow 10 abreast with 17.5" seats and 18" aisles, using 350 systems, and wings, is an obvious way to go and way better than another fuselage extension.

Too much effort for a too small market. Such fuselage will not fit into the Beluga, requiring different transports. It's all possible, but IMO too much effort.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 202):
If the A350-1100 is 35 tons lighter and more economical than the 777-9 with the same range and payload

This information is completely wrong. The A350-1000 is some 35 tons lighter than the 777-9. So any stretch would be less than 35 tons heavier.

> A35K: 155 tonne OEW
> B77W: 168 tonne OEW
> B779: 190 tonne OEW

> A350-1000: 165 tonne OEW ?

For comparison, the A340-600 was some 15-20 tons heavier than 777-300ER.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:22 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 214):
Why are there 6 versions of the 350 on offer so early in the program and with only 15 deliveries.? (ulr,Regional,3 MTOW variants, proposals for an 1100)

You answered your own question, without the need to try and get a shot at Airbus. There are 2 versions of the A350, but various variants of these 2 versions (well of the A359 at present, I am sure once the A35K has it EIS you will see different variants as well).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 227):
This information is completely wrong. The A350-1000 is some 35 tons lighter than the 777-9. So any stretch would be less than 35 tons heavier.

> A35K: 155 tonne OEW
> B77W: 168 tonne OEW
> B779: 190 tonne OEW

> A350-1000: 165 tonne OEW ?

For comparison, the A340-600 was some 15-20 tons heavier than 777-300ER.

Okay, so if they grow the OEW by 13 tonne for the A350-1100 you could get a 779 at the weights of a 77W?
 
MPadhi
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:46 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 218):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 219):

Thankyou for the answers  
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 221):
All of them involve the contractual operating weight the airframe is certified for. In the case of the A350-900ULR, there is also a change to the fuel control software package to allow it to load more fuel (the physical tank capacity is the same in both the A350-900 and A350-1000 - it is just how much the system will allow to be loaded that differentiates the two's usable capacities).

It is at least 3 nominally available tank volumes.

the -900 allows 140,795 l (37,200 US gal)

the -1000 allows 156,000 l (41,200 US gal)

now the -900 ULR allows 165,000 l (43,600 US gal)

Interesting thing is that physically available tank volume for all types is better than 165,000 l.
i.e. with an MTOW upgrade the -1000 could also profit from this larger volume.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:03 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 230):

Interesting thing is that physically available tank volume for all types is better than 165,000 l.
i.e. with an MTOW upgrade the -1000 could also profit from this larger volume.

That is 125 tons of fuel, a 165ton OEW A35K with 400 pax would need a 330 ton MTOW. The wing may be ok with that, but the Trend XWB 105 or so that bird would need, i nowhere to be seen.

best regards
Thomas
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:17 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 231):
Quoting WIederling (Reply 230):

Interesting thing is that physically available tank volume for all types is better than 165,000 l.
i.e. with an MTOW upgrade the -1000 could also profit from this larger volume.

That is 125 tons of fuel, a 165ton OEW A35K with 400 pax would need a 330 ton MTOW. The wing may be ok with that, but the Trend XWB 105 or so that bird would need, i nowhere to be seen.

best regards
Thomas

There have been a lot of stretches increasing the MTOW without upgrading the engines.
The 757-200 grew to the 737-300 with the same engine, MTOW grew from 115.7 to 123.6.
We have also seen the A330 grow from MTOW 217t to 242t with the engine growing from 68 Klb to 70 - 72Klb.

I can continue endless, but before we do know the capabilities of the A350-1000, like take of run and initial climb, we can not judge if an increased MTOW would lead to a linear increase in needed engine power.

And anyway 10% on top of 97.1 K would give 106.8 K, 5% a very reasonable increase would give 102 K, could be enough.
If we would now go down to an OEW increase of 7 t (A340-500 to A340-600) and imagine an MTOW of 320 t, possible fuel would only go down to 117t with a payload of 51t.

[Edited 2016-02-22 07:27:00]
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:34 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 232):
If we would now go down to an OEW increase of 7 t (A340-500 to A340-600) and imagine an MTOW of 320 t, possible fuel would only go down to 122 t.

i got sidetracked while making my point: we won´t see an fuel volume limited A350 in Airline service this side of limitations by Airbus, 165.000 Liters should be well enough for future variants with a meaningful payload.

And well, when that happens, i guess they can get about an hours worth of fuel by going from ridiculous 52 LD3 that should fit to "just" 50 and putting fuel cells in.

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:22 pm

Quoting Erebus (Reply 222):
Because of this?

http://centreforaviation.com/news/il...92739

And yet today we're still not sure what, if any, market there is for second hand A380s. IAG is said to be considering them, but they have yet to commit to such action, even though frames (MH and TG) were available now.

And unlike Doric, who sells shares in the frames to immediately recover much of the purchase capital expended on their leased frames, ILFC had to carry the finance costs of the frame across the entire lease term and that would have raised their cost of ownership a fair bit and might very well have required follow-on leases in order to make a decent (or even a) return.


Quoting enzo011 (Reply 228):
Okay, so if they grow the OEW by 13 tonne for the A350-1100 you could get a 779 at the weights of a 77W?

In terms of capacity, yes, though perhaps not performance.

It would still be a compelling platform, however.

[Edited 2016-02-22 08:30:22]
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:30 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 223):
The 7.40 Meter stretch from the A345 to the A346 was 7 tons, and that was a heavy stretch. If Airbus manages 6 meters more at 7 tons, with the rest unchanged:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 232):
The 757-200 grew to the 737-300 with the same engine, MTOW grew from 115.7 to 123.6.

I'm not sure how A345 to A346 or 752 to 753 stretches are related to A350-1000 to A350-1100 unless the A350-1100 has a decrease in range and is not a direct 777-9 competitor. Those earlier stretches did not match the range of the smaller modes. I think there is a good chance that Airbus would want to do a stretch like the A345 to A346, 787-9 to 787-10 or 752 to 753 and sacrifice range and payload in order to keep CASM low. The A350-1000 and 777-9 ranges are close and so are the A350-900 and 777-8. Getting the A350-1100 to match 777-9 range is going to increase OEW more and hurt CASM. I don't think airlines want that.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 227):

This information is completely wrong. The A350-1000 is some 35 tons lighter than the 777-9. So any stretch would be less than 35 tons heavier.

> A35K: 155 tonne OEW
> B77W: 168 tonne OEW
> B779: 190 tonne OEW

> A350-1000: 165 tonne OEW ?

For comparison, the A340-600 was some 15-20 tons heavier than 777-300ER.

The A350-1100 would need to have 10-15tons of additional payload on top of covering the weight of the stretch. If the A350-1100 is going to match the 777-9 payload and range, it is conceivable that the OEW goes up by 25 to 35 tons. It all depends on what additional capability is built in to the A350-1000 for more payload. For these heavy stretches, sometimes each ton of payload increase results in an ton of OEW increase and on top of that there is impact of the additional weight for the stretch.

I would be surprised if the A350-1100 would attempt to match the 777-9 payload and range. I would expect Airbus to trade payload and range for extra capacity and try to make a stretch most efficient.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:36 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 235):
I would be surprised if the A350-1100 would attempt to match the 777-9 payload and range. I would expect Airbus to trade payload and range for extra capacity and try to make a stretch most efficient.

Agreed. The ME3 need maximum payload with maximum range because of the non-stop ULR stage lengths to (western) North and South America from their hubs. EU and Asian operators don't, because they eschew non-stops in favor of one-stops for their ULR missions.

As I noted in my initial reply, I think this decision may be driven by more and more 777-300ER operators moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast to improve yields and lower per seat operating costs. The A350-1000 is so much more efficient than the 777-300ER that it offers similar seat operating costs at 9-abreast to a 777-300ER at 10-abreast, but it can't offer the yield improvements due to lack of seats. Airbus have been addressing this in part with their FLEX lavatories and galleys to add more seats to the A350-1000.

Making the plane longer so as to add the equivalent number of seats as a 10-abreast 777-300ER would lower the per-seat operating costs even more, while also improving the yields. And as Airbus doesn't need to worry about exactly matching the payload-range curve of the 777-9, they will probably be more appealing to a wider range of customers.

[Edited 2016-02-22 08:37:57]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:43 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 231):
That is 125 tons of fuel, a 165ton OEW A35K with 400 pax would need a 330 ton MTOW.

That's about right, I always had an 328 ton MTOW jet in mind during these A350-1100 discussions.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 231):
but the Trend XWB 105 or so that bird would need, i nowhere to be seen.

Right, because that engine variant was never launched.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 228):
Okay, so if they grow the OEW by 13 tonne for the A350-1100 you could get a 779 at the weights of a 77W?

Similar capacity, less range.

I don't think it would grow 13 tons though, the stretch is smaller than A350-900 to A350-1000 (10 meters versus 5-6 meters). Hence I mentioned 165 tonne OEW, 10 tons above the A350-1000.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 234):
It would still be a compelling platform, however.

  

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 235):
The A350-1100 would need to have 10-15tons of additional payload on top of covering the weight of the stretch.

Hence we discussed a MTOW increase up to 328 tons before, 20 tons above the A350-1000. It would cover up to 10 tons OEW increase, and up to 10 tons payload increase. MZFW range ~ 4,700 nm, design range close to 7,000 nm.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 235):
If the A350-1100 is going to match the 777-9 payload and range

As Airbus and Boeing try to avoid direct competition in the widebody market, I doubt they would do that.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 235):
I would be surprised if the A350-1100 would attempt to match the 777-9 payload and range. I would expect Airbus to trade payload and range for extra capacity and try to make a stretch most efficient.

Agreed.

[Edited 2016-02-22 08:51:02]
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1749
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:48 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 236):
Airbus have been addressing this in part with their FLEX lavatories and galleys

Do they offer an underfloor option for lavatories as they did for A330/340?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 236):
Making the plane longer so as to add the equivalent number of seats as a 10-abreast 777-300ER would lower the per-seat operating costs

And add some useful extra freight volume
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:28 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 236):
The A350-1000 is so much more efficient than the 777-300ER that it offers similar seat operating costs at 9-abreast to a 777-300ER at 10-abreast, but it can't offer the yield improvements due to lack of seats. Airbus have been addressing this in part with their FLEX lavatories and galleys to add more seats to the A350-1000.

Obviously a lot depends on individual airline LOPAs but the present CI 10 across 77W (40J/62PE, 253 Y) setup can translate into the "new" increased capacity Flex toilet, new rear galley setup on the A350-1000 9 across with almost exactly the same capacity (40J, 64PE, 252Y) , actually one more. And only about 9 pax less if their PE in the A359 is 7 across and not 8 across (40J, 63PE, 243Y) which I doubt will be the case. I think the 9 across A350-1000 vs 10 across 77W as opposed to 9 across 77W arguments are overblown. A A350-1000 at 9 across is perfectly good at replacing a 10 across 77W unless you got J seats extending well past door 2!

[Edited 2016-02-22 09:31:36]
 
Elbowroom
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:37 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:30 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 238):
Do they offer an underfloor option for lavatories as they did for A330/340?

That would be a superb idea.

One of the things an A350-1100 would have loads of compared with the 777-9 (possibly an excess of) is cargo hold length, because of its fuselage width (9 abreast rather than 10 abreast). So downstairs WCs like the A340-600 would use up some of that whilst freeing up some space for extra seats to get closer to the 777-9 in passenger capacity. It seems like a perfect way of giving airlines flexibility between pax and freight.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:39 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 237):
It would cover up to 10 tons OEW increase, and up to 10 tons payload increase. MZFW range ~ 4,700 nm

That would.translate into what, 5600nm at the 777-9 max. payload of 51 tons?

Damn close. But with the 5% sfc advantage of the GE90X that would just translate into neglectible cost advantage, but of course with a lot more uplift below 5000nm.

Best regards
Thomas
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:52 pm

with 50 or 52 containers for A350-11 how many do a B767F holds to compare with?
 
dare100em
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:53 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 241):
Damn close. But with the 5% sfc advantage of the GE90X that would just translate into neglectible cost advantage, but of course with a lot more uplift below 5000nm.

How do you expect a new derivate if the A350 - which needs a new or heavily modified engine anyway - having an older engine tech-level than the 77X??
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:08 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 39):
wing areas, mtow:
A350-1000
460m² for 308t MTOW, 669kg/m² loading
777X
436 + 30 ~= 466m² for 351t MTOW, 753kg/m² loading

Airbus and Boeing measures wing areas in different ways, so measuring the 777-300ER in the Airbus way gives it aproxamately 460m2 wing area (Same as A350K) and the 777X som 30+m2 more or around 500m2.

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

Witch gives:
A350-10 - 460m² for 308t MTOW, 669kg/m² loading
777-9 - 500m² for 351t MTOW, 702kg/m² loading
A350-11 - 462m² for 328t MTOW, 713kg/m² loading

In this senario the 777-9 and A350-11 would be nearly identical.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:21 pm

When you look at the numbers it makes the 777-9 look the same compared to the A350 as the A340-600/500 did to the 777.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:51 pm

So how good would a 328T A350-11 be? Would it have the same uplift and range as 777-9?

How much more efficient would it be?

Will the gear support this weight?

Can they do something easy like a new wingtip treatment like 777ER to 777W to get extra lift and is the wing strong enough for this?
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:52 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78):
If we take the following MZFW range figures:

- B773: 3,600 nm
- B789: 5,500 nm
- A359: 5,500 nm
- B78X: 4,000 nm
- A35K: 5,700 nm
- A350-1100 308 tonne: 4,100 nm
- A350-1100 328 tonne: 4,750 nm
- B77W: 5,500 nm
- B779: 5,700 nm

Hi KarelXWB what MZFW numbers do you have for the A35K (65t?) and the 779 (51t???) and OEW numbers for that matter? Cant see how the range numbers work with regards to the max cargo numbers mentioned in this tread. I am just trying to understand  

Regards.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:05 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 230):
now the -900 ULR allows 165,000 l (43,600 US gal)
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 231):
That is 125 tons of fuel,

I don't know how accurate you're trying to be but 165 000 l of fuel amount to 132 000 kg or 132 t... fuel density is ~.8 kg/l
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 1

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:15 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 248):
I don't know how accurate you're trying to be but 165 000 l of fuel amount to 132 000 kg or 132 t... fuel density is ~.8 kg/l

Airbus use a figure of 0.785 kilograms per liter in their ACAPs, which would be 129,525 kg.



Quoting Millenium (Reply 247):
Hi KarelXWB what MZFW numbers do you have for the A35K (65t?) and the 779 (51t???) and OEW numbers for that matter?

In the June 2014 ACAP, which I believe is the latest published, MZFW for the A350-1000 is 220,000kg. The closest I have seen to an OEW is from December 2013 Investors Conference, where it was given as 155,000kg for 315 seats in three classes.

Boeing has not published an MZFW or OEW for the 777-9 as of yet. Aspire Aviation claims MZFW will be 239,000kg and OEW will be between 164,000kg (406 seats in three classes) to 188,000kg (300 seats in four classes) based on their contacts within Boeing.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

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