How does the Airbus A350F compare?

Airbus has released detailed technical specifications of its new freighter the A350F. This finally gives us the opportunity the see what the aircraft is like. How does the Airbus A350F compare? 1 – The A350F versus her A350 siblings: Airbus said the new freighter would be based more on the A350-1000 passenger version than on the -900. The length of the A350F is different from both. At 70.80 meters, she is almost three meters or five frames shorter than the -1000 (73.79 meters) and exactly four meters longer than the A350-900. The 17.08 meters height is identical to that of the -1000. Wingspan at 64.75 meters is identical to both passenger versions The Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) is also identical to the -1000 at 319 tonnes, but the landing weight is slightly higher: 250 tonnes for the freighter versus 236 tonnes for the passenger version. The range is very different. The A350F can fly 8.700 kilometers or 4.700 nautical miles. This compares to 16.100 kilometers/8.700 nm for the A350-1000 and 15.000 kilometers/8.100 nm for the -900. The range for the freighter is also lower than what Steven Udvar-Hazy, Chairman of launch customer Air Lease Corporation (ALC), said during the press conference in Dubai on November 15: 5.000 nm or, at a slightly reduced capacity, 6.000 nautical miles range. The A350F is three meters of five frames shorter than the -1000. It will get a cargo door where the second and third 0s are in ‘1000’. (Airbus) The A350F comes with an aft cargo door on the left side and except for three windows across the fuselage, there are of course no other windows. It will use the same Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engines as the -1000. 2 – The A350F versus the A330-200F and -200P2F/-300P2F: Airbus used to have a strong cargo platform with the A300-600F, but that was before the Boeing 777F came along. When it replaced the A300 with the A330-200F, the European airframer lost out to its American rival. At a media briefing ahead of Dubai Airshow, Chief Commercial Officer Christian Scherer explained why the A330 failed to attract enough customers. Scherer, who had been involved in the A330-200F design and confessed that he had been “part of the crime”, said: “The A330-200 had more range and structural capability than the -300. We went for a compromise between range and structural capability but it was neither a heavy cargo freighter nor optimized as an express cargo freighter. And it has been the express segment that has expanded the most. If there was a mistake, we could have been more successful with the -300 which would have been more optimized for the express market.” On the A350F, Airbus has tried to correct this, Scherer said: "The beauty with the A350 is its structural capability and its range, inherent with the efficiency of that light airplane, makes it capable for heavy cargo and also extremely effective on the express market.” But does it show? For a start, the A350F is almost twelve meters longer than the -200F (70.80 meters versus 58.82 meters). These extra meters immediately translate into a more maximum payload: 109 versus 61 tonnes. The A350F can accommodate thirty pallets or thirty AM containers on the main deck. The A330-200F is limited to 23 pallets or containers. Mind you the cabin is seventy centimeters wider too at 5.96 meters. Below deck in the belly hold, the A350F has space for twelve pallets or forty LD-3 containers. On the -200F, this is eight pallets plus two LD-3 containers or 26 LD-3 containers. A MAS Cargo Airbus A330-200F taking off from Al Maktoum Airport in Dubai. Only 38 of the type with its nose bubble have been sold. (Richard Schuurman) MTOW of the -200F is 233 tonnes, the landing weight is 187 tonnes. The older freighter with her typical bump in the nose gear area also loses out on range: 7.400 kilometers/4.150 nautical miles compared to the previously mentioned 8.700km/4.700nm for the A350F, but the difference isn’t spectacular. Remember this is the newly-built A330-200F. There are, of course, a number of conversion programs that offer converted passenger aircraft for both the -200 and -300. Elbe Flugzeugwerke and ST Engineering offer both the -200P2F and -300P2F, while Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) will commence a dedicated -300P2F line for Avolon from 2025. Both versions are no match for the A350F. The A330-200P2F comes with a payload capacity of 60 tonnes (Airbus says 62 tonnes…) and a range of 7.222km/3.900 nm. Although five meters longer than the -200 at 63.66 meters, the -300P2F only offers a payload of 61 tonnes. That’s identical to a factory-built A330-200F. Depending on the loading arrangement, the -300P2F has space for 20 to 26 containers on the main deck plus nine pallets or 32 LD-3 containers in the belly hold. 3 – The A350F versus the 777F: But it’s not the A330-freighter that the A350F is targeting: it wants to eat into the monopoly of the Boeing 777F, which with 303 orders since 2005 has sold very successfully in the last couple of years, including 38 alone in 2021. Let’s compare the two better. The A350F is much longer than the 777F: 70.80 meters versus 63.70 meters at an almost identical wingspan. The Airbus’ payload of 109 tonnes compares to 102 tonnes for the Boeing. Thanks to the length, the A350F can accommodate thirty pallets and containers on the main deck compared to 26 for the 777F. In the belly hold, it’s twelve versus ten pallets: advantage Airbus again. Where the A350F loses out is on the range. Its 8.700 km/4.700 nm is a lot less compared to the 9.200 km/4.970 nm that you can go with the 777F. But this comes at a price. The Boeing needs to carry extra fuel, not only to go the distance but also because she is much heavier. The 777F weighs 347.8 tonnes, the A350F 319 tonnes. The Boeing 777F is a formidable competitor that Airbus targets with the A350F. But how will the 777-8F compare. (Boeing) The verdict: On its website, Airbus claims that the A350F outperforms the 777F with a three tons higher payload (actually it’s seven tons), eleven percent more volume, and more range. That’s not entirely correct, as we have seen from the numbers. The claim that the A350F also has an identical volume compared to the 747F isn’t correct either: the 747-8F comes at 137.7 tonnes, the -400F at 128.5 tonnes, and the Airbus at 109 tonnes. Although in its press release on its A350F order, Singapore Airlines said: “The A350F can carry a similar volume of cargo as the Boeing 747-400F.” Yet, Airbus has got itself “a formidable platform for a freighter”, as Christian Scherer said in June when he referred to what airlines had been telling him when they pushed for the launch of the A350F. It’s lighter, has a forty percent lower fuel burn, and seems ideally suited for the ever-growing e-commerce or express market that requires volume over weight. The question is: how will Boeing respond? It’s not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’ the planemaker from Seattle (or Chicago...) will launch a freighter version of the 777X, dubbed the -8F. Boeing said at the Dubai Airshow that it is still fine-tuning the specifications of the -8 and -8F to see how it best meets the changing demand from heavy-weight bulk cargo to e-commerce. This might require slimming down the 777-8F and cutting weight to make her more competitive with the A350F. But the 777X is a solid and heavy beast made for range and it is likely to remain that way. So how does the Airbus A350F compare? And how big will be the big freighter battle? Let’s wait for the launch until the jury can get out.

No results