Considering that A350-900 already has a LR version is it possible that we soon see a A350-1000 LR as well with the same treatment as Airbus gave the 900 LR model?

The A350-1000 already has extremely long range, 14,800km/7950nm rated at 308 tons. I was surprised to learn that. The A359 is 15,000km/8200nm rated at 280 tons.

The 1000 may not be the longest range jet in the world, but it is not handicapped by any stretch. Should be able to do things like JFK-HKG with ease.

The wing supports the 1000 and a heavier-rated 900. It does not imply the wing supports a 1000LR; we have no information to suggest the wing, landing gear or engines have capability beyond the 1000 weight without some totally new information. Glad to learn more from other forum members.

Thanks for asking this question "olle". I would also like to know.

As "flighty" mentions, the -1000 is already quite capable and will fly further than most airlines would require.

However, EK for example had to block some seats on the 77W for their DXB-LAX-DXB route from what I have read.

Will the standard -1000 be able to do a route like this uninhibited? If not, what form would a -1000LR need to satisfactorily take to complete a flight like this?

It's all about those engines. I want to say that they've hit a wall with it for now. But I'm sure Airbus will fiddle and play out this type like every plane before it with a million and one versions over 30+ years.

MoKa777 wrote:

Thanks for asking this question "olle". I would also like to know.

As "flighty" mentions, the -1000 is already quite capable and will fly further than most airlines would require.

However, EK for example had to block some seats on the 77W for their DXB-LAX-DXB route from what I have read.

Will the standard -1000 be able to do a route like this uninhibited? If not, what form would a -1000LR need to satisfactorily take to complete a flight like this?

By old Boeing range specs, wasn't the 773ER rated at 7930nm. That is basically the same as Airbus rates the 1000. If those ratings were comparable, then the 1000 would struggle on LAX-DXB too. If Airbus wasn't quite so aggressive with the numbers as Boeing used to be, then the big A350 may have enough reserve to do it? This route is likely a perfect contest for the 2 airplanes.

Flighty wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

Thanks for asking this question "olle". I would also like to know.

As "flighty" mentions, the -1000 is already quite capable and will fly further than most airlines would require.

However, EK for example had to block some seats on the 77W for their DXB-LAX-DXB route from what I have read.

Will the standard -1000 be able to do a route like this uninhibited? If not, what form would a -1000LR need to satisfactorily take to complete a flight like this?

By old Boeing range specs, wasn't the 773ER rated at 7930nm. That is basically the same as Airbus rates the 1000. If those ratings were comparable, then the 1000 would struggle on LAX-DXB too. If Airbus wasn't quite so aggressive with the numbers as Boeing used to be, then the big A350 may have enough reserve to do it? This route is likely a perfect contest for the 2 airplanes.

+1. That is true.

I wish a.net had a like button...

I do not think that we will see a A350-1000LR, but I would not be astonished to see a higher MTOW version with increased tankage, matching the 165,000 l of the A350-900LR or more if that is possible.

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not think that we will see a A350-1000LR, but I would not be astonished to see a higher MTOW version with increased tankage, matching the 165,000 l of the A350-900LR or more if that is possible.

the A350-1000LR will happen after Airbus launch the A350-1100 (or A350-2000) which will probably require a higher MTOW than current A35J.

The A350-900 is a very robust, heavy lifter.

The -1000 seems amazingly efficient but also slightly (just slightly) lacking in the heavy lifting department.

Like "mjoelnir", I think it could definitely benefit from a slight MTOW increase and tankage increase. I believe the -1000 currently only holds 156,000 litres max. 165,000 litres will be better. Just my opinion, though, since I don't know if any airline would be interested in that. What will an increase as mentioned offer the aircraft in real world benefit?

As "danj555" mentions, engine thrust may also be a limiting factor.

Sorry to go slightly OT, but what about going the opposite direction with the A350-1000? Take the -900 MTOW, wing area, thrust and MLG and combine it with the -1000 fuselage. An A350-1000 Regional if you like. A lighter and more economical A350-1000 for Airlines that doesn´t need the range.

What range could you expect whit this recepi? 5000NM? 6000NM?

Can I just say I love how peaceful this thread is compared to some other ones. We don't have people bashing eachother or anything (which is how a thread is supposed to be). Good job us!!!

Anyways, on the topic of this thread, I agree with other posters that before we see a -1000LR we'll see a -2000/-1100. I still have reason to believe that the -2000 will happen. When SIA signed for the 77X's, they signed LOI. Maybe to force Airbus to produce a plane that they'd happily take. Not saying the SIA is not gonna take the 77X I'm just saying it's not a firm order.

I personally don't think there is much reason to make a -1000LR the demand for a plane like that must be tiny (look how many airlines ordered the 778).

Extra300 wrote:

Sorry to go slightly OT, but what about going the opposite direction with the A350-1000? Take the -900 MTOW, wing area, thrust and MLG and combine it with the -1000 fuselage. An A350-1000 Regional if you like. A lighter and more economical A350-1000 for Airlines that doesn´t need the range.

What range could you expect whit this recepi? 5000NM? 6000NM?

That will be a fantastic aircraft. However, with regional style J, it will carry a boatload of pax! Likely 400+. CX currently has 398 in their 773 at 9-abreast at the moment. The A350-1000 only has 4 pairs of exits. And up to 440 seats only needs those 4 pairs. Just the space created by leaving out a 5th pair of doors will allow the -1000 to seat 407-416 pax in CX regional configuration. Playing around with galleys and lavs could add a few more.

That's a lot of seats! For now I believe the A330-300/-900 is good enough for most airlines regional networks (especially in Asia) and the 787-10 is a good alternative for the near future. Maybe by 2030-ish a regional straight forward stretch of the A350-900 will be required (again, especially in Asia with the traffic boom that is expected to continue for a while over there...).

The A350-900 Regional is also a contender for an airlines regional fleet needs. It too, in regional configuration, will seat more pax than current regional A330-300s/-900s.

planespotter20 wrote:

Can I just say I love how peaceful this thread is compared to some other ones. We don't have people bashing eachother or anything (which is how a thread is supposed to be). Good job us!!!

Anyways, on the topic of this thread, I agree with other posters that before we see a -1000LR we'll see a -2000/-1100. I still have reason to believe that the -2000 will happen. When SIA signed for the 77X's, they signed LOI. Maybe to force Airbus to produce a plane that they'd happily take. Not saying the SIA is not gonna take the 77X I'm just saying it's not a firm order.

I personally don't think there is much reason to make a -1000LR the demand for a plane like that must be tiny (look how many airlines ordered the 778).

This is a peaceful thread! I hope this is a good sign for a.net discussions going forward. Let's hope...

I often wonder if they will make a 777-9LR down the line. The 777-8 will end up outselling its predecessor, but its niche is small.
An A350-1000LR could do the same in regards to the A350-900ULR.

While anything is possible I am not sure if the reward (in terms of market size) would be there.

Airbus have the existing removable ACT tanks that were developed for the A310/A340, each tank would hold around 1 hr of fuel and fit into the cargo hold. Full each tank would have a mass of around 6.4 tonnes gross. The install of ACTs on other Airbus widebodies is done via a service bulletin.

zeke wrote:

While anything is possible I am not sure if the reward (in terms of market size) would be there.

Airbus have the existing removable ACT tanks that were developed for the A310/A340, each tank would hold around 1 hr of fuel and fit into the cargo hold. Full each tank would have a mass of around 6.4 tonnes gross. The install of ACTs on other Airbus widebodies is done via a service bulletin.

Wow! Awesome stuff Zeke.

Correct me if I am wrong but it will likely be heavier on an A350-1000 since at the weight of a fully loaded -1000 and for ultra-long haul, fuel flow per hour alone will exceed 6 tonnes, right?

That leads me to another two questions:
1. How much space do these tanks take up? The -1000 probably has more cargo volume than is necessary for most airlines but I am curious.
2. Which fuel is used first, the fuel from the ACTs of the normal tanks?

There is barely a market for the A359LR. Can't see Airbus do this. They will focus on selling the models they offer at the moment

I doubt there is a large enough market for making a -1000LR, but I'm sure Airbus will make higher MTOW variants and end up utilising all of the available wing tank capacity eventually. The MTOW increases should, IMO, be done without a revision to the landing gear, if possible to save resources, time and keep a higher commonality between the different weight variants. The A330 and A350 are good examples how it has been achieved before, no reason to think it wouldn't happen with the A35J.

Extra300 wrote:

An A350-1000 Regional if you like. A lighter and more economical A350-1000 for Airlines that doesn´t need the range.

And also a far less versatile one, whose utility would likely be limited to east and southeast Asia... see 744D and 773A.

zeke wrote:

Airbus have the existing removable ACT tanks that were developed for the A310/A340, each tank would hold around 1 hr of fuel and fit into the cargo hold. Full each tank would have a mass of around 6.4 tonnes gross. The install of ACTs on other Airbus widebodies is done via a service bulletin.

Why would they need those though, when the A359ULR demonstrates that the wing can be modified to hold more than it currently does?

Boeing778X wrote:

I often wonder if they will make a 777-9LR down the line. The 777-8 will end up outselling its predecessor, but its niche is small.
An A350-1000LR could do the same in regards to the A350-900ULR.

There must be a reason why 353t MTOW seems to be a magical demarcation line.
Same for the 787 @254t.

I don't think we will see "easy" subtypes going beyond those limits.
( voids a potential 777-9LR. and 777-10 will loose quite a bit of range )

MoKa777 wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but it will likely be heavier on an A350-1000 since at the weight of a fully loaded -1000 and for ultra-long haul, fuel flow per hour alone will exceed 6 tonnes, right?

You are adding fuel to be burnt at the other end of the flight where it is lighter more like 5t per hour. This would be a trade off, you would have to replace cargo with fuel.

MoKa777 wrote:

That leads me to another two questions:
1. How much space do these tanks take up? The -1000 probably has more cargo volume than is necessary for most airlines but I am curious.
2. Which fuel is used first, the fuel from the ACTs of the normal tanks?

The are the size of a LD6 container.
The fuselage fuel (centre to engines, ACT to centre).

"The transfer of fuel from ACTs is
always to the centre tank and is
normally achieved by pressurisation
of the ACT using cabin air. In
the event of a failure of the pressurisation
system a back-up electrical
pump, installed on the rear wall
of the ACT, ensures the fuel transfer.
Refuel of the ACT is normally
automatic and adds between 5 and
10 minutes to the overall refuel
time of the aircraft, meaning that
an A320 Family or A310 aircraft
fitted with two ACTs can be refuelled
in under half an hour and an
A340 aircraft within 40 minutes.
These refuelling times, taking into
account the added ACTs, remain
within the turnaround time necessary
between flight"

http://www.airbus.com/support-services/ ... D%5D=41150

LAX772LR wrote:

Why would they need those though, when the A359ULR demonstrates that the wing can be modified to hold more than it currently does?

The A350-900 can have its fuel volume increased through some small modifications mainly software driven to increase high level cutoff in the tank, the -1000 already uses the larger volume.

zeke wrote:

The A350-900 can have its fuel volume increased through some small modifications mainly software driven to increase high level cutoff in the tank, the -1000 already uses the larger volume.

The A359ULR holds more fuel than the -1000: 165,000 L vs 156,000 L (vs 141,000 L in the standard A359). Presumably the same ULR fuel tank modifications can be made to the -1000 to boost its fuel capacity up to 165,000 L too.

zeke wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Why would they need those though, when the A359ULR demonstrates that the wing can be modified to hold more than it currently does?

The A350-900 can have its fuel volume increased through some small modifications mainly software driven to increase high level cutoff in the tank, the -1000 already uses the larger volume.

It's not just (and perhaps not even mainly) software though... there's different piping routing, pumping systems, inertion systems, etc. All physical.

And the A35K uses "a" larger volume, but is it using all available additional volume?
And if so, why does it still have significantly less total volume available?

Polot wrote:

Presumably the same ULR fuel tank modifications can be made to the -1000 to boost its fuel capacity up to 165,000 L too.

Exactly. That's why I'm asking if there'd be a need for the (weight and complexity) of auxiliary belly tanks, when the A35K doesn't seem to be using the max available to it in the wing.

Granted, I know that that won't give it equivalent range to even the current version of the A359ULR, but would probably give it a decent payload boost over a lesser range, which might appeal to several carriers.

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

The A350-900 can have its fuel volume increased through some small modifications mainly software driven to increase high level cutoff in the tank, the -1000 already uses the larger volume.

The A359ULR holds more fuel than the -1000: 165,000 L vs 156,000 L (vs 141,000 L in the standard A359). Presumably the same ULR fuel tank modifications can be made to the -1000 to boost its fuel capacity up to 165,000 L too.

I was of the understanding they were both 156,000l, maybe someone reported 165,000 instead of 156,000 as a typo.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

The A350-900 can have its fuel volume increased through some small modifications mainly software driven to increase high level cutoff in the tank, the -1000 already uses the larger volume.

The A359ULR holds more fuel than the -1000: 165,000 L vs 156,000 L (vs 141,000 L in the standard A359). Presumably the same ULR fuel tank modifications can be made to the -1000 to boost its fuel capacity up to 165,000 L too.

I was of the understanding they were both 156,000l, maybe someone reported 165,000 instead of 156,000 as a typo.

Airbus reports it as 165,000 right in their ULR launch press release: http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... -a350-900/

Edit: And on their A359 webpage: http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... /a350-900/ (Scroll down to "GOING THE ‘XTRA’ DISTANCE")

MoKa777 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

Thanks for asking this question "olle". I would also like to know.

As "flighty" mentions, the -1000 is already quite capable and will fly further than most airlines would require.

However, EK for example had to block some seats on the 77W for their DXB-LAX-DXB route from what I have read.

Will the standard -1000 be able to do a route like this uninhibited? If not, what form would a -1000LR need to satisfactorily take to complete a flight like this?

By old Boeing range specs, wasn't the 773ER rated at 7930nm. That is basically the same as Airbus rates the 1000. If those ratings were comparable, then the 1000 would struggle on LAX-DXB too. If Airbus wasn't quite so aggressive with the numbers as Boeing used to be, then the big A350 may have enough reserve to do it? This route is likely a perfect contest for the 2 airplanes.

+1. That is true.

I wish a.net had a like button...

Well the good old site probably would have, not this new "location".

LAX772LR wrote:

It's not just (and perhaps not even mainly) software though... there's different piping routing, pumping systems, inertion systems, etc. All physical.

As far as I am aware the systems are common between the 900 and 1000 with 43 capacitive probes installed in the fuel tanks, 13 for each wing tank and 17 in the center tank and 5 Probe Dual Temperature unit installed in the fuel tanks, 2 on each wing tank and 1 in the center tank. These feed to the Fuel Quantity Measurement System.

The A350 does not have a "interning system" it uses a special filter to remove some oxygen and deliver air with higher nitrogen and reduced oxygen levels to the tanks, the air is not inert by any means. I have described how this works in detail in a tech ops thread.

So how much MTOW need the A350-1000 to be able to carry the 165000 liters? What range would it get? Will it be a software change like the A359ULR or more changes needed?

Polot wrote:

Airbus reports it as 165,000 right in their ULR launch press release: http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... -a350-900/

Edit: And on their A359 webpage: http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... /a350-900/ (Scroll down to "GOING THE ‘XTRA’ DISTANCE")

I dont know the answer to that, the normal A350-900 with standard tanks will do 17+ hours (i.e HKG-MIA, 8400 nm), you simply do not need around 25,000 litres to fly an additional 2 hours, you need more like 10-15,000.

olle wrote:

So how much MTOW need the A350-1000 to be able to carry the 165000 liters? What range would it get? Will it be a software change like the A359ULR or more changes needed?

The extra 9000 litres is 7.290 tonnes, which according to Zeke's earlier post will be 1 hour and 27 mins flying time (at 5 tonnes an hour), which gives you an extra 800 miles, approx.

olle wrote:

Considering that A350-900 already has a LR version is it possible that we soon see a A350-1000 LR as well with the same treatment as Airbus gave the 900 LR model?

Yes, thats why the wing surface, engines and landing gear where beefed up significantly around 2010.

It's not for the existing -1000 only. It's for 20 yrs of incremental improvements.

Flighty wrote:

The A350-1000 already has extremely long range, 14,800km/7950nm rated at 308 tons. I was surprised to learn that. The A359 is 15,000km/8200nm rated at 280 tons.
.

So "kesje" another 800nm would make it 8750 nm?!?

Compared to the 778 it would fly longer or carry more cargo for the same distance, be lighter, using less fuel.

Sidney - London possible?

LAX772LR wrote:

[

zeke wrote:

Airbus have the existing removable ACT tanks that were developed for the A310/A340, each tank would hold around 1 hr of fuel and fit into the cargo hold. Full each tank would have a mass of around 6.4 tonnes gross. The install of ACTs on other Airbus widebodies is done via a service bulletin.

Why would they need those though, when the A359ULR demonstrates that the wing can be modified to hold more than it currently does?

165,000 l comes with a software change, but that does not match the range of the A350-900LR or 777-8. A MTOW increase around 12 t, the A350- 900 grew from 265 to 280 t since EIS, one auxiliary tank and the A350 will be the long range champ.

mjoelnir wrote:

A MTOW increase around 12 t, the A350- 900 grew from 265 to 280 t since EIS, one auxiliary tank and the A350 will be the long range champ.

AFAIK all A350s delivered to date were 275 tonne MTOW.

mjoelnir wrote:

165,000 l comes with a software change, but that does not match the range of the A350-900LR or 777-8. A MTOW increase around 12 t, the A350- 900 grew from 265 to 280 t since EIS, one auxiliary tank and the A350 will be the long range champ.

To take on all that fuel you have to reduce payload.

zeke wrote:

While anything is possible I am not sure if the reward (in terms of market size) would be there.

Airbus have the existing removable ACT tanks that were developed for the A310/A340, each tank would hold around 1 hr of fuel and fit into the cargo hold. Full each tank would have a mass of around 6.4 tonnes gross. The install of ACTs on other Airbus widebodies is done via a service bulletin.

expanding tankage to 165k liters (like on the A359ULR ) is easy. ( we don't know if that actually is the ultimate volume available.)

zeke wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

A MTOW increase around 12 t, the A350- 900 grew from 265 to 280 t since EIS, one auxiliary tank and the A350 will be the long range champ.

AFAIK all A350s delivered to date were 275 tonne MTOW.

you can buy 280t today. ( for delivery : ULR earlier as well as the regular run of the mill A359 a bit later.)

olle wrote:

Flighty wrote:

The A350-1000 already has extremely long range, 14,800km/7950nm rated at 308 tons. I was surprised to learn that. The A359 is 15,000km/8200nm rated at 280 tons.
.

So "kesje" another 800nm would make it 8750 nm?!?

Compared to the 778 it would fly longer or carry more cargo for the same distance, be lighter, using less fuel.

Sidney - London possible?

You know, now that I look at those numbers for the tenth time, and went back to the Airbus website, they say 8100nm/15,000km for the A359 @ 280T. Either I read it wrongly as 8200nm or they changed it. So it is a 150nm / 200km difference after all, really a surprisingly small difference between the current 900 and the 1000.

zeke wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

It's not just (and perhaps not even mainly) software though... there's different piping routing, pumping systems, inertion systems, etc. All physical.

As far as I am aware the systems are common between the 900 and 1000

A standard -900, yes.

The -900ULR will have physical hardware added and changed from that of the standard tank. Someone posted an article a while back with the specifics, will see if I can find it: additional pumps, additional piping/plumbing, and relocated jettison were specifically mentioned.

99% sure they used the word "inertion" or "inerting" as well.

It's not going to be just plugging software.

This whole LR aircraft concept is increasingly OBE...previous examples were essentially duds: the A345 and 772LR. Existing and future flavors of A350, A380, 787, 777 have pretty good legs...Beyond that, few carriers have the routes to support more than a handful of special LR aircraft. The A350-900ULR will likely be only LR version of the A350 and the 778 may never be built (except as a freighter, maybe?).

So yes, have to do a stop flying from Australia to Europe or Singapore to New York...No biggie !!

QuarkFly wrote:

This whole LR aircraft concept is increasingly OBE...previous examples were essentially duds: the A345 and 772LR.

A345 and 772LR were bespoke types .. with the assocciated high cost of producing a separate type and the limited useability of a niche product.
A350URL is nothing more than an option package added in.
It has low impact on using the type as "just another A359".