User avatar
NZ1
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:26 am

Due to the size of Part 1, it has been archived:

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 1 (by ferpe Oct 26 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue discussion here.

NZ1
Forum Moderator
--
✈ NZ1 / Mike
Head Forum Moderator
www.airliners.net
www.twitter.com/airliners_net
 
747400sp
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:12 am

The A350 could take Airbus to another level.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11734
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:19 am

Ferpe's post 236 in the last thread was excellent. A worthwhile read for anyone who missed it.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:47 am

Thanks for that post on the wings ferpe.

There are a few questions I have on the trailing edge and I wonder whether in your research you've found the answers.

The pictures of the "advanced" drooped hinge flap look pretty much exactly like the 787's flaps, or at least they are at the hinge supports. The slide describing the ADHF shows what I would guess to be the outboard hinge support of the inboard flap based on the simple configuration. Have you found anything which describes how they achieve the streamwise motion of the outboard flap?

Have you found anything which describes the auxiliary supports of the flaps? It looks like the configuration of main hinges and actuators is similar based on the location of the flap support fairings, but I can't tell whether any additional support is given to the flaps. The 787 has tracks and rollers at the ends of the outboard flap and the outboard end of the inboard flap, as well as at the middle of both flaps. This is pretty much there to ensure that the flap bends with the wings and to provide support in bending.

Also, on the flaperon you wrote

Quote:
B would counter with the less generated torsional twist of their flaperon when used as an aileron and that raising it in the start gives the engine thrust stream free way

This is not quite the reason for the flaperon to float at the start of the takeoff roll. This is a means to protect the flaperon structure and actuators from high sonic fatigue and thrust impingement loads. The flaperon isn't actively lifted out of the way - there is just no hydraulic pressure in the actuators holding the flaperon in place. This could be seen as a small advantage for the 777 and 787 flaps since the flaps themselves don't need to withstand this load, but for the 787 the inboard flap's outboard edge is inline with the engine centreline.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:32 pm

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 3):
Have you found anything which describes how they achieve the streamwise motion of the outboard flap?

I was certainly looking for it but I found no info on it. What can be seen from the CAD and the Airbus Bremen Hycom test bed pictures I found was that there is:

INNER FLAP
An inner drooped hinge under the root fairing and one mid span (where I also got hold of the structure picture), both visible on the Hycom test bed picture.

OUTER FLAP
One hinge 1/4 span and another 3/4, neither is well visible on Hycom or CAD solid model pictures. The little I can glean from the pictures would be that the mechanism are simply aligned streamwise and that the hinge line would be applied as a skewed line passing these 2 supports. Can't figure out if you need any special bearings to take any geometrical displacements with such a design, for you in the know to comment   .

Anyway seems not to require anything complicated. I have seen no evidence of further support, does not mean there is none    .

Quoting Pihero (Reply 240):
If one disrupts the continuity of the trailing edge devices, one is in fact using different sets of "wings", the aspect ratios of which would be less than the continuous foil. That's the reason that allowed, up to the 777, Airbus wings to be more efficient though simpler than Boeings.

This is interesting, haven't heard it before. That a non dropped inboard aileron (no aileron droop like the 767 and flaperon like the 777, 787) would create a dip in the lift distribution in eg landing config is obvious, that it would create havoc with the aspect ratio is less intuitive    . Now the 787 flaperon would almost make the flap line continuous for landing as it has a drooped hinge line (less then the flap but still) and I assume the spoiler manages the slot when it goes down. So while it won't be 100% of the flap in efficiency the loss is not that high.

For start it floats as dynamics guy says so there is a dip but then your flap deployment is considerably less.

So how big an effect on L/D does this have at start? For landing you don't mind drag IMO as it requires more throttle (good for go around transitions) and makes your management of the float phase easier.

[Edited 2012-01-07 05:41:46]
Non French in France
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:43 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 4):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 240):
If one disrupts the continuity of the trailing edge devices, one is in fact using different sets of "wings", the aspect ratios of which would be less than the continuous foil. That's the reason that allowed, up to the 777, Airbus wings to be more efficient though simpler than Boeings.

This is interesting, haven't heard it before.

Me neither. I have never come across any serious reference that showed A wings being more 'efficient' than B wings. How could that be measured, anyway? And what does 'more efficient' mean? Aerodynamic efficiency in terms of Mach times lift upon drag? Bare wings or trimmed with the stabs thrown into the equation? Or overall aircraft? Wouldn't wing weight have to be factored into overall efficiency?

Quoting ferpe, reply 236 of previous thread:
"B has opted for a smaller wing then A with a higher wingloading (700-770kg/m2 for 788-789 vs 580-650 for the A358-35J) thus going for lower weight and lower wetted area vs lowest drag due to lift."

That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth. When the weight growth became inevitable, a span increase was considered as a mitigation but proved unfeasible and/or unviable. The high wing loading is now partially compensated by load management utilizing the trailing edge variable camber system to shift lift loads inboards at high gross weights, to the detriment of take-off and climb performance (moving lift loads inboards basically adds induced drag)
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3782
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth. When the weight growth became inevitable, a span increase was considered as a mitigation but proved unfeasible and/or unviable. The high wing loading is now partially compensated by load management utilizing the trailing edge variable camber system to shift lift loads inboards at high gross weights, to the detriment of take-off and climb performance (moving lift loads inboards basically adds induced drag)

And I did not know the specific technical details you posted here. Thanks for the information. Again something learned here on A-net.  
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:36 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
Quoting ferpe, reply 236 of previous thread:
"B has opted for a smaller wing then A with a higher wingloading (700-770kg/m2 for 788-789 vs 580-650 for the A358-35J) thus going for lower weight and lower wetted area vs lowest drag due to lift."

That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth.

From 580-650 to 700-770 is a gain of 18-20%...the 787 weight didn't grow anywhere close to that much after the wing configuration was frozen. Therefore it absolutely was a design choice. The exact value that the 787 ended up with was partly influenced by the weight growth but that fact that it's larger than the A350 is very clearly a conscious design choice. The alternative is in direct disagreement with the facts.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
The high wing loading is now partially compensated by load management utilizing the trailing edge variable camber system to shift lift loads inboards at high gross weights, to the detriment of take-off and climb performance

Trailing Edge Variable Camber doesn't do load shifts and isn't operative during take-off and climb. It has zero influence on take-off or climb performance.

Tom.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:27 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 5):
That was not a design choice, B ended up with this high wing loading due to the unplanned weight growth.

I had the same observation as you but B clearly had the choice to reduce the wingloading not only for the 788 (which ended up at 700kg/m2) but they decided to keep the wing planform unchanged for the 789 at a wingloading of 770kg/m2. B does pretty substantial changes for the 789 project, extending the wingtip as planned or increasing the TE areas as A does for the 35J would have been perfectly feasible changes but they were happy to stay put, it was a conscious choice as Tdscanuck writes.

IMO B learned a lot from the 777. The 777 project started with wingloadings in the same area as todays A350 (567 for the 777-200) but gradually grew this to 700 for the 777-300 and planned 780 for the 77W. For hike to 780kg/m2 B added the swept wingtip and LE vortex generators (to control the boundary-layer beaten by the schockwaves). The 77W/LR swept wingtips efficiency surprised B for the second time (first was 767-400), the landing speeds went lower then predicted and they could increase the max weights another 10t for the final configs (this extra 1.5 hours of flight is what takes the 77W from very good to excellent IMO).

To control the cruise situation they were happy to add vortex generators on the leading edge of the wing (see picture, click on it for a better magnification):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/77Wwing.jpg

We learned from Oldaeroguy over at TechOps that they are not only there for the above 1G case like the 787-8 (manouver, gust, see 787-8 picture below) but at the 77W they are also improving the 1G cruise drag. The high winloading (800kg/m2) generates sufficiently strong schockwaves so that the generators are needed to stop significant bounduray layer separation. While they generate some parasitic drag the net effect is positive and B is happy with the balance of parasitic drag (pressure=form drag and wetted area drag), induced drag and the transonic drag.



So for the 787 B had enough experience to go for the higher wingloading, taking the positives (lower weight, lower wetted area) and controlling the negatives (tortured boundury layer  ).

I have not seen A using this philosophie, they seem to optimise their wings differently. As said it is intriguing how our 2 leading framers design their wings, very similarily superficially but then differently when one digs a bit   

[Edited 2012-01-08 01:28:22]
Non French in France
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:10 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 8):
B does pretty substantial changes for the 789 project, extending the wingtip as planned or increasing the TE areas as A does for the 35J would have been perfectly feasible changes but they were happy to stay put, it was a conscious choice as Tdscanuck writes.

Well, I don' recall whether it was Pat Shanahan or another Boeing exec ho said it, but the truth is that extending the wingtips would have added so much weight that the aerodynamic benefit would have been eaten up completely. That is indicative of a marginal design (which is not a bad thing if you aim for low weight) and/or indicative of the problems with the side of body join.
I also remember that Boeing PR at the time tried to make us believe that "there was no need for the span extension because the baseline design was found to be better than anticipated" or something like that.  

If it would have been feasible to extend the span, they would have done it, that's for sure.

Turns out that the side-of-body join is right now being "optimized" (Boeing marketing wording) for the 787-9. I would expext this 'optimization' to be aimed at getting rid of the SOB band-aid *and* aimed at restoring margin for a span extension, but so far Boeing has indicated they are going to stick with the current span and only slightly increase wing area by trailing edge extension and may be a little tweaking of the leading edge as well. That may change - it would make the 787-9 and especially the 787-10 significantly more competitive.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Trailing Edge Variable Camber doesn't do load shifts and isn't operative during take-off and climb.

If your statement is accurate then I have to wonder why the concept was dropped.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
a gain of 18-20%...the 787 weight didn't grow anywhere close to that much after the wing configuration was frozen.

Depends on when the wing config was frozen. Apart form that, the 787-9 started with an MTOW of 219t, that was increased in 2004 to 230t based on the concept of a span increase. The 787-9 is at 251t right now without that span increase, that's 15% above 219t - close enough for me (not sure what assumptions are behind ferpe's wing loading figures)
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:31 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Well, I don' recall whether it was Pat Shanahan or another Boeing exec ho said it, but the truth is that extending the wingtips would have added so much weight that the aerodynamic benefit would have been eaten up completely.

That's not exactly what they said...they phrased it the other way (that the 787-8 wing could work on the 787-9 without excess compromise), not that the 787-9 would barely provide any benefit.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
That is indicative of a marginal design (which is not a bad thing if you aim for low weight) and/or indicative of the problems with the side of body join.

The side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load. And by "marginal design" I think you mean "low margin" ("marginal" means "almost bad" in normal usage). As you say, that's a good thing.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Trailing Edge Variable Camber doesn't do load shifts and isn't operative during take-off and climb.

If your statement is accurate then I have to wonder why the concept was dropped.

The concept wasn't dropped...the 787 has trailing edge variable camber in cruise and, as far as I know, always has. You may be thinking of maneuver load alleviation, a totally different function (that doesn't involve the TEVC system), that's active all the time.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Turns out that the side-of-body join is right now being "optimized" (Boeing marketing wording) for the 787-9. I would expext this 'optimization' to be aimed at getting rid of the SOB band-aid *and* aimed at restoring margin for a span extension

What band-aid? The in-line production fix for side-of-body showed up quite some time ago. Given that they're now strapping the 787-8 wing to the 787-9 it's normal that they have to beef up some primary structure for the higher weights.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
a gain of 18-20%...the 787 weight didn't grow anywhere close to that much after the wing configuration was frozen.

Depends on when the wing config was frozen. Apart form that, the 787-9 started with an MTOW of 219t, that was increased in 2004 to 230t based on the concept of a span increase.

They only selected the 787-8 wing for the 787-9 last year...about 7 years after the weight growth you're talking about.

Tom.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:04 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Turns out that the side-of-body join is right now being "optimized" (Boeing marketing wording) for the 787-9. I would expext this 'optimization' to be aimed at getting rid of the SOB band-aid *and* aimed at restoring margin for a span extension, but so far Boeing has indicated they are going to stick with the current span and only slightly increase wing area by trailing edge extension and may be a little tweaking of the leading edge as well.

Only problem was that it wasn't too little strength, it was too much strength. Extra material was making It too stiff, causing delamination under high wing deflection.

You are also missing that while the wingtip extentions did provide lower fuel burn. It simply wasn't worth the wieght, cost, and reduced gate access. Not every mission is 9,000nm. Infact there is a nice post up showing how rare 7K nm flights are. So why are you demanding planes be optimized for the rare cases?
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:17 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
(not sure what assumptions are behind ferpe's wing loading figures)

I use 325m2 area and 228t and 251t for the 787. For the 350 8,9 443 and 35J 461m2 and their MTOWs 259, 268 and 308t.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
the 787 has trailing edge variable camber in cruise

I am very surprised it does not use the variable camber to make the climb and cruise climbs more effective.
Non French in France
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:27 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load.

I do not believe that 787-8 static testing went up to 787-9 MTOW of 251t.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
by "marginal design" I think you mean "low margin"

Yes, you are correct, apologies.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
You may be thinking of maneuver load alleviation

Yes, in that case the aileron would be used to un-load the wingtips for reduced wing root bending moment. That would still incur an induced drag penalty and have a detrimental impact on takeoof and climb performance. The need for this active loads management would be obviated in case the weights come sufficiently down and/or the wing root design is improved. Not sure whether the FAA would like that, anyway.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
What band-aid? The in-line production fix for side-of-body showed up quite some time ago.

Which as far as I know still involves the titanium fittings inserted into the stringer profiles, fitted during wing production rather than added in the FAL.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
They only selected the 787-8 wing for the 787-9 last year...about 7 years after the weight growth you're talking about.

I'd wager they rather had to 'make do with' that -8 wing, for lack of alternatives? In the meantime, the -9 schedule has moved to the right and there's talk about an 'optimized side of body join'.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:06 pm

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 3):
Have you found anything which describes how they achieve the streamwise motion of the outboard flap?


Just to show what I have found, these mechanism has been labeled as 350 flap mechanisms by SABCA and they seem to be mounted at an angle to the rear spar, in such case the left should be the outer final one and the right hand the inner (which still have the torque axle going through it).

Weather they are the real deal or early concepts is more unsure however    :

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

Here where these mechanisms would fit and I could glean a 3rd support holding the outer tip in line as well:



[Edited 2012-01-08 11:44:29]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:58 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
I do not believe that 787-8 static testing went up to 787-9 MTOW of 251t.

It's not necessary. Boeing proved their calculations were accurate with the original test so that equation is valid for higher TOWs (up until the solution shows that you exceeded the load limit).

Hence why OEMs don't need to perform a new wing break test when they up the TOW. And why the A380-800 wing was certified even though it didn't survive to the full load limit - Airbus was able to prove their calculation was accurate enough that when they factored in the additional strengthening production wings would have, they'd survive the load.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Boeing proved their calculations were accurate with the original test so that equation is valid for higher TOWs

I do not dispute that the ultimate load test may have proven the structural model valid (guess it has) so that Boeing may use the model to prove an up-gauged design for a higher MTOW w/o another hardware test.

But you cannot infer from this that "the side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load". The SOB fix is certified to ultimate load at 227t, but not yet to 251t. That the equation is proven right doesn't mean that it works up to any weight or that the SOB fix works up to any weight.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:58 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
The SOB fix is certified to ultimate load at 227t, but not yet to 251t. That the equation is proven right doesn't mean that it works up to any weight or that the SOB fix works up to any weight.

Well clearly it won't work for any weight - hence my comment that eventually you'll plug in a value for the weight that generates a solution that shows the wing would break when subjected to ultimate load at that weight.

As for the SoB fix, the same should apply. Otherwise Boeing would have to perform a test for the 787-9 and they have not indicated such a test will be necessary. That infers that the FAA, EASA and any other relevant agency has accepted Boeing's fix to be valid up to at least ~250t, which is said to be the limit of the current undercarriage geometry.

I mean let's turn this argument around and assume the SoB join had not been too strong and therefore no delamination had occurred during the test at the 787-8's weights. Would anyone be arguing Boeing needs to run new tests or generate new equations to take into account the 787-9's weights? No. So why should they have to do it now that they have proven the new SoB join works?

[Edited 2012-01-08 14:18:24]
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:08 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 12):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
the 787 has trailing edge variable camber in cruise

I am very surprised it does not use the variable camber to make the climb and cruise climbs more effective.

Climb is so far off the design speed of the wing that you're probably not going to get much mileage out of variable camber. It should be active during cruise climb.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load.

I do not believe that 787-8 static testing went up to 787-9 MTOW of 251t.

I would strongly assume it did not.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
You may be thinking of maneuver load alleviation

Yes, in that case the aileron would be used to un-load the wingtips for reduced wing root bending moment.

Ailerons, flaperons, and spoilers.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
That would still incur an induced drag penalty and have a detrimental impact on takeoof and climb performance. The need for this active loads management would be obviated in case the weights come sufficiently down and/or the wing root design is improved.

No, it wouldn't. Maneuver load alleviation only kicks in at high loading (more than 1g at MTOW)...it doesn't cause anything to happen during normal takeoff/climb.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
What band-aid? The in-line production fix for side-of-body showed up quite some time ago.

Which as far as I know still involves the titanium fittings inserted into the stringer profiles, fitted during wing production rather than added in the FAL.

If the titanium fittings are the final fix then it's not a band-aid, it's just the final design. However, I believe Boeing said they would switch over to a beefed up fitting at some point...I thought that had already happened but perhaps not.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
But you cannot infer from this that "the side of body problems are long gone...remember, they certified the thing to ultimate load".

Yes, you can. If there was a problem, it wouldn't have passed. They have a fix that works, is in production, is certified and, according to you, is the final design and will remain that way. That's not the definition of "band-aid."

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
The SOB fix is certified to ultimate load at 227t, but not yet to 251t.

Right, which is why they're upgauging parts of the wing. It's normal to increase gauge on structure during a stretch. You're presenting the totally normal design process for a larger derivative as if it's some kind of anomaly or failing.

Tom.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:28 pm

Spirit has now rolled the first section 15 over to the Airbus PreFAL at Saint Nazaire, France:



I would assume this is for the static test frame (MSN5000) and therefore the mating and equipping time with section 21 (wingbox, MLG well and keel beam already waiting at Airbus, see post 148 ) will not take to long. We should then see it take to the Atlantic on a barge and then going up the Garonne river up to TLS soon   .

Things start to move    . (PS Watch the guys on the side of the rolling jig for scale DS)

[Edited 2012-01-09 07:30:45]
Non French in France
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
As for the SoB fix, the same should apply. Otherwise Boeing would have to perform a test for the 787-9 and they have not indicated such a test will be necessary. That infers that the FAA, EASA and any other relevant agency has accepted Boeing's fix to be valid up to at least ~250t, which is said to be the limit of the current undercarriage geometry.

Boeing is like a Trappist monk when it comes to the 787-9, I don't think that we can infer that there are no issues from their silence actually, as this has not proved to be the case from past experience, also I think that you trying to forget that Boeings original calculations and models were way off hence the need for the SOB fix in the first place.
BV
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:12 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 20):
also I think that you trying to forget that Boeings original calculations and models were way off hence the need for the SOB fix in the first place.

If Boeing's revised calculations were still off, they would have failed the test. But they didn't. So it does not strike me as unreasonable to infer that they took the new data, plugged it in, developed a new, accurate calculation, and ran the test, which was successful, which at least implies the new calculations were correct.

Again, I keep going back to if the test had worked the first time without issue (because Boeing's original calculations of the transfer loads would have been accurate and they would have properly engineered the parts for those loads), we would not be having this conversation.
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
If Boeing's revised calculations were still off, they would have failed the test. But they didn't. So it does not strike me as unreasonable to infer that they took the new data, plugged it in, developed a new, accurate calculation, and ran the test, which was successful, which at least implies the new calculations were correct.

But that does not mean that the results will scale to higher loads and weights, it is entirely possible that the SOB fix has an upper load limit that is below that required to make the 787-9 work hence the rumblings about "optimising" the SOB fix.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Again, I keep going back to if the test had worked the first time without issue (because Boeing's original calculations of the transfer loads would have been accurate and they would have properly engineered the parts for those loads), we would not be having this conversation.

You would have us all ignore an inconvenient truth?
BV
 
PITingres
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:22 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 22):
But that does not mean that the results will scale to higher loads and weights, it is entirely possible that the SOB fix has an upper load limit that is below that required to make the 787-9 work hence the rumblings about "optimising" the SOB fix.

ALL of the models used in aircraft design have some sort of limit of applicability. Knowing those limits is part of the model, and is just as important as the details of the model itself in its zone of applicability. If you're trying to argue that the modeling used for the SOB joint might zoom off into la-la land somewhere between -8 loads and -9 loads, AND that Boeing is ignorant of that situation ... I think that's completely unrealistic.

I expect that the "optimizing" of the SOB joint for the -9 is just that ... optimizing it, now that some more actual data points exist to refine the model.

In any case, I seem to recall at least one statement made when the SOB problem was revealed, to the effect that the model DID actually show a problem, although perhaps not as serious a problem as it should have. Which would imply that the model was just a bit off, augmented by human error in not following up. I'm too lazy to go back and try to dig up that reference; if anyone knows one way or the other I'd be curious.

I'd suggest that further discussion along these lines belongs in a 787 thread, not an A350 one.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:28 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 22):
But that does not mean that the results will scale to higher loads and weights, it is entirely possible that the SOB fix has an upper load limit that is below that required to make the 787-9 work hence the rumblings about "optimizing" the SOB fix.

Then it's not a fix, is it?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 22):
You would have us all ignore an inconvenient truth?


I think the "inconvenient" truth is that the 787 did end up passing the wing-flex/SoB test. But hey, people love to whiz on Boeing and the 787 as payback for all the baloney thrown at Airbus and the A380.

The 777 wing and SoB survived a test at ~153% of load, but histories of the program I have read certainly infer that Boeing didn't plan at the time they performed that test for those wings to be able to support TOWs ~100 tons higher (the difference between a 777-200 and 777-200LR). And yet Boeing (and the FAA, and EASA, and others) were confident enough in those calculations that they felt that, with the proper reinforcement, those wings would survive with a 100t higher TOW.

I don't recall the final percentage that Boeing pushed the fixed 787's wings and SoB to, but it was at least 150%, which proves that their engineering was sound. So if the 777 passes the test, and the 787 passes the test, then why are the 787's results "suspect"?

And the dictionary definition of "optimized" is "to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible". So that Boeing wants to optimize the 787-9's SoB is just that - make it better...

...not make it functional.


Any way, we should move this conversation to a new thread in TechOps, as we're dragging this thread off-topic.

[Edited 2012-01-09 15:29:59]

[Edited 2012-01-09 16:15:27]
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:50 pm

Is this - as it is claimed - actually the front section of the A350 entering FAL?


http://a350.a380production.com
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:56 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 25):
Is this - as it is claimed - actually the front section of the A350 entering FAL?

Yes, but it is for the static test frame.

Do they have to add any more parts to it, or is this like a "fit test"?
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:00 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Yes, but it is for the static test frame.


The first flying frame will only begin its assembly in May or June according to this:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...aily&id=news/avd/2011/12/19/15.xml
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9742
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:12 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 25):
Is this - as it is claimed - actually the front section of the A350 entering FAL?

That is correct, the picture was taken on December 23, 2011, it is MSN 5000, a ground test airframe. The first flight test airframe front fuselage began its assembly in Saint-Nazaire, on 9 December 2011. That will be the next one into the FAL.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:28 am

A good article on the production flow for the A350 prototypes is done by Jon Ostrower today:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...-correction-clarification-and.html

In general the tier 1 subsuppliers have been asked to produce the MSN001 parts first followed by the parts for MSN5000 ( the static test aircraft). This is because the MSN001 parts need much longer in PreFAL as they will be fully equipped, the MSN5000 sections are structural parts only + measurement stuff attached.

So the Spirit section 15 assembly I wrote about in T2-P19 is indeed for MSN001 and will stay at Airbus St Nazaire until Q2. Section 15 for MSN5000 is in Spirit St Nazaire (side and top panels) with the side interfaces to the wingbox/MLG well still being produced in Kinston. BTW my claiming section 15+21 would take the barge to TLS is probably wrong, it fits in the Airbus Beluga so should take that route, we will see.

The section 11-14 we seen shipped to TLS is indeed for MSN5000 (it had stress gauges etc attached), its section 13-14 from Nordeham that we saw go on the Beluga was straight from Nordeham apparently. The section 13-14 we saw go out first from Nordeham on a barge is still in Airbus Hamburg being equipped, it will go to St Nazaire to be mated with the nose parts later this spring.

Funnily no sight of any section 16-19 yet, the MSN5000 one should go to TLS soon.

And the wingboxes shall also move soon, here it once again seems the MSN001 leads as it needs time in Bremen for all the equipping (it was the ones we saw in T1 P215). We would expect the MSN5000 ones going to TLS this quarter. GKN has their job cut out for them    .

[Edited 2012-01-12 03:42:12]
Non French in France
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:29 pm

It really is a pleasure to see Airbus being so open about sharing information on the A350 assembly process, and a welcome change from the highly opaque, hiding-mistakes-until-it-is-too-late attitude of the A380 & 787. A&B must have lost a lot of credibility with customers after the A380 / 787 production fiascos, and I guess Airbus is learning from those mistakes and being much more transparent the A350 in order to regain credibility. And to our joy, it is making for very interesting threads so far.  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:30 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 30):
It really is a pleasure to see Airbus being so open about sharing information on the A350 assembly process, and a welcome change from the highly opaque, hiding-mistakes-until-it-is-too-late attitude of the A380 & 787.

I remember plenty of information flowing out of both the A380 and 787 programs as their first production frames were being built. Pictures. Articles. TV shows, even.

Yes, once both programs hit their snags, things became quieter, but both companies were very proud of their new products and played them up to whomever was interested in listening.  
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
Yes, once both programs hit their snags, things became quieter, but both companies were very proud of their new products and played them up to whomever was interested in listening.

A is the first of the 2 to have the benefit of doing a program after these 2 classical marketing programs turning a bit south    . They both focused on up-beat info marketing and went quiet as there were tougher things to tell. It would have been just not credible for the next program to continue this style and luckily we see a very different style being the result for the A350.

We as enthusiast profit from that, we can follow the birth of a new product much closer and with more intimacy, we can share the "for better for worse". I am pretty sure the marketing department from A and B is following our conversations on these threads and taking notice on what works and what doesn't. They both have Web forum/blogs presentations to their top mangement, what the informed  angel  comunity says and thinks is no longer unimportant  Wow! .

[Edited 2012-01-13 11:19:04]
Non French in France
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:33 pm

Staying with the wings for a while (they are not yet in TLS   ) I discovered this nice story (and the next) at the informed french forum "ACTUALITE Aéronautique" (thanks Beochien and Poncho):

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-plane-in-spain

Here Composites world describes the production of the top wing-skins at Airbus Illecias Spain but also the story of modern aerostructures entreprise in Spain. Reading this story one can understand how important the Airbus success story is for this industry in Spain or for that matter for many other industrial areas across Europe (of course the same applies for Bs supplier network   ). It is noteworthy that Airbus Illecias Spain claims:

“Illescas is Airbus’ center of excellence for advanced carbon composite parts,” ... “and where we produce large and complex shapes.” “Hand layup and hand labor just isn’t effective for rate production any more,” .... “In some cases, we operate our machines in four shifts, essentially 24/7, to maximize production.”

The lower wingskins sure fits this description, here we see the bottom wingskin (the most highly loaded one carrying the tension loads) being checked after production by a NDI = Non Destructive Inspection system (utlrasound AFAIK):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/0112HPC_Spain_wingskin_NDT.jpg

To back this high tech industrial ambitions one of the top manufacturers of CFRP tape-laying machines comes from Spain, MTorres. This entrepreneurial company has worked its way to the top echelon of advanced CFRP manufacturing (customers both A and B and their supplier networks, the other top tier tape layer company is Ingersoll Rand AFAIK). GKN uses a MTorres system for the TE spar as does Spirit Kinston for the LE spar.


It all nicely describes that making our 7X7 and 3X0 frames is not all about Seattle and Toulouse, there is a huge network of countries and suppliers who work their butt out to stay competitive and to be selected as suppliers to the big 2. That they also develop new technologies while striving for this level is described in the next post    .

BTW re the wing I have revisited some previous 350 posts and A statements, the MSN001 will stay a while at Broughton as it will have fuel, hydraulics and LR/TE structures installed there before leaving for Bremen to have the Slats, Flaps and rest of equipment installed. The MNS5000 static test wingboxes are being completed next followed by the fatigue wing boxes. Expect this all to be taking a while, mid spring deliveries seems realistic.

[Edited 2012-01-13 14:12:50]
Non French in France
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:56 pm

This story is about how the development continues unabated to improve (=lower the weight) for such things as the frames for the later coming A350-1000 versus the 350-900. Here the innovation process behind what we A.nutters sweepingly say "it will lower weight with X%" is being developed in real life:

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/airbus-a350-update-braf-fpp

According to the article today's 359 frames are made with classical methods and with "one size fits all" necessity. For the 350-1000 one is now seeking a highly automated adaptable method to produce the next versions frames more lightweight and economically. That the investments are not small is clear, here the machine that weaves/braids the fibers into the frame form before the expoxi is injected:

Non French in France
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3782
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:51 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
According to the article today's 359 frames are made with classical methods and with "one size fits all" necessity. For the 350-1000 one is now seeking a highly automated adaptable method to produce the next versions frames more lightweight and economically. That the investments are not small is clear, here the machine that weaves/braids the fibers into the frame form before the expoxi is injected:

Again very interesting posts Ferpe.     

This shows that Airbus is still stretching or pushing the design of the A350-1000 to the maximum, to create as much of an advantage over the B77W. I have a feeling that advantage might be bigger then quite a few here on A-net are anticipating when discussing the A350-1000 vs. the current and possible future competition.  .
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:48 pm

Good stuff indeed, Ferpe!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
They both have Web forum/blogs presentations to their top mangement, what the informed comunity says and thinks is no longer unimportant .


It makes us even feel important!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
It all nicely describes that making our 7X7 and 3X0 frames is not all about Seattle and Toulouse, there is a huge network of countries and suppliers who work their butt out to stay competitive and to be selected as suppliers to the big 2.


Not to mention all those who are working hard to become suppliers to the ones that that end up being suppliers to the big 2.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 35):
I have a feeling that advantage might be bigger then quite a few here on A-net are anticipating when discussing the A350-1000 vs. the current and possible future competition.


You might be right. However, we must not forget that Boeing - if they are going to give the 777NG an all new wing - are working with the same technologies. So many of the new things that will go into the A350-1000 will also go into the 777NG. However, due to being a newer design, the 350 might be able to benefit more.
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:50 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):

“Illescas is Airbus’ center of excellence for advanced carbon composite parts,” ... “and where we produce large and complex shapes.”

Indeed, I am surprised that the upper wing cover is manufactured in Stade, Germany, given that all the technology for it comes from Spain. Wouldn't it make more sense to manufacture both lower and upper covers in Illescas? Or did politics play a role in this workshare?   

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
To back this high tech industrial ambitions one of the top manufacturers of CFRP tape-laying machines comes from Spain, MTorres.

MTorres is not really known in public, but ask anyone working on composites. They have earned their place in the market and are very good at what they do.
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:57 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
the MSN001 will stay a while at Broughton as it will have fuel, hydraulics and LR/TE structures installed there before leaving for Bremen to have the Slats, Flaps and rest of equipment installed. The MNS5000 static test wingboxes are being completed next followed by the fatigue wing boxes. Expect this all to be taking a while, mid spring deliveries seems realistic.

[Edited 2012-01-13 14:12:50]

That concurs with what Airbus said at the conference yesterday. MSN5000 assembly at the FAL due around March and MSN001 FAL June-July.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/ho...cs/new-year-press-conference-2012/

Highlights above. A350 bit starts around 1 min 30.
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:01 am

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 38):
That concurs with what Airbus said at the conference yesterday. MSN5000 assembly at the FAL due around March and MSN001 FAL June-July.

So with this and other information lets try to conclude for the static test frame (ES or MSN5000) and first flying prototype (MSN001) where the different sections are and what state they are in:


NOSE SECTION 11-12 and FORWARD BODY 13-14
MSN001
The first produced sections are being equipped, the nose (11-12) at Airbus St Nazaire (among other things cockpit eq. and avionics) and the forward body (13-14) at Airbus Hamburg. Here is a picture showing the section with the walk and lighting platform for the equippers inserted:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Section13-14stuffinginEADSHamburg-1.jpg

The main equipping parts have been prepared in special jigs like this crown area air piping jig (simulation pictures from CATIA and test jigs from 2010):



These jigs are then dragged into place and raised whereby the whole package can be attached in one go in the section:



This equipped section will then when ready take the Beluga to St Nazaire in Q2 to be joined with the equipped nose section and later go to FAL in June-July.

MSN5000
Both nose and forward body has been joined at St Nazaire and were the first pieces to FAL together with the vertical stabilizer before Christmas, watch pictures in Part 1 of thread.




MID UPPER SECTION 15 and LOWER SECTION 21 (CWB and Keel beam)
MSN001
The first produced section 21 is at Airbus St Nazaire since October 2011 being equipped (center tank piping, pumps..., MLG bay hydraulics, ..). Section 15 was just rolled over from Spirit St Nazaire, it will be joined with the nose and then the whole package equipped IMO. Package will go to FAL when complete in late Q2.

MSN5000
Section 21 already at Airbus St Nazaire waiting for section 15. Spirit has shipped the large panels for the mid section and is finishing the lower side and the forward panels for shipping as we speak. Expect this mid section to be rolled over to Airbus in February and the whole joined package to go to TLS on the Beluga in March.




AFT SECTION 16-18 and TAIL CONE 19
MSN001
The first produced sections shall be finished at Airbus Hamburg and shall be in equipping. I presume they join the tail cone after it has completed equipping (stabilizer trim jack, hydraulics, APU piping etc) and then fly the package to TLS end Q2.

MSN5000
The production of section 16-18 shall have started and the tail cone will arrive from Spain soon. Will be equipped with strain gauges etc, joined and then flown to FAL Feb-March.




WINGS
MSN001
Wingbox should be complete about now and being moved to Pre-equipping (FLE, FTE assembly and Fuel, Hydraulics piping ). When complete will go to Bremen for final equipping and fitting of movables (Droop nose, slats, flaps, spoilers, ailerons...).

MSN5000
Parts should be arriving to Broughton for production of test wingbox, this would not be Preequipped other then with measurement equipment and possibly stub attachments for the load hydraulics jack.

Expect these to start to go to Bremen, TLS in March-April time frame.




FATIGUE TEST PARTS
I have little clue where these parts are right now and when and where they will go. Next research assignment I guess, please chip in what you have gleaned   .

[Edited 2012-01-21 02:07:55]
Non French in France
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:58 pm

Aspire Aviation is covering the status of the A350 as part of it's reporting of the Airbus New Year conference in Hamburg:

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...-crucial-year-on-a350-development/

In summary it is a collection of what is already known with some faults injected (FAL of MSN001 starts in March    ) but also some new info on an interview with Fabrice Bregier the next day with Dow Jones Newswire:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sup...for-airbus-a350-program-2012-01-17

Aspire says the tier 2 delivery of things like clips etc is not out of the woods yet, well given that we are 1 month after Fabrice said the same thing at Airbus Investor conference I am not too surprised. Production bottlenecks are not solved in weeks    , they are like a good cold, they leave you slooowly    .



Other than that the biggest news was that the moaning -1000 customers is complaining cause the revised frame is to small    . I don't understand what to make out of all this -1000 kicking around, the original was not good    , the revised kid which packs more payload is not good    , how do you make these guys happy    ?



I think JLs comment is on the money, stay put with the -1000 until we have the flight test data back from the -900 then look at optimisations    .
Non French in France
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:46 pm

There is a news item at Flightglobal today on how a tier 2 or 3 subsupplier is lowering weight for the drainage piping for the A350.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...a350-cargo-drainage-system-367671/

This is a story of hunting parts of kilos in one tiny bit of all the piping that goes into an airframe. Here a very good picture from Flightglobals special on the 787, it shows an equipped fuselage to understand all that goes into it.

If one looks at this 787-800 front section seen from behind one can hardly see the drain piping below the cargo floor, it is hidden by the staircase, but one can appreciate what goes into a fully equipped fuselage section and what work it must be to get everything right from design and installation point of view (click on the image to magnify it):

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

As the 350 and 787 is very similar in their overall packaging I would think that the following observations also holds for the 350 sections now being equipped at Airbus St Nazaire and Hamburg (    @experts, pls correct me when my assumptions are wrong):

- On the right hand side of the cargo hold we can see where the vertical braces stops the cargo door for the forward cargo hold. This means the right hand (starboard) side of the belly is interrupted, therefore this is not used for piping or large electrical harnesses, rather storing IFE boxes etc.

- The main piping area for the air conditioning is the uninterrupted left-hand side of the belly. This area is interrupted by the wingbox and MLG well centrally but this is also where the feeding from aircond packages are placed. These are placed external to the pressure tube in the wingroot fairing on both sides. These then feed into this compartment forward of the wingbox for the forebody and aft of the MLG well for the rear of the aircraft.

- The roof of the cargo hold is used for the power turn and return wiring to the forward equipment bay (forward of the wall with hatches open), this is also the main pass-way for many control harnesses passing through the frame.

- In the crown area one can see the big aircond distribution piping (white), the aircond air comes up high behind the insulation on the left-hand side. Here is also the empty space for the crew rest in the middle and I would assume the brown tubes are for waste air drainage from this rest area. Electrical wiring is also seen for lighting etc + any electricals for the overhead bins etc. Any antenna sitting on the top fuselage also has it's harnesses here going forward to the equipment bay.


  So where is the sensitive hydraulics and FBW wiring placed? Perhaps one can see hydraulics to the NLG below the cargo floors right hand side. For the FBW wiring I would assume redundant paths would be used eg in the crown and below the cargo floor for maximum protection from any cargo loading interference on the cargo roof wiring area.


   Anyway equipping an modern airliner is an art and there is a lot to it that we don't see behind the fuse shell and the insulation. That it will take well into Q2 for the first flying A350 prototype is well understandable  .


   One question to the experts like Tom etc:

- how much of this would have to be fitted in MSN001 for the 350 (it is a flight envelope aircraft and should not need all this stuff) ?

[Edited 2012-02-02 09:54:26]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3782
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:06 pm

As always very interesting information ferpe. Thanks again for keeping all of us up to date.   Still a lot of work to be done, but they are still pushing as hard as they can. Trying to get the level of the airframe as high as they can, to become the next benchmark?  
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:31 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):
So where is the sensitive hydraulics and FBW wiring placed

Relatively little hydraulics run inside the pressure vessel. The reservoirs and pumps are usually tucked away in the pylons, wheel wells, wing body fairinings, etc. The tubes run mostly in the wing leading and trailing edges and all over the wheel wells. There will be one or two runs forward for the nose gear and three (or however many systems you have) supply tubes and return tubes to the empennage. Aircraft hydraulic tubes are surprisingly small and could be easily lost in a full-section photo like you provided.

FBW wires look like...wires. There are tons of them strapped to the underside of the floor, running in the crown, and in the side behind the floor stanchions...any one of them could be FBW wires.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):

- how much of this would have to be fitted in MSN001 for the 350 (it is a flight envelope aircraft and should not need all this stuff) ?

The only thing that's required for flutter/S&C/flight envelope is the flight systems. It's entirely possible to do that with a full-up aircraft but, as it's not needed, you can get away with ditching most of the air distribution ducts, almost the whole interior (sidewalls, ceilings, bins, support structure, production lights, all associated wiring), most of the potable water and lav system, no galleys, etc. However, installing all that stuff gives you flexibility to do other types of testing so it's a tough trade study to balance capability against cost and build time.

Tom.
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:16 am

I would also imagine that it will help verify that all the systems fit together as planed at an early stage. I think I remember that Airbus once had a bad experience in that department...

Ferpe - thanks for your uodates. It is very much apreaciated!
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:13 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 41):
- how much of this would have to be fitted in MSN001 for the 350 (it is a flight envelope aircraft and should not need all this stuff) ?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 43):
The only thing that's required for flutter/S&C/flight envelope is the flight systems. It's entirely possible to do that with a full-up aircraft but, as it's not needed, you can get away with ditching most of the air distribution ducts, almost the whole interior (sidewalls, ceilings, bins, support structure, production lights, all associated wiring), most of the potable water and lav system, no galleys, etc. However, installing all that stuff gives you flexibility to do other types of testing so it's a tough trade study to balance capability against cost and build time.

Indeed, and the trade that Airbus has made is that MSN1 will have no cabin and so most of those systems won't be installed or only partially (you do need at least 1 toilet for the flight test engineers ). MSN2 will be the first cabin a/c - and thus will hopefully make for another interesting follow-up thread in the second half of the year  
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:42 am

Any news about the Trent XWB testbed alias A 380 MSN 001 F-WWOW. It was part of those airframes, for which they had to make the immediate checks of the wing cracks but this should be done by now.

I just saw F-WWOW on radar toulouse moving on the ground.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:13 am

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 46):
Any news about the Trent XWB testbed alias A 380 MSN 001 F-WWOW.

No news yet but Bregier said they would start the TXWB test flights in Feb so it might be time for it now. Finally something happening, bin a bit quiet now for a month  .
Non French in France
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:45 pm

I believe she did some ground engine runs this morning in the "Bikini" pit.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2

Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:00 pm

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 48):
believe she did some ground engine runs this morning in the "Bikini" pit.

Haa, I saw her rolling into exactly that area on http://www.radar-toulouse.fr . So thanks for your feedback.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aadc10137, AAlaxfan, Alexa [Bot], Arock21, Austin787, Baidu [Spider], BobPatterson, carljanderson, CrimsonNL, deltal1011man, Eagle15, edmaircraft, georgiabill, GloomyDe, Google Adsense [Bot], GSPFlyer, gstpa, guyanam, HALtheAI, iamlucky13, Jambost, maartent, Miami, MrHMSH, msycajun, o0OOO0oChris, Phen, qf789, Ronnoc, SimpleAviation, steex, thebry, Yahoo [Bot] and 425 guests