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, 1060 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 64937 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I started part 5, since part 4 has been archived.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, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 64892 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, 30609 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 64870 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, 164 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 64315 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, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 64265 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, 573 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 62724 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, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 62683 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, 164 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 62618 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, 578 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 60735 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, 30609 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 60750 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 (1 year 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 60167 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, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 59703 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 (1 year 11 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 59507 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, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 59510 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 (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 59377 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, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 59041 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, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 58935 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 (1 year 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 58522 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, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 58223 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, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 58172 times:

Post surplus to requirements.

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

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 58155 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 (1 year 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 57973 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, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 57936 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 (1 year 11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 57647 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, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 57387 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
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 57634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 24):
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

Probably yes. But, the extended version of your post is highly appreciated by me.  


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 57401 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 24):
I don't think the 787-8 was designed as a shrink from the 787-9

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.......787-8.......787-9
Fuselage.....X..............X..........Stretched
Wing......Clipped..........X.............X
Engines......X...............X.............X
Tail.............X...............X.............X
Gear...........X...............X.............X
Systems*...X...............X.............X

* systems elements sensitive to sizing (ECS, generators, APU, etc)

Instead, the 787-3 was dropped and Boeing began entertaining the idea of a 787-10. That changed the equation to look like this:

................787-8.......787-9.......787-10
Fuselage......X....Stretched...Stretched
Wing............X.........X.............X
Engines........X.........X.............X
Tail...............X.........X.............X
Gear.............X........Strengthened
Systems*......X........Grown

It was always the plan the 787-8 and 787-9 would have common wings engine and tail. The MTOW growth of the 787 family caused us to go look at a 209' span for the 787-9, but the weight penalty overwhelmed what would have been Oswald's "ideal" wing - the span added enough weight that the airplane gained only a handful of miles in range (due to greater fuel volume), but actually had higher block fuel than the 197' span used on the 787-8. The weight gain was an inevitable consequence of adding span with such a shallow airfoil at the wing root. This tells me the original 787-8 wing planform was actually sized right for the 787-9, not that it is slightly undersized for the 787-9.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 24):
a wing which is a tick on the small side.

I guess the question is, by what measure. The current 787-9 wing is the lowest block fuel wing we studied, and it just happens to be the same planform as the 787-8.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 58108 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 23):
I'm quite confident real world A350-900s will tip the scales with a dry operating weight at or exceeding 145t.

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 serious overweight, when it may not necessarily be anything of the sort.

If EK's A380's had hit their original spec weight from the outset, their DOW would still have been 295 tonnes, way above any figure published by Airbus. But they wouldn't have been overweight.

Rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 57645 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 26):
the 787 in its original conception was intended to be a family with common elements as follows

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 vs B wing thread:

www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/315161/1/#11

It and the following posts shows that with the engines available the V2 is quite high at 185kts and the initial flight level of 330 is a tick lower then your ideal of 350 or more. On the other hand once in cruise the wing is coming into it's own, at mid cruise weight (at some 83% of MTOW) the induced drag is close to the parasitic drag, this is close to a drag minimum as per this principal picture:

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

This whole discussion is ignoring transonic drag which tends to follow wingloading for equal designs, here the 789 with 680kg/m2 will have some counts higher drag then wings that are loaded at some 600kg/m2 like the 788 and 359, something it shares with the 350-1000 (at 670).


So if we disregard start performance (or get stronger engines) and initial flight level the 789 wing is sized about right according to textbook theory. Now this is textbook theory, you say it turns up right in your simulations which then of course is the real thing, compared to that simplified textbook stuff can be virtually ignored  .


Given your very interesting insight into the 787 family original philosophy, there is nothing stopping us from comparing the 789 to the 350, here the table with the 789 added:



Once again you get a consistent picture, the relevant values are hovering around 108% for 789 vs 359 just as they were hovering around 120% for 788 vs 359. And if my guess of the 789 showroom OEW at 125t is in the ballpark then the OEW of the 359 lies at about 108% of that.

[Edited 2012-09-01 13:42:29]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 57595 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 26):
The weight gain was an inevitable consequence of adding span with such a shallow airfoil at the wing root. This tells me the original 787-8 wing planform was actually sized right for the 787-9, not that it is slightly undersized for the 787-9.

You comment about 787 shallow airfoil at the wing root of course get me to this picture from earlier in the thread:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350vs787middlesectionandwingbox.jpg


It seems when measuring on these and other pictures that the 350 wing is a % or two thicker then the 787 at the root. If you can do that without a drag increase you get a higher build height and a relatively reasoned lighter wing. Not sure it is the case but you tend to indicate the 787 wing is a bit thin to extend, ie any long-range version of 787-10 needs a beefier wing.

Further you indicate the 788 wing is a tick on the large size if the wing is right for the 33t heavier 789   .

[Edited 2012-09-01 13:57:41]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 56983 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 29):
Further you indicate the 788 wing is a tick on the large size if the wing is right for the 33t heavier 789
 

By design, I believe this to be the case.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 56069 times:

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 the MSN001 wings. These are made by FACC, an Austrian tier 1. I must admit I don't know when they will be fitted, they should most logically be fitted at FAL to avoid the physical dimensions in the Beluga during wing transport (they are 6m in total when put together ! ) :





The shape is really interesting, I would say a cross between a blended winglet and a raked wingtip   . If the A320 has sharklets, I would say the A350 has sharkfins  Wow!  .

[Edited 2012-09-03 13:00:45]


Non French in France
User currently offlineLaddie From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 578 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 55720 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 31):

The shape is really interesting, I would say a cross between a blended winglet and a raked wingtip

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, Aviation Partners thinks the A320 Sharklets are a copy of their patented design.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ion-on-sharklet-a320-sales-375243/


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 55556 times:

Quoting Laddie (Reply 32):

BTW, Aviation Partners thinks the A320 Sharklets are a copy of their patented design.

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, they already had blended winglets, so did the Rutan Voyager. Bit hard then 5-10 years later to try and patent something that is already flying.




We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 55493 times:

Quoting Laddie (Reply 32):
They are a scaled up version of the A320 Sharklets.

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 as not the same. IMO they look like bent versions of the 787 raked wingtip.

Quoting Laddie (Reply 32):
BTW, Aviation Partners thinks the A320 Sharklets are a copy of their patented design.

Sure, well see where this ends.



Non French in France
User currently offlineazjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3889 posts, RR: 28
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 55464 times:

Who will be taking delivery of the first 350-800s?

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 55331 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
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, they already had blended winglets, so did the Rutan Voyager. Bit hard then 5-10 years later to try and patent something that is already flying.

It would / should be prior art, but the Apple v Samsung patent case has kind of blown a hole in the whole patent system.



BV
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 54663 times:

Why dont they have raked tips like Boeing?

User currently offlineos787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 54633 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 31):
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 the MSN001 wings. These are made by FACC, an Austrian tier 1.

FACC are also manufacturing the 737NG and 757-200 winglets, so Airbus is not taking any chances in this area.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 54538 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 37):
Why dont they have raked tips like Boeing?

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 you can have an effective wingspan (the span countering induced drag) of some 66m within the 65m E category limit as the winglet builds span in the vertical dimension as well.

The 787 with it's 60.1 m span including the raked tips is well below this limit and could use the raked tips for an effective wingspan of some 59.2 m with minimal structural weight (they don't cause high torsion loads like winglets do, see threads in tech/ops). This less stiff wingbox seems to necessitate an inboard high-speed aileron however, it has it's own plus and minuses (see A vs B wing thread i tech/ops).

Horses for courses as usual  .

[Edited 2012-09-04 08:28:52]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 54491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just read this on the Airbus website:

Quote:

First A350 XWB wing arrives in Toulouse for ground tests


4 SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESS RELEASE
The first wing for the A350 XWB has arrived at Airbus’ final assembly line in Toulouse (France) where the new generation Airbus wide-body aircraft is being assembled. This first wing, which will not fly, is destined for the A350 XWB airframe used for static structural tests on the ground that all new aircraft undergo as part of their certification process. The A350 XWB wings, as for all Airbus aircraft, are made at Airbus’ Broughton (UK) site.
The A350 XWB wing covers are 32 metres long by six metres wide, making them the biggest single civil aviation parts made from carbon fibre composite material. The wings’ advanced structural design and superior aerodynamics are both significant contributors to the 25% fuel saving performance of the A350 XWB.

Link to the full article with pictures: http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...ives-in-toulouse-for-ground-tests/


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 54446 times:

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 service is having some drama just now, someone else might help or I will get it done once they get their service cured   .


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 54248 times:

High-res pictures are available at http://www.airbus.com/galleries/photo-gallery/


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 53887 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
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, they already had blended winglets, so did the Rutan Voyager. Bit hard then 5-10 years later to try and patent something that is already flying.

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 did, the patent should withstand a prior art challenge.

Tom.


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 868 posts, RR: 9
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 53764 times:

Quoting os787 (Reply 38):
FACC are also manufacturing the 737NG and 757-200 winglets, so Airbus is not taking any chances in this area.

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 are as well. Have they taken on design responsibility this time?

Not only that, but they were not the original manufacturer of the 737NG winglet (we built them here at Boeing Aerostructures Australia first) so the kinks had already been worked out of the manufacturing process.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 53631 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 43):

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 did, the patent should withstand a prior art challenge.

It is a matter of chess, Airbus has their own patent for them, US20110192937.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 53303 times:

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 stress carrying structure as it is included in the ES test:




One can also see the different aileron and flap hinge braces extending backwards from the trailing edge. The inner flap hinge has his mate sitting inside the wingroot fairing. The two outermost hinges for the stream-wise deflecting outboard flaps are interesting, they have non aligning hinge axes, this means the flaps have ball-joint hinge bushings IMO:




Finally a closeup of the wingroot join aera (the ammis call it side-of-body join, IMO misleading, it is a join of the center wingbox and the winghalves. The wingbox then interfaces the fuselage at the side of body join but from a load perspective this loadpath has little with the wing-halves to do (or am I mistaken?) ) :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350XWB_wing_61.jpg


Here also a zoom of the famous ribfeet and how they interface to the wingskin with 2 fasteners. For the A380 these were Al parts fastened onto a stiff CFRP rib, thus they took all the twisting and turning as the wing expanded and contracted due to temp among other things. Here they are integral to a big AlLi plank, thus the whole rib will participate in the twist and turn   :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Wingribfeetcloseup.jpg
thus evening out any local stress centers .

[Edited 2012-09-05 02:08:13]


Non French in France
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 53122 times:

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 can compare and contrast the two wings, and the different design philosophies of the actual wing shape this layman would be most appreciative.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 53114 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):
For the A380 these were Al parts fastened onto a stiff CFRP rib, thus they took all the twisting and turning as the wing expanded and contracted due to temp among other things. Here they are integral to a big AlLi plank, thus the whole rib will participate in the twist and turn

The A380 has a number of different rib configurations, some composite, some AL, some hybrid. I assume the A350 is the same.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 52902 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
The A380 has a number of different rib configurations, some composite, some AL, some hybrid. I assume the A350 is the same.

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, seems A will change some of the A380 CFRP/Al ones to this type in future production.


I guess it is:

- simpler and cheaper to manufacture (every rib position has it's unique shape (they are not even equal for same position on left and right wing-halves) so once you have the unique 3D shape for every rib you generate the CNC program and load the plank, x hours later you have your rib)

- more resilient (or less sensitive to miss-calculations of the stress picture)

- for a rather small loss in weight efficiency.


There is a story from the test wing that A did in one of the first parts of this thread where they took the decision that hybrid CFRP ribs were not worth the effort. It might be that the ribs are mostly loaded in compression, as CM wrote re the 787 keel beam it was made of Al as it is superior (or at least stack up very well) to CFRP for compressive load conditions.

[Edited 2012-09-05 03:41:56]


Non French in France
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 868 posts, RR: 9
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 52929 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 44):
Have they taken on design responsibility this time?

To answer my own question, yes they have: FACC starts working on production of first winglets for Airbus A350 XWB Hmmm. An interesting choice.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):
The two outermost hinges for the stream-wise deflecting outboard flaps are interesting, they have non aligning hinge axes, this means the flaps have ball-joint hinge bushings IMO:

There would be spherical bearings in those joints regardless to allow for the wing to bend without inducing large moments at the fittings and the joints binding.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 52861 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 50):
There would be spherical bearings in those joints regardless to allow for the wing to bend without inducing large moments at the fittings and the joints binding.

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 think has to be modified to "almost streamwise", or perhaps the airstream over the wing that far back is turned pretty much inwards so it is streamwise to the local stream of air    .

IMO those flaps extend backwards and a bit inwards with that hingeline, nothing that can't be absorbed with clever parts on the sides so that the flaps seal well and the all important flap fairings does not cant towards the wind (it is essentially these that extend backwards in the direction of the free-stream, not the flaps I guess).



Non French in France
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 52904 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):
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 stress carrying structure as it is included in the ES test:

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 tracks pass back into the wing.

You can get a good idea of what the wing will look like when the slats are added by looking at the end rib near the tip.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 52711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why all the temporary fasteners (cleco's) on the upper skin?... I trust they don't plan to remove it for instrumentation...

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 52626 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 53):

Why all the temporary fasteners (cleco's) on the upper skin?... I trust they don't plan to remove it for instrumentation...

I suspect that's where they're going to attach the load fittings.

Tom.


User currently offlinecymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 52339 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):

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 stress carrying structure as it is included in the ES test:

Cant see what you have referenced as Stress structure?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):
One can also see the different aileron and flap hinge braces extending backwards from the trailing edge. The inner flap hinge has his mate sitting inside the wingroot fairing. The two outermost hinges for the stream-wise deflecting outboard flaps are interesting, they have non aligning hinge axes, this means the flaps have ball-joint hinge bushings IMO:

In this picture you can only see 1 aileron hinge, are you referencing the 3 flap hinges?

Just trying to understand your description.


User currently offlineLaddie From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 578 posts, RR: 8
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 52227 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
IFAIK the 350 only have ALLi plank type ribs,

To the best of my knowledge, only Ribs 3 through 8 are Al-Li. The rest are conventional aluminum alloys.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 52129 times:

Quoting cymro (Reply 55):
Cant see what you have referenced as Stress structure?

The part that OldAeroguy correctly described as underneath (my bad english "below" ) the non fitted slats/droop nose sections. Those are the Al shiny parts forward of the front spar (which ends the carbon fiber wingbox in the forward direction). One could have thought that the wingbox would carry all the loads in the forward part of the wing, in such case there would have been no point in fitting the glove like Al skins over the leading edge nose-ribs that form the leading edge (with cutouts for the slat tracks as OldAeroguy said).

Quoting cymro (Reply 55):
In this picture you can only see 1 aileron hinge, are you referencing the 3 flap hinges?

yes, as said in the text each flap (inner and outer) have 2 hinges, for the inner flap only the outer hinge resides on the wing, the other, innermost sits on the fuselage side and is covered by the wingfairing when this is fitted. The two for the outer flap are visible and they should make the flap deploy streamwise, parallel to the fuselage according to A. The outermost whishbone with a hinge-bushing is for the high-speed aileron. One can also see numerous wishbones for the spoiler hinges spreading the whole flap area.



Non French in France
User currently offlinecymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 52066 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 57):
The part that OldAeroguy correctly described as underneath (my bad english "below" ) the non fitted slats/droop nose sections. Those are the Al shiny parts forward of the front spar (which ends the carbon fiber wingbox in the forward direction). One could have thought that the wingbox would carry all the loads in the forward part of the wing, in such case there would have been no point in fitting the glove like Al skins over the leading edge nose-ribs that form the leading edge (with cutouts for the slat tracks as OldAeroguy said).

Ok I see what you are referring too now, You mean the white nose skins that cover the slat ribs.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 57):
yes, as said in the text each flap (inner and outer) have 2 hinges, for the inner flap only the outer hinge resides on the wing, the other, innermost sits on the fuselage side and is covered by the wingfairing when this is fitted. The two for the outer flap are visible and they should make the flap deploy streamwise, parallel to the fuselage according to A. The outermost whishbone with a hinge-bushing is for the high-speed aileron. One can also see numerous wishbones for the spoiler hinges spreading the whole flap area

Think I may have miss read your text sorry, thought you were confusing the spoiler ribs/flap hinges with the aileron ribs but it is clear it was my miss read thanks


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 51998 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 52):
We're looking at the wing surface behind the slats.

Indeed. What you see in the picture (white) is fixed leading edge, not movable (slats).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 46):
the slats/droop nose is apparently stress carrying structure as it is included in the ES test:

I think more likely, it is stress inducing structure, which may be why it is included. The slats and fixed leading and trailing edges, do not add strength to the wing box, but must flex with the normal deflections of the box. When a wing box flexes many meters during LLF and ULF tests, even non-PSEs are capable of inducing very large stresses into the PSEs being tested. They are not permitted to fuse (shear fasteners) during static testing, or even yield during LLF, so the stresses they induce into the box can be quite large and must be understood.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 51810 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 59):
I think more likely, it is stress inducing structure, which may be why it is included.

Thanks CM. always great when you help with the mysteries of certification   



Non French in France
User currently offlineLaddie From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 578 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 51257 times:

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 picked up on the news, I am thinking the reporter confused MSN1 and MSN5000.

http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk...us-broughton-plant-51352-31774550/


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 51144 times:

Quoting Laddie (Reply 61):
I am thinking the reporter confused MSN1 and MSN5000.

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 of things (look at an early part of the thread, I think bigsmile spelled it out there. IIRC it was fuel tank plumbing, -pumps, -avionics, electrical harnesses etc).

When this is finished it goes to Bremen to get it's high-lift stuff added (and a few other bits and pieces) then off to TLS in about a month to be joined to section 15-21 which should be there by then  .



Non French in France
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 51142 times:

Quoting Laddie (Reply 61):
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 picked up on the news, I am thinking the reporter confused MSN1 and MSN5000.

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 Toulouse FAL, as discussed above
- The first wing for MSN1 (IOW "the first wing for the A350 XWB that will eventually fly") just arrived in Bremen for outfitting with the required equipment. It will then be sent on to Toulouse

As it might come in handy, I hope Ferpe won't mind if I repost the link he provided in the first part of the thread, describing the A350 wing assembly flow :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...pe_bucket/A350_Wing_production.jpg



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlinebigsmile From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 164 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 50328 times:

Everything the reporter said is correct

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 49162 times:

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 might overtake the middle team, the aft part have been the most delayed fuselage item so far) here another MSN001 piece that was ready for delivery to FAL late August, the VTP:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350VTP%20and%20A330VTP_zps8eb2379e.jpg

The A350 VTP (for MSN001 to the left) is sharing the scene with the A330 VTP (to the right, no 1367) at a ceremony at Airbus Stade just outside Hamburg. Didier Evrard and the Airbus COO Günther Butcheck is thanking the team of Airbus, Aernova (rudder) and Aciturri (parts to VTP) for job well done.

A couple of things can be seen in the comparison:

- the A350 VTP is clearly larger, especially the rudder (asymmetric thrust at OEI is 30% larger and the tail arm not that much longer).

- The rake of the VTP leading edge is higher, the A350 is cruising at M 0.85 vs 0.82 for the A330.

- The mounting line is more sloped downward on the A350, like the Boeing machines. The A300/310/340/330 rear fuselage has a very straight overside with almost all the rake on the bottom part, this adds some pressure drag.

[Edited 2012-09-19 04:00:14]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 48779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 65):
The mounting line is more sloped downward on the A350, like the Boeing machines. The A300/310/340/330 rear fuselage has a very straight overside with almost all the rake on the bottom part, this adds some pressure drag.

Well spotted. But the A380 also has a sloping mounting line for the VTP.  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 48693 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 66):
Well spotted. But the A380 also has a sloping mounting line for the VTP.

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 effects that diminish or increases the described effects) the more symmetrical you can make the tail taper, the less drag you generate.

This is because your taper then generates the least increase in local stream velocity (creates extra friction drag and possible transonic effects), but this is not all. The up-sweep on the tail generates a negative lift as well, this means the wing needs to add that to it's lift to compensate thus creating more induced drag in the process.

The reason for the original Airbus strong up-sweep is not clear to me (or really rather flat overside Big grin), it can possibly be found in tail clearance issues but can also be the effect of how the VTP is mounted. The join creates a distinct bulge in the interface to the fuselage. This creates high local velocities, something that would be augmented with more rake. Perhaps the two effects could then have brought the whole area to separation (like the present 737, fixed for the MAX).

A more balanced design like the A380, 350, 767, 777, 787 is more optimal if you an get away with it.

[Edited 2012-09-19 05:57:43]


Non French in France
User currently offlineLaddie From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 578 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 48609 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 67):
but can also be the effect of how the VTP is mounted. The join creates a distinct bulge in the interface to the fuselage.

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 see on the A330/A340 is gone on the A350. Did Airbus make a major change in how they attach the A350 VTP to the aft body?

[Edited 2012-09-19 06:37:13]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 48527 times:

Quoting Laddie (Reply 68):
Did Airbus make a major change in how they attach the A350 VTP to the aft body?

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 some fitting which extends on the inside of the fuselage I would presume). The original DA series has a 3 lug fitting as can be read in this report:

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapport...on/2005/a05f0047/a05f0047_sec1.asp

I guess Airbus had gotten much surer in how to join a VTP to the fuselage and don't need the base spread of the lugs as they did on the 300 "et consortes". They got double the number of lugs and surely also a better knowledge on how to distribute the loads after the join, thus they can accept the higher stresses that an aligned base would entail. It also seem like the A350 joining bolts etc would be attached on (or from) the inside of the fuselage, they were on the outside for the A300:




Sure should help the boundary layer in the area not to have the air curving like hell around a bulge  .

[Edited 2012-09-19 07:26:26]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 48402 times:

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 non FBW aircraft. For such a frame a predictable tail stabilizing moment is important as you would have to trim for all changes of HTP forces, for FBW aircrafts such trim changes are compensated by the FBW computers.

By making the tail virtually flat on the overside you get the HTP higher up, more free from the downwash influence of the wing. Many are the normal control frames which had the tail climbing even higher in those days, up on the root of the fin for some   even though they were low wing designs.

Only Airbus and a few enlightened would know  .



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 48093 times:

Quoting Laddie (Reply 68):
Did Airbus make a major change in how they attach the A350 VTP to the aft body?

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 widebodies (767, 777, 787). I don't think this change is directly associated with the change in the fin deck angle, but it does permit Airbus to eliminate the blister fairings at the base of the fin. I believe the real incentive for changing the attach method is a lighter fin attacment joint.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 46434 times:

Here is another picture of the VTP:

http://forum.a380production.com/boar...uced!&p=31221&viewfull=1#post31221



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 46317 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 72):
Here is another picture of the VTP:

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 posted among others by Seattle Times:

MSN001 forward section waiting for middle man at station 50:



Note how busy it is around the section with scaffolding on different layers and full integration testing/installation going on in the joining hall. The middle and aft sections should have been there by now according to what Bregier said at Farnborough, let's see when they arrive.

Here station 40 with MSN5000 now having wings and also the pylon (strut in Tom speak, arrowed) mounted:




The next picture from the same hall shows once again how busy the area is with lots of special platform and scaffolding, a very different concept to the clean big halls of Boeing with wheeled platforms:




I could not resist putting in this picture of the somewhat melancholy face of the MSN5000 (those windows make it come alive for me and all the external wiring is the writing on the wall ) saying "Boy are they going to torture me" :




Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 45913 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 73):
I have found some more pictures of MSN001 and 5000

Thanks for posting these nicely detailed pictures.  


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 44848 times:

And the EW wing has arrived in Erding.

http://www.aero.de/news-16000/A350-T...trifft-bei-IABG-in-Erding-ein.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 44508 times:

The front looks very similar to the A380, probably is based on the A380?

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 44709 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 76):
The front looks very similar to the A380, probably is based on the A380?

When you have an efficient design you reuse it.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 44704 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
When you have an efficient design you reuse it.

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 speeds?

Fred


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 43691 times:

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 one can speculate over the source:

http://www.bloga350.blogspot.com/

In recent post the site says the mid section arrives in about a week and the aft section just after that, both joined until a FAL inauguration ceremony by Bregier on the 23 Nov. The wings, since here as they are unloaded at Bremen, should then arrive in mid Nov.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/06SepA350Wing_MSN001_BREMEN_2.jpg


If correct we have a further month slip since Farnborough.



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 43008 times:

Quote:
In recent post the site says the mid section arrives in about a week and the aft section just after that, both joined until a FAL inauguration ceremony by Bregier on the 23 Nov.

The article is speaking about 23 October, not November.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 42689 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 80):
The article is speaking about 23 October, not November.

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 have aimed for first flight before Le Bourget, lets see if this is still a possibility, doubt that. Summer 2013 should still be doable (the summer definition depends on where you are, at TLS it ends in September or so   ).



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 42136 times:

From Airbus' Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...0547.116293.392751580741132&type=1



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 41838 times:

Ferpe, or others, do we know if the wings are structurally joined to the center section yet?

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 41702 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 82):
From Airbus' Facebook:

Super catch    , this means section 15-21 (middle section for MSN001 = flight test frame) is in TLS and starting join this week, nice.

Quoting CM (Reply 83):
Ferpe, or others, do we know if the wings are structurally joined to the center section yet?

They are for the static frame, you can see that in post 73. For the flight test frame I think they are still in Bremen being readied for shipment to FAL. Airbus has pointed out they know how to fit them now though once they arrive  Wow!   :

[Edited 2012-10-09 12:27:55]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 41562 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 84):
Airbus has pointed out they know how to fit them now though once they arrive

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 static frame, just proving the structural join process is no small matter. The wing join is extraordinary complex in terms of load paths, and none of the structure will conform to small misalignments. Every gap, no matter how small, must be addressed with custom shims. It is the most difficult structural joint to assemble on the aircraft.

Thanks again, Ferpe!


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41417 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 85):
It is the most difficult structural joint to assemble on the aircraft.

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 as I can see the 350 wing join is very closely modeled after the A380 one, both from a principle for the join and from the tooling used (it is quite different from the 787 join with the top wingskin being overlapped on the overside from the center wingbox). This similarity should help Airbus with the complexity of the whole thing even though the material mix is different. It is not entirely new however as large parts of the A380 central wingbox was CFRP including the skins IIRC. So now we have a mix of Al (the ISO Rib) and CFRP (all the skins and stringers) vs before we had CFRP skin mating to Al skin (wing side) and if I am not mistaken CFRP ribs on the center wingbox.



Non French in France
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 40964 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 85):
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 static frame, just proving the structural join process is no small matter. The wing join is extraordinary complex in terms of load paths, and none of the structure will conform to small misalignments. Every gap, no matter how small, must be addressed with custom shims. It is the most difficult structural joint to assemble on the aircraft.

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 more accurate then what Boeing does with the 747.(Markings)

In this youtube video you can see how Airbus aligns the wing of the A380 with the LPS.

http://youtu.be/2Oj7mHaPTCY?t=4m47s

[Edited 2012-10-10 00:36:00]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 40464 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 87):

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 uses lasers.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 40401 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 88):
Every Boeing model uses laser for all allignments as well

Maybe, but not as long as Airbus does. The last 747-400 order for Lufthansa were aligned with markings.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 40312 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 89):
Maybe, but not as long as Airbus does. The last 747-400 order for Lufthansa were aligned with markings.

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 not. The 777-200A was the first Boeing commercial airplane to use lasers for alignment of all major tooling for joins. That was in 1994.

Lasers for alignment of major assemblies is far from a new technology and was certainly not pioneered within aerospace. Large vertical construction perfected the technology long before Airbus or Boeing thought about using it for building aircraft.

The 787 uses lasers, but in a very different concept than other Boeing models. The lasers are located in the ceiling above the FAL and use points on the aircraft structure as the index, rather than tool-to-tool indexing.

[Edited 2012-10-10 08:04:55]

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 40293 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 90):
The 787 uses lasers, but in a very different concept than other Boeing models. The lasers are located in the ceiling above the FAL and use points on the aircraft structure as the index, rather than tool-to-tool indexing

Been doing that for over 10 years in our spot....
Some smart young thing introduced it following a benchmarking with the Offshore Construction industry  
Quoting CM (Reply 90):
Lasers for alignment of major assemblies is far from a new technology and was certainly not pioneered within aerospace

Correct

Rgds


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 40293 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 90):
The lasers are located in the ceiling above the FAL and use points on the aircraft structure as the index, rather than tool-to-tool indexing.

Same what Airbus does.

Quoting CM (Reply 90):
I have no doubt this was true of the 744.The tooling was famously old and worn: it required replacement whether

Here you can see how Boeing did the alignment on Lufhansas 744. Incredible they could join the planes this way.

Imagine a A380 would be joined that way. The accuracy would have been bad.  Wow!http://youtu.be/pCGe-y3TOIs?t=16m31s



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 39870 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
Shall we keep this excellent thread away from an A versus B war?

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 we can talk about with regards to Airbus or Boeing which has a relevant context other than comparisons to each company's lone competitor. Frankly, it's hard to comprehend one company without talking about the other. That in and of itself is not a "war", it's just a reality that it's hard to understand or appreciate the accomplishments and failings of either company without using the other as a baseline for comparison.

No war intended.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 39571 times:

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 the delivery ceremony from Hamburg on 19 Sept:




and here is it being rolled into station 50 after the middle section:



It is not a high res photo but it is for MSN001 as it has all the plumbing and it is the rear section as it has no wingbox stuff in the foward end. The structure we see on the middle sections rear end is the wing fairings rear frames, on these the wing fairing panels get attached when all the inside stuff has been joined and bolted onboard  .

Here another catch of today, the adding of the skins to the rear section of MSN003 in Hamburg:



Next thing that gets surfaced over social media can be the wings which suddenly are in TLS  . Seems A is playing some Web2 game, these last pictures and info was found on Facebook etc.

[Edited 2012-10-10 14:01:10]


Non French in France
User currently offlinecymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 39543 times:

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 fact very very similar techniques are used.

User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 39510 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
Frankly, it's hard to comprehend one company without talking about the other. That in and of itself is not a "war", it's just a reality that it's hard to understand or appreciate the accomplishments and failings of either company without using the other as a baseline for comparison.

Couldn't agree more. Do now all airplane makers use a LPS?

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
No war intended.

Same here.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 39068 times:

Quote:
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 the delivery ceremony from Hamburg on 19 Sept:

It is not a high res photo but it is for MSN001

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-xwb-family/cache/0/

Any news about the aft section?

[Edited 2012-10-11 01:25:18]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 38819 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 97):
Any news about the aft section?

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 the 20 Sept or so, see pictures in post 97.

What probably has happened is that the central section (15-21) was delayed but the aft section (16-19) went to plan, ie arrived in September as said at Farnborough. Thus the foucs was on the middle section to get it to FAL just before the wings (which we know should come in October, they are now the critical path). With the central section joined the aft could be wheeled out of the reception and pre-assembly station 59 (see picture) to be joined for a complete fuselage this week.

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

Then the complete MSN001 fuselage can be rolled over to the station 40 beside MSN5000 for joining of the wings before the FAL inauguration ceremony on Oct 23. A would then have both MSN5000 and MSN001 there side by side completed in station 40 for the ceremony, would be the correct setting IMO  Wow! . This all assumes that the wings would ship within the next week or so which I think is plausible (no point in fixing a date for FAL inauguration without MNS001 being complete in the FAL) .


All in all it would mean that we do not have any further delay since the Farnborough announcements. In such case the 350 News blog was speculating as much as I am speculating right now. Neither of us are then in the know, we are both laying puzzle with piecemeal feed info from A, fun to see who can read their social media tea leaves best  .

Should my reasoning be correct we will not see any more high-res photos until the 23rd, the A media team is gathering ammo for a real blast then   .

[Edited 2012-10-11 04:22:47]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 38690 times:

Quote:
Section 16-19 is indeed the aft section,

I see. I thought there are 4 sections but I'm wrong.

Quote:
In such case the 350 News blog was speculating as much as I am speculating right now.

The wings won't arrive until mid November according to that blog. But then again, why would Airbus organize a ceremony if the frame isn't complete? Maybe the wings will arrive on time?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 37869 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 92):

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 techniques they are using to keep weight under control.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12344 posts, RR: 25
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 37806 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
comparisons of A to B bring out the worst in many here on A.net, which is tiring and unproductive

They are as worn-out as the 747-400 tooling was!  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 868 posts, RR: 9
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 38032 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 100):
Airbus actually went a lot further with laser alignment than just the final assembly level, they use it down to the composite layup level

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 plies.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 37934 times:

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.weser-kurier.de/video.htm...id=23554033001&bctid=1897124027001


Here some stills from this video:

Uncovering for all involved:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001wingsreadyatBremen0.jpg


It is the left wing which is shown, here we see the outer wing spoliers:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001wingsreadyatBremen2.jpg


Here the gear beam attachment:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001wingsreadyatBremen4.jpg


and the famous streamwise dropped hinge flap linkage (arrowed):
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001wingsreadyatBremen5.jpg


The inner flap is not fitted as it's inner support is on the fuselage under the wing fairing, will be fitted at FAL. The outer dropped hinge attachment is on the wing and is the one with the red protective cap:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001wingsreadyatBremen3.jpg

[Edited 2012-10-12 23:07:19]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 37700 times:

Nice, right in time for the ceremony.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 37626 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 103):
It seems my tea leave reading could have merit

Keep on drinking that tea ferpe!   Excellent find.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 36484 times:

The preparation for FAL inauguration next Tuesday is in full bore, here the latest from Twitter:

DavidKaminski-Morrow ‏@FlightDKM

Little bird tells me the first #A350 vertical fin is being painted up in #Airbus colours and will be shown off in a few days.



Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 36412 times:

Have MSN001's wings arrived at the FAL from Bremen yet?

How long will wing join take BTW..



BV
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 35715 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Have MSN001's wings arrived at the FAL from Bremen yet?

How long will wing join take BTW..

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 join will take we don't know, should depend on how much shimming must be done, would guess as day or two. Should be pretty much in order for Tuesday next week is my guess even if it means all-nighters for some  .


While checking for any info on the above I came across some facts on the work done in Bremen:
In Bremen one put in some 23 km cable, 390 m hydraulics tubes, some 300 devices and 80 pieces of structure. The wing weighs 28t.

[Edited 2012-10-15 18:12:14]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 35197 times:

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

#avgeeks #A350 XWB fans you have just a week to go before the opening of our new eco- efficient Final Assembly Line in Toulouse, France


Airbus ‏@Airbus

In the lead up to our Final Assembly Line inauguration for our new #A350XWB keep an eye out for a chance to win an #A350XWB model



Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 35022 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 109):

It will be nice to see what stunts they pull :
http://videos.airbus.com/video/742242f1e42s.html
Funky FAL video for one thing.



BV
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34208 times:

Section 16/19 delivery video: http://videos.airbus.com/video/a2b1951648fs.html



[Edited 2012-10-17 08:25:05]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 33988 times:

Another Section 19 arrived in Hamburg, picture taken today by a local spotter:

http://v2.airplaneupload.de/display-i6036b1yj6r.html

For MSN002 or MSN003 maybe?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 33586 times:

The Trent XWB program is progressing nicely

Quote:
After the successful completion of the hot weather campaign in Al Ain (United Arab Emirates) this summer, the Trent XWB engine that will power the A350 XWB continues accumulating flight hours, more than 150h, on the A380 MSN1 used as a Flying Test Bed.
http://bloga350.blogspot.com.au/2012...engine-continues-accumulating.html

Pictures are courtesy of David Kaminski-Morrow's twitter feed


MSN1's TXWB getting some TLC



Console on MSN1 for monitoring TXWB, now that looks like a nice office  Smile

Whilst blog crawling I found a reference to a 'upgraded' 2nd flight test TXWB and an implication that the engine was changed after 70 hrs flight testing in approximately June/July 2012 for the second phase of flight testing, is anybody able to confirm this...


.

[Edited 2012-10-17 18:48:36]


BV
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 33192 times:

A350 XWB: the wings will be shipped to assembly line in Toulouse next week


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 33169 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 113):
is anybody able to confirm this...

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.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...s/2012-07-09/trent-xwb-test-duties


here and excerp from the first link which is from mid July "Trent XWB Serial Number 20990 had logged 43 hours and was scheduled to make two more flights before replacement by S/N21000, dubbed FTB2. Tests with the latter, which has updated parts and is said to have demonstrated the “lowest Trent XWB specific fuel consumption so far,” will be conducted using a revised instrumentation suite. "

Further the TXWB manager says everything is running well and that the engine will be at spec when serial deliveries begin. He also hints that the TSFC and compressor margins they have seen will be used to give the 97klbf variant a push in the efficiency domain.



Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 32996 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):
Further the TXWB manager says everything is running well and that the engine will be at spec when serial deliveries begin. He also hints that the TSFC and compressor margins they have seen will be used to give the 97klbf variant a push in the efficiency domain.

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 save about 1 tonne per ship-set which is a huge potential weight saving.



BV
User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 31959 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 116):


RR also hint..

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/




Jambrain
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 31842 times:

Could they retrofit the T1000 engine with these blades? Or would that cost too much for the customers?

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 31336 times:

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 117):
The composite JV with GKN is a bit more then a hint:-

Yes, RR pitched a composite fan fot the 777x RFP

Quoting sweair (Reply 118):
Could they retrofit the T1000 engine with these blades? Or would that cost too much for the customers?

Clearly they can as a modified T1000 is mentioned as being the test donk, and if you amortise the cost over say 1500 units which RR could reasonably expect for both the T1000 and TXWB the cost could easily be absorbed into the program and sold as a PIP.

But the interesting question is would it be worth re-fanning a T700? New fan = Increased fan efficiency = lower fuel burn, weight saving = lower fuel burn = less structural alterations.

But back OT RR are still making materials choices on the TXWB 97 for the A3510, I wouldn't be surprised to see composite fan blades in it, Airbus (and EK) would I'm sure be grateful for a 1tonne payload increase.



BV
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1711 posts, RR: 8
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 31321 times:

That wings sure looks almost ready

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 117):

Thanks for the picture! What a surprising elegance!

I'd be glad to know the history of every curve in that design... And also to know what would be kept in a variable-pitch design... But I guess much of those two stories may be propri


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 31323 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 118):
Could they retrofit the T1000 engine with these blades? Or would that cost too much for the customers?

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 place using a modified Trent 1000 on R-R’s Boeing 747 test-bed in 2013, in the US. Rolls will use the 787’s powerplant to test the blades, as it is the most modern engine it has that has built up enough test data already — unlike the Trent XWB which is still in an earlier stage of development. However, “the XWB is the standard beyond which we need to progress”, says Nuttall.

The flight tests with a Trent 1000 as a donor engine and equipped with composite blades and fan casing, will also see the engine equipped with low-weight LPT (low pressure turbine) components as part of the EU’s Clean Sky ALPS (Advanced Low Pressure System) project.


So technically yes, RR could. However, you partly answered your own question. The tooling and manufacturing facilities (one of which was only opened in the last 12 months) are in place for the T1000 and production in full flow. Furthermore, any changes would have to be certified (certification=time+money).


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 31266 times:

Maybe for Trent1000-TEN as that would need certification anyway? Plus its years away for the 787-10 not even launched yet.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 30397 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 118):
Could they retrofit the T1000 engine with these blades? Or would that cost too much for the customers?

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 ground and/or by analysis, which shouldn't be too hard.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 29647 times:

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_campaign=RSS

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



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 29491 times:

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, Butcheck and Evrard:




Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 29375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 125):
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, Butcheck and Evrard:

Thanks for the information Ferpe!  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 29658 times:

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 "mini-jumbo" battle"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/.../us-airbus-a-idUSBRE89L0FQ20121022


What can be taken from this writeup for this thread is this statement by Airbus:

"We are working on a ramp-up to 10 per month to be reached four years after the first A350 XWB delivery and are constantly and closely following market trends so that we anticipate and adapt our production to meet our customers' needs."

Think this was put forward by Zeke before, now it would be confirmed then.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29347 times:

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 make the whole trailing edge in 3 peices and still keep the flap hinge lines within 0.15mm, quite a feat. By now they have made 5 shipsets (I would think 5 1/2 as the EW wing half would be included ). That would be ES, MSN1 to 3 and EF with 3 further to finish before end of year (MSN4 to 6).

Here the inner spar of the left wing in it's jig, what we see close up is the joining area to the mid rear spar:



One can also see the hinge line for the spoilers (the little round holes at the end of the structures going back from the spar and outboard of the flap hinge (closer in the picture) ) .

[Edited 2012-10-22 08:01:12]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 28941 times:




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 28837 times:

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 browsed quite a few spotter sites to collect it.


I found this that says that the wing drilling will not stop the ramp any more, 5 sets drilled in 5 weeks with the updated software, impressive:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-on-track-with-hole-drilling-fixed



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 28646 times:

Airbus uploaded those pictures on their Facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/airbus



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 28523 times:

Nice, missed that. I guess this was the first picture in the series tying it all together a bit for tomorrow:

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

[Edited 2012-10-22 13:00:18]


Non French in France
User currently offlinecymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 28351 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 128):
They make the whole trailing edge in 3 peices and still keep the flap hinge lines within 0.15mm

I think they will be referring to spoiler hinge lines not flaps


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 28282 times:

Quoting cymro (Reply 133):
I think they will be referring to spoiler hinge lines not flaps

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 same line (the flaps have a dropped line) but they deploy togehter (drooped ailerons) and therefore benefit from minimum gaps etc.



Non French in France
User currently offlinecymro From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 28244 times:

The spoilers cover approx the same as the flaps that are fitted at that stage, the ailerons a bit less.

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 28239 times:

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 the adaptive wing shape so I guess all 3 lines would be equally important, they are all interconnected.


Non French in France
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 28229 times:

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 efficiency?
Just looking at the diagram of streamwise flap, it seems to me that such an arrangement would lead to increased gaps between flap and wing.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 28062 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 137):
Has Airbus stated the reason for the streamwise flaps?

It is noise for landing and drag for take-off, every bit of L/D you can gain at TO is worth TOW.



Non French in France
User currently offlineHA_DC9 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 653 posts, RR: 1
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27921 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 124):
The VTP is now painted and ready for tomorrow, looks nice with it's higher rake:

http://www.airbus.com/no_cache/newse...n=RSS

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 colors.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 27786 times:

http://event.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/photogallery/big/800x600_1348524000_A350XWB-in-the-making.jpg

More pictures at http://event.airbus.com/a350/fal-inauguration/photos.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 141, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27372 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 "a la" A380 reveal some years ago. The FAL ceremony was good, but not that exciting. The organisation was however spotless, and the food was of abundance and excellent.

The nice touch was that they offered to all participants a pen made of composite, same one as the aircraft.

Nice souvenir, and a nice boost to the morale to get the aircraft flying next year.



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 142, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27328 times:

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 the vertical tail plane joined. The aircraft will be transferred to the static test hangar at the Toulouse Jean-Luc Lagardère site to be prepared for static tests to start in spring 2013.

The first flyable A350 XWB (MSN1) is also progressing well, with the fuselage already joined. The wing, vertical and horizontal tail plane for MSN1 are inside the FAL and will be joined to the fuselage in early November.


http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...ates-a350-xwb-final-assembly-line/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 143, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27348 times:

Quoting HA_DC9 (Reply 139):
What a nice "errection" err....I mean that is one sexy vertical tail.

Yup, standing proud...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 140):
More pictures at http://event.airbus.com/a350/fal-ina....html


A350 with radome, need a side on of this



BV
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 34
Reply 144, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 27020 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 123):
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 ground and/or by analysis, which shouldn't be too hard.

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 never flown. The blades failed at around 60 cycles.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12344 posts, RR: 25
Reply 145, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 27008 times:

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 141):
The nice touch was that they offered to all participants a pen made of composite, same one as the aircraft.

I hope they do not get returned due to "writer rash"!  
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 143):
Yup, standing proud...

May it never go limp!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 146, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26684 times:

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 pictures from Airbus latest FAL video (to be found on their FAL site):

Butscheck: “Our message is: the program is on plan and the upcoming major milestones will be on plan, too,”

"Evrard also points out that at least the initial two flight test aircraft will be kept at Airbus and no decision has been made whether to keep MSN2 and MSN4, the subsequent aircraft. Airbus plans to assemble two aircraft this year and start producing a third before the end of the year. In the second half of 2013, the manufacturer is aiming for a production rate of one aircraft per month. “Ramping up production will be crucial,” Evrard says. Airbus is understood to roll out the first A350 (MSN1) in April, the company has not specified in detail when the aircraft will make its first flight, other than saying it expects to reach that milestone next summer."


More FAL lines
The present dual stations from station 40 onwards will go to 4 in 2014. Airbus is building a further station 30 building to house 4 station 30. It means the present station 30 places can be upgraded to station 40 (wing join and system setting to work). This means the FAL will in 2014 look like:


One STATION 59
Reception of sections:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALP591.jpg

and installation of big monuments (galleys, toilets etc):
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALP592.jpg


Two STATION 50
Joining of fuselage
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALP50-1.jpg


Four STATION 40
Simultaneous external joining of wings, VTP, HTP, tailcone, pylons and internal cabin furnishing, power on:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALP401.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALP402.jpg


Four STATION 30
System test and cabin installation
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALP301.jpg


Four STATION 18
External ground test


PAINTING


XX STATION 20
Engine installation and cockpit furnishing and other high value items
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FALS20.jpg


Finally:
"Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier indicates that Airbus might raise production of the A350-1000, the largest of the three planned A350 versions. “We expected around 40-50 aircraft per year, but we will be much better than that.” If that decision was made, Airbus would have to also invest more into dedicated A350-1000 facilities. Bregier insists that Airbus will build all three planned versions, even though he concedes that customers have “less appetite for the -800”, the smallest variant. “The market will slightly move to bigger aircraft. But we are observing that trend with other models, too.”

[Edited 2012-10-23 09:40:51]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 147, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 25975 times:

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.fr/entreprises-...prochain-au-salon-du-bourget-.html

Evrard says A now comes into a phase in the program that they know well, getting a prototype to fly. He says A has passed 3 challenging phases so far: 1, learning how to work with CFRP on a grand scale. 2, the design and production of major CFRP parts (ref rear spar and middle section hot spots). 3, the getting to work of the Pre-FAL and FAL. While there is always the risk of findings forcing design changes during the test phase he says the challenges passed has been more fundamental and the major one remaining is the ramping of the complex supply chain with it's 400 tier 1 and 2 partners. This chain shall be at 1 frame per month 2H 2013 and have some 20-25 frames in production by certification time (let's see how much change incorporation these will need  Wow! ). They want to be at 10 frames/month by 350-1000 time, ie 2017-2018.

He think the A350 flying during Le Bourget in June "is a bit early" and plays it down, F Breiger says in another French interview "if we are a bit early, why not. I don't exclude it".

Then a bit about Germany blocking launch loan payments and Breiger saying "we don't really need it (coffin is full enough) but everyone shall stick to their commitments " .



Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 148, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 25847 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 147):
Breiger saying "we don't really need it (coffin is full enough) but everyone shall stick to their commitments " .

He must be "dead" certain he has enough cash....  

Rgds


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 149, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 25729 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
He must be "dead" certain he has enough cash....

I think he is.....  

He is correct of course that all partners should stick to their commitments.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12344 posts, RR: 25
Reply 150, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 25463 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 146):
Butscheck: "Our message is: the program is on plan and the upcoming major milestones will be on plan, too"

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 Airbus, it goes for the whole aerospace sector.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 149):
He is correct of course that all partners should stick to their commitments.

It seems Mrs Merkel feels that Airbus is not sticking to its commitments.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 151, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 25347 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 150):
Which is of course true till the message that we no longer are on plan is sent, or that we've changed the plan.

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 delays. In the posts I just reflected what was conveyed at the FAL ceremony, interesting to watch the growing confidence, guess their tests so for on structures and system has given them this confidence, we will see   .

I think what might be different to the 787 program is that they have more conventional technology in some key areas like electrical systems, air cond, anti ice etc thus they can build on e.g. the A380 experiences but also A400. It also seems their modeling for the structures has been quite ok so far, no stories about hick-ups there todate. A pretty tough moment in the 787 program must have been when they saw their modeling did not tell them a detailed enough story = increase margins until you understand things better, there was just no time for halting and digging deeper given the time plan.

[Edited 2012-10-24 08:55:51]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 152, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 25467 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 151):
I think what might be different to the 787 program is that they have more conventional technology in some key areas like electrical systems, air cond, anti ice etc

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 and a unique failure mode which had never been even considered possible. With that notable exception, the new system architectures on the 787 have performed very well. I believe this is because these new systems received a disproportionate amount of requirements attention and validation/testing. The irony of human nature is sometimes it is the simple and familiar things which get overlooked, even when they are equally capable of coming back to bite you (fuel/oil heat exchanger design, pitot heat design... I could go on and on).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 151):
A pretty tough moment in the 787 program must have been when they saw their modeling did not tell them a detailed enough story = increase margins until you understand things better, there was just no time for halting and digging deeper given the time plan.

So true. What's equally true is how hard, time consuming and expensive it is to go back and trim that margin out after you have completed all of your testing. There's nothing quite like getting it right the first time through  


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 153, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 24981 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 143):
A350 with radome, need a side on of this


Hummm well... Hopefully looks better when painted..

Big version: Width: 450 Height: 298 File size: 51kb


Another shot from below

[Edited 2012-10-25 01:32:09]


BV
User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1795 posts, RR: 2
Reply 154, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 24723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That nose looks a little 'stubby' to my eyes......

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 155, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 24686 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 146):

If they do have two airframes complete before the end of the year, the aircraft should be able to enter service in 2014.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 156, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 24621 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 153):
Hummm well... Hopefully looks better when painted..

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 patethic.      

I know aerodynamics are more important then design but look at the 787. It combines great aesthetics and great aerodynamics.

Very dissapointing...

The A330/A340/A300 nose were soo perfect why they had to disgrace the plane with such a design,



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 157, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 24565 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 156):
The A330/A340/A300 nose were soo perfect why they had to disgrace the plane with such a design

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 have a cold   Wow! ...


Anyway here a nice new variant of the interior movie:

http://vimeo.com/50558095



Non French in France
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12344 posts, RR: 25
Reply 158, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 24453 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 153):
Hummm well... Hopefully looks better when painted..

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 the paint hangar?

Quoting autothrust (Reply 156):
Airbus cannot design beatiful airplanes anymore.

Seems you should have been at the design review and told them what you thought, autothrust!  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3380 posts, RR: 9
Reply 159, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 24421 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 152):
The irony of human nature is sometimes it is the simple and familiar things which get overlooked, even when they are equally capable of coming back to bite you (fuel/oil heat exchanger design, pitot heat design... I could go on and on).

Too true, like the saying "if you hide something in plain sight, it'll never get found" 


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 160, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 24291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 157):
Anyway here a nice new variant of the interior movie:

http://vimeo.com/50558095

Good find ferpe. It is quite nice to watch this video.  


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 161, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 24221 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 157):
The design on the nose have been the same since 4 years or so, if you have not reacted

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.

Still though i hoped the real A350 would look better.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 158):

Seems you should have been at the design review and told them what you thought, autothrust!

No need, they should have taken a closer eye on the 787 nose and windows or stay with the first design which was so fantastic.      

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4-N4i2m8FcY/T34Du8g_ieI/AAAAAAAAAJY/fNjlk8dzMvY/s1600/a350-xwb.jpg



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 162, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 24138 times:

I'm sure it will look better once the frame is in paint.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 163, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 23877 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 161):
No need, they should have taken a closer eye on the 787 nose and windows or stay with the first design which was so fantastic.

I also thought the original A350XWB design had a truly stunning front end. The 787 (7E7) nose went through an equally dramatic change (equally disappointing to some), and it was all about the performance of the design (weight, producability, cost, risk, etc.). While I don't care as much for the re-lofted A350 nose, I'm sure the technical reasons for it outweighed the aesthetics of the original "artist's rendering".

http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/jul04/images/0704nboef1.jpg

The relatively low position of the point of the nose with the long straight upward slope is interesting. It is quite unusual and I'm curious if the principal reasons were aero (I think probably not) or internal architecture. I would love to see a pressure map for the forward fuselage. I bet it could tell us some interesting things about this design.

Aesthetically, it reminds me a bit of the American Cardinal...

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/at...091485-male-cardinal-dsc_0344b.jpg

Regardless of people's reaction to these photos, I'm certain this new A350 nose will look better with some paint!!! Anyone know why the radome is red? I assume it is a mica quartz composite, but I have never seen one with a red primer before. The "Christmas" colors definitely accentuate that beak-like appearance.


User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 164, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 23765 times: