Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5606582/

Topic: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ManuCH
Posted 2012-11-08 11:53:48 and read 60277 times.

The previous thread was becoming too long and has been locked. Please continue discussion in this one.

The link to part 5 can be found here:
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 5 (by mffoda Aug 24 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-08 14:11:33 and read 60492 times.

Lets start this part of the thread with some stunning stills from the cockpit animation on the new A350 Airbus home page.

I must say I am impressed by the animation quality they have achieved, take a tour yourselves: http://www.a350xwb.com/#x-tra/360-cockpit-view/

First an overview of what is rendered using planet view  Wow!  (click on the pictures to see them in full size) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitplanetview.jpg

Then the classical forward:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitforwardview.jpg

What the captain sees when he turns around:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitrear.jpg

and to the right (FO is taking a leak  ) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitrightside.jpg


As said, put yourselves in the drivers seat and enjoy a very well made animation, just push the mouse in the direction you want to go and right click to check out the views available, enjoy, I did.

[Edited 2012-11-08 14:24:36]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: maxter
Posted 2012-11-08 23:13:54 and read 60336 times.

Wow, sensational, thanks for the heads up.

Cheers,

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-08 23:32:07 and read 60384 times.

And this is my favorite still from the design movie (click on it to see it in full size) : http://www.a350xwb.com/#intelligent/design/

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350internals.jpg

One can really see the very forward stowing position of the nose landing gear, the avionics/equipment bay above and behind it and then the freight compartment. The gear goes that far forward in order to utilize the the lower part of the fuselage as efficiently as possible . Also watch where the floor goes for the cockpit, those pilots only occupy the top part of the nose, the aircraft is really big but those ultra large cockpit windows makes one think the pilots uses half of the diameter or more.

[Edited 2012-11-08 23:35:39]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: HA_DC9
Posted 2012-11-08 23:52:47 and read 60344 times.

Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived? Is there any data out there that compares the size of the flight deck of the A350 with the A330/A340, 767, 777 or 787?

I'm liking it though. The A350 is coming along to being a very beautiful aircraft.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-11-09 03:57:55 and read 60365 times.

Huge cockpit windows, I like it. I never realized that they are that big.

Quote:
Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived?

It's an optical illusion I think. The cockpit looks smaller in this screenshot:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2qa0e47.png

[Edited 2012-11-09 03:58:52]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: petera380
Posted 2012-11-09 04:23:16 and read 60347 times.

Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button? 

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-11-09 04:27:09 and read 60335 times.

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

Sssttt, not so loud. Nobody should know that those computers are running on Windows.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-11-09 04:40:03 and read 60351 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 1):

Lets start this part of the thread with some stunning stills from the cockpit animation on the new A350 Airbus home page.

These pictures are stunning indeed.   This is going to be a beautiful airliner.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-09 06:22:58 and read 60337 times.

Quoting HA_DC9 (Reply 4):
Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived?

Although the photos overdo it, it's still going to be a really roomy flight deck. That nose profile, coupled with what's basically the A380 window layout, and a wide fuselage will give them something very comfy indeed.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-11-09 08:33:40 and read 60328 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
That nose profile, coupled with what's basically the A380 window layout, and a wide fuselage will give them something very comfy indeed.

It also helps of course that they do not have to accommodate a yoke.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-09 10:30:57 and read 60333 times.

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

I know you were joking, but the airplane does have it. It is included in the "COMPUTER RESET" panels on the overhead.



Here is the full layout of the A350 overhead panel:



The 787 has a similar reset function for its IMA "brains" (called the Common Computing Resource or "CCR"), also located on the overhead panel.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeEngr
Posted 2012-11-09 14:36:46 and read 60313 times.

Is the Flight Deck going to be blue? I'm assuming the colors shown here are not representative of production, but could be wrong. I'd be surprised to see them step away from the blue.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-11-11 08:10:16 and read 60308 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
COMPUTER RESET" panels on the overhead.

How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-11 08:42:58 and read 60325 times.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):
How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

Because A350 uses Windows as operating system  ....

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: kl911
Posted 2012-11-11 09:41:27 and read 60311 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Because A350 uses Windows as operating system ....

Funny as it might sound, but does the A350 gets touch screens?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-11 14:47:37 and read 60312 times.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 12):
I'd be surprised to see them step away from the blue.

Well, a lot of people were surprised to see Boeing step away from the "scientifically" chosen brown in the 787 flight deck. Personally, I think grey is ideal both for aesthetics and for hiding dirt (which was the real reason for Boeing using brown on the 747, 757, 767 & 777). I never liked the Boeing brown, or the Airbus' "blue". Brown just looks "low-tech" to me, and the blue is too close to the Russian manufacturers fixation with bright blue flight decks. If we all settle on grey, it would be great with me!

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):
How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

I think those 24 "switches" on each A350 COMPUTER RESET panel are actually circuit breakers. This would be a traditional means to reset a "box". Airbus may have chosen this method for resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types. (the A330 has clusters of circuit breakers in the exact same locations). The CCR in the 787 is two full cabinets which represent almost every significant computing function on the airplane (flight controls being the one exception). The CCR reset function is a very controlled reboot of one full CCR cabinet or the other. This is a measure which would only be undertaken in a truly extrordinary circumsatance. I can't be certain, but I'm guessing the A350 computer reset functions and the 787 CCR reset function are quite different in terms of what they accomplish.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-11-11 18:14:24 and read 60301 times.

If you look closely, it's not 24 switches but 48 as the two panels have different markings...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-11 20:56:29 and read 60302 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):

Indeed, it is not likely there are any duplicated controls on the overhead. Maybe there's a Bus pilot out there who can tell us more about what these CBs control. For many years now, Boeing models have not had any pilot procedures which would instruct the pilot to touch a circuit breaker. Airbus may have a different philosophy.

One thing that is intriguing... I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers (electronic circuit breakers), like the A380 and 787. If it does, it's even more curious why this set of breakers remains as push/pull thermal breakers.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: kanban
Posted 2012-11-11 21:49:44 and read 60307 times.

there's probably a sequence to them as well.. a1, c6, e4, d1, h2, h6, a5 , b2 and b3 simultaneously
Audio warning: "log in password incorrect!!!"      

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: columba
Posted 2012-11-12 00:49:29 and read 60313 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Because A350 uses Windows as operating system  ....

....and the 787 runs on Mac/OS  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-11-12 03:05:56 and read 60312 times.

Libya's Afriqiyah to convert its A350-800 order into -900s and increase the order by four.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/lib...iyah-airways-buys-4-105737573.html

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-11-12 04:04:12 and read 60310 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 18):
I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers

It does, aswell the A380 does feature that. On the A380 you can control them via the OIM.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
Brown just looks "low-tech"

Agree, the brown was just ugly as hell and looked indeed low tech The Airbus blue wasn't so close to Russian Flightdecks and was brighter more modern.

Still the new dark Gray on the 787 is not so pleasant for the eyes.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types.

That would make sense,

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-12 04:58:51 and read 60325 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 20):
....and the 787 runs on Mac/OS

Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) with applications running on a well defined API (ARINC 653) which creates the interface to an underlying real time operating systems (RTOS). Seems to be the usual RTOS players which are active:

- Green Hills INTEGRITY

- Wind River WxWorks 653

Then for networking they use a airborne version of Ethernet, AFDX. In essence this means the times of one system has it's own box with own OS etc is gone and the vendors have to supply and qualify their applications in the aircrafts IMA computer network, just like we all add applications to our computers on our home network. The testing and qualification is a little more rigorous I gather .... Wow!

There should be those who knows more about this...

[Edited 2012-11-12 05:07:02]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: PM
Posted 2012-11-12 05:19:21 and read 60322 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Libya's Afriqiyah to convert its A350-800 order into -900s and increase the order by four.

According to Airbus, this happened on 1st October!

http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-11-12 05:43:28 and read 61193 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA

Interesting comparision between 787CCore and A350XWB

Quote:

An obvious question is how Airbus's implementation of IMA compares with the 787's "common-core" approach? While both incarnations use an Ethernet network and adopt the general concept of "shared resources"--i.e., both aircraft have applications for specific LRUs and individual computers for affiliated systems--the 787's "central nervous system" houses the core processors that communicate with local data concentrators distributed throughout the aircraft. The A350's system is similar but uses multiple computers of a common design with function-specific input/output interfaces. These computers are referred to as "core processing input/output modules" and are allied to particular systems via the AFDX network.
http://atwonline.com/aircraftengines...nts/article/raising-power-bar-0309

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: airmagnac
Posted 2012-11-12 05:51:40 and read 61200 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module in a layered approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics)

IMA is actually a concept.
Up to the A330/A340 and the 777, every system on the aircraft (pressurisation, fuel management, hydraulics and so on) each used its own hardware (basically : processor, CPU, I/O board, power supply). So you'd have a computer to control the OFV valves, one for the pumps and valves of the fuel system, one for hydraulics...It's just as if you used a PC to run office applications, one to browse the internet, and another one to play games.
So for N systems you'd have N computers, each taking weight and space, each requiring network wiring, power wiring, each requiring the corresponding spare parts to be stored for maintenance.

The idea of IMA is to share hardware for several functions, so that only the software and as little hardware as possible is specific to each aircraft function. So a same hardware set can host the control applications for pressurisation, hydraulics and fuel.
As a result, you reduce the number of physical components, the required wiring and power, network addresses, required parts to be stored, and all that. Additonnally, as you have standardized the hardware, and in particular the interface between hardware and software (OS and API), it is automatically easier to change an entire sofware app without impacting the hardware. Or vice-versa, upgrade the hardware while running the same apps. Hence the "modular"

Now one might say "duh !! that what we've been doing for 25 years with general public computers !". Indeed, you can play games, write a post on a-net and run Excel on a same machine at the same time. Obviously here there are much tighter constraints for securtiy, in particular for system segregation. And the manufacturer now has to coordinate several system design teams, for example to negociate who can use which connectors, CPU time...And as they have to share a standard design, there will always be unhappy people  

That's the overall theory. In practice, Airbus implements this by running several applications for various aircraft functions on all-in-one modules called CPIOMs. Each CPIOM is a single computer (contains I/O boards, processor(s), memory..) with an OS, running a few applications for different functions. Each application is segregated from the others by running on seperate partitions. So in the end, only the software is specific to each function (well that's the idea anyway ; there were 7 different sub-types of CPIOMs on the A380, 2 on the A350). Consequently it's a more flexible solution, but more difficult to design.
I'm less familiar with the Boeing choice, so I'll rely on CM or Tom to correct me. But from the above I'm guessing they use a "cabinet" with a single power supply (hence only one reset button) and a single network interface, probably some shared computing and memory resources. Then you come and plug in some kind of memory drive containing the stuff specific to each aircraft function.

Also, both use devices called "remote data concentrators", which basically are small electronic packages disctributed around the airplane, and which gather most "local" wiring (analog and discrete signals from sensors, for example) to convert and launch it on the main network. Both A and B use the AFDX architecture for that (Avionics Full DupleX switched Ethernet, more or less your basic Ethernet with lots of switches to reduce the collision domain and avoid losing signals)
As the RDCs are hardware used by several systems, they also fall under the IMA category.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: airmagnac
Posted 2012-11-12 05:59:38 and read 62311 times.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 22):
Quoting CM (Reply 16):
resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types.

That would make sense,

Could be.
The A380 also has CBs in the cockpit, and both A380 and A350 have other physical CBs in the avionics compartments. The ones in the cockpit being referred to as "Reset" switches, I'm guessing they are low power connections to calcualtors, and that a tradeoff study showed that it was better for these to remain mechanical rather than solid-state. From there, I guess the most used ones (for maintenance purposes more than in-flight purposes) are stacked in the cockpit for easier access. Especially as most of the time a miantenance guy will be using the on-board maintenance system from the cockpit. A bit more wiring, but it makes life easier.
But I'm not too familiar with electric aspects, so this is a WAG, as they say...  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-11-12 06:55:11 and read 62218 times.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
ach CPIOM is a single computer (contains I/O boards, processor(s),

A note i find interesting regarding CPIOM's regarding the A350.

Quote:

The number of functions hosted by the CPIOM has been increased by more than 50% compared to the A380. For example, the 'doors and slides control' function which was previously handled by a specific computer is now hosted by the standard CPIOM. In addition, the processing power of the CPIOM has been doubled, its reliability increased and weight reduced."

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-12 07:41:34 and read 62233 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 18):
One thing that is intriguing... I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers (electronic circuit breakers), like the A380 and 787. If it does, it's even more curious why this set of breakers remains as push/pull thermal breakers.

You need to have at least the basic CB's to supply the computers as conventional thermals (or other mechanical breakers) so that you can power up the computer to command the solid state power controllers. The 787 does this (at least on one CCR cabinet), but the physical breakers are down in the avionics bay rather than on the overhead. I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CB's or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
I'm less familiar with the Boeing choice, so I'll rely on CM or Tom to correct me. But from the above I'm guessing they use a "cabinet" with a single power supply (hence only one reset button) and a single network interface, probably some shared computing and memory resources. Then you come and plug in some kind of memory drive containing the stuff specific to each aircraft function.

That's basically it. Each CCR cabinet has an (internally redundant) power supply module and cooling system that feeds a common backplane for what's basically a cardfile. There are two major modules: general processing modules (GPMs) and graphics generator modules (GGMs). The various applications are hosted on one or more GPMs while the GGMs provide the displays to the flight deck based on information coming from the GPMs. If you want more redundancy in an application you just run it on an addition GPM. The cabinets are connected to each other and out to the airplane by redundant copper and fiber optic AFDX lines.

When you hit "reset" you don't actually interupt power (i.e. it's not a circuit breaker) but you trigger a highly structured reboot of the system. It's like hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del (pre Windows NT), rather than pulling the power cord.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-12 15:37:32 and read 62200 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Then for networking they use a airborne version of Ethernet, AFDX.

The main difference between Ethernet (as we know it) and AFDX is the "deterministic" nature of the network and it's hosted devices. On a conventional Ethernet network, as you add more users, each device has access to a smaller and smaller portion of the bandwidth, as everyone shares this resource equally. When everyone gets on the network at once, things slow down. If one device malfunctions (or has malicious intent), a "network storm" can freeze out all other traffic. In AFDX, every device on the network has its own dedicated position in the packet flow on the network. No device can place packets into someone else's real estate on the network. AFDX also has send and receive protocols which check each packet and reject anything unexpected (wrong source, wrong format, etc). This is a protection against malfunctioning devices or malicious code on the network.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
You need to have at least the basic CB's to supply the computers as conventional thermals (or other mechanical breakers) so that you can power up the computer to command the solid state power controllers.

Yes. Powering-up o a 787 from a truly dead state (batts disconnected) is an art form. A few physical breakers are a necessary evil.

Of roughly 1400 circuits on the 787, 1100 are solid state and controlled in CBIC (circuit braker indication and control - an electronic function available through the forward multi-function displays), with the remainder being physical breakers. Even most of the ~300 physical breakers have indication in CBIC, but no control. None of the physical breakers are in the flight deck.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CBs, or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers

That would make sense, particularly if they remain in the flight deck for reasons of common procedures.

I should add a follow up to my comment above about Boeing procedures not calling for use of CBs; although there are no published Boeing crew procedures which call for use of a circuit breaker, and although there are no physical circuit breakers in the 787 flight deck, there are a subset of circuit breakers available to the flight crew through CBIC, which essentially provide the same ability to cut power to certain circuits, just like you would have in any other Boeing aircraft with a large circuit breaker panel behind the overhead.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-11-12 23:37:20 and read 62174 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 30):

Of roughly 1400 circuits on the 787, 1100 are solid state and controlled in CBIC

On the A380 it's called Secondary Electric Power Distribution
System (SEPDS)

Quote:

Incorporates advanced programmable Solid State
Power Control (SSPC) devices in place of mechanical
circuit breaker and relay technology, the SEPDS
architecture was specially designed for the A380
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...TR_Brochures-documents/A380_LO.pdf

[Edited 2012-11-12 23:40:05]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Laddie
Posted 2012-11-16 10:26:11 and read 62030 times.

Thanks for all excellent IMA info and explanations, tdscanuck, CM, and airmagnac.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-18 17:09:33 and read 62008 times.

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

The only way to fully reset the aircraft is to power it down completely, this is with every aircraft.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):

How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers on the aircraft. If for example the lights in the cabin are playing up, they crew can reset the CIDS computer, it will go through the normal start up, and return the lighting to normal. The most common reset that is done is for ACARS, that is normally done on the ground before flight by an mechanic.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):

I think those 24 "switches" on each A350 COMPUTER RESET panel are actually circuit breakers.

No they are not circuit breakers, the last design Airbus had circuit breakers in the cockpit was the A320.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):

Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) with applications running on a well defined API (ARINC 653) which creates the interface to an underlying real time operating systems (RTOS). Seems to be the usual RTOS players which are active:

Airbus also have an independent ARINC 429 network that allow full control of the aircraft in the event of the ADFX networks fall over, wires get severed, fire etc. The networks are have different physical paths through the aircraft.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 27):
The A380 also has CBs in the cockpit, and both A380 and A350 have other physical CBs in the avionics compartments. The ones in the cockpit being referred to as "Reset" switches, I'm guessing they are low power connections to calcualtors, and that a tradeoff study showed that it was better for these to remain mechanical rather than solid-state.

A330/A340/A380/A350 only have computer resets, the circuit breakers are elsewhere, they are not all in the avionics compartment.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CB's or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers.

The are effectively just switches commanding solid state power controllers.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: autothrust
Posted 2012-11-19 05:06:27 and read 61879 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers

I'ts more a flexiblily thing over simplicity? (compared to the 787)

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-19 08:16:14 and read 61898 times.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 34):
Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers

I'ts more a flexiblily thing over simplicity? (compared to the 787)

I think it's an architecture difference...the 787 has, effectively, only two reset-able computers. Almost all the stuff that would have been its own LRU under older architectures is now just a software function running within the common-computing resource cabinets. If you reset the CCR's you reset nearly everything.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2012-11-19 13:39:36 and read 61808 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
If for example the lights in the cabin are playing up, they crew can reset the CIDS computer, it will go through the normal start up, and return the lighting to normal.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35):
If you reset the CCR's you reset nearly everything.

Being somewhat involved in IT my first impression would be that the in the case of the 787 you would be doing it a bit inefficiently. For example in the case of the cabin lighting, resetting the whole system while only a subsystem is playing up.

Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

Also what about risk, I can imagine the robustness of the CCR's should be on par with critical flight systems? Speaking of flight systems; are the 787 flight control systems located in the CCR's or are these still dependant on dedicated hardware?

I really get the idea of the virtualization in flight software, it feels like common sense to use standard hardware on the lower levels and elevate a lot of functionality to the software level. But the same common sense tells me you increase the amount of possible failure modes (memory leaks, other bugs, etc). Is my gut-feeling correct? And if so; how does this affect certification?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-19 13:53:24 and read 61810 times.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

Individual "hosted functions" within 787 CCS can be reset without resetting a full CCR cabinet. The former is very much a software based reboot. The latter is a full hardware boot of one CCR cabinet or the other.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-19 19:12:55 and read 61776 times.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

You can reset particular "hosted functions", as CM said. However, I'm about 99% sure there is no flight crew procedure to do that and that you can't do it in flight...it would only be a maintenance action on the ground.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Also what about risk, I can imagine the robustness of the CCR's should be on par with critical flight systems?

It is. The CCRs are critical flight systems. If they go down, among other things, you lose all the flight deck displays except the ISFD.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Speaking of flight systems; are the 787 flight control systems located in the CCR's or are these still dependant on dedicated hardware?

They're separate hardware. The 787 has three flight control computers, although there are four physical boxes (the center system needs two boxes). The flight controls are very much like EEC's...almost totally independent hardware/software that will continue doing their thing until they have their power forcibly removed.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
I really get the idea of the virtualization in flight software, it feels like common sense to use standard hardware on the lower levels and elevate a lot of functionality to the software level. But the same common sense tells me you increase the amount of possible failure modes (memory leaks, other bugs, etc). Is my gut-feeling correct?

You're trading hardware failure modes against software failure modes. I'm not sure the total number goes up, although there are certainly more software failure modes as you virtualize everything. Modern realtime OS's are essentially bulletproof and are very very very good at keeping issues isolated so even if one application or function goes bananas it will never take down the whole system.

The important thing to keep in mind that aircraft computing is a lot closer to something like an IBM Z/OS mainframe (basically capable of running indefinitely with extremely robust fault monitoring and recovery) than to a conventional virtualized server.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
And if so; how does this affect certification?

Flight critical software is certified to DO-178B today (soon to be -178C). This is a rather complex topic but, basically, it's certification by process. Your processes and tools are all certified to produce compliant (i.e. safe) software, then you prove that you followed your processes and used your tools, then you actually test the software (in labs and in flight). When that's all complete, it's certified.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-11-21 11:43:43 and read 61855 times.

From Airbus Facebook:

Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!
http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/486244_560971050585850_109816185_n.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-21 11:59:13 and read 61629 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!

Excellent catch, now how long does it take before she will enter the real interesting load scenarios?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-11-21 12:03:36 and read 61699 times.

This is what Airbus said during the A350 FAL ceremony:

Quote:
The static aircraft, which will be used solely for ground tests, has nearly completed assembly, with a full fuselage, two wings and the vertical tail plane joined. The aircraft will be transferred to the static test hangar at the Toulouse Jean-Luc Lagardère site to be prepared for static tests to start in spring 2013.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2012-11-21 12:05:54 and read 61630 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 40):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!

Excellent catch

Great catch! Thanks from my side as well!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: abba
Posted 2012-11-21 12:51:43 and read 61506 times.

Good catch - and we now see what a beautifull bird she is gona be.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: SeJoWa
Posted 2012-11-21 13:26:15 and read 61499 times.

It's fantastically interesting to see these pics of a new widebody coming together! I could grumble about this and that concerning the plane, but there has to be some space for straight upward (of course!) enthusiasm when it comes to flying machines! So here's to many more great, informative posts by the usual suspects!   

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-23 11:20:06 and read 60521 times.

Some more pictures from the move of the ES frame earlier this week:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_test_night_shot2.jpg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_test.jpg

Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

[Edited 2012-11-23 11:23:45]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Heavierthanair
Posted 2012-11-23 12:15:16 and read 60255 times.

G'day

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Likely to make sure noone installs them on the real thing. 2 wheel main gear bogies and likely without brakes installed may make meeting performance targets difficult  

Cheers

Peter

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: flood
Posted 2012-11-23 12:18:42 and read 60213 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Thanks for the update. They don't swing the gear during static testing, do they? They look like bare-bone stand-in units without the wiring, etc... ie the bare essentials for moving the frame. No point in installing costly full production units, I suppose. Just a guess... I'm sure someone will chime in with the answer.

Nice to see they updated their gallery on their website to also include a high resolution version of the head-on photo posted by Karel. Would've been nice to see the nose cone on the static frame though.

CX's Slosar recently had some praise to offer:

"We are very heavily invested in the success of the A350. I will give Airbus a hat tip - they are doing a very good job with that. They say that they are going to be flying in 2013, and it looks to me like they will. And we are really looking forward to the airplane getting in the sky as a step towards delivery," says Slosar. "From what I see, they are managing the programme well, and managing the risks and making pretty good progress."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rican-points-with-a350-900-379290/

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-23 12:53:35 and read 60064 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

The red gear (as well as the red fittings where the H-stab should be) are not aircarft structure. They are load fittings (essentially tools) with all the proper interfaces for loading the structure the gear attaches to (gear beam, spar, etc) in the same way the actual gear would. The gear structure is a safe-life component and will be undergoing testing separate from the main static and fatigue test articles. I'm not sure why the H-stab is also tested separately, but Boeing took the exact same approach on the 787.

Ferpe, do you know when actual static testing will begin?

[Edited 2012-11-23 13:57:10]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-23 18:43:05 and read 59692 times.

Airbus gives no direct info on that in the text that goes with the pictures. Here is what they say on the A350 minisite www.a350xwb.com and their main site :

"This (move) clears the way for the A350 XWB airframe to be integrated into a test rig for a campaign that will submit it to nearly a year of evaluations, including limit load and ultimate load validations, along with residual strength and margin research.

The L34 static test hall (the same as where the A380 was tested) covers an area of 10,000 square meters, and is supported by 200 workers during peak testing activity. It houses a rig that incorporates 2,500 tons of steel and 240 jacks/loading lines, which are used to induce structural loads. The testing is recorded by some 12,000 sensors. "

As KarelXWB stated above A only sais "during spring 2013". In the July discussions around the timeline you gave some fine insights into what is ahead for ES and MSN001, would be nice if you, Tom and others could chip in and update that discussion with what we know now, ES starting the hook-up now and MSN001 being complete and powered on just around Christmas.

Evrard seems confident they will be flying in the summer, would be nice to reason weather that is optimistic or not. The sections being delivered to FAL for MSN001 seems rather complete, here a close-up of the middle section as it arrived to FAL:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Section15-21MSN001closeup.jpg

We see that the air cond pacs with ducting, wiring etc is in place and further back all the plumbing / wiring around the MLG well sticking out under the wing fairing.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-11-23 19:44:07 and read 59503 times.

Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-11-24 00:12:25 and read 59192 times.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

I'd imagine it's the same length. The real gear will be quite a bit more substantial than that and then you have to stick a pair of honking great Rollers under the wings. I think the 'thin' nature of the load fitting gear adds to the illusion because they just 'look wrong'.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: oldeuropean
Posted 2012-11-24 00:49:51 and read 59426 times.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

Also in the first computer generated videos of a taxiing A350 by Airbus, it was obvious that that this bird stands on unusual very long legs.

Perhaps to allow space for future wider fan diameters.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: swallow
Posted 2012-11-24 01:22:21 and read 59306 times.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
That bird looks high above the ground...

The main landing gear bay of the A350-900 is 4.1m or 13 feet long. The long MLG may explain why the plane appears high above the ground.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Tristarsteve
Posted 2012-11-24 02:42:31 and read 59055 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The only way to fully reset the aircraft is to power it down completely, this is with every aircraft.

And that can be a lot harder than you might think. A lot of flying control and navigation computors have hot battery bus supply, with circuit breakers in the electronics bay, under a screwed cover!
Turning off the batteries is not enough.
I was reminded of this last month on an A320 with a FMC problem. After some time we downpowered the whole flight deck so that only the green power avail light was on. Then repowered it and when the FMC came back on line it had all the information still in it.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
Up to the A330/A340 and the 777, every system on the aircraft (pressurisation, fuel management, hydraulics and so on) each used its own hardware (basically : processor, CPU, I/O board, power supply)

The B777 had two computor cabinets which were the forerunners of the CCR s. They controlled the displays and ACARS and some navigation functions. they were called AIMS, and worked quite well. So Boeing had prior knowledge of this system. There was a lot of empty space in them which never got used. Perhaps Boeing had ideas that never happened?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-11-24 04:53:36 and read 58836 times.

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 52):
Perhaps to allow space for future wider fan diameters.

Per the A350-900 ACAP, nacelle clearance is no better than - and in some cases, very slightly worse - than the 787 so if they want a larger fan, they may need to add even longer legs.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-24 05:07:11 and read 58869 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
so if they want a larger fan, they may need to add even longer legs.

Or learn the 777/787 trade of hanging the engines higher without incurring interference drag. The OEMs always look what the other does and runs it in the computer to see if it is a good idea (and not patented  ).

This is of course not unique to airliner OEMs, it is a must in the car industry for instance, to the point where I think they actually send each other cars when they are released as they then don't have to go to the hazzle of buying them from each others dealers (they are then throughly stripped and every good idea carefully noted and evaluated).

[Edited 2012-11-24 05:10:35]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2012-11-24 06:58:35 and read 58436 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 37):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38):

Thanks guys, very informative!

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

It actually looks a bit like a 757!  Wow!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-24 10:13:46 and read 58085 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Across the industry, red/orange almost universally means "test hardware". It's a very fast visual indication to separate production from non-production stuff; very helpful when doing configuration changes and for the mechanics to know where stuff is coming from (test hardware goes through a totally different engineering path than production hardware). As something of a side-effect, basically every drawing that goes through for test hardware will have a note to paint it orange/red whether it actually needs it or not.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-24 11:42:14 and read 57937 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
Across the industry, red/orange almost universally means "test hardware".

Similar test hardware on the 787 static frame:

>>Engines: http://blog.flightstory.net/wp-conte...ads/787-static_test_airframe-4.jpg
>>H-Stab: http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/2441383833/

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
Airbus gives no direct info on that in the text that goes with the pictures.

Instrumentation for the 12,000 data channels referenced in your post is a large undertaking. I suspect physical intallation of instrumentation is already complete and what remains to be done before testing is to get the MSN5000 loaded into the test fixture and rigged for testing, then some functional testing/calibration of the rig and instrumentation. Once the test setup has been validated, testing can begin.

The 787 had quite a tortured Static Test experience, originally planned for about 1 year of testing, but after the Side-of-Body issue, it lasted about 24 months. As a point of reference, here is a summary of how the 787 static tests flowed:

Apr 2008 >> Move from FAL to Test Rig
Sep 2008 >> Max Delta-P Test
Dec 2008 >> Wing Trailing Edge (high lift) LLF Testing Begins
Mar 2009 >> First Wing LLF Test
Jun 2009 >> Side of Body Fail Announcement (scuttled a July, 2009 first flight)
Nov 2009 >> Static Testing Resumed (post SoB fix)
Dec 2009 >> 787 First Flight
Mar 2010 >> Final Static Test for Cert (Wing ULF)

[Edited 2012-11-24 11:58:10]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-24 12:58:52 and read 57757 times.

Great, now which of these tests does A have to do minimum before they can fly MSN001?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-24 14:20:43 and read 57629 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Great, now which of these tests does A have to do minimum before they can fly MSN001?

Technically, none. MSN001 will fly as an experimental, which gives you very wide latitude. However, you'd fly with a very restricted flight envelope if you were being prudent and didn't have any of the static frame data yet. It would be vaguely similar to the situation with 787 ZA001 after they found the side-of-body problem...they could fly but not with the full flight envelope.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-24 14:41:37 and read 57513 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):

I believe the LLF test conditions will be completed before first flight. This is for practical reasons of having enough flight envelope validated for meaningful flying to begin. If I recall correctly, the ULF tests will be completed before TIA is granted by EASA and flying for cert score can begin.

[Edited 2012-11-24 15:49:25]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-24 21:00:38 and read 57179 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 62):
I believe the LLF test conditions will be completed before first flight.

OK, but I understand the 787 side of body problem came after LLF (Limit Load Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_load ), this means B went above before first flight. Does that mean you typically go say 20% above to clear the flight envelope with a bit of margin and then take the test up to ULF (Ultimate Load Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_load) at the end as this can cause irreversible damage to your test specimen and further tests after that does not make much sense?

Also if ULF is done late in this test year then the TIA (Type Inspection Authorization http://www.astech-engineering.com/sy...vionics/aircraft/faatcprocess.html ) would come late, how long does your cert score (TIA compliant certification flying) normally take?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-24 22:58:06 and read 57094 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):

Hi Ferpe. I've sent you an email with many more details, but here it is in a nutshell:

If Airbus had a bit more slack in their schedule, I believe ULF would be attempted before first flight due to the novelty of the design. Not because it is required, but because this testing can retire so much risk so quickly. However, this is where I believe schedule pressure is likely impacting Airbus' ability to do what is "ideal" as opposed to just doing what is deemed "necessary".

Here's why I think this may be the case: the first A350 schedule I ever saw with "static test begin" on it was from Bregier at the PAS in 2011. This schedule already reflected considerable compression for the program (MSN001 FAL complete had slid a year, but first flight had only slide 3-6 months). In this compressed schedule, the flow from start of static test to first flight was 7.5 months. The next time I heard Airbus mention the start of static test was at Farnborough this year, when we were told static testing would begin "imminently". We agreed in the previous thread this meant August, which would have put Airbus 4 months past the static test start date indicated on the 2011 Bregier schedule. We're now another 4+ months on. First flight has slipped now to "mid 2013", which I take to mean July 1. If we assume static testing can begin 1 month from today (a complete guess), the time from start of static test to first flight is now less than 7 months - less than it was in the most compressed version of the A350 schedule ever released by Airbus.

Airbus will be doing all they can to get MSN001 flying in the first half of 2013. I am certain they will be willing to concede some "nice to have" items, if it wil help them get the airplane flying sooner.

[Edited 2012-11-24 23:52:53]

[Edited 2012-11-25 00:05:59]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Ruscoe
Posted 2012-11-24 23:54:01 and read 57005 times.

Looking at that high undercarriage it made me wonder why Airbus did no retract it rearwards and increase the fuselage length to accommodate it rather than extend the nose.

Freight volume would be the same but pax cabin would be longer for the same size aircraft, assuming Airbus adopted their original nose or another short 787/Caravelle type nose.

Ruscoe

[Edited 2012-11-24 23:56:29]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-25 00:12:08 and read 57033 times.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 65):
Looking at that high undercarriage it made me wonder why Airbus did no retract it rearwards and increase the fuselage length to accommodate it rather than extend the nose.

In studying this cab/nose gear well design when it first came out on the A380, it was our conclusion there was a weight savings to be gained from the approach Airbus is taking. This seems to be the main driver behind the architecture we see on the A380 and A350.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: liftsifter
Posted 2012-11-25 22:38:26 and read 56109 times.

This a350 looks freakishly similar to a 757... My oh my...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-11-26 03:56:07 and read 55675 times.

There is a status article on the TXWB in the 29.10.2012 paper copy of AW, the A350 blog has cited portions of it:

http://www.bloga350.blogspot.fr/

The 84k program seems to progressing well, an interesting part is how their new high-speed X-ray equipment made them see that the LPT blades were bending a little different then they thought at design, correcting that with changed shimming brought 0.95% improvement in TSFC. That it is a big engine one can see in this photo of the first MSN001 TXWB being produced:



The part around the hot and high test in the middle east and the design freeze of the 97klbf version is not included however, here a short summary of that part of the original article: http://zno.zinio.com/sitemap/Sports-...9-12/cat1960028/is-416241910/pg-27 .

To better endure the hot and sandy conditions of e.g. EK and QR the bleed air is now taken at the center walls of the compressor instead of the outer walls where sand will be flying if ingested. For the 97k version (-1000) the fan will be spun 5% faster and the blade form around the spinner will be changed (inflected form) to increase the airflow. Further the core flow in the engine will be increased and the HPT will be shroudless for the first time on a RB211/Trent with active tip clearance control. They will also improve blade/disc material (CMS-X4 single crystal), coating and regulate the cooling air more aggressively (full air at start and top-of-climb and less air at cruise). They do that with a fluidistor, ie a static valve where the throughput is regulated by a small control jet of air. All these actions improve the thermal efficiency of the engine, thus it will keep it's TSFC despite a larger core.

[Edited 2012-11-26 04:46:39]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-11-26 07:17:58 and read 55141 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 68):
All these actions improve the thermal efficiency of the engine, thus it will keep it's TSFC despite a larger core.

Very, very interesting to read all this. Thanks for posting this Ferpe.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-26 08:05:39 and read 55052 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Green Hills INTEGRITY

- Wind River WxWorks 653

Really? I used both these on consumer products (camera phones/smart phones).
Why doesn't this make me feel more comfortable...
Not fair - both these tools are quite good and familiarity should be comforting.
But for some reason, I'd just like to think the s/w running my airplane is just a bit more sophisticated than what is running in my camera phone.  
Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
The testing and qualification is a little more rigorous I gather

Ah - yes. And as noted, the process is what is certified. You can never fully test s/w, but you can 'statistically' test the processes and use rigor to assure it is well developed. Then you build in graceful failure modes.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Is my gut-feeling correct? And if so; how does this affect certification?

Process.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38):
Modern realtime OS's are essentially bulletproof

Cough..... Rarely do I disagree with you Tom - but bulletproof? Really? I've managed to crash them lots of times. Even to the point of bricking the device.

I do readily agree that the s/w development/test process we used was clearly not of the same rigor as what we used for defense based projects. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that, if done well, the system can be robust to the point of being 'nearly' bulletproof.

That is another way of saying, I'd have no issue climbing on any of these aircraft. (happily!) If I had a few hundred extra bucks - I'd be booking DEN-ORD-DEN (or is it IAD?) on a UA 787 next month just 'for the fun of it'. I don't travel like I used to (couple of times a year now), and I can't say I miss most of it (benefit of the internet - I can do all my work essentially at home). The one part I miss is being on these marvelous machines.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-26 08:43:29 and read 54895 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 70):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Green Hills INTEGRITY

- Wind River WxWorks 653

Really? I used both these on consumer products (camera phones/smart phones).

Who on earth is running INTEGRITY-178B or VxWorks Cert Platform in a phone? There are multiple flavours of both OS's available, the version for consumer devices has far less certification and robustness than the high-safety aviation version (VxWorks 653 isn't DO-178B certified).

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 70):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38):
Modern realtime OS's are essentially bulletproof

Cough..... Rarely do I disagree with you Tom - but bulletproof? Really? I've managed to crash them lots of times. Even to the point of bricking the device.

You've crashed one of the DO-178B versions?! That's...impressive.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-26 09:18:47 and read 54784 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 71):
the version for consumer devices has far less certification

No - I'm obviously using the consumer device versions. I just focused on Wind River and Green Hills....

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 71):
You've crashed one of the DO-178B versions?! That's...impressive

You'd be amazed what I can do to a computer...

Of course - that was part of my job.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-02 12:14:26 and read 53531 times.

There are some new photos released on the activities around MSN001 on the Airbus main site. Here they are while we wait for news around the roll out of the (almost) complete ship and transportation to station 30.

First a photo from 09 Oct of people installing the wiring for the flight test computers and screens, the whole system is called METRO. Note all the plumbing in the crown of an airliner, what we think is the roof of the fuselage is only the cover of this cable and tube highway  :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Airbus-A350XWB-METRO2.jpg

Here a picture of the aft fuselage having been joined for MSN001 about 2 months ago:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350XWB-FWD_fuselage1.jpg

and here the wing is rolled in to the preparation place at station 40 where it will be prepared for the joining session. According to the new 350 workflow the fuselage is powered on during the wing join, one can just see the red warning cloth on the door at the entry to the forward body:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FLT_8589.jpg

This picture is from the 5th of Nov so the wings should be sitting there by now. The VTP and HTP might also be mounted, here some good pictures of them, first the VTP as it was shipped to TLS, one can clearly see the new type of 5 point dagger mounting to the fuselage:



And here the HTP when it arrived to TLS some 3 months ago:



As said next thing should be photos of a complete aircraft less engines, the pylons should also be mounted by now IMO:



here during production at the A TLS pylon factory.

Now we want the see the beauty out in the open so we can get a sense for her proportions, lets see when that happens   .

[Edited 2012-12-02 12:26:18]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-02 16:50:47 and read 52952 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 73):

There are some new photos released on the activities around MSN001 on the Airbus main site. Here they are while we wait for news around the roll out of the (almost) complete ship and transportation to station 30.

Very nice pictures, thanks for posting. I am getting anxious to see the roll-out of the A350-XWB so we can truly see how the airplane will look for real.  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-12-03 01:49:53 and read 52528 times.

Since we're starting to see MSN001 getting fitted out with test instrumentation, here are some comparisons and contrasts between Boeing and Airbus' approach to flight testing.

At Le Bourget in 2011, a counterpart at Airbus offered me a tour of A380 MSN1 in exchange for a tour of 787 ZA001. I was glad to accept and ended up getting to poke around the #1 A380 after show hours with an Airbus pilot showing me around. Test airplanes are about the most interesting thing there is in this business and there are several noteworthy differences between an Airbus test aircraft and a Boeing test aircraft. Here are some of the things which stood out to me:

Test crew: The A380 flew its test program with minimal flight test crew onboard. There are a handful of stations for test personnel, but a comparable Boeing test aircraft may have 20 or more engineering workstations onboard. Higher risk testing on a Boeing test airplane will see many or most of those stations unmanned, but it is not uncommon to have dozens of people onboard during testing.

First Flight Crew: The two companies have approaches to first flights that runs oddly counter to the above general philosophies regarding test crews. On the first flight of a Boeing aircraft, only the captain and first officer are onboard. By contrast, there was (I believe) a crew of 5 on MSN1 for its first flight (captain, first officer, and 3 test personnel).

Telemetry: In place of the 20+ engineering stations onboard the airplane, the A380 relies on more robust telemetry to get the data in real time to test engineers on the ground. While a Boeing test aircraft has extensive telemetry capability and is constantly streaming data to test personnel on the ground, I believe it must pale in comparison to what an Airbus test aircraft must use in order to make up for having the core test engineers onboard.

Instrumentation: When I walked through the lower deck of MSN1, I was immediately struck by the HUGE size of the instrumentation wire bundles running along the floor and into the test equipment. The bundles are easily the diameter of a man's torso and contain literally thousands of wires. This would indicate the test setup is running analog discretes from the sensors to the test racks, as opposed to feeding a databus. While all test aircraft have a lot of wiring, the Boeing setup typically converts analog discretes into digital and dumps them onto a shared databus which feeds the workstations and telemetry devices on the airplane. This is done to reduce the amount of wiring running through the airplane.

Emergency egress: I forgot to ask about this when I was on the airplane, but I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case. Boeing test aircraft are equipped with a main-deck door which can be jettisoned remotely using pyrotechnics (it was door 3R on the 787). The airplane is also equipped with a large wind screen which actuates into the airstream, permitting egress at high speed. I talked to Carriker once about it and he said under no circumstances would he ever use it!  


FMS: The graphical interface on the A380 FMS is truly magnificent. An awesome upgrade from past flight management computers. Boeing should take a lesson from it.

Anyhow, great to see the MSN001 continuing to make progress. The next 6 months are sure to be action packed for this thread!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-03 03:44:59 and read 52197 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
When I walked through the lower deck of MSN1, I was immediately struck by the HUGE size of the instrumentation wire bundles running along the floor and into the test equipment. The bundles are easily the diameter of a man's torso and contain literally thousands of wires

The instrumentation wire looms are not going to be on the floor with the A350, the are mostly installed now, they were delivered as a prefabricated loom with about 70 km of wiring in total. They connect the various racks with the various sensors around the airframe.

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
I forgot to ask about this when I was on the airplane, but I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case.

That is correct, it is a slide to a modified forward cargo door, similar on the A350.If you look at the photo around July, you will see one where the forward fuselage of MSn 01 is delivered to the FAL. One of the shots shows a darker green area on the forward cargo door, that is the additional emergency exit.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: moo
Posted 2012-12-03 03:47:57 and read 52354 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case.

You can just see it in red outline on this photo from the first flight, forward of the wing and set into the forward cargo hatch. It was removed later on so you have to catch the aircraft very early on to see it  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2012-12-03 04:18:29 and read 52196 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
Since we're starting to see MSN001 getting fitted out with test instrumentation, here are some comparisons and contrasts between Boeing and Airbus' approach to flight testing.
..........



CM again a great informative post in one of the (if not 'the') best threads at airliners.net.
Thanks that you contribute so much to give us such professional insight.

Keep them coming

Regards

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-12-03 04:59:41 and read 52030 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
Emergency egress: I forgot to ask about this when I was on the airplane, but I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case. Boeing test aircraft are equipped with a main-deck door which can be jettisoned remotely using pyrotechnics (it was door 3R on the 787). The airplane is also equipped with a large wind screen which actuates into the airstream, permitting egress at high speed. I talked to Carriker once about it and he said under no circumstances would he ever use it!

There is a series of television shows called something along the lines of “Building the Worlds Biggest Airliner” in which they show the emergency egress hatches unsuch. What was also clearly visible but not explained was what looked like bright orange scaffolding. It ran along the roof and walls right into the cockpit. I’m guessing this was in order to provide something for the crew to work their way along should they need to evacuate while the frame was experiencing high G load – Not 100% sure though – Does anyone know? And is it still there?

Also a quick thanks to everyone contributing to this thread, it is by far my favorite of all topics on here. I’m just hoping that there is going to be another series of documentary programmes following its creation as there were for the A380.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 05:09:00 and read 51974 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 73):
Now we want the see the beauty out in the open so we can get a sense for her proportions, lets see when that happens

Do we have an approximate date for the move between stations?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-03 05:17:29 and read 52015 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
The next 6 months are sure to be action packed for this thread!

Well, if we later rename it "A350 prototype production and flight testing thread"    the show will go on for at least 18 months    . It will be our privilege to have grandstand        speakers like you and Tom. Much popcorn will be consumed    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-03 05:25:13 and read 52028 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
If you look at the photo around July, you will see one where the forward fuselage of MSn 01 is delivered to the FAL.

Here it is on the forward cargo door, we discussed it but no-one came forward with the use at the time IIRC:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001section11-14.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-03 06:20:09 and read 51803 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 80):
Do we have an approximate date for the move between stations?

Not really, we know that A has stated roll-out in April to the flight line, the roll-over from station 40 to 30 is more to make room in the more equipped station 40 than that station 30 has unique features for continued integration work for MSN001. For later craft cabin seat installation is done at station 30 and it has adapted bridges and lifts to bring them on board but MSN001 has only a few specialized seats so not real need to station 30 IMO. It will probably be dictated by the will to do the work at the right place to train the personal and test the suitability of scaffolding and tooling, seems A tries to have everything done where and by whom it should be to train for the ramp from ship 1.

The next frame should be close in arriving to TLS by now (if not alreaday), the first section of MSN001 arrived in July IIRC, should be time for MSN003 to go into fuselage join soon. MSN002 (the first cabin frame) will take longer in preFAL where it will fit the cabin stuff. AW has leaked that the cabin area is the most problematic on the A350 right now because of late changes to underlying structural attachment points, lets try to spot these sections on their way to TLS  wideeyed  , their progress will tell a lot about the status of the A350 program .

[Edited 2012-12-03 06:40:24]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-12-03 08:12:02 and read 51523 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 77):
You can just see it in red outline on this photo from the first flight
Quoting ferpe (Reply 82):
Here it is on the forward cargo door

Thanks for those. Certainly easier to get to than door 3, but I'm still not sure Carriker would use it!  

Does anyone know if this hatch has a barn door which pops into the free airstream as I described for the Boeing setup?



Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 79):
And is it still there?

It was definitely not there when I toured the airplane in 2011.



Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
The instrumentation wire looms are not going to be on the floor with the A350, the are mostly installed now

Thanks Zeke. The instrumentation wire bundles in the A380 were so large (I assume you've seen them?), I suspected Airbus would have a totally different installation for the A350.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 08:29:48 and read 51542 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 84):
Thanks Zeke. The instrumentation wire bundles in the A380 were so large (I assume you've seen them?), I suspected Airbus would have a totally different installation for the A350.

The A350 XWB blog has a few more details about the installation of the wire bundles

http://bloga350.blogspot.com.au/2012...001-flight-test-supercomputer.html

Quote:
Outfitted with 40,000 electrical links, the METRO system allows a range of parameters to be measured and recorded during the aircraft’s flight test campaign, with data collected to be used for the A350 XWB’s certification process. METRO will be powered up in coming weeks and will allow 4,500-5,000 measurements to be made.

It also has details about the TXWB 97 technology design freeze which confirms information that have been mentioned up thread but gives a lot more technical details.

Quote:
The high-pressure compressor is derived from the European New Aero Engine Core Concept program, and is connected to the IP by a swan-neck duct. This performed “significantly” better than expected in earlier tests, adding confidence that it will meet the thrust target of the XWB-97 with no impact on SFC.
http://bloga350.blogspot.com.au/2012...000-engine-design-progressing.html


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VzCEZy4MEKk/ULKM0ioa25I/AAAAAAAAA1Q/Gf5Fnr0vCrE/s1600/TXWB1.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: abba
Posted 2012-12-03 10:20:52 and read 51222 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 82):
on the forward cargo door

Couldn't that location of the escape door bring the people concerned in troble with the wings - not to mention the engines?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-12-03 10:44:23 and read 51177 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 86):
Couldn't that location of the escape door bring the people concerned in troble with the wings - not to mention the engines?

Under the right (wrong?) circumstances, this is probably a possibility. However, if the airplane is in the circumstances which would put you into the engine or wing, I suspect there is little chance the crew could actually navigate their way from the flight deck to the escape hatch. This is, however, why Boeing puts the escape door aft, but again, the odds of making it there in something other than controled flight seems very slim. Incidentally, the large device which shoots out into the free airstream on a Boeing test aircraft is to ensure the pilots can get out at high speed and also to make sure they don't hit the H-stab. Lots to worry about, which is why I think most pilots would attempt to put a crippled airplane back on the ground rather than attempt a bail out.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-03 19:32:40 and read 50701 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 87):
This is, however, why Boeing puts the escape door aft, but again, the odds of making it there in something other than controled flight seems very slim.

I've had more than one test pilot explain it this way: "If I've got enough control of the airplane to do something, I'm more likely to survive by flying it down. If I don't have enough control to do that, I'm not going to make it to the exit anyway."

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: abba
Posted 2012-12-03 23:01:41 and read 50497 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 88):
I've had more than one test pilot explain it this way: "If I've got enough control of the airplane to do something, I'm more likely to survive by flying it down. If I don't have enough control to do that, I'm not going to make it to the exit anyway."


That is if we are looking at the pilots in isolation from the - as I understand the previous contributions - up to 20 or so test engineers on board the aircraft. Perhaps some of these could make their way to the exit while the pilots try keep the plane in stable flight.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Focker
Posted 2012-12-04 02:08:17 and read 50313 times.

Movement of MSN001, transferring from station 40 to station 30:

http://www.airbus.com/galleries/photo-gallery/

Looks good!

[Edited 2012-12-04 02:09:32]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-04 02:36:34 and read 50200 times.

Wow, was just asking yesterday when this move was going to happen...



Definitely looking good!  

[Edited 2012-12-04 02:37:26]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-12-04 02:48:01 and read 50120 times.

Quoting Focker (Reply 90):

Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

Anyway looking good and thanks to all who contribute to making this the best thread on A.net.

Fred

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2012-12-04 02:55:34 and read 50122 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 91):
Definitely looking good!

Indeed!! She doesn't look as "mean" as the 777, but still a very impressive shape.   
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):
Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

They do indeed!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-04 02:56:28 and read 50130 times.

The press release:
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...xwb-msn-001-structurally-complete/

Quote:
The assembly work performed in Station 40 included the successful electrical power-on of the aircraft's entire fuselage and wings. Soon work in Station 30 will start by testing the aircraft's hydraulic system, followed by the full electric and hydraulic power-on of the aircraft which will be completed by around the end of the year. This will mark the start of several weeks of comprehensive functional system testing.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: francoflier
Posted 2012-12-04 03:10:41 and read 50018 times.

It looks great in person. Better than the computer renderings.

I'll miss the A300 legacy cockpit windows but the new 'space shuttle' windows design is growing on me.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: qf340500
Posted 2012-12-04 03:19:35 and read 49973 times.

What a beauty indeed!

I am looking forward now to see it with the big engines hanging from the wings plus the wingtips...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: columba
Posted 2012-12-04 03:24:07 and read 49989 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):
Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

Looks kind of like a 757.

Much better looking then on the pictures, but with 4 engines it would look even better  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-04 03:24:11 and read 50146 times.

Here is a better side view of the aircraft:

http://i49.tinypic.com/23vyr75.jpg

[Edited 2012-12-04 03:33:15]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-04 04:04:25 and read 49856 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 95):
It looks great in person. Better than the computer renderings.

Agreed. And she is not even fully painted yet! A new beauty in the making.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-12-04 04:09:45 and read 49922 times.

Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):
Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

According to Ferpe in the 787-10X 6-wheel MLG thread, the A359's 4-wheel bogie is 55% bigger than its counterpart on the 787-9 (reply 51, 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG (by ferpe Dec 3 2012 in Civil Aviation) ).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: petera380
Posted 2012-12-04 04:16:28 and read 49934 times.

Since the A350 has achieved power on already, it's already way ahead of the 787 when it was officially rolled out to the public! Way to go Airbus!! 

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-04 04:45:38 and read 49894 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 98):

What I like about these pictures is the total lack of ceremony, its no big deal just 5 guys moving an aircraft, nothing to see here.. We'll just get her moved across to section 30 and then off home for tea  

[Edited 2012-12-04 04:46:13]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Focker
Posted 2012-12-04 04:59:17 and read 49755 times.

When you look at the picture of Karel's post (98), what is being constructed right behind MSN001?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-04 05:10:24 and read 49721 times.

That must be the new assembly building for the A350 (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Edited 2012-12-04 05:10:46]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-04 05:15:29 and read 49704 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 100):

According to Ferpe in the 787-10X 6-wheel MLG thread, the A359's 4-wheel bogie is 55% bigger than its counterpart on the 787-9 (reply 51, 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG

They will also have the highest tyre pressure of any aircraft in service.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-04 06:51:41 and read 49453 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 89):
That is if we are looking at the pilots in isolation from the - as I understand the previous contributions - up to 20 or so test engineers on board the aircraft.

You're mixing up two different cases. The emergency escape systems are designed for very high risk initial flights, when neither OEM puts a lot of people on board. Boeing uses just two for first flight, Airbus uses about five, but in either case it's "minimum" crew and they've got parachutes. Once the super high risk stuff is over you run more people (much more for Boeing, slightly more for Airbus) and don't run with parachutes anyway so the exit is a moot point. It's just easier to not remove it.

Quoting abba (Reply 89):
Perhaps some of these could make their way to the exit while the pilots try keep the plane in stable flight.

That's an option for Airbus (they could maybe save the engineers). But the argument still stands that, if the pilots have enough control to make the exit safely usable, everyone id probably safer staying onboard. I suppose onboard fire might be the exception to that rule.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-04 07:07:47 and read 49377 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 106):
Once the super high risk stuff is over you run more people

Weren't there something like 17 engineers evacuated from the 787 that had the electrical fire?

Edit: No, far more than that onboard, Flightglobal puts the number at 42 test personell on board which does seem like quite a lot.

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:19:44]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-04 07:22:43 and read 49397 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 104):
That must be the new assembly building for the A350 (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think you are on the money   , here where it should be then, just behind MSN001 when they backed her out and turned her north for hall 30:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/newHall30.jpg

This will bring 4 new hall 30 stations and todays hall 30 will then be reconfigured to an additional 2 hall 40 stations, ie we will have 4 FAL lines for the timeconsuming sections of the FAL.

Re hall 30, the main test will be hydraulics and complete airframe power on with following system tests and for MSN002 seat fitting. Some doors are missing on the MSN001 rear fuselage, might be in plan to enable fitting of test cabinets etc. Then she will go for external test (fuel system according to earlier info), painting, engine integration and then to flight line in April. Will be interesting to follow.

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:25:00]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-12-04 07:27:51 and read 49329 times.

Worth noting - Airbus reaffirmed the A350 schedule today at their Investor Days event.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-04 07:44:32 and read 49361 times.

EADS is running their Investor forum days yesterday and today, here some key A350 slides from yesterdays presentation by F Bregier:

Program status 1:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/GIF2012AA350progress1.jpg

program status in more detail:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/GIF2012AA350progress2-1.jpg

and finally here the way ahead:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/GIF2012AA350progress3.jpg

It seems the program is now making steady progress. J Slosar (CEO CX) commented recently that this is the view of CX as well, they of course know more whats goes on behind the layer of official news that we see here, sounds reassuring.


There are also some comparisons with 350-900 vs 787-10X and 350-1000 vs 777-300ER in Lehays presentation, as both B and A seems to have very special Payload-Range models for the competitors craft (even my crude model seem to calculate better        ) I refrain from posting them here to keep the thread free from the present war of words, but don't worry, there will be special threads for these posts  Wow!  .

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:52:04]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-04 07:51:06 and read 49284 times.

Quote:
I refrain from posting them here to keep the thread free from the present war of words, but don't worry, there will be special threads for these posts

I would love to see those posts  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-04 07:52:22 and read 49316 times.

Ok, lets talk gear legs and bogies.

It has been remarked that the A350 seems to stand a quite high off of the ground on a set of giraffe like legs when you compare it to the 787, now is this illusion because it is currently without engines or fact?

I reviewed the ACAP documents for both aircraft it seems to be fact, while we are a bit obsessed with engine ground clearance I think a better measurement for this purpose would be belly ground clearance so:

B788 - 1.68m 5.5ft

A359 - 2.41m 7.91ft

So we can see that the A350 stands 73cm or 2ft 5ins taller than the Boeing 787 which is quite a lot.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-04 07:59:49 and read 49394 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):
I would love to see those posts

Well there is nothing especially new in the charts, it is just that the competing frame suddenly seems to have lost 500nm all of a sudden, as this happens both in Airbus and in Boeing's presentations I attribute it to the difference in earth magnetic field between Toulouse and Seattle       .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-04 08:08:05 and read 49365 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 112):
So we can see that the A350 stands 73cm or 2ft 5ins taller than the Boeing 787 which is quite a lot.

Everything is bigger on the A350, I think it leaves some room for a larger model (-1100 ?).

And without engines it looks even bigger indeed. For reference use: here is a 787 without engines.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-04 10:20:46 and read 49019 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 106):
Once the super high risk stuff is over you run more people

Weren't there something like 17 engineers evacuated from the 787 that had the electrical fire?

A lot more, as posted. But that wasn't a "super high risk flight", it was totally routine (as test flying goes). You only go min crew for first flights and flutter, basically. The ZA002 fire happened months after first flight.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Edit: No, far more than that onboard, Flightglobal puts the number at 42 test personell on board which does seem like quite a lot.

As I recall, they were repositioning at the time so that's not a particularly high number. When you move test airplanes to remote bases you carry all your people with you. I've had test flights with over 100 people onboard for heavy-usage systems tests.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-04 13:32:17 and read 48684 times.

And now when everyone has seen her in stills, here she is live while taking the first tour in free air from station 40 and into station 30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQsnCRGlYe4

I would say she has very much her own looks the new lady...      

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Scipio
Posted 2012-12-04 17:27:01 and read 48302 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 112):
So we can see that the A350 stands 73cm or 2ft 5ins taller than the Boeing 787 which is quite a lot.

Almost seems like a trend:

A350 higher than B787
A320 higher than B737
A380 higher than B747
A300 (marginally) and A330 higher than B767

A different design philosophy?

I could not find sufficient data for a A330/340 vs B777 comparison.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: baldwin471
Posted 2012-12-04 17:36:28 and read 48280 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 117):
I could not find sufficient data for a A330/340 vs B777 comparison.

772ER - 2.81m
77W - 2.88m
A333 - 2.10m

So the 777 bucks the trend.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Scipio
Posted 2012-12-04 18:34:59 and read 48181 times.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 118):
So the 777 bucks the trend.

Consistent with what I suspected on the basis of pictures and inconclusive information...

Based on your data, also:

B777 higher than A350.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-04 19:00:54 and read 48278 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 114):
Everything is bigger on the A350, I think it leaves some room for a larger model (-1100 ?).

Apart from the engine clearance.. the numbers for both 787 and A350 are very similar and Airbus also seems to hang the A350 engines further outboard. As the clearances are similar I think we can conclude that Airbus also hangs engines on longer pylons and that by doing the same packaging as Boeing the A350 should be able to take larger engines if necessary, I guess you would need 7000 lbs of thrust, maybe you could get this simply by spinning the TWXB97 another 5% faster 

Another problem with an 1100 and I do see one in the future is length, the A350-1000 is already 73.6m long so maybe the gear length and aft positioning is done with this in mind.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 118):

So the 777 bucks the trend.

The trend I would point to would be that later designs for similar aircraft stand taller.. but then the A350 bucks the trend set by the 787 and the 787 bucks the trend set by the A330.. So no trend!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: moo
Posted 2012-12-04 23:54:57 and read 47896 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 110):

How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout (I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move - but how big are those differences)? Might be a good indication of how things are progressing.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-05 00:42:13 and read 47781 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 121):
How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout (I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move - but how big are those differences)? Might be a good indication of how things are progressing.

Oooooooh I think that we should 'pass' on this question and move on...

No good will come of a discussion of the 787 readiness at rollout.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: swallow
Posted 2012-12-05 00:44:49 and read 47790 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 112):
lets talk gear legs and bogies

The nose down attitude of the 330 is gone. This puppy sits on her MLG much like the 767

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-05 05:52:28 and read 47407 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 121):

How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout (I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move - but how big are those differences)? Might be a good indication of how things are progressing.

Airbus is moving the airframes between stations on its gear, what we have seen is the move from station 40 to station 30. This is an overview of the process. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...irbus-formally-activates-a350.html . On the 787 line this would be like moving the aircraft forward one position.

When the aircraft moves to the flight line with the engines to commence ground/flight test (i.e. leaving station 20), that would be rollout.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: moo
Posted 2012-12-05 06:35:59 and read 47193 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 124):
When the aircraft moves to the flight line with the engines to commence ground/flight test (i.e. leaving station 20), that would be rollout.

Uhm, I know - which is why I said "I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move"...

My point was that Airbus have, in their presentation to investors, claimed several "power on" events by the time this station move happened, with a full power on by year end planned - in comparison, Boeing didn't achieve power on with the 787 until nearly a year after the *official* roll out ceremony.

This isn't a Boeing bash - its more a "can we glean any indications of a major 787 or A380-style problem at this stage" question, more orientated toward the "787-style" as all of the A380s problems occurred after roll out and generally after first flight, while the 787 was ham strung before first flight.

So, with Airbus claiming several milestones, how can we say the program is going? Is it, as far as comparisons can be made, ahead of where the 787 was in terms of "completeness" at a comparable stage?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 06:56:05 and read 47189 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 121):
How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout...

Essentially, when the A350 rolls-out from Station 20 for it's public ceremony, it will be a functional airframe.

When Boeing rolled out ZA001 for it's public ceremony on July 8, 2007, it was a CFRP mockup of what the outside of a 787 would look like.




Quoting moo (Reply 125):
So, with Airbus claiming several milestones, how can we say the program is going? Is it, as far as comparisons can be made, ahead of where the 787 was in terms of "completeness" at a comparable stage?

By a significant margin.

Rollout to First Flight for ZA001 took 2 years, 5 months and 4 days (FF being 12 December 2009). Airbus is planning first flight within the next six months, I believe.

[Edited 2012-12-05 07:12:37]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: overcast
Posted 2012-12-05 07:12:08 and read 47298 times.

I thought the 787 was "rolled out" on 7/8/7, so that's more like 2 years 5 months between Rollout and first flight. Surely the A350 won't be that late!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 07:13:44 and read 47327 times.

Quoting overcast (Reply 127):
I thought the 787 was "rolled out" on 7/8/7, so that's more like 2 years 5 months between Rollout and first flight.

Corrected..

Quoting overcast (Reply 127):
Surely the A350 won't be that late!

Baring a collision on the ground or Act of God that destroys the airframe, I can't see how she possibly could be.

[Edited 2012-12-05 07:15:05]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-05 07:28:32 and read 47244 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 125):
This isn't a Boeing bash - its more a "can we glean any indications of a major 787 or A380-style problem at this stage" question, more orientated toward the "787-style" as all of the A380s problems occurred after roll out and generally after first flight, while the 787 was ham strung before first flight.

No we do not get "indications" to compare with the 787/A380 mainly due to Airbus delaying the process early so the barrels, wings etc moving to FAL are in their correct state. The 787s were basically empty, lots of "travel work" needed to refit the aircraft on the FAL, the A350 is being delivered to the FAL "pre-stuffed", I think Boeing had 40+ 787s complete before it got to that stage. You will recall the 787 did not even use the correct fasteners on the first airframes.

The A380 is different again, the wiring issues became evident not when building the test frames, it came when building the production frames, the horse had already bolted, so lot of refit work was needed.

Quoting moo (Reply 125):
So, with Airbus claiming several milestones, how can we say the program is going?

Unless you work for Airbus, or a customer, I think that question will remain unanswered, some customers have come out recently and said they were happy with the progress.

Quoting moo (Reply 125):
Is it, as far as comparisons can be made, ahead of where the 787 was in terms of "completeness" at a comparable stage?

Way ahead, correct fasteners, pre-stuffed, powered on, network attached to the iron bird to operate the computers with the hardware at the the other end, cabling for flight testing installed.

I did my own little quick and dirty comparison a while ago, I had a look at the time it took to get the first A350 nose section after being delivered to the FAL joined and power on, it was about 2 weeks. Similar markers on the 787 ZA003 took months.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-05 07:45:42 and read 47159 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 129):
I had a look at the time it took to get the first A350 nose section after being delivered to the FAL joined and power on, it was about 2 weeks. Similar markers on the 787 ZA003 took months.

Why would you compare MSN001 to ZA003 and not ZA001 or ZA002? ZA003 was the oddball in the 787 test fleet because it was the systems/cabin test aircraft and actually flew fourth.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-05 09:01:30 and read 46980 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 130):
Why would you compare MSN001 to ZA003 and not ZA001 or ZA002? ZA003 was the oddball in the 787 test fleet because it was the systems/cabin test aircraft and actually flew fourth.

ZA001 took around 13 months, it was essentially empty on arrival from what I understand.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-12-05 09:33:36 and read 46980 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 126):
When Boeing rolled out ZA001 for it's public ceremony on July 8, 2007, it was a CFRP mockup of what the outside of a 787 would look like.

  

Best description of the 787 rollout I've seen yet.

PR-driven decisions on the 787 program (like rollout on 07/08/07) actually compounded existing schedule problems for the program. In my assessment of the 787 delays, prepping the ZA001 for rollout as an empy shell, then going back for massive rework to undo all the temporary cosmetic work, Home Depot fasteners, etc, delayed the program by at least 4 months. We were increasing the level of attention on the program at the same time we were building in delays - truly counterproductive, even from a PR perspective. It was decisions like this which fueled skeptics like CaptainX, who was still convinced at the time of rollout the 787 was a "ghost airplane" and that Boeing was pulling a sleight of hand with no intention or ability to actually deliver a real 787.

I'm confident no OEM will make this kind of mistake again (learning from mistakes is good, learning from the mistakes of others is truly sublime).

Quoting zeke (Reply 129):
No we do not get "indications" to compare with the 787/A380 mainly due to Airbus delaying the process early so the barrels, wings etc moving to FAL are in their correct state. The 787s were basically empty, lots of "travel work" needed to refit the aircraft on the FAL

Obviously, this was a big piece of the ZA001's slow crawl through final aseembly toward first flight. However, there were other major reasons for the overall program delay. Negative strength margins were found while ZA001 was still in FAL, requireing reinforcement of the rear spar of the center wing box. This delayed installation of the aft E/E bay. Without the aft equipment bay, there was no way to get power on the airplane. With similar consequence, there was a mistake made by a production worker which necessitated a massive repair in the upper wing skin on the CWB, again delaying assembly of the most heavily integrated part of the airplane. And there were countless other smaller challenges which added to the "death by a thousand cuts" which was taking place. All of this occurred before the side-of-body issue was discovered in late during static test, and which added another 6 months to the program before first flight. Condition of assembly was a huge issue, to be sure, but there were other major hurdles being overcome during those 2+ years getting to first flight.

Honestly, I wouldn't wish any of the above problems for the A350 program. I say this dispite the fact Airbus is a competitor to my own employer and a potential obstacle to my own success. Here's why: The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone. When the problems began piling up, Boeing engineers and management worked and worried themselves to the point of breakdown. Health suffered, marriages suffered and kids suffered. Personally, I would go home from work late, exhausted, irritated and distracted, then work till the early hours of the morning before collapsing into bed. Worse yet, I would then lay in bed unable to sleep - my mind simply could not stop working the problems. I was constantly on my phone and computer, even when on holliday. There was no end to it. Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: abba
Posted 2012-12-05 10:32:30 and read 46737 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
.

During the long delay of the 787 program my thoughts were often with the hands-on-people involved. It must have been the closest you could ever get to a nightmare while not being asleep.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-05 10:37:53 and read 46715 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 133):
During the long delay of the 787 program my thoughts were often with the hands-on-people involved. It must have been the closest you could ever get to a nightmare while not being asleep.

No doubt is was a very stressful situation, as was the situation with the wiring production issues on the A380. Then again, in many businesses situations like these occur. It is part of a working life, especially in high-skill functions.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-05 11:58:13 and read 46541 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.

While you describe a very pressed and unpleasant situation it is the description of this human aspect of what it takes to create perhaps the ultimate achievement of serially produced objects that make this thread so valuable. I sincerely thank you for having the stature and the courage for sharing this with all of us    .

A new airliner is the ultimate challenge in civil accomplishment (at least IMO) that is why we all enjoy following the birth of one like we do it this thread. When you sign on to be part of the team that achieves this you know you are in for something special, one does not have to come as close to human and program breakdown as you all got however. It testifies a lot to the spirit of the team that you pulled it of, and a fine one at that    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-05 12:09:09 and read 46465 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 133):
It must have been the closest you could ever get to a nightmare while not being asleep.

I had nightmares about testing the 787...it wouldn't even leave you alone when you were asleep.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 134):
No doubt is was a very stressful situation, as was the situation with the wiring production issues on the A380. Then again, in many businesses situations like these occur.

What distinguishes what the airframers do from most other business situations is the combination of duration & severity. A program that goes really well, near the end, lasts for months of continuous 24/7 full-effort work. A program that doesn't, like the 787, goes for years. At the same time, if you screw it up people will die.

Sure, something like strategy consulting or investment banking is at least as physically grueling but nobody dies if you get it wrong. And even more insane product launches, like an iPhone 5, only last for a few months in the crunch phase. Aviation gets the worst of both.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-05 12:21:03 and read 46396 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
A new airliner is the ultimate challenge in civil accomplishment (at least IMO) that is why we all enjoy following the birth of one like we do it this thread. When you sign on to be part of the team that achieves this you know you are in for something special, one does not have to come as close to human and program breakdown as you all got however. It testifies a lot to the spirit of the team that you pulled it of, and a fine one at that    .

Very well written ferpe!  .

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 136):
Sure, something like strategy consulting or investment banking is at least as physically grueling but nobody dies if you get it wrong. Aviation gets the worst of both.

Also very well written tdscanuck.  

I agree with you both on this. That factor is additional to aviation which you hardly see in other Industries on this scale. I guess that is why there are so many people like us following the events as they unfold very carefully, and full of passion.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Pihero
Posted 2012-12-05 13:23:34 and read 46213 times.

CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."
Respectfully,

Roland

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-12-05 21:18:19 and read 45805 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
Honestly, I wouldn't wish any of the above problems for the A350 program. I say this dispite the fact Airbus is a competitor to my own employer and a potential obstacle to my own success. Here's why: The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone. When the problems began piling up, Boeing engineers and management worked and worried themselves to the point of breakdown. Health suffered, marriages suffered and kids suffered. Personally, I would go home from work late, exhausted, irritated and distracted, then work till the early hours of the morning before collapsing into bed. Worse yet, I would then lay in bed unable to sleep - my mind simply could not stop working the problems. I was constantly on my phone and computer, even when on holliday. There was no end to it. Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.

Thanks for sharing.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
While you describe a very pressed and unpleasant situation it is the description of this human aspect of what it takes to create perhaps the ultimate achievement of serially produced objects that make this thread so valuable. I sincerely thank you for having the stature and the courage for sharing this with all of us   

So much second that.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."
Respectfully,

Roland

So much second that too. I would like to add ferpe to the thanks list, and mention "respect" in the list of qualities.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: india1
Posted 2012-12-05 22:27:07 and read 45716 times.

Let me also extend thanks to all the contributors to this fantastic thread. What I esp appreciate is objective comparisons and comments, without pot shots at "the other guy".

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2012-12-05 22:54:04 and read 45700 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site


I would like to add Ferpe to that list as well. His contribution is beyond what we have seen in most other threads.
As others have said, to follow this thread is a pure joy.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-12-05 23:00:06 and read 45790 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone

  
Boy, can I associate with that......
It's particularly frustrating when you're near enough to the product to see the impact of those poor management decisions even at the time they are made
I can point to decisions like that whose consequences will stay with us for at least 3 decades

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
A new airliner is the ultimate challenge in civil accomplishment (at least IMO)

Agree with this too. It's one of the things that attracts me to the industry.
There aren't many products that stand comparison with the one I'm familiar with in terms of challenge.
An airliner programme passes that tollgate though  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 136):
A program that doesn't, like the 787, goes for years. At the same time, if you screw it up people will die.

I can associate with that, too, my friend   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."

Echoed again. In spades.
There can be days when this place behaves just like any other internet forum.
Then there are days when the professionalism of the membership stands out a mile.
These latter are what make a-net the place it is

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: maxter
Posted 2012-12-05 23:25:49 and read 45674 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
Honestly, I wouldn't wish any of the above problems for the A350 program. I say this dispite the fact Airbus is a competitor to my own employer and a potential obstacle to my own success. Here's why: The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone. When the problems began piling up, Boeing engineers and management worked and worried themselves to the point of breakdown. Health suffered, marriages suffered and kids suffered. Personally, I would go home from work late, exhausted, irritated and distracted, then work till the early hours of the morning before collapsing into bed. Worse yet, I would then lay in bed unable to sleep - my mind simply could not stop working the problems. I was constantly on my phone and computer, even when on holliday. There was no end to it. Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.

Thanks a lot for that honest and heartfelt synopsis of the events of that time, I am sure that it was incredibly stressful. Having been part of a major computer network roll out that was delayed for a year, I have some small idea of what you went through.

Hope all that is behind you now and things are on the up and up...

Either way, both A and B produce some amazing products and all involved should take a bow.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-12-06 00:12:30 and read 45642 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 141):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site

I would like to add Ferpe to that list as well. His contribution is beyond what we have seen in most other threads.
As others have said, to follow this thread is a pure joy.

Absolutely    And don't forget KarelXWB, he has joined A-net not so long ago and is often first with the latest pics about both A350 and 787 production.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2012-12-06 00:41:52 and read 45545 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,

Thanks Pihero (it's been a while!). I'll drop my name from the list, add Ferpe and Astuteman to it, and second your sentiemnts. I learn a great deal from these individuals, even if at times we dissagree. Ferpe's consistent efforts here deserve truly special recognition.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 142):
Boy, can I associate with that......

Submarines, right? Take the same level of systems complexity and integration, add a nuclear reactor or some other enormously powerful sealed propulsioon system, weaponize it, then add thousands of pounds of delta-P to the equation... I think I CAN'T relate to that! You have the bigger challenge, my friend.

Quoting maxter (Reply 143):
Hope all that is behind you now and things are on the up and up...

Indeed. The airplane is doing well and I (along with thousands of other Boeing employees) am in a much happier place today. I left the 787 program (voluntarily) when the airplane entered service. I add the word "voluntarily" because I realized after my last post that I left out one aspect of the "human toll"... There were many 787 leaders on the program who were quite publicly kicked off the 787 when Chicago needed to calm fears about the program and show the world we were "addressing the problems". In a few cases this was justified. But in many more cases these leaders were doing all anyone could with the hand they were dealt. I know we saw some of this on the A380 program as well. In my view, this kind of shuffling of the deck chairs has little or no benefit to the program. While it may satisfy worried investors and persistant analysts, it takes a huge personal toll on the people who get shown the door. There's no hiding from the fact there is lots of collateral damage when a program heads off the tracks.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2012-12-06 00:54:21 and read 45524 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."
Respectfully,

Roland



Adding nothing of substance to this thread, just want to join the people above me in a word of thanks to the awesome contributors on this thread, currently the best on A.net IMHO. I think I speak for a lot of folks just reading this thread; thanks guys, please PLEASE keep it up! 

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-12-06 01:35:33 and read 45493 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 145):
Submarines, right? Take the same level of systems complexity and integration, add a nuclear reactor or some other enormously powerful sealed propulsioon system, weaponize it, then add thousands of pounds of delta-P to the equation... I think I CAN'T relate to that! You have the bigger challenge, my friend

On a product basis - unquestionably.
We don't face the same scale of industrialisation, and economic, challenges.

As an engineer who can recognise product complexity, when I look at, or travel in, an A320 or 737, I see an incredibly complex, hugely integrated piece of kit (with a vast amount of safety engineering and regulatory justification built-in that the lay person of course won't see).
Hell, a CFM 56 engine on its own is just an awesomely intricate piece of engineering - a major programme in its own right.

And then I think - between them Airbus and Boeing are pumping out EIGHTY of these things every month.
That's THREE A DAY - 4 if you're European and only work a 5-day week  

Haven't even mentioned the 787's, 777's A330's and A380's that also get produced.

I'm sure pretty much all of the readers comprehend that this is a big business.
But I suspect not that great a percentage are truly able to stand back and comprehend the sheer engineering magnitude of what stands before us.

Just look a ONE narrowbody. And then multiply that by almost 1000 to get the scale of a year's work   

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-12-06 02:41:26 and read 45341 times.

I am truly appreciative of this thread, and to all its contributors of course.

I can relate to CM especially since I guess we are almost counterparts.

We already had our share of challenges and difficult times, and strains on human beings, on the A350XWB programme. While we know that there are still some challenges ahead, there are also many milestones that we can see approaching and that are getting us closer to first flight, and this is what drives us, be it from Boeing, Airbus, or any other OEM, to design and produce such machines.

To participate to such a challenge, while it can be tiring and frustrating at times (and painfull), always brings a sense of team work and joint effort that lifts up any veil that some may have at times.

I am now doing a job I could not dream of 10 years ago, with amazing colleagues, sitting close to a new aircraft being made, and that I can see evolve every day. What can I ask more work wise? Nothing.

I wish I could share with you many other infos and else but I hope you understand I strongly limit my participation to this thread to avoid making a big mistake. However, whenever I can intervene and provide non-risky information, I'll do my best to do so.

Long live this thread (thanks Ferpe, and all the others).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-12 01:08:28 and read 44205 times.

While we wait on further news from MSN001 and 003 here some stills from the nice videos that A has put on the A350 site:

First a good example why the P59 reception and large item install station makes sense, here a Safran team (French Aero equipment group which e.g. owns 50% of CFM) that can install flight test equipment into the mid section before it goes to join. The open section end and the access platform in the background makes access with these large items easier.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001productionsection15-21testequipementinstall.jpg


Then the same section entering the join area, note that the tank inert gas system is missing on MSN001 (right red circle) but the section is fully equipped, the left circle shows e.g. the air cond heat exchanger inlet:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001productionsection15-21noinertingsystemyet.jpg


After the mid section the rear section gets fitted, here a still from the Hamburg production video where section 16-18 panels are fitted around the rear bulkhead, here the bulkhead being hoisted into place:

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


The most critical part is the wing join as described by CM, here some nice stills. First the right wing from rear, once can see there is a lot of gear needed for the placement of the wing:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/JoningofMSN5000-wing4.jpg

then from the front, note that the bolts are not fitted on the forward lip (cricle) and the access hatch to the join area (arrow). The area is lighted so that the join can be worked on from the inside, one can just get a glimpse of the center wingbox isogrid spar:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/JoningofMSN5000-wing51withmarker.jpg

The next still is taken through this hatch, it is nice of A to include this unique bit about the innards of the wing join, note the blue protection cushion so that the mechanic does not scratch his knees but also for no dropped tools to hit the lower CFRP skin and stringers:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/JoningofMSN5000-winginternal.jpg

Finally the wing gets bolted up, don't know if one can call these hefty bolts fasteners. BTW looks suspiciously akin to the normal hardware store bolts     :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/WingjoinMSN5000boltingoflowerskin.jpg


Finally, who said the A350 was made of semi-monocoque CFRP    , the real load-bearer is the tube space-frame underneath  :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Aircondsystem2.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: maxter
Posted 2012-12-12 01:24:01 and read 43941 times.

Interesting, thanks ferpe. I wonder how much weight would be saved if the bolt shank/thread length was shorter.
Is the extra length for an additional locking nut? It looks like a spring? washer already at the bottom

[Edited 2012-12-12 01:25:09]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-12 01:38:46 and read 43993 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
While we wait on further news from MSN001 and 003 here some stills from the nice videos that A has put on the A350 site:

Again very nice detailed pictures of the A350-XWB. Really interesting stuff. Thanks for posting ferpe!  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-12-12 02:34:16 and read 44302 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
Finally the wing gets bolted up, don't know if one can call these hefty bolts fasteners. BTW looks suspiciously akin to the normal hardware store bolts

Seemslike an easy way to lose a bit ofweight to get rid of the ends of those.

Quoting maxter (Reply 150):
Interesting, thanks ferpe. I wonder how much weight would be saved if the bolt shank/thread length was shorter.
Is the extra length for an additional locking nut? It looks like a spring? washer already at the bottom

I'm glad I Wasn't the only one who noticed, what are the practicalities of being able to get rid of them? I'd imagine that hot work is a no no in there and I'm pretty sure that a grinder is out of the question. Any takers?

Fred

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-17 14:23:54 and read 42857 times.

For quite some time I have been wondering how a 56m B788 can have the same cargo capacity (in LD3 containers) as the 59m A358 and the 62m 789 as the 65m 359? Also in other areas it seemed the 787 family was more compact in it's design. Are the Airbus frames less tightly designed? Do they waste space, especially under the floor? To get a better understanding I poked around and started laying drawings of cabins and cargo holds over each other. Here the story why your air cond mixing principle can make a lot of difference  :

Lets start with the frames I used to understand any difference in packaging, the A359 and B789. They are reasonably close in length (65m vs 62), capacity (315pax vs 290) and MTOW (268t vs 251) and there are drawings available for the relevant areas. Lets start with the outer dimensions, here I have aligned the wings trailing edges:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350and789topviewdrawingscale200wingtrailingedgesaligned_zps8391f83b.jpg

As can be seen the 789 is somewhat smaller in fuselage length and span and fractionally smaller in fuselage dia. The HTP has higher span however. Comparing the cabins one can see that the 789 carries about 3 rows of economy less (aligned at door 1):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/359and789cabinandfuselagecomparison_zpsf8691cd3.jpg

The 789 has 3 class seating and the 359 2 class but as they are the same scale one can transpose the seating between them, take a copy of the image and cut and paste    (click on all images to see better). One can also see that the shape between door 1 and 4 is very similar but the 359 has a longer and more tapered rear galley area. The 359 tail is not much longer but it carries the HTP (and VTP as we see later) further back, partly because the bulkhead is further into the rear cone. The cockpits are similar with the 359 nose a shade longer probably due to it's forward positioning of the NLG. Summary is that over the floor their packaging is about equal, if anything the bus goes further into the tail.

Under the floor there are larger differences however, here the cargo area aligned at the forward end of the center wingboxes:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350vs789cargodimensionsscale200_zps1713d938.jpg

Packaging of a fuselage in the tube section is often done on a per frame basis, so also here. The 350 frame spacing is 25' = 0.635m and the 787 24' = 0.610m, here my take on frame usage in this middle section. The wingboxes are both 8 frames, the 359 MLG well 6 and 789 5 frames, the 789 has an aft equipment room of 2 frames and the 359 a air cond mixer room of 2 frames, see picture:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350mixerarea_zps6aeb31cb.jpg

So where is the 789 air cond mixer (where the cabin recirculating air gets mixed with new conditioned air)? It is integrated in the air cond pack as a so called compact mixer:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787airconpacs_zps41c3cf15.jpg

So why does the 350 uses space for something the 787 put with the pacs? For one the space beneath the wingbox is considerably less in the 350 and additionally this is the way Airbus has done it since day 1, here the A3X0 and 380 mixers (the A320 is the same):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380and3X0airmixerunit_zps83acf9df.jpg

It might be that it brings a quieter cabin as the mixing is happening further from the pacs air cycle machines. When one then looks at the cargo holds themselves it is obvious the Airbus holds are longer for the same given LD3 numbers (yellow cells in the table), at least for the announced frames:



Cargo is stowed in Unit Load Devices (ULDs), the most common are shown in the picture from the Emirates cargo pages: http://www.skycargo.com/aboutus/ourfleet/fleetinfo/a330_200.asp#0 , they tell a good story how an airliner views cargo as opposed to the APACs simplified representations:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/TypicalULDs_zpsaa95c999.jpg

Emirates focuses on ULDs with 2 lengths, 60.4' and 96'. For these they have containers (LD3 and LD6) of 60.4' = 1.534m and pallets and containers of 96' = 2.438m ( PMC and LD36). As can be seen from their web pages they also package the frames optimally full using these two different length ULDs:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Emiratescargopages_zpsb6a14e78.jpg

In the table I have played a bit with these lengths to get the least wasted space (blue cells), dunno if this is the optimum but is shows the principle (try to beat me  ). One of the reasons A is not showing how many LD3 the holds can theoretically take (look at the forward 358 hold, there is room for 8 rows of LD3 but A only list 7) might be different restraining philosophies, in a Tech/Ops thread it was clear B allows stack loading of ULDs whereas it was not clear if B recommends it: Pallets Or LD3s And How Do You Restrain Them? (by ferpe Nov 22 2012 in Tech Ops) . It seemsB has managed a very optimal cargo hold despite an extra equipment room needed due to the more electrical architecture, weather this remains so in practical cargo handling seems less clear, with both holds stack loaded with the same restrain principle and different length ULDs it seems more equal. In the below deck picture it is also clear that A gains space with the NLG swung all the way forward, the cargo hold can go to door 1 whereas the 787 stops short due to the NLG bay taking space. A thereby regain some lost space due to mixer area loss and a longer MLG well.


   Bottom line seems to be that one shall use cabin and cargo hold length as the yardstick for 350 and 787 positioning as they both have the same cross sections over and below the floor (the 787 cabin being a tad narrower which might affect comfort level but not size positioning):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cabinandcargoholdlengths-1_zpsbeb00d61.jpg

When one uses these measures it is clear A has positioned the 350 to straddle the 787 positions and B seems to go along with that for the 787-10    . From a packaging perspective the 787 is a tad more compact but not to the level where A wastes space, the biggest difference seems to be in the Air cond/ECS philosophies.

That this area is an important space eater can be seen from this air cond ducting picture from the 359, the mixer is the octopus looking thing in the middle  :

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

[Edited 2012-12-17 14:57:56]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: a36001
Posted 2012-12-17 14:40:18 and read 42543 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 20):

Love it!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-17 14:41:29 and read 42595 times.

As always, ferpe, thanks for the thought and detail.   

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: rwessel
Posted 2012-12-17 15:14:53 and read 42466 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 153):
It might be that it brings a quieter cabin as the mixing is happening further from the pacs air cycle machines. When one then looks at the cargo holds themselves it is obvious the Airbus holds are longer for the same given LD3 numbers (yellow cells in the table), at least for the announced frames:


Unless I'm missing something, there appears to be enough additional room in the front bay (167cm) of the A350-800 for another 154cm LD3/LD6.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: mingocr83
Posted 2012-12-17 15:46:45 and read 42312 times.

I would like to congratulate and thank Ferpe, CM, Tom, Zeke, Astuteman and EPA. The support given on this thread has been amazing. On the last 7 years reading the A.net forums this has been one of the most interesting threads about plane manufacturing I've ever read in my life.

Keep it coming!

Regards,
Roberto

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-17 16:37:37 and read 42205 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 155):

As always, ferpe, thanks for the thought and detail.  

I can only second that. It is remarkable how close the design are to each other. The drawings which show the outline boundaries of both airliners are very telling.

Ferpe has done another incredible post what this forum makes so interesting to visit. Thanks for this and to all involved for a great discussion in a great thread.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-17 18:15:55 and read 42039 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 153):
So where is the 789 air cond mixer (where the cabin recirculating air gets mixed with new conditioned air)? It is integrated in the air cond pack as a so called compact mixer:

Fantastic analysis! However, although the 787 really does have a compact mixer, it also has the tall vertical drum mixer at the back of a cargo hold just like Airbus does. That area is generally referred to as "the snake pit" due to the ridiculous number of air ducts running around in there.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2012-12-17 18:52:44 and read 41950 times.

I just spent considerable time getting through post 153. If there's ever a poll as to the best 20 posts on anet, I'm afraid we're going to have to disqualify ferpe. Nobody else would get a vote.
Much appreciated, non-french guy from France.

[Edited 2012-12-17 18:56:10]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-17 19:30:31 and read 41860 times.

I update my respected users about once every 5 years, but I did a little shuffling thanks to this thread.

NS

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-17 20:36:19 and read 41825 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 159):
although the 787 really does have a compact mixer, it also has the tall vertical drum mixer at the back of a cargo hold just like Airbus does.

Thanks Tom, I have been hunting for quite some time to try and verify if the 787 had the same vertical snake area in front of the wingbox. It is amazing the number of pictures and videos on the cabin side but not a single looking aft in the forward cargo hold    or forward in the rear (and I looked through Ostrowers whole Flickr library)! CM has recommended a 787 book ( Birth of a Dreamliner) as he noted I was interested in how the 787 was built but it has not arrived yet, let's see if it has some pictures of the hold areas  .

Anyway I did catch this fuzzy still on a Qatar Dreamliner build video, it should then be it I guess just in front of the wingbox. In such case it can't be more then 1-1.5 frames, I can't get the wingbox and forward cargo hold to fit otherwise   .

Once again the 787 team gets away with little space to waste:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787drummixerarea_zps6701f06b.jpg

The aft equipment room was the same problem, I only found this Sundstrand video which showed how the panels would sit and whether it is 2 or 3 frames needed is very difficult to see, it seems the now famous P200 panels sits on the side in the cheeks:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787aircondandaftequipmroom_zps1b26c702.jpg

[Edited 2012-12-17 20:51:22]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-17 21:48:58 and read 41726 times.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 156):
Unless I'm missing something, there appears to be enough additional room in the front bay (167cm) of the A350-800 for another 154cm LD3/LD6.

Exactly, so either A is sandbagging (they label it as a 7 row pit for a total of 14 rows on the 350-800) or they have very spacious tie down rules, they show the LD3s in groups of 3 or 4 on the 359 ACAP with the typical T locks in between the rows but it seems they don't even use both sides of the Ts but rather work with adjacent T locks or adjacent inverted L locks:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/359cargoloads_zps90a93ad4.jpg


Here a general picture of locks, this is not the MSN001 cargo hold  , don't think it will have the cargo floor fitted, this should be for MSN002. We see two end locks in the form of inverted Ls and a middle lock in the form of a T :



[Edited 2012-12-17 22:47:34]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: rwessel
Posted 2012-12-17 23:23:06 and read 41479 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 163):
Exactly, so either A is sandbagging (they label it as a 7 row pit for a total of 14 rows on the 350-800) or they have very spacious tie down rules, they show the LD3s in groups of 3 or 4 on the 359 ACAP with the typical T locks in between the rows but it seems they don't even use both sides of the Ts but rather work with adjacent T locks or adjacent inverted L locks:

They don't seem to be requiring a particularly large amount of extra space in the *rear* hold. The mixed load scenarios for both the 358 and 359 leave no more space (2cm or 13 cm) than would be left by putting another LD3/6 in the front (13cm).

Perhaps there's some intrusion into the last forward hold position that makes it less usable, but may still allow some cargo to fit the nominal length.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-18 05:34:41 and read 40854 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 162):
Thanks Tom, I have been hunting for quite some time to try and verify if the 787 had the same vertical snake area in front of the wingbox.

Yeah, I tried hard to find a public photo of that area and failed completely.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 162):
CM has recommended a 787 book ( Birth of a Dreamliner)

Excellent book! Mine is, unfortunatley, stuck in a storage container in Seattle, but you'll love it.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 162):
Anyway I did catch this fuzzy still on a Qatar Dreamliner build video, it should then be it I guess just in front of the wingbox.

That's some wonderful video detective work there. Yes, that's the forward fuselage (sans nose) looking back towards the wing box. The vertical yellowish bit in the middle is the mix manifold. The vertical silver bits to either side are the HEPA filters on the recirculation intakes. The recirc fans are just under the cargo floor below the filters. Recirc air, plus air from both packs, all goes into the mix manifold for distribution to the cabin. It's very similar to the A350 setup (or vice versa), although you can see in your photos in Reply 153 that Airbus put the recirc fans up to the side (bottom right in the photo).

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-18 07:32:25 and read 40607 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 165):
I tried hard to find a public photo of that area and failed completely

Well the 359 photo is also from a video, the A St Nazaire preEquipping one. It was not much easier with the 787 aft equipment bay, there are no photos there as well, the overview is from yet another video from Hamilton-Sundstrand and they had this 787 content poster on their web-site:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/HSSystemsmap_zps56bfde81.jpg

This is an early one, the nose and tail is the early draft and the aft racks does not have the final shape:

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-12-20 04:55:45 and read 39440 times.

Just had the chance to perform a full visit of the MSN 001 at the A350XWB FAL.

The place (and aircraft itself) is buzzing and crawling with lots of engineers/mechs/technicians despite the approaching holiday period.

I had a close look at the following:

- Nose landing gear and bay;
- cockpit and cabin;
- right main landing gear and bay;
- forward and aft cargo bays;
- right wing;
- APU and HTP;

Overall, I was very impressed with the level of maturity already reached installation wise. The aircraft is packed with orange brackets, harnesses and cabinets, representative of all the flight test equipment. The cabin is basically filled with huge server and data acquisition cabinets and the flight test console, similar to a cockpit installation.

Theheat in the cabin released by all these running servers/computers was amazing. Cockpit was going through test checks. Seat rails, all floor panels, etc are already in place.

Nothing major about the cargo bays, landing gears and radar were in place. The most impressive was the main landing gear and its bay, amazing design and engineering here for sure. The wing was also nice to look at, most of the moveable surfaces are already in place as well as the engine pylon.

I can't wait for next year for her to roll-out and fly.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-20 05:22:47 and read 39272 times.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 167):
The wing was also nice to look at, most of the moveable surfaces are already in place as well as the engine pylon.

And the winglets, are they already mounted?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-20 05:33:44 and read 39252 times.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 167):

Just had the chance to perform a full visit of the MSN 001 at the A350XWB FAL.

Great to hear about this update. Sounds all good to me. I guess we are all anxious to see the aircraft completed and painted for the official roll-out.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-20 05:35:04 and read 39283 times.

The engines are expected in a few weeks.

Quote:
British Rolls Royce, in charge of the engine that is arriving the FAL in few weeks.
http://www.bloga350.blogspot.nl/2012...o-identifies-2-risky-partners.html

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: knoxibus
Posted 2012-12-20 06:27:47 and read 38999 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 168):
And the winglets, are they already mounted?

Not yet. And for the engines, I know that the nacelles have been delivered some time ago, so time for integration, and then, up on the aircraft!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2012-12-20 06:36:00 and read 38895 times.

Thanks for the update knoxibus.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: andrewtang
Posted 2012-12-20 06:40:55 and read 38932 times.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 167):
Just had the chance to perform a full visit of the MSN 001 at the A350XWB FAL.

The place (and aircraft itself) is buzzing and crawling with lots of engineers/mechs/technicians despite the approaching holiday period.

I had a close look at the following:

- Nose landing gear and bay;
- cockpit and cabin;
- right main landing gear and bay;
- forward and aft cargo bays;
- right wing;
- APU and HTP;

Overall, I was very impressed with the level of maturity already reached installation wise. The aircraft is packed with orange brackets, harnesses and cabinets, representative of all the flight test equipment. The cabin is basically filled with huge server and data acquisition cabinets and the flight test console, similar to a cockpit installation.

Theheat in the cabin released by all these running servers/computers was amazing. Cockpit was going through test checks. Seat rails, all floor panels, etc are already in place.

Nothing major about the cargo bays, landing gears and radar were in place. The most impressive was the main landing gear and its bay, amazing design and engineering here for sure. The wing was also nice to look at, most of the moveable surfaces are already in place as well as the engine pylon.

I can't wait for next year for her to roll-out and fly.

Thank you for the updates! So does the plane look any different now (exterior wise, especially the wing to body fairings) if you were to compare it with the pictures that were taken some 15 days ago? Thank you!  Smile

[Edited 2012-12-20 07:06:05]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-20 10:41:16 and read 38503 times.

Quoting andrewtang (Reply 173):
exterior wise, especially the wing to body fairings) if you were to compare it with the pictures that were taken some 15 days ago

I would be surprised if it did (but what do I know ), part of the announced missions of station 30 is completing and filling up the hydraulic system and then testing it for all it's functions. This involves checking all pipes and joins for leaks so would assume they would like to have her as naked   as possible for that, only the essential bits being attached. When satisfied every pipe whether oil, fuel, water, ... is leak free I gather she will get her clothes   .

Part of this must be gear swings, has these begun yet?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-01 05:56:42 and read 36629 times.

First, to all thread readers a good and interesting A350 Year! (and it will be  ).

There is a lot of exciting things happening this year but it will probably take some weeks before we have more news from Airbus re the 350, most likely around their presentation of the 2012 numbers mid January. In the meantime one can go through the last bits of information that was given last year. At the Global Investor Forum in London 3-4 Dec the 350 program was commented and I put up the slides in post 110. I have now had access to Bregiers and Lehays comments to the presented slides: http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/inve...ports/investor-forums/gif2012.html

Here the gist of what was added via the spoken word:

- MSN001 came together more easily then A had expected and planned for, work on design maturity paid off and panel tolerances were good throughout, there were no surprises (which was unexpected   ).

- MSN001 fuselage power on had happened by then and total aircraft power on was to happen mid December.

- MSN003 will start FAL early 2013, the wings were shown and Fabrice commented they were automatically drilled. Just as CM commented they did not want to take the risk with the first panels so they lost a month while these were manually drilled (stepping the system through its program and checking each step, it now runs as expected).

- There will be 7 months of tests on MSN001 and MSN003 before first flight of MSN001 mid 2013 (MSN003 will then follow pretty son I gather).

- Further testing is of course also done in all the test rigs (most likely a lot of "what if" failure mode testing, my comment)

- TXWB has passed the fan blade off test and TSFC is "really promising", first test engines are slightly off the target but A believe TSFC will be on target for EIS

- MSN5000 is now being hooked up and the structural testing starts end of March and goes on for one year, it is part of the preparations for first flight and of course for certification.

- Cabin is tested in the complete cabin simulator in Hamburg, then on MSN002 later in the test program

- The level of risk in this phase of the program is now lower as A are now only dependent on themselves and they have recent test experience with the A380

- A350-1000 have 2000 engineers on the program right now and moves to detailed design early 2013.

- The supply chain is overall in good shape with the odd bad surprise, Spirit produce good panels but they struggle with their own suppliers and therefore the section quality is not there quite yet, Spirit and A has a joint team on it. The second supplier mentioned was Alestis in Spain who has liquidity problems (apparently A has now taken over the management of them). Bregier mentioned that Butschek, the Airbus COO, will now manage all supply chain matters with an integrated team (Purchase, Supplier management, Supplier QA etc).

- Airbus has also worked behind the scenes since 2010 to de-risk the production ramp, they now only have launch customer Qatar who gets frames in 2014, Singapore as second customer have moved their order to 2015. Therefore A deems they have an achievable ramp.


The next interesting thing was what was not mentioned, Lehay showed the following slide where the 359 is compared to the 787-10X:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirbusGIF2012A359vs7810PRchart1.jpg

I immediately noticed that the 359 range was 7700nm with the spec payload of 315 pax+bags. I waited with conclusions however until I had Lehays verbal comments to see if A put in a more realistic cabin for both the 787-10 and 359. Not a word about it, we thereby have the first official Airbus document showing an increase in 359 EIS OEW (MZFW is 192t and I read 53t MSP on the slide ie 139t OEW) and decline in spec range to 7700nm (this fits with a 4t hike in OEW from 135t to 139t).

Just recently B finally released the spec OEW of the 787-8 as 117.7t which is 51.9% of MTOW, something which is higher then most analysts expected. They now have best of company at this figure, a 359 spec OEW of 139t is 51.9% of MTOW . I can hear a monkey falling in Seattle     .

[Edited 2013-01-01 06:07:52]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-01 06:13:58 and read 36513 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 175):
First, to all thread readers a good and interesting A350 Year! (and it will be  )

Thanks again ferpe. I wish the same to you and to all A-netters reading about these interesting developments. We will do everything possible to keep the threads over this fantastic new airliner at the same quality level as the previous ones have been.  .

Some things I want to highlight out of your again very informative post:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 175):
- MSN001 came together more easily then A had expected and planned for, work on design maturity paid off and panel tolerances were good throughout, there were no surprises (which was unexpected   ).

I guess this is maybe even more important then it looks. This means so much in the overall coming together of all parts of the airplane. And also means much in a positive way for the planning they are working on. Lessons learned on the A380, A400 and from Boeing's 787 seem to be paying off big time here.  .

Quoting ferpe (Reply 175):
- TXWB has passed the fan blade off test and TSFC is "really promising", first test engines are slightly off the target but A believe TSFC will be on target for EIS

This is in line with earlier comments on the TXWB-progress. It is good to see that they expect on target (or maybe even better?) performance at EIS.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 175):
- The level of risk in this phase of the program is now lower as A are now only dependent on themselves and they have recent test experience with the A380

Again the (earlier and very expensive) lessons learned seem to pay off. This shows that they seem to have full control over the project.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 175):
- Airbus has also worked behind the scenes since 2010 to de-risk the production ramp, they now only have launch customer Qatar who gets frames in 2014, Singapore as second customer have moved their order to 2015. Therefore A deems they have an achievable ramp.

Here they have given themselves more time and less pressure to get the ramp-up right as well. Again I guess also this is maybe even more important then it looks. It will please the stock holders and the customers to hear this.  .

Quoting ferpe (Reply 175):
Just recently B finally released the spec OEW of the 787-8 as 117.7t which is 51.9% of MTOW, something which is higher then most analysts expected. They now have best of company at this figure, a spec OEW of 139t is 51.9% of the A350-900 MTOW . I can hear a monkey falling in Seattle

Poor monkey.  

The numbers look very good, still the B787-10X will also be a very attractive airplane, especially if one does not require the range potential the A350-900 has over it.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2013-01-01 23:11:54 and read 35870 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 176):
And also means much in a positive way for the planning they are working on. Lessons learned on the A380, A400 and from Boeing's 787 seem to be paying off big time here.

Yes but... historically, everything was great on the A380, A400 and 787 programs right up until the moment that they announced that it wasn't. Public and shareholder briefings are always clearly upbeat right up until the moment that they aren't. If the A350 program suffers a setback, it's unlikely that we'll see it coming other than with hindsight  

Happy new year to all, and especially to Ferpe for keeping this thread stoked.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: abba
Posted 2013-01-02 00:17:07 and read 35692 times.

Happy new year to all and especially to our excellent contributor to this thread, Ferpe!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 175):
MSN001 fuselage power on had happened by then and total aircraft power on was to happen mid December.



Is there any information out there on how that total aircraft power on went?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-02 03:38:54 and read 35353 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 178):
Is there any information out there on how that total aircraft power on went?

We have no direct info on that but Knoxibus, which is on the program and working at the FAL, posted his view on FAL activity in post 120. Now he is careful not to convey any unauthorized info (which is understandable), so you will have to judge the fact that he posted at all. IMO he would have refrained if things weren't plain sailing ( it is a bit of glass bowl reading but the best we have).

Normally when things go quiet for a while (like for the wings, there was a radio silence for some 3-4 months   ) then things are brewing  Wow! .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: AviaPoncho
Posted 2013-01-03 04:13:52 and read 34247 times.

Hello ferpe,
Hello folks
It's my first message here, after extensive reading this last 3-4 years...
I enjoyed this thread very much by the way... (the best content / message ratio I think !)
I find it appropriate to hammer my pig and insert hard won coins in the Airliners slot machine
I wish you all a very nice and healthy 2K13...

Specifically referring to the Airbus GIF2012 Leahy extract I wish to complete ferpe's comment :


1) I think Airbus uses two very different cabin layout for its long haul planes :
- a "typical 3 class" layout outdated and very light (maybe no IFE, very light Pantry and so on)
- a "typical 2 class" layout up to date (60in pitch in business)
The weight difference between the two can be assessed by checking the numbers announced for the A330 family in the two layout. I consider the "typical 2 class" layout as a "real" layout. So you have two sets of range for long haul Airbus. The A330-300 242t is either a 6100 Nm bird in a 300PAX "2 class layout" or a 6400 Nm bird @240t in a 295PAX 3 class layout... (I didn't find the 242t range !)
It's the same for the A350 family
One should note that for the 787 family Boeing is going a similar way with a range for the seat count with 8 abreast and 9 abreast layout a think


A350-900
314 PAX 3 class layout and 8100 Nm
315 PAX 2 class layout and 7700/7800 Nm

A350-1000
350 PAX 3 class layout and 8400 Nm
369 PAX 2 class layout and 7600 Nm (old 298 t version)

A350-800
270 PAX 3 class layout and 8500 Nm
276 PAX 2 class layout and 8250 Nm

2) Numbers for 2 cl A350 taken from this source
Federal Aviation Administration
Airport Pavement Working Group Meeting

AIRBUS Aircraft Overview/R&D Needs

Cyril Fabre octobre 2011

Slide 27

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&...oQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k&cad=rja

3) I'm never comfortable with charts on airbus slides... how do you read Leahy's slide 48 for the A350-1000 ? Range seems to be well above 8500 Nm ?

Have a good day

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: a380heavy
Posted 2013-01-03 04:14:45 and read 34231 times.

Does MSN001 have it's engines and winglets fitted yet?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: kmz
Posted 2013-01-03 06:12:04 and read 33854 times.

Quoting AviaPoncho (Reply 180):
Slide 27

off-topic, but interesting...have never seen double bogie on A320....(page 12 on presentation )

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Speedbird128
Posted 2013-01-03 06:17:59 and read 33847 times.

Quoting kmz (Reply 182):
double bogie on A320

AI had a bunch of them for their poor runway surfaces...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sushank Gupta- Indian Aviation Photographers

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: kmz
Posted 2013-01-03 06:29:15 and read 33729 times.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 183):
AI had a bunch of them for their poor runway surfaces...

thanx!! interesting. could be interesting for future heavy A321....

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: AviaPoncho
Posted 2013-01-03 06:59:52 and read 33602 times.

Hello Kmz

I think that the four wheel MLG is not rated at current A320 MTOW, not to speak off current A321 MTOW
More here I think
A320 With 4-Wheel Main Gear (by 747Dreamlifter Dec 5 2007 in Tech Ops)

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-03 07:16:07 and read 33541 times.

Quoting AviaPoncho (Reply 180):
Hello ferpe,
Hello folks
It's my first message here, after extensive reading this last 3-4 years...
I enjoyed this thread very much by the way... (the best content / message ratio I think !)

Hello Poncho!

Welcome to Airliners.net and to this thread. As you know I have been lurking quite a bit on the Avia forum as well, for the same reason, a lot of good content which I have crossposted here. Re posting, you beat me to it, I have been wrestling with myselves if I should start posting on Avia (my written french is awful  ), perhaps I should.

Anyway thanks for the comments around A350 and the slide, I agree with you, it is very fishy water. We will have to see if this is a heavier cabin, I would have expected some note or comment in such case but perhaps they forgot. A heavier cabin would fit with the low range of the 787-10, the 10 extra pax (331 instead of 321) is worth a 100nm cut but not 500 like the slide shows. I will watch out for this 2 class real cabin and 3 class spec cabin as you point out, perhaps the later follows the same IAC rules like B uses for spec cabins.

I also saw the 350-1000 over-range. It looked very much like the Dubai slide in a repeat but is was not after all, seems like sloppy drawing otherwise I can't explain it.

[Edited 2013-01-03 07:30:23]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: AviaPoncho
Posted 2013-01-03 07:42:39 and read 33423 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 186):
Hello Poncho!

Welcome to Airliners.net and to this thread. As you know I have been lurking quite a bit on the Avia forum as well, for the same reason, a lot of good content which I have crossposted here. Re posting, you beat me to it, I have been wrestling with myselves if I should start posting on Avia (my written french is awful ), perhaps I should.

Anyway thanks for the comments around A350 and the slide, I agree with you, it is very fishy water. We will have to see if this is a heavier cabin, I would have expected some note or comment in such case but perhaps they forgot. A heavier cabin would fit with the low range of the 787-10, the 10 extra pax (331 instead of 321) is worth a 100nm cut but not 500 like the slide shows.

I also saw the 350-1000 over-range. It looked very much like the Dubai slide in a repeat but is was not after all, seems like sloppy drawing otherwise I can't explain it.

Thanks Ferpe
As usual, I forgot a few points in my message (get lost in writing ? )
The slide i linked are october 2011, the same time frame as PAS2011, when Airbus acknowledge a weight creep of 2.2 t covered by MTOW increase or other measures and another 2.3 t that Airbus thought to be lost by the time of serial production.
Airbus as now introduced batch, and my guess is that Leahy slides shows with a good accuracy the weight state of the A350 (latest batch) and it's fuel burn performance.
So coming from 7700 Nm @2 class typical in late 2011 to 7800 Nm @2 class typical in late 2012 might be a very good news indeed.

For the moment, no big weight creep, engines on specs or close to spec. First "final batch" airplane : MSN17...
It's good news isn't it ? If assembly goes as planed of course !

For the record

http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile..._08_27_2012_p22-488795.xml&p=2

Btw I didn't understand why so much change needed in cabin !

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-03 09:33:50 and read 33184 times.

Quoting AviaPoncho (Reply 187):
Btw I didn't understand why so much change needed in cabin !

Having no real expertise I can venture a guess (someone who knows better please chip in/correct or dismiss):

- the cabin interior like side-walls, overhead bins, galleys, fundaments, toilets etc need to have a certain strength to withstand flight loads but also hard landing/crashes without falling on the heads of the passengers. In classical Alu frames the interior could have considerable own structure to introduce those loads at places where this load could be taken (floor beams, crown substructures feeding these loads into the fuselage). This means a classical interior design with considerable own strength and therefore weight.

- The frames and especially the skin of a CFRP frame is over-strong as e.g. damage tolerance forces thicker dimensions as those demanded by flight forces. Initially one can assume the interior was designed in the classical way, ie strong/heavy with sparse bracketing. In a weight-saving drive the opportunity to feed the interior forces into the fuselage in a more distributed fashion (via more and closer bracketing) can save weight as the interior can be made lighter without the fuselage structure being beefed up accordingly (the dimensioning forces are set by other design criteria).

The above means changes in the fuselage dimensioning, bracketing and the interiors attachment points and also a lighter interior structure. Quite a lot of changes but if it saves a fraction of a tonne or more then it could be worth it. Now I have NO competence or inside this is what is happening, it is however a logical thought path that could explain what is written in the AW article.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: holzmann
Posted 2013-01-03 18:28:02 and read 32581 times.

Looking at these photos, does anyone else think, from a purely Operations/Line Management / Just-in-time perspective, that Airbus simply takes a more thorough approach to "per-packaging" the various sections of the aircraft prior to shipment and assembly?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-03 18:50:46 and read 32514 times.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 189):
Looking at these photos, does anyone else think, from a purely Operations/Line Management / Just-in-time perspective, that Airbus simply takes a more thorough approach to "per-packaging" the various sections of the aircraft prior to shipment and assembly?

Yes, but then that has been their assembly philosophy for decades.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-04 04:11:14 and read 32064 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 190):
Yes, but then that has been their assembly philosophy for decades.

But in light of the mishaps in the A380 and A400 programs, as well as in light of the mishaps in the B787 program, I get the impression that they have taken the execution of their approach to the next level. Let's hope that it will pay off for them and their customers.  .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-04 07:04:03 and read 31623 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 191):
But in light of the mishaps in the A380 and A400 programs, as well as in light of the mishaps in the B787 program, I get the impression that they have taken the execution of their approach to the next level.

Well the A380's issues are specifically related to cabin outfitting, which is performed after the airframe is assembled. To my knowledge, A380 assemblies are arriving at TLS with minimal travel work.

As for the A400M, I do not know how Airbus is building that plane. And while EADS itself has significant experience with military aerospace programs, I believe the A400M is the first project for Airbus Military so even if they are building it with similar processes as Airbus Commercial uses, there may very well be suffering from lack of experience. This lack of experience has been a major thorn in the 787's side as it is the first time Boeing has tried this production process.

The A350 has encountered supplier and travel work issues, however these mostly seem to be related to the extensive use of CFRP. If the A350 had been an Al airliner, it would have gone smoother than it has - as would have the 787, I imagine.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2013-01-04 09:58:15 and read 31213 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 192):
Well the A380's issues are specifically related to cabin outfitting, which is performed after the airframe is assembled. To my knowledge, A380 assemblies are arriving at TLS with minimal travel work.

I was under the impression that the delays outfitting the A380 were a consequence of Airbus offering too many cabin options to customers. Although I’m not aware of what customer options are available on the A350 I suspect that they will be fewer and less complicated to implement than those on the A380.

Having just watched the presentations of Fabrice Brégier and John Leahy I’m more convinced than ever that the A350 project will become the gold standard for the development of a modern airliner. Their open and honest approach to the problems they encounter is incredibly refreshing after the cloak and dagger antics employed during other recent projects.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-04 10:36:14 and read 31159 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 193):
Although I’m not aware of what customer options are available on the A350 I suspect that they will be fewer and less complicated to implement than those on the A380.

Airbus had indeed reduced the options list compared to the A380 and they have created a separate cabin mockup in order to pre-test cabin fittings so as to not encounter the same issues.



Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 193):
Having just watched the presentations of Fabrice Brégier and John Leahy I’m more convinced than ever that the A350 project will become the gold standard for the development of a modern airliner.

We'll they're a year-plus late, so it's better than the A380 and (especially, the) 787. However, if I had to give out a Gold Star for project development, I'd give it to the 777 since it did get out the door without any major delays. True, it cost a mint to make it happen, but Airbus and Boeing have spent mints on the A350, A380 and 787 and they didn't...


And if the 777 is not considered a "modern" airliner, then neither should the A320, A330, A340 or A380, IMO. And I don't think the Airbus Aficionados are ready to concede that, considering how often they use the term "modern" when describing those families.  Silly

[Edited 2013-01-04 10:37:52]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-04 10:47:00 and read 31083 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 162):
CM has recommended a 787 book ( Birth of a Dreamliner) as he noted I was interested in how the 787 was built but it has not arrived yet, let's see if it has some pictures of the hold areas

I trust you are enjoying it by now?

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 193):
Having just watched the presentations of Fabrice Brégier and John Leahy I’m more convinced than ever that the A350 project will become the gold standard for the development of a modern airliner. Their open and honest approach to the problems they encounter is incredibly refreshing after the cloak and dagger antics employed during other recent projects.

Things are always fine until they aren't. Companies always tell you what they want you to know and often accept the ramifications of dealing with changing what the truth is once reality has become apparent. The A350 program has already seen multiple delays, adding up to 18-24 months. Despite widespread industry suspicion of impending delays, in each case Airbus claimed the program was on track until they released a new schedule. In July, delivery of the A350 wings was imminent. In August there was radio-silence. In September we were told there was a tooling problem and they were coming to FAL in 3 weeks. 8 weeks later the first wings arrive to FAL. Bombardier has had a similar string of "everything is fine until it isn't" type denials, then announcements this fall. On the 787 program we saw it many times.

I don't say this to disparage the A350 program, just to point out these kinds of things occur at all OEMs. It's important to not be overly naive about how these companies deal with public disclosure, or let our affections for one company over the others color how we perceive their actions.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-01-04 12:52:55 and read 30803 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 195):
The A350 program has already seen multiple delays, adding up to 18-24 months.

How do you get to that?
It was originally meant to EIS in mid 2013 and is now expected to EIS in mid 2014, which is a 12 month delay.

I'll accept that the -800 and -1000 will be a lot later to EIS now, but those are essentially "voluntary" delays, as opposed to screw ups - i.e. if they had to, Airbus could have EIS'd those models within a year of the original date. But they have elected to change the EIS strategy

Quoting CM (Reply 195):
I don't say this to disparage the A350 program

Without the necessary accuracy though, that is what you run the risk of appearing to do.

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2013-01-04 13:13:17 and read 30697 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 195):
The A350 program has already seen multiple delays, adding up to 18-24 months. Despite widespread industry suspicion of impending delays, in each case Airbus claimed the program was on track until they released a new schedule

I believe the initial EIS date for A359 was mid 2013 which has now been pushed back to mid 2014 – by my reckoning that makes it 12 months late, so I’m not sure where you get 18 to 24 from?

Quoting CM (Reply 195):
. In July, delivery of the A350 wings was imminent. In August there was radio-silence. In September we were told there was a tooling problem and they were coming to FAL in 3 weeks. 8 weeks later the first wings arrive to FAL. Bombardier has had a similar string of "everything is fine until it isn't" type denials, then announcements this fall. On the 787 program we saw it many times.

Flight global published an article in May in which Airbus stated that there were issues drilling the wings and as a consequence EIS would likely be at the end of Q2 2014 rather than the begging. Prior to this I can find neither a mention of wing problems by any reputable journalist or any denials by Airbus.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: mffoda
Posted 2013-01-04 14:34:52 and read 30430 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 197):
Quoting CM (Reply 195):
The A350 program has already seen multiple delays, adding up to 18-24 months. Despite widespread industry suspicion of impending delays, in each case Airbus claimed the program was on track until they released a new schedule

I believe the initial EIS date for A359 was mid 2013 which has now been pushed back to mid 2014 – by my reckoning that makes it 12 months late, so I’m not sure where you get 18 to 24 from?

Quoting CM (Reply 195):
. In July, delivery of the A350 wings was imminent. In August there was radio-silence. In September we were told there was a tooling problem and they were coming to FAL in 3 weeks. 8 weeks later the first wings arrive to FAL. Bombardier has had a similar string of "everything is fine until it isn't" type denials, then announcements this fall. On the 787 program we saw it many times.

Flight global published an article in May in which Airbus stated that there were issues drilling the wings and as a consequence EIS would likely be at the end of Q2 2014 rather than the begging. Prior to this I can find neither a mention of wing problems by any reputable journalist or any denials by Airbus.

I believe what they said, was "2H" not Q2. That gives Airbus a window of 6 months (July-Dec 14) for EIS. Or, in other words... up to 13-18 months late?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_08_08_2012_p03-01-483860.xml

"Airbus completed assembly of the first wing box destined for the first flying Airbus A350, MSN1. The milestone is significant because Airbus has been forced to delay deliveries of the A350 by up to three months and into the second half of 2014 because of problems in wing manufacturing."

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-04 16:49:36 and read 30268 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 196):
How do you get to that?

The A350 program is only 12 months behind if only look at what Airbus has announced and you don't apply a critical eye to those announcements. In reality, the announcements tell us the program is likely 18 months behind (see #198 by mffoda). Beyond that, if you look at how the critical path items for first flight have slid almost month-for-month since the May Innovation Days schedule, then the program is likely beyond 18 months, and up to 24 months behind.

Again, not trying to disparage Airbus or the A350 program, just looking at the schedule and Airbus' announcements with a healthy dose of realism.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2013-01-04 17:20:14 and read 30147 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 199):
The A350 program is only 12 months behind if only look at what Airbus has announced and you don't apply a critical eye to those announcements. In reality, the announcements tell us the program is likely 18 months behind (see #198 by mffoda). Beyond that, if you look at how the critical path items for first flight have slid almost month-for-month since the May Innovation Days schedule, then the program is likely beyond 18 months, and up to 24 months behind.

I'm not sure I follow you, I think what your saying is that per the Airbus announcements the A350 is actually only 12 months behind schedule as both I and Asuteman pointed out, but you feel yourself more qualified than Airbus to estimate the EIS so you have added another 6 to 12 months to it?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: mffoda
Posted 2013-01-04 18:10:28 and read 30083 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 199):
The A350 program is only 12 months behind if only look at what Airbus has announced and you don't apply a critical eye to those announcements. In reality, the announcements tell us the program is likely 18 months behind (see #198 by mffoda). Beyond that, if you look at how the critical path items for first flight have slid almost month-for-month since the May Innovation Days schedule, then the program is likely beyond 18 months, and up to 24 months behind.

Again, not trying to disparage Airbus or the A350 program, just looking at the schedule and Airbus' announcements with a healthy dose of realism.

While I appreciate the recognition, CM .... I know you were not trying to disparage Airbus. You are one of the more respected members on this site (particularly considering your time on this site). As is astuteman, (though I wish he would fix that damn sub   ) ...

I understand that people are passionate about their favorite OEM... But, sometimes we need to see the Forrest through the trees.

The 787 / A350XWB projects are not unlike any other recent massive aviation project that we have seen in the last decade or so (A380, F35, A400M). To believe that it won't hit its share or program delays / EIS interruptions or reliability issues is frankly, quite naive... There are many indicators pointing to further delays in some of the same articles that some only retrieve positive info from... That said... To ignore the good with the bad is simply sticking ones head in the sand...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-04 18:18:16 and read 30551 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 200):

Airbus has told us the airplane will deliver in the 2nd half of 2014. History has proven that is far more likely to mean 31-Dec than it is 1-Jul. Beyond that, the start of static test has slid 6 months in the past 7 months. A significant amount of testing must be accomplished on the static frame and then be analyzed before first flight can occur. This is the critical path item I mentioned in my earlier post.

Also noted in my early post, the history for all OEMs is not to hem and haw about the possibility of an upcoming delay. Instead, they sit on the announcement until the entire world has figured out the program has an issue, then readjust the schedule all at once. Honestly, it doesn't make sense for them to do it any other way. The situation this creates, however, is that there is at times significant delay baked into a program which is not being acknowledged to the public.

No, I don't know better than Airbus. They know exactly where they stand in terms of schedule. However, I do believe there are delays currently baked into the A350 program which have not yet been acknowledged in public.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2013-01-04 18:27:24 and read 30488 times.

A lot of the reason some delay estimates are higher than other is the early disappearance of margin. If a schedule for three years with 6 months margin turns into four years with no margin, some are going to see that as an 18 month slip, even though EIS only moved a year. Increasing resources for the first model by delaying two other models won't help that perception either. There are more factors to program schedule than EIS.
Personally, as a die hard Boeing fan, I hope the 350 program kicks serious tail. Nothing is better for a company than serious competition, especially when they start getting too bloated and filled with managers who didn't come from the ranks.
I have absolutely no doubt that Boeing planes are far better and more advanced than they ever would have been without Airbus doing such a magnificent job keeping them honest.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-04 18:31:51 and read 30543 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 200):
I'm not sure I follow you, I think what your saying is that per the Airbus announcements the A350 is actually only 12 months behind schedule as both I and Asuteman pointed out, but you feel yourself more qualified than Airbus to estimate the EIS so you have added another 6 to 12 months to it?

He's saying that Airbus communications say 12 months but if you look at their schedule budget for each portion of the project and connect that to the actual realized milestones, they add up to 18-24 months delay.

Basically, intermediate milestones have been sliding more than Airbus has moved EIS. That either means considerable (on the order of tens of %) schedule compression to maintain the publicized EIS or they've got a delay baked in that they haven't disclosed. This is *exactly* what happened to the 787 and, as I'm sure astuteman and others will agree, large complicated projects of this nature do not see large % schedule *shrinkage* once they get going.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2013-01-04 21:13:43 and read 30357 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 199):
just looking at the schedule and Airbus' announcements with a healthy dose of realism.

I love the chart. One nice addition would be to give an indication of what is actual (realized) versus what is projected, for example by shading the background of the chart in gray for all times before each successive announcement. This will give a better sense of how the next few short-term milestones always get pushed back in front of the ticking clock, like dirt in front of an advancing bulldozer, while later milestones stay put until the bulldozer comes closer!

I agree that if the current rate of slippage is continued, we're looking at a roughly two-year delay in EIS for the A359, to the first half of 2015. I'd even wager some good beer on this!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 204):
This is *exactly* what happened to the 787

   and the A380 before it.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-01-04 23:32:04 and read 30225 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 202):
Airbus has told us the airplane will deliver in the 2nd half of 2014. History has proven that is far more likely to mean 31-Dec than it is 1-Jul. Beyond that, the start of static test has slid 6 months in the past 7 months. A significant amount of testing must be accomplished on the static frame and then be analyzed before first flight can occur. This is the critical path item I mentioned in my earlier post.

I would tend to agree with you that 2H2014 being closer to Dec than Jul, however even if the flight testing took their normal 18 months that Airbus takes (instead of the 12 months planned), there is still more than enough time to make 2H2014. This may mean however that EIS will be Q12015, as delivery to EIS for a new type can take a couple of months.

Production wise the A350 on its first airframe seems to be what Boeing is able to achieve today on the 787, they have learned a lot, one then can assume they will have similar lessons learned are being transferred to flight testing. That being said, I do not recall an Airbus aircraft ever being significantly held up in the flight test phase (except the A400M powerplant issues), issues in the past have been design/production related. I anticipate a shorter amount of time being used on the A350 compared to previous projects for the ground test phase between roll out and first flight, as they will have done testing previously only possible after roll-out during its current and previous production station.

I expect the first A350 to roll out this quarter, with rollout to first flight being around 2 months after that. (MSN1 has had power on now for 4 months, Aug 2, 2012, 787 was 123 days from power on to first flight). Even allowing 18 months for flight testing, delivery 2Q2014 still seems plausible.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-01-05 01:39:30 and read 30121 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 201):
To ignore the good with the bad is simply sticking ones head in the sand...

The other slide of this coin is to declare something as a given, when in fact it's not, no matter how likely it might be, even if that wasn't the intent.

Quoting CM (Reply 202):
History has proven that is far more likely to mean 31-Dec than it is 1-Jul

I have absolutely no issue with this statement CM. It's subtly different to "it IS the 31st december" though. Hence my comment on having care with the wording.
For what its worth like the others here, I have huge respect for your input to the forum, and this thread in particular. don't let my pedantry get in the way of that  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 204):
I'm sure astuteman and others will agree, large complicated projects of this nature do not see large % schedule *shrinkage* once they get going.

Up until last month I would have agreed with that as a nailed on cert.
But having just witnessed (for once) the very last phase of a complex evolution compressed by a factor of 3, measured in many months, it's by no means as guaranteed as we might think.
The funny thing is, such acceleration can actually be (and was in this case) created by "being slower" in the preceeding stages - the exact reverse of what happened with the 787.

Whether Airbus manage to pull this off is a different matter of course.  

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-05 06:30:23 and read 29505 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 207):
Whether Airbus manage to pull this off is a different matter of course.

As always, time will tell. But so far they seem to be in a lot better shape with this program.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-05 06:34:05 and read 29489 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 206):
I would tend to agree with you that 2H2014 being closer to Dec than Jul, however even if the flight testing took their normal 18 months that Airbus takes (instead of the 12 months planned), there is still more than enough time to make 2H2014. This may mean however that EIS will be Q12015, as delivery to EIS for a new type can take a couple of months.

Can someone explain to me how Airbus can cut the flight testing from 18 to 12 months? Somehow I missed this piece of information.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Speedbird128
Posted 2013-01-05 06:47:45 and read 29432 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 209):
how Airbus can cut the flight testing from 18 to 12 months

Extra frames flying?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-05 06:51:00 and read 29413 times.

Maybe, but as far as I know Airbus is sticking with 5 flyable frames for the tests.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-05 07:41:42 and read 29282 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 209):
Can someone explain to me how Airbus can cut the flight testing from 18 to 12 months?

IIRC they said that 6 months was margin and that 12 months was the hard minimum. IMO 12 months is the time without any hicups or extra work/investigations needed, realistically there should be something turning up during flight test. It will depend on the severity of the issue(s) if things stretch significantly over 12 months.

At the end of the day I think another parameter is even more important then how flight test and EIS goes, it is how the ramp will work from mid 2013 when A will be at one frame per month. This means at planned EIS about 20 frames will be at different stages of completion, the real question for satisfying the customers will not be when the first frame gets delivered, it is when a sufficient contingent can be inducted to start making decent business on the frames. I believe A is in much better shape re this part then on either A380 or 787, if they have done things as they say a lot of the delays is to have the right guys learn to do the job right from day 1.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: mffoda
Posted 2013-01-05 07:50:13 and read 29248 times.

Does anyone know how many fuselages and wings were joined this past year?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-05 07:56:51 and read 29307 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 213):
Does anyone know how many fuselages and wings were joined this past year?

2, the static test aircraft MSN5000 and then the first flight test aircraft MSN001. The sections for the 3rd frame to be joined should start to make their way to FAL right about now, lets assume it will be joined during Q1 2013. Then the pace much catch up until it is at 1 per month at FAL autumn 2013 otherwise things does not work out.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-05 11:35:49 and read 28921 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 207):
But having just witnessed (for once) the very last phase of a complex evolution compressed
by a factor of 3, measured in many months, it's by no means as guaranteed as we might think.

He's a witch! Burn him!

OK, I amend my statement to "almost never"...I'm not going to wait for lightning to strike twice (although it would be awesome if it did). For the good of all OEM's, it would be nice to see a recent program come in on time.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 207):
The funny thing is, such acceleration can actually be (and was in this case) created by "being slower" in the preceeding stages - the exact reverse of what happened with the 787.

"We need to slow down to get there faster" is an oft heard refrain from people who actually know operations. Unfortunately, it's almost universally ignored by people higher up who think they know better.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 209):
Can someone explain to me how Airbus can cut the flight testing from 18 to 12 months? Somehow I missed this piece of information.

Hope?

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-01-05 21:49:40 and read 28403 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 209):
Can someone explain to me how Airbus can cut the flight testing from 18 to 12 months? Somehow I missed this piece of information.

They said something like 15, possible in 12. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-in-test-flight-programme-326380/

A lot of different pieces of equipment have already been flight tested, so have the flight control laws from what I understand. The aircraft has a lot more computing power onboard, they are able to process the data faster (and they are collecting more data) then previous programs. If you have a look at US patent number 7693986 "Test flight on-board processing system and method" it will give you an idea of the system being used on the A350.

The A350 is smaller and lighter than a lot of other aircraft in industry, it will not need all the additional testing like wake vortex, and airport compatibility it needed (it will need just the standard amount), it will be more like the 777/787. The 777 was 360 days from first flight to EIS, not sure where people get the idea that it is an impossible task to fly around 3000 hrs with 5 aircraft in a year, it has been done many times before.

Last I heard, they are still aiming for first flight in March.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-06 05:45:34 and read 27888 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 216):
Last I heard, they are still aiming for first flight in March.

That would be awesome if they can pull that of. Thanks for your explanation on the flight testing program possibilities.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-06 05:52:59 and read 27885 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 216):
The 777 was 360 days from first flight to EIS, not sure where people get the idea that it is an impossible task to fly around 3000 hrs with 5 aircraft in a year, it has been done many times before.

I don't think anyone said it was impossible, just very unlikely. "It has been done before" is usually a poor metric for flight test rates because the amount of testing required for a new type has been going up (steeply) due to regulatory increases. Even if you held the same flight rate, the 777 couldn't be certified as fast today as it was back then because you'd have to do more stuff.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-06 10:30:13 and read 27365 times.

Catching up on this long and interesting thread...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38):
The important thing to keep in mind that aircraft computing is a lot closer to something like an IBM Z/OS mainframe (basically capable of running indefinitely with extremely robust fault monitoring and recovery) than to a conventional virtualized server.

A very brilliant and senior guy I knew when I was an IBMer said that for every one line of code to support functionality in Z/OS (aka MVS) there are four lines of code for error detection/recovery.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 56):
This is of course not unique to airliner OEMs, it is a must in the car industry for instance, to the point where I think they actually send each other cars when they are released as they then don't have to go to the hazzle of buying them from each others dealers (they are then throughly stripped and every good idea carefully noted and evaluated).

Teardowns are also common in high-tech corporations, but it makes the lawyers very nervous, so access to such info is very tightly controlled. I saw some of that stuff when I was an IBMer decades ago but haven't seen it since. Of course, these days it's pretty common for geeks to tear down iPhones etc and post the results on-line.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 88):
I've had more than one test pilot explain it this way: "If I've got enough control of the airplane to do something, I'm more likely to survive by flying it down. If I don't have enough control to do that, I'm not going to make it to the exit anyway."

I also can't think of the scenario where bailing out would be the right move, but then again I'll point out that from looking at crash reports it seems the odds are long for the ones in the pointy end. I suppose that's partially because we don't often read about the ones where they saved the day, but still.

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 136):
I had nightmares about testing the 787...it wouldn't even leave you alone when you were asleep.

I know where you are coming from, and it's one reason why I like to read this site.

FWIW, I took a special trip to SEA to see the creation you both had a big hand in, and it was a huge thrill to see a 787 roll past my vantage at the Museum of Flight then race down the runway and take off! I'm sure you are quite proud to be a part of creating a machine that will be such a positive impact on so many people.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 142):
It's particularly frustrating when you're near enough to the product to see the impact of those poor management decisions even at the time they are made
I can point to decisions like that whose consequences will stay with us for at least 3 decades

Hate to say but similar thoughts came to my head when reading the thread. Earlier in my career I saw a lot of dumb decisions being made just to assuage egos and personalities. We'd end up having to do some dog and pony shows to make the marketers and the execs sleep better at night, but these days it seems at least in my business they know better than to ask and they are well aware how such things impede the very program they are trying to accelerate.

One thing I find is my line of business seems to depend on the "lone hero" model, where one person or a small number of people work out the tricky bits but don't spread the knowledge and in the end they burn themselves out and/or leave the company. I hope it's different in the defense and aerospace segments.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 148):
We already had our share of challenges and difficult times, and strains on human beings, on the A350XWB programme. While we know that there are still some challenges ahead, there are also many milestones that we can see approaching and that are getting us closer to first flight, and this is what drives us, be it from Boeing, Airbus, or any other OEM, to design and produce such machines.

To participate to such a challenge, while it can be tiring and frustrating at times (and painfull), always brings a sense of team work and joint effort that lifts up any veil that some may have at times.

I am now doing a job I could not dream of 10 years ago, with amazing colleagues, sitting close to a new aircraft being made, and that I can see evolve every day. What can I ask more work wise? Nothing.

I feel the same about my line of business, even after being a part of it for almost three decades.

My program team is about to do the equivalent of a leap from 767 to 787 in several stages over the next two years and it is indeed both intimidating and stimulating at the same time.

Best of luck to you, and everyone else out there trying to make a better mousetrap!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-06 14:18:04 and read 26889 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 215):
"We need to slow down to get there faster" is an oft heard refrain from people who actually know operations. Unfortunately, it's almost universally ignored by people higher up who think they know better.

The expert is the person who says it will take the longest and cost the most.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-01-07 00:10:48 and read 26350 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 218):
Even if you held the same flight rate, the 777 couldn't be certified as fast today as it was back then because you'd have to do more stuff.

They would not do it the same way again.

Airbus and various subcontractors have been flight testing various A350 systems for years now, the idea that most of the systems need to be flight tested for the first time on the test aircraft has long gone. The hours they need to do to certify the A350 is not that much different to other twin engine programs (about 30% less flight testing than the A380) despite the additional test points, as they have brought forward as much testing as they can before the aircraft actually flies first time.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-07 13:18:18 and read 25325 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 221):
Airbus and various subcontractors have been flight testing various A350 systems for years now, the idea that most of the systems need to be flight tested for the first time on the test aircraft has long gone.

I'd be shocked if the A350 program wasn't doing testing off the airplane. Bench, lab and testbed efforts are all a part of qualifying the bits and pieces of an airplane. This approach is not new nor is it unique to the A350. No OEM will choose to do a test in flight which could be done sooner, or on the ground, or both.

Just to offer a few examples:

787 control laws flew years before the 787 did - they were implemented on a 777 first. 20 years ago, Boeing flew the 777's FBW control laws on a 757 (uniquely designed with one set of pilot controls FBW, the other set mechanical). These are two extreme examples, but they were done concurrent with hundreds of thousands of integrated systems lab, bench and testbed testing, all of which preceded any flight testing. These tests are a part of the cert effort and it certainly de-risks the flight test program, but relative to other recent cert efforts (787, A380) it won't help Airbus reduce the A350 flight test footprint.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-09 10:35:38 and read 24418 times.

anyone have an idea of what type batteries are installed?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Heavierthanair
Posted 2013-01-09 11:12:04 and read 24301 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 224):
anyone have an idea of what type batteries are installed?

None   

All seats for the self loading cargo in economy have food pedal operated generators to provide power for starting the APU. During flight these same generators provide for lighting on the individual's seat. A power allowance can be purchased during check-in to provide lighting without pedaling.   

[Edited 2013-01-09 11:13:18]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-09 11:33:59 and read 24245 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 224):
anyone have an idea of what type batteries are installed?

The A350 has 4 identical part number 28V Lithium-Ion batteries from Saft.

The batteries are used for the following functions:

- No-break power transfer function
- DC power to the instrument buses in a standby power configuration
- DC power or various ground functions, including APU start when ground power is not available

Only two of the four batteries are connected to the buses in a way such that they can supply standby DC power in an emergency.

I am guessing from the fact there are 4 batteries instead of 2 indicates they are each a bit smaller than the 787's 2 batteries.

Some additional information here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...ms-to-equip-a350-xwb-56906867.html

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-09 11:47:18 and read 24096 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 226):
The A350 has 4 identical part number 28V Lithium-Ion batteries from Saft.

Thanks for the information and the link CM. Interesting stuff.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-09 13:50:56 and read 24319 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 226):
The A350 has 4 identical part number 28V Lithium-Ion batteries from Saft.

I guess they will have an extra review of their containment enclosures, from now on no-one will say they might have thermal runaway, it will be for sure they will have, just a question of when. Better be darn sure things work fine then   .


On a more relaxed note, found a nice story about the guys with a bit of cash to spend on the 350 blog: http://www.bloga350.blogspot.fr/

Look at this VIP cabin A350-900 (2 ordered with 2018 delivery time to customer, click to view better), I especially like the movie theater in the back    , IFE is so boringly common       :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_900_VVIP_zps395c6a34.jpg

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-09 14:22:15 and read 24133 times.

Thanks

Reading this article, i was wondering if these 2 A350 VIP are the tests flight aircraft ?

"
After an extensive test program followed by a reconfiguration phase at Airbus’ site, the aircraft will be flown directly from Toulouse, France to Jet Aviation Basel where the 2 A350-900 XWBs will receive their VIP interior.

"

What do you think?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-17 03:54:49 and read 22626 times.

Airbus has held their 2012 order and delivery press conference in Tolouse this morning with the following sideline info re the 350 program:

Interesting news was given by a combination of journalists, more in the sidelines discussions then in the Web cast press conference, here some interesting snippets:

Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...risk-than-troubled-boeing-787.html

La Tribune (in French):
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-...ands-defis-d-airbus-pour-2013.html

- The program is "globally" on track but challenging, Bregier "doubts" that it will fly before Le Bourget/PAS and said jokingly in the press conference "I have to much respect for the airshow as to drag all journalists down to TLS to watch the 350 fly"

- There is inside info via La Tribune however the internal goal is roll-out in April and fly in May. IF they manage that I can see the 350 appearing at the show. My take is FB is not putting any pressures on the program to be at PAS so as to not jeopardize the larger goal of running an optimal program with a good EIS and ramp. If it happens it is a bonus but it is not a goal.

- MSN003 is starting FAL assembly now and MSN002 should fly before end of year

- Spirit is the preFAL supplier with the most (program management) problems at the moment

- Tests on MSN001 is running well.


Batteries
350 has a somewhat more conservative loading of the Li-ion batteries, A follows what happens to 787 and will adopt any further FAA/EASA requirements.

Finally FB "I honestly wish all the best for Boeing to get 787 back into service" "We have suffered a lot in the past so we are not in a position to give lessons to anybody".

[Edited 2013-01-17 03:59:43]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-17 05:00:45 and read 22167 times.

Thank you Ferpe

Bregier didn't rule out a FF before PAS2013....
Reading from la Tribune, weight seems to be controlled at this point
So far, only a 3 t MTOW increase for the -900XWB from the beginning (from memory) ... compared to a jump post EIS of 9 t for the 787-9 not counting previous jumps during developpement

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-17 06:16:34 and read 21877 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 230):
weight seems to be controlled at this point

Yes, they reported the programme for weight reduction seemed to be on track, we will see what that means.

One other things was very evident, the relaxed atmosphere between the managers of Airbus and also vs Tom Enders (called "Major Tom" by Bregier  ).

FB and JL were reported as respecting each other pre changes but not being personal friends. I witnessed a very good relationship between the two on stage joking several times about Johns goals and his achievements. Overall seems to be a confident team, FB also comes over as a competent and humble manager type.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-17 06:29:02 and read 21773 times.

Yes Ferpe,
Very good feeling from the management team
Bregier (pictured humself as mini major tom)
Leahy (bashing analysts from wall street) both openly joking
Leahy joking with CFO slides
And so on
Very good impression

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-17 08:25:32 and read 21524 times.

Lehay is also convinced the 787 will be back on track and be healthy, here his comment to Bloombergs at the sideline of todays conference:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...risk-than-troubled-boeing-787.html

(Re more electrical arhitecture):
Airbus opted for a more traditional approach after deciding that the Boeing route would entail higher maintenance costs, outweighing fuel savings.

“We concluded we didn’t want to go in that direction,” said John Leahy, Airbus’s sales chief, who does not expect to gain a significant commercial benefit from the 787’s travails.

“I don’t believe that anyone’s going to switch from one airplane type to another because there’s a maintenance issue,” Leahy said. “Boeing will get this sorted out.”


The guys in the industry knows how difficult it is to get everything right from day one, next time they are on the front pages  Wow! , better be level headed about the whole thing  

[Edited 2013-01-17 08:26:04]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-17 11:36:17 and read 21036 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 232):
Yes Ferpe,
Very good feeling from the management team
Bregier (pictured humself as mini major tom)
Leahy (bashing analysts from wall street) both openly joking
Leahy joking with CFO slides
And so on
Very good impression

I think this also shows how well things are progressing. If things go (much) more difficult then anticipated, you often see more tense relations in upper management. All in all good signs coming from Airbus today, especially regarding this exciting program.  

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-17 11:45:10 and read 21037 times.

The A350XWB blog is a well run site, the guy doing it makes sure there is always something new to read: http://www.bloga350.blogspot.fr/

Many times it is not so big news likes todays story about the LA company that does the nacelles inlets lips (alu) but then there is not always something important happening in 350 land. One of the nicer articles he has found on the Internet (which is not a 350 article) is how men and woman sit in aircrafts, fun reading (one article down from todays post).

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: airmagnac
Posted 2013-01-17 14:22:05 and read 20637 times.

Thanks Ferpe


I also noticed the 2013 update to the list prices, with on average a 3.6% increase over 2012 prices :
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...bus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2013/

For comparison, here are the 2012 prices :
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...bus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2012/

In particular (as this is the A350 thread)
2013
A350-800 254.3 USD
A350-900 287.7 USD
A350-1000 332.1 USD

2012
A350-800 245.5 USD
A350-900 277.7 USD
A350-1000 320.6 USD

Seems I won't be buying one anytime soon...
A 3.6% increase sounds reasonable, but it does translate into +10 million $$$ !!   

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-17 16:16:54 and read 20396 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 229):
Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...risk-than-troubled-boeing-787.html

Seems everything in general is going well, but it mentions again/still that Spirit is having challenges:

Quote:

There are, though, concerns about program-management issues at Spirit Aerosystems Holding Inc. (SPR) -- maker of a 65-foot fuselage section for the jet.

Airbus is working closely with the company, which took $590 million in charges in 2012 related to difficulties in developing parts for more than one new plane, he said. Spun off from Boeing in 2005, Spirit is a supplier to all of the U.S. company’s jets and is also working on Bombardier Inc. (BBD/B)’s CSeries narrow-body.

I know they have a very good reputation in the industry, and I hope they have not bitten off more than they can chew. I know this is a high capital industry but taking a $590m charge is a lot of money in anyone's book, paper loss or not. I'm far from being a CPA, all I know is something tangible or intangible just got written off. Does anyone have details?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-18 07:52:29 and read 19707 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 237):
but taking a $590m charge is a lot of money in anyone's book

If I remeber that write off was for all their programs, I suspect the 787 and 350 is contributing significantly but I don't remember how involved Spirit was in Hawker Beachcraft jets which are of course going nowhere now. Any program which is delayed does not bring it's cash flow and uses more resources as planned. The 787 and 350 delays has been tough for these suppliers who does not have the services business cushions like the OEMs and is perhaps not well enough spread over programs who runs and brings profits and those that just consume money right now.

FB said they make fine panels but had problems managing their complete delivery, it can mean a lot of things. Internal resource problems as their is some hint of them not being able to follow in the "technical development", that might be they are behind on the fuselage redesign for the lighter interior variant as part of the weight reduction program (they did not plan on that of course). One can see these delays for MSN017 already now as it has to be qualified much earlier. There has also been hints of their sub-suppliers not holding pace, they have people doing frames and shear ties etc, these could be overloaded as Spirit probably reuse suppliers from the 787 program and that is ramping both 788 and 789. I don't see Bs problems changing anything of that, if anything it will consume additional management resources at Spirit and subsuppliers.

Lets all hope for a speedy recovery of 787 and a tough fight between the two in the air    .

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-01-18 08:10:16 and read 19633 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 238):
If I remeber that write off was for all their programs

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess:-

$184m on the 787 programme, related to the wing
$163m on the G650 wing programme
$151m on the BR725 nacelle package for the G650
$88m on thr G280 wing programme
$4m "other"...

total $590m

Just guessing you understand  

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: abba
Posted 2013-01-18 10:57:40 and read 19192 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 239):
Just guessing you understand


Rather specific numbers for a wild guess me thinks  Wow!

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-01-18 13:41:11 and read 18901 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 240):
Rather specific numbers for a wild guess me thinks
http://www.spiritaero.com/investor.a...seID=1117&id=3&p=irol-reportsOther


Q3 2012 results, top of P3  

Rgds

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-21 05:44:03 and read 17413 times.

Airbus is testing the RAT on the A340 testbed:

http://www.aeroweb-fr.net/actualites...t-de-la350-sur-son-a340-300-dessai

[Edited 2013-01-21 06:18:28]

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-21 05:48:05 and read 17353 times.

It looks like acoustic testing for CFRP panel instead...
No way this RAT can windmill !

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: OldAeroGuy
Posted 2013-01-21 06:12:54 and read 17196 times.

I suspect the test is for the dynamic pressure profile at the RAT location.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-21 06:14:56 and read 17191 times.

On an A340 with shapes and airfoils different from that of A350 ?

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Semaex
Posted 2013-01-21 13:13:39 and read 16489 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 245):
On an A340 with shapes and airfoils different from that of A350 ?

The purpose of the RAT is to rotate in order to provide energy to some systems, so my best guess is that whatever aircraft, the RAT is located outside of the disturbed airflow around the plane. So it hardly matters whether it's installed on an A340 or any other aircraft.
If you look at the picture you will find that the RAT is more than 1m below the body, way out of the airflow.

And how else are you going to test the RAT? I don't know whether it's a legal requirement to have a functioning RAT on a CS-25 aircraft, but if it is, then you wouldn't be able to do a first flight without having tested it first on another testbed.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: abba
Posted 2013-01-21 13:24:54 and read 16421 times.

It looks as if there is a lot of antennas on that RAT? Or...

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-21 13:50:05 and read 16302 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 247):
lot of antennas on that RAT? Or...

It is pitot tubes to measure total pressure (dynamic+static) at different points to map the airflow at that distance from the fuselage and pitch angle, see OldaAeoGuys post. The article states that A always tests the RAT on another aircraft before first flight of a new type.

Topic: RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-21 17:59:27 and read 15957 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 237):
Does anyone have details?
Quoting astuteman (Reply 241):
Q3 2012 results, top of P3

Excellent research! I didn't know they had that exposure to all those programs.


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/