Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Oct 13, 2015 15:10:44 GMT 1
MTOW boosted to 280T. This is precisely what leehamnews talked about back in July.  leehamnews.com/2015/07/14/airbus-in-talks-with-singapore-for-ultra-long-range-airplane-a350-900lr-likely/Some discrepancies in the fuel volumes however. 138000 --> 141000 in the -900 tanks 156000 --> 165000 in the -1000 tanks which will be used by the -900ULR. The good thing is that Airbus confirms that the configuration can be reversed to the standard range -900 should the customer want to change their business plans. Something that couldn't be done with the old A340-500 or the upcoming 777-8X. A very flexible frame for anyone wanting to dip their toes into ULR flights.  |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 13, 2015 16:07:10 GMT 1
MTOW boosted to 280T. This is precisely what leehamnews talked about back in July. leehamnews.com/2015/07/14/airbus-in-talks-with-singapore-for-ultra-long-range-airplane-a350-900lr-likely/Some discrepancies in the fuel volumes however. 138000 --> 141000 in the -900 tanks 156000 --> 165000 in the -1000 tanks which will be used by the -900ULR. The good thing is that Airbus confirms that the configuration can be reversed to the standard range -900 should the customer want to change their business plans. Something that couldn't be done with the old A340-500 or the upcoming 777-8X. A very flexible frame for anyone wanting to dip their toes into ULR flights. I still don't get it, XWB said the tanks for the ULR are already in the standard -900 wing just not plumbed in. So if you bought a ULR version and decided in the future you did not want it to operate it as a ULR why take the extra plumbing out, just don't put so much fuel in it ? |
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Oct 13, 2015 16:36:58 GMT 1
Created a new thread |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 13, 2015 17:05:41 GMT 1
MTOW boosted to 280T. This is precisely what leehamnews talked about back in July. leehamnews.com/2015/07/14/airbus-in-talks-with-singapore-for-ultra-long-range-airplane-a350-900lr-likely/Some discrepancies in the fuel volumes however. 138000 --> 141000 in the -900 tanks 156000 --> 165000 in the -1000 tanks which will be used by the -900ULR. The good thing is that Airbus confirms that the configuration can be reversed to the standard range -900 should the customer want to change their business plans. Something that couldn't be done with the old A340-500 or the upcoming 777-8X. A very flexible frame for anyone wanting to dip their toes into ULR flights. I still don't get it, XWB said the tanks for the ULR are already in the standard -900 wing just not plumbed in. So if you bought a ULR version and decided in the future you did not want it to operate it as a ULR why take the extra plumbing out, just don't put so much fuel in it ? The wing tanks fill volume that is there. I assume it is compartmented. In the A350-900 not all the volume is used. In the A350-1000 more volume is used. The A350-900LR will have the same volume used for tanks as in the A350-1000. The main difference between the A350-900 and the LR will be some piping and pumps and some caulking to make additional volume to tanks. I think the wings for the LR will be slightly beefed up compared to the standard -900. If you want to fly the LR as a standard -900 again you get a paper derate. |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Oct 13, 2015 17:15:28 GMT 1
I still don't get it, XWB said the tanks for the ULR are already in the standard -900 wing just not plumbed in. So if you bought a ULR version and decided in the future you did not want it to operate it as a ULR why take the extra plumbing out, just don't put so much fuel in it ? Extra plumbing = extra weight + extra maintenance. Removing these may gain some cost savings if they aren't needed. I agree it's a bit vague as to how much of it is reversible. From what I understand (according to a post by Bjorn in that leeham article) it is a bit like the A330-200 centre tank that only recently was activated on the A330-300 with the 242T version. Likewise, there is a section of the centre wingbox which is normally used by the -1000 for the extra fuel. This is deactivated on the on the standard -900 but is activated on the ULR. You might be thinking why not keep it active for all versions? Bjorn further explains that... "The least popular part of a wingbox for fuel is the central part, the reason is that you want your fuel to be to the maximum extent in the wings where the weight of the fuel is close to the lift, therefore you have less bending moments in the wing."So there's probably some efficiency and weight savings (no need for extra structural strengthening) by not allowing the fuel to go into the central part when you don't want that ULR configuration. So in the end, I think there might still be a small penalty but it wouldn't be too bad to make a difference. Created a new thread Suggest re-titling the thread to A350-900 ULR as per Airbus's own press release.  |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 13, 2015 17:51:30 GMT 1
Then in a few years time you need a new thread A350-900 was an ULR now just a normal one ! Do we have a thread limit  |
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Oct 13, 2015 18:34:15 GMT 1
No restriction on threads' number |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 13, 2015 18:40:23 GMT 1
No restriction on threads' number Good, so many more types / configs to come. PS search function is now working OK. |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Oct 14, 2015 0:01:07 GMT 1
Good, so many more types / configs to come. PS search function is now working OK. Just be glad that you don't have to call this the Airbus A350-900XWBULR  |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 14, 2015 0:17:18 GMT 1
Good, so many more types / configs to come. PS search function is now working OK. Just be glad that you don't have to call this the Airbus A350-900XWBULR You missed the point it could be an Airbus A350-900XWBexULRnowjustanormal900 ! after a conversion back  |
|
