Airbus’ new Ultra Long Range variant of its A350 aircraft has taken to the skies for the first time, ahead of entering service on the world’s longest passenger route.
The Ultra Long Range Airbus A350 XWB made a short maiden flight from Toulouse-Blagnac Airport as part of a test programme that should see a range of efficiency improvements certified. These modifications to the standard A350-900 include a fuel system that increases capacity by 24,000 litres without the need for additional fuel tanks, as well as extended winglets. The new A350 variant is powered by twin Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines and has a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 280 tonnes.
Combined, the modifications will give the new aircraft a range of 9,700 nautical miles, topping that of current record holder, the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner. Recently, the Dreamliner made headlines as the first commercial craft to fly non-stop from Perth to London, a flight that took 17 hours and 20 minutes. According to Airbus, the Ultra Long Range A350 XWB will be capable of flight times in excess of 20 hours, opening up new long–haul non-stop routes that have previously been beyond reach.
The first of those new routes will see Singapore Airlines fly direct for the first time from Singapore to New York, with the service due to start operating later this year. The airline has already ordered seven Ultra Long Range models, which will complement the 60 standard A350 aircraft it has planned for its fleet. So far, Singapore Airlines has taken delivery of 21 A350-900s.
While a recent order from Emirates Airlines guaranteed the production of Airbus’ A380 superjumbo for the next 10 years, the A350 XWB is likely to be the long-haul Airbus of choice into the future. Its carbon fibre fuselage and wings, alongside the fuel-efficient Rolls-Royce engines, promise a 25 per cent reduction in fuel burn and emissions, according to company. As of the March 2018, Airbus has received orders for 854 A350 XWB from 45 customers worldwide.
So will this type of long range aircraft make large hub airports redundant, or at least less required? Thus undermining the case for ploughing up more acres of Surrey to extend Heathrow.
How many of those hub airports are also the final destination of the traveller?
How you increase the fuel capacity by 24,000ltr without additional tanks?
Make the original tanks bigger ?
Maybe just making existing tanks bigger…
No, no, no! More acres will be required to get the thing off of the ground. Tall vehicles are to be banned from the M25 too!
I hope they have increased the loo tank capacity too!!
andyg, Heathrow postal address is TW6 etc. Middx.
Indeed. There isn’t any room for airport expansion in Surrey: too many golf courses.
Well said Alan, no part of Heathrow is in Surrey or has ever been. I guess he is one of the Satnav generation who are lost without a helping hand.
If it is suitable to ‘top-up’ military aircraft, (which supposedly carry the hopes of future freedom for us all?) what is the objection (if any) to in-flight refuelling for civilian aircraft?
Its a safety issue. For the military is necessity and hence a higher risk threshold.
Have always wondered what is a risk threshold? I recall as a young Engineer reading some book about calculation of risks: the example was given about some percentage likelihood of an accident as two new systems were introduced (it was in aviation) and the characters (at least the management) assuring the pilot that it was a 98% likelihood that he would return safely.
If I recall he used several expletives and then said: ” the risk is either 100% or 0%. I will either return or I won’t! there are no percentages involved.” I mean no disrespect , but a lady cannot be ‘a little bit pregnant’: she either is or isnt!
In the manufacture of synthetic fibres, we make billions of fibres -cut to say 35mm- long – and bale them in containers holding say 350kg. At one time the sampling/quality testing required operatives to take samples -a handful was the designated amount- and these were sent to the lab: the lab technicians took 10 fibres and measured them against the standard specification: and the bale was approved (or not and downgraded/sold as second quality) on this basis.
Complete rubbish in statistical terms. A new system was introduced. Does that original handful (the quality sample) process on a carding unit, or not! If yes -quality approved: if no…only then was the fibre downgraded. This data (the passport for each bale) was shared with customers and customers queued up to get this supposedly second-quality material at reduced price! because they knew it would be OK: for years ‘we’ had been our own worst enemy. I appreciate that a military aircraft is different: but surely the human lives involved are identical?
Everyone, the Old Lasham aerodrome has a 12,000 Ft runway already and the railway is nearby in both Alton and Basingstoke and Two Motorways M3 and A31 with the A339 from Alton and Basingstoke leading in to the airport. There is plenty of open space around, that can be left undeveloped for the Flight Paths needed. Then LHR remains as is and a UK central hub and a train connection to Lasham.
Will also save huge amounts of money and gives rise to more UK Jobs and enlarge local commerce! Why make more congestion in this area along with noise and pollution?
GD, as have several others, made rational well argued points about air-port expansion.
Sadly, well argued rational thinking forms little part of political expediency.
Pity economy class passengers! cooped up in a seat for up to/over 20 hrs !!
So, Frank A! [sitting still for 20 hours] My first boss (we are talking 1965) was attached to the Parachute regiment or somesuch. He told we young Engineers He and others were working on means to get more parachutists landed from aircraft quicker: and serious (as serious as anything military is considered) consideration was given to literally stacking them (sound asleep) in racks and ‘ejecting’ them over the target. The theory was that they would wake up as the cold air hit them. Sadly, possibly not the only thing that would have hit them. The concept of giving passengers a very accurate dose of a sleeping-draft (based upon their individual weight) and getting them nicely to sleep shortly after take-off-not as lunatic as at first thought? an anaesthetic designed to keep them asleep for a timed period the Length of the flight.
The ultimate sleeping partners?