Deep Dive: How The Airbus A350-900ULR Gets Its Long Range

Рет қаралды 55,731

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 133

@ronduncan9527 3 ай бұрын

Flew on the ULR in business in January from Newark to Singapore then returned Singapore to JFK a month later. We had good tail winds so each flight only took 17 hours. I travel internationally a lot and this was by far my favorite plane and airline! It’s 3/4 business and 1/4 premium economy so only seats around 160 people.

@gumpotronic 3 ай бұрын

Only is such a strange word there, even if we all understand... I was close to cabin fever with 15 hours (Doha to DFW, plus weather, plus diversion) in a Q-Suite, yet the Singapore Airlines to EWR is still a major bucket list item...

@chengyoujiang6076 3 ай бұрын

How was the load factor during your ULR flight? Is it near full

@VideoAmericanStyle 17 күн бұрын

@@chengyoujiang6076 my EWR-SIN flight was full.

@xjdisuehd 3 ай бұрын

The reasoning of major achievements on the ULR version isn't technical major achievements, but rather how to keep passengers happy and not totally screwed up due to 15+ hours of flying. Airbus really doesn't recommend the ULR if the flight times are going to be less than 15 hours, and in those 15 -20 hours, you will literally be at the opposite side of the world, having gone through countless timezones. Unconfirmed - but a possibility, that due to very low number of take-offs and landings, versus a single aisle workhorses like the 737/320/321, there are plans to lower the cabin altitude - at the very least for the ULR version, which on average is expected to do anywhere between 1.1-1.4 takeoffs/landings per a 24 hour cycle between major maintenance programs at a MRO facility. The cabin altitude maybe around 4000ft, while A350's have a 6000ft cabin altitude.

@stradivarioushardhiantz5179 3 ай бұрын

Already on Offers & Deliveries; A350-900 A350-900ULR A350-900 Regional ACJ350-900 A350-1000 A350-1000 Project Sunrise (+ACT) A350F Hoping for another variants; A350 Combi ACJ350-1000 A350 MRTT A350 Aerial Fire Fighter A350 Flying Hospital A350 Equineliner A350 Beluga XXL

@cia5649 3 ай бұрын

if there is a demand airbus will build it

@12345fowler 3 ай бұрын

Forget the combi, not going to happen (Cf Heidelberg accident)

@thomassharp2719 3 ай бұрын

You forgot the future Airbus A350 -XLR is next.

@Mark-sr2vc 3 ай бұрын

i hope for A350 AWACS and A350 reconnaissance as a replacement for RC 135 Rivet Joint

@TheMrFishnDucks 3 ай бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@jonathanburns543 17 күн бұрын

I have flown this route to Singapore about 6 times now and will do so again in November. San Fransisco, Newark, and JFK have been the airports I have flow this plane. Honestly it is one of my favorite flights and the length is not an issue.

@herbertsandla4444 3 ай бұрын

nice Video, the only thing i missed was to point out that the return flight NYC to SIA is flying eastbound as SIA 23,

@hungo7720 3 ай бұрын

The extensive range of the a350 ulr has allowed Singapore Airlines to deploy this aircraft on ostensibly infeasible route between its hub and New York.

@KC-gp4mf 3 ай бұрын

I’m on SQ21 in a few weeks. Looking forward to it in business class. Booked on points 😊

@magnustan841 3 ай бұрын

Very interesting, never knew about some of these changes. I thought it was just optimisation of the centre fuel tank area to make it bigger for the same space and this, hold more fuel. I never knew about the front cargo hold not being legally unuseable or smaller water tanks.

@hughofIreland 3 ай бұрын

It’s an interesting video. I knew that some of the range enhancement was due to fewer passengers and extra fuel, but I didn’t appreciate how extensive these reductions were. We’re at the point where grams matter! I wonder what Boeing has cooking with its B789? United will take delivery of 4 to 6 aircraft later this year. Rumor has it that they will have extended range. We’ll will have to see the compromises with passengers and cargo that Boeing will have to make to achieve that goal. The aircraft has a very impressive range already. United Airlines was able to push the 787-9 beyond its limit of 8710 miles, when it flew from Los Angeles to Singapore. That flight was 8770 miles. United also sent an email to frequent flyers a few months ago asking them about changes to the front cabin, Polaris. Without saying so explicitly, it sounded as if United Airlines is planning something akin to a first class cabin on the new Boeing 789; when I say new, I mean a Boeing 789 with extended range. Certainly having more people in business and premium economy, so fewer in regular coach, reduces mass. Of course, it’s important not to forget cargo. I think cargo is going to be critical on these ultra long haul roots. Compromises can’t be made there. So, let’s wait for a few months, for the delivery of these enhanced Boeing 789s, to see if the company finally has some good luck.

@steinwaldmadchen 3 ай бұрын

Doesn't really change the big picture. A 789 HGW capable of SIN-LAX merely means it matches early 275t MTOW 359s, which SIA is deploying daily on the same route. Newer 359s have improved winglet and aerodynamics (which first featureed on 359ULR), MTOW up to 283t, plus 1t lower OEW since NPS. Which is hardly suprising if the rumored MTOW raised of 789 to 260t from 254t is true, but not really an issue either. 787's strong hold is being a reasonable all-rounded aircraft. A350's has unprecedented payload-range capability, but that comes with the cost of heavier aircraft and higher cost.

@alfredosauce1 3 ай бұрын

Would be interested in a follow up video on the route bejng flown by the a340-500, and a question as to when SN never operated the route with a 777-200LR

@Kevin-sl2yw 3 ай бұрын

The A340-500 was launched in the late 90s and SQ started flying them in 2002. The B777-200LR first flew in 2005.

@GeoFSFlightDeck 3 ай бұрын

Fantastic analysis Simple Flying! (and Under 2 minutes as well!)

@Rasscasse 3 ай бұрын

Interesting ty SF 👍

@Ashwin-c9y 3 ай бұрын

Airbus a350 forever ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤Airbus fans here ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

@DustinPearce2957 Ай бұрын

I'm late but A350 fan here.

@fauzirahman3285 3 ай бұрын

Really perplexing to hear of that once flight to Kuala Lumpur, considering that's one of Singapore Airlines' closest destinations.

@dinoschachten 3 ай бұрын

I expect that has a lot to do with scheduling and irregularities in maintenance where one of the A350s and pilots rated for it happened to be more practically available due to specific circumstances at the time. Must feel special to catch a flight that is out of the ordinary like that.

@bluerisk 3 ай бұрын

6:12 But one point is that you had to switch the plane as customer unless you have the UL-version, and with other factors like transit und boarding the turn-around-time does not matter in this case. One plane, non-stop. No lost connection, no lost luggage and god knows for the passengers, and also one planes for airlines. One could argue: no turn-around at all (for the second plane because there in none needed)

@eamonahern7495 3 ай бұрын

By my calculations, 9700nm is 161°40' of earth's rotation. About 20° short of halfway round the world.

@chandrachurniyogi8394 Ай бұрын

the A350-900 ULR wide body jets in service with Singapore Airlines, could do with a more relaxed cabin seating configuration . . . considering the well being of paxs in a 18 hour long flight time, regardless of cabin class . . . 128 - 143 seats in a typical 2-class layout is more of a sound configuration on such excessively long haul flights (routes) . . . the A380-800 could fly such xtra long haul routes as well . . . featuring a cabin configuration of 283 - 368 seats in a typical 3-class layout . . . first business & premium economy . . .

@TomGD 3 ай бұрын

I thought the A350-900 ULR came with some solid modifications, but... to be fair though, it's just a 900 with some slight tweaks to make the range work well. Not a huge surprise but, really not bad modifications.

@MkurugenziMwenyekiti 3 ай бұрын

0:33 Taped up plastic paper nose cone cover made me look twice. I was like _"Frankenstein's plane???"_ 😂😂

@DustinPearce2957 Ай бұрын

It's still just parts and hasn't been assembled yet that's why it has some plastic paper although I can tell you already know.

@thomassharp2719 3 ай бұрын

The Airbus A350 -XLR is next.

@ScepticGinger89 3 ай бұрын

Why would the A350 even need an XLR version? It's max. range already exceeds that of a 777 ER and is more than sufficient for pretty much every route there is.

@aasishwarsaravana5748 3 ай бұрын

For anyone who is curious as to how the a350 ulr variant works, here is an explanation from my perspective: The main thing you need to know is planes have a weight limit, i.e. MTOW (Max TakeOff Weight) which they never should exceed in normal operations. Which means the total weight of Fuel + Passengers + Cargo must Never exceed the maximum operational weight of the aircraft, in this case 283,000 kgs (235,000kgs on the initial variants). However in standard flight configuration and routes flown, the a350 never had the need to fill their tanks to their full capacity, as they can save on fuel by decreasing weight, and either carry more passengers or more cargo, which means the full capacity of the fuel tanks is never used, only upto 3/4th of the fuel tanks capacity is used, and the rest is used to carry passengers and max cargo in the standard configuration, with routes mostly flown in the range of 3-15 hours, which is very well within the capabilities of the a350 standard variant. Why did they design the fuel tank to have more capacity than it should? Because it is the part of the structure known as the wingbox, which is the part that connects the wings and fuselage of the aircraft and helps share the loads of lift experienced by the wings onto the fuselage without the wings ripping off the fuselage. This wingbox has empty space inside of it, and that space is what is used as fuel tanks for the aircraft, with all relevant piping and pumps fitted onto it. That is why the a350 fuel tank is designed the way it is with excess capacity. Now how do we utilise the unfilled volume of the fuel tank? You can do that by increasing the max takeoff weight of the aircraft. Sadly that is difficult, as increasing mtow will necessitate reinforced landing leg designs, which can also increase the weight of the landing gear, and except a few niche ULR routes, the excess range on the a350 is generally not required. Also these changes might need an heavy overhaul of the structure of the aircraft to withstand such heavy loads, which is expensive. Hence increasing mtow to allow max fuel capacity does not make financial sense for Airbus or for any other airlines which might not need that range and excess reinforcement. The next best thing would be to slightly increase the mtow (from 235 tons to 283 tons), like airbus did with its ulr variant, but limit passenger seating, as passengers are also weights aircraft need to carry if you take the average weight of a person to be 70kg, and disable the front cargo hold to limit the max cargo capacity of the plane to keep it within operational limits for aircraft certification, and add few more pumps for the additional fuel that will be carried now on the same tanks, and you get the ulr variant of the aircraft without significant design changes. In fact the only difference between the standard and ulr variant of a350 is the ulr trades passenger, cargo and water capacity for additional fuel (the 283 mtow is now standard across both variants of the a350), and paperwork for the certification of the variant to be operational within the regulations, which is why the a350 can be converted from the standard to the ulr variant and vice versa with just minimal changes to its operation, and some additional paperwork. Also since it is an ultra long haul niche route that passengers pay a premium for the non stop convenience, you can just add premium class seats and elevate their experience and charge more money, while still making the route profitable! I hope this helps you understand the way the ulr variant operates! Thanks for reading this long comment!

@MC-wd4oi 3 ай бұрын

Summed it up very well, thanks legend!

@aasishwarsaravana5748 3 ай бұрын

@@MC-wd4oi Thank you! I too had problems understanding the concept of carrying more fuel using existing tanks, until I started playing flight sim games, and realized how fuel, passenger capacity and cargo hold affect the operational requirements of aircraft!

@rufatdursunov8862 3 ай бұрын

You made a fantastic job, but forgot to highlight one crucial thing. A350-900ULR is burning the way more fuel than usual A350-900. Because it carries more fuel than usual A350, it weights much heavier. This is an axiom, the more fuel you carry the more fuel your engines are burning. This has been proven by B777-200LR which is also could fly up to 17000 km, but burned unlimited amount of fuel. That is why A350-900ULR and B777-200LR are so unpopular throughout airlines all over the World. While A350-1000 and B777-9 are gaining and gaining popularity, each of them has collected almost 500 orders.

@tuuchen2990 3 ай бұрын

In the video, there's a mention that 'the ULR version is not that impressive.' However, after reading this comment, I believe it's actually a very impressive and clever design. You have the flexibility to convert the plane between different variants without being locked into a single model. Aircraft certification is extremely costly, and I'm all for anything that leads to cheaper tickets.

@alicelund147 3 ай бұрын

@@rufatdursunov8862 Yes more fuel but less passengers, cargo and water; is not the weight about the same? And it gets lighter and lighter along the way.

@gilgengomes3222 3 ай бұрын

Very good...

@oohorik 2 ай бұрын

What is ULR? What are the differences between it and the -1000 or XWB?

@MrSchwabentier Ай бұрын

ULR means Ultra Long Range and it is a modiefied -900. XWB is just a marketing name. Everey A350 is a XWB, just like every 787 is a Dreamliner

@claudep17 3 ай бұрын

Also on SIN - LAX route 👍 ♥️✈️

@malvinuku7878 3 ай бұрын

You would’ve thought that BA would’ve bought these to fly nonstop to Syd instead of stopping in Singapore

@MrSchwabentier 3 ай бұрын

On extreme long routes a stopover can be cheaper than a direct flight

@juniorcampbell2980 3 ай бұрын

I did not know it carried less water. I've flown the SIN/JFK. It took less than 17 hours, sigbifant tailwinds.

@kenoliver8913 2 ай бұрын

Its pretty simple really: less passengers=less water (or waste).

@sainnt 3 ай бұрын

I had no idea that the A350 had been modified so many times.

@steinwaldmadchen 3 ай бұрын

Airbus has been known for making small changes here and there over the lifecycle.

@tomosb95 3 ай бұрын

the A350-900ULR had an increased fuel capacity in the Center Fuel Tank which meant the max take -off weight had to increase. Typical Airbus then puts this learning into future aircraft as Airbus always do. The Max Take-off weight is what dictates what Airbus and SIA can do. THIS IS A NORMAL AIRBUS AIRCRAFT DESIGN PHILOSIPHY AND COPIES A330.

@MrAlwaysBlue 3 ай бұрын

I still don't get how it carries more fuel with the same tanks.

@devanarayananj1291 3 ай бұрын

Actually they do have auxiliary tanks inside the cargo compartment The same applies to 320 xlr

@user-yt198 3 ай бұрын

-Video is completely wrong. Cargo volume capacity is reduced for a reason. Extra fuel tanks. How is it possible to store extra 20 tons of fuel?-

@aasishwarsaravana5748 3 ай бұрын

This too has always confused me, until I started to play flight sim games. The main thing you need to know is planes have a weight limit, i.e. MTOW (Max TakeOff Weight) which they never should exceed in normal operations. Which means the total weight of Fuel + Passengers + Cargo must Never exceed the maximum operational weight of the aircraft, in this case 283,000 kgs (235,000kgs on the initial variants). However in standard flight configuration and routes flown, the a350 never had the need to fill their tanks to their full capacity, as they can save on fuel by decreasing weight, and either carry more passengers or more cargo, which means the full capacity of the fuel tanks is never used, only upto 3/4th of the fuel tanks capacity is used, and the rest is used to carry passengers and maximum cargo in the standard configuration, with routes mostly flown in the range of 3-15 hours, which is very well within the capabilities of the a350 standard variant. Why did they design the fuel tank to have more capacity than it should? Because it is the part of the structure known as the wingbox, which is the part that connects the wings and fuselage of the aircraft and helps share the loads of lift experienced by the wings onto the fuselage without the wings ripping off the fuselage. This wingbox has empty space inside of it, and that space is what is used as fuel tanks for the aircraft, with all relevant piping and pumps fitted onto it. That is why the a350 fuel tank is designed the way it is with excess capacity. Now how do we utilise the unfilled volume of the fuel tank? You can do that by increasing the max takeoff weight of the aircraft. Sadly that is difficult, as increasing mtow will necessitate reinforced landing leg designs, which can also increase the weight of the landing gear, and except a few niche ULR routes, the excess range on the a350 is generally not required. Also these changes might need an heavy overhaul of the structure of the aircraft to withstand such heavy loads, which is expensive. Hence increasing mtow to allow max fuel capacity does not make financial sense for Airbus or for any other airlines which might not need that range and excess reinforcement. The next best thing would be to slightly increase the mtow (from 235 tons to 283 tons), like airbus did with its ulr variant, but limit passenger seating, as passengers are also weights aircraft need to carry if you take the average weight of a person to be 70kg, and disable the front cargo hold to limit the max cargo capacity of the plane to keep it within operational limits for aircraft certification, and add few more pumps for the additional fuel that will be carried now on the same tanks, and you get the ulr variant of the aircraft without significant design changes. In fact the only difference between the standard and ulr variant of a350 is the ulr trades passenger, cargo and water capacity for additional fuel (the 283 mtow is now standard across both variants of the a350), and paperwork for the certification of the variant to be operational within the regulations, which is why the a350 can be converted from the standard to the ulr variant and vice versa with just minimal changes to its operation, and some additional paperwork. Also since it is an ultra long haul niche route that passengers pay a premium for the non stop convenience, you can just add premium class seats and elevate their experience and charge more money, while still making the route profitable! I hope this helps you understand the way the ulr variant operates! Thanks for reading this long comment!

@LongHaulbySimpleFlying 3 ай бұрын

@@user-yt198 "This was achieved by integrating a modified fuel system, which increases the aircraft’s fuel carrying capacity by 24,000 litres without the need for additional fuel tanks." - www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2018-09-ultra-long-range-a350-xwb-goes-the-distance

@aasishwarsaravana5748 3 ай бұрын

@@devanarayananj1291only the a321xlr has the auxillary fuel tanks, and additional reinforcements to aircraft underbelly structure to prevent fires in case of a belly landing. The a350 ulr just uses the remaining unused volume in its fuel tanks.

@SFAvgeek 3 ай бұрын

I flew on one of these from SIN-SFO back when they used to fly them there a couple of years ago. It was a complete premium cabin and the flight was great. I wish these beauties still flew to sfo on the 2nd daily flight🥲.

@nurrizadjatmiko21 3 ай бұрын

Fascinating🤓

@Alislug 3 ай бұрын

I thought it had the A350-1000s fuel delivery system? correct me if im wrong

@kenoliver8913 2 ай бұрын

More precise to say the -1000 has the ULR's fuel system. The -1000 arrived after the ULR.

@Alislug 2 ай бұрын

@@kenoliver8913 Ahhh ic. thx for the insight it never crossed my mind that it was the other way around XD

@SalmanMentos 3 ай бұрын

Cool stuff ig

@cabottaxi 3 ай бұрын

Airbus are pushing the boundaries with this aircraft and the A321 XLR. Boeing are having to play catch up.

@peterwaugh9416 3 ай бұрын

As a retiree with plenty of time on my hands, long haul no longer has any interest for me. I like to get out at the stopovers & spend at least a day looking around. Paying you own airfare also means "Economy class" so a good night sleep in an airport hotel is a lot cheaper than a business class ticket .

@somealias-zs1bw 3 ай бұрын

I assume you're on the older side? If so, I'm not sure whether I'd look at is as having plenty of time on your hands. Make the most of it.

@peterwaugh9416 3 ай бұрын

@@somealias-zs1bw Good one, made me laugh. One day at a stopover isn't going to make much difference

@elliottkong1524 3 ай бұрын

The a350ulr also does not have brakes coolers on their wheels unlike the regular a350's

@Jetset_hd 3 ай бұрын

The regular a350s don’t have brake fans.

@johncassels3475 3 ай бұрын

Just a thought for any nervous travelers who may watch your excellent videos - given certain recent events, calling the video "DEEP DIVE" may not be entirely appropriate 😂🤣

@vaidyasethuraman452 3 ай бұрын

the range is impressive but a trade off- 160 passengers, no cargo , lower water et al. How does this compare with 777-8 From Boeing if it comes...

@grahambaker6664 3 ай бұрын

I wonder what the profitability is like given the loss of so much freight capacity.

@devanarayananj1291 3 ай бұрын

@@grahambaker6664 the aircraft is actually profitable because of the premium layout It only has premium economy and business class seats.

@johncassels3475 3 ай бұрын

It's a case of balancing priorities and the different sources of income on your particular route network.

@747-pilot 3 ай бұрын

The A350-900ULR becomes much less impressive, when you consider that the Boeing 777 200LR has been in operation for eons and is a much older design (aerodynamics, non carbon composite fuselage etc. ), without all of the compromises mentioned in this video, and can still come close to the range of the ULR!

@j3j326 3 ай бұрын

The A350 is a wonderful jet and getting better, Fuel tanks are quite amazing.

@dcsyd16 3 ай бұрын

The 777-300 ER has far better economic performance passenger and freight services. The 777x with larger fuel tank would match or better the 350ulr range, freight and economics per seat Anyone not planning to purchase that will no longer be competitive

@Gazma_Muzaale 3 ай бұрын

one beautiful aircraft

@deniermurch8693 3 ай бұрын

Shows how versatile the A350 is. (satire)

@jonw4743 3 ай бұрын

can I get one of these in a goodie bag?

@kenoliver8913 2 ай бұрын

It is interesting though that Qantas chose the stretched A350-1000 rather than the 900ULR for its forthcoming Sydney-London flights (slightly longer than Singapore-New York). With a reduced passenger count the -1000 can make the distance while still carrying more people than the -900ULR. It suggests the ULR variant was not needed and so an expensive mistake.

@thomasburke7995 3 ай бұрын

The single biggest factor in fuel burn is MAX ZERO FUEL WEIGHT. BY eliminating the fowzrd cargo hold that cost is shifted elsewhere, but it places airframe in a tail attitude that limits the need for trim giving the distence it needs. This is just a prestigious marker for Singapore, the flight is heavily subsidized

@hanj31 3 ай бұрын

Why didn't qantas order this variant?

@ProAvgeek6328 3 ай бұрын

a350-1000ulr when?

@suserman7775 3 ай бұрын

So how often are passengers running out of water? Do they start rationing water very tightly when its levels get low?

@eustache_dauger 3 ай бұрын

They can recycle it and give passengers the ISS experience 😂

@tuuchen2990 3 ай бұрын

It has less passengers so no need for that much water

@suserman7775 3 ай бұрын

@tuuchen2990 But it should be about passengerHours not passengers.

@tuuchen2990 3 ай бұрын

@@suserman7775 maybe everyone is asleep for half the flight

@SFAvgeek 3 ай бұрын

They don’t have economy rather 80+ premium economy seats in 2-4-2.

@juneabbey9538 3 ай бұрын

A bit pointless bringing this video out days AFTER the much more impressive XLR was certified.

@ImionsaeXwb77 2 ай бұрын

The short Answer = carry less passenger and add more fuel tank...... DUH... any airplane can do that if they wanted to.. a Cessena 172 can fly from Ca to Hi over 20+ hours so WHOOPY DO...

@bennie1138000 28 күн бұрын

Exactly I respect Airbus, I love working on their aircraft everyday but let’s be real, they are basically turning their aircraft into a flying gas tank, especially the 321XLR

@ErwinPinocto 3 ай бұрын

Less passengers means higher ticket prices... How much so?

@JBM425 3 ай бұрын

There are no “regular” Economy seats. The lowest fare category is Premium Economy seats, so passengers are paying more per seat.

@ekuche8335 3 ай бұрын

same aircraft for project sunrise?

@MandoMonge 3 ай бұрын

Kinda, they’re going for the -1000

@WizardSoon 3 ай бұрын

The commonality with normal 359 is a good news for SW in case they need to reconfigure the airplane back to normal or recertify as XLR. Where else can SQ take advantage of this aircraft range to? If SQ have big business in Brazil, SIN to GRU is within the massive range too!