Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Another A350XWB Schedule Slip  
User currently offlinen1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 17
Posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11426 times:

Airbus has indicated (another) a schedule slip for A350 development pushing back the start of final assembly to the end of this year (instead of Q3). They are still planning on FF in mid-2012.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...nal-assembly-back-to-end-2011.html

Chief operating officer Fabrice Bregier called the program "very challenging" and said assembly of the first A350's main components would start "around mid-year" and that it would be "ready for the final assembly line before the end of 2011"

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 11303 times:

Quoting n1786b (Thread starter):
Airbus has indicated (another) a schedule slip for A350 development pushing back the start of final assembly to the end of this year (instead of Q3). They are still planning on FF in mid-2012.

This not another schedule slip I think. But it's the one that they re indicates here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-airbus-still-aiming-for-2013.html


User currently offlineepa001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4955 posts, RR: 40
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 11238 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Chiad (Reply 1):
This not another schedule slip I think. But it's the one that they re indicates here:


True, but it is clear that the timeline on this program remains a challenging one. Even if Airbus allowed themselves more time then Boeing did on the B787. But if that keeps the overall program on track (including costs and production ramp-up) it will all be worth it.  .


User currently onlinewolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 494 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 11222 times:

It is not a further delay of the forecasted EIS (end 2013) but it is a delay on one of the development milestones.

I don't like the look of Bregier's statement.

Quote:
Bregier says the airframer is "still very humble about this programme", that the manufacturer is making "reasonable progress" on the A350 but that the aircraft's development remains "very challenging".

The words 'reasonable' and 'very' are concerning. Hopefully after the 380 and 787 fiascos we are not in line for another one.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 11095 times:

Quoting wolbo (Reply 3):

I don't like the look of Bregier's statement.

Quote:
Bregier says the airframer is "still very humble about this programme", that the manufacturer is making "reasonable progress" on the A350 but that the aircraft's development remains "very challenging".

The words 'reasonable' and 'very' are concerning. Hopefully after the 380 and 787 fiascos we are not in line for another one.

Sounds to me like he is saying that a minor miracle will be needed to hold to the current delivery schedule.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12963 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10923 times:

Quoting epa001 (Reply 2):
True, but it is clear that the timeline on this program remains a challenging one.

It'd be interesting to know to what degree the challenges are internal ones (design more difficult than anticipated) versus external ones (resources taken away for things like A440M, A380, A32ONEO, supplier/sub-contractor issues, etc).

Quoting epa001 (Reply 2):
Even if Airbus allowed themselves more time then Boeing did on the B787.

That's debatable if you say 787 started with sonic cruiser and irrelevant now (nothing more useless than runway behind you and fuel on the ground..).

Quoting epa001 (Reply 2):
But if that keeps the overall program on track (including costs and production ramp-up) it will all be worth it.

  

In any case, the public statements sound like they are being cautious, which is a good thing, IMHO.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10808 times:

I appreciate Airbus being so frank on the A350 development. I really do admire that.

But maintaining first flight will be mid-2012 when final assembly is pushed back to the end of 2011, is throwing reality out of the window. Just like shortening test flight from 15 to 12 months to maintain EIS in 2013 is just holding onto straws. 2014 for the A359, 2015 for the A358 is more likely. 2016 EIS for the A350-1000 would be an amazing achievement.

Quoting art (Reply 4):
Quoting wolbo (Reply 3):

I don't like the look of Bregier's statement.

Quote:
Bregier says the airframer is "still very humble about this programme", that the manufacturer is making "reasonable progress" on the A350 but that the aircraft's development remains "very challenging".

The words 'reasonable' and 'very' are concerning. Hopefully after the 380 and 787 fiascos we are not in line for another one.

Sounds to me like he is saying that a minor miracle will be needed to hold to the current delivery schedule.

That statement made me worry too. But more about meeting specs. These were ambitious to say the least.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8823 times:

Quoting n1786b (Thread starter):
"very challenging"
Quoting epa001 (Reply 2):
timeline on this program remains a challenging one.
Quoting art (Reply 4):
sounds to me like he is saying that a minor miracle will be needed to hold to the current delivery schedule.
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 6):
EIS in 2013 is just holding onto straws.

It seems that big, high-tech projects like the A350/787/A380 will never ever meet initial design/testing/EIS/production deadlines. We have gotten to such a level of complexity and sophistication that it is just too hard to predict real deadlines anymore. I don't think we should think of these delays in terms of fiascos anymore; they have become the normal course of business for such projects. Expect more of the same on future commercial mainliner programs...

Faro

[Edited 2011-01-20 01:52:41]


The chalice not my son
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8297 times:

As with the A380 I'd rather get the plane on spec late, than on time but not on spec.


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7968 times:

Let's just hope we don't get the Airbus equivalent of the 787 program.

Nice to see them being this honest though.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10242 posts, RR: 97
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7783 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 6):
But maintaining first flight will be mid-2012 when final assembly is pushed back to the end of 2011, is throwing reality out of the window.

Although the article implies a trade-off is being undertaken to increase maturity levels at the expense of the assembly schedule, with the objective of achieving the optimum

Quote:
"One lesson [learned from the A380] - when you're not ready, you don't move from one step to another," he says, adding that there should be no milestones before maturity.
Bregier says that hydraulic pressurisation of the 'iron bird' test-bed took place at the end of December, adding that it will be used to "debug all functions at system level".
Quote:
"In the next months we want to be able to have the detailed configuration of the aircraft, including [system] routings and bracket locations, included in the digital mock-up of the first aircraft," he said.
"Perhaps it's a bit too demanding but, if we do that, it will be much simpler, and I prefer to take a couple more months at this stage to avoid potentially big problems."
Airbus' single, integrated A350 digital mock-up has been part of a management strategy to increase information sharing, while manufacturing has been distributed to a reduced number of first-tier suppliers, each handling larger work packages.

Whether first flight in 3rd quarter 2012 is achieved of course remains an unanswered question, whatever approach Airbus are taking.

But from first hand experience, I have to love the approach of having the "iron bird" to back up the digital modelling in full size reality.

I'll guarantee you that a full scale mock up is an effective way to de-risk final assembly   

Effective enough? I'm not brave enough to predict that, of course, but it will surely most likely to bring about the optimum first flight, whenever it turns out to be.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 6):
Just like shortening test flight from 15 to 12 months to maintain EIS in 2013 is just holding onto straws.

From the discussions we had when the 787 had a 7 month flight test envelope, I recall most people saying that 12 months was probably reasonable, and that airbus actually had slack at 15 months.

It's not my area of expertise, of course, so I'd rely on others for more authoritative feedback.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
It'd be interesting to know to what degree the challenges are internal ones (design more difficult than anticipated) versus external ones (resources taken away for things like A440M, A380, A32ONEO, supplier/sub-contractor issues, etc).

The latter has undoubtedly had an impact.

This also struck me...

Quote:
"We're keen not to repeat the A380 experience," he says, adding that Airbus has wanted to instil "more discipline". He gives the example of certain critical components being produced in-house in order to ensure "lots more transparency and visibility".

Learning applied from the 787, but at a much earlier stage?   

Rgds


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7632 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):

But from first hand experience, I have to love the approach of having the "iron bird" to back up the digital modelling in full size reality.

I also like how they reinstated the full sized cabin mock-up for the A350, bound to be another lesson learnt form the A380.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4955 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7583 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 11):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):

But from first hand experience, I have to love the approach of having the "iron bird" to back up the digital modelling in full size reality.

I also like how they reinstated the full sized cabin mock-up for the A350, bound to be another lesson learnt form the A380.


I think all this is evidence that they are applying lessons learned experience from as well the A380 as the B787. That might not prevent the program to slip (a little?) but I am convinced that the situation will not spin more or less out of control as we sadly enough have seen on both the A380 and the B787. So I remain quite optimistic over the approach taken and communicated openly by Airbus.  .


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7550 times:

I think everybody, Airbus, Boeing and BBD included are learning lessons from the 787 debacle. I believe Boeing finally has most of the major kinks worked out and in a year, enough planes will be coming off the assembly lines and flying in service for people to start to forget the nightmare that was.

Airbus is making potential delay announcements well in advance which is a good way to diffuse the issue and a long enough lead time makes you look good if you come in early...even on a longer time table.

Customers are less willing to be patient and I think contracts and penalties will be much more strictly written and enforced...thanks to the 787.

I also think that the wild sales for concept planes like the 787 and 350 might not happen again to the same extent. Skepticism from customers will likely keep future orders for all new planes to a minimum until closer to certification and delivery.

It would not surprise me if the CSeries is a current victim of this philosophy.



What the...?
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7530 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
I'll guarantee you that a full scale mock up is an effective way to de-risk final assembly

Agreed. And, at least Airbus current approach is a lot better than Boeing's build-up to FF of the 787. Their silly marketing trick to roll out at 7-8-07 must have cost them at least half a year unnecessary delay IMO    They effectively had to start final assembly all over again after roll-out.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
Although the article implies a trade-off is being undertaken to increase maturity levels at the expense of the assembly schedule, with the objective of achieving the optimum
Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 6):
Just like shortening test flight from 15 to 12 months to maintain EIS in 2013 is just holding onto straws.

From the discussions we had when the 787 had a 7 month flight test envelope, I recall most people saying that 12 months was probably reasonable, and that airbus actually had slack at 15 months.

Well, many people referred to the 767 and 777 test flights, which took around 11 months IIRC. But these were different times. Software/systems integration was less complicated then, thus getting bugs out of it took a little less time too. If you look at the A380 and 787 flight test, it looks like 15 months is not unrealistic.

What I mean is, compensating delays by removing slack further down your project, is the most simple but also the most risky way to try and keep on schedule. That slack wasn't there without reason: the infamous 'unknown unknowns' so to speak. But let's see how it works out. The way Airbus is handling things, they're likely to encounter those 'unknown unknowns' much earlier in the process, which means they'll have also a lot more time to deal with it.

I really hope for the best regarding the A350XWB. I really do. I just think that 2013 EIS has become very difficult now. But I'm also confident Airbus will do a LOT better with the A350 than with the A380 and Boeing with the 787.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinen1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Like spinning off Aerolia and Premium Aerotec? Be interesting to know what the "certain critical components" are....

Seriously, EADS has ruled out selling their controlling interest in 2011 and are on record saying they will not spin them off or cede control until the A350 program is well under way and that their conversion to composites is complete - so I assume they are still considered "in house."

[Edited 2011-01-20 09:26:41 by SA7700]

User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7320 times:

After a while we learned that B787 program wasn't just a bit troublesome, but so far a huge fiasco of non-engineers making purely market- and company policy-driven milestones, workshare, delivery schedules and announcements. Basically everything about the B787 isn't as it is supposed to be on an aircraft program.
The workshare causes huge problems (Airbus doesn't have this issue), the milestones were pure fantasy but held until the end (like the roll out), problems were consequently kept secret (causing this fivefold series of 6-month delay [Boeing announced in October 2007 they would fly in December 2007 ... remember anyone?]). The technical side isn't all that good, either, when we are now confronted with a technical problem that causes a minimum half-year delay ALTHOUGH they had 30 additional month for testing!!!!
Anyone remembering a civil aircraft program suffering a 2 month flight test stop? I don't.

In the end: some Boeing people (unfortunately the overpaid MBA people at the top) screwed up hard ... harder than anyone ever imagined. They screwed up so hard that it becomes increasingly inconceivable (especially after the flight test incident and the story about the miserable pricing).

If Airbus simply simply screws up less hard and a little bit less frequently, there is a good chance of getting it somewhere close to the target. Nobody will complain about a 6 month delay. Standards have been eroded. While a 3-month miss on first flight was a disaster 10 years ago, it is a success today as long as it doesn't become 6 month. One year delay on first delivery ... all content.
I guess the airlines will be surprised and slightly annoyed if they get the aircraft on time ... "we didn't expect you to come this early" ...



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7288 times:

Additional note: if they make the first flight, the initial delivery can be expected 18 month later latest.
The bigger challenge is if they manage to achieve their cost targets.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12963 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7161 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
We have gotten to such a level of complexity and sophistication that it is just too hard to predict real deadlines anymore.

My feeling is that if the technical community is honest about risks and allows either for buffer time or for de-risk exercises then the costs rise to the point the management community can't get the program funded. Since both sides want programs to go through for countless reasons, there's a kind of liar's poker that goes on, where the schedule and budget of record presume everything goes right the first time.

Do we really think the Boeing execs in general didn't know that the 7/8/07 rollout was a sham? I don't think you get that high up in a company being that ignorant. Sure, they knew, and they just put lipstick on the pig and had a nice party and dealt with the aftermath later.

Do we really think Boeing's board and financers would have approved the 787 way back in 2005 or so if they knew the actual schedule and budget was even a remote possibility? I doubt it.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
But from first hand experience, I have to love the approach of having the "iron bird" to back up the digital modelling in full size reality.

I'll guarantee you that a full scale mock up is an effective way to de-risk final assembly

I guess then the digital mock-up is quite oversold.

I also can see that a lot of things can be misinterpreted (or even uninterpreted) in the digital realm, whereas with the real world someone can walk around the mock up and see exactly where the program is.

On the other hand, Boeing had an "iron bird" for 787 which made me think that issues like the load shedding problem would have been caught on the ground, but it seems either it wasn't realistic enough or Boeing didn't push it hard enough to cause the failures that have cost the program and the company dearly.

However the side of body join issue was caught by ground testing, and of course countless others that never made the press were caught on the ground.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
Learning applied from the 787, but at a much earlier stage?

Fortunately for Airbus they were already doing a lot of things right, and it seems what they mostly learned is to NOT try to do things the way Boeing tried to do them on the 787.

Which of course then begs the question: why is the A350XWB program having schedule issues already?

The article says something like the transition from design to manufacturing is taking more time than planned.

So, what causes that? New materials like composites? I would have hoped the A440M composite wings would have taught them much of what they needed to know. New design software or techniques? New manufacturing setup or techniques?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
I think everybody, Airbus, Boeing and BBD included are learning lessons from the 787 debacle. I believe Boeing finally has most of the major kinks worked out and in a year, enough planes will be coming off the assembly lines and flying in service for people to start to forget the nightmare that was.

I think it will be much more than a year. Consider the current state of affairs where Boeing has had to convert KPAEs cross wind runway into a 787 parking lot, they've had to take space away from the 767, they've had to rent hangars and throw up a tent to deal with all the rework that has to happen on the 787s, etc. It'll take more than a year for them to get all of that stuff unwound and to establish a smooth manufacturing flow.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Customers are less willing to be patient and I think contracts and penalties will be much more strictly written and enforced...thanks to the 787.

Serious financial back pressure is the only thing that can force more reality back into the process, IMHO.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4955 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7105 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
The article says something like the transition from design to manufacturing is taking more time than planned.

So, what causes that? New materials like composites? I would have hoped the A440M composite wings would have taught them much of what they needed to know. New design software or techniques? New manufacturing setup or techniques?


The composites are without doubt not the problem for Airbus. By weight the A380 holds more composites then the B787.   And Airbus have been using composites on a much larger scale for quite some time longer then Boeing in civilian airliners.

Of course they will learn with every new project, so the A400M will have taught them some more, but again composites are not the issue here imho. Which other components might cause the problem I do not know. But going from design to manufacturing is always a step which is huge and quite often underestimated imho.  .

[Edited 2011-01-20 06:05:02]

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10242 posts, RR: 97
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 6904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Customers are less willing to be patient and I think contracts and penalties will be much more strictly written and enforced...thanks to the 787

As a check for understanding, that was also said, on here, of the 787 contracts after the A380 delays (usually with a (now ironic) rider that Boeing were ok with that because the always underpromise and overdeliver).

On the other side of that coin, the airframers might be wary of too onerous contractual conditions as the risk of slippage seems ever greater these days.....

It would be nice if they reached a point where we never need to find out  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
I guess then the digital mock-up is quite oversold.

I think it's a behaviours thing. In my experience, most of the engineers who "live" in that world are typically ok with it. Everyone else handles real product every day, and these guys aren't necessarily attuned to the digital world in a secure enough way.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
Which of course then begs the question: why is the A350XWB program having schedule issues already?

Which I suspect you've already answered on this thread, by the way (and I agree) ....  

Rgds


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 6812 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 19):
The composites are without doubt not the problem for Airbus. By weight the A380 holds more composites then the B787.

There's an irrelevant statistic if I've ever heard one. The A380 is orders of magnitude larger than the B787.

Also you're talking out of unmentionable areas of your body. Airbus has never made an "entirely" composite fuselage, which is a whole different animal than bits of CFRP here and there. Among other things.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 19):
And Airbus have been using composites on a much larger scale for quite some time longer then Boeing in civilian airliners.

Common misconception, really.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4955 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 6779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 21):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 19):
And Airbus have been using composites on a much larger scale for quite some time longer then Boeing in civilian airliners.

Common misconception, really.


No, it is the absolute truth starting from the A300 and onwards. And bits of CFRP? Look up what parts of the A380 are made of composites. You will find out that it is a lot more then only bits and pieces. You do not reach more CFRP by weight then a B787 (which also has quite a lot of it  ) so easily by making "only bits and pieces" out of CFRP.

The misconceptions seem to be existing in the information you have obtained about the topic. Some research will no doubt give you the correct answers. .



[Edited 2011-01-20 07:57:01]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6664 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 21):
Airbus has never made an "entirely" composite fuselage, which is a whole different animal than bits of CFRP here and there. Among other things.

Neither has Boeing, a common misconception is that the 787 fuselage is all composite, which is false. The whole aircraft is not that much over 50% composite.

Large composite parts made by EADS/Airbus include the A380 tailplane which is larger than a 737 wing, the A400M wing, 787 rear pressure bulkhead.

Airbus have built, and rolled out A350 barrels, as well as test flown A350 fuselage section on an A340. A350 composite fuselage production stared in December. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...of-first-a350-fuselage-barrel.html

Airbus Rolls Out A350 Fuselage Barrel (by WINGS Aug 4 2009 in Civil Aviation)



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, 31418 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 19):
The composites are without doubt not the problem for Airbus.


Airbus have said two of the more time-consuming issues they had to work out were lightning-dissipation around the CFRP structure and condensation between CFRP and Al that could lead to corrosion of the metal component.


25 frmrCapCadet : And remember as late as the frames are for the 380 and 787 serious engine issues remain - its not just A and B
26 Stitch : Well they remain for RR. GE and EA seem to be doing okay. I imagine RR is giving the Trent XWB design another look to see if the Trent 900's and Tren
27 Post contains images astuteman : When some "bits of CFRP here and there" are an A380 tailcone that is bigger than one of the 787's barrels, I'd suggest that "bits of CFRP here and th
28 zeke : Where are you talking about ?
29 Post contains images JBirdAV8r : If you re-examine my post carefully you'll see that I put "entirely" in quotes for that very reason. Semantics nonetheless. For all intents and purpo
30 Thorben : I think delaying the beginning of the final assembly is a cautious and smart move. The main problem that got the 787 so delayed (apart from delaminati
31 Post contains images EPA001 : Partially maybe. But the A380 processes for CFRP are evenly complex. True, which contradicts your own rather disrespectful "bits and pieces" theory.
32 Revelation : Indeed, both you and others are pointing out the many impressive composite projects that Airbus has tackled, and to that I'll add the A380 composite
33 Stitch : Between the fuselage panels and underlying frame. And yes, I know Airbus is using CFRP for much of the A350's underlying frame, but evidently there i
34 EPA001 : Truthfully I do not know. All your points here are quite valid imho. As time progresses we will no doubt learn more details about what has caused the
35 Post contains images JBirdAV8r : Nope. You stated Airbus has been using a whole lot more composites on their aircraft for much longer than Boeing, which is patently false. The A380 w
36 Post contains images EPA001 : I think this is all a misunderstanding. I said the composites would not be the problem imho. What I did not say, and what you (I guess) mean is this:
37 Post contains images astuteman : This is not quite as black-and-white as you make out. The large CFRP panels forming the tailcone of the A380 are far more like the large CFRP panels
38 Post contains links zeke : First, has there actually been any "delay", I see a lot of 1+2=7 going on, but little to show that the aircraft will be arriving late. Airbus allowed
39 Stitch : I know it was from 2010. I tried a Google search, but didn't hit anything and the "My Starred Topics" only goes back two weeks so I couldn't find it
40 Post contains links and images Revelation : It depends on how close you look. The original schedule looked like: Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-shape-can-it-avoid-the-a380s.html A
41 Thorben : Oh, thanks for that. It is always interesting to see predictions and time-tables years later. The begin of the final assembly was supposed to be in e
42 Post contains images LifelinerOne : Don't forget about the A400M. That is also a plane with a lot of composites in the wings (including the main spars), the tailsection and the cargo do
43 Revelation : Yes, but the good news side is that Airbus management is saying they won't start manufacturing till they really are ready for it. This should greatly
44 Post contains images ferpe : One of the things that has taken more time is the electrical return path for a mostly plastic airframe. A initially wanted to keep the A380 tail desig
45 Post contains images EPA001 : This might be one of the factors putting pressure on the development plans for the A350. The distracting factor is called A400M instead of the A440M.
46 Revelation : Do you have anything of significance to add, as opposed to pointing out a typo?
47 Post contains images EPA001 : I have added enough I guess to this thread. And sorry, no offense intended. But since you did your typo twice in this thread, ans also the first one
48 zeke : could or might. What has happened - the engine appears to be almost on time, fist engine run one month late * - the systems testing in aircraft zero
49 Stitch : Aviation blogger Guy Norris reports that Airbus has informed QR that delivery of their first A350-900 has slipped about six months from the end of Q2
50 manfredj : I don't think the experts have any more idea of what to expect with these projects than the laymen. This really is unchartered territory for both man
51 SEPilot : l suspect that most of us are familiar with Parkinson's law, which states that work expands to fill the time allotted. I think it needs a corollary fo
52 Post contains images Revelation : You have my vote for "A.Net Proofreader of the Year"! Glad to see we are more or less in agreement. Where we disagree is about the future. Your point
53 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks you very much. I am quite flattered. . That sure is a good thing imho as well. But not rushing things is one thing, being 2 or 3 years late af
54 Revelation : Indeed. From the list of activities Zeke provided, it seems Airbus is being very disiplined. From the thread starter: And in my book, a six to twelve
55 autothrust : Airbus not, but EADS does. The Eurofighter over 80% and the NH-90, Tiger (100%) do have a monolithic composite fuselage. The experience and knowledge
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...
FI: 747 LCF Tests Slip Behind Schedule posted Mon Dec 11 2006 17:52:13 by Leelaw
So I Made Another Airport Video. posted Fri Jan 14 2011 03:56:58 by Thom@s
Hainan Al Near An A350XWB Order. posted Mon Jan 10 2011 05:02:29 by FCKC
Do You Think UA Should Create Another Elite Level? posted Fri Dec 31 2010 12:23:55 by jgw787
Another Taag 777 Engine Failure... posted Thu Dec 23 2010 19:21:51 by MHTripple7
Yet, Another New TAP Portugal Route posted Wed Dec 22 2010 10:03:56 by santos
Yet Another Sticker For Ryanair Aircraft! posted Sat Dec 18 2010 16:05:13 by BAW076
Another New Route For EZY posted Thu Dec 16 2010 03:04:06 by lhr380
Another Finnair Incident! posted Sun Dec 5 2010 06:49:20 by FFlyer
EgyptAir Summer 2011 Schedule Changes.. posted Thu Dec 2 2010 06:11:07 by MSYYZ