Hey everyone.

Did not see this posted as yet.

Moderators, If already posted or discussed, please delete.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/27/airbu ... more-23972

I always had high hopes for and a lot of faith in the A350. Glad to see these high hopes and faith coming to fruition.

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/support- ... teristics/

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

Very interesting.
Just keeps getting better. Really hope SAA will pick up some of these in the future.

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.

I tried checking last week (for something completely unrelated) and while the link was up it wasn't working. I think the Airbus website redesign broke a few pages (including, unfortunately, links to old press releases).

How will A350-10 compare to the B77W with these new figures?

olle wrote:

How will A350-10 compare to the B77W with these new figures?

Only a slight initial payload difference left, 1 or 2 t. But the A350-1000 will fly that initial payload over a longer distance.

3 t increase in MZFW to 223 t, equals 3 t increase in max payload to about 68 t. 8 t MTOW increase to 316 t, brings 5 t more fuel with 3 t more max payload.

At 366 pax, 8 t more fuel should give more than an hour increased endurance, that means at least 450 nm more range, bringing that to about 8,400 nm.

mjoelnir wrote:

olle wrote:

How will A350-10 compare to the B77W with these new figures?

Only a slight initial payload difference left, 1 or 2 t. But the A350-1000 will fly that initial payload over a longer distance.

3 t increase in MZFW to 223 t, equals 3 t increase in max payload to about 68 t. 8 t MTOW increase to 316 t, brings 5 t more fuel with 3 t more max payload.

At 366 pax, 8 t more fuel should give more than an hour increased endurance, that means at least 450 nm more range, bringing that to about 8,400 nm.

The pessimist in me says the bump in the mzfw is to cover a higher empty weight for the -1000. The last update from Airbus 8 weeks ago was giving oew of 158t. I don't know how that compares with the original targets.

Slug71 wrote:

Very interesting.
Just keeps getting better. Really hope SAA will pick up some of these in the future.

Me too. Excellent option indeed.

Chaostheory wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

olle wrote:

How will A350-10 compare to the B77W with these new figures?

Only a slight initial payload difference left, 1 or 2 t. But the A350-1000 will fly that initial payload over a longer distance.

3 t increase in MZFW to 223 t, equals 3 t increase in max payload to about 68 t. 8 t MTOW increase to 316 t, brings 5 t more fuel with 3 t more max payload.

At 366 pax, 8 t more fuel should give more than an hour increased endurance, that means at least 450 nm more range, bringing that to about 8,400 nm.

The pessimist in me says the bump in the mzfw is to cover a higher empty weight for the -1000. The last update from Airbus 8 weeks ago was giving oew of 158t. I don't know how that compares with the original targets.

I think the original was 155t.

mjoelnir wrote:

olle wrote:

How will A350-10 compare to the B77W with these new figures?

Only a slight initial payload difference left, 1 or 2 t. But the A350-1000 will fly that initial payload over a longer distance.

3 t increase in MZFW to 223 t, equals 3 t increase in max payload to about 68 t. 8 t MTOW increase to 316 t, brings 5 t more fuel with 3 t more max payload.

At 366 pax, 8 t more fuel should give more than an hour increased endurance, that means at least 450 nm more range, bringing that to about 8,400 nm.

As much as I love the -1000, it always felt a tad bit anemic.

As you point out, the changes go a long way to bulking up its specs.

Hopefully it is going to be as robust a performer as the -900.

One can see how an 1100 is possible if they ever need to.

Chaostheory wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

olle wrote:

How will A350-10 compare to the B77W with these new figures?

Only a slight initial payload difference left, 1 or 2 t. But the A350-1000 will fly that initial payload over a longer distance.

3 t increase in MZFW to 223 t, equals 3 t increase in max payload to about 68 t. 8 t MTOW increase to 316 t, brings 5 t more fuel with 3 t more max payload.

At 366 pax, 8 t more fuel should give more than an hour increased endurance, that means at least 450 nm more range, bringing that to about 8,400 nm.

The pessimist in me says the bump in the mzfw is to cover a higher empty weight for the -1000. The last update from Airbus 8 weeks ago was giving oew of 158t. I don't know how that compares with the original targets.

Airbus has bumped the MZFW for the higher MTOW version of both the -1000 and -900. The A350-900 got 3.7 t. The -900 seems to be on spec regarding weight.

Does this also mean a "beef-up" for the ULR?

After a respectable interval, will the A330NEO see similar, but scaled improvements?

gatibosgru wrote:

Does this also mean a "beef-up" for the ULR?

The A359 "beef up" is actually not a surprise. Airbus has talking about it since the ULR, they just haven't had it in their ACAP yet.

mjoelnir wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Only a slight initial payload difference left, 1 or 2 t. But the A350-1000 will fly that initial payload over a longer distance.

3 t increase in MZFW to 223 t, equals 3 t increase in max payload to about 68 t. 8 t MTOW increase to 316 t, brings 5 t more fuel with 3 t more max payload.

At 366 pax, 8 t more fuel should give more than an hour increased endurance, that means at least 450 nm more range, bringing that to about 8,400 nm.

The pessimist in me says the bump in the mzfw is to cover a higher empty weight for the -1000. The last update from Airbus 8 weeks ago was giving oew of 158t. I don't know how that compares with the original targets.

Airbus has bumped the MZFW for the higher MTOW version of both the -1000 and -900. The A350-900 got 3.7 t. The -900 seems to be on spec regarding weight.

I've just done a little digging through the airbus website and from the weights given in the firefighting and rescue charts, it would appear that I'm closer to the mark. The weights given in those documents are manufacturer (not dry) empty weights and I've corroborated that by looking at our current Airbus fleet (eg A320 41t airbus figure vs 42.3t for our fleet). Airbus lists 160t for the -1000 and 140t for the -900.

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/support- ... ng-charts/

Presumably, the 158t I saw quoted in the brochure was an optimistic preliminary figure.

gatibosgru wrote:

Does this also mean a "beef-up" for the ULR?

Other way around: the beef-up that the -ULR has had since conception, is now (officially) being placed on the standard -900... though that's been no secret for well over a year now.

If however Airbus decides to construct an aircraft to fit the QF rfp, THEN you'll definitely be looking at a beefed-up A350, way beyond anything we've seen thus far.

You all sure.It doesn't mean that flight testing has shown the 1000 falls short in some area and this is the standard way both Airbus and Boeing fix these problems?

Ruscoe

Ruscoe wrote:

You all sure.It doesn't mean that flight testing has shown the 1000 falls short in some area and this is the standard way both Airbus and Boeing fix these problems?

If the increases in range and/or revenue payload potential weren't commensurate with the increases in weight, then it's usually a pretty good sign that it's a patch-up (witness the A345)... but that doesn't seem to be be the case here.

LAX772LR wrote:

Ruscoe wrote:

You all sure.It doesn't mean that flight testing has shown the 1000 falls short in some area and this is the standard way both Airbus and Boeing fix these problems?

If the increases in range and/or revenue payload potential weren't commensurate with the increases in weight, then it's usually a pretty good sign that it's a patch-up (witness the A345)... but that doesn't seem to be be the case here.

To be fair we dont know that about the A350's increases yet. Everyone is talking about range/payload increases under the assumption that it is not covering any unexpected extra weight. AFAIK Airbus has yet to officially comment on the MTOW increases on the -1000 and the performance enhancements they will give.

An 8ton increase in MTOW for the 1000 is really quite impressive.

Turns it into a true, TRUE longhauler. And a true 77W owner.

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.

Well it seems to be back now but ..... it's back to the old one from last year.

I wonder whether some over-enthusiastic employee posted the updated ACAP before they should have done, especially given the absence of any formal announcement of the new weight variants from Airbus. I'm guessing the new ACAP will come back after they formally announce the new variants.

Flighty wrote:

Turns it into a true, TRUE longhauler. And a true 77W owner.

I'm not fully up to speed on the 350, but how will this beefed up version compare to the 77L?

luv2cattlecall wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Turns it into a true, TRUE longhauler. And a true 77W owner.

I'm not fully up to speed on the 350, but how will this beefed up version compare to the 77L?

The manufacturers do not quote range in a way that is easy to compare. AFAIK this appears to show that A350-10 has longer legs than both 77E and 77W, both considered true longhaulers. It will not beat the 77L, which is a ULH machine. The A359 might match r beat the 77L for range now.

I really believe that, if true and confirmed, this 'performance augmentation' will be adding capability and not just bring the A350 up to spec.

Obviously, a more pessimistic view is the latter and that is 100% reasonable and plausible until we have more information from Airbus themselves.

Flighty wrote:

Turns it into a true, TRUE longhauler. And a true 77W owner.

Well Airbus has only had 13 or so years to produce a better aircraft.

Really hope Airbus can make the right offer - delivery time, finance, maintenance, training etc - to Air New Zealand when it comes to the RFP for replacing the 77E and 77W fleet. The performance of the the A359 would make AKL-NYC a no-brainer, and would make AKL-GRU possible too.

RL777 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Turns it into a true, TRUE longhauler. And a true 77W owner.

Well Airbus has only had 13 or so years to produce a better aircraft.

It can take time to beat the best. Airbus can rightly be proud of the A350 series, the -900 is
proving itself to be very competent, the -1000 could & should follow suit, providing a real
alternative to B777-9. It will be interesting see how orders go in the next few years.

Tedd wrote:

...providing a real alternative to B777-9. It will be interesting see how orders go in the next few years.

Yes, I think it'll be interesting to see how many airlines find the 779, and 778 for that matter, just too much aeroplane for the services they need them for. The performance and lighter weight of the A359 and A35J, and marginally smaller size, may just be more attractive to many in the 77E and 77W replacement cycle. And it may be seen as an easier aircraft from which to develop new long-haul routes.

Too bad PAS17 is past us now...

Airbus were originally uncertain about building the type and now we have this beauty! Airbus really ought to be proud of themselves!

Motorhussy wrote:

Really hope Airbus can make the right offer - delivery time, finance, maintenance, training etc - to Air New Zealand when it comes to the RFP for replacing the 77E and 77W fleet. The performance of the the A359 would make AKL-NYC a no-brainer, and would make AKL-GRU possible too.

With all the improvements Airbus is making to the 359/K I imagine we can expect similar performance improvements to the 778/9 as development marches on. In this case Boeing has an advantage as the 77X is still largely a paper plane and Boeing will have specific metrics from the 350 in order to try and best the 350.

The engines for the 77X are also still in development correct? Is it possible for Boeing to go to GE and ask them for improvements to the GE9X to assist in improving performance?

77H

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.

link from there:
http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... 0-1000.pdf

exists. Last but one, just above the A380. ( Still the Nov 1, 2016 issue )

77H wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

Really hope Airbus can make the right offer - delivery time, finance, maintenance, training etc - to Air New Zealand when it comes to the RFP for replacing the 77E and 77W fleet. The performance of the the A359 would make AKL-NYC a no-brainer, and would make AKL-GRU possible too.

With all the improvements Airbus is making to the 359/K I imagine we can expect similar performance improvements to the 778/9 as development marches on. In this case Boeing has an advantage as the 77X is still largely a paper plane and Boeing will have specific metrics from the 350 in order to try and best the 350.

The engines for the 77X are also still in development correct? Is it possible for Boeing to go to GE and ask them for improvements to the GE9X to assist in improving performance?

77H

IMU Boeing is done with paper shuffling. First items are in production.
i.e. no further major changes. MTOW is maxed out anyway.
Afaics engine and airframe don't have significant margin.

77H wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

Really hope Airbus can make the right offer - delivery time, finance, maintenance, training etc - to Air New Zealand when it comes to the RFP for replacing the 77E and 77W fleet. The performance of the the A359 would make AKL-NYC a no-brainer, and would make AKL-GRU possible too.

With all the improvements Airbus is making to the 359/K I imagine we can expect similar performance improvements to the 778/9 as development marches on. In this case Boeing has an advantage as the 77X is still largely a paper plane and Boeing will have specific metrics from the 350 in order to try and best the 350.

The engines for the 77X are also still in development correct? Is it possible for Boeing to go to GE and ask them for improvements to the GE9X to assist in improving performance?

77H

IMO the 787 is not open to improvements in the same way as the A350 are. Airbus seem to have build in extra capabilities and the A350-1000 is much more than a stretch. Just look at wing sizes and the MLGs.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

The last update from Airbus 8 weeks ago was giving oew of 158t. I don't know how that compares with the original targets.

I think the original was 155t.

For the A359 all the accommodations for early baby fat were folded into real product enhancement after "right sizing" the OEW.
I'd expect the same for the A3510 ?
( Actually looks like Airbus has a little box of wonders at their hands.)

It's just another weight model, nothing much to see here. Airbus offers more than a dozen weight models on the A320 and A330, and even the A350-900 already has like 8 different weight models. The A350-1000 won't be different.

KarelXWB wrote:

It's just another weight model, nothing much to see here. Airbus offers more than a dozen weight models on the A320 and A330, and even the A350-900 already has like 8 different weight models. The A350-1000 won't be different.

Expanding MTOW while also expanding MZFW is slightly more than "just another weight model, isn't it?

( IMU most of th WVnnn variants are either lower MTOW or different balancing of MTOW and MZFW.)

With all these improvements to the A350 models and that perceived impact on bringing it closer to the 777X, does that not shift the power to the 787 in that particular market segment?

WIederling wrote:

Expanding MTOW while also expanding MZFW is slightly more than "just another weight model, isn't it?

Let me put it this way: I'm not surprised to see a MTOW increase, 316t is in line with my expectations. The landing gear was designed to allow some growth and we may even see a 318t weight model in the future.

speedbored wrote:

I wonder whether some over-enthusiastic employee posted the updated ACAP before they should have done, especially given the absence of any formal announcement of the new weight variants from Airbus. I'm guessing the new ACAP will come back after they formally announce the new variants.

A formal announcement is not required though. When the A350-900 was certified, the ACAP documents suddenly listed 273t and 275t models without much fanfare.

KarelXWB wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Expanding MTOW while also expanding MZFW is slightly more than "just another weight model, isn't it?

Let me put it this way: I'm not surprised to see a MTOW increase, 316t is in line with my expectations. The landing gear was designed to allow some growth and we may even see a 318t weight model in the future.

Very interesting.

The potential A350-1200 was mentioned to have a MTOW of 319t.
I would assume this could be reachable, or would this need strengthening and/or more power?

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO the 787 is not open to improvements in the same way as the A350 are.

Well the 787-8 theoretically has plenty of TOW headroom left by leveraging 787-9 components, just as the A350-900 could leverage A350-1000 components to grow her TOW into the 300,000kg tier. However, both would really only benefit UULH operations (allowing more fuel to be loaded at higher payload weights) and that market is probably too small to justify the expense.

This is the arena where the A350's significantly superior wing loading comes into play. Lots of room to for growth without significantly affecting performance.
Never been a fan of Boeing's 25 year-long high wing loading approach to aircraft design.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO the 787 is not open to improvements in the same way as the A350 are.

Well the 787-8 theoretically has plenty of TOW headroom left by leveraging 787-9 components,

788 is a production nightmare and "incompatible with the 789/-10.
789 got beefed up quite a bit. ( see the significant OEW increase despite
a strong drive towards slimming down the frame during redesign.

Boeing would have to redo the 788 as a 789 shrink. ( as happened to the 737-7.)
( Won't happen due to lackluster interest in the frame. 788 will be discontinued.

KarelXWB wrote:

It's just another weight model, nothing much to see here. Airbus offers more than a dozen weight models on the A320 and A330, and even the A350-900 already has like 8 different weight models. The A350-1000 won't be different.

I agree that another weight model isn't a industry changing initiative. Most planes have between 5 and 15 weight options with higher MTOWs and varying MZFW and MLW. Raising MTOW and MZFW at the same time is less common. Customizing weights helps airlines with their specific needs. It is also very profitable since Boeing and Airbus charge more money for higher weight configurations even though it is just a software change and minor modification to the landing gear.

For reference (not meant as A vs B, but comparing two large twins), the MTOW range from basic to maximum on the 777-300ER is from 700k lbs to 775k lbs.



Here are some 747-400 numbers (excluding the ER)



One difference we are seeing now with the 787 and A350 is that the airframes aren't designed using the most powerful engines available. It used to take years for engine thrust to increase as engine manufacturers created more and more powerful versions. Now the A350 and 787 have engine thrusts customized for the airframes so it doesn't take years for MTOW increases.



Of course this won't stop some members of the Airbus fan club, many of whom have never seen an Airplane Flight Manual in their lives, from raving about how great Airbus is and also slamming the 787.

I have the Jun 1, 2017 A350 acaps which was up on the Airbus website for a short period.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/42821618@ ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42821618@ ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42821618@ ... ed-public/

FYI here are the current A350-900 weight models as certified by the EASA.

A new 277t MTOW variant has been added. Airbus also offers 210t and 280t models, but those have not been certified yet.


https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... 6%2030.pdf

Newbiepilot wrote:

Of course this won't stop some members of the Airbus fan club, many of whom have never seen an Airplane Flight Manual in their lives, from raving about how great Airbus is and also slamming the 787.

Glasshouse, stones and all that.

That graphic is about worthless without proper tagging of who is who in that presentation.