Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
astuteman
Topic Author
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:22 am

Following up my earlier thread:-

In an article in this week's Flight International, John Leahy confirms the devlopment of an "Enhanced" A340, incorporating improvements from the A350 programme.

New model is dubbed "A340 Enhanced " (E)

Will be powered by an engine developed from the Trent 1000/1700.
RR dub this the "Trent 1500".
Shares same 2.47m fan + nacelle as T500, but entire core is smaller + more advanced.
BPR goes up from 7.5:1 to 9.5:1
Engine will offer 6% - 7% fuel burn improvement over T500.

(Quote "industry estimates suggest 777-300ER has 8% - 9% fuel burn over A340-600 - the enhanced's upgraded engines alone should erode this by 6% - 7%")

Other enhancements confirmed by Leahy are:-

Weight saving enhancements as per A350, e.g New Generation Al-Li for fuselage
New larger internal diameter cabin.

Development does NOT include composite wing boxes as per A350.

This plane could enter service as early as 2011 if Airbus proceed with it.

I'm pleased insofar as it confirms the rumours from my Airbus colleagues that prompted me to start the original thread.
Shenzen still thinks I made it up - "mythical" was his term, I recall..

Ah the power of being Flight International's Editor  

No link on FI website yet, but I'll keep an eye open.

BTW - what price seeing a T1700 or such derivative on the A380 by 2011/2012 now, with 6% - 7% better fuel burn?
A

[Edited 2005-11-28 16:23:36]
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:33 am

I thought the entire 330/340 line was going to ultimately migrate to the 350. Since the 330 and 340 are essentially the same airplane that will eventually "morph" into the 350, why is Airbus thinking of spending a small fortune to keep the 340 alive? Wouldn't Airbus' investment be better spent further enhancing the 350 to better compete with or even trump the 787 and 777?
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:35 am

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
(Quote "industry estimates suggest 777-300ER has 8% - 9% fuel burn over A340-600 - the enhanced's upgraded engines alone should erode this by 6% - 7%")

So, Airbus will spend millions of $$$ and manpower in R&D to produce an aircraft STILL inferior to the 77W. What's gonna stop Boeing and GE from upgrading the 777 engines to keep the 8-9% edge over the A346 too??? And all this while the A350 department is still understaffed and deadlines not being met...
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:37 am

A problem i can see is many key customers AC, CX(i assume) ect have already gone 773ER. Also it's a bit late, surely the 777 will have been given improvements by then too.

Sounds like a good plane though, and if the engine is made more efficient and the plane lighter the payload and range should be increased to an attractive level.

I wonder how much they'll be able to shave of the weight, that's what really lets the plane down.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:41 am

I for one never doubted your 'rumour', Astuteman.  Smile

But I'm in a bit of a fog hearing that Leahy plans to pitch it against the 777ER. I thought they'd already aimed the A350 at a market segment just larger than the 787, and not much smaller than the 777? And doesn't the A340 have the same fuselage as the A350, and therefore approximately the same passenger capacity?

If that's so, isn't it more likely that they'll aim any improved A340 at the ULR market - to compete with the 772LR?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Maersk737
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:43 am

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 2):
So, Airbus will spend millions of $$$ and manpower in R&D to produce an aircraft STILL inferior to the 77W. What's gonna stop Boeing and GE from upgrading the 777 engines to keep the 8-9% edge over the A346 too??? And all this while the A350 department is still understaffed and deadlines not being met...

What deadlines are not being met?

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:46 am

Bloody hell NAV20, don't you even know what the A345/6 is, and how big they are?

[Edited 2005-11-28 16:47:19]
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:47 am

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 5):
What deadlines are not being met?

Has to do with wing manufacturing decisions that should have been taken a few months ago. Unfortunatelly I can elaborate more.
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:52 am

RJ111, as far as I know the A340 is more or less a four-engined A330. Except that the A345 is an especially long-range version (now eclipsed by the 772LR).
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Oryx
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:55 am

Aircraft / Passengers (metric) / Range [NM]

A358 / 253 / 8800
A359 / 300 / 7500

A342 / 239 / 8000
A343 / 295 / 7500
A345 / 313 / 9000 (HGW)
A346 / 380 / 7900 (HGW)

Already without improvements to the A345/A346 the A350 is less plane. Actually 6-7 % improvement in specific fuel consumption should give a nice boost in range for the A345 and A346. Additionally I could imagine that the four holers have better hot and high performance (with one engine of) and no ETOPS constraints.

[Edited 2005-11-28 17:00:56]

[Edited 2005-11-28 17:04:25]
 
Maersk737
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:57 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
RJ111, as far as I know the A340 is more or less a four-engined A330. Except that the A345 is an especially long-range version (now eclipsed by the 772LR).

It's the other way around...The A330 is more or less a two-engined A340  Wink

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:13 am

Quoting Oryx (Reply 9):
Already without improvements to the A345/A346 the A350 is less plane.

Now I'm thoroughly confused, Oryx. You mean they're planning to produce an upgraded A340 to compete with the A350?  Smile

Peter, surely the A330 came first (in turn derived from the A300)? Tony
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
A350
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:13 am

It would be miracle if Airbus didn't do so. They have everything they need for this a/c "in the box", it costs nearly nothing. It is exactly the trick at the A350 that the technology can be transferred instantly to all Airbus single deck widebodies. Perhaps we will soon see QF as launch customer of the A340-800  stirthepot 

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 2):

So, Airbus will spend millions of $$$ and manpower in R&D to produce an aircraft STILL inferior to the 77W.

The 6-7% are the contribution of the engines alone. The savings because of the lighter fuse come on top of that. I can even imagine the A340-600 to mutate to an ulr aircraft  Wink

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 2):
What's gonna stop Boeing and GE from upgrading the 777 engines to keep the 8-9% edge over the A346 too???

The four Trents together have a far larger fan area than two GE90s. This allows for higher air flows. The GE engines would need larger fans to keep pace. Remember that the Genx engines are far weaker than the GE90s at only slightly smaller fan size.

A350
 
Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:16 am

I worked out that if the A340-600 got a 10% boost in range (from Trent 1500 + airframe weight savings), its resultant range (8,690nm) would equal today's A340-500; Moreover, if the A340-500 itself gets a 10% range boost (to 9,900nm, then it would do LHR-SYD all year round, in both directions, with full payload.

Or, these proposed aircraft could fly today's ranges with more payload, whilst burning less fuel (i.e. it would not have to carry as much in its tanks). Meanwhile, the cabin bulkhead changes (from A350 development) would also accomodate more seat rows (thus more revenue).

I.M.H.O. I do think that a carbon fibre wing would eek-out even more performace gains.

[Edited 2005-11-28 17:25:04]
 
JetMaster
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:24 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Peter, surely the A330 came first (in turn derived from the A300)? Tony

According to your logic, the B737-800 would be a derivative of the B707 then...  Yeah sure


Regards,
JM
The Journey is my Destination
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2530
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:28 am

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 14):

According to your logic, the B737-800 would be a derivative of the B707 then... Yeah sure

Well it is.... to an extremely thin and stretched extent  Wink
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Oryx
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:38 am

Another hint on future A345/A346 versions is that Airbus is hiring engineers for the assessment of future engine variants for those a/c.

Regarding the question who came first: Haven't the A330 and A340 been in the same program (therefore the common wing)?.
 
ken4556
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 1999 5:28 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:38 am

It makes you wonder how Airbus can afford all these design changes. The 787 is replacing an aircraft (767) that was introduced over 20 years ago. The A350 is replacing a plane that is what, 11 years old?

Not they want to update a plane that was only introduced 2 years ago in the A340-500/600?

Does not seem like logical planning. More like throwing stuff on the wall and see if it sticks...to me at least.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:46 am

OK guys, wild speculation coming up. Based on putting Astuteman's info alongside Kaneporta1's news of a 'go slow' on the A350 programme.

The A350 will always be a compromise - basically one model rushed out to compete with two. No-one can say that the market is falling over itself to buy it. And in competing with the 787/777 combination it can't fail also to compete with Airbus' own range, particularly the A330.

So why spend $5B. and five years developing an aeroplane that shows no sign of being a worldbeater and is going to kill the rest of your range to boot? The alternative is to spend the $5B. on producing TWO upgrades - a modernised A330 AND a modernised A340. That strategy would have the virtue of being quicker - and probably no more expensive - and it would give you two competing products, the same as Boeing has, instead of one sandwiched in between the competition.

So I wonder if my joke above wasn't actually close to the truth. That the upgraded A340 is being considered instead of, rather than as well as, the A350?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:49 am

The problem with this scenario is that Boeing could gain back much of its advantage merely by having GE introduce a GE90 with many of the GEnx improvements.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
Oryx
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:02 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
So I wonder if my joke above wasn't actually close to the truth. That the upgraded A340 is being considered instead of, rather than as well as, the A350?

Nope, no chance NAV. But why not profit from the developments for the A350 (i.e. thinner wall thickness) by bringing the improvements to the bigger planes. Airbus will never be able to match the full range of B787 to B777 with only one plane and one number of engines. (Without the development of an all new family.)

By the way, would'n the placement of the A350 above the A332 increase the gap for an A300 replacement?


(And I have sworn to my self before entering a.net to never ever argue with the mighty NAV20  blush  )

[Edited 2005-11-28 18:04:26]
 
TaromA380
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:05 am

Why not simply put 4 engines on the A350 instead of keeping open an old assembly line ?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:14 am

The problem as I see it is that Airbus doesn't have any good options. They should have been thinking about their model range five years ago (as Boeing was), not now.

But it would be a brave manager who risked everything on the A350, on the basis of - what is it now? - 45 firm orders? Either Leahy comes good on his eternal '200 orders by the end of the year', or my guess is that it won't proceed.

On the other hand, I don't see an upgraded A340 setting the world on fire either. There is such a thing as 'fashion' - ETOPS is here to stay. Personally I don't think staking most of the future of the EU's aviation industry on upgrading a medium-sized four-holer would be very sensible. But it does seem to be a matter of looking for the 'least worst' options now.

[Edited 2005-11-28 18:18:30]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:17 am

Ken4556 wrote:
>> It makes you wonder how Airbus can afford all these design changes. <<

Well, for a start, Airbus does not suffer from the Boeing mish-mash of:
~ different fuselage cross-section with each new model;
~ different cockpit architecture;
~ different wing architecture;
~ different electromechanical architecture;
~ some aircraft with fly-by-wire & others without FBW;
~ different design teams;
~ different manufacturing system;
~ different fuselage materials & manufacturing processes (e.g. CFRP vs Al for fuselage);

Airbus meanwhile, has kept the commonality across the family. We’re talking the following:-

~ Fuselage cross-section;
~ cockpit layout & systems;
~ wing architecture;
~ fly-by-wire controls;
~ manufacturing centres-of excellence (i.e. wings designed and made in UK; cockpit in Toulouse; fuselage in Germany; assembly line in Toulouse etc. etc.

Just look at the B787. It’s partner supply-base & major component international allocation bears no resemblance at all to the B777 program!
And the B747 program is completely different again. As is the B737 program. So to with the B757/B767 programme etc. etc.

In short, there is really nothing in common between ANY of these Boeing families (apart from a 'Boeing' badge). Technology cannot simply be transplanted across families like Airbus can (and does). And with each Boeing families they created a whole new factory and supply chain. In contrast, with Airbus, there is far less of that messing around. And with Boeing, if a product line "dies", so does its factory -- since that's the only aircraft which that factory and manpower has been set-up to make. With Airbus, the same people make all aircaft, so A300/A330/340/345/346/350 can ALL be assembled in the same place.

Granted, the A380 gets a new factory (or rather assembly line) and Germany gets some A321 assemby-line work, but nevertheless, all the main aircraft subsystems come from the SAME geographical manufacturing partners and lead-design teams for the (i.e. all Airbus wings designed & built in the same place; etc. etc.)

This is Boeing's biggest problem: It's all evolved into a big industrial mess with lots of disparate design & manufacturing fiefdoms, all doing their own thing.

[Edited 2005-11-28 18:24:38]
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:36 am

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
New model is dubbed "A340 Enhanced " (E)

Astuteman, I am a bit confused now.
I know that Airbus is a rather clumsy with ac designation, but an A340E is already in service.
Granted, not with RR engines.
See attached links.
http://www.eads.net/web/lang/en/1024...F00000000400004/3/28/30942283.html
http://www.cfm56.com/news/press/2002/cfm02-09.htm
 
egnr
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:31 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:43 am

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
I'm pleased insofar as it confirms the rumours from my Airbus colleagues that prompted me to start the original thread.

Astuteman, are you based at Filton or Broughton?

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 23):
and Germany gets some A321 assemby-line work

Hamburg is the location of the final assembly line for the A318, A319, A321. The only single aisle Airbus assembled in Tolouse is the A320.
7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15090
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:44 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 13):
Moreover, if the A340-500 itself gets a 10% range boost (to 9,900nm, then it would do LHR-SYD all year round, in both directions, with full payload.

Define full payload? It can't do full payload routes it was designed for now year round. Why would adding 10% range make it able to do 10% longer routes with full payload?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:44 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 23):
And with Boeing, if a product line "dies", so does its factory -- since that's the only aircraft which that factory and manpower has been set-up to make. With Airbus, the same people make all aircaft, so A300/A330/340/345/346/350 can ALL be assembled in the same place.

I won't go into the rest of your post where you're ignoring serious commonality that Boeing has managed in the past to the satisfaction of customers, but I just wanted to address this part. Where was the 707 built? How about the 727? The 757? The 737-100/200 and Classics? I think all the workers in Boeing's Renton would be surprised to find out that their factory has died many times, and that they don't have the skills needed to mfgr other airframes, according to you.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:46 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 22):
On the other hand, I don't see an upgraded A340 setting the world on fire either.

One has to assume they're considering this in order to cater to and retain a small segment of their client base; otherwise, they risk losing a limited number customers to Boeing. Perhaps this is Airbus' move akin to Boeing's 767-400 development, which helped Boeing retain marquee customers like CO and DL.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
astuteman
Topic Author
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:01 am

Quoting Breiz (Reply 24):
I know that Airbus is a rather clumsy with ac designation, but an A340E is already in service.

Specifically, the A342E and A343E are already in service. I'm guessing these'll be A345E and A346E, which don't currently exist.

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 13):
Moreover, if the A340-500 itself gets a 10% range boost (to 9,900nm, then it would do LHR-SYD all year round, in both directions, with full payload.

It almost certainly would. That would be one very good reason for offering this A/C.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
Based on putting Astuteman's info alongside Kaneporta1's news of a 'go slow' on the A350 programme.

Amazing how quickly Kaneporta1's wild speculation becomes factual news so quickly  Smile

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 17):
It makes you wonder how Airbus can afford all these design changes

Wow, for $1.5Bn  Silly, the B748 gets:-
new wings (re-lofted, re-twisted, material thicknesses all revised for different loads, different flaps, slats + actuation).
A fuselage stretch (with all the re-sizing of stress-bearing elements throughout the fuselage that this requires, and aerodynamic analysis).
Brand-new engines of a completely different size and weight.
A new suite of avionics.

But merely sticking new (same-sized) engines on an A345/6, changing the material spec of the aluminium in the fuselage, plus using new, but already designed interior lining panels is expensive? (no wing mods, no fuse stretches, no new avionics)  Yeah sure

Quoting N328KF (Reply 19):
The problem with this scenario is that Boeing could gain back much of its advantage merely by having GE introduce a GE90 with many of the GEnx improvements.

Does the GE90-115 not already have many of these improvements? I understood it to be the "technological" basis for the GEnx. Otherwise, a fair comment.
A

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
A problem i can see is many key customers AC, CX(i assume) ect have already gone 773ER. Also it's a bit late, surely the 777 will have been given improvements by then too.

So very true, although if 2011 EIS is true, it's starting to come into the timeframe for its competitors, given their current backlog.
A
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:03 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 23):
In short, there is really nothing in common between ANY of these Boeing families (apart from a 'Boeing' badge). Technology cannot simply be transplanted across families like Airbus can (and does). And with each Boeing families they created a whole new factory and supply chain. In contrast, with Airbus, there is far less of that messing around.



Well, I think that with what Boeing has planned for in the Yellowstone project, many of the shortcomings you've identified will be dealt with very effectively. The B787 is simply the first product of that new approach and others will follow such as replacements for the B737 and eventually the B777.

With composite fuselage construction greatly simplifying and speeding up production, along with all the other technical and industrial innovations coming soon, I think Boeing will being doing a lot to address any efficiency concerns.
 
astuteman
Topic Author
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:15 am

Quoting EGNR (Reply 25):
Astuteman, are you based at Filton or Broughton?

EGNR, I'm not an Airbus employee. I work for BAE SYSTEMS building Nuclear Submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, but since the BAE/Marconi merger in 2000, I've represented Barrow on Producton Engineering development teams, with senior Production Engineers from Barrow, Warton, Salmesbury and Broughton. They're quite a good source for informal feedback, and of course, I get to see a lot of, and get involved in, how planes are built, and what it costs.
A
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:39 am

I have heard it suggested that Boeing could replace parts of the 777 fuselage with CFRP parts, reducing the OEW (any lighter and it will be a hot air balloon).
 
Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:41 am

Lemurs wrote:-

>> Where was the 707 built? How about the 727? The 757? The 737-100/200 and Classics? I think all the workers in Boeing's Renton would be surprised to find out that their factory has died many times <<

You do have a point, but nonetheless, we do now see a dead "Boeing" factory at Long Beach.

B.T.W. The partial 'death' of Renton has indeed been mooted, specifically with regards to the simultaneous demise in fortunes of BOTH the B757 and B767.

With regards to the B767 program, and all who work on her, it is plainly hanging on by a thread, hoping for a US Govt rescue in the form of military tanker orders.

Moreover, these folks & their families can't simply relocate to Everett and start making 787s. Especially since there is over-capacity wherever you look in Boeing.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:43 am

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 17):
It makes you wonder how Airbus can afford all these design changes. The 787 is replacing an aircraft (767) that was introduced over 20 years ago. The A350 is replacing a plane that is what, 11 years old?

Not they want to update a plane that was only introduced 2 years ago in the A340-500/600?

Does not seem like logical planning. More like throwing stuff on the wall and see if it sticks...to me at least.

Water always swirls faster the closer it gets to the drain.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:57 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 33):
You do have a point, but nonetheless, we do now see a dead "Boeing" factory at Long Beach.

That belonged to McDonnell Douglas before the merger. Specious example.

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 33):
The partial 'death' of Renton has indeed been mooted, specifically with regards to the simultaneous demise in fortunes of BOTH the B757 and B767.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?????????? For starters, the 767 line is at Everett not Renton and Boeing want to clear it out to make room from the 787 lines. But more importantly, the 737NG is selling like hotcakes at the moment. Rumours of Renton's death are greatly exaggerated.
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:09 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
Wow, for $1.5Bn , the B748 gets:-
new wings (re-lofted, re-twisted, material thicknesses all revised for different loads, different flaps, slats + actuation).
A fuselage stretch (with all the re-sizing of stress-bearing elements throughout the fuselage that this requires, and aerodynamic analysis).
Brand-new engines of a completely different size and weight.
A new suite of avionics.

Don't forget new fuel system - will need a different system for different size engines and I doubt the grandfather rule will work for the new wing and the rotor burst zones have to be redefined and probably therefore the tank boundaries and safety equipment (crossfeed etc)

The A340-200/300 has got the same engines as the A320, but because of their higher rating, the pumps need to be more powerful, therefore they are different.
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:09 am

Getting back to the original topic, it is now posted on the FI website, but is only referred to as a "study", not as as a "development". It seems to be a trial balloon designed to perhaps delay certain pending decisions by CX, SIA, EK and others that are currently leaning to the B777-300ER.

I sense a certain amount of desperation on Airbus' part. Quads are a dying breed.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:10 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 33):
You do have a point, but nonetheless, we do now see a dead "Boeing" factory at Long Beach.

The fact that you put quotes around it suggests you know the history there. That was a MDD plant, not a Boeing plant. Go read up on the production system there, it was interesting to say the least. They had the factories stradling major roads that had to be shut down so they could ship airframes back and forth at various levels of completion. It was not efficient by any means, so it's in no way surprising that Boeing decided to shut it down for commercial aviation. Remember the C-17 is still built there, and if they had won the JSF competition, it would have probably been built there as well.

Also, you've got your facts very confused. The Renton plant has always been a narrowbody-only plant. The 707, 727, 737, and 757 have been produced there. The closure of the 757 line allowed Boeing to open a new 737 line, which is how they have increased production to keep up with the demand for the 737NG.

The Everett plant has always been the home of the widebody lines; 747, 767, 777, and soon the 787. The workers on the 767 line have jobs producing airframes on order now, plus there are still potential orders out there. As that production ramps down, some if not most will almost certainly be moved to the 787 line, which Boeing has already announced may get another final assembly line if they can guarantee suppliers can keep up.

Airbus may be more efficient than Boeing, but the gap is closing because Boeing realized that. Espcially after the production and sales disaster in 1998. It's not as bad as you're making it out, that is for certain.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:14 am

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 37):
Quads are a dying breed.

That's why the 747-8 is coming out....  sarcastic 
But I get what you mean.
 
Sjoerd
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 10:47 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:15 am

Airbus would be stupid not to do it. The new technology from the A350 is easily adapted to the A345-A346, especially weight savings from the fuselage. Let the engine manufacturer worry about the engines.

Sjoerd
Flanders + Wallonnia + Brussels = the UNITED STATES of BELGIUM
 
Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:16 am

OK Glom, slight oversight there re. the B767 location. But the B757 loss really did badly hurt the Renton plant and its dedicated workforce. And my point about the deeply-entrenched duplication, overcapacity, non-commonality in design & production between Boeing's aircraft programs, etc. etc. is valid, and will take more than Yellowstone to fix.  Wink
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:20 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 23):
Airbus meanwhile, has kept the commonality across the family. We’re talking the following:-

~ Fuselage cross-section;

There are costs advantages to using one size fits all, but then you end up with a lot of mediocre products. Not one of the Airbus family based on the 300/330/340/350 fuselage is a class leader.

The 783 will take out the A300. The 788 will take out the A330. The A340 is no match for the 777. Airbus admits this by proposing this A340 Enhanced which is too little too late. IMHO, the A350 will be outclassed by the 789 and 787-10.

It appears that Airbus' product strategy is the real "mess" here and since they blew $15 billion on the A380 Albatross they have insufficient funds to fix it by coming out with an all new plane with a fuselage width optimized for the mission.

[Edited 2005-11-28 20:37:00]
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:20 am

I can imagine that this upgrade will also include tail modifications. The A350 tail will be significant lighter.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:37 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 42):
Not one of the Airbus family based on the 300/330/340/350 fuselage is a class leader.

Here's an update, the A333 and the A332 are currently the 'best' aircraft in their field. The A300 was certianly no mug either, offered something very different to the 763, look at AA.
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:07 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 41):
OK Glom, slight oversight there re. the B767 location. But the B757 loss really did badly hurt the Renton plant and its dedicated workforce.

No, Zeus419, that was a MAJOR oversight on your part. I find your overall analysis to be equally flawed. For instance, the B757 has not been a big seller for quite some years. From 2000 through 2004, Renton produced 1320 frames, of which only 144, or 11%, were B757's. The closure of the B757 line had virtually no effect on the workforce, and the line is being converted to further B737 production and is being boosted to 30+ per month.

Furthermore, are you unaware of the efficiency of the moving production line, which Boeing has introduced for most product lines?

You have also claimed that there is commonality of wing architecture and fuselage cross-section in the Airbus product line. No such commonality exists, nor should it. Each product line is designed and optimized for the mission intended. The B757 and B767 were designed at the same time and with common cockpits, but each had differing wings and fuselages as was appropriate. And guess what? Each sold 1,000 frames. Not bad.

Most of the so-called advantages you cite for Airbus are due to their late entry into the business. They had no legacy products to manufacture and support.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:09 am

It's good to see Airbus trying to achieve competitiveness with the B777. That will at least keep Boeing from charging monopoly prices to the airlines, which would have to pass them on to us.

I would have been happier to see Airbus go for an all-new composite-fuselage very large twin to fill the gap between the A350 and the WhaleJet but, at least for now, it seems not to be.
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1014
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:21 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 42):
The 783 will take out the A300. The 788 will take out the A330. The A340 is no match for the 777. Airbus admits this by proposing this A340 Enhanced which is too little too late. The A350 will be outclassed by the 789 and 787-10.

You are a great visionary! Let's tell EADS to file for bankruptcy right away! One wonders how they came to the #1 spot in the first place.... Gee
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:25 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 44):
Here's an update, the A333 and the A332 are currently the 'best' aircraft in their field. The A300 was certianly no mug either, offered something very different to the 763, look at AA.

That's why I said "The 788 will take out the A330...". This is because of their "one size fits all missions" fuselage is no longer competitive with Boeing's newer cross sections.

And here's an update for you: the A300 came out in 1972, ten years before the 763.

AA is probably a bad example to use since their experience with the Airbus has be a rather unhappy one.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2

Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 48):
One wonders how they came to the #1 spot in the first place.... Gee

Oh, you didn't hear?
Taxpayer subsidies in the form of "launch aid."
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos