Post #100 of this thread seems fitting to discuss the new potential improvements to the A350 in the form of revised wingtip devices.

It is being discussed on the A350 Production thread but I believe this thread is a good place to continue discussing the more technical aspects of the change.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/25/airbu ... more-25114

It is my understanding that an improvement like this will be most visible on and beneficial for flights that operate at the furthest ends of the aircraft's capabilities.

At the moment, the longest A359 flight is SFO-SIN.

1. I assume SQ uses a 275t standard A359. Correct?
2. How many seats are blocked on this flight?
3. I assume fuel uplift is just over 100t for a flight of this nature and duration. Correct?

4. Now, if SQ uses a standard (not ULR) 280t model, how will things change for this flight?
5. Will fewer, or no, seats need to be blocked?
6. A 2-3% fuel burn saving could reduce fuel burn on a flight like this by 2-3t! That may seem small but it adds up. It works out to 730-1095t per annum! How will the payload uplift on this flight? 20-30 extra passengers? (This is essentially my Question 4...)

Thank you to everyone for joining in and educating me.

Increased wingspan means lower induced drag, which benefits both cruise and take-off drag.

Seams to me that the plane is just more efficient, by around 1,4% whatever the distance. Obviously the fuel savings will be greater by volume the longer the distance, but pecentage wise I'd expect them to be fairly constant. Makes the standard A359 range 8200Nm and ULR range 9800Nm, per the figures in the Leeham article.

350helmi

MoKa777 wrote:

Post #100 of this thread seems fitting to discuss the new potential improvements to the A350 in the form of revised wingtip devices.

It is being discussed on the A350 Production thread but I believe this thread is a good place to continue discussing the more technical aspects of the change.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/25/airbu ... more-25114

It is my understanding that an improvement like this will be most visible on and beneficial for flights that operate at the furthest ends of the aircraft's capabilities.

At the moment, the longest A359 flight is SFO-SIN.

1. I assume SQ uses a 275t standard A359. Correct?
2. How many seats are blocked on this flight?
3. I assume fuel uplift is just over 100t for a flight of this nature and duration. Correct?

4. Now, if SQ uses a standard (not ULR) 280t model, how will things change for this flight?
5. Will fewer, or no, seats need to be blocked?

You are zeroing in on an extremely specific answer to a very convoluted math problem with lots of uncertainties. Down to the last few thousands lbs!? Incredibly difficult. Maybe we will get lucky and an A350 dispatcher can help.

MoKa777 wrote:

6. A 2-3% fuel burn saving could reduce fuel burn on a flight like this by 2-3t! That may seem small but it adds up. It works out to 730-1095t per annum!

Well the flight goes both ways. Say it is 5 tons per day. That's 1800t for the route. Or about 900t per aircraft, yes assuming 2 full aircraft are allocated (seems true).

I dont see it discussed elsewhere but seems A is offering a 210K MTOW weight variant now, so they are spanning 210 to 280K. I assume there is a customer for the 210K otherwise why would they pay money to have it certified??

page 25
http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _Oct17.pdf

trex8 wrote:

I dont see it discussed elsewhere but seems A is offering a 210K MTOW weight variant now, so they are spanning 210 to 280K. I assume there is a customer for the 210K otherwise why would they pay money to have it certified??

page 25
http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _Oct17.pdf

This might be the TO for the regional version to compete with the 787-10.

waly777 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

I dont see it discussed elsewhere but seems A is offering a 210K MTOW weight variant now, so they are spanning 210 to 280K. I assume there is a customer for the 210K otherwise why would they pay money to have it certified??

page 25
http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _Oct17.pdf

This might be the TO for the regional version to compete with the 787-10.

SQ are supposed to be the first regional A359 customer, along with EY. The reports back then were these were 250K. This seems a big drop to 210K.

210 might be for shorter sectors like Sin-Bkk, sin-cgk, sin-Kul. We operate the same A350 airframe with two different MTOWs. Maybe SQ will use 210/250/280.

zeke wrote:

210 might be for shorter sectors like Sin-Bkk, sin-cgk, sin-Kul. We operate the same A350 airframe with two different MTOWs. Maybe SQ will use 210/250/280.

How does that work? ATC charges and maintenance schedules are based on MTOW (which has an associated MZFW and MLW). Does the regulator allow flights with different MTOWs? I was under the impression each aircraft was certified for one and it was a certification change to alter that. But is it possible to alter flight by flight?

I'm curious is this is a regulatory aspect outside of my expertise.

Lightsaber

It does work that way in Asia, we have been flying variable weights for some time. We fly the A359 regionally with a 240 tonne MTOW.

MoKa777 wrote:

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/support-services/airport-operations/aircraft-characteristics/

The A350 ACAP seems to be missing entirely on the Airbus website... possibly being updated.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support- ... stics.html
from there:
http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... t-2017.pdf

MoKa777 wrote:

Post #100 of this thread seems fitting to discuss the new potential improvements to the A350 in the form of revised wingtip devices...

Leeham have an update today: https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/31/iberia-get-upgraded-a350-900/#comments
Wing twist, bigger winglets, reduction in empty weight in combination cut fuel consumption by 1%, giving another 100nm in range. Iberia will be the first to receive the new version, in June. In Iberia configuration with 325 pax the 280t 359 will have a range of 8200nm.

Anyone have any numbers on the OEW reduction?

Should also have the A350-1000 nose gear on this updated -900

Excellent news! This aircraft just keeps getting better!

I look forward to seeing what further improvements and enhancements can be found for -1000.

zeke wrote:

Should also have the A350-1000 nose gear on this updated -900

do you know anything about the effected changes?
( ?beyond the electric gear door actuators? )

MoKa777 wrote:

Excellent news! This aircraft just keeps getting better!

I look forward to seeing what further improvements and enhancements can be found for -1000.

Presumably most if not all of these improvements for the -900 will be applied to the -1000 also.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

Excellent news! This aircraft just keeps getting better!

I look forward to seeing what further improvements and enhancements can be found for -1000.

Presumably most if not all of these improvements for the -900 will be applied to the -1000 also.

Airbus seems to have redesigned/optimized some things on the -1000 that are now backported to the -900.
( CFRP doorframes, electric actuation for gear doors ( sic ) .
Not certain about the ( material mix-) change to fuselage frames ?)

WIederling wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

Excellent news! This aircraft just keeps getting better!

I look forward to seeing what further improvements and enhancements can be found for -1000.

Presumably most if not all of these improvements for the -900 will be applied to the -1000 also.

Airbus seems to have redesigned/optimized some things on the -1000 that are now backported to the -900.
( CFRP doorframes, electric actuation for gear doors ( sic ) .
Not certain about the ( material mix-) change to fuselage frames ?)

I am sure improvements will move in both directions, but this time around I was thinking more about the wing twist and bigger sharklets.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

WIederling wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Presumably most if not all of these improvements for the -900 will be applied to the -1000 also.

Airbus seems to have redesigned/optimized some things on the -1000 that are now backported to the -900.
( CFRP doorframes, electric actuation for gear doors ( sic ) .
Not certain about the ( material mix-) change to fuselage frames ?)

I am sure improvements will move in both directions, but this time around I was thinking more about the wing twist and bigger sharklets.

IMU:
twist change initially was on the -1000 prototype. longer ears was tested on a -900 prototype with original wing twist.
Both changes thus seem to not collide.