Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5429000/

Topic: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: LipeGIG
Posted 2012-04-02 20:29:40 and read 74624 times.

As part 2 become too long, and it's now archived we are starting a new one

Link to the previous:

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2 (by NZ1 Jan 6 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue discussions here.


Enjoy!
LipeGIG
Forum Moderator

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-02 20:52:10 and read 74668 times.

Continuing from the previous thread...

Quoting kmz (Reply 254):
It seems that Boing is now more flexible concerning interior customization.

The 787 program permits almost no airline customization, in the cabin or elsewhere. This was a significant strategy shift for Boeing compared to the 777 or 747 programs, where code-1 introductions often include massive engineering packages to accommodate new customer-unique features. Instead, the 787 program has a much more expansive "catalog", from which airlines can (are forced to) select their cabin and other aircraft options. Even items which used to be BFE (buyer furnished equipment) now are "CSE" (customer selectable equipment) and must be selected from the catalog. The 787 also does not have supplier selections for systems (other than for brakes and engines), further reducing the aircraft-to-aircraft differences between different operators' 787s.

This approach permits a basic and stable underlying systems and structures architecture for all aircraft coming through production and is one of the key enablers for the 787 to achieve higher production rates than other twin aisle aircraft. I believe we will see Boeing shift more toward this model in the future, including the next generation 777. It has been my understanding the A350 is taking a similar approach, dramatically reducing the opportunity for BFE and customer-unique customizations in the cabin.

In response to your comment, I would say Boeing is now much less flexible concerning interior customization than they were in the past. Particularly for the 787. However, given what I believe Airbus is doing with the A350, "flexibility" becomes a relative matter, as airlines really have no other options.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: WarpSpeed
Posted 2012-04-02 21:42:24 and read 74560 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 1):
This approach permits a basic and stable underlying systems and structures architecture for all aircraft coming through production and is one of the key enablers for the 787 to achieve higher production rates than other twin aisle aircraft.

In addition, this approach makes the plane more attractive to lessors and financiers and, ironically, airlines. Less customization means an easier conversion of a frame from one airline to the next. With a more "liquid" form of collateral, banks are exposed to less risk and are more willing to provide financing. This translates into better financing terms allowing customers to lower their acquisition costs. The finance community was an integral part of the initial 787 design and shows the holistic approach Boeing took with the program.

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archive.../bonding_with_united_airlines.html

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-02 21:51:16 and read 74539 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 1):
n response to your comment, I would say Boeing is now much less flexible concerning interior customization than they were in the past. Particularly for the 787. However, given what I believe Airbus is doing with the A350, "flexibility" becomes a relative matter, as airlines really have no other options.

Airbus is doing exactly the same thing and for the same reasons, there is a catalog of possible interior choices that airlines can choose from. After the very free choice for the A380 and the cabling and other problems it created ( it was not small part of the reason for the cabling delays) Airbus decided they needed a more restricted model on the A350.

If Boeing had chosen this model for the 787 it must have been much easier for A to go the same way with the 350. kmz seems to have info that not all are happy with the choices in the present A350 catalog.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-02 23:05:50 and read 74378 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 3):
not all are happy with the choices in the present A350 catalog

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this is the case. All widebody operators are deeply invested in their "brand", of which, the cabin is a huge element. Limiting operators to seat and monument suppliers which may not possess the intellectual property or capability of their usual supplier is deeply traumatic for the commercial people at the airline. The technical and finance people are very sensitive to key systems being sole-source, as well. I've watched this drama play out with dozens of carriers, as they get used to the new business model being taken on by the OEMs.

Despite the complaining, in my view this change will benefit everyone...

- - OEM's get a more stable product, lower recurring costs and simplified production.
- - Airlines get a more fungible and more liquid asset.
- - Suppliers get the entire slice of the pie, permitting them to take on greater developmental risk.

The trick to making it work is for Airbus and Boeing to select and manage suppliers in way which reduces the risk of sole-source in the aftermarket. They will also need to develop a truly robust catalog which permits the appearance of a high degree of customization in the cabin, while retaining a very basic and stable baseline aircraft underneath.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-02 23:17:10 and read 74366 times.

There has been an official Airbus info release via AFP last week that the assembly of MSN5000 will start "in the next days" and that MSN001 will start FAL in the "early summer" and that MSN001 will fly approximately 6 months after start of FAL:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/201...age-de-l-a350-bientot-commence.php

A also claim that the information about program status that was given by Fabrice Bregier at the Airbus new year press conference is still valid.

This info release from Airbus is to defy the rumors about further delays that has been circulating in the press in the last weeks according to AFP.

I am a bit surprised by the 6 months after FAL begin statement, this would mean MSN001 is flying before end of year   . I don't think this is correct, we will see first flight during Q1 2013 as announced by Airbus when the new timeplan was released.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-02 23:32:45 and read 74292 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 5):
I am a bit surprised by the 6 months after FAL begin statement

The 777 was exactly on plan and took 14 months from begin of FAL to First Flight. The 787 planned for 15 months, but ended up taking 36. I agree, the current "6 months" is just a placeholder until the time is right for Airbus to announce the revised schedule.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-04-03 06:11:53 and read 73854 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 4):
Limiting operators to seat and monument suppliers which may not possess the intellectual property or capability of their usual supplier is deeply traumatic for the commercial people at the airline.

Not sure about the A350, but the 787 catalog includes several top-line suppliers for each respective component; an airline might chafe that their favorite supplier isn't in there but they really can't claim the catalog supplier doesn't have the capability.

Quoting CM (Reply 4):
The technical and finance people are very sensitive to key systems being sole-source, as well.

As well they should be but it's important to note that sole-source is the rule, not the exception. Outside a very few of the avionics boxes, the cabin monuments & seats, and the engines the entire airplane is generally sole-source (or at least functionally sole-source in the case of some dual-sourced structure components).

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-04-03 08:27:56 and read 73614 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 5):

There has been an official Airbus info release via AFP last week that the assembly of MSN5000 will start "in the next days" and that MSN001 will start FAL in the "early summer" and that MSN001 will fly approximately 6 months after start of FAL:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 5):
I am a bit surprised by the 6 months after FAL begin statement, this would mean MSN001 is flying before end of year   . I don't think this is correct, we will see first flight during Q1 2013 as announced by Airbus when the new timeplan was released.

Well... Beginning of july is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-04-03 10:52:03 and read 73342 times.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 8):
Well... Beginning of July is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013  

All true. Nevertheless it seems that they are quite challenged to keep the original communicated schedule. Let's hope they can manage to do so.  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-03 10:57:08 and read 73343 times.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 8):
Well... Beginning of july is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013

You are right (I am from South of Europe, high summer is August) or wrong (I am from North of Europe and summer is finished in August)  .

Anyway the info from CM is interesting, I have looked back on the A planning and the June 2011 plan (Le Bourget presentation) showed start FAL 1 Jan 2012 and first flight Q4 2012 = 9-12 month after FAL start (first FAL was still for MSN5000). Then in Dec 2012 this became FAL start somewhere Q1-Q2 2012 and First flight somewhere Q1-Q2 2013 = on average 12 months with spread up to 6 months.

So we can see that the planning scenario was about 9-12 month and then expanded to around 12 months with a larger uncertainty window but still shorter then the planned 14-15 month of 777 and 787, interesting  Wow! .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kmz
Posted 2012-04-03 11:13:40 and read 73257 times.

thanx for the feedback. honestly, i am not a fan of sole source and catalog item. i fully understand the need to simplify the processes and get more mature equipment on board-but there should be something in between.
if this continues this way, i could imagine that in the future there will be dedicated stc holder who take an almost empty a/c and install seats and galleys as wanted by the airline..

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-03 14:22:55 and read 73001 times.

Ferpe, got any more pictures coming of the assembly/systems installation process?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-04-03 15:27:36 and read 72921 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 10):
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 8):
Well... Beginning of july is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013

You are right (I am from South of Europe, high summer is August) or wrong (I am from North of Europe and summer is finished in August)   .
indeed.

That question of the six months between start of final assembly and first flight... I suppose it would mean six months for the first flying example (MSN 001), so about eight or nine months after the start of the FAL per se, for the static testing MSN 5000. I guess part of the learning curve will already have kicked in...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-03 19:00:31 and read 72729 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
got any more pictures coming of the assembly/systems installation process?

I am certainly hunting for them  Wow! but the equipping is in A hands and they have tighter pub control then the tier 1s that did the structure subassemblies. Pity as they would be vary interesting from St Nazaire, Hamburg and Broughton,

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 13):
I suppose it would mean six months for the first flying example (MSN 001), so about eight or nine months after the start of the FAL per se, for the static testing MSN 5000. I guess part of the learning curve will already have kicked in...

I think the spokeperson or AFP got it wrong, given their timeplans it must be 6 months after FAL of MSN001.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-04-03 19:22:00 and read 72712 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 13):
I suppose it would mean six months for the first flying example (MSN 001), so about eight or nine months after the start of the FAL per se, for the static testing MSN 5000. I guess part of the learning curve will already have kicked in...

I think the spokeperson or AFP got it wrong, given their timeplans it must be 6 months after FAL of MSN001.

That's what I thought I had written... English, sometimes, is difficult...  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-03 21:23:58 and read 72638 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
I am certainly hunting for them

Airbus used to put out a monthly magazine that always had good articles on the production process.. However once I retired it was just too costly..

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-03 22:35:33 and read 72580 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 16):
Airbus used to put out a monthly magazine that always had good articles on the production process.. However once I retired it was just too costly..

Do you mean this one (FAST) : http://www.airbus.com/support/publications/

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 15):
That's what I thought I had written...

However we decrypt both our english  it is way shorter then Boeings planned 14 and 15 month and even shorter then their actual times (don't know the actual time for 777), makes one wonder were A can be faster. Or have they just compressed this part of the timeplan when they started readjusting for the intial delays  Wow! .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-04-04 06:38:16 and read 72163 times.

Seems that fuselage S15-21 for the static test specimen was delivered by Beluga today to the Toulouse FAL!

Very impressive part. Appears it was delayed by one day due to the ATC strike in France  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-04 08:19:07 and read 72015 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
Do you mean this one (FAST)


No, it was a monthly and was more focused on production and PR for existing products... I see I referenced "la Journal Aerospatiale" , "Airbus Industrie Progress Reports" and "Revue Aerospatial" in my paper... I think it was the latter that was so open about the processes.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-04-04 08:33:55 and read 71977 times.

I think the ones you mention date back to the Airbus GIE days, when Airbus was made of Aérospatiale, MBB, CASA, British Aerospace, and before EADS was created in 2000 when it became then a single company (Airbus I mean).

So I doubt these are still issued.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sf260
Posted 2012-04-04 10:10:24 and read 71794 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 255):
I have no info on the progress on cabin test other then reading a specialized magazine article some month ago that basically quoted what you are saying that A did some changes to the A350 cabin that has not gone down well with everyone.

Anyone else who has some knowledge?

I read that too! I am stumbled this subject hasn't reached more attention up to now...

I think it was: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...2_2012_p22-433856.xml&channel=comm

"Airbus will be forced to postpone its entry-into-service date by at least another year, due to the complex trickle-down effect of late design changes that is affecting various parts of the aircraft, but which is likely felt most painfully in the area of cabin installation, according to various industry sources. Costs are going up and supplier relations are being strained exponentially.

“The systems side is a nightmare,” says one CEO of a major Airbus supplier. “The interiors will be late by at least one year,” he believes. That does not mean that first flight is necessarily affected that much, because the initial flight tests will not need a functional cabin anyway. The full effect would not be felt until later in the flight-test campaign, when cabin testing is included."

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-04-04 11:35:57 and read 71639 times.

Quoting sf260 (Reply 21):
I read that too! I am stumbled this subject hasn't reached more attention up to now...

Bernstein Research believes EIS will slip to mid-2015, but I haven't seen a specific reason given for why they're so pessimistic.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-04-04 13:08:19 and read 71509 times.

Bernstein research have been quite negative on many Airbus developments. Many of their predictions luckily did not become reality. So I want to see some official number first before I believe another Bernstein Research report.  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-04 18:36:28 and read 71253 times.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 20):

I think the ones you mention date back to the Airbus GIE days

You're probably correct..I was doing my research paper in 1990

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-04 19:41:27 and read 71807 times.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 18):
Seems that fuselage S15-21 for the static test specimen was delivered by Beluga today to the Toulouse FAL!

Great stuff, A is probably working on a press release with pictures right now, will be interesting to see.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-04-05 05:58:46 and read 71491 times.

Got them as well as tons of pictures but the press releases are all pictureless!

I am off to the FAL this afternoon to look at it live. But from the pictures, it looks mighty impressive, must have been very tight in the Beluga.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-04-05 07:01:53 and read 72656 times.

Quoting sf260 (Reply 21):
I read that too! I am stumbled this subject hasn't reached more attention up to now...

I think it was: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...2_2012_p22-433856.xml&channel=comm

"Airbus will be forced to postpone its entry-into-service date by at least another year, due to the complex trickle-down effect of late design changes that is affecting various parts of the aircraft, but which is likely felt most painfully in the area of cabin installation, according to various industry sources. Costs are going up and supplier relations are being strained exponentially.

“The systems side is a nightmare,” says one CEO of a major Airbus supplier. “The interiors will be late by at least one year,” he believes. That does not mean that first flight is necessarily affected that much, because the initial flight tests will not need a functional cabin anyway. The full effect would not be felt until later in the flight-test campaign, when cabin testing is included."

The article has been discussed in part 2 of this thread.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Bernstein Research believes EIS will slip to mid-2015, but I haven't seen a specific reason given for why they're so pessimistic.

I don't think the interiors will be the cause of a delay by that much. It could very well affect the projected production ramp and therefore how fast the first deliveries will follow each other. Could be the same story as with the first 787's  
Quoting knoxibus (Reply 26):
must have been very tight in the Beluga.

Maybe they've designed the XWB with the maximum possible width using the Beluga 

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Clipper136
Posted 2012-04-05 09:28:03 and read 72467 times.

Pics now available on Airbus and Flight International websites.

Airbus starts final assembly of first A350 XWB

PICTURES: A350 static airframe final assembly begins in Toulouse

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-05 12:06:20 and read 72230 times.

Here the press release:

"Final assembly of the first A350 XWB is now underway at the brand new final assembly line in Toulouse. This latest step in the A350 XWB’s progress is achieved as Airbus starts joining the 19.7 metre long centre fuselage with the 21 metre long front fuselage.

This first A350 XWB airframe will be used for the static structural tests that all new aircraft undergo as part of their certification process. The assembly of the first flying A350 XWB, MSN1, will start during summer.

The centre fuselage was delivered to Toulouse on Wednesday 4th April 2012 by Beluga from Airbus in St Nazaire, France. The front fuselage was previously delivered from St Nazaire to the A350 XWB final assembly line on the 23rd December 2011. Delivery and installation of the aft fuselage from Hamburg, Germany will take place in the coming weeks, followed by the wings delivered from Airbus’ wing assembly site in Broughton, UK.

The A350 XWB fuselage is made up of three main sections - front, centre and aft. These will be joined together at the first main assembly station, Station 50. The nose landing-gear is also joined here. Once this stage is completed, the fuselage is transferred to Station 40 where the wings and tail sections are joined. In parallel to this, cabin installation will be carried out simultaneously to the wing-fuselage join up, as well as the “power on” of the aircraft systems. In this way, functional tests can start earlier than on previous programmes.

The A350 XWB is Airbus’ all new family of mid-size widebody airliners. These highly efficient aircraft bring together the latest in aerodynamics, design and advanced technologies to provide up to 25 percent better fuel efficiency and operating costs compared to current aircraft in the same size category. Over 70 percent of the A350 XWB’s weight-efficient airframe is made from advanced materials combining composites (53 percent), titanium and advanced aluminium alloys. The aircraft’s innovative all-new Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) fuselage results in lower fuel burn as well as easier maintenance. The A350 XWB benefits from Airbus’ high level of expertise in incorporating composite material into its aircraft.

The A350 XWB Family consists of three passenger versions with true long-range capability of flying up to 8,500nm/15,580km. In a typical three-class configuration, the A350-800 will offer 270 seats while the A350-900 and the A350-1000 will offer 314 and 350 seats respectively."


And here the pictures:

Forebody is waiting since Christmas:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_41.jpg

The center section arrives:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_11.jpg

Is gradually adjusted to forebody:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_21.jpg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_51.jpg

And joining can begin:


[Edited 2012-04-05 12:12:09]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: 747400sp
Posted 2012-04-05 15:48:21 and read 71873 times.

I believe the A350 will be the best looking Airbus ever built.      

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: maxter
Posted 2012-04-05 17:01:07 and read 71718 times.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 30):
I believe the A350 will be the best looking Airbus ever built

Amen to that, but will the wings be as graceful as those of the the A380?

I hope to be in Europe mid next year, is it difficult to get on a tour of the assembly facilities for a member of the public?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-05 19:05:15 and read 71736 times.

Flightblogger has an excellent overview of the FAL procedure at TLS.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...-formally-activates-a350.html#more

Here a resume:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALoverview.jpg

Sections get unloaded from Beluga into P59 where some large interior stuff gets installed (like crew rests) when they have good access. Then the sections gets joined at P50 (A and B, FAL has 2 parallel stations everywhere). NLG and a temp MLG install enables a move to P40 where a simultaneous Wing, HTP, VTP, MLG and power on + first cabin install can be made. Final cabin install + slats, flaps, LG checks are made at P30. Then free air pressurization and radio test followed by painting in painting hangar (not shown) and finally cabin + engine install is done at A50 hangar. Then flight line check out, test flight and delivery  (except for MSN5000 which is rolled over to TLSs torture chamber  Wow!).

[Edited 2012-04-05 19:10:18]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-05 20:05:49 and read 71497 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
Sections get unloaded from Beluga into P59 where some large interior stuff gets installed (like crew rests) when they have good access. Then the sections gets joined at P50 (A and B, FAL has 2 parallel stations everywhere). NLG and a temp MLG install enables a move to P40 where a simultaneous Wing, HTP, VTP, MLG and power on + first cabin install can be made. Final cabin install + slats, flaps, LG checks are made at P30. Then free air pressurization and radio test followed by painting in painting hangar (not shown) and finally cabin + engine install is done at A50 hangar. Then flight line check out, test flight and delivery



Ferpe, as we have talked about differences and commonalities in general before, it's starting to come together. What I see as positive is the nose in docking.. much less need for movable tooling and scaffolding. What I don't see as productive (based on just what is presented and there may well be good reasons) are two things.. the use of a temporary MLG and installing engines after paint.. both appear to lead to a doubling of some processes. I'm really having trouble with that gear issue... Maybe it's all semantics..without the wing to attach part of the gear to, would a better term than MLG be a transport dolly? Something the fuselage rests on for towing but could not in anyway be mistaken for MLG. Instead of rolling the fuselage can it not be lifted and craned to position 40? and that may be the constraint in the building..

The orientation of position must be dictated by the Beluga unload process.. as it looks awkward to have to lift and rotate 90 degs. to place the units in position 50A/B.. not un-doable though.

It also looks like the best they can do is a 3-5 a month rate unless some additional outfitting is moved back to and even prior to position 59.

again I am just trying to understand what I see

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-06 00:23:27 and read 71363 times.

For those who want to follow the discussion where it started:

www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/313604/#132

Quoting kanban (Reply 33):
would a better term than MLG be a transport dolly

Yes, your are right, I used temp MLG as a shorthand, it should be a dolly attached to 4 strongpoints in the wheel well, should be a 10 min job on and later of.

Re craning of things, I think they wheel the fuselages between the stations, ie back out the fuselage from P50 and roll over to P40 then back out to P30 as so on. The dolly to go from P59 to P50 for the sections are on the pictures, the intra station transportation paths are outside in free air, not in the building. There is also a direct unloading of the Beluga into P59:




Re the mounting of the engines at Hangar A50, what do you see as double work? Once again doing system checks?

Quoting kanban (Reply 33):
It also looks like the best they can do is a 3-5 a month rate unless some additional outfitting is moved back to and even prior to position 59.

They have planned this whole setup for a 10 per month rate. Can the fixed (and therefore more elaborate) tooling and shaffolding help with the setup times and the time on station?

[Edited 2012-04-06 00:28:25]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-06 09:22:15 and read 70699 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
it should be a dolly attached to 4 strongpoints in the wheel well, should be a 10 min job on and later of.


That makes sense.. I'm also guessing that the buildings interior posts preclude a crane operation across the bays. In fact looking at the pictures again there don't appear to be crane tracks in most of them... maybe they are just outside the frame or not the massive interconnected runs we use. (I.e. there are crossovers between the 4-81 and 4-82 buildings that allow a 737 fuselage to enter one building for initial work then be flown to the other for wing join. Although with the moving line that may not be done anymore.

From direct lessons in 707, 727, 737, 757, 747 and anecdotal for the other models, the tug driven line move generally will cost production 1-2 shifts every time.. and that was the basis of my seeing constraints in production. The problem is not just hooking up an going, but clearing tooling, workstations support equipment etc and sweeping before the move begins and since you start at the most complete fuselage and work back any delay becomes multiplied.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
Re the mounting of the engines at Hangar A50, what do you see as double work? Once again doing system checks


Paint.. a second trip to the paint hanger... unless all the nacelles are painted when the airframe is painted, or no customer paint is allowed and they arrive in standard color.

Just a difference between operations, we pressure test in the FAL on third shift.. no need to take it outside.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
They have planned this whole setup for a 10 per month rate.



I think the bottleneck will reside in the first four positions. Are they planning a 3 shift operation?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-06 21:38:46 and read 70288 times.

Here the principle of the 350 FAL and how A changed it to start the elaborate Cabin install earlier compared to 330-340:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350FALconcept.jpg

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
Paint.. a second trip to the paint hanger... unless all the nacelles are painted when the airframe is painted

I am convinced the nacelles join the frame to get painted at the same time. The 350 FAL share the A50 hangar with the 330-340 FAL which also hangs the engines at the end.

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
The problem (of the B moving line) is not just hooking up and going, but clearing tooling, workstations support equipment etc and sweeping before the move begins and since you start at the most complete fuselage and work back any delay becomes multiplied.

I can understand the immediate knock-on effect any station delay would have for the moving line. A less coupled station concept like A would have some inter station flexibility. They would need to keep the station time to 3 days for a 10 per month rate, ultimately things would queue before the delayed station but it would not stop the intra station rotation at all other places like the moving line.

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):

I think the bottleneck will reside in the first four positions. Are they planning a 3 shift operation?

As the cabin outfitting is the dimensioning item per the A flow diagram the amount of time needed at FAL will heavily depend on how much of this could be done at PreFAL, I would assume all systems including avionics installed and cabin preparation job done to before insulation installation with central IFE avionics + cabling done.

At FAL crew rest then any additional behind insulation installation then insulation + walls + roofs, gallyes, toilets and any BFE items, overhead racks and then checking all the systems. At A50 seats + IFE boxes and testing of the whole lot. (those in the know please correct-chip in ).

I don't think you can run such an investment without 3 shift operation.

[Edited 2012-04-06 22:02:46]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Mortyman
Posted 2012-04-07 01:50:15 and read 69953 times.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 30):
I believe the A350 will be the best looking Airbus ever built.

Don't think it will match the A340 in being the worlds sexiest airliner ..., but that's what I think  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-07 08:13:19 and read 69376 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
I don't think you can run such an investment without 3 shift operation.


thanks ferpe, your graphs explain a lot.. now I guess we just watch and learn. Please note there is no single correct way to run a FAL, there are many and learning about other options is my goal.

Although just for kicks let's keep an eye on those nacelles...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-04-07 11:31:36 and read 69066 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
As the cabin outfitting is the dimensioning item per the A flow diagram the amount of time needed at FAL will heavily depend on how much of this could be done at PreFAL, I would assume all systems including avionics installed and cabin preparation job done to before insulation installation with central IFE avionics + cabling done.

At FAL crew rest then any additional behind insulation installation then insulation + walls + roofs, gallyes, toilets and any BFE items, overhead racks and then checking all the systems. At A50 seats + IFE boxes and testing of the whole lot. (those in the know please correct-chip in&nbsp Wink.

Thanks indeed, ferpe. I smell heavy learning, here, from the lengthy A380 outfitting process... Although I'm totally ready to be corrected: how much of the cabin installation is done, in the A380, on the FAL?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-07 17:08:17 and read 68782 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
Please note there is no single correct way to run a FAL, there are many and learning about other options is my goal.

That is what is so fascinating about production, studied it at tech university then was thrown into the wolfs nest when the Airforce put me to match the fighter OEMs battle proven production guys as we procured our next fighter. The only thing stopping them eating me verbally and spitting me out was that they realized I could fly the damn thing at the end of FAL and they couldn't . We had a lot of fun and they really were nice with me at the time (= they tolerated me and my youthful enthusiasm)  Wow! .

There must have been many reasons for Boeing going with the moving FAL, could you describe these, it would be very interesting to know?

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 39):
how much of the cabin installation is done, in the A380, on the FAL?

I would not know but I am convinced we have many others who know   .

[Edited 2012-04-07 17:27:34]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-08 02:28:45 and read 68584 times.

Re the A350 FAL, this Airbus video shows it in more detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVhy-8oD0hA


Here the steps according to this video:

Beluga is unloaded at the Beluga freight terminal, sections goes on dolleys to preassembly site P59.


P59
Items who are to big to pass trough the doors are fitted here (crew rest, big galleys-toilets, ...):



P50
Fuselage join and MLG dolley added:



P40
Wings added, MLG, HTP, VTP are mounted and after power on the rest of the galleys, toilets, overhead bins, floors covers are added at the same time as the structural assemblies are hooked up system wise. I was puzzeled why they dragged the next LN wings in there as well but it is to reduce the change time, just tow the next fuselage in and you can start the wing join:
.


P30
This is wrongly labeled as being shared with the 330-340 in the video, this does not seem likely as it was build for the A350 FAL in the 350 FAL building. Anyway while system checks of LG, Flaps, rudders etc are being made the seats are added, presumably some cabin checks are done here as well:



P18
Outside check of pressure system, radio systems and ECS I would guess (does the APU run here to give power, hydraulics and bleed air? Would mean fuel residues in tanks while later painting, safety issues?):



then to Paint hangar, then


A50
Here final cabin items are added and checked at the same time as the engines are mounted:



Then to flight test station for final checks and test flights, finally delivery!

[Edited 2012-04-08 02:49:33]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-04-08 02:58:15 and read 68382 times.

A perfect overview of the individual phases which will create the A350!   Thanks.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ZKOKQ
Posted 2012-04-08 03:00:05 and read 68326 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):

Great post ferpe. Nice to see how the FAL will work

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2012-04-08 04:30:00 and read 68219 times.

I think in many ways, the A350 program will be Airbus' most important money-making venture, since it's not a "prestige" model like the A380. I do like the fact that Airbus will be using existing facilities used in A330 production for final fit-out of the plane, which will save a LOT on production costs.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-08 08:00:20 and read 67840 times.

Interesting as usual... I noticed the position 30 has the a/c 'nose in' in your earlier layout (post 32) and 'tail in' in the video.. I believe the A330 is tail in.. The advantage of the 'nose in' is more sub assemblies are in the forward part of the a/c than in the aft.

Position 59 is likewise different.. the architectural drawing shows scaffolding and docking positions for the component load, the video makes it appear that they will be working on the sections while still in the transportation dollies.

One difference between manufactures I notice is the prevalence of raised decking in the pictures above.. This was a Boeing bottleneck as everything needed to be craned or forklifed up.. This plan shows some what appear to be elevator towers in positions 30 and 50, over time those can be problematic as well. (we stopped the 757 line once because the two elevators between the shop and the parts storage both broke, and the crane tracks didn't extend into the parts area.) I notice Boeing is using much smaller decking and conveyor belts (like cargo loaders) to move components directly from the shop floor to the a/c doors.

I fear that a reasons for the Boeing moving line post here would be viewed as off topic by some, so won't post it here. I need to do some quick research to see if there were other threads, then put the discussion in the Tech Forum.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-08 09:24:32 and read 67761 times.

Thanks kanban, it's a luxury for the thread to have a production guy like you who comments and compare with other concepts   .

Quoting kanban (Reply 45):
I noticed the position 30 has the a/c 'nose in' in your earlier layout (post 32) and 'tail in' in the video..
Quoting kanban (Reply 45):
Position 59 is likewise different.. the architectural drawing shows scaffolding and docking positions for the component load, the video makes it appear that they will be working on the sections while still in the transportation dollies

The video is rather old (it is from this Jan 2009 FAL minisite: http://events.airbus.com/a350/fal_groundbreaking_ceremony/index.html ), the drawing Flightblogger posted should be current, I think we can assume it is the final layout:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALoverview.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALbuilding2.jpg

Quoting kanban (Reply 45):
I fear that a reasons for the Boeing moving line post here would be viewed as off topic by some, so won't post it here. I need to do some quick research to see if there were other threads, then put the discussion in the Tech Forum.

As we most likely will dissect it a bit  this is probably prudent.



I thing that strikes me is the double bays at all stations (except for A50 which has 4 but this is shared with 330), this means of course that station time is 6 days not 3    for full bore production rate of 10 a month. If these double stations are gradually equipped and manned this could help with producing the 5 test frames A will need in a very short time after autumn 2012 when MSN001 rolls of the FAL. Here the schedule I hypothesized before:


FAL no...........FRAME.................FAL start..........Use.........................

FAL1..............MSN5000...............April.................Static tests @TLS

FAL2...............MSN001...............July-?................First flight test aircraft

FAL3 ..............MSN003...............Oct? .................Second flight test aircraft

FAL4...............EF1, 2 , 3............Dec?..................Fatigue specimen tested in 3 parts @IABG

FAL5...............MSN002...............Jan 13?.............Cabin test aircraft

FAL6...............MSN004...............Feb13?..............System test?

FAL7...............MSN005...............March13?...........Cabin equipped, NAMS, ETOPS?


With EIS summer 2014 as planned they need to have these 7 frames in the air Q3-Q4 2013 latest which means coming of FAL of the 5th end summer 2013. Here the dual FAL lines could help given the have people to man them. Airbus will hire 4000 persons this year, they will migrate 320-380 experienced personell to the 350 program and backfill the former.

The PreFAL sites also has double stations, some seems to be running both already as seen from St Nazaire fore and mid fuselage stations.

This differs from the 787 production setup where the second FAL kicked in at LN46, here the dual FAL and preFAL could be up and running from LN 1 or some frames later. This will help with the ramp given that the supply chain can keep pace.

[Edited 2012-04-08 10:25:47]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2012-04-08 10:50:13 and read 67502 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
Paint.. a second trip to the paint hanger... unless all the nacelles are painted when the airframe is painted, or no customer paint is allowed and they arrive in standard color.

I can not see the problem painting the nacelles at the customer wishes before they arrive to the FAL . The rudder arrives painted, at least on 380, before it is shipped to the FAL.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-08 19:11:03 and read 67109 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 47):
I can not see the problem painting the nacelles


Painting the cowling components is only part of it.. there are all the external fasteners added during installation. There are scratches and dings no matter how careful one is and there is always the chance of getting the wrong color/shade.

Rudders are generally painted because they need to be balanced before being hung. also all attach points are hidden behind panels and blade seals.

but then again this is a discussion of manufacturer's process differences... it's not a right or wrong situation.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-11 01:56:26 and read 66442 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):
it is from this Jan 2009 FAL minisite: http://events.airbus.com/a350/fal_groundbreaking_ceremony/index.html

This site has a statement about the ultimate throughput time at TLS FAL and delivery center :

"When production reaches its peak (10 frames per month cadence), the whole process, from start of final assembly to delivery to our customer, will take two and a half months, representing a 30 percent lead-time saving (over the 330 process)."


Taking the P59 to P18 steps as 6 days each and A50 as 12 days (ultimately the A350 will have this 4 stations to it selves) we have 6*6+12= 48 days.

Add another 1-2 days for the Beluga unloading, this leaves something like 25 days for final ground test, test flights, fixing of issues found and then final delivery. The delivery at the delivery center to an airline normally takes 5 days so then we have 20 days for the final ground tests, test flights and issue fixing. This seems quite much   , any takers?

BTW, is test flights on a workday schedule or on 7 days a week like the FAL? If the former we loose 4 days due to weekends, could also apply for the delivery center.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-04-14 09:27:42 and read 65510 times.

ferpe, retaking two of your questions from part2:

Thanks, could you give us the test purpose for MSN4?

I don't know for sure, but as MSN1 & 3 will be the main test a/c for flight envelope, control laws, performance, aero, loads, systems, etc etc, I assume MSN4, as it will not have a cabin, will serve as a complement or "backup" for MSN1&3 tests when the flight test schedule gets tight (which it will), probably mainly for system development as all the aero & loads instrumentation should be on the first two main test a/c.

I have no info on the progress on cabin test other then reading a specialized magazine article some month ago that basically quoted what you are saying that A did some changes to the A350 cabin that has not gone down well with everyone. Anyone else who has some knowledge?

I read a (printed) article somewhere about the Airbus cabin test facilities - Cabin0 - in XFW. The facility was inaugurated at the end of last year, so at this point they must be integrating all the systems on the test benches. It's an impressive facility, with a full mock-up of the A350 cabin (except S15-21), real hardware and real software running on it. I don't think anyone has done cabin testing at this level before, including Boeing.

IMO the cabin will a critical item - I am fairly confident that Airbus can get out a well performing prototype reasonably on time (just like with the A380), but on the A380 cabin integration turned out a complete nightmare (and not just the wiring, but the sheer complexity of the systems), which is likely why they're taking it seriously on the A350 and have built up much more extensive test facilities.

I've just found this rather old and short link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-rig-will-validate-systems-341634/

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
Here the principle of the 350 FAL and how A changed it to start the elaborate Cabin install earlier compared to 330-340:

Indeed, starting with fuselage join is a first for Airbus, who have traditionally always begun with wing/body join.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-15 08:28:08 and read 64890 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 50):
I've just found this rather old and short link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...1634/



With the current state of computer design, seeing such a mock up is mind boggling. Although after the A380 problems, it's probably a comforting but expensive check.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 50):
Indeed, starting with fuselage join is a first for Airbus, who have traditionally always begun with wing/body join.



This will be an interesting part of the process to follow.. in earlier models there was a fit, drill, remove wing, deburr, clean, prime, apply seal, reinstall, and fasten..

By the way what happened to the close up of the wingstub plate? and what is the material?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-15 15:04:15 and read 64590 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 51):
By the way what happened to the close up of the wingstub plate? and what is the material?

You mean this zoomed part of section 15-21?:



According to Flightblogger it:

"Shaped in an isogrid pattern rather than the spar and stiffener design used on the A380, the A350's rib 1 design is intended to reduce weight and assembly time as it is a single machined part rather than a collect of web, spar caps and stiffeners fastened together. It's a first for an Airbus commercial aircraft."

Here the normal spar:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Wing_rib.jpg

I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me. Should be AlLi.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-04-15 16:29:01 and read 64408 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):
Here the normal spar:

It's actually a rib. Spars run the other way.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):

I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me.

I'd be absolutely shocked if that was cast; it's very hard to avoid voids in casting, which totally screws up fatigue life. This is far more likely to be machined from a forging or rolled plate. It's also not a very good shape for casting and you'd have to post-machine the casting to get sufficient tolerance and flatness on the flanges where it mates to the other parts.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-15 18:52:32 and read 64271 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):
I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me

I concur with Tom (above) that at least part of it is hogged out of plate and then forged.. although possibly cast and forged.. It's a bloody odd part.

I'll leave it to the engineers to explain the isogrid characteristics and benefits..

Ferpe, is the wing stub a wet fuel tank?

tdscanuck, do those flanges look strong enough to support a flexing wing? the material looks awfully thin compared to a 737/757

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-04-15 19:19:50 and read 64288 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 54):

Ferpe, is the wing stub a wet fuel tank?

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'd bet is has to be. The A350 spec range is so large that I can't imagine they're not using the entire wing box for fuel.

Quoting kanban (Reply 54):

tdscanuck, do those flanges look strong enough to support a flexing wing? the material looks awfully thin compared to a 737/757

Off the top of my head they do look thin, but the 737/757 use a double + chord architecture that clearly isn't being used here (I say that because of the *giant* flange and supporting stiffeners at the center of the rib). To me, this looks more like they've got a much narrower box going through the center tank using multiple closely spaced spars. That's sufficiently different from what I'm used to that I can't really say anything intelligent about how thick the flanges ought to be.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-15 20:19:04 and read 64266 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):
I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me. Should be AlLi.

It is machined in the UK by Magellan Aerospace out of AlLi

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 55):
The A350 spec range is so large that I can't imagine they're not using the entire wing box for fuel.

The A350 has a very large centre tank, about 66t capacity (yes sixty six).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-15 21:11:15 and read 64175 times.

So what are the benefits of an isogrid structure? looks like a lot of machining even if NC.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-15 22:20:09 and read 64134 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):

I do not know the number for this particular part, however other parts that I know that have been replaced with an isogrid design showed a 60% drop in mass, with increased stiffness, increased strength, and reduced part count. This part will also have reduced volume, leaving more volume possibly for fuel.

The downside is that you need sophicated software to optimize the design, specialised processes and machinery, and this increases the design and manufacturing costs.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-16 05:58:29 and read 63725 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 55):
To me, this looks more like they've got a much narrower box going through the center tank using multiple closely spaced spars.

I don't quite get what you mean, here is the only picture I have found of the box in isolation:



As it probably is modeled after the A380 (first mostly CFRP box) here a picture of that, one can see the ribs placement (sigh ) by the fasteners trails on the side, the same thin flanges:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380wingbox.jpg

I though casting might be OK as it is mostly loaded in compression but Zeke has confirmed it is indeed machined. Never seen an isogrid part before, intriguing   .

[Edited 2012-04-16 05:59:39]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-16 07:45:40 and read 63498 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
So what are the benefits of an isogrid structure? looks like a lot of machining even if NC.

One learn something every day  :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isogrid

Quoting zeke (Reply 56):
The A350 has a very large centre tank, about 66t capacity (yes sixty six).

It sounded enormous but look at the dimensions of the box in the picture from Airbus Nantes and compare to the men, it is almost 2 m high times 6 by 8 meters, should be 83m3   . It means that 66t of the 110t fuel is in the wingbox  Wow! . Now the -1000 has 125t of fuel, given that the center and outer wingboxes are taken where do they find the extra volume? HTP?

Here the wing joining area on the A380 wing, seems it goes inside the top and bottom flanges (at least) of the center wingbox. As that area looks identical on the A350 I would assume they use the same principle there:



[Edited 2012-04-16 08:18:20]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-04-16 08:17:44 and read 63366 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 59):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 55):
To me, this looks more like they've got a much narrower box going through the center tank using multiple closely spaced spars.

I don't quite get what you mean, here is the only picture I have found of the box in isolation:

I was talking about the "normal" (non-isogrid) CATIA rib shown at the bottom of Reply 52.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 59):
Never seen an isogrid part before, intriguing

They've been around for a while, just not very commonly in commercial aerospace. You almost have to high-speed-machine them so they're expensive to produce. Several military jet engines use isogrid casings and the Delta launch vehicles use isogrid payload fairings.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
It means that 66t of the 110t fuel is in the wingbox

That's about right; the very high aspect ratio (for an airliner) wings on the A350/787 coupled with the typical wing loft and supercritical airfoil cause the vast majority of tank space to be between the engines (the center tank and the most inboard parts of the main tanks).

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-16 09:42:43 and read 63312 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Here the wing joining area on the A380 wing, seems it goes inside the top and bottom flanges (at least) of the center wingbox. As that area looks identical on the A350 I would assume they use the same principle there:

There are a couple of Videos of the 380 FAL that shows the lower center wingbox flange goes inside the wingbox (there are cutouts for the wingskins stringers which are a bit recessed like on the 350 bottom skin, see below) and the top flange goes on top of the top wingskin (there are cutouts for the sideflanges, the wingskin (380 and 350) stringers goes all the way and it makes structural sense to have the flange on top). The same would then apply for the A350:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02PPoyyfv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTo_o8ykdUo

Here the bottom side at the joining (observe the guy holding up the wingroot  ) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380join1.jpg

[Edited 2012-04-16 09:48:09]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-16 12:05:06 and read 63005 times.

Nice shots..one thing that always puzzles me when looking at Airbus production is the lack of safety glasses or hard hats (when working under parts being craned)... chalk that up to just a difference in companies.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-04-16 12:07:23 and read 62986 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 51):
With the current state of computer design, seeing such a mock up is mind boggling. Although after the A380 problems, it's probably a comforting but expensive check.

You misunderstood my post I think. The purpose of Cabin0 is not to assemble the cabin items together and see if they fit (although it will surely provide some feedback in that sense too), but to perform systems integration testing, that is to hook up all the cabin systems and have them talk to each other and function together like on a real a/c. Airbus has a similar setup - for flight controls - at the Iron Bird in TLS. But they had never gone to such an extent with the cabin.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: nasula
Posted 2012-04-16 14:03:36 and read 62688 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 63):

Nice shots..one thing that always puzzles me when looking at Airbus production is the lack of safety glasses or hard hats (when working under parts being craned)... chalk that up to just a difference in companies.

A layman with no manufacturing experience here thinking out loud: Could it be common sense? If a several ton piece of aircraft falls on your head, a hardhat or safety goggles are not going to help much. I mean those pieces are fully assembled and nobody is wielding tools or nuts and bolts that could fall on someones head.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-16 14:27:58 and read 62617 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 64):
You misunderstood my post I think.


It's probably just a language/company terminology difference.. even if just providing systems checking fixture we would lazily refer to it as a mockup...

Quoting nasula (Reply 65):
If a several ton piece of aircraft falls on your head, a hardhat or safety goggles are not going to help much.


It's not the big things one wears glasses and hard hats for... in the pictures I see drilling hence the chance of broken bits flying, chips, etc.. and even automated equipment send debris flying occasionally. Hard hats are for the debris falling from supposedly complete assemblies.. rivets/screws, tools, etc Saw a clipboard a manager set down to make a point - (needed both hands) -- come sailing down off a set of elevators being positioned an hour later.. In the years of enforcing safety requirements at Boeing, I've seen it all.. A nut for a 1/2 inch bolt dropped from 20 feet will knock you out. Granted Boeing uses more crane operations than Airbus.. however the danger is always there. Boeing is very strict safety glasses must be worn at all times in the manufacturing/assembly process..

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-04-16 15:33:40 and read 62533 times.

Any idea why Airbus decided to go with an AlLi wingbox in the A350?. Being a CFRP plane, you'd think they would go for a CFRP wingbox similar to that of the A380.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-04-16 15:42:41 and read 62490 times.

Yeah I'm almost certain it isn't all Al-Li That isogrid stiffener might be.

NS

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-16 18:04:14 and read 62383 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 67):
Any idea why Airbus decided to go with an AlLi wingbox in the A350?. Being a CFRP plane, you'd think they would go for a CFRP wingbox similar to that of the A380.

The center wingbox is majority CFRP, like for the wing the ribs are AlLi for economical reasons, they are all different and would require unique tooling for every rib ie some 100+ tools. It is therefore much easier and cheaper to load the NC machine with a billet of AlLi and have it carve out the different shape ribs. Furthermore the loading on the ribs is predominately compression therefore Alu is not such a bad choice, in the A trade AlLi come out as best choice.

Some highly loaded fittings are Ti as are the fasteners so it is a mix of CFRP, AlLi and Ti.

The 788 uses Alu ribs, the 789 has started to convert most ribs to CFRP to gain weight but at a cost, the A380 also uses CFRP for the ribs IIRC.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-16 19:51:54 and read 62306 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):

It sounded enormous but look at the dimensions of the box in the picture from Airbus Nantes and compare to the men, it is almost 2 m high times 6 by 8 meters, should be 83m3

Approximatly 82,421 liters

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
It means that 66t of the 110t fuel is in the wingbox

Total is 113.3 t.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Now the -1000 has 125t of fuel, given that the center and outer wingboxes are taken where do they find the extra volume? HTP?

Should still be a 3 tank setup, I assume it is in the slightly longer chord in the -1000 wing.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 69):

The center wingbox is majority CFRP

Correct, like the A380.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 69):
the A380 also uses CFRP for the ribs IIRC.

The A380 uses both CFRP and Al-Zn (7449-T7651) ribs. The CFRP ribs still have Al-Zn cap (the rib feet).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-16 21:15:26 and read 62239 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Now the -1000 has 125t of fuel, given that the center and outer wingboxes are taken where do they find the extra volume? HTP?

There are surge tanks in the outboard rib bays of the A350-900. With creative venting, both OEMs have found ways in the past to turn these tanks into useable fuel volume. It wouldn't surprise me if this is at least part of the solution for adding volume to the A350-1000

Quoting zeke (Reply 70):
I assume it is in the slightly longer chord in the -1000 wing

Is the actual distance between the spars changing? I thought the -1000 was getting a fairly simple TE extension. If the spars are moving, the -1000 is getting an all-new wing! Can this be right?

Quoting zeke (Reply 70):
Total is 113.3 t.

I have the following from a -900 briefing about a year ago:
Left: 25,035Kg
Center: 60,190Kg
Right: 25, 035Kg
Total: 110,260Kg

Has Airbus added 3 Tonnes to the total capacity in the past year?

Edit: Corrected quantity labels.

[Edited 2012-04-16 22:15:32]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-16 22:03:56 and read 62168 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 71):

I have the following from a -900 briefing about a year ago:
Left: 25,035L
Center: 60,190L
Right: 25, 035L
Total: 110,260L

Has Airbus added 3 Tonnes to the total capacity in the past year?

The volume available is over 140,000 l, and over 113t. 110,000 l would only be 88t of fuel, depending on SG, obviously never in the ballpark of what I have seen discussed before.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-16 22:14:15 and read 62143 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 72):
The volume available is over 140,000 l

Sorry, I mislabeled the quantities in my post. They should have been listed as Kg, not Liters. I'll try again:

I have the following from a -900 briefing about a year ago:
Left: 25,035Kg
Center: 60,190Kg
Right: 25, 035Kg
Total: 110,260Kg

That adds up to 138,000 Liters... still shy of the 140,000 mentioned above.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-04-16 22:34:09 and read 62163 times.

Per the A350-900 Preliminary ACAP (July 2011) - Usable Fuel Capacity: 138,000 liters | 108,330kg.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-17 15:22:30 and read 61485 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 73):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):

They are the both the same incorrect volumes, one using a SG of 0.785, and the other a SG of 0.8. I have seen other numbers like 135,800 l as well. When launched, flight global publshed a capacity of 150,000 l. Depending on where you look you will also see different volumes for the -800 like 129,000 l vs 138,000 l

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-04-17 15:54:16 and read 61467 times.

So has Airbus raised the amount, or are we just quibbling over density values?

Airbus' preliminary A350-900 ACAP gives a density of 0.785kg/l with their 138,000 liter number and the Specifications Page for the A350-900 on airbus.com also shows 138,000 liters, so I expect they are using the same density there, as well.


Quoting zeke (Reply 75):
Depending on where you look you will also see different volumes for the -800 like 129,000 l vs 138,000.l

I understand at launch the fuel capacity for the A350-800 was 129,000 liters. However, now that the A350-800 will be a straight shrink of the A350-900, it appears that Airbus is going to use the same tanks as the A350-900 and the fuel capacity has been raised to the same 138,000 liters of the A350-900 per Airbus' web site. I would expect part of the reason for the 259t WV would be to take advantage of that extra capacity.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-17 16:38:15 and read 61710 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
So has Airbus raised the amount, or are we just quibbling over density values?

Airbus' preliminary A350-900 ACAP gives a density of 0.785kg/l with their 138,000 liter number and the Specifications Page for the A350-900 on airbus.com also shows 138,000 liters, so I expect they are using the same density there,

I have already stated the answer to the first part twice on this thread. As for the second part, I fail to see the correlation of volume with SG. Volume is based upon the actual physical space available.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-04-17 16:50:19 and read 61702 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 77):
I have already stated the answer to the first part twice on this thread.

You've stated it's over 140,000 liters and over 113 tons, both of which are more than what publically-available Airbus information states is the case. Now if that number if from a non-publically-available Airbus document (like a preliminary FCOM or a private Airbus presentation to CX), fine, but it would have been polite to note that. *shrug*


Quoting zeke (Reply 77):
As for the second part, I fail to see the correlation of volume with SG.

You are the one who brought it up and made the implication to it having an impact on the actual volume. *shrug*

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-04-17 21:03:33 and read 61502 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):
I'd be absolutely shocked if that was cast; it's very hard to avoid voids in casting, which totally screws up fatigue life.

Not to mention this would be a safety critical part which most manufacturers ban casting unless there is not avoiding it (e.g., engine rotors)

Quoting zeke (Reply 56):
The A350 has a very large centre tank, about 66t capacity (yes sixty six).

To think I was impressed by the A332s centerline tank! (30t by volume, but that would be with very few pax).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 61):
Several military jet engines use isogrid casings

Fan case of PW4098. I'm certain other engines main casing (I recall seeing them in the factory, but I couldn't find a link quick).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29847199/4.../Fan-Case-Isogrid-and-Kevlar-Belts

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-17 21:52:44 and read 61468 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
but it would have been polite to note that. *shrug*

He did, we get information hinted and we have to understand them as they come.


This is very interesting, so the volume has changed compared to first public spec release. The interesting part is not that the max volume has changed, it is the gleaning into the A350 programs information policy. Most probably A found when doing the detailed design that the dimensions of the total wingbox would change slightly, any tiny fraction change and the fuel volume changes a lot. Instead of changing brochure values all the time they stay put with what they said once and then change once at EIS   . Makes sense, makes them look like they know what they are doing   , I would have the same policy.


Makes you wonder what other things have changed? W'ell see  (MEW and OEW is a fight for sure, but this is standard, things like the MTOW would be more fundamental  Wow! )

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-17 23:02:26 and read 61341 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
implication to it having an impact on the actual volume

I did not imply that the SG changes the volume (unlike "also shows 138,000 liters, so I expect they are using the same density there"). I stated the numbers were for the same volume, 138,000 l, and the difference in mass being quoted is attributed to the SG being used. Common SG values used in Airbus documents include 0.803, 0.8, and 0.785, and mass of fuel is the product of volume and SG.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 79):
To think I was impressed by the A332s centerline tank! (30t by volume, but that would be with very few pax).

The fuel system is very simple on the A350, they have cut down on the number of pumps and plumbing significantly, and only have a 3 tank setup, two wing tanks, and a centre tank. The centre tank on the A330 is around 30% of the total, on the A350 it is around 50%.

The fuel feed sequence and fuel quantity measurement system is similar to other Airbus aircraft.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 80):

This is very interesting, so the volume has changed compared to first public spec release.

It is not that surprising, on the A380, 787 and 747-8, one saw various fuel quantities listed by the OEMs. Until the detail design is complete and construction commenced, the volume changes.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-04-18 06:40:41 and read 60873 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 54):

I'll leave it to the engineers to explain the isogrid characteristics and benefits..

On structures as shown, the flat portion is primarily loaded with shear load (imagine a cedar board fence). If the flat area is too large (without stiffeners or vertical posts for the fence) the amount of shear load that the panel can take (assuming thickness is the same) is low before the panel would buckle.

The isogrid allows you to increase the number of stiffener without adding the weight of a traditional stiffener. You can also do isogrid in a square pattern, but apparently the triangular is more efficient because the stiffener is more closely resemble orthotropic material (load stiffening in all direction). If you step back and look at a block of triangular cells, you can see the hexagontal cells (which are used by nature as one of the most efficient cell structure).

Honeycomb composite panel remains more efficient per weight, but isogrid is the next best thing and a lot more damage tolerant.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
So what are the benefits of an isogrid structure? looks like a lot of machining even if NC.

Actually it's not that bad. Remember, the thickness of the plate would have been the same because of the extra tall outside mating flange. Since the isogrid is short, you don't have to get to the intricate machining until late in the stage, the rest of the machining is just material removal and can be done at a higher rate with a larger bit.

In a regular stiffened panel the stiffeners would be much taller and you would worry about machine chatter on such a tall and skinny stiffener.

Quoting zeke (Reply 58):

The downside is that you need sophicated software to optimize the design, specialised processes and machinery, and this increases the design and manufacturing costs.

Yes, but once you have the software set up, you can readily optimize many parts. Machining and NC programing would be no different from today. You basically have to remove only a little more material. The pattern does slow you down but that is where you mentioned the cost would come in.

Design cost is cheap (relatively speaking) you just have to train the designer to think in isogrid terms which I would guess much easier than training them to think in composite terms 

bt

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-18 08:11:17 and read 60668 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 82):

Yes, but once you have the software set up, you can readily optimize many parts.

I do not know, I did not think nastran was able to do that, maybe some 3rd party tool. Also I do not know the design cases that were looked at, isogrids have been used in the past not only to save weight, they are also very good solutions for damage tolerance and pressurisation. They may have also looked at the possibility of fuel tank rupture, and other crashworthiness aspects (e.g. gear up landing, water landing) and fuel tank integrity. I am not that familiar with what the new FARs need these days in terms of inerting, containment/isolation of explosions/fire in fuel tanks.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 82):
Machining and NC programing would be no different from today.

From what I understand Magellan Aerospace had to purchase a new machine to build that specific part, I do not think the photo does it justice as to how complex that part it is.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-04-18 10:42:54 and read 60492 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 83):
I do not know, I did not think nastran was able to do that

Probably not. The isogrid optimization would have probably been done using parametric studies (adapted from some of-the-shelf software). Once that is done then the detailed analysis would be done using nastran.

Quoting zeke (Reply 83):

From what I understand Magellan Aerospace had to purchase a new machine to build that specific part,

Could be . . . aerospace has whole different material requirements that we don't necessarily deal with. They probably didn't have a 5 axis NC machine large enough that could handle the tolerance.   Iisogrid on a curved or cylindrical surface is more complex to machine and or formed than isogrid on a flat part.

bt

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-18 18:30:34 and read 60057 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 82):
bt


Thanks Thai for the explanation.. now I wonder if we'll see it on the 737MAX.. or did Airbus patent the application.. Of course we could use it elsewhere and possibly do.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-04-18 23:42:26 and read 59903 times.

Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP? Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

Isn't CFRP sensitive to AlLi?

Anyone knows if the A350 use the A380 designed Titanium Extended Performance Lockbolt from Alcoa(compatible with the composite and aluminum materials ) in the wingbox?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-19 06:11:08 and read 59437 times.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP? Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

Isn't CFRP sensitive to AlLi?

What is labeled as a CFRP part of an aircraft is seldom 100% CFRP, most of the time it is a combination of CFRP, Ti and Al. CFRP and Al has a corrosion problem when in direct contact, that is fixed by an insulation material between the 2. All these materials has their strength and weaknesses that is why the OEMs mix them in the designs. The 787 wingbox for the 788 has Al ribs like the 350, the skins are CFRP thereby using is superior strength and that you can tailor the strength direction-wise. These Al ribs are now gradually replaced with CFRP for many positions where the weight gain outweighs the cost and other drawbacks (non conductivity....).

Our Boeing friends should know more.

[Edited 2012-04-19 06:13:23]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-04-19 06:24:58 and read 59421 times.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP?

No. Many pieces of titanium in there, as well as aluminum ribs (changing to CFRP) as ferpe noted.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

CFRP is not the be-all and end-all of materials. It's really good for a lot of things but, when you balance cost, manufacturability, and performance sometimes it's better and sometimes it's not. Airbus obvious decided the AlLi isogrid was the optimum choice (by however they defined optimum) for that part.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Isn't CFRP sensitive to AlLi?

Other way around...aluminum alloy (of any kind) has corrosion problems when hooked to anything conductive and significantly different, like CFRP. You mitigate that, as ferpe noted, with proper electrical insulation between mating parts.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-04-19 06:56:22 and read 59337 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 85):
. or did Airbus patent the application..

Not sure about patenting the isogrid design. The isogrid is used on the Internation Space Station modules and many rocket shells, so I would think it's useable by anyone. However, the optimization software (which is needed to make it useful) may be proprietary although you can probably find many published articles on how to optimize isogrid in the public domain.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP? Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

Airbus and Boeing has slightly different philosophy in use of graphite/aluminum interface. Airbus is slightly less conservative and uses this combination more frequently (with proper galvanic isolation of course). The use of graphite skin and aluminum core on the engine cowling have been used for a while.

Boeing (specially Boeing Materials Technology) is a little more conservative with graphite/aluminum interface. They will use it when really necessary with lots of isolation requirement. For the engine cowling, they went out of their way to develop graphite pitch core for use with graphite skin (for the 777).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 87):
the cost and other drawbacks (non conductivity....).
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 88):
You mitigate that, as ferpe noted, with proper electrical insulation between mating parts.

You get into a catch 22 situation. in order to use aluminum against graphite, you need to isolate the aluminum. But you don't want a completely isolated piece of aluminum because it build up static charge and needs to be grounded otherwise it can arc. You can ground out the aluminum by using grounding straps . . . that's where the complication and costs comes in.

bt

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-19 10:05:24 and read 59171 times.

They say if you lie convincing enough people will believe you Wow!  :

I came across this slide today (from a Deutsche Bank analyst briefing July 2010) :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirGenerationUnitAGU.jpg

I clearly shows a fairly conventional Air Cond Pac in a fairly conventional place       .

So I went back to my screenshot from post 82 in thread 2 and sure enough if you look reeeally carefully the Air cond pack is under the wingbox:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Aircondpack.jpg

Here one can also see that the tube going back never enters the cooling pack at the rear of the wing fairing it just stretches around it before entering the fuselage in the space beside the cargo area. Must be another cooling pack but for what? It does not seem to be for the electrical system. Ozone remover? Hydraulics? There is a lot of tubes/wires around this area.

[Edited 2012-04-19 10:26:31]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-20 02:20:57 and read 58600 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
Here one can also see that the tube going back never enters the cooling pack at the rear of the wing fairing it just stretches around it before entering the fuselage in the space beside the cargo area. Must be another cooling pack but for what?

A few considerations :

Air can come from the engines, APU, or external ground air supply (both LP and HP), and ram air. The air can be used for air conditioning, pressurisation, wing anti-ice, fuel tank inert gas generation, engine start, and pack bay ventilation. The system includes an ozone converter, and a Inert Gas Generation System (IGGS).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-04-20 14:19:20 and read 58097 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
Must be another cooling pack but for what? It does not seem to be for the electrical system. Ozone remover? Hydraulics? There is a lot of tubes/wires around this area.

Hard to tell exactly from that picture, but it would likely be either a part of the fuel tank inerting system or the supplemental cooling system (for galley cooling).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-20 15:13:31 and read 57976 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 92):
a part of the fuel tank inerting system

I believe this will be correct. It makes sense to locate the inerting system near the fuel tanks, and it will likely use an air feed from the cabin to achieve its pressure differential across the nitrogen separation membranes. Supplemental cooling units are easier to locate remotely, even though I would expect them to have a liquid interface with the pack heat exchangers.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-20 20:41:46 and read 57801 times.

As we are waiting for the aft fuselage section (16-19) from Hamburg (they now seem to be critical path) here is a nice picture of the next journey after the fuselage join is complete, the new P40 hall. First the model of the hall so we can orient ourselves, this model photo is taken from the back wall of the hall where we see all the windows is in the hall photo:



The photo is taken from the balcony running atop the halls sliding doors. One can clearly see how much natural light is coming into the hall, the architect which designed the new A350 FAL had the brief to get the maximum of natural light lighting and the roof is covered with photocells. 50% of the electricity requirements of the FAL shall be generated out of the FALs roof elements (can be seen as dark grey roof lining of P30 and P40 halls in post 46), thus the 350 FAL is a forerunner for sustainable industry production:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350FALP40.jpg

I think the hall seems like a nice workplace, natural light is always preferable  . Once can also identify the tooling running on it's tracks (watch the 380 videos in post 62, they use the same jigs), the wing merger jigs on their tracks denoted with red lines, the tower holding the rear fuselage in blue and the cabin fitting scaffolding yellow. The scaffolding seems not to be dragged to the centerline yet (this picture is taken at the buildup of the hall several months ago), the yellow line behind the man working on the wing tracks should be the centerline. One can also see the second P40 station being built in the background with it's office hut on the back-wall.

[Edited 2012-04-20 20:46:48]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-20 21:45:22 and read 57674 times.

Ferpe,
so it looks like the wings are delivered straight to position 40 from the Beluga and are prepared there in forward position before loading to the airframe.. Again I notice the use of wheeled transport although there is a crane available to lift them to the join tooling. What is the capacity of the crane? is it manned from a cab or by remote on the floor?


Wouldn't there be an advantage to having the engine struts installed at this stage or earlier?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-20 23:25:55 and read 57595 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 94):
thus the 350 FAL is a forerunner for sustainable industry production:

It is good to see the industry taking these steps. The total environmental footprint for manufacturing a CFRP airframe is much smaller than for an aluminum airframe, particularly with regards to energy consumption. The "buy-to-fly" ratios are much better, reducing the total energy which is wasted as chips when building with metal. New policies regarding the use of lead and chrome reduce hazardous byproducts from production and when the aircraft are scrapped. These are all massive steps forward for reducing the impact on the environment from building airplanes. As for the progressive features of the A350 FAL facility; it may actually be following the 787 program in this regard, as the new Charleston, SC FAL for the 787 has already received LEED gold certification. Like the A350 FAL, energy for production in Charleston is largely from solar sources integral to the building.

http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/ne...st-of-green-power-purchasers?rss=0

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-21 00:03:31 and read 57537 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 95):

Cranes are used to put the wings in place. The fuselage join occurs in another station (40), the complete fuselage is brought to the wing join station (50) on wheels. I had seen a nice animation they put together of the whole process, I cannot seem to find it now.


edit : found it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVhy-8oD0hA&feature=player_embedded

[Edited 2012-04-21 00:06:33]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-21 01:12:05 and read 57387 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 96):
it may actually be following the 787 program in this regard, as the new Charleston, SC FAL for the 787 has already received LEED gold certification. Like the A350 FAL, energy for production in Charleston is largely from solar sources integral to the building.

Thanks, nice that the aero industry can make these showcases, the industry need it to counter the carbon footprint they planes makes when used. Solar panels on roofs in now becoming a big thing here in Europe, especially in Germany. Funnily enough the sun rich south of Europe is a bit behind on private roofs and I would guess industry in general as well. Has to do with how much the state sponsors the buyback of the energy to the net in the different countries I guess.

@kanban, no idea how the crane is controlled but it is indeed used to hoist the wing onto the joining jigs, the video does not tell how the wings comes onto their pre-joining supports but I suppose they are craned there as well. I believe the engine pylons are mounted at this station as well (at least this is the procedure for the 330/340 and 380), they come on at this station or latest next as you can see them on in the picture of the video when the frame goes to external station P18.

[Edited 2012-04-21 01:31:26]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: maxter
Posted 2012-04-21 02:15:19 and read 57315 times.

Apologies if you have alreadys seen this video, but if like me you missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKKsxN_6Z4I&feature=related

It's not new...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-04-21 03:15:58 and read 57166 times.

Quoting maxter (Reply 99):

Some great footage of the aft pressure bulfhead in that.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-21 08:36:55 and read 56824 times.

went back over the previous pictures and see that the engine strut is indeed positioned or installation..

Zeke thanks for the video... one of the things interesting from a process stand point is the evolution of their process design and the changes on implementation.. the various pictures/charts and videos are all taken at different times and show the maturation of the process... Ferpe and I frequently compare A/B processes not as right or wrong but strictly as two different approaches.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-21 09:48:07 and read 57105 times.

When looking at the P40 model picture I could spot the pylon being brought forward for mating to the wing:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PylonghangatP40.jpg

Thus P40 is indeed the station where the wing is completed probably to enable testing of hydralics, electrics,fuel and bleed system at the next station, P30.


Funny that A is labeling the halls the "wrong way around" i.e. FALs starts at P59 and ends at P30 then goes to external P18 and is then transfered over to the final hall at the 330 line (to get engines and high value cabin interiors like first class and premium seats...). I don't know why this is so    , I can only observe that the french labels their school classes similarly i.e. the number of years your are from exam   . So we are indeed dissecting the graduation process of the A350    .

Perhaps Knoxibus could enlighten us to why this labeling?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-04-21 10:04:59 and read 56978 times.

Maybe their computer on recognizes descending order... ?

Another question, I see all these blue and yellow panels on the work platforms which would make sense if they were at the work level however they appear to be on tower structures having no contact with the position processes. What are the for or what do they hide?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2012-04-21 11:16:52 and read 56862 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
I see all these blue and yellow panels on the work platforms which would make sense if they were at the work level however they appear to be on tower structures having no contact with the position processes. What are the for or what do they hide?

I'll guess they're for situational awareness of which P40 bay you're in. P40 blue and P40 yellow.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2012-04-22 00:23:04 and read 56129 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 109):
Altair's Optistruct product is (I believe) the platform Airbus uses.

Boeing also uses Optistruct, and has a group dedicated to structural optimisation. We sent some of our parts to them to see what they could do, but didn't get much improvement since the parts were largely limited by the available space.

That said, I'm not so sure the isogrid of the rib web is really such a complex problem, though it would depend on how much the grid geometry varied. I'm sure you could analyse it by hand if the grid is fairly consistent and as long as you had a means of determining an equivalent material thickness.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Tristarsteve
Posted 2012-04-22 14:12:07 and read 55664 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
It makes sense to locate the inerting system near the fuel tanks, and it will likely use an air feed from the cabin to achieve its pressure differential across the nitrogen separation membranes

The nitrogen generating systems in service now use air from the bleed system.
This goes through what is very similar to a pack where the pressure and temperature are controlled closely before it is fed to the air seperation units that remove the oxygen. When I first saw it I couldn't be;ieve how complicated it all is. There are more components in there than an aircon pack!
The system is located in the wing/body fairing and has its own ram air in and out ducts.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2012-04-22 14:38:33 and read 55590 times.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 108):
The nitrogen generating systems in service now use air from the bleed system.

787?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-22 14:48:28 and read 55566 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 109):
787?

Independent electric compressor.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-04-24 12:06:30 and read 54847 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
It makes sense to locate the inerting system near the fuel tanks, and it will likely use an air feed from the cabin to achieve its pressure differential across the nitrogen separation membranes. Supplemental cooling units are easier to locate remotely, even though I would expect them to have a liquid interface with the pack heat exchangers.
Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 106):

The nitrogen generating systems in service now use air from the bleed system.
This goes through what is very similar to a pack where the pressure and temperature are controlled closely before it is fed to the air seperation units that remove the oxygen. When I first saw it I couldn't be;ieve how complicated it all is. There are more components in there than an aircon pack!
The system is located in the wing/body fairing and has its own ram air in and out ducts.

Actually, it's just the other way around, at least as far as Airbus designs to date are concerned. The supplemental cooling has its own ram air ducts and heat exchanger, separate from the packs. The inerting system (which takes air from the bleed) shares its ram air duct with the pack. If anyone could find a good photo of the A380 belly fairing in the database, it should become clearer then.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: moo
Posted 2012-04-24 12:30:07 and read 54799 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 109):

I thought the A380 didn't have an inserting system, as it was certified prior to the required date for the FAR, and it didn't have a belly tank (that was the argument given when this was discussed on here).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: AustrianZRH
Posted 2012-04-25 00:29:20 and read 54426 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
Maybe their computer on recognizes descending order... ?

Let's hope the German computers do it the same way    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ap305
Posted 2012-04-25 11:07:51 and read 54002 times.

The rear section is now in TLS

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...-delivered-to-final-assembly-line/

[Edited 2012-04-25 11:09:37]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Tristarsteve
Posted 2012-04-25 11:18:20 and read 53890 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 109):
The inerting system (which takes air from the bleed) shares its ram air duct with the pack

Thanks for that. Made me look in our A320 AMM, and found out that our latest A320 has an inerting system fitted for the centre tank only. It is a much simpler system than the B744 and B777 that I had seen before. I am intrigued now to find out how Airbus made it so simple compared to the Boeing system.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: bonusonus
Posted 2012-04-25 15:46:36 and read 53549 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 50):
The facility was inaugurated at the end of last year, so at this point they must be integrating all the systems on the test benches. It's an impressive facility, with a full mock-up of the A350 cabin (except S15-21), real hardware and real software running on it. I don't think anyone has done cabin testing at this level before, including Boeing.

Bombardier is doing the same thing for the CSeries with its CIASTA test rig. Might be a new trend in the industry.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-04-25 21:20:34 and read 53371 times.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 112):
The rear section is now in TLS

Saw this just posted on FB

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=447035805312709&set=a.403690762980547.116293.392751580741132&type=1&theater

Looks like things should be coming together real soon.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-26 04:22:04 and read 53109 times.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 112):
The rear section is now in TLS

here a zoom of the most interesting picture, one can see the static testing frames strain gauges and the fasteners for the rear bulk-head now being in place (click on image to magnify):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AftfuselageMSN5000details.jpg

Top view with what I guess in numerous antenna bushings:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AftfuselageMSN5000detail2.jpg


Here the press release:
"Airbus has delivered the aft fuselage for the A350 XWB static test airframe to the final assembly line in Toulouse (France). This final section of the fuselage will be assembled with the front and centre fuselage sections which were joined up in early April.

Assembled at Airbus’ site in Hamburg (Germany), the 20 metre long carbon fibre aft fuselage is made up of the rear fuselage barrel, produced at Airbus’ Getafe plant (Spain), two lateral aft fuselage panels made by Premium AEROTEC (Germany) plus the upper and lower aft fuselage panels manufactured by Airbus in Stade (Germany).

This first A350 XWB airframe will be used for the static structural tests that all new aircraft undergo as part of their certification process. The assembly of the first flying A350 XWB, MSN1, will start during summer."


The aft section was delivered some 22 days after the middle section, announced was 2 weeks by Airbus on 4th of April. Seems they are not making up any ground on the aft fuselage delays which is now the critical path save for the wings. Lets see when these will be delivered, should be any day now according to their original plan.

[Edited 2012-04-26 05:08:33]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-04-26 06:24:00 and read 52841 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 116):

Top view with what I guess in numerous antenna bushings:

   Wouldn't think you would need that many antenna unless you're a military aircraft.

Also, you would usually route test wiring through a window plug.

It could be those are hook-ups for load cells. You need a lot of them to simulate a more distributed load on the fuselage.

bt

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-26 07:45:33 and read 52662 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 116):
Top view with what I guess in numerous antenna bushings:

This is the static frame. Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor. These loads must be capable of being varied, as the static frame must be tested for positive and negative g maneuvers. The fitting are actually seals so the loads can be put into the floor while holding a differential pressure on the fuselage.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-04-26 11:05:22 and read 52403 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 118):
Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor. These loads must be capable of being varied, as the static frame must be tested for positive and negative g maneuvers. The fitting are actually seals so the loads can be put into the floor while holding a differential pressure on the fuselage.

Thanks, makes 100% sense, these fittings are also visible on the forward fuselage parts, glad they did not plan that many BIG antennas    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-26 11:30:38 and read 52281 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 119):
these fittings are also visible on the forward fuselage parts

You will find these same fittings on the bottom of the fuselage as well, for enabling the same dynamic load conditions on the cargo floor. Older Boeing tests used static loads on the floors, which are not nearly as representative, so this approach was new for Boeing on the 787. Not sure if this is new for Airbus or not. I did a quick search for images of the A380 static test, but could not find any with sufficient detail to show if it was done this way or not.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-04-26 11:46:14 and read 52258 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 118):

This is the static frame. Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor.

  Why would you need dynamic loads on a static test frame?

Quoting CM (Reply 120):
Older Boeing tests used static loads on the floors, which are not nearly as representative, so this approach was new for Boeing on the 787.

So for a static test, as you pull up the wings, you need a down force on the fuselage. Are the down force created by these load cells then? You would think you would rather have a tension load on you load cell rather than a compression load. Although if you have to test for the negative G condition, then the top load cell on the fuselage would be applicable.

bt

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: pygmalion
Posted 2012-04-26 12:26:24 and read 52123 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 120):

You will find these same fittings on the bottom of the fuselage as well, for enabling the same dynamic load conditions on the cargo floor. Older Boeing tests used static loads on the floors, which are not nearly as representative, so this approach was new for Boeing on the 787. Not sure if this is new for Airbus or not. I did a quick search for images of the A380 static test, but could not find any with sufficient detail to show if it was done this way or not.

What was different in the past was that there was no requirement to do pressurization at the same time as the ultimate load test. The pressurization test was run separately, often on a completely different frame. There was always floor loading systems along with body load straps to apply both positive and negative G loads. It just wasn't as apparent when there were no orange pressure seals that made it visible. Just holes in the skin to allow the loading cables to penetrate.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-04-26 12:40:03 and read 52141 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 110):
I thought the A380 didn't have an inserting system, as it was certified prior to the required date for the FAR, and it didn't have a belly tank (that was the argument given when this was discussed on here).

You are right, I was actually looking to show the supplemental cooling ram air inlet/outlets. The A380 has supplemental cooling, but not inerting. The A320/330 have no SCS, but (recent models) have inerting. The A350 will have both SCS & inerting.   

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 113):

Thanks for that. Made me look in our A320 AMM, and found out that our latest A320 has an inerting system fitted for the centre tank only. It is a much simpler system than the B744 and B777 that I had seen before. I am intrigued now to find out how Airbus made it so simple compared to the Boeing system.

The company that makes the inerting system for Airbus is Parker. Who does it for Boeing? Does Boeing only inert center tank, or also wing tanks (which would explain additional complexity)?

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 114):

Bombardier is doing the same thing for the CSeries with its CIASTA test rig. Might be a new trend in the industry.

   The more "unexpected surprises" you can discover via test rigs before flight testing, the better!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-26 13:02:31 and read 52063 times.

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 122):
There was always floor loading systems along with body load straps to apply both positive and negative G loads. It just wasn't as apparent when there were no orange pressure seals that made it visible.

Thanks Pygmalion!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 121):
dynamic loads on a static test frame

Not intuitive, perhaps, but in a sense there are dynamic loads being monitored during static tests. Boeing's static test setup is essentially of a "flying" airplane. Steel shot in dead weights equaling the weight of the airplane+payload hangs from cables. The cables run through pulleys at the top of the test fixture, then down through load spreaders into load pads on the wing and control surfaces. This simulates air loads on the structure, primarily lift distribution on the wing. Airplane fuel and payload are simulated as well.

The static test frame undergoes many separate tests, with different load conditions (positive & negative g's, Limit Load Factor, Ultimate Load Factor, clean wing, dirty wing, etc.). In particular when you test beyond LLF, you are actually monitoring the structure through the range between LLF and ULF. You are theoretically beyond the elastic range of some parts of the structure, which means load paths through the airplane have the potential to change. The load on the pax floor is different at 105% LLF than it is at 145% LLF - effectively a "dynamic" load created by constraining the floor and gradually increasing the "lift" on the wings. The real-time monitoring permits the test to be stopped if an unexpected change in load path is detected, as happened with both the A380 and 787 static tests.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2012-04-26 13:21:52 and read 52044 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 124):
The load on the pax floor is different at 105% LLF than it is at 145% LLF - effectively a "dynamic" load created by constraining the floor and gradually increasing the "lift" on the wings.

I'm not sure I get this... in a +3.75 g test case (150% LLF), don't you have to react the entire upward pull on the wings with downward forces elsewhere on the structure? It's not just some simulated load on the floor grid, but the inertial loads on the entire structure that come into play. Why would the reaction force be introduced exclusively on the cabin floor?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-26 13:29:06 and read 52008 times.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 125):
don't you have to react the entire upward pull on the wings with downward forces elsewhere on the structure?

I was just referring to the purpose of the penetrations on the crown in the photo Ferpe posted, but you are correct; all loads are represented at the fidelity possible/practical.

[Edited 2012-04-26 13:30:33]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-04-26 15:18:54 and read 52376 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 124):
effectively a "dynamic" load created by constraining the floor and gradually increasing the "lift" on the wings.

So you are saying "dynamic" as you are going from one "static" test point to another? or are you talking about potential dynamic effects as you get beyond yield and things starts to "creep"?

Quoting CM (Reply 126):
I was just referring to the purpose of the penetrations on the crown in the photo Ferpe posted, but you are correct; all loads are represented at the fidelity possible/practical.

Makes sense now . . . the load that are supposed to be applied to the floor would come from the top. And the other loads (lower lobe cargo etc) would be come in from the bottom?

bt

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-04-26 15:26:37 and read 52369 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 121):
Quoting CM (Reply 118):

This is the static frame. Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor.

Why would you need dynamic loads on a static test frame?

"Dynamic" in the sense of "loads induced by aircraft maneuvering". The tests themselves are quasi-static.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 123):

The company that makes the inerting system for Airbus is Parker. Who does it for Boeing?

Depends which aircraft you're talking about, but I believe both Parker and Honeywell have systems. Maybe Hamilton-Sunstrand too.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 123):
Does Boeing only inert center tank, or also wing tanks (which would explain additional complexity)?

Only the center tank on 737/747/777. All tanks on 787.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-04-26 15:34:28 and read 52343 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 127):
So you are saying "dynamic"

Dynamic only in the sense that as the simulated g-load is increased, the simulated main deck and lower lobe payloads being reacted by the floor structures must increase proportionately.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 127):
the load that are supposed to be applied to the floor would come from the top. And the other loads (lower lobe cargo etc) would be come in from the bottom?

My recollection of the 787 setup is that this is correct, although it may all be accomplished by constraining the load spreaders from below. I can't remember which it is, but maybe someone else (Pygmalion?) can help clarify.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: pygmalion
Posted 2012-04-27 13:28:50 and read 51884 times.

the floor load systems are cables not bars and so therefore tension loads only. Positive G loads are reacted out the belly and negative Gs are reacted out the roof. There is always some tension on the cables just to keep everything in place.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-04-28 04:17:00 and read 51509 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):
Funny that A is labeling the halls the "wrong way around" i.e. FALs starts at P59 and ends at P30 then goes to external P18 and is then transfered over to the final hall at the 330 line (to get engines and high value cabin interiors like first class and premium seats...). I don't know why this is so , I can only observe that the french labels their school classes similarly i.e. the number of years your are from exam . So we are indeed dissecting the graduation process of the A350 .


This has been a question everybody once involved, even partially, with Airbus production processes, has asked.

After close to 10 years, I only got an explanation a couple of months ago, from a guy with more than 25 years in the company, who himself had it from one of the "first" that started Airbus.

For the labelling you mention, we actually refer to it as "Station". It would seem (and again, this is not confirmed), that in the days of the first A300 (or maybe even Concorde or the Caravelle), they used to assess how close an aircraft was from the exit doors, by simply measuring how far, in distance, it was.

Since in those days, everything was done in a single hangar/FAL building, mostly in line (look at the A320 FAL here in TLS), you would know, when the A/C was "40 meters" from the doors, that it was in "station 40", i.e. fuselage join-up (not sure if that was case in the past but I use it as an example).

And so on and so forth, the smaller the "station" figure, the closer the A/C was to actually get out of FAL.

And they would have kept the "labelling" since, even though, there is no distance measurements anymore.

To be taken with a grain of salt, but it is a nice, historical explanation.


By the way, just went through the A350 FAL yesterday, the whole fuselage is close to being whole very soon.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2012-04-28 04:32:03 and read 51499 times.

The airplane customisation restrictions being put in place in modern aircraft just end up making them even more the same as each other IMHO. The variety of fit out, features and overall product just moulds into each other, as per the manufacturers own limited poffering.

In many ways aviation is getting more boring by the day, with twins ruling the skies, airlines cutting to the bone and manufacturers trying their harderst to save on costs by creating restrictive boundaries for what is offered.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-04-28 06:28:17 and read 51333 times.

Well it's either that or nobody can afford airplanes as price of customization would become too dire (not everybody is an Emirates or Lufthansa), and you can not guarantee a proper ramp-up which, would prevent a decent return on investment as building new airplanes today is far from being cheap.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2012-04-28 17:17:41 and read 50993 times.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 131):
And they would have kept the "labelling" since, even though, there is no distance measurements anymore.

To be taken with a grain of salt, but it is a nice, historical explanation.

It doesn't sound so far fetched. The Boeing section names have a similar origin - the names originally came from the location where the sections were built.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: breiz
Posted 2012-04-29 00:49:49 and read 50765 times.

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 130):
the smaller the "station" figure, the closer the A/C was to actually get out of FAL.


An explanation which ties with the way houses are numbered in streets of French towns. The smallest the number, the closest to the town center. And the metric numbering is used in villages with scattered housing.
Thanks for passing it on.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-08 11:07:12 and read 49612 times.

So while we wait for the wings (should arrive now in May according to John Lehay who has been in Australia pedaling frames), here one more piece for MSN001:



Aernnova has delivered the first Rudder to Airbus-Stade from its plant at Berantevilla (Spain). This structure of 11 m X 2,5 m has been manufactured in composite material at Aernnova´s plant in Illescas (Toledo) and later assembled in Berantevilla (Alava).

Ti though the rudder was hanged at the FAL but here it goes to the fin production site, might be for the first frames only?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: maxter
Posted 2012-05-17 02:21:06 and read 48449 times.

8 days since we have seen anything on this thread. Would it be because A is keeping mretty mum on the subject or that there is not much going on?

Been doing a bit of trawling and not seeing much.

Cheers,

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-17 08:05:25 and read 48014 times.

Quoting maxter (Reply 137):
8 days since we have seen anything on this thread.

It has been quiet. AW has a 16-May article in which they say the program remains "challenging" but that FAL is "progressing well"

Quote:
For the A350, the aircraft maker merely notes that the program remains “challenging.” Final assembly of the first aircraft began in April and Wilhelm says that element of the program is progressing well.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_05_16_2012_p0-457966.xml&p=1

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-17 08:27:34 and read 48015 times.

Quoting maxter (Reply 137):
Would it be because A is keeping mretty mum on the subject or that there is not much going on?

As per the FAL of the static frame we are waiting for the wingboxes (it is more wingboxes then complete wings IMO), from what I know they were planned for late April earlier this year, now we have then a 3 week delay. There was an Airbus marketing guy talking in Australia in April who said the wings would come in May so that would only mean a month delay compared to earlier plan. He also said MSN001 would fly next summer, this is later then the last quote which was next spring   .

All in all we can see that there are months added as we go along, now if this is to get a solid ramp after the first parts have passed this is OK, if is because of general disorder in the program it is worse. Let's hope for the first, this is what Airbus claims is their philosophy, hold and fix rather then interim hacks.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: imiakhtar
Posted 2012-05-17 18:34:55 and read 47493 times.

For those of you using twitter, it may be worth readying a few questions for an Airbus Question and Answer session on the A350:

'Join us on May 31 for our live Twitter Q&A session with #A350 expert François Caudron. Submit your questions using #AskTheExpert'

https://twitter.com/#!/Airbus

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: maxter
Posted 2012-05-18 02:16:49 and read 47211 times.

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 140):
'Join us on May 31 for our live Twitter Q&A session with #A350 expert François Caudron. Submit your questions using #AskTheExpert'

Thanks for that, much appreciated. Now off to learn how to twitter...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-23 13:14:24 and read 46109 times.

If we dont get wings w*ell take doors , thanks Beochien at avia.superforum.fr for the finding. I post the complete press release as it tells a bit about the scale of programs such as the A350, 400 people building doors  Wow! (I know that doors are complicated and extremely important parts of a civil airliner but still). One also notes Evrards comments that "Assembly of the A350 XWB is progressing well"  , from where I sit it is taking longer then planned  :


"Eurocopter delivers the first Airbus A350 XWB jetliner passenger door, highlighting its innovative capabilities in composite technology; Donauwörth, Germany, May 23, 2012


This month’s delivery of Eurocopter’s initial A350 XWB jetliner passenger door produced at its Donauwörth, Germany facility represents a further milestone in a program that underscores synergies between helicopter production and the construction of carbon fiber aircraft components.

In a ceremony in Donauwörth’s C4 production building, Dr. Wolfgang Schoder, Eurocopter Executive Vice President - Programs, and Dr. Michael Rehmet, Vice President - Airplane Door Systems, marked this delivery milestone with Didier Evrard, Airbus Executive Vice President and A350 Program Head.

As prime contractor and system supplier, Eurocopter is providing a full set of door systems that will equip this latest widebody member of Airbus’ jetliner family.





“The development and manufacture of aircraft components is another mainstay of Eurocopter’s activities in Germany, which complements our helicopter production,” Schoder explained. “The A350 XWB’s door systems demonstrate our innovative strength and international competitiveness in the field of carbon fiber technology.”

The A350 XWB passenger doors are the first for a commercial aircraft to be made entirely of carbon fiber reinforced plastic – an ideal material for modern aircraft construction, which is characterized by its combination of lightness and rigidity, as well as its outstanding fatigue properties and corrosion resistance.

Benefits of Eurocopter’s technical innovation in the A350 XWB aircraft doors include a reduction in parts, the application of advanced mechanical systems and equipment that are easier to maintain, and additional safety features. Series production is handled at the company’s Donauwörth site in a new building designed to meet the exacting requirements of automated production methods and quality control at high production rates.

“Assembly of the A350 XWB is progressing well and all the teams and suppliers, like Eurocopter, are strongly focused on working together to deliver a best-in-class aircraft at entry into service,” said Didier Evrard, Executive Vice President – Head of A350 XWB Programme, Airbus. “The A350 XWB brings together the latest in aerodynamics, design and advanced technologies from Airbus and our partners to provide a 25 percent step-change in fuel efficiency compared to the competition.”

Eurocopter currently has approximately 250 employees working on the A350 XWB passenger door program’s design, development and production. Series production eventually will involve more than 400 employees. Total value of the A350 XWB door systems to be provided by Eurocopter is nearly 1.5 billion euros, which includes the cargo doors subcontracted to program partners in South Korea.

In addition to the passenger door presented to Airbus today, five cargo doors already have been delivered. A total of seven door shipsets for the A350 XWB are slated for delivery in 2012 – each composed of four pairs of passenger doors, two cargo doors and one baggage door.

Eurocopter employs a total of some 1,300 personnel in Germany on the development, production, and maintenance of aircraft components. Every year, the Donauwörth site produces more than 4,000 passenger and cargo doors for various aircraft types in the Airbus product line.

About Eurocopter
Established in 1992, the Franco-German-Spanish Eurocopter Group is a division of EADS, a world leader in aerospace and defense-related services. The Eurocopter Group employs approximately 20,000 people. In 2011, Eurocopter confirmed its position as the world’s number one helicopter manufacturer with a turnover of 5.4 billion Euros, orders for 457 new helicopters and a 43 percent market share in the civil and parapublic sectors. Overall, the Group’s helicopters account for 33 percent of the worldwide civil and parapublic fleet. Eurocopter’s strong international presence is ensured by its subsidiaries and participations in 21 countries. Eurocopter’s worldwide network of service centers, training facilities, distributors and certified agents supports some 2,900 customers. There are currently more than 11,300 Eurocopter helicopters in service in 149 countries. Eurocopter offers the most comprehensive civil and military helicopter range in the world and is fully committed to safety as the most important aspect of its business.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-23 14:21:13 and read 46051 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 142):
400 people building doors  Wow!

Doors really are a difficult area of design, but 400 does sound like a lot. I suspect this must include everyone from design to build to support.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 142):
Eurocopter delivers the first Airbus A350 XWB jetliner passenger door

It's an interesting supplier selection. Has Erocopter previously made doors? From their press release, it's obvious they are stressing aircraft components is a real part of their business. I wonder what else they make? 787 pax doors are made by Latécoère in Toulouse, which is another interesting supplier selection. I'm not sure, but it may be the first Boeing part supplied by Latécoère.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 142):
The A350 XWB passenger doors are the first for a commercial aircraft to be made entirely of carbon fiber reinforced plastic

Interesting. I wonder what is CFRP in the A350 doors which is not in existing CFRP doors? Do you know Ferpe?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-24 04:19:18 and read 45576 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 143):
Doors really are a difficult area of design, but 400 does sound like a lot. I suspect this must include everyone from design to build to support.

Well it says 250 for design etc and eventually 400 for series, guess they plan on building many frames a month Big grin  Wow! or is black metal manpower intensive?

Quoting CM (Reply 143):
It's an interesting supplier selection. Has Erocopter previously made doors? From their press release, it's obvious they are stressing aircraft components is a real part of their business. I wonder what else they make? 787 pax doors are made by Latécoère in Toulouse, which is another interesting supplier selection. I'm not sure, but it may be the first Boeing part supplied by Latécoère.

I know that Latécoère are door experts, seems Eurocopter has cut in on their market for Airbus programs, here from Eurocopters website:

Doors and Fairings for Aircraft Programs
Eurocopter in Germany is an important supplier in all Airbus programs: Single aisle, wide body, long range and the latest A380 aircraft. Eurocopter is Airbus’ chosen partner in the design, development and manufacturing of:

Passenger Service Doors (A330, A340, A380)

Emergency Doors & Hatches (A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A380)

Cargo Doors (A318, A319, A320, A321, A300, A310, A330, A340, A380)

Bulk Cargo Doors (A320, A321, A330, A340, A380)

Fairings (A318, A319, A320, A321)

Conversions (A300F, A330-200F)


And here Latécoère:
Airbus A320: Passenger doors

Airbus A380: Passenger doors, Bulk cargo door

Boeing 787: Passenger doors

Bombardier CRJ 700/900: Bulk cargo door

Embraer ERJ 170/175/190/195: Passenger door, emergency exit door


I get the feeling Latécoère have traditionally done the more difficult doors (passenger doors) and Eurocopter is now being let in on that as well by Airbus, seems Latécoère got the contract for the 787 and were perhaps less agressive in the bidding for the 350  Wow!. Both good catch but might have a tough development period = don't take to many of those black metal projects at the same time  .


Quoting CM (Reply 143):
I wonder what is CFRP in the A350 doors which is not in existing CFRP doors?

I wonder too   , perhaps one part more then the doors for 787 = bragging rights 

[Edited 2012-05-24 04:27:28]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-05-24 04:53:57 and read 45421 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 143):
Doors really are a difficult area of design, but 400 does sound like a lot.

Indeed, especially it is mentioned that they will be busy with the production of the doors. Is CFRP-production so labour intensive?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-24 05:20:36 and read 45323 times.

To those in the know, do they fit doors on the static frame (wouldn't think so) or are these for MSN001?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-24 05:52:12 and read 45235 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 146):
do they fit doors on the static frame

Yes. The new rules are such that some static tests must be performed with the fuselage pressurized.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: hloutweg
Posted 2012-05-24 07:56:05 and read 45094 times.

Airbus has just completed the mating of the entire fuselage according to this article, and the photo in there:

Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-24 08:38:43 and read 45110 times.

Here we have the fuselage being rolled out on the discussed MLG sub trolley, NLG is quite long (long legs on this bird  Wow! ).

The fuselage on the other hand does not seem that long, it is the full 350 seat 900 fuse, might be the photo angle   . Also the photographer has managed to hide the tail in the picture but it is indeed there  .

So what is your thoughts? A beauty or more a business like look? (I think one can start to imagine the final look now   )

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_aircraft_fuselage_roll_out.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-24 10:52:00 and read 45017 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
Here we have the fuselage being rolled out

Nice find, thanks for always being the first to get this stuff posted.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
So what is your thoughts?

Not bad at all! It's hard to get a real good sense from this photo with all the static test fixtures attached to the airplane, but overall I like it! Is the flight deck floor down one step from the pax floor? The flight deck windows look relatively low when compared to door 1R. There is quite a bit of "forehead", giving it a somewhat A380'esque look above the windows. Also, I am surprised how far the forward body taper extends back on the crown. Almost 777-like in this regard.

It may be the photo, but the cab looks like it's taller than it is wide. I know the fuselage is pretty close to circular. Is there a more elongated cross section in the cab area?.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-05-24 15:38:03 and read 44950 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
So what is your thoughts? A beauty or more a business like look?

I'd say more business than beauty...they've done some clearly nice work applying a lot of the A380 lessons to this front end and that makes sense for all kinds of reasons. From a pure aesthetic point of view, I liked the old A350 nose (pre-A380 hybridization) a lot better but aesthetics don't sell airplanes.

I also think the isogrid rib in the center tank looks very cool.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2012-05-24 23:48:00 and read 45647 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
Here we have the fuselage being rolled out on the discussed MLG sub trolley, NLG is quite long (long legs on this bird   ).

Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:
http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg633/dynguy/Atq01MhCQAIbJs4.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: HA_DC9
Posted 2012-05-24 23:52:46 and read 45424 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 152):

Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:

Wow!!

She is a thing of beauty and business!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-05-24 23:53:22 and read 45099 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 152):
Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:

DAYUM she looks great!   

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: scouseflyer
Posted 2012-05-25 00:24:50 and read 44991 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
The fuselage on the other hand does not seem that long, it is the full 350 seat 900 fuse, might be the photo angle

Thought that it was, look how tiny the windows appear to be, then seeing the second picture she does look purposeful but a little "stubby" think that the -1000 will look great (and the -800 may look like a cartoon plane as the body will appear to be tiny for the size of wing ).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-05-25 00:50:34 and read 44922 times.

A350XWB to have window shades

Quote:
The guide/camera guard says, “We know how to keep you in total darkness, in less than a second. It’s something they forgot in the Dreamliner. You move the blind up and down. It might be one of great rediscoveries of 21st century flight. Instant light or darkness, at your fingertips.”

 

Plus insights from the rollout

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...f-the-a350-900-that-wont-ever-fly/

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-05-25 00:53:48 and read 44872 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 150):
There is quite a bit of "forehead", giving it a somewhat A380'esque look above the windows. Also, I am surprised how far the forward body taper extends back on the crown

Interesting you say that, I always thought the 787 had this whole "forehead" thing going on a bit aswell (obviously not as much as the A380 so it doesnt get talked about) but I think it provides a not insignificant amount of lift, it looks like they are learning alot from the A380.

Fred

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-05-25 02:59:29 and read 44597 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
So what is your thoughts? A beauty or more a business like look?

I like it. The A350-900 is very much a good looking aircraft. I'll reserve judgment on the A350-800 and A350-1000 until I see one in the flesh, but the -900 seemingly has just the right proportions.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-05-25 03:10:52 and read 44556 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 151):
I'd say more business than beauty

We're not really going to know until they connect the wings and bolt on the radome.

I like it so far though.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zkojq
Posted 2012-05-25 04:13:20 and read 44371 times.

Wow, looks very nice. I personally think that many of the CAD drawings made it look a little ungainly but in the metal it looks really good. The front 1/3 looks very much like the front 1/3 of the A320. Can't wait to see it with wings, engines, a vertical stabilizer, a tailplane and a coat of eurowhite paint.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 37):
Don't think it will match the A340 in being the worlds sexiest airliner ..., but that's what I think

Me neither, but making an aircraft look better than an A340 would be a near impossible task.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-25 05:17:33 and read 44304 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 152):
Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:

Those cockpit lines gives me a time trip to DC8 days  Wow! :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/DC8.jpg


Have Boeing checked that all the designers/engineers report to work nowerdays in Long Beach         .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: oldeuropean
Posted 2012-05-25 05:41:04 and read 44210 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 161):
Those cockpit lines gives me a time trip to DC8 days

Exactly also my thoughts.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-25 05:44:28 and read 44227 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 150):
Is the flight deck floor down one step from the pax floor? The flight deck windows look relatively low when compared to door 1R.

No, the floor is in one level. The metallic part of the forebody stretches down however to reach the equipment/electrical bay underneath the cockpit floor (the sides are CFRP but I think the metallic innards reaches down). This gives not only damage tolerance for bird strikes but also a simplified electrical return path and shielding in a very electric intensive part of the frame according to Evrards recent presentation on Airbus innovation days:




Quoting CM (Reply 150):
It may be the photo, but the cab looks like it's taller than it is wide

A little, 5.96m wide to 6.02m high, the nose however is much narrower then the cabin, here compared to it's black metal cousin . Guess it is the NLG placement that forces this long snout:

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-05-25 06:47:36 and read 44076 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 163):
Guess it is the NLG placement that forces this long snout:

I'd have thought that it was a conscious aerodynamic decision.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-25 07:49:19 and read 43987 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 164):
I'd have thought that it was a conscious aerodynamic decision

Don't think so, you need a softly rounded nose which has a very smooth taper on the overside like the A380 and 787 to avoid supersonic areas (see picture on 787 pressure map in cruise, the low pressure area (light blue) directly behind the taper is the one you don't want to go to supersonic, the shockwave would weaken the boundary layer and cause drag the body long), other then that you try and minimize the wetted area, :



The A350 is one tick longer then that, it cost you almost nothing but it puts the NLG out of the way for the forward equipment bay (see picture) and maximize the length of the cargo bay.

Those in the know please chip in   .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-26 23:37:59 and read 43568 times.

Here some interesting details from the completed fuselage:

NOSE LANDING GEAR
This is pivoted far forward on the fuselage and seems quite long, ground clearance for future -1100 fan dias??

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/NoselandinggearonMSN5000.jpg


FORWARD FUSELAGE JOINS
A uses the crown panel (which is put on last) to adjust any panel fit tolerances, thus it has simple lap joins. The nose has butt joins for aero smoothness. I am a bit surprises that one can have a step so far forward and in that sensitive flowfield, see the 788 pressure picture. There is quite a bit upward flow along those sides on the forward fuselage, the step should be a good boundary layer rake  . Wonder what the margin is to local separation (should of course have been verified by A that it is OK, click on the picture to see more detail).

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Fuselagecrownjointypes.jpg


WING JOIN
This is one of the sensitive areas ( of 787 fame   ), A is very humble when they talk about the join and wing strength, they have their own debacle still in memory  . It is very visible how they have copied the A380 design principle with the lower wingskin fitting under the lip (stringer cutouts on the lip), the wingbox forward and rear lips going inside the wings spars and finally the top wingskin fitting below the lip (it is the first time I see this being done on the 380 and 350, anyone seen this before? ). The lip thus supports the join in compression for the wing bending upwards, probably clever   :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Wingbox-wingfitonMSN5000.jpg


CARGO DOORS
The cargo doors have their hinge lines external to the skin, thus this rather crude piano hinge with protruding cover (gives me flashback to my model plane days  Wow! ). I have seen this on the 787 as well, guess the doors top part had to have a cavity to go into otherwise   . Watch all the strain gauging.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/RearcargodooronMSN5000.jpg


STATIC TEST RIG
Didier Evrard spoke on A's innovation days this week. Airinsight have the good habit of video these events and putting them on their site. Here screenshots from these recordings showing the static test rig awaiting MSN5000 in hall 34 at TLS (sorry for the bad quality, Didier had the projector screen hung on a window wall, had to crank the pictures quite a bit in contrast, brightness  Wow!  ).




MSN2 and 5 CABIN
The cabin test aircraft will have a rather spacious 42 business and 210 Y, this to also allow test gear to be fitted as well:




WING DELAYS
Evrard was visibly tense when talking about the wings, A have quite some work to get the novel flatbed automated drilling system to work, it is going much slower then planned. He said they just started to drill the covers on MSN001 (the first wings), I remember his boss saying they would start that shortly after the new years speech. Seems these highly capable but complex drilling beds/wing jigs (they drill simultaneously both on overside and underside) need quite some care when setting to work:



Guess A does not want to pull any feet    . If they just started drilling the MSN001 covers then we will have to wait for the MSN5000 wings   .

Given the FAL station concept and the dual lines how much will late wings put the program up for delay? For MSN001 A should be able to work on system and cabin fitting at station 40 independent of the wings, but with MSN5000 it might be more limited what one can continue doing. Anyway a delay for the static test of a couple of months does not have to 100% transform into an equivalent program delay (should depend on the testing plan and what needs to be verified before first flight), a MSN001 delay should be worse IMO.


PROGRAM OVERALL
Evrard was much more relaxed when he talked about overall program progress, MSN001 PreFAL equipping is going well, especially the forward 1/3 fuselage is well advanced at St Nazaire and Hamburg. Here the cockpit being outfitted with avionics:



Evrard expected this section to arrive for FAL fuselage join mid summer, first flight now "more towards the end of fist half 2013"  ). Also the VTP and HTP is humming along fine, they are both practically ready for MSN001 (and MSN5000?) delivery now. Given the look of the static rig I am not sure if the full VTP and HTP goes on MSN5000 or if they use some reduced variants, anyone?

[Edited 2012-05-26 23:59:59]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2012-05-27 00:34:21 and read 43328 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 156):
We know how to keep you in total darkness, in less than a second. It’s something they forgot in the Dreamliner.

Now we are competing on window shade speed? LOL  I guess that just goes to show how on-par the different manufacturers are, if details like this have to be brought up.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Here some interesting details from the completed fuselage:

Thanks for yet another excellent report! These are very much appreciated.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-27 00:37:05 and read 43297 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
This is pivoted far forward on the fuselage and seems quite long

The strut seems fully extended, which would hint it will actually sit a fair bit lower in real life. They may have done this to better match the nose height to the transport dolly.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
the step should be a good boundary layer rake

The door 1 rain gutters on a widebody jet, which are angled to be stream wise with cruise flow, can penalize the airplane with over 100lbs of drag equivalent OEW. As you note, this is a very sensitive flowfield to any protrusions or steps.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
thus this rather crude piano hinge with protruding cover

It is the same on the 787. It looks rather like a Panzer IV tank part was bolted onto the Dreamliner. We looked at some more elegant solutions, but the external hinge wins handily when all the factors are considered.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Seems these highly capable but complex drilling beds/wing jigs (they drill simultaneously both on overside and underside) need quite some care when setting to work:

You simply cannot afford to press the "go" button on these drilling machines until you are certain they will do their gob correctly 100% of the time. They work so quickly, if there is a tolerance error or some other defect in the drilling operation, you could have 1,000 holes to rework in no time at all. It seems they are moving with appropriate caution, given this is the first "production" run of the machine. Probably drilling one hole at a time, then doing a full hole inspection for both hole quality and dimensional tolerance. Being safe (and late) may be the lesser of two evils, if going fast means the potential of scrapping your first set of covers - which may mean an even bigger delay.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Given the look of the static rig I am not sure if the full VTP and HTP goes on MSN5000 or if they use some reduced variants, anyone?

787 H-stab static test was not done on the main static test frame. It was the only major element tested separately. In the side profile picture of the A350 frame, I do not see any of the needed fixtures to induce HTP loads into the fuselage, without a HTP being in place. I wonder if this is a hint the HTP will be tested fully installed on the MSN5000 frame.

Great and informative post, as always. Thanks Ferpe!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-05-27 00:52:46 and read 43283 times.

To me it seems like the A350 project kicks up much less excitement in the public than what the 787 and A380 did? It is however their first twin fuselage with a different cross section since A300. It will be their bread and butter for many decades, replacing A340 and A330 and to some extent the A300-310s still flying. The A380 will never be as important as the A350 for the survival of EADS/Airbus.

It just seems to have been overlooked by the public?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-27 07:17:02 and read 42943 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
To me it seems like the A350 project kicks up much less excitement in the public than what the 787 and A380 did?

Well, since Ferpe posted some great info on the static frame almost 8 hours ago and it's only us two who have replied, it is hard to argue this is not the case. It's possible it is because it is a holiday weekend in many places. It could also be because the A380 and 787 development programs were painful for enthusiasts to watch. Many people are very cynical today about new products from either manufacturer.

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
It will be their bread and butter for many decades

  

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
The A380 will never be as important as the A350 for the survival of EADS/Airbus.

  

To your last point, I would only add that EADS is way beyond worrying about survival. I believe both Airbus and Boeing are strong enough today to weather even the total failure of a new product. That certainly was not the case when Airbus launched the A320 or when Boeing launched the 747.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-05-27 08:35:09 and read 42764 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
It is however their first twin fuselage with a different cross section since A300.

A320?

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
It just seems to have been overlooked by the public?

Airbus and Boeing both deliberately did very public marketing/branding campaigns around the 787/A380. Other than a splashy launch at Farnborough, the A350XWB hasn't had nearly the marketing budget behind it. I suspect a lot more of the public is just unaware of it.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-05-27 08:37:18 and read 42766 times.

the wing attach still baffles me, not so much as how it's described, but from having to remove B's double plus chords from my belief system as being the preferred way.

having seen several videos of the A380 join, there would seem to be more steps involved such as the placement of shim/guides to open the wing end fractionally allowing the flanges of the isogrid plate to slip inside. I memory serves there will be an initial fit up involving installation and removal of shim/guides, check wing alignment, drill, wing removal, deburr clean and add any corrosion inhibitors to the metal, apply sealant, attach shim guides, begin final install, remove shim guides, complete install, check hole alignment, install fasteners.

I agree that the nose gear has been locked in an extended position.. one would never see that much inner cylinder chrome in normal ops.

Question about the wing cover (skin) drilling, are they saying the upper and lower are stacked? or that the are being drilled on adjacent beds at the same time?

Quoting CM (Reply 170):
Well, since Ferpe posted some great info on the static frame almost 8 hours ago and it's only us two who have replied, it is hard to argue this is not the case.


well its was also just before midnight Seattle time...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: babybus
Posted 2012-05-27 09:35:48 and read 42539 times.

Would I be right in thinking that you will have to go down a step or two to get into the flight deck on an A350?

The B757 had a step down cockpit and the A380 you go up many steps to.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-27 09:39:45 and read 42800 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 172):
Question about the wing cover (skin) drilling, are they saying the upper and lower are stacked? or that the are being drilled on adjacent beds at the same time?

Here is how I understand it:

The wing jigs are horisontal for the first time, previous jigs have been vertical to allow the driller good access with his tools. The horizontal jigs stand long enough off the floor to allow under-side and over-side flatbeds with it seems 2 multitool heads per flatbed that can traverse the wingsides (under and over-side) drilling, countersinking, deburring and doing any other preparation for the holes.

How the fasteners are mounted, the backside nut fitted and then the whole thing tightened is still not clear to me, is this a manual op or does the flatbed systems do this as well. In that case how do you thread that nut inside the wing?  Wow! .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-27 09:41:30 and read 42764 times.

Quoting babybus (Reply 173):
Would I be right in thinking that you will have to go down a step or two to get into the flight deck on an A350?

The floor is flat.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-05-27 11:41:38 and read 42514 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 174):
Here is how I understand it:


Then they are only attaching the wing stringers with action above and below the horizontal skin/cover.. not assembling wing skins to inspar ribs ... that's the only way I can see that this would work... since we frequently talk differences, the horizontal assembly is similar however we used to tack the stingers, then set the skins on roller bed for a drive-matic.. the wing moved the riveter was stationary... versus the wing skin being stationary and the riveter moving. the advantage would be skipping the stringer tacking operation (Note: I haven't worked in the narrow body wing line for 20 years so they may found a better way).

so somewhere else is the front and rear spar with the inspar ribs.. and I'll bet that assembly is vertical. The more I read about the A380 wing problems, it appears that in the stage where the skins are attached to the ribs, force is used to contour the flat skin to the curvature dictated by the inspar ribs... so we will see.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-05-27 14:38:42 and read 42240 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 167):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Here some interesting details from the completed fuselage:

Thanks for yet another excellent report! These are very much appreciated.
Quoting CM (Reply 168):
Great and informative post, as always. Thanks Ferpe!

I can only agree with AirlineCritic and CM. Posts like these are the sugar on the cake. Very, very helpful to get a better understanding of the program and where they are heading to. Still an awful lot of work to do on this beautiful program.

So my thanks from me as well Ferpe!  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-27 15:40:46 and read 42166 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 176):
Then they are only attaching the wing stringers with action above and below the horizontal skin/cover.. not assembling wing skins to inspar ribs ... that's the only way I can see that this would work...

I found some articles describing it more in detail, a bit more involved then my description. One thing of note however, the stringers on the skins are cocured, thus they only need to bolt the ribs to the spars and then the covers to these:


From Flightglobal:
The forward and rear spars arrive in Broughton as three pieces: an inner, mid and outer. Build up of the three modules will see the front and rear spars joined to the aluminum lithium ribs. The new process is intended to save cycle time by loading each complete module into the assembly jig before joining them together, rather than doing a complete build up of a full forward and rear spar in the main area.

Once placed into the jigs, the covers will be installed on the spars and ribs. At first, the covers will be tacked, not bolted on, then moved by an automatically guided vehicle (AGV) into the drilling cell. A gantry-like system will drill the top cover and a "cartesian-like" machine will drill the lower cover. Because it is made up of a single piece cover, only 5,000 holes are drilled, compared to the much larger aluminum A380 wing requiring 750,000. The main driver for this reduction comes from the bonded, not bolted, stringers on the top and bottom skins.

For the first time on its commercial programs, Airbus will shift from a vertical wing build up to horizontal. The main driver was the ability to access the wing box once both one-piece wing covers are installed. With 19.7ft (6m) between the front and rear spar, Airbus opted to turn the wing horizontal to minimize the potential damage from falling tools, and more importantly make the underwing access holes easier to get to.

The wing will be moved again by AGV to a bolting station where the previously tacked covers will be removed, deburred, sealed then fastened to the structure. Following this stage, the wing will move again to a equipping station that is shared with the A330, where the fuel system and limited hydraulics will be installed. Each set of wings will then go on to painting, followed by loading onto the Beluga for shipping to Bremen, German for complete outfitting of the electrics, pneumatics, remaining hydraulics, external systems and control surfaces before making the trip to final assembly in Toulouse.


From Acerca de blogjfa



Work has begun, in Broughton's North factory, on the automated drilling of the upper covers of the left-hand wing for A350 XWB MSN001. This is the first time an automated horizontal wing-drilling process has been used on any Airbus programme.

Manufacturing Manager Peter Grimes explained there are 12 drilling machines in total covering the different jigs. Each wing requires one upper and up to two lower cover machines to enable four wings to be drilled at any given time.

The upper cover machines are fixed, but the lower ones can be moved between the jigs for maximum efficiency. "There are around 4,500 holes to be drilled on each cover, upper and lower" said Peter.

"The automated machines use software that translates the design data and ensures every hole is drilled in its exact location with complete accuracy. The drilling machines have also been designed to insert the fasteners into each hole automatically.

[Edited 2012-05-27 16:01:40]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-05-28 04:57:01 and read 41661 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 178):
Work has begun, in Broughton's North factory, on the automated drilling of the upper covers of the left-hand wing for A350 XWB MSN001. This is the first time an automated horizontal wing-drilling process has been used on any Airbus programme.

Wow, amazing machine. Thanks ferpe for your updates and insight information. Keep the good work up  

Electrochromatic window shades are optionally.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: airbazar
Posted 2012-05-28 05:39:51 and read 41565 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 152):
Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:

Looks like a grown-up 757   It looks great.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2012-05-29 16:32:01 and read 40838 times.

Jon Ostrower just posted a photo of flight deck systems installation in work on MSN001.

Larger version here

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8011/7297823074_db08a9287d_b.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-05-29 22:55:33 and read 40480 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 159):

That certainly looks a lot better than section 41 of the first 787 at roll out. Good to see this kind of progress.   

That being said,

Quoting ferpe (Reply 144):
first flight now "more towards the end of fist half 2013"

should IMHO imply EIS won't be before Q3 2014....   Let's hope things will go smoothly from now, without further delays.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: imiakhtar
Posted 2012-05-30 00:06:49 and read 40301 times.

A heads up for tweeting a.netters for airbus twitter:

Our live Twitter Q&A takes place this Thursday at 14.30 CET with #A350 expert François Caudron! Submit your questions now via #AskTheExpert

François Caudron, Head of A350 XWB Customer & Business Development

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-30 06:03:38 and read 39934 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 160):
should IMHO imply EIS won't be before Q3 2014....

I had not thought about schedule much until you wrote this, at which point I wasn't even sure what the original EIS was. Since Airbus just made a new schedule public during Innovation Days, I went back and grabbed other published schedules off the web and looked at how things have been trending over time. The two most recent public schedules (Fabrice Bregier at an investor conference and Leahy at Innovation Days) contain a lot more developmental details, giving some insight to what is pacing schedule internal to the program.

A couple comments before you look at the results:

1. Where a schedule showed an ambiguous block rather than a milestone, I picked the mid-point.
2. Where a schedule showed an activity in the form of a arrow moving right, I used the RH arrow end as representing an end of the activity. This method was used for three of the events I looked at: Functional Test Complete, Final Assembly Complete, and Flight Test Complete. It could be argued Airbus did not intend the end of the arrow to represent an end point for the activity.

Here are the results:



Initial thoughts:

Assuming Bregier's June 2011 schedule was representative of the actual program schedule at that time, a number of critical milestones have been sliding on nearly a day-for-day basis over the past 10 months. Also, with Leahy's most recent schedule showing flight test extending all the way to the RH end of his ambiguous "EIS" block, it would seem to support Ferpe's comment about the potential of EIS having slid to 3Q 2014.

If there are other public schedules out there which I did not find, and which could help clarify some of the ambiguity, post the link and I will adjust as needed.

Edit - removed airline acronym mousovers for RH and 3Q for reasons of clarity.

[Edited 2012-05-30 06:35:19]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-30 11:01:06 and read 39573 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 184):
If there are other public schedules out there which I did not find, and which could help clarify some of the ambiguity, post the link and I will adjust as needed.

Thanks for the chart, very interesting. Funny that things slide more on the right hand side of the chart, ie if something move 3 months on the first column the synchronized slide on the right hand side is more then 3 months    .


There are intermediate charts, here is one from the Dec 2011 delay announcement:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350scheduleDEC2011.jpg

Not sure it shows anything new, things slide quite a bit since last summer, they could have slid before but they did not have to show it as progress was less visible.

BTW, where did you find the Leahy Innovation day schedule?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-05-30 12:09:10 and read 39391 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 162):
Initial thoughts:

Most excellent chart. Thank you.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 159):
Jon Ostrower just posted a photo of flight deck systems installation in work on MSN001.

Wow... Thank you. I like the wording... it is far cheaper to test in sections (and correct) than in final assembly. I prefer to see programs work towards true milestones instead of trying to hold less important milestones, such as rollout, to a hard date.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 163):
Funny that things slide more on the right hand side of the chart, ie if something move 3 months on the first column the synchronized slide on the right hand side is more then 3 months

Other programs have certainly done that. IMHO, Airbus had constricted later parts of their program below normal timelines. This is just broadcasting reality. e.g., finding and having to fix an issue in flight testing that is yet unknown. The prior schedule was too much of a 'greenlight' schedule.

Does anyone else suspect the later start in 'fatigue test begin' is lessons learned from the A380 wing cracks? Initial flight testing could start with an airframe only predicted to last 2k to 5k flights before overhaul. But fatigue testing impacts in service life too much for such a compromise.

In other words, I do not expect the first few prototypes to be interesting to airlines, even used. Perhaps for VIP duty?

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: imiakhtar
Posted 2012-05-30 12:56:02 and read 39221 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 185):
BTW, where did you find the Leahy Innovation day schedule?

CM's schedule graphic doesn't appear to show anything new. The dates and blocks presented on it, as far as I can tell, correlate with your intermediate chart from the Dec 2011 announcement. The same schedule chart also appears from Leeham's coverage of the Innovation Day here:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...e-from-the-airbus-innovation-days/

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-30 18:34:02 and read 38806 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 163):

Seeing it layed out in this way helps to illustrate the complexity of standing up a production system, versus designing an airplane. Like the 787 program, it appears the A350 has hit the majority of its engineering milestones on schedule, but getting an all new supply chain and FAL operating is an enormous challenge.

Regarding the sldes seeming to get longer the further we move to the right, it may hint at a current bottle-neck somewhere in the system. If so, it seems unlikely to be the FAL. There may be something in the supply chain (wing delivery to FAL, for example) which is currently pacing everything else.

The most recent schedule shows no gap between MSN001 complete and first flight, which will be a challenge, unless MSN001 complete includes all the requisite ground testing which must occur in advance of first flight. I believe earlier schedules included a gap between these two events, which seems more realistic.

The change in the flight test arrow between last June and today (~9 month change in completion date over the past ~10 months) is likely just the cumulative impact of a host of relatively small issues - death by a thousand cuts was how I heard it described at one point while we were getting the 787 production system moving. It beats a single big issue, but the effect can be the same.

[Edited 2012-05-30 19:36:10]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-05-30 20:23:53 and read 38714 times.

CM, that is a great chart! Thanks! You should patent it! 

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-30 23:21:42 and read 38582 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 166):
just the cumulative impact of a host of relatively small issues

As always thanks for your insightful comments, makes the somewhat slow birth of this baby more interesting and bearable  . It is actually a grandiose drama we are tracking, as the maestro himselves (Evrard) said at the innovation days "one has to be humble when undertaking such a monumental task".

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-05-31 00:20:13 and read 38467 times.

Sorry to say this but its butt ugly like all Airbus planes in the front. A380 front. However looks are not even important so why would we care? No bleed less systems, a bit of a disappointment, why the risk adverse stance on this?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: scouseflyer
Posted 2012-05-31 00:38:24 and read 38398 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
No bleed less systems, a bit of a disappointment, why the risk adverse stance on this?

It's probably not a "risk averse" stance more likely a decision made based on weighing up the pros and cons of the differant approaches and reaching the best compromise - reducing risk is always good especially as the plane is currently runnign late.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-05-31 00:48:38 and read 38366 times.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 170):
It's probably not a "risk averse" stance more likely a decision made based on weighing up the pros and cons of the differant approaches and reaching the best compromise - reducing risk is always good especially as the plane is currently runnign late.

As this will be the future standard it could be good to do it with the 350, to gain all the know how needed for the future now. Even if the savings are small, other aspects are far greater, like future proof and less maintenance, less likely to get oil fumes in the cabin.

Electrics have a far greater future than pneumatics, the 788 is just the first step in this direction, engine makers have engines done and system suppliers have the systems done. I don't think Boeing has any patents on this as it was someone else that designed this system, should be available to any one right?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-05-31 01:30:33 and read 38271 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 193):
As this will be the future standard

Will it? 1 aircraft uses this so far so to call it the future standard is a bit premature I think.

Quoting sweair (Reply 193):
like future proof

What does that actually mean and how does it apply to aircraft maintenance and manufacture?

Quoting sweair (Reply 193):
less likely to get oil fumes in the cabin.

Is that a problem with engine bleed air? I was under the impression that the bleed air was taken off in the compressor stages, if there are fumes there then you have bigger Issues I think.

Fred

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-31 02:39:50 and read 38161 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 193):
As this will be the future standard it could be good to do it with the 350

There was a very thorough discussion on the bleed aircond subject up the thread:

www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/ge...al_aviation/read.main/5351041/#113

I think the conclusion was as long as you need watercooling for the power electronics that goes with a mostly electrical architecture your gains are mostly in maintenance, might be that A want to wait until air cooled power handlers are available as then the trade will give a more clear advantage to mostly electrical.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-31 06:40:01 and read 37868 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
Sorry to say this but its butt ugly like all Airbus planes in the front. A380 front.

I think the FAL pictures are a bit misleading, as they give the airplane a bit of a "snout" between the lower sil of the windows and where the radome will begin. With a radome, I believe this effect will pretty much go away. That being said, "beauty" and "ugliness" are entirely in the eyes of the beholder. The CFO and the CCO at an airline will have very different views on what constitutes beauty.

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
However looks are not even important so why would we care?

As noted above, some elements of an airline business absolutely do care what the airplane looks like. There are more than few stories of airline execs making the decision to put API winglets on their 737, 757 or 767, even though the business case was weak. They wanted the look, which they felt offered some intangible value to their airline.

Quoting sweair (Reply 169):
No bleed less systems, a bit of a disappointment, why the risk adverse stance on this?

There is certainly some argument to be made that the jury is still out on the no-bleed systems architecture. I do not believe Boeing has any regrets about that decision on the 787, as it is done and the airplane is reaping some incremental rewards from it (fuel burn, reliability, maintenance). Still, the development cost of an all-new systems architecture likely demanded larger improvements than were actually achieved. The fuel burn savings are real, but the once hoped for weight savings never materialized. I do believe Boeing will use this architecture once again when they do an all new airplane, but that is a statement made on the expectation the next generation system could operate at lower temps and preclude the need for liquid cooling (which might struggle to fit in a single aisle aircraft).

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 172):
Is that a problem with engine bleed air?

Yes. Fuel and exhaust fumes entering the cabin through the bleed system is a large problem in the industry. While you are correct, the compressor is taking free-stream air upstream from the combustor, at engine startup it is a common occurance for the compressor to re-ingest its own fuel/exhaust fumes. There are also many examples of contamination of the core due to seal leaks and maintenance action, which have resulted in oil contamination of the bleed system. Pilot and flight attendant unions, particularly in Europe, have made the health implications of breathing these fumes on a daily basis a major issue in discussions with their airlines, including at least one proposal I heard of where they were asking for a new contract term in which the airline would only extend RFPs for new aircraft if the ECS system design was such that it could preclude sending engine fumes into the cabin. Incidentally, the 787 cabin air inlets can still physically ingest engine exhaust fumes at startup, as they are only a handful of meters away from the exhaust nozzle.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-31 07:18:16 and read 37806 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 163):
Not sure it shows anything new,

Actually, I did find one tidbit by adding your Dec 11 schedule into the graphic: Airbus have improved their estimated completion of MSN001 by a couple months since last Dec. It doesn't change where we are today with the most recent schedule, but at least it shows some work has been done to improve a critical program milestone.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-05-31 10:21:50 and read 37566 times.

How late is the A350 now? I get the feeling it gets forgotten in the cover of the 787 mess. When was the original EIS planned?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-05-31 10:41:24 and read 37905 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 198):
When was the original EIS planned?

At the time of the program launch in 2006, EIS for each model was:

A350-900: Mid-2013
A350-800: Mid-2014
A350-1000: Mid-2015

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-05-31 10:45:52 and read 37854 times.

So 1 year or so for the 900 and 2 or more for the rest? This is not counting on problems that could arise in test flights etc. Are new airplane projects getting longer and more costly?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-31 10:53:43 and read 37804 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 200):
Are new airplane projects getting longer and more costly?

Not necessarily so if you use old and trusted production methods. Now B and A have to learn several hundred sub-suppliers to work with new materials and production technology. Do you know how to make a CFRP part?? I do not, but I know how to CNC out a part from a billet of AlCu or even AlLi (with some adjustment of milling speeds etc I guess for AlLi).

This is what they face and as per CM that was what took time at 787 and most probably takes time at 350. Imagine traveling to those hundreds of subsuppliers and helping them solve problems or just give them an OK that what they plan to do is indeed something that one can certify later.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-31 14:09:53 and read 37681 times.

Out of curiosity, I took the most recent (Innovation Days) A350 schedule and compared it with 787 dates from NYC787's "All Things 787" blog (a very useful archive of 787 events). It made for an interesting comparison.

Some comments on the A350 schedule:
-First flight is moved to the far right of the bar shown on Leahy's schedule, as this cannot occur until after FAL is complete.
-EIS is moved to the far right of the bar shown on Leahy's schedule, as this cannot happen before flight test is complete.

First, the direct comparison:



Next, I showed the events I feel had direct events on the 787 timeline. A 6 month block is shown for both the sid-of-body issue and the ZA002 flight test fire. I also added a 4 month block for roll-out of ZA001 before final assembly was complete. Not sure if this third item is real or if the 4 months is correct, but it seems there should have been some kind of schedule penalty for this.



Finally (and this one hurts for anyone who loves the 787), I readjusted the 787 schedule to remove the self-inflicted wounds, providing an A350 schedule comparison with a theoretical 787 schedule, minus the mishaps the A350 program certainly plans to avoid. The reason I did this was to get some idea of how aggressive the A350 plan is after the back-end schedule compression we've been seeing over the past couple years. On this last comparison, I normalized the two schedules around the start of FAL event in order to get the best view forward from today.



Quick summary of what this last comparison shows:
- A350 FAL start to first flight is about 6 months faster than a 787 without schedule shocks.
- A350 first flight to EIS is about 4 months faster than a 787 without schedule shocks.
- A350 FAL start to EIS is about 9 months faster than a 787 without schedule shocks.
- 787-8 EIS would have been in 2Q 2010 rather than 3Q 2011 if 3 items could have turned out differently!   

There is no question the 787 suffered additional schedule creep due to supply chain issues, late fasteners, and the condition of assemblies delivered to Everett. Any impact on overall 787 schedule from these things has not been compensated for in this last theoretical 787 timeline. Whether this can explain the remaining differences between the A350 and 787 schedules is hard to know.

One conclusion I take from the comparison is the current A350 schedule is indeed aggressive. Certainly Airbus cannot have a side-of-body type issue and make the current schedule work. Perhaps more significantly, it does not appear the A350 schedule has any remaining margin for supply chain glitches, design changes resulting from static/fatigue/flight test findings, or any other challenges which would impact the progress of final assembly or type cert.

I'm still looking for some dates online from the 777-200 and A330 development programs, which may also make for interesting comparisons. The 777 was a program which was delivered on its original schedule and may well show good alignment with the remaining A350 schedule.

edit - removed mouseover airline codes for "3Q".

[Edited 2012-05-31 14:48:43]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2012-05-31 16:31:00 and read 37357 times.

Awesome charts. Thanks CM.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-05-31 17:12:51 and read 37377 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 180):
Perhaps more significantly, it does not appear the A350 schedule has any remaining margin for supply chain glitches, design changes resulting from static/fatigue/flight test findings, or any other challenges which would impact the progress of final assembly or type cert.


Great stuff CM    .

As to your comment on margin, this is also the feeling that Evrard communicated at the innovation days, he signaled there was margin in the december 2011 re-plan (say 3 months) but this has been consumed in only an additional 6 months. Every hick-up from now on being on the critical line of the project will result in EIS moving later in 2014 (or even to 2015 ultimately, he did not say that, it is my conclusion).

The big question once flight test starts is:

- how much of the calender time is working through certification points (things that has to be done in a certain way) and therefore will take their time regardless if one discover things needing tuning or not?

- how much margin for tuning or fault fixing is their in a 12 month flight test schedule?

This should be a question for our friend flight test director or?  


Those two things will be influenced by how much A has been able to work through with it's comprehensive suite of test installations. As an example of what they done new from A380 Evrard described that they now had a complete digital system model of the 350 in addition to the 2 system simulators (where one is connected to the iron bird). This has allowed them to insert all system components into the A350 even before suppliers had representative hardware and to work on integration issues. What this and other simulators should allow is for a shorter/less eventful ground test before first flight and for more validation type of test flights with the 5 test aircraft. Now this is theory, as Evrard said "what we know is that we don't know what we don't know"    .


Another nice item he showed which I forgot to mention was that other then for the A380 their DMU (digital mockup or really Product Data management system, PDM) now also issue the work-orders, ie the reference system also has the complete production part integrated. A nice highlight on the side of production efforts was a notebook application called MiRA (Mixed Reality Application) that works as a DMU player.



It allows the people in the PreFAL to verify that every single detailed part is there and correctly mounted. In the picture someone is going through the hundreds of brackets in a section, one after the other, here he is on Frame C1 (this was definitely not the case for the A380   ).

[Edited 2012-05-31 17:17:08]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-05-31 17:44:07 and read 37394 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 182):
"what we know is that we don't know what we don't know"

How many program heads must have agonized over this very issue! The "What am I overlooking?" question must torture those guys to no end!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 182):
In the picture someone is going through the hundreds of brackets in a section

You wouldn't think programs could stumble over such simple things, but I remember as a young engineer having to go to one of the Japanese 777 fuselage suppliers and auditing every bracket in a fuselage section. A major undertaking in advance of WA001's first parts being shipped to Everett. We were working from 2D layouts... oh how I would have loved to have that A350 portable DMU! In those days, CATIA was running on mainframes. The only stand-alone computers capable of showing any meaningful portion of the DMU were SGI Crimson units, which filled all the available space in a cubicle and contributed significantly to global warming!   

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-10 16:53:59 and read 36214 times.

We're pushing two weeks without a peep from Ferpe or any news from the A350 program. I think there should be some activity to report on...

MSN005 wings delivered yet?
MSN001 major assemblies to FAL?

This thread is almost to the mothball stage, so hopefully we can resuscitate it! Even a good A350 joke will do!  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-06-10 18:52:56 and read 36024 times.

isn't just posting to keep a thread active against the rules? one suggestion is have the Moderators make this an official thread with flaming bullet ... somehow those threads don't archive as easily.

At the point the A350 is in assembly there may be a 3-4 week lull in information especially if there is a problem.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-06-10 23:04:25 and read 35795 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 176):
force is used to contour the flat skin to the curvature dictated by the inspar ribs

That is so. But they are then creep-formed for over 24 hours such that the spar/rib contour becomes their natural shape..

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 186):
I prefer to see programs work towards true milestones instead of trying to hold less important milestones, such as rollout, to a hard date.

  

hiding programme slippage only ever made it worse...

Quoting CM (Reply 202):
There is no question the 787 suffered additional schedule creep due to supply chain issues, late fasteners, and the condition of assemblies delivered to Everett.

Per the above, one of the keys for me is how well Airbus hold their nerve.
I suspect if Boeing did the 787 again, they wouldn't accept as much travelling work, but would swallow the delay early in order to proceed with the proper strategy.
IF that is what the charts are showing Airbus doing, then it is the right thing to see. I hope they are.

rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-10 23:22:30 and read 35780 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 186):
Per the above, one of the keys for me is how well Airbus hold their nerve.

I think this is one of the truly monumental things to learn from the A380 and 787 program delays. When the A380 hit it's wiring issue, Airbus mostly stopped building airplanes. The delay was undoubtedly excruciating for customers, suppliers, and most of all, Airbus, but there were very few airplanes needing to be reworked as a result. Boeing kept building airplanes, probably because they always expected the configuration to rapidly stabilize and traveled work to diminish. Neither happened very quickly, and as a result there are 60 airplanes sitting on the ramp needing some level of post-FAL effort. I think if Boeing had known it would take so long to stabilize the production system, they would have been smart enough to realize continuing to build airplanes was not the right thing to do. But hindsight is often very clear compared to the view from the trenches.

Airbus has undoubtedly learned from both the recent internal and external experiences. If the A350 approach is to stop everything when there is a problem and not resume until it is resolved (good lean practices at work), they may build less airplanes in an equivalent timeframe than rolled off the 787 line, but they may deliver more sooner, which is the real measure of success. Stopping production is a hard decision to make, but it may be the most productive decision in the long run. Fun to watch it all play out, provided you are not watching from the inside!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-06-11 02:50:37 and read 35384 times.

I think the rework strategy was a bad gamble that will cost B a lot, A wise from A380 and 787 mistakes chose another strategy. Its only now about 3½ years late that B managed to get an OK frame out of the factory(1 month delivery).

Though I must say I am impressed by the tight information flow from France, no leaks like during the 787 mess. But the down side is it creates less interest for people and bloggers.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-06-11 03:47:50 and read 35275 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 187):
If the A350 approach is to stop everything when there is a problem and not resume until it is resolved (good lean practices at work)

The exact point   

A philosophy I'm still endeavouring to champion in a business with a traditionally huge hurry-up driver.....
  

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-12 07:14:05 and read 34243 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 184):
We're pushing two weeks without a peep from Ferpe or any news from the A350 program.

Well there are some news, Sonaca are delivering the first shipset of droop nose/slats for MSN001 (only french link):

http://videos.lesoir.be/video/2b3b018b8b2s.html

I guess these should go to Bremen to be fitted to the wings there.



Further, the air leasing grandfather says he is watching the weight issues:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ot-ready-to-commit-to-a350-372872/

Seams they will take frames which is beyond the initial overweight ones this time   .

[Edited 2012-06-12 07:16:11]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-06-12 07:33:37 and read 34135 times.

Quote:
members particularly to -800 customers - adding that the smallest member of the family seems to be "fading into the sunset".

Doesn't sound really good. I think we have to worry about the -800 and 1000.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-06-12 07:58:24 and read 34051 times.

Weight problems like with the 787? As I understand the customers drove B to grow the size and that grew weight. A+B are really in the hands of its customers, but they get lashed when the customers needs grow the weight.

Will we see something like Boeing's block points on the A350? They wont know before they assemble the first test frame, might come a surprise either way.

Maybe its time for A and B to say that every growth of the model will add weight and that would not be their problem, take it or leave it..

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-06-12 09:24:46 and read 33838 times.

every committed change gets an estimated weight change.. then they wait for the production hardware and installation to verify... sometimes it's accurate, sometimes it isn't It's the uncommitted that sneak up on you. (redesign by rejection tag or in the old days, keeping the pencil busy while the boss is looking)

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: abba
Posted 2012-06-12 10:17:22 and read 33682 times.

Quote:
He expects Airbus to introduce a weight-saving scheme for the A350.

(see link above)

Isn't that rather normal for any new type? The first goal is to get it airborne through certification - the next to get the weight down?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-12 10:36:29 and read 33633 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 192):
Weight problems like with the 787? As I understand the customers drove B to grow the size and that grew weight. A+B are really in the hands of its customers, but they get lashed when the customers needs grow the weight.

Will we see something like Boeing's block points on the A350? They wont know before they assemble the first test frame, might come a surprise either way.

I don't think you are remembering correct, the 787 did have a change in it's typical seating layout from AFAIK went from 250 something at launch, then down to 224 then up to 248 around 2008 and then there was a range specified as 210-250.

But the weight growth was in one step from 219 to 228t MTOW to regain lost range once an overweight of some 5-10t was evident. AFAIK we are talking 2-4t for the 359 since the detail design froze the MEW at 115.7t.

Most parts for MSN5000 and MSN001 are produced by now and they are all weighted when finished, that means A knows within a fraction of a percent what the final weight will be. Once they get the true loadspectrum from static and flight test they can start trimming parts for over-margin.

[Edited 2012-06-12 10:39:21]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-06-12 10:36:30 and read 33609 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 216):
Isn't that rather normal for any new type? The first goal is to get it airborne through certification - the next to get the weight down?

Customers adding its desperate needs make this process far worse. There must be a point when the OEM tells a demanding customer to shove it?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-06-12 19:15:16 and read 33154 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 195):
Most parts for MSN5000 and MSN001 are produced by now and they are all weighted when finished, that means A knows within a fraction of a percent what the final weight will be. Once they get the true load spectrum from static and flight test they can start trimming parts for over-margin.


Only partially, the assembly process will add weight and much of it in mechanic induced amounts (sealant), then come the customer outfitting .. again outside Airbus control, but a weight gain Airbus will have to extract from the base.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-12 23:39:41 and read 32964 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 197):
then come the customer outfitting .. again outside Airbus control, but a weight gain Airbus will have to extract from the base.

I don't quite understand this, the OEM only guarantees the MEW (ie without customer outfitting or customer furnished equipment) or a strict standard "spec" cabin whicht the OEM put together themselves to represent their "spec" typical cabin count.

I happen to have found a 2012 Airbus data-table speccing this all. I have uploaded it to SCRIB-D:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/91799188/A...craft-Family-datatable-2012-01-15.


It gives the following cabins:


350 ...............................................-800....................-900........................-1000
Typical Seating Configuration.............270....................314..........................350
First/Business/Economy..............16/44/210...........18/50/246.................24/62/264

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: abba
Posted 2012-06-13 00:27:24 and read 32816 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 197):
the assembly process will add weight and much of it in mechanic induced amounts (sealant



I understand that the assembly process will add weight - but will it really add so much weight that it cannot be precisely estimated to within 0.01% of the overall weight - that is +/- 1 t for the 359? I would be highly surprised if the assembly process added weight that could not be estimated to within far less than the above!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-06-13 04:11:06 and read 32508 times.

I think its impossible to nail the weight 100% before FAL of the frame. Some things always change in the last minute, some unforeseen gaps or misalignment's...Its only natural. Surly in general terms they have a good estimate before first FAL.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2012-06-13 04:14:43 and read 32518 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 199):
I understand that the assembly process will add weight - but will it really add so much weight that it cannot be precisely estimated to within 0.01% of the overall weight - that is +/- 1 t for the 359? I would be highly surprised if the assembly process added weight that could not be estimated to within far less than the above!

If .01% equalled 1 ton the 359 would weigh 10,000 tons. It would need bigger engines.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-06-13 04:56:51 and read 32706 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 192):
Weight problems like with the 787? As I understand the customers drove B to grow the size and that grew weight.

It'd be interesting to consider what things caused weight concerns on the 787 to see if they will be issues on A350 or not.

One thing I remember getting press was that weight gain due to lightening protection and ground return was a concern.

I wonder if this is one area where A350 will benefit from by not being the first to do a CFRP fuse?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-06-13 05:24:28 and read 32647 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 221):
I understand that the assembly process will add weight - but will it really add so much weight that it cannot be precisely estimated to within 0.01% of the overall weight - that is +/- 1 t for the 359?

You can be within 1% (what I think you meant by 1t). You can't be within 0.01%.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-06-13 10:11:38 and read 32393 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 198):
I don't quite understand this,


was thinking of the pieces that arrive needing an extra bracket or longer wiring and missing plumbing fitting.. ... nothing big, just part of the weight creep

Then there are the rejection tag fixes, shims, Boeing calls them PRR95000 E/P/T (for engineering, production and tag )changes .. or maybe T was test.. it's been awhile...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: abba
Posted 2012-06-13 23:20:07 and read 31927 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 203):
You can be within 1% (what I think you meant by 1t). You can't be within 0.01%



Ups - something wrong with my math....

Now - what I meant was that when all the parts are weighted as they leave the facilities where they are produced in order to go to the FAL, Airbus should have a pretty good idea of what the overall weight will be. Sure - as Kanban says - the assembly process will also add weight. But Airbus should have a pretty clear idea about how many fasteners and other materials that will be added during final assembly. While the weight of the components is known as they are produced there must be a certain uncertainty as to how much extra weight the assembly process will add. The uncertainty of this must be in the vicinity of 0.01% relative to the overall weight of the aircraft. I will be highly surprised if Airbus' estimation as to the amount of sealant, fasteners and other things added to the aircraft during assembly should be much more off the mark!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-14 03:57:47 and read 31640 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 227):
I will be highly surprised if Airbus' estimation as to the amount of sealant, fasteners and other things added to the aircraft during assembly should be much more off the mark!

One of the things added at the FAL is the shimming (a kind of fluid which fills the voids between mated parts). Having visited the Thyphoon production at EADS Augsburg this shimming is used essentially between every structural part to make sure there is no play (Alu-Alu, Alu-CFRP. CFRP-CFRP).

One thing that seems to have been going well was the joining of the sections at FAL. Evrard was very happy at the A innovations days that things fitted so well (= little shimming needed) for MSN5000. So we can perhaps guess that the fuselage FAL will not add so much unexpected shimming weight ( but other parts can of course).

[Edited 2012-06-14 04:11:55]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-06-14 03:58:45 and read 31651 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 205):
The uncertainty of this must be in the vicinity of 0.01% relative to the overall weight of the aircraft.

That would be about a 20 lbs uncertainty...there is no chance, on an aircraft that size, that they know the sealant and shims with that much accuracy, let alone the oversize fasteners, allowable machining variation, in-production repairs, etc.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-16 00:07:56 and read 30909 times.

We are getting there piece by piece, now the wire harnesses for MSN001 wings are at Bremen, delivered by a division of Latecoere (in french, spotted by our french friends):

http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actuali...aison-des-harnais-de-l-a350-733001


So I guess the stuff is piling up now at Bremen to be there for the arrival of the wings. If things have the same order as for the fuselage the first wingboxes finished of those mighty but delicately operated wingskin drilling machines should be the boxes for MSN001 followed by the ones for MSN5000. I don't expect the latter to pass Bremen, they should take the Beluga directly to TLS.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-23 15:39:47 and read 29255 times.

While we wait for things to happen, here a nice picture taken from a video of the middle section (15-21) arriving at TLS for MSN5000:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MLGbayA350atFAL.jpg

The MLG bay is a critical section of the aircraft as it has to carry all the fuselage loads through a section where a big portion of the loadcarrying skin is missing. The whole lower body compression loads of a gust on the wings has to be transfered from the wingbox to the aft fuselage via the keel beam. Note also the V shaped body skins over the MLG bay. Airbus does the beam as a reinforced thick skin-like beam going from the skin section ahead of the central wingbox, between the aircond packs and then below the MLG wheels to meet the aft body lower skins. One can see the guide for the central void in the wheel-boggie in the picture, steering the boggie to it's correct place.

On the next picture we see the beam before going into section 15. We see it from the front. The wider front part is the mating area to the forward lower skins of section 15, then it passes under the wingbox where it is narrower to give room to the aircond packs, then past the MLG area where it has to be narrow to let the wheel boggies sweep past it. Observe how the beam spreads out to form the lower aft skin of section 15 once past the MLG area:




B makes 787 beam more box like i.e. a bit narrower and with more build height. They also decided that this box structure could protrude outside the wing fairing to gain build height and therefore strength (the A350 keel beam is hidden by the belly fairing):



As this is the lower part of the fuselage and therefore rather insensitive to boundary layer disturbance this protrusion was apparently the right trade for the 787 team.

The MLG bay cut-out on the 787 is more a rectangular hole then the V shaped cutout on the A350. The MLG cut-out and keel beam area is perhaps the biggest structural difference between the two frames except for how the wings are attached to the central wingbox (se earlier post).

[Edited 2012-06-23 15:49:46]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-23 17:14:27 and read 29074 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 209):
B makes 787 beam more box like i.e. a bit narrower and with more build height. They also decided that this box structure could protrude outside the wing fairing to gain build height and therefore strength (the A350 keel beam is hidden by the belly fairing):

Perhaps an even bigger difference is that Boeing chose to keep the 787 keel beam aluminum, rather than make it CFRP. For Boeing, that material material decision was to trade maintenance for weight. The keel beam is a largely compression loaded element. Making it of CFRP was actually a heavier for the 787 than making it from aluminum. Of course, making it deeper (protruding from the fairing) was also a weight decision, traded against the incremental drag penalty of dropping the beam beyond the OML of the fairing.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-23 17:39:26 and read 29061 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 195):
Most parts for MSN5000 and MSN001 are produced by now and they are all weighted when finished

Like Airbus, Boeing weighed major structural components when they arrived. Like Airbus, engineering weight estimates for these parts were extremely accurate (well under 1% tolerance from nominal). Things which are much harder to weigh (like wiring, paint, sealants, brackets, any small part of which there are hundreds of thousands on the airplane, etc) can be insidious drivers of weight creep. You hope for no surprises when weighing after FAL, but that's not at all a given.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 190):
the air leasing grandfather says he is watching the weight issues
Quoting Flightglobal :
Chief executive Steven Udvar-Hazy says the weight of the type has "crept up"

ALC and SUH may have some insight on this issue, but Airbus is on the record saying the A350-900 weight status is within 1% or 2% of targets. To-date, there has not been any acknowledgment by Airbus that weight creep has been an issue for the A350 program... something hopeful in that, at least for those who believe Airbus is being transparent about the program.

Quoting kanban (Reply 197):
mechanic induced amounts (sealant)

   Production can add considerable weight that engineers cannot foresee. I know this sounds weird, but I can vouch for Kanban's statement. Sealant is a terrible thing in the hands of a production worker, capable of easily adding hundreds of unplanned pounds to a frame.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-23 21:25:29 and read 28805 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 210):
Boeing chose to keep the 787 keel beam aluminum, rather than make it CFRP. For Boeing, that material material decision was to trade maintenance for weight. The keel beam is a largely compression loaded element. Making it of CFRP was actually a heavier for the 787 than making it from aluminum.

Thanks, had no idea it was Alu, further this is the first time I've heard that Aluminium is better in taking compression loads then CFRP and so much so that B took the maintenance negative of making this highly load part Alu. Interesting and a big difference in philosophy. It seems the whole flow of loads is a bit different, B has not tried to keep any loadpath except for the keelbeam below the waistline of the fuselage. I do not have the perfect picture for it but one can deduce it from these 2 pictures:


.


Section 44 is virtually a half barrel and the MLG well (45) has a roof and a middle wall but no side structures like the 350 one (only cutting out an inverted V to let the MLG leg pass). Does the middle wall carry any loads or is it all going through the keel beam (BTW the keelbeam is forgotten in this division of work picture, who is making it?) ?

[Edited 2012-06-23 21:29:23]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-06-23 21:27:09 and read 28821 times.

Cargo and passenger doors have been delivered

Quote:
In addition to the passenger door presented to Airbus today, five cargo doors already have been delivered. A total of seven door shipsets for the A350 XWB are slated for delivery in 2012 – each composed of four pairs of passenger doors, two cargo doors and one baggage door.

from http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news...523_ec_a350xwb_passenger_door.html

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-23 21:40:48 and read 28803 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 235):
Cargo and passenger doors have been delivered

Here the (forward I guess) cargo door from Korean Aerospace:

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2012-06-23 22:02:42 and read 28744 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 209):
The whole lower body compression loads of a gust on the wings has to be transfered from the wingbox to the aft fuselage via the keel beam.

All of it? We used to build the structure over the top of the MLG bay for the A330 (yes, at a Boeing plant). The beams over the top of the bay which run along the length of the airplane are quite deep, and from this photo the construction looks similar. This structure would have to at least take some of the compression load, even if it is less effective being closer to the neutral axis.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 212):
It seems the whole flow of loads is a bit different, B has not tried to keep any loadpath except for the keelbeam below the waistline of the fuselage.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 212):
but no side structures like the 350 one (only cutting out an inverted V to let the MLG leg pass)

The load has to go past the cutout somehow. Whether it tracks up through the V-shaped cutout or goes past the rectangular cutout, in both cases it ends up in the upper barrel section.

You would think the centre wall is structural. It seems an obvious place to take advantage of using a nice deep section.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-23 22:45:30 and read 28682 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 234):
this is the first time I've heard that Aluminium is better in taking compression loads then CFRP

CFRP is significantly less weight efficient than aluminum (and other metals) for most compression-loaded applications.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 234):
Does the middle wall carry any loads or is it all going through the keel beam?

In the Boeing design, the wall between the wheel wells and the keel beam are integral. So yes, that entire wall is a part of the beam.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 234):
B has not tried to keep any loadpath except for the keelbeam below the waistline of the fuselage.

When I saw the large beam-like sides of the A350 fuselage at the wheel wells, I was able to understand what you were referring to. Boeing does not have this same heavy structure in this area of the fuselage. However, there is a trapezoidal panel (a separate piece from the fuselage), which carries loads across the corner of the "missing" fuselage skin at the location of the wheel well cutout. Not all body bending in this section is reacted by the 787 keel beam, but I can see that more of that load is in the 787 keel beam than is in the A350 keel beam.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 234):
B took the maintenance negative

The maintenance impact is mitigated by making the parts of the keel beam which extend forward and aft of the wheelwell and into the WTB fairings (the keel beam extensions) out of titanium. Again, because they are compression loaded, they can be made lighter out of Ti than if they were made of CFRP. The middle section of the 787 beam (the aluminum section) is exposed to the wheel well, making it simpler to inspect and less prone to corrosion due to the greater air circulation and drying effect of brake heat.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 231):
B makes 787 beam more box like i.e. a bit narrower and with more build height. They also decided that this box structure could protrude outside the wing fairing to gain build height and therefore strength (the A350 keel beam is hidden by the belly fairing):

The 767 was the last Boeing design with an internal keel beam. If you can find some images of the 767 belly, you will see the keel beam is entirely inside the fuselage, permitting the WTB fairing to be split into two parts, not extend fully across the centerline of the airplane belly. On the 777 it was determined the weight saved by reacting body bending loads with a deeper beam traded positively against the small drag penalty of adding WTB fairing depth. The 787 keel beam design is similar to the 777 design, with the exceptions of the extensions being titanium on the 787.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-23 23:41:17 and read 28632 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 216):
Boeing does not have this same heavy structure in this area of the fuselage.

I guess you mean heavy = substantial rather then heavy = increases the weight. The MLG area is perhaps the most interesting of the whole frame, this is where all the forces from VTP, HTP, MLG and body inertia loads has to pass this TWIGGY waist  . In a thread about the loads on the fuselage IIRC Pygmalion said the VTP engine out loads were actually larger then the HTP loads. i.e. the loads going down the sides of the fuselage are significant. When on adds the inertia loads from a gust I guess the loads in the vertical plane still dominates but the horizontal plane loads are close to the same size.

Looking at the two designs with this in mind one can see that:

- A has a keelbeam which is not shear attached to anything, i.e. it can only transfer loads over the MLG bay, it can't share these via shear to the upper part of the fuselage. If those hefty side (Ti?) structures were not there to pick up vertical, horizontal and shear loads and bring them into the waistline and the top side panels this design would not work. The wheel well roof also carries some shear loads across the fuselage it seems but it is not overly reinforced (I would assume most is Alu):




- The B keelbeam is attached to the MLG roof/cabin floor via the vertical wall, i.e. it is attached in shear to the top fuselage via the cabin floor (the whole section 45 is loadcarrying consequently). The horizontal loads can only be taken by the top sidewalls (push-pull) and the cabin floor (shear). The cabin floor in this area has to be pretty "heavy"   = hefty  .


As seen major differences in design philosophy, wonder which one is the more efficient weight wise (they could be close to a wash otherwise the FEM stress programs would have pointed to one or the other and we would have had indentical designs, how boring  Wow! ).

[Edited 2012-06-23 23:47:32]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Rheinbote
Posted 2012-06-24 00:04:06 and read 28557 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 216):
The 767 was the last Boeing design with an internal keel beam. If you can find some images of the 767 belly, you will see the keel beam is entirely inside the fuselage, permitting the WTB fairing to be split into two parts, not extend fully across the centerline of the airplane belly. On the 777 it was determined the weight saved by reacting body bending loads with a deeper beam traded positively against the small drag penalty of adding WTB fairing depth. The 787 keel beam design is similar to the 777 design, with the exceptions of the extensions being titanium on the 787.

Thank you for the insight, I wasn't aware of this until today!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 217):
As seen major differences in design philosophy, wonder which one is the more efficient weight wise

It doesn't take an FEM analysis to figure that having a wall between the wheel wells integral with the keel beam is more efficient in terms of structural weight. But design philosophies are not easy to overcome  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-24 00:09:16 and read 28571 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 217):
I guess you mean heavy = substantial rather then heavy = increases the weight.

Yes! "Heavy" was a poor choice of words on my part. Absolutely, I meant "substantial". Thanks for clarifying.

From the photo you have shown, the triangle structure at the forward corner of the gear bay is where the 787's "trap panel" sits. They will serve a similar function, but it is clear the A350 structure here is more integral to the fuselage and designed to carry different loads.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 217):
When one adds the inertia loads from a gust I guess the loads in the vertical plane still dominates

Think about the vertical body bending loads from a hard landing with the airplane loaded to max structural payload. The compression on the belly of the fuselage is incredible. Much greater, I believe, than flight loads.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 217):
wonder which one is the more efficient weight wise (they could be close to a wash

I think this will be the case. As we have seen over the years, Airbus and Boeing value things slightly differently in their trade studies, which results in slightly different design decisions. As you noted, if they both valued things identically, smart engineers at both companies would settle on very similar designs    yawn

[Edited 2012-06-24 00:13:40]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-24 01:19:39 and read 28461 times.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 218):
It doesn't take an FEM analysis to figure that having a wall between the wheel wells integral with the keel beam is more efficient in terms of structural weight. But design philosophies are not easy to overcome  

On what do you base that    ? Classical design theory says you should spend your material as far from the neutral axis as possible. The B principle spend masses on the wall but also on the floor middle part to catch the wall shear loads, both closer to the neutral axis then material spent on skin distance. The Airbus principle has all significant material at maximum distance from the neutral axis = skin distance, though in a compromised way for the inverted V. Further this inverted V reinforcement also distributes the aft gear beam loads into a wider skin surface.

I think you would have to run your structural programs (or brain  ) quite a bit to figure out which one is more effective overall    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Rheinbote
Posted 2012-06-24 02:40:03 and read 28197 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 220):
Classical design theory says you should spend your material as far from the neutral axis as possible.

There' a lot of structural synergies at play in the wheel well area beyond the classical theory on modulus of bending. On top you may find that even the manufacturing work breakdown structure between partners or sites can drive the design...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-06-24 02:41:19 and read 28244 times.

No Saab parts on the A350? I know they make the cargo doors for the 787, why not the A350? The 787 has quite the European input in it, cabin air is CTT a Swedish company   One of my best investments, they will be on all new airliners.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-24 02:56:42 and read 28191 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 244):
cabin air is CTT a Swedish company

Cabin air dehumidifiers for the cabin wall isolation that is, the cabin air is all Hamilton Sundstrand, it is well covered up the thread.

Re why no SAAB, I guess when Airbus goes outside EADS (doors are EADS and Korean Air as subs to EADS/Eurocopter) they try to get supplies in $ to work their $ content problem (the frame is sold in $ and they have major risk in the € to $ rate). SAAB is SEK but that seems to not follow $ rather being more like SwissF noweverdays. Not easy to sell stuff when your are in a well run country    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-06-24 03:30:44 and read 28146 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 245):
Not easy to sell stuff when your are in a well run country .

I hope this financial system collapses once and for all, kick the bankers out and let the engineers run the show  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-24 04:06:48 and read 28070 times.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 243):
On top you may find that even the manufacturing work breakdown structure between partners or sites can drive the design...

I still don't get it, if anything this would have been the time when A should have changed to the B design principle if it was superior cause:

- the section in question is made by Spirit who has no prior knowledge Airbus middle sections. If anything it knows why Boeing does things the way they do.

- the landing gear attachment is changed to the Boeing principle, ie attached to rear spar (forward attachement) and a MLG beam spar to body side (rear attachment).

The keelbeam and MLG well is done by the traditional EADS band of brothers (Aerolia aka Airbus newco) but that is stuff they do to Airbus drawings.
-

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-06-24 04:16:59 and read 28080 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 241):
As you noted, if they both valued things identically, smart engineers at both companies would settle on very similar designs    yawn

Now we would not want that to happen here.   Thanks to you and ferpe and many other posters for making this a superb thread to read. The level of information you provide hear is incredible and fascinating.  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Rheinbote
Posted 2012-06-24 05:46:39 and read 28277 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 247):
I still don't get it, if anything this would have been the time when A should have changed to the B design principle if it was superior cause:

- the section in question is made by Spirit who has no prior knowledge Airbus middle sections. If anything it knows why Boeing does things the way they do.

Overall architecture design is done by Airbus on all sections, including those made by Spirit. All I tried to explain is that it is fairly obvious that in terms of pure weight the shear wall principle is superior, but there are a lot of other considerations that drive the design. "More effective oerall" cannot be judged by strcutral efficiency alone.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-24 13:49:36 and read 27812 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 209):
here a nice picture taken from a video of the middle section (15-21)

For whatever reason, I could find almost nothing on the internet to show the comparable 787 structure, which I thought would be useful to understand the design difference we've been discussing. The linked image below is the best I could find. In the picture, you can see the 787 "trap panel" (in white). Behind it, the center wall between the landing gear, which forms the extended web of the keel beam (in green).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/flightb.../869508509/sizes/o/in/photostream/

This picture of the A350 center fuselage (link below)shows the corresponding structure to the 787 trap panel (also in white and aft of the isogrid SOB rib). You can see it is more integral to the A350 fuselage and considerably more "substantial" / "hefty"  


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...b-Isogrid-thumb-560x465-154900.jpg


Quoting ferpe (Reply 217):
The horizontal loads can only be taken by the top sidewalls (push-pull) and the cabin floor (shear). The cabin floor in this area has to be pretty "heavy" = hefty .

Absolutely, the lateral stiffness provided by the "ceiling" of the main gear wheel well (Boeing calls it the "sloping pressure deck" is extraordinary structure. A very substantial panel stiffened by deep longitudinal floor beams on top and large I-section stiffeners on the bottom, both of which are mechanically fastened through the sloping pressure deck.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-24 15:04:39 and read 27562 times.

I did also find this static test frame picture when trying to understand how the keelbeam and the wall was made.

What surprised me was how high the central wingbox is placed compared to the A350 (or the 350 is low). Regardless the wings sits not on the same level in the fuselage IMO. It might be that the 787 belly fairing is a bit deeper but even then the 787 wingbox only protrudes down 2/3 of the distance floor to lowest fuselage point where I would say 350 is more like 80% of that distance. Given that the fuselage diameters only differs with some 12 cm can it be that the 787 central wingbox is shallower?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-24 15:55:30 and read 27546 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 251):
Given that the fuselage diameters only differs with some 12 cm can it be that the 787 central wingbox is shallower?

The A350 has usable volume to carry more than 17,000 L additional fuel versus the 787. There can be a lot of enablers for fuel volume other than wing box geometry, but a deeper box would make sense to help explain the volume difference.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2012-06-25 02:37:56 and read 26985 times.

I want to take the opportunity and congratulate especially Frepe and CM for their outstanding contribution in this Thread.
Great to have this deep dive analysis and also great that people with good Boeing knowledge contribute in this.
Benchmark studies at its best.

If airliners.net ever would select the Thread of the Year 2012, this is the one I would rate no. 1 - with distance.

As an engineer (automotive) I enjoy reading this, even if I can't contribute with facts.

regards, keep this alive.

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-25 04:30:51 and read 26732 times.

Thanks to Flyglobal and others who enjoy the thread, I do as well. It is great to have CM but also others who have insights in development programs share their knowledge and participate in the pondering why. This why is the reason for many of us to hang around here    . The real gems are of course when CM can make direct comparisons with recent B programs, there is so much that was not clear to an outsider in e.g. the 787 program, greatly appreciated    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2012-06-25 11:52:49 and read 26132 times.

I lost the overview - how complete (or incomplete) are the prototypes now? What would be the next milestone e.g. roll-out of MSN 001, and how realistic is it? I guess it's too early to make such lists as 747classic is doing on the 748-production-thread, correct?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-25 12:09:37 and read 26208 times.

I managed to find a fine photo of the middle section of the 787 in flightbloggers flickr archive:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787middlesectionwithtext.jpg

I hope I have denoted the part which is the keelbeam correctly, one can also see the transport beams attaching to the wingbox forward and to one of the MLG attachment points aft (click on the image to magnify).


I also managed to find one 787 picture where I could generate a similar view from the 350 video:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350vs787middlesectionandwingbox.jpg

   The different sizes and placements on the wingboxes intrigues me as both wings should have about 10-12% thickness to cord ratio at the inboard part of the wing. This means the A350 must have a substantially longer cord close to the fuselage, it does not. The A350 has a cord over the inner part of 13m and the 787 12m = 8% difference. This jives with the length ratio of 64.8/60.1 = 8% difference. Area difference 443m2 (350) vs 370m2 (788) measured with Airbus rules, a 20% diff. The height of the central wingbox should be dictated by the chord however, not the area.

Conclusion, the difference in wingbox size is intriguing    .

[Edited 2012-06-25 12:29:53]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-06-25 12:44:45 and read 26112 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 233):
I lost the overview - how complete (or incomplete) are the prototypes now? What would be the next milestone e.g. roll-out of MSN 001, and how realistic is it? I guess it's too early to make such lists as 747classic is doing on the 748-production-thread, correct?

MSN5000 is in FAL, second station (40, we count down). Probably VTP and HTP are fitted right now, after that the wings should arrive and away it goes to the torture chamber  .

MSN001 is in PreFAL, we have seen section 13-14 being close to finish at Airbus ST Nazaire, all other sections are worked on in PreFAL (St Nazaire for center section, XFW for aft sections), engines should be on plan.

The thing not going so well at the moment are the wings, the drilling and fastening of the wingskins is done VERY carefully, expect them to come out in the next month or so. The wings for MSN5000 are then late, shipped direct to FAL. The MSN001 are pre-equipped at Broughton and then gets their flaps, slats, hydraulics and fuel system etc at Bremen, then they go to FAL.

List might be a bit early but if you would like to do it, go ahead, they are much appreciated. I don't have visibility to where the parts are after MSN001, we would need an insider for that I guess. How do you do it on the A380? (excellent lists BTW)

[Edited 2012-06-25 13:17:53]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2012-06-25 13:29:48 and read 25942 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 231):
I want to take the opportunity and congratulate especially Frepe and CM for their outstanding contribution in this Thread.
Great to have this deep dive analysis and also great that people with good Boeing knowledge contribute in this.
Benchmark studies at its best.

If airliners.net ever would select the Thread of the Year 2012, this is the one I would rate no. 1 - with distance.

As an engineer (automotive) I enjoy reading this, even if I can't contribute with facts.

regards, keep this alive.

Flyglobal

100% agree. Those two in this thread are the best this site has seen.
Even without CaptainX.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-25 14:26:02 and read 25818 times.

I appreciate the compliments, but Ferpe deserves the accolades for this thread. He performs the tough job of digging up info on the A350 program and providing astute analysis for us all. If I can add some color by providing some 787 comparisons, that's great, but make no mistake about who is doing the hard work to make this thread great.

So I'll just add my thanks here to Ferpe for what I know is a great deal of effort on his part!   

Cheers!

CM

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-06-25 23:40:05 and read 25392 times.

Outstanding work ferpe and CM. Highly interesting thread.

Could you please do a summarization of the differences between the 787 and A350 with each advantages for us with not such deep knowhow.

That would be very kind.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-26 00:38:53 and read 25321 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 234):
I managed to find a fine photo of the middle section of the 787 in flightbloggers flickr archive:

Nice find, with a much better view of the trap panel than I could find. In this picture you can see the trap panel is a discrete structural element and is a hog out, not a built-up assembly. The corresponding A350 structure seems to be a built up structure which is integral to the fuselage.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 234):
I hope I have denoted the part which is the keelbeam correctl

The fairing is already installed over the keel beam in this photo. Your arrow is right on the side of the previously discussed keel fairing which protrudes below the WTB fairing.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 234):
The different sizes and placements on the wingboxes intrigues me

I've been traveling and thus viewing this thread on my phone for a while. Now that I'm on my computer and looking at those two photographs side by side, I'm stunned. First, how did two virtually identical images ever get snapped of the two sections?! What a stroke of luck for making a comparison  And second, you are absolutely correct; there appears to be a large difference both in placement and in size of the wingbox at the side of body. Very interesting.

I did a quick overlay of the two photos to make a more direct comparison, but I fear the work is flawed due to what I believe is actually a noteworthy length difference between the two fuselage sections. Based on a count of windows and estimating frame bays, I believe the 787 section has about 25% more frame bays than the A350, likely making it about 25% longer. (Anyone happen to know the frame spacing on the A350?). Anyhow, I believe the length difference of the sections and camera perspective differences in these images renders them deceptive for making a direct visual comparison of the wing boxes. If someone will help me with the section length of the A350, I will produce a perspective-corrected overlay of the two images.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 238):
Could you please do a summarization of the differences between the 787 and A350

Probably not possible to do it justice in summary fashion, but here are the most basic differences.

FUSELAGE: The fuselages of both are largely "black aluminum" designs, in that architecturally they look very much like their metal predecessors. They both have CFRP skins with co-cured CFRP hat stringers. CFRP frames are mechanically fastened to the skin. The A350 has a full metal cab structure, where the 787 has CFRP cab skins over metal sub-structure. The A350 has a pressure bulkhead floor under the flight deck (like A380), where the 787 retains a more conventional nose gear doghouse and forward pressure bulkhead behind the radome. Both aircraft fuselages are constructed in sections with circumferential joints. The A350 retains skin panels (albeit very large ones) but the 787 sections are one-piece barrels, without longitudinal joints.

WINGS: Both wings are constructed similarly. CFRP skins with co-cured stiffeners. CFRP spars. Aluminum ribs.

H-STAB: The 787 has a unique one-piece CFRP muliti-spar box. The A350 h-stab is CFRP, but I am not sure about the architecture.

FIN: Both aircraft have CFRP tails built in "black aluminum" style. Both tails have utilized 777-style attachments (Titanium dagger fittings). This is a change for Airbus from the CFRP lug style attachment found in their prior designs.

GEAR: Both aircraft use a tripod style main gear (trunnion mount with side and drag braces) which attach to the wing and fuselage via a gear-beam (similar to the 777). I do not believe Airbus has previously used this attachment architecture.

As for advantages and disadvantages, well, that's a much longer discussion and one which would completely derail this thread. However, the advantages and disadvantages of all the above details have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere on this forum. A quick search on "barrels versus panels" will get you started with hours of entertaining reading! Enjoy 

[Edited 2012-06-26 01:02:36]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-06-26 02:22:08 and read 25082 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 239):
If someone will help me with the section length of the A350, I will produce a perspective-corrected overlay of the two images.

I'll add thanks to ferpe and CM for this thread but I guess the rest of us on this thread have to do some work occasionally  

According to spirit A350 section 15 measurements are:

Length = 19,710 mm
Width = 5,962 mm
Weight = 4,078 kg

Quoting CM (Reply 230):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 251):
Given that the fuselage diameters only differs with some 12 cm can it be that the 787 central wingbox is shallower?

The A350 has usable volume to carry more than 17,000 L additional fuel versus the 787. There can be a lot of enablers for fuel volume other than wing box geometry, but a deeper box would make sense to help explain the volume difference.

Looking at the two wing boxes side by side you can see where the A350 packs in those extra 17,000 L, it is much deeper that that of the 787.

[Edited 2012-06-26 02:40:20]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2012-06-26 09:09:05 and read 24565 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 235):
MSN5000 is in FAL, second station (40, we count down). Probably VTP and HTP are fitted right now, after that the wings should arrive and away it goes to the torture chamber .

MSN001 is in PreFAL, we have seen section 13-14 being close to finish at Airbus ST Nazaire, all other sections are worked on in PreFAL (St Nazaire for center section, XFW for aft sections), engines should be on plan.

The thing not going so well at the moment are the wings, the drilling and fastening of the wingskins is done VERY carefully, expect them to come out in the next month or so. The wings for MSN5000 are then late, shipped direct to FAL. The MSN001 are pre-equipped at Broughton and then gets their flaps, slats, hydraulics and fuel system etc at Bremen, then they go to FAL.

Thanks for the update!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 235):
List might be a bit early but if you would like to do it, go ahead

Oh no, thanks very much, I costs me already some time to keep the A 380-database up to date.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 235):
How do you do it on the A380? (excellent lists BTW)

I think it's much easier: they announce every convoy for the fuselage parts and further production is covered by all the local planespotters in TLS and XFW.

I just checked the web if there is already a production list but didn't find anything except for this:

001 A350-941XWB F-WWXB
002 A350-900XWB F-WW..
003 A350-900XWB F-WW..
004 A350-900XWB F-WW..
005 A350-900XWB F-WW..
006 A350-900XWB [QATAR AIRWAYS]
Source: http://www.abcdlist.nl/airbus_a350.html

So there will be five prototypes, correct?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Areopagus
Posted 2012-06-26 12:04:43 and read 24283 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 239):
GEAR: Both aircraft use a tripod style main gear (trunnion mount with side and drag braces) which attach to the wing and fuselage via a gear-beam (similar to the 777). I do not believe Airbus has previously used this attachment architecture.

Maybe not Airbus per se, but Airbus cites its design heritage from the VC-10.
Airbus Adopt VC10 Landing Gear Concept For A350XWB (by Bells May 28 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-06-26 13:20:29 and read 24169 times.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 242):
Maybe not Airbus per se, but Airbus cites its design heritage from the VC-10.

The gear beam arrangement certainly predates the 777, and perhaps began with the VC-10. This could be what Airbus was referring to. The A350 gear design itself is not similar to the VC-10 at all.

VC-10 MLG design - http://www.vc10.net/Memories/Images/VF_Rightmaingear.jpg
787 / 777 MLG design - http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/8634_9636_ART.jpg (787 shown)
A350 MLG design - http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=17865

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2012-07-05 00:18:55 and read 22755 times.

Frepe,
according to my stomach feeling it seems very quite with the A350 progress right now.
We learned that the wings are assembled very carefully, but how long will they they may need more?

My feeling is that previous margins after the last published schedule have already been eaten up.

So will we see the plane test ready before France 'closes' for summer vacation?

Any update possible?

Regards

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-07-05 01:16:10 and read 22630 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 244):
Any update possible?

I guess at Farnborough Airbus will give a general update on the whole program.   At that is not far off, and partly explains to me why the official communication on the A350-XWB has been slow lately.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-07-05 01:19:54 and read 22601 times.

Why would it be on time and on budget, we live in 2012.. I have sort of lost confidence in modern projects.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2012-07-05 01:30:54 and read 22603 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 267):
I guess at Farnborough Airbus will give a general update on the whole program

On the other hand they prefer presenting good news during air shows and not announcing delays. Maybe they will give an update after Farnborough.

That being said, I am convinced at least one journalist will ask for more information during the Airbus press conference.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 266):
Any update possible?

I would appreciate that as well. Why can't they connect Airbus' intranet with this thread? Would be much easier (for us)  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-05 12:49:52 and read 22035 times.

Hi folks,

well the only news I have is that Fabrice Bregier talked a bit about the 350 Monday when he was interviewed by Financial Times:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...irbus-boeing-idINL5E8HP01720120625

"we will do better then people think", whatever that is meant to mean.

The key to the program will be how well the system installations are running at the PreFALs at the moment IMO, there are thousands of parts that can have delivery or fitment problems. The wingskins are high visibility and few, the drilling and fastening of these you can put attention and manpower on, don't think it will rest as a major problem for long. Can imagine the supplier of the equipment is there 100% right now and will stay there until the problems and working speed is sorted. You can't do that with the 100.000 parts that goes into the fuselage sections, you just don't have the bandwith for that.

We will see, might be that the wing progress will be shown at Farnborough by them being flown out to FAL or something, don't know, have no info on status   .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2012-07-05 13:04:15 and read 21941 times.

Question: could it be that the delay of the A 350 wings is linked somehow to the problems Airbus encountered on the A 380-wings or is this technically impossible (completely different designs or not?)?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-07-05 13:08:14 and read 21905 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 249):
could it be that the delay of the A 350 wings is linked somehow to the problems Airbus encountered on the A 380-wings

Maybe they suffered on available manpower? Technically by design and by the used materials the wings of the A380 and A350 are quite different from each other. Though by concept they may share quite some fine details, but that is something different.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-05 13:23:44 and read 21884 times.

Re wingbox thickness, I have found some pictures which gives a reasonable chance to measure the wingbox height vs the fuselage height. As we have the fuselage height we can estimate the wingbox height. This will not be with precision but I think it shows the 350 has a thicker wingroot then the 787:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787wingbox.jpg


I get the wingbox heights, wingroot cords and therefore relative thicknesses to:

.................Winbox height...............Wingroot cord............% thickness
350.............1.95m.............................13.2m.....................14.8
787.............1.55m.............................11.7m.....................13.4

The photos are not ideal for the measurement so there is some margin for error, perhaps someone can find better values. If these are within the ballpark the 350 has a slightly thicker wingroot and therefore also inner wing (I would presume). If the 350 team can master the transonic effects on the thicker wing as well as the 787 team then this has some structural and fuel tank advantages.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2012-07-05 13:28:45 and read 22132 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 250):
Maybe they suffered on available manpower?

That's what I thought as well. Maybe the resources required for the A 350 Wings production are currently crawling through some A 380 wings in Dubai, Signapore ... Then again, we are waiting just for one pair of wings, that should not require that much staff.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-05 13:56:45 and read 22065 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 249):
Question: could it be that the delay of the A 350 wings is linked somehow to the problems Airbus encountered on the A 380-wings or is this technically impossible (completely different designs or not?)?

They are very different designs in their buildup. The A380 wing uses Alu spars, a mix of Alu and CFRP ribs with Alu feet and Alu wingskins, the 350 uses CFRP spars, integral AlLi ribs including feet and CFRP skins, ie the wing design in terms of used materials are very different, even material types for the Alu part of the ribs.

They are also completely different in terms of manufacture, the A380 wings is made in the classical standing on the nose position whereas the 350 wings are lying down. This makes the manufacturing challenges very different, I would also think that residue stress problems in rib feet etc (which was the problem on the 380) would be completely different. The summary should be the 350 wing will present new challenges  .


But that the UK Airbus team is prudent and that 350 project management is looking over their shoulder should be no surprise, they don't want another wing problem  Wow! .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2012-07-05 14:06:44 and read 21999 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 273):
The photos are not ideal for the measurement so there is some margin for error, perhaps someone can find better values.

The best reference would probably be the frame pitch (as measured by window spacing). I think it is 24 inches for the 787, but I'm not certain of that. I don't know the figure for the A350.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-05 14:54:14 and read 21926 times.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 254):
The best reference would probably be the frame pitch (as measured by window spacing). I think it is 24 inches for the 787, but I'm not certain of that. I don't know the figure for the A350.

The 787 could be right, I have 0.610m and 0.635m spacing for the 350. Now for someone to measure and see if they come to another wingbox max thickness then I did, thereby we reduce the human error factor  . In the meantime, there is no arguing the 350 wing is relatively larger compared to fuselage diameter   .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-05 23:40:42 and read 21618 times.

The horizontal tailplaine for MSN001 is now ready for delivery from Airbus Spain. With a span of 19m and 82m2 surface it weighs 2t:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/HTP.jpg

The MSN5000 HTP wingbox should already be on the fuselage by now as should be the VTP. I would guess the VTP for MSN001 is also at TLS, the MSN5000 one was there before Christmas (done by Airbus Stade).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-07-06 01:31:14 and read 21347 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 256):
The horizontal tailplaine for MSN001 is now ready for delivery from Airbus Spain

Very nice picture. Thanks for posting.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-09 23:51:09 and read 20308 times.

Our friends at avia.superforum.fr are good hunters, now they found a good summary article of A350 status at AINonline. It is based on a month old interview with Evrard but should still have value:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...rvice-entry-target-first-half-2014


Things seems to be rolling on well with the equipping of MSN001, we should see the first parts arrive in July-Aug to TLS I presume (we have already, the tailplane and fin should be there now, lets see when the first fuselage section arrives). The wings are still the most obvious delay but Evrard is not giving hints of delaying the whole program because of it.


Here his words around MSN5000:
“We are near the end of the journey,” said Evrard. He reported that a cargo substructure crash test of the lower fuselage “went very well,” confirming validity of the manufacturer’s “modeling.”


There is an interesting section on the cabin test aircrafts:
" Airbus has confirmed that two of the five planned A350 development aircraft will have furnished airline interiors. The first, Serial Number 002, is to be laid out in a two-class, 252-passenger configuration, with 42 business-class seats in a 1+2+1 arrangement and 210 nine-abreast, economy-class passengers accommodated in 70 triple-seat units.

Both aircraft will be used to validate what Airbus calls a new “customization concept” based on pre-developed packages at each end of the cabin and at two mid-cabin stations, including one at Door 2. Each package consists of one or more monuments and their related interfaces. The two aircraft will undertake evacuation tests, early long flights and ETOPS route-proving services. "


Re flight testing Evrard is realist, I like his style of not overstating things when they know it can produce quite some surprises:
" The initial static-test airframe is MSN 5000, rolled out earlier this year (sans wings! my comment   ), with Airbus now concerned with getting MSN 001 to the flight line by the middle of 2013 to meet the first-half 2014 service-entry target. “We still have to demonstrate that we can certificate in one year,” said Evrard. "


Finally some words on overall plan and travelled work:
"On the thorny topic of keeping to the production schedule, Evrard said there is a “manageable amount” of out-of-sequence work. “Outstanding work targets have been defined to maintain efficiency and meet quality ‘gates,’” he explained."


Now lets see if we can get some fresh updates from Farnborough as well, probably in the context of the CX 350-1000 announcement.

[Edited 2012-07-09 23:56:51]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: CM
Posted 2012-07-10 18:53:21 and read 19689 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 258):
The wings are still the most obvious delay

Ferpe,

Tim Clark made an interesting comment to Flight Global yesterday regarding the A350...

Quoting Tim Clark:
"I should think that the wing situation on the A380 has caused them to have a good hard look at the A350 wing to ensure that the maths are not compromising the design and the build of that particular wing, so that may set them back a little bit."

I believe the rib feet are a completely different architecture on the A350   Have you heard any rumor the A380 wing issues are behind the delays in getting the A350 wings delivered to the FAL?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Flightglobal

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-10 19:22:41 and read 19628 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 259):
I believe the rib feet are a completely different architecture on the A350  

The material and design is completely different, the ribs including feet are milled by Korean aerospace IIRC from a AlLi plank, the A380 ones giving trouble was I presume the ones being CFRP rib with 7449 T7651 feet, an Al alloy which has a certain brittleness according to A under extreme temperatures.

Now the CFRP ribs would be very stiff leaving the majority of stresses to be taken by the Al feet. In the 350 the integral AlLi rib+feet should distribute any residue stresses better and not concentrate them at the feet and thus around the fastener holes as much, at leas that is my take on it. Here a 350 rib showing the design and manufacturing principle:




I think your original analysis was the correct one, they are just very cautious, further I think they have a new supplier of the drilling machines, it used to be mostly Electroimpact from Everett (380) but I am not sure they choose them for the 350, at least Electroimpact have not announced any 350 design in wins.

Sure they have double and triple checked the A350 rib and feet design and the whole cover mounting procedure but that is something they could check in the simulation tools in advance. They of course have to verify these assumptions by straingauging a number of the ribs, I assume they had done that on the static wing anyhow, it should not be the major cause for a 3 month delay of a cover fastening process.

[Edited 2012-07-10 19:37:52]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-10 19:25:21 and read 19583 times.

double post please delete

[Edited 2012-07-10 19:29:38]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: cymro
Posted 2012-07-11 12:41:08 and read 18974 times.

http://www.electroimpact.com/company.asp?page=News

scroll down to Jan 8 2009

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-07-11 14:24:16 and read 18720 times.

And

Airbus encounters A350 wing drilling problems
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbus...350-schedule-doable-184748275.html

Apparently lost 4-weeks so far

Quote:
"The A350 final assembly is progressing well, but there are some problems in drilling holes in the wing (to fasten the skins to the structure), which is taking longer than expected,"

"It is not possible to quantify the impact of these delays but we believe them to be well within our base assumption of a 1 year delay and a 1 billion euro (1.25 euros per share) overrun".

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-11 14:31:02 and read 18682 times.

Quoting cymro (Reply 262):
scroll down to Jan 8 2009

Thanks, did not find this before. Then Electroimpact is involved this time as well, now these know how to drill complicated things. Funny the 350 has such a slow start then.

No update on the program at Farnborough? If not is is a bit strange that no-one asked.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-07-11 21:41:40 and read 18411 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 264):
Then Electroimpact is involved this time as well, now these know how to drill complicated things

They sure do.
They designed the assembly system for the A380 wings, and I'm given to understand reduced the driliing and fastening manhours to only 10% of what they would have been if it were assembled like A340 wings..

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-12 00:28:51 and read 18194 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 265):
and I'm given to understand reduced the driliing and fastening manhours to only 10% of what they would have been if it were assembled like A340 wings..

And now let's get this results also for the A350 wings, but this time not manhours but operation hours    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-12 04:11:10 and read 17855 times.

Given the low info amount on the 350 program I watched the final press briefing from Airbus at Farnborough, there were some informative answers re 350 from Fabrice Bregier:

WINGS
He was at Broughton last week and the wingcover drilling was finished on the first set and bolting had started. As CM stated they did not want to put a hole wrong in those 32m wingcovers, that is why they reverted to "manual drilling" of the first wingcovers. What I think Fabrice meant with that was they let the control program direct the machine to the next drill position, then checked it's correctness and then step by step drilled the hole by manually stepping through the drilling program. By doing this they could check the correct programming of each hole and it's results.

Of course this takes a lot of extra time compared to letting the machines run their preprogrammed paths and cross your fingers things are programmed correctly  Wow! . Bregier expected about a months delay for the MSN001 wings to arrive at TLS, October instead of planned September. We can assume that they now let the systems run in program mode more and more but still at low speed and with many intermediate checks. According to Bregier "we are through with that now" ie the ultra cautious checking of the drilling process, the wings are now going to the local build process for extra structure (TE, LE) and local equipping. Then the MSN001 wings go to Bremen for final equipping and addition of high-lift surfaces. The MSN5000 wings should go to TLS I would guess within the next 4-6 weeks, there was no specific info on that.


OVERALL PROCESS
Apart for the wings things are progressing well, Airbus reckons they can start running "flight 0 " on MSN001 before end of year, ie ground running of all systems on the finished aircraft. He said they were very pleased with how things came together, they have close tolerances and a good fit of parts (I think he refers to the section mating, how things fit in PreFAL I don't think we know with that statement).

He once again pointed out they will not rush and take the next step before they are convinced they have control over the present one, maturity at each step is key to delivery a mature aircraft to the EIS customer and this will not be compromised. He did not have any delays to communicate right now (the wing delay is not on the critical line apparently) and he pointed out that parts of the program is going better then expected (once again the section fit me thinks). He would not hesitate to communicate further delays however should they see they need more time for something in order to deliver a mature aircraft to the market.

[Edited 2012-07-12 04:20:49]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-07-12 08:52:00 and read 17472 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 267):
By doing this they could check the correct programming of each hole and it's results.


A very logical step.. am surprised that it wasn't in the original build plan for the first couple sets since it is a whole new process and tooling.

An observation though, the orientation for this process uses a lot of floor space which could become a production rate bottleneck if they can not expand. I suggest we watch and see when fully operable what the production time saving is over vertically mounted assembly

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-12 10:51:23 and read 17334 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 268):
I suggest we watch and see when fully operable what the production time saving is over vertically mounted assembly

One of the arguments for the horizontal orientation was that a dropped tool could amass such energy that a non visible damage could be inflicted on a CFRP part (something like 8-10m or so in worst case spar to spar). With a horizontal projection you are at less then 1.9m (max wing thickness).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kmz
Posted 2012-07-12 11:25:08 and read 17210 times.

I find it a little worrying that you hear nothing about results from system cabin0 in Hamburg. I know that they had some troubles with the simulation-equipment but that should well be overcome by now. Does anybody have intranet news to that issue?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kaneporta1
Posted 2012-07-12 18:34:51 and read 16713 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 269):
One of the arguments for the horizontal orientation was that a dropped tool could amass such energy that a non visible damage could be inflicted on a CFRP part (something like 8-10m or so in worst case spar to spar). With a horizontal projection you are at less then 1.9m (max wing thickness).

Although a valid argument, there are foam pads to prevent such damage.

A better reason why Airbus went horizontal with the A350 wing build is because Boeing did it first on the 787.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-07-12 18:45:58 and read 16686 times.

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 271):
A better reason why Airbus went horizontal with the A350 wing build is because Boeing did it first on the 787.

Boeing introduced horizontal wing production with the 737NG starting in 2010.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-12 21:50:36 and read 16352 times.

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 271):
A better reason why Airbus went horizontal with the A350 wing build is because Boeing did it first on the 787.

If Boeing did it for the same reason as Airbus, to automate the drilling process with a giant flatplate drilling system (one over the wing and one below) then this is the case, this was the primary reason for going horizontal with the 350 build. The previous wing, the 380 is not fully automated in the drilling process, the machines are portable and place in the area of use as the drilling goes along.



[Edited 2012-07-12 22:02:07]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-07-12 21:58:00 and read 16329 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 272):
Boeing introduced horizontal wing production with the 737NG starting in 2010.


Had not realized that... been retired too long.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-12 23:03:32 and read 16228 times.

Quoting kmz (Reply 270):
I find it a little worrying that you hear nothing about results from system cabin0 in Hamburg. I know that they had some troubles with the simulation-equipment but that should well be overcome by now.

Thanks for the info, do you see the Cabin0 test having bearing on MSN001 first flight or rather MSN002 (the first cabin equipped test aircraft) efficiency as a test bed?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: kmz
Posted 2012-07-13 04:27:28 and read 15710 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 275):
Cabin0 test

the cabin0 is mostly aiming at cabin systems, that's for sure. but most of the a/c systems are simulated or can be connected as a real hardware to check communication between the systems. e.g. the electrical distribution system can either be simulated or connected as real hardware....
so i would say that important information even for MSN001 can be obtained. I haven't been there for over a year so I really don't know the progress. but the installation as such is impressive.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-13 05:23:14 and read 15591 times.

AW has a summary article of some discussions with Evrard and the info from the last news conference at Farnborough, there are some more tidbits in there:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_07_12_2012_p01-02-475782.xml

WINGS
There are a total of 5 wing halves being produced right now. Here my take on their oder and use: 2 for MSN001, 2 for MSN5000 and one for the fatigue tests. The ones for MSN001 goes to Bremen this month IMO, the MSN5000 ones goes to TLS in August according to Evrard and the MSN001 will get to TLS in October.

A350 Program Head Didier Evrard says Airbus hopes to be able to mitigate that development and recoup some time with the help of a physical wing mock-up in Bremen, Germany, that will help accelerate the learning curve in production and the equipping process. Five wings are being built together, and the improvements will apply to all of them (I think this is an AW comment, it does not make sense, only MSN001 winghalves goes to Bremen. There is no point in putting a lot of systems and high lift devices on static and fatigue test specimens IMO).


FAL
Fuselage Section 11/14 for MSN001 will come to Toulouse from the plant in St. Nazaire, France, “in the coming days,” says Evrard; the rest of the fuselage is expected at the end of September. By the time of entry into service, about 20 aircraft will be “in various stages of completion,” Evrard says. The flight test campaign will require four aircraft plus a fifth for route proving.


FIRST FLIGHT
"Airbus plans to confirm the A350’s first flight by the end of October, a decision that will coincide with delivery of the wing for MSN1, the first flight test aircraft." according to AW.


A350-1000
Evrard also says detailed load calculation has started on the redesigned A350-1000. “We are going to do what we decided a year ago.” Airbus is increasing the maximum takeoff weight from 298 to 308 tons and payload by four tons. Engine thrust will be increased from 93,000 to 97,000 lb. Final assembly is planned to start in mid-2015, and service entry will follow in mid-2017. Evrard notes that because the aircraft is a stretched variant, there is much less risk involved in future development, compared with the -900.

[Edited 2012-07-13 05:26:56]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-07-13 05:30:48 and read 15572 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 277):
Final assembly is planned to start in mid-2015, and service entry will follow in mid-2017. Evrard notes that because the aircraft is a stretched variant, there is much less risk involved in future development, compared with the -900.

I think this is a lot of time, FAL by that time should take maximum halv a year if not less and I can't see why you need a year to flight test a variant after you proved the concept with the -900.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-07-13 09:06:34 and read 15220 times.

Very interesting update. Thanks ferpe!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3
Username: srbmod
Posted 2012-07-13 12:21:25 and read 15008 times.

Please continue the discussion here:

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 4 (by srbmod Jul 13 2012 in Civil Aviation)


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/