FlightGlobal is reporting that Airbus has decided to just perform a straight shrink of the A350XWB-900 to create the A350XWB-800 rather than attempt to optimize the airframe. This move has been made to "simplify" the program.

Now I had been under the assumption that the A350XWB-800 was a -900 with six frames removed from the fuselage forward of the wing and four aft of the wing, however Airbus evidently planned additional changes between the two models that will now not go forward. The changes are said to increase structural payload by three tons or increase the range 250 nautical miles, though fuel burn will also now rise "by a few percentage points".

I'm not sure how the payload increase will help, as the A350XWB-800 is expected to offer only 75% of the hold volume of the 787-9. While some have speculated that adopting the 787-8's wingspan will result in an increase in fuel burn on the 787-9, Boeing themselves to my knowledge have not said anything of the sort and in fact have stated they took the move in part to meet their contracted performance targets, including fuel burn.

I have heard some engineers at GE stating they believed the A350XWB-800 would be the "777-100" of the family, and now that the plane looks to be a pure shrink, this statement becomes a bit more factual, IMO.

May not offer enough benefit over a (proven) high-end A332 to be worth it.

Fblogger commented on the A350XWB press conference in Seville today, noting that while Airbus continues to claim the plane will fly in Q1 2012 and QR will receive their first frame on schedule in mid-2013, Airbus CEO Tom Enders did admit that the program is requiring more resources to meet those targets.



Perhaps not surprisingly, the main "challenges" affecting the A350XWB relate to lightning protection, systems integration and the CFRP fuselage and wings - all areas that affected the design and production of the 787.

Airbus also raised the MZFW of the A350XWB-800 by three tons, I am guessing to both take advantage of and compensate for the extra structure the plane now will carry with the decision to just make it a 10-frame shrink of the A350XWB-900.

Though now that Airbus appears to not be focused on trying to remove unnecessary MWE, I wonder how that will affect it's overall economics vis-a-vis the 787-9, where Boeing is working hard to do just that.

There was a quote from the Airbus chief project engineer yesterday stating that all of the flex in schedule for the 350 had essentially already bee used up due to the diversion of resources to the 380 and 400M. I will need to go back and see who posted that. This is going from serious to grave.

Here is the quote, actually from the EADS COO. Not quite as drastic as I recalled, but not very pretty in any event:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=con...id=aBLuC8Lkc2TY

Chief Operating Officer said the A350 has used "some of its margin" on the schedule of first deliveries, though the company is still sticking with mid-2013 for first delivery.

Airbus encountered some "challenges" dealing with composite wings and fuselage, including systems installation and incorporating lightening strike protection, a requirement for planes built with composites instead of aluminum.

Enders also reiterated that Airbus is still considering a single-aisle A320 with more fuel-efficient engines. A decision will be made in 2010 on whether to proceed, he said.

Isn't the A350 supposed to be a long range transport, at least for some variants properly equipped? Cutting out frames fore and aft of the wing and leaving the center fuselage structure the same thickness sounds like a sub-optimal solution. This is not the way to carry more passengers farther. They may be trying to save on design and analysis cost as well as tooling and production cost depending on the extent of or lack of changes between the 900 and 800 center fuselage structure. Run the numbers for the 900 and the 800 is done because all of the loads will be less.

But could this add up to a 1 or 2 percent hit on performance due to the extra weight? Bumping up take-off weight and adding fuel capacity to make the range is not a good solution. The better solution is to do their homework and optimize the plane during design. There may be some offsetting considerations so that making an 800 by cutting back a 900 is not a complete penalty. It sounds like one benefit is enabling the increased takeoff weight but that may not explain all of it.

Airframe design is an exercise in optimization, at least to the extent you can afford to pay for. If it turns out Airbus is quicker to take the easy way out and simplify the structure at the expense of weight, that is disappointing. Rutan's around the world aircraft are some of the most optimized airframes. He talks of shaving off every gram of extra weight. On the other hand, if the airframe gets to heavy then you carry more fuel which is more weight and it gets worse and worse.

Link to some high resolution images of A350 fuselage sections. Posted on misc.transport.air-industry by JFMezei.
Looks not unlike 787 fuselage sections.


I was prevented by fleetbuzz from linking to a 787 image here:

http://www.fl_ghtgl_bal.com/blogs/fl_ghtbl...terFuse_560.jpg

Why the F&*k is this forum still censored.

Not Found
The requested URL /forums//[Edited Out]/CenterFuse_560.jpg was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.fleetbuzz.com Port 80

I suspect Airbus is in a hurry to get the A350-1000 in the air and doesn't want to spend to much resources on the -800. If Boeing does a decent job on the 787-9 it will probably take the bigger share of the ~270 seat segment. The A350-800 will no doubt have an impressive range / payload capability, that can however also be ordered on the larger A350-900R.

If 787-8 remains to key version for the 787 and the -900 for the A350 they serve slightly different segments, illustrated by airlines ordering them both (SQ, UA).



Howfully Shaj will forgive including this (just 16 kb picture)

Side note: can Fleetbuzz consider allowing pictures under strict rules (say: relevant & smaller then 25K) , to enhance discussions without expensive bandwidth's?

Interesting analysis, but many observers seem to be unsure of where Airbus is on the A350-1000 and the status of its final specifications. I think that the -900 will be the sweet spot and will help promote the -900R. However, I don't agree that the 787-8 will remain the key version for the 787. I suspect that both the -8 and -9 will be winners. In this case, Airbus will face challenges from both the 787-9 (which the -900 could probably handle) and then from Boeing's next move to proceed with either a 787-10 or a redesiged or upgraded 777. It is therefore crucial for Airbus to get the -1000 right. So the real questions are whether Airbus is just waiting for Boeing's next move, is overextended on resources or both. Given that Airbus has booked orders for the -1000, Boeing has the luxury of waiting.

Airbus might not need the A350XWB-900R now, as a 268t MTOW A350XWB-800 might be able to carry a full payload and a full load of fuel. Though at that point it becomes a more efficient, but also more limited (in terms of capacity) 777-200LR. And the 77L isn't in heavy demand at the moment.

And yes, just making the A350XWB-800 a direct shrink of the A350XWB-900 is going to have a negative effect on it's economics, since it will be heavier than it needs to be (like the 737-600 and A318-100).

Airbus is now offering an optional 11t boost to the A350XWB-800's MTOW.

The "standard" model remains at 248t, flying 270 pax+bags ~15,000km.

The "HGW" model offers an MTOW of 259t, increasing range about 500km.

Engine thrust for the HGW model rises to 79,000 lbs (from 74,000 lbs with the standard model).

Launch customer QR looks to be switching to the HGW model.

As Stitch quote most assumptions on the policy change discussed here seem confirmed. -800 Launch customer Qatar seems even content with the increased range.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...800-design.html

As Stitch quote most assumptions on the policy change discussed here seem confirmed. -800 Launch customer Qatar seems even content with the increased range.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...800-design.html

Stitch,

Where did the unaccounted 8 tonnes go

For a 11t MTOW increase, you can carry + 3t payload or go 250 nm further (+ 3t fuel)

MTOW = OEW + Useful payload (payload + fuel)
MZFW = OEW + Max payload

Since it is "either or" implies useful payload increased + 3t

Then,

MTOW +11
Use payload +3
Payload +3
OEW +8
MZFW +11

If my analysis is wrong, please advise.



Michael

Do any of these changes make it easier for Airbus to attract GE for an alternate engine for the A350? If any of the derivatives are perceived to compete with any of the 777 line I assume Boeing would hold GE's feet to the letter of their sole source agreement.

I for one don't think so.

1st, the thrust requirements are increasing and most likely both the -800 & -900 will end up having the same thrust level, like 330-300 & -200

2nd, GE can't reach the -1000 requirements

3rd, and most important, Stitch stated that his GE contacts considered the -800 like to the 777-100, double shrink

Regards,

Michael

...nothing "censored" about it, just "img" tags were disabled to save costs during the past transfer of ownership, and have yet (for the most part) to be reactivated. Admin are considering the situation, no statement yet on which way it'd go.

You have it backwards:
the agreement forces Boeing into exclusivity with GE (on twinjet variants of 700K lbs MTOW or more), not the other way around.

In theory, GE could offer the GE90-1XX on the A350 tomorrow, if there was a biz case for it.

Strange that Scott Carson would have been quoted in the press saying it was a mutual sole source agreement, several times at different events.

Indeed, so let's see a tangible source from two of them.

Oh, I thought it may have been because I accidentally linked to Mr. J.O. s website. There was a falling out a few years ago. I was just trying to link to a google image of a typical 787 barrel.

As ConcordeBoy noted, the only thing stopping GE building an engine for the A350XWB is that GE management, for whatever reason(s), currently do not feel there is a business case to supply such engines.

The "GEnx2" will at least need a new core and fan - that was north of $500 million on the GE90-11xB. So they have to amortize at least that - and perhaps more - across how many frames they believe they can win orders on.

Yes, you can point out that Rolls-Royce will win, by default, engine supply contracts for over 500 frames because GE is not on the program, but how big a market will that eventually be and how much of it will Airbus control?

The total market will probably be a few thousand frames (factoring in A340 and 777 sales, plus new growth). Now, if Boeing never launches "Y3" (the replacement for the 747 and 777 families), that will by default all go to the Airbus A350XWB and at that point GE will certainly need to invest in it.

But if Boeing does launch "Y3" by the end of this decade, and if by launching it years after the A350XWB they are in position the plane to offer superior performance and/or operating economics, then the future market for the A350XWB starts to shrink and GE might be better-served by powering only the new Boeing model (though I expect they would not be allowed to do so exclusively).

GE handed Rolls-Royce a significant share of the recent A330 sales market by not improving the CF6-80 while Rolls did improve the Trent 700. They instead invested in the GEnx and currently hold a dominant position on the 787 program and an exclusive position on the 747-8 program.

They may feel it prudent to do this again - skipping the A350XWB to develop a powerplant for the it's eventual "replacement".

Der Spigel linked a report from another paper claiming that the A350XWB program will be at least 6 months late due to both Airbus being late in getting engineering drawings out to some suppliers and other suppliers being late in their production ramps.

Der Spiegel Link (in German)

The CEO of a component supplier is quoted in the article as saying 1 year late is the best scenario, and 2 year late will be the likliest of outcomes. OUCH!

Boy, the airlines that switched from 787 orders to A350 orders because of the 787 delays will rejoice .