Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 28332 times:
Ben Sandilands has produced another interesting article.
The Boeing use of large single piece composite sections was more challenging to manufacture and check, and was in his opinion ‘a bridge too far’.
It seems Airbus is definately taking lessons learned from the Boeing 787 developments and "continually examining alternative materials, regardless of whether they were composite in nature or incorporated exotic alloys" in its pursuit of weight savings in general in its designs.
As I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if the A350XWB turns out to have 50% composites instead of the previously foreseen 53%..
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 28270 times:
AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem. Problems have come from brakes, wingbox, wing to body join, avionics and poor management.
Leahy is blowing smoke to justify the less efficient large panel design.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 28167 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem
The production of the single barrels are not a problem??? Interesting then that for the last two years Boeing and their fanboys here on a.net have been blaming all the suppliers for 'problems' in producing them!
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): Leahy is blowing smoke to justify the less efficient large panel design
Well, I think it remains to be seen how both design concepts will work in practice during operation in the long run.
Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding. (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal). When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame. There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.
Teme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 28030 times:
I found it interesting that the Airbus states that their panels can be removed so that they can be repaired. This might mean that if a panel needs repairing it can be taken of and replaced with a new one and the old to be repaired. In the 787 you need to repair the barrel without removing it thus making repairs a bit harder to complete.
EbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 27958 times:
[quote=Ikramerica,reply=1]AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem. Problems have come from brakes, wingbox, wing to body join, avionics and poor management.
Leahy is blowing smoke to justify the less efficient large panel design.[quote]
don't think you read the article my American friend. Ben writes quite clearly that it was anything but what you state.
Quote from source
"But at the outset, he made it clear he [Leahy] wasn’t offering a judgement on whether they were better or worse than the use of aluminium alloys, nor announcing a metal A350 XWB or launching into a detailed critique of the Boeing experience with the 787 Dreamliner project."
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 27924 times:
This is a topic we can discuss very long, since the answer which way is the better will be known in 10-15 years - I see some here posting that they already said so whern they were young.
Seriously, both approaches are very valid. It isn't the fraction of composites that decides in the end, but the total weight, and both look indeed near to each other.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1310 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 27789 times:
Personally I think it was a big mistake (by Airbus) to follow Boeing with composite skins.They seemed pushed into it by the constant criticism by one "Rental" plane owner!
One cannot help noticing that the route that Airbus has followed would allow a late change of heart re skin choice.I hope they go for AlLi.It would be far better all round.Frankly it may not even weigh any more than plastics.
They (via 380) have huge experience in this material and of course "GLARE". We have seen Boeings own manufacturing partner in Japan go away from plastic skin for its own new aircraft- what does that tell you?
Be bold Airbus (swallow your pride) and save yourself a 787 problem!
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3805 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 27757 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6): This is a topic we can discuss very long, since the answer which way is the better will be known in 10-15 years - I see some here posting that they already said so whern they were young.
I think you are 100% correct.
I do wonder though about repairing the barrels on the 787. Im sure Boeing have investigated damage repair extensively, but the option to remove and install a new panel on the A350 must be somewhat attractive - removal of the panel and getting a new one from TLS is always an option - an options are never a bad thing, IMHO.
Brian.
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1401 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 27606 times:
In my opinion the barrels are clearly the beginning of a new era, as oppossed to the Airbus panels which are the ultimate product of a previous era.
One being very highly developed old and the other a very early developed new, means they will probably be about equal.
However as time goes on, Boeing will be able to extract more out of the barells than Airbus can out of the panels, and Airbus will be forced to follow.
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27458 times:
Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 9): In my opinion the barrels are clearly the beginning of a new era
Any technology revolution comes with risks and needs to be well managed to be successful. In this regard Boeing failed miserably.
The added risk of the barrel over panel is that if one of the pieces is out of tolerance, any degradation in performance would be induced by the whole barrel rather than localized from the particular panel. And if any scrappage is necessary then it will also be for the whole barrel as opposed to a small panel.
I'm still not convinced the weight saved can justify the risks that come with the barrel. In any case I believe the B787 is still overweight anyway. Someone remind me by how much?
Travelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 556 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27363 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 7): They (via 380) have huge experience in this material and of course "GLARE". We have seen Boeings own manufacturing partner in Japan go away from plastic skin for its own new aircraft- what does that tell you?
I think they wanted the ability to optimize the wing for two different size variants.
In this case I think the benefits of being able to optimize the wing outweighed the benefits of using the lighter material. Horses for courses!
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27191 times:
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 8): I do wonder though about repairing the barrels on the 787. Im sure Boeing have investigated damage repair extensively, but the option to remove and install a new panel on the A350 must be somewhat attractive - removal of the panel and getting a new one from TLS is always an option - an options are never a bad thing, IMHO.
Bear in mind the size of the panels of the A350. It's a quarter of the diameter of the fuselage, and most panels will be quite a bit longer than the one you see at the photo in Keesje's thread starter. So it's not
that you can replace like the aluminum panels which are used today. In fact, due to the complexity of replacing a large panel, I expect most skin damages on a A350 will be repaired the same was it will be on a 787....
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 26779 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2): for the last two years Boeing and their fanboys here on a.net have been blaming all the suppliers for 'problems' in producing them!
- you were reading some different a.net then. Nobody was talking about barrels specifically being a problem. Nor did Airbus decide to go with something more conservative after these problems started to appear - it was decided way before that.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 26527 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 7): Be bold Airbus (swallow your pride) and save yourself a 787 problem!
And start all over again with a metal-alloy A350-XWB?
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6): This is a topic we can discuss very long, since the answer which way is the better will be known in 10-15 years
Maybe it will take even longer then those 10 to 15 years.
Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 9): However as time goes on, Boeing will be able to extract more out of the barells than Airbus can out of the panels, and Airbus will be forced to follow.
Rubbish. The usage of panels (of whatever material they are fabricated ) can evolve just as much, or even more than single barrels. At least there you do not have a wider selection of materials to be used for the fabrication. Panels will give you more flexibility in that department. But all of this is academic.
I personally highly doubt that Airbus will have to follow Boeing in this department. So far Boeing is following Airbus with items like the higher usage of composites and the FBW controls. So let us wait at least 15 years and see what happens.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4175 posts, RR: 30 Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 26109 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem. Problems have come from brakes, wingbox, wing to body join, avionics and poor management.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2): The production of the single barrels are not a problem??
The problem with the 787 is that Boeing did one massive outsourcing job to vendors who did not have the experience in this new construction method (no one in the world did). On top of it all, Boeing did a very poor job managing the program as a whole. Add to it the miscommunications between their marketing and engineering people. The problems with the 787 is not a saga about "The barrel construction method is F'd up", but, rather "How not to manage a new engineering program in the aerospace industry."
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3): There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.
Probably the same since, I believe, the 787 will have aluminum frames around the doors.
Quoting Teme82 (Reply 4): I found it interesting that the Airbus states that their panels can be removed so that they can be repaired. This might mean that if a panel needs repairing it can be taken of and replaced with a new one and the old to be repaired. In the 787 you need to repair the barrel without removing it thus making repairs a bit harder to complete.
Airbus' panels may be replacable, but they won't be replaced any easier than a 787 having to have a barrel changed.
Quoting Parapente (Reply 7): Personally I think it was a big mistake (by Airbus) to follow Boeing with composite skins.They seemed pushed into it by the constant criticism by one "Rental" plane owner!
In hindsight it may have been a mistake because they could have been selling the A350 Mk1 like hotcakes by now had they stuck with the original concept to challenge the 787.
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 25833 times:
I suggest that any thread, from any point of view, in which the term "fanboy" is used has already degraded in the ability to conduct an educational discussion, and qualifies as "childish". We lasted as long as post #2 before hearing it on this thread. Put away the playground hostilities, people.
Birdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 438 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 25560 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3): Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding. Wow! (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal). When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame. There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.
Hard to tell. Carbon fibre is quite resilient and compliant. It's one of the reasons it's so strong. Hardened aluminum is more easily dented. It's another story if you strike it so hard so as to crack it, but that would require a very large blow.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
Tarheelwings From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 201 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 25482 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2): Interesting then that for the last two years Boeing and their fanboys here on a.net have been blaming all the suppliers for 'problems' in producing them!
And for the last 2 years you have consistently hammered Boeing and its supporters here a.net for their faith in the eventual success of the 787. I would venture to guess that even the most rabid Boeing supporters here on a.net have come to the realization that even a great company like Boeing can and will make mistakes. Mistakes that in the case of the 787 have impacted Boeing's credibility and have led some to lose faith in the company's ability to recover from the 787 debacle. FWIW, I am not one of them.....I believe Boeing will prevail and the 787 will turn out to be a great plane.
As far as Ikramerica's comment, isn't it pretty straightforward? "As far as he knows, the barrell approach has not been a problem", he then goes on to mention the other areas that have been a problem. What's wrong with that? How does that turn him into a fanboy?
Manfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 25211 times:
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 11): Any technology revolution comes with risks and needs to be well managed to be successful. In this regard Boeing failed miserably.
But the fruits of labor will pay off in the long run when the technology is perfected. Aren't you being a little harsh to a first timer like Boeing who is at least trying to make this work. "Failed miserably is hardly conceivable when they have solidified as many orders as they have.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 15): And start all over again with a metal-alloy A350-XWB?
Even if they wanted to take no chances and go with a metal body, they wouldn't be doing themselves justice in the long run. I just hope people don't start saying Airbus "failed miserably" if they start running into some problems developing their 350. This is a teething process for both parties and they deserve a bit of breathing room until they get it perfected.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16): Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2):
The production of the single barrels are not a problem??
The problem with the 787 is that Boeing did one massive outsourcing job to vendors who did not have the experience in this new construction method (no one in the world did).
I think we're talking about two different things. The delays in getting the barrels completed is a different issue than (their) long term durability.
It's interesting because Boeing has been slow to the composites vs Airbus in the past. Now, we have Airbus questioning Boeing, suggesting they are using "too much" in their designs. Whose is right time will only tell.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24877 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 20): It's interesting because Boeing has been slow to the composites vs Airbus in the past. Now, we have Airbus questioning Boeing, suggesting they are using "too much" in their designs. Whose is right time will only tell.
I do not think they are questioning Boeing about that at all. The only thing JL stated was that the single barrel approach might have been a bridge too far. Nothing is said about Boeing using too much CFRP. JL states that Airbus is not focusing on CFRP alone to achieve weight reductions and to create new airplanes with low maintenance costs over their economic lifetime. Which in the end could mean they find better solutions by using different materials to obtain their goals, or they come to the conclusion that CFRP is for some (or most) parts of new airplanes "the way to go" to get weight reductions and low maintenance.
They leave all their options open. With the single barrel approach (mostly fabricated out of CFRP) you have less flexibility in this department. Nothing more, but also nothing less.
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 11):
Any technology revolution comes with risks and needs to be well managed to be successful. In this regard Boeing failed miserably.
But the fruits of labor will pay off in the long run when the technology is perfected. Aren't you being a little harsh to a first timer like Boeing who is at least trying to make this work. "Failed miserably is hardly conceivable when they have solidified as many orders as they have.
Project Management is nothing new for Boeing, so they can be fully blamed for the mess they made of it. Cloudyapple's qualification that they failed miserably in this regard is very much appropriate.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10443 posts, RR: 20 Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 24318 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3): Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding. Wow! (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal).
Why would the World Wrestling Foundation care if you hurt an animal?
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3): When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame. There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.
It would have bounced back without leaving a dent.
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 8):
I do wonder though about repairing the barrels on the 787. Im sure Boeing have investigated damage repair extensively, but the option to remove and install a new panel on the A350 must be somewhat attractive - removal of the panel and getting a new one from TLS is always an option - an options are never a bad thing, IMHO.
That's about as likely as someone getting a new nose section from Spirit Wichita to fix their dinged 787.
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 10): Whether the large panel design is less efficient or not still remains to be determined.
Well the slide in the thread starter shows Airbus is trying to make hay, and it's laughable. Look at the "empty weight per seat" graph. First of all, "per seat" is always a topic for debate. Second there is no label of the Y axis other than the implied percentage of some 777, model unstated. They could have had a little table showing model, number of seats and weight per seat if they really wanted to make a fair comparison. In absence of this, I can't judge what kind of comparison is being made.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 24264 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 20):
It's interesting because Boeing has been slow to the composites vs Airbus in the past. Now, we have Airbus questioning Boeing, suggesting they are using "too much" in their designs. Whose is right time will only tell.
Airbus has certainly been an innovator in airplane technology, but no more so than Boeing. Boeing may be slower to the composites game than Airbus, but remember the 777 is 10% composite. It's not as if Boeing has no experience with it. Boeing is the first, however, to build a commercial airliner that's 50% composite, and until Airbus came out with the A350XWB, they hadn't used so much composites in one plane. While I know some on here talk about the A380 by weight using as much composites as the 787, that's not a fair comparison, because we're talking percentage of aircraft and it's structures, not weight of composite usage. As far as FBW, kudos to Airbus for using it successfully first with limited use in the A310, and fully in the A320/330/340/380/350, but again this is not new tech nor Boeing either. They've been using it for nearly 15 years with their 777.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
25 Ikramerica: And I forgot one. Shortage of fasteners. But you still might chalk that up bad management. As for why airnz calls me names? He contradicts everything
26 Starrion: So far I haven't seen anything that suggests that the technology was too hard. There has been lots of issues regarding poor project management and wre
27 RedFlyer: Maybe I missed it when I read the article referenced by Keesje, but I'm not sure any problems that have been incurred by Boeing in getting the barrel
28 ArabAirX: Actually, Ben Sandilands produced another lopsided, wafer thin "article". Ikramerica is absolutely right in his post (#1). Where is Ben's examination
29 Justloveplanes: This timing in intersting; Leahy has not spoken up it seems in years, and he is doing so now as the 787 launch seems imminent, which is odd. I conclud
30 Rcair1: Pfffftt... That made me spit out my coffee. It is like the two ladies leaning on their fence saying "I certainly don't want to gossip, but that new b
31 Theredbaron: I found it quite funny that the FA had the OH NOESS face, LOL. Better yet Dont promise what you cant deliver. Maybe, but in the current financial cli
32 Mariner: I was one of those who believed at he time they should have stayed with the original A350. The pressures were extraordinary, though, from Stephe
33 Keesje: I'm not sure. The technology is not that new. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...r4000CRFPfusealge.jpg?t=1257364317
34 BMI727: There are certainly scaling issues though, which would probably require a different process, so there may be patents involved. I have no idea whether
35 Glideslope: LOL, how true. Perhaps the pending GECAS order for the 787 is bringing out Mr. Mouth. No question Boeing has blow several critical procedures. Howeve
36 Prebennorholm: No, it means that a panel can be removed, replaced with a new one, while the old one is scrapped. That's an option in addition to repair work when th
37 XT6Wagon: No, Its been explained to people here time and time again that replacing a panel is *NOT* like replacing a fender on a car. To properly replace a pan
38 BMI727: Exactly. Just look at all of the equipment, time, and money that goes into freighter conversions. That is probably the closest thing to replacing a p
39 Jbernie: As is normally the case when something that has been done one way for so long gets done a very different way there are always issues. Hindsight is 20/
40 Tdscanuck: Which problems have been related to *barrels*, specifically? All the problems I've seen discussed, either by Boeing or Airbus fans, have nothing to d
41 ArabAirX: Who cares about technology, I referred to the patents! Just seems odd you give Sandilands "credence" on topics like this with a totally junk article
42 Part147: Nothing to do with wrestlers at all! - "World Wildlife Fund" otherwise known as Panda.org Interestingly enough, the wrestlers wanted this web address
43 Burkhard: An interesting view. Leahy might be one of the best informed persons about the 787 program, for sure better than the Boeing management that only gets
44 EbbUK: another one who didn't read the article. If you did, your judgement stopped you from understanding. Leahy talks about composites not realising the we
45 Baroque: As EbbUK writes: JL still seems more keen on wondering how much of an advantage plastic is in that particular app and Sandilands, bless his little co
46 EPA001: That is exactly what is stated in the article. As I also posted already: But you are absolutely right EbbUK, some out here read only what they want t
47 Parapente: May I add my agreement to the above posts.People must "read" what is being said. Having said that one may ask the question as to why he said what he s
48 Baroque: Interesting viewpoint Pp. It certainly could be interpreted under the heading of something might happen. but he certainly ain't about to spell it out
49 Rheinwaldner: Where are the joints? http://www.premium-aerotec.com/Binaries/Binary4181/IMG_8171.jpg Nobody can claim that the actual A350 barrel has more fasteners
50 Revelation: Not sure I agree. Here in the US they are playing a show where the Boeing AOG team takes off the tail of a 767, replace the rear bulkhead, and put it
51 ArabAirX: After I embarassed you and Zeke on the KC-X thread, I suggest you go BACK to my post number 28 and read the verbatim in the ATW Online link I supplie
52 Scbriml: As far as I can see, your link provides nothing to support your claim that Airbus chose panels because they couldn't get around Boeing patents.
53 Nomadd22: The advantage is far from obvious. Removing 1/4 of the structure for that long of an area and keeping everything lined up to within a millimeter or s
54 BMI727: Look at the second picture down on the right of this webpage. That is the sort of effort it would take to replace a panel. It isn't a particularly ch
55 XT6Wagon: You clearly don't understand the way Boeing is building the barrels then. Boeing has just as much opportunity to use whatever material they wish in a
56 ArabAirX: Can you suggest another plausible reason why then, Airbus didnt go down the same route if it patents did not prohibit them? Its a widely known and ac
57 Stitch: It leveraged design and assembly experience they already had with (smaller) Al panels, allowing for a quicker EIS?
58 Astuteman: There are a number of such reasons that are eminently plausible...... Rgds
59 ArabAirX: I agree wholly, however, even in the complaint submitted by the EC over Boeing's aid via NASA et al, it seems patents do play a part and almost certa
60 XT6Wagon: Yup, lots of A350 decisions are balanced more to time and risk than bleeding edge performance time will tell if they made the right choice, but my pe
61 Astuteman: Which sort of contradicts That said, I've no horse in the "patents" debate, and thank you for the link provided. Rgds
62 Parapente: Come on children.This forum is not worthy of all this. Neither route has been proved to work yet let alone be "better than yours". The thread starts w
63 Scbriml: Widely known and accepted (apparently), but you can't offer an independent source to support your knowledge? Or is your "knowledge" simply an assumpt
64 AirNz: In other words, you are purely guessing and merely making an assumption, yet attempting to pass it off as fact. So, it is "a widely known and accepte
65 Rheinbote: Tooling cost and ease of handling (some 787 mandrels are >50t) Cost and risk of tolerance requirements Implied cost of scrap rate Cost and ease of en
66 ArabAirX: I'm sorry that I dont have time to placate your whims gentlemen, but I provided a perfectly good one from the EC in post #59. Doesnt take a rocket sc
67 Scbriml: Which makes no mention of CFRP barrels. Indeed the word barrel only appears once in the entire 697 page document, and then it's in a footnote! Maybe
68 EbbUK: No you are right, it would be too taxing for my pea brain. Do you? Is it possible for Boeing to spin some alloys in with the composites to make a lig
69 Tdscanuck: Of course they can. Just look at the picture you posted...it's got the same fasteners on the panel itself (frame & stringer) than the 787 does...but
70 Baroque: Too b***** true, we do know that the odd barrel seems not to be 100%, but no idea what the %success will be or if it is going to be >0 come to that.
71 Astuteman: My thoughts entirely. On all counts... Unfortunately, Aboulaifa has written enough "demonstrable" rubbish about Airbus products to merit questioning
73 Rheinwaldner: That link does not support your claim. That link does not support your claim too. Of course NASA patents do prevent Airbus to use certain technology.
74 Astuteman: But you've pre-supposed there that the systems on the A350 haven't been engineered with a holistic through-life strategy in mind in the same way that
75 RedFlyer: Astute, are the autoclaves huge because the panels are huge or because Airbus plans to cure multiple panels at the same time?
76 Revelation: Am wondering why Airbus seems to need to try to emphasize the benefits of shells then. As per my earlier post:
77 Rheinwaldner: I assume the spare space will not stay unused. As a consequence maybe even all panels for a complete fuselage could be cured in one step. Boeing need
78 Frigatebird: On a side note, there is a very interesting article in FI about the wing development of the Airbus A350: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...pment
79 Revelation: I hope they aren't "a bridge too far"....
80 Baroque: Your point is accepted. I tend to view that graph not so much as "how you can gain with panels" as a "how you don't lose if you do not have barrels".
81 EPA001: " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html A very interesting article indeed. Thanks for posting.
82 Tdscanuck: I think you're right that the majority of this type of damage (repairable, but requiring massive replacement) is likely to be on the lower lobe. Howe
83 MD-90: The largest, yes, but the longest single-piece composite structure (at least in aerospace) is the 140 feet long wing spar for Scaled Composites' Whit
84 Astuteman: Honestly don't know, RedFlyer. I'll see what I can dig out.. Most of the pictures I've seen show the joints at 45 degrees and 135 degrees on each sid
85 Rheinbote: Clearly not the way it is done in metal, neither at Boeing, nor at Airbus. There's a crown panel, left and right panels, and a bottom panel. This ref
86 AirNZ: I'm afraid I can't help how you feel, nor do I particulary care what your opinion on the matter is. I never even remotely mentioned bloggers, nor do
87 Rheinbote: FWIW, here's the panel plan of the XWB mid-body section made by Spirit (goto page 57) Best use the "save target to..." option for reading. http://phx.
88 Tdscanuck: I lost my mind...I have no idea why I got that wrong, but I got it wrong. Yes, you do not want to run your joint through the area of maximum stress,
89 Rheinbote: Point taken. I regard the claim that the panel approach is superior to single-piece barrels in repairs as nonsense.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, 
(I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal). When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame. There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.
From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1148 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3805 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1401 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
) can evolve just as much, or even more than single barrels. At least there you do not have a wider selection of materials to be used for the fabrication. Panels will give you more flexibility in that department. But all of this is academic.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
