Airbus A350XWBC anouncement ?????

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 16 Nov 2006, 17:52

double post

achace · Post by **achace** » 17 Nov 2006, 01:06

To be fair to Leahy, I dont think he has done a 180 turn.

It will be interesting to see how composite panels instead of metal based panels stack up in the total weight equation.

Certainly will be easier to fix, than the barrel concept, although the barrel is a beautiful design there must be a damage limit beyond which repair may need the autoclave to effect the repair to the satisfaction of the certification authorities.

I am not sure, but I guess the 787 has horizontal stringers to give it the necessary longitudinal strength necessary, so maybe (just maybe) the composite panel on conventional framing option may have almost the same level of weight savings, and definitely it will be easier to repair.

Airbus still has to launch it of course, but that looks to be a done deal.

Cheers
Achace

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 17 Nov 2006, 01:51

If Airbus go with a CRFP fuselage made of individual panels rather than a woven structure, the A350XWB v6 may not be the last!

Ruscoe

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 17 Nov 2006, 04:33

achace wrote:I am not sure, but I guess the 787 has horizontal stringers to give it the necessary longitudinal strength necessary, so maybe (just maybe) the composite panel on conventional framing option may have almost the same level of weight savings, and definitely it will be easier to repair.

Filament wound barrel sections can be designed for longitudinal as well as hoop strength by angling the filaments. Old school aircraft designers like failsafe designs though, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are stringers.

CX · Post by CX » 17 Nov 2006, 12:22

how do you weld composites together anyway? or how do you join parts together??

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 17 Nov 2006, 14:53

With epoxy, or with fasteners for composite to metal. But you do use different design practices because the loading on the fasteners have to be different than metal to metal.

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 17 Nov 2006, 23:19

I think it is the airlines not Airbus who will determine this, and I think the airlines have shown a definite preference for higher tech. Composite panels are a generation behind.

Airbus will loose the main advantage of using a woven structure. Lower cost of production!

Airbus have historically used their more efficient production methods to be able to close deals which might otherwise have gone to Boeing. Now the shoe is on the other foot with the 787. The biggest breakthrough for the 787 is the means of production, not the material, but it is the material which allows the efficient production. Or at least that is the plan!

Ruscoe

CX · Post by CX » 18 Nov 2006, 14:10

Part of the problem with the 787 one piece fuselage is you have to build a special freighter to carry that whole fuselage, and in the case of France, they will need a bigger boat to carry it, and it complicates things.. if not much performance is sacrificed with panels, i think they must go with panels, more importantly because they cannot waste anymore time to find out how to carry a one piece fuselage across europe.

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 18 Nov 2006, 15:50

The biggest lead time is on developing the winding technology and capability. Sure, wound barrels have been around for a couple of decades, but not on the scale of a wide-body fuselage. It requires complex analysis to design them properly.

I previously worked on rocket engines where we were developing filament wound fuel tanks. As far as I know, there was only one company in the US that manufactured filament winding machines of that size. There may be more, but suffice it to say there are very few companies with that technology.

Then you would need gigantic autoclaves.

Wound barrels is definitely lighter than composite panels, but at this point using wound barrels would further delay the 350. And of course, there are other debatable issues such as ease of repair, etc.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 20 Nov 2006, 11:37

CX wrote:Part of the problem with the 787 one piece fuselage is you have to build a special freighter to carry that whole fuselage, and in the case of France, they will need a bigger boat to carry it, and it complicates things.. if not much performance is sacrificed with panels, i think they must go with panels, more importantly because they cannot waste anymore time to find out how to carry a one piece fuselage across europe.

Doesn't Airbus already fly whole fuselage sections of that size across Europe for the A330/A340? They have a fleet of specially modified cargo planes for that.

CX · Post by CX » 20 Nov 2006, 17:30

earthman wrote:
CX wrote:Part of the problem with the 787 one piece fuselage is you have to build a special freighter to carry that whole fuselage, and in the case of France, they will need a bigger boat to carry it, and it complicates things.. if not much performance is sacrificed with panels, i think they must go with panels, more importantly because they cannot waste anymore time to find out how to carry a one piece fuselage across europe.
Doesn't Airbus already fly whole fuselage sections of that size across Europe for the A330/A340? They have a fleet of specially modified cargo planes for that.

oh yeah that Beluga thing?? however you spell it..~

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 20 Nov 2006, 17:40

Yes, the fuselage sections for the A330/A340 are flown around by the A300-600ST Beluga, so the slightly larger whole barrel sections of the A350 should also fit in there. If Airbus is smart, anyway.

DC3 Fan · Post by **DC3 Fan** » 20 Nov 2006, 23:45

Before the Belugas Airbus used Super Guppies, which were based on the Boeing Stratocruiser, which in turn was based on the B-29. I believe the Belugas were inspired by the Guppies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Space ... uper_Guppy

Some of the Super Guppies were built here at KSBA (Santa Barbara, California). I took some Kodachrome slides of them in 1968.

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 21 Nov 2006, 01:08

Just read an article in the Wall Street Journal that Airbus is planning on increasing production of A320's from currently 30 per month to 36 per month by December 2008. The reason being that Airbus needs the increased cashflow to fund the A350.

Not that anyone doubted it, but this is an indication that Airbus will launch the A350 soon. It's an indication because production increases are not trivial matters. There is the potential that your supply chain cannot keep up. A few years ago, Boeing had to shut down their 737 line for a month because an ambitious increase in production got out of hand.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 21 Nov 2006, 01:23

A350 announcemnet from Airbus is expected on Friday it seems.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/artic ... 42,00.html

achace · Post by **achace** » 21 Nov 2006, 01:29

The A350XWB (Hope they drop the XWB soon) will fit into the Beluga.
XWB 5.64 metres wide v Beluga 7.1 metres wide & high.

I guess it would have been too much to swallow for Boeing to use Beluga for 787 transport. It sure would have lower opertaing costs than the 747.

Mind you they compete closely in the "Ugliest ever" contest.

Cheers
Achace

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 21 Nov 2006, 04:18

No, you have got to give this one to Boeing, their modified 747 is much uglier than the Beluga.

I don't think it would worry Boeing in the least to use the Beluga. I think the problem is that whilst the 787 sections may fit, the range would be inadequate to get across the Pacific.

Ruscoe

David747 · Post by **David747** » 21 Nov 2006, 06:13

Ruscoe wrote:No, you have got to give this one to Boeing, their modified 747 is much uglier than the Beluga.

What? The Beluga is not ugly, neither is the Boeing 747LCF. Those are the two most beautiful birds in the sky today!

I don't think it would worry Boeing in the least to use the Beluga. I think the problem is that whilst the 787 sections may fit, the range would be inadequate to get across the Pacific.

Any LCF leaving Japan for the US, will make a stop in Alaska for refueling.

Now, to change this topic a bit, A350 launch could come this week, and after doing some thinking about it, if Airbus comes out with the launch, a pre configured airframe, length, wings, cross-section etc, in other words if all configurations are near to what the final configuration of the A350 would be, I believe Airbus will have an advantage over Boeing in terms of potential orders. As of now, 787 production slots are sold out until 2013, and it is very unlikely that they will open a second production line to meet the demand. That means that airlines that did not ordered the 787, will have to consider the A350 in terms of price and availability. Lufthansa, British Airways, and other major airlines that have not ordered the A350, IMO should take a hard look at the A350 and the A380. These few months have been tough for Airbus, yet I do see them benefitting in the long run, especially if the A350XWB hits the right segment of the medium wide-body market.

achace · Post by **achace** » 21 Nov 2006, 09:36

Ah Mr.D747 a man after my own thinking, but you must be looking at Beluga and LCF through some pretty funny lens if you think they are beautiful.

Have you considered laser surgery ( my distorted sense of humour, no disrespect)

Cheers
Achace

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 21 Nov 2006, 16:21

I wouldn't say the 350 would have an advantage over the 787 in 2013. At best, it would be a competitive product. Sure, it's larger and therefore hits a slightly different market segment. But where they overlap, the 787 will be more fuel efficient because of its barrel composite design.

With about 300 deliveries by that point, the 787 will have reached it's breakeven point and can be more readily discounted to get the sale in really competitive situations.