A350 design change

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:16

CX wrote:certainly good news, i guess they saved a bit of weight using composite frames thus allowing for the lower thrust?

Could also mean:
1. they have changed the wing characteristics to provide more lift ? what happens to drag
2. the mission of the aircraft may have changed,ie not a lot of customers want the extreme range
3. they have decided that higher gross weight versions of each type are not required
4. they want to get GE on board for the 10
5. sure there are lots more, we might even have an expert on here who knows the ins and outs of thrust requirements

Cheers Ruscoe

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 28 Sep 2007, 18:50

The A350 interior mock-up is ready:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... cabin.html

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 29 Sep 2007, 05:06

diameter cabine A350XWB vs 777/787

A350-900/1000XWB...5.97 ext.............5.61 Interior Cabin Width

777-200/300ER .........6.19...................5.86 "

A350-800XWB............5.97 ext..............5.61 "

787-8/9 .................... 5.74 ...............5.49 "

CX · Post by CX » 29 Sep 2007, 10:01

Really wonder whether they will increase the diameter a tad more to allow for 3-4-3.

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 01 Oct 2007, 00:05

CX wrote:Really wonder whether they will increase the diameter a tad more to allow for 3-4-3.

I think this is one of the problems Airbus have yet to address.
Even with the current changes I feel the 350 is not going to sell well until three things are addressed;

1. implied in the quote from CX is my contention that the extra width of the 350 over the 787 is not achieving a lot. It is extra wt & drag, for no increase in pax numbers. I'm not sure how much weight or drag is in .2m but I think it would be a significant amount
2. The price at which the 350 is being offerred is too high. Many reasons for this no doubt, but the Euro v Dollar cannot be helping, and Airbus cannot do much about this in the short term. I have been told they are hedged at about $1.35, and to make matters worse, the French & German Govt's are arguing about Power 8.
3. I think Airbus have to decide if this is going to be a 787 or 777 competitor, and optimise for that. IMO they should go for the 777 optimisation, with a 3-4-3 configuration, and see what they can pick up below that on grounds of commanality and the extreme range such a craft would have.

Cheers

Ruscoe

CX · Post by CX » 01 Oct 2007, 06:29

[quote="Ruscoe"][/quote]

Well you do get more width in seats going a 3-3-3 as opposed to a 3-3-3 in a 787, which i believe will be quite cramped.
But if some airlines can put 3-3-3 in A330s, A350 should be made wide enough to squeeze 3-4-3 in just for those dense short-medium haul routes.. for example i am not going into a 3-3-3 A340 for an 8 hour journey.

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 01 Oct 2007, 15:32

Vietnam Airlines Vietnam Airlines signs MOU ...10 A350 900XWB

http://www.hemscott.com/news/latest-new ... 2736742794

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 02 Oct 2007, 01:09

It seems the lower installed thrust requirements are due to better than expected low speed characteristics. Guess this means more lift at low speeds.
Cheers

Ruscoe

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 05 Oct 2007, 05:58

US Airways firms up order for 92 Airbus Aircraft order includes 22 A350 XWBs

http://www.eads.net/1024/en/pressdb/pre ... 50xwb.html

goods news ...wait ..Dubai Air Show 8) 8)

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 07 Oct 2007, 02:33

Something to consider on the whole design issue as well is, the lack of research that’s gone into it.

Boeing has spent a lot of years working with composites (they did a lot of the B2 Bomber work) as well as project that did not fly (F34) and ones that have ( the V22). They also had a lot of experience with the Sonic Cruiser work (including playing with hardware sections).

The underlying issue is that you have to come up with the concept, and then actually work with it to understand the issues in making it work (sometime the approach you think will work won't, but you don't know until you try).

So far its moved from an advance Aluminum airframe (it would have been the absolute evolution of that technology even beyond the A380). Its then gone to Aluminum frame and composite skin, then to composite stringers (though still aluminum cockpit section, which seems questionable as you are blending multiple entities in that).

They have not had a chance to focus on the details and work with them as they keep changing. You can't simply replace aluminum pieces with composite and rivet it together like you did an all aluminum. As there has been not priori work with all that, its an unknown for Airbus.

Open question is, can the really meet the in service date on this? I am skeptical. I would add 1 to 2 years more delay. Not because it can’t be done, but because there is no underling supporting research and experience like Boeing had with their choice of configuration.

Ramp up is going to be very slow as they will be working with an all knew configuration.