Paris air show: Orders for Airbus

achace · Post by **achace** » 23 Jun 2007, 05:54

Living in Manila, am not sure of the currency of the Discovery Channel programme I watched last night.

The programme dealt with de-lamination issues with composites.

The A300 and A310 did not fare too well, although the events portrayed were on structures well over 10 years old, and hopefully technology continues to improve.

The most disquieting illustration was by a composites industry expert, who hit a small panel with a hammer.

It did not reveal any evident damage until it had what was in effect an ultrasound.

The scan showed two quite distinct holes in the surface, which would have over time propogated the de-lamination process.

If damage can only be detected by x-ray, Airbus and Boeing could have real integrity problems(well after warranty). Potentially, airworthiness issues could arise, as a thorough scan of a completeaircraft I dont believe is possible right now.

Would welcome any insights from forum members.

Cheers
Achace

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 23 Jun 2007, 06:30

Even though Boeing say's they have the first composite airliner, they were beat to the punch by a small manufacturer, although a slightly different methodology is used it is still a mandrel wound barrel. So the construction method has been around for some time and apparently successfully.

http://www.sae.org/aeromag/techinnovations/1298t08.htm

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/pro ... premier_1/

CX · Post by CX » 23 Jun 2007, 07:22

Some of us are prejudging that the XWB will not meet its specs, and what Airbus is selling to airlines are just numbers they WANT, with nothing to back it up that they can actually do it... some of us even prejudge that Airbus is wrong that maintenance cost will be lower (at least on a per seat basis).
LOI suddenly became just 'a request for catalogue' when it's signed with Airbus.
Yes, the 787 is no matter what 5 years ahead of A350, it hasn't yet to fly yet.
Come on, those airlines ordering XWBs are all idiots? There may be guarantees that Airbus made, but for example if the 787 has cracks everywhere after its first flight, i don't think those 600+ orders will ever be delivered too. If it was Boeing, you can say it's absolutely amazing how airlines trust the specs on their new plane, 6 years until service, that Boeing's credibility is just amazing.

AVION1 · Post by **AVION1** » 23 Jun 2007, 10:31

Budget airline easyJet is set to order about 35 Airbus A319 single-aisle aircraft in a deal worth $2.4 billion at list prices, the Reuters news agency reports, quoting industry sources.

The deal is expected to be announced towards the end of the Paris air show, the news agency reports. Airbus declined comment and easyJet did not answer their call either

teach · Post by **teach** » 23 Jun 2007, 13:01

Same thing with the A350 - it will be a new plane with advanced systems, but it will still be a conventinal, older technolgy sturcture whose characteristics are yet to be known (even to Airbus) since design is not complete.

I always find it funny when people call the A350XWB an 'older' technology' structure, and then make that out to be the reason for its failure, all because the fuselage is not made out of a composite barrel. Are we all conveniently forgetting that the A330 and A340, as far as composite use (the issue here) is concerned, is quite a bit more advanced than the 777, despite the latter arriving on scene a few years later? Never seemed to hurt it in achieving its success, did it?

David747 · Post by **David747** » 23 Jun 2007, 17:34

CX wrote:Some of us are prejudging that the XWB will not meet its specs, and what Airbus is selling to airlines are just numbers they WANT, with nothing to back it up that they can actually do it... some of us even prejudge that Airbus is wrong that maintenance cost will be lower (at least on a per seat basis).

The some that think the XWB will not meet its specs are those that view everything Airbus does in a negative light. I'm disappointed with the A350 at the moment, but I can't wait to see what Airbus finally sets down on the drawing board as the A350, and when it does, I bet that plane will be as good as the other planes Airbus has built. Maintenance cost numbers that Airbus is throwing out there is just that numbers, and they have no way of knowing how the A350 will perform better than the 787. And for that matter, we don't know how well the 787 will perform, until it enters service. After all, you remember the MD-11, it was supposed to be more efficient, and unfortunately fell short.

LOI suddenly became just 'a request for catalogue' when it's signed with Airbus.
Yes, the 787 is no matter what 5 years ahead of A350, it hasn't yet to fly yet.

An LOI is definitely a request for a catalogue by an Airline that wants to buy from either manufacturer. I don't think this just goes for Airbus.

Come on, those airlines ordering XWBs are all idiots? There may be guarantees that Airbus made, but for example if the 787 has cracks everywhere after its first flight, i don't think those 600+ orders will ever be delivered too. If it was Boeing, you can say it's absolutely amazing how airlines trust the specs on their new plane, 6 years until service, that Boeing's credibility is just amazing.

XWB maybe fits the needs of those airlines that order it. As far as the 787 testing goes, I agree, I'm excited about the 787, but it has to be tested first.

carlcat · Post by **carlcat** » 23 Jun 2007, 17:45

I have to laugh with old -new technology of fuselage . Whats in a name The only advanced fuselage is the one of the DC8 : permanent ( as we see somtimes onto the DHL in BRU . This is the only technology .

Nuages · Post by **Nuages** » 23 Jun 2007, 23:27

The dispute about which of the B or the A plane has "the most advanced technology" is quite irrelevant. Of course, the marketing guys will keep on explaining that composites will be the miracle feature you have to buy if you want to show off. But let's face it: composites, barrels or pannels, do only represent 3 % of the expected weight and fuel economy. Composites costs are growing far more than Ai. And the production process switch is a sound investment, certainly for the huge autoclaves needed for barrels. The only rational figure would be the bottom line: how much do you spare ? How much did you spend ? It is not only a matter of how much "technology" is present in the manufactured product. It is all about how much technology allows you to improve the production & industrialization process, making it cheaper, faster, and versatile. I have no doubt about the fact that both Boeing and Airbus do have excellent engineers and that so will be their respective products. But I have to conclude that Boeing have far better marketeers, which were able to convince so many people with the unverified selling proposition that the only valid and advanced method to build a plane would be the one they choosed.

carlcat wrote:I have to laugh with old -new technology of fuselage . Whats in a name The only advanced fuselage is the one of the DC8 : permanent

:thumbsup2:

Gliderpilot · Post by **Gliderpilot** » 23 Jun 2007, 23:42

The huge advantage of the composite fuselage is not the weight, but the maintenance. eg: better fatigue resistance (so less inspections), no corrosion,... That's why Boeing can have the 20% humidity in the cabin, and that's really an advantage in comfort. I don't think thats possible with Al-stringers and stiffeners. (Just to give an example, there will probably be more disadvantages)

But I'm shure they know what they're doing at Airbus, they've a lot of engineers to make it happen.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 24 Jun 2007, 01:47

I do not think any of us know what the A350 specifications will be (Airbus does not either, since the design will not be frozen for some time to come), so we can not say they will not meet specifications. I am not privy to their contract guarantees either, so I can not comment on whether they will meet them, or what the penalties will be.

Maintenance is one major advantage the wound-composite body has over panels covering an aluminum frame. Corrosion can not occur with a composite body but can with an aluminum structure. Theerefore the aluminum structure plane must be withdrawn form service and torn apart periodically so it can be inspected.

Also, the composite-wound body is a monolithic structure and can hold pressure better, thus the cabin pressurization will be 6,000 feet rather than the 8000 feet of older technology planes. The A350 will need to maintain a cabin pressure of 8000 feet.

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 24 Jun 2007, 11:08

smokejumper wrote:No, we are not bashing Airbus. Due to the A380 fisaco and gross mismanagement of the company, the excellent engineering staff was prevented from developing a contemporary airplane. The carbon panel over conventional structure will be heavier and more expensive. This is fact, not bashing.

So you are better informed than Airbus itself, who garanties that the A350XWB will outpreform the 787?

I don't know if it's true or not, but I know a billion dollar company is usually better informed than me...

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 24 Jun 2007, 15:09

Buzz wrote:
smokejumper wrote:No, we are not bashing Airbus. Due to the A380 fisaco and gross mismanagement of the company, the excellent engineering staff was prevented from developing a contemporary airplane. The carbon panel over conventional structure will be heavier and more expensive. This is fact, not bashing.
So you are better informed than Airbus itself, who garanties that the A350XWB will outpreform the 787?

I don't know if it's true or not, but I know a billion dollar company is usually better informed than me...

As I said, none of us know what the A350s final performance and configuration will be. Even Airbus has stated that the design will not be frozen for some time. Airbus has a preliminary design, and from that are able to make performance projections. This is what they are guaranteeing. Once the final design is complete and all drawings are done, the final weight can only then be computed and performance estimated with some finality.

All manufacturers have to base performance guarantees on conservative projections so they can be sure of meeting them.

Desert Rat · Post by **Desert Rat** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:29

it's not over...

EASYJET BUYS A FURTHER 35 AIRBUS A319s

teach · Post by **teach** » 25 Jun 2007, 13:18

EASYJET BUYS A FURTHER 35 AIRBUS A319s

Is this official? Any source?

Post by **sn26567** » 25 Jun 2007, 13:23

Great show for Airbus. Altogether they got 425 firm order from 19 airlines and a further 303 commitments.

https://www.aviation24.be/article14451.html

A380
13 additional orders (Qatar: 3, Emirates: 8, Air France 2)

A350 XWB
141 firm orders from 5 customers (Qatar, Aeroflot, Singapore Airlines and lessors Alafco and CIT). 52 commitments for 52 from 4 additional customers (US Airways, Kingfisher, Libyan Airlines and Afriqiyah). This brings the total orders and commitments for the A350 XWB to 232 aircraft (154 firm orders and 78 commitments).

A330/A340
83 firm orders and 49 commitments (including 46 firm orders from five different customers for the A330-200 Freighter)

A320 family
198 firm orders and 192 commitments

Desert Rat · Post by **Desert Rat** » 25 Jun 2007, 14:05

teach wrote:
EASYJET BUYS A FURTHER 35 AIRBUS A319s
Is this official? Any source?

...

...

European low-cost carrier easyJet has signed a contract for 35 additional Airbus A319 aircraft taking their total order for the aircraft to 227.

The aircraft will be powered by CFM-56 engines from CFM-International.

Marking easyJet’s rapid Airbus fleet expansion since their first Airbus aircraft was delivered in September 2003, the company took delivery of their 100th Airbus A319 in April 2007. Today, easyJet operates the world’s largest fleet of A319s, one of the world’s youngest aircraft fleets, benefiting from the latest technologies for lower fuel burn for an environmentally friendlier aircraft.

“We continue to expand and we’re doing it in the most environmentally-responsible way. Our fleet is made up of the cleanest and quietest aircraft available and with average age of 2.2 years which, combined with our high load factors and high seat densities, means we emit 27 per cent less CO2 per passenger kilometre than a traditional airline. easyJet passenger’s environmental footprint is less than that of the Toyota Prius”, said Andrew Harrison, easyJet Chief Executive.

“Our partnership with easyJet is strong and we’re proud of it. We’re very proud our aircraft continue to be recognised as offering the best environmental and operational performance in their class. With the widest fuselage in the single aisle market, allowing quicker turnaround times, the A320 Family realy does help increase productivity,” said John Leahy, Airbus Chief Operating Officer - Customers.

The A320 is recognised as the benchmark single-aisle aircraft family, which also includes the A318, the A319, and A321. Each aircraft feature fly by wire controls and unique operational commonality across the range.

With proven reliability and extended servicing periods, the A320 family have the lowest operating costs of any single aisle aircraft in the same category. The latest models feature additional advanced aerodynamics helping reduce fuel burn even further. In addition, the latest cabin design saves on weight and offers the passenger a quieter and roomier experience as well as significantly larger overhead stowage lockers.

Close to 5,100 Airbus A320 Family aircraft have been sold and over 3,000 delivered to more than 180 customers and operators worldwide, making it the worlds best selling commercial jetliner ever.

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 25 Jun 2007, 16:24

Desert Rat wrote:.....making it the worlds best selling commercial jetliner ever.

Must be a Airbus press release as that statement is an outright lie.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 25 Jun 2007, 19:42

Hasn't Boeing sold over 7,000 737's? This represents 1,900 more than Airbus's 320 series.

teach · Post by **teach** » 25 Jun 2007, 20:00

Must be a Airbus press release as that statement is an outright lie.

Depends on how you see it. Airbus counts the three 'generations' of 737s separately. And, quite honestly, who can blame them? The only thing the original 737-1/200 and the 737NG have in common are the name and the general shape of the nose and fuselage.

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 26 Jun 2007, 03:13

teach wrote:
Must be a Airbus press release as that statement is an outright lie.
Depends on how you see it. Airbus counts the three 'generations' of 737s separately. And, quite honestly, who can blame them? The only thing the original 737-1/200 and the 737NG have in common are the name and the general shape of the nose and fuselage.

In their statement Airbus spoke of the 320 "family." Doesn't that include the 318, 319, 320, 321, and all variations thereof?
Airbus and their advocates will claim the 737 is an old outdated aircraft that can't compete with the A320. Of course, "quite honestly," Boeing says the exact opposite.
What you are saying is it has been updated, at least twice. So what is it? Airbus can't have it both ways.