A350 is now launched

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 06 Oct 2005, 20:55

Airbus will hold press conference on October 7th at 09h00 am GMT concerning the A350 launch.

Concerning the engine choice, remember Airbus first asked Rolls-Royce for a Trent 700 derivative. RR argued that a modified Trent 1000 could do the job easily, for a cheap re-engineered cost. Finally, it seems RR will go with a reported Trent 1700!!! Any info on this engine? Or is it just a journalist BS?

Any info greatly appreciated.

Regards

Seb.

C_J · Post by **C_J** » 06 Oct 2005, 21:17

Great news!

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 06 Oct 2005, 22:32

The Trent 1700 will exist for real!

Rolls-Royce to supply new Trent engine for A350

From Airbus website:

A new generation of high bypass jet engines, developed by General Electric, each delivering up to 75,000lb of thrust, will play a major role in the advanced environmental performance of the A350. An agreement with Rolls Royce has also been signed to supply a new variant of its Trent engine series for the A350, the Trent 1711.

Regards

Seb.

CX · Post by CX » 07 Oct 2005, 04:43

That cabin mock up on the Airbus site is unrealistically cool!!

This is to basically 'replace' the A330, so it is quite convincing that there will be a A360 or something to replace the A340 with 4 engines, unless they find a way or use different engines to reach the A340's distance without 2 extra engines...

It is also quite good that it won't be flying until 2010 to give airlines to 'age' their current A330s and simply replace them with the A350...

It is also quite funny that Airbus's press release keeps on reffering to the 787 as 'nearest competitor' without mentioning Boeing or 787..

BrightCedars · Post by **BrightCedars** » 07 Oct 2005, 10:29

Regarding that nearest competitor thingy, mind you that Airbus is not only going at the 787 but also at the lower end of the 777 product line. Hence 'nearest competitor' is a better suited term to use.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 07 Oct 2005, 17:55

Here's a comparison chart for the various models against its competition.

It appears they may have to make some drastic weight reductions to bring it down in line with the 787 as well as the 777.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A350

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 07 Oct 2005, 18:03

bits44 wrote:Here's a comparison chart for the various models against its competition.

It appears they may have to make some drastic weight reductions to bring it down in line with the 787 as well as the 777.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A350

Yes, the A350 is heavier but with a higher MTOW and better range it is a true competitor.

It's going to be a nice competition between B and A. Let'shope they'll both be successful with those new models.

Chris

CX · Post by CX » 08 Oct 2005, 01:34

Looking through here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

THere are orders for 'unknown' type 787... does this mean that the website does not know whether the airline ordered a -3, -8, -9 or does it mean there is another derivative with no name??

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 08 Oct 2005, 01:45

It probably means the airline has yet to decide on the type it requires. Until the build dates for their orders firm up they usually have some leeway on final decisions for types.

KT

boeing797 · Post by **boeing797** » 12 Oct 2005, 18:31

Lucky for Airbus that Boeing launched B787 kind of late. If Boeing had launched B787 as early as A380, Airbus would have been in big trouble and there might not have been such thing as A350.

In the game of catching up, Airbus seems to do very well with A350. Thanks to Boeing's innovations Airbus now benefits from techonologies already developed for B787, and A350 surely is a great competitor to B787. One of the thing Boeing will be scared of A350 is it will compete with B777-200. And I am pretty sure A350 will take market share from B777-200 easily unless Boeing responds soon enough.

Ciao

vc-10 · Post by **vc-10** » 12 Oct 2005, 22:28

I'm not sure about the 787, the carbonfiber fusalage is scary. Composites crack inside when something knock them hard (I.E. Catering truck, jetway...) and this could waken the structure. if the plane de-presurises then it could be major like the THY DC-10 at Paris.

boeing797 · Post by **boeing797** » 13 Oct 2005, 00:14

vc-10 wrote:I'm not sure about the 787, the carbonfiber fusalage is scary. Composites crack inside when something knock them hard (I.E. Catering truck, jetway...) and this could waken the structure. if the plane de-presurises then it could be major like the THY DC-10 at Paris.

You are right. This is the riskiest thing about B787. If this technology fails the future of Boeing is very murky. It was speculated that it can fails like you said, and it can be environment disaster when it is crashed. If it is a success then Boeing has great advantages over Airbus.

Ciao

CX · Post by CX » 13 Oct 2005, 13:56

I don't know but this is not Formula 1, it surely isn't a good idea to push stuff to such a limit on a plane that carries 250-300 passengers every day...

I mean it will be a success in terms of the weight reduction for sure, but using such brittle material is a bit dangerous... a 1mm crack is enough to be lethal! But on the other hand, it is hard to believe the 787 will pass certifications if this is a problem...

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 13 Oct 2005, 17:50

I'm not sure this is relevant to the carbon fibre hull, but I once saw a GLARE demonstration (aluminium-glassfibre laminate) where they cut into a pressurized hull, and the crack didn't spread out, because the fibres kept everything together. They had to make several further cuts in the hull, and in the end, it still was one large crack, the hull did not rip completely open, like an aluminium hull would.

In a purely metal hull, cracks tend to spread out. So I could imagine that while a carbon fibre hull may be easier to damage, this damage might be less dangerous than if the plane was made of aluminium.

Sikiri · Post by **Sikiri** » 13 Oct 2005, 17:58

The problem with composits is not that is is more brittle then aluminium, the problem is that with composit materials it is a lot more difficul to find the cracks.

boeing797 · Post by **boeing797** » 13 Oct 2005, 18:50

Sikiri wrote:The problem with composits is not that is is more brittle then aluminium, the problem is that with composit materials it is a lot more difficul to find the cracks.

It's hard now since not many researches have focused on this issue;but later when solving this issues makes money we'll see more technologies developed to find cracks in this material. I hope Boeing somehow, by itself or with partnership, is find solutions to this problem. I believe they have boeing doing so otherwise it's hard to convince airlines to buy very efficient planes but costs too much to maintain and dangerous. So far the number of orders received for B787 has somewhat indicated that Boeing has done a good job in convincing customers to go for B787.

Ciao

regi · Post by **regi** » 13 Oct 2005, 20:07

We may be assured that after all those years of using carbon fibre reinforced parts e.g. in military planes , it will be okay in the new Boeings. But as said months ago, a major problem is that it is much more difficult to detect defiencies. Metals are known to undergo fatigue. It is meassured. But carbon parts can delaminate. Delamination is one of the major reasons why carbon parts are not used extensively in cars. Delamination does not occur in metal parts.
But I won't be scared to board a B787.

mttlacroix1988 · Post by **mttlacroix1988** » 01 Nov 2005, 04:43

Any pics of this plane?

liebensd · Post by **liebensd** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:46

Any pics of this plane

The aircraft need still to be build, but here is the site:
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamili ... index.html

Greetz,

Dave

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 09 Dec 2005, 03:00

Boeing vs Airbus Assessment A350 Vs 787
While there is a lot of rampant speculation and opinion about the subject, I have yet to see anyone really assess it.
Probably the first important aspect is that this class of aircraft is the most fought over segment (based on aircraft produced for it, DC10, L1011, MD11, B767, A300/310, A330 and 787 (and even the 757 penetrated the lower segment of the market).
This is the area where Airbus made its true fame, and where they should have put their resources defending (rather than the A380, not to mention leaving a huge gap that Boeing could waltz in and fill with a derivative 747).
Their statement that the 747-8 is warmed over 60s technology is incredibly ludicrous, in light of the fact that the A350 had its originations in 1969, and is merely state of the art, nothing technically advanced (well the engines, but those come from the 787). And advertising t the A350 is “all new”, sheese, it should just be called an A330-400 (or 800 to reflect a mature aircraft ala the A380 which is not even tested yet).
Frankly I expect the 787 is going to have its share of teething troubles. While the composite fuselage is what’s raved about, no one is talking about the other huge changes, that being the move to electric power rather than bleed air. Lots of glitch possibilities there.
What the 787 does have is all the growth possibilities that the 777 had when it came out, and its going to be the way the next generation jets are built.
In that regard Boeing is going to win the vast majority of the orders the same as the A300/330 has done (it was certainly the most successful in its class). Airbus is going to waste all the time and effort on an aircraft that might get 30% of the market, and has not further development possibilities.
The military has taken to the concept of getting into your opponents decision cycle. Hit the enemy so hard and fast, they cannot comprehend what’s happening, and make the wrong decision or poor decisions.
Boeing has done that with Airbus who once had Boeing flummoxed. Its going to take Airbus 4 years to put a new wing on the A330, in the meantime, Boeing has 3 models of the 777 hitting the skies (re-wings if you will), a 747 re-wing and fuselage extension, as well as 3 and likely 4 models of the 787 in development.
It will be interesting to see if Airbus ever works its way out of the hole they have put themselves in, or backslide to being a 30% of the market producer