JayinKitsap
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:01 am

As a structural engineer that designs FRP tanks as part of my business I really like barrels, however doing the panel apprach gets you there too. I am not enthused with using AL frames with CFRP panels as the modulus of elasticity, thermal expansion, condutivity, etc are very different. If the under pressure shell expands more than the frame, the fasteners could see cyclical loading in tension. I'm sure it can be addressed but it seems that CFRP frames would be ligher and more compatible with a CFRP skin.

Shipping panels to a subassembly plant next to final assembly seems quite practical. The sections could be built up there and stuffed so final assembly is basically the same number of parts. For Airbus, it does employ more Airbus workers and less supplier workers. The cost of doing the long seams needs to be weight against the added logistics of shipping barrels.

Before we can really do "My specification is better than yours" debates, specifications on both need to be available. I don't believe that Airbus has publically issues true performance specifications. Let's defer those discussions to when range-payload charts are available.

Being 5 years later does not automatically make a product technically superior to the competition. It takes designing a technically superior product, it is easier to be superior with evolved technologies but clearly is not a given.
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 39):
Most of the efficiencies will come from better engines/SFC's......

True. But I was referring to other advantages of the barrel construction.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 39):
..that might not be true...not to mention, say hypothetically the barrel fuselage is better than the panel version (which we can't say with any certainty at all right now), for a plane as small as the A320/B737, the difference will be even more negligible. Most of the efficiencies will come from better engines/SFC's......



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
Could very well be the opposite, Jacobin777, if (as is increasingly likely) barrel construction results in the aeroplane being certified for many more cycles than the old-fashioned method of construction, with longer periods between inspections/maintenance. Shorthaul airliners build up cycles (in 'calendar' terms) much quicker than longhaul ones.

[As to the "size: , it seem that NAV20, has a good point
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18534
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:15 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 45):
and yet the 737NG is outselling it.

That really depends on you frame of reference time-wise, and we can all pick a timeframe to "prove" our numbers. Have you forgotten 2005? wink 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:17 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 45):
We don't know this; as I understand it the A320 has a slight edge on fuel consumption even over the 737NG; it has wider seats, and pilots seem to like it better, and yet the 737NG is outselling it

Not sure what time frame you are using. Maybe over 20 or thirty years, dunno. But if I look at recent times, a ten and a five year pic shows the A32X outselling the 737 by about 20%

Last 10 years (Jan 1997 to Dec 2006):
A32X orders - 4032
737 orders - 3296 (A32X sold 22% more)
737/17/57 orders - 3608 (A32X sold 12% more)

Last 5 years (Jan 2002 to Dec 2006)
A32X orders - 2260
737 orders - 1829 (A32X sold 24% more)
737/17/57 orders - 1884 (A32X sold 20% more)

Now, of course, these are net figures from the manufacturers websites. So I am presuming they are accurate. In addition, for the last couple of years - which were big order years - we may see cancellations, which may change the picture.

If you have different numbers, would love to see them.

- Cygnus

[Edited 2007-06-01 18:19:08]
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:22 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 28):

2) As for the statement that the disadvantage of the panel construction versus monolithic barrel could eventually be compensated by a lower mark up and therefore a lower offering to the airline



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 39):
AB has put itself in disadvange in the future

The disadvantage I am referring here, independently of others, is that if AB continue to use panels (example A320 successor), they will have always a cost disadvantage.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 32):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 28):
I assume that we can state that if AB goes with panels at the A350, they will do the same with future projects, especially the A320 successor

I would not make that assumption

Could you elaborate this statement ?? Do you have doubts that at least for the A350, barrels are a better solution ?
Thanks in advance

aminobwana
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 50):
I'm sure it can be addressed but it seems that CFRP frames would be ligher and more compatible with a CFRP skin.

That is exactly my opinion too. Then again, from what I hear, having aluminium frames offers a few advantages, overall weight reduction being one of them.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 50):
Being 5 years later does not automatically make a product technically superior to the competition. It takes designing a technically superior product, it is easier to be superior with evolved technologies but clearly is not a given.

Having seen a few photos of the 787 wing while being built, I can assure you that the XWB seems very superior, at least its wing. Then again, what do I know about wing design...
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:59 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 41):
The late entrant has the benefit of knowing which plane he needs to beat, as we saw with the B737/A320 and A340/777.

This is a recurring theme that we hear and I'm not trying to beat up on Joni here, but I think it is a time sensitive kind of idea that is of value only so long as designs remain fluid. Once the design of the A350 is set in concrete (next year I think), at that point the Rubicon has been crossed and Airbus is committed to a course of action.

The knowledge that you were beaten to the market place by X does not necessarily translate into the likelihood that you can do better with Y, when you get it to market later. You've lost the advantage of being first, and the advantage of all you could have learned breaking new ground.

Remember, you don't need to be the best-fustest with the mostest will do quite nicely.

In this case, the design freeze of the A350 (in 2008) will set that configuration in place long before any information has been developed about the service life and maintainability of the B787-although Airbus will know some performance benchmarks prior to that point.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
2006 Valuation Prices Per AVAC
[Note: This is not the sale price, but what a brand-new aircraft would be worth in the marketplace if the owner wanted to immediately flip it upon delivery]


* A318-100 - $ 29 million (45% discount)
* A319-100 - $ 38 million (40% discount)
* A320-200 - $ 46 million (31% discount)
* A321-200 - $ 52 million (37% discount)
* A330-200 - $101 million (38% discount)
* A330-300 - $103 million (44% discount)
* A340-300 - $116 million (41% discount)
* A340-500 - $125 million (42% discount)
* A340-600 - $128 million (45% discount)
* A380-800 - $187 million (39% discount)
* B737-700 - $ 39 million (34% discount)
* B737-800 - $ 49 million (35% discount)
* B737-900ER - $ 55 million (28% discount)
* B747-400F - $150 million (36% discount)
* B747-8 - No Data
* B747-8F - No Data
* B767-300ER - $ 72 million (49% discount)
* B777-200ER - $131 million (35% discount)
* B777-200LR - $134 million (42% discount)
* B777-300ER - $145 million (42% discount)
* B787 Family - No Data

Very interesting data; it seems that for the most part the equivalent Boeing plane is worth more (except the 767 vs. the A330) both in terms of percentage of list price and absolute value. The surprise to me is that of all the Boeing models the ones that fare the worst (except the 767) are the 777LR and 77W. I would have expected them to be more in demand. The figures for the 737 vs. the A320 are very close, but still favoring Boeing. I assume that the A319 is equivalent to the 737-700 and the A318 is smaller than any 737; is this correct?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 47):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 45):
as I understand it the A320 has a slight edge on fuel consumption even over the 737NG

Depends on the mission.

What I have gleaned from other discussions on A-net is that the consensus seems to be that the A320 has a slight edge on fuel consumption and the 737 has a slight edge on maintenance, but it is very true that it will depend on the mission.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 49):

..regardless..both are selling mighty fine for a multitude of reasons and maybe you are correct, but I've never heard or read anything regarding life cycle of the A32X...especially considering that by the time it reaches its end-cycle, it will be quite old and in need of a replacement anyway...

But it will affect resale values; if it is known at the outset that after 25000 cycles the plane will be junk whereas the competitor will be good for 40000 or more the latter will certainly be worth more when the airline decides to trade it, even if they have no intention of keeping it for its whole life.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 49):
...I guess for widebodies it might be a bit different, but I expect the A350 to have a longer lifetime also...does it make a difference after a life cycle of "x" number of years (say 30)? Given how technology has been rapidly changing, I'm not so sure.....

The issue of concern is the aluminum frames. As Jayinkitsap says the coeffiicient of expansion is very different, and the frames are subject to fatigue which the CFRP does not appear to be. If this does turn out to be true the only fatigue issue on the 787 will be the fasteners attaching the barrels together, which in the worst case can be replaced fairly easily. Replacing the aluminum frames on the A350 will be much more difficult and expensive. The end result is that the A350 will still have a fatigue limited life, while the 787 will not. This is potentially huge.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 50):

Before we can really do "My specification is better than yours" debates, specifications on both need to be available. I don't believe that Airbus has publically issues true performance specifications. Let's defer those discussions to when range-payload charts are available.

Being 5 years later does not automatically make a product technically superior to the competition. It takes designing a technically superior product, it is easier to be superior with evolved technologies but clearly is not a given.

 bigthumbsup 

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 52):
That really depends on you frame of reference time-wise, and we can all pick a timeframe to "prove" our numbers. Have you forgotten 2005?

I was going by the overall figures that have been quoted here; CygnusChicago made your point.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:10 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
The issue of concern is the aluminum frames. As Jayinkitsap says the coeffiicient of expansion is very different, and the frames are subject to fatigue which the CFRP does not appear to be. If this does turn out to be true the only fatigue issue on the 787 will be the fasteners attaching the barrels together, which in the worst case can be replaced fairly easily. Replacing the aluminum frames on the A350 will be much more difficult and expensive. The end result is that the A350 will still have a fatigue limited life, while the 787 will not. This is potentially huge.

Doesn't the 787 also have aluminium frames?
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:32 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 58):
The issue of concern is the aluminum frames. As Jayinkitsap says the coeffiicient of expansion is very different, and the frames are subject to fatigue which the CFRP does not appear to be. If this does turn out to be true the only fatigue issue on the 787 will be the fasteners attaching the barrels together, which in the worst case can be replaced fairly easily. Replacing the aluminum frames on the A350 will be much more difficult and expensive. The end result is that the A350 will still have a fatigue limited life, while the 787 will not. This is potentially huge.

Doesn't the 787 also have aluminium frames?

I do not understand much of aircraft building but have experience with the issue of different expansion factors.

I think th SEPILOT's point shall be considered if he as I assume refers to LARGE frames. In some cases, I do not think that this is applicable to aircrafts, an amortiguating material is inserted between Frame and framed element.

aminobwana
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:38 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 54):
The disadvantage I am referring here, independently of others, is that if AB continue to use panels (example A320 successor), they will have always a cost disadvantage.

....this might not be necessarily true either...Power8 implementation will be more important....

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 49):

..regardless..both are selling mighty fine for a multitude of reasons and maybe you are correct, but I've never heard or read anything regarding life cycle of the A32X...especially considering that by the time it reaches its end-cycle, it will be quite old and in need of a replacement anyway...

But it will affect resale values; if it is known at the outset that after 25000 cycles the plane will be junk whereas the competitor will be good for 40000 or more the latter will certainly be worth more when the airline decides to trade it, even if they have no intention of keeping it for its whole life.

.....both sets of planes are difficult to get a hold of lately and both have had great resale values....

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 49):
...I guess for widebodies it might be a bit different, but I expect the A350 to have a longer lifetime also...does it make a difference after a life cycle of "x" number of years (say 30)? Given how technology has been rapidly changing, I'm not so sure.....

The issue of concern is the aluminum frames. As Jayinkitsap says the coeffiicient of expansion is very different, and the frames are subject to fatigue which the CFRP does not appear to be. If this does turn out to be true the only fatigue issue on the 787 will be the fasteners attaching the barrels together, which in the worst case can be replaced fairly easily. Replacing the aluminum frames on the A350 will be much more difficult and expensive. The end result is that the A350 will still have a fatigue limited life, while the 787 will not. This is potentially huge.

...even older generation technology aluminum frames have not had too many fatigue problems...we see 30 year old frames w/out this problem....

The A350 might be subject to more fatigue than the B787 on an absolute level, but for practical purposes, I don't expect fatigue to be a problem on the A350......

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 55):
Having seen a few photos of the 787 wing while being built, I can assure you that the XWB seems very superior, at least its wing. Then again, what do I know about wing design...

...while I know your expertise on wing design is 2nd to none here on A.net...until I see real A350 wings being built/cut/etc.....I will take the word "superior" with some skepticism...hope you don't mind... Smile
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6740
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:39 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
and the A318 is smaller than any 737; is this correct?

The A318 is very similar in size to the B736.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_600tech.html

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...lies/a320/a318/specifications.html
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 59):
I think th SEPILOT's point shall be considered if he as I assume refers to LARGE frames. In some cases, I do not think that this is applicable to aircrafts, an amortiguating material is inserted between Frame and framed element.

In which case, why is the "frame" discussion relevant at all.

I'd repeat Zvezda's question. Doesn't the 787 also have "some" aluminium frames?

Regards
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18534
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
Doesn't the 787 also have "some" aluminium frames?

I thought the 787 frames were titanium? All those rivets (sorry, fasteners) have to be connected to something!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 58):

Doesn't the 787 also have aluminium frames?

The frames in the 787 are not structural, I believe; they are just for attaching the interior fittings. I think that the frames on the A350 are resisting the hoop stresses from pressurization, which makes them structural. Anyone have any more into on this?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 58):
Doesn't the 787 also have aluminium frames?



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
I'd repeat Zvezda's question. Doesn't the 787 also have "some" aluminium frames?



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 63):
thought the 787 frames were titanium? All those rivets (sorry, fasteners) have to be connected to something!

Seems that we need to define what we are talking about. I take "frames" to mean the hoop-like circumferential members attached to the inside of the fuselage, comparable to the stringers which run longitudinally.

Given that, the B787 frames are CFRP. I would not assume that means that all of the interior structure of the Boeing fuselage is CFRP. As Astuteman points out, there's likely to be some metal in there as well.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 41):
This can be difficult to call, since as the A350 has been on and off the drawing board for the past year or so the planes haven't been on the same line. But as you say, after EIS for both planes we'll know better. The late entrant has the benefit of knowing which plane he needs to beat, as we saw with the B737/A320 and A340/777.

That "benefit" does not reliably translate into sales success. The best example is the Boeing 707 soundly defeating the Douglas DC-8 in the marketplace. Many will argue that the DC-8 was a superior design. airplane 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:15 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
I'd repeat Zvezda's question. Doesn't the 787 also have "some" aluminium frames?

If I am not mistaken, the majority of the 787 frames are manufactured by a company called Zodiac and are resin film infused braided frames. The rest of the frames are titanium.

Interestingly enough, most of the pioneering development work in resin-infused braided structural components was done in the UK where it was applied in low cost car bodies. However, the technology used by Zodiac to manufacture the frames was developed by NASA (using the UK process as a basis) and then transferred to Zodiac under a technology transfer program.

Of course, these stories always have a twist: The reason Zodiac got access to the technology was because they were chosen by Boeing to help develop low-cost manufacturing processes on projects including the Boeing X45 (where they build the payload doors) and for the C-17 VARTM components.

This leads to an interesting question. The basic patents covering the process are owned by a UK university. Zodiac has some commercialization patents on airplane frames, so they can conceivably subcontract to Airbus. However, since the commercialization of this technology was funded by the US military, they may not be allowed to.

[Edited 2007-06-01 20:20:20]
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:20 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 63):
I thought the 787 frames were titanium? All those rivets (sorry, fasteners) have to be connected to something!

The frames are composite, along with the clips that attach them to the stringers (which is part of the barrel) Titanium fateners will be used to attach the clips to the stringers/frames.

Cheers
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:22 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 67):
This leads to an interesting question. The basic patents covering the process are owned by a UK university. Zodiac has some commercialization patents on airplane frames, so they can conceivably subcontract to Airbus. However, since this technology was funded by the US military, they may not be allowed to.

 confused The technology was developed by NASA (per your post). What has the US military got to do with it?
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:24 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46):
One thing that came up on another thread was that Boeing have already tested the 787 wing to the required 1.5 times safe load, and are now considering whether to go on and break it, or not bother. I'm quite sure that they'll ALSO be considering pressure-testing the fuselage to a previously unheard-of number of cycles. If they can prove that their new products will last, for the sake of argument, say twice as long as the current crop, they'll be a helluva selling point in terms both of reduced need for replacement AND resale value.

If a plane could be certified to last 2 times as long then the competition would have to sell their planes at 1/2 the cost.

or any combination of percentages. So if one ends up with a far less life span than the other those airlines purchasing them will not feel the crunch until the next cycle of purchase when thier competition does not have to purchase or can sell thiers at far higher prices to aquire new.
BK
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 70):
If a plane could be certified to last 2 times as long then the competition would have to sell their planes at 1/2 the cost.

or any combination of percentages. So if one ends up with a far less life span than the other those airlines purchasing them will not feel the crunch until the next cycle of purchase when thier competition does not have to purchase or can sell thiers at far higher prices to aquire new.

The demand curve for an item does not follow with its useful life. A 1955 Chevy properly maintained would still be in great shape today with as much steel as it has. However no one wants it to drive because it gets bad fuel mileage.

The primary advantage of longer life on a widebody will be the ability to resell the plane to cargo haulers. I would expect the advantage derived from this to be less than 10% and probably closer to 5% when it comes to perceived value by airlines. If it is close to 10% it is only because they believe they can eaisly change the engines out if something new comes down the line. It certainly will not make a competitor with half the life cycles have to be priced at half the cost.

That is like saying that a Plasma TV with a lifespan of 10 years is half as valuable as one with 20. Most people replace them within that 10 years anyway so what good does the 20 year life do you? It is a nice thing to have but not worth 100% of the price.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 36):

I agree, NAV20, to quote a popular 80's band from Down Under, "...it's a mistake".  Silly

Whether or not there are concrete advantages to barrel construction vs. panels (I happen to think there are), when it comes decision time I think perception is what will matter and the perception will likely be that the 787 is the higher technology design.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:40 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
The surprise to me is that of all the Boeing models the ones that fare the worst (except the 767) are the 777LR and 77W. I would have expected them to be more in demand.

Since the discount is tied to the list price, who's to say that the 772LR/3ER list prices aren't a bit inflated due to demand. The larger discount only brings the asking price down to a level consistent (and slightly higher) with the competition.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):


A340-500 - $125 million (42% discount)

A340-600 - $128 million (45% discount)

B777-200LR - $134 million (42% discount)

B777-300ER - $145 million (42% discount)
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:41 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 69):
The technology was developed by NASA (per your post). What has the US military got to do with it?

As I pointed out, the COMMERCIALIZATION of the technology was paid for by the US military on the C-17 and X45 contracts. Given the amount of my taxes going to the US military, I'm really glad about this; at least some of my tax dollars is going to improving my flying experience.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:42 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 28):
I got already a comprehensive answer to A) by SEPILOT. Thank you !! I would appreciate further reasoned opinions !

You got SEPilot's beliefs, but not any supportive evidence or reasoning for the degree of the claimed advantage.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46):
all of us have hitherto seen the benefits of all-composite construction as being mainly in the area of weight-saving.

That is probably the least of its advantages, as is readily seen in the OEW/seat figures of the 787 compared to the 777. They are not different, and this is often ascribed on a.net to the 787's first-generation composite primary structure being "overbuilt". I don't know whether that is true. The big benefits are in maintenance and manufacturing (lower touch labor, leading to lower price / higher profit)

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 64):
The frames in the 787 are not structural, I believe; they are just for attaching the interior fittings. I think that the frames on the A350 are resisting the hoop stresses from pressurization, which makes them structural.

This is another a.net misconception. The 787 fuselage is a stressed-skin semi-monocoque structure just like all modern airliner fuselages before it. Its primary structure consists of skin, stringers and frames, just like all modern airliner fuselages before it. The innovation lies in building the skin in large, jointless pieces with integrated stringers using a material that can be better tailored to local loads... but in the end, those loads are still borne much the same way as before.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 67):
The basic patents covering the process are owned by a UK university. Zodiac has some commercialization patents on airplane frames, so they can conceivably subcontract to Airbus. However, since this technology was funded by the US military, they may not be allowed to.

Someone better alert the US military that the world's largest resin film infused aerospace structure is the rear pressure bulkhead of the A380.  Big grin
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26787
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 73):
Since the discount is tied to the list price, who's to say that the 772LR/3ER list prices aren't a bit inflated due to demand. The larger discount only brings the asking price down to a level consistent (and slightly higher) with the competition.

Could be. AVAC has said that a 773ER pulls down about $30 million more then an A346 in the final transaction price.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:45 am

I think Boeing was going for a minimum aluminum content. They even increased the steel % over conventional construction. Of course the most advanced steels are insanely good compared to what the avg consumer sees. Lol 300KSI vs "30"KSI. Alot more money, but very hard to beat when pure strength, fatigue and other factors are looked at.

The nice thing about aircraft design is you get a minimum of selecting a material because of how sexy a material is. Where as for lets say automotive racing, you get alot of selecting materials price and problems not being worried about. For the automotive customizing and other markets where the material selected is much more about the name than the quality of the final part. You can make a steel part lighter, stronger, and cheaper than an aluminum version and guess which you will sell more of? Or carbon fiber body parts are a good example. For Subaru cars, the aluminum OEM parts are usually lighter than if it was made from composites due to the weight not being structural, but the minimum required thickness for durability. So much so that for WRC Subaru actually went to the expense of switching to aluminum front fenders that were unique to only the WRC cars. likely $50K or more in tooling for a few hundred fenders to save a couple pounds each. But in the aftermarket industry if you tried selling the general market on your aluminum hood is better than the other guys CF one, well it won't just because its not the right material name. Titanium is really bad for this too, Lots of titanium used in the aftermarket world where it shouldn't be. Lol street engines with titanium valve retainers.

So in short I think right now its a bit unsettled what the magic formula is for overall aluminum/composite/titanium/steel in aircraft, but that pure economics should drive it quickly (industry time) to just about only one way to do these.

If I had to bet, I would bet the magic formula is closer to Boeings current build than Airbus's, but that both will change a good bit for the 2nd and 3rd generation of aircraft as operating data comes back. Of course the increase in fuel AND crew costs, is driving a revolution that putting more money into a plane when built for better operating economics is a heavy influence on the material content seen.
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 59):
I think th SEPILOT's point shall be considered if he as I assume refers to LARGE frames. In some cases, I do not think that this is applicable to aircrafts, an amortiguating material is inserted between Frame and framed element.

In which case, why is the "frame" discussion relevant at all.

"In some cases, I do not think that this is applicable to aircrafts" referred to the amortiguating material !!!

The issue of the different expansion factors is clearly relevant, as are the observations of SEPILOT (reply 57) regarding fatigue and replacemets

aminobwana
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:16 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 71):
The demand curve for an item does not follow with its useful life. A 1955 Chevy properly maintained would still be in great shape today with as much steel as it has. However no one wants it to drive because it gets bad fuel mileage.

The primary advantage of longer life on a widebody will be the ability to resell the plane to cargo haulers. I would expect the advantage derived from this to be less than 10% and probably closer to 5% when it comes to perceived value by airlines. If it is close to 10% it is only because they believe they can eaisly change the engines out if something new comes down the line. It certainly will not make a competitor with half the life cycles have to be priced at half the cost.

That is like saying that a Plasma TV with a lifespan of 10 years is half as valuable as one with 20. Most people replace them within that 10 years anyway so what good does the 20 year life do you? It is a nice thing to have but not worth 100% of the price.

NW DC-9's and many other types do not fit in to your statement above. the unique difference is that its function does not change, airplanes carry people. The ability to pay off a plane 10% into its life span versus 50% will free up cash flow. TV technology changes to fast as does computers. Airplane technology does change but at a more steady pace. If DC-9's can survive today being paid off then why not these planes in the future? If I can use cash flow for advertising and other needs besides loan payments, I can survive in the aviation market better than my competition. I can also upgrade my interiors more often which the passengers really care about.

Trust me this is the discussion going on in sales to airlines behind the scenes. Come back in 2015 and review my post. You will find that 4 seams cost a company 2% profit or more each due to fatigue life dictated by the aviation governing bodies. I can not say more. Hopefully QR got a lifespan guarantee for a yet unknown value or they will be happy only for a time when the competition can redo their interirors more often and service less.
BK
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:17 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 75):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 64):
The frames in the 787 are not structural, I believe; they are just for attaching the interior fittings. I think that the frames on the A350 are resisting the hoop stresses from pressurization, which makes them structural.

This is another a.net misconception. The 787 fuselage is a stressed-skin semi-monocoque structure just like all modern airliner fuselages before it. Its primary structure consists of skin, stringers and frames, just like all modern airliner fuselages before it. The innovation lies in building the skin in large, jointless pieces with integrated stringers using a material that can be better tailored to local loads... but in the end, those loads are still borne much the same way as before.

Can only agree with your summary here.

a) I don't believe that a non-circular thin-walled pressure vessel is capable of maintaining its shape under internal pressure without frames.
b) I find it hard to believe that Boeing would go to the expensive (and heavy) lengths of an entire suite of fully circumferential frames just to attach "interior fittings". There are far easier, and lighter ways of doing this.....
Ergo.............

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):
major decisions (such as which airliner to buy) often hinge on very small issues.

Back to an earlier discussion.......
There may be some cases where an odd percent on OEW and maintenance costs might sway a decision.
IMO these numbers are small enough to mean that other factors could easily come into play to offset the differences.
I don't believe the differences will be big enough to "kill" the A350.
Might knock a percent or two off Airbus margins in some cases perhaps.

I think the opportunity cost of, say waiting 2 years more for a 787 slot than you have to wait for an A350, an aircraft which is still WAY more efficient than any other widebody twin available, might well outweigh an incremental increase in ownership cost.

Differences that "kill" aircraft lie in the A346 vs 773ER range, i.e. double figures.

Regards
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 73):
Since the discount is tied to the list price, who's to say that the 772LR/3ER list prices aren't a bit inflated due to demand. The larger discount only brings the asking price down to a level consistent (and slightly higher) with the competition.

 checkmark ...reminds me of this music store in Chicago many years ago called "Biaso Music" (IIRC)....they used to sell guitars at "1/2 off" but doubled the cost...which would mean they were selling it a list...meanwhile, other music dealers were selling guitars 30% cheaper... spin 
"Up the Irons!"
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:28 am

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 79):
NW DC-9's and many other types do not fit in to your statement above. the unique difference is that its function does not change, airplanes carry people. The ability to pay off a plane 10% into its life span versus 50% will free up cash flow. TV technology changes to fast as does computers. Airplane technology does change but at a more steady pace. If DC-9's can survive today being paid off then why not these planes in the future? If I can use cash flow for advertising and other needs besides loan payments, I can survive in the aviation market better than my competition. I can also upgrade my interiors more often which the passengers really care about.

Trust me this is the discussion going on in sales to airlines behind the scenes. Come back in 2015 and review my post. You will find that 4 seams cost a company 2% profit or more each due to fatigue life dictated by the aviation governing bodies. I can not say more. Hopefully QR got a lifespan guarantee for a yet unknown value or they will be happy only for a time when the competition can redo their interirors more often and service less.

I never said the plane would not be more valuable than one that was not capable of flying all those cycles. What I said is there is no way that the average airline, particularly those that fly a lot of widebodies as many of them tend to keep younger fleets, would ever pay twice as much for a 787 vs an A350.

You stated that the competition would have to price their product for half of what the competitor is selling it for. That is clearly not the case. I highly doubt NW paid twice as much for DC-9's as others did for comprable airframes with shorter lifespans.

More cycles are valuable, but certainly not to the extent you are suggesting. I think 10% in regards to purchase price would be a pretty big edge but it in no way approaches 100% purchase price.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 82):
You stated that the competition would have to price their product for half of what the competitor is selling it for. That is clearly not the case. I highly doubt NW paid twice as much for DC-9's as others did for comprable airframes with shorter lifespans.

One has to wonder what a comparable 737-100 / -200 cost at the time when NW purchased all those DC9s. They may have paid twice as much as a 737-200 with the same cycles??

Cheers
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:35 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 80):
a) I don't believe that a non-circular thin-walled pressure vessel is capable of maintaining its shape under internal pressure without frames.
b) I find it hard to believe that Boeing would go to the expensive (and heavy) lengths of an entire suite of fully circumferential frames just to attach "interior fittings". There are far easier, and lighter ways of doing this.....
Ergo....

Apparently the frames in question are composite, not aluminum, so the basic premise that I was discussing from is inaccurate. I agree with you that some internal stiffeners are required in a thin-walled structure. The point I was aiming at (which, depending on the joints in the panels, may or may not be valid) is that the frames on the A350 would be carrying part of the hoop stress from pressurization, and thus would be subject to fatigue. Actually, if the joints between the panels are strong enough, that may not be the case; the joints could possibly take it all. In that case the main maintenance issue would be the joints and fasteners, but I would still consider it to be an issue that as a buyer I would be concerned about. It comes down to my previous point; what does the A350 offer that is better than the 787 and worth waiting for? And if the answer is essentially nothing, the joints issue could well sway the decision.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 84):
I would be concerned about. It comes down to my previous point; what does the A350 offer that is better than the 787 and worth waiting for? And if the answer is essentially nothing, the joints issue could well sway the decision.

An indisputable statement, my friend  Smile

Regards
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt

Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:51 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 84):
Apparently the frames in question are composite, not aluminum, so the basic premise that I was discussing from is inaccurate. I agree with you that some internal stiffeners are required in a thin-walled structure. The point I was aiming at (which, depending on the joints in the panels, may or may not be valid) is that the frames on the A350 would be carrying part of the hoop stress from pressurization, and thus would be subject to fatigue. Actually, if the joints between the panels are strong enough, that may not be the case; the joints could possibly take it all. In that case the main maintenance issue would be the joints and fasteners, but I would still consider it to be an issue that as a buyer I would be concerned about. It comes down to my previous point; what does the A350 offer that is better than the 787 and worth waiting for? And if the answer is essentially nothing, the joints issue could well sway the decision.

What about the waste associated with milling a frame out of alluminum, or having to assemble one.... Certainly the chords would be an extrusion, but the labor...... If it is assmbled, how many differents parts does it take to manufacture just one body station frame? If milled, how many pounds of material is wasted ?

Hey, maybe Airbus know of some major pitfalls with composite frames and weren't nice enough to warn Boeing.

Is the life cycle difference the same as going from dope and fabric to metal fuselages?

So many questions...  Smile

Cheers

Edited to add smiley

[Edited 2007-06-01 21:53:03]
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 82):
never said the plane would not be more valuable than one that was not capable of flying all those cycles. What I said is there is no way that the average airline, particularly those that fly a lot of widebodies as many of them tend to keep younger fleets, would ever pay twice as much for a 787 vs an A350.

You stated that the competition would have to price their product for half of what the competitor is selling it for. That is clearly not the case. I highly doubt NW paid twice as much for DC-9's as others did for comparable airframes with shorter lifespans.

I must not be being clear enough. If I have the option to buy a 787 which last for 30 years (est. value floating around) or a A350 which lasts for 15 years (just for reference) it means I will have to buy another plane in 15 years to replace it versus 30 for the first. So for the A350 to be priced competitive it would have to be half of the already fare market price of the 787 for I would need to buy 2 for 1 of the 787.

Now more realistic values are 30 years for the 787 and 20 years for the A350, but until the FAA and other way in it will be just est. but 1/3 less life means just that, it will have to be replaced.

Note When you have any metal in the barrel there will be a fatigue life limit regardless of manufacture wishes.

So if I am in sales I would say I hope you got the A350 for 1/3 less than I am offering the 787 for you will replace it sooner with less cycles than the 787 or not be able to hold as high of a resale value due to percentage of used useful life.
BK
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:27 am

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 87):
I must not be being clear enough. If I have the option to buy a 787 which last for 30 years (est. value floating around) or a A350 which lasts for 15 years (just for reference) it means I will have to buy another plane in 15 years to replace it versus 30 for the first. So for the A350 to be priced competitive it would have to be half of the already fare market price of the 787 for I would need to buy 2 for 1 of the 787.

One would need to put a value on the airframe itself after 25 years (quite a few less cycles on long range widebodies). My bet would be that an airframe, after 25 years service, stripped of engines, landing gear, flight controls, APU, avionics and such wouldn't be worth a whole lot of money. But, if there weren't supplemental inspcetion requirements due to its age, and a lot less Sevice Bulletins that are required after XX,XXXX.00 hours, there might be a little less presssure to strip it and sell off the pieces, which must have some value.

Cheers
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:31 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 74):
As I pointed out, the COMMERCIALIZATION of the technology was paid for by the US military on the C-17 and X45 contracts. Given the amount of my taxes going to the US military, I'm really glad about this; at least some of my tax dollars is going to improving my flying experience.

1) You edited your post while I was typing the question. That's a 5-yard penalty and replay the down. whistleblower 
2) The question is whether a patent exists and if so who holds that patent...not likely to be "the US military".
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
2006 Sale Prices Per AVITAS:


* A320 Family - $41 million (38% discount)
* A330 Family - $94 million (43% discount)
* A340 Family - $123 million (45% discount)
* A380 Family - No Data
* B737 Family - $42 million (35% discount)
* B747 Family - $141 million (40% discount)
* B767 Family - $82 million (41% discount)
* B777 Family - $138 million (41% discount)
* B787 Family - No Data


Very nice work, and thank you. I seriously doubt that the 787 has a discount as low as 25% but more likely 30%. I can certainly believe all the above.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
2006 Valuation Prices Per AVAC
[Note: This is not the sale price, but what a brand-new aircraft would be worth in the marketplace if the owner wanted to immediately flip it upon delivery]


* A318-100 - $ 29 million (45% discount)
* A319-100 - $ 38 million (40% discount)
* A320-200 - $ 46 million (31% discount)
* A321-200 - $ 52 million (37% discount)
* A330-200 - $101 million (38% discount)
* A330-300 - $103 million (44% discount)
* A340-300 - $116 million (41% discount)
* A340-500 - $125 million (42% discount)
* A340-600 - $128 million (45% discount)
* A380-800 - $187 million (39% discount)
* B737-700 - $ 39 million (34% discount)
* B737-800 - $ 49 million (35% discount)
* B737-900ER - $ 55 million (28% discount)
* B747-400F - $150 million (36% discount)
* B747-8 - No Data
* B747-8F - No Data
* B767-300ER - $ 72 million (49% discount)
* B777-200ER - $131 million (35% discount)
* B777-200LR - $134 million (42% discount)
* B777-300ER - $145 million (42% discount)
* B787 Family - No Data

Very interesting data; it seems that for the most part the equivalent Boeing plane is worth more (except the 767 vs. the A330) both in terms of percentage of list price and absolute value. The surprise to me is that of all the Boeing models the ones that fare the worst (except the 767) are the 777LR and 77W. I would have expected them to be more in demand. The figures for the 737 vs. the A320 are very close, but still favoring Boeing. I assume that the A319 is equivalent to the 737-700 and the A318 is smaller than any 737; is this correct?

I have seen the sale price of a couple of these and there is about a 10% flip price increment, presumably because the plane is available now. I also assume these are low time aircraft.

Very very useful and interesting data, Stitch. Now you see why I was asking about it. Nice to know who to ask for the numbers Big grin

THANK YOU

(in case you are wondering where I was for the last five hours, I was weed wacking.)
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 90):
I have seen the sale price of a couple of these and there is about a 10% flip price increment, presumably because the plane is available now. I also assume these are low time aircraft.

Stitch stated in the original post that these were "flip" prices- which would be zero time.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Gatorman96
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:22 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:38 am

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 55):

Having seen a few photos of the 787 wing while being built, I can assure you that the XWB seems very superior, at least its wing. Then again, what do I know about wing design...

As I know nothing about the engineering side of wings, can you explain what you see that makes the A350's wings so much better?
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt

Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:52 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 91):
Quoting Poitin (Reply 90):
I have seen the sale price of a couple of these and there is about a 10% flip price increment, presumably because the plane is available now. I also assume these are low time aircraft.

Stitch stated in the original post that these were "flip" prices- which would be zero time.

That was not really clear to me. I am sure some of those flip planes had a few hours on them, but less than a thousand, well less than a thousand. The reason why I noted the low time is an airframe with more time on it would simply have a lower resell price. However, if we just look at it as a flip on delivery, EK may well have planned of flipping some of those 49 388s they have have on order for a 5 to 10% profit.

We may well have stumbled on to something to watch for. We might even seen a new TV show "FLIP THAT PLANE" in which the go through they deal of the week. Might be real interesting  yes .
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 6):
I don't have figures either, but IIRC from the discussions we had when the "clam shells" approach was announced, the difference isn't going to be so big because the shells are longer than the barrels, just 12 (3x4) for build the whole plane.

Don't forget to count the barrel joins still necessary to put together the A350 fuselage. From the picture on flightblogger
there are 6 major barrel sections on the 787 (41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48). That's five joins, six if you count the 11/45 section. For the A350, it will need at least 4 barrel joins (maybe 5 depending on how they handle the center wing box) plus 12 "clamshell" joins for a total of 16 "big" joins. That's about 3 times the number on the 787.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 8):

Having aluminum frames doesn't help with corrosion nor fatigue, which drive a lot of the required inspections in a heavy check.

 checkmark 

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 55):
Having seen a few photos of the 787 wing while being built, I can assure you that the XWB seems very superior, at least its wing. Then again, what do I know about wing design...

What did you see that makes you so confident that the XWB will be superior? Is Airbus designing the A350s wing in a significantly different way?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 93):

We may well have stumbled on to something to watch for. We might even seen a new TV show "FLIP THAT PLANE" in which the go through they deal of the week. Might be real interesting

I'm sure all A-netters would watch it avidly, but are we enough of an audience to make it worthwhile? I can just envision the utensils I would have to dodge if I suggested to my wife that we watch it...  duck 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:15 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 75):
Someone better alert the US military that the world's largest resin film infused aerospace structure is the rear pressure bulkhead of the A380.

Interesting. Did not know that. I guess that means Airbus can go composite frame as well, if they choose. Is the bulkhead manufactured by Airbus, or by a supplier?
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:29 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 89):
1) You edited your post while I was typing the question.

Ha, I edited immediately on posting, thought you posted afterwards. You were too quick on the draw for me, dude!  Smile My humble apologies * slowly jogs over to take his time-out *

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 89):
2) The question is whether a patent exists and if so who holds that patent...not likely to be "the US military".

I'd guess the patents relating to frame manufacturing are held by Zodiac (I'm too lazy to do a patent search). My comment on the military is more related to there generally being restrictions on military contractors providing services to foreign countries, and that this may or may not apply in this case. However, since it seems Airbus is already using RFI (as per WingedMigrator's post), I guess this won't be an issue, if they decide to go composite frame.

Now, that raises an interesting question for me. If Airbus already has the technology, and has experience with it on the A380, why wouldn't they give the A350 a composite frame?
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:34 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 96):
Is the bulkhead manufactured by Airbus, or by a supplier?

http://events.airbus.com/A380/ProdSi...tail.aspx?prodSiteId=STD&artId=118
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2

Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:43 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 80):
I think the opportunity cost of, say waiting 2 years more for a 787 slot than you have to wait for an A350, an aircraft which is still WAY more efficient than any other widebody twin available, might well outweigh an incremental increase in ownership cost.

Astuteman, according to that interview with Leahy I posted aerlier, the reverse would still appear to be true; you can still get a 787 earlier than you can get an A350, you will have to wait for the latter:-

"Leahy said Airbus has to persuade airlines to wait.

"The key part of our marketing and commercial strategy on this program," he said of the A350 XWB, "is that we have to convince people that it is worth waiting for. If it's not worth waiting for, if there is not a big enough margin over what they would get with the 787, then why wait? You would just go with the 787."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/317896_airbus31.html

I know which aeroplane I'd sooner be marketing.  

Apart from anything else, Boeing are very adeptly developing and communicating the 'Wow!' factor, as shown in the latest video on IAD787's excellent '787 Assembly Update' thread:-

http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/

Must admit that, watching it, I was first of all stunned just by the scale of the logistics involved. But then I realised how big a mountain Airbus look like having to climb to match the 787, in terms of marketing as well as production techniques.

If M. Gallois happens to drop by on A.net and see that video, I suspect that it'll be a case of "Lirez-l'et pleurez" - ('Read it and weep').  

Thanks to IAD787 for his excellent thread:-

https://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/3436953/

[Edited 2007-06-02 05:13:58]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci

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