Airbus plans to offer airlines an update by the Farnborough
Air Show in July on its potential plans to come out with a bigger variant of
the A350 wide-body jetliner so it can better challenge the order success of
Boeing’s enlarged 777X.
Source: Airbus
The aircraft, a longer version of the A350-1000 --itself
already a so-called stretch model-- would be offer more seats in 3-class
configuration than Boeing’s 777-9, Airbus’s chief salesman John Leahy said.
While A350-900 (325 seats) and A350-1000 (366 seats) is
sufficient to combat existing 777 variants and the upgraded 777-8, Airbus
doesn’t currently have a twin-aisle model to offer the capacity of Boeing’s
777-9, a maximum of 425 people.
Source: @RayanDkhilFLY
Airbus is studying whether there is a big enough market at
30 to 40 seats larger than the current A350-1000, Leahy said.
“We’re starting to conclude that perhaps there is such a
market and now we’re talking to key airlines about what we might be able to do
in that market but no final decision has been made,” Leahy said.
“We’ll certainly be able to give you an update at
Farnborough.”
Source: @azuan1880
Leahy said the new variant would have more seats than the
425 seats maximum capacity of the Boeing 777-9.
Leahy said that the Rolls-Royce Plc engines now offered for
the A350-1000 would be sufficient to power a larger variant, though would
likely need some thrust added.
Source: Airbus
“There will not be a brand new engine," Leahy said.
"We might increase the thrust of it, but it will be the
same engine technology if we were to do the airplane. We study a lot of things
of which some end up in the market and some don’t."
Based on the article “Airbus Targets Farnborough Show for
Update on Bigger A350-1000” published in Bloomberg.
The only way they can compete is with a brand new engine. ..
ReplyDeleteA derivative of an engine already maxed out on thrust is not the way to go..
Nonsense, the core of the Trent XWB-97 engine on the A350-1000 is scaled up by 5 percent over the Trent XWB-84 engine on the A350-900, with the fan turning 6 percent faster than with the TXWB-84 to get a higher volume throughput.
DeleteIn order to increase thrust to, say, 105,000 lbf, RR would have to put a larger fan on the TWXB-97 engine.
If RR increased the fan diameter to 125 inches for a Trent XWB-105 (i.e. 118 inches for TXWB-84/-97), the frontal area would be increased by some 12 percent. If the core of a TXWB-105 would have the same RPM as the TXWB-84, then the fan tip speed of a TXWB-105 engine would be about the same as the fan tip speed for the TXWB-97 engine.
Here are the fan tip speeds for the GE90-115B (77F, 77L, 77W, TXWB-84 (A350-900), TXWB-97 (A350-1000) engines as well as for a TXWB-105 engine (A350-1100/A360-900X):
GE90-115B
Fan tip speed = 1594.5 km/h
TXWB-84
Fan tip speed = 1524.5 km/h
TXWB-97
Fan tip speed = 1616 km/h
TXWB-105
Fan tip speed = 1615 km/h
NB: Fan diameter 125" - Set RPM same as for the TXWB-84 (= 2699.3 RPM at 100%).
-
So, it's Clear that the core of the TXWB-97 engine has plenty of thrust growth built in. They'll just have to add a bigger fan - and RR would probably use the all new CTi (carbon/titanium) fan blades for a TXWB-105 engine.
Rgds, Karl
Link: http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/yr-2015/pr-180315-rr-composite-technology-hub-in-bristol.aspx
Nice to see the blog back
ReplyDeleteNice to see the blog back
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Airbus might get 3 A350's delivered this month with a bit of luck- Qatars 8th A7-ALH -Singapores 1st 9V-SMA and TAMS 2nd PR-XTB. Keep your fingers crossed then it will only be 47 for the year end!
ReplyDeleteThank you for blogging this. You made my day. Please do not abandon the blog in favour of Twitter.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comments..
ReplyDeleteEnlarging a fan is never a just job..
It involves countless redesign of other rotating components throughout the core to compensate for the added weight and thrust.
Besides, your talking a one off engine again. .
So which is it, a simple thrust increase of an existing engine, or as you state, a new fan diameter based engine which most certainly would need added stages thrughout..
....not to forget a new nacelle, clearences to ground, as well as wing leading edge movables. I'm sure this won't be done, for a relatively small market.
Delete@greg smith
DeleteFirst, keep in mind that the a Trent three spool engine is easer to scale than a two spool engine from GE. The fan on a Trent is on the LP spool, while the LPC is on the IP spool. On a GE engine, both the fan and the LPC is on the LP spool. Hence, the core of the TXWB-97 is scaled up by 6 percent, but has exact the same number of stages as the TXWB-84. In contrast, if we're looking at the GE90-94B (123" fan) vs. the GE90-115B (128" fan), the number of HPC stages were reduced from 10 to 9, while the number LPC stages were increased from 3 to 4 - which is typical of what you would do for a two spool engine.
2nd, the core of the 97,000 lbs of thrust TXWB-97 is built for growth - in fact, the 84,000 lbs of thrust TXWB-84 engine has already been run at thrusts "well in excess" of 100,000lb, as pointed out in the link below.
3rd, a 125" fan would increase/restore the propulsive efficiency of a higher thrust TXWB-97 engine (i.e. bypass ratio from 9.3:1 to at least 10:1).
So, we're not talking about a one off engine, but rather an engine having the same core as the TXWB-97.
Karl
-
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rolls-royce-prepares-prototype-a350-1000-engine-382213/
Quote: "....not to forget a new nacelle, clearences to ground, as well as wing leading edge movables. I'm sure this won't be done, for a relatively small market."
DeleteBTW, the there's more than enough ground clearance on the A350 for a larger engine.
The original 777 had 3 different engines with 3 different fan sizes and nacelles: RR Trent-800 (110" fan), PW 4084 (112" fan) and GE90-94B (123"). Then, we have the GE90-115B with its 128" fan and modified nacelle (77F, 77L and 77W), and finally the GE9X (133" fan) - all together 5 different engine sizes and nacelles.
So, according to the B-boys, Airbus can't put larger engines on the A350 - which has an engine centreline to fuselage centreline that is 0.9m longer than the 777 - while Boeing has managed 5 different engine sizes for the 777 - seemingly without too many problems....
Karl
As I mentioned in an ealier contribution : Is there really a market big enough to support a third member of very large twin engined planes?How many sales will it have? The Boeing model hasn´t seen any new order for quite some time now? The additional launch of a stretched version of the A350-1000 would surprise me,but what do I know!
ReplyDeleteThe market is probably big enough. It may appear as if quite a few customers are sitting on the fence to see what Airbus could soon be offering.
DeleteKarl
The a350-1100 or 1000+ will need larger wings and bigger fuel tanks holding 185000-200000 liters of fuel.
ReplyDeleteFor all the comments made about the stretched A350-1000 (A360?)I agree with the point that anonymous made about the base xwb/97 engine core is built for growth. RR are not new to the 100,000lb thrust arena,in fact they built one for the original 777 (8104 and 8115- which was the first to reach 110,000lb thrust with many other firsts but was sidelined by James McNermy of GE(now CEO of Boeing!) by offering Boeing $500million to be sole provider. As to the size of the nacelle RR kept the 97 the same size as the 84 so there is room on the 350 to make it larger. . As to the engine it will be a continued extension of the 97, not a new engine as such. Airbus need to get a move on and decide because the 777x is due 2021? Airline passenger growth is on the up, so as to not let Boeing have the market to themselves Airbus have to decide soonest. Boeing have said that they expect Airbus to do so. Together with statement from John Leahy that the stretched A350-1000 if it came about would carry more passengers than the 777x sounds to me as if Airbus have been giving this a lot of thought.
ReplyDeleteAirbus knew about the -9x for years so it is for certain that the a350-1000 was designed ( and engines) to accommodate changes if needed. The cards under the sleeves only to be shown one by one as needed.
ReplyDeleteAirbus missed out by not keeping GE onboard when they revamped the a350 design. Reports seem to indicate the Trent XWB is indeed maxed out, so the only option I see for Airbus here is a brand new model, the a360. Airbus already have a great partnership with Pratt and Whitney and I see no reason not to bring them onboard. It would be the kick PW needed also to get them back into the wide body market. PW's engines are the future. It's just a matter of time before they reclaim this market. I say build a successor to the a340 (a360), with 4 PW high bypass ratio pure power engines. These engines seem to indicate that super twins are not necessarily the future. 4 X pure powers would still be very efficient and should provide the trust needed for any A360 to a length of 75 - 80 meters.
ReplyDeletethe blog is more useful then twitter, thank you for blogging it again.
ReplyDeletethere is a very important difference between Boeing and Airbus, Airbus is the specialist in continuous development of their models, something Boeing can take a lesson from.
ReplyDeleteAcrylicsoft company I understand you are a PW fan but PW dont make an engine big enough and GE declined to join Airbus on the A350 as they were all ready knee deep with the 777x. Plus four engines only work when then are on something the size of the a380 and even then Emirates wants to upgrade to neo's. The real reason two engines are at the front is because of weight, thats why the old 777 was so successful.
ReplyDeleteAs an added thought, Airbus please make sure that Zodiac is not an option for interiors on this aircraft or it will end up being delivered after the 777x.
ReplyDelete