Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Is Working On Lighter A350-Structure  
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13748 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ghter-a350-structure-with-800.html


Hmm,

that really sounds like they will replace the A330-200 earlier than expected.

The original A350-800 already would burn less fuel than the A330-200, if the aircraft is no lightened a bit, that margin should further increase.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12916 times:

I find the following statement interesting:

Two areas of the A350's design that have held up production of the first aircraft - the carbonfibre fuselage's electrical structural network (ESN, which provides a return path for electrical current) and the fuselage's damage tolerance - have now been completed to enable construction to begin of A350-900 MSN001.

So I read construction of MSN001 can start, which means FF in second half of 2011?


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12802 times:

Looks like the just natural weight loss procedures applied as the family evolves - as supposed to design/spec changes. Much like Boeing is no doubt doing with the 789.

It looks good though based on the graphic.


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11551 times:

Can somebody explain how line unit 20 could be a good point for beginning a new version? Only 16 production units and you're building the -800s? Seems that there may be issues with the line trying to get their hands around the -900 while also introducing the -800 with mods. Won't be easy, but I could be wrong.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11434 times:

I don't think Airbus has any plans to retire the A330, as long as there are a significant number of orders they'll make them. Now if the A358 becomes obviously better for all missions, orders will dry out. But you can bet that for several years the A330 will be cheaper, more available, and among other advantages, it has several engines available.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10011 posts, RR: 96
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 3):
Can somebody explain how line unit 20 could be a good point for beginning a new version? Only 16 production units and you're building the -800s?

Because the A350-800 is now a "straight shrink" of the A350-900 rather than a uniquely tailored design as it was originally going to be...

Rgds


User currently onlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3198 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7802 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):

It looks good though based on the graphic.

Is it just me or is the A358 a much prettier plane than the 788? The smallest of the 787 family looks short and squat to me whereas the A350 looks (at this stage anyway and for want of a better term) fully grown.

Anyhow, great to see some serious progress being made, customers will be relieved.

Re A332, are Airbus applying improvements to this that were on offer for the first iteration of A350? That should keep it in the air longer given...

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
the A330 will be cheaper, more available, and among other advantages, it has several engines available.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3623 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7385 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 1):
So I read construction of MSN001 can start, which means FF in second half of 2011?

Unlikely.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...in-as-it-throws-weight-behind.html

Production of the -900, which is the first of three XWB variants to be developed, is under way and final assembly of the initial aircraft will begin in just over a year.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5845 times:

If Airbus really find some ways to reduce the empty weight of the A350, this would mean also a lighter than expected A350-1000, which would raise the bar for a new B777NNG furthermore.

Challenging times ahead i suppose!


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5821 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 7):
Unlikely.

Well, there is a time difference between begin of production and begin of final assembly, which may well be one year, but I see that FF in 2012 is more likely.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

Didn't Airbus say the -800 would basicly be a -900 shrink simplifying the programme?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...to-be-developed-as-900-shrink.html

I wonder how serious this lightening program is and how unique for the -800..


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

It may not be entirely possible to transfer weight savings from the 800 to the 900 or 1000. Airbus must not reiterate the same error they made with the 346, so stretched that it bends under the weight if fully loaded.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10011 posts, RR: 96
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4766 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 10):
I wonder how serious this lightening program is and how unique for the -800..

But that's the point I think.
They're not unique to the -800. And can't be because the -800 is a -900 with a few frames taken out - literally.
That just happens to be the convenient point in the production sequence to introduce a "block 2" A350XWB structure..

Rgds


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4441 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 12):
They're not unique to the -800. And can't be because the -800 is a -900 with a few frames taken out - literally.


If what you say is true, the -800 will be lighter only because the frames are removed? I don't get the connection, there has to be more to the changes than just removal of frames. It also concerns me that a program with a limited number of units assembled has the ability to transition to another configuration. Here's why, the first 4 off the line are test aircraft. Those aircraft validate performance, and highlight the changes needed in the -900. 16 units later, before the line fully understands the -900 the -800 begins production? Why not complete the flight test and firm up the -900 before allowing the -800 to begin production. Seems rushed.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4724 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 328JET (Reply 8):
If Airbus really find some ways to reduce the empty weight of the A350, this would mean also a lighter than expected A350-1000, which would raise the bar for a new B777NNG furthermore.

Challenging times ahead i suppose!


Especially since the A35-1000 will have an estimated EIS in 2015 that version could see quite some more improvements which could later be introduced on wave-2 or wave-3 versions of the other versions of the A350-XWB's.  

Interesting times are ahead of us for sure.  .


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4397 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):
Especially since the A35-1000 will have an estimated EIS in 2015 that version could see quite some more improvements which could later be introduced on wave-2 or wave-3 versions of the other versions of the A350-XWB's.


Are your comments any different than any other a/c program? Still having a hard time understanding how the -800 will be that much better than a -200 to justify customers moving out of a -200 to an -800. The -200 is an excellent plane, and I'll bet Airbus is finding that the current -800 design is not much better. Let's just say the -800 is 5% better than a -200, then you're right. It will be interesting times.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4724 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4363 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 15):
Let's just say the -800 is 5% better than a -200, then you're right. It will be interesting times.

With the 9-abreast seating compared to the normal 8-abreast for the A330-200 I think that only that fact alone will make it more then 5% better.   And then we have the newest engine technology and the latest in aerodynamics to add to that. 5% is maybe on the low side? Time will tell in a couple of years I guess.  .


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4316 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 16):
With the 9-abreast seating compared to the normal 8-abreast for the A330-200 I think that only that fact alone will make it more then 5% better.

IIRC, A358 is likely to have around 20% lower fuel burn per seat than A332, and about 12% lower fuel burn per seat than A333 in a typical 2 class configuration.


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
IIRC, A358 is likely to have around 20% lower fuel burn per seat than A332, and about 12% lower fuel burn per seat than A333 in a typical 2 class configuration.


Those numbers are on paper, and if they were right why all this noise about weight reduction and no numbers to indicate projected performance? Usually, when a company is making noise about weight reduction they're doing it because they are heavy. I think those same numbers you mentioned were mentioned with the 787, and we saw where that went. I'll stick with 5% better than the -200, and maybe lot 2 or 3 get closer to the 10%. RR already proved on the 787 they can't hit the target coming out of the box. Now add in the -900 and the -800 coming out so close behind and it will be interesting times.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10011 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 15):
Still having a hard time understanding how the -800 will be that much better than a -200

It's not that difficult, to be honest.
In the same way that a 787 in 9-abreast will carry more passengers than the A332 and yet burn a lot less fuel, so too will the A350-800.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
IIRC, A358 is likely to have around 20% lower fuel burn per seat than A332

And about 12% lower trip fuel burn IIRC

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 18):
RR already proved on the 787 they can't hit the target coming out of the box

By 2013, prior to the EIS of the A350-900, RR will have the Trent 1000 1% better than spec fuel burn on the 787-9 when it enters service.

The Trent XWB is a bigger and more modern engine, and yet its spec fuel burn is only 2% lower than the Trent 1000.

Therefore RR's target SFC for the Trent XWB is only 1% better than where the Trent 1000 will already be in 2013.

Hard to see how they could miss that in any meaningful way..

Rgds


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 19):
Hard to see how they could miss that in any meaningful way..

Okay, let's give you the 1% for the XWB engine(since it's between writers), let's give the 9 abreast crowd a bump, and we'll say the bump is 7% in 2013. If I give you that, how much over weight will the -800 be? There's no way a simple shrink will hit target on a brand new a/c. I want to know, what penalty you're willing to give? And don't tell me that Airbus is different than Boeing, because I'll ask you to share the amount over weight the A380 was, and then I'll ask you to provide how much the A330-300 fared? In the end the -800 will be a better performer than the -200, but with recent improvements the -200 will not go down without a fight for a few years. And, the -200 offers that performance with engine options. So, if the RR's modern engine misses SFC that 8 abreast leaned out -200 will be the -800's biggest nightmare. Which is why I cannot understand why Airbus is adding so much risk to the -800 by making it follow so quickly behind the -900. Facts have shown the confidence indicated here is not justified.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3817 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 20):
And, the -200 offers that performance with engine options. So, if the RR's modern engine misses SFC that 8 abreast leaned out -200 will be the -800's biggest nightmare.

Leaned out or beefed up? I thought it was a bit of the latter plus a better T700. Has GE and PW produced similar improvements to their options. If not, your engine choice comment would not apply - ? either?

As for the Trent on the 350, are you forgetting it will have an extra intermediate stage, possibly with only a small weight penalty? Assuming that RR know how to add an extra stage - they might do as they have been taking them out of the military engines at a rare old pace - just adding that to the then T1000 level of development (add a bit of CFD for luck and a better fan) should make Astuteman's stated target as one of the easier to get to. As EPA implies, maybe 2% (=1% in 2013) is not all it will prove to be. The goalposts they are a-moving.

As has been said:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 19):
Hard to see how they could miss that in any meaningful way..


Edi: The EPA suggestion was from the EA 380 thread. Wondered why I could not find it here!!!!  spin  Where is that double spin smilie so Lightasber can illustrate contra-rotation better? And of course a Roller smilie with two rings and a core all in opposite directions!!

[Edited 2010-07-30 23:29:08]

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 13):
If what you say is true, the -800 will be lighter only because the frames are removed?

Yes the removed frames will lighten it obviously, but that's so obvious that it can't be what this thread is about. What is a little misleading is that the "A350 phase 2" will start with the first A358 (that's the plan anyway, I'm not yet convinced), but it should also translate on the A359.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30923 posts, RR: 87
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A350-800 is going to have a greater payload lift by weight. So on missions that push the far end of the payload-range curve, where the A330-200 is payload-limited, the A350-800 won't be. At that point, both planes might end up carrying similar payload weights and the A350-800 would have a not-insignificant fuel-burn advantage.

[Edited 2010-07-31 07:45:19]

User currently onlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
The A350-800 is going to be at a bit of a payload volume disadvantage to the A330-200 because it offers less LD3 positions and it holds more people

Wiki says 26 LD3s for the A330-200 and 28 for the A350-800.

Is Wiki wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_Load_Device
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350

[Edited 2010-07-31 07:44:29]

25 Stitch : No it isn't. For some reason I thought the A330-200 had 30+, but that is the A330-300 (at 32). But it is one more reason why I think A330-200 passeng
26 ElbowRoom : Agree. The availability argument is all-important for some carriers now, but once the 787 and A350 are both flying commercially, I think the passenge
27 Post contains images ElbowRoom : How the 77W vs A351 battle plays out will be very interesting to watch (yeh, I know one is slightly greater in pax capacity than the other, but the ot
28 Post contains images astuteman : I don't disagree, but the primary reason for this will be earlier availability. I'm inclined to disagree here. Diiferences in context cloud the relev
29 Post contains images EPA001 : Everything is possible until the hard data out of actual operations at airlines become public. But my guess is that the chance you would be proven wr
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...
Grupo Marsans: Airbus Order Is Still On posted Sun Aug 10 2008 03:53:18 by LifelinerOne
Flightblogger: Airbus Planning On ULH A350 posted Wed Feb 20 2008 06:38:28 by NYC777
Airbus Is On Track For Record Deliveries In 2006 posted Tue Aug 8 2006 17:41:19 by Leelaw
Article: Is Airbus' John Leahy On The Hot Seat? posted Tue Jun 27 2006 19:38:36 by AerospaceFan
Airbus Says 'Airbus Guessed Wrong On A350' posted Wed May 24 2006 06:48:43 by Elvis777
Airbus Is On A Downhill Slide posted Sun Mar 27 2005 06:36:21 by Jacobin777
Airbus Working On A387/389, No A322 Till New737out posted Wed Apr 10 2002 05:27:30 by Jiml1126
Air Conditioning Not Working On US Airways Flight posted Mon Jul 26 2010 07:36:18 by cyxuk
What Is Going On In This Picture? posted Sun Apr 4 2010 06:45:52 by bwest
What Is Going On With UA's 763s? posted Sat Mar 6 2010 17:11:57 by Transpac787