Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2  
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2245 posts, RR: 26
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 71514 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Due to the size of Part 1, it has been archived:

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 1 (by ferpe Oct 26 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue discussion here.

NZ1
Forum Moderator

257 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3428 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 71584 times:

The A350 could take Airbus to another level.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12784 posts, RR: 100
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 71514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ferpe's post 236 in the last thread was excellent. A worthwhile read for anyone who missed it.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 867 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 71350 times:

Thanks for that post on the wings ferpe.

There are a few questions I have on the trailing edge and I wonder whether in your research you've found the answers.

The pictures of the "advanced" drooped hinge flap look pretty much exactly like the 787's flaps, or at least they are at the hinge supports. The slide describing the ADHF shows what I would guess to be the outboard hinge support of the inboard flap based on the simple configuration. Have you found anything which describes how they achieve the streamwise motion of the outboard flap?

Have you found anything which describes the auxiliary supports of the flaps? It looks like the configuration of main hinges and actuators is similar based on the location of the flap support fairings, but I can't tell whether any additional support is given to the flaps. The 787 has tracks and rollers at the ends of the outboard flap and the outboard end of the inboard flap, as well as at the middle of both flaps. This is pretty much there to ensure that the flap bends with the wings and to provide support in bending.

Also, on the flaperon you wrote

Quote:
B would counter with the less generated torsional twist of their flaperon when used as an aileron and that raising it in the start gives the engine thrust stream free way

This is not quite the reason for the flaperon to float at the start of the takeoff roll. This is a means to protect the flaperon structure and actuators from high sonic fatigue and thrust impingement loads. The flaperon isn't actively lifted out of the way - there is just no hydraulic pressure in the actuators holding the flaperon in place. This could be seen as a small advantage for the 777 and 787 flaps since the flaps themselves don't need to withstand this load, but for the 787 the inboard flap's outboard edge is inline with the engine centreline.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 70931 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 3):
Have you found anything which describes how they achieve the streamwise motion of the outboard flap?

I was certainly looking for it but I found no info on it. What can be seen from the CAD and the Airbus Bremen Hycom test bed pictures I found was that there is:

INNER FLAP
An inner drooped hinge under the root fairing and one mid span (where I also got hold of the structure picture), both visible on the Hycom test bed picture.

OUTER FLAP
One hinge 1/4 span and another 3/4, neither is well visible on Hycom or CAD solid model pictures. The little I can glean from the pictures would be that the mechanism are simply aligned streamwise and that the hinge line would be applied as a skewed line passing these 2 supports. Can't figure out if you need any special bearings to take any geometrical displacements with such a design, for you in the know to comment   .

Anyway seems not to require anything complicated. I have seen no evidence of further support, does not mean there is none    .

Quoting Pihero (Reply 240):
If one disrupts the continuity of the trailing edge devices, one is in fact using different sets of "wings", the aspect ratios of which would be less than the continuous foil. That's the reason that allowed, up to the 777, Airbus wings to be more efficient though simpler than Boeings.

This is interesting, haven't heard it before. That a non dropped inboard aileron (no aileron droop like the 767 and flaperon like the 777, 787) would create a dip in the lift distribution in eg landing config is obvious, that it would create havoc with the aspect ratio is less intuitive    . Now the 787 flaperon would almost make the flap line continuous for landing as it has a drooped hinge line (less then the flap but still) and I assume the spoiler manages the slot when it goes down. So while it won't be 100% of the flap in efficiency the loss is not that high.

For start it floats as dynamics guy says so there is a dip but then your flap deployment is considerably less.

So how big an effect on L/D does this have at start? For landing you don't mind drag IMO as it requires more throttle (good for go around transitions) and makes your management of the float phase easier.

[Edited 2012-01-07 05:41:46]


Non French in France
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 69898 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 4):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 240):
If one disrupts the continuity of the trailing edge devices, one is in fact using different sets of "wings", the aspect ratios of which would be less than the continuous foil. That's the reason that allowed, up to the 777, Airbus wings to be more efficient though simpler than Boeings.

This is interesting, haven't heard it before.

Me neither. I have never come across any serious reference that showed A wings being more 'efficient' than B wings. How could that be measured, anyway? And what does 'more efficient' mean? Aerodynamic efficiency in terms of Mach times lift upon drag? Bare wings or trimmed with the stabs thrown into the equation? Or overall aircraft? Wouldn't wing weight have to be factored into overall efficiency?

Quoting ferpe, reply 236 of previous thread:
"B has opted for a smaller wing then A with a higher wingloading (700-770kg/m2 for 788-789 vs 580-650 for the A358-35J) thus going for lower weight and lower wetted area vs lowest drag due to lift."

That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth. When the weight growth became inevitable, a span increase was considered as a mitigation but proved unfeasible and/or unviable. The high wing loading is now partially compensated by load management utilizing the trailing edge variable camber system to shift lift loads inboards at high gross weights, to the detriment of take-off and climb performance (moving lift loads inboards basically adds induced drag)


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 69152 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth. When the weight growth became inevitable, a span increase was considered as a mitigation but proved unfeasible and/or unviable. The high wing loading is now partially compensated by load management utilizing the trailing edge variable camber system to shift lift loads inboards at high gross weights, to the detriment of take-off and climb performance (moving lift loads inboards basically adds induced drag)

And I did not know the specific technical details you posted here. Thanks for the information. Again something learned here on A-net.  


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 67949 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
Quoting ferpe, reply 236 of previous thread:
"B has opted for a smaller wing then A with a higher wingloading (700-770kg/m2 for 788-789 vs 580-650 for the A358-35J) thus going for lower weight and lower wetted area vs lowest drag due to lift."

That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth.

From 580-650 to 700-770 is a gain of 18-20%...the 787 weight didn't grow anywhere close to that much after the wing configuration was frozen. Therefore it absolutely was a design choice. The exact value that the 787 ended up with was partly influenced by the weight growth but that fact that it's larger than the A350 is very clearly a conscious design choice. The alternative is in direct disagreement with the facts.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
The high wing loading is now partially compensated by load management utilizing the trailing edge variable camber system to shift lift loads inboards at high gross weights, to the detriment of take-off and climb performance

Trailing Edge Variable Camber doesn't do load shifts and isn't operative during take-off and climb. It has zero influence on take-off or climb performance.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 67767 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth.

I had the same observation as you but B clearly had the choice to reduce the wingloading not only for the 788 (which ended up at 700kg/m2) but they decided to keep the wing planform unchanged for the 789 at a wingloading of 770kg/m2. B does pretty substantial changes for the 789 project, extending the wingtip as planned or increasing the TE areas as A does for the 35J would have been perfectly feasible changes but they were happy to stay put, it was a conscious choice as Tdscanuck writes.

IMO B learned a lot from the 777. The 777 project started with wingloadings in the same area as todays A350 (567 for the 777-200) but gradually grew this to 700 for the 777-300 and planned 780 for the 77W. For hike to 780kg/m2 B added the swept wingtip and LE vortex generators (to control the boundary-layer beaten by the schockwaves). The 77W/LR swept wingtips efficiency surprised B for the second time (first was 767-400), the landing speeds went lower then predicted and they could increase the max weights another 10t for the final configs (this extra 1.5 hours of flight is what takes the 77W from very good to excellent IMO).

To control the cruise situation they were happy to add vortex generators on the leading edge of the wing (see picture, click on it for a better magnification):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/77Wwing.jpg

We learned from Oldaeroguy over at TechOps that they are not only there for the above 1G case like the 787-8 (manouver, gust, see 787-8 picture below) but at the 77W they are also improving the 1G cruise drag. The high winloading (800kg/m2) generates sufficiently strong schockwaves so that the generators are needed to stop significant bounduray layer separation. While they generate some parasitic drag the net effect is positive and B is happy with the balance of parasitic drag (pressure=form drag and wetted area drag), induced drag and the transonic drag.



So for the 787 B had enough experience to go for the higher wingloading, taking the positives (lower weight, lower wetted area) and controlling the negatives (tortured boundury layer  ).

I have not seen A using this philosophie, they seem to optimise their wings differently. As said it is intriguing how our 2 leading framers design their wings, very similarily superficially but then differently when one digs a bit   

[Edited 2012-01-08 01:28:22]


Non French in France
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 67381 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 8):
B does pretty substantial changes for the 789 project, extending the wingtip as planned or increasing the TE areas as A does for the 35J would have been perfectly feasible changes but they were happy to stay put, it was a conscious choice as Tdscanuck writes.

Well, I don' recall whether it was Pat Shanahan or another Boeing exec ho said it, but the truth is that extending the wingtips would have added so much weight that the aerodynamic benefit would have been eaten up completely. That is indicative of a marginal design (which is not a bad thing if you aim for low weight) and/or indicative of the problems with the side of body join.
I also remember that Boeing PR at the time tried to make us believe that "there was no need for the span extension because the baseline design was found to be better than anticipated" or something like that.  

If it would have been feasible to extend the span, they would have done it, that's for sure.

Turns out that the side-of-body join is right now being "optimized" (Boeing marketing wording) for the 787-9. I would expext this 'optimization' to be aimed at getting rid of the SOB band-aid *and* aimed at restoring margin for a span extension, but so far Boeing has indicated they are going to stick with the current span and only slightly increase wing area by trailing edge extension and may be a little tweaking of the leading edge as well. That may change - it would make the 787-9 and especially the 787-10 significantly more competitive.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Trailing Edge Variable Camber doesn't do load shifts and isn't operative during take-off and climb.

If your statement is accurate then I have to wonder why the concept was dropped.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
a gain of 18-20%...the 787 weight didn't grow anywhere close to that much after the wing configuration was frozen.

Depends on when the wing config was frozen. Apart form that, the 787-9 started with an MTOW of 219t, that was increased in 2004 to 230t based on the concept of a span increase. The 787-9 is at 251t right now without that span increase, that's 15% above 219t - close enough for me (not sure what assumptions are behind ferpe's wing loading figures)


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 67102 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Well, I don' recall whether it was Pat Shanahan or another Boeing exec ho said it, but the truth is that extending the wingtips would have added so much weight that the aerodynamic benefit would have been eaten up completely.

That's not exactly what they said...they phrased it the other way (that the 787-8 wing could work on the 787-9 without excess compromise), not that the 787-9 would barely provide any benefit.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
That is indicative of a marginal design (which is not a bad thing if you aim for low weight) and/or indicative of the problems with the side of body join.

The side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load. And by "marginal design" I think you mean "low margin" ("marginal" means "almost bad" in normal usage). As you say, that's a good thing.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Trailing Edge Variable Camber doesn't do load shifts and isn't operative during take-off and climb.

If your statement is accurate then I have to wonder why the concept was dropped.

The concept wasn't dropped...the 787 has trailing edge variable camber in cruise and, as far as I know, always has. You may be thinking of maneuver load alleviation, a totally different function (that doesn't involve the TEVC system), that's active all the time.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Turns out that the side-of-body join is right now being "optimized" (Boeing marketing wording) for the 787-9. I would expext this 'optimization' to be aimed at getting rid of the SOB band-aid *and* aimed at restoring margin for a span extension

What band-aid? The in-line production fix for side-of-body showed up quite some time ago. Given that they're now strapping the 787-8 wing to the 787-9 it's normal that they have to beef up some primary structure for the higher weights.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
a gain of 18-20%...the 787 weight didn't grow anywhere close to that much after the wing configuration was frozen.

Depends on when the wing config was frozen. Apart form that, the 787-9 started with an MTOW of 219t, that was increased in 2004 to 230t based on the concept of a span increase.

They only selected the 787-8 wing for the 787-9 last year...about 7 years after the weight growth you're talking about.

Tom.


User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 66977 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Turns out that the side-of-body join is right now being "optimized" (Boeing marketing wording) for the 787-9. I would expext this 'optimization' to be aimed at getting rid of the SOB band-aid *and* aimed at restoring margin for a span extension, but so far Boeing has indicated they are going to stick with the current span and only slightly increase wing area by trailing edge extension and may be a little tweaking of the leading edge as well.

Only problem was that it wasn't too little strength, it was too much strength. Extra material was making It too stiff, causing delamination under high wing deflection.

You are also missing that while the wingtip extentions did provide lower fuel burn. It simply wasn't worth the wieght, cost, and reduced gate access. Not every mission is 9,000nm. Infact there is a nice post up showing how rare 7K nm flights are. So why are you demanding planes be optimized for the rare cases?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 66925 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
(not sure what assumptions are behind ferpe's wing loading figures)

I use 325m2 area and 228t and 251t for the 787. For the 350 8,9 443 and 35J 461m2 and their MTOWs 259, 268 and 308t.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
the 787 has trailing edge variable camber in cruise

I am very surprised it does not use the variable camber to make the climb and cruise climbs more effective.



Non French in France
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 66881 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load.

I do not believe that 787-8 static testing went up to 787-9 MTOW of 251t.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
by "marginal design" I think you mean "low margin"

Yes, you are correct, apologies.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
You may be thinking of maneuver load alleviation

Yes, in that case the aileron would be used to un-load the wingtips for reduced wing root bending moment. That would still incur an induced drag penalty and have a detrimental impact on takeoof and climb performance. The need for this active loads management would be obviated in case the weights come sufficiently down and/or the wing root design is improved. Not sure whether the FAA would like that, anyway.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
What band-aid? The in-line production fix for side-of-body showed up quite some time ago.

Which as far as I know still involves the titanium fittings inserted into the stringer profiles, fitted during wing production rather than added in the FAL.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
They only selected the 787-8 wing for the 787-9 last year...about 7 years after the weight growth you're talking about.

I'd wager they rather had to 'make do with' that -8 wing, for lack of alternatives? In the meantime, the -9 schedule has moved to the right and there's talk about an 'optimized side of body join'.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 66794 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 3):
Have you found anything which describes how they achieve the streamwise motion of the outboard flap?


Just to show what I have found, these mechanism has been labeled as 350 flap mechanisms by SABCA and they seem to be mounted at an angle to the rear spar, in such case the left should be the outer final one and the right hand the inner (which still have the torque axle going through it).

Weather they are the real deal or early concepts is more unsure however    :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Outerflapstreamwisemechanisms.jpg

Here where these mechanisms would fit and I could glean a 3rd support holding the outer tip in line as well:



[Edited 2012-01-08 11:44:29]


Non French in France
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 66582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
I do not believe that 787-8 static testing went up to 787-9 MTOW of 251t.

It's not necessary. Boeing proved their calculations were accurate with the original test so that equation is valid for higher TOWs (up until the solution shows that you exceeded the load limit).

Hence why OEMs don't need to perform a new wing break test when they up the TOW. And why the A380-800 wing was certified even though it didn't survive to the full load limit - Airbus was able to prove their calculation was accurate enough that when they factored in the additional strengthening production wings would have, they'd survive the load.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 66460 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Boeing proved their calculations were accurate with the original test so that equation is valid for higher TOWs

I do not dispute that the ultimate load test may have proven the structural model valid (guess it has) so that Boeing may use the model to prove an up-gauged design for a higher MTOW w/o another hardware test.

But you cannot infer from this that "the side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load". The SOB fix is certified to ultimate load at 227t, but not yet to 251t. That the equation is proven right doesn't mean that it works up to any weight or that the SOB fix works up to any weight.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 66410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
The SOB fix is certified to ultimate load at 227t, but not yet to 251t. That the equation is proven right doesn't mean that it works up to any weight or that the SOB fix works up to any weight.

Well clearly it won't work for any weight - hence my comment that eventually you'll plug in a value for the weight that generates a solution that shows the wing would break when subjected to ultimate load at that weight.

As for the SoB fix, the same should apply. Otherwise Boeing would have to perform a test for the 787-9 and they have not indicated such a test will be necessary. That infers that the FAA, EASA and any other relevant agency has accepted Boeing's fix to be valid up to at least ~250t, which is said to be the limit of the current undercarriage geometry.

I mean let's turn this argument around and assume the SoB join had not been too strong and therefore no delamination had occurred during the test at the 787-8's weights. Would anyone be arguing Boeing needs to run new tests or generate new equations to take into account the 787-9's weights? No. So why should they have to do it now that they have proven the new SoB join works?

[Edited 2012-01-08 14:18:24]

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 66274 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 12):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
the 787 has trailing edge variable camber in cruise

I am very surprised it does not use the variable camber to make the climb and cruise climbs more effective.

Climb is so far off the design speed of the wing that you're probably not going to get much mileage out of variable camber. It should be active during cruise climb.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load.

I do not believe that 787-8 static testing went up to 787-9 MTOW of 251t.

I would strongly assume it did not.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
You may be thinking of maneuver load alleviation

Yes, in that case the aileron would be used to un-load the wingtips for reduced wing root bending moment.

Ailerons, flaperons, and spoilers.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
That would still incur an induced drag penalty and have a detrimental impact on takeoof and climb performance. The need for this active loads management would be obviated in case the weights come sufficiently down and/or the wing root design is improved.

No, it wouldn't. Maneuver load alleviation only kicks in at high loading (more than 1g at MTOW)...it doesn't cause anything to happen during normal takeoff/climb.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
What band-aid? The in-line production fix for side-of-body showed up quite some time ago.

Which as far as I know still involves the titanium fittings inserted into the stringer profiles, fitted during wing production rather than added in the FAL.

If the titanium fittings are the final fix then it's not a band-aid, it's just the final design. However, I believe Boeing said they would switch over to a beefed up fitting at some point...I thought that had already happened but perhaps not.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
But you cannot infer from this that "the side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load".

Yes, you can. If there was a problem, it wouldn't have passed. They have a fix that works, is in production, is certified and, according to you, is the final design and will remain that way. That's not the definition of "band-aid."

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
The SOB fix is certified to ultimate load at 227t, but not yet to 251t.

Right, which is why they're upgauging parts of the wing. It's normal to increase gauge on structure during a stretch. You're presenting the totally normal design process for a larger derivative as if it's some kind of anomaly or failing.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 65808 times:

Spirit has now rolled the first section 15 over to the Airbus PreFAL at Saint Nazaire, France:



I would assume this is for the static test frame (MSN5000) and therefore the mating and equipping time with section 21 (wingbox, MLG well and keel beam already waiting at Airbus, see post 148 ) will not take to long. We should then see it take to the Atlantic on a barge and then going up the Garonne river up to TLS soon   .

Things start to move    . (PS Watch the guys on the side of the rolling jig for scale DS)

[Edited 2012-01-09 07:30:45]


Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 65726 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
As for the SoB fix, the same should apply. Otherwise Boeing would have to perform a test for the 787-9 and they have not indicated such a test will be necessary. That infers that the FAA, EASA and any other relevant agency has accepted Boeing's fix to be valid up to at least ~250t, which is said to be the limit of the current undercarriage geometry.

Boeing is like a Trappist monk when it comes to the 787-9, I don't think that we can infer that there are no issues from their silence actually, as this has not proved to be the case from past experience, also I think that you trying to forget that Boeings original calculations and models were way off hence the need for the SOB fix in the first place.



BV
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 65444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 20):
also I think that you trying to forget that Boeings original calculations and models were way off hence the need for the SOB fix in the first place.

If Boeing's revised calculations were still off, they would have failed the test. But they didn't. So it does not strike me as unreasonable to infer that they took the new data, plugged it in, developed a new, accurate calculation, and ran the test, which was successful, which at least implies the new calculations were correct.

Again, I keep going back to if the test had worked the first time without issue (because Boeing's original calculations of the transfer loads would have been accurate and they would have properly engineered the parts for those loads), we would not be having this conversation.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 65113 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
If Boeing's revised calculations were still off, they would have failed the test. But they didn't. So it does not strike me as unreasonable to infer that they took the new data, plugged it in, developed a new, accurate calculation, and ran the test, which was successful, which at least implies the new calculations were correct.

But that does not mean that the results will scale to higher loads and weights, it is entirely possible that the SOB fix has an upper load limit that is below that required to make the 787-9 work hence the rumblings about "optimising" the SOB fix.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Again, I keep going back to if the test had worked the first time without issue (because Boeing's original calculations of the transfer loads would have been accurate and they would have properly engineered the parts for those loads), we would not be having this conversation.

You would have us all ignore an inconvenient truth?



BV
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1115 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 65024 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 22):
But that does not mean that the results will scale to higher loads and weights, it is entirely possible that the SOB fix has an upper load limit that is below that required to make the 787-9 work hence the rumblings about "optimising" the SOB fix.

ALL of the models used in aircraft design have some sort of limit of applicability. Knowing those limits is part of the model, and is just as important as the details of the model itself in its zone of applicability. If you're trying to argue that the modeling used for the SOB joint might zoom off into la-la land somewhere between -8 loads and -9 loads, AND that Boeing is ignorant of that situation ... I think that's completely unrealistic.

I expect that the "optimizing" of the SOB joint for the -9 is just that ... optimizing it, now that some more actual data points exist to refine the model.

In any case, I seem to recall at least one statement made when the SOB problem was revealed, to the effect that the model DID actually show a problem, although perhaps not as serious a problem as it should have. Which would imply that the model was just a bit off, augmented by human error in not following up. I'm too lazy to go back and try to dig up that reference; if anyone knows one way or the other I'd be curious.

I'd suggest that further discussion along these lines belongs in a 787 thread, not an A350 one.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 65024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 22):
But that does not mean that the results will scale to higher loads and weights, it is entirely possible that the SOB fix has an upper load limit that is below that required to make the 787-9 work hence the rumblings about "optimizing" the SOB fix.

Then it's not a fix, is it?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 22):
You would have us all ignore an inconvenient truth?


I think the "inconvenient" truth is that the 787 did end up passing the wing-flex/SoB test. But hey, people love to whiz on Boeing and the 787 as payback for all the baloney thrown at Airbus and the A380.

The 777 wing and SoB survived a test at ~153% of load, but histories of the program I have read certainly infer that Boeing didn't plan at the time they performed that test for those wings to be able to support TOWs ~100 tons higher (the difference between a 777-200 and 777-200LR). And yet Boeing (and the FAA, and EASA, and others) were confident enough in those calculations that they felt that, with the proper reinforcement, those wings would survive with a 100t higher TOW.

I don't recall the final percentage that Boeing pushed the fixed 787's wings and SoB to, but it was at least 150%, which proves that their engineering was sound. So if the 777 passes the test, and the 787 passes the test, then why are the 787's results "suspect"?

And the dictionary definition of "optimized" is "to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible". So that Boeing wants to optimize the 787-9's SoB is just that - make it better...

...not make it functional.


Any way, we should move this conversation to a new thread in TechOps, as we're dragging this thread off-topic.

[Edited 2012-01-09 15:29:59]

[Edited 2012-01-09 16:15:27]

User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 64846 times:

Is this - as it is claimed - actually the front section of the A350 entering FAL?


http://a350.a380production.com


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 64742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting abba (Reply 25):
Is this - as it is claimed - actually the front section of the A350 entering FAL?

Yes, but it is for the static test frame.

Do they have to add any more parts to it, or is this like a "fit test"?


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 66185 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Yes, but it is for the static test frame.


The first flying frame will only begin its assembly in May or June according to this:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...aily&id=news/avd/2011/12/19/15.xml


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 66171 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 25):
Is this - as it is claimed - actually the front section of the A350 entering FAL?

That is correct, the picture was taken on December 23, 2011, it is MSN 5000, a ground test airframe. The first flight test airframe front fuselage began its assembly in Saint-Nazaire, on 9 December 2011. That will be the next one into the FAL.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 65555 times:

A good article on the production flow for the A350 prototypes is done by Jon Ostrower today:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...-correction-clarification-and.html

In general the tier 1 subsuppliers have been asked to produce the MSN001 parts first followed by the parts for MSN5000 ( the static test aircraft). This is because the MSN001 parts need much longer in PreFAL as they will be fully equipped, the MSN5000 sections are structural parts only + measurement stuff attached.

So the Spirit section 15 assembly I wrote about in T2-P19 is indeed for MSN001 and will stay at Airbus St Nazaire until Q2. Section 15 for MSN5000 is in Spirit St Nazaire (side and top panels) with the side interfaces to the wingbox/MLG well still being produced in Kinston. BTW my claiming section 15+21 would take the barge to TLS is probably wrong, it fits in the Airbus Beluga so should take that route, we will see.

The section 11-14 we seen shipped to TLS is indeed for MSN5000 (it had stress gauges etc attached), its section 13-14 from Nordeham that we saw go on the Beluga was straight from Nordeham apparently. The section 13-14 we saw go out first from Nordeham on a barge is still in Airbus Hamburg being equipped, it will go to St Nazaire to be mated with the nose parts later this spring.

Funnily no sight of any section 16-19 yet, the MSN5000 one should go to TLS soon.

And the wingboxes shall also move soon, here it once again seems the MSN001 leads as it needs time in Bremen for all the equipping (it was the ones we saw in T1 P215). We would expect the MSN5000 ones going to TLS this quarter. GKN has their job cut out for them    .

[Edited 2012-01-12 03:42:12]


Non French in France
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 64654 times:

It really is a pleasure to see Airbus being so open about sharing information on the A350 assembly process, and a welcome change from the highly opaque, hiding-mistakes-until-it-is-too-late attitude of the A380 & 787. A&B must have lost a lot of credibility with customers after the A380 / 787 production fiascos, and I guess Airbus is learning from those mistakes and being much more transparent the A350 in order to regain credibility. And to our joy, it is making for very interesting threads so far.  

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 64375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting r2rho (Reply 30):
It really is a pleasure to see Airbus being so open about sharing information on the A350 assembly process, and a welcome change from the highly opaque, hiding-mistakes-until-it-is-too-late attitude of the A380 & 787.

I remember plenty of information flowing out of both the A380 and 787 programs as their first production frames were being built. Pictures. Articles. TV shows, even.

Yes, once both programs hit their snags, things became quieter, but both companies were very proud of their new products and played them up to whomever was interested in listening.  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 64038 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
Yes, once both programs hit their snags, things became quieter, but both companies were very proud of their new products and played them up to whomever was interested in listening.

A is the first of the 2 to have the benefit of doing a program after these 2 classical marketing programs turning a bit south    . They both focused on up-beat info marketing and went quiet as there were tougher things to tell. It would have been just not credible for the next program to continue this style and luckily we see a very different style being the result for the A350.

We as enthusiast profit from that, we can follow the birth of a new product much closer and with more intimacy, we can share the "for better for worse". I am pretty sure the marketing department from A and B is following our conversations on these threads and taking notice on what works and what doesn't. They both have Web forum/blogs presentations to their top mangement, what the informed  angel  comunity says and thinks is no longer unimportant  Wow! .

[Edited 2012-01-13 11:19:04]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 63838 times:

Staying with the wings for a while (they are not yet in TLS   ) I discovered this nice story (and the next) at the informed french forum "ACTUALITE Aéronautique" (thanks Beochien and Poncho):

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-plane-in-spain

Here Composites world describes the production of the top wing-skins at Airbus Illecias Spain but also the story of modern aerostructures entreprise in Spain. Reading this story one can understand how important the Airbus success story is for this industry in Spain or for that matter for many other industrial areas across Europe (of course the same applies for Bs supplier network   ). It is noteworthy that Airbus Illecias Spain claims:

“Illescas is Airbus’ center of excellence for advanced carbon composite parts,” ... “and where we produce large and complex shapes.” “Hand layup and hand labor just isn’t effective for rate production any more,” .... “In some cases, we operate our machines in four shifts, essentially 24/7, to maximize production.”

The lower wingskins sure fits this description, here we see the bottom wingskin (the most highly loaded one carrying the tension loads) being checked after production by a NDI = Non Destructive Inspection system (utlrasound AFAIK):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/0112HPC_Spain_wingskin_NDT.jpg

To back this high tech industrial ambitions one of the top manufacturers of CFRP tape-laying machines comes from Spain, MTorres. This entrepreneurial company has worked its way to the top echelon of advanced CFRP manufacturing (customers both A and B and their supplier networks, the other top tier tape layer company is Ingersoll Rand AFAIK). GKN uses a MTorres system for the TE spar as does Spirit Kinston for the LE spar.


It all nicely describes that making our 7X7 and 3X0 frames is not all about Seattle and Toulouse, there is a huge network of countries and suppliers who work their butt out to stay competitive and to be selected as suppliers to the big 2. That they also develop new technologies while striving for this level is described in the next post    .

BTW re the wing I have revisited some previous 350 posts and A statements, the MSN001 will stay a while at Broughton as it will have fuel, hydraulics and LR/TE structures installed there before leaving for Bremen to have the Slats, Flaps and rest of equipment installed. The MNS5000 static test wingboxes are being completed next followed by the fatigue wing boxes. Expect this all to be taking a while, mid spring deliveries seems realistic.

[Edited 2012-01-13 14:12:50]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 63752 times:

This story is about how the development continues unabated to improve (=lower the weight) for such things as the frames for the later coming A350-1000 versus the 350-900. Here the innovation process behind what we A.nutters sweepingly say "it will lower weight with X%" is being developed in real life:

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/airbus-a350-update-braf-fpp

According to the article today's 359 frames are made with classical methods and with "one size fits all" necessity. For the 350-1000 one is now seeking a highly automated adaptable method to produce the next versions frames more lightweight and economically. That the investments are not small is clear, here the machine that weaves/braids the fibers into the frame form before the expoxi is injected:




Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 63279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
According to the article today's 359 frames are made with classical methods and with "one size fits all" necessity. For the 350-1000 one is now seeking a highly automated adaptable method to produce the next versions frames more lightweight and economically. That the investments are not small is clear, here the machine that weaves/braids the fibers into the frame form before the expoxi is injected:

Again very interesting posts Ferpe.     

This shows that Airbus is still stretching or pushing the design of the A350-1000 to the maximum, to create as much of an advantage over the B77W. I have a feeling that advantage might be bigger then quite a few here on A-net are anticipating when discussing the A350-1000 vs. the current and possible future competition.  .


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months ago) and read 62745 times:

Good stuff indeed, Ferpe!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
They both have Web forum/blogs presentations to their top mangement, what the informed comunity says and thinks is no longer unimportant .


It makes us even feel important!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
It all nicely describes that making our 7X7 and 3X0 frames is not all about Seattle and Toulouse, there is a huge network of countries and suppliers who work their butt out to stay competitive and to be selected as suppliers to the big 2.


Not to mention all those who are working hard to become suppliers to the ones that that end up being suppliers to the big 2.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 35):
I have a feeling that advantage might be bigger then quite a few here on A-net are anticipating when discussing the A350-1000 vs. the current and possible future competition.


You might be right. However, we must not forget that Boeing - if they are going to give the 777NG an all new wing - are working with the same technologies. So many of the new things that will go into the A350-1000 will also go into the 777NG. However, due to being a newer design, the 350 might be able to benefit more.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 61676 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):

“Illescas is Airbus’ center of excellence for advanced carbon composite parts,” ... “and where we produce large and complex shapes.”

Indeed, I am surprised that the upper wing cover is manufactured in Stade, Germany, given that all the technology for it comes from Spain. Wouldn't it make more sense to manufacture both lower and upper covers in Illescas? Or did politics play a role in this workshare?   

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
To back this high tech industrial ambitions one of the top manufacturers of CFRP tape-laying machines comes from Spain, MTorres.

MTorres is not really known in public, but ask anyone working on composites. They have earned their place in the market and are very good at what they do.


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 61121 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
the MSN001 will stay a while at Broughton as it will have fuel, hydraulics and LR/TE structures installed there before leaving for Bremen to have the Slats, Flaps and rest of equipment installed. The MNS5000 static test wingboxes are being completed next followed by the fatigue wing boxes. Expect this all to be taking a while, mid spring deliveries seems realistic.

[Edited 2012-01-13 14:12:50]

That concurs with what Airbus said at the conference yesterday. MSN5000 assembly at the FAL due around March and MSN001 FAL June-July.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/ho...cs/new-year-press-conference-2012/

Highlights above. A350 bit starts around 1 min 30.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 60442 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 38):
That concurs with what Airbus said at the conference yesterday. MSN5000 assembly at the FAL due around March and MSN001 FAL June-July.

So with this and other information lets try to conclude for the static test frame (ES or MSN5000) and first flying prototype (MSN001) where the different sections are and what state they are in:


NOSE SECTION 11-12 and FORWARD BODY 13-14
MSN001
The first produced sections are being equipped, the nose (11-12) at Airbus St Nazaire (among other things cockpit eq. and avionics) and the forward body (13-14) at Airbus Hamburg. Here is a picture showing the section with the walk and lighting platform for the equippers inserted:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Section13-14stuffinginEADSHamburg-1.jpg

The main equipping parts have been prepared in special jigs like this crown area air piping jig (simulation pictures from CATIA and test jigs from 2010):



These jigs are then dragged into place and raised whereby the whole package can be attached in one go in the section:



This equipped section will then when ready take the Beluga to St Nazaire in Q2 to be joined with the equipped nose section and later go to FAL in June-July.

MSN5000
Both nose and forward body has been joined at St Nazaire and were the first pieces to FAL together with the vertical stabilizer before Christmas, watch pictures in Part 1 of thread.




MID UPPER SECTION 15 and LOWER SECTION 21 (CWB and Keel beam)
MSN001
The first produced section 21 is at Airbus St Nazaire since October 2011 being equipped (center tank piping, pumps..., MLG bay hydraulics, ..). Section 15 was just rolled over from Spirit St Nazaire, it will be joined with the nose and then the whole package equipped IMO. Package will go to FAL when complete in late Q2.

MSN5000
Section 21 already at Airbus St Nazaire waiting for section 15. Spirit has shipped the large panels for the mid section and is finishing the lower side and the forward panels for shipping as we speak. Expect this mid section to be rolled over to Airbus in February and the whole joined package to go to TLS on the Beluga in March.




AFT SECTION 16-18 and TAIL CONE 19
MSN001
The first produced sections shall be finished at Airbus Hamburg and shall be in equipping. I presume they join the tail cone after it has completed equipping (stabilizer trim jack, hydraulics, APU piping etc) and then fly the package to TLS end Q2.

MSN5000
The production of section 16-18 shall have started and the tail cone will arrive from Spain soon. Will be equipped with strain gauges etc, joined and then flown to FAL Feb-March.




WINGS
MSN001
Wingbox should be complete about now and being moved to Pre-equipping (FLE, FTE assembly and Fuel, Hydraulics piping ). When complete will go to Bremen for final equipping and fitting of movables (Droop nose, slats, flaps, spoilers, ailerons...).

MSN5000
Parts should be arriving to Broughton for production of test wingbox, this would not be Preequipped other then with measurement equipment and possibly stub attachments for the load hydraulics jack.

Expect these to start to go to Bremen, TLS in March-April time frame.




FATIGUE TEST PARTS
I have little clue where these parts are right now and when and where they will go. Next research assignment I guess, please chip in what you have gleaned   .

[Edited 2012-01-21 02:07:55]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 40, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 59511 times:

Aspire Aviation is covering the status of the A350 as part of it's reporting of the Airbus New Year conference in Hamburg:

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...-crucial-year-on-a350-development/

In summary it is a collection of what is already known with some faults injected (FAL of MSN001 starts in March    ) but also some new info on an interview with Fabrice Bregier the next day with Dow Jones Newswire:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sup...for-airbus-a350-program-2012-01-17

Aspire says the tier 2 delivery of things like clips etc is not out of the woods yet, well given that we are 1 month after Fabrice said the same thing at Airbus Investor conference I am not too surprised. Production bottlenecks are not solved in weeks    , they are like a good cold, they leave you slooowly    .



Other than that the biggest news was that the moaning -1000 customers is complaining cause the revised frame is to small    . I don't understand what to make out of all this -1000 kicking around, the original was not good    , the revised kid which packs more payload is not good    , how do you make these guys happy    ?



I think JLs comment is on the money, stay put with the -1000 until we have the flight test data back from the -900 then look at optimisations    .



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 41, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 58529 times:

There is a news item at Flightglobal today on how a tier 2 or 3 subsupplier is lowering weight for the drainage piping for the A350.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...a350-cargo-drainage-system-367671/

This is a story of hunting parts of kilos in one tiny bit of all the piping that goes into an airframe. Here a very good picture from Flightglobals special on the 787, it shows an equipped fuselage to understand all that goes into it.

If one looks at this 787-800 front section seen from behind one can hardly see the drain piping below the cargo floor, it is hidden by the staircase, but one can appreciate what goes into a fully equipped fuselage section and what work it must be to get everything right from design and installation point of view (click on the image to magnify it):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787equippedsection.jpg

As the 350 and 787 is very similar in their overall packaging I would think that the following observations also holds for the 350 sections now being equipped at Airbus St Nazaire and Hamburg (    @experts, pls correct me when my assumptions are wrong):

- On the right hand side of the cargo hold we can see where the vertical braces stops the cargo door for the forward cargo hold. This means the right hand (starboard) side of the belly is interrupted, therefore this is not used for piping or large electrical harnesses, rather storing IFE boxes etc.

- The main piping area for the air conditioning is the uninterrupted left-hand side of the belly. This area is interrupted by the wingbox and MLG well centrally but this is also where the feeding from aircond packages are placed. These are placed external to the pressure tube in the wingroot fairing on both sides. These then feed into this compartment forward of the wingbox for the forebody and aft of the MLG well for the rear of the aircraft.

- The roof of the cargo hold is used for the power turn and return wiring to the forward equipment bay (forward of the wall with hatches open), this is also the main pass-way for many control harnesses passing through the frame.

- In the crown area one can see the big aircond distribution piping (white), the aircond air comes up high behind the insulation on the left-hand side. Here is also the empty space for the crew rest in the middle and I would assume the brown tubes are for waste air drainage from this rest area. Electrical wiring is also seen for lighting etc + any electricals for the overhead bins etc. Any antenna sitting on the top fuselage also has it's harnesses here going forward to the equipment bay.


  So where is the sensitive hydraulics and FBW wiring placed? Perhaps one can see hydraulics to the NLG below the cargo floors right hand side. For the FBW wiring I would assume redundant paths would be used eg in the crown and below the cargo floor for maximum protection from any cargo loading interference on the cargo roof wiring area.


   Anyway equipping an modern airliner is an art and there is a lot to it that we don't see behind the fuse shell and the insulation. That it will take well into Q2 for the first flying A350 prototype is well understandable  .


   One question to the experts like Tom etc:

- how much of this would have to be fitted in MSN001 for the 350 (it is a flight envelope aircraft and should not need all this stuff) ?

[Edited 2012-02-02 09:54:26]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 42, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 58398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As always very interesting information ferpe. Thanks again for keeping all of us up to date.   Still a lot of work to be done, but they are still pushing as hard as they can. Trying to get the level of the airframe as high as they can, to become the next benchmark?  

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 43, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 57747 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):
So where is the sensitive hydraulics and FBW wiring placed

Relatively little hydraulics run inside the pressure vessel. The reservoirs and pumps are usually tucked away in the pylons, wheel wells, wing body fairinings, etc. The tubes run mostly in the wing leading and trailing edges and all over the wheel wells. There will be one or two runs forward for the nose gear and three (or however many systems you have) supply tubes and return tubes to the empennage. Aircraft hydraulic tubes are surprisingly small and could be easily lost in a full-section photo like you provided.

FBW wires look like...wires. There are tons of them strapped to the underside of the floor, running in the crown, and in the side behind the floor stanchions...any one of them could be FBW wires.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):

- how much of this would have to be fitted in MSN001 for the 350 (it is a flight envelope aircraft and should not need all this stuff) ?

The only thing that's required for flutter/S&C/flight envelope is the flight systems. It's entirely possible to do that with a full-up aircraft but, as it's not needed, you can get away with ditching most of the air distribution ducts, almost the whole interior (sidewalls, ceilings, bins, support structure, production lights, all associated wiring), most of the potable water and lav system, no galleys, etc. However, installing all that stuff gives you flexibility to do other types of testing so it's a tough trade study to balance capability against cost and build time.

Tom.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 57569 times:

I would also imagine that it will help verify that all the systems fit together as planed at an early stage. I think I remember that Airbus once had a bad experience in that department...

Ferpe - thanks for your uodates. It is very much apreaciated!


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 57179 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):
- how much of this would have to be fitted in MSN001 for the 350 (it is a flight envelope aircraft and should not need all this stuff) ?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 43):
The only thing that's required for flutter/S&C/flight envelope is the flight systems. It's entirely possible to do that with a full-up aircraft but, as it's not needed, you can get away with ditching most of the air distribution ducts, almost the whole interior (sidewalls, ceilings, bins, support structure, production lights, all associated wiring), most of the potable water and lav system, no galleys, etc. However, installing all that stuff gives you flexibility to do other types of testing so it's a tough trade study to balance capability against cost and build time.

Indeed, and the trade that Airbus has made is that MSN1 will have no cabin and so most of those systems won't be installed or only partially (you do need at least 1 toilet for the flight test engineers ). MSN2 will be the first cabin a/c - and thus will hopefully make for another interesting follow-up thread in the second half of the year  


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 46, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 56448 times:

Any news about the Trent XWB testbed alias A 380 MSN 001 F-WWOW. It was part of those airframes, for which they had to make the immediate checks of the wing cracks but this should be done by now.

I just saw F-WWOW on radar toulouse moving on the ground.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 47, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 56206 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 46):
Any news about the Trent XWB testbed alias A 380 MSN 001 F-WWOW.

No news yet but Bregier said they would start the TXWB test flights in Feb so it might be time for it now. Finally something happening, bin a bit quiet now for a month  .



Non French in France
User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 258 posts, RR: 23
Reply 48, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 55942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe she did some ground engine runs this morning in the "Bikini" pit.


No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 49, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 55909 times:

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 48):
believe she did some ground engine runs this morning in the "Bikini" pit.

Haa, I saw her rolling into exactly that area on http://www.radar-toulouse.fr . So thanks for your feedback.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 50, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 55513 times:

Aspire aviation is reporting of a misalignment on the one-piece barell section 19 tail cone from Airbus Spain in Illescas in this article about the 777X.

Wonder what this can mean, the least problem would be missalignment with section 18 I would guess as long as it is cosmetical, any missalignment of Vertical or horizontal tailplane fitting would be serious.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...ops-777x-to-challenge-airbus-a350/

Wonder when we will see this rear section 16-18 + 19, it has been conspicuously absent from all presentations to date.



Non French in France
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 55140 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 46):
Any news about the Trent XWB testbed alias A 380 MSN 001 F-WWOW.

First flight should be imminent, TLS spotters be alert!


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 55155 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 50):
Aspire aviation is reporting of a misalignment on the one-piece barell section 19 tail cone from Airbus Spain in Illescas in this article about the 777X.

Not sure that production issues of the first prototype of the A350 are relevant to the success of the 777X. Aspire has often pink coloured sunglasses in regard to Boeing (for example they had a blog on how fantastic the business case is for the 748). Aspire seems to jump often between detailed analysis and fanboy behaviour in the same paragraph.

If the barrel has a manufacturing problem, let's see how big the impact is on the overall schedule in regard to the Airbus promise of fixing the problem at the root rather than doing shitloads of rework later. One the other hand, corrective action might have started months ago and a fix could be close with no real impact. Let's see what was learned from the A380.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 53, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 54893 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 52):
Aspire has often pink coloured sunglasses in regard to Boeing (for example they had a blog on how fantastic the business case is for the 748). Aspire seems to jump often between detailed analysis and fanboy behaviour in the same paragraph.

I agree with your analysis, I think it depends on who is writing, Mr Aspire him-selves seems to have pink glasses, when I read what his analysis guy Bhaskara has written it seems more objective IMO.



Non French in France
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 54, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 54882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing had "out of round" issues with mating the fuselage barrels on LN001, so if Section 19 is having some issues, they're hardly unique and I imagine it won't be a major problem to resolve. If it truly is a bad mold, they just need to repair or replace it.

User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 55, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 54128 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 51):
First flight should be imminent, TLS spotters be alert!

Hmm, I didn't see any sign of F-WWOW for the last days. Any news?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
Boeing had "out of round" issues with mating the fuselage barrels on LN001, so if Section 19 is having some issues, they're hardly unique and I imagine it won't be a major problem to resolve. If it truly is a bad mold, they just need to repair or replace it.

That's exactly what came to my mind as well. I remember one of Boeing's engineers saying "if it would have been two conventional sections we would have been extremely happy about the level of accuracy. But for CFRP, well, not so much" or something like this.


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3371 posts, RR: 9
Reply 56, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 53980 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 55):
That's exactly what came to my mind as well. I remember one of Boeing's engineers saying "if it would have been two conventional sections we would have been extremely happy about the level of accuracy. But for CFRP, well, not so much" or something like this.

An CFRP is a lot more "floppy" that Al when it's not been put together as a whole structrure so everything can lean out of shape when you're trying to put together a huge 3D jigsaw puzzle.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 53929 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
Boeing had "out of round" issues with mating the fuselage barrels on LN001, so if Section 19 is having some issues, they're hardly unique and I imagine it won't be a major problem to resolve. If it truly is a bad mold, they just need to repair or replace it.

Boeing's issue was just a tweak in the assembly process. The barrels didn't keep a perfect shape without everything being assembeld and shipped in a certain order. The defect Aspire is claiming sounds like the cone is actually being fabricated improperly. If they hold to "fixing everything at the root" replacing the mold would not be a minor item and could stop the program in it's tracks.
I doubt if that will happen. It's just not practical to avoid rework and interim fixes on early frames while you get the kinks worked out. You'd have months long delays forever.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 58, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 53490 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 57):
"fixing everything at the root"

I don't think this means they do no patch work, what they have said is "we do no patchwork without at the same time defining the definite fix and documenting it 100% in the appropriate systems so that the rework can be done correctly and the new items can be produced correctly".

Enders use to say "we always document everything into the DMU when we do changes". This is not 100% correct, it only tells part of the story.

What he really means is that they document all changes in their Digital-Mock-Up (DMU) model but also into their life-cycle-managment system (Windchill from PTC) and other systems. The next day everyone inside the project can read that there was a problem, what the defined short term and long term fix is, what frames/parts are affected and what the team shall do going forward in terms of any rework of parts/instructions and changes in production parts or instructions.


As many Boeing guys on the forum have said "it is all about not loosing configuration control" which was lost on the A380 and 787-8 from time to time.

[Edited 2012-02-15 12:37:03]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 59, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 53395 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 50):
Aspire aviation is reporting of a misalignment on the one-piece barell section 19 tail cone

Without Aspire giving some better information, it's not possible to know the nature of the issues. However, this comment from the article is not encouraging:

"traced to a defective mould"

If there is any kind of meaningful problem with the "mould" (called a mandrel, when talking about molds for composite layups), this could be a real setback. The lead time to complete a mandrel modification can be significant. Does anyone know what type of material is used for this mandrel? Invar mandrels are common, but some mandrels are made of a stable high-temp composite material. The Invar mandrels are easier to modify, but neither can be modified quickly. Oy vey!


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 53153 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 59):
Does anyone know what type of material is used for this mandrel?

Here a picture of the tail being wound in one piece on the mandrel, now for you to tell us what type of mandrel this is:



And here the piece ready to go to Hamburg:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Tailcone.jpg


We don't know what surface is out of measurement but I would assume the interface to section 16-18, the last body section which terminates with the aft bulkhead (the right one in the pictures) as Airbus would have mated this to the aft body section by now. But they would also have started with fitting the HTP and VTP actuators etc and checking out APU support interfaces and tail cone fitting.

If it was the rear one interfacing the tail cone which covers the APU this is not to critical as this is of alu and can be easier adapted, also any APU support could be easier adapted. Might also be the VTP or HTP interface areas, not clear yet. We'll have to dig  .

[Edited 2012-02-15 21:54:25]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 61, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 52990 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Here a picture of the tail being wound in one piece on the mandrel, now for you to tell us what type of mandrel this is:

Wow, great pictures, and you gotta just love the way these new structures are manufactured! I know similar methods are already in use on the A380 and 787, but I really love seeing great pictures of it! Thanks for that Ferpe!

Regarding the mandrel material, you would think it would be easy to tell what material the mandrel is from the images. Unfortunately, I still can't say with any certainty what it is made of. Clearly, the strongback on the end of the mandrel is metal. The yellowish area where the tape is being laid gets its color from a release agent, which lets the cured CFRP pull away after curing. I can't tell if the mandrel is metal from the strongback all the way through the fiber placement area, or if the actual IML portion of the mandrel is made of a different material. Either could be true. If I had to guess, I would say it is metal all the way through, which is the best case scenario if a tooling modification is needed to fix the section 19 issue.

I'll be watching to see if you can learn more. Great thread, BTW. Thanks for that also!

Cheers!

CM


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 62, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 52977 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 61):
Clearly, the strongback on the end of the mandrel is metal. The yellowish area where the tape is being laid gets its color from a release agent, which lets the cured CFRP pull away after curing.

IIRC the stringers are cocured with the skin so the stringers are actually placed in recesses on the mandrel in the first picture. So any shape changes would also mean new geometry for the stringer recesses etc.

Not as simple as putting the thing if front of a big CNC miller and shaving a bit of (or adding stuff with a sputter gun)  .



Non French in France
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 63, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 52529 times:

F-WWOW, the engine test bed of the Trent XWB, is currently taxiing in TLS: http://www.radar-toulouse.fr/

User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 52342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 63):

Doesnt seem to be on there now.

Fred


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 65, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 52291 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 64):
Doesnt seem to be on there now.

Fred

Nope, it looked almost like someone who made a cigarette break. She turned up in that area where usually all the prodcution A 330s are standing, rolled to the taxi way in parallel to the runway and then back where she started. Just took about 5 minutes. The "flight number" was ER 106.


User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 258 posts, RR: 23
Reply 66, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 51639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

She's supposed to do the first flight today it seems as they are getting ready around it as I speak.


No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2056 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 51164 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 62):
IIRC the stringers are cocured with the skin so the stringers are actually placed in recesses on the mandrel in the first picture.

For the reason above and a variety of other reasons (the most important would be the mandrel have to withstand the rigor of mass production without having constantly being check for tolerance deviation), the mandrel would most likely be metal.

Now if the mandrel stays with the lay-up during the curing process (as they are with the 787) then the type of metal used is rather limited because of coefficient of expansion issues during cool down. However, since the mandrel is inside the layup, it may be acceptable to use aluminum because the aluminum can provide greater compression on the laminate when it heats up and will shrink away from the laminate during cool down.

Also the end piece may be removable because you don't want such a huge heat sink to mess up with your temperature profile during heat-up and cool down.

Too many variables to make a guess.   


bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 68, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 51053 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 67):
Too many variables to make a guess.

Thanks for sharing your insights, we will get to the bottom of this somehow    .



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 69, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 50590 times:

So then the TXWB is finally flying, look up F-WWOW or 383E7D at http://www.radar-toulouse.fr/.

They have been flying at about 20,000ft since 09.45 this morning making big loops south of Toulose over the Pyrenees, still in the air as I write this  .

[Edited 2012-02-18 02:50:12]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 70, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 50426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 69):
So then the TXWB is finally flying, look up F-WWOW or 383E7D at http://www.radar-toulouse.fr/.

That is good news I guess. It will be the first of many flights I guess. I am anxious to hear some of the preliminary test results.  .


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 50294 times:

I little bit OT, but did Airbus ever launch the 332HGW or 333HGW?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 50257 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 71):
I little bit OT, but did Airbus ever launch the 332HGW or 333HGW?

if your on about the 240T MTOW and shark-lets update then I don't think they are expected to make a decision until the summer.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 73, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 50192 times:

Here is a filtered view of this spotter site, I played around with the options (it's my first time as a spotter thanks N14AZ  ) and found in "show options" how you could filter out F-WWOW (country reg), 383E7A (ICAO reg) and the flights call sign AIB790W which is finally used to get only the path of the A380 on the map (click on it to enlarge it):


http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/TXWBfirstflyingtestwithA380.jpg


I checked what they did from time to time, they started over the Pyrenees at FL200 and then cruise climbed north for higher level tests at up to FL370 what I could see (could have been higher), now they have descended to FL300 6 hours into the test going northeast again.

Wonder how long they will go on, does MSN001 have a cabin? (thinking about the test team spending the Saturday staring at computer screens in a naked ship, it is a fine day here in south of France after some real winter weather for 2 weeks , going out now to enjoy it, one might just be able to revisit the whole flight path later on flightradar24.com or this site    )

[Edited 2012-02-18 05:36:55]


Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 49989 times:

They are having fun up there, they did one westbound Pyrenes transit at 10,000 164 knots and came back eastbound at even slower speeds down to 134 knots.

Looks like they are joining the pattern for a landing, where are our Toulouse spotters  Smile

[Edited 2012-02-18 07:07:03]


BV
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 75, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 49810 times:

Well this is the almost complete test today, they are approaching the TLS final around 4PM. Seems like a full day at the (flying) office, on the northbound legs they went up to FL430 then as you said they finished of with some slow stuff south of Toulouse before calling it a day:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/TXWBfirstfligthwrappingup2.jpg


They and RR should have a few harddisks full of data now to analyze and tweak the FADEC with before next flight  .

[Edited 2012-02-18 08:58:04]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 76, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 49547 times:

Airbus were quick with the pressrelease:

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...ight-on-airbus-a380-test-aircraft/

"The aircraft took off from Airbus facilities in Toulouse and performed a flight of more than five hours during which the engine covered a wide range of power settings at altitudes up to 43,000ft. The aircraft handling qualities were evaluated from low speeds to Mach 0.9. The engine not only operated flawlessly, but also demonstrated its new-generation fuel efficiency and low noise.

The Trent XWB development engine, specially fitted with test sensors to measure hundreds of parameters, was mounted on the A380’s inner left engine pylon, replacing one of the aircraft’s Trent 900 engines. The crew on board this first flight were: Airbus Experimental test pilots Terry Lutz and Frank Chapman; Experimental Test Flight Engineer Pascal Verneau; and Flight Test Engineers Emanuele Costanzo and Tuan Do.

“The A350 XWB’s engine performed excellently during its first flight-test, just as we expected,” said Charles Champion, Executive Vice President of Engineering at Airbus. “This is a promising start to the Trent XWB’s flight-test programme which will ensure a thorough real-life testing of the engine, nacelle and its systems.” He adds: “This will allow for a high level of powerplant integration, maturity and reliability to be achieved by the time it flies on the first A350 XWB aircraft.” "


Seems things went well today    , now lets see when we fly next time    .

[Edited 2012-02-18 12:57:12]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 77, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 49857 times:

And here the engine flying earlier today:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_Trent_XWB_engine_first_flight_on_A380_in_flight.jpg



Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 49570 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 76):
Seems things went well today , now lets see when we fly next time .

Can't tell you when she will sorte next but the RR press release gives more details abut the flight test program

Quote:
Data recorded during a series of test flights that will accumulate around 175 flight hours and which will run for a seven month period, will validate results from ground testing and demonstrate the engine’s in-flight performance. The Trent XWB has already successfully completed more than 1,500 hours of testing, including endurance running, icing and simulated altitude.
http://rollsroyce.com/civil/news/2012/120218_XWB.jsp

Edit: This info was also in the Airbus press release actually

[Edited 2012-02-18 15:11:14]


BV
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 49471 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 77):
And here the engine flying earlier today

It even looks as if it were made for the A380....


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 49345 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 77):
And here the engine flying earlier today:

It looks right at home on the A380! Maybe there is a Trent XWB pip in the A380's future  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 81, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 49166 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 79):
It even looks as if it were made for the A380....

Yes, there is now a separate thread on the test flight, guess it will cover the engines use on the A380, I am convinced it will end up there some day, eg on the 380-900  .

Trent XWB Completes First Flight (by DocLightning Feb 18 2012 in Civil Aviation)


They also found that A made a nice little video on the test flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjFf1N5juw&hd=1



Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 82, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 48756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 80):
Maybe there is a Trent XWB pip in the A380's future  

No doubt imho the Trent-900 will see many improvements coming off the XWB-engine, or the Trent-900 will be phased out in favor of this latest technology engine.  .


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 83, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 47686 times:

A rather comprehensive update on the TXWB from Aviation Week. Seems the TSFC will be enchanced some 0.35% due to the better then expected compressor:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...With%20First%20Flight&channel=comm

That should mean we are approaching some 2.5% better TSFC then the T1000/GEnx .



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 84, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 47119 times:

A Spanish tier one, Alestis have started deliveries of the belly fairing for section 15 to Airbus St Nazaire. It seems it should not be a to complicated piece so when I read it consists of a frame with some 100 CFRP panels  Wow! I started to dig a bit.

In fact is is probably one of the more complicated pieces on the frame, the reason being it has a multitude of access hatches for a lot of stuff (front to back with the numbers as per the picture):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350bellyfairing.jpg

- the droop nose and slat central drive motors ahead of the wingbox

- the external air conditioning connectors (2)

- external engine start air (1)

- refueling hatches (3)

- any wingbox tank access hatches and access to it's electronics and pump gear

- hydralics access doors (9, 10, 11)

- the MLG doors

- ground servicing access doors to air conditionning packages, behind the flaps for the A350, in front below the wingbox for other frames (see below).

- acces to any flap drive parts which would not be accesible through the MLG doors

On the rightmost picture is the digital model of the belly fairing with some of the pipes drawn in, quite a busy place  .



Normally the large air conditioning pacs are placed below the wingbox like on the 787:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/5733471237_41f3ac3ca5_b.jpg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787airconditioningpackinstallation.jpg



Airbus have chosen to put these further back for the A350, behind the MLG legs and the flap drive / inner hinge. This is probably to have a slimmer fairing especially at the front and thus gain a more progressive increase of the frontal area ie a better area rule. This is made possible by pacs that are only 60% the size of the 787 pacs as the compression of the air is done by the engines. Here how they are placed on the A350 (One can also see the placement of the RAT and how busy the MLG well is with all sorts of piping):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Wingfairinginstallations1.jpg


The low profile of the belly fairing is further helped by a keel beam which is shaped like the lower part of the body ie does not protrude into the fairing space:



[Edited 2012-02-21 13:15:07]


Non French in France
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 85, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46990 times:

Thanks like always for this comprehensive information.
What is no. 15? The MLG hinge?

I remember Airbus saying something like they adopted the VC 10 approach for the MLG (integrated into the wing). Do you by chance have a similiar graphic for the 787?

Sorry if I am asking for too much but you are our A 350-man...  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 86, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46969 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 85):
What is no. 15? The MLG hinge?

It is called the MLG grounding point (picture from ACAP), I would assume you put the jack there to work on the MLG strut.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 85):
I remember Airbus saying something like they adopted the VC 10 approach for the MLG (integrated into the wing). Do you by chance have a similiar graphic for the 787?

What I can see the 787 uses the same design (or rather the A350 uses the 787 and VC10 design  ), ie the MLG is attached between the rear spar and a beam that goes from the spar to the MLG wells aft part. The 787 MLG also has 2 braces like the A350. In fact the biggest difference I have found so far between the 787 and 350 is the principle and placement of the air cond (and deice etc of course  )

[Edited 2012-02-21 13:11:00]


Non French in France
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3365 posts, RR: 26
Reply 87, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 46669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 86):
It is called the MLG grounding point

if it were a jack point it would be called such, a grounding point would be for a/c grounding especially during fueling.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 88, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 46458 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 86):
What I can see the 787 uses the same design (or rather the A350 uses the 787 and VC10 design ), ie the MLG is attached between the rear spar and a beam that goes from the spar to the MLG wells aft part.

The saga of A350 and 787 MLG designs is a comical tit-for-tat spat between two landing gear suppliers...

Early in the 787 program, Boeing abandoned their long-time landing gear supplier (Goodrich) in favor of Messier-Dowty, who had always supplied the landing gear for Airbus products. Messier-Dowty initially recommended to Boeing a MLG configuration for the 787, which was very similar to the A330 (no gear-beam). Eventually, Boeing returned to the gear-beam design, similar to what they had used on the 777, and the resulting Messier-Dowty, landing gear on the 787 is similar to the Goodrich gear of the 777 in many ways (number of axles being an obvious exception).

Early in the A350 program, Airbus abandoned their long-time landing gear supplier (Messier-Dowty) in favor of Goodrich, who was always a Boeing landing gear supplier. The A350 was initially conceived with a tripod MLG configuration, very similar to the Messier-Dowty A330 gear (no gear-beam). Eventually, Airbus and Goodrich settled on gear-beam design, similar to what the 777 and 787 use. I have not seen the details of the A350 gear yet, but I highly suspect the final Goodrich MLG for the A350 will bear strong resemblance to the 777 gear, simply because it is the most recent and comparably sized Goodrich gear design.

It will be interesting to watch on each of Boeing and Airbus' next new aircraft design if they stick with their current girlfriend, transition back to their old girlfriend, or will they both try to date the same girl simultaneously  


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 46288 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 88):
It will be interesting to watch on each of Boeing and Airbus' next new aircraft design if they stick with their current girlfriend, transition back to their old girlfriend, or will they both try to date the same girl simultaneously



What a drama in the sky!


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 90, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 46220 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 88):
The saga of A350 and 787 MLG designs is a comical tit-for-tat spat between two landing gear suppliers...

Thanks CM, insights like this makes this forum    .


Here a principle picture of the A350 MLG:





And here the real thing in it's test rig at Airbus Filton:




Non French in France
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 46198 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 73):

Could Airbus certify the A380 with the TXB

Quoting CM (Reply 88):

The saga of A350 and 787 MLG designs is a comical tit-for-tat spat between two landing gear suppliers...

I could be wrong as I can't confirm with google, but I was sure the A380 had Goodrich gear also...


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 92, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 46222 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 91):
Could Airbus certify the A380 with the TXB

You are asking as if I would know  , no idea, but there is a separate thread which is speculating in that.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 91):
I could be wrong as I can't confirm with google, but I was sure the A380 had Goodrich gear also...

Correct according to this directory over A380 suppliers:

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_de...ml?model=A380#Landing%20Assemblies



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 46192 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
Here a principle picture of the A350 MLG:

Looks like carbon braces, similar to the 787. Is that right?

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 91):
I was sure the A380 had Goodrich gear

You could be correct. Word on the street when Boeing selected Messier-Dowty for the 787 was that Airbus was unhappy with their management of gear overhaul costs for the A320, and that M-D was highly motivated to land a contract with Boeing. If the A380 contract had already gone to the "Boeing supplier" it would explain why the "Airbus supplier" would be so eager to land the 787 contract. I can't imagine either company can really afford to have an entire division shut out from one complete generation of aircraft.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 94, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 46050 times:

Here the supplier list for the A350:

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_de...ml?model=A350#Landing%20Assemblies


Seems to be the Goodrich carbon brakes, like on the 787. Not sure they are electrically actuated however, seems to be a classical design (click on the News heading to get a bit of background of the selections):

"Airbus selects Goodrich wheels and carbon brakes for A350 XWB aircraft family

Goodrich Corporation (NYSE: GR) has been selected by Airbus to supply wheels and carbon brakes for all variants of the A350 XWB family of aircraft. The selection is expected to generate more than $3 billion in revenue over the life of the program. The equipment will be provided by Goodrich's Aircraft Wheels and Brakes team in Troy, Ohio.

The A350 XWB wheels and brake equipment will marry state of the art design techniques with service-proven product technology. The brakes will utilize Goodrich's DURACARB(R) carbon heat sink material. As part of a successful service history, DURACARB(R) has demonstrated 35% greater brake life than competing carbon braking materials, producing cost savings for operators. Key elements of the selection process included product capabilities, design technique, and demonstration of mature, robust program management processes. Goodrich is the first supplier selected to provide wheels and brakes for the A350 XWB. "


Also the MLG is a split affair, the -900 and -800 is M-D and the -1000 is Goodrich. NLG by Liebherr for all models:

01/10/2007: Liebherr-Aerospace wins contract for nose landing gear of new Airbus A350
20/04/2011: Messier-Dowty delivers 1st set of Airbus A350-900 main landing gears
19/11/2010: Airbus selects Goodrich for A350-1000 main landing gear



Non French in France
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 46014 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 92):

You are asking as if I would know , no idea, but there is a separate thread which is speculating in that.

Sorry, I't was a half cooked responce that had been left on my clip-board. I didn't intend to post it  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 96, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 45415 times:

Airbus have released more info on the TXWB test flight, they seem quite satisfied:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...f-first-a350-engine-flight-368694/


They took it up to max Mach ( 0.90 ) and FL ( 430 ) and also to lowest speed 108kts at FL100. They found the slightest of vibration at minimum idle and not much else that needs attention.

This summer they go to United Arab Emirates for hot testing.



Non French in France
User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1703 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 44631 times:

As per Aviation Week, Aer Lingus expects another delay in the delivery of its A359...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0More%20A350%20Delays&channel=comm

I suppose CEO Christoph Mueller is privy to informations unknown to "most" of us, and there is indeed another delay in the making? Or is he only pessimistic?


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 98, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 44454 times:

Quoting aircellist (Reply 97):
As per Aviation Week, Aer Lingus expects another delay in the delivery of its A359...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0More%20A350%20Delays&channel=comm

I suppose CEO Christoph Mueller is privy to informations unknown to "most" of us, and there is indeed another delay in the making? Or is he only pessimistic?

The A359 is the wrong airplane for EI. It's too big. They've already said that earlier, and confirm it in this article, saying (quote) "the A321NEO would be the “ideal aircraft” for Aer Lingus’s transatlantic routes". Maybe he is hoping for a delay, enabling EI to swap their A350 order for A32xNEO's? For destinations the NEO can't reach, they can keep their A330's, which are pretty new.



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 offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 99, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 44039 times:

To me it seems his delay comment on the 350 was not a central part of the interview, the more present planning was. Then his passing comment on the 350 was the best headline, not sure he had any new insights.

We will soon know if the time-plan slips more then the 6 months, the middle and rear section of the static frame shall go to FAL in March, if they don't we will probably hear why. Wings follow that so should be April or thereabouts.



Non French in France
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 43688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't know/have the source for the image. But here's a picture of the forward section.




Fly Delta Jets
User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 502 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 43327 times:

Looks like quite a narrow cockpit to me.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 102, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 43413 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

^^ I think the type of lens with which the picture was made contributes to that impression. I do not think the cockpit to be small at all.

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 103, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 43318 times:

Is it an optical illusion, or do the pad-ups around the wiper shafts protrude a bit from the skin mold line? It seems odd, as this is an area which is very sensitive to drag (the wipers themselves add drag which is equivalent to several hundred pounds of aircraft weight). It's certainly a different and less clean design then past Airbus and Boeing models. Anyone know why the design is this way?

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 104, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 43151 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 100):
a picture of the forward section

It is the nose section 11 being built at Aerolia in Meaulte, France, it should then go to Airbus St. Nazaire for integration with the forward fuselage.

The picture you have found is a bit strange as the windscreen pads protrude as per comment from CM, they don't do that on units shipped to Airbus. I then thought they could have made an exception for the static test unit, but no this is smooth in this area (look at pictures from delivery to FAL in Dec 11).

Here what is being integrated at Airbus (this is from either the static unit or MSN001):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Nosesection11.jpg

Looking a bit closer on the nose picture I think this area has double skins (birdstrike protection I guess), one can also see that the window frames are not flush with the skin at hand, ie there goes an additional skin on there.

A has stated they make this part of the frame in Alu for the sake of damage tolerance, now for someone else to explain why this is better in Alu then CFRP (my guess, a CFRP skin is so strong that the resulting thin skin could not easily absorb the energy from eg a bird, you would need some kind of sandwich  Yeah sure ).

[Edited 2012-03-01 07:20:22]


Non French in France
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 42970 times:

It looks like a whole layer of skin is missing on Ghifty's picture.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 106, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 42819 times:

For the benefit of all, here the A350 fuselage and wing production flow once again (both corrected vs. the ones in part 1 of the thread):


http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350fuselageproductiondrawing.jpg


http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_Wing_productioncorrected-2.jpg

[Edited 2012-03-01 10:36:33]


Non French in France
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 107, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 42521 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 100):
I don't know/have the source for the image. But here's a picture of the forward section.


Waow! He is back!



Can't wait until he starts to speak with a French-German accent!


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 42466 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 104):
The picture you have found is a bit strange as the windscreen pads protrude as per comment from CM, they don't do that on units shipped to Airbus.

I think the most likely explanation is that the windscreen wiper units have not been installed yet, in the units already sent to Airbus.

Quoting CM (Reply 103):
this is an area which is very sensitive to drag (the wipers themselves add drag which is equivalent to several hundred pounds of aircraft weight).

Once again speculation, could it be that the cockpit design comes from the 380 where a "100 pounds", is far less important than on the 350.

To a layman it would seem pretty easy to fix by placing those reinforcing "blocks" on the inside.

Does anyone know how close the cockpit design of the 350 is to that of the 380?

Thanks
Ruscoe.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 109, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 42474 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 108):
could it be that the cockpit design comes from the 380

I don't think so. The A380 has a very different wiper design, with the posts tucked very high up against the lower window frame.



User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2056 posts, RR: 4
Reply 110, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 42327 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 109):
I don't think so. The A380 has a very different wiper design, with the posts tucked very high up against the lower window frame.

Which lead me to agree with nomadd22.

If the design is similar, then once they install the wipers, they will cover the area with an aerodynamic cover.
If drag is such an issue, then the weight of the cover is well offset by the aerodynamic improvement of covering up the wiper arm base.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 42078 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 104):
The picture you have found is a bit strange as the windscreen pads protrude as per comment from CM, they don't do that on units shipped to Airbus. I then thought they could have made an exception for the static test unit, but no this is smooth in this area (look at pictures from delivery to FAL in Dec 11).

Again, I have no official source for the image, I found just the image along with a caption "A350 cockpit."

It's unscientific, but if you observe the bolts in the picture I posted and compare to the picture you posted they appear to be in the same positions, and in the same quantity.

Are "aerodynamic covers" commonplace?



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 112, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 41524 times:

Here a concluding post on the Air cond installation and the belly fairings that I posted over at the TXWB thread where we dicussed the global fuel efficiency of the T1000/787 and the TXWB/A350, I post it here as well as this is it's rightful home  .

There is one effect that I did not mention when it comes to what is the airframe level net gain of a non bleed architecture vs a bleed one, the effect on airframe drag.

A non bleed installation is some 40% more spacious in the air conditioning pacs (at least for the 787) then the equivalent classical design (it was the reason it was doubtful for the new SA 7X7), it requires further one extra inlet per pack of the higher drag pitot type (for the air to the electrical compressors who need good pressure recovery) rather then the low drag NACA ducts used for cooling the pacs.

Overall this extra parasitic drag can range from 0,5% to 1% more then an installation without these double intakes. The effect of the fairings form is harder to predict. The A350 uses the smaller bleed pacs to it's advantage by storing them behind the wing/MLG thereby allowing a shallower wing-fairing in front of the MLG well. The transonic effects of this more progressive form is hard to predict, here the rather big belly fairing of the 787 (clearly more spacious in front of the MLG well):



The air cond packs outlets can be seen besides the visible protrusion of the keel beam, for the inlets design see below:



What the dam before the compressor pitot inlet does when on ground could perhaps be explained by some of our B colleagues.

[Edited 2012-03-02 13:51:16]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 113, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 41298 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 112):
one extra inlet per pack of the higher drag pitot type (for the air to the electrical compressors who need good pressure recovery) rather then the low drag NACA ducts used for cooling the pacs.

The 787 cabin air compressors actually work fine without ram pressure. The reason the inlets stand off from the fuselage is to ensure no contaminants from the skin (e.g. de-icing fluids) can be ingested into the cabin air circuit. If a NACA duct were used, all kinds of contamination would be continuously washed into the packs whenever it flew through rain. The cleaner air feeding the cabin is one of the expected advantages of the 787 system - no potential for engine odors & contamination from a compressor bleed source.


Quoting ferpe (Reply 112):
What the dam before the compressor pitot inlet does when on ground could perhaps be explained by some of our B colleagues.

It is called a "blocker door" and is open when the packs are running and the airplane is on the ground and when flying at low altitudes.. They prevent objects thrown up from the runway, as well as birds from being ingested into the inlet.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 114, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 41183 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 112):
it requires further one extra inlet per pack of the higher drag pitot type (for the air to the electrical compressors who need good pressure recovery) rather then the low drag NACA ducts used for cooling the pacs.

In addition to what CM said, the pack inlets are under suction due to the compressor draw (which is not the same as the passive ram inlets)...there's no particular reason they should be contributing any additional drag beyond the slightly increased surface area.

If you needed high pressure recovery for those compressors, the packs wouldn't work on the ground. And on the ground is when they have to work hardest...keeping an airplane on a hot ramp cool in the summer is pretty much the most difficult job for any ECS system.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 112):
What the dam before the compressor pitot inlet does when on ground could perhaps be explained by some of our B colleagues.

What CM said...you need them on the compressor inlets because the first thing you hit if you go down that duct is the spinning face of the compressor. If you go down a ram inlet you hit a (non-moving) heat exchanger, which is considerably less of a FOD issue.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 115, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41059 times:

First, thanks to CM and Tom for explaining the function of the blocker doors (has puzzeled me quite a bit   ) and also the reason the compressor inlet is a pitot intake instead of a flush one, intriguing  Wow! .

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 114):
In addition to what CM said, the pack inlets are under suction due to the compressor draw (which is not the same as the passive ram inlets)...there's no particular reason they should be contributing any additional drag beyond the slightly increased surface area.

I don't quite think so, I buy that you don't need the pressure recovery as the dimensioning case for the compressors are the ground case as you write, however you get the high speed drag weather you want or not. The inlet opening size has to be dimensioned for the ground suction case thus it is way over-sized for the cruise air need to those compressors, this is a well documented problem with non variable pitot intakes (they were on the frames I flew and also worked on as project member, they are one big compromise and quite draggy at speed due to over-spill, you work at lot with the form of the lips to try and mitigate between low speed undersize (air draw in) and high speed oversize (air spillage)).

I can't see any suck in doors to alleviate this effect if not the blocker doors actually work as extra inlet area at 0 or low speed, that would be OK aero wise but then you start to suck in the contamination that you wanted to avoid in first place, so think they are only block doors.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 40931 times:

The bleed less air/electric system, will 787 be one of a kind or do you guys think there is merit to this change for future designs? Is it maintenance or weight that makes it most useful? When will the industry be satisfied by what they gather from 787s systems? 350 and 380 are more electric less pneumatic than say a 747 as I understand.

Who really designed this system? Wires instead of ducts, I think I like the idea.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 117, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 40774 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
The bleed less air/electric system, will 787 be one of a kind or do you guys think there is merit to this change for future designs?

As the B guys would speak in their own thing here is my (amateur) judgement, I think it is something that will come more and more, first on the ULH frames as the main benefit is lower fuel consumption as per Toms explanation in the TXWB thread:

"True, but the incremental electrical power required is smaller than the pneumatic power lost. Pneumatics have terrific power density but lousy efficiency. You have to extract way more energy from the engine than you get in usable power with pneumatics...electric efficiency is well into the 90%'s.

Tom. "

The system does however require more place + more areo intakes (=drag) and on an aircraft level the weight might be a wash at best (I am not fully convinced of this but can't prove otherwise).

Here a good thread on the subject B787 Was No Bleed Air A Good Idea? (by NCB Feb 15 2008 in Tech Ops)#1


A wisely (IMO) decided to stay with the A380 system to reduce the risk for the A350 (they seem to have enough to deal with anyway   ), given their clever placement of the pacs it might render them an overall (all things counted) small efficiency loss. Next ULH design I am sure they would look very deep into bleedless but that is some 30 years off  .

By the way the getting the pacs from it's under the wingbox position was also taken from the A380, there A placed the pacs in the wingroot, see this picture where you can clearly see the pacs cooling inlets in the classical fairing place and the outlets on the inner parts of the wings:



This placement has 2 benefits (and probably some drawbacks  ) you can make a shallower front part of the belly fairing (good aerodynamically) and the source of the bleed air is in the wings. I imagine A found that the shallower belly fairing was something to keep for the A350 but there the wingroot was not thick enough to hold the pacs.

[Edited 2012-03-03 03:54:40]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 40460 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
The bleed less air/electric system, will 787 be one of a kind or do you guys think there is merit to this change for future designs?

I think it's here to stay on widebodies; narrowbodies is a tougher one because of space constraints.

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
Is it maintenance or weight that makes it most useful?

There's a constant debate (that will go unresolved for a long time) whether it actually comes out ahead on weight. I don't think there's any serious claim that electric doesn't come out ahead on maintenance. Electric also allows a lot more system flexibility; electric switches are a lot simpler than valves and wires are a lot easier to route than ducts.

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
When will the industry be satisfied by what they gather from 787s systems? 350 and 380 are more electric less pneumatic than say a 747 as I understand.

Every generation is going to higher electrical load, bleedless or non-, because of increasing computing power (especially in the cabin). The really telling case, I think, will be if Airbus goes bleedless for their next widebody and/or Boeing goes pneumatic for theirs.

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
Who really designed this system?

Boeing designed it, Hamilton-Sundstrand is the prime contractor. Thales and Zodiac supply a lot of components.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 40403 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 118):
Boeing designed it, Hamilton-Sundstrand is the prime contractor. Thales and Zodiac supply a lot of components.

I know that the system required some adjustments among other things on the humidity side (air cond it is one of the systems that are reworked on the early frames), what was the problem areas, unknown unknowns or just the usual tuning after flight test?



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 40203 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 119):
required some adjustments among other things on the humidity side

The humidity issue and solution were not related to the packs or really any part of the environmental system. The 787 operates at higher humidity levels by design. The "humidity issue" faced shortly after flight test began was simply a matter of managing that increased humidity as it condenses on the cold structure of the aircraft, and the resulting "rain in the plane". The solutions involved low tech items such as wicking material in strategic places and revised drain paths to get that water to move efficiently from the crown into the bilge. No changes to the packs were involved in the solution.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 118):
Boeing designed it, Hamilton-Sundstrand is the prime contractor.

To be fair, I think H-S first proposed the basic concept of a more-electric systems architecture to both OEMs more than a decade ago. Boeing decided to bite and subsequently applied the concept to the 787. So I would agree, designed by Boeing, but conceived by H-S.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 117):
the weight might be a wash

Boeing has stated publicly they did not get the weight savings they anticipated. As you know, the high-density power electronics require a liquid cooling system, which is one of the reasons. Boeing feels confident the efficiency of those electronics will improve dramatically in the coming decade, as auto manufacturers perfect the motor controllers and power conditioning technologies required for electric cars, making them smaller, lighter and more energy (heat) efficient. This was Boeing's stated plan from the beginning when they told us pneumatic systems had plateaued, in terms of what technology could do to further improve efficiency. On the other hand, electric systems are low on the technology curve, with far more opportunity for future improvement. If true, we may see a future 787 variant which eliminates the liquid cooling system.

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
The bleed less air/electric system, will 787 be one of a kind or do you guys think there is merit to this change for future designs?

I think we'll see future aircraft increasing their use of electrics, simply because the technology will continue to improve far more dramatically than in pneumatics or hydraulics.

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
Is it maintenance or weight that makes it most useful?

Weight did not turn out to be the advantage once hoped, but maintenance surely has. It is less about what is gained than it is about what is eliminated. Virtually every aspect of a pneumatic system is maintenance intensive and reliability challenged. The more-electric architecture reduces maintenance cost and improves airplane-level reliability by getting rid of those other systems.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 117):
the main benefit is lower fuel consumption

Airbus had a good strategy to battle back some pneumatic system efficiency, whey they proposed the multi-port bleed system for the Trent-XWB. This would have permitted pulling bleed from an earlier compressor stage during cruise, and could have added significantly to airplane efficiency. There is rumor this concept has now been abandoned. Not sure if true or why, but I do know the concept had plenty of technical challenges to sort through.


User currently offlinetomcat From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 40054 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 106):
For the benefit of all, here the A350 fuselage and wing production flow once again (both corrected vs. the ones in part 1 of the thread):

Not to be picky but the A350 slats and slat tracks are designed and manufactured in Belgium (Sonaca and Asco), just like all the Airbus slats and tracks since the A310 (Fokker made the A300 slats, then dropped their Airbus business as I understand).

Furthermore, Sabca is designing and manufacturing the flap tracks.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 122, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 40092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 120):
The humidity issue and solution were not related to the packs or really any part of the environmental system. The 787 operates at higher humidity levels by design.

As does the A380, which also as the higher cabin pressure the B787 now also has. These issues are often forgotten here on A-net.  .

Of course also the A350 and most probably the B777-X will see these features as standard equipment.

[Edited 2012-03-03 12:24:16]

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 123, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 39909 times:

The ability of both manufacturers to offer higher humidity, is a direct result of the carbon fibre fuselage.
Above a certain low humidity Al and probably other metals are more likely to corrode and fungus and other germs are more likely to grow.

So as well in the environmental sytem you need a system to filter out very fine particles and kill germs.

The 787 definitely has these filters and UV germ killers, down to viral size, and I presume, the 350 will also.

The nxt time there is a major viral flu outbreak (swine & bird come to mind), I think a lot people will take notice of which aircraft is used on their route , and go for the one less likely to recirculate them viruses, and they will know this because the airlines flying these aircraft will advertise it.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 124, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 39918 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 123):
The ability of both manufacturers to offer higher humidity, is a direct result of the carbon fibre fuselage.

That is what Boeing would like you to think, the technology has been in service now for the best part of 7 years.

http://www.cisionwire.com/ctt-system...rline-cabin-humidification,c148531



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 125, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 39700 times:

@CM, Thanks for an excellent response, the thing about the TXWB bleed strategy is intriguing, will be watched very carefully  .


Quoting CM (Reply 120):
The humidity issue and solution were not related to the packs or really any part of the environmental system.

Reports say there was rework on the air cond packs for the early 788s, what was the cause then (not to criticize, just curious)   ?


Re the non bleed on the 787 in general, as I hunched then the non bleed should gain you a percent or two on the long flights due to it's higher converting efficiency, on the shorter flights the present higher global weight of a non bleed frame will make it more of a wash. I also stated somewhere that the 787 daring architecture will only be better in it's second and third incarnation, you just confirmed that, once the power regulating electronics can go air cool you have a more overall gain picture. This is just the way progress works, in your first incarnations you don't hatch all the chickens but you do over time    .


   It's nice to be able to cut through the marketing speak of both Boeing and Airbus and get more informed, this is what A.nets forums is all about    .



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 126, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 39630 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 124):
That is what Boeing would like you to think, the technology has been in service now for the best part of 7 years.

Thanks for the link Zeke. Actually the whole thing is quite interesting, one can follow the evaluation of the use of the system through the companies annual reports. In short:

0. In general frames have about 5% relative humidity in business/first class and 10% in economy (due to the higher density of people "humidifying" the air  ). In normal earth life we have over 50%  Wow! .

1. The company started with supplying a de-humidifier called Zonal dryer which is a frame adaptation of Munters well known drier, this is now retrofitted by many airlines as it dries the insulation mats (they get moist by the 10% humidity freezing in the mats during flight (skin is COOLD) and then not drying out during stops) and thereby lowers airframe weight.

2. They also markets humidifiers for cockpit/crew areas (adopted by many airlines) and a humidifier system for cabin called Cair (an option on A380, 350 and mostly used in first/business class, eg SQ and LH has adopted it in the 380 for First and Business, for the 350 airliners are deciding right now), those humidifiers also use Munters technology. This is now also fitted and retrofitted to VIP aircraft more and more.

3. Fore the 787 B has specified Zonal drier as standard and I assume run the recirculation of the air cond pack on a higher humidity level overall. Not sure if the CTT humidifiers is an option for the cockpit/crew rest areas, Cair is not an option for the cabin as I understand it (might be covered by the std air cond).

[Edited 2012-03-03 18:55:57]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 39780 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 122):
and most probably the B777-X will see these features as standard

I doubt we'll see it on the 777X, as the basic reason for not offering higher humidity on today's 777 will not have changed; the aluminum fuselage would be negatively impacted by the higher humidity.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 126):
people "humidifying" the air

   Yes. Higher humidity in aircraft is not a "technology", it's a byproduct of human aspiration and perspiration. Permitting cabin humidity levels to increase is simply a matter of removing less moisture from the recirc air.

Quoting zeke (Reply 124):
That is what Boeing would like you to think, the technology has been in service now for the best part of 7 years.

What Boeing would like you to think is that a feature has been added to the airplane which permits the airplane to manage the humidity level, regardless of the number of passengers onboard. Aircraft ECS systems are designed to handle passenger counts at the exit limit of the aircraft. Since widebody aircraft are usually configured with far fewer seats, ECS systems will naturally recirculate air at ratios which dry the air to uncomfortable levels. Some aircraft permit the ECS system to be "tuned" to the actual configured number of seats, which permits levels of recirc air to the cabin which are more closely matched to the pax count. The 787 takes this a step further, giving the crew the opportunity to input an actual pax count on each flight. So a 787-8 has a pack sized for its exit limit passenger load of 375. If an airline configures their 787-8 with 200 passengers, then has a flight leg with only 40% LF, the pack which is sized for 375 pax is now trying to accommodate just 80 pax. The "technology" added to the 787 is a feature which enables the increased humidity levels even when the airplane is mostly empty - despite a pack which is sized for many many more passengers. It is also a feature which saves fuel.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 125):
Reports say there was rework on the air cond packs for the early 788s, what was the cause

The first packs had some component issues (most notably the reliability of the Cabin Air Compressors) and struggled to achieve the necessary pull-down capability to cool a heat-soaked cabin in an acceptable amount of time. There was also an issue discovered in flight test where water was becoming trapped in a part of the pack. All of these items involved minor tweaks to components, but not anything I would describe as a "rework of the pack". Maybe just semantics? Not sure, but the basic architecture of the pack has not changed.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 126):
For the 787 B has specified Zonal drier as standard and I assume run the recirculation of the air cond pack on a higher humidity level overall

The zonal driers prevent moisture from soaking into the blankets and building up unnecessary weight in the airplane; a concern which increases with higher cabin humidity. The driers are optional on other Boeing products, but became standard on the 787 due to the higher humidity levels.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 128, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 39623 times:

Airbus just announced that the Filton landing gear test facility is ready to torture the stuff now:

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...gear-test-bench-ready-for-service/


This comes almost a year after the first unit was delivered from Messier-Dowty April 27th last year, seems the rigs took some time to complete   . Anyway they seem to have the inner landing gear door as part of the test setup so guess the complete system including hydraulics, electronics etc took some time to set up:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_landing_gear_bench_entry_into_service.jpg

The gear beam and the side braces can be seen as grey items (titanium) and the brakes torque links seems to be CFRP. The red stuff to the left is part of the test rig IMO.

Interesting that they state "one year before first flight, so that will not happen before March next year then   .



Non French in France
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 129, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 39595 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 127):
The 787 takes this a step further, giving the crew the opportunity to input an actual pax count on each flight.

Again, this is not a 787 first, it was introduced on the A340-500/600. The pax count is an input on the INIT page on the Airbus MCDU.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 130, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 39585 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 124):
That is what Boeing would like you to think
Quoting zeke (Reply 129):
this is not a 787 first

You keep implying Boeing has claimed something untrue. Did Boeing claim this was pioneered on the 787?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 131, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 39587 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 130):

Have a look at what they were saying to the newspapers back n 2005/2006.....e.g. "Dreamliner designed so fliers can breathe easy - USATODAY.com" from http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztra...l/2006-10-30-boeing-air-usat_x.htm


30 Oct 2006 – Boeing says cabin air in the 787, which will seat about 300, will contain more oxygen, more humidity and fewer pollutants than on current ...



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 132, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 39470 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 131):

Have a look at what they were saying to the newspapers back n 2005/2006.....e.g. "Dreamliner designed so fliers can breathe easy - USATODAY.com" from http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztra...x.htm

Did you want to point out what was incorrect, untrue or misleading in the article? I couldn't find it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 131):
more oxygen

A result of a higher cabin differential

Quoting zeke (Reply 131):
more humidity

A result of less water removed from recirc air

Quoting zeke (Reply 131):
fewer pollutants

A result of gaseous filtration

Nothing untrue in those claims, so far as I know.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4673 posts, RR: 38
Reply 133, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 39347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 130):
Did Boeing claim this was pioneered on the 787?

Maybe not specifically, the they certainly gave the impression, as part of the hype around the B787 that was unstoppable at that time, that it was a first. Even many people here on A-net believed it to be absolutely true. And even many out here do not even know that this technology was not totally new, and never knew or still do not know it was available on Airbus aircraft first.

Quoting CM (Reply 127):

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 122):
and most probably the B777-X will see these features as standard

I doubt we'll see it on the 777X, as the basic reason for not offering higher humidity on today's 777 will not have changed; the aluminum fuselage would be negatively impacted by the higher humidity.

I do not doubt it. if Airbus can introduce the technology on the A340, and A380, which do have an aluminium made fuselage instead one made predominantly out of CFRP like the B787 and A350, I see no reason why Boeing could not offer the technology already on today's B77W. Let alone the B777-X if it enters service in 2020.  .


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2591 posts, RR: 5
Reply 134, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39204 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 133):
Maybe not specifically, the they certainly gave the impression, as part of the hype around the B787 that was unstoppable at that time, that it was a first. Even many people here on A-net believed it to be absolutely true. And even many out here do not even know that this technology was not totally new, and never knew or still do not know it was available on Airbus aircraft first.

If anything, that goes to show how well Boeing's marketing worked. As far as I know, Boeing never specifically claimed that the 787 was the first with that technology, all they did was to say that this is a technology available on the 787.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 135, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39101 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 133):
Even many people here on A-net believed it to be absolutely true.

And many still do!


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 136, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39125 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
Nothing untrue in those claims, so far as I know.

What was untrue is their claims that this was not on current jetliners, when in fact it was. Similar to their claims of 20% reduction in fuel burn agaist current twins, the 787 never was 20% better than the A330, it was against the 767.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 502 posts, RR: 1
Reply 137, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 39140 times:

On the MD11 it was standard procedure during preflight to enter the amount of pax on the air panel to optimize bleed air demand...

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 138, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 39100 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 134):

If anything, that goes to show how well Boeing's marketing worked. As far as I know, Boeing never specifically claimed that the 787 was the first with that technology, all they did was to say that this is a technology available on the 787.

It shows that people who don't know the truth can be persuaded to believe things that are not true but I guess that's that is the whole point of marketing.



BV
User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1703 posts, RR: 8
Reply 139, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 38940 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 133):

Quoting CM (Reply 130):
Did Boeing claim this was pioneered on the 787?

Maybe not specifically, the they certainly gave the impression, as part of the hype around the B787 that was unstoppable at that time, that it was a first. Even many people here on A-net believed it to be absolutely true. And even many out here do not even know that this technology was not totally new, and never knew or still do not know it was available on Airbus aircraft first.

To give the impression and to market to their advantage, they are kings. I remember, it may have been on the 50th anniversary of the 707's first flight or something like that, I was pretty young on the internet... They had a feature stating that British Airways had been introduced into the jet age by the first 707 service, or something like that... I wrote to them, at that time. No reaction.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 140, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 38702 times:

Somewhat in aftermath I have finally found evidence of the production of section 16-18, here a picture of a proud Premium Aerotec Augsburg team delivering the first 2 side panels to Airbus Hamburg:





This happened 22 Dec and they also loaded the aft pressure bulkhead and the floor grid onto the Beluga that day:




For the history boffins, this is the ex EADS/MBB/Messerschmitt plant which started of as Bayrische Flugzeugwerke (therefore the Bf109 type description initially ).


So these parts were then for MSN001, they should be assembled into section 16-19 and this should be in equipping right now in Hamburg. The next shipment should be for the static frame, MNS5000. We hope to see that completed to section 16-19 shipping to FAL this month   .



Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 141, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 38415 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 120):
Airbus had a good strategy to battle back some pneumatic system efficiency, whey they proposed the multi-port bleed system for the Trent-XWB. This would have permitted pulling bleed from an earlier compressor stage during cruise, and could have added significantly to airplane efficiency. There is rumor this concept has now been abandoned.

Curious that they abandoned it...the CFM56-7 has had multi-port bleed for 10+ years. I always assumed the -5 did to, although I don't know for sure.

Quoting zeke (Reply 129):
Quoting CM (Reply 127):
The 787 takes this a step further, giving the crew the opportunity to input an actual pax count on each flight.

Again, this is not a 787 first, it was introduced on the A340-500/600. The pax count is an input on the INIT page on the Airbus MCDU.

As CM pointed out, this isn't the "truth in Boeing advertisting" thread so I'll keep this short...the 787 does actually use some new technologies ("first") to implement cabin features that are better that what else is out there...that's not the same thing as saying they're the first to have the feature.

Tom.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 142, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 38320 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 142):
Curious that they abandoned it

I can't say for certain this is the case.

Here's why I asked: I spoke at a pilot symposium last summer, where an Airbus pilot spoke on "flying the A350". He showed a very detailed engine bleed system schematic, which included all ECS bleed and CTAI elements, but only showed a single engine bleed port. I asked him afterward if this was just a simplification of the graphic, or if the A350 truly only had bleed from one stage of the compressor. He said the schematic was accurate and this single stage bleed was a recent change (recent at that time). He said Airbus was pursuing the efficiencies of the multi-tap bleed via "other means".

Odd, I think, but good for the A350 if they have found a way to have the efficiency and avoid multiple taps on the compressor. It should incrementally improve compressor efficiency while making the bleed system less complex. All good things.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 143, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 38214 times:

I should also add; the same A350 air system schematic shown at the symposium had a precooler in the system, something which was initially not going to be a part of the A350 bleed system design. So the configuration has definitely moved around a bit since the July 2006 launch.

Regarding the bleed taps: If airbus has truly abandoned the once-discussed "multi-tap" design (and I would describe this as any system having more than the conventional 2 taps on the compressor), I would still expect them to end up with a minimum of 2 bleed ports (LP and IP). Without that basic level of flexibility in the system, I really can't imagine a way to efficiently adapt between the very high demand for bleed are during low-altitude climb and the very low demand for bleed at the top of descent.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 37533 times:

Looks like the TXWB is doing another tour of southern france on F-WWOW today.

http://www.radar-toulouse.fr/

Currently climbing through 27575 feet at 42 feet/sec, ground speed 414 kts, heading northwest 320.4°, 96.25 miles east of here (TLS) at 105.9°. Squawking 2640.



BV
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 145, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 36840 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 141):
Your view on Boeing is well documented, so it's not surprising you see deceit in the same place a fan will see the gospel.

What exactly is well documented ? That I actually learn and understand the technology and capabilities used by both sides ? I am often the only person to counter many claims made on here about things Boeings can do, and Airbus cannot, when in fact it is not true.

Quoting CM (Reply 141):
The fact you view it as egregious, but only when done by one company and not the other, speaks more about you than it does about Boeing or Airbus.

Really ? Or could it be that I am often one of the few persons who challenges what Boeing is saying ? I do not need to go around pointing out what Airbus is saying, everything they say is forensically debated on this forum to ad nauseam. Trying to silence anyone who dares question that one sided debate is very unhealthily in my view. If I have made an incorrect statement you are within your right to correct my post, but you do not have the right to go around making defamatory character assessments.

Quoting CM (Reply 141):

You chose to introduce the "truth in Boeing advertising" topic to a great thread about the A350.

I corrected the non factual information contained in the various posts, and provided links were appropriate. The technology on the 787 is not new, it is new to Boeing, that however does not make claims like "will contain more oxygen, more humidity and fewer pollutants than on current jetliners" true.

As I pointed out these are features that was already available on the A340, the reason for this popping up on the 787 is that both OEMs share the same suppliers, and the suppliers make their technology available to both OEMs. As far as I am aware, every supplier used in the 787 cabin air system is also a supplier to Airbus. As far as I am aware, the TTP-Based cabin pressure control system on the A380 is more advanced than the 787 system.

Quoting CM (Reply 144):
I should also add; the same A350 air system schematic shown at the symposium had a precooler in the system, something which was initially not going to be a part of the A350 bleed system design. So the configuration has definitely moved around a bit since the July 2006 launch.

The A350 technical documentation I have dated Nov 2011 shows IP & HP bleed and a pre-cooler. A pre-cooler in itself is not desirable in any system as it could point to wasted energy, however I sure the design trade-off would have been made to try and recover that energy loss, the trade off would have been drag and weight. The 787 has a larger radiator to dump the heat from the turbine-compressor air cycle machine to outside air, and that increases weight and cooling drag compared to current practice. Both systems designs are dumping energy overboard, neither is 100% efficient. The pre-cooler arrangement however does not have the associated drag rise.

The A350 system

"System Description

Engine Bleed Air System

The engine bleed air system supplies the consumer systems with the required airflow at regulated pressure and temperature levels, in the complete range of aircraft operations and environmental conditions.

Engine bleed air usually comes from the Intermediate Pressure (IP) stage of the engine compressor via the intermediate pressure check valve.

At low engine thrust settings, the pressure of the IP stage is not sufficiently high, thus the High Pressure (HP) stage of the compressor provides bleed air via the HP valve.

For each engine:

The engine bleed valve automatically regulates the delivered bleed pressure. This valve can also close and isolate its applicable engine bleed

A pre-cooler regulates the bleed air temperature.

Note: One cross bleed valve interconnects the LH and RH bleed supply systems"



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 146, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 36520 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 145):
The 787 has a larger radiator to dump the heat from the turbine-compressor air cycle machine to outside air, and that increases weight and cooling drag compared to current practice.

That's the ram air heat exchanger...it's not bigger on the 787 than on any conventional ECS system.

Air cycle machines (whether powered by bleed air or electric compressors) are air conditioners; they need to dump heat to produce air cooler than ambient. In a bleed system the supply air starts out very hot since it came from the engine compressor; the pre-cooler dumps a lot of this heat overboard so that the air coming into the air cycle machine is only a few hundred degF, then the air cycle machine cools it to the target temperature. All that heat gets dumped out the ram duct by a big air-to-air heat exchanger.

In a 787-style system, the air is compressed from ambient up to the pressure needed to power the ACM (which is lower than the bleed pressure for a conventional system). As a result you don't have to dump the heat that a pre-cooler would; the air coming into the ACM is roughly the same temperature as with a bleed system. Then you have about the same sized air-to-air heat exchanger to make the ACM happy.

Quoting zeke (Reply 145):
Both systems designs are dumping energy overboard, neither is 100% efficient.

Absolutely true, but the bleedless system dumps considerably less energy. Bleed loses energy both through the precooler and through pressure loss in the regulator (duct pressure is lower than compressor pressure at the bleed port). Bleedless compressors are designed specifically to feed the ACM so they don't have to have a precooler or drop the pressure back down after compression.

Quoting zeke (Reply 145):
The pre-cooler arrangement however does not have the associated drag rise.

Yes, it does. The pre-cooler requires its own scoops and ducting to run air through the pre-cooler. Those are absent on a bleedless design. In some designs the scoops are inside the fan duct in which case, strictly speaking, you don't have an associated drag rise but you do have a directly equivalent loss of propulsive efficiency.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 147, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 36379 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 146):

That's the ram air heat exchanger...it's not bigger on the 787 than on any conventional ECS system.

That is not the one I was thinking of, it is the radiator that is part of the ACM, and used to dump the heat overboard. The packs on the 787 are larger than a comparable high pressure system, to operate at lower pressures, it requires a bigger pack.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 146):
In a 787-style system, the air is compressed from ambient up to the pressure needed to power the ACM (which is lower than the bleed pressure for a conventional system).

The output is 15 PSI and 200 deg F, it is expanded to drop the temp down. Ideally Hamilton Sundstrand would have liked it to be 350 degrees F for the ozone catalyst to be optimal.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 146):
Bleedless compressors are designed specifically to feed the ACM so they don't have to have a precooler or drop the pressure back down after compression.

That is not true, the output is 15 PSI and 200 degrees F.

This is the A350 XWB bleed system page, it shown the pre-cooler inlet pressure of 30 PSI, and outlet temperature of 150 deg C.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 146):
Those are absent on a bleedless design. In some designs the scoops are inside the fan duct in which case, strictly speaking, you don't have an associated drag rise but you do have a directly equivalent loss of propulsive efficiency.

Both RR and GE say it is really even either way, the energy is going taken away in some form from the engine, either with big generators, or by bleed air. You will notice on the airbus the pre-cooler is all contained in the engine/pylon, the pre-cooler output is in the pylon (the small grill visible in this photo).


[09:24] + 00' 16" A330 pylon: detail. by A380spotter, on Flickr

[Edited 2012-03-07 23:50:41]


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 148, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 36037 times:

It seems we will not see much deliveries to FAL during March:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-assembly-slips-into-april-369261/


That is a further one month slip for MSN5000 FAL in only 3 months, MSN001 now starts in the summer instead of 1H  Wow! .

So what is holding things up?

- According to GKNs annual press conference Feb 2012 the CEO said all the rear spars for the MSN5000 and MSN001 wings are in Airbus Broughthon. Now that can of course be later then agreed before Christmas.

- The first delivery of panels to the rear section happened Dec 22 (Reply 140), this is very late, the forward fuselage was delivered assembled at the same time to FAL.

- Spirit also needs to roll over a second section 15 for it to be completed as MSN5000 at Airbus St Nazaire and then sent down to FAL. No sign of that as well but they might not publicize the delivery to Airbus.


Logistically it would make sense for the mid section to arrive next followed by rear, HTP and wings. The vertical tailplane is there since December.

Summary is some parts for MSN5000 are up to 4 month delayed compared to those that runs better through the system   .

[Edited 2012-03-08 04:14:24]


Non French in France
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2056 posts, RR: 4
Reply 149, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 35686 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 147):
Both RR and GE say it is really even either way,

From a integration standpoint, it is easier to get a bigger generator than trying to route titanium/inconel ducts from both the low pressure and high pressure compressors though the pylon (with the pre-cooler) to the cabin.  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 150, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 35682 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 147):
That is not the one I was thinking of, it is the radiator that is part of the ACM, and used to dump the heat overboard.

I've had my head up in a 787 pack bay...there's no radiator on the ACM itself. There are several in the ram air duct but that's true of both bleedless and bleed designs. Are you saying this is a radiator that the A350 doesn't have at all, or just that the A350's equivalent radiator is smaller?

Quoting zeke (Reply 147):
The packs on the 787 are larger than a comparable high pressure system, to operate at lower pressures, it requires a bigger pack.

The pack is physically larger, yes, primarily due to the presence of the compressors (they're all in one pretty compact area). However, the ACM itself isn't appreciably different in side and the heat loading (hence radiator sizing) is about the same for any other pack of equivalent capability.

Quoting zeke (Reply 147):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 146):
Bleedless compressors are designed specifically to feed the ACM so they don't have to have a precooler or drop the pressure back down after compression.

That is not true, the output is 15 PSI and 200 degrees F.

Exactly. The cabin air compressors put out air at the pressure/temperature to go straight into the ACM; no precooler or pressure regulator required.

Quoting zeke (Reply 147):
Both RR and GE say it is really even either way, the energy is going taken away in some form from the engine, either with big generators, or by bleed air.

The major point, at least on the ECS side, is that you don't have to take as much electrical energy from the engine as you do by bleed air. All the energy dumped "upstream" of the packs in a bleed system (precooler head and regulator pressure loss) never has to be dumped at all when you extract via the generators. As a result, the generators pull less energy from the engine than a bleed system powering an equivalent ECS system.

Tom.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12283 posts, RR: 25
Reply 151, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 35671 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 127):
The "technology" added to the 787 is a feature which enables the increased humidity levels even when the airplane is mostly empty - despite a pack which is sized for many many more passengers. It is also a feature which saves fuel.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just sample the humidity so the system can get to the desired humidity automatically?

Quoting zeke (Reply 129):
Again, this is not a 787 first, it was introduced on the A340-500/600. The pax count is an input on the INIT page on the Airbus MCDU.

Maybe I'm a victim of advertising too, but my belief is that the CFRP fuselage of 787 allows for higher humidity vs Al based fuse due to corrosion issues. Is this part true or false? If so, how is corrosion managed in the Al fuse?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 140):
This happened 22 Dec and they also loaded the aft pressure bulkhead and the floor grid onto the Beluga that day:

Sweet!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 140):
For the history boffins, this is the ex EADS/MBB/Messerschmitt plant which started of as Bayrische Flugzeugwerke (therefore the Bf109 type description initially ).

I wonder if there are issues with unexploded ordinance being found?

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Augsburg_in_World_War_II



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 152, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 35719 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 151):
I wonder if there are issues with unexploded ordinance being found?

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Augsburg_in_World_War_II

Spot on, having lived in the area I had to take another route to work one day as they found one of those unexploded buggers when making a new stretch of Autobahn (so you could get your Bimmer up to full speed when going to work      ) . Nothing like living in Germany for a while and that area especially is sweet       .



Non French in France
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 153, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 35345 times:

Nice to have started a discussion on systems, which is more my thing than structures  
Quoting zeke (Reply 145):
The A350 technical documentation I have dated Nov 2011 shows IP & HP bleed and a pre-cooler.

   Correct. Same architecture as previous Airbus designs in that aspect.

Quoting zeke (Reply 145):
A pre-cooler in itself is not desirable in any system as it could point to wasted energy, however I sure the design trade-off would have been made to try and recover that energy loss, the trade off would have been drag and weight.

Yep, the trade-off would be running 400degC or so air through the wing (more risky, and more insulation (=weight) needed to mitigate that risk), a larger pack heat exchanger (more drag) and/or flying with more open ram air doors (more drag).

Quoting zeke (Reply 147):
You will notice on the airbus the pre-cooler is all contained in the engine/pylon, the pre-cooler output is in the pylon (the small grill visible in this photo).

And IIRC, new for the A350: the precooler will be in the nacelle, like Boeing does, rather than in the pylon, as Airbus has historically done. Furthermore the engine will be fan-mounted (also Boeing-style) instead of core-mounted (traditional Airbus style). No idea why they have changed their usual arrangement, unless perhaps Rolls-Royce required it for the TrentXWB?

Quoting zeke (Reply 147):
This is the A350 XWB bleed system page, it shown the pre-cooler inlet pressure of 30 PSI, and outlet temperature of 150 deg C.

That must be an intermediate state, typical values are around 40psi / 200ºC.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2056 posts, RR: 4
Reply 154, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 35190 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 153):
Furthermore the engine will be fan-mounted (also Boeing-style) instead of core-mounted (traditional Airbus style). No idea why they have changed their usual arrangement, unless perhaps Rolls-Royce required it for the TrentXWB?

Perhaps as fan aspect ratio is getting high, it is more efficient to mount to where the "mass" is.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 155, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 35095 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
There are several in the ram air duct but that's true of both bleedless and bleed designs. Are you saying this is a radiator that the A350 doesn't have at all, or just that the A350's equivalent radiator is smaller?

It is smaller, the 787 needs a higher ram air mass flow to achieve the cooling required. As far as I am aware, the 787 ECS is larger in size than the 747-8.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
The major point, at least on the ECS side, is that you don't have to take as much electrical energy from the engine as you do by bleed air.

I am not sure if I agree with that. The engine is a very efficient compressor, it is far more efficient at compressing air than the electrical compressors in the 787 ECS. The amount of bleed air being taken away is minimal, bleed air is normally taken from the engine anyway for various internal cooling functions and operation of some moving parts.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
All the energy dumped "upstream" of the packs in a bleed system (precooler head and regulator pressure loss) never has to be dumped at all when you extract via the generators.

However the generators themselves are larger, with increased weight, and require liquid cooling system for the controllers. The generators are sized for engine out operations, so the generating capability of them is far larger than a conventional aircraft. On the electrical side, the technology is still not there with the power transistors that need less cooling. This is the electrical system version of the pre-cooler.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
As a result, the generators pull less energy from the engine than a bleed system powering an equivalent ECS system.

I still not convinced about this, as it ignores the relative efficiency of the engine to produce the electricity (generating 500 kVa vs around 100 kVa), or the bleed air, and the relative inefficiency of the compressors in the electrical ECS that is required to compress ambient air. The engine is far more efficient at making compressed air, than it is driving a generator.

I have seen these c