Flightglobal has a new take on what is going on with the A350-1000. Contrary to Scott Hamilton, Max Kingsley-Jones thinks that the wing would be part of the design change, thus getting larger. This could indicate two things:
1. The Thrust/Weight-Ratio could get down without sacrificing runway performance as the larger wing would provide more lift. In other words, the MTOW could be lifted more than the ~5% gain in takeoff thrust, enabling the aircraft to carry more payload (especially cargo) over the reportedly new design range of 8500nm.
2. The investment for a larger wing and a "new" engine would make more sense, if another type would be added to the A350 family - call it the A350-1100 for now. With a further stretch of 4m it would have a fuselage length of roughly 80m, representing the ultimate stretch and would be a real B777-300ER competitor in terms of passenger capacity. The question then only is, if the range of the -1100 would be limited to 8000nm, comparable to the B777-300ER range, or if the -1100 would also get a range suitable for LAX-DXB (I now think that the 8500nm should work in >90% of the time for that route). If so, the "new" engine should really be a "new" engine - not just with an enlarged core, but also with a larger fan, as the thrust requirement would be more in the range of 105klbf. That would have implications to the basic design of the aircraft, especially the length of the undercarriage.
So Airbus could end up with the sub-families fo the A350 - the -900 and the -800 on the lower end and the -1000 and the -1100 on the upper end, very much comparable with the A340.
But again - until June 18 all is about speculation! But that's the fun with it...
6/06/2011
A350-1000 with more range - implications for B737 successor?
Scott Hamilton just came out with this story: the A350-1000 will get more range (500nm) and a more powerful Trent XWB engine (+5000lbf).
A quick calculation revealed that 500nm more range need about 12.3t more MTOW. About 10 tonnes are for the extra fuel burned to cover the extra 500nm, about 2 tonnes needs the structure to carry the heavier aircraft, the balance goes for fuel reserves, as these are calculated in dependence of the actual flown range.
Thrust-to-weight ratio thus will be largely unchanged, runway performance probably a little bit worse, if the wing is unchanged. Compared to the B777-300ER, the wing is not heavily loaded, so I do not believe Airbus will enlarge the wing.
Scott writes that even the 8500nm will not meet Emirates desire of being able to fly Dubai - Los Angeles nonstop. The great circle distance for DXB-LAX is about 7250nm, so there is a 17% range margin. But is this enough to counter strong headwinds. A quick calculation shows that 17% of Ma0.85 (cruising speed of the A350) are equal to about 83nm/hr, meaning that if the average headwind on the route is higher than 83 knots, a technical stop would be necessary. I do not the average wind speed on the route over the north pole, but I could imagine that average wind speeds of 83knots and more ar possible.
The calculation also confirms that Emirates second desire - to add more pax - cannot be part of the change in the A350-1000 specification. So I wonder what is the rationality behind these changes? The 777-300ER has slightly less than the 8000nm of the "old" -1000 configuration, the 500 extra miles is good for a couple of extra city pairs, but does that justify the pain? The pain is probably bigger for RR than for Airbus, as these 5000lbf more of thrust will very likely mean that the whole core has to be changed, which means a lot of investment.
The main reason for that change might be to prevent Boeing from concentrating on the B737 successor. Airbus might hope that Boeing now feels more pressure on the B777-300ER and to concentrate R&D resources here and "only" to re-engine to B737 as Airbus always predicted.
And Airbus is apparently not alone: the recent Bernstein Research Note also suggests that Boeing should re-engine. Richard Aboulafia, VP of Teal Group, also thinks that a B737RE is the best answer to the A32XNEO, as one can reread in the AirInsight Paris Airshow Discussion transcript.
I guess we can expect the official Airbus announcement on Saturday, June 18th at the press briefing.
One is for sure - this years Paris Air Show is getting more and more interesting.
A quick calculation revealed that 500nm more range need about 12.3t more MTOW. About 10 tonnes are for the extra fuel burned to cover the extra 500nm, about 2 tonnes needs the structure to carry the heavier aircraft, the balance goes for fuel reserves, as these are calculated in dependence of the actual flown range.
Thrust-to-weight ratio thus will be largely unchanged, runway performance probably a little bit worse, if the wing is unchanged. Compared to the B777-300ER, the wing is not heavily loaded, so I do not believe Airbus will enlarge the wing.
Scott writes that even the 8500nm will not meet Emirates desire of being able to fly Dubai - Los Angeles nonstop. The great circle distance for DXB-LAX is about 7250nm, so there is a 17% range margin. But is this enough to counter strong headwinds. A quick calculation shows that 17% of Ma0.85 (cruising speed of the A350) are equal to about 83nm/hr, meaning that if the average headwind on the route is higher than 83 knots, a technical stop would be necessary. I do not the average wind speed on the route over the north pole, but I could imagine that average wind speeds of 83knots and more ar possible.
The calculation also confirms that Emirates second desire - to add more pax - cannot be part of the change in the A350-1000 specification. So I wonder what is the rationality behind these changes? The 777-300ER has slightly less than the 8000nm of the "old" -1000 configuration, the 500 extra miles is good for a couple of extra city pairs, but does that justify the pain? The pain is probably bigger for RR than for Airbus, as these 5000lbf more of thrust will very likely mean that the whole core has to be changed, which means a lot of investment.
The main reason for that change might be to prevent Boeing from concentrating on the B737 successor. Airbus might hope that Boeing now feels more pressure on the B777-300ER and to concentrate R&D resources here and "only" to re-engine to B737 as Airbus always predicted.
And Airbus is apparently not alone: the recent Bernstein Research Note also suggests that Boeing should re-engine. Richard Aboulafia, VP of Teal Group, also thinks that a B737RE is the best answer to the A32XNEO, as one can reread in the AirInsight Paris Airshow Discussion transcript.
I guess we can expect the official Airbus announcement on Saturday, June 18th at the press briefing.
One is for sure - this years Paris Air Show is getting more and more interesting.
6/03/2011
CSeries order from Sweden
On June 1st Bombardier announced a new order for the CSeries. Five CS100 and five CS300 will be operated by Malmö Aviation, a small but highly regarded airline. The airline was rated "best national airline" in Sweden for several times. The roots go back to 1981. In 1998 Malmö Aviation was bought by the norwegian Braathens family and cooperated with Braathens Sverige. Braathens was bought by S.A.S. in 2002 and named S.A.S. Norge, but Malmö Aviation was dissociated before and remained under control of the Braathens family.
This order alone is not significant. But I am pretty sure that we will see some more orders - likely at the Paris Ais Show, maybe later in the year.
This order alone is not significant. But I am pretty sure that we will see some more orders - likely at the Paris Ais Show, maybe later in the year.
LEAP-X wins first customers
Just a quick note as I am just coming back from a small vacation and saw the news that LEAP-X reportedly got their first two customers - ILFC for the remaining 40 of their 100 A320NEO order and Virgin America for 30 A320neo. The latter is no real surprise, as it was CFM to loose as the incumbent here. Lessors tend to split their A320 orders anyway, so one could anticipate that, too.
The next very-likely-LEAP-X-powered-A320neo-order should be from AirAsia. As Tony Fernandes wants to convert some of the "Classic"-orders and the current Air Asia order is CFM56-powered, a deal including a conversion of orders is only thinkable with CFM.
Still open are TAM with their MoU for 22 A320neo.
During the Paris Air Show we will probably see orders from Republic and Qatar for the A320neo. I would expect Qatar to choose the GTF, as they are also likely to order the CSeries, which is exclusively powered by the GTF. Republic as one of the existing CSeries customers is also a good candidate for the GTF on the A320neo.
The next very-likely-LEAP-X-powered-A320neo-order should be from AirAsia. As Tony Fernandes wants to convert some of the "Classic"-orders and the current Air Asia order is CFM56-powered, a deal including a conversion of orders is only thinkable with CFM.
Still open are TAM with their MoU for 22 A320neo.
During the Paris Air Show we will probably see orders from Republic and Qatar for the A320neo. I would expect Qatar to choose the GTF, as they are also likely to order the CSeries, which is exclusively powered by the GTF. Republic as one of the existing CSeries customers is also a good candidate for the GTF on the A320neo.
5/18/2011
A320 deliveries ahead of NEO
There is a lot of speculation if deliveries of the "classic" A320 will fall in 2014-2015 in anticipation of the A320NEO. Both Boeing and Airbus meanwhile are talking about accelerating deliveries - Airbus is thinking about up to 44 aircraft a month, up from the current rate of 36 and the planned rate of 40 for next year. Boeing will also increase it's output rate of the B737 line to 40 per month.
One could argue that in the case of Airbus the rate hike will only last a year, before airlines will start to negotiate conversions for deliveries close to the NEO EIS from the "Classic" to the NEO. One argument that can be heard is that deliveries of the B737 Classic plummeted from 218 in 1992 to just 76 in 1996 - but the 737NG entered airline service in 1998 and in 1997 deliveries increased again. Please read this article from 1997. Even CFMI was suprised by the large number of orders for the CFM56-3, the engine of the 737 Classic.
I think tthe ups and down in aircraft production are more related to the world economy than to the appearance of new aircraft. If the economy is thriving, aircaft deliveries will do so, too - with a time delay of one or two years as the manufacturers and suppliers cannot ramp up and down their production in days.
You can see the relationship in the chart I put together. It shows narrowbody deliveries from Boeing (B737 family) and Airbus (A320, family; sorry, I did not implement the B717 nor the B757). Then I looked up the world GDP growth rates. What you can see is that dips in deliveries always come after the GDP growth has had a low.
1. Through 1991 and 1993 world GDP growth was flat at 2%. Deliveries subsequently fell from around 350 to less than 150 in 1995 and 1996. GDP growth recovered starting in 1994 and stayed reached a high of almost 5% in 2000 with a small dent in 1998 due to the asian crisis. Deliveries soared to around 550 per year between 1999 and 2001. The boom came to a sudden stop due to 9/11.
2. In 2001 the internet bubble burst from 2000 reached the ecomomy. The economic crisis was sharpened by 9/11, leading to a lack of new orders for aircraft (apart from Ryanir). Deliveries fell back to a low of around 400 in 2003 before bouncing back, as the global economy recovered starting in 2003 with growth rates exceeding 5% in 2006.
Many "experts" thought that as a consequence to the financial and economic crisis starting with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy aircraft deliveries would have to fall at least as dramatically as after 9/11. But this time neither Airbus nor Boeing were forced to cut delivery rates of their narrowbody families. The reason is that, different than during the 90's of early 2000's, the emerging economies, especially in Asia are now a much more powerful part of the global economy and air traffic was growing in these countries even in 2008 and 2009.
It will depend on the world economy if delivery rates for the A320 Classic will dramatically fall in 2014 and 2015. But as in Asia air traffic is still growing and will do so for many years, I believe that even a small dip in the world GDP growth would not harm the A320 Classic deliveries too much. There are too many carriers like Tiger Airways, Jetstar, AirAsia, who need aircraft badly to satisfy demand.
One could argue that in the case of Airbus the rate hike will only last a year, before airlines will start to negotiate conversions for deliveries close to the NEO EIS from the "Classic" to the NEO. One argument that can be heard is that deliveries of the B737 Classic plummeted from 218 in 1992 to just 76 in 1996 - but the 737NG entered airline service in 1998 and in 1997 deliveries increased again. Please read this article from 1997. Even CFMI was suprised by the large number of orders for the CFM56-3, the engine of the 737 Classic.
I think tthe ups and down in aircraft production are more related to the world economy than to the appearance of new aircraft. If the economy is thriving, aircaft deliveries will do so, too - with a time delay of one or two years as the manufacturers and suppliers cannot ramp up and down their production in days.
You can see the relationship in the chart I put together. It shows narrowbody deliveries from Boeing (B737 family) and Airbus (A320, family; sorry, I did not implement the B717 nor the B757). Then I looked up the world GDP growth rates. What you can see is that dips in deliveries always come after the GDP growth has had a low.
1. Through 1991 and 1993 world GDP growth was flat at 2%. Deliveries subsequently fell from around 350 to less than 150 in 1995 and 1996. GDP growth recovered starting in 1994 and stayed reached a high of almost 5% in 2000 with a small dent in 1998 due to the asian crisis. Deliveries soared to around 550 per year between 1999 and 2001. The boom came to a sudden stop due to 9/11.
2. In 2001 the internet bubble burst from 2000 reached the ecomomy. The economic crisis was sharpened by 9/11, leading to a lack of new orders for aircraft (apart from Ryanir). Deliveries fell back to a low of around 400 in 2003 before bouncing back, as the global economy recovered starting in 2003 with growth rates exceeding 5% in 2006.
Many "experts" thought that as a consequence to the financial and economic crisis starting with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy aircraft deliveries would have to fall at least as dramatically as after 9/11. But this time neither Airbus nor Boeing were forced to cut delivery rates of their narrowbody families. The reason is that, different than during the 90's of early 2000's, the emerging economies, especially in Asia are now a much more powerful part of the global economy and air traffic was growing in these countries even in 2008 and 2009.
It will depend on the world economy if delivery rates for the A320 Classic will dramatically fall in 2014 and 2015. But as in Asia air traffic is still growing and will do so for many years, I believe that even a small dip in the world GDP growth would not harm the A320 Classic deliveries too much. There are too many carriers like Tiger Airways, Jetstar, AirAsia, who need aircraft badly to satisfy demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)