It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A350XWB launched, workshare is undecided.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
EADS has given the go ahead for the A350. Five variants are planned and the first flight of the A350-900 is expected in 2012. The aircraft is expected to take on both the 787 and the 777.

Some changes from its inital incarnation:

There will be alot more composite material in the fuselage. Airbus has indicated the aircraft will be up to 14% lighter than the 787.
The breakdown for the aircraft is as follows:
Composites 52%
Aluminum/lithium 20%
Titanium 14%
Steel 7%

Only Rolls Royce has comitted to making an engine. GE previously indicated it was not interested in developing an all new engine type for the aircraft.

The aircraft will have a list price in the 215 million range or about 40 million more than the previously announced A350.

Taking a page from the Boeing book Airbus hopes to outsource 50% of the production of the aircraft.

Work will include all the main Airbus countries as well as Korea and China. The UK will most likely retain its wing production center, and Toulouse will be the final assembly point.

The company will still not rule out getting launch aid from involved countries.




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
A plane bigger than the 787 and 14% lighter? Wtf? Don't they mean lighter per seat?

Anyway, I doubt it will be that good. The order book speaks for itself



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
A month ago Airbus stated that they were 10 years behind Boeing technologically and now somehow out of nowhere they posses some radical technology...

Lets look at how Airbus is planning the Aircraft.
They will build a Lithium Aluminium structure and attach carbon fibre panels to it.
The 787 doesn't have a metallic structure, more weight Airbus
The 787 is a bleed-less Aircraft the A350 will not, more weight Airbus

Giving that Airbus press is famous for BS and lately Airbus has never kept up their promised specs how can anyone believe them...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   


A month ago Airbus stated that they were 10 years behind Boeing technologically and now somehow out of nowhere they posses some radical technology..


No they didn't Carch, lets get it right. They were speaking commercially, not technologically. The statement was that it would take 10-15 years for Airbus to reclaim the number one spot that they lost due to their well publicised fiasco.



They will build a Lithium Aluminium structure and attach carbon fibre panels to it.
The 787 doesn't have a metallic structure, more weight Airbus


You have both planes wrong here Carch, the A350 will use carbonfibre panels and stringers but aluminium frames, while the 787 does indeed have metallic structure as the Boeings frames are Titanium.

According to the piece I've read also Airbus is not making a blanket claim of '15% lighter', but rather '2% empty weight per seat'.

The -800 and -900 will be offered with a choice of Trent or GEnx power while the -1000 currently seems set to be Trent powered only due to GE's present reluctance to provide a bigger engine.

The wing of the A350 will be the biggest ever produced for a single deck widebody, the current biggest is the wing of the 777-200LR/300ER

The type will aso incorporate some advanced technology borrowed from the A380, such as the flight control architecture.

I don't how you get that 'Airbus press is famous for BS', like what?





[edit on 12-12-2006 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
The 787 is a bleed-less Aircraft the A350 will not, more weight Airbus


Why necessarily more weight?


As with all design choices, there are compromises involved - Boeing may get more from the bleedless design, Airbus may get more from the bled design.


You cannot just automatically say A means B without understanding the mechanics behind the choice.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Sorry guys, I misspoke. Airbus claims acording to AWST that there will be a 14% weight advantage per seat, not total weight



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
14% per seat Fred, are you sure? Thats a HUGE margin. As I said above, the claim I have seen is 2% empty weight per seat.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Just out of interest metallic components can be lighter than there equivalent composites. For example the X-33 was to have composite fuel tanks, however aluminium tanks of the same spec would have been lighter (the composite tanks couldn't cope with the temps of liquid hydrogen either but that is a different problem).



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The thing is that Airbus compares with the not equivalent version of the 787 but with the most convenient for them.

They compare the 270 seat A350-800 with the 240 seta 787-8 instead of the 87-9 which seats 280...



Here is a table with the respective sizes then look at Airbus comparisons and you will see how flawed their comparisons are. The name of the plane is a lie itself. XWB= extra wide body, the plane is only 5 inches wider than the 787 and a lot thinner than the 777, so what extra wide...



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Hello Carch, does being the Boeing PR man pay well, I imagine it does




The thing is that Airbus compares with the not equivalent version of the 787 but with the most convenient for them.


So rather than compare the A350 with a Boeing that seats a few less you would like to compare it with with one that seats a few more, isn't that the same thing? Except more convenient for Boeing perhaps?

How about the fact that the A350 and 787 are both offered in three distinct versions, just because Airbus appears to think that each level can accomodate more seats than Boeing is offering it does not mean they aren't direct rivalsf you want to compare the 787-9 with the A350-800 and then conclude the Boeing is best, maybe in part because it offers more seats, fine, go ahead, but that is exactly what you are accusing Airbus of doing.

If you are taking the baseline model of one aircraft to compare with the middle range model of the rival then that would be more akin to choosing the conveniant comparison I think.



he name of the plane is a lie itself. XWB= extra wide body, the plane is only 5 inches wider than the 787 and a lot thinner than the 777, so what extra wide...


No, it isn't a lie. Neither is it hard to work out. The original A350 used the same cross section as every other Airbus widebody ever built, the airlines preferrred the Boeing option of a wider fuselage (which you yourself, among others, made a big deal of in several posts) so Airbus has made it extra wide, which just happens to work out at 5in more the 787, therefore compared to the original offering the current one has an extra wide body, hence XWB, get it?


Incidentally, as reference before, every single previous Airbus widebody, even the 1972 A300, had a wider cabin than the 767, the A320 has a wider cabin than the 737, but when the 787 emerges with a wider cabin than the existing Airbus models you hail it as a stroke of genius.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
No Waynos they don't pay that well, 'though can't complain about the stock


To be fair all numbers are BS until the plane is flying...

The thing is that the A350 is a hybrid that tries to take on both the 787 and 777 but as the graph shows (it's Boeing but it shows data from both) the smaller 787-8 doesn't have a direct competition in terms of size from the A350...

In fact the smaller A350 is roughly the same size as the middle 787-9.
These are facts, and what i am saying is that Airbus is comparing smaller with smaller even though they are clearly different sizes. And of course if you compare your plane with a smaller one you will get a greater fuel advantage per seat...



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Boeings problem with the sizing is that the edges of the bottom end of the 777 market and the top end of the 787 are blurred and the 787-10 might harm sales of the 777, it may even cause some confusion in the market which Airbus could exploit as the A350-1000 offers a clearly defined alternative to both of them, Airbus' hopes.

The difference with seats is not such a big deal, as the demands of the airlines will be dictated by the traffic demands as airliners rarely fly completely full anyway so the economics of both types will be very carefully scrutinised to see what the break even load factor is on specific routes and which aircraft will most readily achieve it under a given set of conditions, the answer to this won't always come out the same due to many factors.

Airbus previous problem was that the 787 DID always come out on top in every comparison with the previous A350 model and these are the issues that Airbus has addressed with the new model. This is also the reason I disagreed with your view in earlier threads that Airbus might be better served by launching the original A350 after all, as the sales for it would just not have materialised and it would have been better just to give up completely than waste money launching that version.

I agree with your point though that the numbers mean nothing until planes are actually flying, because they are projections, not firm data. In response to all the constant 'I don't believe it' I don't trust Airbus claims' type responses there is only one answer for now;

Either they are right, in which case the A350 will sell and offer an alternative to the 787, or they are wrong/lying in which case the company will go down the toilet. None of our pontificating will make any difference to the outcome, but its fun to speculate



[edit on 13-12-2006 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
They compare the 270 seat A350-800 with the 240 seta 787-8 instead of the 87-9 which seats 280...


OK - why don't you compare the others then



Anyway, to compare overall weights.

Its claimed on here the A350-800 is 14% lighter per seat than the 787-8?

So if the 787-8 weights 100 units with 242 seats that gives a total of 24,200 units/seat.

The 350-800 weights 86 units with 270 seats gives a total of 23,220 units/seat.


So the A350-800 weighs 96% of the weight of the 787-8 (or 4% lighter, whatever way you want to look at it).


Therefore the A350-800 is gonna be lighter than a much smaller plane (The B787-8) according to the 14% per seat figure.


Anyone have weights for the 787 family? (MTOW is no use)



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I agree with your point though that the numbers mean nothing until planes are actually flying, because they are projections, not firm data. In response to all the constant 'I don't believe it' I don't trust Airbus claims' type responses there is only one answer for now;

Either they are right, in which case the A350 will sell and offer an alternative to the 787, or they are wrong/lying in which case the company will go down the toilet. None of our pontificating will make any difference to the outcome, but its fun to speculate


Can I just point out that the 787 ain't flying yet either - and Airbus may not be the only company making promises it cannot keep.


Yeah - definitely agreed with the last sentence - we can blather on until we are blue in the face, it isn't gonna change much



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Yeah kilc, I meant both planes, not sure that Carch did though



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Yes Waynos the 787-10 would kill the 777-200ER, no doubt about that. Although since that model hasn't recieved orders in quite a while, better to loose those few to your own plane rather than the competition.

Boeing is still working on the final weight for the 787, they said that they have met promises to Airlines but are still a few tons away from internal goals.

Here are the fact sheets from the three 787 versions announced.

787-3

Brief Description:
The Boeing 787-3 Dreamliner is a super-efficient airplane with new passenger-pleasing features. It features a wing and structure optimized for shorter-range flights. It will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplane of its size.
Seating:
290 to 330 passengers
Range:
3,000 to 3,500 nautical miles (5,550 to 6,500 km)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cross Section:
226 inches (574 centimeters)
Wing Span:
170 feet (52 meters)
Length:
186 feet (57 meters)
Height:
56 feet (17 meters)
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
360,000 lbs

787-8

Brief Description:
The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is a super-efficient airplane with new passenger-pleasing features. It will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplane of its size.
Seating:
210 to 250 passengers
Range:
8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,700 km)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cross Section:
226 inches (574 centimeters)
Wing Span:
197 feet (60 meters)
Length:
186 feet (57 meters)
Height:
56 feet (17 meters)
Flight deck size:
Similar to that of a 777
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Cargo Capacity After Passenger Bags:
5 pallets + 5 LD3s
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
476,000 lbs

787-9

Brief Description:
The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner is a slightly bigger version of the 787-8. Both are super-efficient airplanes with new passenger-pleasing features. It will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplane of its size.
Seating:
250 to 290 passengers
Range:
8,600 to 8,800 nautical miles (15,900 to 16,300 km)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cross Section:
226 inches (574 centimeters)
Wing Span:
197 feet (60 meters)
Length:
206 feet (63 meters)
Height:
56 feet (17 meters)
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
540,000 lbs (244,940 kg)

www.boeing.com...
www.boeing.com...
www.boeing.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
14% per seat Fred, are you sure? Thats a HUGE margin. As I said above, the claim I have seen is 2% empty weight per seat.


Thats what they said:

From the article:



The large composite panel pairs--measuring 13 meters (42.6 ft.), 18 meters (59 ft.) and 16 meters (52.5 ft.) in length, respectively--are the aircraft's central feature. The shell concept allows a higher optimization of the thickness and composite layup, Williams says. The weight of the structure is about the same as a single-barrel concept might be, he suggests, referring to the Boeing 787 approach. The lateral joints that hold the sections together are relatively lightly loaded, so they don't have to be large and heavy. Airbus believes it will be able to build an aircraft 14% lighter per seat than the 787 using this approach.
aviationnow.com.../aw121106p3.xml
Airbus



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Boeings problem with the sizing is that the edges of the bottom end of the 777 market and the top end of the 787 are blurred and the 787-10 might harm sales of the 777


The 787-10 is being launched strictly from pressure by airlines such as Emirates and is a threat to the 777. However, if the 350-1000 does really make it a 777 killer, Boeing has time (remeber that the A350-900 is the first to go) to tweak the 777 with say a big GenX engine or something to help.

One interesting tidbit I came across a while back was a quote from a GE engineer. He was skeptical about the A350 being able to go after both the 777 and the 787 with the same (albiet higher thrust engines) and maintain efficiency through all flight regimes. Engines optimized for ultra long hual will not do so well on medium routes and vice versa)

And as said above, its all propaganda till they take to the air.

Edit: BTW, Airbus is projecting the 1000 variant for service in mid 2015


[edit on 12/13/06 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
And 2015 is the rumoured launch date for Y3, the 777 and 747 replacement....
a lot of Airlines have purchased 777 in recent years some even bought A340's.

It is not wild to speculate that most of them will want to wait for Y3 before ordering A350-1000's, and not repeat the same error as when hey ordered A340's instead of T7's...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
May I add that weight aint everything. The MD-90 is lighter per seat than the 737-800, yet, at cruise, burns a 100ib's more fuel hourly than the 737-800.

On flights bellow 90 minutes the Md-90 will end up burning less fuel than the 737 because it can complete segments quicker than the 737.

I WISH Mcdonnell douglas chucked a new wing on the md-90 and made it more reliable (As reliable as the 717). Then I reckon MD would still be around competing with the '320 and the 737. That would be GREAT.

I love the dc9 family, they easily kill the 737 AND '320 in looks, sound, maintainence (Well, the 717 does), and passenger comfort.



So rather than compare the A350 with a Boeing that seats a few less you would like to compare it with with one that seats a few more, isn't that the same thing? Except more convenient for Boeing perhaps?

787-8=242 seats
A350-800=270seats

Diferance 28 seats

787-9=280seats
A350-800=270 seats

Diferance 10 seats

Wouldn't it be more fair to compare the 9 with the 800, 10 with the 900, 777 with the 1000?




[edit on 14-12-2006 by PisTonZOR]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join