The -1000 itself is already a bit too big for the current scenario, and the 777-9 is struggling to get new orders. I don’t see room for a -2000 variant any time soon. And The A350-1000’s MTOW is now 316T.
The a350-1000 is already having the same problems the original 777 had. Too much payload for its wing/engines/landing gear making it runway limited. Just look at the ratios of wing MTOW/Wing area between the 2 planes. You will note with every iteration of the 777 they keep increasing its wing size as the original was severely limited by runway length. Everyone loves the 777-300/ER because not only can you take the passengers, but also cargo and even it is runway length limited in any kind of heat. 777X is aimed DIRECTLY to eliminate this rather large problem which has even led to some flights essentially being canceled. a350-1000 wing already had its wing expanded to address this glaring problem. a350-2000 would either need a new wing(ouch expensive), or severely cut its range/payload. Do note that with same ~ wing area between 777F/777-300ER/a350-1000, 777 can take off with an additional ~30 tons, but as I pointed out earlier, not really as this is heat limited. But it does mean the 777 can land with an additional 30tons which is why 777F's are flying off the shelf and AIrbus has not even contemplated an a350 freighter, nor is anyone clammoring for such an aircraft but is pushing the a330 freighter. Why? To make the a350 a freighter, it would have to go the route of the R&D of the 777-300ER. New landing gear which means new wing box, new wing, new engines, and who knows if the deck beams in the a350 could even take cargo weight on its passenger deck. More than likely.... no. I know the 787 cannot do so as this was a major contentious issue at Boeing when I was working there. Essentially not a single 787 will ever be converted to a freighter as only its bottom hold can hold cargo.
@@w8stral the best way to calculate this is by dividing the MTOW by wing area. Funny enough I already made the calculations of multiple famous airplanes in my free time when I was bored and made a list. Now do bear in mind. You are forgetting one important factor and that is flap config. Another important factor is that aircraft rarely take off with full MTOW but for the sake of it I’ll take it as such. I divided wing area in m^2 by (MTO)weight in tons and these are the results in m^2 per ton. Also ignore the AR of every aircraft. 1. A330-900/800 = 1,8525 2. 787-8 = 1,654 3. A350-900 = 1,5785 4. A330-300/200 = 1,49421 5. 787-9/10 = 1,484 6. 777-9/8 and a35k = 1,47 7. 777-300ER = 1,2426 Remember I took MTOW. So even the part where you stated about having 30 tons more makes no sense considering the ratio of surface area of the wing to weight of the aircraft has a linear correlation. To demonstrate. If the 777-300ER want to achieve the same ratio of 1,47 m^s per ton as the a35k or 777-9 then the take off weight would be 297 tons. As comparison. 297 tons on a a35k gives a ratio of 1,56 m^2 per ton. And we are not even talking about engine efficiency, range, payload distribution. As you notice. The 777-300 ER has a considerate disadvantage here. Even compared to an a330 which are both launched in the same time give or take a decade with the 777-300ER. So yeah...
@@hodb3906 Uh, dude, you do not even know how to do a load calc... it is TONS/M^2... Your numbers are backwards. What your numbers actually show is that the a330-800 should it be turned into a freighter would be a BEAST! What your numbers show is that the 777-300ER shows why it was never, uh hem, NEVER, turned into a freighter except in VERY special circumstances.... for very LOW DENSITY cargo. Vast majority of 777F are the 777-200LRF version which combines the much lighter fuselage with the heavier/larger wing of the 773ER. SO, if Airbus takes the MTOW of the 351 and its larger wing/engines, throws it on a 359 fuselage it will be ~ok, but better yet if they could make a slightly shorter fuselage it would be even better. Cargo cannot be extended far forward/aft and why 777-300ERSF was never really considered until UPS? came calling for a rare handful of them. A350 is an airplane optimized for passengers, not cargo. It could be. No reason it could not, but would have to undergo the same transformation the 777 did. Nothing magical about the process. Also: As you pointed out MTOW is not a very good number as it is highly limited by flight condition(heat/elevation/runway length) and Cargo rarely conforms to MTOW. =) A much better ratio is MTOW/OEW... assuming it can fly said MTOW to ~4500nm then it has the ability to do trans oceanic. IF it can fly 3500NM with said load, then continental deliveries are good. So, assuming a350 turned into a freighter it would join the trans oceanic club of the 777-200F/300ERSF/747F, whereas the MD-11/a330/767 and probably the 787 if it was turned into a freighter are continental freighters. Yea yea, technically they can all get across the ocean, but the cargo carried verses the fuel burned ratio, sucks wind. PS: I'll lay odds we have a a338F version in the works for Airbus instead of their a332F version which... isn't selling well. It should be a very cheap conversion for airbus. Far cheaper than a a350freighter conversion and the demand for an aircraft like a338F would have more sales. Then there is the overshaddowing obvious that ~400 777-200ER's are about to be retired along with ~400-->800 a330 CEO's.... so frankly any new aircraft freighter versions being sold seem rather unlikely in the near future if you asked me. But shooting the breeze is always fun. =)
@@w8stral LMAO. “Load calc”? Are you playing around? There is no specific reason to see the multiplicative inverse as the “correct way” of “load calc” as you put it. TONS/M^2 simply changes the narrative of reasoning which is how many tons is allocated to 1 m^2 of wing. I specifically calculated area per tons to show lift capabilities of the various aircraft. There is a reason for example why the 777-9 has lower thrust rated engines. Also I’m not talking about cargo or any of the long text you stated. Thank you for clarifying though but that’s not my interest. Still, I’m grateful that you share this info with me. I’m just showing you the numbers. And pointing out your part about “carrying 30 more tons with almost the same wing area” is wrong and explained why.
@@hodb3906 2nd reply... I forget that a338 increased its OEW massively... it actually would not be a good cargo aircraft other than purely from a fuel perspective. *** How do you make a list? *** You would think youtube would, oh I do not know, let everyone know HOW to type in their comment section.... Here goes: MTWO/OEW... some I had to guess at how much they would weigh with a freighter conversion with shorter fuselage(looking at you a350) In order: 359 guesstimate = ~316/130 = 2.4 772F = ~347.5/144 = 2.4 773F = 351.5/152 = 2.3 748F = 447/197 = 2.3 351guesstimate = 316/145 = 2.2 332F = 233/109.5 = 2.1 263F = 187/90 = 2.1 338F guesstimate = 251/125 = 2.0 What would be cool is to put my MTOW/OEW on x axis and MTOW/Wing area on the Y axis. PS: Slats/Flaps are near identical on all aircraft and increase lift about the same. Everyone has ditched multi slat LE extnesions many decades ago and nearly everyone has ditched multi slat TE flaps. Creates massive drag/turbulence and all runways have pretty much just gotten longer over the years so why bother with super complex high lift devices. There is one major *** here.... I do believe AIrbus/Boeing count their wing area differently. I forget who, but one of them counts their wing area with slats/flaps extended and the other does not. So, I believe the MTOW/Wing area axis would need a large *** I did not even bother computing a guestimate of the 787 as when I worked there it was a known fact that its floor beams could not handle cargo. I have to question if the floor beams in the a350 could have cargo dumped on them as well. Reason is the same in both aircraft. Deflection. Carbon fiber, while great at many things, is not good in terms of deflection. High deflection leads to corner centering of heavy pallets, and dynamic in flight problems over time as it increases loads at the joint stress risers. To make CF rigid enough in a beam to limit deflection would actually be HEAVIER than aluminum. So... yea. How much weight would be required to make their floor beams meat freighter spec, I do not know. The number is in tons though and a lot of $$$. Why I have to question if airbus will bother bringing a a350 freighter version. Nothing technical for why they couldn't, just the cost is what I question. It should be a good freighter. No, I did not do the 778XF as frankly its numbers are not even known at all. Everything is a guess, and I would then have to guess again at its OEW, which would be a gargantuan guess. Should weight slightly less than current 773F, but... so it would probably be around ~2.3 MTOW/OEW, but unlike the 773F it could actually USE that MTOW with its 15% larger wing.
I think Airbus can lay back in the Moment and see how the long haul market will develop. Also, the 777x faces some serious problems and will come end of 2024 or even later so no rush now for the A350-2000. Boeing has to deliver now. The 777x has to work and sell well.. If demamd for the big birds will increase again, Airbus can bring end of the 20s the A350neo and -2000.
They should definitely make this aircraft, the 777-9 is uncontested, but I’m worried that only few airlines would order this plane, because the demand of large plane is decreasing, it will pretty much end up like the 747-8I, anyway great video!
@@jackjones72 if you think of LH you think of Dreamliner and 380. Dreamliner is IMO much more memorable. Also Boeing was the God of LH when they debuted 747. 350 may be good but think of LH I instantly think of Boeing.
The only airline that could make a 777-9 or A350-2000 work is Emirates. Its network is huge, and it has a huge hub set up. However, point-to-point travel might only need more capable aircraft to fly the longest routes. Great video, as always. :)
Airbus is allegedly in talks with GE on a new engine, if in fact the A350 is stretched out then a new engine from GE such as the GE9X could be used on that variant. The 777-9 is also being touted as the replacement for the 747 and is also more fuel efficient than the A350-1000. It's not a question of whether or not air travel will return to previous pandemic levels, but when ... that also being said, Boeing really needs to get it's house in order. If the 777X variants are not even going to make it to market then what then do they have to offer other than the 787 series ??
The 777X will take off but it will take time. The civil aviation market took a huge hit (passengers down 30-50%) and few airlines have money to burn right now. Sales will start off slow.
@@alexandernorman5337 Agreed ... but I had read an article in the last couple of weeks suggesting it may not even make it to market, hope they're wrong. Seems like a great offering to the jumbo market, especially after the A380 has been discontinued...
@@alexandernorman5337 - Global passenger air travel is not the same as prior to the current global health pandemic especially if countries introduce 'no vaccine/no enter' policy at theirs boarders for non citizens. The other factor, that will affect global passenger air travel is the side effects of a warming planet like climate change, ongoing global health pandemics, global financial and geopolitical uncertainity, etc.
To stretch it more means, stronger bigger under carriage, bigger wings, and bigger engines reinforced fuselage. They would need backing and interest from airlines first. The plane they need to stretch is the A220 line which just has 2 variants at the moment, that already has significant interest, are but alas that is not assembled in France and would affect sales of Airbus aircraft that are assembled in France.
May as well be part of the rumoured A350neo. Rolls Royce would hopefully have the Ultrafan ready. In the short term Airbus as the A320XLR which I think will pick up more orders as the Boeing 777X and A350 will be too big.
At this stage, Airbus most likely will not proceed with the A350-2000, considering the low orders for the B777-9. The next stage in the A350 evolution will be the A350-1000 'extended range' especially when Qantas places their order for 12 A350-1000's followed in 2030 with the A350neo.
I am think air travel volume will be diminished for the next several years, diminishing the need for large capacity aircraft, perhaps 787 and A330 are best long haul fits for the near term
I was kind of hoping they put the final touches on the autonomous A350 they been flying using new onboard tech which allows a/c to taxi, takeoff, fly and land all unassisted by pilots. Oh well, have to wait for another time.
With COVID the 400+ passenger aircraft demand/order will be low. I think people confuse the lack of interest on quad engine aircraft with lack of interest on big capacity planes.
I said this on another video that I can see the 777X being Boeings A380. I think it's to big for airlines because they look to sell every seat on every flight. The more seats that are empty the more money and airline loses I'm sure there is a video somewhere of an LH A380 service with just 16 people on board.
I don't think there will be much demand for that in the next few years. IMO the next model from Airbus will be the (also still hypothetical) A220-500. For the A350, the next big thing will be an A350 NEO.
The 400 seater market is meh at best, otherwise a380 may have been a bit more of a success. Also air travel is on life support and it will take some time to return to pre crisis levels, so in terms of looking for a plane with more capacity to rival boeing, they can relax for the moment
Boeing and Airbus should concentrate on making the small and medium size planes as efficient as possible. That is where the volume is and thus where they can increase profit margins. The hub system is dead for now and building an airplane just for EMIRATES might give prestige, but really not improving the bottom line for shareholders.
Airbus did not build A350-2000 as it would take sales from A380 as this is not a problem anymore when demand for big aircraft comes back they will build it
1:00 Airbus bribed airlines in the past for orders, so they don't have much room to talk about Boeing trying to perform price reductions. Not that either one sells the planes at actual market value anyway. I'd consider that statement as Airbus trying to throw shade at a product because they might fall behind. They did the same thing to the original 777 when it debuted because they feared it would outperform their A340.
@@nntflow7058 I've kept up with the news to know Airbus has put its future projects on hold for the next few years because of the hit to the industry. But this ain't about current news, it's about the history babe. And both Airbus and Boeing have dished dirt at each other in the past for new aircraft projects.
AIRBUS won't build anything longer than the A350-1000 ULR because it wouldn't make for a viable business sense!!! an aircraft like the A350-1000 ULR or the A350-900 ULR that can fly Singapore - New York JFK non-stop for 18 hrs - 20 hrs is pretty much the threshold for both man & machine can or should travel by air!!! when your flying Dubai - Anchorage non-stop your pretty much flying more than ¾th of the world's airspace in a matter of hours!!! a return flight ANC-DXB over the Pacific will have you flying the remaining ¼th of the world's airspace you haven't flown in a single flight!!! so how farther do you want to go??? because your already at the limit of available airspace you can travel safely by air!!!
I talk about topics that solely interest me. If I make videos of what other people want, they will never be pleased. Great if other channels have covered the topics🤷♂️
@@jatinkushwaha635 Of what? The tiny lav on newer Boeings that get your pants wet every time? You should take a good at how the extra seating capacity are achieved...
@@spongebubatz Cabin Flex lav is just a tad bigger, so it's less offensive. Plus, the sink design is vastly better for a small space. Overall, it's much better... just as with most elements of Boeing that Airbus manages to redesign into a better one.
