Art From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3167 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6200 times:
With the B787 pushing airliner technology into a new era, does it make sense for Airbus to risk 5 billion euros or so to produce an A330 derivative aircraft that will trail behind Boeing's offer technologically, compromise A330 sales and possibly lose Airbus billions?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6149 times:
As has been said so many times before, and as the 737NG proves.... it doesn't always take a new design to successfully compete with another new design.
However, it can also be argued that Boeing's innovative technology may cause a gap to great for Airbus to overcome without a cleansheet design, were it all to live up to Boeing's optimum forecasts. Only time will tell.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6081 times:
But it should probably also be said that there is a lot more room for performance and efficiency improvements on a large long haul jet than a small short haul jet. Also the 787 is pushing materials technology much further than the A320 did.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5985 times:
It's probably the right thing for Airbus to do at this time; the greater expense an all-new design so soon after the huge A380 effort, along with periodic updates for other models, would stretch Airbus finances and likely also incur greater launch aid, a measure in dispute right now. Doing an all new airplane would also take longer to bring to market and Airbus didn't want Boeing to have too much of a headstart getting its plane to market. But, as ConcordeBoy and a recent Flight International editorial pointed out, there's risk in going the derivative route to try to outpoint a clean-sheet design. Boeing's own problems attempting to do this against newer Airbus models should be cause for some concern in Toulouse although, at this stage, they probably had no choice but to pursue this course. Indeed, only time will tell if it was the correct choice; the number of orders the A350 secures over the next few months prior to its expected mid-year formal launch may provide a reasonable barometer of how well it will actually do against the 787.
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5784 times:
I see the A350 as a variation on a winning design like the 747-400 was to the 747 Classic. New avionics, slightly different wing, new engines, much more range, greater MTOW, better CASM, and generally a better aircraft in all respects. The family makes sense now - moving down the list in terms of capacity. (assuming that the A300/310/330/343 are all discontinued)
With the 757-200 sized gap in the middle there - its not difficult to see where the shorter range 787 orders are going to come from.
Makes you wonder if Airbus havent missed the bus (pardon the pun) on the 757-sized replacement. Could we see a stretched (and re-engined) A322 perhaps? Add winglets for range?
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5563 times:
I said it makes you wonder Pearson - for what its worth i think theyve got it right (as anything thery produce in that size range will only ever be as good as and not better than the 787) - i certainly am not playing armchair CEO.
Im a commercial aviation business analyst by trade, which gives me some leeway to make opinions - but thats all they are mate, and thats all i was stating.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9604 posts, RR: 97 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5261 times:
I wish Boeing well with the All Carbon Fibre aeroplane - no doubt that it is a step change in technology.
Having said that, given many of the advances in materials technology in other areas, can anyone out there provide informed commentary about the relativeperformance difference between Carbon fibre, the latest Al-Li alloys, GLARE etc?
Could an A350 made out of a combination of these latest materials have a suffucuently small gap in structural performance relative to the 787 to male other fsactors the primary consideration?
SU184 From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 235 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5169 times:
The details released so far from both manufacturers about the extensive use of composites in both designs make them almost piers in this aspect ( 787 will use more ), Shark tail fin for the 787 wouldn't make the great difference, Airbus is refining the aerodynamics too, so most of efficiency that's expected to give edge to Boeing is the bleedless engines, but with most of the aircraft's systems relying on electric power, there would be enormous generators required for normal electric power, anti-ice, airconditioning, brakes... What would be the requirements of the regulatory authorities for redundancy here, in all the designs till now, if a generator fails several actions are done including the shedding of high load items like the galleys, but here what will happen, can you lose an aircondtioning pack due to a generator fault, can anybody give some light here.
Lazybones From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5145 times:
SU184, I guess back-up generators come to mind but this also sheds light on another point. These all electric generators would surely need more power more weight etc, doesn't this eat into the overall efficiencies?? We might need oldAreoGuy for this one....
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 851 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5077 times:
I should think the R&D people of Airbus are in a far better position to determine what is and what is not necessary than any of us.
Development groups misjudge and mistake configurations all the time.
can anyone out there provide informed commentary about the relativeperformance difference between Carbon fibre, the latest Al-Li alloys, GLARE etc?
Aluminum lithium alloys have been around for a while, but their application and complexity has been rising in the past few decades. The 744 made significant use of Al-Li alloys, but even newer (lighter) alloys are now available.
GLARE is a hybrid of aluminum and fiberglass. Large portions of the A380 fuselage are made of this material
Carbon laminate are strands of carbon fiber soaked in epoxy that are wound around a form, i.e. fuselage barrel, then autoclaved at very high temperature. The form is removed, creating the desired structure. Carbon can also be woven into a fabric, layered, then baked in a simmilar process. GE makes the GE90/GEnx fan with this method....
Pilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2518 posts, RR: 48 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5049 times:
Well...look at it like this...in the old old days...companies would make planes and then the airlines would buy them...
as time goes on, the airlines and manuf. have molded into one, and they work together...im sure there are a couple of companies that are already planning flights with the A350 and although i havent seen it yet, a luanch customer etc etc, will all appear soon to the naked eye, business plans and actions are a LOT more detailed/complicated than just...let's make a plane guys..
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4236 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5039 times:
Airbus has no choice but to press ahead with the A350 - the A300/310/330 niche has proven to be the only niche where Airbus has consistently held an advantage over Boeing, and that would go completely down the pissoir if the 787 goes unchallenged.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 851 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5018 times:
I guess back-up generators come to mind but this also sheds light on another point
That would be called the APU
These all electric generators would surely need more power more weight etc, doesn't this eat into the overall efficiencies??
No they wouldn't. Bleedless systmes are more significantly lighter than bleed-air systems.
A bleed-air aircraft has heavily insulated ducts running through the airframe to divert the air. This will all be replaced by lightweight electrical wiring. Bleedless systems are also easier to maintain. The biggest savings are here (maintenance) and reduced fuel burn is a secondary benefit...
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 851 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3929 times:
Are you suggesting just one APU would do the job of backup to the generators?
How should I know, I'm not a Boeing engineer. I would suspect so as most commercial aircraft only have a single APU.
Surely for the first all electric plane they would consider 2 APU's.
Why... they are used for ground power and rare emergency situations only? If there is a complete loss of electrical power, the aircraft will still have a ram-air turbine as another back-up, as all large commercial aircraft have. Boeing is also buidling the 787 to allow the APU to be replaced by a fuel cell at a later date.
Airways6max, err what do you mean exactly??
He means a stop-gap, i.e, not a long-term/competitive solution
Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1086 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3773 times:
the A300/310/330 niche has proven to be the only niche where Airbus has consistently held an advantage over Boeing
I share with ConcordeBoy's HUH????????
The A300/310 is not a financial sucess. I dont think the program has even been repaid for, given the huge R&D costs to the A300. Ok, the A330 has an advantage, but not for long.
(p.s, if you're talking abt the A300's cargo cap., then, it does have an advantage over the 767..)
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3688 times:
The 350 is most likely going to be a success, as Airbus has good sales strategies and loyal customers.
The only part about it is, that no design is nailed down. But hey, why nail down a design if your target (787) is not even a prototype yet?
The 350 could well become a 350NG, with different size options, trying to match Boeings 787-capacities. Plus, it will be a known fact how well the 787s new technologies will work out and they can focus on the important points.
It is a good way to announce a new product, but to wait until the competitor is out, to match exactly what is important to be matched.
So far, the 350 is only a sales stunt, but a good one.
It would be awesome to know, what managements all over the world are thinking now, if they consider 787 or 350...
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19 Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3630 times:
the 380 is a niche product.
The market is not big enough for 2 types.
Boeing will though jump in and fill the gaps Airbus leaves open.
The Concorde, SST, 380, ... all niche products.
The 380 sells fine, but it is open, how the future will be, it might be possible, that Airbus has reached close to max sales of the 380, or at least major sales figures are already down. Maybe I am wrong... We will see...
That is what Boeing will do.
Airbus has, IMO, major orders down for the 380, a number still to go, but major down, so why should Boeing waste years and Billions to come up with a plane that enters service in maybe 2012-2014 to compete with the 380? Does not make sense in a niche market.
They already have several 777 to match the 340 quite well and the 744 on top, including freighters (744F and 772LRF...) and there is still a gap which might be exactly a niche as the 380, or a big market, but it is very likely there is a market for something in between 380 and 744.
Also, Boeing will have to focus on a 737-thing, the 320 is quite old by now (which means, it can be easily targeted by a new product). So the 787 brings technology for the future. The 350 is just a match. If Boeing focusses on developing future technology and not just meeting today's demands, they will have some nice days coming up, some bottles of Moet will be opened here in the West Loop...