Airbus A350XWB (partie 3)

The #A350 XWB successfully conducted ‘Max Energy Rejected Take-Off’,part of the mandatory series of tests for Certif. pic.twitter.com/fj5QcN9SqV

— Airbus (@Airbus) 22 Juillet 2014

Admin a écrit:Note le SUCCESSFULLY

Airbus strategy and marketing executive vice president Dr. Kiran Rao claims that on long haul routes the A350-1000 will have cash operating cost (COC) per seat some 25% lower than that of the current Boeing 777-300ER.
Compared to the 777-9X, Rao estimates a 5% COC-per-seat benefit and 15% COC-per-trip advantage (assuming a two-class cabin layout over 4,000 nm, fuel price of $3 per U.S. gallon, and with the A350-1000 and (10-abreast) 777-9X configured for 369 passengers and 405 passengers, respectively).

The A350 production rate stands at 2/month now, even though flight testing is ongoing. MSN006 and MSN007, the first production-standard aircraft, are in advanced stages of assembly in Toulouse. By the time the first A350  is delivered to Qatar Airways—tentatively planned for the end of November—Airbus should be building 3 A350s/month. It plans to increase the rate to 5/month a year later and 10/month eventually. 
...
But production volume is not the only hurdle. As is typical for new aircraft, Airbus also has to deliver many different so-called heads of versions, the first aircraft customized for  the launch customer. In spite of efforts to reduce customization—and thus final assembly complexity—Airbus must still provide airlines their many requested individual solutions, in particular in the cabin, where they aim to differentiate themselves. 
...
Airbus plans to freeze the aircraft definitions for 10 customers this year, including Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, Ethiopian Airlines and Cathay Pacific. In 2015, 15 more airline definitions will follow for Lufthansa, TAP Portugal, Asiana, Air Caraibes, Etihad and Hawaiian Airlines, among others. And the definition number will rise to 17 in 2016, when carriers such as TAM, Aeroflot, United Airlines and Air China have to make final configuration decisions for their A350s.

The -900 regional is going to be structurally identical to the baseline aircraft, but its engines will be derated to 75,000 lb. thrust, the same as those powering the smaller -800. The regional variant will also be limited to a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 250 tons, compared to 268 tons for the long-haul version. 

“There is a slight engine derate, optimizing capacity and payloads for regional routes. We aren’t permanently changing hardware. There will be a software change. Airbus has products that will be at least as cost effective as anything Boeing puts out.”

Airbus is not saying when the aircraft will be ready for entry into service, but some certification work will be necessary. 
...
The A350-900 regional can still easily fly most transatlantic missions and all medium- to long-haul services that would be typical of longer intra-Asian routes. It is also suited for Middle East-Europe and Middle East-Southeast Asia flights. 

...
The −900R variant has been proposed but not yet launched. It would feature the higher engine thrust, strengthened structure and undercarriage of the −1000.^[125] Range of the A350-900R was estimated to 17,600 km (9,500 nmi), which would be boosted to about 19,100 km (10,315 nmi) by these design improvements to compete with the Boeing 777-200LR and be capable of non-stop flight from London-Heathrow to Auckland.
...
and the A350-900R, which is being proposed to British Airways, with −900 size but with sufficient fuel capacity to allow nonstop London-Sydney flights) will use a six-wheel bogey, with a 4.7 m (15 ft) undercarriage bay.

The −900R variant has been proposed but not yet launched.

it looks like the aircraft is burning 2500 kg/hour on each engine at fl410 and mach .85. No idea at what weight though

Peu de temps après le vols du "route-proving", Airbus, n’a pas perdu de temps. Agitant un document reprenant les éléments des vols, JL a rappelé que l’A350-XWB(-900) a prouvé qu’il consommait au moins 25% moins de carburant que son concurrent de la generation actuelle.
 
Des indiscrétions coté motoristes nous ont confirméque :
1. il s’agit d’un chiffre comparatif , fondé, et vraiment comparable avec et opposable à la consommation la plus favorable de n’importe quel B777-200ER et / ou B777-300ER en service aujourd’hui ;
2. c’est un chiffre non exagéré, car RR & Airbus se sont mis d’accord il y a longtemps déjà de se garder de la marge sous le pied, au cas on leur accuserait d’exagérer ;
3. du côté des moteurs, seuls, il y aurait 3 points de pourcentage (RR se sentirait capable, donc, de confirmer les valeurs d’origine, soit un gain “côté moteurs, uniquement” de 18%, bien au-delà de la valeur de 15% d’amélioration, par rapport aux GE90-115B des B777-300ER, fixée dans le cahier des charges de l’A350-XWB).
4. Airbus se garderait, aussi, un ou deux points de pourcentage de gains d’efficacité en consommation, non déclarés.
 
Etant donné qu’Airbus et RR ont confirmé que la combinaison de l’airframe et du moteur RR Trent XWB-97 “Upgraded” a assuré  /préservé les objectifs en simulation (pas de détérioration en matière de “fuel-burn efficiency” par rapport à ceux  fixés pour l’A350-XWB-1000 d’origine), Airbus et RR se sentent plus que confortés dans leur positionnement.

Même TC serait étonné, et a commencé à comprendre pourquoi JL insiste sur l’avantage intrinsèque et incompressible, de 5 points en terme de “fuel-burn efficiency” par rapport au B777-9X, même avec ses 405 / 410 passagers !

Jeannot a écrit:Vous avez raison et ce n'est pas votre serviteur qui vous contredira... Surtout pas !  Je n'en ai ni l'age ni les prétentions. Tous les chiffres ont sans aucun doute été fournis aux clients et seront vraisemblablement dans le domaine pseudo-public très bientôt. Pour l'instant l'objectif premier est la certification et l'ETOPS 420. Votre vol viendra peut être un jour en son temps.... Comme vous semblez y tenir, vous devriez en faire la suggestion au constructeur en accompagnant votre requête d'un chèque pour couvrir les couts de carburant et les frais annexes.