Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3821 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
So, the A350 was launched this week, so we will say 2007.
EIS will be 2013. The synic in me says it will be late 2013, so really 2014, but whatever, we will say 2013.
That is 6 years dev time.
Boeing launched the 7e7 in April04, with deliveries scheduled for April08, which is 4 years.
So, why will it take Airbus 2 extra years, or 50% more time (and I guess money) to EIS a less technical aircraft?
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3816 times:
Three reasons:
Longer development cycle.
Capital constraints that Boeing is not faced with (primarily due to the A380 and A400M)
Engineering constraints (primarily to the A380 and A400M)
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26686 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3805 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter): So, why will it take Airbus 2 extra years, or 50% more time (and I guess money) to EIS a less technical aircraft?
Boeing spent years prior to the debut of the 7E7 concept developing many of the technologies that will be used in the 787. Many of these go back to at least the Sonic Cruiser concept of 2001, and probably Phantom Works programs dating to the 1990s.
Airbus, on the other hand, intended to continue to use Al alloys to produce their next generation of aircraft. GLARE and other composite use was mostly a weight-saving measure more then a design philosophy - just as it was with Boeing prior to the Sonic Cruiser / 7E7 / 787.
Therefore, Boeing has many years lead-time on Airbus in certain areas which is helping them deliver earlier. Fortunately for Airbus, they have solid experience and expertise in CFRP structures so the lead time Boeing has is not too great.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3807 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter): Boeing launched the 7e7 in April04, with deliveries scheduled for April08, which is 4 years.
So, why will it take Airbus 2 extra years, or 50% more time (and I guess money) to EIS a less technical aircraft?
Airbus projects almost always follow longer development cycles than their respective Boeing counterparts. Not to mention, the last two long haul products introduced by Airbus suffered delay.
Grantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 429 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3790 times:
This is what happens when you bet on the wrong thing. While Boeing is spending just 4 years in B787 development, that effort is riding atop several years of technology development that came before it. Those technologies have given Boeing a tremendous advantage. Now Airbus must catchup and that is going to take time.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3751 times:
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1356 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3698 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): Boeing spent years prior to the debut of the 7E7 concept developing many of the technologies that will be used in the 787. Many of these go back to at least the Sonic Cruiser concept of 2001, and probably Phantom Works programs dating to the 1990s.
It goes back to the 1995 Airplane Creation Process Strategy team, also code named 20XX.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10447 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3698 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter): So, why will it take Airbus 2 extra years, or 50% more time (and I guess money) to EIS a less technical aircraft?
I share your guess. Boeing originally stated the 787 would cost around $8B to develop, but the cost has grown at least by $0.5B. Airbus is saying A350 will cost $15.5B to develop, so 1.5x the cost is not a bad guess.
Airbus has had people working on this project since the days of the A330-Lite so should be hitting the ground running.
Also Airbus is doing nothing new with the systems. Same old pnuematic/hydraulic systems AFAIK.
So it really does not make sense, unless there are some aspects of the program not being revealed, or they are just being extremely conservative after the A380 screw-up.
Can you explain this in a bit more detail for me please? I have done some searches but everything I read relating to bleed air is about engines but I might be missing the point so if you could explain that would be great. ta
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
So 787 is superior 350-8/9/XWB technically?
Mickey, the answer is yes, the 787 is more advanced then the A350. But it also takes more risk, only time will tell which is better, but in terms of technolgies being used the 787 is ahead of the A350. The build technique is also more advanced on the 787. Again, is it better? Dunno...
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10447 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3589 times:
Quoting Cymro (Reply 11): Can you explain this in a bit more detail for me please? I have done some searches but everything I read relating to bleed air is about engines but I might be missing the point so if you could explain that would be great. ta
Cymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3579 times:
Ok but from what I have read not using bleed air has its disadvantages too. It would seem a bold statement to claim an aircraft was more advanced just on this point.
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12): Mickey, the answer is yes, the 787 is more advanced then the A350. But it also takes more risk, only time will tell which is better, but in terms of technolgies being used the 787 is ahead of the A350. The build technique is also more advanced on the 787. Again, is it better? Dunno...
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10447 posts, RR: 20 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3543 times:
Quoting Cymro (Reply 14): Ok but from what I have read not using bleed air has its disadvantages too. It would seem a bold statement to claim an aircraft was more advanced just on this point.
It's more advanced in a technical sense because a whole new generation of technology will be put into service on the 787. Whether or not that technology is effective or not is more of an economic issue.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Are you an engineer on any of these projects?.
No, nor have I claimed to be. Are you? If so, and you work on the 787, perhaps I interviewed you for the 787 story I wrote a couple months back?
Cymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 16): It's more advanced in a technical sense because a whole new generation of technology will be put into service on the 787. Whether or not that technology is effective or not is more of an economic issue.
I understand your point but I feel that it is just different rather than advanced, but that is just my opinion
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26686 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3519 times:
And people should not get the impression of - nor hung up on the thought that - "more technically advanced" means "obviously better".
The A350XWB is going to break ground in many areas, as well. And just because the 787 may break ground in a few more, over all, does not mean the A350XWB is "old tech" or "inferior" or "yesterday's news". Just as the 748I showed today she may not be as latest and greatest nor as fancy as the A388, but she can still appeal to at least one major airline.
Probably half the battles on this site come from people believing and/or claiming that if one thing is better then the other in any way or area, the other thing is a piece of junk. Which is most certainly not the case.
Cymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 17): No, nor have I claimed to be. Are you? If so, and you work on the 787, perhaps I interviewed you for the 787 story I wrote a couple months back?
Not on these projects directly. Dont give interviews!
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3484 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
And people should not get the impression of - nor hung up on the thought that - "more technically advanced" means "obviously better".
Correct.
Boeing is taking a lot of risks, and I'm sure some arrows, for pushing for new solutions. Only time will tell if it is better.
Pygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 38 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
People like to say that going all electric and bleedless will add weight... the 787 has 30% less wiring than the 763ER.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 22): People like to say that going all electric and bleedless will add weight... the 787 has 30% less wiring than the 763ER.
Yup, that's what happens when you use a bus for non-power systems. Auto manufacturers have done the same thing lately, with systems like Bosch's CAN bus.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Cymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19): And people should not get the impression of - nor hung up on the thought that - "more technically advanced" means "obviously better".
Please dont get the impression that I was getting hung up on this, I just like to know the facts behind peoples comments/opinions if they are in the know, in case there is something I can learn from them.
I have huge respect for both aircraft, just not for broad comments made about issues that the commentator is not directly involved with.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10447 posts, RR: 20 Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3399 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19): And people should not get the impression of - nor hung up on the thought that - "more technically advanced" means "obviously better".
The A350XWB is going to break ground in many areas, as well. And just because the 787 may break ground in a few more, over all, does not mean the A350XWB is "old tech" or "inferior" or "yesterday's news". Just as the 748I showed today she may not be as latest and greatest nor as fancy as the A388, but she can still appeal to at least one major airline.
Yes, but one of the reasons 747-8i is being done as a derivative is because Boeing is putting so much new technology as they are on the 787.
And I'm not so pessimistic about new technology. Sure, there are misfires, but more often than not, new technology advances the state of the art. Engineers mitigate the risk by prototyping the new technology. Thus Boeing has flying and static testbeds for the 787, as well as lots of computer simulation and wind tunnel testing. If the technology is not proving itself, you almost always have some sort of backup plan.
It's pretty clear to me the "mostly electric" plane will be a solid win. Bleed air is needs lots of heavy ducting to route. Bleed air can't be varied much during the flight, so you have to draw lots of bleed air all the time, and spill the excess. Electric generation is continuously variable. Electronic devices are getting smarter all the time, pnuematic and hydraulic devices aren't. Electronic architectures scale up and down well (i.e. will be easy to reuse on future 787, Y1 and Y3 aircraft), pnuematic and hydraulic ones don't scale as well. It's clear it is the direction of the future.
So, back to the thread starter, why do you think Airbus is taking 1.5x the time and 1.5x the cost to develop a less technically advanced airplane?
Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 Stitch: Personally, I feel it is because Airbus failed to take the threat of the 787 seriously and spent time and money on derivatives of existing products a
26 Gr8Circle: Oh, this is just the beginning....wait until they announce the first delay...
27 Danny: There is zero evidence to support claim that 787 is more advanced that A350. The answer is Airbus is short of funds due to A380 delays and compensati
28 RedFlyer: Rarely does a manufacturer launch a major program and then start its engineering R&D. All programs start after a culmination of R&D projects, that is
29 Dougloid: Certainly superior to an aircraft that a) does not exist and b) nobody really knows how they're going to pay to make it exist. That ain't yanqui prid
30 Danny: I didn't know that 787 exists. Can you show us please? Edit: actually it exists - as a virtual airplane: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...(virt
31 BoomBoom: But the French government is (as always).
32 Osiris30: Hey Danny.. There's also no evidence to support the claim that the 787 is NOT more advanced than the 350 so pbbbllttt. How about your buddy at Airbus
33 Bringiton: But the German,french,Spanish,Chinese and maybe Russian and Korean govts might be willing
34 PolymerPlane: Actually there are evidences: 1. Bleedless system: No commercial aircraft has ever adapted this technology. This technology was deemed unsuitable for
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 89 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
