Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus A350/370 What Do We Know So Far?  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18525 times:

What do we know about the proposed A350/A370?

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...anges+to+fuselage%2c+wing+and.html

The new family is expected to comprise three versions, the A350-800, -900 and -1000.

One more than originally planned. Most likely to replace A346 and take on the B773 and B748i

Key design changes from the earlier A350 include a wider fuselage cross-section.

A350 (6.69m)
B777 (6.19m)
B787 (5.74m)

The new fuselage, although close to the 777 diameter with the addition of around 500mm (19in), is expected to retain the same materials technology as the original A350.

The new A350 still retains an Al Li fuselage structure. (we still have now word on the percentage of composites being used.)

It is understood that the common cross-section is likely to be adopted over an alternative study that favoured retaining the original diameter for the smaller -800/900 and increasing it for the -1000.

What will happen to the original A300/310/330/340 fuselage?

Larger all-composite wing, higher Mach 0.85 cruise speed.

Still retaining use of composites although with a larger wing and increase in speed in regards to the previous A350.

Engines in the 85,000-90,000lb (380-400kN) thrust class.

This has also been increased from the previous target of (63,000-75,000)

Under the original A350 plan, Airbus expected to put the first aircraft into service in late 2010. Under the revised schedule, first delivery is expected to be no earlier than 2012.

How will current A350 customers react? Does this spell another breath of life into the A330 program?

The new plan would call for the introduction of the -900 first, with the -800 following and the -1000 coming last in late 2013 or early 2014.

This has also changed. With the original A350, the -800 was to be introduced first followed by the -900. What possible reasons would Airbus have to introduce the A350-900 first?

What other major facts do we know so far in regards to the new A350?


Regards,
Wings

[Edited 2006-05-09 10:45:42]


Aviation Is A Passion.
167 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18503 times:

Hi Wings. This is a very informative way of starting a new thread. I always enjoys to read your threads  Smile

There is an interesting article about this in ATWonline today.

Quote:
The redesign comes after Emirates shipped a row of its triple seats to Toulouse where they did not fit into the A350 mockup.

The revised A350 also will feature a larger, all-new composite wing but not a composite fuselage.

The revamped design's entry into service now is supposed to slip into the second half of 2012, but insiders at Emirates told ATWOnline they are skeptical of that date. There is some possibility that Airbus may stick with the current A350-800 design so as to meet orders on hand, but the majority view in Toulouse is to scrap it.

There also is some thought that the A350-1000, which requires a 100,000-lb.-thrust engine, could be a quadjet if a suitable engine isn't available. Production of the new model apparently is slated for Hamburg rather than Toulouse.

Analysts suggest that while the revised A350 will be more competitive, the reluctance to tackle a composite fuselage leaves Airbus exposed.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4991



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 18409 times:

We know that Airbus are looking at several options and shopping them around to the airlines -- both those that have already ordered the A350 and those that have not yet chosen between the A350 and the B787. We expect that Airbus will make a decision by and an announement at Farnborough.

User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18393 times:

Hi Wings,

that is a good idea to start a thread about what we all REALLY KNOW, not what we assume or what could be possible for us.

One small correction about the cross-section of the A350 - there is a typo in your post -it is somewhere in between the B777s and B787s cross-section.

Johnny  Smile


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18368 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 1):
Hi Wings. This is a very informative way of starting a new thread. I always enjoys to read your threads Smile



Quoting Johnny (Reply 3):
Hi Wings,

that is a good idea to start a thread about what we all REALLY KNOW, not what we assume or what could be possible for us.

Thanks for the kind words.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 3):
One small correction about the cross-section of the A350 - there is a typo in your post -it is somewhere in between the B777s and B787s cross-section.

The new fuselage, although close to the 777 diameter with the addition of around 500mm (19in)

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...anges+to+fuselage%2c+wing+and.html

Well from the statement above I get the impresion that the new A350 will in fact be greater than that of the B777. It will have increse of 50cm (19 inches)

Feel free to correct me if this is not the case Johnny  Smile

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18348 times:

Hi Wings,

I think in the article they mean 50cm more than the A350 had and close to the B777s diameter.

But maybe i am wrong.

 Smile


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18330 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 5):
Hi Wings,

I think in the article they mean 50cm more than the A350 had and close to the B777s diameter.

But maybe i am wrong.

Good Point Johnny, The article can be interpreted in various ways.

Anyone care to explain?

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18321 times:

In one swoop, the entire Airbus philosophy has been thrown out, burned, compacted and blasted off into the Sun.

Seating
This aircraft will be a true 10-abreaster. The likelihood of anyone putting in 9 abreast is incredibly small. So bye bye to the whole 2-4-2 and nothing else dealy. Hopefully the larger cross section will also mean that they'll be able to put crew rest areas in the crown space rather than in the hold taking up revenue cargo space or a little spider hole below the cockpit ("Hello, I'm president of Iraq.")

Engines
SRB is going to be annoyed. He just had his marketting campaign cut off at the knees. Airbus is now officially a 2 good 2 need 4 engines manufacturer.

Commonality vs optimisation
They've dumped the whole idea that commonality is the only way and made dramatic shifts in the interests of optimisation.

Flying pencils
No more trying to make the aspect ratio of the fuselage as skinny as possible.

Strategy
They've actually got one! They haven't had one since 1992!


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18210 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 7):
Commonality vs optimisation
They've dumped the whole idea that commonality is the only way and made dramatic shifts in the interests of optimisation.

Not sure about this. The 777 and 787 have a high degree of commonality in the cockpit. I expect the this new twin to have the same cockpit as the currrent A350 design, ie that of the A380, which should allow a four day transition from A330/340 rating to this new aircraft. As for maintance commonality, its hardto know. The current A350 design only shares 3% parts with the A330 anyway.

....So it looke like Airbus will be taking on both the 787 and Y3 with one single aircraft.

I wonder about the engines. Can the Trent or Genx even go up to 90000lb? Or will Airbus be forced to look at the GE-90 for the largest model. Or maybe even 4 Genx/Trent on the -1000 model.


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18015 times:

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

The new family is expected to comprise three versions, the A350-800, -900 and -1000.

One more than originally planned. Most likely to replace A346 and take on the B773 and B748i

No, not really. In the beginning, when the A350 was launched, Airbus talked about a larger, beefed up A350, called the A350-1000, which would be the real 772ER-killer. After that, there haven't been much more information about it.

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

Key design changes from the earlier A350 include a wider fuselage cross-section.

A350 (6.69m)
B777 (6.19m)
B787 (5.74m)

The new fuselage, although close to the 777 diameter with the addition of around 500mm (19in), is expected to retain the same materials technology as the original A350.

Like Johnny, I interpreted it that it would be 19in wider than the current cross section on the A350.

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

It is understood that the common cross-section is likely to be adopted over an alternative study that favoured retaining the original diameter for the smaller -800/900 and increasing it for the -1000.

I'm not totally sure, but I understood in such a way that the entire series would get the new cross section. But, what happens to the A358 then? Could be in danger of having a much higher CASM compared to its larger siblings, just like the proposed, and axed, 777-100X? Just think of it, how can an aircraft that's in a family of aircraft sized to compete against the 772ER and 77W, compete against the much smaller 787? Shorter versions will never the best sellers.

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

Engines in the 85,000-90,000lb (380-400kN) thrust class.

This has also been increased from the previous target of (63,000-75,000)

If the A350-1000 is going to compete against the 77W, and use engines at 90klb thrust, its MTOW would have to be something like 100klb lower than the MTOW of the 77W. Otherwise, it would have to use engines with a thrust of about 100+klb each, something the atwonline-article supports. Anyway, even at 85-90klb, that's quite a large increase from the engines the A350 originally was supposed to use (63-75klb)!

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

Under the original A350 plan, Airbus expected to put the first aircraft into service in late 2010. Under the revised schedule, first delivery is expected to be no earlier than 2012.

Knowing that Airbus set EIS for the A358 to late 2010 when they launched the project at the end of 2004 (six years from project launch to EIS!,) I'm having a hard time believing that EIS for such a radically new version of the A350 can be anything earlier than 2012.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17871 times:

Speaking of the cabin, my interpretation also was that it will be 50cm wider than the fuselage Airbus has been using for so long, not 50cm wider than the 777.

The original A350 was supposed to have

fuselage: 564 cm
cabin: 532 cm

which is interesting, because the A300, A340 etc. had a cabin width of 528cm with the same fuselage diameter. Obviously Airbus found a way to save 2 cm on each side.

The new A350 is supposed to be 50 cm wider, which would correspond to a fuselage of 614 cm and a cabin of 582 cm. For a comparison, the 777 has 619/587 cm, the 787 has 575/544

New A350 would allow nine abreast or even ten. The 2-4-2 is actually the best out there, but 3-3-3 hasn't hurt the T7 too much, it appears. I can only hope that airlines will use it in the 2-4-3 configuration.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17865 times:

Hi, Wings!

Great thread!

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
The new plan would call for the introduction of the -900 first, with the -800 following and the -1000 coming last in late 2013 or early 2014.
This has also changed. With the original A350, the -800 was to be introduced first followed by the -900. What possible reasons would Airbus have to introduce the A350-900 first?

IMHO this has to do with the fact that the -800 was supposed to be the baseline model according to the earlier plan.
Not anymore, this is a whole new plane that conceptualy is more of a "777 light", and the baseline model is the -900, so this will come out first.
For some reason Airbus is again requiring that all its widebody single-deck aircraft share
the same cross-section, which is why I think they couldn't go for a wider fuselage than the 777.
Brendows adresses this point:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 9):
I'm not totally sure, but I understood in such a way that the entire series would get the new cross section. But, what happens to the A358 then? Could be in danger of having a much higher CASM compared to its larger siblings, just like the proposed, and axed, 777-100X? Just think of it, how can an aircraft that's in a family of aircraft sized to compete against the 772ER and 77W, compete against the much smaller 787?

In my opinion Airbus was more concerned in defining a cross section width
that would provide a good compromise in structural efficiency for lengths from
57 m to 75 m, than with the dilema of being or not being able to acommodate
10-abreast. If they succeed is a different question...

I would also like to remark that the A370 designation made sense if there
were to be 2 fuselage cross-sections. As things stand I think this aircraft
will indeed be called A350.

[Edited 2006-05-09 16:44:48]

[Edited 2006-05-09 16:45:24]

[Edited 2006-05-09 16:50:27]

User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17805 times:

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
A350 (6.69m)
B777 (6.19m)
B787 (5.74m)

If these measurements are correct, I take it the A350/A370 will be 10-abreast?

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineAmirs From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17802 times:

So is this new a/c going to be called the A370?
What will happen with customers who are suppose to get a/c in 2010?
Will the cabin pressure in the new A350 be 8,000 ft or like in the 787 around 6,000 ft.
Will the new A350 have larger windows like the B787?
In which way will customers benefit from this new A350?


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17769 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 12):
Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
A350 (6.69m)
B777 (6.19m)
B787 (5.74m)

If these measurements are correct, I take it the A350/A370 will be 10-abreast?

Hi SNATH,

There seems to be quite some confusion interpreting the flight International article regarding the size of the fuselage width. At first I thought that it would in fact be 6.69m, although JOHNNY pointed out in Reply 3 that the increase of 50cm may be from the original A350 fuselage and not that of the B777. If that's the case than we have the following,

A350 (6.14m)
B777 (6.19m)


The article states the following:

The new fuselage, although close to the 777 diameter with the addition of around 500mm (19in), is expected to retain the same materials technology as the original A350. The move to the larger twin concept also means the formal abandonment of Airbus's fundamental belief in its long-range four-engined policy.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...anges+to+fuselage%2c+wing+and.html

As you can see it's rather misleading. I'm eagerly waiting for some one to provide further information in regards to the fuselage diameter.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineZeus419 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 136 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17746 times:

>> The new fuselage, although close to the 777 diameter with the addition of around 500mm (19in) <<

reads:-

The new fuselage with the addition of around 500mm (19in) over the original A350 proposal, although close to the 777 diameter . . .


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17723 times:

Quoting Amirs (Reply 13):
So is this new a/c going to be called the A370?

Unlikely, see my post above.

Quoting Amirs (Reply 13):
What will happen with customers who are suppose to get a/c in 2010?

In a "word": A330

Quoting Amirs (Reply 13):
Will the cabin pressure in the new A350 be 8,000 ft or like in the 787 around 6,000 ft?

Most likely it will be what was projected for the "old" 350.

Quoting Amirs (Reply 13):
Will the new A350 have larger windows like the B787?

Who cares...

Quoting Amirs (Reply 13):
In which way will customers benefit from this new A350?

More capacity, more speed, most likely more range and, maybe, increased percentage of composites and light alloys which means less weight.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17704 times:

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 15):
>> The new fuselage, although close to the 777 diameter with the addition of around 500mm (19in) <<

reads:-

The new fuselage with the addition of around 500mm (19in) over the original A350 proposal, although close to the 777 diameter . . .

Sorry Zeus419, but I don't follow you.

Is this what you think that should have written?

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17665 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 17):
Is this what you think that should have written?

Zeus419 has changed the word order around to make the point clearer. It does seem like aribus added 50cm to the A350 fuselage, and are not making the fuselage 50cm wider than the 777.

Quoting Glom (Reply 7):
In one swoop, the entire Airbus philosophy has been thrown out, burned, compacted and blasted off into the Sun.

And about time too! Any company which sticks to an out-dated marketing philosophy merely because they are afraid of losing face are not going to be in business for very long! As for SRB, he has plenty of time to come with a new and equally meaningless marketing slogan!!


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1720 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17652 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 16):
In a "word": A330

That may be true for some. For others, two additional words might be useful:

Cancelled Order



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17601 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 7):
Seating
This aircraft will be a true 10-abreaster. The likelihood of anyone putting in 9 abreast is incredibly small. So bye bye to the whole 2-4-2 and nothing else dealy. Hopefully the larger cross section will also mean that they'll be able to put crew rest areas in the crown space rather than in the hold taking up revenue cargo space or a little spider hole below the cockpit ("Hello, I'm president of Iraq.")

As others have mentioned, this aircraft will be slightly narrower than the 777, so it will be 9 abreast, with maybe the option of 10 abreast.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 8):
....So it looke like Airbus will be taking on both the 787 and Y3 with one single aircraft.

Any Y3 would likely be starting off at the size of the -1000 model in this family, unless the 787 sees a -11 stretch. And what Airbus calls it, this family would not compete with the smaller members of the 787 family, except when they are configured in 9 abreast.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 9):
But, what happens to the A358 then? Could be in danger of having a much higher CASM compared to its larger siblings, just like the proposed, and axed, 777-100X? Just think of it, how can an aircraft that's in a family of aircraft sized to compete against the 772ER and 77W, compete against the much smaller 787?

This analogy crossed my mind. The use of lighter materials will facilate some shrinkage in comparison to the 777, but I'm skeptical a Al-Li plane can be taken all the way down to the 250 pax market and remain competitive with the 787-8 in 9 abreast or the 787-9 in 8 abreast. Boeing has far more flexibility to adjust weight and fine tune MTOW with the composite fuselage.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 10):
The new A350 is supposed to be 50 cm wider, which would correspond to a fuselage of 614 cm and a cabin of 582 cm. For a comparison, the 777 has 619/587 cm, the 787 has 575/544

The 787 cabin width is 553cm in widebodyphotog's charts.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17601 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 14):

Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification!

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineKilljoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17477 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 14):
As you can see it's rather misleading. I'm eagerly waiting for some one to provide further information in regards to the fuselage diameter.

It's actually not very misleading. First of all, if it was 50 cm wider than the 777, they wouldn't say it's "close", but rather that it's "much larger". Second, it would be an extremely bad sentence if they really meant 777+50.

Anyway, maybe you should ask a moderator to correct the initial post or it's going to cause confusion throughout the thread.

Quoting Glom (Reply 7):
In one swoop, the entire Airbus philosophy has been thrown out, burned, compacted and blasted off into the Sun.

I don't think it's fair to make fun of old strategies and opinions (on any topic), just because they've changed. I don't mean you specifically, but it seems like something a lot of people enjoy doing as some sort of "I told you so", when shifts in fact most often just imply that things have changed, and not that the old strategy was bad.

Specifically, regarding this:

Quoting Glom (Reply 7):
So bye bye to the whole 2-4-2 and nothing else dealy.

Airbus never said they think 2-4-2 is the only way to build planes; they just said it's more comfortable for passengers. And they're probably right too. But no one's going to design a new fuselage on that concept alone, and choosing another width for a new plane doesn't mean they were wrong.

Quoting Glom (Reply 7):
They've dumped the whole idea that commonality is the only way and made dramatic shifts in the interests of optimisation.

Not necessarily. What airline is going to operate the A340 and A350 side by side for anything more than a transition period? The A350 only needs to have commonality with all three models of itself, which it achieves.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17458 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 20):
Quoting Thorben (Reply 10):
The new A350 is supposed to be 50 cm wider, which would correspond to a fuselage of 614 cm and a cabin of 582 cm. For a comparison, the 777 has 619/587 cm, the 787 has 575/544

The 787 cabin width is 553cm in widebodyphotog's charts.

Cabin width is hard to find. According to Boeing's own website the fuselage width is 574 cm. Only 21 cm between the outside and the cabin? All other planes have around 30 cm.

Widebody's charts have never been too precise, btw.


User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17434 times:

Which one would I want to fly? B787 or A350? Tough choice if you ask me. Man am I looking forward to these birds taking to the sky. Kudos to Boeing and Airbus for "competing in the marketplace".

25 Post contains images Ken777 : That's going to take a rather hefty set of family jewels . . . The most interesting note for me was that the 370 would be built in Germany, not Franc
26 EI321 : In hindsight, I guess it makes more sense to say Y3 will be taking on the A350. It certainly is interesting, I guess we will find out more over the c
27 Atmx2000 : Composite fuselage walls are thinner, and Boeing has said late last year that they have found less insulation was needed due to the less heat transfe
28 Stratofortress : I thought the fuselage will not be carbon based.
29 Texfly101 : Well, one thing for sure, A has made the decision to give up the ghost on the A330/A340 family. That gives them free reign to develop whatever the air
30 Post contains images Oroka : Way to go Airbus! I am glad to see them give up the thrown together A350 and really give Boeing something to worry about! I am a Boeing fan, but this
31 Hamlet69 : I'm glad I wasn't the only who was confused why people were getting confused. Don't get me wrong, this is a great thread. But I don't see how logical
32 Dhefty : So by your reckoning, Boeing will stop taking orders when they get to 50% market share? Dream on. Boeing is going for the throat. They won't have any
33 Zvezda : Boeing might have 1000 B787s by 2012, but Airbus would have some A350 orders too. As of now, Airbus are only about 250 orders behind. If the market s
34 Dhefty : I disagree. There are just too many factors in Boeing's favor now. Boeing has a totally new method of manufacturing as well as a huge materials advan
35 Post contains images WingedMigrator : That's a really interesting question. I wonder if A aren't making moves to equalize the capacity across their lineup, by moving the A350 up to fill t
36 Dhefty : Airbus got caught flat-footed by the B787 program because of their hubris over the A380. They made a massive miscalculation and now have to live with
37 RayChuang : I think Airbus should just admit that the A350 is no longer a plane that has commonality with the original A300B fuselage cross-section but pretty muc
38 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Maybe a few years, but decades? One of their airplanes is flying today with more pounds of CFRP than will be in a 789. So it seems to me a bit of a s
39 Dhefty : Once you fall behind in a big way, it does take decades to catch up. For instance many have tried to match or surpass the B747 to no avail. The same
40 Zvezda : I also don't see how Airbus can match the B787 if they stay with Al-Li, but let's wait and see what the OEW numbers are for the "new all-new" A350.
41 Dhefty : OK, let's wait. What other choice is there? Even if the numbers were equivalent (which is doubtful), there is the matter of the 4-5 year head start f
42 Abba : The basic philosophy of the manufacturing process - putting together pre-assembled sections - that have been made here and there and everywhere by a
43 Dhefty : I don't think you really grasp the full impact of what Boeing is attempting to accomplish with the B787. It is far more advanced than anything yet at
44 Leelaw : IIRC, Convair in San Diego was building fuselage sections for the DC-10/MD-11 until it was shuttered in the nineties. Were fuselage sections for the
45 Post contains images Astuteman : Not sure why that should be the case. They've said 2012 and I'm inclined to believe them (unless of course another new "all-new" A350 appears) That's
46 Leelaw : Are you disappointed Airbus appears to be sticking with the Al-Li fuselage on the "new all-new" A350?
47 Centrair : Happy to see Airbus make the needed changes. I was disappointed with the original A350 as it just didn't seem to be innovative or new. If this new-new
48 Post contains images Astuteman : The answer to your question is "yes", although I'll admit that despite reading a lot here on a-net regarding the relative merits, I'm not enough of a
49 Zvezda : Boeing have been copying Airbus in this regard for several years now. Yes, the B787 will take this process a large step forward beyond where Airbus a
50 Joni : it will be interesting to see, what the projected OEW figures will be (assuming here that there's anything to these rumours of any new design/s from
51 Zvezda : I asked this question before, but no one answered it. Was the "old all-new" A350 meant to use laser welding too? Given that it's already in use on th
52 Joni : IIRC Airbus is/was planning to use laser welding in certain parts of the A350. I'd rather compare an all-new laser-welded Al-Li plane to the 787 than
53 Post contains images Zvezda : That's fair. I'm glad to see you're not drinking the Airbus Kool-Aid that the "old all-new" A350 was really "all-new". I'll certainly acknowledge tha
54 EI321 : The new A340s are already using laser welding.
55 Dalecary : We clearly know that Airbus can't do a CFRP fuselage by 2012, or if they can, it is not to the same technical prowess that Boeing possesses in this fi
56 Trex8 : Maybe Boeing should ask Lockheed how well Mitsubishi were doing with the CFRP wing boxes of the F2 before being too confident about the 787
57 Post contains images Joni : Wow, this must be the closest we've come to agreeing on something in ages BTW, what is this "Kool-Aid" that people talk about?
58 Leelaw : Start your google search with Rev. Jim Jones + Jonestown.
59 Astuteman : Apologies Dalecary - I most definitely didn't clearly know that until you stated it - what makes you say that? Regards
60 Post contains images A380Heavy : I think Boeing has got it sussed - use all of the technological advances in materials developed by the military, funded by the US department of defen
61 Post contains images DeltaDC9 : Y3 is intended to replace the 773 and 747 and possibly approach the the 388 in size, the old and new 350 compete with neither Boeing model. It may tu
62 OldAeroGuy : Yes, Vought has been building 747 body sections for decades.
63 Joni : What is this Y3 and where can one find reliable information on it? The impression I've got so far is that it's some kind of yet-to-be accurately defi
64 Zvezda : No, that's not a great place to start, actually. Kool-Aid is an American drink made by adding powder from a foil-packet to water. It is marketed prim
65 OldAeroGuy : I'm so old I remember when Kool-Aid came in paper packets, one inner and one outer.
66 Widebodyphotog : Have to be careful here. As far as the weight is concerned relative to this, the 10% reduction is reduction in the weight of material needed to join
67 Stitch : OK, I admit I am a little confused. Some folks have been saying the 777-200ER is doomed because, compared to the current A350-900, it weighs too much
68 WINGS : Well Stitch, the same can be said in regards to the A380 using the same technologies being applied to the B748i. Many members have highlighted the ec
69 BoeingBus : I agree. Airbus is most likely to do it... Especially now that the A350-1000 is being tossed around... you will see a derivative of an already effici
70 Post contains images Astuteman : That's not correct Widebody, sorry. There is a considerable amount of overlapping material required to allow rivets to pass through both panels, and
71 DeltaDC9 : Project Yellowstone. Boeing has been defining their future product line for quite a while. Google that and you will get limited but sometimes informa
72 Widebodyphotog : Are you suggesting that riveting and bonding aircraft structures constitutes 10% of that structure? I can't gather the pertinent data on that immedia
73 BlueSky1976 : Years - yes. Decades - no. I expect the A320 replacement to be all-composite frame. Noel already made remarks that EADS is investing in fuselage manu
74 Astuteman : Riveting and Bonding will add substantial weight to an aircraft structure compared to welding (any structure, for that matter)...... You have both a)
75 Zvezda : DeltaDC9 sums it up pretty well, except ... ... appears to be a typo. I think he meant Y2 is done. At this point, Y3 is a hypothetical future airline
76 DeltaDC9 : Actually, I am going on information I read that implies that Y1 is complete also, and that is was not really renamed 737RS but is one of the concepts
77 Widebodyphotog : Right, I understand what you're saying and don't have a fundamental disagreement with what that. I think the degree of weight reduction is the only c
78 Post contains images Texfly101 : troll on!!!
79 Post contains images Astuteman : We are therefore in accord . Even if the entire fuselage was constructed using "LSW", AFAIK the fuselage structure probably accounts for little more
80 Jacobin777 : Wings, you are correct, but that is an open-ended question right now as we don't know from either side of the plane manufacturers....nor from the eng
81 FlyingHippo : IIRC... 777 debuted AFTER 330/340, what are the sales numbers look like now? Just 3 years ago, Airbus was cleaning Boeing's clocks... Technology move
82 DeltaDC9 : Not that I am picking on you, and not that what you said about Kool-Aid is not correct, but it does have a darker meaning. Kool-aid has a cult relate
83 11Bravo : That's correct, at least in the US, the "Kool-Aid" cliche is without question a reference to Jonestown. Maybe it's a reference to LSD in Europe, but
84 Leelaw : Thanx for very succinctly and eloquently fleshing out my earlier points.
85 Zvezda : I'm getting old and falling out of touch with pop culture. I guess even slang evolves quickly these days. Anyway, I was using it to suggest deluded,
86 Post contains images 11Bravo : That's what happens to people who have Laws named after them Suicidal isn't quite right either. The people at Jonestown had absolute loyalty to Jim J
87 Post contains images Aircellist : Up to now, this thread is one of the most informatives and well-mannered I've ever seen on A-Net. Congratulations to everybody, especially DC9 and Ast
88 DeltaDC9 : In spirit I agree, but there are many examples of companies dragging their feet and allowing there competition to gain market share that may not be r
89 Post contains images RayChuang : I think Airbus--if it admits the A350 is a clean sheet design--may want to seriously consider going to a bleedless engine design since they no longer
90 Trex8 : but GE need a bleed GEnx for the 747-8 anyway
91 Zvezda : Good point, though there are probably some systems that Airbus could have kept like the A/C packs and the APU. Still, Airbus should be seriously cons
92 Abba : As has been pointed out before there is a trade off between weight and price of construction (you must pay for the weight you save and that has to be
93 Texfly101 : I do know that Al-Li was evaluated for the 7E7 and it was not a slam dunk on the choice. There were two design paths that were studied for the entire
94 EbbUK : It's my view that the new design A350/A370 will be a stunner and that Leahy and Airbus have really done their homework. I cite the lack of committment
95 Post contains links Brendows : If Airbus had done their homework in the first place, they wouldn't have had to redesign the A350 four (or is it five?...) times before they could co
96 Post contains links Thorben : I found something about the timing of the decision: The "Hamburger Abendblatt" quotes an Airbus official saying the decision whether to broaden the A3
97 Atmx2000 : Demonstrating your bias again? CO is bigger than 5 of your so called "blue chip" airlines. And you left out NW, not to mention every US airline from
98 Post contains images BoomBoom : After turning in four incompletes. The dog ate my design...
99 Thorben : Bias? Get the facts straight, OK? I never said they were blue-chips. Besides, a blue chip is not defined by size, but by having a godd product and a
100 DeltaDC9 : Source on the half the development thing please? All Boeing? No. They buy Boeing because of what? 787 maybe, but I think the last 40 years of buying
101 Post contains links Thorben : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2002259013_nagoya01.html 787, 777, and already the 767 have a lot of parts from Japan in it. http://
102 Post contains links DeltaDC9 : And they make nothing for Airbus? ALCOA especially, since their push for aluminum auto body panels and canned food containers are not catching on, an
103 Post contains links NAV20 : 'And now for something completely different.....'. Some other posters may recall that Geoff Thomas visits on here from time to time and is a thoughtfu
104 Dougloid : Sure were....I saw a lotta hull sections being trailered up Lakewood Boulevard in the wee hours. They were brought in by barge to the port, then they
105 A319XFW : Every time I read this, I somehow always doubt that. There are 3 issues that I can see at the moment: 1) Space at XFW is very tight - I personally ca
106 Jacobin777 : How about AI, QF, KE, ILFC?
107 Sjoerd : A question also is wether the beluga can fit the new A350/A370 fuselage or not. Sjoerd
108 Post contains images Johnny : @ Jacobin777 "How about AI, QF, KE, ILFC?" AI,QF AND ILFC - No, they certainly do not build parts of the B787 KE? Yes, they do !
109 Jacobin777 : lol..my post was a retort to Thorben's usual asinine comments.....they have all chosen the 787 also... I think Thorben-who thinks every Boeing win is
110 Post contains images Johnny : Agree! But believe me, in a forum which is dominated by Boeing-Freaks at around 70 percent, the Airbus guys sometimes have to fight hard... I also bel
111 Post contains images Jacobin777 : actually there are a lot of both, and many are neutral on this board...try reading the posts from 2-3 years ago, and the threads would be skewed the
112 Zvezda : The winning team always has more fans. The problem with politically driven orders is that they reduce the extent to which competition drives both Air
113 Post contains images Boeing767-300 : One things for sure is if (when) SQ order 787 to go with extra 77W and 777LR Airbus really will look like a chicken running around with its head cut o
114 Molykote : The fact that several blue chip airlines have not placed orders for the 787 does not really say much about the A350-IV/V. I'd be more likely to attri
115 Sjoerd : Airbus will not launch a new A350 without some serious commitments from airlines, SQ or other. Don't forget Airbus has about 200 orders and commitmen
116 11Bravo : You're correct, but those short term drawbacks could, at least in theory, be offset by producing an aircraft that's competitive in the market in the
117 EbbUK : You agree with my argument, Boeing's healthy headstart may well prove to be a false start. The bumper orders will clog up any chance it has to redesi
118 Zvezda : I agree that Boeing will not fundamentally redesign the B787 in response to the A350. Boeing can change MTOWs, engine thrusts, and fuselage lengths,
119 Post contains links Texfly101 : Oh yeah, this is definitely evidence of one of the reasons why I look for your posts in these threads. This is the stuff that I really find both inte
120 Texfly101 : The last report that I saw was that they were going to develop stir/friction welding techinques and tooling on a large scale basis. In addition to el
121 Molykote : I'm not sure I agree with your argument. Although the backlog of 787 orders may create a less than ideal fleet renewal schedule for certain customers
122 Abba : You can look at it in different ways. Boeing had to sell the 787 at very low prices so as to compete with the 350 - after which Airbus goes for the 7
123 Zvezda : Do you have any evidence to back that up? QF executives said there was nothing in the prices, that they chose the B787 because it was the superior ai
124 EbbUK : In no way is it a negetive spin, I suggest that it will be the reality. The 787 will sell in healthy numbers, but the A350 will win the share battle.
125 Zvezda : That is optimism founded on hope founded on faith. There is no business, economic, political, historical, logical, engineering, logistic, technical,
126 Molykote : It's possible that the A350 will win the market share battle in the long term. I don't really have an A v B preference but I will be excited to see h
127 Molykote : This is well put. I have attempted to convey similar thoughts in this thread but you condense the situation nicely.
128 EbbUK : There is some circumstantial evidence, which takes the religion quote out of the equation.... the sizeable lack of orders for Boeing's new plane from
129 Zvezda : There is no such thing as a tough sell; there can be only an insufficiency of Kool-Aid. Paraphrased from the Russian saying: "There is no such thing
130 TP313 : This whole thing about the A350 is indeed about strategy. Airbus has, long ago, chosen a "only one cross-section width and commonality in the assembly
131 Post contains images Zvezda : That's just not true. The B787 is the fastest selling widebody in history -- by far. There is no circumstantial evidence which suggests otherwise. It
132 EI321 : Lack of orders???? The 787 has been the biggest selling airliner launch in history.
133 Molykote : EbbUK Profile: Airbus and the gym that's it. Some say boring I choose focused You also indicate that you work in the media. Are you on the Airbus payr
134 Post contains images Zvezda : That theory is as good as any other.
135 EbbUK : Well let's be honest here, it's a good a place as any, if the current A350 was prduced it would be a dud, the radical re-design which will be unveile
136 Zvezda : I don't believe either of those are necessarily true. The "old all-new" A350 has sold 100 copies. The "new all-new" A350 looks like something Boeing
137 Brendows : Bombardier has tried to launch the C-series for a long time, claiming it will be far better than any aircraft in the same size. We've all seen how we
138 Zvezda : Keesje is not so bone-headed. He occasionally concedes some of Airbus' more obvious limitations and some of Boeing's more obvious strengths. Keesje i
139 Post contains images Jacobin777 : lol..I agree... regardless.... competition breeds innovation, and it would be nice to see Airbus come out with a competitive product.... right now ho
140 Joni : Airbus hasn't yet even officially communicated any intention to build a new variant of the A350. I think we should wait for an announcement and have
141 Post contains images Zvezda : The Kool-Aid seems to be coursing through his veins, undiluted by red bloods cells that might carry oxygen to his brain.
142 Post contains images PlaneHunter : In order to win the share battle Airbus needs to reduce the bird's weight significantly, also they need to fit 9 seats abreast. Boeing's main advanta
143 Post contains images Texfly101 : I too read that post and my thoughts were "This has to be a troll..." which if it was, definitely succeeded. If not, then that kool aid was spiked wi
144 JayinKitsap : Or that will cream the 787-10. As said before it is easy for paper planes to have incredible specifications, however reality tends to set in when it
145 EbbUK : Clearly it's not the model that my post was discussing but the airlines that have yet to be seduced by the composite wonder 787 you're other question
146 PlaneHunter : You said there's a "sizeable lack of orders for Boeing's new plane from other airlines around the world". The truth is the B787's order book is fille
147 Dougloid : Good point. It doesn't add up to a big savings in weight, except incrementally Just a better/quicker way of joining metal than hand bucking or using
148 EbbUK : I somehow gathered that from your posts, I prefer to be more bullish. Keeps the blood thin
149 Saturn5 : To be such a "stunner" they would have to go with composite fuselage since it is far superior and future-proof than Al-Li for aircraft construction.
150 EbbUK : Don't believe you have, perhaps, though, you have missed the point I was making. I was referring to the lack of 787 orders from some of the major blu
151 11Bravo : I don't think airlines really care much what Leahy or anyone else has said. They want to see cutting edge engineering and the resultant efficiencies.
152 EbbUK : Oranges are not the only fruit and as Boeing also said that Al-Li was amazing before going composite, I think the gamble will work for Airbus. i trus
153 Elvis777 : EBBUK how is udo doing?
154 Post contains images Jacobin777 : well..lets see..BA already has put option orders again for 777's...which can be converted to 787's... CX just had a very large 777-300ER order, with
155 Post contains images Atmx2000 : Would that be call option orders?
156 Abba : It was widely reported at the time that both A & B gave QF some last minute (and for QF even surprisingly large) discounts - something neither would
157 Zvezda : I have not forgotten that last minute deals were offered to QF, but I do not recall any indications in the press about the size of the discounts or h
158 Post contains images Jacobin777 : lol...I wish I had purchased Jan 2004 40 Boeing calls a few years ago..I would be mighty fine right now.. ... those 777 options can be converted to 7
159 Abba : Making what up? I haven't stated any level of discount AFAICS re-reading my post - only that the QF management expressed surprise at how deep a disco
160 Dougloid : Are you losing the distinction between structural efficiency and aerodynamic efficiency?
161 Zvezda : No, I don't remember that part. Do you have a cite? Airbus have placed more emphasis on efficient design and manufacture to keep purchasing costs low
162 Abba : No - not at all. I am only saying that you cannot conclude much if anything - comparing one model to the next - about aerodynamic (including economic
163 B777ER : Without going through the 165 replies so far, I wonder this: How is Airbus going to pay for the development of the revamped A350? More subsidies from
164 Zvezda : That could be true only if those 15 tonnes provided some other benefit, like better aerodynamics, reduced SFC, better range, etc. In the case of the
165 Abba : Well - look at one of the many discussions here at the time and you will find a reference. I'll have to Google or do the same to find it again. Abba
166 Thorben : Additional cost can be paid by either loans from fianancial institutions or out of the pockets of EADS, which are pretty full. We are talking about r
167 Post contains images Texfly101 : now I know why your posts are always so knowledgeable about airframes and aircraft. Good post and so true, thanks for the reply...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
24 Hours Later, What Do We Know? posted Wed Sep 12 2001 13:20:48 by Thom@s
Airbus Tomorrow? What Do We Watch? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 18:23:45 by Ready4Pushback
So, What Do We Like? posted Mon Mar 27 2000 02:07:06 by Matt D
What Do You Know About Young Cargo? posted Sun Aug 20 2006 23:29:46 by CV990
Airbus A350/A370, What Will It Look Like? posted Thu Jun 22 2006 16:55:50 by WINGS
What Do You Know About Globe Air/Switzerland? posted Mon Oct 24 2005 21:29:11 by CV990
Ishtar Airways: What Do You Know About Them? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 14:39:14 by Aleksandar
What Do We Really Look For When Booking A Flight? posted Wed Mar 9 2005 21:39:36 by Mikesairways
CATRAN: What Do You Know About? posted Tue Nov 30 2004 18:10:23 by Teva
World Airways - What Do You Know? posted Wed Sep 29 2004 05:53:54 by Nwfltattendant