Airbus A350XWB Version 29

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 26 Jan 2007, 13:50

One day in the next Century they may finally get a firm design, but by then Hell will have frozen over!

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7727

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 26 Jan 2007, 14:27

How's the wireless IFE on the 787 going?

I am confident Boeing can once again beat its promisses and offer us even more exciting new wireless features than what they have already mentioned and I am really looking foreward to use it in 2008

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 26 Jan 2007, 14:55

There is certainly no secret about why they decided to scrap the idea!

The company recently decided to scrap the wireless system because of concerns over the new jet's weight and technology problems. Boeing will switch to a wired network on the 787, a move that will cut about 150 pounds. The change is not expected to cause a delay in the 787 program.

"We could have applied resources to overcome the weight issue," said Lori Gunter, a 787 program spokeswoman.

However, Boeing faced "insurmountable" obstacles in obtaining permission to use wireless frequencies in some countries. Without that frequency clearance, the in-flight system would have a tough time delivering certain entertainment options such as DVD-quality movies.

Workers at Boeing's Everett factory will absorb the wiring installation for the first few aircraft because the change happened so late in timeline for building the first 787, Gunter said. Eventually, that work will take place elsewhere, probably at a partner's site in South Carolina.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 26 Jan 2007, 15:15

Funny to read how Boeing pushes wireless technology which was aimed at cutting weight and complexity of the onboard entertainment systems, and then when they run into insurmountable problems and see no other way out but to axe it at a very late stage, the classic wired solution all of a sudden becomes an even better method, because believe it or not... it cuts wait and complexity....

Makes you wonder why they didn't think of it in the first place???

Seriously though, it just shows Boeing's comments on technical aspects of the 787 are drafted mainly from a commercial point of view, and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The bottom line is that whether it is wireless IFE or composite shells or barrel segments for the fuselage, as long as the plane does what it is supposed to do, has the features it should have, the economics it promissed and the EIS at the time it is set to first fly, I don't think anybody really cares about all these design details...

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 26 Jan 2007, 15:20

bits44 wrote:One day in the next Century they may finally get a firm design, but by then Hell will have frozen over!

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7727

Since they aren't even closte to design freeze, what would you expect?
The are exploring options and researching ideas, so things are bound to change in the next years up untill the design freeze...

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 26 Jan 2007, 15:45

exactly Buzz:

This is just a normal step in the process of design freezing an all new plane in my view. In fact I expect many (often smaller) features to still chance from what has been announced on the A350XWB launch briefing as work on this plane gets underway, just as is obviously still the case on the 787, despite that being design frozen for a long time already.

Calling this a redo simply because the production method of the composite fuselage may still chance, is about as daft a statement as one can make, as nothing chances to the plane really.

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 26 Jan 2007, 17:04

WOW!! I'm stunned that Airbus is thinking of changing to barrel sections.

This is not a small change. This is indeed a "re-do". You can't compare changes in entertainment systems to a major overhaul of primary structures. The scale of work is not the same and the impact to schedule is not the same (unless you really screw it up like the A380).

Barrel sections mean a total redesign of floor beams, bulkheads, doors, and load paths throughout the entire airplane. If your primary load paths are now composite, not metal, it requires a different approach to stress analysis. Has Airbus perfected these analysis methods? Up until the 787, no one has ever developed airworthy filament wound composites on the scale of a widebody fuselage. And the 350 has a wider cross-section! And I've mentioned before that there are very few manufacturers of composite winders on the scale of a widebody fuselage. Better order those winders really quick.

If Airbus goes with this change, first delivery will not be in 2014. More like 2016.

Here's what stuns me the most. When you start selling a new airplane and give details to your potential customers, it should be a design that you are confident in. Meaning, you've done exhaustive design studies and this is the best design you can come up with. Sure, there are details that need to be worked out. But the architecture of the design should be mature. Also, it makes your design studies easier if you've known for 3 years what your competitor's design looks like. That way, you can measure whether or not your design can beat theirs.

But after 3 years of messing around, Airbus is still not at a point where they can say they've done their homework and this is the best design they can come up with. And worst of all, Airbus is moving towards a design that they've been hinting is unsafe and difficult to repair is. Now, how can anyone believe them anymore?

Unbelievable!

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 26 Jan 2007, 17:30

You mean like the sonic cruiser, which was offered for sale by Boeing?

The fact nobody ordered it, doesn't make it a different situation from a manufactueres point of view....

CX · Post by CX » 26 Jan 2007, 17:33

Well it appears that it is the customers that are giving them the 'mixed feedbacks' which is what is pushing them for the change.

But this is a huge move, the structure is a big thing, but the method of production and all the equipment is also another major thing.. Is it that much better than the composite sections they were proposing?

And i'm starting to hate Emirates, what is he saying? "The 2014 timeline is a concern, but i don't want airbus to rush the design"... if you don't want airbus to rish the design, then 2014 timeline isn't a concern, if the timeline is a concern, then you would want airbus to hurry up and finish designing.. Also why won't they split the order? And also the 787-10 is supposed to be between 772 and 773 sized, while the A350-1000 is 773 sized, how can they consider these two in parallel?

The other topic regarding Cathay ordered 10xA346E, if the A346E exists it would fit into this, A346E is supposed to be on-par if not better than the existing 773ER.

I think Airbus must look whether there will be a lot of 772s, 773s and A330s A340s NEEDING to be replaced in the 2014 time frame, and whether another year delay will cause a huge impact.. If the EIS is for example pushed back to 2015, the -1000 comes 1 to 2 years later according to their original schedule, an A346E entering service in 2011 still has about 6 years of life before the -1000 kicks in, and it would also be very justified to "enhance" the A330 too.

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 26 Jan 2007, 18:08

Sure, the Sonic Cruiser was a mistake. Boeing had made the wrong decision and killed it before it endangered the company.

It's not about Airbus making the wrong decision. It's about Airbus having indecision. It's their indecision that is making me lose confidence they know what they are doing. Some customers I think will see it in the same way.

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 26 Jan 2007, 19:34

DFW wrote:Sure, the Sonic Cruiser was a mistake. Boeing had made the wrong decision and killed it before it endangered the company.

It's not about Airbus making the wrong decision. It's about Airbus having indecision. It's their indecision that is making me lose confidence they know what they are doing. Some customers I think will see it in the same way.

I agree. I have the feeling that Airbus has been going downhill the last year or 2. Not sales-wise, but design-wise.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 26 Jan 2007, 22:24

tolipanebas wrote:You mean like the sonic cruiser, which was offered for sale by Boeing?

The fact nobody ordered it, doesn't make it a different situation from a manufactueres point of view....

The Sonic Cruser was a technically viable product - it offered M.95 cruise at the same fuel efficiency as the 777. However, the customer airlines wanted even greater fuel efficiency. The design effort that went into the Sonic Cruiser did not go wasted; it just evolved into a slower (M 0.10), more fuel efficient, easier to maintain aircraft. AND, ... it has been selling quite well.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 26 Jan 2007, 22:30

Also, this new re-design of the A-350 is the 4th major change. First was a clean-up of the A-330, then it was new wings/engines, then it had wider fuselage with carbon panels over aluminum framing and now (4th version), a composite fuselage. Will there be a 5th redesign?

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 27 Jan 2007, 05:57

I see now that Airbus is also having second thoughts about wireless entertainment in the A350XWB:

Airbus A350 To Have Hybrid Wireless Entertainment System

Vendredi 26 janvier 2007 / 20h28

HAMBURG, Germany -(Dow Jones)- Airbus's planned wide-body jet, the A350 XWB, will have a hybrid wireless in-flight entertainment system, an Airbus official said Friday.
Rainer von Borstel, senior vice-president for cabin and cargo customization, told a press conference that while Airbus remains convinced that future aircraft will be fully wireless, there are a number of issues with regard to technology and extra weight so that it's not possible to move away completely from a wired system.
Although removing wires would offer some weight reduction, a fully wireless system would require transmitters and receivers, canceling out the advantage.
"We're looking at what makes sense," von Borstel said, although he noted that because the A350 program only got the green light from Airbus's board late last year, the company now has two years to work on developing technology before the infrastracture design of the long-range plane is set in stone.
-By David Pearson, Dow Jones Newswires; +331 4017 1740, david.pearson@dowjones.com

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 27 Jan 2007, 07:58

DFW wrote:Sure, the Sonic Cruiser was a mistake. Boeing had made the wrong decision and killed it before it endangered the company.
.

The Sonic Cruiser was not a mistake. The economics did not justify it (ala A380) and Boeing realized that. A mistake would have been to launch it

What the Sonic Cruiser did was take Boeing out of the “me slightly better” mode, and put them into a different league of thought. How far can we take this, what would we need to make it work (and the well thought out technologies to do so).

Other than the shape, literally all the features of the Sonic cruiser were incorporated into the 787. Frankly, for what it did to Boeing, it was a huge success. None of this just leaps out as one great thought and the perfect product. It’s a develop, offer, refine (redo) and repeat until it makes sense. There is no EUREKA to it. Sometimes you are so involved in it, you don’t even know you hit it right until someone slaps you and says so.

Who was it at Airbus that said it would be 15 years before they catch up with Boeing?

Leahy said he could sell the A330 improved (ie. A350 V1) and he did. Not great numbers, but 30% or the market roughly, maybe down to 25% even.
A whole lot better than the nothing they will have until (2016 now at best).

And note that the comments also are that the Airline executives are skeptical you can take on the 787 and the 777 with one aircraft. So, they are fighting multiple battles here. Back to the drawing board on size. That means you give up one market or the other, or risk them both. Phew, huge implications there.

At this point Boeing could have huge problems with the 787, and still have smooth sailing. Airbus has given Boeing the keys to Ft. Knox. I have been saying the same thing all along.

Well, they will probably finally get to the real "me too" stage, and Boeing will be refining their product, before Airbus gets going.

I believe with this kind of a window, Boeing moves with the 737 replacement first, removing Airbuses last cash source, (the delay means that they just keep extending the time they have to do anything with the 777). No rush development, one project after the next instead of stacked, vastly reduced expenses.

And a last note, I believe the launch of the A330F, means that UPS has decided to cancel the A380F. While that gives Airbus some latitude to do the A330F, it also means another huge hit to the business case for the A380. Assuming they can sell 160 pax versions every 7 years, that means in 21 years they will break even!

CX · Post by CX » 27 Jan 2007, 08:57

The Sonic cruiser nearly grounded Boeing, before the launch of the 787 Boeing was so bad that it was said they could be gone if the 787 doesn't work, and luckily, the 787 seems to be working and also to their luck, the 777 is competitive.

If you say that a lot of the sonic cruiser technologies has been implemented onto the 787, well, a lot of the Version 1 A350 technologies has been implemented onto Version2 and up until the version 3...

I do agree that Airbus might have been better off to offer the Version1 A350 (an quite majorly improved A330) and get it in service before the 787 (mid 2007 i suppose?) and at a much cheaper price, they would've won pretty good orders, but at the same time if they do that, the composite plane will not be launched until maybe 2008, in which case it surely won't enter service until later than the XWB 2014, so what's right and what's wrong?

As for the A320/737, I don't think Airbus will slip behind, they will get the new age engines before 737, and RC20, i'm sure you've read about that the A320 will need new wings to use those new engines, and Airbus may modify the whole thing and make a composite fuselage, all happening before the 737 replacement.. of course by the time the 737 replacement comes, it should be better than the A320 with new engines.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 27 Jan 2007, 17:30

CX wrote:The Sonic cruiser nearly grounded Boeing, before the launch of the 787 Boeing was so bad that it was said they could be gone if the 787 doesn't work, and luckily, the 787 seems to be working and also to their luck, the 777 is competitive.

If you say that a lot of the sonic cruiser technologies has been implemented onto the 787, well, a lot of the Version 1 A350 technologies has been implemented onto Version2 and up until the version 3...

I do agree that Airbus might have been better off to offer the Version1 A350 (an quite majorly improved A330) and get it in service before the 787 (mid 2007 i suppose?) and at a much cheaper price, they would've won pretty good orders, but at the same time if they do that, the composite plane will not be launched until maybe 2008, in which case it surely won't enter service until later than the XWB 2014, so what's right and what's wrong?

As for the A320/737, I don't think Airbus will slip behind, they will get the new age engines before 737, and RC20, i'm sure you've read about that the A320 will need new wings to use those new engines, and Airbus may modify the whole thing and make a composite fuselage, all happening before the 737 replacement.. of course by the time the 737 replacement comes, it should be better than the A320 with new engines.

In an era of rising costs, an airline will closely examine an aircraft's life-cycle costs. Fuel, maintenance, labor and depreciation costs are all included - over a 20+ year lifetime, small differences add up! I do not believe that an improved A330 would sell to first line airlines. Large discounts would be the only way to sell a much less efficient product and I don't think this would be a viable business strategy for Airbus. Clearly, a new product was needed. Airline opinion was certainly pushing a new design.

As for the 320/737 situation, any new engine technologies would be available to Boeing, but just adding more efficient engines may not do the trick. Engine/aircraft integration is much more complicated than just popping on some new engines, if you want to realize the maximum benefit. A lot of re-design would be required, possibly a new wing. As long as you're desinging and testing a new wing, we might want to consider improvements in the fuselage (oh heck, let's design a new fuselage). And suddenly, you've got a new airplane and big capital costs!

Airbus has talented engineers (better engineers than the previous manangement!) who can do whatever they are tasked. They just need the go-ahead, management committment, and the money.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 28 Jan 2007, 03:16

CX wrote:The Sonic cruiser nearly grounded Boeing, before the launch of the 787 Boeing was so bad that it was said they could be gone if the 787 doesn't work, and luckily, the 787 seems to be working and also to their luck, the 777 is competitive.

If you say that a lot of the sonic cruiser technologies has been implemented onto the 787, well, a lot of the Version 1 A350 technologies has been implemented onto Version2 and up until the version 3...

I do agree that Airbus might have been better off to offer the Version1 A350 (an quite majorly improved A330) and get it in service before the 787 (mid 2007 i suppose?) and at a much cheaper price, they would've won pretty good orders, but at the same time if they do that, the composite plane will not be launched until maybe 2008, in which case it surely won't enter service until later than the XWB 2014, so what's right and what's wrong?

As for the A320/737, I don't think Airbus will slip behind, they will get the new age engines before 737, and RC20, i'm sure you've read about that the A320 will need new wings to use those new engines, and Airbus may modify the whole thing and make a composite fuselage, all happening before the 737 replacement.. of course by the time the 737 replacement comes, it should be better than the A320 with new engines.

The difference between the Sonic Cruiser and the A350 trail of tears is that the Sonic Cruiser was based on a technological leaps. The A350 iterations are a trail of being out of touch, and they still have not made the leap they need (at least officially). Airbus is till out of touch, or they would have not tried to do the composite panels (and explains whey no orders for it). No one dragged Boeing into it, actually Boeing drug the airlines into it (the it ain’t’ going to fly Sonic Cruiser and then the more acceptable 787 conventional)

Agreed that the A330+ would have been a stop gap, but at least it would sell and keep cash flowing during the heart of early 787 production and when other badly need the deliveries (a good aircraft is better than none, and it would have been good, just not nearly as good as the 787 if you could get it).

As for the 737/A320. You have stated before Airbus gets the engines first? Based on what?

How can Airbus do an A320 replacement, when it can't do a composite A350? An enhance A320 is????? So far they have not been able to come up with improvements enough to even justify that. It tells you a lot about the design abilities between the two companies that Boeing could make a 1960s technology not only competitive, but slightly better than the A320.

Airbus could announce an A320 improved, or replacement, and Boeing would still beat them to the market by 2 years (replacement) if they announced the next day, and you can bet they are ready (though they may prefer to keep refining). They could wait a year and beat them. They are inside the Airbus decision and execution cycle both (read John Boyd and air combat maneuvering theory and practice) Boeing has an experienced composite design team just about done with the heavy work, and could swing into 737 replacement (NG is the last improvement) any time. Airbus does an improved A320, and Boeing can wait until they are about to go into production and announce a 737 replacement, and the A320 would fall like the A330 did vs the 787.

I know some consider it Airbus bashing, but its cold hard fact, Airbus is in trouble, and they continue to be arrogant in telling airlines what’s good for them, they obviously have not listened. (there is a huge difference between letting someone talk and actually listening).

My take on it, is that Airbus should have dropped all pretense, gone with a 787 like A320 replacement, got the experience, and picked which aircraft to target (787 or 777) and had the design team tackle that as soon as they were done with A320 duties.

As it stands, inside of 10 years, Airbus will be a 25% market player. Maybe less.

Zenfookpower · Post by **Zenfookpower** » 28 Jan 2007, 03:21

RC20.. Well stated.. Keep up the good work... :happy:

David747 · Post by **David747** » 28 Jan 2007, 04:11

RC20 wrote: The difference between the Sonic Cruiser and the A350 trail of tears is that the Sonic Cruiser was based on a technological leaps. The A350 iterations are a trail of being out of touch, and they still have not made the leap they need (at least officially). Airbus is till out of touch, or they would have not tried to do the composite panels (and explains whey no orders for it). No one dragged Boeing into it, actually Boeing drug the airlines into it (the it ain’t’ going to fly Sonic Cruiser and then the more acceptable 787 conventional)

Agreed that the A330+ would have been a stop gap, but at least it would sell and keep cash flowing during the heart of early 787 production and when other badly need the deliveries (a good aircraft is better than none, and it would have been good, just not nearly as good as the 787 if you could get it).

As for the 737/A320. You have stated before Airbus gets the engines first? Based on what?

How can Airbus do an A320 replacement, when it can't do a composite A350? An enhance A320 is????? So far they have not been able to come up with improvements enough to even justify that. It tells you a lot about the design abilities between the two companies that Boeing could make a 1960s technology not only competitive, but slightly better than the A320.

Airbus could announce an A320 improved, or replacement, and Boeing would still beat them to the market by 2 years (replacement) if they announced the next day, and you can bet they are ready (though they may prefer to keep refining). They could wait a year and beat them. They are inside the Airbus decision and execution cycle both (read John Boyd and air combat maneuvering theory and practice) Boeing has an experienced composite design team just about done with the heavy work, and could swing into 737 replacement (NG is the last improvement) any time. Airbus does an improved A320, and Boeing can wait until they are about to go into production and announce a 737 replacement, and the A320 would fall like the A330 did vs the 787.

I know some consider it Airbus bashing, but its cold hard fact, Airbus is in trouble, and they continue to be arrogant in telling airlines what’s good for them, they obviously have not listened. (there is a huge difference between letting someone talk and actually listening).

My take on it, is that Airbus should have dropped all pretense, gone with a 787 like A320 replacement, got the experience, and picked which aircraft to target (787 or 777) and had the design team tackle that as soon as they were done with A320 duties.

As it stands, inside of 10 years, Airbus will be a 25% market player. Maybe less.

This must be a first, but I agree with this entire post.

Aviation24.be

Airbus A350XWB Version 29

Airbus A350XWB Version 29

Re: Airbus A350XWB Version 29