|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 17, 2018 20:46:17 GMT 1
Looks like Qantas is the driver behind the studies into the longer range variant. How did the 316T get an increased range without any fuel capacity increase but just a simple paperwork change? still have room in tank ? so the only work is to verify structurally can support it
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Jul 17, 2018 23:01:45 GMT 1
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jul 18, 2018 1:23:45 GMT 1
Looks like Qantas is the driver behind the studies into the longer range variant. How did the 316T get an increased range without any fuel capacity increase but just a simple paperwork change? still have room in tank ? so the only work is to verify structurally can support it Ah right. So the tanks can take more fuel but it was just a matter of signing off on the increased weights. There's probably still more untapped potential with this frame methinks. Haha, yeah. Just figured out that the forum accepts gifs for avatars.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jul 18, 2018 9:02:30 GMT 1
Baroque:
It is nice and ugly at the same time.
Very distracting on the screen. Almost as bad as commercials for tires, when you were looking what to buy.... Your Baroque face was much much better.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 18, 2018 11:36:20 GMT 1
The tanks in the A350-1000 should match the tanks in the A350-900, but there could be a difference in the center tank due to the bigger MLG. But I still think it is most likely possible to move to 165.000 l from 158.000 l without looking at an ATC. Having enough payload, now about 68 t on the 316 t version leaving 93 t for fuel, an ACT adding 20,000 l at 20 t including the ACT itself should push the range considerable, add some extra MTOW and you have a monster regarding payload and range.
Add that ACT and an A350-1000 could load, if 165,000 internal tankage is possible, with a specific weight of 0.8 kg/l, 132 t internal tankage + 16 t in the ATC, 146 t of fuel. Push the MTOW to 328 t and that would leave at an OEW of 155 t about 25 t of payload. No 777-8 would match that.
On the 316 t version, with an 155 t OEW, 165.000 l tankage = 132 t, would leave 29 t of Payload.
|
|
backstroke
delivered!
Just an aerospace engineer with thirst for knowledge
Posts: 1,913
|
Post by backstroke on Jul 18, 2018 11:45:49 GMT 1
The problem with those increases to a MTOW of 328tn is if the XWB-97 has enough thrust or not
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 18, 2018 16:10:46 GMT 1
The problem with those increases to a MTOW of 328tn is if the XWB-97 has enough thrust or not The A350-1000 would be at 328 t 6.5% heavier than at 306 t and 3,8 % heavier than the 316 t version. The A350-1000 has a big wing compared to for example a 777-300ER. I would say we would see an increase in take off length. But if an increase in thrust would be needed, 4 % should be enough, bringing the Trent XWB to about 101 klbs.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jul 18, 2018 23:38:08 GMT 1
Baroque: It is nice and ugly at the same time. Very distracting on the screen. Almost as bad as commercials for tires, when you were looking what to buy.... Your Baroque face was much much better. Sorry, just changed it to something less distracting now.
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 18, 2018 23:48:12 GMT 1
The problem with those increases to a MTOW of 328tn is if the XWB-97 has enough thrust or not The A350-1000 would be at 328 t 6.5% heavier than at 306 t and 3,8 % heavier than the 316 t version. The A350-1000 has a big wing compared to for example a 777-300ER. I would say we would see an increase in take off length. But if an increase in thrust would be needed, 4 % should be enough, bringing the Trent XWB to about 101 klbs. If you take 77W as baseline and scale the engine thrust with it linearly, you'll need 107 klbf to be safe. I see the possibilities of having 101 klbf thrust as 777-9 only runs with 105klbf thrust with 351t MTOW. However, I've heard that GE is going to beef up GE9X because the climb performance is simply terrible ......... If we scale linearly from the 777X number, 97klbf barely acceptable
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Aug 23, 2018 8:25:27 GMT 1
|
|