What’s WRONG with the Airbus A350?!
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 12. 2023
- Go to drinkag1.com/mentournow to get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3+K2 and 5 AG1 travel packs with your first purchase. Thanks to AG1 for sponsoring today's video!
---------------------------------------------------
Is there something wrong with the Airbus A350, or some versions of it at least? With the even larger A380 now out of production for good, does Airbus stand to lose out to Boeing, at a time when many airlines are choosing the replacement of many older, BIG widebodies.
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻 www.mentourpilot.com/apps/
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• “Family flight” - Five...
• Jet mega-orders put In...
• IndiGo Places Record O...
• Air India places recor...
• 2021 Miramar Air Show ... v
• Farnborough Internatio...
• Interview with Boeing-...
• The Royal Jordanian 78...
• Le nouveau Dreamliner ...
• SunExpress Airlines | ...
• Together we soar | UAE...
• Boeing 777X Vertical T...
• 777-9 Vertical Takeoff...
• #DubaiAirshow 2023: Co...
• #A350 - Turkish Airlines
• A350-900 Maiden Flight
• #DubaiAirshow 2023: An...
• Introducing Our New Li...
• Emirates A380 and Jetm...
• Last delivery of the E...
• The A350-1000 begins i...
• First A350-1000: Engin...
• Rolls-Royce | Trent 70...
• Rolls-Royce | Richard ...
• Rolls-Royce | Andrew D...
• Rolls-Royce | Trent 10...
• Rolls-Royce | The laun...
• Qatar Airways' Airbus ...
• Rolls-Royce | Trent XW...
• The Pratt & Whitney GT...
• Soaring high above the...
• Rolls Royce cuts 9,000...
• Emirates Flyover at Du...
• Emirates SkyCargo sets...
• The A320neo Family: Un...
• A320neo takes to the s...
• Trent 7000 | Making th...
• For the Boeing Flight ...
• See inside the GE9X, G...
• The #A350F, the only t...
• Rolls-Royce | UltraFan
• Airbus history made: t... - Zábava
Go to drinkag1.com/mentournow to get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3+K2 and 5 AG1 travel packs with your first purchase. Thanks to AG1 for sponsoring today's video!
Sluta sponsra dina videor! Så jävla störande!!!
I started taking D3 and K2 and noticed a big difference in my energy levels. Most pronounced at first.
Tosser ! Presentations of this quality are not inexpensive to produce. Start you own if you think it should be free :)
If Boeing delivers on the 777x on the new schedule Airbus may be in trouble in the large WB segment.
As a paying (premium) subscriber, I am paying youtube to pay you to not have ads. It's your choice to continue to embed ads, as it's my choice to downvote you and unsubscribe). Yes, I feel strongly about this.
After watching the disaster at Tokyo, I would say absolutely nothing is wrong with the A350. I can not believe how intact thecA350 was after it came to a stop. The fact that the main landing gear and wings were still intact after running through the Dash 8 is a testament to the aircrafts strength.
meanwhile Boeing can't even secure its door to stay closed during flight and just detach from the frame. i would not trust boeing with my safety at this point.
well it is completely built in carbonfiber composites (just like the 787 dreamliner) Aluminum has a melting point of 660 degrees celsius, composites burn at 400-500 degrees but despite that composite maintains it's structural integrity much longer in a fire than alumium which propably is the main reason that everyone had time to evacuate in time. I doubt everyone would have had time to get off if it was a for example Boeing 777 with aluminum. Unfortunately Boeing made the stupid decision to continue with aluminum fuselage on it's new upcoming 777X to save money on development cost which was another dumb choice, makes the aircraft both heavier and less safe.
@@ragael1024 This is my issue with this channel.
It looks very much biased toward Boeing which is understandable if you have a lot of interaction with them.
But really, why isn't there any cover of the plug door issue here yet this video on the A350 for something rather minor.
It's "just a YT channel" but still, it would still be much more honest to just cover issues for both manufacturers.
The MCAS issue was also just lightly touched on this channel with not much blame pointed at Boeing...
@@foadskyflierI'm pretty sure you can't convert an already aluminum fuselage. It's basically Boeing's A330neo. So I wouldn't really call it a "stupid" decision.
@@Tetsuo6995Petter touched on it quite a lot actually when it was going on. You sound like an Airbus fanboy.
The feature I like about AIRBUS is that it doesn't have the MCAS Rock & Roll feature and the doors don't fall off.
I also heard wheels don't randomly fall off during take-off on Airbuses either
Well the accident a Japan showed a very strong airframe, I think this was also one of, if not the most, critical factor that everyone in that plane survived.
agreed!
That goes to the culture of Japanese people! They’re disciplined!
The composite fuselage shatters on impact and it releases toxic fumes when burnt. I don’t think it made a big difference if this plane was a 777 instead of a a350 for example. 777 have had many runway fires and had successfully evacuations, such as the emirates crash at Dxb (which had a longer ecvacuation Time, and all passengers still survived)
My understanding is that this emergency evacuation took 18 minutes so I'm not sure that demonstrates discipline.
@@marilynd.withner7366 90 seconds
I need to make a correction regarding the Trent XWB engines of the Airbus A350.
In the video, I say that the A350-1000 has a more powerful engine, which has a larger fan diameter, of 97 inches, whereas the smaller A350-900's engine has a fan diameter of 84 inches.
In reality, BOTH variants have the same fan diameter, which is about 118 inches or exactly 3 meters.
As some of you have guessed in the comments of the video, this mistake is due to a misunderstanding about the name of the two engine variants: Trent XWB-84 and Trent XWB-97.
My team and I were more familiar with Pratt & Whitney engines, many of which have a number at the end, which denotes the fan diameter, and assumed that this is what Rolls-Royce does, to.
And you know what happens when one assumes… 😔
In reality, those numbers have to do with the takeoff thrust of the two engines: 84,200 pounds for the -84 variant, and 97,000 pounds for the -97.
I really appreciate all of you who pointed this error out as we pride ourselves to always try and bring you the most accurate content possible.
Listening to you and your comments often teaches me a lot of and I’m feeling very grateful that I have such an engaged and knowledgeable audience. 💕
//Petter
Thanks for correcting.
Keeping you on your toes Petter. 😂. All the best for 2024, best channel on YT 💪
Fortunately only one hole of the Swiss cheese model was poked, and the mistake was caught by the rest of the crew.
All good 👍
Model then variant then rating is very common numbering
Hi, A350 pilot here. Some of the info shared in this video are not accurate. The -84 and -97 have absolutely nothing to do with fan diameters, as the two variants have the same fan diameter of 3,0 meters, or 118 inches. Actually you could even say that the -900 and the -1000 are powered by two variants of the same engine, the difference being that the Trent XWB-84 that powers the -900 has a thrust output of around 84000lb, and the Trent XWB-97 that powers the -1000 has a 97000lb thrust output and a slightly larger core (around 5% larger), and runs a bit faster.
Thank you, yes this was a mistake. Pratt & Whitney names its engines by putting a number at the end to denote the fan diameter, but in this case Rolls-Royce obviously uses this number to denote the thrust output in pounds.
I’m sorry for the confusion and I’ve issued a statement to correct it.
@@MentourNow Cheers. I’m a big fan of your channels !!
You need to make sure the information you give out Is accurate, simply sayings its your research teams fault is not on. You are a commercial Pilot and you understand better than most that you don't give out incorrect information or say something that's not true. Instead of producing all these videos, slow down a little and focus on accuracy, it will give your viewers better information and stop yourself looking silly...@@MentourNow
@@david22294Absolutely and it’s not my teams fault.
@@david22294Petter did make a correction as soon as it was discovered and he put his hands up straight away which shows his integrity as a pilot. As a pilot myself I find Mentour Pilots content very factual and informative with in depth technical analysis which isn’t watered down for the layman but put across in a specific way which makes it understandable to all viewers. I think we can forgive him for this minor misunderstanding.
Oh man, I'm still bummed that the A380 wasn't enough of a success for Airbus. I so rarely sleep on airplanes since I'm over 1m in height and they're apparently designed / laid out for the other group... But once on a Singapore 380 I turned to my wife and said "are we STILL taxiing?" and she said "we've been airborne for 3 hours, you've been asleep for most of that."
Damn shame.
yes true that
They're also amazingly quiet. I saw one take off in LA, I was impressed.
i really hope you are more than 1m in height😂
The A380 is absolutely the best aircraft to fly in. Quiet, smooth and spacious.
@@Holland41….sre thry still in production? I’d like to fly on one from Gatwick to Heathrow 😂😂
Yeah, big problems! Airlines should all opt for Boing's 737 Max, it comes with automatic emergency door opening!
You can jump out if you have a golden parachute.
@@Zodroo_TintGod man you said it perfectly
MAX also makes you feel weightless, like on a roller-coaster as it nose-dives to the ground.
😂💀
We have to take the experience to the MAX@@MegaSunspark
All 379 pax successfully evacuated with minimal broken fingernails, evacuated after a 350 (airborne, at landing speeds) impacts a stationary airframe on the deck in Japan - everyone out, with several exit doors blocked, nosewheel absent so front slide too shallow and tail end high. I'd fly on a 350 ANY DAY (but the 380 is still the best IMHO).
Boeing sold a shed-load of 777-300ERs in the 2010s and most carriers are not yet ready to replace them with new A350-1000 or 777-9. Both frames should see much stronger sales towards the end of this decade and into the 2030s.
Some airlines are more than ready to start changing them. Emirates is one of them.
That’s is very true, a lot of them are barely even 10-15 years old as most sales were around the early 2010s. And the aircraft performs extremely well. pilots love it. The airplane is still cost effective and super efficient even when put against the a350-1000. Sales will pick up tho in the late 2020s
Also the replacement for 777-300 is 777-8, not 777-9. The -9 is significantly larger and is in essence the boeings proposition as replacement for last 747s and even A380s, and has no direct Airbus competitor ATM. So it's little wonder that Emirates chose the bigger plane. And yes, that means that A350-1000 is directly competeing with 777-8, tot -9. And also Boeing chose not to develop 777-200 replacement in 777X generation, instead they'll probably market 787-10 to airlines replacing 777-200, as both planes are extremely similar in terms of capacity. Now the problem here is that while 787-10 is a better replacement for 777-200, it's not the case with -200ER as it has limited range, leaving -200ER operators a choice of go bigger with 777-8, go smaller with 787-9 or go Airbus with A350-900
@@mancubwwa you’re 100% correct. I also think the -200 market segment is in less demand. As it seems the Airlines just go bigger or smaller I.e. the -300ER and 787-9. I hate the 787-10 btw, I think they should have given it a bigger wing to increase the range and fuel. Bring limited to 12000km in today’s aviation market is just too low for a plane of that size.
@@davidajayi1207 I'm not sure if I agree about 787-10, it seems to be primary directad at US airlines for large volume long haul domestic routes like New York to Los Angeles. With no lie flat Buissness you can fit a lot of people on a really fuel efficent airframe and with overland routes no longer than 5000 km and plenty of diversion airports 12000 km range is more than enough.
The answer is nothing.
💀
POV u spit facts for a living
Airbus>Boeing
thanks for summarising
@@gamingcitypower5869 never
MentourNow is a very Boeingcentric. I think Airbus is doing just fine. And the Boeing build quality again coming into focus with the Air Alaska 737 900Max fuselage damage. One problem after another
Exactly. Boeing just grounded again (MAX9) and he make this video lol
Yeah he loves Boeing and won't even make a video after all the craziness with Boeing that has happened in the last few days
Yes he is biased, I noticed it too
I have noticed the same thing. He really is so biased against Airbus. Makes me not want to watch his videos again.
It's kind of expected that he has sympathy with the same machinery he's operating, ...but despite being a 737 pilot he showed on several videos that he's well aware of how far ahead Airbus and even Boeing tech are compared to the 737 series.
Captivating analysis, full of detailed product comparisons and understanding of each market player's motivations. We began watching with the intention of merely "sampling" the episode, but ended up watching it twice.
We must also not forget, Emirates have a large fleet of 777-300ER's and 777Fs, bying the new 777X will keep crew familiarisation and maintenance as they all use the core GE 90 engine which yes it's new family on the 777X but still GE, flight crews inc cabin and cockpit crew will be familiar and trained on the current 777 so transitioning to the new one will cost less. It just makes more sense for Emirates to go this route. Also the only aircraft within the size of the A380 is the 777-9.
You can say the same about commonality for the Airbus family of planes. There is even more commonality for air crews than Boeing will ever achieve within the 777 line of products, old and future once.
The statement about the engine is even more surprising after GE had to redesign every section of the GE9X during the 777X testing. The GE9X is the main reason for the delay of the 777X program. Assuming the hot and sandy environment would have no impact on the GE9X is wishful thinking. On contrary, the large 777X contract might bite Boeing and GE big time. There must have been HUGE incentives for Emirates to place such a large order for an unproven, not certified wide body airliner with new, unproven engines. The incentives are a close held secret, but it must be way more than a simple discount. A discount can't cover Emirates risk of having to ground its 777X should there be teething issues like experienced with the 787, or if engine issues surface with the GE9X. The contract must have some writing in it, that is covering Emirates risk, and that again might lead to huge losses for Boeing and GE should their products not perform as specified in the contract!!!!!
I see this as a missed opportunity to switch to better quality planes. Instead, they opted for another long term with an inferior product.
Cheers and thank you so much for not just covering airplane incidents and piloting insights but also industry usage, needs, overview, and ternds. I appreciate the insight into this industry you provide that outsiders like me greatly appreciate experiencing.
Speaking of maintenance costs in dusty environments, I used to make (radio system) service calls to a geological survey camp in central Saudi Arabia back in the early 80s. They had a Bell Jet Ranger based at the camp, but it wasn't available to get me out there, so I would have to dead recon across the desert in order to get there in my Nissan Patrol SUV. I talked to the pilot once lamenting that he couldn't fly me in, and he told me that they would only get 12 hours out of each tail rotor due to the dust, and they cost $26K each!
I believe there's nothing wrong with the A350, never have I seen and travelled in such a well build, safe- and comfortable plane. And like others have mentioned, look at what happened in Japan.
Yeah and on the other end, look what’s happening with the 737 Max. Again…
@@sn4txAt this point I'll actively avoid flying the Max. Nobody knows the extent of poor engineering in that plane.
@@Chopper153 as I use to say regarding that plane, at this point id prefer flying on one made by LEGO.
@@sn4tx Exactly, but this thing that's happened to the 737 MAX seems to be a company wide quality issue so I have to wonder if it's going affect 777 as well in some shape or form.
@@mutkaluikkunen3926 I’m not a Boeing fanboy nor an Airbus fanboy. Do Boeings crash? Yeah so do Airbus. But you are right. As much as I’d like to just keep these uneasy feelings I have towards the MAX (granted I’ll never step inside one of those), with all the issues plaguing other programs one does have to start considering. And hey I’m not driven by paranoia. In the 737 defence, Iots of them been flying by tons of airlines all over the world. So statistically one could say, the 737 MAX isn’t that much of a dangerous plane. Same thing happens in the car industry. Now the issue here is if a certain car model of a specific brand has a chronic quality issue that makes them break down more than the others, at most you gonna be walking or taking a taxi. If a plane breaks
Down … yeah they not gonna park in some random cloud till assistance comes. And as a whole it’s true that Boeing been having some problems across the bussiness. Some more serious than others but still. It shots the reputation and mostly the trust people have on the brand. So yes. Of course as a passenger that likes to check what plane I’ll be flying when I book flights, I’ll be actively avoiding Boeing in general. Doesn’t mean I’ll be 100% safe. But surely being 90% safe beats being 60% safe. Now it doesn’t mean I won’t get on a Boeing plane, if that’s my only choice for the route and time I need. BUT even if air travel is, statistically, the safest way to travel I still prefer to take my chances on a car crash than on a plane crash. And one way to improve those chances is to stay away from those crazy nonsense MAX program planes. That shit should be banned straight away from everywhere. I mean yesterday was MCAS, today are plugs that go “Aight, I’m outta here”. Heck I not gonna be in a future flight that has the potential to show yet another issue with the MAX.
Just a minor point about the 787. It actually does have bleed air but only for the inlet lip. All other systems that traditionally used bleed air are now electric. I have a friend who is currently in 787 transition training and he was as surprised as I was. And I actually work on the 787 for a living!
That’s really cool u get to work on them
Wasn't the bleed air port a modification to solve icing conditions on the inlet lip of the nacel? That modification was made years ago. I had smile when I saw the comments of the bleed air less engine suddenly getting a bleed air port added to it.
@@aquaden8344it’s called the inlet cowl…anti ice.
@@aquaden8344 On the RR engine it uses HP3 air (if I recall) for cowling anti-ice by a dedicated PRSOV. Air-conditioning air is supplied from the CACs (Cabin Air Compressors) to the air-conditioning packs. Wing Anti-ice is electrical heater elements in the leading edge slats. (WIPS).
@@hughblack6831 Thanks for the info.
All I can say is that the A350 is the most comfortable longhaul flight I've ever flown economy on.
Makes sense, since the cabin pressure and noise levels are better than the 787 but with the seat width of the A380 (18")
Yeah I flew on the a350 recently. Very comfortable indeed.
Until the 10 abreast seating arrangement on the newer models become the norm.
@@oadkathey are about the same, it depends on where you sit. Both planes are extremely similar in terms of types of technology used. The a350 s engines are about a half a generation ahead tho. Cabin pressure is the same for both 6000 feet.
same! and was always a Boing fanboy before that flight
My son has flown to Australia and back from the UK three times in the last fifteen months. He's flown on 777s, A350s, a 787, an A380 and 737-MAX (Singapore to Cairns). His favourite plane by far of all those is the A350 as used by Singapore Airlines. Apart from the 737-MAX which he found very cramped, the one he disliked the most was a 777 operated by Swissair, which he said was very tired and poorly equipped compared to the others.
Thanks for this comment..your son has good judgement about aircraft and I agree that the Airbus 350 (Singapore Airlines) is probably the most comfortable long haul..Have taken it many times from Christchurch-Singapore. and Singapore-Auckland.
We are flying Cairns, Singapore, UK and looking forward to the A350 but not the 737 max leg!!
This
I have the same experience A 350 operated by Thai was my favorite and 777 operated by Austrian the least liked
I flown flydubai 737 MAX 8 and no thanks... cramped, old hull. Maybe good in terms of training, fuel efficiency but its an old style aircraft. I also hated the infotainment. Extremely big and bright screens and as it is so cramped, many will touch your screen by corner when passing by and turning it ON for you when you are asleep. Shitty design.
Your explanations of how things work and why are astounding. I never knew there could be such a great presentation. You are the best!
Hi MentourNow Team, great video! 10:34 I’d like to clarify some misconceptions on the Trent XWB-84 and -97. Online sources indicate that their fan diameters are the same at 118 inches. The increased thrust output of the -97 comes from different internal component designs such as the larger core. Articles also shared that the increased power results in higher temperatures and requires improved cooling. Perhaps the high ambient temperatures in the Middle East also cause lower than expected time on wing performance because of these rotables and life limited parts being affected too.
Thanks for the video it really got me searching and learning more! Cheers!
Thank you for the information! Yes the fan diameter is the same, this was a mistake, it was the internal differences that were large enough for the two engines to end up with different designations.
Hmmm i am not sure about your take on temperatures. Jet engines operate under high temperatures, we, are talking about hundreds of degrees. How much hotter does it get in the desert? maybe 20 degrees or 30F. Thats a big difference for you and I , but not for a machine doing say, 800-900 degrees F? Plus, a lot of their hgih density departures happen at PM, when its MUCH cooler. My point? There must be something else to the story...
I’m glad you went thru all this because the moment he said 87 and 97 inches I was thinking “that’s like PW GTF and CF6 sized fans.
Combustor exit temperatures are well into the >1900K (~1600-1700C) for modern turbofans, well above the melting temperatures of the nickel alloys that the turbine blades are casted from. They require highly elaborate barrier coatings and actively cooled by enveloping the blade in a film of cooling air (which by the way, is already well above 600C to start with). A hot & high takeoff at say ISA+20C could have a significant impact on life-limited parts compared to the nominal flight profiles, so inlet temperature matter much more than you're making it out to be.
When your components area already running at the very edge of what's physically possible, an extra 20 degrees matter a huge amount.
And in case it’s not obvious, the 87 and 97 in the name is the pounds of thrust in thousands.
Thanks for the behind scenes information on the engines maintenances and performance. An important subjects that is not normally reported.
You're welcome!
The A350 is magnificent. Just did two 14 hr flights from Atlanta to Cape Town and back. The best aircraft I have flown, including the 787,380, 777.
What do you like about the 350 over the others?
Passenger or pilot?
@@CW-rx2js passenger
I notice a huge difference in how my body copes with a flight on a 787 vs A350. The airbus always gives me a nasty headache, whereas the 787 leaves me feeling fine :)
@@jgldev It's quieter, smoother, less prone to turbulence (advanced 'gust suppression' technology) and it's pressurized to an equivalent of 6000 ft altitude (most others are 8000 ft). All round Delta economy was quite comfortale and didn't leave me feeling tired (after 14 hrs) like other aircrafts would. 787 is pretty nice too but I place the 350 above the 787 in terms of quietness and comfort.
Thank you for a another great video Petter. So well explained. As Always, Thank you for all the awesome graphics and tech info you give us in this video. Merry Xmas to you and your family,
Hello Mentor, I just want to clarify that for the XWB-84 engines on the A359, the 84 denotes its thrust rating of 84,200 lbfs and on the A35k which uses the XWB-97, the 97 denotes its thrust rating of 97,000 lbfs, both XWB variants have the same fan diameter of 3m or 118 inches.
Hello Peter -- just want to say how much we both LOVE your videos. So well-researched, so well-graphically enhanced, so much good information -- all within a "grownup" / balanced and intelligent perspective. THANK YOU!!!
Thank you once again for your in depth and unbiased analysis. Educational and entertaining at the same time. The perfect combination.
Great video!
I am an enthusiast, but I have been out of the game for a little while now.
Despite this, I was able to understand every aspect of this issue - albeit, through macro lenses.
Hence, I thank you for your very well scripted videos!
Cheers from Portugal 🙂
Yes. A350 is excellent. I often fly SFO-Singapore but also flew Singapore-Christchurch recently, all on A350s. But still my favorite aircraft is still the 747-8. But that’s tough to find unless you are flying Korean or Lufthansa.
As always Petter! Absolutely amazing quality videos. Thank you
As a load planner, the trimming is a problem when flying with full load , many-times I do need to offload cargo due weight and trim, so the fwd hold is empty in long haul flight😂 so I don’t know how the a350f will operate with that trimming. But the a350 family do more fuel economy than others
Hello, I just flew an Airbus 350 4 days ago from TNR to CDG (11h flight time). It is by far the quietest and most comfortable plane of its category.
According to the TCDS the fan diameter is the same at 118". The designation comes from the thrust output. Did you not think it was ironic the fan diameter and thrust output were both the same?
Thank you, yes this was a mistake.
Always enjoy the really interesting and lengthy videos.
Peter is a great narrator and host of Mentor Pilot. Ciao.
Very balanced and technically video. I really appreciate the detail and non-biased information.
Great Job!
The a350-1000 is still doing well. I’m sure Rolls Royce will work on increasing the time on wing performance and I have a feeling Emirates may order this aircraft at some point. Emirates even said they love the aircraft, as long as this issue is fixed it will definitely be considered at Emirates.
I can imagine if the 777X has further delays and if there are problems in the beginning, Emirates will start to shift to the 350.
Or airbus just starts with the A380-900 😅
@@byFoxiI doubt Airbus will ever build any more of A380 variations. The project costs Airbus over 20 Billion of Dollars and clearly Airbus is not able to turn a profit from the program. They plane maker has put down all of the quad-jet’s production line which makes the restarting of the aircaft is as expensive as starting a new project. Even though there are airlines other then Emerates want a NEO version the A380, I do not think it will be sufficient enough for Airbus to just simply consider it.
@@thevinhnguyen1661 airbus still owes the tax payers 1billion one the now defunct A380 project pay your bills airbus
There is no way Airbus starts the A380 again. No facility is opted foir that by now, so its just a completly new production line. The A380 was nearly at break even but a lot of prestige was gained in building it that is way more valuable@@thevinhnguyen1661
Love the lines of the A350. A beautiful aircraft. ✈
I just don’t think people remember that the 350 is a decently larger airplane than the 787. They’re not really interchangeable. 787 can be better suited for small markets / different business models
Thanks, always an interesting overview of Technical matters regarding planes. 🤔👍😁
Very good video!! I work as an inspector in the Trent family LPT turbines (IPT in the Ultrafan) manufactured and assembled here in Spain. The 84 and 97 variants refer to the thrust the engine provides (84K and 97K pounds of thrust) . Like all your videos!!
Thanks for the info! Yes this was a mistake. A small confusion between the way R-R and P & W name their engines..! I've issued a statement to correct it.
Interesting! I wondered what the chances of the fan diameter in inches is the same numerical value as the thrust in lbs would be!!
Now, If Boeing could just keep their doors from blowing off, It might help them a lot.
I don't know if I'll ever fly a 737 of any kind again.
"Doors shmores..." - Boeing executives.
I always enjoy the information you provide Mentour. It's interesting that the 900 & 1000 models of the A350 have such contrasting engine types.
@Mentournow Love the videos - very informative and presentation is really professional - a Question - when a contract is signed for 100 aircraft with a particular client - are there any stats on how many are actually delivered? Seems like way more sales are agreed than aircraft actually delivered!
First of all this is a fantastic series (as well as the accident series ) and Peter and his crew are to be given mojo credit for a fine productions, the best in their categories hands down. That said, the Trent 7000 is much more like the mentioned difference between the two A350 XWB variants. The Trent 7000 is descended from the Trent 10 (1000 TEN I believe is its moniker) and the TEN is a 75% new engine over the Trent 1000. Once parts counts approach 50% its considered new (disagreement on that, varies from 40 to 60% in various views). Regardless the TEN should be counted as new and the 7000 has a very detached relationship in the 1000 engines. The 1000 itself is no longer made, replaced by the TEN (doing nothing for its attraction on the 787 that the Trent 1000 was never all that well regarded and more so with the failures). Two major RR users (NZ and ANA) have dropped it and are buying the GenX for the 787s they buy now.
I Always pick an airbus for long flight when I travel.
Another great one! You do such a wonderful job explaining how the industry works! Thank you! Of course, being an engine geek, I'm now going to google Rolls Royce, GE, and PW!
The A350-1000 seems to be cheaper & more efficient. Maybe Boeing offered a huge discount - combined with a small advantage in capacity and cargo. Both planes are beautiful. Qatar 350X lands here at DFW and its very graceful.
I fly on that Qatar -1000 out of DFW every other month. I think it's the quietest plane I've been on.
@@jemez_mtnEven quieter than A380? I haven't flown on A350 yet.
@@Chopper153 Hmm, yeah actually the 380 is probably the quietest now that you mention it, followed closely by the 350. Then maybe 787, which I didn’t find amazingly quiet.
Hot and dusty conditions are hard on any kind of combustion engine. I can imagine it's even worse with turbofans that are sucking in enormous volumes of unfiltered air every single flight. Parts made of rubber and plastic deteriorate faster, and lubrication oil will break down sooner in these higher temps. I can understand that Rolls Royce is trying to play it safe with these more frequent off-wing maintenance intervals.
I work at Google and I do fairly long speeches regularly. I always have mine memorized but I don't do mine as often as you do in your very long videos like this one. Are these deliveries all done from memory for the most part? I'm just curious as a fellow presenter because they are ALWAYS exquisitely delivered. TY!
The fan diameter of the Trent XWB-84 and - 97 is the same at 118 inches - the difference is - 97 parts are beefed up to deal with the larger thrust.
Having flown both I much prefer the a350
The bigger issue for Airbus its the A330Neo slow sales. But Rolls Royce engine durability issues its hurting Airbus.
Indeed!!
not really. Airbus is already making profits with the A330Neo because of the low development costs
the a330neo is a lost cause
@@delta_cosmic your mother is a lost cause
@@miko-nv9cl your family are a lost cause
Very well laid out. We've seen some additional blows to the A350-1000 as of late. The Turkish mega order involved 1000s, Delta is supposedly in limbo for twenty 1000s, Air India reshaped their A350-1000 order from 34 to twenty aircraft and Cathay converted their last five 1000s to 900s a few years back. Rolls and Airbus really need to iron out the issues, especially while the 777X is still in certification limbo. The A350-1000 did win some orders (Air France, EVA Air) but it should be a runaway success because of its availability.
Your work is excellent. I really enjoy each and every broadcast.
This was a very nice presentation Mentour. Thank you!
Mentour videos on any subjects are so well done, I would love to sit right seat with him to see how well he flies.
All of the times I have traveled on a 777 was on board of Air Canada, operated by Lufthansa in the early 2010's. Even back then I was quite surprised that these were 6 flights all with Rolls-Royce engines, for me it just didn't make sense for some completely superficial reasons like "American jet with a British engine, when there are other options". I don't believe that Emirates had issues with the RR engines, something else must've gone wrong between them and Airbus, given that as of December 2023 the best economy comfort that you can get is on an A350-1000 and Emirates usually go for it.
Lots of speculation on this post. The fact is A350-1000 has pretty good sales & order book, & so Trent XWB-97 is doing nicely. It doesn`t need Emirates to be successful although obviously an order from them for the -97 variant would have been welcome. What really annoys me with talk of so-called RR reliability issues is the knowledge that the XWB family are the worlds most efficient turbines to date & both versions have an incredible despatch reliability second to non. If there is a durability problem with -97 it`s likely to be addressed by RR over time, remembering that such issues can take time to mannefest themselves. Sadly Emirates words have not been helpful to the RR brand just at a time they are getting back to normality in the aviation industry, but they are in a good position to progress & be competative.
To be honest: Whenever I hear a CEO saying "We have to quadruple our profit margins over the next five years," I also hear "The pernickety complaints of engineers and their hairsplitting about safety is an irritation we can't use." Many major industrial accidents are not engineering problems, they are caused by the profit margins being boosted on cut corners." I understand RR needing to compete... but huge airplanes also have huge numbers of people inside.
Luv your vids . Give update on fixing the trent hot weather problems and when, how this will be sorted. Thanx
Two weeks ago I flew from Sydney to Singapore on an A350. I thought it was fantastic and I'll go out of my way to fly on them again.
How much of Emirates trash talking the Rolls Royce engine is to try and "persuade" RR to offer Emirates better terms?!
And for them to roll out the red carpet to get him a “Lordship”
Nice in depth explanation to the real problem. Thanks
Thanks for a comprehensive discussion.
I flew one of BA’s brand new A350’s from LHR to YYV. Fantastic! Very comfortable, a smooth ride and so so quiet. Much better than the 777 or 787s. Edit: I flew World Traveller Plus ie Premium Economy outbound and Club World suite on the return leg. My first ever experience in business class which was excellent - 5.5 hrs of good uninterrupted sleep!
yes.
flown BA271 from LHR to SAN on the a350 october last year.
super comf economy class
then flew back on AA 777-3 .. extremely uncomf cramped seat
Can’t wait for the 777x
I prefer 787
liar!!
@@m3redgt was the 777 a 3-4-3 config for economy?
Couldn’t Rolls Royce have a number of serviced engines for a hot swap. The delay then would just be the time to take off one engine and bolt on another.😊
I'm guessing they're not committed to promise a ready engine to hot swap, either with high number of airframes waiting for new engines to be installed, or they don't have a high turnaround for new or serviced engine ready
Do you have idea how much those engines cost?
a well delivered overview and very educational......easy listening
This is a very interesting type of video which could be expanded to include other competitive issues. In addition, other environmental conditions would help broaden the type of coverage. Extreme cold, extreme humidity and other limiting conditions could open up a different group of videos. Just some ideas here. Cheers and travel safely.
I was thinking of the issues Lockheed had with RR when they made the Tristar. That was a great plane but the delay in the power plant killed the sales.
The power plant made the aircraft what it was.........
It seems to be the fact that the A350's advanced composite materials and insulation played a part in the "Miracle of Haneda" evacuation that 369 people survived from the crush and fire. Ironically, Airbus has no choice but using this seemingly responsibility-less incident to push their business forward, and I cannot complain as a Tokyoite. Meanwhile, let me pray for the 5 perished Japan Cost Guard personnel in the accident who were on a rescue supply mission for the Reiwa 6 Noto Peninsula Earthquake disaster.
Surely composites don’t have much of an impact. I imagine that the burning composite releases more fumes when burnt, and it shatters upon impact rather than aluminium, which would dent. So I don’t think there would be a major difference if instead of a 350, it was a 777
@@centauri1962 You could say so, but with all due respect, I’m not so sure. About the strength, even as stupid as he could be, the Titan’s owner didn’t dare to make his submersible by aluminum with the same material weight as his carbon fibre. And fumes? One big aim of developing and using such composite materials for the fuselage is flame retardancy to protect passengers inside. The materials of the walls and insulation were carefully designed and layered to serve that purpose. Evidently this time, they succeed in that to some extent, since there were no casualties out of respiratory tract burns and the fuselage structure didn’t give in long after the evacuation finished. The calculated impact and heat resistance of the materials used in the latest airliners like A350 and B787 are slightly but surely better than their predecessors except for such materials’ characteristic unseen time deterioration vulnerabilities.
imagine being an aerospace engineer and after proving ur insane skill in making an aircraft completely safe, people call it a miracle
Thank you for the really enjoyable and high quality content 🙏
Talking about the 2023 Paris Air Show, I have been stunned by the number of drones and electric planes on display this year.
Yeah, it seems like a potentially booming industry but I’ve still not seen a good use-case for them.
Had a recent few trips on the Qatar A350. Was great trips. Nothing to complain about.
your reply to him has nothing to do with this video@@CaptainStandiford
You're just lucky to SURVIVED that 'Fly By Wire' Death-trap' !!!
Qatar Airlines said their A350 looked great on their tarmacs.
@@gertjanvandermeij4265 In case you haven't noticed, for all the main reasons, efficiency, safety, economics, fly-by-wire is the "future" of commercial aviation since the late 80s'!
@@gertjanvandermeij4265fly-by-wire is not unsafe at all, besides that, Boeing airplanes like the 777 or 787 already use fly-by-wire too.
I thought it was worth commenting on the jet engines operating in hot, sandy climates putting more stress on the engines. A fair number of airlines operating in warmer climates operating the A220 have had to ground their aircraft because of reliability issues with the P&W 1000 series engines. I believe Pratt & Whitney have just now been able rectify these issues ?
Excellent summary. Thank you.
Well I think the recent Japan incident showed how well build it is + its not a Boeing XD
Great video, your explanation is very clear and I can understand Emirates position. Will see if Rolls-Royce is able to change that time to wing availability! Have you any idea of what will be the time to wing projection of GE9X for the 777X? That would be interesting to compare with RR.
That's a great question. I wish we knew the answer. But Emirates will get a 777-9 test aircraft next year, to perform proving flights, to validate efficiency in specific routes, and maybe that will give them an idea what to expect in terms of maintenance, too.
Flew last summer from DFW to LHR on A380 and it was packed. Flights between hubs like DFW to LHR/CDG/FRA makes a lots of sense.
I do like your report on the A 350, you explain the difference between of the RR and GE engines
The reason the A350 does not have a GE engine was because GE did not want to canablize their GE-90 sales with a new engine for the A350. And before GE had a "Gentlemans" agreement with Boeing.
But the question is, when Airbus decides on doing an A350neo maybe in the early 2030s, do you think they'll stick to just RR or will P&W also enter in with their GTF engine but designed specifically for widebody aircraft?
@@CoSmicGoesRacing RR has their own GTF project, UltraFan and Airbus should have be working with them for a while, and chances are the first application would be A350NEO.
@@CoSmicGoesRacing Airbus is a burnt child with PW(A340 GTF/ A220,A320 engine issues). I'm sure they would prefer GE. But without GE they stll may go with PW.
There are no gentleman agreements in corporate business. ...One way or the other, you have to pay for an exclusive contract.
@@miks564 Nope there was a Gentlemans Agreement between GE and Boeing.( google it) That is the reason Airbus teamed up with RR.
Just a thought but the engine on the B777-9 is not yet proven in airline service so will it be any better ??
Great show! Does Emirates expect the GE -90X on the B777-9 to have a better time on wing than the RR XWB-97?
I would like to say from a manufacturing perspective of RR engines, they over engineer NOT for the better but just make it more difficult to produce, I'm referring to the turbo fans and I've worked on all three P&W and G.E. along with Rolls Royce. P&W and G.E. have straight forward design's and much easier to make. Another company that also over engineers product is Bosch so it's not only the aviation companies
Kinda agree, and I'd say it's especially true in terms of MRO aftermarket servicing wise
It's an excuse from Emirates to not buy it. Qatar Airways and Etihad never complained about the A350's performance
Dint Qatar and Airbus had a figth about the paint some months back? Or im i getting the wrong airline
@@zyancuerdo1615 Yes but that was nothing to do with engine or aircraft performance
thats not performance@@zyancuerdo1615
Oh they did , just never made it mainstream media
RR biggest problems are:
Because they are triple spool engines, vibration bandwidth causes great pylon and sense line cracks, which RR refuse to address
Secondly RR tend to lean heavily on post war technology for maintenance which causes great problems for airline maintenance
Utter cr*pola!! Where are your sources for that piece of misrepresentation, bud? Where are the cracks on A350 pylons? The whole world seems to be buying the A350, 70 sales to Turkish airlines being the latest. American carriers, apart from Delta, might not like buying a wholly made European a/c with airframe and engines, for the usual nationalistic & political reasons US carriers don't wish to be seen to spend money abroad, but the rest of the world is not so inhibited about European technology. Right now, they're embracing it...........
Mentour, actually pretty good analysis, also it is wort to add: CEO of Aribus resigned during A380 as he said: " as I can not guarantee required reliability of the aircraft we forced to make". Now, when A-380 way earlier stop production, with cost of maintenance over 10000 pounds after each landing, this story its correct, again.
Rolls Royce has also stated that they’re focusing on seriously maximizing profits in the upcoming decade. That means very few discounts on engines. The A350 only having the one option for engines, that means engine costs are way higher too. This is part of the reason Delta Air Lines hasn’t ordered the A350-1000 yet despite it fitting well in their structure after they retired the 777 in 2020.
It's clear Airbus made a big strategic mistake to only have 1 engine provider. They should have spent a little bit more for a 2nd option, and would likely have won the bid
@@Matt-YT
Sales of the A350 do not indicate a "big mistake to only have 1 engine provider". Its pretty likely that the 350 will be one of the world's most successful widebodies of all time, without GE. The mistake was that GE didn't push hard enough to get involved in the first place, although Airbus now sees GE as primarily the engine partner for Boeing, and not with themselves. Its GE that will be desperate to get involved with the A350, once RR's exclusive expires, as they look on enviously at RR's success, but I suspect Airbus will stick with RR, as Im sure RR will be transferring tech from the Ultra Fan to engine what will be coming next, the A350 Neo.
Sooner or later, American operators will go with the rest of the world regarding w/bodies, and buy a wholly European aircraft, airframe and engines, without worrying about the politics of buying foreign.
Delta can either pay RR what they're asking for such a competitive engine as the XWB, or spend more buying GE engined B787s, with all the extra costs that entails for them. The choice is theirs and either way will not have serious consequencies for the A350.....
Increasing time on wing is the key to RR profitability improvement. RR's Power by the hour charging means RR picks up the cost of reduced service intervals. So RRs profit improvement plan will likely make the A350-1000 more attractive to Emirates.
Great video!
One question I have for Emirates - the Rolls Royce XWB might be performing poorly now, but what makes them so confident that the GE9X won't have problems of its own? Being a brand new type
I suppose it makes sense for large airlines to order a mix of Boeing and Airbus jets to have some resilience against reliability problems for a given type, but that entails slightly higher maintenance and crew training costs compared to a single type
I believe there are delays on the GE9X and they have impacted the B777X
The slick salesmen often say things that engineers would disagree with, however in this case I think the XWB did have some new technology which seems like it may come at a cost.
GE isn't in as financial trouble and probably offered a stipend to cover some or all of the extra maintenance costs.
Then you’ll also be more likely to be affected by any issue that comes up.
Hmmmm let's see, the Trent XWB has a dispatch reliability rate of just 99.91% and the GE90-115B/GEnx have a dispatch reliability rate of at least 99.98%, and with all this experience and proven track record GE has, we can see where this is going
Similar problem with the L1011 Tristar which was blighted by being powered solely by the RR RB211 engine.
That's something I questioned as well . Rolls Royce being the sole engine supplier for the A350 sems crazy their sakes could be bigger if they could fit another engine from.a different manufacturer.
Petter! 😂 I clicked the thumbs up so we don't have any delays! That was so funny!
The fan diameter of the RR XWB-84 and XWB-97 is the same. They are both at 3 m diameter, the number is related to the max thrust of the engine (84k lbf vs 97k lbf).
My frequent flyer friend, American an strong boing fan for most of his life, is now a big a350 and a321 fan.
Well, considering that Air France - KLM (the latter in particular) are switching from Boeing to the Airbus A350, including the 1000 model, I’d say that that airplane is still doing pretty well.
I was so bummed to see KLM retire their 747s but I understand why, quad jets just don't make sense for most use cases.
@@Jebbis, why would an airline operate B744 if they have B77W, which is about the same capacity and range? For Lufthansa due to airline’s size it is slightly more problematic to get quads out of the service.
@@interstellaraviator6437 Lufthansa wanted to replace their still large A 340-Fleet with 787 Dreamliners (at Lufthansa itself and their two subsidiaries Swiss and Edelweiss in Switzerland) years ago but don´t get deliveries from Boeing until today. So they bought now five used 787 from Hainan Airlines in China to simply start their 787-Program - but their A 340 have to persevere, allthough especially their A 340-300 are really aged aircrafts now (Lufthansa: 17 A 340-300 and 10 A 340-600, Swiss 4 A 340-300 and Edelweiss 5 A 340-300). The Lufthansa Group has only six 777-200 (and still three 767-300) at Austrian Airlines, which shall be replaced by ten 787-9, for which Lufthansa is still waiting. Otherwise Lufthansa uses the 777 only in its Freighter Version at Lufthansa Cargo (operating now a fleet of eleven of them and with seven 777-8 Freighter on order).
Lufthansa has a fleet of eight now also aged 747-400 in the Passenger Version (becoming therefore one of the few remaining operators of them) and also a fleet of eight A 380. Both they shall be replaced by ten A 350-1000 and all-in-all 53 A 350-900, from which 21 are delivered and the remaining 32 will be delivered during the next years (the A 350-900 Order includes Orders for Swiss and Edelweiss in Switzerland, too). The 19 747-8 are only round about then years old and shall be operating for the next ten to fifteen years.
That´s about Lufthansa Quads.
KLM and Air France are partners. The only reason they get A350 is Air France...
@@Trancial-x-tion They have been partners for a long time, during which when they placed orders with both Airbus and Boeing, the Airbuses usually went to Air France, and the Boeings to KLM. That has now changed.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the memory of the paint/coating delamination issue on the A-350 is still a memory.
I was a design engineer for a component on the RR Trent XWB engine, I understood every word of this discussion. I know exactly what you are talking about. I know the difficulties of working through issues is immense, you explained it very well. I know engineers in Derby, where the RR XWB is built and tested. They are very thorough engineers, but there are a thousand pieces to the puzzle that neee to fit to make it work.
For me it looks like RR maybe has to replace efficiency back to durability again which is a politically unthinkable topic.
I did a fairly large amount of flying for a time in the mid and late 1990s. Due to the kind of flying I was doing I was VERY rarely in wide-body jets: mostly 737s and MD-80s (I GREATLY preferred flights in the 737s--better pressurization and, just from a passenger standpoint, it felt like the flight controls were a lot smoother when dealing with the frequently unpredictable weather of the US's southeast). I haven't experienced any of the more recent wide-bodies other than one flight in a 777-ER that i wound up 'accidentally' because of a rescheduled flight for myself and the need to get that aircraft to Atlanta for a later flight (4 commercial passengers, some dead-heading crew and the assigned crew--that was it)). The only other wide-body I was ever in was a 747 back in the days of Pan Am and Eastern on flights from Heathrow to the US east coast (Boston, NY, or DC). Would be interesting to fly in some of the newer ones.
Look at Boeing today in Alaska Airlines disaster 735 maxs 9, I believe Airbus is a more reliable aircraft.
That Alaska door plug problem had nothing to do with the reliability of the aircraft but rather the attitude of production over safety during construction. Shame on Boeing for putting bottom line over safety. But the aircraft is still sound.
Excellent analysis!!!
Another great video Peter. Can someone clarify though why the GE engines on the 777X don't have the same maintenance issue?
This is not known on the GE-nx engines for the 777x.The Boeing aircraft is not yet in airline service so is an unknown quantity.