Qantas wants bigger 787

[RC20]

Maybe my final post on this subject, but XWB has about 150 firm orders for XWB in about 9 months since launch compared with around 650 for 787 in about 5 years.

Not a bad result for such an "inferior" airplane?

Cheers
Achace

What are we using as Launch date? ANA launched the 787 program early in 2004. Official launch was early 2005. Airbus responded with the A350 Ver 1.0 in September of 2004.

Airbus has used double order entry bookkeeping on the airplane. They have listed the original A350 orders (Version 1.0 or 2.0 depending on how you want to count) as well as listing the confirmations for those as new order when they converted from v X.0 to 4.0). Most of those orders have been in the Q for 3 years now (more or less). And Boeing has 700 order in about 6 months longer than Airbus has.

And the same people who seemed to think a smaller A330 improved sized bird (787) would do fine, now think a bigger version will do fine. That makes me very skeptical as to them having made their mind up as to WHO they were buying from, no matter what they say.

What we don't really know is what the A350 is. Airbus has a recent history is to over promise and under delivering. With a 10+ billion investment, how many do they have to sell to break even? As they get maybe half the price of an A380, we can figure its 800-1,000.

And, in a stroke of a pen, it can be obsolete by Boeing doing a full composite 777. So, yes there are huge question about the A350.

[CX]

Maybe my final post on this subject, but XWB has about 150 firm orders for XWB in about 9 months since launch compared with around 650 for 787 in about 5 years.

Not a bad result for such an "inferior" airplane?

Cheers
Achace

What are we using as Launch date? ANA launched the 787 program early in 2004. Official launch was early 2005. Airbus responded with the A350 Ver 1.0 in September of 2004.

Airbus has used double order entry bookkeeping on the airplane. They have listed the original A350 orders (Version 1.0 or 2.0 depending on how you want to count) as well as listing the confirmations for those as new order when they converted from v X.0 to 4.0). Most of those orders have been in the Q for 3 years now (more or less). And Boeing has 700 order in about 6 months longer than Airbus has.

And the same people who seemed to think a smaller A330 improved sized bird (787) would do fine, now think a bigger version will do fine. That makes me very skeptical as to them having made their mind up as to WHO they were buying from, no matter what they say.

What we don't really know is what the A350 is. Airbus has a recent history is to over promise and under delivering. With a 10+ billion investment, how many do they have to sell to break even? As they get maybe half the price of an A380, we can figure its 800-1,000.

And, in a stroke of a pen, it can be obsolete by Boeing doing a full composite 777. So, yes there are huge question about the A350.

Nice, designing a plane is just a stroke of a pen... aircraft designs made easy!
If Boeing is that confident, they would've already say to the world they will strike their pen at the moment the A350 is introduced, and with that message, it would harm Airbus already.
I think Airbus can indeed put Boeing in a rather difficult situation, depends on how you look at it.

[RC20]

My hyperbole comes back to bite me.

Basically the pen stroke would be the CEO of Boeing giving them permission to sell a new aircraft.

There is no doubt that Boeing has a pretty well fleshed out design for the 777 replacement (that study had been going on for some time ).

Actually I suspect they have one very solid design with a conventional layout all composite 777 duplicate so to speak (i.e. 787 pattern with more electric or even all eclectic).

I also believe they have some well advanced blended wing design work done, and maybe as advanced as the direct 777 replacement.

Please note that Airbus is lauding the A350 as a far superior aircraft to the “obsolete” 787 because it was designed latter (conveniently ignoring its using interim fuselage design and not anywhere close to the mostly electric technology of the 787).

Boeing to their credit has said they feel the fuselage will be about as lite as the 787 structure, just that they feel its not the way to go about it.

Airbus even if they meet their schedule (and there are a lot of issues that could derail that), still will not have an A350-1000 flying before 2015, let alone deliveries.

If anyone think that Boeing will not have a competitive answer flying (pick you choices of course) before 2015, they are very much mistaken. Even if you accept a start date of 2004, Boeing has in 3 years gone from nothing to an extremely advanced aircraft ready to fly in 3 years. If you study some of the juggernauts of history, the successful ones had all the tools in place to repeat the process again.

The only caveat I will add, is that Boeing will fully compete in any segment they think is commercially viable (and the 777-300 class looks to be one of those).

I also think that Boeings fully capable of looking at a portion of a segment and letting it go if they have to as well. If there are only 100 aircraft in a 777-300 size aircraft that a few airlines want to fly 20,000 miles non stop, Boeing has to look at that and decide if the huge investment is worth it.

And again, Airbus has in recent year proven itself to be sales oriented. That means they will throw anything out, often far from the truth or reality, and then hope somehow the wizards in back can come up with a miracle to make it true.

Boeing approaches it differently now. They do a lot of research, customer input, with their engineers involved at all steps and levels, and then come out with proposals to see what will work.

The Sonic Cruiser was part of that. And no, it did not fly, but it was solidly engineered and would have worked as advertised if there had been enough appeal there. So, while I do not disagree that Boeing was truly excited about the Sonic Cruiser, they also had other well engineered offerings to it, and that is what actually worked. They also had listened well enough that it covered a major area of need, which is no small thing. Getting the size right is a huge issue.

What Airbus is doing is the best they can as they have gotten way behind on the technology curve. How viable a business strategy it is I think is proven to be questionable. Have they put themselves in a dead end product that is easily superseded? Not only do I think so, but its obvious that Boeing has the where-withal to do that.

While Airbus has some huge issues, they also have some very good people, and those people have to be asking the same questions. Is this the right move? Do we bite the bullet and delay this until we can match Boeing? Do we change it a bit more, larger and all composite structure even if we stay with the panel? Do we go spun sections?

[achace]

I enjoy the contributions of RC20, and most times he is very even handed in his comments, but really, I have to disagree with his latest utterance.

Why should Airbus hold back until they can match Boeing?

The XWB travels further, appears to be lighter, and has the same cruising speed as the 787 whilst carrying more passengers and more underfloor cargo.

Just because they are not going the way of Boeing with filament wound fuseage barrels does not condemn them to the third world.

The Boeing system is brilliant, BUT no one knows what will happen to these barrels after a few years at the tender mercies of airport handling and the great unknown of coping with mother nature.

There is still a lot to be said for being able to replace a damaged panel, even if some consider this low-tech.

Much cheaper than a new fuselage section?

Cheers
Achace.

[smokejumper]

I enjoy the contributions of RC20, and most times he is very even handed in his comments, but really, I have to disagree with his latest utterance.

Why should Airbus hold back until they can match Boeing?

The XWB travels further, appears to be lighter, and has the same cruising speed as the 787 whilst carrying more passengers and more underfloor cargo.

Just because they are not going the way of Boeing with filament wound fuseage barrels does not condemn them to the third world.

The Boeing system is brilliant, BUT no one knows what will happen to these barrels after a few years at the tender mercies of airport handling and the great unknown of coping with mother nature.

There is still a lot to be said for being able to replace a damaged panel, even if some consider this low-tech.

Much cheaper than a new fuselage section?

Cheers
Achace.

"The XWB travels further, appears to be lighter (huh? even Airbus says the A350 is heavier), and has the same cruising speed as the 787 whilst carrying more passengers and more underfloor cargo." We'll have to wait to see just what Airbus has in the final design, scheduled to be done in 2008 or is it 2009?)

As for the "tender mercies of airport handling", early on during the market development phase, Boeing sent some carbon fuselage sections to airlines with a sledgehammer and told them to try to damage the sections. According to several reports,the best they coud do was scratch the paint. Certainly the military experience with carbon fiber components has shown them to be durable.

[CX]

On paper the XWB is lighter per seat, and also burns less fuel per seat, but of course you can choose not to believe it.
You know according to some of you, the XWB is absolutely useless, and no airlines would ever order it because the 787 is there and also a better 777 is can be launched at disposal.. Qatar probably made the biggest mistake in aviation history by ordering 80 useless inferior aircrafts.
Anyway, i will try to stop posting anything like this in the near future, let's wait for the 787 first flight.

[smokejumper]

On paper the XWB is lighter per seat, and also burns less fuel per seat, but of course you can choose not to believe it.
You know according to some of you, the XWB is absolutely useless, and no airlines would ever order it because the 787 is there and also a better 777 is can be launched at disposal.. Qatar probably made the biggest mistake in aviation history by ordering 80 useless inferior aircrafts.
Anyway, i will try to stop posting anything like this in the near future, let's wait for the 787 first flight.

And ..... the A350XWB flight tests. We need to compare the 2 planes to judge just how good they actually are. Paper comparisions are just that - paper and promises.

The A350 XWB (especially the -1000) is poised to eat the B777's lunch unless Boeing does something, which I am sure they will do. Once the X350's design is finalized, Boeing can then address how much of a threat it is. They may be able to do something with the 777 to improve its performance (make it lighter, more efficient, more reliable, less required maintenance) to keep it competitive. Or, they may have to develop a new plane sooner than the timeframe they envisioned. If they take the latter route, you can bet that they will develop a real wiz-bang plane that will offer advantages over the A350 (simply because it will be later and incorporate advanced features). The A350 has this opportunity as well and the panel over a conventinal frame may be a sucessful approach, or it might be a way to make incremental advancements that match their capabilities - I don't know. I do beleive, however, that the use of monolithic (wound barrel) carbon-fiber barrel construction is the future of the aircraft industry.

I've never questioned Airbus technical ability - they're good. The A350 will offer all the latest systems that Boeing is incorporating into its ' latest offerings. The true advantages of using carbon panel-over-frame (vs. wound carbon barrels) and the use of conventinal engine-bleed-air for auxillary systems (vs. electic drive) are questions that can only be finally proved through airline revenue service.

This is the airframe game, a game of leap-frog, but it is fun and intellectually challenging for us in this forum.

[regi]

very strange to read day in day out how people really believe that the airline industry is something different than , let's say, the car industry.
If for exemple, the builders of the Ilyushin-96 could find enough credit to make a revamped version, and ensure a steady supply, there would be Il-96 be sold even in the USA.
Don't start bashing me about the example. Just look at Embraer 10 years ago, now and the near future.

Oh yes, Rover doesn't exist anymore, but Lada's are still build.

[achace]

Oh Smokejumper,
I have been around a while, but I still have to see a sledgehammer lying around on the tarmac.

There is some serious groundhandling equipment that can inflict far more damage than a sledgehammer.

Remember a 20 lb. sledge on a 3 ft. shaft produces 60lbs.ft. of torque,(or is it ft.lbs.?) hardly a serious ding is it?

A 1 ton truck would do a little more damage dont you think?

Cheers
Achace

[smokejumper]

Oh Smokejumper,
I have been around a while, but I still have to see a sledgehammer lying around on the tarmac.

There is some serious groundhandling equipment that can inflict far more damage than a sledgehammer.

Remember a 20 lb. sledge on a 3 ft. shaft produces 60lbs.ft. of torque,(or is it ft.lbs.?) hardly a serious ding is it?

A 1 ton truck would do a little more damage dont you think?

Cheers
Achace

If my fading memory serves me, a 20 pound sledge (9.07kg) can be swung at about 35mph (15.7ms) and the resulting kinetic energy would be about 1120 joules (826 foot pounds of kinetic energy). This energy would be concentrated into a very small area (the size of the sledge's impact area). Boeing’s demonstration showed that the 787's fuselage construction can withstand this impact with no damage.

True, heavy ground equipment could damage anything, assuming the speed is high enough (energy squares as speed doubles), but I assume that equipment near aircraft are driven at slow speeds. Also, the hard part of the equipment (bumper, engine block) are generally below the level of a plane sitting on its' landing gear, so the softer sheet metal would most likely strike the plane.

But then, just take the 20 pound (9.07kg) sledge and strike a conventional plane at the same sledge speed and damage will certainly result. We do not currently know enough about the A350 to estimate how it will perform under similar impacts. I suspect that it will fare better than an aluminum plane.

Boeing has also developed "on-the-spot" carbon repair kits for any damage that will inevitably occur (yep, some joker will drive a truck at higher speed into a plane). This repair will permit the plane to fly to a repair center for permanent repairs, just like a conventional plane.

[bits44]

This article in the FT may explain why Airbus did not go with a wound design!

It looks like supply of the required grade of material is extremely tight, and Boeing looks to have cornered the major supplier until 2020 at least, with a fixed price to boot

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7d840d5a-4438-1 ... fd2ac.html

[smokejumper]

I’m going to ramble here with some miscellaneous thoughts, so please bear with me.

Boeing has been coy regarding the introduction of the 787-10; they have said that there will be a -10, but no details are available. If the 787-10 (when introduced) overlaps the 777-200, it will obviously kill off the 777-200. Several airlines are calling for 350 seats and 8500 nm (13700km.) range.

Steven Udvar-Hazy has said that the 787 is optimized for the 787-8 and 787-9 designs and that the -10 variant would sacrifice some of these advantages. To develop the -10, Boeing will need to develop a new 6-wheel landing gear, internal strengthening and, add some wing, plus other modifications – this will be expensive.

In this forum, we’ve already noted that the A350 is apparently directed principally at the 777 and not the787. It is heavier than the 787, so perhaps it has extra capability built-in and will be easier to stretch to accommodate 350 passengers and 8000 nm (14800km) without a very high investment.

Boeing has repeatedly said that they have much time before they need to introduce an answer to the A350-1000 challenge since it will not be available until 2015 or later.

This said, suppose Boeing accepts that the B787-8 and -9 designs are optimized in their current configuration and stretching it too much will cost some of this optimization. Rather, they introduce a minimum modification 787-10 variant that seats (say) 300-320 passengers and travels 7500 miles (13000 km). This might cost them some orders (they certainly don’t expect to win every order), but save them development money that can be applied to new programs.

The B777 is one program that might benefit, extending its life for several more years (how many years has the 747 been in the development cycle?). Lighter weight structural members, more efficient engines, updated systems, etc. can be incorporated to maintain its’ competitiveness.

Suppose Boeing waits until the A350 (-800, -900, and -1000) designs are finalized and far enough along so that Airbus can not introduce changes (without jeopardizing delivery schedules) and then announces a new airplane. They will then have a real target to focus on and can then develop a “killer-application” replacement for the 777 before Airbus has reached the A350 break-even point.

Just some thoughts.

[CX]

So your only point is, Airbus will be gone by 2015?

- the orignal A350, it was wrong, and everyone thought it was good to have a full re-design
- redesigned, and now it's even worse, because they will get killed!

[achace]

Frankly, a 787 to match the XWB1000 is going to be virtually a brand new design.

As we speak, the 787-10 is a 7000 mile machine with around 300 passengers.

To increase range and passenger capability by 15% makes no sense whatsoever.

The only economic answer to the XWB1000 would need to be part of a new family of 777 replacements. Certainly the development of a 787 to match the XWB1000 would cost almost as much, and for a single model only.

The XWB1000 market is only going to be perhaps 15-20% of the family production, maybe say 300-400 airplanes over 15 years, so a heavy investment by Boeing would be much better directed at a new family rather than a single model of which they may at best get 60% of the market.

Cheers
Achace

[smokejumper]

So your only point is, Airbus will be gone by 2015?

- the orignal A350, it was wrong, and everyone thought it was good to have a full re-design
- redesigned, and now it's even worse, because they will get killed!

Airbus obviously has a future. My point was that Boeing has time to learn what Airbus is proposing in the A350 and build a sound competitor.

It may turn out that the A350-1000 is not much better than an improved B777-300, into which Boeing can incorporate incremental improvements and remain competitive. Or it may turn out that the A350-1000 is such an improvement over the B777-300 that only a completely new design will be competitive. Either way, I'm sure that Boeing will not be asleep.

Once Airbus firms up a design and locks into it (and changes become difficult, expensive and can jeopardize delivery dates), Boeing can decide how best to proceed. Currently, the A350 is a moving target and Boeing has the time to wait and see what Airbus develops. Meanwhile, they'll just keep selling B777-300's.

[boomer535]

The A350-1000 (in its current form) would be narrower then the 777-300. I would think it would be slightly more cramped for passengers then the 777-300. But operating costs will be the deciding factor for the Airlines

Boeing has a lot of time to decide what to do here. They could do the 787-10 or introduce Y3 just before the A350-1000 goes into service, or both. Right now Boeing has quite a lot on their plate. They have to flight test the 787, and finish work on the 777F and 747-8. They also have to worry about the 737 replacement.

This is actually going to be a good year for Airbus. The A320 and A330 continue to sell very well. The A330 Freighter is doing well too. The A380 should finally go into service this year and the A350 is starting to sell. I don't think Airbus is in danger right now at all.

The next 10 years will be an exciting time for both companies.

[Gliderpilot]

I think Boeing will launch the 787-10 next year at Farnborough, then the first 787 is in service so they can concentrate on further development of the 787, optimize the current design and develop the -10.

Actually Boeing can wait until 2010 to launch a -10, since first available slots for test-aircraft are only available in 2012-13 at the earliest (according to Boeing), so they should have 3 years to develop a derivative. I don't think airlines are willing to wait that long to order any, some of them are pushing Boeing already now.

If 777F, 747-8 (and 787-8/9) are finished, somewhere around 2010, lots of engineers 'll become available to develop Y1/737RS. So Boeing can launch that program with EIS 2015. After that boeing can do Y3 (747/773 replacement).

I think Y1 will be the first because the market is so much larger (and so is yield) than Y3. (see current market outlook, Boeing.com).
Also, if Airbus is going to launch a 32x-replacement, EIS 'll be 2-3 years later than Y1 (due to A350-program, so no money). Boeing will have a huge advantage here.

Opinions? I'd like to read them.

(Sorry if some sentences are not grammatically correct)

[boomer535]

How would Airbus do a A320 replacement? Will it be CFRP panel on frame ala A350 or wound barrel like the 787? I would think a 737 replacement made with two barrel sections would be cheaper to build then an A320 replacement with the panel on frame construction.

Will Boeing build a simple stretch version of the 787-10 first and trade range for payload, or will they design a new wing and landing gear and build the long range version? Maybe do both, first a 787-10 then a higher MTOW 787-ER later.

[RC20]

This is actually going to be a good year for Airbus. The A320 and A330 continue to sell very well. The A330 Freighter is doing well too. The A380 should finally go into service this year and the A350 is starting to sell. I don't think Airbus is in danger right now at all.

The next 10 years will be an exciting time for both companies.

Airbus will continue to sell aircraft for now, and as long as they are competitive.

However, keep in mind a lot of the A330 production is tied up in compensation aircraft for the A380 delays.

Also, while it may be a morale boost, the A380 flying may actually be a negative for Airbus, as they will not make money on it until (can we agree on 450?). Airbus would be better off canceling the A380, take the loss once and for all and get on with life.

A320 does continue to sell well and kudos to Airbus for that fine airplane (as is the A330)

I do fine it ironic that now they are into a 10 billion dollar program on the A350, the A330 improved would have sold far more by now.

As for the Airbus panels, its been amply stated that they do not have the technology (and access to materials to make it) to what’s needed for a spun fuselage, so they are "attempting" making the best they can of a bad deal. They have stated the A320 replacement will be spun.

Hazy thinks its viable, but only if they make the stingers composite as well (and others saying so behind the scenes according to him).

As for the panels themselves, lets be real. You aren’t going to dissemble 1/6th of your aircraft to fix a ding. The only time you would need to remove an entire panel, is if an Abrahams tank hit it. Then you would have to disassemble the whole airplane.

Boeing has replacement fuselage section planned, but I think its just a PR move to keep nervous buyers more content. If it gets dinged, they will field patch it, and then do a permanent repair latter (and maybe the field patch will be approved as permanent.).

Leahy is just throwing BS out about the panels, its called spin. If you can be right (equal or superior technically) try confuse the issue with bs.

And per achace comment about new systems. Airbus is only going slightly more electric than they are now (800-900-1000 are all bleed air).
So, they are not even matching Boeing there, let alone exceeding them.

Frankly, Airbus is working themselves into a technical box end that will have them out of the business in 15 years. And yes it can happen, names like Douglas/McDonald Douglas and Lockheed testify to that.

Airbus did a fantastic job of catching Boeing by surprise originally, it does not mean they will ever do it again, and once you fall off the technical pace, catching up is incredibly hard to do, and it could be impossible.

[achace]

RC20 Please give us your evidence that A330 sales are subsidizing the A380.

I have never heard such wild unsubstantiated bulls---t

Cheers
Achace