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.

 

A380 and 787 News

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Airbus apears to back on track (albiet delayed) with the A380 and the wiring issues. Emirates has indicated that that they may be in the market for 5-15 more fo the aircraft. Emirates also indicated that as part of a future fleet plan they will be getting rid of the classic 777-200/300 and the A340-300 and the A330-200. Future fleet needs will be met by the 787, 777, 747-8, A350 and the A380.

AIrbus also indicated that they are keeping the A340 line open and are willing to subsidize fuel burn differences with the 777

Changes for the A350: The cabin may grow another 5 inches wider by optimizing the fuesleage shape. This may allow for 10 abreast seating increasing the numbers of PAX each aircraft can carry. Other changes include crew rest location as well as aerodynamic changes as the model is further refined.

Virgin Atlantic's recent purchase of the 787-9 (15) with several options for more included an alliace with Boeing, GE and Virgin Fuels to develop a biofuel to power the aircraft.

This information comes from the April 30th Issue of AWST



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Well that A350 redesign looks like is getting more delayed. Airbus is telling a lot of things but that plane is a paper airplane, Airbus doesn't know what is it that they are going to build. This continuous changes in specs is rumoured to have made US Airways to flip sides and decided to buy Dreamliners instead (still a rumour).

The other thing is that the most popular 787 is the -8 which replaces the smaller Aircraft (767's and A330-200) and Airbus keeps making the A350 bigger and bigger, however with all those changes aimed to compete with the 777, by the time the plane is ready Y3 will be announced and ready to be sold...

Boeing on the other had is preparing to assembly of the first 787 which first flight is scheduled later this year...

www.boeing.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Airbus=worst airplane company ever.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Still grabbing the wrong end of the stick and beating yourself furiously with it I see Carch


All the A350 is going through is the final stages of design refinement. Here's some news for you, the 747-8 is going through exactly the same with the final design of the passenger model not yet finally frozen. This does not represent another redesign and further delay, its perfectly normal.

I don't see US Airways doing a flip really, seeing as Airbus loaned them money to stay in business. They may feel obliged to show a bit of loyalty on this occasion. Not that they should, business is business, only that they might.




Fred


AIrbus also indicated that they are keeping the A340 line open and are willing to subsidize fuel burn differences with the 777


As a way of buying time to get the -1000 model to the market (if that is what it is) this seems a bit extreme to me. It shows that Airbus are grasping just how big a hole they put themselves in, but I'm not sure there's much mileage in this idea.

Who'd a thunk it Fred, Airus PAYING subsidies!




[edit on 30-4-2007 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Airbus=worst airplane company ever.


Oh, I think Brewster have got that title pretty much sewn up actually.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Yeah I thought that pretty ironic


It is interesting to see the A350 grow in size. I wonder if a short version will be offered for shorter routes


I recall an AWST article where a GE engineer talked about the problem of having an engine that would be efficient in short/medium, and long hual without big changes.

It really looks like they are going after the 777 and not the 787. It certainly seems to have killed off the classic 777 and A340 families



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Intresting! Airbus as usual is going for an all new state of the art design while Boeing relies on it's time proven dirivative approach to designing. either way neither will be flying right away. Refining designs is completely normal. Here in the western world we call it Research and Development (R&D)

Tim



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Actually, Boeing and Airbus revered positions. When the 787 went into development it was very advanced and Airbus had to rething the A350 design and start over with it as the market said "no" to thier inital offering.

Historicaly Airbus has brough newer technology to the market first like fly by wire etc. but Boeing beat them to the punch with the composite 787.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Anyone seen the wry comments of Louis Gallois of Airbus on the issue of the A350?

He said " people say we redesigned the A350 six times before we got it right, I can tell you now that this is not true. It was only three times"



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Intresting! Airbus as usual is going for an all new state of the art design while Boeing relies on it's time proven dirivative approach to designing. either way neither will be flying right away. Refining designs is completely normal. Here in the western world we call it Research and Development (R&D)

Tim


What are you talking about Tim? what is derivative about the 787, its CFRP fuselage or the bleedless engines, or the new assembly process...

www.newairplane.com...



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   
You're right with this one Carch (just to show how fair minded I am)


Aibus were the first with much of current airliner technology, even being the first in the world with a widebody twin, which didn't appear to occur to anyone before the A300, but the 787 is completely revolutionary and new and Airbus, by their own admission, seriously underestimated at first.

Because of this Boeing are having to go to extra lengths to prove its safety, for example they are now being required to prove conclusively that the composite structure will be safe in a fuel fire and wont go up like an Airfix kit on a bonfire, but this will benefit everyone in the long run.

The move towards possibly upgrading the 777 though has thrown new doubt on the future of the 787-10 and Boeing admits it feels under pressure from the XWB to get this decision right. Until Boeing knows exactly what precise form the A350-1000XWB will take they don't know which way to jump. This issue is likely to force Boeing to delay their 737 replacement, because getting the 400 seat class sorted has grown in importance and urgency since the XWB was revealed, and Boeing wants a plug to bridge the gap between the 777-300 and 747-8 classes.

That well known stirrer Udvar Hazy however is appealing for less weight and more range from the 777 rather than another stretch. I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen just yet.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
What are you talking about Tim? what is derivative about the 787, its CFRP fuselage or the bleedless engines, or the new assembly process...

www.newairplane.com...



I didn't mean the 787! I meant in general there are a lot of design comonallities throughout the 7X7 series. The 787 isn't a dirivitive of an existing aircraft. In fact, it new in evey way. Perhaps my statment was poorly written as it failed to communicate my intended point.

Tim



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   


TextI recall an AWST article where a GE engineer talked about the problem of having an engine that would be efficient in short/medium, and long hual without big changes.


Yeah well that would be a geared Low Pressure fan, but the problem with that is to manufacture a gearbox strong and reliable enough.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I recall an AWST article where a GE engineer talked about the problem of having an engine that would be efficient in short/medium, and long hual without big changes.


Yeap - all to do with velocities ratios and propulsive efficiencies as well as bypass ratios.


But, there are ways around that, which would make engine/nacelle aerodynamics optimal for all flight conditions, and that would improve the flexibility from short to long hauls.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yeap - all to do with velocities ratios and propulsive efficiencies as well as bypass ratios.


But, there are ways around that, which would make engine/nacelle aerodynamics optimal for all flight conditions, and that would improve the flexibility from short to long hauls.


You know, NASA was working on a varible bypass turbofan design.

Tim



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
You know, NASA was working on a varible bypass turbofan design.

Tim


Yeap - as part of the UEET project. They haven't released as much info on it as I'd like though.



new topics




 
0

log in

join