Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3  
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11437 posts, RR: 58
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 74010 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

As part 2 become too long, and it's now archived we are starting a new one

Link to the previous:

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2 (by NZ1 Jan 6 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue discussions here.


Enjoy!
LipeGIG
Forum Moderator


New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
302 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 74053 times:

Continuing from the previous thread...

Quoting kmz (Reply 254):
It seems that Boing is now more flexible concerning interior customization.

The 787 program permits almost no airline customization, in the cabin or elsewhere. This was a significant strategy shift for Boeing compared to the 777 or 747 programs, where code-1 introductions often include massive engineering packages to accommodate new customer-unique features. Instead, the 787 program has a much more expansive "catalog", from which airlines can (are forced to) select their cabin and other aircraft options. Even items which used to be BFE (buyer furnished equipment) now are "CSE" (customer selectable equipment) and must be selected from the catalog. The 787 also does not have supplier selections for systems (other than for brakes and engines), further reducing the aircraft-to-aircraft differences between different operators' 787s.

This approach permits a basic and stable underlying systems and structures architecture for all aircraft coming through production and is one of the key enablers for the 787 to achieve higher production rates than other twin aisle aircraft. I believe we will see Boeing shift more toward this model in the future, including the next generation 777. It has been my understanding the A350 is taking a similar approach, dramatically reducing the opportunity for BFE and customer-unique customizations in the cabin.

In response to your comment, I would say Boeing is now much less flexible concerning interior customization than they were in the past. Particularly for the 787. However, given what I believe Airbus is doing with the A350, "flexibility" becomes a relative matter, as airlines really have no other options.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 587 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 73946 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 1):
This approach permits a basic and stable underlying systems and structures architecture for all aircraft coming through production and is one of the key enablers for the 787 to achieve higher production rates than other twin aisle aircraft.

In addition, this approach makes the plane more attractive to lessors and financiers and, ironically, airlines. Less customization means an easier conversion of a frame from one airline to the next. With a more "liquid" form of collateral, banks are exposed to less risk and are more willing to provide financing. This translates into better financing terms allowing customers to lower their acquisition costs. The finance community was an integral part of the initial 787 design and shows the holistic approach Boeing took with the program.

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archive.../bonding_with_united_airlines.html



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 73925 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 1):
n response to your comment, I would say Boeing is now much less flexible concerning interior customization than they were in the past. Particularly for the 787. However, given what I believe Airbus is doing with the A350, "flexibility" becomes a relative matter, as airlines really have no other options.

Airbus is doing exactly the same thing and for the same reasons, there is a catalog of possible interior choices that airlines can choose from. After the very free choice for the A380 and the cabling and other problems it created ( it was not small part of the reason for the cabling delays) Airbus decided they needed a more restricted model on the A350.

If Boeing had chosen this model for the 787 it must have been much easier for A to go the same way with the 350. kmz seems to have info that not all are happy with the choices in the present A350 catalog.



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 73764 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 3):
not all are happy with the choices in the present A350 catalog

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this is the case. All widebody operators are deeply invested in their "brand", of which, the cabin is a huge element. Limiting operators to seat and monument suppliers which may not possess the intellectual property or capability of their usual supplier is deeply traumatic for the commercial people at the airline. The technical and finance people are very sensitive to key systems being sole-source, as well. I've watched this drama play out with dozens of carriers, as they get used to the new business model being taken on by the OEMs.

Despite the complaining, in my view this change will benefit everyone...

- - OEM's get a more stable product, lower recurring costs and simplified production.
- - Airlines get a more fungible and more liquid asset.
- - Suppliers get the entire slice of the pie, permitting them to take on greater developmental risk.

The trick to making it work is for Airbus and Boeing to select and manage suppliers in way which reduces the risk of sole-source in the aftermarket. They will also need to develop a truly robust catalog which permits the appearance of a high degree of customization in the cabin, while retaining a very basic and stable baseline aircraft underneath.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 73751 times:

There has been an official Airbus info release via AFP last week that the assembly of MSN5000 will start "in the next days" and that MSN001 will start FAL in the "early summer" and that MSN001 will fly approximately 6 months after start of FAL:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/201...age-de-l-a350-bientot-commence.php

A also claim that the information about program status that was given by Fabrice Bregier at the Airbus new year press conference is still valid.

This info release from Airbus is to defy the rumors about further delays that has been circulating in the press in the last weeks according to AFP.

I am a bit surprised by the 6 months after FAL begin statement, this would mean MSN001 is flying before end of year   . I don't think this is correct, we will see first flight during Q1 2013 as announced by Airbus when the new timeplan was released.



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 73678 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 5):
I am a bit surprised by the 6 months after FAL begin statement

The 777 was exactly on plan and took 14 months from begin of FAL to First Flight. The 787 planned for 15 months, but ended up taking 36. I agree, the current "6 months" is just a placeholder until the time is right for Airbus to announce the revised schedule.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 73240 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 4):
Limiting operators to seat and monument suppliers which may not possess the intellectual property or capability of their usual supplier is deeply traumatic for the commercial people at the airline.

Not sure about the A350, but the 787 catalog includes several top-line suppliers for each respective component; an airline might chafe that their favorite supplier isn't in there but they really can't claim the catalog supplier doesn't have the capability.

Quoting CM (Reply 4):
The technical and finance people are very sensitive to key systems being sole-source, as well.

As well they should be but it's important to note that sole-source is the rule, not the exception. Outside a very few of the avionics boxes, the cabin monuments & seats, and the engines the entire airplane is generally sole-source (or at least functionally sole-source in the case of some dual-sourced structure components).

Tom.


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 73000 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 5):

There has been an official Airbus info release via AFP last week that the assembly of MSN5000 will start "in the next days" and that MSN001 will start FAL in the "early summer" and that MSN001 will fly approximately 6 months after start of FAL:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 5):
I am a bit surprised by the 6 months after FAL begin statement, this would mean MSN001 is flying before end of year   . I don't think this is correct, we will see first flight during Q1 2013 as announced by Airbus when the new timeplan was released.

Well... Beginning of july is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013  


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 72728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 8):
Well... Beginning of July is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013  

All true. Nevertheless it seems that they are quite challenged to keep the original communicated schedule. Let's hope they can manage to do so.  .


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 72729 times:

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 8):
Well... Beginning of july is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013

You are right (I am from South of Europe, high summer is August) or wrong (I am from North of Europe and summer is finished in August)  .

Anyway the info from CM is interesting, I have looked back on the A planning and the June 2011 plan (Le Bourget presentation) showed start FAL 1 Jan 2012 and first flight Q4 2012 = 9-12 month after FAL start (first FAL was still for MSN5000). Then in Dec 2012 this became FAL start somewhere Q1-Q2 2012 and First flight somewhere Q1-Q2 2013 = on average 12 months with spread up to 6 months.

So we can see that the planning scenario was about 9-12 month and then expanded to around 12 months with a larger uncertainty window but still shorter then the planned 14-15 month of 777 and 787, interesting  Wow! .



Non French in France
User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 161 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 72643 times:

thanx for the feedback. honestly, i am not a fan of sole source and catalog item. i fully understand the need to simplify the processes and get more mature equipment on board-but there should be something in between.
if this continues this way, i could imagine that in the future there will be dedicated stc holder who take an almost empty a/c and install seats and galleys as wanted by the airline..


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 72387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ferpe, got any more pictures coming of the assembly/systems installation process?

User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 72307 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 10):
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 8):
Well... Beginning of july is still early summer... And a first flight six months later would indeed be in early 2013

You are right (I am from South of Europe, high summer is August) or wrong (I am from North of Europe and summer is finished in August)   .
indeed.

That question of the six months between start of final assembly and first flight... I suppose it would mean six months for the first flying example (MSN 001), so about eight or nine months after the start of the FAL per se, for the static testing MSN 5000. I guess part of the learning curve will already have kicked in...


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 72115 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
got any more pictures coming of the assembly/systems installation process?

I am certainly hunting for them  Wow! but the equipping is in A hands and they have tighter pub control then the tier 1s that did the structure subassemblies. Pity as they would be vary interesting from St Nazaire, Hamburg and Broughton,

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 13):
I suppose it would mean six months for the first flying example (MSN 001), so about eight or nine months after the start of the FAL per se, for the static testing MSN 5000. I guess part of the learning curve will already have kicked in...

I think the spokeperson or AFP got it wrong, given their timeplans it must be 6 months after FAL of MSN001.



Non French in France
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 72098 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 13):
I suppose it would mean six months for the first flying example (MSN 001), so about eight or nine months after the start of the FAL per se, for the static testing MSN 5000. I guess part of the learning curve will already have kicked in...

I think the spokeperson or AFP got it wrong, given their timeplans it must be 6 months after FAL of MSN001.

That's what I thought I had written... English, sometimes, is difficult...  


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 72024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
I am certainly hunting for them

Airbus used to put out a monthly magazine that always had good articles on the production process.. However once I retired it was just too costly..


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 71966 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 16):
Airbus used to put out a monthly magazine that always had good articles on the production process.. However once I retired it was just too costly..

Do you mean this one (FAST) : http://www.airbus.com/support/publications/

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 15):
That's what I thought I had written...

However we decrypt both our english  it is way shorter then Boeings planned 14 and 15 month and even shorter then their actual times (don't know the actual time for 777), makes one wonder were A can be faster. Or have they just compressed this part of the timeplan when they started readjusting for the intial delays  Wow! .



Non French in France
User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 71549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Seems that fuselage S15-21 for the static test specimen was delivered by Beluga today to the Toulouse FAL!

Very impressive part. Appears it was delayed by one day due to the ATC strike in France  .



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 71401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
Do you mean this one (FAST)


No, it was a monthly and was more focused on production and PR for existing products... I see I referenced "la Journal Aerospatiale" , "Airbus Industrie Progress Reports" and "Revue Aerospatial" in my paper... I think it was the latter that was so open about the processes.


User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 71363 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the ones you mention date back to the Airbus GIE days, when Airbus was made of Aérospatiale, MBB, CASA, British Aerospace, and before EADS was created in 2000 when it became then a single company (Airbus I mean).

So I doubt these are still issued.



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 71180 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 255):
I have no info on the progress on cabin test other then reading a specialized magazine article some month ago that basically quoted what you are saying that A did some changes to the A350 cabin that has not gone down well with everyone.

Anyone else who has some knowledge?

I read that too! I am stumbled this subject hasn't reached more attention up to now...

I think it was: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...2_2012_p22-433856.xml&channel=comm

"Airbus will be forced to postpone its entry-into-service date by at least another year, due to the complex trickle-down effect of late design changes that is affecting various parts of the aircraft, but which is likely felt most painfully in the area of cabin installation, according to various industry sources. Costs are going up and supplier relations are being strained exponentially.

“The systems side is a nightmare,” says one CEO of a major Airbus supplier. “The interiors will be late by at least one year,” he believes. That does not mean that first flight is necessarily affected that much, because the initial flight tests will not need a functional cabin anyway. The full effect would not be felt until later in the flight-test campaign, when cabin testing is included."


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 71025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sf260 (Reply 21):
I read that too! I am stumbled this subject hasn't reached more attention up to now...

Bernstein Research believes EIS will slip to mid-2015, but I haven't seen a specific reason given for why they're so pessimistic.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 70895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bernstein research have been quite negative on many Airbus developments. Many of their predictions luckily did not become reality. So I want to see some official number first before I believe another Bernstein Research report.  .

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 70639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 20):

I think the ones you mention date back to the Airbus GIE days

You're probably correct..I was doing my research paper in 1990


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 71193 times:

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 18):
Seems that fuselage S15-21 for the static test specimen was delivered by Beluga today to the Toulouse FAL!

Great stuff, A is probably working on a press release with pictures right now, will be interesting to see.



Non French in France
User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 26, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 70877 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Got them as well as tons of pictures but the press releases are all pictureless!

I am off to the FAL this afternoon to look at it live. But from the pictures, it looks mighty impressive, must have been very tight in the Beluga.



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1586 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 72041 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 21):
I read that too! I am stumbled this subject hasn't reached more attention up to now...

I think it was: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...2_2012_p22-433856.xml&channel=comm

"Airbus will be forced to postpone its entry-into-service date by at least another year, due to the complex trickle-down effect of late design changes that is affecting various parts of the aircraft, but which is likely felt most painfully in the area of cabin installation, according to various industry sources. Costs are going up and supplier relations are being strained exponentially.

“The systems side is a nightmare,” says one CEO of a major Airbus supplier. “The interiors will be late by at least one year,” he believes. That does not mean that first flight is necessarily affected that much, because the initial flight tests will not need a functional cabin anyway. The full effect would not be felt until later in the flight-test campaign, when cabin testing is included."

The article has been discussed in part 2 of this thread.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Bernstein Research believes EIS will slip to mid-2015, but I haven't seen a specific reason given for why they're so pessimistic.

I don't think the interiors will be the cause of a delay by that much. It could very well affect the projected production ramp and therefore how fast the first deliveries will follow each other. Could be the same story as with the first 787's  
Quoting knoxibus (Reply 26):
must have been very tight in the Beluga.

Maybe they've designed the XWB with the maximum possible width using the Beluga 



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 offlineClipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 71852 times:

Pics now available on Airbus and Flight International websites.

Airbus starts final assembly of first A350 XWB

PICTURES: A350 static airframe final assembly begins in Toulouse


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 71615 times:

Here the press release:

"Final assembly of the first A350 XWB is now underway at the brand new final assembly line in Toulouse. This latest step in the A350 XWB’s progress is achieved as Airbus starts joining the 19.7 metre long centre fuselage with the 21 metre long front fuselage.

This first A350 XWB airframe will be used for the static structural tests that all new aircraft undergo as part of their certification process. The assembly of the first flying A350 XWB, MSN1, will start during summer.

The centre fuselage was delivered to Toulouse on Wednesday 4th April 2012 by Beluga from Airbus in St Nazaire, France. The front fuselage was previously delivered from St Nazaire to the A350 XWB final assembly line on the 23rd December 2011. Delivery and installation of the aft fuselage from Hamburg, Germany will take place in the coming weeks, followed by the wings delivered from Airbus’ wing assembly site in Broughton, UK.

The A350 XWB fuselage is made up of three main sections - front, centre and aft. These will be joined together at the first main assembly station, Station 50. The nose landing-gear is also joined here. Once this stage is completed, the fuselage is transferred to Station 40 where the wings and tail sections are joined. In parallel to this, cabin installation will be carried out simultaneously to the wing-fuselage join up, as well as the “power on” of the aircraft systems. In this way, functional tests can start earlier than on previous programmes.

The A350 XWB is Airbus’ all new family of mid-size widebody airliners. These highly efficient aircraft bring together the latest in aerodynamics, design and advanced technologies to provide up to 25 percent better fuel efficiency and operating costs compared to current aircraft in the same size category. Over 70 percent of the A350 XWB’s weight-efficient airframe is made from advanced materials combining composites (53 percent), titanium and advanced aluminium alloys. The aircraft’s innovative all-new Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) fuselage results in lower fuel burn as well as easier maintenance. The A350 XWB benefits from Airbus’ high level of expertise in incorporating composite material into its aircraft.

The A350 XWB Family consists of three passenger versions with true long-range capability of flying up to 8,500nm/15,580km. In a typical three-class configuration, the A350-800 will offer 270 seats while the A350-900 and the A350-1000 will offer 314 and 350 seats respectively."


And here the pictures:

Forebody is waiting since Christmas:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_41.jpg

The center section arrives:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_11.jpg

Is gradually adjusted to forebody:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_21.jpg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_FAL_Start_51.jpg

And joining can begin:


[Edited 2012-04-05 12:12:09]


Non French in France
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3606 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 71258 times:

I believe the A350 will be the best looking Airbus ever built.      

User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 71103 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 30):
I believe the A350 will be the best looking Airbus ever built

Amen to that, but will the wings be as graceful as those of the the A380?

I hope to be in Europe mid next year, is it difficult to get on a tour of the assembly facilities for a member of the public?



maxter
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 32, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 71121 times:

Flightblogger has an excellent overview of the FAL procedure at TLS.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...-formally-activates-a350.html#more

Here a resume:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALoverview.jpg

Sections get unloaded from Beluga into P59 where some large interior stuff gets installed (like crew rests) when they have good access. Then the sections gets joined at P50 (A and B, FAL has 2 parallel stations everywhere). NLG and a temp MLG install enables a move to P40 where a simultaneous Wing, HTP, VTP, MLG and power on + first cabin install can be made. Final cabin install + slats, flaps, LG checks are made at P30. Then free air pressurization and radio test followed by painting in painting hangar (not shown) and finally cabin + engine install is done at A50 hangar. Then flight line check out, test flight and delivery  (except for MSN5000 which is rolled over to TLSs torture chamber  Wow!).

[Edited 2012-04-05 19:10:18]


Non French in France
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 33, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 70882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
Sections get unloaded from Beluga into P59 where some large interior stuff gets installed (like crew rests) when they have good access. Then the sections gets joined at P50 (A and B, FAL has 2 parallel stations everywhere). NLG and a temp MLG install enables a move to P40 where a simultaneous Wing, HTP, VTP, MLG and power on + first cabin install can be made. Final cabin install + slats, flaps, LG checks are made at P30. Then free air pressurization and radio test followed by painting in painting hangar (not shown) and finally cabin + engine install is done at A50 hangar. Then flight line check out, test flight and delivery



Ferpe, as we have talked about differences and commonalities in general before, it's starting to come together. What I see as positive is the nose in docking.. much less need for movable tooling and scaffolding. What I don't see as productive (based on just what is presented and there may well be good reasons) are two things.. the use of a temporary MLG and installing engines after paint.. both appear to lead to a doubling of some processes. I'm really having trouble with that gear issue... Maybe it's all semantics..without the wing to attach part of the gear to, would a better term than MLG be a transport dolly? Something the fuselage rests on for towing but could not in anyway be mistaken for MLG. Instead of rolling the fuselage can it not be lifted and craned to position 40? and that may be the constraint in the building..

The orientation of position must be dictated by the Beluga unload process.. as it looks awkward to have to lift and rotate 90 degs. to place the units in position 50A/B.. not un-doable though.

It also looks like the best they can do is a 3-5 a month rate unless some additional outfitting is moved back to and even prior to position 59.

again I am just trying to understand what I see


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 34, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 70748 times:

For those who want to follow the discussion where it started:

www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/313604/#132

Quoting kanban (Reply 33):
would a better term than MLG be a transport dolly

Yes, your are right, I used temp MLG as a shorthand, it should be a dolly attached to 4 strongpoints in the wheel well, should be a 10 min job on and later of.

Re craning of things, I think they wheel the fuselages between the stations, ie back out the fuselage from P50 and roll over to P40 then back out to P30 as so on. The dolly to go from P59 to P50 for the sections are on the pictures, the intra station transportation paths are outside in free air, not in the building. There is also a direct unloading of the Beluga into P59:




Re the mounting of the engines at Hangar A50, what do you see as double work? Once again doing system checks?

Quoting kanban (Reply 33):
It also looks like the best they can do is a 3-5 a month rate unless some additional outfitting is moved back to and even prior to position 59.

They have planned this whole setup for a 10 per month rate. Can the fixed (and therefore more elaborate) tooling and shaffolding help with the setup times and the time on station?

[Edited 2012-04-06 00:28:25]


Non French in France
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 35, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 70084 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
it should be a dolly attached to 4 strongpoints in the wheel well, should be a 10 min job on and later of.


That makes sense.. I'm also guessing that the buildings interior posts preclude a crane operation across the bays. In fact looking at the pictures again there don't appear to be crane tracks in most of them... maybe they are just outside the frame or not the massive interconnected runs we use. (I.e. there are crossovers between the 4-81 and 4-82 buildings that allow a 737 fuselage to enter one building for initial work then be flown to the other for wing join. Although with the moving line that may not be done anymore.

From direct lessons in 707, 727, 737, 757, 747 and anecdotal for the other models, the tug driven line move generally will cost production 1-2 shifts every time.. and that was the basis of my seeing constraints in production. The problem is not just hooking up an going, but clearing tooling, workstations support equipment etc and sweeping before the move begins and since you start at the most complete fuselage and work back any delay becomes multiplied.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
Re the mounting of the engines at Hangar A50, what do you see as double work? Once again doing system checks


Paint.. a second trip to the paint hanger... unless all the nacelles are painted when the airframe is painted, or no customer paint is allowed and they arrive in standard color.

Just a difference between operations, we pressure test in the FAL on third shift.. no need to take it outside.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
They have planned this whole setup for a 10 per month rate.



I think the bottleneck will reside in the first four positions. Are they planning a 3 shift operation?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 36, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 69673 times:

Here the principle of the 350 FAL and how A changed it to start the elaborate Cabin install earlier compared to 330-340:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350FALconcept.jpg

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
Paint.. a second trip to the paint hanger... unless all the nacelles are painted when the airframe is painted

I am convinced the nacelles join the frame to get painted at the same time. The 350 FAL share the A50 hangar with the 330-340 FAL which also hangs the engines at the end.

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
The problem (of the B moving line) is not just hooking up and going, but clearing tooling, workstations support equipment etc and sweeping before the move begins and since you start at the most complete fuselage and work back any delay becomes multiplied.

I can understand the immediate knock-on effect any station delay would have for the moving line. A less coupled station concept like A would have some inter station flexibility. They would need to keep the station time to 3 days for a 10 per month rate, ultimately things would queue before the delayed station but it would not stop the intra station rotation at all other places like the moving line.

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):

I think the bottleneck will reside in the first four positions. Are they planning a 3 shift operation?

As the cabin outfitting is the dimensioning item per the A flow diagram the amount of time needed at FAL will heavily depend on how much of this could be done at PreFAL, I would assume all systems including avionics installed and cabin preparation job done to before insulation installation with central IFE avionics + cabling done.

At FAL crew rest then any additional behind insulation installation then insulation + walls + roofs, gallyes, toilets and any BFE items, overhead racks and then checking all the systems. At A50 seats + IFE boxes and testing of the whole lot. (those in the know please correct-chip in ).

I don't think you can run such an investment without 3 shift operation.

[Edited 2012-04-06 22:02:46]


Non French in France
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3897 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 69338 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 30):
I believe the A350 will be the best looking Airbus ever built.

Don't think it will match the A340 in being the worlds sexiest airliner ..., but that's what I think  


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 38, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 68761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
I don't think you can run such an investment without 3 shift operation.


thanks ferpe, your graphs explain a lot.. now I guess we just watch and learn. Please note there is no single correct way to run a FAL, there are many and learning about other options is my goal.

Although just for kicks let's keep an eye on those nacelles...


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 68451 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
As the cabin outfitting is the dimensioning item per the A flow diagram the amount of time needed at FAL will heavily depend on how much of this could be done at PreFAL, I would assume all systems including avionics installed and cabin preparation job done to before insulation installation with central IFE avionics + cabling done.

At FAL crew rest then any additional behind insulation installation then insulation + walls + roofs, gallyes, toilets and any BFE items, overhead racks and then checking all the systems. At A50 seats + IFE boxes and testing of the whole lot. (those in the know please correct-chip in&nbsp Wink.

Thanks indeed, ferpe. I smell heavy learning, here, from the lengthy A380 outfitting process... Although I'm totally ready to be corrected: how much of the cabin installation is done, in the A380, on the FAL?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 68167 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
Please note there is no single correct way to run a FAL, there are many and learning about other options is my goal.

That is what is so fascinating about production, studied it at tech university then was thrown into the wolfs nest when the Airforce put me to match the fighter OEMs battle proven production guys as we procured our next fighter. The only thing stopping them eating me verbally and spitting me out was that they realized I could fly the damn thing at the end of FAL and they couldn't . We had a lot of fun and they really were nice with me at the time (= they tolerated me and my youthful enthusiasm)  Wow! .

There must have been many reasons for Boeing going with the moving FAL, could you describe these, it would be very interesting to know?

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 39):
how much of the cabin installation is done, in the A380, on the FAL?

I would not know but I am convinced we have many others who know   .

[Edited 2012-04-07 17:27:34]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 41, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 67969 times:

Re the A350 FAL, this Airbus video shows it in more detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVhy-8oD0hA


Here the steps according to this video:

Beluga is unloaded at the Beluga freight terminal, sections goes on dolleys to preassembly site P59.


P59
Items who are to big to pass trough the doors are fitted here (crew rest, big galleys-toilets, ...):



P50
Fuselage join and MLG dolley added:



P40
Wings added, MLG, HTP, VTP are mounted and after power on the rest of the galleys, toilets, overhead bins, floors covers are added at the same time as the structural assemblies are hooked up system wise. I was puzzeled why they dragged the next LN wings in there as well but it is to reduce the change time, just tow the next fuselage in and you can start the wing join:
.


P30
This is wrongly labeled as being shared with the 330-340 in the video, this does not seem likely as it was build for the A350 FAL in the 350 FAL building. Anyway while system checks of LG, Flaps, rudders etc are being made the seats are added, presumably some cabin checks are done here as well:



P18
Outside check of pressure system, radio systems and ECS I would guess (does the APU run here to give power, hydraulics and bleed air? Would mean fuel residues in tanks while later painting, safety issues?):



then to Paint hangar, then


A50
Here final cabin items are added and checked at the same time as the engines are mounted:



Then to flight test station for final checks and test flights, finally delivery!

[Edited 2012-04-08 02:49:33]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 42, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 67767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A perfect overview of the individual phases which will create the A350!   Thanks.

User currently offlineZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 475 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 67711 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):

Great post ferpe. Nice to see how the FAL will work


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8005 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 67604 times:

I think in many ways, the A350 program will be Airbus' most important money-making venture, since it's not a "prestige" model like the A380. I do like the fact that Airbus will be using existing facilities used in A330 production for final fit-out of the plane, which will save a LOT on production costs.

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 45, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 67225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting as usual... I noticed the position 30 has the a/c 'nose in' in your earlier layout (post 32) and 'tail in' in the video.. I believe the A330 is tail in.. The advantage of the 'nose in' is more sub assemblies are in the forward part of the a/c than in the aft.

Position 59 is likewise different.. the architectural drawing shows scaffolding and docking positions for the component load, the video makes it appear that they will be working on the sections while still in the transportation dollies.

One difference between manufactures I notice is the prevalence of raised decking in the pictures above.. This was a Boeing bottleneck as everything needed to be craned or forklifed up.. This plan shows some what appear to be elevator towers in positions 30 and 50, over time those can be problematic as well. (we stopped the 757 line once because the two elevators between the shop and the parts storage both broke, and the crane tracks didn't extend into the parts area.) I notice Boeing is using much smaller decking and conveyor belts (like cargo loaders) to move components directly from the shop floor to the a/c doors.

I fear that a reasons for the Boeing moving line post here would be viewed as off topic by some, so won't post it here. I need to do some quick research to see if there were other threads, then put the discussion in the Tech Forum.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 46, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 67146 times:

Thanks kanban, it's a luxury for the thread to have a production guy like you who comments and compare with other concepts   .

Quoting kanban (Reply 45):
I noticed the position 30 has the a/c 'nose in' in your earlier layout (post 32) and 'tail in' in the video..
Quoting kanban (Reply 45):
Position 59 is likewise different.. the architectural drawing shows scaffolding and docking positions for the component load, the video makes it appear that they will be working on the sections while still in the transportation dollies

The video is rather old (it is from this Jan 2009 FAL minisite: http://events.airbus.com/a350/fal_groundbreaking_ceremony/index.html ), the drawing Flightblogger posted should be current, I think we can assume it is the final layout:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALoverview.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALbuilding2.jpg

Quoting kanban (Reply 45):
I fear that a reasons for the Boeing moving line post here would be viewed as off topic by some, so won't post it here. I need to do some quick research to see if there were other threads, then put the discussion in the Tech Forum.

As we most likely will dissect it a bit  this is probably prudent.



I thing that strikes me is the double bays at all stations (except for A50 which has 4 but this is shared with 330), this means of course that station time is 6 days not 3    for full bore production rate of 10 a month. If these double stations are gradually equipped and manned this could help with producing the 5 test frames A will need in a very short time after autumn 2012 when MSN001 rolls of the FAL. Here the schedule I hypothesized before:


FAL no...........FRAME.................FAL start..........Use.........................

FAL1..............MSN5000...............April.................Static tests @TLS

FAL2...............MSN001...............July-?................First flight test aircraft

FAL3 ..............MSN003...............Oct? .................Second flight test aircraft

FAL4...............EF1, 2 , 3............Dec?..................Fatigue specimen tested in 3 parts @IABG

FAL5...............MSN002...............Jan 13?.............Cabin test aircraft

FAL6...............MSN004...............Feb13?..............System test?

FAL7...............MSN005...............March13?...........Cabin equipped, NAMS, ETOPS?


With EIS summer 2014 as planned they need to have these 7 frames in the air Q3-Q4 2013 latest which means coming of FAL of the 5th end summer 2013. Here the dual FAL lines could help given the have people to man them. Airbus will hire 4000 persons this year, they will migrate 320-380 experienced personell to the 350 program and backfill the former.

The PreFAL sites also has double stations, some seems to be running both already as seen from St Nazaire fore and mid fuselage stations.

This differs from the 787 production setup where the second FAL kicked in at LN46, here the dual FAL and preFAL could be up and running from LN 1 or some frames later. This will help with the ramp given that the supply chain can keep pace.

[Edited 2012-04-08 10:25:47]


Non French in France
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 66887 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
Paint.. a second trip to the paint hanger... unless all the nacelles are painted when the airframe is painted, or no customer paint is allowed and they arrive in standard color.

I can not see the problem painting the nacelles at the customer wishes before they arrive to the FAL . The rudder arrives painted, at least on 380, before it is shipped to the FAL.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 48, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 66494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 47):
I can not see the problem painting the nacelles


Painting the cowling components is only part of it.. there are all the external fasteners added during installation. There are scratches and dings no matter how careful one is and there is always the chance of getting the wrong color/shade.

Rudders are generally painted because they need to be balanced before being hung. also all attach points are hidden behind panels and blade seals.

but then again this is a discussion of manufacturer's process differences... it's not a right or wrong situation.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 65827 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):
it is from this Jan 2009 FAL minisite: http://events.airbus.com/a350/fal_groundbreaking_ceremony/index.html

This site has a statement about the ultimate throughput time at TLS FAL and delivery center :

"When production reaches its peak (10 frames per month cadence), the whole process, from start of final assembly to delivery to our customer, will take two and a half months, representing a 30 percent lead-time saving (over the 330 process)."


Taking the P59 to P18 steps as 6 days each and A50 as 12 days (ultimately the A350 will have this 4 stations to it selves) we have 6*6+12= 48 days.

Add another 1-2 days for the Beluga unloading, this leaves something like 25 days for final ground test, test flights, fixing of issues found and then final delivery. The delivery at the delivery center to an airline normally takes 5 days so then we have 20 days for the final ground tests, test flights and issue fixing. This seems quite much   , any takers?

BTW, is test flights on a workday schedule or on 7 days a week like the FAL? If the former we loose 4 days due to weekends, could also apply for the delivery center.



Non French in France
User currently onliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 64895 times:

ferpe, retaking two of your questions from part2:

Thanks, could you give us the test purpose for MSN4?

I don't know for sure, but as MSN1 & 3 will be the main test a/c for flight envelope, control laws, performance, aero, loads, systems, etc etc, I assume MSN4, as it will not have a cabin, will serve as a complement or "backup" for MSN1&3 tests when the flight test schedule gets tight (which it will), probably mainly for system development as all the aero & loads instrumentation should be on the first two main test a/c.

I have no info on the progress on cabin test other then reading a specialized magazine article some month ago that basically quoted what you are saying that A did some changes to the A350 cabin that has not gone down well with everyone. Anyone else who has some knowledge?

I read a (printed) article somewhere about the Airbus cabin test facilities - Cabin0 - in XFW. The facility was inaugurated at the end of last year, so at this point they must be integrating all the systems on the test benches. It's an impressive facility, with a full mock-up of the A350 cabin (except S15-21), real hardware and real software running on it. I don't think anyone has done cabin testing at this level before, including Boeing.

IMO the cabin will a critical item - I am fairly confident that Airbus can get out a well performing prototype reasonably on time (just like with the A380), but on the A380 cabin integration turned out a complete nightmare (and not just the wiring, but the sheer complexity of the systems), which is likely why they're taking it seriously on the A350 and have built up much more extensive test facilities.

I've just found this rather old and short link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-rig-will-validate-systems-341634/

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
Here the principle of the 350 FAL and how A changed it to start the elaborate Cabin install earlier compared to 330-340:

Indeed, starting with fuselage join is a first for Airbus, who have traditionally always begun with wing/body join.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 64275 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting r2rho (Reply 50):
I've just found this rather old and short link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...1634/



With the current state of computer design, seeing such a mock up is mind boggling. Although after the A380 problems, it's probably a comforting but expensive check.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 50):
Indeed, starting with fuselage join is a first for Airbus, who have traditionally always begun with wing/body join.



This will be an interesting part of the process to follow.. in earlier models there was a fit, drill, remove wing, deburr, clean, prime, apply seal, reinstall, and fasten..

By the way what happened to the close up of the wingstub plate? and what is the material?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 52, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 63976 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 51):
By the way what happened to the close up of the wingstub plate? and what is the material?

You mean this zoomed part of section 15-21?:



According to Flightblogger it:

"Shaped in an isogrid pattern rather than the spar and stiffener design used on the A380, the A350's rib 1 design is intended to reduce weight and assembly time as it is a single machined part rather than a collect of web, spar caps and stiffeners fastened together. It's a first for an Airbus commercial aircraft."

Here the normal spar:

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

I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me. Should be AlLi.



Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 53, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 63794 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):
Here the normal spar:

It's actually a rib. Spars run the other way.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):

I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me.

I'd be absolutely shocked if that was cast; it's very hard to avoid voids in casting, which totally screws up fatigue life. This is far more likely to be machined from a forging or rolled plate. It's also not a very good shape for casting and you'd have to post-machine the casting to get sufficient tolerance and flatness on the flanges where it mates to the other parts.

Tom.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 54, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 63657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):
I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me

I concur with Tom (above) that at least part of it is hogged out of plate and then forged.. although possibly cast and forged.. It's a bloody odd part.

I'll leave it to the engineers to explain the isogrid characteristics and benefits..

Ferpe, is the wing stub a wet fuel tank?

tdscanuck, do those flanges look strong enough to support a flexing wing? the material looks awfully thin compared to a 737/757


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 55, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 63674 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 54):

Ferpe, is the wing stub a wet fuel tank?

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'd bet is has to be. The A350 spec range is so large that I can't imagine they're not using the entire wing box for fuel.

Quoting kanban (Reply 54):

tdscanuck, do those flanges look strong enough to support a flexing wing? the material looks awfully thin compared to a 737/757

Off the top of my head they do look thin, but the 737/757 use a double + chord architecture that clearly isn't being used here (I say that because of the *giant* flange and supporting stiffeners at the center of the rib). To me, this looks more like they've got a much narrower box going through the center tank using multiple closely spaced spars. That's sufficiently different from what I'm used to that I can't really say anything intelligent about how thick the flanges ought to be.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 56, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 63652 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 52):
I am not 100% convinced the side of body spar is machined to this shape, it looks cast to me. Should be AlLi.

It is machined in the UK by Magellan Aerospace out of AlLi

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 55):
The A350 spec range is so large that I can't imagine they're not using the entire wing box for fuel.

The A350 has a very large centre tank, about 66t capacity (yes sixty six).



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 57, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 63561 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So what are the benefits of an isogrid structure? looks like a lot of machining even if NC.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 58, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 63520 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):

I do not know the number for this particular part, however other parts that I know that have been replaced with an isogrid design showed a 60% drop in mass, with increased stiffness, increased strength, and reduced part count. This part will also have reduced volume, leaving more volume possibly for fuel.

The downside is that you need sophicated software to optimize the design, specialised processes and machinery, and this increases the design and manufacturing costs.



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, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 59, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 63111 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 55):
To me, this looks more like they've got a much narrower box going through the center tank using multiple closely spaced spars.

I don't quite get what you mean, here is the only picture I have found of the box in isolation:



As it probably is modeled after the A380 (first mostly CFRP box) here a picture of that, one can see the ribs placement (sigh ) by the fasteners trails on the side, the same thin flanges:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380wingbox.jpg

I though casting might be OK as it is mostly loaded in compression but Zeke has confirmed it is indeed machined. Never seen an isogrid part before, intriguing   .

[Edited 2012-04-16 05:59:39]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 62884 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
So what are the benefits of an isogrid structure? looks like a lot of machining even if NC.

One learn something every day  :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isogrid

Quoting zeke (Reply 56):
The A350 has a very large centre tank, about 66t capacity (yes sixty six).

It sounded enormous but look at the dimensions of the box in the picture from Airbus Nantes and compare to the men, it is almost 2 m high times 6 by 8 meters, should be 83m3   . It means that 66t of the 110t fuel is in the wingbox  Wow! . Now the -1000 has 125t of fuel, given that the center and outer wingboxes are taken where do they find the extra volume? HTP?

Here the wing joining area on the A380 wing, seems it goes inside the top and bottom flanges (at least) of the center wingbox. As that area looks identical on the A350 I would assume they use the same principle there:



[Edited 2012-04-16 08:18:20]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 61, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 62752 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 59):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 55):
To me, this looks more like they've got a much narrower box going through the center tank using multiple closely spaced spars.

I don't quite get what you mean, here is the only picture I have found of the box in isolation:

I was talking about the "normal" (non-isogrid) CATIA rib shown at the bottom of Reply 52.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 59):
Never seen an isogrid part before, intriguing

They've been around for a while, just not very commonly in commercial aerospace. You almost have to high-speed-machine them so they're expensive to produce. Several military jet engines use isogrid casings and the Delta launch vehicles use isogrid payload fairings.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
It means that 66t of the 110t fuel is in the wingbox

That's about right; the very high aspect ratio (for an airliner) wings on the A350/787 coupled with the typical wing loft and supercritical airfoil cause the vast majority of tank space to be between the engines (the center tank and the most inboard parts of the main tanks).

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 62, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 62698 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Here the wing joining area on the A380 wing, seems it goes inside the top and bottom flanges (at least) of the center wingbox. As that area looks identical on the A350 I would assume they use the same principle there:

There are a couple of Videos of the 380 FAL that shows the lower center wingbox flange goes inside the wingbox (there are cutouts for the wingskins stringers which are a bit recessed like on the 350 bottom skin, see below) and the top flange goes on top of the top wingskin (there are cutouts for the sideflanges, the wingskin (380 and 350) stringers goes all the way and it makes structural sense to have the flange on top). The same would then apply for the A350:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02PPoyyfv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTo_o8ykdUo

Here the bottom side at the joining (observe the guy holding up the wingroot  ) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380join1.jpg

[Edited 2012-04-16 09:48:09]


Non French in France
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 63, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 62391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nice shots..one thing that always puzzles me when looking at Airbus production is the lack of safety glasses or hard hats (when working under parts being craned)... chalk that up to just a difference in companies.

User currently onliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 62372 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 51):
With the current state of computer design, seeing such a mock up is mind boggling. Although after the A380 problems, it's probably a comforting but expensive check.

You misunderstood my post I think. The purpose of Cabin0 is not to assemble the cabin items together and see if they fit (although it will surely provide some feedback in that sense too), but to perform systems integration testing, that is to hook up all the cabin systems and have them talk to each other and function together like on a real a/c. Airbus has a similar setup - for flight controls - at the Iron Bird in TLS. But they had never gone to such an extent with the cabin.


User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 62074 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 63):

Nice shots..one thing that always puzzles me when looking at Airbus production is the lack of safety glasses or hard hats (when working under parts being craned)... chalk that up to just a difference in companies.

A layman with no manufacturing experience here thinking out loud: Could it be common sense? If a several ton piece of aircraft falls on your head, a hardhat or safety goggles are not going to help much. I mean those pieces are fully assembled and nobody is wielding tools or nuts and bolts that could fall on someones head.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 66, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 62003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting r2rho (Reply 64):
You misunderstood my post I think.


It's probably just a language/company terminology difference.. even if just providing systems checking fixture we would lazily refer to it as a mockup...

Quoting nasula (Reply 65):
If a several ton piece of aircraft falls on your head, a hardhat or safety goggles are not going to help much.


It's not the big things one wears glasses and hard hats for... in the pictures I see drilling hence the chance of broken bits flying, chips, etc.. and even automated equipment send debris flying occasionally. Hard hats are for the debris falling from supposedly complete assemblies.. rivets/screws, tools, etc Saw a clipboard a manager set down to make a point - (needed both hands) -- come sailing down off a set of elevators being positioned an hour later.. In the years of enforcing safety requirements at Boeing, I've seen it all.. A nut for a 1/2 inch bolt dropped from 20 feet will knock you out. Granted Boeing uses more crane operations than Airbus.. however the danger is always there. Boeing is very strict safety glasses must be worn at all times in the manufacturing/assembly process..


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 61919 times:

Any idea why Airbus decided to go with an AlLi wingbox in the A350?. Being a CFRP plane, you'd think they would go for a CFRP wingbox similar to that of the A380.

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 68, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 61876 times:

Yeah I'm almost certain it isn't all Al-Li That isogrid stiffener might be.

NS


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 69, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 61769 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 67):
Any idea why Airbus decided to go with an AlLi wingbox in the A350?. Being a CFRP plane, you'd think they would go for a CFRP wingbox similar to that of the A380.

The center wingbox is majority CFRP, like for the wing the ribs are AlLi for economical reasons, they are all different and would require unique tooling for every rib ie some 100+ tools. It is therefore much easier and cheaper to load the NC machine with a billet of AlLi and have it carve out the different shape ribs. Furthermore the loading on the ribs is predominately compression therefore Alu is not such a bad choice, in the A trade AlLi come out as best choice.

Some highly loaded fittings are Ti as are the fasteners so it is a mix of CFRP, AlLi and Ti.

The 788 uses Alu ribs, the 789 has started to convert most ribs to CFRP to gain weight but at a cost, the A380 also uses CFRP for the ribs IIRC.



Non French in France
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 70, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 61692 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):

It sounded enormous but look at the dimensions of the box in the picture from Airbus Nantes and compare to the men, it is almost 2 m high times 6 by 8 meters, should be 83m3

Approximatly 82,421 liters

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
It means that 66t of the 110t fuel is in the wingbox

Total is 113.3 t.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Now the -1000 has 125t of fuel, given that the center and outer wingboxes are taken where do they find the extra volume? HTP?

Should still be a 3 tank setup, I assume it is in the slightly longer chord in the -1000 wing.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 69):

The center wingbox is majority CFRP

Correct, like the A380.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 69):
the A380 also uses CFRP for the ribs IIRC.

The A380 uses both CFRP and Al-Zn (7449-T7651) ribs. The CFRP ribs still have Al-Zn cap (the rib feet).



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 71, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 61625 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Now the -1000 has 125t of fuel, given that the center and outer wingboxes are taken where do they find the extra volume? HTP?

There are surge tanks in the outboard rib bays of the A350-900. With creative venting, both OEMs have found ways in the past to turn these tanks into useable fuel volume. It wouldn't surprise me if this is at least part of the solution for adding volume to the A350-1000

Quoting zeke (Reply 70):
I assume it is in the slightly longer chord in the -1000 wing

Is the actual distance between the spars changing? I thought the -1000 was getting a fairly simple TE extension. If the spars are moving, the -1000 is getting an all-new wing! Can this be right?

Quoting zeke (Reply 70):
Total is 113.3 t.

I have the following from a -900 briefing about a year ago:
Left: 25,035Kg
Center: 60,190Kg
Right: 25, 035Kg
Total: 110,260Kg

Has Airbus added 3 Tonnes to the total capacity in the past year?

Edit: Corrected quantity labels.

[Edited 2012-04-16 22:15:32]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 72, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 61554 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 71):

I have the following from a -900 briefing about a year ago:
Left: 25,035L
Center: 60,190L
Right: 25, 035L
Total: 110,260L

Has Airbus added 3 Tonnes to the total capacity in the past year?

The volume available is over 140,000 l, and over 113t. 110,000 l would only be 88t of fuel, depending on SG, obviously never in the ballpark of what I have seen discussed before.



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 73, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 61529 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 72):
The volume available is over 140,000 l

Sorry, I mislabeled the quantities in my post. They should have been listed as Kg, not Liters. I'll try again:

I have the following from a -900 briefing about a year ago:
Left: 25,035Kg
Center: 60,190Kg
Right: 25, 035Kg
Total: 110,260Kg

That adds up to 138,000 Liters... still shy of the 140,000 mentioned above.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 74, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 61549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Per the A350-900 Preliminary ACAP (July 2011) - Usable Fuel Capacity: 138,000 liters | 108,330kg.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 75, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 60871 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 73):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):

They are the both the same incorrect volumes, one using a SG of 0.785, and the other a SG of 0.8. I have seen other numbers like 135,800 l as well. When launched, flight global publshed a capacity of 150,000 l. Depending on where you look you will also see different volumes for the -800 like 129,000 l vs 138,000 l



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 76, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 60853 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So has Airbus raised the amount, or are we just quibbling over density values?

Airbus' preliminary A350-900 ACAP gives a density of 0.785kg/l with their 138,000 liter number and the Specifications Page for the A350-900 on airbus.com also shows 138,000 liters, so I expect they are using the same density there, as well.


Quoting zeke (Reply 75):
Depending on where you look you will also see different volumes for the -800 like 129,000 l vs 138,000.l

I understand at launch the fuel capacity for the A350-800 was 129,000 liters. However, now that the A350-800 will be a straight shrink of the A350-900, it appears that Airbus is going to use the same tanks as the A350-900 and the fuel capacity has been raised to the same 138,000 liters of the A350-900 per Airbus' web site. I would expect part of the reason for the 259t WV would be to take advantage of that extra capacity.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 77, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 61095 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
So has Airbus raised the amount, or are we just quibbling over density values?

Airbus' preliminary A350-900 ACAP gives a density of 0.785kg/l with their 138,000 liter number and the Specifications Page for the A350-900 on airbus.com also shows 138,000 liters, so I expect they are using the same density there,

I have already stated the answer to the first part twice on this thread. As for the second part, I fail to see the correlation of volume with SG. Volume is based upon the actual physical space available.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 78, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 61087 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 77):
I have already stated the answer to the first part twice on this thread.

You've stated it's over 140,000 liters and over 113 tons, both of which are more than what publically-available Airbus information states is the case. Now if that number if from a non-publically-available Airbus document (like a preliminary FCOM or a private Airbus presentation to CX), fine, but it would have been polite to note that. *shrug*


Quoting zeke (Reply 77):
As for the second part, I fail to see the correlation of volume with SG.

You are the one who brought it up and made the implication to it having an impact on the actual volume. *shrug*


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13039 posts, RR: 100
Reply 79, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 60887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):
I'd be absolutely shocked if that was cast; it's very hard to avoid voids in casting, which totally screws up fatigue life.

Not to mention this would be a safety critical part which most manufacturers ban casting unless there is not avoiding it (e.g., engine rotors)

Quoting zeke (Reply 56):
The A350 has a very large centre tank, about 66t capacity (yes sixty six).

To think I was impressed by the A332s centerline tank! (30t by volume, but that would be with very few pax).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 61):
Several military jet engines use isogrid casings

Fan case of PW4098. I'm certain other engines main casing (I recall seeing them in the factory, but I couldn't find a link quick).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29847199/4.../Fan-Case-Isogrid-and-Kevlar-Belts

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 80, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 60853 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
but it would have been polite to note that. *shrug*

He did, we get information hinted and we have to understand them as they come.


This is very interesting, so the volume has changed compared to first public spec release. The interesting part is not that the max volume has changed, it is the gleaning into the A350 programs information policy. Most probably A found when doing the detailed design that the dimensions of the total wingbox would change slightly, any tiny fraction change and the fuel volume changes a lot. Instead of changing brochure values all the time they stay put with what they said once and then change once at EIS   . Makes sense, makes them look like they know what they are doing   , I would have the same policy.


Makes you wonder what other things have changed? W'ell see  (MEW and OEW is a fight for sure, but this is standard, things like the MTOW would be more fundamental  Wow! )



Non French in France
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 81, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 60726 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
implication to it having an impact on the actual volume

I did not imply that the SG changes the volume (unlike "also shows 138,000 liters, so I expect they are using the same density there"). I stated the numbers were for the same volume, 138,000 l, and the difference in mass being quoted is attributed to the SG being used. Common SG values used in Airbus documents include 0.803, 0.8, and 0.785, and mass of fuel is the product of volume and SG.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 79):
To think I was impressed by the A332s centerline tank! (30t by volume, but that would be with very few pax).

The fuel system is very simple on the A350, they have cut down on the number of pumps and plumbing significantly, and only have a 3 tank setup, two wing tanks, and a centre tank. The centre tank on the A330 is around 30% of the total, on the A350 it is around 50%.

The fuel feed sequence and fuel quantity measurement system is similar to other Airbus aircraft.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 80):

This is very interesting, so the volume has changed compared to first public spec release.

It is not that surprising, on the A380, 787 and 747-8, one saw various fuel quantities listed by the OEMs. Until the detail design is complete and construction commenced, the volume changes.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 60258 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 54):

I'll leave it to the engineers to explain the isogrid characteristics and benefits..

On structures as shown, the flat portion is primarily loaded with shear load (imagine a cedar board fence). If the flat area is too large (without stiffeners or vertical posts for the fence) the amount of shear load that the panel can take (assuming thickness is the same) is low before the panel would buckle.

The isogrid allows you to increase the number of stiffener without adding the weight of a traditional stiffener. You can also do isogrid in a square pattern, but apparently the triangular is more efficient because the stiffener is more closely resemble orthotropic material (load stiffening in all direction). If you step back and look at a block of triangular cells, you can see the hexagontal cells (which are used by nature as one of the most efficient cell structure).

Honeycomb composite panel remains more efficient per weight, but isogrid is the next best thing and a lot more damage tolerant.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
So what are the benefits of an isogrid structure? looks like a lot of machining even if NC.

Actually it's not that bad. Remember, the thickness of the plate would have been the same because of the extra tall outside mating flange. Since the isogrid is short, you don't have to get to the intricate machining until late in the stage, the rest of the machining is just material removal and can be done at a higher rate with a larger bit.

In a regular stiffened panel the stiffeners would be much taller and you would worry about machine chatter on such a tall and skinny stiffener.

Quoting zeke (Reply 58):

The downside is that you need sophicated software to optimize the design, specialised processes and machinery, and this increases the design and manufacturing costs.

Yes, but once you have the software set up, you can readily optimize many parts. Machining and NC programing would be no different from today. You basically have to remove only a little more material. The pattern does slow you down but that is where you mentioned the cost would come in.

Design cost is cheap (relatively speaking) you just have to train the designer to think in isogrid terms which I would guess much easier than training them to think in composite terms 

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 83, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 60053 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 82):

Yes, but once you have the software set up, you can readily optimize many parts.

I do not know, I did not think nastran was able to do that, maybe some 3rd party tool. Also I do not know the design cases that were looked at, isogrids have been used in the past not only to save weight, they are also very good solutions for damage tolerance and pressurisation. They may have also looked at the possibility of fuel tank rupture, and other crashworthiness aspects (e.g. gear up landing, water landing) and fuel tank integrity. I am not that familiar with what the new FARs need these days in terms of inerting, containment/isolation of explosions/fire in fuel tanks.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 82):
Machining and NC programing would be no different from today.

From what I understand Magellan Aerospace had to purchase a new machine to build that specific part, I do not think the photo does it justice as to how complex that part it is.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 59877 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 83):
I do not know, I did not think nastran was able to do that

Probably not. The isogrid optimization would have probably been done using parametric studies (adapted from some of-the-shelf software). Once that is done then the detailed analysis would be done using nastran.

Quoting zeke (Reply 83):

From what I understand Magellan Aerospace had to purchase a new machine to build that specific part,

Could be . . . aerospace has whole different material requirements that we don't necessarily deal with. They probably didn't have a 5 axis NC machine large enough that could handle the tolerance.   Iisogrid on a curved or cylindrical surface is more complex to machine and or formed than isogrid on a flat part.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 85, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 59442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 82):
bt


Thanks Thai for the explanation.. now I wonder if we'll see it on the 737MAX.. or did Airbus patent the application.. Of course we could use it elsewhere and possibly do.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 86, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 59288 times:

Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP? Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

Isn't CFRP sensitive to AlLi?

Anyone knows if the A350 use the A380 designed Titanium Extended Performance Lockbolt from Alcoa(compatible with the composite and aluminum materials ) in the wingbox?



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 87, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 58822 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP? Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

Isn't CFRP sensitive to AlLi?

What is labeled as a CFRP part of an aircraft is seldom 100% CFRP, most of the time it is a combination of CFRP, Ti and Al. CFRP and Al has a corrosion problem when in direct contact, that is fixed by an insulation material between the 2. All these materials has their strength and weaknesses that is why the OEMs mix them in the designs. The 787 wingbox for the 788 has Al ribs like the 350, the skins are CFRP thereby using is superior strength and that you can tailor the strength direction-wise. These Al ribs are now gradually replaced with CFRP for many positions where the weight gain outweighs the cost and other drawbacks (non conductivity....).

Our Boeing friends should know more.

[Edited 2012-04-19 06:13:23]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 88, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 58806 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP?

No. Many pieces of titanium in there, as well as aluminum ribs (changing to CFRP) as ferpe noted.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

CFRP is not the be-all and end-all of materials. It's really good for a lot of things but, when you balance cost, manufacturability, and performance sometimes it's better and sometimes it's not. Airbus obvious decided the AlLi isogrid was the optimum choice (by however they defined optimum) for that part.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Isn't CFRP sensitive to AlLi?

Other way around...aluminum alloy (of any kind) has corrosion problems when hooked to anything conductive and significantly different, like CFRP. You mitigate that, as ferpe noted, with proper electrical insulation between mating parts.

Tom.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 58722 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 85):
. or did Airbus patent the application..

Not sure about patenting the isogrid design. The isogrid is used on the Internation Space Station modules and many rocket shells, so I would think it's useable by anyone. However, the optimization software (which is needed to make it useful) may be proprietary although you can probably find many published articles on how to optimize isogrid in the public domain.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 86):
Is not the whole 787 winbox made out of CFRP? Why has Airbus adopted this kind of hybrid wingbox (CFRP/AlLi with Isogrid)

Airbus and Boeing has slightly different philosophy in use of graphite/aluminum interface. Airbus is slightly less conservative and uses this combination more frequently (with proper galvanic isolation of course). The use of graphite skin and aluminum core on the engine cowling have been used for a while.

Boeing (specially Boeing Materials Technology) is a little more conservative with graphite/aluminum interface. They will use it when really necessary with lots of isolation requirement. For the engine cowling, they went out of their way to develop graphite pitch core for use with graphite skin (for the 777).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 87):
the cost and other drawbacks (non conductivity....).
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 88):
You mitigate that, as ferpe noted, with proper electrical insulation between mating parts.

You get into a catch 22 situation. in order to use aluminum against graphite, you need to isolate the aluminum. But you don't want a completely isolated piece of aluminum because it build up static charge and needs to be grounded otherwise it can arc. You can ground out the aluminum by using grounding straps . . . that's where the complication and costs comes in.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 90, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 58556 times:

They say if you lie convincing enough people will believe you Wow!  :

I came across this slide today (from a Deutsche Bank analyst briefing July 2010) :

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

I clearly shows a fairly conventional Air Cond Pac in a fairly conventional place       .

So I went back to my screenshot from post 82 in thread 2 and sure enough if you look reeeally carefully the Air cond pack is under the wingbox:

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

Here one can also see that the tube going back never enters the cooling pack at the rear of the wing fairing it just stretches around it before entering the fuselage in the space beside the cargo area. Must be another cooling pack but for what? It does not seem to be for the electrical system. Ozone remover? Hydraulics? There is a lot of tubes/wires around this area.

[Edited 2012-04-19 10:26:31]


Non French in France
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 91, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 57985 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
Here one can also see that the tube going back never enters the cooling pack at the rear of the wing fairing it just stretches around it before entering the fuselage in the space beside the cargo area. Must be another cooling pack but for what?

A few considerations :

Air can come from the engines, APU, or external ground air supply (both LP and HP), and ram air. The air can be used for air conditioning, pressurisation, wing anti-ice, fuel tank inert gas generation, engine start, and pack bay ventilation. The system includes an ozone converter, and a Inert Gas Generation System (IGGS).



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 57482 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
Must be another cooling pack but for what? It does not seem to be for the electrical system. Ozone remover? Hydraulics? There is a lot of tubes/wires around this area.

Hard to tell exactly from that picture, but it would likely be either a part of the fuel tank inerting system or the supplemental cooling system (for galley cooling).


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 57361 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 92):
a part of the fuel tank inerting system

I believe this will be correct. It makes sense to locate the inerting system near the fuel tanks, and it will likely use an air feed from the cabin to achieve its pressure differential across the nitrogen separation membranes. Supplemental cooling units are easier to locate remotely, even though I would expect them to have a liquid interface with the pack heat exchangers.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 94, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 57186 times:

As we are waiting for the aft fuselage section (16-19) from Hamburg (they now seem to be critical path) here is a nice picture of the next journey after the fuselage join is complete, the new P40 hall. First the model of the hall so we can orient ourselves, this model photo is taken from the back wall of the hall where we see all the windows is in the hall photo:



The photo is taken from the balcony running atop the halls sliding doors. One can clearly see how much natural light is coming into the hall, the architect which designed the new A350 FAL had the brief to get the maximum of natural light lighting and the roof is covered with photocells. 50% of the electricity requirements of the FAL shall be generated out of the FALs roof elements (can be seen as dark grey roof lining of P30 and P40 halls in post 46), thus the 350 FAL is a forerunner for sustainable industry production:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350FALP40.jpg

I think the hall seems like a nice workplace, natural light is always preferable  . Once can also identify the tooling running on it's tracks (watch the 380 videos in post 62, they use the same jigs), the wing merger jigs on their tracks denoted with red lines, the tower holding the rear fuselage in blue and the cabin fitting scaffolding yellow. The scaffolding seems not to be dragged to the centerline yet (this picture is taken at the buildup of the hall several months ago), the yellow line behind the man working on the wing tracks should be the centerline. One can also see the second P40 station being built in the background with it's office hut on the back-wall.

[Edited 2012-04-20 20:46:48]


Non French in France
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 95, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 57059 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ferpe,
so it looks like the wings are delivered straight to position 40 from the Beluga and are prepared there in forward position before loading to the airframe.. Again I notice the use of wheeled transport although there is a crane available to lift them to the join tooling. What is the capacity of the crane? is it manned from a cab or by remote on the floor?


Wouldn't there be an advantage to having the engine struts installed at this stage or earlier?


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 56980 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 94):
thus the 350 FAL is a forerunner for sustainable industry production:

It is good to see the industry taking these steps. The total environmental footprint for manufacturing a CFRP airframe is much smaller than for an aluminum airframe, particularly with regards to energy consumption. The "buy-to-fly" ratios are much better, reducing the total energy which is wasted as chips when building with metal. New policies regarding the use of lead and chrome reduce hazardous byproducts from production and when the aircraft are scrapped. These are all massive steps forward for reducing the impact on the environment from building airplanes. As for the progressive features of the A350 FAL facility; it may actually be following the 787 program in this regard, as the new Charleston, SC FAL for the 787 has already received LEED gold certification. Like the A350 FAL, energy for production in Charleston is largely from solar sources integral to the building.

http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/ne...st-of-green-power-purchasers?rss=0


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 97, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 56922 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 95):

Cranes are used to put the wings in place. The fuselage join occurs in another station (40), the complete fuselage is brought to the wing join station (50) on wheels. I had seen a nice animation they put together of the whole process, I cannot seem to find it now.


edit : found it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVhy-8oD0hA&feature=player_embedded

[Edited 2012-04-21 00:06:33]


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, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 98, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 56772 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 96):
it may actually be following the 787 program in this regard, as the new Charleston, SC FAL for the 787 has already received LEED gold certification. Like the A350 FAL, energy for production in Charleston is largely from solar sources integral to the building.

Thanks, nice that the aero industry can make these showcases, the industry need it to counter the carbon footprint they planes makes when used. Solar panels on roofs in now becoming a big thing here in Europe, especially in Germany. Funnily enough the sun rich south of Europe is a bit behind on private roofs and I would guess industry in general as well. Has to do with how much the state sponsors the buyback of the energy to the net in the different countries I guess.

@kanban, no idea how the crane is controlled but it is indeed used to hoist the wing onto the joining jigs, the video does not tell how the wings comes onto their pre-joining supports but I suppose they are craned there as well. I believe the engine pylons are mounted at this station as well (at least this is the procedure for the 330/340 and 380), they come on at this station or latest next as you can see them on in the picture of the video when the frame goes to external station P18.

[Edited 2012-04-21 01:31:26]


Non French in France
User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 56700 times:

Apologies if you have alreadys seen this video, but if like me you missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKKsxN_6Z4I&feature=related

It's not new...



maxter
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 56551 times:

Quoting maxter (Reply 99):

Some great footage of the aft pressure bulfhead in that.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 101, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 56209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

went back over the previous pictures and see that the engine strut is indeed positioned or installation..

Zeke thanks for the video... one of the things interesting from a process stand point is the evolution of their process design and the changes on implementation.. the various pictures/charts and videos are all taken at different times and show the maturation of the process... Ferpe and I frequently compare A/B processes not as right or wrong but strictly as two different approaches.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 102, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 56490 times:

When looking at the P40 model picture I could spot the pylon being brought forward for mating to the wing:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PylonghangatP40.jpg

Thus P40 is indeed the station where the wing is completed probably to enable testing of hydralics, electrics,fuel and bleed system at the next station, P30.


Funny that A is labeling the halls the "wrong way around" i.e. FALs starts at P59 and ends at P30 then goes to external P18 and is then transfered over to the final hall at the 330 line (to get engines and high value cabin interiors like first class and premium seats...). I don't know why this is so    , I can only observe that the french labels their school classes similarly i.e. the number of years your are from exam   . So we are indeed dissecting the graduation process of the A350    .

Perhaps Knoxibus could enlighten us to why this labeling?



Non French in France
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 103, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 56363 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe their computer on recognizes descending order... ?

Another question, I see all these blue and yellow panels on the work platforms which would make sense if they were at the work level however they appear to be on tower structures having no contact with the position processes. What are the for or what do they hide?


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 104, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 56247 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
I see all these blue and yellow panels on the work platforms which would make sense if they were at the work level however they appear to be on tower structures having no contact with the position processes. What are the for or what do they hide?

I'll guess they're for situational awareness of which P40 bay you're in. P40 blue and P40 yellow.


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 105, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 55514 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 109):
Altair's Optistruct product is (I believe) the platform Airbus uses.

Boeing also uses Optistruct, and has a group dedicated to structural optimisation. We sent some of our parts to them to see what they could do, but didn't get much improvement since the parts were largely limited by the available space.

That said, I'm not so sure the isogrid of the rib web is really such a complex problem, though it would depend on how much the grid geometry varied. I'm sure you could analyse it by hand if the grid is fairly consistent and as long as you had a means of determining an equivalent material thickness.


User currently onlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 34
Reply 106, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 55049 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
It makes sense to locate the inerting system near the fuel tanks, and it will likely use an air feed from the cabin to achieve its pressure differential across the nitrogen separation membranes

The nitrogen generating systems in service now use air from the bleed system.
This goes through what is very similar to a pack where the pressure and temperature are controlled closely before it is fed to the air seperation units that remove the oxygen. When I first saw it I couldn't be;ieve how complicated it all is. There are more components in there than an aircon pack!
The system is located in the wing/body fairing and has its own ram air in and out ducts.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 54975 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 108):
The nitrogen generating systems in service now use air from the bleed system.

787?



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 108, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 54951 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 109):
787?

Independent electric compressor.


User currently onliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 54232 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
It makes sense to locate the inerting system near the fuel tanks, and it will likely use an air feed from the cabin to achieve its pressure differential across the nitrogen separation membranes. Supplemental cooling units are easier to locate remotely, even though I would expect them to have a liquid interface with the pack heat exchangers.
Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 106):

The nitrogen generating systems in service now use air from the bleed system.
This goes through what is very similar to a pack where the pressure and temperature are controlled closely before it is fed to the air seperation units that remove the oxygen. When I first saw it I couldn't be;ieve how complicated it all is. There are more components in there than an aircon pack!
The system is located in the wing/body fairing and has its own ram air in and out ducts.

Actually, it's just the other way around, at least as far as Airbus designs to date are concerned. The supplemental cooling has its own ram air ducts and heat exchanger, separate from the packs. The inerting system (which takes air from the bleed) shares its ram air duct with the pack. If anyone could find a good photo of the A380 belly fairing in the database, it should become clearer then.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3930 posts, RR: 4
Reply 110, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 54184 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 109):

I thought the A380 didn't have an inserting system, as it was certified prior to the required date for the FAR, and it didn't have a belly tank (that was the argument given when this was discussed on here).


User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 53811 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
Maybe their computer on recognizes descending order... ?

Let's hope the German computers do it the same way    .



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineap305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 53387 times:

The rear section is now in TLS

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...-delivered-to-final-assembly-line/

[Edited 2012-04-25 11:09:37]

User currently onlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 34
Reply 113, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 53275 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 109):
The inerting system (which takes air from the bleed) shares its ram air duct with the pack

Thanks for that. Made me look in our A320 AMM, and found out that our latest A320 has an inerting system fitted for the centre tank only. It is a much simpler system than the B744 and B777 that I had seen before. I am intrigued now to find out how Airbus made it so simple compared to the Boeing system.


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 52934 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 50):
The facility was inaugurated at the end of last year, so at this point they must be integrating all the systems on the test benches. It's an impressive facility, with a full mock-up of the A350 cabin (except S15-21), real hardware and real software running on it. I don't think anyone has done cabin testing at this level before, including Boeing.

Bombardier is doing the same thing for the CSeries with its CIASTA test rig. Might be a new trend in the industry.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7496 posts, RR: 18
Reply 115, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 52756 times:

Quoting ap305 (Reply 112):
The rear section is now in TLS

Saw this just posted on FB

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=447035805312709&set=a.403690762980547.116293.392751580741132&type=1&theater

Looks like things should be coming together real soon.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 116, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 52494 times:

Quoting ap305 (Reply 112):
The rear section is now in TLS

here a zoom of the most interesting picture, one can see the static testing frames strain gauges and the fasteners for the rear bulk-head now being in place (click on image to magnify):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AftfuselageMSN5000details.jpg

Top view with what I guess in numerous antenna bushings:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AftfuselageMSN5000detail2.jpg


Here the press release:
"Airbus has delivered the aft fuselage for the A350 XWB static test airframe to the final assembly line in Toulouse (France). This final section of the fuselage will be assembled with the front and centre fuselage sections which were joined up in early April.

Assembled at Airbus’ site in Hamburg (Germany), the 20 metre long carbon fibre aft fuselage is made up of the rear fuselage barrel, produced at Airbus’ Getafe plant (Spain), two lateral aft fuselage panels made by Premium AEROTEC (Germany) plus the upper and lower aft fuselage panels manufactured by Airbus in Stade (Germany).

This first A350 XWB airframe will be used for the static structural tests that all new aircraft undergo as part of their certification process. The assembly of the first flying A350 XWB, MSN1, will start during summer."


The aft section was delivered some 22 days after the middle section, announced was 2 weeks by Airbus on 4th of April. Seems they are not making up any ground on the aft fuselage delays which is now the critical path save for the wings. Lets see when these will be delivered, should be any day now according to their original plan.

[Edited 2012-04-26 05:08:33]


Non French in France
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 117, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 52226 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 116):

Top view with what I guess in numerous antenna bushings:

   Wouldn't think you would need that many antenna unless you're a military aircraft.

Also, you would usually route test wiring through a window plug.

It could be those are hook-ups for load cells. You need a lot of them to simulate a more distributed load on the fuselage.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 52047 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 116):
Top view with what I guess in numerous antenna bushings:

This is the static frame. Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor. These loads must be capable of being varied, as the static frame must be tested for positive and negative g maneuvers. The fitting are actually seals so the loads can be put into the floor while holding a differential pressure on the fuselage.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 51788 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 118):
Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor. These loads must be capable of being varied, as the static frame must be tested for positive and negative g maneuvers. The fitting are actually seals so the loads can be put into the floor while holding a differential pressure on the fuselage.

Thanks, makes 100% sense, these fittings are also visible on the forward fuselage parts, glad they did not plan that many BIG antennas    .



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 51666 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 119):
these fittings are also visible on the forward fuselage parts

You will find these same fittings on the bottom of the fuselage as well, for enabling the same dynamic load conditions on the cargo floor. Older Boeing tests used static loads on the floors, which are not nearly as representative, so this approach was new for Boeing on the 787. Not sure if this is new for Airbus or not. I did a quick search for images of the A380 static test, but could not find any with sufficient detail to show if it was done this way or not.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 121, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 51643 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 118):

This is the static frame. Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor.

  Why would you need dynamic loads on a static test frame?

Quoting CM (Reply 120):
Older Boeing tests used static loads on the floors, which are not nearly as representative, so this approach was new for Boeing on the 787.

So for a static test, as you pull up the wings, you need a down force on the fuselage. Are the down force created by these load cells then? You would think you would rather have a tension load on you load cell rather than a compression load. Although if you have to test for the negative G condition, then the top load cell on the fuselage would be applicable.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 122, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 51508 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 120):

You will find these same fittings on the bottom of the fuselage as well, for enabling the same dynamic load conditions on the cargo floor. Older Boeing tests used static loads on the floors, which are not nearly as representative, so this approach was new for Boeing on the 787. Not sure if this is new for Airbus or not. I did a quick search for images of the A380 static test, but could not find any with sufficient detail to show if it was done this way or not.

What was different in the past was that there was no requirement to do pressurization at the same time as the ultimate load test. The pressurization test was run separately, often on a completely different frame. There was always floor loading systems along with body load straps to apply both positive and negative G loads. It just wasn't as apparent when there were no orange pressure seals that made it visible. Just holes in the skin to allow the loading cables to penetrate.


User currently onliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 123, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 51526 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 110):
I thought the A380 didn't have an inserting system, as it was certified prior to the required date for the FAR, and it didn't have a belly tank (that was the argument given when this was discussed on here).

You are right, I was actually looking to show the supplemental cooling ram air inlet/outlets. The A380 has supplemental cooling, but not inerting. The A320/330 have no SCS, but (recent models) have inerting. The A350 will have both SCS & inerting.   

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 113):

Thanks for that. Made me look in our A320 AMM, and found out that our latest A320 has an inerting system fitted for the centre tank only. It is a much simpler system than the B744 and B777 that I had seen before. I am intrigued now to find out how Airbus made it so simple compared to the Boeing system.

The company that makes the inerting system for Airbus is Parker. Who does it for Boeing? Does Boeing only inert center tank, or also wing tanks (which would explain additional complexity)?

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 114):

Bombardier is doing the same thing for the CSeries with its CIASTA test rig. Might be a new trend in the industry.

   The more "unexpected surprises" you can discover via test rigs before flight testing, the better!


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 51448 times:

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 122):
There was always floor loading systems along with body load straps to apply both positive and negative G loads. It just wasn't as apparent when there were no orange pressure seals that made it visible.

Thanks Pygmalion!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 121):
dynamic loads on a static test frame

Not intuitive, perhaps, but in a sense there are dynamic loads being monitored during static tests. Boeing's static test setup is essentially of a "flying" airplane. Steel shot in dead weights equaling the weight of the airplane+payload hangs from cables. The cables run through pulleys at the top of the test fixture, then down through load spreaders into load pads on the wing and control surfaces. This simulates air loads on the structure, primarily lift distribution on the wing. Airplane fuel and payload are simulated as well.

The static test frame undergoes many separate tests, with different load conditions (positive & negative g's, Limit Load Factor, Ultimate Load Factor, clean wing, dirty wing, etc.). In particular when you test beyond LLF, you are actually monitoring the structure through the range between LLF and ULF. You are theoretically beyond the elastic range of some parts of the structure, which means load paths through the airplane have the potential to change. The load on the pax floor is different at 105% LLF than it is at 145% LLF - effectively a "dynamic" load created by constraining the floor and gradually increasing the "lift" on the wings. The real-time monitoring permits the test to be stopped if an unexpected change in load path is detected, as happened with both the A380 and 787 static tests.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 125, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 51429 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 124):
The load on the pax floor is different at 105% LLF than it is at 145% LLF - effectively a "dynamic" load created by constraining the floor and gradually increasing the "lift" on the wings.

I'm not sure I get this... in a +3.75 g test case (150% LLF), don't you have to react the entire upward pull on the wings with downward forces elsewhere on the structure? It's not just some simulated load on the floor grid, but the inertial loads on the entire structure that come into play. Why would the reaction force be introduced exclusively on the cabin floor?


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 51393 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 125):
don't you have to react the entire upward pull on the wings with downward forces elsewhere on the structure?

I was just referring to the purpose of the penetrations on the crown in the photo Ferpe posted, but you are correct; all loads are represented at the fidelity possible/practical.

[Edited 2012-04-26 13:30:33]

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 127, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 51762 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 124):
effectively a "dynamic" load created by constraining the floor and gradually increasing the "lift" on the wings.

So you are saying "dynamic" as you are going from one "static" test point to another? or are you talking about potential dynamic effects as you get beyond yield and things starts to "creep"?

Quoting CM (Reply 126):
I was just referring to the purpose of the penetrations on the crown in the photo Ferpe posted, but you are correct; all loads are represented at the fidelity possible/practical.

Makes sense now . . . the load that are supposed to be applied to the floor would come from the top. And the other loads (lower lobe cargo etc) would be come in from the bottom?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 128, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 51755 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 121):
Quoting CM (Reply 118):

This is the static frame. Those fittings permit external fixtures to simulate dynamic loads on the passenger floor.

Why would you need dynamic loads on a static test frame?

"Dynamic" in the sense of "loads induced by aircraft maneuvering". The tests themselves are quasi-static.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 123):

The company that makes the inerting system for Airbus is Parker. Who does it for Boeing?

Depends which aircraft you're talking about, but I believe both Parker and Honeywell have systems. Maybe Hamilton-Sunstrand too.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 123):
Does Boeing only inert center tank, or also wing tanks (which would explain additional complexity)?

Only the center tank on 737/747/777. All tanks on 787.

Tom.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 129, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 51729 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 127):
So you are saying "dynamic"

Dynamic only in the sense that as the simulated g-load is increased, the simulated main deck and lower lobe payloads being reacted by the floor structures must increase proportionately.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 127):
the load that are supposed to be applied to the floor would come from the top. And the other loads (lower lobe cargo etc) would be come in from the bottom?

My recollection of the 787 setup is that this is correct, although it may all be accomplished by constraining the load spreaders from below. I can't remember which it is, but maybe someone else (Pygmalion?) can help clarify.


User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 130, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 51270 times:

the floor load systems are cables not bars and so therefore tension loads only. Positive G loads are reacted out the belly and negative Gs are reacted out the roof. There is always some tension on the cables just to keep everything in place.

User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 131, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 50895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):
Funny that A is labeling the halls the "wrong way around" i.e. FALs starts at P59 and ends at P30 then goes to external P18 and is then transfered over to the final hall at the 330 line (to get engines and high value cabin interiors like first class and premium seats...). I don't know why this is so , I can only observe that the french labels their school classes similarly i.e. the number of years your are from exam . So we are indeed dissecting the graduation process of the A350 .


This has been a question everybody once involved, even partially, with Airbus production processes, has asked.

After close to 10 years, I only got an explanation a couple of months ago, from a guy with more than 25 years in the company, who himself had it from one of the "first" that started Airbus.

For the labelling you mention, we actually refer to it as "Station". It would seem (and again, this is not confirmed), that in the days of the first A300 (or maybe even Concorde or the Caravelle), they used to assess how close an aircraft was from the exit doors, by simply measuring how far, in distance, it was.

Since in those days, everything was done in a single hangar/FAL building, mostly in line (look at the A320 FAL here in TLS), you would know, when the A/C was "40 meters" from the doors, that it was in "station 40", i.e. fuselage join-up (not sure if that was case in the past but I use it as an example).

And so on and so forth, the smaller the "station" figure, the closer the A/C was to actually get out of FAL.

And they would have kept the "labelling" since, even though, there is no distance measurements anymore.

To be taken with a grain of salt, but it is a nice, historical explanation.


By the way, just went through the A350 FAL yesterday, the whole fuselage is close to being whole very soon.



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 50885 times:

The airplane customisation restrictions being put in place in modern aircraft just end up making them even more the same as each other IMHO. The variety of fit out, features and overall product just moulds into each other, as per the manufacturers own limited poffering.

In many ways aviation is getting more boring by the day, with twins ruling the skies, airlines cutting to the bone and manufacturers trying their harderst to save on costs by creating restrictive boundaries for what is offered.


User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 133, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 50719 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well it's either that or nobody can afford airplanes as price of customization would become too dire (not everybody is an Emirates or Lufthansa), and you can not guarantee a proper ramp-up which, would prevent a decent return on investment as building new airplanes today is far from being cheap.


No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 134, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 50379 times:

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 131):
And they would have kept the "labelling" since, even though, there is no distance measurements anymore.

To be taken with a grain of salt, but it is a nice, historical explanation.

It doesn't sound so far fetched. The Boeing section names have a similar origin - the names originally came from the location where the sections were built.


User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 135, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 50151 times:

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 130):
the smaller the "station" figure, the closer the A/C was to actually get out of FAL.


An explanation which ties with the way houses are numbered in streets of French towns. The smallest the number, the closest to the town center. And the metric numbering is used in villages with scattered housing.
Thanks for passing it on.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 136, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 48998 times:

So while we wait for the wings (should arrive now in May according to John Lehay who has been in Australia pedaling frames), here one more piece for MSN001:



Aernnova has delivered the first Rudder to Airbus-Stade from its plant at Berantevilla (Spain). This structure of 11 m X 2,5 m has been manufactured in composite material at Aernnova´s plant in Illescas (Toledo) and later assembled in Berantevilla (Alava).

Ti though the rudder was hanged at the FAL but here it goes to the fin production site, might be for the first frames only?



Non French in France
User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 47835 times:

8 days since we have seen anything on this thread. Would it be because A is keeping mretty mum on the subject or that there is not much going on?

Been doing a bit of trawling and not seeing much.

Cheers,



maxter
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 138, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 47400 times:

Quoting maxter (Reply 137):
8 days since we have seen anything on this thread.

It has been quiet. AW has a 16-May article in which they say the program remains "challenging" but that FAL is "progressing well"

Quote:
For the A350, the aircraft maker merely notes that the program remains “challenging.” Final assembly of the first aircraft began in April and Wilhelm says that element of the program is progressing well.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_05_16_2012_p0-457966.xml&p=1


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 139, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 47401 times:

Quoting maxter (Reply 137):
Would it be because A is keeping mretty mum on the subject or that there is not much going on?

As per the FAL of the static frame we are waiting for the wingboxes (it is more wingboxes then complete wings IMO), from what I know they were planned for late April earlier this year, now we have then a 3 week delay. There was an Airbus marketing guy talking in Australia in April who said the wings would come in May so that would only mean a month delay compared to earlier plan. He also said MSN001 would fly next summer, this is later then the last quote which was next spring   .

All in all we can see that there are months added as we go along, now if this is to get a solid ramp after the first parts have passed this is OK, if is because of general disorder in the program it is worse. Let's hope for the first, this is what Airbus claims is their philosophy, hold and fix rather then interim hacks.



Non French in France
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 140, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 46879 times:

For those of you using twitter, it may be worth readying a few questions for an Airbus Question and Answer session on the A350:

'Join us on May 31 for our live Twitter Q&A session with #A350 expert François Caudron. Submit your questions using #AskTheExpert'

https://twitter.com/#!/Airbus


User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 46597 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 140):
'Join us on May 31 for our live Twitter Q&A session with #A350 expert François Caudron. Submit your questions using #AskTheExpert'

Thanks for that, much appreciated. Now off to learn how to twitter...



maxter
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 142, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 45495 times:

If we dont get wings w*ell take doors , thanks Beochien at avia.superforum.fr for the finding. I post the complete press release as it tells a bit about the scale of programs such as the A350, 400 people building doors  Wow! (I know that doors are complicated and extremely important parts of a civil airliner but still). One also notes Evrards comments that "Assembly of the A350 XWB is progressing well"  , from where I sit it is taking longer then planned  :


"Eurocopter delivers the first Airbus A350 XWB jetliner passenger door, highlighting its innovative capabilities in composite technology; Donauwörth, Germany, May 23, 2012


This month’s delivery of Eurocopter’s initial A350 XWB jetliner passenger door produced at its Donauwörth, Germany facility represents a further milestone in a program that underscores synergies between helicopter production and the construction of carbon fiber aircraft components.

In a ceremony in Donauwörth’s C4 production building, Dr. Wolfgang Schoder, Eurocopter Executive Vice President - Programs, and Dr. Michael Rehmet, Vice President - Airplane Door Systems, marked this delivery milestone with Didier Evrard, Airbus Executive Vice President and A350 Program Head.

As prime contractor and system supplier, Eurocopter is providing a full set of door systems that will equip this latest widebody member of Airbus’ jetliner family.





“The development and manufacture of aircraft components is another mainstay of Eurocopter’s activities in Germany, which complements our helicopter production,” Schoder explained. “The A350 XWB’s door systems demonstrate our innovative strength and international competitiveness in the field of carbon fiber technology.”

The A350 XWB passenger doors are the first for a commercial aircraft to be made entirely of carbon fiber reinforced plastic – an ideal material for modern aircraft construction, which is characterized by its combination of lightness and rigidity, as well as its outstanding fatigue properties and corrosion resistance.

Benefits of Eurocopter’s technical innovation in the A350 XWB aircraft doors include a reduction in parts, the application of advanced mechanical systems and equipment that are easier to maintain, and additional safety features. Series production is handled at the company’s Donauwörth site in a new building designed to meet the exacting requirements of automated production methods and quality control at high production rates.

“Assembly of the A350 XWB is progressing well and all the teams and suppliers, like Eurocopter, are strongly focused on working together to deliver a best-in-class aircraft at entry into service,” said Didier Evrard, Executive Vice President – Head of A350 XWB Programme, Airbus. “The A350 XWB brings together the latest in aerodynamics, design and advanced technologies from Airbus and our partners to provide a 25 percent step-change in fuel efficiency compared to the competition.”

Eurocopter currently has approximately 250 employees working on the A350 XWB passenger door program’s design, development and production. Series production eventually will involve more than 400 employees. Total value of the A350 XWB door systems to be provided by Eurocopter is nearly 1.5 billion euros, which includes the cargo doors subcontracted to program partners in South Korea.

In addition to the passenger door presented to Airbus today, five cargo doors already have been delivered. A total of seven door shipsets for the A350 XWB are slated for delivery in 2012 – each composed of four pairs of passenger doors, two cargo doors and one baggage door.

Eurocopter employs a total of some 1,300 personnel in Germany on the development, production, and maintenance of aircraft components. Every year, the Donauwörth site produces more than 4,000 passenger and cargo doors for various aircraft types in the Airbus product line.

About Eurocopter
Established in 1992, the Franco-German-Spanish Eurocopter Group is a division of EADS, a world leader in aerospace and defense-related services. The Eurocopter Group employs approximately 20,000 people. In 2011, Eurocopter confirmed its position as the world’s number one helicopter manufacturer with a turnover of 5.4 billion Euros, orders for 457 new helicopters and a 43 percent market share in the civil and parapublic sectors. Overall, the Group’s helicopters account for 33 percent of the worldwide civil and parapublic fleet. Eurocopter’s strong international presence is ensured by its subsidiaries and participations in 21 countries. Eurocopter’s worldwide network of service centers, training facilities, distributors and certified agents supports some 2,900 customers. There are currently more than 11,300 Eurocopter helicopters in service in 149 countries. Eurocopter offers the most comprehensive civil and military helicopter range in the world and is fully committed to safety as the most important aspect of its business.



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 143, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 45437 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 142):
400 people building doors  Wow!

Doors really are a difficult area of design, but 400 does sound like a lot. I suspect this must include everyone from design to build to support.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 142):
Eurocopter delivers the first Airbus A350 XWB jetliner passenger door

It's an interesting supplier selection. Has Erocopter previously made doors? From their press release, it's obvious they are stressing aircraft components is a real part of their business. I wonder what else they make? 787 pax doors are made by Latécoère in Toulouse, which is another interesting supplier selection. I'm not sure, but it may be the first Boeing part supplied by Latécoère.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 142):
The A350 XWB passenger doors are the first for a commercial aircraft to be made entirely of carbon fiber reinforced plastic

Interesting. I wonder what is CFRP in the A350 doors which is not in existing CFRP doors? Do you know Ferpe?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 144, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44962 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 143):
Doors really are a difficult area of design, but 400 does sound like a lot. I suspect this must include everyone from design to build to support.

Well it says 250 for design etc and eventually 400 for series, guess they plan on building many frames a month Big grin  Wow! or is black metal manpower intensive?

Quoting CM (Reply 143):
It's an interesting supplier selection. Has Erocopter previously made doors? From their press release, it's obvious they are stressing aircraft components is a real part of their business. I wonder what else they make? 787 pax doors are made by Latécoère in Toulouse, which is another interesting supplier selection. I'm not sure, but it may be the first Boeing part supplied by Latécoère.

I know that Latécoère are door experts, seems Eurocopter has cut in on their market for Airbus programs, here from Eurocopters website:

Doors and Fairings for Aircraft Programs
Eurocopter in Germany is an important supplier in all Airbus programs: Single aisle, wide body, long range and the latest A380 aircraft. Eurocopter is Airbus’ chosen partner in the design, development and manufacturing of:

Passenger Service Doors (A330, A340, A380)

Emergency Doors & Hatches (A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A380)

Cargo Doors (A318, A319, A320, A321, A300, A310, A330, A340, A380)

Bulk Cargo Doors (A320, A321, A330, A340, A380)

Fairings (A318, A319, A320, A321)

Conversions (A300F, A330-200F)


And here Latécoère:
Airbus A320: Passenger doors

Airbus A380: Passenger doors, Bulk cargo door

Boeing 787: Passenger doors

Bombardier CRJ 700/900: Bulk cargo door

Embraer ERJ 170/175/190/195: Passenger door, emergency exit door


I get the feeling Latécoère have traditionally done the more difficult doors (passenger doors) and Eurocopter is now being let in on that as well by Airbus, seems Latécoère got the contract for the 787 and were perhaps less agressive in the bidding for the 350  Wow!. Both good catch but might have a tough development period = don't take to many of those black metal projects at the same time  .


Quoting CM (Reply 143):
I wonder what is CFRP in the A350 doors which is not in existing CFRP doors?

I wonder too   , perhaps one part more then the doors for 787 = bragging rights 

[Edited 2012-05-24 04:27:28]


Non French in France
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 145, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44807 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 143):
Doors really are a difficult area of design, but 400 does sound like a lot.

Indeed, especially it is mentioned that they will be busy with the production of the doors. Is CFRP-production so labour intensive?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 146, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 44709 times:

To those in the know, do they fit doors on the static frame (wouldn't think so) or are these for MSN001?


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 147, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 44621 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 146):
do they fit doors on the static frame

Yes. The new rules are such that some static tests must be performed with the fuselage pressurized.


User currently offlinehloutweg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 44480 times:

Airbus has just completed the mating of the entire fuselage according to this article, and the photo in there:

Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



In Varietate Concordia
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 149, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 44496 times:

Here we have the fuselage being rolled out on the discussed MLG sub trolley, NLG is quite long (long legs on this bird  Wow! ).

The fuselage on the other hand does not seem that long, it is the full 350 seat 900 fuse, might be the photo angle   . Also the photographer has managed to hide the tail in the picture but it is indeed there  .

So what is your thoughts? A beauty or more a business like look? (I think one can start to imagine the final look now   )

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_aircraft_fuselage_roll_out.jpg



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 150, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 44403 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
Here we have the fuselage being rolled out

Nice find, thanks for always being the first to get this stuff posted.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
So what is your thoughts?

Not bad at all! It's hard to get a real good sense from this photo with all the static test fixtures attached to the airplane, but overall I like it! Is the flight deck floor down one step from the pax floor? The flight deck windows look relatively low when compared to door 1R. There is quite a bit of "forehead", giving it a somewhat A380'esque look above the windows. Also, I am surprised how far the forward body taper extends back on the crown. Almost 777-like in this regard.

It may be the photo, but the cab looks like it's taller than it is wide. I know the fuselage is pretty close to circular. Is there a more elongated cross section in the cab area?.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 151, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 44336 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
So what is your thoughts? A beauty or more a business like look?

I'd say more business than beauty...they've done some clearly nice work applying a lot of the A380 lessons to this front end and that makes sense for all kinds of reasons. From a pure aesthetic point of view, I liked the old A350 nose (pre-A380 hybridization) a lot better but aesthetics don't sell airplanes.

I also think the isogrid rib in the center tank looks very cool.

Tom.


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 152, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 45033 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
Here we have the fuselage being rolled out on the discussed MLG sub trolley, NLG is quite long (long legs on this bird   ).

Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:
http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg633/dynguy/Atq01MhCQAIbJs4.jpg


User currently offlineHA_DC9 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 653 posts, RR: 1
Reply 153, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 44810 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 152):

Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:

Wow!!

She is a thing of beauty and business!


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7496 posts, RR: 18
Reply 154, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 44485 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 152):
Airbus tweeted another picture from side on:

DAYUM she looks great!   



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 155, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 44377 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
The fuselage on the other hand does not seem that long, it is the full 350 seat 900 fuse, might be the photo angle

Thought that it was, look how tiny the windows appear to be, then seeing the second picture she does look purposeful but a little "stubby" think that the -1000 will look great (and the -800 may look like a cartoon plane as the body will appear to be tiny for the size of wing ).


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 156, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 44308 times:

A350XWB to have window shades

Quote:
The guide/camera guard says, “We know how to keep you in total darkness, in less than a second. It’s something they forgot in the Dreamliner. You move the blind up and down. It might be one of great rediscoveries of 21st century flight. Instant light or darkness, at your fingertips.”

 

Plus insights from the rollout

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...f-the-a350-900-that-wont-ever-fly/



BV
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 157, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 44258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 150):
There is quite a bit of "forehead", giving it a somewhat A380'esque look above the windows. Also, I am surprised how far the forward body taper extends back on the crown

Interesting you say that, I always thought the 787 had this whole "forehead" thing going on a bit aswell (obviously not as much as the A380 so it doesnt get talked about) but I think it provides a not insignificant amount of lift, it looks like they are learning alot from the A380.

Fred


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2609 posts, RR: 5
Reply 158, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 43983 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
So what is your thoughts? A beauty or more a business like look?

I like it. The A350-900 is very much a good looking aircraft. I'll reserve judgment on the A350-800 and A350-1000 until I see one in the flesh, but the -900 seemingly has just the right proportions.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 159, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 43942 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 151):
I'd say more business than beauty

We're not really going to know until they connect the wings and bolt on the radome.

I like it so far though.



BV
User currently onlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 160, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 43757 times:

Wow, looks very nice. I personally think that many of the CAD drawings made it look a little ungainly but in the metal it looks really good. The front 1/3 looks very much like the front 1/3 of the A320. Can't wait to see it with wings, engines, a vertical stabilizer, a tailplane and a coat of eurowhite paint.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 37):
Don't think it will match the A340 in being the worlds sexiest airliner ..., but that's what I think

Me neither, but making an aircraft look better than an A340 would be a near