Wouldn't life be boring if we had one brand of car, one brand of soup, and on and on and on.
Competition is healthy, knowledge is power, never stop learning.
If Aviation is your passion, your hobby, or just an interest, be involved, ask questions, to learn is to live, otherwise your just a vegetable.
KT
Boeing hits 400 orders for 787
Moderator: Latest news team
"I guess Airbus will have to go back to its drawing board to put more composite materials in its design for this one, if they ever find a way to produce composites in mass like Boeing does."
The reality is (or the technology in this case) is that an all composite barrel section has no stingers in it to attach panels to, its just (to simplify) a circular tube of plastic. Of course at the end of each section you have to have a bracket to connect the pieces.
Weight savings is derived from the elimination of all the “pieces, i.e. framework” that you attach the panels to on a conventional aluminum structure aircraft, almost no fasteners
Upshot is that with a conventional structure you can lighten up the framework as much as you want, and the panels you attach it to, and its still going to be a heavier entity than just forming a barrel (and more costly supposedly as well).
Note that when the weight issue became clear on the A380, they went to stuff called GLARE (panels) to reduce weight in less stressed areas. It either only worked on a large structure, or did not work as well as hoped, as it is not being used on the A350.
No matter what you do, the all composite fuselage has a huge advantage over convectional structure that cannot be “sanely” overcome.
Assuming the composite fuselage works, then its also more damage resistant, will not require as frequent inspections, as well as being lighter. Knowing Boeings conservative approach to engineering, I believe they firmly believe it will do that (and I suspect they are under promising, it will probably perform better than they say it will.
Like the A380s future, time will tell if it’s a grand idea or not, but assume it doesn’t have flaws, the only way you can match it is with another fully composite airframe.
The reality is (or the technology in this case) is that an all composite barrel section has no stingers in it to attach panels to, its just (to simplify) a circular tube of plastic. Of course at the end of each section you have to have a bracket to connect the pieces.
Weight savings is derived from the elimination of all the “pieces, i.e. framework” that you attach the panels to on a conventional aluminum structure aircraft, almost no fasteners
Upshot is that with a conventional structure you can lighten up the framework as much as you want, and the panels you attach it to, and its still going to be a heavier entity than just forming a barrel (and more costly supposedly as well).
Note that when the weight issue became clear on the A380, they went to stuff called GLARE (panels) to reduce weight in less stressed areas. It either only worked on a large structure, or did not work as well as hoped, as it is not being used on the A350.
No matter what you do, the all composite fuselage has a huge advantage over convectional structure that cannot be “sanely” overcome.
Assuming the composite fuselage works, then its also more damage resistant, will not require as frequent inspections, as well as being lighter. Knowing Boeings conservative approach to engineering, I believe they firmly believe it will do that (and I suspect they are under promising, it will probably perform better than they say it will.
Like the A380s future, time will tell if it’s a grand idea or not, but assume it doesn’t have flaws, the only way you can match it is with another fully composite airframe.
Great to find out that I'm a vegetable. But I know that at least my wife loves me the way I am ...
The first point in my posting was that in my opinion nobody is waiting for another A vs B war in the forums. We have enough of this stuff on airliners.net
The second point was that indeed competition is healthy and good.
The first point in my posting was that in my opinion nobody is waiting for another A vs B war in the forums. We have enough of this stuff on airliners.net
The second point was that indeed competition is healthy and good.
I love the war A vs. B since I want to learn which airplanes are better and why. Both A and B have claimed their products are better than their competitors' and it's hard to find the truth on the web. For example, if B777 is better than A340 why wasn't it sold well until last year? Why is A320 not outsold B737 while it is equipped with fly-by-wire, built with more composites and B737 is not? In the war A vs. B discussion I hope I can find answers to those questions. As long as gentlemen in the forum use facts the war A vs. B is interesting to me.
Ciao
Ciao
If "you" were a vegetable you wouldn't be here.Great to find out that I'm a vegetable.
One thing my Dad always said to me was " Learn something everday of your life" and if you read the postings in this forum, you're doing just that.
KT
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
If Airbus was represented by Gustav (technically he is- but Foregard makes the snide corrosive remarks and tends to put the organization on that level) we would have a discussion.
Rather than compete, they keep bashing Boeing. So, I am delighted to point out their hypocrisy
And that does not means I am blindly Boeing, though I do admire the company, its history, and what it has done.
In this case, in the last 15 years, they got themselves into a corporate hole of monumental proportions, and now they have proceeded to dig themselves out of it. They have truly gotten inside the decision cycle of Airbus. They are making decisions fast, putting out very competative variations on existing aircraft quickly, and new aircraft almost as fast.
While I am sure they would rather have started with a composite 737 replacement, that was not in the cards (737NG still full competitive). What they needed was to replace the mid size wide bodies, and that’s what they did.
Can their supplier produce the all composite fuselage in enough quantity and quality? Will it work long term as well as they say? Can they shift to massive electric over bleed air and have reliable systems?
Those are relevant questions, but so far they seem to have satisfied the worlds best airline engineers that they can do it.
So, if Airbus would put a gag on Foregard, and go back to announcing what their plans are, and then see how what they offer competes with what Boeing offers, the discussion can tone down on pure merits.
In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the egg on their face each time they make a bald lying statement.
If they really think Boeing is going to fall flat on their face, they just have to wait and see (and you can bet contracts can and will be cancelled if the 787 lands 20 times, and it has big crack radiating all over its fuselage!)
Rather than compete, they keep bashing Boeing. So, I am delighted to point out their hypocrisy
And that does not means I am blindly Boeing, though I do admire the company, its history, and what it has done.
In this case, in the last 15 years, they got themselves into a corporate hole of monumental proportions, and now they have proceeded to dig themselves out of it. They have truly gotten inside the decision cycle of Airbus. They are making decisions fast, putting out very competative variations on existing aircraft quickly, and new aircraft almost as fast.
While I am sure they would rather have started with a composite 737 replacement, that was not in the cards (737NG still full competitive). What they needed was to replace the mid size wide bodies, and that’s what they did.
Can their supplier produce the all composite fuselage in enough quantity and quality? Will it work long term as well as they say? Can they shift to massive electric over bleed air and have reliable systems?
Those are relevant questions, but so far they seem to have satisfied the worlds best airline engineers that they can do it.
So, if Airbus would put a gag on Foregard, and go back to announcing what their plans are, and then see how what they offer competes with what Boeing offers, the discussion can tone down on pure merits.
In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the egg on their face each time they make a bald lying statement.
If they really think Boeing is going to fall flat on their face, they just have to wait and see (and you can bet contracts can and will be cancelled if the 787 lands 20 times, and it has big crack radiating all over its fuselage!)
Nah, it's not new information. I wouldn't count John Leahy out just yet. If the 787-10X would not be delivered until 2012, why make a decision now? As long as Boeing designs the 787 platform right, they can start the 787-10X in 2010.
I think Emirates will play A vs. B as long as they need until either hits the threshold they are looking for.
I think Emirates will play A vs. B as long as they need until either hits the threshold they are looking for.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
Hello. Airbus really needs to resolve some internal issues, at least in terms of strategy and engineering leadership.
Fro my point of view (experience including) that is what is killing them. German bosses, French bosses, brits...too much mess and they really have to be a part of a team. Otherwise they do well but when you let politically involved people making decisions you do end up with an effective production line (Toulouse) from which green a/c has to fly to Hamburg for paint and interiors?!?!?!
It is never good not to know - who is the boss!!
In terms of risking or not with composites do not forget Boeing's (including MCD) experience with it on the military side. They are transferring technology (sort of speak since no for the FAA sake they have to show all the specs still holding their values one more time since it is for civilian use + in order to be exportable).
Airbus behaves like Boeing used to and they are still not ready to go it full steam ahead with a composite fuselage. Too bad since they have the knowledge in both Germany and France.
I am sure Boeing, once they resolve issue with supply chain for 787 and other small problems will do just fine. And do not worry for cracks after "20 flights or so - it is preventable and that's why stress analysis exists (ahm).
I sincerely hope Airbus will soon head in the same direction since for long they were the one with bolder approach to using different materials and new technologies. Boeing decided to open up and there is no turning back.
It is time for Airbus to do the same.
Fro my point of view (experience including) that is what is killing them. German bosses, French bosses, brits...too much mess and they really have to be a part of a team. Otherwise they do well but when you let politically involved people making decisions you do end up with an effective production line (Toulouse) from which green a/c has to fly to Hamburg for paint and interiors?!?!?!
It is never good not to know - who is the boss!!
In terms of risking or not with composites do not forget Boeing's (including MCD) experience with it on the military side. They are transferring technology (sort of speak since no for the FAA sake they have to show all the specs still holding their values one more time since it is for civilian use + in order to be exportable).
Airbus behaves like Boeing used to and they are still not ready to go it full steam ahead with a composite fuselage. Too bad since they have the knowledge in both Germany and France.
I am sure Boeing, once they resolve issue with supply chain for 787 and other small problems will do just fine. And do not worry for cracks after "20 flights or so - it is preventable and that's why stress analysis exists (ahm).
I sincerely hope Airbus will soon head in the same direction since for long they were the one with bolder approach to using different materials and new technologies. Boeing decided to open up and there is no turning back.
It is time for Airbus to do the same.
Frankly I do not expect Boeing to fail.
On the other hand, I also believe you have to put it in the air, and have it perform the way you said it would.
The A380 is close to being there. Will it do what Airbus said it would?
Boeing will be there in a couple of more years. They have a much better track record than does Airbus in that regard.
What I do find interesting, is each time the press quotes orders (787 or A350), Boeings are firm commitments, and Airbus are both commitments and options. It makes the numbers look a lot closer than they really are.
What’s truly interesting (in my view) is that Boeing has an enormous amount of options per commitments. I think this reflects a couple of things.
The airlines buying it want a sure availability when they want more.
Its also a bit of a hedge, in that they don’t have money out if there really are issues.
Once the 787 doing as advertised, those are really going to produce huge commitment numbers.
Its going to be quite interesting.
I had read where ANZ had 20 firm production positions being held. That was a new phrase to me, but the Chairman was all but grinning in print, as he seemed to feel that they would be able to sell those positions in the future at a profit (as ANZ did not seem to need that many for any of their future plans).
On the other hand, I also believe you have to put it in the air, and have it perform the way you said it would.
The A380 is close to being there. Will it do what Airbus said it would?
Boeing will be there in a couple of more years. They have a much better track record than does Airbus in that regard.
What I do find interesting, is each time the press quotes orders (787 or A350), Boeings are firm commitments, and Airbus are both commitments and options. It makes the numbers look a lot closer than they really are.
What’s truly interesting (in my view) is that Boeing has an enormous amount of options per commitments. I think this reflects a couple of things.
The airlines buying it want a sure availability when they want more.
Its also a bit of a hedge, in that they don’t have money out if there really are issues.
Once the 787 doing as advertised, those are really going to produce huge commitment numbers.
Its going to be quite interesting.
I had read where ANZ had 20 firm production positions being held. That was a new phrase to me, but the Chairman was all but grinning in print, as he seemed to feel that they would be able to sell those positions in the future at a profit (as ANZ did not seem to need that many for any of their future plans).
RC20 wrote:What I do find interesting, is each time the press quotes orders (787 or A350), Boeings are firm commitments, and Airbus are both commitments and options. It makes the numbers look a lot closer than they really are.
what I do find interesting is that each time no one mentions that Boeing has started the dreamliner program earlier and thus has an advantage. For example, the authorization for offering the plane has been granted by Boeing almost one year earlier. Thus, Boeing salesmen had the opportunity to convince customers to now-or-never-deals in this year. (I know, nobody is surprised that JAL was among these) As a result Boeing had collected 56 firm orders and another 56 announced until Airbus has decided on this kind of authorization.
I think that's one explanation (among others!) for the sales success of the dreamliner. Just as others had also the success of being the first to offer in the past ... But let me give the following disclaimers before you do
- one year earlier or not. still the A350 many other weaknesses compared to the 787. I am aware of that I have read these and other threads.
- Somehow this relates also to the fact that Airbus was reacting too late because they focussed to much on the A380 and (maybe) were to much impressed by the success of the A330. I agree also with that.
-lr.
I don’t think Southwest or Ryanair would have stayed committed to the 737 is the A320 was clearly superior.earthman wrote:boeing797 wrote:Why is A320 not outsold B737 while it is equipped with fly-by-wire, built with more composites and B737 is not?
I think it’s a mix, some of it is better (larger fuselage and bigger cargo door) and some is not as good (737 was updated a lot more recently and it may have some efficiency advantages from that).
Curious as no one really has done a breakdown of how they really stack up. Opinions yes, but not good hard data.
I suspect that Airbus can sell it cheaper, and still make a profit, than Boeing can the 737, and I think they really really slashed things at the end of the year in order to beat out Boeing.
While I think it was a mistake at the time for Boeing to keep going with the 737, in hindsight, it may work out.
Southwest and Ryanair (and I assume others) are pushing Boeing hard to come out with the 737 replacement , and with the 787 to use as a template, it looks like they have a technological leap to really differentiate themselves doing so (and make it worth their while).
Add in having most of it built and just assembling, and the speed of production that brings (they have studied what Airbus has done), and you could have a huge success. Its not a matter of if at this point, more like when, and the dates seems to be 2008.
Airbus is saying 2015 for theirs, but an early 737 replacement could force them into action (derivative probably as they do not seem ready to go full composite before then)
edited from reaction above - accidentally logged in with old account
both sides on this "war" forget to balance their points.
both companies produce great planes, which each different and/or similar qualities. Somebody was calling the A340/330 in need of replacement? how is that? accusing Airbus of only making variations?? huh.. indeed a good point mentioned that nearly the whole line up of narrow-bodies of Boeing from the 60s straight into the 80s and 90s was just one variation after another... Boeing blinded fokes seemed to lost focus of the history of their own love.
anyways... the 747 was also received by cynisism.
for the rest.. i dont have a specific love for one another - both make great planes. (and nothing goes beyond a Saab 2000 or F50
)
that doesn't prove much as EasyJet (to name just a minor similar airline) commited itself to Airbus (320 family) AFTER it had a Boeing (737 family) only fleet.RC20 wrote: I don’t think Southwest or Ryanair would have stayed committed to the 737 is the A320 was clearly superior.
both sides on this "war" forget to balance their points.
both companies produce great planes, which each different and/or similar qualities. Somebody was calling the A340/330 in need of replacement? how is that? accusing Airbus of only making variations?? huh.. indeed a good point mentioned that nearly the whole line up of narrow-bodies of Boeing from the 60s straight into the 80s and 90s was just one variation after another... Boeing blinded fokes seemed to lost focus of the history of their own love.
anyways... the 747 was also received by cynisism.
for the rest.. i dont have a specific love for one another - both make great planes. (and nothing goes beyond a Saab 2000 or F50
)Because it looks like B777 will finish A340. Indeed, Airbus doesn't bother to upgrade A340 and they announced they will offer customers cash rebates for purchasing A340.jelger wrote:edited from reaction above - accidentally logged in with old account
Somebody was calling the A340/330 in need of replacement? how is that? accusing Airbus of only making variations??
Their design is so good that they don't need to build a replacement for B737. Just tweak the design here and there, equip it with more electronics stuffs and the customers are happy.jelger wrote: huh.. indeed a good point mentioned that nearly the whole line up of narrow-bodies of Boeing from the 60s straight into the 80s and 90s was just one variation after another... Boeing blinded fokes seemed to lost focus of the history of their own love.