Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
columbia107
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:42 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:41 am

It is incredible that big men acting like little children are claiming that the A350 will leapfrog Boeing's 787 technology when not one single A350 has been built yet. At least Boeing have something on wheels, albeit not yet flown. The A350 is a paper plane. At least for for time being

Do we all believe that the A350 will come into service without any hiccups? Ask Boeing!

Do we all believe that Boeing will not respond to the A350. Of course it will; and it will be better!
In God we trust
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1596
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:47 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 124):

ROTFL!

The Sonic Cruiser was offered for sale to several large companies.

However, Boeing failed to find a single buyer, hence the product wasn't launched because of lack of a launch customer.

Making it sound like the Sonic Cruiser was just a concept plane, is violating history in the most brutal way.

Any airframe that is not launched be it for any reason is by nature a "Concept Airframe." Several large operators were asked if they would be interested. They were not interested in the "concept." It has nothing to do with violating history.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:14 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 151):
Without composite beams (possibly) composites percentage was >50% which indicates composites are planned in places where the 787 won�t use them. In the end it probably will be >60% with composite frames.

Or that the composite build up is hearvier on the A350 vs the 787, and used in less applications  Smile

Cheers
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:50 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 130):
Dude, they aren't pressurized then and thus feel no load but their own weight!

You could have provided a relevant link to support your assertion; you chose otherwise.

No matter - I said on the 787 the internal frames are not required to hold fuselage panels together, and that is true. Well, mostly anyway - I presume there are areas that may not be single-piece, so if you want to "get me" for that oversight in my original assertion, feel free - dude.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:00 am

Quoting Khobar (Reply 162):
No matter - I said on the 787 the internal frames are not required to hold fuselage panels together, and that is true.

Wasn't there an article that said that the sections started to sag whilst sitting in the shop - doesn't that tend to suggest that they are not self-supporting?
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 151):
The childish way any design choice Airbus makes is portrayed by some as a kind of defeat and Boeing adjustments as evolutionairy improvements keeps surprizing me.

 checkmark 

And I too am surprised when something Boeing does is considered stupid, untried, or downright dangerous until Airbus also does it, at which point it's not only brilliant, but by doing it later, it is (of course) significantly better.

Both companies are pushing the envelope to various extents with their next generation of planes and I personally find it exciting times. Each company is going to end up "flattering" each other through imitation more then some would like to admit, but by each company incorporating the best, the whole industry moves forward.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting Khobar (Reply 125):
No it doesn't - if it did there wouldn't be pictures of complete skins without any internal frames.

The reason you see those pictures is because that's the only way barrels can be manufactured. The frames are necessarily installed after the skin / stringers are cured and the mandrel is removed form the inside of the barrel. These photos are no proof that the 787 structures are in any way a departure from traditional stressed-skin semi-monocoque construction.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 128):
Seems some people are still trapped in the mythical idea the 787 is a sort of monolithic plastic tube without any need for reinforcing frames.

 checkmark  While the material and manufacturing process has changed, the loads are carried through the structure in much the same way as all previous airliners. The terminology of 'skin', 'stringers', 'frames', 'bulkheads', 'shear ties', etc. applies just as much to the 787 as it did to the 777.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 134):
The video I watched showed carbon-fibre sheets being lain over a mould.



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 138):
A380 pressure domes are constructed from "petals" of an advanced composite that is layed up and cured in sheets on a mold... innovative but its more isotropic and not a "tape layup" per se. Loads on a "dome" are fairly even and don't need to be varied.

The interesting thing about the A380 rear pressure bulkhead is that it undergoes a two-step curing process, with radial ribs being co-cured to the skin in the second step. Perhaps the 787 equivalent is of similar construction, since it also comes from EADS.

My big question on the newly announced CFRP panel / CFRP frame combination is whether Airbus might end up co-curing frame 'sectors' with the skin and stringers. This would reduce fastener count, possibly offsetting the additional joints between panels (both in terms of weight, and amount of touch labor). Would this become a tolerance issue? If I understand the 787 approach, the barrels are drilled after curing, before the frames are fastened inside.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:53 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 157):
I am sure Airbus and EADS have extensive composite knowledge/expertise.

True, i would like to remember that EADS CASA did build the right wing of the Typhoon and Alenia the left wing. Both wings are monolithic. They sure have made progress since and of course they will try to make the best use of it.

Also EADS CASA does CFRP horizontal stabilizers (A400M, Falcon 7X), CFRP flight control surfaces for (B-777, B-737, Falcon 7X, A400M, Eurofighter)



[Edited 2007-09-16 02:05:23]
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:08 am

What's the news here? AI already make composite tail surfaces, composite keel beams, composite pressure bulheads. Composite frames is the next step
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:25 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 90):

Because the frame of the 787-8 IS mostly metal by weight....

No, it's not.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 100):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 99):
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 13):
a composite wing (which the 787 does not have)

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't!!! Check your information.

As noted several times above, the only Al parts are a few of the end ribs. Since it would actually be bad engineering to make 100% of a wing from CFRP, this is about as close to an all composite wing as you can get. You may be recalling the wing design from about 9 months ago, when Boeing was still considering all the ribs would be Al. That is no longer the case.

Regardless, all of the tricky bits (spars, skins, and stringers) have been CFRP from the beginning.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 100):
The availability of pre-stuffed sections from suppliers makes no difference when you are actually building your own aircraft as opposed to sticking pre-built sections together. Forgive us for thinking that pre-stuffed sections are not the best idea in the world. If Boeing had gone with panels as opposed to barrels, they almost certainly wouldn't be in the pickle they're in right now.

That's true. If they hadn't gone with barrels, they wouldn't have sold as many aircraft, which would have fixed the current pickle somewhat.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 103):

The A350's advantages are:
five years' later aerodynamics
lower SFC engines
probably higher composite content

The 787's advantages are:
barrels are more efficient than panels
bleedless

So, if the A350 gets barrels, then it will beat the 787 in all three measures of efficiency: structural, aerodynamic, and propulsion.

Aerodynamics doesn't progress nearly as fast as you seem to think it does. If five years made a significant difference in aerodynamics you'd see a *much* larger aero difference between current aircraft than there actually is.

Lower SFC engines is pretty much a given, although by the time the A350 enters service they'll probably have an upgrade package for the 787 engines.

Higher composite content, by itself, means nothing. CFRP is not the best material for all applications. It would be theoretically possible to build an aircraft that was all fiber/resin composite except the electronics, windows, wires, and engines. However, it would be a horrible performer because it would be the wrong material choice in several locations.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 104):

Airbus and Boeing have never built a plastic plane before either

They've build all of the plastic parts before. Airbus has the A400M wing, the empennage on pretty much everything since the A300, and they're getting up to speed on fuselage fast. Boeing has done empennage, floor, and wings (B-2) before. All that's going on here is putting more of it together on one plane. The risks of CFRP in commercial aircraft are being vastly overstated.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 108):
There aren't any, because Boeing is using carbon fiberglass coating between them...
Would be better not to have any aluminium in the frame at all though, don't you think too?

No. There are locations where aluminum + adequate insulation is the best design choice. There are so many factors in aviation design that there are virtually no situations where you can make the right choice based on a single factor, like eliminating aluminum.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 108):
The key here is how many frames... only some, with the most loaded and heaviest being traditional non-composite metal frames.

The number of frames doesn't change much because the primary function of the frame is to hold the fuselage shape and reduce the critical buckling length of the stringers. CFRP doesn't allow you much change in either of those parameters. Normal Boeing frame spacing is 20-22"...CFRP might let you get up to 24"/25", but not much more.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 108):
The hard reality is the 787 wing will have an entire aluminium structure under the skin, the A350 likely won't.

Nope. The only structural aluminum under the skin is some of the ribs. Spar, stringers, and most ribs are all CFRP.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 113):

I'm just pointing out that we appear not to know whether or not the A350 frames in fact will hold the panels together.

The panels are held together by splices. The frames are necessary to hold the panels in shape and prevent the stringers from buckling.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 114):
The 787 DOES NEED its metal/composite frame for load support

Yes, it does. The 787 couldn't fly without the frames. No current aircraft could.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 114):

Otherwise, why would some frames in heavily loaded areas of the 787 have to be from metal?

Because CFRP is quite bad at picking up point loads. This isn't a big deal in nice smooth areas of fuselage but near heavy point loads (doors, landing gear, wing attachment) metal is a better choice.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 114):
Floors, ceilings, sidewalls and insulation generally don't weigh more in nose, wing and tail section than they do in plain fuselage sections do they?

No, but that's because ceilings, sidewalls, and insulation aren't load bearing. The critical load case for the floor is driven by the cabin, not airframe loads, so it doesn't vary much either.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 115):

A320 outselling B737

Nope.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 134):
There are still advances to be made. As Slz396 insightfully pointed out above, the affordability of additional computing power alone ensures better aerodynamics.

It doesn't ensure anything. It does make it *possible*, but there's no guarantee that it will happen.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 141):
I think Boeing calls some frames 'bulkheads', which may spoil the count. E.g. the front spar 'crown bulkhead' which is basically a frame backing up the splice strap where Section 43 and 44 are mated. Likewise the 'bulkhead' above the MLG side brace supports where section 44 and 46 are spliced. Are these the same two you are referring to?

Something is wrong with the terminology here. The front spar is nowhere near the crown.

Bulkheads are heavy frames, just as you suggest. They are counted as frames.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 142):
Computing is only part of the story. Given money and time, either Airbus or Boeing could improve aerodynamic design by large amounts.

"Large" is a relative measure here. A change of 1-2% is extremely significant.

Quoting Moo (Reply 143):

I thought the spars were Al while all the ribs were CFRP?

Spars are CFRP.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 147):
To reiterate, computer modelling makes testing quicker, not better.

Well said.

Tom.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:48 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 45):
Barrels are just one way to increase the overall percentage of composites in the fuselage!

Barrels are just one way of LOWERING the overall percentage of composites if you exclude the fasteners. With barrels you have far less edges needing massive reinforcement to take the load across the joints. Just like not having windows in your barrel/panels would REDUCE the amount of composites since you can put a nice even thin sheet across the whole window belt instead of lots of reinforcement and mounting area.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 53):
ILFC don't care about the engines, you're thinking of GECAS.

A leasing company not caring about competition on the single most expensive "part" of the whole airframe? Wow. They care if even things like the brake linings are sole source, and you think they don't care about multimillion dollar engines? Whats next ILFC doesn't care if airbus closes its doors?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 57):
The 787-8 is a natural replacement for the smaller 767-400. It is even a plausible replacement in some cases for the 767-300. However, the idea of the 787-8 as a 767-200 replacement seems absurd.

The 787-8 will have lower trip costs than the 762, so economicly it will replace one just fine. Its my opinion that it will be a hell of a long time before that happens given that so far most of the 787 orders are for expansion not replacement of older airframes. I'm guessing however that many 767/A300 routes will be picked off by the largest of the 737RS given higher frequency with lower seat costs. Never mind the higher flexiblity and lower risk.
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:18 pm

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 151):
Any airframe that is not launched be it for any reason is by nature a "Concept Airframe." Several large operators were asked if they would be interested. They were not interested in the "concept." It has nothing to do with violating history.

So, AA's order of about 100 SonicCruisers was an order for a concept not launched?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 155):
Each company is going to end up "flattering" each other through imitation more then some would like to admit, but by each company incorporating the best, the whole industry moves forward.

Definitely, it's exciting to see the evolutions. Now that both companies are awake with a competitive intensity that hasn't been seen since the days of the 707, DC8 and others, I'm really excited. I think we can expect astonishing engineering innovations in the narrow-body replacements.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 70):
My only question is why don't they just bit the bullet and go all-out barrel construction

I think they would have, but it is a commercialization and IP issue. I would't be surprised if they are still working on a barrel construction method, and that they may introduce this if they can get it figured out technologically and legally. Design freeze is still in the future, giving them some time to evolve the engineering package.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:34 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
7E7 equaled 787, so your point in this case is invalid.

Incorrect. The 7E7 was a marketing study which was finalized into the 787. Very few major changes have been announced as I pointed out earlier.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
fishplane'

I assume you are referring to the shark tail. While that will be sorely missed, it won't be as sorely missed as the original snout on the 350 Rev.7, which was changed into the awful 380 snout. The point is that beauty should always take a back seat to performance, not matter how much it bugs us.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):
Sonic Cruiser anybody?

It is not like Boeing went in a straight line from 767 to 787, don't you think so too?

The bumpy road Boeing took to arrive to the 787 makes the path from A330 to A350 look like a highway.

 rotfl  its amazing how wrong you are.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 40):
What I dont understand is why so many people are bashing on Airbus for following them?

That is definitely a very good point, which is being lost in the noise here.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 40):
Airbus have clearly said that design freeze is mid 2008 and until then they should use every work-hour to improve their concept and technology.

Good point again. It seems this sort of design evolvement on the way to barrels is a normal process; something Boeing explored under the SC & 7E7 timeframes.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 33):
Anyhoo on-topic, It is my understanding that the 787 would be composte frames, other than the places that needed titaniuym frames for whatever reason.

That is what my understanding is.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 41):
into more and more troubles too because some idiots thought it would be great to roll it out on 7/8/07

Its been stated clearly by Boeing that rollout is not the cause of the delay, but the lack of fasteners is. Many have also said that by putting it all together for the rollout they learned some lessons early.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 44):
but it seems Airbus is taking composites a step beyond indeed, just as promised.

It seems you are wrong as usual. Please read Rheinbote's clarifications.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 45):
Boeing wanted to make use of composites in their fuselage, yet was unable to produce a composite frame for the 787,

Wrong again.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 51):
No, I think the market for airliners sized larger than the 787/A350 is tiny and shrinking. The pathetic rate of JumboJet and WhaleJet sales during the biggest sales boom in aviation history amply demonstrates that, IMO.

Very well said, and an excellent way of pointing out the reality of that market segment.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 52):
If Airbus can overcome the root problem to make composite frames

What root problem?

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 54):
Going for an entirely composite frame pretty much takes away the main reason to also go for barrels....

Confused again aren't you.

Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 59):
> Both have composite fuse skins bolted to composite fuse frames. A few highly loaded frames in the centre section will still be Ti.

Thanks for posting some facts.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 66):
OMG, Airbus is really screwed (pun intended) if this is the main difference between the 787's composite barrel on a metal frame vs the A350's composite shell on a composite frame!

Wrong again. See below.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 71):
Not quite - the 787 has braided, resin-transfer moulded CFRP frames throughout the cabin, as well as a few - in cases partial - aluminum and titanium frames in areas where concentrated loads are introduced into the fuselage, e.g

Thanks for posting some facts.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 81):
Given the fact Boeing has decided to make use of a largely aluminium/titanium frame,

Wrong again.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 113):
According to Rheinbote (whom I've never known to be wrong about such things), the A350 will have a similar proportion of metal frames in high stress locations.



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 81):
Throw in a more advanced wing (something the A350 will indisputably have)

Based on?

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 90):
Because the frame of the 787-8 IS mostly metal by weight....

Are you reallllly sure???

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 99):
Yet A330 is outselling B767 by a massive margin. A350 just overlaps with B787 but the A359 and A350-10 are B777 killers just as the A330 killed off the B767.

Yes, the T7 is dead and so is the 767: NOT  Embarrassment

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 108):
The A350 wing comes years after the 787 wing, so it's hardly a wing of the same generation. Advances in computing capacity alone will guarantee the A350 wing will be much more efficient aerodynamically than the 787 wing. If there is one domain where you really don't need to doubt who will have the most advanced piece of technology, it is this one...

Don't forget that Airbus lags Boeing in CFD technolgy. The only recently announced that their latest CFD package enabled a huge drop in wind tunnel time; something Boeing announced about 4-years ago. I think AIrbus will have a bigger wing, but don't expect a dramatic difference between the 787 & 350 wing efficiency.

Anyhoo, since you have not actually made one correct statement during this whole thread, its easy to point out that you are mearly hand waving in everything you say. *yawn* Don't you feel bad?

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 115):
A380 outselling B748i

I love this comparison. Of course, you will have a million excuses to ignore the FACT that the 747 has outsold the 380 during the time they have both been on the market.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 115):
A330 outselling B767

Don't forget that part of the 767 range competes the 300 and part of the 767 range competes with the 330 and part of the 330 range competes with the 777 and so on.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 115):
A320 outselling B737

I'd say that sales of the 737 and 320 are production limited and its pretty much a tied race.

I sincerely hope that WAH64D and Slz396 don't work for Airbus. If they do, it may explain why Leahy has had to backtrack so many times.

iwok
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5240
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:43 pm

Quoting Iwok (Reply 162):
the original snout on the 350 Rev.7, which was changed into the awful 380 snout

I know that was under consideration. But has it now been decided?
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:05 pm

Quoting Iwok (Reply 162):
Incorrect. The 7E7 was a marketing study which was finalized into the 787. Very few major changes have been announced as I pointed out earlier.

Really? I guess then that airlines like ANA (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2004/q4/nr_041230g.html), Continental (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2004/q4/nr_041229g.html), and Vietnam (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2004/q4/nr_041230g.html) didn't actually place orders for planes, but rather for marketing studies.  confused 

Quoting Iwok (Reply 162):
Yes, the T7 is dead and so is the 767: NOT  

Do you honestly believe that the 350 won't do to the 777 what the 787 has to the 330? The 330 will sell as top ups and small sales (including stop gaps) until 787 slot availability eases up. Same with the 777 until the 350 availability becomes easy (i.e. short term). Barring a massive overhaul to the 777 that doesn't seem likely (which essentially would have to be a new plane), it's hard to imagine that the 777 will sell in large numbers once the 350 is available.

I think sometimes people get wrapped up in marketing talk (who's going to say "this feature of our plane is worse than the competitions). I also find it somewhat amusing that people complain that Airbus doesn't listen to the customer and then when they change things because the customers want it, they then say Airbus can't make up their minds. Sure they could have listened better (or more likely underestimated the 787). And obviously constraints dealing with a combination of not offering quite enough early on and the delay debacle to the 380 which obviously drained both engineering resources dealing with wiring, etc. and corporate resources with reorganizations, etc.

Quoting PM (Reply 163):
I know that was under consideration. But has it now been decided?

I kind of chalk the whole nose thing to be a little bit like the shark tail on the 787. It isn't exactly the same level as switching materials, fuselage sizes, etc.

cheers
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5240
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 164):
Do you honestly believe that the 350 won't do to the 777 what the 787 has to the 330?

What - stimulate sales?!  wideeyed   wink 
 
StressGuy
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:34 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:33 pm

Wowwwww!! I used to really wonder about Slz396 but now I don't. In matters concerning 787 structure specifically and airplane structure in general, he needs help (lots of it). After reading this forum for three years, it appears that Rheinbote and Pygmalion have a good idea of what they are talking about and I commend them.

Quite a few of the ideas espoused in this discussion are inaccurate. In general, since there are many frames in a fuselage they are referred to in the plural form "frames" unless one is referring to the airframe which consists of many different elements such as skins, stringers, frames, spars, ribs, etc. As pointed out by others, the majority of the 787 frames are composite.

On a different note, one huge advantage to fuselage barrel construction is the reduction in labor costs. I believe this has been debated on a.net before but it really does decrease the labor costs to fabricate a fuselage.

Anyway, thanks to all for the fun discussions.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:06 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 164):
Do you honestly believe that the 350 won't do to the 777 what the 787 has to the 330?

What, lead to record sales?  Wink

Quoting Dank (Reply 164):
Same with the 777 until the 350 availability becomes easy (i.e. short term)

I think you mean i.e. long term. 7 years is a long time away which is when the 350-1000 will be available.

Quoting Dank (Reply 164):
it's hard to imagine that the 777 will sell in large numbers once the 350 is available.

I definitely agree with you on this point. I also think its hard to imagine that Boeing will sit on their buts and not do something about this. I hope they learned the lesson of the 767-400.

iwok
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:28 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 144):
The computer isn't going to figure anything out on itself.

Please read up on genetic algorithms. Both Boeing and Airbus are starting to use them for aerodynamics development now.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 147):
All it means is that the same results can be achieved quicker. That's it. More or quicker computers do not mean new and better aerodynamics. Lately, in fact, the computer race has moved away from raw frequency as a benchmark to numbers of pcu cores.

All this does is mean you can have more computers, cheaper. Since I think Boeing and Airbus can afford all the computers they need to handle whatever the future will bring.



Quoting Moo (Reply 149):
It does actually - if you can complete a set number of design iterations in half the time, then you can do twice the number of iterations in the same time.

Thats where extra computer power comes into this - quite a large amount of airframe design is trial and error, improvements on other improvements on other improvements. If you can iterate that long enough, you come out with a better airframe than you otherwise would have.

The type of task at hand here is highly parallelisable - and in that case it doesn't really matter if you add more entire systems in a cluster or add more cores into each CPU, frequency is not the only consideration here as you can add more discrete systems to handle the calculations.

 checkmark 
Computing power increases about 10x over five years. Being able to try out 10x more possibilities certainly results in being able to select from better variants.

Quoting Columbia107 (Reply 150):
It is incredible that big men acting like little children are claiming that the A350 will leapfrog Boeing's 787 technology when not one single A350 has been built yet. ...

Do we all believe that Boeing will not respond to the A350. Of course it will; and it will be better!

You ridicule the idea that the A350 will best the 787 and then immediately claim the reverse.  boggled 

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 160):
I'm guessing however that many 767/A300 routes will be picked off by the largest of the 737RS given higher frequency with lower seat costs.

I also believe that more 767-200s will be replaced by Y1/NSR than by 787s.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 162):
don't expect a dramatic difference between the 787 & 350 wing efficiency.

I don't expect a "dramatic" difference between the 787 and A350 wing efficiency either. I do expect a material difference -- perhaps about 1%.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:46 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 159):
The number of frames doesn't change much because the primary function of the frame is to hold the fuselage shape and reduce the critical buckling length of the stringers. CFRP doesn't allow you much change in either of those parameters

Nicely put  thumbsup 

It may well be possible for the 787 barrels to be "self-supporting", but it sure as hell isn't the lightest solution.
Frames give you a far better section modulus across the skin sections for a given weight.

Regards
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:58 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 168):
Computing power increases about 10x over five years. Being able to try out 10x more possibilities certainly results in being able to select from better variants.

We don't know how much computing power Boeing or Airbus have at the moment, much less how much they'll need in the future so any assumptions based on that are blind, baseless guesses.

Who's to say that they need or want any more computing power? More cpu cycles is just one reason to upgrade. Other reasons include saving power, saving space and increasing storage.

Has anyone any information, at all, that either manufacturer is interested in upgrading or changing any aspect of their computer networks?

If mere computing power was capable of even a single percentage increase in efficiency, don't you think they'd be crowing about it from the highest mountain?

The whole "better computers will mean better efficiency" is a red herring the size of a blue whale. It starts from nothing, says nothing and is based on nothing.

The SR-71 was designed with slide rules. All the computing power available in the past 50 years hasn't helped anyone come up with a faster plane yet.
What the...?
 
columba
Posts: 5235
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:12 pm

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 126):
But they aren't killing their competition in any sense.

I don´t know I would say McDonnel Douglas would be still around if it were not for Airbus.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:23 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 98):
The barrel techniques doesn't reduce the number of frames at all, it reduces the number of joints.

The spacing between frames is greater on the 787 than on previous Boeing jetliners, so it does reduce the number of frames somewhat.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 108):
The hard reality is the 787 wing will have an entire aluminium structure under the skin, the A350 likely won't.

For a little hard reality, check out the Composites World article from July 2006, First 787 composite wing box complete and ready for structural testing, which has a picture of a 787 composite wing box in the test rig. The article says,
The upper and lower surface panels and the spars of the wing are made entirely of the same composite material being used on the fuselage. The wing ribs are monolithic aluminum structures, each machined from a single piece of aluminum plate.
Note that the ribs are not built up.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 161):
So, AA's order of about 100 SonicCruisers was an order for a concept not launched?

Where did you dream that up? Boeing's board never gave the sales force Authority To Offer the Sonic Cruiser for sale, and no orders were taken.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:36 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 163):
Quoting Iwok (Reply 162):
the original snout on the 350 Rev.7, which was changed into the awful 380 snout

I know that was under consideration. But has it now been decided?

When it comes to the A350, nothing is ever decided.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:29 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 170):
We don't know how much computing power Boeing or Airbus have at the moment, much less how much they'll need in the future so any assumptions based on that are blind, baseless guesses.

Who's to say that they need or want any more computing power? More cpu cycles is just one reason to upgrade. Other reasons include saving power, saving space and increasing storage.

Has anyone any information, at all, that either manufacturer is interested in upgrading or changing any aspect of their computer networks?

If mere computing power was capable of even a single percentage increase in efficiency, don't you think they'd be crowing about it from the highest mountain?

The whole "better computers will mean better efficiency" is a red herring the size of a blue whale. It starts from nothing, says nothing and is based on nothing.

From Nigel Barry, IT architect at Airbus Filton:

Quote:

“The cost associated with analysis is not in buying the hardware—it is in running the software,” explains Barry. “What HPTC means is that we can now run simulations faster. We could always run them, but we could not afford the time it would take to run the big simulations, because some of them would take many weeks to run. Now we can do 20 to 30 a night, and we can look for an optimum solution. We’ve probably got two or three orders of magnitude more computing power than we had 10 years ago.”

http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downlo...ds/Airbus_success_story_102203.pdf

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 170):

The SR-71 was designed with slide rules. All the computing power available in the past 50 years hasn't helped anyone come up with a faster plane yet.

Perhaps because no one has really needed such an aircraft?
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:15 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 136):


Quoting WAH64D (Reply 100):
Yet A330 is outselling B767 by a massive margin.

Again, 3:2 is not my idea of a "massive" margin. Now, you want to talk 773ER vs. A346... Wink

Well for once Stitch it would appear to be you who is peddling misinformation:

A330 sales year to date: 119
B767 sales year to date: 36

Thats 3 to 1, not 3 to 2. Yes, I would call that a massive margin.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 136):

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 116):
A320 outselling B737

Current year to date and total program sales favor the 737 at this time. Wink

I would hope total programme sales would be in favour of 737, it had a 20 year headstart. YTD figures are 448 for 737 and 415 for A320 so you have me on that one, I was using old data.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 162):
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 115):
A330 outselling B767

Don't forget that part of the 767 range competes the 300 and part of the 767 range competes with the 330 and part of the 330 range competes with the 777 and so on.

A330 has outsold B777 this year also. 119 vs 101.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:19 pm

More computing power helps most if you try to optimze ( for airliners this will be for efficiency ). And you can afford to compare and think about more variations - if we would open a thread on each these and discuss it, it would get to 20 to 30 stupid A vs B battles per day.

If Airbus aims for an EIS in 2013, this means a rollout of the first prototype in 2011, this means they will optimize details for the first prototype until 2010 and for the series until 2012, and hopefully not forget to order all parts in time.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:23 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 176):

If Airbus aims for an EIS in 2013, this means a rollout of the first prototype in 2011

Not necessarily - it depends on the test program Airbus would want. They could conceivably go down the short route Boeing did with the 787 and flight test 4 or 5 aircraft immediately for 8 or 9 months, in which case they could do first flight in early 2013 and deliver in late 2013.

However, its more likely that they extend the test program somewhat and go for first flight in 2012 and EIS in 2013.
 
PEET7G
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:00 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 136):
If you consider a 3:2 sales advantage a "killing", what do you consider the 3:1 sales advantage the 773ER has over the A346? A "massacre"? A "right ass-whooping?"



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 175):
Well for once Stitch it would appear to be you who is peddling misinformation:

A330 sales year to date: 119
B767 sales year to date: 36

Thats 3 to 1, not 3 to 2. Yes, I would call that a massive margin.

This is the most childish argument on A.net... comparing 2 planes that are not really playing in the same field, they just overlap at the top end 764 and 332 every other model is in a different category weather the hardcore "know it all" cheerleaders admit it or not... if you comair them in that 2 models, well it is inevitable that the A332 has a clear lead, and why not? It is a far superior plane... but if you boys are so reluctant on mapping up todays market, and involve all models why don't you put at least the 788 into the mix? After all at one point when A330s still are delivered the 788s will be available too... and how could you dance on low sales of the 767, when it's own manufacturer is marketing something far superior against it?

Grow up people... from day to day I get sick from stupid arguments like that here on A.net...

As for the topic... what next? Airbus shows Boeing how to build a composite frame? Airbus invented flying?  Yeah sure As much as I love Airbii planes their PR machine is ridiculous at some points.
Peet7G
 
worldrider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:26 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:50 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 32):
When the 787 was first up for sale, wasn't Airbus deriding the CFRP fuse because it's not as strong, more difficult to repair, harder to discover damage and generally more dangerous? I seem to recall statements to that effect...but I could be wrong.

wasn't it Boeing SHOUTING around the planet that the A380 would never fly..too big..beyond limits..787 we offer smaller but nicer..
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:12 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 177):
Not necessarily - it depends on the test program Airbus would want. They could conceivably go down the short route Boeing did with the 787 and flight test 4 or 5 aircraft immediately for 8 or 9 months, in which case they could do first flight in early 2013 and deliver in late 2013.

A very narrow test program, with no spare time, isn't the best idea, and up to now the 787 test program does not look to me as something to learn from. ( Nor that the A380 one did, but I would plan for 18 months on a new family and 12 months on a new subtype ).
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:20 pm

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 161):
So, AA's order of about 100 SonicCruisers was an order for a concept not launched?

For thousandth time: there was NO AA Sonic Cruiser order!!! AA was willing to buy it contingent on Boeing getting authority to offer. Boeing never got one, since they wanted interest from at least a handful of customers, not just one airline. They continued to tweak the design because the fuel consumption was too high for potential airlines to accept it and when they finally got it down to "okay, we'll take a serious look at it" level of interest from the airlines, 9/11 happened. The rest is history.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 162):
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
fishplane'

I assume you are referring to the shark tail. While that will be sorely missed, it won't be as sorely missed as the original snout on the 350 Rev.7, which was changed into the awful 380 snout

You are correct. The awful A380 snout, however, is not decided upon yet. For the aesthetical reasons I hope Airbus never goes for it. So for now, A350XWB will look as we know it. The snout is just a study.

Oh, and BTW: I HATED the fishplane.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 173):
When it comes to the A350, nothing is ever decided

Umm... pretty much 95% of the configuration is solid. The only thing that remains liquid is the choice of materials.

[Edited 2007-09-16 12:26:08]

[Edited 2007-09-16 12:28:15]

[Edited 2007-09-16 12:29:33]
The queen of the skies is dead.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:10 pm

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 178):
This is the most childish argument on A.net...

Yes, and compounded by comparing sales for less than twelve months which is an insignificantly small period to compare widebody sales. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 179):
wasn't it Boeing SHOUTING around the planet that the A380 would never fly..too big..beyond limits..

No, Boeing never said any such thing.  Yeah sure
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:24 pm

How difficult would it be to cut the frames into four pieces like the panels and then co-cure them to the panels ?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:30 pm

Quoting Wsp (Reply 183):
How difficult would it be to cut the frames into four pieces like the panels and then co-cure them to the panels ?

The panel seams would not be the best place to have joints in the frames.
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:46 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 184):
The panel seams would not be the best place to have joints in the frames.

Yes, it would require more reinforcements there. But on the other hand one wouldn't need all the fasteners that hold the frames to the panel.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:48 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 174):
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downlo...ds/Airbus_success_story_102203.pdf

Did you actually read that...? It's an ad for HPTC, as in Hewlitt Packard Technical Computing. What do you think they'd say in an ad? "Our stuff sucks and doesn't really improve anything but you should spend millions on an upgrade anyway...". Itanium has been out for a few years now and doesn't have the same level of support as Opteron, I reckon. Besides, the same technology is available to everyone.

I still haven't seen anything that proves that more computing power means better aerodynamics, as has been claimed here. It's impossible to predict the future. That nifty new futuristic stuff will result in an improvement on any level is no more probable than predicting that we'll all have flying cars, personal jet packs or condos on the moon in 10 years.

Could it happen...? I guess...sure...why not...? Will it happen...? Almost anything is possible. Will anyone guarantee it...? Nope.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:33 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 175):
Well for once Stitch it would appear to be you who is peddling misinformation:

A330 sales year to date: 119
B767 sales year to date: 36

Thats 3 to 1, not 3 to 2. Yes, I would call that a massive margin.

My numbers are program totals since A332 launch, not year to date. This is for both the A332 vs. 767 and 77W vs. A346. Usually when folks bring up the "A330 killed the 767" argument, they refer to sales since A330 program launch, and not for a specific year, so by default I respond with program totals.  Smile

However, you are correct the A330 has whooped the 767 this year.

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 178):
This is the most childish argument on A.net... comparing 2 planes that are not really playing in the same field, they just overlap at the top end 764 and 332 every other model is in a different category weather the hardcore "know it all" cheerleaders admit it or not...

Which is why I compare A332 sales to 763ER and 764ER sales when calculating my 3:2 sales advantage for the A330 vs. 767. The 762's real competitor was the A310 and the A333 competes with the 777-200. Yes, the A332 is larger then the 767-300ER, but in an RFP, those are the two models that most likely are submitted by each manufacturer.

And yes, it is clear the 787-8 will be a natural choice to replace 767-200ERs, 767-300ERs, 767-400ERs and A330-200s. The 767s future, much like the 747s, remains primarily as a freighter and military platform.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:16 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 186):
Did you actually read that...? It's an ad for HPTC, as in Hewlitt Packard Technical Computing. What do you think they'd say in an ad? "Our stuff sucks and doesn't really improve anything but you should spend millions on an upgrade anyway...".

So? Its a direct quote from an IT orientated person at Airbus that disputes your view of things, regardless of it being an 'ad' in your opinion.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 186):
Itanium has been out for a few years now and doesn't have the same level of support as Opteron, I reckon.

Then you reckon wrong - the two are totally different platforms, aimed at totally different markets.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 186):
I still haven't seen anything that proves that more computing power means better aerodynamics, as has been claimed here.

Then you have missed an entire discussion here. Do you know anything at all about the subject at hand?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 168):
I don't expect a "dramatic" difference between the 787 and A350 wing efficiency either. I do expect a material difference -- perhaps about 1%.

There might be a substantially greater difference (emphasise "might"..),

One can argue that greater computing power might provide an incremental difference in wing efficiency, but of far greater significance IMO is whether Airbus are able to incorporate variable camber technology which might well provide 4%-5% better aerodynamics overall (I believe).

Airbus have said they're configuring the control surfaces "to allow" variable camber, but it's difficult to say whether this means the control surface configuration is an "enabler" or the "deliverer"

Either way, success in this will far outweigh a change to composite frames in terms of impact on the package.

Regards
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:01 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 188):
Do you know anything at all about the subject at hand?

Itanium is over 5 years old. It's old tech. It's over 5 years old. It's an old ad. So much for your newer is better theory.

The IT guys at airbus has to tout what he's spent a ton of cash on so he doesn't look like an idiot. Airbus isn't exactly a model for computer planning efficiency, is it...? Aren't they just catching up from a 2 year oops in their programming?

HP sells both Itanium and Opteron servers. The markets are different, how exactly? Some people like ford...some like chevy...same market, though.

Anybody who says newer computers mean better aerodynamics is blindly guessing. That's it. End of story. If you can prove otherwise, (and prove doesn't mean guess, predict, surmise, project, assume, believe or hope. Prove means supply empirical evidence), then let me know.

Do you know anything at all about the subject of logic? Do you know what the word 'PROVE' means? Before you start tossing personal insults around, try thinking before you hit enter.
What the...?
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:10 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 189):
but of far greater significance IMO is whether Airbus are able to incorporate variable camber technology which might well provide 4%-5% better aerodynamics overall (I believe).

To us non-engeneering mortals - would you mind explain that?

Abba
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:23 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 190):
Itanium is over 5 years old. It's old tech. It's over 5 years old. It's an old ad. So much for your newer is better theory.

Sparc is a decade old, POWERPC is 5 years old, and yet they are still purchased by power house users in significant quantities.

My (and others in this thread) theory is not 'newer is better', its 'cheaper means more' - equivalent computing power today is cheaper than it was 5 years ago, so you can have more processing capability for the same money.

Do more tasks for the same money.

Do more tasks in less time.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 190):
HP sells both Itanium and Opteron servers. The markets are different, how exactly? Some people like ford...some like chevy...same market, though.

Opteron is placed for the x86 market, Itanium is placed for the scientific market (|tanium is not an x86 instruction set). They only cross in the upper end of the Enterprise Server market where applications need to do both.

The two processors do vastly different jobs and thus are optimised for vastly different jobs - Itaniums floating point speeds are far in excess of the Opterons and thus its better to choose the Itanium for that job, while the Opteron is better at integer operations and thus the Opteron gets chosen for that job.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 190):

Do you know anything at all about the subject of logic? Do you know what the word 'PROVE' means? Before you start tossing personal insults around, try thinking before you hit enter.

The point has been proven time and again in this thread, but you are not willing to listen.

Its pretty trivial to see the efforts around the world that have been spent applying computational models to aerodynamics, and the improvements they have had from it.

http://www.cse.scitech.ac.uk/ceg/papers/Emerson_et_al_AeroJ_2007.pdf

http://aerodyn.org/Rotors/models.html

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/annual_repo...ids.htm#ComputationalFluidDynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics

Computational Fluid Dynamics (the area aerodynamics falls into) is a massive scientific area.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:33 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 190):

Heres a few more links for you.

Computational Aerodynamics for Aircraft Design

Computational Aerodynamics and Design Group

http://www.utias.utoronto.ca/Page105.aspx

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/CAtxtTop.html

You are the only person that doesn't think computer power is useful in this application.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:48 pm

It's impossible to prove something that hasn't happened yet. That's my point. Until it flies, it's just a model. That's why they have flight tests. The flights PROVE that the modelling was accurate or not.

That's what I mean by proof. That's why Boeing and Airbus have to issue performance guarantees. That's why nobody pays in full until the planes performance has been tested. Customers need proof too. They don't get that proof until the aircraft flies. Until the 787 or 350 flies, we won't know how accurate the modelling is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics - "...Validation of such software is often performed using a wind tunnel."

Real world testing is how CFD data is acquired and proven. Nobody KNOWS how comparatively efficient the 350 will be in comparison to the 787 until they both fly.

Until it's flown, it's theory, it's not proof. There is a difference, you know. Look it up. None of your links refute that.
What the...?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:53 pm

I give up, you obviously don't know anything about what you are discussing and you keep changing your argument with each post in order to keep up.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:09 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 194):
Until it's flown, it's theory, it's not proof. There is a difference, you know. Look it up. None of your links refute that.

Any real scientist or engineer knows you can't prove a theory.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:24 am

I bow to your superior pomposity.
What the...?
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:42 am

Quoting Wsp (Reply 183):
How difficult would it be to cut the frames into four pieces like the panels and then co-cure them to the panels ?

Same could be said of window frames, door frames, other fuselage penetrations, etc. Most of the fasteners you see on the 787 could be eliminated this way (at the cost of the panel seams, of course)
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: WSJ: Airbus Switches To Composite Frames

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:45 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 181):
Umm... pretty much 95% of the configuration is solid.

Umm... they just announced a major design change (again).  Yeah sure

Quote:
"We thought the design we had was very good, but this one is even better," said John Leahy,.

Pathetic.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos