Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7054 times:
Flight International has published a rather nice diagram/graphic illustrating the design of the A350XWB[CFRP] in this week's edition, there's also a good summary of the general specifications of each model variant in the article as well:
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 6976 times:
The article indicates that the materials breakdown is by weight, not volume, which would imply that Airbus has really added a great deal of CFRP from their original concepts.
I doubt Airbus will push materials any further (i.e. no monolithic fuselage), but this could be sufficient to yield a competitive product.
For comparison, the previous A350 concept and current 787 development:
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, RR: 74 Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 6859 times:
Finally we have some more info about the specifications of the A350X.
Well it seems that the A350-1000 will have a length of 73.8m. Which means that it will be 1.5M shorter then the A346. Does anyone believe that Airbus may look into offering another longer variant in the future? Maybe an A350-1100?
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 6816 times:
Quote: However Airbus executive vice-president programmes Tom Williams says the design freeze milestone, dubbed "main gate 7" (M7), is not due until late 2008, around six months later than when the XWB was first announced. "
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5579 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 6765 times:
Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 5): Geeze, already a delay announced...
I attribute that to the turmoil at EADS Airbus, the management shakeup, and their attempts to get the A380 under control. It also probably represents the change fro Mark V to Mark VI.
Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 6): Tell me when it will enter service, i dont care as a passenger about these things.
Then why did you post here? Sounds like Seatguru.com is more your cup of tea.
[Edited 2006-12-11 20:28:00]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Baron95 From United States, joined May 2006, 1334 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 6710 times:
Here are the A350XWB Family Specifications from the same FI Article.
It would be interesting how an 87,000 lbs engine (baseline -900) derrated to 75,000 lbs for the -800 will perform from a weight point of view. Also not sure it will be so easy for RR to get to 95Klbs or that that thrust is enough to lift th -1000 efficiently.
Thorben From Germany, joined Sep 2005, 3233 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6469 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): Nine years of development (2004-2013) and this is what we get? Aluminum ribs?
Why not? Saves the titanium that the 787 has. Also makes repairs a lot easier.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 4): Finally we have some more info about the specifications of the A350X.
Well it seems that the A350-1000 will have a length of 73.8m. Which means that it will be 1.5M shorter then the A346. Does anyone believe that Airbus may look into offering another longer variant in the future? Maybe an A350-1100?
Maybe. But wouldn't that need a larger wing? However, the 358 and 389 are longer than I thought they would be. Really big.
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6415 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 9): Also makes repairs a lot easier.
Or so Airbus claims. Airbus claims a lot of things. Remember the old A350 version was going to be the most modern airplane of the 21st century, (right before they shit canned it)?
2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6342 times:
Clearly, with the large wing, the 350 is optimised more to the larger models, and the -1000 in particular. I think they should launch the -1000 1st then followed by the -900 and lastly the -800. The poor -800 is lumped with a huge wing and the same engines heavily derated. It's going to be a heavy beast and will be pretty non-competitive against the 788/9 IMO.
Interesting to see the promised ranges of all models drop. This was always going to happen as the 8,500nm std across the whole range was pure fantasy.
Surprisingly, Airbus still don't know what the nose-cone fuselage section will be constructed from. Will it be CFRP panels or traditional Al-Li?
It's getting better slowly, but it makes you wonder why Airbus didn't start at this point 2 years ago, instead of calling the 787 a Chinese copy of the A330.
The way things are going maybe we can call the 350 a Russian copy of the 787.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6329 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 9): Why not? Saves the titanium that the 787 has. Also makes repairs a lot easier.
That very much remains to be seen.
Airbus may perhaps have further complicated the maintenance and upkeep of the A350 by forcing an airline to have repair techniques in place for both the aluminum portions and the CFRP portions.
Two quick Hot Sports Opinions:
1). The materials debate is quickly shaping into the next twin versus quad debate: maintenance versus performance and economics. In hindsight, Airbus was clearly misguided in their "4 Engines 4 Longhaul" marketing, as the best-selling Airbus widebody is an ETOPS twin: the A330-200. Both the A332 and 777 have proven a twin can obtain higher performance, economics, and reliability. CFRP may well yield a simmilar result: better performance, economics, and less maintenance.
2). Airbus now has their most competitive A350 concept variant to date. With the engine OEM now on-board, I believe we have seen the last major revision of the A350. My tentative, from-the-hip prediction is that the A350 will get ROI, but will not achieve parity with the 787. We will see an A340 vs. 777 split: 33% A350 and 66% 787.
TeamAmerica From United States, joined Sep 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 18 Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6283 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 9): Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
Nine years of development (2004-2013) and this is what we get? Aluminum ribs?
Why not? Saves the titanium that the 787 has. Also makes repairs a lot easier.
Are you saying that the ribs are easier to repair? I imagine a car salesman telling me how easily the gear shift lever could be replaced if I should have a wreck. I'm neither reassured nor motivated to buy for this reason. I don't see any airlines considering "easy to replace ribs" as a notable feature either.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15801 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 682 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2005, 3233 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3154 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
