Will A380 Experience Help Make A350 A Success?

mbj2000 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:24 pm

I think the general perception around here is that because of the delays, financially the A380 will never be a big success for Airbus, they will be more or less happy if it will breakeven.

Now my question is, if it won't pay out "moneywise", will the experience - Airbus has gained by building such a big bird - at least help considerably in the development of the A350?
Or are the technologies already "too old" or too different to be reused efficiently?

What's your opinion, what could be the key advanced features introduced to the A380 that were new to the A330/340 and could be used in the A350?

Cheers!

CXfirst · Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:39 pm

I think it will help. Especially now that SQ is very happy with the A380's performance. This might influence other airlines to buy the A380 as well as the A350, as there is a lot of A380 technology (that is still very advanced) in the A350. Also, the improvements that the A350 makes on A380 technology will only be for the better.

-CXfirst

TaromA380 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:00 pm

I think they learnt from the dumb A380 management experience, it's the best asset for building the A350XWB smoothly.

(in fact they can learn also from the actual B787 experience)

Stitch · Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:00 pm

I think it will help in that the various design teams will likely be more integrated due to the issues the French and German design teams had on the A380-800 program. As such, as issues crop up on the A350 the response should be better.

And while the materials and skinning process will be different on the A350, I am assuming that the A350 will be pre-built in multiple (five, in this case) sections and then those sections will be connected at TLS just as the A330/A340/A380 is, so the actual final assembly process should be little, if any, different from what Airbus is used to.

Alessandro · Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:52 pm

I would compare the A350 with the A320, more than the bigger ones A340/A380.

scouseflyer · Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:08 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And while the materials and skinning process will be different on the A350, I am assuming that the A350 will be pre-built in multiple (five, in this case) sections and then those sections will be connected at TLS just as the A330/A340/A380 is, so the actual final assembly process should be little, if any, different from what Airbus is used to.

Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?

EI321 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:24 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 5):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And while the materials and skinning process will be different on the A350, I am assuming that the A350 will be pre-built in multiple (five, in this case) sections and then those sections will be connected at TLS just as the A330/A340/A380 is, so the actual final assembly process should be little, if any, different from what Airbus is used to.

Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?

The Beluga is indeed wide enough but Im not sure if it will be used.

teme82 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:39 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):
The Beluga is indeed wide enough but Im not sure if it will be used

Sounds like An-225 is needed Wink

Anyway I'm happy that the A380 is performing well this just makes me hope that A350XWB will be success. I hope I can hear the RR Trent's soon in HEL Smile

kc135topboom · Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:44 pm

Quoting MBJ2000 (Thread starter):
Or are the technologies already "too old" or too different to be reused efficiently?

What's your opinion, what could be the key advanced features introduced to the A380 that were new to the A330/340 and could be used in the A350?

It is not the technologies are too old, on the A-380, it is more it is too different. To build a future composite version of the A-380, would be a major redesign, major enough to actually make it a different airplane (A-360/-370?). What Airbus really needs is a totally new technology to go beyond what the B-787 is today. The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 1):
Especially now that SQ is very happy with the A380's performance.

How can anyone even say that? SQ was the A-380 launch customer, and they have only ONE in service (and will only have 1, in service, until late Feb. 2008), so what else can they say publicly? SQ or Airbus will not say "our new airplane is a dog". I am not saying that, either, nor am I saying the 1 A-380 in service, flying short hops to SYD, (short in relation to it's real potential range) is reaching it's full potential. The airplane has not been given the chance yet to do that, in airline service.
ashamed

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 5):
Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?

Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):
The Beluga is indeed wide enough but Im not sure if it will be used.

Perhaps they can lease a Dreamliner carrying B-747 from Boeing?
Silly

teme82 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:50 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

EXAAUADL · Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:08 pm

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 1):
I think it will help. Especially now that SQ is very happy with the A380's performance. This might influence other airlines to buy the A380 a

No it wont....Airlines will buy the A380 if the economics make it work, not becasue performance is good. No airline is gonna say "The A380 really doesnt fit in the fleet, but the performance is so awesome, we'll buy it. Now if performance is bad, that would induce some cancellations

sh0rtybr0wn · Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:10 pm

You would think so. Certainly they will design the plane with 1 software , not two. But the A350 has new challenges, like the CFRP fuselage panels. I predict a delay of at least six months for the A350, but thats based on the increasing complexity of global supply chains and difficulties putting these planes together in a new manufacturing process other than AL skin.
Plus, Airbus might even decide to spin barrels, so that might necessitate another year of delays.

But the important thing to remember is that the A350 will get built and be a great plane a success. I'll bet it has 700+ orders by end of 2008.

Stitch · Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:05 pm

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

I honestly do not expect an airline to pull a complete 13m/16m/18m panel.

I expect that Boeing and Airbus will use similar - if not in some cases, identical - repair techniques for their respective planes.

moo · Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:13 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 5):

Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?

Airbus have already said that the A350XWB transportation will be done by a fleet of ships, and then trucked to the FAL by road - no 'super beluga' in the works.

osiris30 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:14 pm

Short answer: Moderately helpful.

Long answer:

Airbus learned a great many things by building the 380.. and unfortunately, they learned many of them the hard way. In terms of technical knowledge they gained that can be applied to the 350XWB, I would say very little new knowledge was gained.

Everyone here forgets that while the 380 is huge, it's not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination. Evolutionary sure, but not revolutionary. Multi-decked airliners have existed for nearly 40 years (regardless of full deck or otherwise). The engines are the same old high-bypass engines we've seen again for 40 years. The structure is made largely of AL which again has been done since the virtual dawn of time (at least as it relates to practical commercial aviation). So techincally the 380 probably taught Airbus a little but not all that much that would be useful for 350 design.

Having said that, the 380 did teach Airbus a lot about mutli-team engineering on large projects. It taught Airbus a lot about logistics (with the shipping constraints of those huge parts). Airbus likely learned a great deal about the need to limit customer options to something that is managable. The 380 also probably taught Airbus that they need to be a bit more careful with respect to forcasting exchange rates.

At the end of the day the 380 taught (I hope) Airbus some valuable lessons about what not to do. None of those lesson though are technical in nature. There has never been a *technical* issue with the 380. All of the issues were related to management, project planning, finance and politics. The engineers at Airbus did a wonderful job as they always have.. and the management cocked it up.. as they have pretty much done for the last little while consistently.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

Says Airbus. Incidentally in other news, I'm the best looking man in the entire world.

teme82 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
I expect that Boeing and Airbus will use similar - if not in some cases, identical - repair techniques for their respective planes.

That remains to been seen. But my theory is still valid Wink

MadameConcorde · Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:22 pm

There is no more Noel Forgeard Big grin

so I hope things will go more smoothly for the A350 than they did for the A380.

kc135topboom · Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:56 pm

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already? banghead

I suspect any repairs needed on both jets will be similar.

teme82 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:06 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?

Just take the damm panel out and put another in place.... in Dreamliner you might end up replacing th whole selection and it means cutting all wires etc... Wink

moo · Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:07 pm

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 18):
Just take the damm panel out and put another in place.... in Dreamliner you might end up replacing th whole selection and it means cutting all wires etc...

The A350 panel design does not allow for that action - the panels will be as irreplaceable as the barrels on the 787.

worldrider · Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:13 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?

more than 300 SALES within a year!!! not too bad for a plane that "does not exist" bigthumbsup

jacobin777 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:22 pm

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

......that is completely false....as mentioned above, the panels for the A350 won't be able to "be just taken off and replaced"....it will require extensive repairs and the plane will be out of service. For minour B787 repairs, there will be various "patch" kits which will allow the carrier to repair minor cracks and what not via "patch bonding"....for larger repairs, the same concept will hold and the CFRP will be just as strong as the original.

In either case, for a majour repair, both planes will be out of commission for a while...

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 20):
more than 300 SALES within a year!!! not too bad for a plane that "does not exist"

..while the A350XBW is a new plane, it had existing orders and there weren't too many carriers if any which actually canceled their previous orders and purchased the B787....so your statement is a bit misleading....

cygnuschicago · Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Source?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
How can anyone even say that? SQ was the A-380 launch customer, and they have only ONE in service (and will only have 1, in service, until late Feb. 2008), so what else can they say publicly?

That is pretty daft. If the A380 was underperforming, SQ would be howling and screaming to get compensation. Claiming now it is exceeding performance guarantees, and then later claiming otherwise, will negate any opportunity they have for compensation.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?
I suspect any repairs needed on both jets will be similar.

You hypothesize on repairs for two planes that are no where near complete, yet don't accept independent information from an A380 operator as fact? Yeah sure

CJAContinental · Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:06 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 19):
The A350 panel design does not allow for that action - the panels will be as irreplaceable as the barrels on the 787.

Can you elaborate please?

autothrust · Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:12 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
Everyone here forgets that while the 380 is huge, it's not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination. Evolutionary sure, but not revolutionary. Multi-decked airliners have existed for nearly 40 years (regardless of full deck or otherwise). The engines are the same old high-bypass engines we've seen again for 40 years. The structure is made largely of AL which again has been done since the virtual dawn of time

Don't agree with this, the A380 isn't just a improved doubledecker. While the engines are a derivate, numerous other technologies never were used before.
In my ignorant opinion the A380 is more then evolutionary.
Because:

first CFRP Wingbox on a commercial plane
first IMA architecture on a commercial plane
first variable requency electrical generators " "
first Power by Wire " "
first 3rd-Generation Fly by wire
first 5000psi hydraulics
first 2H/2E actuators
25 % of frame CFRP by weight about ~ 30t
some parts are monolithic CFRP
First brake to vacate
NSS (Network System Server)
GLARE
etc..
etc..
etc..

The A350 will sure use most of these, like enhanced brake to vacate, IMA, GLARE 2. And other technologies like the SILENT program.

But anyway let's hope it won't get the ugly A380 nose. indifferent

osiris30 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:27 pm

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 22):
Claiming now it is exceeding performance guarantees, and then later claiming otherwise, will negate any opportunity they have for compensation.

Not necessarily true... without trying to hijack the thread I would just caution that the 380 has only seen one of many mission profiles. It has flown ONE route in commercial operation. To call it a stunning success given a month dataset on one route is pushing it just a tad IMHO. Not unlike asking for a promotion because you showed up 20 minutes early your first day of work.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 24):
first CFRP Wingbox on a commercial plane
first IMA architecture on a commercial plane
first variable requency electrical generators " "
first Power by Wire " "
first 3rd-Generation Fly by wire
first 5000psi hydraulics
first 2H/2E actuators
25 % of frame CFRP by weight about ~ 30t
some parts are monolithic CFRP
First brake to vacate
NSS (Network System Server)
GLARE

I never said the 380 wasn't evolutionary.. just not the earth shattering engineering revolution some like to claim around these parts. Yes it has a fair amount of CFRP by weight, but it's not the first Airbus aircraft to use composites, so I hardly think it added *much* to their knowledge on the subject (although I'm sure it added some!). 3rd generation fly-by-wire is clearly just an evolution, as are the electrical generators. Brake to vacate is a nice feature and is 'new'. 5000psi hydraulics which perhaps new for airframes are nothing special.

Again my point wasn't that nothing was new on the 380, but for a project of it's financial scope, there is very little 'technical' knowledge that's directly transferrable to the 350, that wouldn't have likely been available otherwise. The 380 was an evolution, but not a revolution from a purely technical standpoint. Both the 787 and 350 are far more revolutionary than the 380 by a long shot.

kc135topboom · Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:28 pm

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 20):
more than 300 SALES within a year!!! not too bad for a plane that "does not exist"

The B-787 sold over 600 airplanes before the first one was built.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 22):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
How can anyone even say that? SQ was the A-380 launch customer, and they have only ONE in service (and will only have 1, in service, until late Feb. 2008), so what else can they say publicly?

That is pretty daft. If the A380 was underperforming,

Where did I say it was underperforming? We don't really know how a fleet of 1 airplane will perform, do we?

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 22):
You hypothesize on repairs for two planes that are no where near complete, yet don't accept independent information from an A380 operator as fact?

Where did SQ say anyhing about the A-380 performance?

osiris30 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:29 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
Where did SQ say anyhing about the A-380 performance?

Their CEO recently said they were getting about 20% better per seat fuel burn than their 744s.

PlaneInsomniac · Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:55 pm

Quoting MBJ2000 (Thread starter):
Airbus has gained by building such a big bird - at least help considerably in the development of the A350?

Well, they will certainly have learned the lesson that it makes sense if everyone in the project uses the same version of the CAD software. In particular if the different versions use entirely different design paradigms (enhanced 2D versus 3D). The irony of this situation only becomes clear when one knows that CATIA is produced and distributed by Dassault Systemes, a spin-off of Dassault Aviation, of which 46% are owned by EADS. Still, Airbus, which is part of EADS, did not manage to consistently use the latest CATIA version for their own project. (Unlike Boeing, who have long been a key partner in the development of CATIA.)

Well, it was an expensive lesson. I am sure that piece of advice would have been available for a little less than multiple billion dollars, had they asked the right people

That said, I have no doubt in my mind that the ongoing French-German power struggle within Airbus/EADS will remain one key damaging factor for Airbus, as it has been for such a long time.

[Edited 2007-12-14 11:19:01]

Stitch · Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:19 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 27):
Their CEO recently said they were getting about 20% better per seat fuel burn than their 744s.

Does the fact that their A388 has 20-23% more total seats then their 744s play into that calculation any?

PlaneInsomniac · Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:24 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
Does the fact that their A388 has 20-23% more total seats then their 744s play into that calculation any?

Yes, it does. That's why SQ's CEO referred to seat-mile costs. To put it in other words, the absolute trip costs for the A388 are only slightly higher than the absolute trip costs for the B744 operated by SQ - which has significantly fewer seats. (I believe somebody did the math and came up with about 0.5% higher absolute trip costs than the B744 according to SQ.)

cygnuschicago · Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:29 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
Does the fact that their A388 has 20-23% more total seats then their 744s play into that calculation any?

I'm sure it does Smile

So, basically the total fuel cost on the 744 for the same mission will be marginally lower than that of the A350, so, as long as they increase total revenue on the route, either by increasing volume at constant prices, or increasing prices at constant volume, the A380 is making them more money.

teme82 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:32 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 19):
The A350 panel design does not allow for that action

As said earlier: Can you elaborate please?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 21):
......that is completely false....as mentioned above, the panels for the A350 won't be able to "be just taken off and replaced"....it will require extensive repairs and the plane will be out of service.

Why since the plane is still in the freeze there is the possibility that they will make it so that the panel can be taken off for repair Wink

moo · Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:45 pm

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 32):
As said earlier: Can you elaborate please?

Although the A350 fuselage is made from four panels per section, those panels are attached to the frame at tens of thousands of points - to replace the entire panel, you would need to strip the aircraft down to get to those attachment points (since they are only accessible from the inside), disconnect each and every one of them, remove the panel while ensuring the fuselage does not deform through the loss of longitudinal strength, put the new panel on, reattach it to the frame via those tens of thousands of attachment points, and then reinstall the interior.

No airline is going to take an aircraft out of action for the week or so that would take, unless theres zero chance that the damage could be repaired by a patch.

Fuselage repairs on the A350 are not going to involve the wholesale replacement of a skin panel, its going to involve patching much the same as the 787.

Stitch · Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:53 pm

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 32):
Why since the plane is still in the freeze there is the possibility that they will make it so that the panel can be taken off for repair.

They could do so, but it would add weight and complexity and increase the number of maintenance checks, all of which airlines find more undesirable.

teme82 · Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:27 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):

They could do so, but it would add weight and complexity and increase the number of maintenance checks, all of which airlines find more undesirable.

Yes that is correct. But I don't think that it would increase the number of maintenance checks.

tdscanuck · Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:40 pm

Quoting MBJ2000 (Thread starter):
Now my question is, if it won't pay out "moneywise", will the experience - Airbus has gained by building such a big bird - at least help considerably in the development of the A350?
Or are the technologies already "too old" or too different to be reused efficiently?

It's far more common the program management, not technology, is what bites an airplane program in the rear. Airbus should be about to reuse almost all of their program management experience.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 22):

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Source?

It's widely known that the A350 will use composite panels while the 787 will use barrels. There is no known advantage (from the customer's point of view) to panels. There are big advantages to Airbus (easier to transport and manufacture) but it's physically impossible to make a panel-built fuselage as light as a barrel fuselage, given the same loads and materials.

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 23):
Quoting Moo (Reply 19):
The A350 panel design does not allow for that action - the panels will be as irreplaceable as the barrels on the 787.

Can you elaborate please?

Re-skinning an airplane is a massive job that is almost never done unless you have zero other option. The fact that the skin is composite doesn't make any difference to the amount of work required to replace the skin. For all practical purposes, the A350 and 787 are on even ground here since the key is patching, not replacement.

In strict technical terms, re skinning an A350 shouldn't be any worse than doing it on a current aircraft (which is to say, pretty bad). "Re-barreling" a 787 is probably economically impossible.

Tom.

WingedMigrator · Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:11 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
The B-787 sold over 600 airplanes before the first one was built.

The 787 has sold 762 airplanes before the first one was built. (and counting!!)

Scipio · Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:54 am

What about the other way around? What is the scope for incorporation of A350XWB technology into future variants of the A380?

Engines should be a possibility, as many have already suggested. But can we dream of a composite-panel A380? Would it be fair to say that composite panels can be more easily applied to an existing aircraft model than composite barrels?

Scipio.

flipdewaf · Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 37):
The 787 has sold 762 airplanes before the first one was built. (and counting!!)

Not wise to use that statement anymore, the delays help a bit.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 38):
Engines should be a possibility, as many have already suggested. But can we dream of a composite-panel A380? Would it be fair to say that composite panels can be more easily applied to an existing aircraft model than composite barrels?

There's a very good point, maybe boeing will use this to help save weight on the T7 for helping against the A350.

Fred

Stitch · Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:51 am

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 35):
Yes that is correct. But I don't think that it would increase the number of maintenance checks.

To allow the panel to be easily replaced would require Airbus to use a fastener that could be easily removed and replaced. So you'd look at something like rivets that would need to be run along the entire edge, which would run in the hundreds if not thousands. So those would need to be checked to ensure there were no issues just as you need to check Al rivets. And then you'd also need to check all the "rivet holes" in the spars and ribs that the panels attached to. And then you'd need to either use a material (like Ti) that doesn't react with CFRP or you'd need to increase checks to ensure nothing untoward was happening to either material.

Dougloid · Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:53 am

Quoting MBJ2000 (Thread starter):
I think the general perception around here is that because of the delays, financially the A380 will never be a big success for Airbus, they will be more or less happy if it will breakeven.

Now my question is, if it won't pay out "moneywise", will the experience - Airbus has gained by building such a big bird - at least help considerably in the development of the A350?
Or are the technologies already "too old" or too different to be reused efficiently?

What's your opinion, what could be the key advanced features introduced to the A380 that were new to the A330/340 and could be used in the A350?

That would be your classic Pyrrhic victory.

King Pyrrhus of Epirus is alleged to have said "Another victory like that and I am undone".

jacobin777 · Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:03 am

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 32):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 21):
......that is completely false....as mentioned above, the panels for the A350 won't be able to "be just taken off and replaced"....it will require extensive repairs and the plane will be out of service.

Why since the plane is still in the freeze there is the possibility that they will make it so that the panel can be taken off for repair

..nope, not possible...not to mention, for the most part, Airbus has most of the plans for the A350XWB completed with finalization of the details by next year.....what you think, though certainly possible, would probably delay the plane for another year.....Airbus has already stated they really aren't going to be changing the general plan for the A350...they might change the material of the frame however..........but not how the plane is going to be assembled for the most part...

Revelation · Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 24):
In my ignorant opinion the A380 is more then evolutionary.
Because:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 24):
first 3rd-Generation Fly by wire

3rd generation fly by wire is not evolutionary? confused

I do like your list of A380 enhancements. We've had the evolutionary vs revolutionary debate before so I won't restart it here, but I will say almost all those enhancements will probably carry on to A350, and thus A380 will help make A350 a success. Even if they don't carry on, the process of desiging and developing them will help the A350 become a success.

Of course, the A350 has a whole lot of challenges ahead of it, many of which will not directly benefit from A380's experiences.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
The B-787 sold over 600 airplanes before the first one was built.

IMHO the first one still hasn't been built...

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 28):
The irony of this situation only becomes clear when one knows that CATIA is produced and distributed by Dassault Systemes, a spin-off of Dassault Aviation, of which 46% are owned by EADS.

I think both parts of Airbus were using CATIA, but different versions.

PlaneInsomniac · Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:04 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
I think both parts of Airbus were using CATIA, but different versions.

You are right, they were (as I also said in my post).

Still, I find it ironic that EADS/Airbus with strong traditional ties to Dassault failed to implement the use of the latest CATIA version as a company policy, while Boeing as an external customer is known to be something like a key collaborator in the development of the software.

cygnuschicago · Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:06 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 36):
There is no known advantage (from the customer's point of view) to panels. There are big advantages to Airbus (easier to transport and manufacture) but it's physically impossible to make a panel-built fuselage as light as a barrel fuselage, given the same loads and materials.

Please substantiate with either a source or a basic principles derived calculation.

speedbird128 · Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:38 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?

If the A350 doesn't exist - you sure seem to know a lot about it... It seems whatever Airbus does will never be good enough for some armchair critics...

abba · Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Do you have any professional basis for that rather sweeping statement - or is that just your own private (and rather uninformed) view?

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 25):
never said the 380 wasn't evolutionary.. just not the earth shattering engineering revolution some like to claim around these parts.

I'd tend to agree - and the very same is true for the 787. That too is indeed "not the earth shattering engineering revolution some like to claim around these parts."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
Where did I say it was underperforming? We don't really know how a fleet of 1 airplane will perform, do we?

True. On longer rutes it will most likely do even better...

Stitch · Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:15 pm

All this "well if my plane isn't revolutionary then neither is yours" silliness can't obfuscate the fact that CFRP primary structures of the 787 and A350 are revolutionary and could very well be the biggest step since airplane construction went from wood and fabric to Al. That airlines have ordered over a 1000 of the pair before either has first flown, and will order many multiples more of that over the next 20 years, should be proof enough.

mbj2000 · Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:16 pm

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 24):
first CFRP Wingbox on a commercial plane
first IMA architecture on a commercial plane
first variable requency electrical generators " "
first Power by Wire " "
first 3rd-Generation Fly by wire
first 5000psi hydraulics
first 2H/2E actuators

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 36):
It's far more common the program management, not technology, is what bites an airplane program in the rear. Airbus should be about to reuse almost all of their program management experience.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 28):
Well, they will certainly have learned the lesson that it makes sense if everyone in the project uses the same version of the CAD software.

After reading this I think we can conclude the A380 exercise wasn't done for nothing, also in another thread somebody mentioned, by building the A380 Airbus de facto barbecued Boeing's fully amortised cash cow called 747, which may also be of help in the long turn.

Thanks everybody for the answers.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net