315 passengers, was the design payload at the 268 tonne W/V and promised to 7750 nm, Airbus exceeded that objective. (Please note Airbus increased their design payload subsequently from 315 pax to 325 pax, and increased the range it would carry).
It will take a full cabin, that is what the performance software shows.
You will see above the performance software is saying 8100 nm in still wind conditions will take 17:05, that means the flight xwb565 was referring to 17:02 was basically 8100 nm air miles, i.e. the flight was into headwinds. It is a representative example of the A350 flying the design payload, the design range.
i'm sorry but a claim that the 359 can do 8100nm with a full cabin and real world dow at 268t is simply not credible
not even vaguely so. not even in the realm of remotely credible.
if it were true, the ulr would never have been sold to anyone and would not be flown on any route and nobody would have bought anything larger than a 268t as it would cover any and all routes comfortably. you'd have 12 more tons to 280 which would push the 359/280 to what, zeke, 8800 nm? even airbus does not claim this
airbus design payload from your performance software is bogus. please stop doing this. you know better.
the ulr would not even have needed to have been built if we accepted your claims. and never would have been.
in addition, a 17hr flight does not cover 8100nm still air.
or else there are numerous flights right now listed at substantially lower ranges that you are contending are 8100nm flights including qf9, ua101, multiple sq flights, akl-dxb, and so forth.
did you forget to include takeoff and landing? zeke you are a pilot you know better than this
Counting excess reserve fuel is justified, that comes back to the fuel policy point I mentioned earlier. SQ on their first SIN-JFK flight on the A350 planned to have over 10 tonnes on arrival, meaning they could have held BOS, when they could have held EWR and taken 5 tonnes more payload.
I agree absolutely justified. problem is I already dealt with this when flip made the 9700 claim for ulr on the other thread. he actually said 9600 using the excess reserves plus the extra mtow headroom. and I noted correctly that he didn't account ofr weight penalty of increased fuel and that it should be mid 9300s. aka about one hour shy of spec. so he called me a troll lol.
it's sin ewr btw not kennedy
Last edited by h1fl1er
on Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.