Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:22 am

He's still pressing....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...logy/2003753686_airshowside19.html

Quote:
Boeing got a PR bonus Tuesday as International Lease Finance Corp. CEO Steve Udvar-Hazy, after endorsing the 787 Dreamliner, continued his public spat with Airbus over its manufacturing plan for the rival A350 jet.

Hazy reiterated his preference for Boeing's approach of building the 787 fuselage in massive, tube-shaped sections.

"We're much more comfortable with what we've seen with the Boeing design," Hazy said.

On Monday, Airbus CEO Louis Gallois said emphatically that Airbus won't change its plan to build the A350 fuselage out of composite panels attached to an aluminum frame.

But a day later, the influential Hazy begged to differ.He said ILFC has been pushing Airbus for an alternative to its current plan: "an optimized solution such as using a composite frame" to hold the fuselage panels.

And Hazy clearly isn't ready to take 'Non' for an answer from Airbus.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:29 am

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
On Monday, Airbus CEO Louis Gallois said emphatically that Airbus won't change its plan to build the A350 fuselage out of composite panels attached to an aluminum frame.

But a day later, the influential Hazy begged to differ.He said ILFC has been pushing Airbus for an alternative to its current plan: "an optimized solution such as using a composite frame" to hold the fuselage panels.

And Hazy clearly isn't ready to take 'Non' for an answer from Airbus.

I have debate this issue in other thread, and maybe Hazy read one of my postings about galvanic corrosion between carbon and aluminum. Somehow I doubt it, but he clearly understands the maintenance issues, which are a big concern when you own the plane. Hazy got to be a very rich man by making smart decisions. I am sure he has some of the best engineers analyzing the various planes on offer and knows exactly what they will cost him if he takes them on.

As for taking a "non" from Airbus, he has also so far given it. That has got to have some impact on the others buying airplanes.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:34 am

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time.
One Nation Under God
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:37 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 2):
You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time.

But you do want to please your best single customer, no? Airbus is making a big mistake with Hazy. If they get in a food fight, which is just about what we have, everyone else will notice and take an even harder look at the A350. That may be bad.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:39 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 2):
You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time.

But in the overall scheme of things, SUH should be high on the list of people to please.
 
EI321
Posts: 5049
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:41 am

With a EIS of 2013, theres still plenty of time for showboating before he ends up ordering it anyway.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:44 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
With a EIS of 2013, theres still plenty of time for showboating before he ends up ordering it anyway.

I am sure if he does order it, it will be with a 20 year full warranty and a guareenteed buy back price.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:46 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 3):
But you do want to please your best single customer, no? Airbus is making a big mistake with Hazy. If they get in a food fight, which is just about what we have, everyone else will notice and take an even harder look at the A350. That may be bad.

 checkmark 
If ILFC doesn't buy the A350 it will be a huge blow to it. And from what I have seen I wouldn't either. I see Udvar-Hazy as being a very shrewd and smart operator, and Airbus is foolish not to listen to him. I see the advent of CFRP airliners as being almost as big a jump as was the jet engine, and the panel approach (especially over aluminum frames) as being a turboprop. The issue is maintenance rather than weight. Udvar-Hazy is more concerned than the airlines are about that; he will own the planes for a long, long time.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 2):
You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time.



Quoting Poitin (Reply 1):
.....he clearly understands the maintenance issues, which are a big concern when you own the plane. Hazy got to be a very rich man by making smart decisions. I am sure he has some of the best engineers analyzing the various planes on offer and knows exactly what they will cost him if he takes them on.



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
If ILFC doesn't buy the A350 it will be a huge blow to it. And from what I have seen I wouldn't either. I see Udvar-Hazy as being a very shrewd and smart operator, and Airbus is foolish not to listen to him. I see the advent of CFRP airliners as being almost as big a jump as was the jet engine, and the panel approach (especially over aluminum frames) as being a turboprop. The issue is maintenance rather than weight. Udvar-Hazy is more concerned than the airlines are about that; he will own the planes for a long, long time

As for taking a "non" from Airbus, he has also so far given it. That has got to have some impact on the others buying airplanes.

It is not a question of pleasing !! The question is:

Can Airbus switch to barrels ?? Unfortunately, my call to the technically knowledgeable A-netters to elaborate a side by side comparative comparison "barrels versus Panels" was unsuccessful, but of the many partially technical arguments and other political/market ones, IMO it can be said:

Even if obviously, a "non" by Airbus cannot be taken at it face value, as also the general statement of Gallois that the specs are "totally firm", (after stating they will not be until october 2008) the answer seems to be: ...............they can't !!

Reasons between othe:
* They cannot even theoretically offer EIS 2013 if they switch
* As already noted by other A-netter, in case of barrels they would needed to be outsourced, a political and laboral extremely difficult issue.
* They lack experience with this technology. As the example of the B787 shows, this is a very delicate one, and if Boeing had not their own and not only the suppliers knowledge, they would be today in a hard place.

SU-H is not the only one objecting the Panels, between other Tim Clark, in spite of the purely commercial statements he is issuing all the time, penduling between the B787 and A350, is doing so also even surely with less technical base as SU K

But Airbus should consider following: As long the specs are not firmed up, and they most obviously are not, any
order they got will factually not be firm, as the customer always will be able to find reasons for not approving the firm specs when issued and cancel the order. And this could happen, if by this time th arguments again the panels become concrete. So, to continue with such technology basing on the reasons I atate above, seems IMHO a VERY risky proposal

regards

aminobwana
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
The issue is maintenance rather than weight. Udvar-Hazy is more concerned than the airlines are about that; he will own the planes for a long, long time.

This is clearly his big issue with the A350. Clark said "We only need them for 15 years" with the implication that he will scrap them, but SUH is not able to write off the millions of dollars like EK can. As I noted above, SUH may well buy the A350, but boy will there be a hellva warranty and buy back guarantee. That may well be the reason he is kicking up his heels because Airbus doesn't want to do it.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 8):
It is not a question of pleasing !! The question is:

Can Airbus switch to barrels ??

SUH wants them to get rid of the Aluminum frame and replace it with CFRP. That they can do without going to barrels. However, if they do a CFRP frame, they might as well go to barrels.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
EI321
Posts: 5049
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:23 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 8):
Even if obviously, a "non" by Airbus cannot be taken at it face value, as also the general statement of Gallois that the specs are "totally firm", (after stating they will not be until october 2008) the answer seems to be: ...............they can't !!

Shouldn't you be telling us that the A350 specs 'loosely firm', like you assured us that the QR A350 order was just a 'loose agreement' .?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 10):
SUH wants them to get rid of the Aluminum frame and replace it with CFRP. That they can do without going to barrels. However, if they do a CFRP frame, they might as well go to barrels.

I think the issue is the amount of money that Airbus management is willing to invest and the amount of time till EIS. I agree with SUH that CFRP frames shouldn't be that difficult to do; I can see no reason why Airbus doesn't use them. Making barrels is much more difficult and would take time and money to develop the techniques, but it is the way to go. If they did go CFRP for the frames the only issue would be the joints between the panels, which I wouldn't be as concerned about as I am about the aluminum frames, and as I understand it neither would SUH.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
EI321
Posts: 5049
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:26 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 10):
SUH wants them to get rid of the Aluminum frame and replace it with CFRP. That they can do without going to barrels.

Not necessarily. That will considerably increase the aircrafts composite content, and reduce its lightening conductivity.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26788
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:50 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 9):
This is clearly his big issue with the A350. Clark said "We only need them for 15 years" with the implication that he will scrap them, but SUH is not able to write off the millions of dollars like EK can.

I think EK is more likely to create a leasing arm and shuffle their planes to that, instead, though I suppose they could follow SQ's lead and "dispose" of their planes after that time.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:58 am

So I take it this galvanic action thing just won't occur inside of 15 years?
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:31 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I think EK is more likely to create a leasing arm and shuffle their planes to that, instead, though I suppose they could follow SQ's lead and "dispose" of their planes after that time.

You missed my point. What if they turn out to be 25000 cycle aircraft like the A320 is? They have to be scrapped. SQ tends to sell their aircraft off at the second D check, unless they are really unhappy as was the case with the MD-11.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 16):
So I take it this galvanic action thing just won't occur inside of 15 years?

It most like will, which is why they will have to inspect the airframes often. The effect is just the same as the old carbon/zinc batteries you may have in your flashlight. The metal corrodes slowly, over the period of years, but a little bit each day. Galvanic corrosion is a slow insidious effect, but you can control it with paint and such. It also requires water to accumulate which also occurs over time, was well as dirt accumulates in the belly and blocks the poppit valve drains.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
slider
Posts: 7542
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:35 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 3):
Airbus is making a big mistake with Hazy.

Actually, Airbus is making a monster design mistake with the A350.

Udvar-Hazy is just one of the few to call them out on it, and rightly so.

Airbus shouldn't take a step backward when composites are the future.
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:35 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Quoting Poitin (Reply 9):
This is clearly his big issue with the A350. Clark said "We only need them for 15 years" with the implication that he will scrap them, but SUH is not able to write off the millions of dollars like EK can



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
think EK is more likely to create a leasing arm and shuffle their planes to that, instead, though I suppose they could follow SQ's lead and "dispose" of their planes after that time.

If he was implicating he will scrap them, then we must assume that noting what he says can be believed !! IMO Stitch's asumption seems the right one.

But this is not an argument in favor of Airbus: If the A350 ages more rapidly than the B787, EK or SQ will not be able to lease them nor resell them after 15 years to prices similar as for the B787 !!

aminobwana
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:41 am

I would think it would send up a colossal red flag when one of the biggest sticks in the industry gives a ringing endorsement to your competitor's product and flatly rejects your own.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
trex8
Posts: 5444
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:47 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 17):
SQ tends to sell their aircraft off at the second D check, unless they are really unhappy as was the case with the MD-11.

I thought they cancelled the MD11 order and never took delivery of any?
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:58 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 8):
But Airbus should consider following: As long the specs are not firmed up, and they most obviously are not, any
order they got will factually not be firm

Good to see you and the other Airbus-bashers back, we missed you the past two days. Glad that the press has given you something to cheer about  Smile

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 2):
You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time

A true statement. The British aircraft industry was largely ruined by building aircraft tailored for one purchaser. Now, while we may argue that SUH is a massive purchaser, he did go and sign on the old A350. Makes me wonder what his current beef with Airbus is?

At the end of the day, the largest number of aircraft sales go to airlines, not lessors. Airbus needs to be pragmatic about the A350. Delaying it further to please ILFC is going to lose many, many potential customers, increase breakeven, and tie up valuable engineering resources for two or three more years. They need focus on making sure they get most of the remaining airlines in the market, get enough orders for breakeven, which is probably ~500 frames (at a guess), and call it a day.

Airbus lost the mid-size widebody battle in 2003/4. Right now, they can build Ezekial's wing charriot, and ILFC will still not purchase it in large numbers, because all the majors already have 787 fleets (and AA and DL will soon have as well). If you're a leasing company, you buy what your largest customers want. They don't have A350 fleets, so they won't want A350s.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:58 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 20):
I would think it would send up a colossal red flag when one of the biggest sticks in the industry gives a ringing endorsement to your competitor's product and flatly rejects your own.

One would think so; but who knows what is motivating the crew at Airbus? Certainly Gallois's intemperate retort to McNerney's remarks indicate (to me, anyway) that their still must be a great deal of stress at Airbus headquarters.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:06 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
If he was implicating he will scrap them, then we must assume that noting what he says can be believed !! IMO Stitch's asumption seems the right one.

Perhaps, but he said something to the effect they would last 15 years which is all we need. I don't have the exact quote but it came out of the Seattle PI news paper. My question is what happens if galvanic corrosion is a real problem as SUH believes.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
But this is not an argument in favor of Airbus: If the A350 ages more rapidly than the B787, EK or SQ will not be able to lease them nor resell them after 15 years to prices similar as for the B787 !!

Has SQ actually bought the A350? They may have today or yesterday, but I missed the announcement. All I know is SQ has a MOU in place which was signed last year at the air show. In fact, has EK bought them? With all the action at the show I could have missed that as well.

I have got to believe that Steve is being taken over to the corner of some cocktail part or another by the various big wigs and being asked "Steve, just what is this issue with the A350 you are bitching about?"

Of course Airbus could offer a 100% warranty for 20 years with a minimum guaranteed buy back price. I suspect that is what SUH is shooting for.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:11 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 18):
Airbus shouldn't take a step backward when composites are the future.

I'm not exactly sure how the current 350 is actually taking a step backwards, rather than not taking as much of a step forward as the 787. And they are certainly using a lot of composites on the 350.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 8):
SU-H is not the only one objecting the Panels, between other Tim Clark, in spite of the purely commercial statements he is issuing all the time, penduling between the B787 and A350, is doing so also even surely with less technical base as SU K

But Airbus should consider following: As long the specs are not firmed up, and they most obviously are not, any
order they got will factually not be firm, as the customer always will be able to find reasons for not approving the firm specs when issued and cancel the order.

One could just as easily read Clark's comments vis-a-vis the barrel construction as stating that the design paradigm is shifting towards barrels and that future Airbus planes will be made that way, but that the fact that the 350 isn't using them doesn't preclude EK from buying them.

By your token, any order before a plane is flying is not "firm." And at the same time, any contract can get gotten out of, it's just the cost of doing so that changes. I would consider any order that has a signed contract and deposits paid on it and shows up in either the Airbus or Boeing order books (as much as people want to believe it, Airbus does not put LOIs and MOUs in the order spreadsheet) firm. Whether an airline is going to actually take the plane eventually... Obviously some are more likely than others, but those that are unlikely are the exception, not the rule (both for Airbus and Boeing).

cheers.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:11 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 23):
Certainly Gallois's intemperate retort to McNerney's remarks indicate (to me, anyway) that their still must be a great deal of stress at Airbus headquarters.

From a quck recollection of a previous thread, there are still two camps about what the best procedure to build a CFRP fuselage is. And since there is no real world airline experience to go by, it becomes an issue of personal opinion.
 
slider
Posts: 7542
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:12 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 22):
Delaying it further to please ILFC is going to lose many, many potential customers, increase breakeven, and tie up valuable engineering resources for two or three more years.

I don't disagree, but the A350 program has been a Charlie Foxtrot from the start; why not do it RIGHT instead of trying to settle for the sake of expeditiously getting frames out there? They're compromising on one of the most fundamental and directional technologies that exists now. It's akin to having wood frames covered in cloth again. If they don't want to lead in technology, weight savings, efficiency, ease of mx, etc, then don't bother building it.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 22):
Right now, they can build Ezekial's wing charriot, and ILFC will still not purchase it in large numbers, because all the majors already have 787 fleets

Not unless it's composite, that is!!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:19 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 26):

From a quck recollection of a previous thread, there are still two camps about what the best procedure to build a CFRP fuselage is. And since there is no real world airline experience to go by, it becomes an issue of personal opinion.

Yes, that is my recollection also. One camp is the engineers and the other camp is the managers.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27):
I don't disagree, but the A350 program has been a Charlie Foxtrot from the start; why not do it RIGHT instead of trying to settle for the sake of expeditiously getting frames out there? They're compromising on one of the most fundamental and directional technologies that exists now. It's akin to having wood frames covered in cloth again. If they don't want to lead in technology, weight savings, efficiency, ease of mx, etc, then don't bother building it.

 bigthumbsup 
I totally agree. There's a saying among engineers that there's never enough time to do it right the first time but there's always time to do it over. In this case it doesn't hold; if Airbus flubs this one they may never get another chance to do anything.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
slider
Posts: 7542
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:24 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 28):
I totally agree. There's a saying among engineers that there's never enough time to do it right the first time but there's always time to do it over. In this case it doesn't hold; if Airbus flubs this one they may never get another chance to do anything.

Exactly right- like the military saying, do the job to task, not to time.

Certainly the market pressures on Airbus are enormous right now, and it's naive to think they have the luxury of time. We all realize that.

But developmentally, they've probably blown more time already by lack of vision than by actually flip-flopping on composite barrel VS panels, etc. Hell, they didn't even firm up fuselage diameter until recently. Only one engine right now too.

It still reeks of leadership crisis playing itself out. I think when all is said and done, it'll be a fine airplane. But if they're not going to at least swing for the fence, stay on the bench.

Besides, Airbus--like Boeing--could use the development experience to then wield with the 320 replacement family. That life cycle is something to start to keep an eye on.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:25 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 8):
SU-H is not the only one objecting the Panels

I got the impression from the article his biggest concern was aluminium frames, rather than the panels......

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
I see the advent of CFRP airliners as being almost as big a jump as was the jet engine, and the panel approach (especially over aluminum frames) as being a turboprop. The issue is maintenance rather than weight.

To be honest, I'm struggling to get my head properly around this maintenance issue.

Firstly, I have my suspicions that we're focussing (yet again) on a small part of the subject, and extrapolating it to the whole aircraft.
Over the life of an aircraft, just what percentage of TOTAL maintenance (fuselage skin, other structures, engines, landing gear, wings, tails, control surfaces, electrics, hydraulics, other mechanical systems, electronics/avionics, IFE, etc etc) is attributable to the connection between the frames and the shell?
If it were a submarine, we'd be talking fractions of a percent.
I certainly have no idea for an aircraft, (and I'm nervous that I'm comparing "nautical" engineering to "aeronautical" engineering).

But it begs the question.

Secondly, Airbus are specifying maintenance schedules that match or beat the 787.
I don't subscribe for one second to the notion that this is being done purely as a "me too" exercise, with NO engineering back-up. CFRP/Al structures have been around a long time, as has the issue of their corrosion.
Also, the A380 has them, the 787 has them, and the A350 has them. Other aircraft have them.
Maybe my job makes me somewhat blase about maintenance/corrosion - through the life of a nuclear sub, it has a monumental impact on the product engineering. (and again I'm nervous that I'm comparing "nautical" engineering to "aeronautical" engineering).
But my limited knowledge leaves me mystified as to why we believe it's physically impossible to engineer a "40 year" aircraft from CFRP and Al.
Might not be easy, and there might be other trade-offs that are required, in other product characteristics.
But...........

OTOH, it's obviously something the industry's nervous about.
It's also obvious that it's far easier to sell the concept of "all-CFRP" barrels, and despite the above comments, I would find it easier to accept the arguments for a "similar material" structure, rather than a "dissimilar material structure.
(I personally have my reservations about exactly why S-UH is making his comments, but that's a different matter..)

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
I agree with SUH that CFRP frames shouldn't be that difficult to do; I can see no reason why Airbus doesn't use them.

This thought too has occurred to me (surprise surprise). It has to be far easier to develop CFRP frames than the whole barrels.
The only sensible thought that comes to mind is that both Boeing and Airbus have said that, for the CFRP wings, Al ribs make more sense for the highly loaded ribs, and therefore, by extension, all of them.
(An argument in which I have to defer to the knowledge of the builders - given the "hype" over CFRP on this forum, the comments are surprising)
Is this a function of the A350's frames seeing "higher loads" and therefore Al is more suitable, as with the wings?
Don't know......

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19):
If the A350 ages more rapidly than the B787

We (on A-net) seem to have written this off as a given.
What if it doesn't?

Re-reading, all I've done is posed lots of questions.
I guess the biggest question I have is over the cast-iron certainty that we seem to have that the argument is already won...
Is it, I wonder?......

Regards
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:27 am

wasn't/isn't there a thread where emirates boss is claiming airbus is cathching up with the 787 or something like that. i'm not au fait with all of the technical stuff, but this doesn't sound like catching up to me
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:29 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 30):
I don't subscribe for one second to the notion that this is being done purely as a "me too" exercise, with NO engineering back-up

I've noted myself the Leahy quote that a "me too" aircraft won't cut it. I found it curious that Gallois was quoted in the press today as saying "equal or better" WRT the A350. I'll try to find a link. IMO, there can be no compromise on "better". They "better" pull it off!
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:31 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 30):
I personally have my reservations about exactly why S-UH is making his comments, but that's a different matter

I wish you'd share them.

I've been trying to work out Mr. Udzar-Hazy's motives - his psychological motives - since Istat.

I don't know what it is he is trying to achieve with this, in terms of his (former) relationship with Airbus.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
ith a EIS of 2013, theres still plenty of time for showboating before he ends up ordering it anyway.

The "showboating" will make 2013 a fantasy. IMO, 2015 EIS. First flight in 2013.  Wink
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:36 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 8):
SU-H is not the only one objecting the Panels

I got the impression from the article his biggest concern was aluminium frames, rather than the panels......

Yes, you are correct. He said weight doesn't matter. He must have read our many threads and come to the conclusion that the A350 would only be a couple per cent heavy, but got scared sh##less by my predictions that the aluminum frame will dissolve in to the pool of human sweat in the belly.  yes 

Right, I am sure he got that from A.net and not his own crew of highly trained and paid engineers.  yes 

But yes, he wants the aluminum frame replace with CFRP, and the panels can stay.  yes 

I hope he gets his way.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8346
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:37 am

If neither GECAS nor ILFC are particularly happy with the aircraft. . . its hard not to say "back to the drawing board, Airbus."
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:41 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
To be honest, I'm struggling to get my head properly around this maintenance issue.

Firstly, I have my suspicions that we're focussing (yet again) on a small part of the subject, and extrapolating it to the whole aircraft.
Over the life of an aircraft, just what percentage of TOTAL maintenance (fuselage skin, other structures, engines, landing gear, wings, tails, control surfaces, electrics, hydraulics, other mechanical systems, electronics/avionics, IFE, etc etc) is attributable to the connection between the frames and the shell?
If it were a submarine, we'd be talking fractions of a percent.
I certainly have no idea for an aircraft, (and I'm nervous that I'm comparing "nautical" engineering to "aeronautical" engineering).

But it begs the question.

Its the access. You need to strip the airplane of the interior to do a proper inspection. 6+ weeks out of service. Most of the other things you mention can be swapped out and maintained off wing, but not the fuselage.

cheers
 
814NAS
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:45 am

There have been many assertions made on here that Airbus is/has been foolish in having too many eggs in one basket, i.e., the Middle East. Now it would appear they are being equally foolish by not listening wholeheartedly to one man, S U-H (admittedly an influential man) and ILFC, and falling into line with his thoughts.

In no way detracting from the 787 for this example; there are many potential customers out there not only for Airbus and the A350, but also ILFC and the A350 in the future. I am sure if there is enough of a market with prospective customers expressing their interest in the A350 we will see ILFC buying it to lease regardless of it’s perceived problems.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:50 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 34):
I hope he gets his way.

FWIW so do I  Smile

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 36):
Its the access. You need to strip the airplane of the interior to do a proper inspection. 6+ weeks out of service

I hear you. checkmark 
But it still doesn't answer my question.
If you only have to do this once every 12 years, what proportion of the TOTAL maintenance spend is it?
And are you saying that the 787 won't need to have the linings stripped out every 12 years or so, regardless of whether its frames are CFRP or otherwise?
Through-life, how significant is it?

Quoting Poitin (Reply 34):
sh##less by my predictions that the aluminum frame will dissolve in to the pool of human sweat in the belly

That would indeed be the consequences of a pool of aluminium dissolved in the belly...  biggrin 

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

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:15 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 38):
I hear you. checkmark
But it still doesn't answer my question.
If you only have to do this once every 12 years, what proportion of the TOTAL maintenance spend is it?
And are you saying that the 787 won't need to have the linings stripped out every 12 years or so, regardless of whether its frames are CFRP or otherwise?
Through-life, how significant is it?

Boeng have stated that the 787 will only need this heavy maintenance every 12 years, as the airframe shouldn't corrode or fatigue like the ones flying today. Airbus now claim the same for the A350. My guess, the industry doesn't believe Airbus or the 12 cycle for the A350. They probably base the 12 years on very low flight hours per year.

My opinion.

Cheers
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:28 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 36):
Its the access. You need to strip the airplane of the interior to do a proper inspection. 6+ weeks out of service. Most of the other things you mention can be swapped out and maintained off wing, but not the fuselage.

That is the easy part. What would concern me is what is UNDER the cargo compartment floor. That is where the water and crap will accumulate. I haven't been inside the belly of any airliner for 30 years, but the 737-200 I crawled around in one day was a nightmare -- at least for me. Maybe the newer aircraft are easier. Do any of the ramp rats or mechanics reading this have any insight?

Quoting 814NAS (Reply 37):
I am sure if there is enough of a market with prospective customers expressing their interest in the A350 we will see ILFC buying it to lease regardless of it�s perceived problems.

It all depends on what warranties and guarantees Airbus is willing to make, I am sure.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 39):
Boeng have stated that the 787 will only need this heavy maintenance every 12 years, as the airframe shouldn't corrode or fatigue like the ones flying today. Airbus now claim the same for the A350. My guess, the industry doesn't believe Airbus or the 12 cycle for the A350. They probably base the 12 years on very low flight hours per year. .

Or perhaps John Leahy's say so. In any case SUH isn't buying it for sure.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 30):
The only sensible thought that comes to mind is that both Boeing and Airbus have said that, for the CFRP wings, Al ribs make more sense for the highly loaded ribs, and therefore, by extension, all of them.

My understanding of this issue is somewhat different. I was under the impression that the ribs were not highly loaded; my experience with light aircraft is that wing ribs are almost never a problem; their function is to hold the wing skins in place, which carry the loads that the spars do not. On a light airplane the ribs are made out of the lightest guage aluminum that will hold its shape, and they almost never crack, and if they do it is usually because of damage. I was under the impression that Boeing and Airbus made the wing ribs out of aluminum primarily because of cost and the fact that the weight difference is negligible. CFRP is stronger for a given weight than aluminum in almost any situation; so I cannot understand that strength has anything to do with this choice. As to the frames, I am totally at a loss why Airbus would use aluminum; I can not see a single good engineering reason to do so. The argument that it is for lightning protection doesn't hold water, as the skins are where the conductivity is required. Plus the fact that the frames are not connected together, so they will have no role in lightning protection.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 30):
Re-reading, all I've done is posed lots of questions.
I guess the biggest question I have is over the cast-iron certainty that we seem to have that the argument is already won...
Is it, I wonder?......

You may well be right. I have seen some things work far better than anyone ever expected (I once designed a fixture for Ford that I expected would have to be totally rebuilt after 1 year; they had 3 machines with this fixture. They ran them for 4 years nonstop and the only problem that they ever had was when one of them broke a spring and caused the main actuating shaft to bend.) I have also seen designs that people expected to be trouble free cause nothing but trouble (thankfully I never had any of mine fall into this category.) So the A350 may in fact turn out to be a magnificent plane and be trouble free; but from what I can see I just don't believe it will measure up to the standard Boeing is setting with the 787.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 39):
Boeng have stated that the 787 will only need this heavy maintenance every 12 years, as the airframe shouldn't corrode or fatigue like the ones flying today. Airbus now claim the same for the A350. My guess, the industry doesn't believe Airbus or the 12 cycle for the A350. They probably base the 12 years on very low flight hours per year.

My impression is that the aluminum corrosion/fatigue issues are still going to be there on the A350 regardless of what Airbus is saying. It isn't necessarily dependent on flight hours; with corrosion time is as much a factor as cycles. Astuteman's point is valid as to the percentage of total maintenance; but if it shortens the life of the airframe (I see it as very difficult to replace the frames once the plane is assembled-it would require even more disassembly than replacing a barrel on the 787) then it would be very significant.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:40 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 41):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 30):
The only sensible thought that comes to mind is that both Boeing and Airbus have said that, for the CFRP wings, Al ribs make more sense for the highly loaded ribs, and therefore, by extension, all of them.

My understanding of this issue is somewhat different. I was under the impression that the ribs were not highly loaded

 checkmark  Wing ribs are aluminum because high-speed machined aluminum ribs are almost as light as CFRP ribs, but much less expensive.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:42 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 20):
Quoting Poitin (Reply 17):
SQ tends to sell their aircraft off at the second D check, unless they are really unhappy as was the case with the MD-11.

I thought they cancelled the MD11 order and never took delivery of any?

As I said, they were VERY unhappy. They may have taken delivery of a few, but they were gone real fast.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 41):
On a light airplane the ribs are made out of the lightest guage aluminum that will hold its shape, and they almost never crack,

Not my experience. I have seen plenty of light aircraft with cracked aluminum ribs when the cover is replace. Citabrias are very prone to that. I have seen the inside of a Cessna 172 wing that was damaged and when they took the skin off to replace it, they found cracked ribs. The interesting thing is that the skins tend to keep the ribs, cracked as they may be, in place.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 41):
but if it shortens the life of the airframe (I see it as very difficult to replace the frames once the plane is assembled-it would require even more disassembly than replacing a barrel on the 787) then it would be very significant.

That is the significant point. Airframe life time.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:46 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 43):
I have seen the inside of a Cessna 172 wing that was damaged and when they took the skin off to replace it, they found cracked ribs. The interesting thing is that the skins tend to keep the ribs, cracked as they may be, in place.

That is what I said, when they crack it is because of damage, not fatigue or load.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:48 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 41):
My impression is that the aluminum corrosion/fatigue issues are still going to be there on the A350 regardless of what Airbus is saying. It isn't necessarily dependent on flight hours; with corrosion time is as much a factor as cycles. Astuteman's point is valid as to the percentage of total maintenance; but if it shortens the life of the airframe (I see it as very difficult to replace the frames once the plane is assembled-it would require even more disassembly than replacing a barrel on the 787) then it would be very significant.

An airline doesn't replace a frame, they repair. Go to the FAA web site and look at Service Bulletins in the ATA 50's, and see how many inspections, repairs and modifacations are required due to corrosion and fatigue.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 40):
That is the easy part. What would concern me is what is UNDER the cargo compartment floor. That is where the water and crap will accumulate. I haven't been inside the belly of any airliner for 30 years, but the 737-200 I crawled around in one day was a nightmare -- at least for me. Maybe the newer aircraft are easier. Do any of the ramp rats or mechanics reading this have any insight?

Absolutely. At least the keel beam on the A350 will be CFRP
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 41):
I am totally at a loss why Airbus would use aluminum; I can not see a single good engineering reason to do so. The argument that it is for lightning protection doesn't hold water, as the skins are where the conductivity is required. Plus the fact that the frames are not connected together, so they will have no role in lightning protection.

Its a trade between x) having cheap aluminum frames, an aluminum floorgrid, both serving as a current return network, at the expense of *maybe* maintenance cost versus y) having expensive CFRP frames with a CFRP floorgrid but needing a dedicated current return network made of aluminum, with *maybe* a saving in maintenance. Anyone here who can do this trade with certainty? I've heard the current return network of the 787 weighs in at about 1.000 lbs. How's that?
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
That is what I said, when they crack it is because of damage, not fatigue or load.

No, the cracks were NOT damage, they fatigue cracked. The Citabria is an aerobatic plane and is subject to loads in the range of 4 or 5 gs. Year ago, it was very common to remove the fabric on the wing of one and watch all the ribs fall to the ground. The 172 was flown aggressively. The crack had nothing to do with the big whole in the skin. It was over stressed.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 45):
An airline doesn't replace a frame, they repair. Go to the FAA web site and look at Service Bulletins in the ATA 50's, and see how many inspections, repairs and modifacations are required due to corrosion and fatigue.

If they can. Or as in the case of NWA A320s, they go to the beer can factory
RE: Nwa Parking A-320s (by TrijetsRMissed May 8 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 45):

Absolutely. At least the keel beam on the A350 will be CFRP

At the minimum. I would like to see all the frame under the cargo floor titanium or CFRP. The upper areas aren't so critical
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:00 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 46):

Its a trade between x) having cheap aluminum frames, an aluminum floorgrid, both serving as a current return network, at the expense of *maybe* maintenance cost versus y) having expensive CFRP frames with a CFRP floorgrid but needing a dedicated current return network made of aluminum, with *maybe* a saving in maintenance. Anyone here who can do this trade with certainty? I've heard the current return network of the 787 weighs in at about 1.000 lbs. How's that?

Why do you need an electrical return path..... for navigation lights?

Cheers
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB

Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:07 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 48):
Why do you need an electrical return path..... for navigation lights?

For every piece of electrical equipment inside a CFRP airframe that is non-conductive...

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