Airbus A350 XWB 1100 ??

The increase in fuselage length from -900 to -1000 was around 360 kg/m, assuming a similar extension of 7.0m (around 80 m overall), they would be looking at around 2.4t for the additional fuselage. From the -900 to -1000 they increased the weight by 40t, and range by about 350 nm, if they wanted to make use of the additional fuselage with real payload, they will need to increase the thrust above what the -1000 has on ULH missions.

Assuming an additional 8 LD3s, 10lb/cu.ft, 100 kg each, 6.3t, another 40 pax with baggage, 4t, plus the 2.4t of fuselage, increase of 12.7t, call it 13. Probably cost around 5t of fuel to carry that payload 6000 nm. So the aircraft would need to be around 18t heavier to go around the same range.

As a medium haul people mover, even the -97 engines would be too much, ULH they would need around 100k I would think

Airbus has launched detailed technical studies into further stretching the A350, program head Didier Evrard said yesterday.

The current studies center on how much additional engineering work would be needed for the aircraft’s structure and systems to allow the fuselage to be extended beyond that of the A350-1000, a stretched version of the baseline A350-900.

Earlier this month, at the Istat Europe conference in Barcelona, Airbus Chief Operating Officer-Customers John Leahy confirmed for the first time that the company was studying the idea, although he later downplayed his comments. Now, Evrard says “we are not in a hurry to define another product, but if the market needs it, we will do it.”

The current studies are primarily technical. Evrard points out that the landing gear for the -1000 is already different from the -900, and has upward weight potential in the tens of tons, so it would not be a hurdle. Evrard indicates that he does not see any technical issues that would be considered a serious technical show-stopper. “Others did it, we can certainly do it, too,” he says, referring to Boeing’s launch of the 787-10, a double-stretch of the 787-8.

The amount of engineering work needed would largely depend on the extent of the stretch and the kind of missions that the aircraft would have to fly. A stretched version that does not include significant upgrades is likely to lose range.

If Airbus goes ahead with the project, it would follow Boeing’s plans to stretch the 777, making the proposed 777-9X a 400-seat aircraft. The type is widely expected to be launched at the Dubai air show in November.

Following the technical studies, Airbus plans to take a closer look at the market potential of a larger A350, which would likely take the aircraft into a similar size category. The A350-1000 is defined by Airbus as a 350-seat aircraft in three classes. It is almost identical in size to Boeing’s 777-300ER, but Airbus claims it can seat nine additional passengers because the aircraft will have only four exit doors on each side rather than five for the -300ER.

Airbus argues that the proposed Boeing 777-9X will burn 15% more fuel than its A350-1000 for about 10% more capacity, and it will not get below the fuel-burn per seat achieved by the -900.

pascal974 a écrit:perso je n'aime pas trop les version étiré on n'a vu ce que ça a donné avec l'A340 600 ...

pascal974 a écrit:perso je n'aime pas trop les version étiré on n'a vu ce que ça a donné avec l'A340 600 ...

Admin a écrit:Combien de modèles dans la famille xwb ?
4?

Admin a écrit:

pascal974 a écrit:perso je n'aime pas trop les version étiré on n'a vu ce que ça a donné avec l'A340 600 ...

Le développement du 777-300ER a vraiment été de surprise en surprises et des bonnes ... sur la conso, les poids, et l'ETOPS
Ce n'est pas l'A340-600 qui est mauvais, mais le 777-300ER qui était vraiment très bon

aeroduO5 a écrit:Franchement ça devient intéressant.
Il semble qu'Airbus se soit donné de la marge avec les changements apportés au -1000.

Sur le train pas de problèmes, il devraient pouvoir aller bien au delà des 308t sans trop de contraintes. Je ne pense pas qu'il soit possible d'ateindre 350t vu la taille des roues, mais 320t me semble OK.

Sur les moteurs, c'est à RR de voir mais il doit être possible de pousser encore un peu plus.

Sur l'aile, elle est (très) grande, plus grande que celle du 777-300ER (même si les philosophies des ailes entre A et B sont différentes). Elle peut supporter un allongement de fuselage sans problème.

Sur le fuselage en lui-même, Airbus a du prévoir. Maintenant il n'est pas nécessaire d'aller suqu'à 80m, peut être que 77-78m suffisent.

Au final on voit que c'est le moteur qui sera la clé, donc à RR de jouer, pour le reste pas de gros points noirs.