Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 5  
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 65898 times:

I started part 5, since part 4 has been archived.

There are some interesting developments in A350 program, according to AW. It looks like Airbus will use "batches" as its change incorporation method.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_08_27_2012_p22-488795.xml&p=1

Here is the opening sentences of the article and you can read the entire article on the above link:


"Airbus is doing everything to keep the A350 on the latest revised schedule and thereby please its early customers. But that means important changes must be incorporated later in production, incurring huge additional costs—for Airbus and its suppliers.

Airbus plans to introduce the A350 in several batches, each of which will incorporate changes, with the most significant modifications made in the transition from Batch 2 to 3. The changes affect parts and components throughout the aircraft, and suppliers have been given detailed design targets that specify the amount of weight reduction needed, among other things.

Batch 1 will include all the flight-test aircraft and early produc-tion versions, including MSN4, industry officials say. The first round of relatively minor design changes will be incorporated with MSN5. The more fundamental upgrade will happen with MSN17, say two executives with knowledge of the matter. Airbus has not revealed the exact points of transition, but Andreas Fehring, A350 senior vice president, head of fuselage and cabin, confirms that Airbus has decided to incorporate the A350 changes by batches.

The A350's cabin is one major area in which upgrades are going to be made. From MSN17 on, 40% of cabin parts will be changed, industry officials say. Airbus neither confirms nor denies that figure. The redesign includes cabin bracketing—the way the interior is attached to the fuselage—and the air-conditioning system, as well as other interior components.

Other areas that will see significant modification are structural and wing components."



harder than woodpecker lips...
248 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 65853 times:

So given the significance of the changes between batches, then retrofitting of earlier batches are out of the question I take it...

An interesting change indeed, wonder how that's negotiated with customers. Do we have customers with essentially now quite different aircraft in their fleets that are/were supposed to be the same.



maxter
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 65831 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sounds similar to what Boeing is doing with the 787-8 via Block Points.

User currently offlinebigsmile From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 65276 times:

Expect to see one ES wing going to Toulouse from UK around 30th or 31st of August. With the other 3 following to Germany and France over the following 3 weeks.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4761 posts, RR: 40
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 65226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Sounds similar to what Boeing is doing with the 787-8 via Block Points

I guess it does. Which is a good thing. In this way they can control the configuration easier then if the changes come into production the moment they are ready.


User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 587 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 63685 times:

They have obviuosly identified a number of changes which should make the plane better, respectively which aren't as good as expectation. In oder to incorporate this they would need to delay the EIS further, but will go ahead now and make the changes in the block points/ batches they scheduled now.

It isn't hat different to what we do in vehicle development. Even shortly after Start of production we introduce block points as well to industrialize some early fixes.

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 63644 times:

What is interesting is the point of the changes (LN17) and what is the major changes (cabin installation) but I don't see the big news in the fact that there will be improved version. It has happened on every frame I know of, the A330 is still being changed/improved in batches after 16 years of production  .

The real interesting part is how much the overweight is on the early frames and how quick/easy one gets to design weights.

Re performance guarantees, I am not sure A guaranteed MEW/OEW, they could have given performance guarantees. if the engine or areo is better then expected (the engine seem to be) then this could compensate an early overweight leaving A in the clear.

Quoting bigsmile (Reply 3):
Expect to see one ES wing going to Toulouse from UK around 30th or 31st of August. With the other 3 following to Germany and France over the following 3 weeks.

Thanks, now this one ES wing, does it confirm that the ES frame has one wing as per Zekes posts and picture?

How does 1+3 = 4 jive with Evrards comments of 5 wings being produced?



Non French in France
User currently offlinebigsmile From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 63579 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 6):
Thanks, now this one ES wing, does it confirm that the ES frame has one wing as per Zekes posts and picture?

How does 1+3 = 4 jive with Evrards comments of 5 wings being produced?

MSN001 = 2 Wings.......for obvious reasons of course  
ES = 2 Wings (Right Hand to go first, followed by Left hand a few days later)
EW = 1 Wing

Later in the build there is the EF set of wings (2 wings)


User currently offlineLaddie From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 604 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 61696 times:

Quoting bigsmile (Reply 3):
Expect to see one ES wing going to Toulouse from UK around 30th or 31st of August.

I thought the ES airframe was in Erding, Germany?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 61711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Laddie (Reply 8):
I thought the ES airframe was in Erding, Germany?

The EF2 and EW rigs are in Erding, with the EF3 rig in Hamburg per http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-for-main-structural-tests-365076/

[Edited 2012-08-29 10:19:51]

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 61128 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 6):
The real interesting part is how much the overweight is on the early frames and how quick/easy one gets to design weights.

Weight optimization is a painstaking process of refinement, as you press the design towards increasingly reduced (and ideally, zero) strength margins. Depending on what part of the airplane you are talking about, it can be the slowest part of the design process and can add risk when done in advance of the structural testing needed to calibrate your models and analysis methods. Designing too close to zero margin before the related testing is completed can bite you. For this reason, blockpoints after static testing, fatigue testing and flight loads survey are all natural points to take some additional weight out of the airplane. Given what I know of the 787 weights and scaling that to the A350, I regard Airbus' public OEW numbers to be very optimistic. At best, they seem to represent of a mature, weight optimized A350 design.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 6):
I am not sure A guaranteed MEW/OEW

It doesn't make a lot of sense for an OEM to guarantee OEW on a paper aircraft where there are so many unknowns. Even for a mature type, an OEM does not always guarantee OEW as a part of the aircraft sale; there are much more operationally relevant parameters, which are routinely guaranteed. Sometimes you will see an OEW guarantee for a delivery stream that will span many years, where the buyer is looking for some protection against the typical OEW growth all aircraft seem to experience over the course of time. That being said, Airbus is often willing to offer non-traditional guarantees to get a deal done (a Leahy hallmark). If some potential A350 customer was waffling over Airbus' marketed OEWs, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn Airbus overcame that hurdle by offering a guarantee.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 60664 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 10):
I regard Airbus' public OEW numbers to be very optimistic. At best, they seem to represent of a mature, weight optimized A350 design.

If we compare with the publicized 788 number you will see these are more aggressive:

787-8 224 seats config: OEW 111.5t out of a MTOW 228t = 48.9%

A359-900 assumed OEW about 135t which is 50.4% of MTOW, not a very aggressive figure. If you have a more aggressive one please indicate.

A350-1000 indirectly shown OEW 153t out of a MTOW of 308t = 49.7%, also not very agressive. Once again if you have other values please indicate.


That makes for 1.5% lower ratio for the 787 first member compared to A350, to me the 350 weights seems conservative (once again if these assumed numbers are in the ballpark).

[Edited 2012-08-30 07:59:09]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 60468 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 11):
If we compare with the publicized 788

It is too simplistic to make the comparison in this way, Ferpe. If you scale the cabins of the two aircraft proportionally, the 787 ends up with much less wing, tail, fuselage (diameter) and engine than the A350. Rather than trying to compare ratios at the aircraft level for two aircraft with very different proportions throughout their design, it is far more precise to make comparisons of the major components and build up to the airplane level in order to evaluate a weight claim. Obviously, this can only be done if you know the weight of the components for a baseline of comparison. I'm not free to share those details for the 787, but when I make the comparisons in that way, I believe the A350 OEW is much closer to 145t. This kind of comparison should be pretty precise since the overall architectures, material technologies and design optimization tools are the same between the two aircraft.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10070 posts, RR: 97
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 60471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 12):
I believe the A350 OEW is much closer to 145t.

Just so I get this straight.

An A350-900 with
a fuselage which is smaller than a 77L,
the same wing size (area and span) as a 77L,
MUCH smaller engines than a 77L,
is designed for a much lower MTOW than a 77L,
has double bogie MLG instead of triple bogie mlg,
is made of much more modernn materials.

Yet it has at least as high an OEW as a 777-200LR, making it 10t+ overweight?   

I hope you'll pardon my scepticism.

But it appears to me that your method of calculation might also require with a "check for understanding"....

An A350-900 shouldn't have an OEW anywhere near that of a 777-200LR.

Unless you're going to tell me that's "just how good Boeing are".....  

Rgds


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 60338 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
I hope you'll pardon my scepticism.

Skepticism pardoned.

I think the sticker shock from my number is you are looking at OEM published numbers and I am working from real-world airplane weights. There is generally some difference between those numbers, making a few tonnes in my calculation look like 10t when you compare my number to yours. TK makes their aircraft weights public, making them an easy target to illustrate the gap between real world and OEM published numbers:

A330-200 Airbus ACAP OEW........ 117t
A330-203 TK OEW....................... 122t

A330-300 Airbus ACAP OEW........ 120t
A330-300 TK OEW....................... 125t

777-300ER Boeing ACAP OEW.... 168t
777-300ER TK OEW.................... 169t

A340-300 Airbus ACAP OEW....... 125t
A340-300 TK OEW...................... 131t


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 60002 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
I hope you'll pardon my scepticism.

   your rhetoric elegance is always a joy to watch .

.
Quoting CM (Reply 12):
It is too simplistic to make the comparison in this way, Ferpe. Rather than trying to compare ratios at the aircraft level for two aircraft with very different proportions throughout their design, it is far more precise to make comparisons of the major components and build up to the airplane level in order to evaluate a weight claim.

Thanks for lighting a fire in this thread, it has been a bit quiet lately     

I understand how you might work to reach a comparison, it might be the way that OEMs do it. I do however think that the ratio analysis has a lot of merit for the very same reasons that you give, the frames are designed with the same tools, carry the virtually the same engines, use the same wing technology (re wing thread in tech-ops) and are certified to the same standards. So lets look into why a ratio method can have some merit:



HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
In several of the classical textbooks of civil airliner design the almost perfect tracking of OEW to 50% of MTOW for civil airliners is noted, here just one of these in a graph:



In general a civil airliner is made up of

50% structure and systems

10 % payload

40% fuel

The general variation around this values has to do with the fuel fraction value, if the frame is mid-haul the fuel tends towards 35% and the ratio towards 52-55%. If the frame is a ULH or even UULH like the 777-200LR it is a flying tanker and the fuel ratio goes up, the OEW ratio tend even below 45% as fuel does not cost so much structure to carry as it alleviates wing bending moment. But in general OEW ratios stays around 48-54%. A modern CFRP frame with fuel efficient engines consumes less fuel per kg and nm, therefore the OEW ratio actually increases a % or so instead of the intuitive decrease, as wisely pointed out by our Astute guy on a previous thread.



MODERN EVIDENCE
So how does out normal discussed frames stack up in this context. In fact pretty well (click on the table to see better):

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



788 vs 359 DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
You have made a dimensional analysis and reached the verdict that the A359 should have a a OEW/MTOW ratio of 54%. I can't find any evidence why this should be the case, all relevant dimensions point towards a 20% larger 359 vs 788, this should also be the case for the OEW, ie around 135t:



In fact your claimed "large" pieces on the 359 (fuse dia, wings) are not large, the fuse dia is only 3% larger and the fuselage area (which is more valid for weight discussions) is smack on 20% larger. The wingloading is the same ie the wingarea vs weight is the same ratio thus the wings are very similar, just a 20% scale copy of each other. They even use the same high-lift principles (except for the small are of droop nose instead of slat for the 359).

Where do you see the big differences?

[Edited 2012-08-30 13:56:58]


Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10070 posts, RR: 97
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 59896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 14):
TK makes their aircraft weights public, making them an easy target to illustrate the gap between real world and OEM published numbers:

Trouble is, the TK figures imply that a 777 is only going to be a tonne or so over ACAP, which means you are STILL telling me that a real-world A350-900 is going to have the same OEW as a 777-200LR.

On the other hand, if the real world figure for the A350-900 is 3-4t over the ACAP OEW, then it might not necessarily represent a real overweight, provided it is accounted for in the spec given to the OEM. As is clearly the case for A330's and A340's..

Rgds


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 59483 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
the spec given to the OEM

I think you mean the spec given to the customer? The numerous comments from customers tend to support my sense the A359 has a weight problem, and that would be relative to a customer spec weight, not the understated weights we see in the ACAP.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

The only question I would have about this is what OEW is being used? A real one, or the imaginary one from the ACAP?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
788 vs 359 DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

This is good stuff, Ferpe. I'll take a longer look at this when I get a chance.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9112 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month ago) and read 59184 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 10):
I regard Airbus' public OEW numbers to be very optimistic.

I do not, they fit many independent models. BTW, Airbus has not published their OEWs, so your whole post kinda lacks any sort of factual basis. If as you say they have made public the OEWs, you could point all of us to the numbers and source they have published.

Quoting CM (Reply 10):
It doesn't make a lot of sense for an OEM to guarantee OEW on a paper aircraft where there are so many unknowns

Those weights are passed downstream, and suppliers have to meet specific weights for different components or sections. Airbus already has publicly stated that they have weighted various large subsections as they arrived, and weight is meeting their expectations. I do not think anyone is expecting the first airframe to come off the production line at spec weight, if it did, they target would have been set too low. That does not mean it would be out of their tolerance level.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
Yet it has at least as high an OEW as a 777-200LR, making it 10t+ overweight?

The A350-1000 will have an OEW about the same as the 777-200LR, with a fuel burn close of an A330-300. One of the major reasons why the A350 is lighter is they are burning over a tonne less an hour fuel less per engine. The whole airframe then can be sized lighter, it is dealing with lower design loads.

An easy comparison can be made with the A340-600 vs the 777-300ER, the difference in fuel burn and OEW weight is much the same sort of step again.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):

An A350-900 shouldn't have an OEW anywhere near that of a 777-200LR.

It does not, much the same as the 777-200A, however 20 years of technology developments later (1994 vs 2014).

Quoting CM (Reply 14):

We have around a 5t variation in OEWs on our A330s, depending on what seats are installed. The older regional business class, and older Y seats match Airbus OEW, new flat bed seats, and new Y seats with more IFE pushes the OEW up 4-5t with less seats. The underlying MEW has gone down, the OEW has gone up.

Our A340s OEWs are similar to TKs, again that is with a modern interior. The A330/A340 OEWs were developed when the cabin used to just have a single projector in each cabin with a beta max tape player and without electric motors in the seats. Our 77W are a couple of tonnes heaver than TKs, again I would suggest this is due to the interior, not the MEW.

To use the OEWs they way you have is very disingenuous.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month ago) and read 59133 times:

Post surplus to requirements.

[Edited 2012-08-31 03:44:48]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month ago) and read 59116 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 17):
The only question I would have about this is what OEW is being used? A real one, or the imaginary one from the ACAP?

I understand it to be the "imaginary" ones from "showroom" specs as later publicized in documents like ACAPs. It would make no sense for an OEM to spec a "fly-away" ready frame in any other form. How should they set the complexity of the seats or IFE other then absolute basic? I have read somewhere that ICAO should have some sort of minimum standard what such a showroom furnishing and cabin/flight equipment should contain. Is their an ICAO recommendation for such things? Or is there an "industry understanding" what a "3 class cabin" in showroom version should contain (not the number of seats in each class, that is specified separately, but rather the seat types, lavs, gallies etc?).


Re what Airbus have published or not, they have published the target MEW (they call it MWE) for the A350-900:

"The target service-entry MWE for the A350-900 was 113.5t, but this has risen to 115.7t, he (McConnel) adds"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-in-1-fuel-penalty-airbus-224578/

If one take the 63 kilos average per pax I use to come from Airbus MWE to a Airbus showroom 3 class of 314 pax one would end up with 135.5t, this is how I reached my 135t. Zeke says it is similar to a 777-200A which has an ACAP figure of 135.9t, seems we are hovering around 135t.


That the MWE for the first frames will be more then 115.7t is rumored by Aspire and others, the discussion seems to be around 2-3% overweight, ie 118.5t or thereabouts. It would mean the first frames would come in just shy of 140t.

[Edited 2012-08-31 03:53:42]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 58934 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
Airbus has not published their OEWs, so your whole post kinda lacks any sort of factual basis.

Not exactly. Airbus has published lots of performance and spec numbers for the A350. Weight estimation heuristics for commercial jets are very good; you can back out what the OEW must be, with a fairly impressive margin of error, from the facts that are out there.

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
Airbus already has publicly stated that they have weighted various large subsections as they arrived, and weight is meeting their expectations.

Are they getting 100% complete sections already? If so, that's extremely impressive. But it's also very unlikely.

Tom.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10070 posts, RR: 97
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 58897 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 17):
I think you mean the spec given to the customer?

Correct.

Quoting CM (Reply 17):
The numerous comments from customers tend to support my sense the A359 has a weight problem, and that would be relative to a customer spec weight, not the understated weights we see in the ACAP.

I don't disagree either. But I sense a muddling between "spec" OEW's and what you call "real" OEW's.

It would not surprise me to learn that the flight test A350-900's are 5t heavier than they are meant to be. If a customer "real" OEW is 5t higher than Airbus's spec, then that real frame might be 10t heavier than Airbus's "spec", but only 5t overweight.

By frame 17, Airbus seem to be suggesting they will have the weight back to where it is meant to be. I don't see this as being any different to the 787's early block points.
i'm sure you'll agree that later 787's are going to hit spec weight.

A "spec" weight A350-900 from LN 18 onward could easily have an in-service OEW some 5t heavier in airline config. But this is no different to CX,s, EK's and SQ's 77W's, all of which have "in-service" OEW's of around 174-175 tonnes, some 6 or 7 tonnes higher than "spec".
But they aren't overweight   

Rgds


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 58608 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
It would not surprise me to learn that the flight test A350-900's are 5t heavier than they are meant to be. If a customer "real" OEW is 5t higher than Airbus's spec, then that real frame might be 10t heavier than Airbus's "spec", but only 5t overweight.

I don't think we're in disagreement (maybe just violent agreement?), we're just looking at the airplane using a different baseline for reference. That's all. I'm quite confident real world A350-900s will tip the scales with a dry operating weight at or exceeding 145t.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
788 vs 359 DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

Ferpe, the A359 is larger than the 787-9, and MUCH larger than the 787-8. The A350 family has design elements which are presumably optimally sized for the A359, yet will be accordingly oversized for the A358. The same is true for the 787-9 relative the 787-8. Your comparison seems like it should be between the A350-900 and 787-9 or A350-800 and 787-8 to help wash out any level of deoptimizations the OEM's accept for a minor model as a part of their family strategy.

Thoughts?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 58348 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 23):
Your comparison seems like it should be between the A350-900 and 787-9 or A350-800 and 787-8 to help wash out any level of deoptimizations the OEM's accept for a minor model as a part of their family strategy.

Thoughts?

I don't think so for several reasons. In this reasoning I'm threading on grounds on the B side you know much better then I so bear with me on any mistakes made and I probably do the same on the A side. Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained  :

787 family:
In my mind the 787-8 was developed as first member of a family which would live in the space between SA and the 777 family (or it's successor). Thus the 787 is very much an optimized design for the 200-300 pax space with a natural cap from the 777 and the 788 as the first member is optimized for the lower part of that. In summary the design objective for the 788 was a well optimized 200-250 pax frame. The 789 is a stretch of the 788, as such it benefits from all the experience gained on the 788 but at the end of the day it also lives with a couple of donor traces, one being a wing which is a tick on the small side.


The A350 family:
In it's final incarnation the 350 family targets the 250-350 pax market, ie most of 787 and 777. The first member is designed in the middle of the window contrary to the 787 first member. This might result in a better optimization for the stretched top member (-1000) but makes life difficult for the shrink, especially if parts are not redesigned to recuperate the lower loads. To be fully fair to the 789 the -1000 wing, being a simple enlargement of the -900 via a TE extension, is also a tick on the small side, it would probably have had more span had the -1000 been a clean sheet design (for interested have a look in the tech/ops A vs B wing thread). Thus the 359 is very much the fully optimized member.


I think the different design philosophies for the 787 and 350 families are very evident when one puts them over each other in a frontal view:


http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350vs788frontviewcomparison20120830.jpg


Here one can clearly see several things (788 blueish and 359 gray lines):

- The 787 is more compact in it's design, the MLG is shorter and the engines are hung higher visavi the wings, the wing fairing sleeker. This saves weight and frontal area, not only because the heavy legs of the NLG and MLG are shorter but the loads transferred through the LG legs from heavy landings have less lever lengths and the sleeker fairing creates less pressure drag.

- The 350 team on the other hand would say this is deliberate, the 350 shall compete with Boeing's 200-400 pax offerings over 40+ years, we want room for higher BPR engines, either on a -1100 variant on in a -neo variant later on. "This family is designed as flexible as possible, is shall cover everything between SA and 380. And our wing fairing was sized to also take larger 6 wheel bogies."


While these arguments can carry a discussion in themselves, I have described them to foster my thesis that the most relevant comparison between the 787 and 350 families would be their anchor models, those that were designed from a clean sheet of paper and not a stretch from one with an anchor from the other. The anchors ended up with a 20% spread in design points, the 788 with an emphasis on compactness and the 350 on further expansion, but they were both optimized for their missions, to carry their design payload (20% apart) some 8000nm. (some may argue the 788 does not do that, well once on target OEW it definitely does IMO). So fully matured I think these are the two that shall be compared as they best represent the design philosophy of their respective family.


Edit: Having written this long post I read you question again, I think their is a much shorter answer to say what I did above  Wow!  : I don't think the 787-8 was designed as a shrink from the 787-9 but the 350-800 definitely was from the 350-900.

[Edited 2012-08-31 13:44:02]


Non French in France
25 Post contains images EPA001 : Probably yes. But, the extended version of your post is highly appreciated by me.
26 CM : Not a shrink, per se, but the 787 in its original conception was intended to be a family with common elements as follows: ................787-3......
27 astuteman : You might possibly end up being right with that. But if you use the wrong reference point, you can end up, as you have, inferring that this is a seri
28 Post contains links and images ferpe : Thanks for this description, very interesting and a bit news for me. Re the 789 wing being a tick on the small side, this was my conclusion in this A
29 Post contains links and images ferpe : You comment about 787 shallow airfoil at the wing root of course get me to this picture from earlier in the thread: It seems when measuring on these
30 Post contains images CM : By design, I believe this to be the case.
31 Post contains images ferpe : While we wait for the wingboxes to appear (I don't think we will see full wings for the ES aka MSN5000) here is another piece that will be put onto th
32 Post contains links Laddie : The shape is a full-chord, blended winglet, as a raked wingtip is in the plane of the wing. They are a scaled up version of the A320 Sharklets. BTW,
33 Post contains images zeke : Airbus has also filed suit claiming the APB patent should be revoked. If you look at the 15m racing gliders in the 1980s like the Masak Scimitar, the
34 ferpe : APs design and the sharklets bend and then have a straight section for over 2 meters, these bend all the way to the tip, thus I would classify them a
35 azjubilee : Who will be taking delivery of the first 350-800s?
36 BoeingVista : It would / should be prior art, but the Apple v Samsung patent case has kind of blown a hole in the whole patent system.
37 sweair : Why dont they have raked tips like Boeing?
38 os787 : FACC are also manufacturing the 737NG and 757-200 winglets, so Airbus is not taking any chances in this area.
39 Post contains images ferpe : Two reasons: - the raked tip is patented by Boeing - The A350 is with it's 64.8m right on the limit for a category E aircraft. With a winglet design
40 Post contains links EPA001 : Just read this on the Airbus website: Link to the full article with pictures: http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...ives-in-toulouse-for-ground-tests
41 Post contains images ferpe : So finally the first wing is there (right hand one), I hoped to put up the low res pictures and the most interesting high res one here but my picture
42 Post contains links KarelXWB : High-res pictures are available at http://www.airbus.com/galleries/photo-gallery/
43 tdscanuck : APB's patent is specifically about how they design the blend. As long as their way of designing the blend is different than what the gliders or Rutan
44 dynamicsguy : I'm not so sure about that showing that they are taking no chances. The 737NG winglet at least is build to print and I suspect the 757-200 winglets a
45 zeke : It is a matter of chess, Airbus has their own patent for them, US20110192937.
46 Post contains links and images ferpe : To talk about the wings we need some pictures, here the overview where one can see that the leading edge below the slats/droop nose is apparently stre
47 Ruscoe : The leading edge looks dead straight, as compared with the 787 wing. One presumes that the complex shape of the 787 wing is for a reason, so if anyone
48 zeke : The A380 has a number of different rib configurations, some composite, some AL, some hybrid. I assume the A350 is the same.
49 ferpe : You are correct, I simplified to much. The ones which has got problems are the type I described IIRC. IFAIK the 350 only have ALLi plank type ribs, s
50 Post contains links dynamicsguy : To answer my own question, yes they have: FACC starts working on production of first winglets for Airbus A350 XWB Hmmm. An interesting choice. There
51 Post contains images ferpe : Yes, you are right. I am trying to imagine the movement of that flap over those drop hinges, the claimed "streamwise" = free-stream deflection I thin
52 OldAeroGuy : The slats are not mounted in this picture. We're looking at the wing surface behind the slats. The dark rectangles are the openings where the slat tr
53 kanban : Why all the temporary fasteners (cleco's) on the upper skin?... I trust they don't plan to remove it for instrumentation...
54 tdscanuck : I suspect that's where they're going to attach the load fittings. Tom.
55 cymro : Cant see what you have referenced as Stress structure? In this picture you can only see 1 aileron hinge, are you referencing the 3 flap hinges? Just
56 Laddie : To the best of my knowledge, only Ribs 3 through 8 are Al-Li. The rest are conventional aluminum alloys.
57 ferpe : The part that OldAeroguy correctly described as underneath (my bad english "below" ) the non fitted slats/droop nose sections. Those are the Al shiny
58 cymro : Ok I see what you are referring too now, You mean the white nose skins that cover the slat ribs. Think I may have miss read your text sorry, thought
59 CM : Indeed. What you see in the picture (white) is fixed leading edge, not movable (slats). I think more likely, it is stress inducing structure, which m
60 Post contains images ferpe : Thanks CM. always great when you help with the mysteries of certification
61 Post contains links Laddie : One news report says the first wing for MSN1 shipped from Broughton to Brement on September 5 or 6. Can anyone confirm this? Because no one else has p
62 Post contains images ferpe : I don't think so, the first MSN1 wing was leaving the production jigs about a month ago but not Broughthon. It stays there to be equipped with a lot
63 Post contains links airmagnac : The reporter is correct, although her first sentence is misleading : - The first MSN5000 wing was shipped a few days ago direct from UK to the Toulou
64 bigsmile : Everything the reporter said is correct
65 Post contains links and images ferpe : While we wait for the middle section for MSN001 (should be the next IMO, the right hand wing should already be there. Let's see if the rear end guys m
66 Post contains images EPA001 : Well spotted. But the A380 also has a sloping mounting line for the VTP.
67 Post contains images ferpe : Sure, in a first order analysis (which can be changed by a myriad of other factors like your flowfield from body and wing up-front creating strange e
68 Laddie : From what I have seen of the A350 so far (from the "outside of the fence"), the bulge/blister between the root of the VTP and aft fuselage that we se
69 Post contains links and images ferpe : The picture from the VTP is reasonably high res, one can see that there are 6 attachment points on each side to the fuselage (transferring loads to s
70 Post contains images ferpe : After a bit of thought there might be another plausible explanation for the "high tail" of the A300 and it's derivatives. The A300 was conceived as a
71 CM : Yes. In-service Airbus with CFRP fins use the lug arrangement shown in Ferpe's graphic. The A350 uses a dagger fitting arrangement, similar to Boeing
72 Post contains links KarelXWB : Here is another picture of the VTP: http://forum.a380production.com/boar...uced!&p=31221&viewfull=1#post31221
73 Post contains images ferpe : I have found some more pictures of MSN001 and 5000. Yesterday a french minister visited the FAL and these pictures were shot of the FAL. They were po
74 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for posting these nicely detailed pictures.
75 Post contains links KarelXWB : And the EW wing has arrived in Erding. http://www.aero.de/news-16000/A350-T...trifft-bei-IABG-in-Erding-ein.html
76 sweair : The front looks very similar to the A380, probably is based on the A380?
77 cmf : When you have an efficient design you reuse it.
78 flipdewaf : The "forehead" is something that the A380, the 787 and now the A350 seem to have taken on, I believe it creates a small amount of lift at cruise spee
79 Post contains links and images ferpe : There is a new A350 blog which for the most part rehash what is available elsewhere but sometimes has some nice pictures and some information where on
80 KarelXWB : The article is speaking about 23 October, not November.
81 Post contains images ferpe : May bad, should have been October, thanks. Power on around 1 Dec (if this is the indeed the case) for the completed craft is a bit late, A should hav
82 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : From Airbus' Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...0547.116293.392751580741132&type=1
83 CM : Ferpe, or others, do we know if the wings are structurally joined to the center section yet?
84 Post contains images ferpe : Super catch , this means section 15-21 (middle section for MSN001 = flight test frame) is in TLS and starting join this week, nice. They are for the
85 CM : Thanks, I had missed that. Actually, I regard this as significant. While Airbus may not have worried about the the aero-alignment of the wings on the
86 ferpe : Thanks for your insights, they give a nice perspective to what is going on in the program, for us laymen things like these are hard to judge. As far
87 Post contains links autothrust : Airbus uses since years a LPS (Laser Positioning System) to join critical parts like the frames and wings. The accuraccy is very high, hundred times
88 CM : Every Boeing model uses laser for all allignments as well. Even the 767 (Boeing's oldest in-production design) has been entirely retooled and now use
89 autothrust : Maybe, but not as long as Airbus does. The last 747-400 order for Lufthansa were aligned with markings.
90 CM : I have no doubt this was true of the 744. The tooling was famously old and worn: it required replacement whether Boeing decided to launch the 748 or
91 Post contains images astuteman : Been doing that for over 10 years in our spot.... Some smart young thing introduced it following a benchmarking with the Offshore Construction indust
92 Post contains links autothrust : Same what Airbus does. Here you can see how Boeing did the alignment on Lufhansas 744. Incredible they could join the planes this way. Imagine a A380
93 CM : I think we all agree; comparisons of A to B bring out the worst in many here on A.net, which is tiring and unproductive. However, there is not much w
94 Post contains images ferpe : It seems not only the MSN001 middle section is joined this week but also the rear, apparently section 16-19 has been in TLS a couple of weeks, here th
95 cymro : Airbus has actually been a lead in this type of 'laser alignment' in both aircraft and tooling in the UK. However this is not ahead of Boeing but in f
96 autothrust : Couldn't agree more. Do now all airplane makers use a LPS? Same here.
97 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : I would expect Airbus to publish some high-res pictures like they did with the front fuselage http://www.airbus.com/galleries/phot...ry/filter/a350-x
98 Post contains links and images ferpe : Section 16-19 is indeed the aft section, it is at FAL and being joined as we speak. As I understand it it has been shipped to TLS FAL as planned on t
99 KarelXWB : I see. I thought there are 4 sections but I'm wrong. The wings won't arrive until mid November according to that blog. But then again, why would Airb
100 zeke : Airbus actually went a lot further with laser alignment than just the final assembly level, they use it down to the composite layup level, one of the
101 Post contains images Revelation : They are as worn-out as the 747-400 tooling was!
102 dynamicsguy : Again, not new and not just an Airbus thing. There wouldn't be many serious manufacturers of composite parts who don't use laser projection to place
103 Post contains links and images ferpe : It seems my tea leave reading could have merit, Friday there was a smoke and mirror delivery ceremony for the first MSN001 wing in Bremen: http://www.
104 KarelXWB : Nice, right in time for the ceremony.
105 Post contains images EPA001 : Keep on drinking that tea ferpe! Excellent find.
106 ferpe : The preparation for FAL inauguration next Tuesday is in full bore, here the latest from Twitter: DavidKaminski-Morrow ‏@FlightDKM Little bird tells
107 BoeingVista : Have MSN001's wings arrived at the FAL from Bremen yet? How long will wing join take BTW..
108 Post contains images ferpe : There is no evidence of them arriving at TLS AFAIK but I have not checked the spotter sites. I think we can assume they are at FAL now. How long the
109 Post contains images ferpe : Airbus have now started the media build up to the FAL inauguration, tweets 1 hour ago. It will be nice to see what stunts they pull : Airbus @Airbus #
110 Post contains links BoeingVista : http://videos.airbus.com/video/742242f1e42s.html Funky FAL video for one thing.
111 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Section 16/19 delivery video: http://videos.airbus.com/video/a2b1951648fs.html [Edited 2012-10-17 08:25:05]
112 Post contains links KarelXWB : Another Section 19 arrived in Hamburg, picture taken today by a local spotter: http://v2.airplaneupload.de/display-i6036b1yj6r.html For MSN002 or MSN0
113 Post contains links and images BoeingVista : The Trent XWB program is progressing nicely http://bloga350.blogspot.com.au/2012...engine-continues-accumulating.html Pictures are courtesy of David K
114 Post contains links KarelXWB : A350 XWB: the wings will be shipped to assembly line in Toulouse next week
115 Post contains links ferpe : There is a good piece on the TXWB testing here: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...sting-a350-first-flight-approaches and here http://www.ainonli
116 BoeingVista : Thanks for the articles, RR also hint that at some point they will change the titanium fan to composite, if they redo the fan case as well that will
117 Post contains links and images Jambrain : The composite JV with GKN is a bit more then a hint:- http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospa...t/2012/02/03/blades-of-glory/6204/
118 sweair : Could they retrofit the T1000 engine with these blades? Or would that cost too much for the customers?
119 BoeingVista : Yes, RR pitched a composite fan fot the 777x RFP Clearly they can as a modified T1000 is mentioned as being the test donk, and if you amortise the co
120 Aircellist : That wings sure looks almost ready Thanks for the picture! What a surprising elegance! I'd be glad to know the history of every curve in that design..
121 imiakhtar : If you had read the link in the post above yours, you would have found this small nugget: These flight tests, using a full set of blades, will take p
122 sweair : Maybe for Trent1000-TEN as that would need certification anyway? Plus its years away for the 787-10 not even launched yet.
123 tdscanuck : Actually swapping the fan blades is pretty quick, assuming they were delivered as a balanced set. Certification would be OK if you could do it on the
124 Post contains links and images ferpe : The VTP is now painted and ready for tomorrow, looks nice with it's higher rake: http://www.airbus.com/no_cache/newse..._medium=all_press&utm_camp
125 Post contains images ferpe : There will be a webcast that one can follow from the FAL inauguration, the french Premier Jean-Marc Ayrault will be present together with Bregier, But
126 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for the information Ferpe!
127 Post contains links ferpe : I've started a separate thread on this article as this thread is not designed for another 350-1000 vs 777 debate: "Airbus may hike A350-1000 output in
128 Post contains links and images ferpe : There is a nice article about the GKN rear trailing edge work at AW: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_10_22_2012_p38-507681.xml They ma
129 Post contains images KarelXWB :
130 Post contains links ferpe : Nice pictures, I guess you are showing what has been loaded at the different places that will be shown tomorrow at the FAL ceremony? You must have bro
131 Post contains links KarelXWB : Airbus uploaded those pictures on their Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/airbus
132 Post contains links and images ferpe : Nice, missed that. I guess this was the first picture in the series tying it all together a bit for tomorrow: [Edited 2012-10-22 13:00:18]
133 cymro : I think they will be referring to spoiler hinge lines not flaps
134 Post contains images ferpe : Might very well be, though the hinge lines that spans most of the trailing edge would be the flaps followed by the ailerons: That would not be the sa
135 cymro : The spoilers cover approx the same as the flaps that are fitted at that stage, the ailerons a bit less.
136 ferpe : My first reaction was the spoilers are 7 independant units that don't need precision for their function but that is not correct, they droop to form th
137 Ruscoe : Has Airbus stated the reason for the streamwise flaps? Could the primary reason be noise reduction on T/O and landing, rather than just improved effic
138 ferpe : It is noise for landing and drag for take-off, every bit of L/D you can gain at TO is worth TOW.
139 Post contains images HA_DC9 : What a nice "errection" err....I mean that is one sexy vertical tail. Things are really coming together for the A350! She's going to look great in HA
140 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : More pictures at http://event.airbus.com/a350/fal-inauguration/photos.html
141 knoxibus : Excellent ceremony. The french prime minister's Falcon 7X was parked just next to the FAL, we could see him leave. I hope that we will get a ceremony
142 Post contains links KarelXWB : Some more news: The static aircraft, which will be used solely for ground tests, has nearly completed assembly, with a full fuselage, two wings and th
143 Post contains images BoeingVista : Yup, standing proud... A350 with radome, need a side on of this
144 Tristarsteve : IIRC the crash of thr British Midland B737-400 at East Midlands was caused by a new fan blade design that had been certified on the test bed and neve
145 Post contains images Revelation : I hope they do not get returned due to "writer rash"! May it never go limp!
146 Post contains links and images ferpe : An informative article from the FAL day at AW: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_10_23_2012_p0-509673.xml Here the essential bits with
147 Post contains links ferpe : There is an interview in the French online magazine La Tribune which gives some additional info re program risk and first flight: http://www.latribune
148 Post contains images astuteman : He must be "dead" certain he has enough cash.... Rgds
149 Post contains images EPA001 : I think he is..... He is correct of course that all partners should stick to their commitments.
150 Revelation : Which is of course true till the message that we no longer are on plan is sent, or that we've changed the plan. Note my cynicism is not reserved for
151 Post contains images ferpe : I 100% agree with you, A350 would be a totally unique program if nothing came up in flight testing, where also small things can cause quite some dela
152 Post contains images CM : A great example of this from the 787 is the electrical panel fire during flight test. This was caused by a combination of a new system architecture a
153 Post contains images BoeingVista : Hummm well... Hopefully looks better when painted.. Another shot from below[Edited 2012-10-25 01:32:09]
154 EagleBoy : That nose looks a little 'stubby' to my eyes......
155 zeke : If they do have two airframes complete before the end of the year, the aircraft should be able to enter service in 2014.
156 Post contains images autothrust : Really this is d*mn ugly. Airbus cannot design beatiful airplanes anymore. (since A380) The original nose was great(and windows)but this is just pate
157 Post contains links and images ferpe : The design on the nose have been the same since 4 years or so, if you have not reacted until now perhaps one shall wait to see it when it does not ha
158 Post contains images Revelation : I think it looks fine, save the red nose. Kind of reminds one of Rudolph the Red Nosed Raindeer. Seems it will have to stay that way till it rolls to
159 Post contains images scouseflyer : Too true, like the saying "if you hide something in plain sight, it'll never get found"
160 Post contains images EPA001 : Good find ferpe. It is quite nice to watch this video.
161 Post contains links and images autothrust : I'm following the A350 since beginning, and did write on a,net some years ago about my dissapointment of the nose after seeing the new renderings. St
162 KarelXWB : I'm sure it will look better once the frame is in paint.
163 Post contains links CM : I also thought the original A350XWB design had a truly stunning front end. The 787 (7E7) nose went through an equally dramatic change (equally disapp
164 airmagnac : Closing the NLG bay doors might make quite a difference, too
165 Laddie : The video is computer generated, not a video of the interior mockup. A couple of notes about the interior: The pilot's chair in the Overhead Flight C
166 Post contains images ferpe : Thanks for the insights-full comments, you seem to have access to interior photos or drawings, guess the artist took some shortcuts .
167 ferpe : The A380 has the same red radome before painting, dunno why but it sure looks a bit funny.
168 Post contains images scbriml : I think you may be in danger of taking it way too seriously! I don't think passengers care how the crew have to get into their rest area.
169 Aircellist : Decidedly, whereas the 787 has, in my opinion, a Comet-ish nose, this one has rather gotten a Nimrod-ish one... Either case, Sir Geoffrey de Havilland
170 Post contains images BoeingVista : The nose looks exactly like the illustration in Flightglobal from 3-4 years back, I had hoped that it was just an approximation but nope, it seems to
171 Post contains images EPA001 : Looking at the drawing of the nose 3-4 years ago, and looking at the pictures now, there is a clear difference imho. The drawing shows plain windows
172 Laddie : That's true, but the passengers don't buy the airplane. The airlines do, and flight attendants notice annoyances such as ladders. Early adopters of a
173 speedbird128 : The 777 has a ladder to get into the overhead crew rest too... Whats the deal with a ladder? Why is it an annoyance? For crew rest, one will either h
174 kanban : the cockpit windows remind me of a 90's sci fi series with weird craft... was it Lexx?
175 zeke : The compartment you are talking about on the original A350 exists today on every A330/A340, it is the avionics bay, with access to it either external
176 Post contains images Heavierthanair : G'day So what is the issue? Do they require escalators or even high speed elevators to get to those rest areas? Most of the self loading cargo - payin
177 CM : 777 OHAR and OHCR both have stairs, not ladders.
178 speedbird128 : Well the ones i have been in were vertical steps... kind of like a ladder...
179 CM : Agreed, they are steep steps.
180 Post contains images EPA001 : Does anyone know when Airbus changed the window design from plain windows into curved windows? Thanks in advance for the answer. .
181 Laddie : The A330/A340 does not have a crew rest next to the avionics bay. That's what I am talking about. Airbus originally proposed to put the A350's flight
182 zeke : True, but that space is there, and you could use it as a crew rest if an airline wanted to pay for the certification. The access to the space is alre
183 Post contains images KarelXWB : I found some additional pictures about the crew rest area. Old vs new: Old: New:
184 kmz : what I don't understand is why the A350 has less cargo area than the B787 based on Cargo per PAX. Is that only because of the bigger wing? Or because
185 tdscanuck : More pax. The denominator got bigger more than the numerator, so the ratio came down. Tom.
186 Post contains links autothrust : Slightly off topic but McNerney said recently: Building a composite wing of this size, an airfoil of this size, would not have been thinkable a decade
187 astuteman : Marketing is one word for it. There are others.... Rgds
188 EPA001 : It is marketing BS which is all part of the game. I think though that he was referring to the wings of the proposed B777-X program where it is a poss
189 Post contains links and images BoeingVista : http://www.goodrich.com/gr-ext-templ...t%20Aerostructures/SKY10032012.pdf Interesting supplier article about the battle to keep components to promised
190 Stitch : The A350 wing is larger than the 787 wing, however McNerney was referring to the 72m proposed span for the 777X, which would be a fair bit larger tha
191 Post contains images ferpe : Given that the CFRP wing B has designed to date is 57.5m + a 2.5m tip (raked) and A has designed a wing of 65m + a 2.5m tip (curved) one can wonder w
192 Post contains links and images ferpe : This interview is in French, it was done at last weeks FAL inauguration with a relaxed Didier Evrard. What he says 2/3 through the chat is a bit inter
193 Stitch : Considering the carriers who ordered the A350-800 are in no hurry to get it (the delay from 2014 to 2016 was driven by lack of customer interest in an
194 Post contains images EPA001 : You might very well be right. And it makes sense to me as well.
195 abba : Will a somewhat later entry allow Airbus to lighten the -800 frame a bit more? I think I remember that they made a compromise at some point in order t
196 ferpe : Yes it will, they will have considerably more experience with their models and they can also see where the market is going below 300 seats, which mod
197 Post contains images Stitch : Other than passenger capacity and, especially, cargo capacity.
198 kanban : personally I think it was an attempt a a joke... but we're sooooooo serious here most missed it.
199 Laddie : Accelerating the -1000 would be very risky, IMHO. That would push the firm configuration milestone of the -1000 right on top of the -900 flight loads
200 Post contains links KarelXWB : http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-s...disponibilites-des-a380-505696.php It's a French article about Air France and the A380 but there is a small par
201 ferpe : This leads to the question how far one has come today in making key parts like wing spars, skins etc be parameterised. It should be possible to desig
202 Stitch : And evidently for reasons in addition to the one about maintenance of the Trent XWB. I wonder what those other issues are?
203 CM : You've touched on one of the key obstacles. Using the A350 fuselage as an example, the tool surface is primarily on the OML of the skin. To remove se
204 Post contains links and images ferpe : Actually this varies both for fuselage and wing, here first fuselage: IML: tail (spinning IML like 787), mid section (IML panels) OMC: rear and front
205 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : A nice blog post about the Trent XWB tests: http://www.bloga350.blogspot.nl/2012...t-xwb-engine-tests-in-extreme.html
206 Laddie : As you can tell from replies 203 and 204 above, any change to a part requires new part numbers, new tooling, new paperwork. Every step in the process
207 ferpe : Thanks, got that and that this is the bulk of the work for any adjustments. Now are the underlying tools (CAD/CAM etc) any smarter nowerdays or do yo
208 Laddie : In most CAD systems, if the datasets are set up correctly, then a change to one part will ripple through the configuration and other parts will be ch
209 Post contains images ferpe : Thanks, exactly what I asked about. Yes what used to be CAD tools are today PDM (product data management) or even PLM (product life cycle management
210 CM : Shear ties in Boeing parlance, but I have heard them referred to as "frame clips" elsewhere in the industry. The problem comes when your design is ex
211 ferpe : The example we see is a demo of a A350 panel which is attached with metal (guess Al) clips, we also know that most of the clips are CFRP. I would gue
212 Post contains links ferpe : The A350 blog has found this animated clip which shows how incredibly complicated the A350 pylons is: http://vimeo.com/46870021 The pylons for all Air
213 Post contains images EPA001 : Wow. Even when it is short the video shows some very impressive details. Thanks for posting ferpe!
214 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : MSN001 wing join in progress.
215 moo : Does anyone know if the EASA and FAA have granted Airbus the same exception for the evacuation test that they granted Boeing for the 787?
216 zeke : Not sure if they will, they are planning them to do them. I wish I could join in, it would be history in the making.
217 Post contains links EPA001 : I missed that one. Are you referring to the information in this link below? http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...duck-dreamliner-evacuation-345176/
218 Post contains links BoultonPaul : Airbus has launched a new website on the A350 XWB
219 Post contains images moo : Yup, that's it I can't imagine an A350 is all that different for passenger emergency egress than an A330 or A340, so I was wondering if Airbus would
220 zeke : AFAIK no, they are not cutting corners with the passenger egress testing. I think they could auction of seats on it, I would love to do it. They do n
221 Post contains images EPA001 : Who knows. Your comparison seems valid in my opinion.
222 Post contains links ferpe : The real highlight of the new Airbus A350 site is this video: http://www.a350xwb.com/#intelligent/design/ I describes how one uses the integrated digi
223 moo : Why would it be considered cutting corners? The doors, slides and systems are all independently checked and thoroughly tested, and then tested as who
224 Post contains images CM : It won't be considered cutting corners if Airbus does it on the A350. It only is a shortcut for some OEMs. That's just how some a.net minds are wired
225 zeke : The A350 slides are not A330 slides, neither are the door etc. The test only takes 90 seconds..... What is the harm ? Have you got a good reason not
226 Post contains images EPA001 : Preventing "unnecessary" injuries might be a good reason to do the certification theoretically.
227 Post contains images EPA001 : Fantastic video! Thanks for posting this.
228 Post contains images airmagnac : Planning ground ops in the 70s (at 6:40 in the video) looked like a lot more fun, though
229 moo : Sure, the *test* takes 90 seconds, but what about the prep and cleanup? Take a fully kitted out aircraft out of rotation for a week, equip it with th
230 tdscanuck : Doing it by analysis is much safer, much cheaper, and just sa valid. The slides aren't the limit on exit capacity. You can test the slides all you wa
231 Aircellist : My thoughts exactly! I've finally found my dream job!
232 zeke : Go back to the A380 certification, you will find those North American minds saying the A380 had to get tested as that is what it said in the FARs. Th
233 moo : Well, the A380 was the first aircraft to have an upper deck slide based evacuation route for a good proportion of the passengers - the 747 uses the s
234 BoeingVista : No, there has to be more than 1 evacuation point, hence top deck slides on the 747. Am evacuation test should have been performed but I dont believe
235 zeke : One could say that for any aircraft. I disagree, it helps in the design of tests, and the equipment used in the tests. The whole point of having the
236 zeke : I seem to recall discussing this point before, from memory it does not need to be max number, the wording was something like normal or representative
237 Post contains links moo : The 747 was grandfathered in under very old rules - which is why it has a passenger section forward of doors 1L and 1R. Not really, since Boeing obvi
238 BoeingVista : Yes the front section was grandfathered but not the upper deck; how can you grandfather a new feature?
239 moo : My point was not that the original 747 was grandfathered, but subsequent variants were for both the upper deck and the front section. The point was t
240 zeke : I do not know the reason behind the exemption, I have not read it. Every aircraft ever certified would not meet every regulation as the regulations c
241 moo : This conversation is rapidly getting ridiculous and out of hand - I shall wait and see what happens, I fully expect Airbus to not have to do an evacua
242 zeke : COMAC recently did theirs via demonstration with the ARJ21, and Airbus Military also did theirs via demonstration in various configurations (pax/medi
243 BoeingVista : Faulty logic, verging on bull. But you just said that Airbus had to because Boeing didn't!
244 moo : Care to explain the faulty logic, rather than just rubbishing it? Demonstrate one single other twin deck aircraft that has ever had a commercial cert
245 BoeingVista : Look, you are going back and forth with your arguments but enough of this.. Start a thread on it if you feel that strongly This thread is for A350 pr
246 zeke : Where does it say similar tests have to be done before ? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of doing the test. It is basically a Chinese copy of the
247 tdscanuck : It didn't have to get tested because that's what the FAR's said (that's not what the FAR's said or say), it had to get tested because there was no eq
248 Post contains links ManuCH : This thread has become too long and will now be locked. Please continue discussion here: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6 (by ManuCH Nov 8 201
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3 posted Mon Apr 2 2012 20:29:40 by LipeGIG
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2 posted Fri Jan 6 2012 20:26:53 by NZ1
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 1 posted Wed Oct 26 2011 00:08:09 by ferpe
A380 Production Thread Part 12 posted Tue Jul 3 2012 05:30:35 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 4 posted Wed May 30 2012 18:42:57 by LipeGIG
787 Production Thread Part 3 posted Sun Mar 25 2012 12:33:32 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 2 posted Tue Jan 3 2012 09:30:11 by SA7700
A380 Production Thread Part 11 posted Mon Nov 28 2011 10:31:35 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 1 posted Tue Oct 18 2011 13:23:07 by United787
Official 787 Production Thread - Part 1 posted Thu Oct 21 2010 00:30:11 by moderators
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 3 posted Mon Apr 2 2012 20:29:40 by LipeGIG
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2 posted Fri Jan 6 2012 20:26:53 by NZ1
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 1 posted Wed Oct 26 2011 00:08:09 by ferpe
A380 Production Thread Part 12 posted Tue Jul 3 2012 05:30:35 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 4 posted Wed May 30 2012 18:42:57 by LipeGIG
787 Production Thread Part 3 posted Sun Mar 25 2012 12:33:32 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 2 posted Tue Jan 3 2012 09:30:11 by SA7700
A380 Production Thread Part 11 posted Mon Nov 28 2011 10:31:35 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 1 posted Tue Oct 18 2011 13:23:07 by United787
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2 posted Fri Jan 6 2012 20:26:53 by NZ1
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 1 posted Wed Oct 26 2011 00:08:09 by ferpe
A380 Production Thread Part 12 posted Tue Jul 3 2012 05:30:35 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 4 posted Wed May 30 2012 18:42:57 by LipeGIG
787 Production Thread Part 3 posted Sun Mar 25 2012 12:33:32 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 2 posted Tue Jan 3 2012 09:30:11 by SA7700
A380 Production Thread Part 11 posted Mon Nov 28 2011 10:31:35 by SA7700
787 Production Thread Part 1 posted Tue Oct 18 2011 13:23:07 by United787