Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6  
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3011 posts, RR: 47
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 60201 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

The previous thread was becoming too long and has been locked. Please continue discussion in this one.

The link to part 5 can be found here:
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 5 (by mffoda Aug 24 2012 in Civil Aviation)


Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
249 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 60416 times:

Lets start this part of the thread with some stunning stills from the cockpit animation on the new A350 Airbus home page.

I must say I am impressed by the animation quality they have achieved, take a tour yourselves: http://www.a350xwb.com/#x-tra/360-cockpit-view/

First an overview of what is rendered using planet view  Wow!  (click on the pictures to see them in full size) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitplanetview.jpg

Then the classical forward:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitforwardview.jpg

What the captain sees when he turns around:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitrear.jpg

and to the right (FO is taking a leak  ) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitrightside.jpg


As said, put yourselves in the drivers seat and enjoy a very well made animation, just push the mouse in the direction you want to go and right click to check out the views available, enjoy, I did.

[Edited 2012-11-08 14:24:36]


Non French in France
User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 60260 times:

Wow, sensational, thanks for the heads up.

Cheers,



maxter
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 60308 times:

And this is my favorite still from the design movie (click on it to see it in full size) : http://www.a350xwb.com/#intelligent/design/

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350internals.jpg

One can really see the very forward stowing position of the nose landing gear, the avionics/equipment bay above and behind it and then the freight compartment. The gear goes that far forward in order to utilize the the lower part of the fuselage as efficiently as possible . Also watch where the floor goes for the cockpit, those pilots only occupy the top part of the nose, the aircraft is really big but those ultra large cockpit windows makes one think the pilots uses half of the diameter or more.

[Edited 2012-11-08 23:35:39]


Non French in France
User currently offlineHA_DC9 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 653 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 60268 times:

Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived? Is there any data out there that compares the size of the flight deck of the A350 with the A330/A340, 767, 777 or 787?

I'm liking it though. The A350 is coming along to being a very beautiful aircraft.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 60289 times:

Huge cockpit windows, I like it. I never realized that they are that big.

Quote:
Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived?

It's an optical illusion I think. The cockpit looks smaller in this screenshot:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2qa0e47.png

[Edited 2012-11-09 03:58:52]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinepetera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 60271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button? 

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 60259 times:

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

Sssttt, not so loud. Nobody should know that those computers are running on Windows.



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, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 60275 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 1):

Lets start this part of the thread with some stunning stills from the cockpit animation on the new A350 Airbus home page.

These pictures are stunning indeed.   This is going to be a beautiful airliner.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 60261 times:

Quoting HA_DC9 (Reply 4):
Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived?

Although the photos overdo it, it's still going to be a really roomy flight deck. That nose profile, coupled with what's basically the A380 window layout, and a wide fuselage will give them something very comfy indeed.

Tom.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 60252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
That nose profile, coupled with what's basically the A380 window layout, and a wide fuselage will give them something very comfy indeed.

It also helps of course that they do not have to accommodate a yoke.  


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 60257 times:

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

I know you were joking, but the airplane does have it. It is included in the "COMPUTER RESET" panels on the overhead.



Here is the full layout of the A350 overhead panel:



The 787 has a similar reset function for its IMA "brains" (called the Common Computing Resource or "CCR"), also located on the overhead panel.



User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 60237 times:

Is the Flight Deck going to be blue? I'm assuming the colors shown here are not representative of production, but could be wrong. I'd be surprised to see them step away from the blue.

User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 60232 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
COMPUTER RESET" panels on the overhead.

How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 60249 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):
How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

Because A350 uses Windows as operating system  ....



Non French in France
User currently offlinekl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5119 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 60235 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Because A350 uses Windows as operating system ....

Funny as it might sound, but does the A350 gets touch screens?



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 60236 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 12):
I'd be surprised to see them step away from the blue.

Well, a lot of people were surprised to see Boeing step away from the "scientifically" chosen brown in the 787 flight deck. Personally, I think grey is ideal both for aesthetics and for hiding dirt (which was the real reason for Boeing using brown on the 747, 757, 767 & 777). I never liked the Boeing brown, or the Airbus' "blue". Brown just looks "low-tech" to me, and the blue is too close to the Russian manufacturers fixation with bright blue flight decks. If we all settle on grey, it would be great with me!

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):
How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

I think those 24 "switches" on each A350 COMPUTER RESET panel are actually circuit breakers. This would be a traditional means to reset a "box". Airbus may have chosen this method for resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types. (the A330 has clusters of circuit breakers in the exact same locations). The CCR in the 787 is two full cabinets which represent almost every significant computing function on the airplane (flight controls being the one exception). The CCR reset function is a very controlled reboot of one full CCR cabinet or the other. This is a measure which would only be undertaken in a truly extrordinary circumsatance. I can't be certain, but I'm guessing the A350 computer reset functions and the 787 CCR reset function are quite different in terms of what they accomplish.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 60225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If you look closely, it's not 24 switches but 48 as the two panels have different markings...

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 60226 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):

Indeed, it is not likely there are any duplicated controls on the overhead. Maybe there's a Bus pilot out there who can tell us more about what these CBs control. For many years now, Boeing models have not had any pilot procedures which would instruct the pilot to touch a circuit breaker. Airbus may have a different philosophy.

One thing that is intriguing... I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers (electronic circuit breakers), like the A380 and 787. If it does, it's even more curious why this set of breakers remains as push/pull thermal breakers.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 60231 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

there's probably a sequence to them as well.. a1, c6, e4, d1, h2, h6, a5 , b2 and b3 simultaneously
Audio warning: "log in password incorrect!!!"      


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 60237 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Because A350 uses Windows as operating system  ....

....and the 787 runs on Mac/OS  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 60236 times:

Libya's Afriqiyah to convert its A350-800 order into -900s and increase the order by four.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/lib...iyah-airways-buys-4-105737573.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 60234 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 18):
I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers

It does, aswell the A380 does feature that. On the A380 you can control them via the OIM.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
Brown just looks "low-tech"

Agree, the brown was just ugly as hell and looked indeed low tech The Airbus blue wasn't so close to Russian Flightdecks and was brighter more modern.

Still the new dark Gray on the 787 is not so pleasant for the eyes.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types.

That would make sense,



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 60249 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 20):
....and the 787 runs on Mac/OS

Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) with applications running on a well defined API (ARINC 653) which creates the interface to an underlying real time operating systems (RTOS). Seems to be the usual RTOS players which are active:

- Green Hills INTEGRITY

- Wind River WxWorks 653

Then for networking they use a airborne version of Ethernet, AFDX. In essence this means the times of one system has it's own box with own OS etc is gone and the vendors have to supply and qualify their applications in the aircrafts IMA computer network, just like we all add applications to our computers on our home network. The testing and qualification is a little more rigorous I gather .... Wow!

There should be those who knows more about this...

[Edited 2012-11-12 05:07:02]


Non French in France
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6863 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 60246 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Libya's Afriqiyah to convert its A350-800 order into -900s and increase the order by four.

According to Airbus, this happened on 1st October!

http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 61117 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA

Interesting comparision between 787CCore and A350XWB

Quote:

An obvious question is how Airbus's implementation of IMA compares with the 787's "common-core" approach? While both incarnations use an Ethernet network and adopt the general concept of "shared resources"--i.e., both aircraft have applications for specific LRUs and individual computers for affiliated systems--the 787's "central nervous system" houses the core processors that communicate with local data concentrators distributed throughout the aircraft. The A350's system is similar but uses multiple computers of a common design with function-specific input/output interfaces. These computers are referred to as "core processing input/output modules" and are allied to particular systems via the AFDX network.
http://atwonline.com/aircraftengines...nts/article/raising-power-bar-0309



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 61124 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module in a layered approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics)

IMA is actually a concept.
Up to the A330/A340 and the 777, every system on the aircraft (pressurisation, fuel management, hydraulics and so on) each used its own hardware (basically : processor, CPU, I/O board, power supply). So you'd have a computer to control the OFV valves, one for the pumps and valves of the fuel system, one for hydraulics...It's just as if you used a PC to run office applications, one to browse the internet, and another one to play games.
So for N systems you'd have N computers, each taking weight and space, each requiring network wiring, power wiring, each requiring the corresponding spare parts to be stored for maintenance.

The idea of IMA is to share hardware for several functions, so that only the software and as little hardware as possible is specific to each aircraft function. So a same hardware set can host the control applications for pressurisation, hydraulics and fuel.
As a result, you reduce the number of physical components, the required wiring and power, network addresses, required parts to be stored, and all that. Additonnally, as you have standardized the hardware, and in particular the interface between hardware and software (OS and API), it is automatically easier to change an entire sofware app without impacting the hardware. Or vice-versa, upgrade the hardware while running the same apps. Hence the "modular"

Now one might say "duh !! that what we've been doing for 25 years with general public computers !". Indeed, you can play games, write a post on a-net and run Excel on a same machine at the same time. Obviously here there are much tighter constraints for securtiy, in particular for system segregation. And the manufacturer now has to coordinate several system design teams, for example to negociate who can use which connectors, CPU time...And as they have to share a standard design, there will always be unhappy people  

That's the overall theory. In practice, Airbus implements this by running several applications for various aircraft functions on all-in-one modules called CPIOMs. Each CPIOM is a single computer (contains I/O boards, processor(s), memory..) with an OS, running a few applications for different functions. Each application is segregated from the others by running on seperate partitions. So in the end, only the software is specific to each function (well that's the idea anyway ; there were 7 different sub-types of CPIOMs on the A380, 2 on the A350). Consequently it's a more flexible solution, but more difficult to design.
I'm less familiar with the Boeing choice, so I'll rely on CM or Tom to correct me. But from the above I'm guessing they use a "cabinet" with a single power supply (hence only one reset button) and a single network interface, probably some shared computing and memory resources. Then you come and plug in some kind of memory drive containing the stuff specific to each aircraft function.

Also, both use devices called "remote data concentrators", which basically are small electronic packages disctributed around the airplane, and which gather most "local" wiring (analog and discrete signals from sensors, for example) to convert and launch it on the main network. Both A and B use the AFDX architecture for that (Avionics Full DupleX switched Ethernet, more or less your basic Ethernet with lots of switches to reduce the collision domain and avoid losing signals)
As the RDCs are hardware used by several systems, they also fall under the IMA category.



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 62235 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 22):
Quoting CM (Reply 16):
resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types.

That would make sense,

Could be.
The A380 also has CBs in the cockpit, and both A380 and A350 have other physical CBs in the avionics compartments. The ones in the cockpit being referred to as "Reset" switches, I'm guessing they are low power connections to calcualtors, and that a tradeoff study showed that it was better for these to remain mechanical rather than solid-state. From there, I guess the most used ones (for maintenance purposes more than in-flight purposes) are stacked in the cockpit for easier access. Especially as most of the time a miantenance guy will be using the on-board maintenance system from the cockpit. A bit more wiring, but it makes life easier.
But I'm not too familiar with electric aspects, so this is a WAG, as they say...  



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 62142 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
ach CPIOM is a single computer (contains I/O boards, processor(s),

A note i find interesting regarding CPIOM's regarding the A350.

Quote:

The number of functions hosted by the CPIOM has been increased by more than 50% compared to the A380. For example, the 'doors and slides control' function which was previously handled by a specific computer is now hosted by the standard CPIOM. In addition, the processing power of the CPIOM has been doubled, its reliability increased and weight reduced."



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 62157 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 18):
One thing that is intriguing... I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers (electronic circuit breakers), like the A380 and 787. If it does, it's even more curious why this set of breakers remains as push/pull thermal breakers.

You need to have at least the basic CB's to supply the computers as conventional thermals (or other mechanical breakers) so that you can power up the computer to command the solid state power controllers. The 787 does this (at least on one CCR cabinet), but the physical breakers are down in the avionics bay rather than on the overhead. I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CB's or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
I'm less familiar with the Boeing choice, so I'll rely on CM or Tom to correct me. But from the above I'm guessing they use a "cabinet" with a single power supply (hence only one reset button) and a single network interface, probably some shared computing and memory resources. Then you come and plug in some kind of memory drive containing the stuff specific to each aircraft function.

That's basically it. Each CCR cabinet has an (internally redundant) power supply module and cooling system that feeds a common backplane for what's basically a cardfile. There are two major modules: general processing modules (GPMs) and graphics generator modules (GGMs). The various applications are hosted on one or more GPMs while the GGMs provide the displays to the flight deck based on information coming from the GPMs. If you want more redundancy in an application you just run it on an addition GPM. The cabinets are connected to each other and out to the airplane by redundant copper and fiber optic AFDX lines.

When you hit "reset" you don't actually interupt power (i.e. it's not a circuit breaker) but you trigger a highly structured reboot of the system. It's like hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del (pre Windows NT), rather than pulling the power cord.

Tom.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 62124 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Then for networking they use a airborne version of Ethernet, AFDX.

The main difference between Ethernet (as we know it) and AFDX is the "deterministic" nature of the network and it's hosted devices. On a conventional Ethernet network, as you add more users, each device has access to a smaller and smaller portion of the bandwidth, as everyone shares this resource equally. When everyone gets on the network at once, things slow down. If one device malfunctions (or has malicious intent), a "network storm" can freeze out all other traffic. In AFDX, every device on the network has its own dedicated position in the packet flow on the network. No device can place packets into someone else's real estate on the network. AFDX also has send and receive protocols which check each packet and reject anything unexpected (wrong source, wrong format, etc). This is a protection against malfunctioning devices or malicious code on the network.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
You need to have at least the basic CB's to supply the computers as conventional thermals (or other mechanical breakers) so that you can power up the computer to command the solid state power controllers.

Yes. Powering-up o a 787 from a truly dead state (batts disconnected) is an art form. A few physical breakers are a necessary evil.

Of roughly 1400 circuits on the 787, 1100 are solid state and controlled in CBIC (circuit braker indication and control - an electronic function available through the forward multi-function displays), with the remainder being physical breakers. Even most of the ~300 physical breakers have indication in CBIC, but no control. None of the physical breakers are in the flight deck.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CBs, or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers

That would make sense, particularly if they remain in the flight deck for reasons of common procedures.

I should add a follow up to my comment above about Boeing procedures not calling for use of CBs; although there are no published Boeing crew procedures which call for use of a circuit breaker, and although there are no physical circuit breakers in the 787 flight deck, there are a subset of circuit breakers available to the flight crew through CBIC, which essentially provide the same ability to cut power to certain circuits, just like you would have in any other Boeing aircraft with a large circuit breaker panel behind the overhead.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 62098 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 30):

Of roughly 1400 circuits on the 787, 1100 are solid state and controlled in CBIC

On the A380 it's called Secondary Electric Power Distribution
System (SEPDS)

Quote:

Incorporates advanced programmable Solid State
Power Control (SSPC) devices in place of mechanical
circuit breaker and relay technology, the SEPDS
architecture was specially designed for the A380
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...TR_Brochures-documents/A380_LO.pdf

[Edited 2012-11-12 23:40:05]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineLaddie From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 578 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 61954 times:

Thanks for all excellent IMA info and explanations, tdscanuck, CM, and airmagnac.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 61932 times:

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

The only way to fully reset the aircraft is to power it down completely, this is with every aircraft.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):

How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers on the aircraft. If for example the lights in the cabin are playing up, they crew can reset the CIDS computer, it will go through the normal start up, and return the lighting to normal. The most common reset that is done is for ACARS, that is normally done on the ground before flight by an mechanic.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):

I think those 24 "switches" on each A350 COMPUTER RESET panel are actually circuit breakers.

No they are not circuit breakers, the last design Airbus had circuit breakers in the cockpit was the A320.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):

Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) with applications running on a well defined API (ARINC 653) which creates the interface to an underlying real time operating systems (RTOS). Seems to be the usual RTOS players which are active:

Airbus also have an independent ARINC 429 network that allow full control of the aircraft in the event of the ADFX networks fall over, wires get severed, fire etc. The networks are have different physical paths through the aircraft.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 27):
The A380 also has CBs in the cockpit, and both A380 and A350 have other physical CBs in the avionics compartments. The ones in the cockpit being referred to as "Reset" switches, I'm guessing they are low power connections to calcualtors, and that a tradeoff study showed that it was better for these to remain mechanical rather than solid-state.

A330/A340/A380/A350 only have computer resets, the circuit breakers are elsewhere, they are not all in the avionics compartment.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CB's or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers.

The are effectively just switches commanding solid state power controllers.



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, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 61803 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers

I'ts more a flexiblily thing over simplicity? (compared to the 787)



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 61822 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 34):
Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers

I'ts more a flexiblily thing over simplicity? (compared to the 787)

I think it's an architecture difference...the 787 has, effectively, only two reset-able computers. Almost all the stuff that would have been its own LRU under older architectures is now just a software function running within the common-computing resource cabinets. If you reset the CCR's you reset nearly everything.

Tom.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 61732 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
If for example the lights in the cabin are playing up, they crew can reset the CIDS computer, it will go through the normal start up, and return the lighting to normal.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35):
If you reset the CCR's you reset nearly everything.

Being somewhat involved in IT my first impression would be that the in the case of the 787 you would be doing it a bit inefficiently. For example in the case of the cabin lighting, resetting the whole system while only a subsystem is playing up.

Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

Also what about risk, I can imagine the robustness of the CCR's should be on par with critical flight systems? Speaking of flight systems; are the 787 flight control systems located in the CCR's or are these still dependant on dedicated hardware?

I really get the idea of the virtualization in flight software, it feels like common sense to use standard hardware on the lower levels and elevate a lot of functionality to the software level. But the same common sense tells me you increase the amount of possible failure modes (memory leaks, other bugs, etc). Is my gut-feeling correct? And if so; how does this affect certification?



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 61734 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

Individual "hosted functions" within 787 CCS can be reset without resetting a full CCR cabinet. The former is very much a software based reboot. The latter is a full hardware boot of one CCR cabinet or the other.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 61700 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

You can reset particular "hosted functions", as CM said. However, I'm about 99% sure there is no flight crew procedure to do that and that you can't do it in flight...it would only be a maintenance action on the ground.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Also what about risk, I can imagine the robustness of the CCR's should be on par with critical flight systems?

It is. The CCRs are critical flight systems. If they go down, among other things, you lose all the flight deck displays except the ISFD.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Speaking of flight systems; are the 787 flight control systems located in the CCR's or are these still dependant on dedicated hardware?

They're separate hardware. The 787 has three flight control computers, although there are four physical boxes (the center system needs two boxes). The flight controls are very much like EEC's...almost totally independent hardware/software that will continue doing their thing until they have their power forcibly removed.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
I really get the idea of the virtualization in flight software, it feels like common sense to use standard hardware on the lower levels and elevate a lot of functionality to the software level. But the same common sense tells me you increase the amount of possible failure modes (memory leaks, other bugs, etc). Is my gut-feeling correct?

You're trading hardware failure modes against software failure modes. I'm not sure the total number goes up, although there are certainly more software failure modes as you virtualize everything. Modern realtime OS's are essentially bulletproof and are very very very good at keeping issues isolated so even if one application or function goes bananas it will never take down the whole system.

The important thing to keep in mind that aircraft computing is a lot closer to something like an IBM Z/OS mainframe (basically capable of running indefinitely with extremely robust fault monitoring and recovery) than to a conventional virtualized server.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
And if so; how does this affect certification?

Flight critical software is certified to DO-178B today (soon to be -178C). This is a rather complex topic but, basically, it's certification by process. Your processes and tools are all certified to produce compliant (i.e. safe) software, then you prove that you followed your processes and used your tools, then you actually test the software (in labs and in flight). When that's all complete, it's certified.

Tom.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 61779 times:

From Airbus Facebook:

Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!
http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/486244_560971050585850_109816185_n.jpg



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 40, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 61553 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!

Excellent catch, now how long does it take before she will enter the real interesting load scenarios?



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 61623 times:

This is what Airbus said during the A350 FAL ceremony:

Quote:
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.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2686 posts, RR: 25
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 61554 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 40):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!

Excellent catch

Great catch! Thanks from my side as well!


User currently onlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1329 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 61430 times:

Good catch - and we now see what a beautifull bird she is gona be.

User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 61423 times:

It's fantastically interesting to see these pics of a new widebody coming together! I could grumble about this and that concerning the plane, but there has to be some space for straight upward (of course!) enthusiasm when it comes to flying machines! So here's to many more great, informative posts by the usual suspects!   

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 60445 times:

Some more pictures from the move of the ES frame earlier this week:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_test_night_shot2.jpg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_test.jpg

Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

[Edited 2012-11-23 11:23:45]


Non French in France
User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 60179 times:

G'day

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Likely to make sure noone installs them on the real thing. 2 wheel main gear bogies and likely without brakes installed may make meeting performance targets difficult  

Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 60137 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Thanks for the update. They don't swing the gear during static testing, do they? They look like bare-bone stand-in units without the wiring, etc... ie the bare essentials for moving the frame. No point in installing costly full production units, I suppose. Just a guess... I'm sure someone will chime in with the answer.

Nice to see they updated their gallery on their website to also include a high resolution version of the head-on photo posted by Karel. Would've been nice to see the nose cone on the static frame though.

CX's Slosar recently had some praise to offer:

"We are very heavily invested in the success of the A350. I will give Airbus a hat tip - they are doing a very good job with that. They say that they are going to be flying in 2013, and it looks to me like they will. And we are really looking forward to the airplane getting in the sky as a step towards delivery," says Slosar. "From what I see, they are managing the programme well, and managing the risks and making pretty good progress."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rican-points-with-a350-900-379290/


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 59988 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

The red gear (as well as the red fittings where the H-stab should be) are not aircarft structure. They are load fittings (essentially tools) with all the proper interfaces for loading the structure the gear attaches to (gear beam, spar, etc) in the same way the actual gear would. The gear structure is a safe-life component and will be undergoing testing separate from the main static and fatigue test articles. I'm not sure why the H-stab is also tested separately, but Boeing took the exact same approach on the 787.

Ferpe, do you know when actual static testing will begin?

[Edited 2012-11-23 13:57:10]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 59616 times:

Airbus gives no direct info on that in the text that goes with the pictures. Here is what they say on the A350 minisite www.a350xwb.com and their main site :

"This (move) clears the way for the A350 XWB airframe to be integrated into a test rig for a campaign that will submit it to nearly a year of evaluations, including limit load and ultimate load validations, along with residual strength and margin research.

The L34 static test hall (the same as where the A380 was tested) covers an area of 10,000 square meters, and is supported by 200 workers during peak testing activity. It houses a rig that incorporates 2,500 tons of steel and 240 jacks/loading lines, which are used to induce structural loads. The testing is recorded by some 12,000 sensors. "

As KarelXWB stated above A only sais "during spring 2013". In the July discussions around the timeline you gave some fine insights into what is ahead for ES and MSN001, would be nice if you, Tom and others could chip in and update that discussion with what we know now, ES starting the hook-up now and MSN001 being complete and powered on just around Christmas.

Evrard seems confident they will be flying in the summer, would be nice to reason weather that is optimistic or not. The sections being delivered to FAL for MSN001 seems rather complete, here a close-up of the middle section as it arrived to FAL:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Section15-21MSN001closeup.jpg

We see that the air cond pacs with ducting, wiring etc is in place and further back all the plumbing / wiring around the MLG well sticking out under the wing fairing.



Non French in France
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1709 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 59427 times:

Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12379 posts, RR: 47
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 59116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

I'd imagine it's the same length. The real gear will be quite a bit more substantial than that and then you have to stick a pair of honking great Rollers under the wings. I think the 'thin' nature of the load fitting gear adds to the illusion because they just 'look wrong'.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2074 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 59350 times:

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

Also in the first computer generated videos of a taxiing A350 by Airbus, it was obvious that that this bird stands on unusual very long legs.

Perhaps to allow space for future wider fan diameters.



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 59230 times:

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
That bird looks high above the ground...

The main landing gear bay of the A350-900 is 4.1m or 13 feet long. The long MLG may explain why the plane appears high above the ground.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3976 posts, RR: 34
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 58979 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The only way to fully reset the aircraft is to power it down completely, this is with every aircraft.

And that can be a lot harder than you might think. A lot of flying control and navigation computors have hot battery bus supply, with circuit breakers in the electronics bay, under a screwed cover!
Turning off the batteries is not enough.
I was reminded of this last month on an A320 with a FMC problem. After some time we downpowered the whole flight deck so that only the green power avail light was on. Then repowered it and when the FMC came back on line it had all the information still in it.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
Up to the A330/A340 and the 777, every system on the aircraft (pressurisation, fuel management, hydraulics and so on) each used its own hardware (basically : processor, CPU, I/O board, power supply)

The B777 had two computor cabinets which were the forerunners of the CCR s. They controlled the displays and ACARS and some navigation functions. they were called AIMS, and worked quite well. So Boeing had prior knowledge of this system. There was a lot of empty space in them which never got used. Perhaps Boeing had ideas that never happened?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30542 posts, RR: 84
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 58760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 52):
Perhaps to allow space for future wider fan diameters.

Per the A350-900 ACAP, nacelle clearance is no better than - and in some cases, very slightly worse - than the 787 so if they want a larger fan, they may need to add even longer legs.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 58793 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
so if they want a larger fan, they may need to add even longer legs.

Or learn the 777/787 trade of hanging the engines higher without incurring interference drag. The OEMs always look what the other does and runs it in the computer to see if it is a good idea (and not patented  ).

This is of course not unique to airliner OEMs, it is a must in the car industry for instance, to the point where I think they actually send each other cars when they are released as they then don't have to go to the hazzle of buying them from each others dealers (they are then throughly stripped and every good idea carefully noted and evaluated).

[Edited 2012-11-24 05:10:35]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 58360 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 37):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38):

Thanks guys, very informative!

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 50):
Is the mock gear the same length as the real one? That bird looks high above the ground... May be owed to the absence of engines, but...

It actually looks a bit like a 757!  Wow!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 58009 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Across the industry, red/orange almost universally means "test hardware". It's a very fast visual indication to separate production from non-production stuff; very helpful when doing configuration changes and for the mechanics to know where stuff is coming from (test hardware goes through a totally different engineering path than production hardware). As something of a side-effect, basically every drawing that goes through for test hardware will have a note to paint it orange/red whether it actually needs it or not.

Tom.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 57861 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
Across the industry, red/orange almost universally means "test hardware".

Similar test hardware on the 787 static frame:

>>Engines: http://blog.flightstory.net/wp-conte...ads/787-static_test_airframe-4.jpg
>>H-Stab: http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/2441383833/

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
Airbus gives no direct info on that in the text that goes with the pictures.

Instrumentation for the 12,000 data channels referenced in your post is a large undertaking. I suspect physical intallation of instrumentation is already complete and what remains to be done before testing is to get the MSN5000 loaded into the test fixture and rigged for testing, then some functional testing/calibration of the rig and instrumentation. Once the test setup has been validated, testing can begin.

The 787 had quite a tortured Static Test experience, originally planned for about 1 year of testing, but after the Side-of-Body issue, it lasted about 24 months. As a point of reference, here is a summary of how the 787 static tests flowed:

Apr 2008 >> Move from FAL to Test Rig
Sep 2008 >> Max Delta-P Test
Dec 2008 >> Wing Trailing Edge (high lift) LLF Testing Begins
Mar 2009 >> First Wing LLF Test
Jun 2009 >> Side of Body Fail Announcement (scuttled a July, 2009 first flight)
Nov 2009 >> Static Testing Resumed (post SoB fix)
Dec 2009 >> 787 First Flight
Mar 2010 >> Final Static Test for Cert (Wing ULF)

[Edited 2012-11-24 11:58:10]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 57681 times:

Great, now which of these tests does A have to do minimum before they can fly MSN001?


Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 57553 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):
Great, now which of these tests does A have to do minimum before they can fly MSN001?

Technically, none. MSN001 will fly as an experimental, which gives you very wide latitude. However, you'd fly with a very restricted flight envelope if you were being prudent and didn't have any of the static frame data yet. It would be vaguely similar to the situation with 787 ZA001 after they found the side-of-body problem...they could fly but not with the full flight envelope.

Tom.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 57437 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 60):

I believe the LLF test conditions will be completed before first flight. This is for practical reasons of having enough flight envelope validated for meaningful flying to begin. If I recall correctly, the ULF tests will be completed before TIA is granted by EASA and flying for cert score can begin.

[Edited 2012-11-24 15:49:25]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 57103 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 62):
I believe the LLF test conditions will be completed before first flight.

OK, but I understand the 787 side of body problem came after LLF (Limit Load Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_load ), this means B went above before first flight. Does that mean you typically go say 20% above to clear the flight envelope with a bit of margin and then take the test up to ULF (Ultimate Load Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_load) at the end as this can cause irreversible damage to your test specimen and further tests after that does not make much sense?

Also if ULF is done late in this test year then the TIA (Type Inspection Authorization http://www.astech-engineering.com/sy...vionics/aircraft/faatcprocess.html ) would come late, how long does your cert score (TIA compliant certification flying) normally take?



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 57018 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):

Hi Ferpe. I've sent you an email with many more details, but here it is in a nutshell:

If Airbus had a bit more slack in their schedule, I believe ULF would be attempted before first flight due to the novelty of the design. Not because it is required, but because this testing can retire so much risk so quickly. However, this is where I believe schedule pressure is likely impacting Airbus' ability to do what is "ideal" as opposed to just doing what is deemed "necessary".

Here's why I think this may be the case: the first A350 schedule I ever saw with "static test begin" on it was from Bregier at the PAS in 2011. This schedule already reflected considerable compression for the program (MSN001 FAL complete had slid a year, but first flight had only slide 3-6 months). In this compressed schedule, the flow from start of static test to first flight was 7.5 months. The next time I heard Airbus mention the start of static test was at Farnborough this year, when we were told static testing would begin "imminently". We agreed in the previous thread this meant August, which would have put Airbus 4 months past the static test start date indicated on the 2011 Bregier schedule. We're now another 4+ months on. First flight has slipped now to "mid 2013", which I take to mean July 1. If we assume static testing can begin 1 month from today (a complete guess), the time from start of static test to first flight is now less than 7 months - less than it was in the most compressed version of the A350 schedule ever released by Airbus.

Airbus will be doing all they can to get MSN001 flying in the first half of 2013. I am certain they will be willing to concede some "nice to have" items, if it wil help them get the airplane flying sooner.

[Edited 2012-11-24 23:52:53]

[Edited 2012-11-25 00:05:59]

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1541 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 56929 times:

Looking at that high undercarriage it made me wonder why Airbus did no retract it rearwards and increase the fuselage length to accommodate it rather than extend the nose.

Freight volume would be the same but pax cabin would be longer for the same size aircraft, assuming Airbus adopted their original nose or another short 787/Caravelle type nose.

Ruscoe

[Edited 2012-11-24 23:56:29]

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 56957 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 65):
Looking at that high undercarriage it made me wonder why Airbus did no retract it rearwards and increase the fuselage length to accommodate it rather than extend the nose.

In studying this cab/nose gear well design when it first came out on the A380, it was our conclusion there was a weight savings to be gained from the approach Airbus is taking. This seems to be the main driver behind the architecture we see on the A380 and A350.


User currently onlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months ago) and read 56033 times:

This a350 looks freakishly similar to a 757... My oh my...


A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 55599 times:

There is a status article on the TXWB in the 29.10.2012 paper copy of AW, the A350 blog has cited portions of it:

http://www.bloga350.blogspot.fr/

The 84k program seems to progressing well, an interesting part is how their new high-speed X-ray equipment made them see that the LPT blades were bending a little different then they thought at design, correcting that with changed shimming brought 0.95% improvement in TSFC. That it is a big engine one can see in this photo of the first MSN001 TXWB being produced:



The part around the hot and high test in the middle east and the design freeze of the 97klbf version is not included however, here a short summary of that part of the original article: http://zno.zinio.com/sitemap/Sports-...9-12/cat1960028/is-416241910/pg-27 .

To better endure the hot and sandy conditions of e.g. EK and QR the bleed air is now taken at the center walls of the compressor instead of the outer walls where sand will be flying if ingested. For the 97k version (-1000) the fan will be spun 5% faster and the blade form around the spinner will be changed (inflected form) to increase the airflow. Further the core flow in the engine will be increased and the HPT will be shroudless for the first time on a RB211/Trent with active tip clearance control. They will also improve blade/disc material (CMS-X4 single crystal), coating and regulate the cooling air more aggressively (full air at start and top-of-climb and less air at cruise). They do that with a fluidistor, ie a static valve where the throughput is regulated by a small control jet of air. All these actions improve the thermal efficiency of the engine, thus it will keep it's TSFC despite a larger core.

[Edited 2012-11-26 04:46:39]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 55065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 68):
All these actions improve the thermal efficiency of the engine, thus it will keep it's TSFC despite a larger core.

Very, very interesting to read all this. Thanks for posting this Ferpe.  


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1305 posts, RR: 52
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 54976 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Green Hills INTEGRITY

- Wind River WxWorks 653

Really? I used both these on consumer products (camera phones/smart phones).
Why doesn't this make me feel more comfortable...
Not fair - both these tools are quite good and familiarity should be comforting.
But for some reason, I'd just like to think the s/w running my airplane is just a bit more sophisticated than what is running in my camera phone.  
Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
The testing and qualification is a little more rigorous I gather

Ah - yes. And as noted, the process is what is certified. You can never fully test s/w, but you can 'statistically' test the processes and use rigor to assure it is well developed. Then you build in graceful failure modes.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Is my gut-feeling correct? And if so; how does this affect certification?

Process.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38):
Modern realtime OS's are essentially bulletproof

Cough..... Rarely do I disagree with you Tom - but bulletproof? Really? I've managed to crash them lots of times. Even to the point of bricking the device.

I do readily agree that the s/w development/test process we used was clearly not of the same rigor as what we used for defense based projects. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that, if done well, the system can be robust to the point of being 'nearly' bulletproof.

That is another way of saying, I'd have no issue climbing on any of these aircraft. (happily!) If I had a few hundred extra bucks - I'd be booking DEN-ORD-DEN (or is it IAD?) on a UA 787 next month just 'for the fun of it'. I don't travel like I used to (couple of times a year now), and I can't say I miss most of it (benefit of the internet - I can do all my work essentially at home). The one part I miss is being on these marvelous machines.



rcair1
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 54819 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 70):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Green Hills INTEGRITY

- Wind River WxWorks 653

Really? I used both these on consumer products (camera phones/smart phones).

Who on earth is running INTEGRITY-178B or VxWorks Cert Platform in a phone? There are multiple flavours of both OS's available, the version for consumer devices has far less certification and robustness than the high-safety aviation version (VxWorks 653 isn't DO-178B certified).

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 70):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38):
Modern realtime OS's are essentially bulletproof

Cough..... Rarely do I disagree with you Tom - but bulletproof? Really? I've managed to crash them lots of times. Even to the point of bricking the device.

You've crashed one of the DO-178B versions?! That's...impressive.

Tom.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1305 posts, RR: 52
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 54708 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 71):
the version for consumer devices has far less certification

No - I'm obviously using the consumer device versions. I just focused on Wind River and Green Hills....

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 71):
You've crashed one of the DO-178B versions?! That's...impressive

You'd be amazed what I can do to a computer...

Of course - that was part of my job.



rcair1
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 53455 times:

There are some new photos released on the activities around MSN001 on the Airbus main site. Here they are while we wait for news around the roll out of the (almost) complete ship and transportation to station 30.

First a photo from 09 Oct of people installing the wiring for the flight test computers and screens, the whole system is called METRO. Note all the plumbing in the crown of an airliner, what we think is the roof of the fuselage is only the cover of this cable and tube highway  :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Airbus-A350XWB-METRO2.jpg

Here a picture of the aft fuselage having been joined for MSN001 about 2 months ago:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350XWB-FWD_fuselage1.jpg

and here the wing is rolled in to the preparation place at station 40 where it will be prepared for the joining session. According to the new 350 workflow the fuselage is powered on during the wing join, one can just see the red warning cloth on the door at the entry to the forward body:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/FLT_8589.jpg

This picture is from the 5th of Nov so the wings should be sitting there by now. The VTP and HTP might also be mounted, here some good pictures of them, first the VTP as it was shipped to TLS, one can clearly see the new type of 5 point dagger mounting to the fuselage:



And here the HTP when it arrived to TLS some 3 months ago:



As said next thing should be photos of a complete aircraft less engines, the pylons should also be mounted by now IMO:



here during production at the A TLS pylon factory.

Now we want the see the beauty out in the open so we can get a sense for her proportions, lets see when that happens   .

[Edited 2012-12-02 12:26:18]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 52876 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 73):

There are some new photos released on the activities around MSN001 on the Airbus main site. Here they are while we wait for news around the roll out of the (almost) complete ship and transportation to station 30.

Very nice pictures, thanks for posting. I am getting anxious to see the roll-out of the A350-XWB so we can truly see how the airplane will look for real.  .


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 52452 times:

Since we're starting to see MSN001 getting fitted out with test instrumentation, here are some comparisons and contrasts between Boeing and Airbus' approach to flight testing.

At Le Bourget in 2011, a counterpart at Airbus offered me a tour of A380 MSN1 in exchange for a tour of 787 ZA001. I was glad to accept and ended up getting to poke around the #1 A380 after show hours with an Airbus pilot showing me around. Test airplanes are about the most interesting thing there is in this business and there are several noteworthy differences between an Airbus test aircraft and a Boeing test aircraft. Here are some of the things which stood out to me:

Test crew: The A380 flew its test program with minimal flight test crew onboard. There are a handful of stations for test personnel, but a comparable Boeing test aircraft may have 20 or more engineering workstations onboard. Higher risk testing on a Boeing test airplane will see many or most of those stations unmanned, but it is not uncommon to have dozens of people onboard during testing.

First Flight Crew: The two companies have approaches to first flights that runs oddly counter to the above general philosophies regarding test crews. On the first flight of a Boeing aircraft, only the captain and first officer are onboard. By contrast, there was (I believe) a crew of 5 on MSN1 for its first flight (captain, first officer, and 3 test personnel).

Telemetry: In place of the 20+ engineering stations onboard the airplane, the A380 relies on more robust telemetry to get the data in real time to test engineers on the ground. While a Boeing test aircraft has extensive telemetry capability and is constantly streaming data to test personnel on the ground, I believe it must pale in comparison to what an Airbus test aircraft must use in order to make up for having the core test engineers onboard.

Instrumentation: When I walked through the lower deck of MSN1, I was immediately struck by the HUGE size of the instrumentation wire bundles running along the floor and into the test equipment. The bundles are easily the diameter of a man's torso and contain literally thousands of wires. This would indicate the test setup is running analog discretes from the sensors to the test racks, as opposed to feeding a databus. While all test aircraft have a lot of wiring, the Boeing setup typically converts analog discretes into digital and dumps them onto a shared databus which feeds the workstations and telemetry devices on the airplane. This is done to reduce the amount of wiring running through the airplane.

Emergency egress: I forgot to ask about this when I was on the airplane, but I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case. Boeing test aircraft are equipped with a main-deck door which can be jettisoned remotely using pyrotechnics (it was door 3R on the 787). The airplane is also equipped with a large wind screen which actuates into the airstream, permitting egress at high speed. I talked to Carriker once about it and he said under no circumstances would he ever use it!  


FMS: The graphical interface on the A380 FMS is truly magnificent. An awesome upgrade from past flight management computers. Boeing should take a lesson from it.

Anyhow, great to see the MSN001 continuing to make progress. The next 6 months are sure to be action packed for this thread!


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 52121 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
When I walked through the lower deck of MSN1, I was immediately struck by the HUGE size of the instrumentation wire bundles running along the floor and into the test equipment. The bundles are easily the diameter of a man's torso and contain literally thousands of wires

The instrumentation wire looms are not going to be on the floor with the A350, the are mostly installed now, they were delivered as a prefabricated loom with about 70 km of wiring in total. They connect the various racks with the various sensors around the airframe.

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
I forgot to ask about this when I was on the airplane, but I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case.

That is correct, it is a slide to a modified forward cargo door, similar on the A350.If you look at the photo around July, you will see one where the forward fuselage of MSn 01 is delivered to the FAL. One of the shots shows a darker green area on the forward cargo door, that is the additional emergency exit.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3865 posts, RR: 5
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 52278 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case.

You can just see it in red outline on this photo from the first flight, forward of the wing and set into the forward cargo hatch. It was removed later on so you have to catch the aircraft very early on to see it  


User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 571 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 52120 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
Since we're starting to see MSN001 getting fitted out with test instrumentation, here are some comparisons and contrasts between Boeing and Airbus' approach to flight testing.
..........



CM again a great informative post in one of the (if not 'the') best threads at airliners.net.
Thanks that you contribute so much to give us such professional insight.

Keep them coming

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 51954 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
Emergency egress: I forgot to ask about this when I was on the airplane, but I have heard MSN1 was equipped with a purpose-built escape hatch, should the crew have needed to bail out of the airplane. This was described to me as exiting through the bottom of the airplane. I'd love to know if this is actually the case. Boeing test aircraft are equipped with a main-deck door which can be jettisoned remotely using pyrotechnics (it was door 3R on the 787). The airplane is also equipped with a large wind screen which actuates into the airstream, permitting egress at high speed. I talked to Carriker once about it and he said under no circumstances would he ever use it!

There is a series of television shows called something along the lines of “Building the Worlds Biggest Airliner” in which they show the emergency egress hatches unsuch. What was also clearly visible but not explained was what looked like bright orange scaffolding. It ran along the roof and walls right into the cockpit. I’m guessing this was in order to provide something for the crew to work their way along should they need to evacuate while the frame was experiencing high G load – Not 100% sure though – Does anyone know? And is it still there?

Also a quick thanks to everyone contributing to this thread, it is by far my favorite of all topics on here. I’m just hoping that there is going to be another series of documentary programmes following its creation as there were for the A380.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 51898 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 73):
Now we want the see the beauty out in the open so we can get a sense for her proportions, lets see when that happens

Do we have an approximate date for the move between stations?



BV
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 51939 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
The next 6 months are sure to be action packed for this thread!

Well, if we later rename it "A350 prototype production and flight testing thread"    the show will go on for at least 18 months    . It will be our privilege to have grandstand        speakers like you and Tom. Much popcorn will be consumed    .



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 51952 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
If you look at the photo around July, you will see one where the forward fuselage of MSn 01 is delivered to the FAL.

Here it is on the forward cargo door, we discussed it but no-one came forward with the use at the time IIRC:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001section11-14.jpg



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 51727 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 80):
Do we have an approximate date for the move between stations?

Not really, we know that A has stated roll-out in April to the flight line, the roll-over from station 40 to 30 is more to make room in the more equipped station 40 than that station 30 has unique features for continued integration work for MSN001. For later craft cabin seat installation is done at station 30 and it has adapted bridges and lifts to bring them on board but MSN001 has only a few specialized seats so not real need to station 30 IMO. It will probably be dictated by the will to do the work at the right place to train the personal and test the suitability of scaffolding and tooling, seems A tries to have everything done where and by whom it should be to train for the ramp from ship 1.

The next frame should be close in arriving to TLS by now (if not alreaday), the first section of MSN001 arrived in July IIRC, should be time for MSN003 to go into fuselage join soon. MSN002 (the first cabin frame) will take longer in preFAL where it will fit the cabin stuff. AW has leaked that the cabin area is the most problematic on the A350 right now because of late changes to underlying structural attachment points, lets try to spot these sections on their way to TLS  wideeyed  , their progress will tell a lot about the status of the A350 program .

[Edited 2012-12-03 06:40:24]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 51447 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 77):
You can just see it in red outline on this photo from the first flight
Quoting ferpe (Reply 82):
Here it is on the forward cargo door

Thanks for those. Certainly easier to get to than door 3, but I'm still not sure Carriker would use it!  

Does anyone know if this hatch has a barn door which pops into the free airstream as I described for the Boeing setup?



Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 79):
And is it still there?

It was definitely not there when I toured the airplane in 2011.



Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
The instrumentation wire looms are not going to be on the floor with the A350, the are mostly installed now

Thanks Zeke. The instrumentation wire bundles in the A380 were so large (I assume you've seen them?), I suspected Airbus would have a totally different installation for the A350.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 85, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 51466 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 84):
Thanks Zeke. The instrumentation wire bundles in the A380 were so large (I assume you've seen them?), I suspected Airbus would have a totally different installation for the A350.

The A350 XWB blog has a few more details about the installation of the wire bundles

http://bloga350.blogspot.com.au/2012...001-flight-test-supercomputer.html

Quote:
Outfitted with 40,000 electrical links, the METRO system allows a range of parameters to be measured and recorded during the aircraft’s flight test campaign, with data collected to be used for the A350 XWB’s certification process. METRO will be powered up in coming weeks and will allow 4,500-5,000 measurements to be made.

It also has details about the TXWB 97 technology design freeze which confirms information that have been mentioned up thread but gives a lot more technical details.

Quote:
The high-pressure compressor is derived from the European New Aero Engine Core Concept program, and is connected to the IP by a swan-neck duct. This performed “significantly” better than expected in earlier tests, adding confidence that it will meet the thrust target of the XWB-97 with no impact on SFC.
http://bloga350.blogspot.com.au/2012...000-engine-design-progressing.html


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VzCEZy4MEKk/ULKM0ioa25I/AAAAAAAAA1Q/Gf5Fnr0vCrE/s1600/TXWB1.jpg



BV
User currently onlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1329 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 51146 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 82):
on the forward cargo door

Couldn't that location of the escape door bring the people concerned in troble with the wings - not to mention the engines?


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 51101 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 86):
Couldn't that location of the escape door bring the people concerned in troble with the wings - not to mention the engines?

Under the right (wrong?) circumstances, this is probably a possibility. However, if the airplane is in the circumstances which would put you into the engine or wing, I suspect there is little chance the crew could actually navigate their way from the flight deck to the escape hatch. This is, however, why Boeing puts the escape door aft, but again, the odds of making it there in something other than controled flight seems very slim. Incidentally, the large device which shoots out into the free airstream on a Boeing test aircraft is to ensure the pilots can get out at high speed and also to make sure they don't hit the H-stab. Lots to worry about, which is why I think most pilots would attempt to put a crippled airplane back on the ground rather than attempt a bail out.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 88, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 50625 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 87):
This is, however, why Boeing puts the escape door aft, but again, the odds of making it there in something other than controled flight seems very slim.

I've had more than one test pilot explain it this way: "If I've got enough control of the airplane to do something, I'm more likely to survive by flying it down. If I don't have enough control to do that, I'm not going to make it to the exit anyway."


User currently onlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1329 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 50421 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 88):
I've had more than one test pilot explain it this way: "If I've got enough control of the airplane to do something, I'm more likely to survive by flying it down. If I don't have enough control to do that, I'm not going to make it to the exit anyway."


That is if we are looking at the pilots in isolation from the - as I understand the previous contributions - up to 20 or so test engineers on board the aircraft. Perhaps some of these could make their way to the exit while the pilots try keep the plane in stable flight.


User currently offlineFocker From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 50237 times:

Movement of MSN001, transferring from station 40 to station 30:

http://www.airbus.com/galleries/photo-gallery/

Looks good!

[Edited 2012-12-04 02:09:32]

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 91, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 50124 times:

Wow, was just asking yesterday when this move was going to happen...



Definitely looking good!  

[Edited 2012-12-04 02:37:26]


BV
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 50044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Focker (Reply 90):

Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

Anyway looking good and thanks to all who contribute to making this the best thread on A.net.

Fred


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 93, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 50046 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 91):
Definitely looking good!

Indeed!! She doesn't look as "mean" as the 777, but still a very impressive shape.   
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):
Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

They do indeed!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 94, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 50054 times:

The press release:
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...xwb-msn-001-structurally-complete/

Quote:
The assembly work performed in Station 40 included the successful electrical power-on of the aircraft's entire fuselage and wings. Soon work in Station 30 will start by testing the aircraft's hydraulic system, followed by the full electric and hydraulic power-on of the aircraft which will be completed by around the end of the year. This will mark the start of several weeks of comprehensive functional system testing.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3734 posts, RR: 11
Reply 95, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 49942 times:

It looks great in person. Better than the computer renderings.

I'll miss the A300 legacy cockpit windows but the new 'space shuttle' windows design is growing on me.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 49897 times:

What a beauty indeed!

I am looking forward now to see it with the big engines hanging from the wings plus the wingtips...


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 97, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 49913 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):
Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

Looks kind of like a 757.

Much better looking then on the pictures, but with 4 engines it would look even better  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 98, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 50070 times:

Here is a better side view of the aircraft:

http://i49.tinypic.com/23vyr75.jpg

[Edited 2012-12-04 03:33:15]


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, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 99, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 49780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting francoflier (Reply 95):
It looks great in person. Better than the computer renderings.

Agreed. And she is not even fully painted yet! A new beauty in the making.  


User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 49846 times:

Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):
Is it me or do those bogies look very wide?

According to Ferpe in the 787-10X 6-wheel MLG thread, the A359's 4-wheel bogie is 55% bigger than its counterpart on the 787-9 (reply 51, 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG (by ferpe Dec 3 2012 in Civil Aviation) ).



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinepetera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 49858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Since the A350 has achieved power on already, it's already way ahead of the 787 when it was officially rolled out to the public! Way to go Airbus!! 

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 49818 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 98):

What I like about these pictures is the total lack of ceremony, its no big deal just 5 guys moving an aircraft, nothing to see here.. We'll just get her moved across to section 30 and then off home for tea  

[Edited 2012-12-04 04:46:13]


BV
User currently offlineFocker From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 49679 times:

When you look at the picture of Karel's post (98), what is being constructed right behind MSN001?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 104, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 49645 times:

That must be the new assembly building for the A350 (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Edited 2012-12-04 05:10:46]


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, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 105, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 49628 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 100):

According to Ferpe in the 787-10X 6-wheel MLG thread, the A359's 4-wheel bogie is 55% bigger than its counterpart on the 787-9 (reply 51, 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG

They will also have the highest tyre pressure of any aircraft in service.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 106, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 49377 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 89):
That is if we are looking at the pilots in isolation from the - as I understand the previous contributions - up to 20 or so test engineers on board the aircraft.

You're mixing up two different cases. The emergency escape systems are designed for very high risk initial flights, when neither OEM puts a lot of people on board. Boeing uses just two for first flight, Airbus uses about five, but in either case it's "minimum" crew and they've got parachutes. Once the super high risk stuff is over you run more people (much more for Boeing, slightly more for Airbus) and don't run with parachutes anyway so the exit is a moot point. It's just easier to not remove it.

Quoting abba (Reply 89):
Perhaps some of these could make their way to the exit while the pilots try keep the plane in stable flight.

That's an option for Airbus (they could maybe save the engineers). But the argument still stands that, if the pilots have enough control to make the exit safely usable, everyone id probably safer staying onboard. I suppose onboard fire might be the exception to that rule.

Tom.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 107, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 49301 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 106):
Once the super high risk stuff is over you run more people

Weren't there something like 17 engineers evacuated from the 787 that had the electrical fire?

Edit: No, far more than that onboard, Flightglobal puts the number at 42 test personell on board which does seem like quite a lot.

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:19:44]


BV
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 108, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 49321 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 104):
That must be the new assembly building for the A350 (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think you are on the money   , here where it should be then, just behind MSN001 when they backed her out and turned her north for hall 30:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/newHall30.jpg

This will bring 4 new hall 30 stations and todays hall 30 will then be reconfigured to an additional 2 hall 40 stations, ie we will have 4 FAL lines for the timeconsuming sections of the FAL.

Re hall 30, the main test will be hydraulics and complete airframe power on with following system tests and for MSN002 seat fitting. Some doors are missing on the MSN001 rear fuselage, might be in plan to enable fitting of test cabinets etc. Then she will go for external test (fuel system according to earlier info), painting, engine integration and then to flight line in April. Will be interesting to follow.

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:25:00]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 109, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 49253 times:

Worth noting - Airbus reaffirmed the A350 schedule today at their Investor Days event.

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 110, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 49285 times:

EADS is running their Investor forum days yesterday and today, here some key A350 slides from yesterdays presentation by F Bregier:

Program status 1:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/GIF2012AA350progress1.jpg

program status in more detail:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/GIF2012AA350progress2-1.jpg

and finally here the way ahead:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/GIF2012AA350progress3.jpg

It seems the program is now making steady progress. J Slosar (CEO CX) commented recently that this is the view of CX as well, they of course know more whats goes on behind the layer of official news that we see here, sounds reassuring.


There are also some comparisons with 350-900 vs 787-10X and 350-1000 vs 777-300ER in Lehays presentation, as both B and A seems to have very special Payload-Range models for the competitors craft (even my crude model seem to calculate better        ) I refrain from posting them here to keep the thread free from the present war of words, but don't worry, there will be special threads for these posts  Wow!  .

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:52:04]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 111, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 49208 times:

Quote:
I refrain from posting them here to keep the thread free from the present war of words, but don't worry, there will be special threads for these posts

I would love to see those posts  



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, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 112, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 49240 times:

Ok, lets talk gear legs and bogies.

It has been remarked that the A350 seems to stand a quite high off of the ground on a set of giraffe like legs when you compare it to the 787, now is this illusion because it is currently without engines or fact?

I reviewed the ACAP documents for both aircraft it seems to be fact, while we are a bit obsessed with engine ground clearance I think a better measurement for this purpose would be belly ground clearance so:

B788 - 1.68m 5.5ft

A359 - 2.41m 7.91ft

So we can see that the A350 stands 73cm or 2ft 5ins taller than the Boeing 787 which is quite a lot.



BV
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 113, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 49318 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):
I would love to see those posts

Well there is nothing especially new in the charts, it is just that the competing frame suddenly seems to have lost 500nm all of a sudden, as this happens both in Airbus and in Boeing's presentations I attribute it to the difference in earth magnetic field between Toulouse and Seattle       .



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 114, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 49289 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 112):
So we can see that the A350 stands 73cm or 2ft 5ins taller than the Boeing 787 which is quite a lot.

Everything is bigger on the A350, I think it leaves some room for a larger model (-1100 ?).

And without engines it looks even bigger indeed. For reference use: here is a 787 without engines.



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 115, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 48943 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 106):
Once the super high risk stuff is over you run more people

Weren't there something like 17 engineers evacuated from the 787 that had the electrical fire?

A lot more, as posted. But that wasn't a "super high risk flight", it was totally routine (as test flying goes). You only go min crew for first flights and flutter, basically. The ZA002 fire happened months after first flight.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Edit: No, far more than that onboard, Flightglobal puts the number at 42 test personell on board which does seem like quite a lot.

As I recall, they were repositioning at the time so that's not a particularly high number. When you move test airplanes to remote bases you carry all your people with you. I've had test flights with over 100 people onboard for heavy-usage systems tests.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 116, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 48608 times:

And now when everyone has seen her in stills, here she is live while taking the first tour in free air from station 40 and into station 30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQsnCRGlYe4

I would say she has very much her own looks the new lady...      



Non French in France
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 835 posts, RR: 9
Reply 117, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 48226 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 112):
So we can see that the A350 stands 73cm or 2ft 5ins taller than the Boeing 787 which is quite a lot.

Almost seems like a trend:

A350 higher than B787
A320 higher than B737
A380 higher than B747
A300 (marginally) and A330 higher than B767

A different design philosophy?

I could not find sufficient data for a A330/340 vs B777 comparison.


User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 48204 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 117):
I could not find sufficient data for a A330/340 vs B777 comparison.

772ER - 2.81m
77W - 2.88m
A333 - 2.10m

So the 777 bucks the trend.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 835 posts, RR: 9
Reply 119, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 48105 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 118):
So the 777 bucks the trend.

Consistent with what I suspected on the basis of pictures and inconclusive information...

Based on your data, also:

B777 higher than A350.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 48202 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 114):
Everything is bigger on the A350, I think it leaves some room for a larger model (-1100 ?).

Apart from the engine clearance.. the numbers for both 787 and A350 are very similar and Airbus also seems to hang the A350 engines further outboard. As the clearances are similar I think we can conclude that Airbus also hangs engines on longer pylons and that by doing the same packaging as Boeing the A350 should be able to take larger engines if necessary, I guess you would need 7000 lbs of thrust, maybe you could get this simply by spinning the TWXB97 another 5% faster 

Another problem with an 1100 and I do see one in the future is length, the A350-1000 is already 73.6m long so maybe the gear length and aft positioning is done with this in mind.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 118):

So the 777 bucks the trend.

The trend I would point to would be that later designs for similar aircraft stand taller.. but then the A350 bucks the trend set by the 787 and the 787 bucks the trend set by the A330.. So no trend!



BV
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3865 posts, RR: 5
Reply 121, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 47820 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 110):

How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout (I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move - but how big are those differences)? Might be a good indication of how things are progressing.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 122, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 47705 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 121):
How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout (I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move - but how big are those differences)? Might be a good indication of how things are progressing.

Oooooooh I think that we should 'pass' on this question and move on...

No good will come of a discussion of the 787 readiness at rollout.



BV
User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 47714 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 112):
lets talk gear legs and bogies

The nose down attitude of the 330 is gone. This puppy sits on her MLG much like the 767



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 124, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 47331 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 121):

How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout (I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move - but how big are those differences)? Might be a good indication of how things are progressing.

Airbus is moving the airframes between stations on its gear, what we have seen is the move from station 40 to station 30. This is an overview of the process. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...irbus-formally-activates-a350.html . On the 787 line this would be like moving the aircraft forward one position.

When the aircraft moves to the flight line with the engines to commence ground/flight test (i.e. leaving station 20), that would be rollout.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3865 posts, RR: 5
Reply 125, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 47117 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 124):
When the aircraft moves to the flight line with the engines to commence ground/flight test (i.e. leaving station 20), that would be rollout.

Uhm, I know - which is why I said "I know, not the same milestones, but from what I remember the 787 was a lot less further down the line at the public roll out than this seems to be at a station move"...

My point was that Airbus have, in their presentation to investors, claimed several "power on" events by the time this station move happened, with a full power on by year end planned - in comparison, Boeing didn't achieve power on with the 787 until nearly a year after the *official* roll out ceremony.

This isn't a Boeing bash - its more a "can we glean any indications of a major 787 or A380-style problem at this stage" question, more orientated toward the "787-style" as all of the A380s problems occurred after roll out and generally after first flight, while the 787 was ham strung before first flight.

So, with Airbus claiming several milestones, how can we say the program is going? Is it, as far as comparisons can be made, ahead of where the 787 was in terms of "completeness" at a comparable stage?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30542 posts, RR: 84
Reply 126, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 47113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 121):
How do those achievements compare to the 787 at rollout...

Essentially, when the A350 rolls-out from Station 20 for it's public ceremony, it will be a functional airframe.

When Boeing rolled out ZA001 for it's public ceremony on July 8, 2007, it was a CFRP mockup of what the outside of a 787 would look like.




Quoting moo (Reply 125):
So, with Airbus claiming several milestones, how can we say the program is going? Is it, as far as comparisons can be made, ahead of where the 787 was in terms of "completeness" at a comparable stage?

By a significant margin.

Rollout to First Flight for ZA001 took 2 years, 5 months and 4 days (FF being 12 December 2009). Airbus is planning first flight within the next six months, I believe.

[Edited 2012-12-05 07:12:37]

User currently offlineovercast From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 47222 times:

I thought the 787 was "rolled out" on 7/8/7, so that's more like 2 years 5 months between Rollout and first flight. Surely the A350 won't be that late!

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30542 posts, RR: 84
Reply 128, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 47251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting overcast (Reply 127):
I thought the 787 was "rolled out" on 7/8/7, so that's more like 2 years 5 months between Rollout and first flight.

Corrected..

Quoting overcast (Reply 127):
Surely the A350 won't be that late!

Baring a collision on the ground or Act of God that destroys the airframe, I can't see how she possibly could be.

[Edited 2012-12-05 07:15:05]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 129, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 47168 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 125):
This isn't a Boeing bash - its more a "can we glean any indications of a major 787 or A380-style problem at this stage" question, more orientated toward the "787-style" as all of the A380s problems occurred after roll out and generally after first flight, while the 787 was ham strung before first flight.

No we do not get "indications" to compare with the 787/A380 mainly due to Airbus delaying the process early so the barrels, wings etc moving to FAL are in their correct state. The 787s were basically empty, lots of "travel work" needed to refit the aircraft on the FAL, the A350 is being delivered to the FAL "pre-stuffed", I think Boeing had 40+ 787s complete before it got to that stage. You will recall the 787 did not even use the correct fasteners on the first airframes.

The A380 is different again, the wiring issues became evident not when building the test frames, it came when building the production frames, the horse had already bolted, so lot of refit work was needed.

Quoting moo (Reply 125):
So, with Airbus claiming several milestones, how can we say the program is going?

Unless you work for Airbus, or a customer, I think that question will remain unanswered, some customers have come out recently and said they were happy with the progress.

Quoting moo (Reply 125):
Is it, as far as comparisons can be made, ahead of where the 787 was in terms of "completeness" at a comparable stage?

Way ahead, correct fasteners, pre-stuffed, powered on, network attached to the iron bird to operate the computers with the hardware at the the other end, cabling for flight testing installed.

I did my own little quick and dirty comparison a while ago, I had a look at the time it took to get the first A350 nose section after being delivered to the FAL joined and power on, it was about 2 weeks. Similar markers on the 787 ZA003 took months.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 130, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 47083 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 129):
I had a look at the time it took to get the first A350 nose section after being delivered to the FAL joined and power on, it was about 2 weeks. Similar markers on the 787 ZA003 took months.

Why would you compare MSN001 to ZA003 and not ZA001 or ZA002? ZA003 was the oddball in the 787 test fleet because it was the systems/cabin test aircraft and actually flew fourth.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 131, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 46904 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 130):
Why would you compare MSN001 to ZA003 and not ZA001 or ZA002? ZA003 was the oddball in the 787 test fleet because it was the systems/cabin test aircraft and actually flew fourth.

ZA001 took around 13 months, it was essentially empty on arrival from what I understand.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 132, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 46904 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 126):
When Boeing rolled out ZA001 for it's public ceremony on July 8, 2007, it was a CFRP mockup of what the outside of a 787 would look like.

  

Best description of the 787 rollout I've seen yet.

PR-driven decisions on the 787 program (like rollout on 07/08/07) actually compounded existing schedule problems for the program. In my assessment of the 787 delays, prepping the ZA001 for rollout as an empy shell, then going back for massive rework to undo all the temporary cosmetic work, Home Depot fasteners, etc, delayed the program by at least 4 months. We were increasing the level of attention on the program at the same time we were building in delays - truly counterproductive, even from a PR perspective. It was decisions like this which fueled skeptics like CaptainX, who was still convinced at the time of rollout the 787 was a "ghost airplane" and that Boeing was pulling a sleight of hand with no intention or ability to actually deliver a real 787.

I'm confident no OEM will make this kind of mistake again (learning from mistakes is good, learning from the mistakes of others is truly sublime).

Quoting zeke (Reply 129):
No we do not get "indications" to compare with the 787/A380 mainly due to Airbus delaying the process early so the barrels, wings etc moving to FAL are in their correct state. The 787s were basically empty, lots of "travel work" needed to refit the aircraft on the FAL

Obviously, this was a big piece of the ZA001's slow crawl through final aseembly toward first flight. However, there were other major reasons for the overall program delay. Negative strength margins were found while ZA001 was still in FAL, requireing reinforcement of the rear spar of the center wing box. This delayed installation of the aft E/E bay. Without the aft equipment bay, there was no way to get power on the airplane. With similar consequence, there was a mistake made by a production worker which necessitated a massive repair in the upper wing skin on the CWB, again delaying assembly of the most heavily integrated part of the airplane. And there were countless other smaller challenges which added to the "death by a thousand cuts" which was taking place. All of this occurred before the side-of-body issue was discovered in late during static test, and which added another 6 months to the program before first flight. Condition of assembly was a huge issue, to be sure, but there were other major hurdles being overcome during those 2+ years getting to first flight.

Honestly, I wouldn't wish any of the above problems for the A350 program. I say this dispite the fact Airbus is a competitor to my own employer and a potential obstacle to my own success. Here's why: The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone. When the problems began piling up, Boeing engineers and management worked and worried themselves to the point of breakdown. Health suffered, marriages suffered and kids suffered. Personally, I would go home from work late, exhausted, irritated and distracted, then work till the early hours of the morning before collapsing into bed. Worse yet, I would then lay in bed unable to sleep - my mind simply could not stop working the problems. I was constantly on my phone and computer, even when on holliday. There was no end to it. Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.


User currently onlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1329 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 46661 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
.

During the long delay of the 787 program my thoughts were often with the hands-on-people involved. It must have been the closest you could ever get to a nightmare while not being asleep.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 134, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 46639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting abba (Reply 133):
During the long delay of the 787 program my thoughts were often with the hands-on-people involved. It must have been the closest you could ever get to a nightmare while not being asleep.

No doubt is was a very stressful situation, as was the situation with the wiring production issues on the A380. Then again, in many businesses situations like these occur. It is part of a working life, especially in high-skill functions.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 135, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 46465 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.

While you describe a very pressed and unpleasant situation it is the description of this human aspect of what it takes to create perhaps the ultimate achievement of serially produced objects that make this thread so valuable. I sincerely thank you for having the stature and the courage for sharing this with all of us    .

A new airliner is the ultimate challenge in civil accomplishment (at least IMO) that is why we all enjoy following the birth of one like we do it this thread. When you sign on to be part of the team that achieves this you know you are in for something special, one does not have to come as close to human and program breakdown as you all got however. It testifies a lot to the spirit of the team that you pulled it of, and a fine one at that    .



Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 136, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 46389 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 133):
It must have been the closest you could ever get to a nightmare while not being asleep.

I had nightmares about testing the 787...it wouldn't even leave you alone when you were asleep.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 134):
No doubt is was a very stressful situation, as was the situation with the wiring production issues on the A380. Then again, in many businesses situations like these occur.

What distinguishes what the airframers do from most other business situations is the combination of duration & severity. A program that goes really well, near the end, lasts for months of continuous 24/7 full-effort work. A program that doesn't, like the 787, goes for years. At the same time, if you screw it up people will die.

Sure, something like strategy consulting or investment banking is at least as physically grueling but nobody dies if you get it wrong. And even more insane product launches, like an iPhone 5, only last for a few months in the crunch phase. Aviation gets the worst of both.

Tom.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 137, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 46320 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
A new airliner is the ultimate challenge in civil accomplishment (at least IMO) that is why we all enjoy following the birth of one like we do it this thread. When you sign on to be part of the team that achieves this you know you are in for something special, one does not have to come as close to human and program breakdown as you all got however. It testifies a lot to the spirit of the team that you pulled it of, and a fine one at that    .

Very well written ferpe!  .

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 136):
Sure, something like strategy consulting or investment banking is at least as physically grueling but nobody dies if you get it wrong. Aviation gets the worst of both.

Also very well written tdscanuck.  

I agree with you both on this. That factor is additional to aviation which you hardly see in other Industries on this scale. I guess that is why there are so many people like us following the events as they unfold very carefully, and full of passion.  


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 76
Reply 138, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 46137 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."
Respectfully,

Roland



Contrail designer
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1709 posts, RR: 8
Reply 139, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 45729 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
Honestly, I wouldn't wish any of the above problems for the A350 program. I say this dispite the fact Airbus is a competitor to my own employer and a potential obstacle to my own success. Here's why: The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone. When the problems began piling up, Boeing engineers and management worked and worried themselves to the point of breakdown. Health suffered, marriages suffered and kids suffered. Personally, I would go home from work late, exhausted, irritated and distracted, then work till the early hours of the morning before collapsing into bed. Worse yet, I would then lay in bed unable to sleep - my mind simply could not stop working the problems. I was constantly on my phone and computer, even when on holliday. There was no end to it. Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.

Thanks for sharing.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
While you describe a very pressed and unpleasant situation it is the description of this human aspect of what it takes to create perhaps the ultimate achievement of serially produced objects that make this thread so valuable. I sincerely thank you for having the stature and the courage for sharing this with all of us   

So much second that.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."
Respectfully,

Roland

So much second that too. I would like to add ferpe to the thanks list, and mention "respect" in the list of qualities.


User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 45640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let me also extend thanks to all the contributors to this fantastic thread. What I esp appreciate is objective comparisons and comments, without pot shots at "the other guy".

User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 45624 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site


I would like to add Ferpe to that list as well. His contribution is beyond what we have seen in most other threads.
As others have said, to follow this thread is a pure joy.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 142, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 45714 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone

  
Boy, can I associate with that......
It's particularly frustrating when you're near enough to the product to see the impact of those poor management decisions even at the time they are made
I can point to decisions like that whose consequences will stay with us for at least 3 decades

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
A new airliner is the ultimate challenge in civil accomplishment (at least IMO)

Agree with this too. It's one of the things that attracts me to the industry.
There aren't many products that stand comparison with the one I'm familiar with in terms of challenge.
An airliner programme passes that tollgate though  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 136):
A program that doesn't, like the 787, goes for years. At the same time, if you screw it up people will die.

I can associate with that, too, my friend   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."

Echoed again. In spades.
There can be days when this place behaves just like any other internet forum.
Then there are days when the professionalism of the membership stands out a mile.
These latter are what make a-net the place it is

Rgds


User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 45598 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 132):
Honestly, I wouldn't wish any of the above problems for the A350 program. I say this dispite the fact Airbus is a competitor to my own employer and a potential obstacle to my own success. Here's why: The human toll of a program struggling as badly as the 787 did is truly too much to wish on anyone. When the problems began piling up, Boeing engineers and management worked and worried themselves to the point of breakdown. Health suffered, marriages suffered and kids suffered. Personally, I would go home from work late, exhausted, irritated and distracted, then work till the early hours of the morning before collapsing into bed. Worse yet, I would then lay in bed unable to sleep - my mind simply could not stop working the problems. I was constantly on my phone and computer, even when on holliday. There was no end to it. Nobody should face those things as a result of their employment.

Thanks a lot for that honest and heartfelt synopsis of the events of that time, I am sure that it was incredibly stressful. Having been part of a major computer network roll out that was delayed for a year, I have some small idea of what you went through.

Hope all that is behind you now and things are on the up and up...

Either way, both A and B produce some amazing products and all involved should take a bow.



maxter
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 144, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 45566 times:

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 141):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site

I would like to add Ferpe to that list as well. His contribution is beyond what we have seen in most other threads.
As others have said, to follow this thread is a pure joy.

Absolutely    And don't forget KarelXWB, he has joined A-net not so long ago and is often first with the latest pics about both A350 and 787 production.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 145, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 45469 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,

Thanks Pihero (it's been a while!). I'll drop my name from the list, add Ferpe and Astuteman to it, and second your sentiemnts. I learn a great deal from these individuals, even if at times we dissagree. Ferpe's consistent efforts here deserve truly special recognition.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 142):
Boy, can I associate with that......

Submarines, right? Take the same level of systems complexity and integration, add a nuclear reactor or some other enormously powerful sealed propulsioon system, weaponize it, then add thousands of pounds of delta-P to the equation... I think I CAN'T relate to that! You have the bigger challenge, my friend.

Quoting maxter (Reply 143):
Hope all that is behind you now and things are on the up and up...

Indeed. The airplane is doing well and I (along with thousands of other Boeing employees) am in a much happier place today. I left the 787 program (voluntarily) when the airplane entered service. I add the word "voluntarily" because I realized after my last post that I left out one aspect of the "human toll"... There were many 787 leaders on the program who were quite publicly kicked off the 787 when Chicago needed to calm fears about the program and show the world we were "addressing the problems". In a few cases this was justified. But in many more cases these leaders were doing all anyone could with the hand they were dealt. I know we saw some of this on the A380 program as well. In my view, this kind of shuffling of the deck chairs has little or no benefit to the program. While it may satisfy worried investors and persistant analysts, it takes a huge personal toll on the people who get shown the door. There's no hiding from the fact there is lots of collateral damage when a program heads off the tracks.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 146, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 45448 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 138):
CM, Tdscanuck, EPA001 and Zeke,
Thanks for the best ever thread on this site, one that reveals why we are aviation fanatics and what lies behind an aircraft : sometimes pain and despair, an endeavour that affirms human qualities... everything that goes beyond the " i don't like the nose..."
Respectfully,

Roland



Adding nothing of substance to this thread, just want to join the people above me in a word of thanks to the awesome contributors on this thread, currently the best on A.net IMHO. I think I speak for a lot of folks just reading this thread; thanks guys, please PLEASE keep it up! 



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 147, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 45417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 145):
Submarines, right? Take the same level of systems complexity and integration, add a nuclear reactor or some other enormously powerful sealed propulsioon system, weaponize it, then add thousands of pounds of delta-P to the equation... I think I CAN'T relate to that! You have the bigger challenge, my friend

On a product basis - unquestionably.
We don't face the same scale of industrialisation, and economic, challenges.

As an engineer who can recognise product complexity, when I look at, or travel in, an A320 or 737, I see an incredibly complex, hugely integrated piece of kit (with a vast amount of safety engineering and regulatory justification built-in that the lay person of course won't see).
Hell, a CFM 56 engine on its own is just an awesomely intricate piece of engineering - a major programme in its own right.

And then I think - between them Airbus and Boeing are pumping out EIGHTY of these things every month.
That's THREE A DAY - 4 if you're European and only work a 5-day week  

Haven't even mentioned the 787's, 777's A330's and A380's that also get produced.

I'm sure pretty much all of the readers comprehend that this is a big business.
But I suspect not that great a percentage are truly able to stand back and comprehend the sheer engineering magnitude of what stands before us.

Just look a ONE narrowbody. And then multiply that by almost 1000 to get the scale of a year's work   

Rgds


User currently offlineknoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 258 posts, RR: 23
Reply 148, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 45265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am truly appreciative of this thread, and to all its contributors of course.

I can relate to CM especially since I guess we are almost counterparts.

We already had our share of challenges and difficult times, and strains on human beings, on the A350XWB programme. While we know that there are still some challenges ahead, there are also many milestones that we can see approaching and that are getting us closer to first flight, and this is what drives us, be it from Boeing, Airbus, or any other OEM, to design and produce such machines.

To participate to such a challenge, while it can be tiring and frustrating at times (and painfull), always brings a sense of team work and joint effort that lifts up any veil that some may have at times.

I am now doing a job I could not dream of 10 years ago, with amazing colleagues, sitting close to a new aircraft being made, and that I can see evolve every day. What can I ask more work wise? Nothing.

I wish I could share with you many other infos and else but I hope you understand I strongly limit my participation to this thread to avoid making a big mistake. However, whenever I can intervene and provide non-risky information, I'll do my best to do so.

Long live this thread (thanks Ferpe, and all the others).



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 149, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 44129 times:

While we wait on further news from MSN001 and 003 here some stills from the nice videos that A has put on the A350 site:

First a good example why the P59 reception and large item install station makes sense, here a Safran team (French Aero equipment group which e.g. owns 50% of CFM) that can install flight test equipment into the mid section before it goes to join. The open section end and the access platform in the background makes access with these large items easier.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001productionsection15-21testequipementinstall.jpg


Then the same section entering the join area, note that the tank inert gas system is missing on MSN001 (right red circle) but the section is fully equipped, the left circle shows e.g. the air cond heat exchanger inlet:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/MSN001productionsection15-21noinertingsystemyet.jpg


After the mid section the rear section gets fitted, here a still from the Hamburg production video where section 16-18 panels are fitted around the rear bulkhead, here the bulkhead being hoisted into place:

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


The most critical part is the wing join as described by CM, here some nice stills. First the right wing from rear, once can see there is a lot of gear needed for the placement of the wing:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/JoningofMSN5000-wing4.jpg

then from the front, note that the bolts are not fitted on the forward lip (cricle) and the access hatch to the join area (arrow). The area is lighted so that the join can be worked on from the inside, one can just get a glimpse of the center wingbox isogrid spar:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/JoningofMSN5000-wing51withmarker.jpg

The next still is taken through this hatch, it is nice of A to include this unique bit about the innards of the wing join, note the blue protection cushion so that the mechanic does not scratch his knees but also for no dropped tools to hit the lower CFRP skin and stringers:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/JoningofMSN5000-winginternal.jpg

Finally the wing gets bolted up, don't know if one can call these hefty bolts fasteners. BTW looks suspiciously akin to the normal hardware store bolts     :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/WingjoinMSN5000boltingoflowerskin.jpg


Finally, who said the A350 was made of semi-monocoque CFRP    , the real load-bearer is the tube space-frame underneath  :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Aircondsystem2.jpg



Non French in France
User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 43865 times:

Interesting, thanks ferpe. I wonder how much weight would be saved if the bolt shank/thread length was shorter.
Is the extra length for an additional locking nut? It looks like a spring? washer already at the bottom

[Edited 2012-12-12 01:25:09]


maxter
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 151, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 43917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
While we wait on further news from MSN001 and 003 here some stills from the nice videos that A has put on the A350 site:

Again very nice detailed pictures of the A350-XWB. Really interesting stuff. Thanks for posting ferpe!  


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 152, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 44226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 149):
Finally the wing gets bolted up, don't know if one can call these hefty bolts fasteners. BTW looks suspiciously akin to the normal hardware store bolts

Seemslike an easy way to lose a bit ofweight to get rid of the ends of those.

Quoting maxter (Reply 150):
Interesting, thanks ferpe. I wonder how much weight would be saved if the bolt shank/thread length was shorter.
Is the extra length for an additional locking nut? It looks like a spring? washer already at the bottom

I'm glad I Wasn't the only one who noticed, what are the practicalities of being able to get rid of them? I'd imagine that hot work is a no no in there and I'm pretty sure that a grinder is out of the question. Any takers?

Fred


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 153, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 42781 times:

For quite some time I have been wondering how a 56m B788 can have the same cargo capacity (in LD3 containers) as the 59m A358 and the 62m 789 as the 65m 359? Also in other areas it seemed the 787 family was more compact in it's design. Are the Airbus frames less tightly designed? Do they waste space, especially under the floor? To get a better understanding I poked around and started laying drawings of cabins and cargo holds over each other. Here the story why your air cond mixing principle can make a lot of difference  :

Lets start with the frames I used to understand any difference in packaging, the A359 and B789. They are reasonably close in length (65m vs 62), capacity (315pax vs 290) and MTOW (268t vs 251) and there are drawings available for the relevant areas. Lets start with the outer dimensions, here I have aligned the wings trailing edges:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350and789topviewdrawingscale200wingtrailingedgesaligned_zps8391f83b.jpg

As can be seen the 789 is somewhat smaller in fuselage length and span and fractionally smaller in fuselage dia. The HTP has higher span however. Comparing the cabins one can see that the 789 carries about 3 rows of economy less (aligned at door 1):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/359and789cabinandfuselagecomparison_zpsf8691cd3.jpg

The 789 has 3 class seating and the 359 2 class but as they are the same scale one can transpose the seating between them, take a copy of the image and cut and paste    (click on all images to see better). One can also see that the shape between door 1 and 4 is very similar but the 359 has a longer and more tapered rear galley area. The 359 tail is not much longer but it carries the HTP (and VTP as we see later) further back, partly because the bulkhead is further into the rear cone. The cockpits are similar with the 359 nose a shade longer probably due to it's forward positioning of the NLG. Summary is that over the floor their packaging is about equal, if anything the bus goes further into the tail.

Under the floor there are larger differences however, here the cargo area aligned at the forward end of the center wingboxes:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350vs789cargodimensionsscale200_zps1713d938.jpg

Packaging of a fuselage in the tube section is often done on a per frame basis, so also here. The 350 frame spacing is 25' = 0.635m and the 787 24' = 0.610m, here my take on frame usage in this middle section. The wingboxes are both 8 frames, the 359 MLG well 6 and 789 5 frames, the 789 has an aft equipment room of 2 frames and the 359 a air cond mixer room of 2 frames, see picture:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/350mixerarea_zps6aeb31cb.jpg

So where is the 789 air cond mixer (where the cabin recirculating air gets mixed with new conditioned air)? It is integrated in the air cond pack as a so called compact mixer:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/787airconpacs_zps41c3cf15.jpg

So why does the 350 uses space for something the 787 put with the pacs? For one the space beneath the wingbox is considerably less in the 350 and additionally this is the way Airbus has done it since day 1, here the A3X0 and 380 mixers (the A320 is the same):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380and3X0airmixerunit_zps83acf9df.jpg

It might be that it brings a quieter cabin as the mixing is happening further from the pacs air cycle machines. When one then looks at the cargo holds themselves it is obvious the Airbus holds are longer for the same given LD3 numbers (yellow cells in the table), at least for the announced frames:



Cargo is stowed in Unit Load Devices (ULDs), the most common are shown in the picture from the Emirates cargo pages: http://www.skycargo.com/aboutus/ourfleet/fleetinfo/a330_200.asp#0 , they tell a good story how an airliner views cargo as opposed to the APACs simplified representations:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/TypicalULDs_zpsaa95c999.jpg

Emirates focuses on ULDs with 2 lengths, 60.4' and 96'. For these they have containers (LD3 and LD6) of 60.4' = 1.534m and pallets and containers of 96' = 2.438m ( PMC and LD36). As can be seen from their web pages they also package the frames optimally full using these two different length ULDs:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Emiratescargopages_zpsb6a14e78.jpg

In the table I have played a bit with these lengths to get the least wasted space (blue cells), dunno if this is the optimum but is shows the principle (try to beat me  ). One of the reasons A is not showing how many LD3 the holds can theoretically take (look at the forward 358 hold, there is room for 8 rows of LD3 but A only list 7) might be different restraining philosophies, in a Tech/Ops thread it was clear B allows stack loading of ULDs whereas it was not clear if B recommends it: Pallets Or LD3s And How Do You Restrain Them? (by ferpe Nov 22 2012 in Tech Ops) . It seemsB has managed a very optimal cargo hold despite an extra equipment room needed due to the more electrical architecture, weather this remains so in practical cargo handling seems less clear, with both holds stack loaded with the same restrain principle and different length ULDs it seems more equal. In the below deck picture it is also clear that A gains space with the NLG swung all the way forward, the cargo hold can go to door 1 whereas the 787 stops short due to the NLG bay taking space. A thereby regain some lost space due to mixer area loss and a longer MLG well.


   Bottom line seems to be that one shall use cabin and cargo hold length as the yardstick for 350 and 787 positioning as they both have the same cross sections over and below the floor (the 787 cabin being a tad narrower which might affect comfort level but not size positioning):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cabinandcargoholdlengths-1_zpsbeb00d61.jpg

When one uses these measures it is clear A has positioned the 350 to straddle the 787 positions and B seems to go along with that for the 787-10    . From a packaging perspective the 787 is a tad more compact but not to the level where A wastes space, the biggest difference seems to be in the Air cond/ECS philosophies.

That this area is an important space eater can be seen from this air cond ducting picture from the 359, the mixer is the octopus looking thing in the middle  :

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

[Edited 2012-12-17 14:57:56]


Non French in France
User currently offlinea36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 42467 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 20):

Love it!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30542 posts, RR: 84
Reply 155, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 42519 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As always, ferpe, thanks for the thought and detail.   

User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2310 posts, RR: 2
Reply 156, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 42390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 153):
It might be that it brings a quieter cabin as the mixing is happening further from the pacs air cycle machines. When one then looks at the cargo holds themselves it is obvious the Airbus holds are longer for the same given LD3 numbers (yellow cells in the table), at least for the announced frames:


Unless I'm missing something, there appears to be enough additional room in the front bay (167cm) of the A350-800 for another 154cm LD3/LD6.


User currently offlinemingocr83 From Costa Rica, joined Dec 2007, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 42236 times:

I would like to congratulate and thank Ferpe, CM, Tom, Zeke, Astuteman and EPA. The support given on this thread has been amazing. On the last 7 years reading the A.net forums this has been one of the most interesting threads about plane manufacturing I've ever read in my life.

Keep it coming!

Regards,
Roberto



A380, A320, A319, 757-200, 737-800, 737-700, E190
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 158, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 42129 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 155):

As always, ferpe, thanks for the thought and detail.  

I can only second that. It is remarkable how close the design are to each other. The drawings which show the outline boundaries of both airliners are very telling.

Ferpe has done another incredible post what this forum makes so interesting to visit. Thanks for this and to all involved for a great discussion in a great thread.