Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:15 pm

Let us continue the discussion here.

A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 2 (by KarelXWB Mar 2 2016 in Civil Aviation)
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:17 pm

From the previous thread:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 104):
slightly OT but this weeks AWST has an article on the Trent 1000-TEN, page 29,apparently the Trent 1000-TEN is a 70-75% parts change from the Trent 1000 package C (due to totally new core from XWB and associate systems) . In an older article http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...uilding-first-xwb-97-flight-tests, the XWB84 shares 80% LRU with the XWB97. Not quite apples and oranges but shows there is probably more difference between a Trent 1000-TEN and non TEN than between an XWB 84 and 97.
There has been some discussion about how "different " the XWB versions are and what effect a further uprated XWB could be. But if a Trent 1000 is that different to a Trent 1000-TEN do airlines really care???

Aircraft commonality is an important factor, although it is usually way overblown on this forum. To give a few examples:

- A330-200 and A330-300 are different at the rear of the aircraft.
- B787-8 and B787-9 are significant different on multiple levels, less than 90% common.
- Trent 1000-TEN will be significant different than previous Trent 1000 engines.
- An 1995 A330 has different parts than an 2016 A330, for example.
- Embraer E-Jet E2 family uses 3 different wing configurations.
- Airlines operating 787s and A350s fleets have zero commonality.

This is just how it is and A350-900 versus A350-1000 is not different, the issue is not as big as some people believe. It's even less an issue for airlines that operate only 1 type, or airlines operating both types in large numbers.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:22 pm

Also from the previous thread:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 139):
Payload is the difference between OEW and MZFW.
777-300ER, OEW 167.8t, MZFW 237.7t, max payload 69,9 t MTOW 351.3t

777-9, OEW 188.2t, MZFW 239t, max payload 50.8t MTOW 351.3t

that are the numbers I am finding.

Are you saying the larger jet comes with some 20t less payload? At 50t payload the 779 would have significant less payload than the smaller A350-100, I find that hard to believe. I understand the OEW is high, difference must be in the MZFW.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:33 pm

Also from the previous thread:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 142):
Engine improvements, wing tip improvements, aero improvements, etc. I think the 77W benefited from the refresh with the new engine mid-777-life and I pictured the same for the A350-1100 personally. I also think they will have people trading A351s for A350-1100s and it seems wiser to sell as many of those aircraft as you can to return that investment on the R&D before you launch an aircraft that will take sales from it.

Why would Airbus wait for such improvements? We're talking about an extension of the A350 product family, like the 787-10 is to the 787 family. It's not a second generation A350 like the 77W was to the 773, I think you have the wrong picture of this 'A350-8000'.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 142):
I resent in the insinuation Karel. Sorry you feel that way.

Lol, wut? Insinuation? Let's not make this discussion too personal. How about answering the question instead of hiding behind expensive words?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 118):
Do you believe the 787-10 comes at the expense of the 787-9?


[Edited 2016-03-07 12:17:51]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:08 pm

Might it be worth pointing out that Airbus have never really conquered the long-haul market a la Boeing and the 747 and 777? The A330 is a great aircraft, but falls short of being referred to as a bonafide long-hauler. The A340 as we know it tanked with the 345 and 346, and the A380 is niche.

I'm reading this as Airbus pulling out all the stops to make the A350 work in the LH segment, in face of competition from the 779 and the 787-9/10. EK picking the 778 and 779 while shedding their A350s wasn't a good omen, for they're one of the many airlines that make this LH segment ripe from a manufacturer's standpoint.
Vahroone
 
olle
Posts: 2675
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:13 pm

if we can expect the A350-1100 around 2019 will the trent XWB have any PIP installed by then compared to the current engine and will this change any of the calculations mentioned?
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:21 pm

Lets wait to the 779 frozen design specs tread and see. In the mean time its the same old same old.

I think that some posters here think that Airbus launches new aircraft by a knee jerk reaction to what Boeing proposes. The opposite is true since the back to the board original launch of the A350 fiasco, they were caught with their pant down and had to regroup to counter the 787. They could have promised a lot just by reacting to Boeing, and eventually delivered a very nice product, that has a very good growth path designed in. They learned the A330 lesson where a heavier compromised wing, in the end made them have a superb Widebody and ensured big growth and performance.

I remain doubtful of a lot of specs on either side, something has to give, weight VS Range VS capacity. they all interfere with each other, and in this case Boeing has the upper hand since the A359 is flying and they must know a lot of specs and can interfere how much you can tweak to make a sweet A350-1100, and they can counter with the 779. Interesting coming months ahead, and more interesting naming of this new aircraft (A350-8000) is simple put TERRIBLE.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:55 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
Also from the previous thread:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 139):
Payload is the difference between OEW and MZFW.
777-300ER, OEW 167.8t, MZFW 237.7t, max payload 69,9 t MTOW 351.3t

777-9, OEW 188.2t, MZFW 239t, max payload 50.8t MTOW 351.3t

that are the numbers I am finding.

Are you saying the larger jet comes with some 20t less payload? At 50t payload the 779 would have significant less payload than the smaller A350-100, I find that hard to believe. I understand the OEW is high, difference must be in the MZFW.

I am saying that if you raise OEW, a given, counting a stretch, bigger wings, heavier engines and more seats, and keep the MTOW, one of two things has to decrease, payload or fuel amount at MZFW.
The numbers are not from me I picked them of the net, The numbers for the 777-300ER are from Boeing as is the MTOW number for the 777-9. The rest is from Wikipedia.
It can well be that growth in OEW is only 15t, or MZFW will be 250t. But no way there is space for an payload of 70t with the range at that payload some people here fantasize about. A different case comes if Boeing will increase MTOW for the 777-9, but that is the only fixed number originating from Boeing.
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:00 pm

I have been a long standing holder of negative views on the 777-9 because of the sheer back luck in its timing with cheap oil destroying the value of the investments already made by the three partners, Boeing, GE and the airlines.

Equally, I have suggested that the niche market aimed at by the 777-9 made the decision to go forward seriously flawed. The 777-8 is already a non starter, with ULR offerings from the A350 series eating its lunch.

Having read these A350 Stretch threads, and as Olle from Sweden has observed, I too start to consider that Airbus has not shown all its cards yet. Is there a possibility that we have been focusing our thoughts on just one Stretch when we might better thinking in terms of Stretch 1 and Stretch 2. (Tipping my hat to KarelXWB)

Stretch 1 is as nicely in focus already, something with a less payload range than the 777-9 and of about 80m length, with a moderate, readily achievable, increase in MTOW. The exact specification will be fixed by Airbus within the context set by Rolls-Royce and potential airline customers. We on A-net can only speculate and may have reached the limit, without even more repetition and looping round and round.

Stretch 2 might be a very very close relative with common MTOW, engines etc, but about 85m length traded against less range, to EIS a couple of years after Stretch 1. (Yes, tail-strikes may be an issue!) This Stretch 2 would have an economic and slot advantage for TATL and possibly for some US West Coast runs, depending from where it departed from on the European land mass? There will be other routes, but my geography is woeful. Perhaps nations such as China, India and Japan might benefit from a de-rated Regional? Stretch 2 would not get too close to a potential A380-900 - damn there I go - please keep this thread strictly A350 based.

My key take-away is two for the price of 1.5. This would finally end development on the A350 series, apart from NEOs.
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:16 pm

Quoting Egerton (Reply 8):
Equally, I have suggested that the niche market aimed at by the 777-9 made the decision to go forward seriously flawed. The 777-8 is already a non starter, with ULR offerings from the A350 series eating its lunch.

The extremes of how far Airbus fanboys can warp reality is fascinating. The 777-8 has 53 orders from three customers, and the A350-900 ULR has thus far 7 orders from one customer (SQ). Apparently, from this follows that the 777-8 is a "non-starter" with ULR A350's "eating its lunch". Incredible.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:25 pm

Quoting Egerton (Reply 8):
I am saying that if you raise OEW, a given, counting a stretch, bigger wings, heavier engines and more seats, and keep the MTOW, one of two things has to decrease, payload or fuel amount at MZFW.
The numbers are not from me I picked them of the net, The numbers for the 777-300ER are from Boeing as is the MTOW number for the 777-9. The rest is from Wikipedia.
It can well be that growth in OEW is only 15t, or MZFW will be 250t. But no way there is space for an payload of 70t with the range at that payload some people here fantasize about. A different case comes if Boeing will increase MTOW for the 777-9, but that is the only fixed number originating from Boeing.

Will the engines and wing really be that much heavier though? I believe the new core is smaller than that used in the 77L/W? The fan fits in the the same nacel does it not? Would this configuration not be lighter?

And I thought the new wing was no heavier than the old wing given that it is larger but made of carbon?

Also are they not saving weight in Avionics by adopting 787 parts?

I would have to assume they will save some weight in the new internal structural system as well.

So really the only heavier part will be the stretch - which is a total of 7.5' longer - which probably isn't heavier than 1 or 2 tons. It really isn't that much longer than the 77W - You are talking 3.5%
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:56 pm

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 9):
The extremes of how far Airbus fanboys can warp reality is fascinating.

Well, please consider rephrasing that to "The extremes of how far some Airbus fanboys can warp reality is fascinating."

  
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:13 pm

Quoting morrisond (Reply 10):
Will the engines and wing really be that much heavier though? I believe the new core is smaller than that used in the 77L/W? The fan fits in the the same nacel does it not? Would this configuration not be lighter?

GE9X fan diameter of 133.5 in, GE90-115B fan diameter of 128 in. I do not expect a lighter fan. I assume the GE9X needs a substanzial bigger nacelle. The core will have more stages on the high pressure compressor and perhaps more stages on the turbine, hardly weight saving.

The wing will be quite a bit larger and will have a folding tip that does not come without adding weight. The change to carbon fiber will mitigate the weight increase but not erase it.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 10):
I would have to assume they will save some weight in the new internal structural system as well.

So really the only heavier part will be the stretch - which is a total of 7.5' longer - which probably isn't heavier than 1 or 2 tons. It really isn't that much longer than the 77W - You are talking 3.5%

How should the weight in the fuselage be saved? Same material. Lower profile of frames (to enlarge the cabin) should add weight, bigger windows should add weight, the stretch is 2.8 m, on the A330 the stretch costs 1t per meter, can be hardly less on the 777. Bigger tail to counteract the bigger wings adds weight. More seats add weight.

In the end this are only my opinions we will see the numbers for the bird in a few years.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:49 pm

Quoting olle (Reply 5):
if we can expect the A350-1100 around 2019 will the trent XWB have any PIP installed by then compared to the current engine and will this change any of the calculations mentioned?

If they need an engine boost then I think 2019 EIS is optimistic.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Do you believe the 787-10 comes at the expense of the 787-9?

Sure, some, absolutely. I think Boeing saw the righting on the wall with the 788 and knew they wanted to get to 14+/month rate and they needed another derivative in order to do that. As soon as they reach their next moment of doubt about filling the line then I think we will see talk of the 787-based freighter.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Why would Airbus wait for such improvements?

It was my belief that the A350 production line could sell every aircraft it can possibly produce for the next 10 years. I thought the A359/A351 were that compelling that they didn't need to spend even more money on the platform and that for the next 10 years they could execute the ramp up and return cash to shareholders which isn't something they are going to be able to do with their other clean sheet program.

I used the past tense there because obviously I was wrong because clearly Airbus thinks they need another offering.

I am not 'hiding' at all. I notice you have expressed reservations about this aircraft as well.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:10 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 7):
I am saying that if you raise OEW, a given, counting a stretch, bigger wings, heavier engines and more seats, and keep the MTOW, one of two things has to decrease, payload or fuel amount at MZFW.

Of course the heavier engines will be (much) more efficient. So for the same MTOW (and lower cruise drag thanks to bigger wing span), it would need (much) less fuel weight for the same mission. So that weight not being used by fuel is being used by OEW and/or MTOW-MZFW.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13980
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:37 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 14):

Of course the heavier engines will be (much) more efficient. So for the same MTOW (and lower cruise drag thanks to bigger wing span), it would need (much) less fuel weight for the same mission. So that weight not being used by fuel is being used by OEW and/or MTOW-MZFW.

So, if the OEW increase is bigger than the fuel savings, the difference has to come out of the payload.
111 ton max fuel load at MZFW saved 12 ton fuel due to 10% improvement and an 20 ton MTOW increase gives 8 ton less payload.
Like he said... something has to give.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:00 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Do you believe the 787-10 comes at the expense of the 787-9?

I don't. I believe the 787-9 and -10 come at the expense of the -8, as we've already started to see.

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 9):
The extremes of how far Airbus fanboys can warp reality is fascinating. The 777-8 has 53 orders from three customers, and the A350-900 ULR has thus far 7 orders from one customer (SQ). Apparently, from this follows that the 777-8 is a "non-starter" with ULR A350's "eating its lunch".

Come now, that's not going to help this thread in any way   

The 777-8 is selling, and I'm sure a lot of us are surprised, and I'm sure it will outsell the -200LR rather handily.

The 777-8 is perfect for hauling cargo as well, but if airlines don't really have that need and just want a light ULH type, the A350-900ULR is the plane for them, especially if they have a substantial A350 fleet, i.e., SQ.

To also be fair, the A350-900ULR has only been available a few months. The 777-8, two years.

Granted, I see that a lot from Airbus fanboys.
The A330neo is better than the 787 because it's cheaper, the A350 is better than the 777X because the latter is heavier and so on.

Boeing fanboys are the opposite. The reality is, everything both companies make are perfect for the market and both companies have products that perfectly suit their respect missions. Maybe that airline doesn't really need the performance of the A321neo and goes with the MAX 9, or an airline needs a good entry level widebody, so they go with the A330neo.

Point being, it's both stupid and silly to try and make one company better than the other, because both companies make damn good products, and it makes no sense

The 777-8 and A350-900ULR will do perfectly fine. In fact, I think the A350 and 777X make a great pair!
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:56 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16):
Granted, I see that a lot from Airbus fanboys.
The A330neo is better than the 787 because it's cheaper, the A350 is better than the 777X because the latter is heavier and so on.

You are trying to simplify the arguments that is used, or at least supposed to be used regarding aircraft types and trying to show how the "fanboys" use it. No-one has ever said the A330neo is better than the 787. What has been said that the lower purchase price of the A330neo may make it a better option for an airline. This combined with availability may swing an order in its favour.

The argument about weight is just a continuation on the A320 and 737 argument where for years the 738 has the edge over the A320 because carries less weight. Seems this line of argument only becomes a problem once it is shown that the Boeing product is heavier. Fanboys....right?

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16):
Boeing fanboys are the opposite. The reality is, everything both companies make are perfect for the market and both companies have products that perfectly suit their respect missions. Maybe that airline doesn't really need the performance of the A321neo and goes with the MAX 9, or an airline needs a good entry level widebody, so they go with the A330neo.

Point being, it's both stupid and silly to try and make one company better than the other, because both companies make damn good products, and it makes no sense

The 777-8 and A350-900ULR will do perfectly fine. In fact, I think the A350 and 777X make a great pair!

If you look at the history of the aircraft that both companies produce you will see that for most of the time Boeing has enjoyed sales success and a product superiority over its rival. This has been eroding for some time, whether this has been because Boeing has given Airbus the market or by Airbus actually making products that compete with the products from Boeing, it is happening.

The A330 gets left out of discussion when talking about future line-ups. People still dismiss it as a serious competitor to the 787 and sees its recent success more down to Boeing than the aircraft and the capabilities itself.

Sales are used as a measuring stick when it suits the argument as well and not consistently. The A320neo only has a lead over the 737MAX because it was available to deliver for 18 months before the MAX. However the 787 has over 400 more sales than the A350 because it is superior. The 777X has more sales than the A350-1000 so its shows how it is better as well.

So please stop with the "fanboy victim" argument that has cropped up lately. Both supporters of either OEM will highlight the advantages each has over the other. It seems though that most of the complaining is coming from one side about how unfair the forums are to Boeing and its supporters. Airbus has picked up against Boeing, either by being able to price competitively or by producing a better product, that's life.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9622
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:04 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16):
The A330neo is better than the 787 because it's cheaper, the A350 is better than the 777X because the latter is heavier and so on.

I'd see this as a misrepresentation.

The dialog usually is:

B-Fan: 787 blows A330 out of the water
A-Fan: Think again the A330 appears to be competitive.
or
B-Fan: The 777 is at least twice as efficient as any A product
A-Fan: The A350 seems to have better numbers ....

i.e. usually it is a correction on B related overstatements.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19452
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:04 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 17):
No-one has ever said the A330neo is better than the 787.

Someone may have said it, but nobody really believes it.

However, this:

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 17):
What has been said that the lower purchase price of the A330neo may make it a better option for an airline. This combined with availability may swing an order in its favour.

is perfectly reasonable and for some airlines makes the A330 a perfectly acceptable choice over the 787. One only has to look at how many A330s have been sold in the last few years.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13980
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:23 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16):
The 777-8 is perfect for hauling cargo as well,

It is. But with diminishing margins on Cargo heading towards marginal cost, and cargo not caring about stops and routings for the most part, getting the premium required to pay for the extra fuel, marginal cost being higher on an ULH plane/flight after all, seems to be a somehwat iffy proposition.
Having the most efficient ULH Cargo hauler works as long most of the worlds fleet are a generation or two behind, but logic dictates that, if the cargo prices heading towards marginal cost becomes true, putting cargo on an ULH plane means selling the cargo space at a loss. A tiny one in deed, but still a loss.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
jmchevallier
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:17 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 11:23 am

Quoting Egerton (Reply 8):
Stretch 2 might be a very very close relative with common MTOW, engines etc, but about 85m length traded against less range, to EIS a couple of years after Stretch 1. (Yes, tail-strikes may be an issue!) This Stretch 2 would have an economic and slot advantage for TATL and possibly for some US West Coast runs, depending from where it departed from on the European land mass? There will be other routes, but my geography is woeful. Perhaps nations such as China, India and Japan might benefit from a de-rated Regional? Stretch 2 would not get too close to a potential A380-900 - damn there I go - please keep this thread strictly A350 based.

Please remember that a 85m length would be a show stopper, as almost no airport would be able to accomodate such a long aircraft.
This fact contributed to the kill of the B747-600 project back in 1997.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19452
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:40 pm

Quoting jmchevallier (Reply 21):
Please remember that a 85m length would be a show stopper

IMHO, planes longer than 80m will happen eventually and airports will adapt as they always have to bigger planes. Those of us that were here when the A3XX was being talked about will remember all the nay-sayers claiming only six airports in the World could ever cope with such a plane.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:46 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 22):
IMHO, planes longer than 80m will happen eventually and airports will adapt as they always have to bigger planes.

Yes, eventually. I can see it happen with the next clean-sheet widebody jet. I do not see it happening on a relatively low investment A350 stretch. Even Boeing did not want to go beyond 80 meters on the 777X.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:00 pm

FAA and EASA regulation on separation per aircraft class are going to be relaxed pretty soon

https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJ_9WJkbHLAhWBPRoKHYruDMEQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Feasa.europa.eu%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fdfu%2FNPA%25202014-21%2520%27Draft%2520CS%2520ADR-DSN.D.260%27.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHPLvc4UdEU2AeJh6KYzjFTt__DYA&sig2=jFr0OVk4yaivBY_IeblPLA&bvm=bv.116274245,d.d2s

Basically within F class, Aircraft stand taxilane / Center line to object is reduced from 50.5 to 47.5 giving 82.5m aircraft the regulatory margin on a classe F airport

Not sure after all if it will work on span as runway centerline to taxiway centerline may not be altered
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:43 pm

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 24):
FAA and EASA regulation on separation per aircraft class are going to be relaxed pretty soon

All nice and well but it will require additional talk (= additional money) with the FAA and EASA. Not to mention that such long fuselage might not fit inside the Beluga, or current assembly hangars, or paint hangars. Now buildings can be extended, but IMO it's all too much effort for something that is supposed to be a low investment.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:56 pm

It is a joint ICAO/FAA/EASA regulation revision...

And as far as Beluga are concerned, the XL version is underway

I have just said that 80*80 it is not set in stone.
747-8 is not a true class F bird because of all the job done at boeing to lessen the regulations for this typical bird...
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:27 pm

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 26):
I have just said that 80*80 it is not set in stone.

And I agree. I just think it won't happen on this A350-8000.

Going beyond 80 meters will probably require a re-positioning of the main landing gear. Making the project even more expensive. No, I believe this stretch will be a 787-10 style upgrade. Low key, low investment.

[Edited 2016-03-08 07:49:14]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:33 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27):
Going beyond 80 meters will probably require a re-allocation of the main landing gear.

Thanks. Perhaps you mean re-positioning rather then re-allocation? Not seeking to nit pick, just seeking clarity.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9865
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:48 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 22):
IMHO, planes longer than 80m will happen eventually and airports will adapt as they always have to bigger planes. Those of us that were here when the A3XX was being talked about will remember all the nay-sayers claiming only six airports in the World could ever cope with such a plane.

But if you look at the sales of the A380, the question is if the infrastructure adjusted quickly enough for the business case of the plane to work out. Imho there is nothing to gain for Airbus to stretch the A350 beyond 80m.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:49 pm

Quoting Egerton (Reply 28):
Thanks. Perhaps you mean re-positioning rather then re-allocation? Not seeking to nit pick, just seeking clarity.

Yes, I updated my post. Thanks.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:54 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 19):
One only has to look at how many A330s have been sold in the last few years.

Sure and the scores more 777 orders vs the negative selling A350s are an indication that it could still be better for some operators. That when A330neo's and 777 orders aren't taking orders from within their family (e.g. A350s and 787s) that is.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
Even Boeing did not want to go beyond 80 meters on the 777X.

In fact they aren't even approaching it. Could be room for an additional stretch...

tortugamon
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19452
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 29):
Imho there is nothing to gain for Airbus to stretch the A350 beyond 80m.

For clarity, I'm certainly not suggesting the A350 be stretched beyond the 80m limit. I'm just saying the 80m limit will be broken when required by Airbus or Boeing.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31):
Could be room for an additional stretch...

One would have to wonder why Boeing wouldn't apply the maximum stretch they could to the -9. I really doubt they left anything on the table.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:31 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 32):
One would have to wonder why Boeing wouldn't apply the maximum stretch they could to the -9. I really doubt they left anything on the table.

I remember EK debating the performance of the A351 yet they seem happy with the design on the 779. Not a knock on the A351 just an observation about the difficult field performance in DXB in the summer where that large 779 is optimal for that size aircraft. One stretch beyond EK-DXB-45C-8knm-performance should still be quite capable certainly similar to this A350-8000. The only question is tail strike but that should about the same for both aircraft I suspect.

However, it certainly hard to see the need for two regional aircraft in the 400-450 seat space.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:54 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16):
Point being, it's both stupid and silly to try and make one company better than the other, because both companies make damn good products, and it makes no sense

That is why the market is 50% vs 50%...

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 17):
Both supporters of either OEM will highlight the advantages each has over the other. It seems though that most of the complaining is coming from one side about how unfair the forums are to Boeing and its supporters. Airbus has picked up against Boeing, either by being able to price competitively or by producing a better product, that's life.

What I have found is that when discussing an Airbus product, the whole thread evolves into an A product VS B product, when the product is B the discussion is more centered on the B side of the equation, quite frankly I am amazed this has been going for over a decade, and regretfully a lot of very good contributors have left because of this.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:39 pm

Quoting theredbaron (Reply 34):
That is why the market is 50% vs 50%...

Actually it is 55/45 if we look at deliveries. 57/43 if you look at revenues. Incorrect info doesn't raise the level of dialogue...it often is the reason for it deteriorating.

tortugamon
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:56 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Actually it is 55/45 if we look at deliveries. 57/43 if you look at revenues. Incorrect info doesn't raise the level of dialogue...it often is the reason for it deteriorating.

And you chose not to mention orders.

Unbalanced info doesn't raise the level of dialogue... it is often the reason for it deteriorating.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:25 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):
I remember EK debating the performance of the A351 yet they seem happy with the design on the 779. Not a knock on the A351 just an observation about the difficult field performance in DXB in the summer where that large 779 is optimal for that size aircraft. One stretch beyond EK-DXB-45C-8knm-performance should still be quite capable certainly similar to this A350-8000.

We know Sir Tim Clark called the A35K a 8-10 hour plane, yet we can see with the performance numbers it is close, or better than the 77W. Unless you think the 77W is a 8-10 hour aircraft I think we know that they were looking for a aircraft that provides the airline with growth from the 77W. The A35K doesn't provide them this growth.

Some airlines will not need this growth, some will. If Airbus launches the stretch they will have an option for both of these instead of looking at an airline ordering the 779 of there was no option for growth from the 77W.

I think the A350-8000 would be perfect for an airline like SQ. They will not need to compromise on their seat widths, but would get the seating upgrade over the 77W and lower cost than the 779.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15567
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:07 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 37):
We know Sir Tim Clark called the A35K a 8-10 hour plane, yet we can see with the performance numbers it is close, or better than the 77W.

Different aircraft. The A350 EK ordered in 2007 and what is available today is not the same.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:36 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Actually it is 55/45 if we look at deliveries. 57/43 if you look at revenues. Incorrect info doesn't raise the level of dialogue...it often is the reason for it deteriorating.

tortugamon

There are also orders to be counted. But nah, those don't really matter much, and we can just ignore that metric since it won't really fit the picture you're trying to paint.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:17 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Different aircraft. The A350 EK ordered in 2007 and what is available today is not the same.

I see an article in November 2010 where Sir Tim Clark he laments the performance of the A35K. Is this before Airbus finalized their final performance for the A35K?

Also, he only had 20 A35K on order and 50 A359s, so for me it doesn't make sense that he cancelled the whole order because of performance issues with the A35K. He has flipped a few times on his needs (as any CEO has) and was still stating around this time he wants 340 seats in his aircraft. Since then it has gone down to 300 minimum seats, now he is again looking at the A359.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:42 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 40):
I see an article in November 2010 where Sir Tim Clark he laments the performance of the A35K. Is this before Airbus finalized their final performance for the A35K?

That was after Airbus increased the operating weights and Rolls increased the thrust, both of which made the plane less fuel-efficient on the regional missions Emirates wanted to use them on (while still being an exceptionally fuel-efficient plane, overall).
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:58 am

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 36):
And you chose not to mention orders.
Quoting crimsonchin (Reply 39):
There are also orders to be counted.

Maybe we can throw in which OEM has the best logo into this pissing contest! Come on fellas, just a little objectivity is a good thing. When Airbus starts producing more aircraft for more revenue the pendulum will swing. I think it could happen in 2018/2019 but its not really a debate right now. Its ok, these things happen  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
That was after Airbus increased the operating weights and Rolls increased the thrust, both of which made the plane less fuel-efficient on the regional missions Emirates wanted to use them on (while still being an exceptionally fuel-efficient plane, overall).
Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Different aircraft. The A350 EK ordered in 2007 and what is available today is not the same.

There are plenty of times where STC has lamented the A351's lack of capability even after the redesign. As you both know he looks at payload at range and at high temperatures and not at the top of the engine's capabilities.

"By contrast, Clark sees the Airbus A350-1000 as an aircraft for 10-12 hour missions. “It does not have the legs of the 777X,” he says."
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...on/emirates-sees-major-demand-777x

And here he is again talking about 10-hour flights for the A351 in 2012:
http://www.seattletimes.com/subscribe/offers/?pw=redirect

I thought the redesign added about 500nm of range with some wing work and the 4,000 lbs of thrust but that doesn't sound like something that is going to take it from a 10-hour bird to a 15-hour one using STC assumptions. Given his payloads and temperatures and his recent dialogue about the 78X and literature about it having trouble reaching BCN from DXB, I can't say I am surprised.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:17 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
That was after Airbus increased the operating weights and Rolls increased the thrust, both of which made the plane less fuel-efficient on the regional missions Emirates wanted to use them on (while still being an exceptionally fuel-efficient plane, overall).

In that article he was asking for more capabilities, not less for regional missions. So we have him asking for less capabilities, but asking for more from the same frame. So tell me what was he looking for from Airbus? A 14-16 hour capable aircraft, or a regional one? We have both explanations as reasons for cancelling the A350 order. You tell me why you think they cancelled the A350 order?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...irbus-a350-as-boeing-stalls-on-777
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15567
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:17 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):

There are plenty of times where STC has lamented the A351's lack of capability even after the redesign. As you both know he looks at payload at range and at high temperatures and not at the top of the engine's capabilities.

And yet EK are looking at the A350 again.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
I thought the redesign added about 500nm of range with some wing work and the 4,000 lbs of thrust but that doesn't sound like something that is going to take it from a 10-hour bird to a 15-hour one using STC assumptions.

The design range on the new A350-1000 is marginally further than the 77W. The A350 is also around 30 minutes faster on a ULH compared to the 77W.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/LeBourget201135Npayload-range.jpg
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:39 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 44):
And yet EK are looking at the A350 again.

Right, for the regional missions.

Quoting zeke (Reply 44):
The design range on the new A350-1000 is marginally further than the 77W. The A350 is also around 30 minutes faster on a ULH compared to the 77W.

OEM Design range without cargo. These new aircraft seem to have shallower payload range curves. You once reminded me than A332 can outlift a 788 on some missions.

By Airbus' own admission the A351 gained about 400nm of range with the redesign. STC called it a 10 hour aircraft before the redesign. 400nm of additional range vs that previous version isn't going to get it to be a 14+ hour aircraft for Emirates.

If the A351 is a '10 hour aircraft' plus 400nm then I think a further 5m+ long stretch will be pretty darn handicapped for the ME3 - but I guess that isn't the target market. Not a lot of 400 person aircraft being purchased outside the ME3 as others are quick to note.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9865
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:08 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 32):
For clarity, I'm certainly not suggesting the A350 be stretched beyond the 80m limit. I'm just saying the 80m limit will be broken when required by Airbus or Boeing.

I am not sure, with folding wingtips you can achieve wingspans close to 100m without the need for large infrastructure changes, with a double decker you can increase the capacity without stretching the fuselage over 80m, especially as many airports now have invested into the infrastructure to handle double deckers.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13980
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 46):
I am not sure, with folding wingtips you can achieve wingspans close to 100m without the need for large infrastructure changes,

While you can get from 80 to ~83 meters by reducing clearances, but at some point there is none left and you actually have to start placing runways and taxiways spaced further apart.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15567
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:16 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
Right, for the regional missions.

Hardly, they are looking for 50-100 aircraft.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
OEM Design range without cargo. These new aircraft seem to have shallower payload range curves. You once reminded me than A332 can outlift a 788 on some missions.

Of course design range because you were talking at the the extreme right of the range/payload curve where payload is traded off for range. I have never mentioned the A330 can ever out lift the 787 long haul or is even competitive at ranges where range needs to be traded off for payload, only at ranges where it lifts 5t more payload.

You are the person saying beyond 12 hours like is some magical required design point that every aircraft needs to meet. Newsflash, that is beyond the range of majority of the majority of city pairs in use today, even for EK. The 77W cannot take maximum payload beyond 12 hours, so it is always a trade-off between range and payload.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
By Airbus' own admission the A351 gained about 400nm of range with the redesign.

It does not matter the shade of lipstick you put on the pig, the undeniable fact is the new A350-1000 has a further design range than the 77W, beyond 7000 nm the A350-1000 carries more. Under 7000 nm, the 77W carries more.

I did not prepare these (ferpe did I believe), however they have appeared on a.net before

From these curves the A350 should lift the theoretical full 2 class marketing passenger payload, and around 15t of freight (assuming catering and other operator equipment is around 6t) out 6000 air nautical miles. Install around 300 seats in a 3 class configuration in the A350-1000, and you at more like 20t of cargo. Then add realistic load factors into the picture, the A350-1000 and 77W would have interchangeable payload at that distance.

https://www.airliners.net/uf/135513/phpN43UiF.jpeg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRchart35J-8Xand-9XJulycorrected2013_zpsc99befda.jpg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR-9-10-10ER359351-8X-9X.jpg
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 3

Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:37 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
Hardly, they are looking for 50-100 aircraft.

If he isn't looking at regional aircraft then why is he looking at the 78X?

""We wouldn't put it on New York or Sydney, but as a workhorse up to 8.5h without a kink in the payload, it looks like a good aeroplane," he says."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...n-a350-900-and-787-10-next-417326/

"capable of flying on regional routes in the Middle East, plus to cities in Africa."
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7728d...cd-00144feab7de.html#axzz42OAu48AD

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
You are the person saying beyond 12 hours like is some magical required design point that every aircraft needs to meet

Never said such a thing.

tortugamon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AMS757, Bing [Bot], BlueTrue, BobLoblah, fathernewman, gensys, Google Adsense [Bot], kolnamrhein, kpotennis, nascar1, Qatara340, QuawerAir, ryanov, sabby, SoEWR and 225 guests

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