Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ATWonline: A350 To Go Barrel Composite Fuselage  
User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20388 times:

Expected to be announced at Paris and will likely result in further EIS delays.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=9009

[Edited 2007-05-25 06:59:04]

350 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20360 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



It's about time Airbus commits to such technology.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again....building airframes out of aluminum will soon become akin to building ship hulls out of wood. We could do it, but the newer technologies and materials are superior in virtually every way.


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6887 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20326 times:

Bit by bit, it looks like Airbus will end up with a first class plane on their hands. The big question now is whether or not they've missed the boat. A "first class" plane ten years too late isn't worth doodly-squat.  Sad

User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20291 times:

Well, well, well. Wasn't it Airbus just a few years ago bashing composite barrels and declaring panels being just as good. Good to see they've come around to copy Boeing.  Smile

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20256 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
Bit by bit, it looks like Airbus will end up with a first class plane on their hands. The big question now is whether or not they've missed the boat. A "first class" plane ten years too late isn't worth doodly-squat.

First point: Might the A350 be the most reactionary aircraft program in commercial aviation history? If this pans out and Airbus adopts monolithic CFRP, they will have performed the most massive PR 180 in my living (aviation) memory.

Second point: When the A350 eventually morphed into a 777 replacement first (787 competitor second), the biggest question was how many airlines would actually be replacing the bulk of their 777 fleets at EIS. If the A350 EIS is pushed back beyond early-2014, they might actually hit the 772ER replacement cycle quite nicely.

That may be little solace if the 787 has already obtained an absolutely dominate position in the lower market, and begins growing in capacity, range, and payload while the A350 remains in development. The 787 Airbus will face in 2013+ will not be the 787 about to roll-out in six weeks. Aircraft are moving targets and the 777 demonstrated quite well that a veteran program can experience a second-wind of orders.

P.S. - Look at me: top 10 replies! I have the feeling this is going to be a long one


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20183 times:

Well, well, well. I called it here:
RE: Airbus CEO Sees 20 New Orders For A380 This Year 2 (by Zvezda Apr 2 2007 in Civil Aviation)#ID3338884
RE: Airbus Wide-body Market Share In 2006 (by Zvezda Jan 16 2007 in Civil Aviation)#ID3204323

Astuteman also called this one early.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20145 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):

Second point: When the A350 eventually morphed into a 777 replacement first (787 competitor second), the biggest question was how many airlines would actually be replacing the bulk of their 777 fleets at EIS. If the A350 EIS is pushed back beyond early-2014, they might actually hit the 772ER replacement cycle quite nicely.

Thats a good point. If Airbus goes with barrel fuselage couldnt they even get better efficiency then they already claimed?
Also if they get GE on board and the 787-10 doesnt match the range figures i could imagine lots of orders as 777 replacement.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3395 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20136 times:

I just hope that Airbus pulls its head out and just goes straight to a new cross section that allows 10Y with 17.2 seats. Right now their silly quest to try to get 10Y with A330 9Y comfort is well underwhelming. With Composites if you are already shooting that large of a cross section might as well go ahead and jump up to better than 777 for interior width.

Right now I think they are sandwiched between a "optimum" 9Y design and the inability to actually have 10Y in a industry accepted seat width.

I guess the next major question is if they go to barrels will they go to wider frame spacing? Given that they recently claimed that they will have the widest widows in the industry I think that has to be a yes.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20064 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 6):
If Airbus goes with barrel fuselage couldnt they even get better efficiency then they already claimed?

I estimate 1 or 2% percent. The bigger win is from reduced MX.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
I just hope that Airbus pulls its head out and just goes straight to a new cross section that allows 10Y with 17.2 seats.

That's an excellent idea -- except:
a) it would probably leave a gap between the longest practical NSR stretch and the A350. The 787-8 would be left with little competition, and
b) it's not clear that a 10 abreast A350 would have lower CASM than a 9 abreast A350. The larger version would have advantages in propulsion and aerodynamic efficiency, but the smaller version would have better volumetric efficiency. If the increase in cross section were limited to width with the fuselage height remaining constant, then this would be a minor effect.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3395 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 19981 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
If the increase in cross section were limited to width with the fuselage height remaining constant, then this would be a minor effect.

yes, I think planes will be able to get much fatter without getting taller compared to previous airframes. Also I suspect that extra room in the overhead will not be as wasted as previous aircraft as more equipment moves up there.

My main problem right now is that the latest cross section they discuss is is a fair bit larger in frontal area, yet seats 0.00% extra people in virtually every configuration imagined by airlines. Maybe a decade after EIS you might see a charter airline get their hands on one, but prior to that... nope. So might as well step right up to the next size up and call it good.

You are right that it leaves a huge gap, but My thoughts is that this leaves the opportunity if they can get their R&D cycle down to 4-5 years to do a real A330 replacement on a cross section not far off their old one. If they can't, then the price they pay is only being able to cover 2/3 the market that Boeing can. So far Airbus seems to be unable to let go of that 1/3 and focus on what they have, so if they don't wake up and watch their 2/3 they will shortly have 0/3's of the market covered.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10006 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 19911 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
they will have performed the most massive PR 180 in my living (aviation) memory

Better that, I guess, and get it right, than stand on pride and go under.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
I just hope that Airbus pulls its head out and just goes straight to a new cross section that allows 10Y with 17.2 seats. Right now their silly quest to try to get 10Y with A330 9Y comfort is well underwhelming



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
If the increase in cross section were limited to width with the fuselage height remaining constant, then this would be a minor effect.

I sort of agree with XT6Wagon on this one. 787 beat up the A330 by being able to offer 9Y at 17" with only 5" or so increase in diameter. A step change in ability delivered by an incremental one in size.  thumbsup 

Whilst the -XWB size is great, and allows genuine 9Y with greater comfort, it only provides an incremental change in ability for an incremental change in size.

If I were Airbus, I'd avoid falling between two stools, and absolutely push the limits of the new structure, new insulation, new linings, the ability of CFRP to easily tailor the shape, and go for the 10Y at 17" with the minimum increase in cross-section (as you say, Zvezda, possibly even "flatten" the cylinder out, even)

As the current -XWB appears capable of 10Y at 16.5", it only needs another 5" to achieve this. As I say, push the boundaries and make that only 4", say, and you've just added an immense amount of ability (in market terms) for very little extra aeroplane.  thumbsup 
In fact, given the change in construction, the overall effect on weight/drag might be as near-as-dammit zero.
And this is already a good plane BTW....

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
it would probably leave a gap between the longest practical NSR stretch and the A350. The 787-8 would be left with little competition, and

I'd love to see that filled by a reincarnation of the A300, (say 54m-55m long, and similar span, on c. 360k to 400k lbs) using the new cross-section. What a great plane that would be  cloudnine 

Thanks for the heads-up, 2Wingtips
The delays are the key... more compensation ?  boggled .
Some airlines are about to get the best value-for-money airliner in the history of aviation  biggrin 
Regards


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 19896 times:

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter):
will likely result in further EIS delays.

I'm not sure it should, as they are very early on the design process of this bird and this may be just the design evolving, but with the A350 slip seems to be the order the day!


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10006 posts, RR: 96
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 14):
I'm not sure it should, as they are very early on the design process of this bird and this may be just the design evolving, but with the A350 slip seems to be the order the day!

IMO "slip", if there is any, will almost certainly be driven by the complexities of the industrialisation process, not the design itself.

Regards


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19734 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15):
IMO "slip", if there is any, will almost certainly be driven by the complexities of the industrialisation process, not the design itself.

Treu hadn't thought of that, I wonder how much this has to with Alenia coming on board as a major supplier for this project (as they are for the 787  scratchchin  )


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19727 times:

Are they ever going to actually build A350's, or just keep redesigning them until what they have built is a 15% scaled larger 787, except with a less efficient cross section shape.... At some point they need to make up their mind, stick to it, and actually start to deliver aircraft, otherwise this A350 with be competing with Y3 instead of 787 by the time it's done.

Also, I think Toulouse needs to put a time delay on anything Leahy wants to say from now on, just in case whatever he's bashing happens to be what airbus is doing six weeks later. First 787 just caught up to A330, then 787 engines would make A330 competitive, then it was Li-Al fuselages were better than carbon, then it was CFRP is dangerous, then it was barrels could not be repaired, and now it appears they are doing everything Boeing has planned from the start. It's like in the 1990s when Burger King stopped doing its own market research and just starting opening up shop across from every new mcdonald's. Airbus is just copying the competition, but at the rate it is taking them to do it, why bother.

Airbus' biggest issue is indecision. If they had gone with the original Li-Al A350, they'd be selling planes right now, they''d be delivering in 2009 or 2010, they wouldn't be AS efficient as 787, but they'd be easier and cheaper to get and would have fleet commonality with A330 and A340. Likewise, if Airbus hadn't been so stubborn/complacent and gone with a CFRP barrel in the first place, they'd be getting to market in 2011 or 2012 instead of what appears to now be basically into 2015, basically 7 years after 787 - and it's in essence, the same product, only larger, and there is no doubt 787-10 will be done by then, giving Boeing a more complete model lineup.

Airbus messed up a good opportunity here. They won't be hitting any home runs with A350 at this point, but they might score a solid single - or even a double, getting a competitive aircraft to market, albiet very late, after many delays and contradictory statements.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10006 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19661 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
Likewise, if Airbus hadn't been so stubborn/complacent and gone with a CFRP barrel in the first place, they'd be getting to market in 2011 or 2012

Well at least this bit of your post was on target.............  checkmark 

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
except with a less efficient cross section shape

How so? They may well end up with a MORE efficient cross-section....  Smile

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
They won't be hitting any home runs with A350 at this point

This would appear to criticise Airbus for doing the thing that they've been criticised so much in the past for NOT doing - namely, listening to the feedback from its customers...............

Quote from the thread-start article:-
Many at Airbus have been concerned that the A350 XWB "would be blown away" if Boeing turned to an all-composite 777
This would seem to be an appropriate, long-term response to that concern.

Regards


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19650 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
If this pans out and Airbus adopts monolithic CFRP, they will have performed the most massive PR 180 in my living (aviation) memory.

You seem to be suffering from amnesia then...

Whereas the material the A350 is going to be built from has chanced over the course of its design phase, Boeing once managed to change all BUT the material their next long haul plane would be built from.

Still remember how boeing once pitched this to the airlines:
sonic cruiser


and how it ended up as:


With this in mind, I don't think Boeing is at risk of being dethroned soon as the 'King of U-turns', although Airbus does make a good entry at the second place in the list with their A350 indeed.

As you have come to show yourself, a U turn is soon forgotten if the decision leads to success though...

[Edited 2007-05-25 09:39:33]

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19582 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Well, well, well. Wasn't it Airbus just a few years ago bashing composite barrels and declaring panels being just as good. Good to see they've come around to copy Boeing.  

How quickly people forget that Boeing used to bash Airbus aircraft as being "plastic aircraft" because of their high composite content. They have also changed their tune (and copied Airbus as you might say) since the 777, and now completely of course. It's all PR, nothing more.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19493 times:

I can't say I'm surprised by this, anything else wouldn't be competitive.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 19):
Whereas the material the A350 is going to be built from has chanced over the course of its design phase, Boeing once managed to change all BUT the material their next long haul plane would be built from.

Still remember how boeing once pitched this to the airlines:

Unfair, there was interest in Sonic Cruiser then along came 9/11.  

Quoting Kappel (Reply 20):
How quickly people forget that Boeing used to bash Airbus aircraft as being "plastic aircraft" because of their high composite content. They have also changed their tune (and copied Airbus as you might say) since the 777, and now completely of course. It's all PR, nothing more.

You're reaching further back than I would have. I remember less than three years ago statements from A that Boeing would see the light and "build a plane that is less than 30% composites". Not only is the current situation a 180, but the product is becoming a slightly bigger copy of their competitors product.


Edited for typo.

[Edited 2007-05-25 10:15:16]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19473 times:

I agree with dreamflyer its not the 777 Airbus need worry about its Y3. If as many suspect Y3 is the BWB (Made from carbon shaped pannels!!) then the A350 will be still borne. In any case whats all this nonsense "a carbon 777". You can't just "shove a carbon tube in the middle of an 80's design" You start again.Which is what Boeing will do -when its good and ready.- After replacing the 737. No one (I think) has asked the question on how this latest debacle effects this replacement cycle. Now that Airbus have admitted that Boeings way is the right way and the 787 roll out is days away-whats to stop them launching the 737 replacement at Paris (apart from a new engine-of which we will no doubt hear more very shortly) using 787 technology that airbus does not even have.

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19348 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 21):
You're reaching further back than I would have. I remember less than three years ago statements from A that Boeing would see the light and "build a plane that is less than 30% composites". Not only is the current situation a 180, but the product is becoming a slightly bigger copy of their competitors product.

True, I am not saying that A is better than B in this respect. My point is that it's never good to take anything what the PR departments of big companies say for face value, they are always trying to put their own products in a better light.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineSemobeila From Austria, joined Jun 2006, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19305 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
The big question now is whether or not they've missed the boat. A "first class" plane ten years too late isn't worth doodly-squat.

Well, I don't think Airbus will dismiss all the new technology that comes along in the next ten (actually it's seven) years.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 22):
whats to stop them launching the 737 replacement at Paris

A huge back-log which could be in danger when launching the new 737 too soon.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 22):
using 787 technology that airbus does not even have

That's simply not true. Most of the technology is available to everyone as it is provided by 3rd parties - just a matter of licening fees.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19277 times:

Quoting Semobeila (Reply 24):
Quoting Parapente (Reply 22):
whats to stop them launching the 737 replacement at Paris

A huge back-log which could be in danger when launching the new 737 too soon.

Very much in aggreement - also I'm going to use an argument that's often thrown about by A bashers - Boeing is somewhat busy at the moment - they're launching a new plane, way of working and way of building planes this year. Followed by two or three derivatives, another new plane in the 748 with possibly a derivative (I see the 748I as somewhat shaky at the moment) and there's also the 777F which is another new derivative coming soon - quite a busy time!

I would also think that they wouldn't want to launch a 737RS based on the 787 tech until they were sure that there wasn't any nasties lurking in this new process and way of building planes - you can do all of the sums in the world but nothing beats proving something by actually doing it!


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19177 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
That may be little solace if the 787 has already obtained an absolutely dominate position in the lower market, and begins growing in capacity, range, and payload while the A350 remains in development.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
it would probably leave a gap between the longest practical NSR stretch and the A350. The 787-8 would be left with little competition, and

The news about Airbus delaying the A350XWB yet again and that it now seems more like a 777 replacement than a 787 competitor makes me believe that it would be a good time to offer the A330-200Lite again with improved aerodynamics and Genx/Trent engines. I know Airbus is stretched on resources at the moment, but I am pretty sure that the A330-200Lite, or NG or whatever, would be able to get a larger market share then the current A330-200.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
I just hope that Airbus pulls its head out and just goes straight to a new cross section that allows 10Y with 17.2 seats.

I agree with you completely. Airbus should push for the 777 replacement cycle and make it right. With Boeing's current development time, they could wait until 2010 to see what the A350XWB will look like, and then make a new 777 replacement and have it in the air at the same time as the A350 enters service.

Or Boeing could start developing a brand new 737 replacement next year and have it ready by 2012 and then make start developing a 777 replacement and have it ready by 2016 two years after the A350XWB. Then Boeing's portfolio would be brand new, and the oldest would be the 787  Smile



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18912 times:

I think this is good for airbus in the sence they are being precieved as " Listening to there customers" . This is very important for a company who's credibility to handle large scale developmental project has taken a bashing ( some earned some not deserved) . However this is pushing the boundary too far into the future IMHO . If these dates are true then the 77W competitor wont be out till like 9-10 years from now which is too far out IMO . I think that they should , now work on the Old XNW and try bringing it online by 2010-2011 and then focus solely on the 10 abreast 777 competitor that the XWB is on the verge of turning out to be .

Just my 2 cents!


25 Lokey123 : This decision was actually made sometime late last year and disseminated to early 350 customers...just now being made public is all
26 AirSpare : That of course depends on who owns the patents, and if they will agree to license them. This seems to breath about 5 years into the 777 program, and
27 Post contains images Stitch : Point of order - Boeing never launched the Sonic Cruiser, much less offered it for sale for the better part of a decade, constantly changing it over
28 Bringiton : One thing strikes me about this notion (which i endorse) , Can airbus use the same engines ( that the manufacterers have committed to) if they size u
29 Revelation : It's interesting how airlines like US, BA, LH, AF, and EK have been saying they are right in the middle of an A350/787 purchasing decision and have s
30 DAYflyer : Absolutely. Funny thing is, you will never see the Airbus pundits admit this. I remember when we had all the anti-Boeing cries like "CFRP can't be do
31 Boeing767-300 : TRue Stitch but I believe that no one recognises the need for there to be 2 competitive products like Clark and Song. Without a competitive A350 aggr
32 SEPilot : I recall discussions I had with Astuteman (on and off the forum) on this subject where we both agreed that this is the way Airbus should go. This is
33 Revelation : Panels did have some appeal: they were said to be more compatible with Airbus's existing composite technology (i.e. fit into the current autoclaves,
34 Stitch : RR should be able to, as the Trent XWB uses a larger fan then the Trent 1000 going on to the 787. However, this will put more strain on GE unless the
35 Post contains links Revelation : Actually I was quoting someone else, and I said it could be flying now, but who knows for sure? From Wikipedia's A350 article: So if development star
36 Katekebo : My two cents ..... There is a big mis-match between Airbus marketing propaganda and promises made to customers, and the engineering reality of the pre
37 OldAeroGuy : If the A350XWB spun barrels can't be fitted in the Beluga, maybe there is a place for the A380F in something other than the package freighter market.
38 Scouseflyer : Could be, there was also a mention in a differant thread of Airbus ordering two more ships.
39 Post contains images CygnusChicago : I completely agree with this. I have no informed opinion on whether or not barrel fuselages are better, but one thing is for sure, the longer they ta
40 OldAeroGuy : If you're talking about the aquatic kind, I wonder if an A380 type ship and trucking transportation solution would support the production rate an A35
41 Post contains images TeamAmerica : This statement still implies that a U-turn is a mistake. In both the cases of the Sonic Cruiser and now the A350, the alleged U-turn is a wise correc
42 DfwRevolution : Not even close!! Boeing never launched the Sonic Cruiser, nor obtained nearly 200 FIRM orders only to scuttle the program completely and re-launch an
43 Halls120 : Good question. I wonder when we'll see John Leahy admit he was wrong when he said "Unless [Boeing] have discovered some new law of physics or some ne
44 CygnusChicago : I disagree with this. Airbus key "loyal" customers (Virgin, AC, NW) have all already opted for the 787. US is in the balance, but I'd bet any further
45 Post contains images CygnusChicago : Funny thing is, you will never see the Boeing pundits admit this. I remember when we had all the anti-Airbus cries like "CFRP can't be done on this s
46 CygnusChicago : If I recall correctly he did admit it. I'm too lazy to search now, but I think there was a thread on Leahy saying earlier this year that they totally
47 Lemurs : That seems slightly hard to believe...I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just can't think of a single good reason for Airbus to make such a large
48 NYC777 : EIS is easily pushed out another two years to 2015 at the least IMO. They have to develop the barrel technology that Boeing has already developed and
49 Lokey123 : The people who needed to know, the customers, knew. The general public doesn't buy airplanes...maybe there was still some internal debate at Airbus b
50 AirFrnt : Airbus is doing what their customers are demanding they do. They are pretty much building a bigger 787 at this point. The interesting question is if B
51 Post contains images Molykote : I can't believe Airbus is bothering with this "Chinese plastic copy" of the 787. [Edited 2007-05-25 17:29:45]
52 Zvezda : I would be surprised if SQ were to order any more passenger 777s. They still have 10 777-300ERs on order, in addition to 19 WhaleJets, 19 A330-300s,
53 Lemurs : Of course, but that doesn't really address my point...they need to get customers to the table first before they can even disclose things like this. I
54 Post contains images Astuteman : Perhaps a little, but given that (by my calculation) only 4"-5" more is needed, and then only in a certain position, I don't think the gain would be
55 BigJKU : It is pretty obvious why Airbus did not go straight to this approach and is probably reluctant to make the XWB a true 10 wide aircraft. If the thing
56 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Agree. If the A350 production rate matches that of the 787 (2.5 frames per week), then the barrels probably need to go by air. This would be particul
57 Revelation : Seems it would have to be a custom build: the upper deck is mandatory in the A380F, and the barrels surely would not fit in if there is an upper deck
58 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : .....so far, it seems RR is certainly going to offer thrust ranges from 75,000-95,000... fair use excerpt: "Rolls-Royce Trent engines to be available
59 OldAeroGuy : Since the cargo compartment wouldn't need to be pressurized, a la the 747LCF, the upper deck floor could probably be removed without too many fuselag
60 Post contains images Stitch : I wonder how structurally sound a A388 would be with no second deck... I believe the "meat" of the replacement and expansion market going forward wil
61 Jacobin777 : ..it will probably kill both if what you are saying is correct......there will be very little incentive to purchase either VLA...
62 Post contains images Zeke : The Anglo-French-German Full-Barrel Composite Fuselage (FUBACOMP) and the Technology Application to the Near-Term Business Goals and Objectives (TANG
63 Post contains images Khobar : So when are they going to go bleedless? But the A380F isn't big enough for this either without redesign. They'd have to configure the cabin for no-pre
64 Poitin : Given that they will have nothing to sell in the small twin aisle class but the now venerable A330 until most likely 2015 or later, Airbus really nee
65 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I heartily agree! Not so long ago Airbus had a coherent strategy. They had a well thought-out industrial process and a comprehensive family of aircra
66 BigJKU : Exactly, Airbus may sell a few more A380 for those few routes that need the extra 100 people. But if the A350 and the eventual 777 replacement have b
67 DAYflyer : The problem with this argument is that the airlines rejected the A-330+ (A-350 numbers 1 and 2). If they would have designed a direct competitor for
68 Katekebo : Airbus' problem is very simple. There is a big different between what the commercial people have claimed and promised to the customers in terms of per
69 Elvis777 : Howdy all, But how will they fix the barrels if say a luggage truck or catering truck has a small collision with the plane????????????????????????????
70 Bringiton : Lets wait until airbus formally announces the switch
71 CygnusChicago : From this Forum, a few from a quick search: 2002: "I've also heard that since Europe doesn't really have a very advanced light metal industry, that a
72 Poitin : No, I don't agree. Although I agree that the A330 E as the A350 was a mistake. However the A330 E as an enhanced version of the A330 would find a mar
73 Zvezda : A 400 seat A350 would kill the 747-8 SuperJumbo as well as the WhaleJet. It would still need a swing tail, right? That seems like a major fuselage mo
74 BigJKU : That is all well and good, though it is all really just childish remarks, what I am looking for is something from Boeing that you heard being highly
75 NoWorries : The A350XWB (especially if it is a reasonable 10 abreast) is sounding more and more like a Y3. If it turns out to be just that, seems to me like Boein
76 Post contains images CygnusChicago : Well, personally I think the 748 is always going to be a niche model, a little like the 767-400ER, just a little more successful. But that's okay, a
77 DfwRevolution : Cygnus, there is a very big difference between what Boeing cheerleaders say about Boeing, and what Boeing says about Boeing. The former are mostly en
78 Post contains images SANChaser : It seems that many are suggesting that Airbus is going to abandon the 200-300 size airplane market to Boeing (787 Family) and instead go after the 777
79 BigJKU : I agree but killing Boeing's jet would not stop Airbus from building the A350. The only reason not to do it is to protect the A380. Grammer correctio
80 AndesSMF : I think my overall short opinion of the situation is this (Astuteman can back this up): The more people you have (in an organization) that can make a
81 DAYflyer : You make some interesting points. I guess it's about all they could do at this point, but the first A-330 warm over scored a paltry 100 or so orders
82 CygnusChicago : Fair enough. I thought the OP was trying to point the finger at forum members. I have no quibble that Leahy called the 7E7 unrealistic. I would howev
83 Bringiton : Are you trying to suggest that even after the "Panel approach " was announced they had the barrel approach as a serious option ?
84 BigJKU : What VLA market? They cannot sell it now, why would it sell massivly in the future?
85 DIA : I'd take that title any day over "Copycat" Seriously, though, this is an interesting turn of events in the A350 campaign. A further push of the EIS c
86 OldAeroGuy : They have a cartoon of the A340-600ST/E. The question is how much engineering is there to back it up, not to mention the need to actually build and c
87 Stitch : Yet their remain routes and airports that may very well make a VLA the best option for the next few decades.
88 DAYflyer : Precisely. Each and every one.
89 SEPilot : Exactly; there is now no reason to buy a VLA except for slot-restricted routes, and there just aren't that many of those. The 748F will continue to s
90 BigJKU : I suppose I should have said profitable VLA market. Yes these routes exist. There is also a market for handbuilt cars that can go 200 MPH but I don't
91 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : and this probably doesn't help.. fair use excerpt: "A Singapore arbitration court ruled Friday that pilots who fly the super jumbo Airbus A380 should
92 Halls120 : Which only goes to show that if you have an excellent product - the A330 - it will sell, without the need for throwing cheesy insults at your competi
93 SEPilot : The difference is that the 747 makes the best freighter yet flying, while the A380 basically sucks as a freighter.
94 Post contains images Astuteman : If you refer to my post #54, I would suggest that, at the time of the launch of the A350-XWB at Farnborough, the "panel approach" was "deliverable" -
95 Bringiton : That was the fault , they launched a program while they were still not decided? If i was Running a big company ( which in this case happens to be the
96 Magyar : More than that, how people here forget that they themselves used to bash on the "plastic sh@t" ala A320 and praise the good old sturdy B737. Then, of
97 OldAeroGuy : A swing tail would only need some internal framing and a hinge. As Khobar says in Reply 63, the FBW would make the swing tail easy. Overall, if an A3
98 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Airbus had sold 100 of them before they dropped it in favor of the XWB, not counting the unfirmed QR order for 60, and the probable 22 for SU. That's
99 NYC777 : EIS is easily pushed out another two years to 2015 at the least IMO. They have to develop the barrel technology that Boeing has already developed and
100 Revelation : Yes, this was the "caught napping" comment. Depending on how you count versions, one could point out that 10 customers accepted it and ordered 180+ f
101 Rheinbote : The distance and the effort needed to cover this distance should not be underestimated. European research programs rarely provide technologes which a
102 Post contains images Revelation : Might try a spelling correction too! I thought the Dreamliners were conversions of pax models - can't a pax A380 be converted to a SuperBeluga? I tho
103 Leskova : I wonder who, if anyone, actually needs anything to replace it... aside from JL and NH and the B783, I seriously don't (with the possible exception o
104 Bringiton : That is the exact reason i believe that airbus just didn't launch the XWB (again) with the panels approach and hoped to "switch if required " from th
105 OldAeroGuy : A passenger version would probably work as well. But I thought the demand for pax versions was so tight that none would be available to support the A
106 BrianDromey : The probelm with the A380F is that it has a huge volume.....split into three levels. None of which take the industry standard (10ft?) main deck palle
107 CygnusChicago : Why will a 777-Composite kill a composite A350?
108 OldAeroGuy : See Reply 59.
109 BigJKU : Again, vast difference between A-net pee fights and what is said by officers of the various companies. Show me something where Boeing called Airbus p
110 Bringiton : I think he meant a 777 replacement with CFRP , not necc. a 777 but with composite materials.
111 BigJKU : I would not say it would kill the A350 but I think the combined 787 and 777 composite replacement would be very bad for Airbus. It would let Boeing c
112 Revelation : Could be, although the cancellation of the freighter program has made 20 slots available, and since the A350XWB schedule may be slipping out to the r
113 Zvezda : Your premise is false. Airlines never need to carry a particular number of passengers. There is a demand curve. It is never flat or inverted. Carryin
114 Revelation : Ah, yes, one more thing to design: one very large pressure bulkhead...
115 BigJKU : I cannot imagine these slots are actually avaliable. I would probably cancel all of my orders if I had ordered the A380 and Airbus let anyone, includ
116 Areopagus : I think you meant Y2 Mk 2, but that is still wrong. The Sonic Cruiser was not a Yellowstone design. Boeing created the Airplane Creation Process Stra
117 Ken777 : The dot com bust hurt it more. No longer were there all the dot com rich guys flying First and being happy to pay a 15% premium to fly the SC. Actual
118 DfwRevolution : But for a specialized transport, pressurization is not necessarily required. Am I the only one surprised that Boeing chose to pressurize the forward
119 RSBJ : This has to be humiliating for Airbus. They denounced everything about the 787, even laughing at it saying it was a "Chinese copy A330"; now they are
120 Zvezda : That's not a big problem. A bigger problem might be the limited width. Astuteman suggested a 10 abreast A350. The cross section would be similar to t
121 OldAeroGuy : Put the swing tail hinge in front of the aft pressure bulkhead. Then you can let it stay in place to retain aft body stiffness.
122 DAYflyer : The whole A-350 thing will go down as one of the bigest blunders in modern industrial history. They completely missed the threat the 787 signified to
123 SEPilot : That wouldn't work very well; the bulkhead would have to be removable. That would pose almost as many problems as having the hinge area pressurized.
124 Astuteman : How wide is that, out of interest? I'd envisaged c. 239" across instead of the current -XWB's 234" Regards
125 Areopagus : That may be so, but a new large pressure bulkhead forward of the cargo bay is still required, if the bay is to be enlarged by removing the upper deck
126 Post contains images Revelation : About as ironic as Boeing buying parts of the 787 from Airbus (or is it EADS?). I'm not surprised, given how long the flight is, and the desire to cr
127 Logos : I have to mostly agree with you here. Airbus is obviously already swallowing their pride on this one by backtracking on all their statements on the 7
128 Brendows : I believe the cross section is 6,5 metres, or 256 inches.
129 DfwRevolution : It's EADS. And they are non-critical parts like the cargo hold doors IIRC. Boeing Australia also produces minor components for the A380 and other Air
130 Post contains images Rheinbote : Would you call the rear pressure bulkhead non-critical? That's what EADS Augsburg supplies to Vought.
131 Poitin : I think they would have several hundred orders, perhaps as many a 400. Remember that the 787 is sold out and there is a demand for planes today which
132 BigJKU : The A330E in 2011 is not nearly as valuable as the A330E would have been in 2009-10. By 2011 Boeing will be ramped up on 787 and looking to expand pr
133 CygnusChicago : My premise is not false. A single airline route is not a simple demand curve. Sure, offering 150 less seats *may* increase average revenue, depending
134 Post contains images Astuteman : My thanks. FWIW I'm not as sure that we'll see this as I was that we'll see A350-XWB barrels . Regards
135 Zvezda : From memory, the external fuselage width of the 747 is 251 inches. So, you're envisioning a cross section 5 inches narrower than the 777 having comfo
136 OldAeroGuy : Huh? If the aft pressure bulkhead swings with the tail why does it have to be removeable? If you're just trying to pressurize the flight deck, the ne
137 Zvezda : No. Offering fewer seats always increases RASM, regardless of what your competitors do. It may or may not increase profitability, depending on many f
138 Post contains images Astuteman : I'd say we were far apart, but 2" is not far . That's only a 3" reduction over the 777's cross-section. I'd have anticipated better than that through
139 Post contains images Zvezda : I wouldn't say the 777 offers comfortable 10 abreast seating. Tolerable, perhaps, but not comfortable. The trend is toward wider seats. That's a good
140 Thebry : Not a single person on this thread has been able to produce links to untoward comments or quotes attributed to Boeing executives. There have been ple
141 Thebry : Not sure of the cross section, but do remember hearing a Boeing representative comment about the delivery of the large 84-foot mid-fuselage section.
142 JayinKitsap : I think if doing the newer GEnX or T1000's as an alternate to be certified as part of the 330F it would a reasonable cost effort for certification. A
143 XT6Wagon : Even worse their cartoon makes no sense. They want you to believe that they Beluga nose drop and tail sections will just carry over. I'd love to know
144 Post contains images Astuteman : Ah, I see now. I infer from that you were suggesting beating the 777's 10-abreast comfort. I was aiming for parity. You may well have a point. Regard
145 XT6Wagon : Yes, I think 17.2 with conventional A320/737 seats is "gold" in terms of getting to 10Y with it. EK's 777 in 10Y needs special seats on the outside,
146 Zeke : When did the LCF get certified ? last time I looked, it was over 6 months behind on the certification schedule, it had been doing the 787 delivery fl
147 FlyingClrs727 : I wonder if Airbus could convert some of their early build A380's into an LCF like transporter? With all the problems in the A380 program the first s
148 XT6Wagon : Nice to see your blinders haven't slipped lately. One might note that its very doubtful that the FAA cares what you use for "test loads" during certi
149 CygnusChicago : Huh? Where on earth do you get that from?
150 FlyingClrs727 : They're going to be heavier, and they will have different retrofitted wiring harnesses than the newer production planes. They will be oddballs in any
151 Max Q : Why not just call it a 787. think how well it could sell then..
152 CygnusChicago : Want to point out which frame numbers you are referring to? The test frames are under contract, to EY I think. As to non-test frames, the first aircr
153 Zvezda : There is not enough information in the public domain to reach that conclusion. The only thing we really know is that SQ have a serious capacity short
154 Rheinbote : Some observations - the 787 program seems to be handled by a different team of engineers and managers than the LCF (and Wedgetail, and spy satellites,
155 Semobeila : That's not what I meant. A lot of the technology used by has been developed by 3rd parties (and not exclusively for Boeing), which gives every compan
156 SEPilot : Sorry; I misread what you said; I thought you were saying put the pressure bulkhead ahead of the joint. But trying to pressurize over the joint opens
157 OldAeroGuy : The main point is that there would be no need to pressurize the cargo compartment. There would be no need to retain the aft pressure bulkhead unless
158 Zvezda : I don't think it would fit.
159 SEPilot : I agree with this; I thought you were thinking of pressurizing the whole cargo area when you were talking of the aft bulkhead. I doubt that it is nee
160 Post contains images Astuteman : Not necessarily. Third parties with the necessary technology/capacity may well not wish to turn their backs on the other 50% of the large airliner in
161 SEPilot : I agree that this may well be the case, but at the same time I don't believe that North Sails, for instance, has any relationship with Airbus. Obviou
162 Poitin : Agreed -- you are right. However the A330E would be much more valuable than the A330 in 2011. Airbus is in a hard spot and they really need to do SOM
163 Poitin : You are correct, the A330E could be developed as part of the A330F, giving the possibility of a A330EF, which I am sure would help increase the sales
164 RedFlyer : As some industry stalwarts have claimed Airbus is simply offering a "me-too" airplane, only now it's going to be even later to EIS than before. While
165 Zvezda : Airbus should still have an edge in aerodynamic and propulsion efficiency as a result of being late to market. Airbus may also have an advantage in s
166 Poitin : I think Zvezda is correct in the following post: The A350 will be a "copy cat' airplane, but it will be a good airplane and it will sell well if they
167 Post contains images Astuteman : As far as I can work out, the current 245t A350-800 would have about c. 3% less drag than the current 245t 787-900, (mainly due to its greater wingsp
168 RedFlyer : By the time the XWB enters service, the 787 should have some 7 years of production under its belt. Given Boeing's intent to produce the aircraft in "
169 Post contains links Poitin : That is what Tim Clark said: Clark has stressed that he is "sold on the 787's 40% reduction in maintenance," something not possible with an aluminum
170 Bringiton : I agree , what is the % improvment in effeceincy in the T7 as compared to the past?
171 Astuteman : I'd welcome your thoughts on my musings above. My conclusion that the supposedly weakest plane in the line-up, the A358, can carry 8% more people tha
172 Poitin : Would Boeing do a ER, LR, and other variants of the 787? No problem at all. That is one reason why I wish Airbus would get on with updating the A330
173 RedFlyer : Mr. Astute: The last thing I would ever do is debate you on an engineering issue as my interest is always from a business standpoint. (Besides, how c
174 RedFlyer : I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around, some as high as 5%. Let's take a more reasonable and probably more accurate figure of 2 1/2%. While small,
175 SSTsomeday : I think Airbus is dealing properly (although tardily) with a major liability of the earlier 350 renditions - which was the the less competitive, "part
176 Zvezda : Can we please put to bed the myth that the 787 is even remotely sized near the 757? The smallest 787s are larger than the 767-400.
177 Post contains images Astuteman : FWIW I didn't derive the aerodynamic efficiency from the range, but the converse. I used a (very) simplistic methodology to calculate a) lift drag, b
178 RedFlyer : What commonality, or should I ask how much commonality, will the A350, an aircraft that will EIS around 2015, have with planes that were designed in
179 Zvezda : The A350 should have a significant aerodynamic technology advantage as a result of being at least five years later to market. There are two reasons:
180 Moo : The big one is commonality of suppliers and maintenance trees - if you already have a working relationship with someone, its less hassle to setup a n
181 SSTsomeday : Good Point. Interesting. That means that the 757 class has no next generation A/C coming up to replace it? And it's out of production. Does that make
182 SEPilot : Commonality as far as flight crews is, I believe, overblown. IIRC, a pilot must be current (i.e. have made 3 takeoffs & landings within the previous
183 Stitch : Y1 is expected to scale to at least 757-200 levels in range, if not capacity.
184 Zvezda : The replacements for the A320 and 737 will probably cover the 757 space.
185 Astuteman : I don't have a particular issue with this comment BTW, Z, but I haven't a clue how to put a "measure" on it. Suffice to say, if the A350 should have
186 Zvezda : The only way to measure it is with a wind tunnel. It's bit like trying to predict how much more fuel efficient cars will be five years in the future.
187 Slz396 : If you truly believe that, fine. While you apparently still post replies doped by all the adrenaline the euphoria has released into your body when re
188 Post contains images Astuteman : Of course this argument should equally apply to Y3, if Boeing "do" it right (and who will say they won't?) Regards
189 Zvezda : Actually, this argument will apply less to Y3, if Boeing build it at all. The reason is that the 787 and A350 are near the upper limit of volumetrica
190 AndesSMF : Please, you are accusing him and then perfectly following his example with your response. For example, there are still more 767s sold that A330s. Yes
191 Slz396 : It is noteworthy to remember that such a Y3 would have to be substantially bigger than the baseline A350 versions for it to benefit from the same adv
192 T773ER : So your telling me they are going to walk away from that market all together?
193 Zvezda : Huh? Boeing lost what? There is no reason why a twin with a 1,000,000 lbs MTOW couldn't be produced. However, because of the small size of the market
194 T773ER : That may be true, but I'am not for sure if the 787-11 would be a viable replacement for the 777-300 747and A340-600 concerning capacity. In my opinio
195 Zvezda : A 787-11 would have a cabin floor area of 324.6 sq meters, compared to 314.2 for the A340-600 and 330.4 for the 777-300. A 787-11 would carry 50 LD-3
196 T773ER : I didn't realize that it would be that large.
197 Zvezda : The 787-9 is 20 feet longer than the 787-8. The 787-10 is planned to be 20 feet longer than the 787-9. Adding another 20 feet would make a 787-11 onl
198 Stitch : Thrust shouldn't be an issue. CFRP should help bring Y3's OEW down so that it can keep MTOW's at or under 800,000lbs with payloads equal to or greate
199 Pygmalion : Zeke, since when was Boeing getting paid to ship parts on the LCF? There is no commercial service for the LCF. There is no space for sale. Neither yo
200 Stitch : Frankly, the LCC would have to carry the equivalent of a 787 component as part of the certification process, so why not carry the actual part and get
201 SEPilot : As a matter of fact, the FAA has explicitly stated that Boeing might as well carry their parts rather than dummy loads during flight tests of the LCF
202 Post contains images Jacobin777 : .......regarding #1)it seems as if we are fast approaching "laws of diminishing returns" in this department....#2)lets see how far we can take on "Mo
203 Post contains images Astuteman : You answer your own question IMO. I agree with Zvezda, that, if you look at the size and capability of the 787, it's pretty much a myth to suggest it
204 Zvezda : It's not just likely; it is certain. SFC goes down as fan diameter goes up. A major source of inefficiency in a turbofan is the clearance between the
205 Zvezda : To fit LD3s three abreast, an airliner would need an enormous cross section -- wider than a WhaleJet. At that point, I suspect many airlines would pr
206 Post contains images RedFlyer : I follow this industry purely from a business perspective, not much from an engineering perspective. Thus, the "dope" you refer to that courses throu
207 Slz396 : Your kidding right? We are not talking about an infinite market here, where indeed any professor in economics will tell you being first to the market
208 Revelation : If you tuly believe that, fine. There's an old saying around here, "don't count your chickens before they hatch". There is soooo much that Airbus has
209 Post contains images Slz396 : In fact they don't have to do that much, they just have to decide to do it. The 'bleedless concept' is non-essencial in all this, since both engine m
210 Post contains images Brendows : Guarantees? Isn't that a pretty bold statement? Being second to the market is no guarantee for being dominant, but the possibilities to become domina
211 Revelation : Both A and B have said current tech would only improve on A320/B737NG by at best 5% - not worth investing $10B+ to achieve. Given Airbus's decision m
212 NAV20 : I'll never be a professor, Slz396, but I have a fairly respectable economics degree - and all I can say is that you couldn't be more wrong. As things
213 Post contains images NorCal : Kind of like what is happening with the 787? First it was the A330 is good enough, the 787 is a "Chinese copy" Then it was an A330 with 787 engines i
214 NoWorries : This is an important point that is often overlooked or downplayed by some. The fact that Airbus is going from a 115V AC bus to a 230V AC bus probably
215 NAV20 : In terms of market share (at estimated prices) Boeing are already outselling Airbus at a rate of about 4:1, Norcal. God knows what will happen next y
216 SEPilot : I think NAV20 has come up with the best analysis of Airbus's situation on this thread. Being 3 years behind (or 6, or whatever) is no evidence of any
217 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..its going to be intersting to see how this pans out... ....its certainly more capable than the B767 its replacing...yet, at least in terms of seat
218 Slz396 : I am not going the turn this into a discussion on who has the most degrees in economics, but with your track record you'd need to have a wall ful of
219 SEPilot : Since there is nothing on the market or even being discussed that comes close to matching the 748F, and air freight is growing even faster than pax t
220 Ken777 : Being first or second to market is not as important as the level of design and engineering that goes into the product. The iPod, which was not the fir
221 NAV20 : Good. Care to answer ANY of the points I made?
222 Bringiton : This argument is absurd , none of the customers have expressed or wanted the -8 to be bigger , the -9 to be bigger , the 3 to be bigger , they have s
223 Slz396 : In fact I don't need to spin or wish for anything as you have come to notice with much frustration so it seems, I just have to let time flow by, duri
224 Slz396 : What points? You mean the wish list you've posted, like: Wondering just when that all happened: was that on 3th May, 6th May, 9th May, 14th May etc..
225 Post contains images Jacobin777 : You are welcome... ...actually friend, it isn't as certain...a lot will depend on the mission requirements of the aircraft (as we've seen with the B7
226 Bringiton : But it aint like airbus is 2 years later , the 787 that flies in 2015 ( the timeframe that we now can consider realistic if the ATW article is to be
227 Slz396 : I am not entirely sure, but I am under the strong impression that at the early stages of the 787 (maybe it was still the 7E7) Boeing DID increase the
228 Post contains links NAV20 : I suspect that most of us mere 'enthusiasts' have yet to realise how big (thanks to Airbus mismanagement) Boeing's technological lead has become. Arti
229 Post contains images 787engineer : Airbus isn't just coming around to embracing the one-piece-barrel carbon technology. They've been forced into it by the success of the 787. Last time
230 RedFlyer : I'm not going to address all of your points since others already have. However... Being first to market has several advantages, among them: 1) you set
231 Slz396 : Is it Boeing's lead, or that of the foreign companies they buy their parts from????
232 Zvezda : Very slim? Do you really believe that? I'd say below 50%, but I dare not say very slim. An 80 meter 787-12? Could be a 75 meter 787-11. You missed at
233 Moo : I suspect that many of us 'mere enthusiasts' overrate a technological advantage in the longterm. Airbus has already committed to investing $500m in c
234 Post contains links Poitin : This assumes a cylindrical fuselage, which is not the case of the BWB. However, from what I can see of the BWB, it has its own set of problems, not t
235 Post contains images Zvezda : If there is no Y3 (or similar sized non-Yellowstone product), then there will almost certainly be a 787-11.
236 Post contains images Stitch : I find it funny that because Boeing's strength is the 300+ seat market and their weakness is the 225-300 seat market, that Boeing concentrating on the
237 Post contains images Zvezda : Actually, it assumes an ovoid fuselage. I'll work on that if there is demand. Thank you for the kind words. Which house has the 777-200LR been cleani
238 DfwRevolution : The 787-9 was stretched by an additional 1-2 seat rows depending on how airlines fit their cabins. The 787-8 was not stretched, but picked up a few m
239 Post contains images Poitin : Only slightly so, and I believe higher than fatter. However, compared to the BWB, it is just about a cylinder. Well, there is from me. You seem to ha
240 Atmx2000 : I would suggest that the crossover point will be above the 787-10. We already know that narrower fuselage (A330) can function well in the 300 pax spa
241 Dougloid : Every once in a great while I hear something about someone trying to bring up canon law, which only points out the wisdom of what an old lawyer once
242 474218 : The difference is that the 747 can be used a 99% of the major airports in the world. The A380 can be used at about 15, not percent of the worlds majo
243 Post contains images Poitin : Welcome to the Holy Altar of Airbus and the Boeing Basilica, in case you haven't noticed
244 Stitch : The difference is that the 747 can be used a 99% of the major airports in the world. The A380 can be used at about 15, not percent of the worlds majo
245 Post contains images Zeke : Sorry missed that before, they have carried about 18 large tanks, each about 45000 kg, 6.5m diameter, and 17-18 m long, those tanks would have been b
246 Zvezda : That's an exaggeration. There are about 210 airports equipped for regular JumboJet ops. There are about 25 either ready or preparing for WhaleJet ops
247 Astuteman : And especially since the A358 (like the 789) will a fair bit cheaper to own and operate than the A332...... If Y3 does appear, this argument will alm
248 Bringiton : Yes and they have done it allready IIRC , remember the 787 has been designed to exist alongside the Y3 ( this was the essence of project yellowstone)
249 Poitin : The FAA does not have the power to make such a rule Zeke, that is the domain of the US congress. The IRS may make such a ruling, but obviously haven'
250 Post contains images Baroque : This "whatever the grade lower than mere enthusiast" is knows enough school chemistry to hope that this Clarkism is well wide of the mark. It would m
251 Astuteman : Once a technology matures and becomes accepted, it's likely to be assimilated much more rapidly by other entrants, particularly if they are partnered
252 Bringiton : I totally agree , however it would not be a cake walk . I personally believe that given the situation ( Translated - MESS) that airbus currently find
253 MD-90 : To an extent that's true, but the aircraft involved mean multi-billion dollar investments for airlines. It's not as simple as ditching you iPod Mini
254 Zeke : The 380 has already landed at 38 different airports, and of all 747 operations, 80% of them are only into 37 airports, all of those airports will be
255 474218 : Yes I did exaggerate, only 12% of the major airports are equipped to handle the A380. I agree the argument will vanish, but not because of the Y3 (wh
256 MD-90 : Yeah, they're sort of hard to hide.
257 Poitin : There are some 200 airports that the 747 has operated as an passenger airliner over the years. And every year there are fewer and fewer 747's carryin
258 Post contains images Astuteman : I sincerely hope that you feel all the better for getting that off your chest.... But it sort-of sidesteps the point that, for Y3 to sell in numbers
259 Post contains images Stitch : If Y3 is a single-deck twin, which seems most likely, airports really shouldn't need to make any special modifications to most-effectively handle her
260 Astuteman : I'd understood the existence of 80m gates to be a far greater constraint. Regards
261 Post contains images Stitch : Aye, but I would expect ( or at least hope! ) Y3's wingspan would be at (or preferably) under 80m.
262 Zvezda : Gate spacing can be solved by restricting adjacent gates while the F class aircraft is there. A bigger problem is taxiway separation. Many airports h
263 Post contains images Stitch : And so a Y3 with close to 80m wingtips would require the same, as well. Got it now.
264 Zvezda : If Boeing build a Y3, it might very well have a 75-80 meter wingspan. It would certainly be greater than 70 meters.
265 Pygmalion : Boeing licenses its technology to the suppliers/ partners... not the other way around. Boeing developed and owns much of the technology for the 787.
266 Aminobwana : This would be near the A380s, much , much heavier The A3510 has only 64 m How is this explained ?? How we know that Boeing cannot reduce this ?? amin
267 MD-90 : Raytheon developed composite barrel fuselages before Boeing did. I wonder if they or (now) Hawker Beechcraft have been contacted by Airbus?
268 Post contains links Poitin : Boeing actually licensed much of its composite technology from North Sails. http://www.northsails.com/australia/3DRtechnology2006.htm To quote: ‘Th
269 Zvezda : Boeing will not build a Y3 that is just a wee tiny bit larger than the 787.
270 Dougloid : The IP surrounding CFRP technology is fragmented in a lot of places and I expect that there is a rush on to license patents as a precautionary measur
271 Stitch : I'm not implying Y3's wingspan will be 80m long. I am just noting that if it is indeed that wide, then the taxiway wingtip separation issue that affe
272 Pygmalion : " target=_blank>http://www.northsails.com/australia/...6.htm no they didn't. Boeing licensed a tape laying head control technology from North Sails. N
273 RedFlyer : Any airport where the A380 can land can load and unload passengers (hell, they can load them straight from the tarmac if need be). The more accurate
274 Post contains images Astuteman : For reference, Aminobwana, the 245t A350-XWB-800 has a 64m wingspan, near-on the same as a 400t Boeing 747-400. A large wingspan has a quite dramatic
275 Osiris30 : Not really adding anything... but just pondering a 78m wingspan twin-jet.. wow... Make you wonder just how wide a fuse cross-section you can get to w
276 Aminobwana : Thanks for your info. 1) If I understand correctly, all the A350 and B787, incl. the B7810 and A3510, will have a wingspan under 65 m, i.e. without a
277 Zvezda : Boeing did a design study on a 12 abreast, 3 aisle, 2-4-4-2 single deck airliner with a circular fuselage cross section of 328 inches. By comparison,
278 Zvezda : Correct. Yes, a Y3 would have many (not all) of the airport compatibility problems of the WhaleJet. Taxiway widths shouldn't be a problem, but spacin
279 Post contains images Astuteman : Correct. It would be a big surprise (to me) if Y3 was not ICAO cat F (i.e. greater than 65m span) (Of interest, the 748i penetrates this barrier by b
280 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : I think that your analysis that the A358 has a 5% efficiency advantage over the 789 has a basic flaw. Please see my analysis as a follow on to yours
281 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Thanks for that. I stand corrected. Since they are still in flight test, they cannot be owned by anyone except BCA, who owns Boeing Aircraft Holding.
282 ContnlEliteCMH : " target=_blank>http://www.northsails.com/australia/...6.htm Now THAT is a machine and a process! I think the pistons for controlling barrel shape are
283 Zvezda : Perhaps, but even with a second deck, space utilization of the lateral extremes of the upper deck is very poor.
284 XT6Wagon : Right now I have to say that the A350XWB is looking like it will end up being the worst possible crosssection you could imagine. The 787 won lots of
285 Zvezda : Folding wingtips would have to be locked into flight position prior to takeoff. They could be folded out of the way at the gate and during taxiing. T
286 XT6Wagon : Would they? The flaps alone are an example of a fairly dramatic change in the aerodynamic and lift properties of the wing that are allowed to change
287 Zvezda : When is the most lift needed? Takeoff?
288 Poitin : ATL is not A380 ready because it does not have jetways, hardstands or even taxi ways that are "380 ready", yet the A380 can easily land there. There
289 Post contains links Stitch : What would be more interesting is MAWs - Mission Adaptable Wings - that can be reconfigured as necessary. So during takeoff and landing they would pr
290 SEPilot : As one of the aforementioned Boeing cheerleaders I am convinced that the question on Y3 is when, not if. Assuming that the 787 and A350 perform as ex
291 Stitch : If they slope like the windows on the upper deck of the 747, that might be a plus. While you can't see anything on the ground without craning your ne
292 Zvezda : We agree up to this point. There would be demand for more than a hundred or so only IF a CFRP VLA can offer a 15-25% CASM advantage over an A350-1000
293 SEPilot : On my layout they would be at 26-1/2 degrees; I don't know how that compares to the 747 upper deck, but I assume it is more.
294 Aminobwana : [quoing Aminobwana (Repl 276)]: [quoting Zvezda (Reply 278)]: If I understand correctly, what you opine is that the Y3 will make no sense as competiti
295 SEPilot : Exactly; I believe it will be a larger twin than the 777, probably with the smallest size being between the 772 and 773 and the largest size being cl
296 Post contains links Aminobwana : Putting myself in the shoes of airlines which considered to A350 as a alternative to the B787, they have now the dilemma, as Tim Clark suggested, to b
297 Aminobwana : [quote=Aminobwana,reply=296] I complete herewith the interruted last phrase: [i]As I stated before, I cannot imagine that reliable answers can be achi
298 Post contains images Ken777 : Several times when I have thought about Y3 I find myself thinking about Boeing engineers remembering how nice the 747 is for freight and that it woul
299 Poitin : While it may well be possible to build a CFRP VLA with a 25% lower CASM, such a beast would have to be a BWB. That leads to all sorts of marketing is
300 Moo : Yes, it wont be that hard. Consider the following patents Boeing holds directly: Airbus has used subassemblies for two decades. Airbus has been using
301 Zvezda : I think the optimally sized large airliner for the next 20 years will have a 787/A350 cross section with a length of up to 75 or 80 meters. Reasons:
302 Aminobwana : Thank you Moo for this really complete info. I quite agree that unless tht something totally unidemensional is patented, there are eventual ways to c
303 Post contains links Poitin : In the US, the US supreme court has recently started taking a hard look at frivolous patents and throwing them out. Expect any "intuitive" or "obviou
304 SEPilot : Certainly the BWB offers the ultimate in efficiency, but I agree with you that public acceptance is unlikely in the foreseeable future. I do think th
305 Moo : That is because in those days, the concept of an instant camera really was revolutionary, not evolutionary - it took significant investment and thoug
306 Post contains images Poitin : I don't see patents being a big issue now that the Supreme Court has made a 9-0 decision. I think Airbus should consider some of the space near Hambu
307 Aminobwana : As you say, I grasp the idea. I am sure that Airbus can come up with an alternative not restrained by Boeing patents, but obviously this task will co
308 Moo : As to whether it costs more money or takes more time, it can go both ways - by knowing what to avoid through published patents, Airbus could even sav
309 Bringiton : As Zeke said previously , eads and european compaines have been working on barrels for some time , so the base exists allready from which to launch a
310 MD-90 : There are other BWB concepts than just the Douglas design that we know Boeing has tested as a scale model. I've seen concepts that have a bulged fuse
311 Bringiton : I think we need a second thread on this topic...PART II
312 Zvezda : If development costs were zero, then maybe. The 787 and A350 have larger cross sections than the 74 meter A340-600.
313 Aminobwana : I assume you are not understanding that the Supreme Court Ruling is applicable to any patent issue ?? It refers to frivolous or patenting common sens
314 MD-90 : I agree, I was just wondering when you said that the 787/A350 cross section was the optimal size for an airliner that would be so lengthy.
315 Zvezda : Huh? For clarification, the 787/A350 cross section is not the only optimal cross section. I depends on the mission. The A320 also has a great cross s
316 Dougloid : With all due respect I think the subject of patent law as it is practiced in the United States is not nearly as simplifiable as you seem to intimate.
317 Poitin : What I say to you all is go read the actual decision. It is an important sea-change. And it is a 9-0 decision. There is a clear mandate from SCOUS sa
318 Halls120 : Actually, the KSR decision - while indeed a significant change in patent law - is also one of those rare cases where the Supreme Court has rendered a
319 Post contains images Poitin : All of this is true -- you sound like my patent attorney friends However, it even goes further that what you point out, and that is the #$*%&$ Patent
320 Post contains links and images AutoThrust : Bad news for the A350XWB. In the German News channel N-TV a Airbus Speaker said that the Speculations about switch to CFRP Barrel which would have bee
321 SEPilot : If this is true then it is bad news for Airbus. Boeing has convinced the whole aviation world that barrels are the way to go, and I think they're rig
322 Aminobwana : I am surprised that my question regarding patent ptotection for BEING composite barrel technology had so an ampleresponse. But I think we somewhat st
323 Ken777 : A rough (Sherlock) translation of the critical part of the article: An airbus spokeswoman rejected the demands. "we operate on the basis of the past D
324 NAV20 : Agree entirely. It's the only way to go. My guess is that this will be another case of a series of EADS spokesmen saying 'no decision has been taken'
325 Post contains links Sq212 : Interesting article from Spiegel Online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,485374,00.html
326 Post contains images Jacobin777 : " target=_blank>http://www.spiegel.de/international/....html ..thanks for the link.. ..wasn't there a recent A.net thread with a billion posts stating
327 Bringiton : ""The latest incarnation of the A350 has been found wanting by Emirates, Singapore Airplines, Qatar Airways and the leasing company ILFC, Germany's S
328 SEPilot : This is indeed incredibly bad news. If Airbus sticks to their guns and builds the plane with panels the 787 will continue to trounce it in sales. If
329 Ken777 : The headline from the Spiegel article is "New A350 Rejected By Airlines", a rather good indication that the rumors about the composite barrel are true
330 Bringiton : Well , as many learned members have estimated the going to barrels approach saves something like 2-3% eff. however there are other ways that eff. can
331 Ken777 : I think there is general agreement that the next generation of NBs will be composite barrels. It would be foolish of Airbus to wait on a new 320 befo
332 Zvezda : Waiting to see what Airbus will seems to be the strategy of many airlines. Hopefully, it will become clear at Le Bourget. If EK, QR, SQ, and ILFC hav
333 SEPilot : There is no point spending 10B euros on something that not enough people want; I would have thought they had learned that lesson from the A380. It re
334 Zvezda : Say that after Le Bourget. Airbus historically arrange with many of their customers to delay announcements to the airshows. Until after the airshow,
335 NAV20 : Just the one, as far as I know - Finnair, for 11 of them.
336 Post contains images Bringiton : I have said it in the past , We should expect around 150+ orders for the A350 at paris regardless of the specs they have on offer or even a fluid Del
337 NAV20 : Hard indeed to see that happening, Bringiton, with all the favourites - EK, QR, SQ, and ILFC - conspicuously baling out a few days before the Show. W
338 SEPilot : Yes, but the gist of the article is that the customers who were supposed to be signing up for 80-100 plane orders are the very ones that are not happ
339 Post contains images Poitin : Having been involved in the writing of numerous patent applications, I can say that the average patent attorney tries to make the wording so vague as
340 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...thus my previous statement..
341 Bringiton : None of them have come out and said that they need "this" or "else" infact just a few days ago QR's top man said that they'll be ordering at paris .
342 Post contains images Halls120 : Actually, one of my friends is a patent attorney here in DC. He used to practice public international law, but abandoned us for the dark side. Couldn
343 JayinKitsap : Structurally, I prefer the full barrels but doing the panels with CFRP Frames (not AL or AL-LI) would be relatively comparable. It would add the weigh
344 Post contains links Stitch : When this thread is closed due to size, I recommend we continue here - A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again)? (by N1786b May 29 2007 in Civil Av
345 Beta : I agree. Let's wait until after the Paris airshow. All these reports are now rumour, speculation. Let's stick with the official source from Airbus fo
346 Dougloid : What the Oracle of Delphi on the Potomac says is always a matter of "where you stand is where you sit." I'm not a patent lawyer but I do read a few c
347 Post contains images SEPilot : What are you trying to do, spoil our fun? What are we supposed to do between now and Paris?
348 Poitin : With a 9 to 0 ruling this one is over. As Hall120 points out, it changes the standard for judging a patent's validity. That, according to the patent
349 Post contains links Srbmod : The thread has really gone way past the typical number of posts that threads get locked by and a second/third/etc. part is started. So please continu
350 Post contains links Dougloid : Not to be to overly precise here but we don't read headnotes and syllabi for holdings ever since the Detroit Timber case waaaaaaaaay back in 1906. It
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...
Airbus To Go Head With A3xx posted Thu Dec 9 1999 07:03:45 by Jim
Is Airbus Able To Build A Composite Fuselage? posted Sun May 22 2005 18:49:15 by Beauing
Airbus NOT Using A Full Composite Barrel posted Thu Feb 1 2007 00:51:32 by EvilForce
KLM Airbus 330. Only Four More To Go. posted Fri Dec 15 2006 16:12:36 by Jelle
Leaked - Air Asia To Go Airbus posted Mon Oct 25 2004 14:44:42 by Mas777
Royal Jordanian Decides To Go "Airbus". posted Thu Sep 2 2004 22:52:19 by Cedarwings
VS To Go With Boeing Or Airbus? posted Mon May 24 2004 18:53:53 by BCAInfoSys
Where Are Ex-Braniff's Airbus 320 Go To? posted Tue Dec 10 2002 05:41:01 by Big777jet
Kuwait Airways To Go All-Airbus? posted Thu Feb 21 2002 18:43:55 by Na
Ansett To Go All Airbus... posted Wed Jul 18 2001 17:14:37 by Aduum