Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SUH-pricing + Performance Key - 777 Vs 350  
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In hard copy FI this week is an article entitled

"Pricing and Performance" key to 777 fight with A350

From an interview with Steve Udvar-Hazy.

Some key quotes:-

"S U-H believes Boeing can tackle the threat posed by the A350 XWB with incremental improvements to the 777 and discounted pricing, endorsing Boeing's view that is does not need an all-new replacement in the near term".

"It would be a lot easier for Boeing to offer discouts on existing 777 than to spend $12Bn - $15Bn to develop an all-new airplane prematurely".

"If they can get a percent here, and two thousand pounds less weight there, all those benefits will make the 777 more appealing"

"He says Airbus is going down the right path now in the sizing and configuration and performance requirements of the A350......Now they have to deliver. But Airbus has learned a lot from the A380 experience"



Will link when the article is downloaded in Flightglobal.

To offer an opinion, I think he's right to suggest Boeing adopt the strategy that Airbus essentially has for the A330.

Regards

105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30580 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7482 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
To offer an opinion, I think he's right to suggest Boeing adopt the strategy that Airbus essentially has for the A330.

Agreed. It is a fully-amortized and mature program so discounts of even 50% or more will still generate profits. And any additional reductions in SFC and OEW just make a fantastic family of planes that much more appealing.

There is no doubt the A350 will eventually supplant the 777, but Boeing can still sell hundreds (even five hundred?) more over the next decade.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7476 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
There is no doubt the A350 will eventually supplant the 777, but Boeing can still sell hundreds (even five hundred?) more over the next decade.

"Eventually" being the operative word. I'm fairly comfy with your guess number, too Stitch.
Such conservatism...  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6832 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7440 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
There is no doubt the A350 will eventually supplant the 777, but Boeing can still sell hundreds (even five hundred?) more over the next decade.

I will agree as well. The primary threat to the 777 is the A350-1000, which will not be available for a decade, and even then will not be able to fulfill all the demand for a while. Boeing should not jump too quickly to make a replacement; every year they wait brings more potential improvements to the table. But at the same time they should be under no illusions that the 777 will be a viable long-term competitor to the A351, just as the A330 is not a viable long-term competitor to the 787.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12393 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7427 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I offered the concept of Boeing heavily discounting the 777 as a valid strategy a few months ago, and was generally criticised for having the temerity to suggest such a thing. I'm glad SUH was listening!  wink 


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3):
The primary threat to the 777 is the A350-1000, which will not be available for a decade

As a point of order, the current programme says 8 years....  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3872 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7372 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5):
As a point of order, the current programme says 8 years.... Smile

As a further point of order, 7 years  Wink


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
As a further point of order, 7 years

Bugga !  biggrin 


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7221 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5):
As a point of order, the current programme says 8 years....



Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
As a further point of order, 7 years

I think that's a point of information ... not order  Smile


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 4):
I offered the concept of Boeing heavily discounting the 777 as a valid strategy a few months ago, and was generally criticised for having the temerity to suggest such a thing. I'm glad SUH was listening!

Thev thing that interested me most in the article is that he doesn't seem to be advocating anything more than some "low-hanging fruit" tweaks - "an odd percent, and two thousand pounds" isn't particuarly ambitious.

I happen to agree - you either put minimal input into improvements, and up the discount, or you're in for serious re-engineering, one or other.

I'm sure a 773ER with 2% lower fuel burn and even 1t lighter will be appreciated - it'd probably fly another 200Nm if nothing else.

Regards


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8867 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7148 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
I'm sure a 773ER with 2% lower fuel burn and even 1t lighter will be appreciated - it'd probably fly another 200Nm if nothing else.

GE does have an engine upgrade coming to the GE90-1000 series which should improve fuel burn, I don't know by how much, or when it will be available.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30580 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7111 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
The thing that interested me most in the article is that he doesn't seem to be advocating anything more than some "low-hanging fruit" tweaks - "an odd percent, and two thousand pounds" isn't particularly ambitious.

I suppose SUH knows that Boeing plans a CFRP 777 replacement, so he understands that a minor refresh is an acceptable interim move for Boeing until such time as the CFRP replacement arrives.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7095 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3):
The primary threat to the 777 is the A350-1000, which will not be available for a decade

As a point of order, the current programme says 8 years.



Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5):
As a point of order, the current programme says 8 years.... Smile

As a further point of order, 7 years

How time flies when you are reading a thread like this.  Big grin

One a less happy note, it seems to work on the A330, but not the A346, then again one is twin for twin as opposed to twin for four. How much, if at all, has A346 performance been improved other than the HGW development? It is almost as if it is in a time warp compared with other planes that are said to be in a constant state of improvement or is that just an appearance that belies reality?


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3872 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7087 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):

I suppose SUH knows that Boeing plans a CFRP 777 replacement, so he understands that a minor refresh is an acceptable interim move for Boeing until such time as the CFRP replacement arrives.

Wasn't there recently a thread on here about Boeing saying 'no large widebody twin planned to replace 747/777'?


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12393 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7042 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Moo (Reply 13):
Wasn't there recently a thread on here about Boeing saying 'no large widebody twin planned to replace 747/777'?

This one:
Boeing: No Large Twinjet To Replace B777-300ER (by KL808 Feb 8 2008 in Civil Aviation)

The Flight article that started the thread is here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...se-to-airbus-a350-1000-threat.html

Quote:
Scott Carson has signalled that Boeing's product development strategy to counter the Airbus A350-1000 may exclude major new derivatives of the 777, with the airframer not planning to develop an all-new large widebody twinjet for another decade.

So less "there won't be one", more "there will be one, but not just yet".



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6832 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6923 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5):
As a point of order, the current programme says 8 years....



Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
As a point of order, the current programme says 8 years....

And do you really believe at this point that those dates will be met? That bridge deal is still available.... Big grin



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12393 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6902 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 15):
And do you really believe at this point that those dates will be met?

At this point in time, yes. There's absolutely no reason not to, unless you know something the rest of the World doesn't yet.  wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6848 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 12):
How much, if at all, has A346 performance been improved other than the HGW development?

No significant changes. The HGW was primarily a weight increase that didn't help basic operating economics. With the commitment to the A3510, Airbus has acknowledged the end of the line for the A345/6.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8867 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6748 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
The HGW was primarily a weight increase that didn't help basic operating economics.

I hope you are not trying to suggest it did not result in any increased range/payload ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6832 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6724 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 16):
At this point in time, yes. There's absolutely no reason not to, unless you know something the rest of the World doesn't yet.

Well, I was one of the Boeing boosters who maintained that because Boeing had a good track record for delivering on time we should give them the benefit of the doubt when rumors were flying around about 787 delays. Having wiped the egg from my face, and seeing that Airbus never had such a track record, and that the A351 is going to be the third model to be developed, and the design for the first model is nowhere near frozen yet, I regard the schedule at this point as highly suspect.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6699 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
The HGW was primarily a weight increase that didn't help basic operating economics.

I hope you are not trying to suggest it did not result in any increased range/payload ?

The HGW package did help payload-range, but didn't improve fuel burn per pax on a 6000nm mission. For this type of mission, the increased MTOW hurt the economics due to increased OEW (higher fuel burn) and increased airport fees due to the higher MTOW.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3872 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6694 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
eeing that Airbus never had such a track record, and that the A351 is going to be the third model to be developed, and the design for the first model is nowhere near frozen yet, I regard the schedule at this point as highly suspect.

The development period Airbus has laid down for the A350XWB range is far in excess of what they laid down for previous model developments, from Industrial Launch to planned EIS (6.5 years).

Also Airbus are not stretching the model from day one, the second model to EIS will in-fact be a shrink, which has the potential to take less time and resource to accomplish - leaving more resource available during the same period for the stretched -1000.

I currently see no reason why I should second guess Airbus on their EIS dates.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12393 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
the design for the first model is nowhere near frozen yet

As was pointed out at the January press conference, the A350 configuration is frozen and detailed design freeze is on schedule for later this year.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
I regard the schedule at this point as highly suspect.

Highly suspect? If the schedule is highly suspect this far out, then Airbus has some serious problems.  wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2369 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6657 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
"It would be a lot easier for Boeing to offer discouts on existing 777 than to spend $12Bn - $15Bn to develop an all-new airplane prematurely".

So SUH has a 77W order coming up, but he wants [much] better pricing? List less 40 coming up?

Regards,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6636 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
With the commitment to the A3510, Airbus has acknowledged the end of the line for the A345/6.

Airbus acknowledged the end of the straw with the 345/6 when the numbers came out on the 77L/W. But yes the 340 line is naturally being replaced by the 350XWB program. What better of a replacement for the 340 than the 350XWB!  wink 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
I hope you are not trying to suggest it did not result in any increased range/payload ?

The 346HGW is definitely a more capable plane than the original 346. Otherwise Airbus would have never committed to building the 346X.

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
"S U-H believes Boeing can tackle the threat posed by the A350 XWB with incremental improvements to the 777 and discounted pricing, endorsing Boeing's view that is does not need an all-new replacement in the near term".

"It would be a lot easier for Boeing to offer discouts on existing 777 than to spend $12Bn - $15Bn to develop an all-new airplane prematurely".

This is odd to me as I thought that SUH was just recently doggin' out the 777 saying that unless Boeing acts quickly on a replacement for it, Airbus will own the 270-370 seat market  scratchchin  Either way, I'm glad he's speaking some sense now.  wink 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
25 Post contains images Andhen : If boeing can make the walls thinner, and the floor thinner (which would make the crossection wider), they could accomodate 10 abreast. If they can sh
26 OldAeroGuy : They have been on the 777 since initial delivery, but I don't have a gun.
27 SEPilot : That is what I was referring to. Sorry I didn't make it clearer. Any schedule this far out for a program that complex is highly suspect; the farther
28 Stitch : The 777 family can currently seat 10-abreast at 17" seat width. Many (if not most) of EK's 777 fleet is configured in 10-abreast.
29 Post contains images Mariner : Driving a stake through Mr. Aboulafia's heart. mariner
30 AutoThrust : Wasn't it Enders or Gallois which said recently the A350XWB will be delivered on time and that Airbus did learn from the A380 program? I think we can
31 SEPilot : I have no doubt that they will try; Boeing did as well on the 787. But they are attempting to do a number of things that they have never done before,
32 Post contains images Stitch : I honestly expect the A350 to be late. Not because I am vindictive or spiteful. Not because I wish ill on Airbus or feel they are not professionals. I
33 Post contains images Astuteman : I'm not convinced the -XWB is as new (in the manufacturing sense) as is made out Don't know about the "10's of meters" bit, but Airbus are already fi
34 SEPilot : That is certainly one of the gremlins that bit Boeing, and I have high suspicions may well bite Airbus as well.
35 Scbriml : IIRC, the longest panels are 18m.
36 Post contains images SEPilot : Very well put. I completely agree with your sentiments, and likewise do not wish Airbus any ill. If they do deliver the A351 on schedule it will be a
37 Post contains images FRNT787 : The only thing I can see hurting them, as Stitch said, is the potential learning curve for the composite panels. I am certian any problem would be pr
38 Post contains images EbbUK : In the early stages of the Airbus competitor to the 787 Mr ILFC was happy enough to buy some of the planes before slagging the design and dragging Air
39 Ikramerica : That's EIS. Not availability. I doubt you can get any A350s until 2016 at this point, and A350-1000 in any quantity won't be available until 2017. Th
40 EA772LR : Interesting take on this situation. That is one thing that is rarely taken into consideration. Airbus won't be able to worry just about pumping out 3
41 Stitch : Even if the 787, 747-8 and 777 Freighter programs were all going perfectly to plan, Boeing would not be eager to jump in feet-first with a 777 replac
42 PlanesNTrains : They very well might. I think most would agree that he is capable of doing just that. Well, of course it is Boeing's line. Having said that, they are
43 Pygmalion : If Boeing decided to add CFRP "panels" and frames to the 7773ER, leave the highly Al capable wing basically alone, no to minimal flight test program,
44 Post contains images Astuteman : And as Astuteman said, I'm mystified as to why this would be such a problem, when Airbus have already been doing this for years... Unless they change
45 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Roughly what the 787 had over the A350 non-XWB? Just guessing here
46 Pygmalion : except the 777 has 10 abreast seating? the extra wide 350 still is only nine. It matters
47 Zeke : Be a waste of time, you cannot just replace Al with CFRP, it need to be designed that way from scratch. Besides, CFRP in my view will start going out
48 Baroque : Do a number of us get a free bridge should Airbus manage the impossible and meet its deadlines? Then again, there seem to be a fair (means unfair) nu
49 Astuteman : IIRC Airbus have said they will be CFRP. As a check for understanding, I'm not nailing my colours firmly to the "they'll be on time" mast any more th
50 XT6Wagon : There have been reports that more than one airline was rather pissed off about the A340NG HGW version becoming the ONLY option. As OldAeroGuy has sai
51 Zeke : Correct, I see hybrids finding their way into the A320 and 737 in the next few years. A smarter move on the 777 would be to use GLARE for the fuselag
52 Post contains images Astuteman : The A358 currently has 135 out of 338 orders listed on the Airbus orders spreadsheet, pretty much spot on 40% of the total ordered. Which, when you c
53 AutoThrust : I though GLARE is a Airbus patent developed by the dutch Delft Univeristy if i recall correctly?
54 Zeke : Not sure, El Al have their baggage containers made out of it as it bomb proof.
55 AutoThrust : After a little research i found that a GLARE-derivate will be used on the JSF built by Fokker Aerostructures. So its not clear who has the patent. Ma
56 Baroque : "patented by Akzo Nobel in 1987" according to Wiki. Looks as if its parentage goes back to Fokker and de Havilland. And yes it is used for bomb proof
57 Post contains links Gorgos : Stork Aerospace produces glare I think. Research in collaboration with the TU Delft. http://www.stork.com/eCache/DEF/4/717.html Its also incedibly exp
58 Gorgos : I think that shouldnt be a problem.
59 Scbriml : With 40% of A350 sales going to the -800, airlines seem to be convinced it's worthwhile. They also have to wait longer for the -800. Yes, the -900 is
60 Baroque : As well as the C-17 then? "Glare Has also been used in manufacturing of latest models of C-17, cargo door." Also Wiki. Does not actually say it is in
61 Parapente : Clear;y Boeing do not have to do anything in the short term. However I believe the comments from folks such as BA are interesting. They have twice spo
62 Gorgos : Exactly, I dont see why Airbus would have the right to be an exclusive user. Airbus does have stronger business ties with Stork, maybe thats why its
63 SEPilot : Well, to me Murphy's law is uniformly pessimistic. It essentially states that you can count on things going wrong, whether you anticipate it or not.
64 Rheinwaldner : I proposed such an approach for the NG-narrow-bodies. It is surely a large venture. The development effort should be legitimated by bright market pro
65 Post contains images Baroque : Mmmm, you could argue that ML is more a case of being blithely optimistic that the outcome will not be as planned. So if the plan has become a pratfa
66 SEPilot : When you say "If something can go wrong it will" you are not implying that "if you expect something to go wrong it won't." I see it as saying "if som
67 Post contains images Ikramerica : It's not just the ribs. It's the insulation. Boeing has developed quiet engine technologies, tested on a 77W from NH, that would decrease the require
68 OldAeroGuy : Is Airbus making a glaring error by not using GLARE for the A350 fuselage panels?
69 Astuteman : The only other issue you might find (if the "tween-ribs" space in our subs is anything to go by), is that the aircraft sides are prime real-estate fo
70 Moo : Pretty sure they addressed this question in the original XWB reveal - GLARE was too expensive to use, but it had been considered.
71 Moo : I thought the majority of noise heard inside is from the air traveling by the fuselage rather than the engines, and that the engine noise reductions
72 Post contains images TISTPAA727 : SUH is in the business to sell planes and the 777 has been a good to him. He also knows, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, it will
73 Post contains images Ikramerica : The majority of the noise heard is from the air conditioning system (the dominant noise) and secondarily the air on the fuselage skin BECAUSE the ins
74 OldAeroGuy : But Zeke thinks that GLARE is superior to CFRP.
75 Moo : Which means crap if its prohibitively expensive.
76 Stitch : Moving to composites for the primary fuselage structure now would be a bad choice for the 777. If they do CFRP anywhere, I'd do it on the wingbox area
77 Post contains links Jetlife2 : You are correct, you're thinking of the QTD2 test program which was a collaboration between GE, Boeing, Goodrich and ANA. http://www.boeing.com/news/
78 JoeCanuck : I wonder how much lighter is Al-Li or GLARE is than the aluminum currently used on the 777? If the fuse materials were swapped, 1 for 1, how much wei
79 Post contains links Khobar : This the design freeze from July '07 that Airbus has since made changes to (as late as January '08, maybe even later - I haven't checked)? I thought
80 Astuteman : ????? Why that should be remotely relevant is a complete and utter mystery to me (who makes pressure vessels). To my uneducated mind, this seems to b
81 Post contains images EA772LR : I never said the 346HGW was more economical, only that it had better performance I should have said better range, payload, and payload over range. Wh
82 Post contains images Stitch : I can only surmise that creating a structure designed to operate at "neutral pressure" is easier then creating one at "positive pressure", but I know
83 Post contains images FRNT787 : Have the panels they have installed on other aircraft been similar in size? If so, then I would agree this should not be a Major task for them. (FYI,
84 Post contains links and images Astuteman : To me its exactly the same thing. You establish the necessary loadings. You calculate the stresses. You work out the material thicknesses/tape direct
85 Khobar : And you wonder why it would be remotely relevant???? LOL.
86 Post contains images Astuteman : Yes. Because the manufacturing processes and technologies are absolutely no different, whether the panel be for a tailcone, or a fuselage... Airbus h
87 Moo : Me too, especially when you take into account the A380s wing box...
88 Post contains links and images Rheinwaldner : I think that the diameter at shoulder-height is THE most sensible parameter from the cross section. That means big optimization effort has been done
89 XT6Wagon : Nothing. GLARE is currently garbage. Airbus has kicked it to the curb. Not only that it would require extensive redesign to use it... Or anywhere it
90 Astuteman : Dunno if it's "garbage" per se, but judging by the responses of other posters, it's possible that the value for money is highly questionable... Regar
91 Khobar : You presume that all CFRP is exactly the same. You presume I think they'll have a problem with any of these. I don't. I know you do. Designing and ma
92 Zeke : The 777 is a metal airframe, it is designed as a metal airframe, You cannot just pick up a metal fuselage and change the skin material to composite,
93 Post contains images Astuteman : You PRESUME to tell me what I presume. I find that exceedingly presumptious. I presume no such thing. Any more than I presume all steels, or all alum
94 Khobar : With that comment, are you now backing away from your "absolutely no different" claim, or are you going to continue jumping up and down yelling at pe
95 OldAeroGuy : GLARE and AL do not necessarily have similar properties. GLARE has the capability of directionally tailoring its strength and material properties for
96 Zeke : The only aspect that would need to be checked is slight loss of stiffness by using GLARE. Replacing AL skin with GLARE does not require a total redes
97 OldAeroGuy : I thought the A380 was designed with GLARE from the beginning. where does the re-design part come in? In any case, how much GLARE is used on the A380
98 Post contains links and images AutoThrust : I don't know how much but this image shows where. Is that true that Airbus applied GLARE on the upperdeck because pressurising issues? Maybe its to e
99 Tdscanuck : The locations shown in GLARE on your illustration among the worst fatigue spots on the fuselage. Fatigue resistance is one of GLARE's strengths...I w
100 Zeke : That is what they are doing from what I understand from MSN 56 onwards saving a few hundred kilograms.
101 Post contains links Scbriml : As per the pod-cast from this thread (which is well worth a listen, even for an Airbusophobe): A350WXB News (by Fanfan Feb 27 2008 in Civil Aviation)
102 Post contains links Baroque : Is there not also a plan to introduce some Glare2 into the A380? On Glare itself, this article is about maintenance, but has some nice diagrams of it
103 Stitch : I think it is planned for the A380-800F?
104 Zeke : AFAIK, the A380F skin is to start on the pax versions around MSN 50 as part of the weight reduction program.
105 Khobar : Exactly what I thought. Many thanks. Changes and uncertainties consistent with your description, nothing radical. Winglet configuration, for instance
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...
777 Vs. A340 - AC CEO Comments posted Sat Mar 3 2007 11:24:45 by Viscount724
B. 777 Vs. A. 340, May I? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 10:49:53 by Knightsofmalta
NW On-Time Performance At SAN Vs. Entire Network posted Fri Oct 6 2006 23:13:20 by PanAm747
787-8 Vs 350-800 / 787-9 Vs 350-900 posted Mon Jan 2 2006 01:17:50 by AirCanada014
AF 777 Vs A340 - How Do They Decide? posted Sat Dec 31 2005 21:29:33 by Clickhappy
BA "Evaluating" 747Adv, 777, 380, 350 posted Tue Oct 4 2005 14:29:55 by Joni
KLM 643/644 JFK-AMS 777 Vs. 747 posted Fri Apr 1 2005 00:41:43 by Schipholjfk
RG 777 Vs MD-11. 757-200 Added To RG Network posted Sat Oct 9 2004 22:22:14 by Hardiwv
777 Vs. A340 - Equivalent Models posted Wed Jul 21 2004 21:20:45 by N328KF
SQ 777 Vs. 744 Vs. 345 posted Mon May 17 2004 01:34:59 by Soaringadi