Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228 
|
Post by Taliesin on Feb 18, 2016 1:43:31 GMT 1
Could the gear support all that mass without major changes that might affect the wing as well? How about the wing itself and it's high lift system? Certainly it could be adopted but that "super-A350" might be costly, late and seriously eat into the A380 market. Could RR deliver the required engines so fast, especially if a "-1100" with both size and range should be needed? To me the whole sizing of the A350 family looks to be very much linked to RR and their available engine sizes. I think the important thing to remember is that Airbus are in the very comfortable position not to be pressured into launching anything. The A350-1100 might turn out to be a formidable airplane, if feasible, but if not feasible, it's not a problem for Airbus' portfolio either. Aircraft are very rarely matched one for one, so if the 777X is not matched with the A350-1100, that's not the end of the world. With the -1100, I see several problems, the wings and landing gear are probably severely MTOW restricted, the fuselage would be so long that on take off, the plane would be restricted in its rotation angle. Both aspects can severely hamper take off performance, depending on how bad it is. However, I disagree with the notion that the -1100 would eat into the A380 market. The two airplanes might be getting close in size, but offer completely different payload ranges. In that regard, the -1100 would not eat into the 777X market either, because it would offer much less range. |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 18, 2016 10:02:37 GMT 1
Besides, the A350-1100 will not be that much bigger. While A350-900 to A350-1000 is a 10 meters stretch, A350-1000 to A350-1000 can only be a 5-6 meters stretch as it needs to fit within the 80x80 box.
|
|
ghorn
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 993
|
Post by ghorn on Feb 18, 2016 11:47:06 GMT 1
Some very strange rumours about this potential new member of the A350 family. Leahy is quoted as saying it would have more seats than the 777-9. This is clearly not possible unless they are planning 10 across in Y. Surely this can't be about to happen !!!! Perhaps Leahy is just insisting on comparing 9 across in Y in both types. That is just a delusion as most 777-9 operators will go 10 across.
Geoff
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 18, 2016 11:50:50 GMT 1
Indeed. At 80 meters length it would have similar capacity as the 777-9. Adding an additional 30 seats on top of that can only be done at 10-abreast in economy class.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 18, 2016 12:54:45 GMT 1
One interesting point is that Leahy said the aircraft would have the same engine as the -1000. This suggests Airbus aims at a simple stretch, accepting to sacrify range for increased seating capacity, and creating a 'regional' aircraft.
Bregier however said said this is by no means not a simple undertaking. Let's wait for some clarification in Farnborough.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Feb 18, 2016 19:32:54 GMT 1
There is a lot to ponder....
Looking at the sales of 350-1000 I doubt there is enough opportunities for sale of the even bigger one.
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Feb 19, 2016 1:05:30 GMT 1
One interesting point is that Leahy said the aircraft would have the same engine as the -1000. This suggests Airbus aims at a simple stretch, accepting to sacrify range for increased seating capacity, and creating a 'regional' aircraft. I am not sure exactly how much of the -1000 is fixed already. It would make sense to develop the -1000 with the -1100 in mind and maybe implement a more complex high lift system that you could also use on the -1100 and that would be beneficial for both airplanes. I don't think it would make much sense to make the -1100 an oddball project with many unique design solutions. It should be as simple and with as much commonality as possible. Looking at the sales of 350-1000 I doubt there is enough opportunities for sale of the even bigger one. I'm not sure the -1000 sales are indicative of its impact in the market, it is still years away from EIS and in my opinion, a lot of the sales or lack thereof could be because of availability.. or lack thereof. |
|
ghorn
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 993
|
Post by ghorn on Feb 19, 2016 1:22:37 GMT 1
One interesting point is that Leahy said the aircraft would have the same engine as the -1000. This suggests Airbus aims at a simple stretch, accepting to sacrify range for increased seating capacity, and creating a 'regional' aircraft. I am not sure exactly how much of the -1000 is fixed already. It would make sense to develop the -1000 with the -1100 in mind and maybe implement a more complex high lift system that you could also use on the -1100 and that would be beneficial for both airplanes. I don't think it would make much sense to make the -1100 an oddball project with many unique design solutions. It should be as simple and with as much commonality as possible. Looking at the sales of 350-1000 I doubt there is enough opportunities for sale of the even bigger one. I'm not sure the -1000 sales are indicative of its impact in the market, it is still years away from EIS and in my opinion, a lot of the sales or lack thereof could be because of availability.. or lack thereof. It's in final assembly now and will fly before the end of the year so everything is fixed for the -1000 !! Geoff |
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Feb 19, 2016 1:24:41 GMT 1
In that case, I hope they implemented a high lift system that is useful for the -1100 as well  |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Feb 19, 2016 3:36:02 GMT 1
I feel that Airbus should consider a Mark II (or III?) version of the -1000 that uses the design improvements of the prospective -1100 to make it a simple separate family of 2 large twins sharing a common engine etc. The -900 can stay as it is. The -1000 is good as it is and has no direct competitor (the 778 is a different machine for a different purpose even though they are similar in size) but standardising the build with the prospective -1100 can simplify things and costs.
There will be a cost to do it, but I'd bite the bullet and do it now as it's still early enough in terms of orders and outlook. Boeing went through 3 different builds in about a decade for the 777 family before settling on the 77W/L configuration.
Just a thought.
|
|
