r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2448 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6162 times:
I remember having read some time that the number of fuselage panels on the A350 will be one fifth of the panels that would be needed for a conventional aluminum aircraft, with the associated reduction in structural complexity. Plus, the stringers will be co-cured. It may not be a full barrel like Boeing but the improvement is definitely significant. It will be interesting to observe how both concepts fare once the 787 and A350 are in service.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2448 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 5): Presumably a Beluga, it's big enough and with a light payload it has the range.
While a Beluga could work this time around (prototype production phase), they are busy enough flying around in Europe, so that once the A350 ramps up to serial production, I doubt they can afford losing a Beluga 1 full day at a time for long transatlantic trips. I assume that for serial production these parts will be sent by ship.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4141 posts, RR: 38 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 6): I assume that for serial production these parts will be sent by ship.
Correct. Same applies for the fuselage shells originating at Permium Aerotec in Nordenham, being shipped by vessel to Hamburg / France; same applies for A350 products ex Stade and Hamburg. All in all Airbus has now at least 4 seagoing vessel in operation and at least one inland barge, operating for both the A350 and A380 programs.
BTW, the Nordenham plant of Premium Areotec for the A350 is now up and running, the first shells have been produced there as well.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 5737 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3619 times:
I agree that a ship is a better idea for production, the beluga is good for short hops but for that long trip it must be terribly inefficient. However that will be a long trip for a ship too, so they need more of them.
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 7): All in all Airbus has now at least 4 seagoing vessel in operation
Are you sure ? I thought they only had two, for the A380.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Fret Cetam SA, the joint venture between Höegh Autoliners and Louis Dreyfus Armateurs which controls the three vessels charters them to Airbus for 20 years. The three "Airbus vessels" are engaged in transportation of A380 component between Hamburg, Cadiz, Mostyn, St. Nazaire and Bordeaux. All three vessels are technically managed by Louis Dreyfus Armateurs.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4273 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2814 times:
Quoting Grunf (Reply 10): Isn't it ironic. 787 CF parts are made in Italy and A350 CF panels are made in US...
Its even better in that Spirit- or the original factories which have become what is now Spirit - was once owned by Boeing and the 787 rear bulkhead is coming from an actual EADS factory! Remember 20 years ago B approached the major EU aerospace companies (they didn't directly approach A itself but A's parent companies -they thought A itself wasn't viable) about building a VLA. Maybe they should actually do that now!