Airbus plans to build an A320 Composite to compete with Boeings planned all composite 737C.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006- ... 030967.htm
Airbus to build composite A320
Moderator: Latest news team
Airbus to build composite A320
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
Lets see now, the 747 is warmed over 60s technology (though the A300 was designed in the late 60s) and composites are bad news because they will cause you to crash (but a composite wing is fine because we build them and say it is) and now its ok to build a composite airplane, because we are doing it, but all that still applies to Boeing (and keep in mind it’s the cost issue not whether it works or not).
Looks like Airbus needs to reorganize, and rename themselves Hypocrisy Inc. You can be Boeing has a preliminary design already circulating in the industry.
Well, if I am going to buy something new, I think I would buy it from a company that is Engineer led (and who supplies more than promised) , and not Sales led.
Looks like Airbus needs to reorganize, and rename themselves Hypocrisy Inc. You can be Boeing has a preliminary design already circulating in the industry.
Well, if I am going to buy something new, I think I would buy it from a company that is Engineer led (and who supplies more than promised) , and not Sales led.
this paragraph:
"Today we are actively preparing the launch -- at a date I'm not going to reveal -- of new generations of medium-range aircraft with fuselages that are mostly made out of composite materials with very low-cost production," he said.
new generationS... so is it likely that not only a new A320 will be announced???
"Today we are actively preparing the launch -- at a date I'm not going to reveal -- of new generations of medium-range aircraft with fuselages that are mostly made out of composite materials with very low-cost production," he said.
new generationS... so is it likely that not only a new A320 will be announced???
EADS should consider new CEO
I think the problem is Forgard - EADS CEO, Airbus new CEO, Gustav seems to be so much more professional and less political, and the right choice to help Airbus recover from Forgard, the Bureaucrats missteps
Just exactly what are you basing this on?? I have always been under the impression that composites are a good thing because they lower the weight of the aircraft.composites are bad news because they will cause you to crash
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
a good reason to start manufacturing smaller aircrafts is the availabilty of autoclaves. The biggest ones stand now in the USA. I suppose that there is not yet an autoclave in Europe large enough to "bake" commercial jet fuselage parts.
Second problem besides of the diameter of the autoclave ( an autoclave is cylindrical) is the quantity of the autoclaves. A composite part has to bake in a mould in the autoclave for some time. The autoclave is quickly full. So your yearly capacity is very limited.
Second problem besides of the diameter of the autoclave ( an autoclave is cylindrical) is the quantity of the autoclaves. A composite part has to bake in a mould in the autoclave for some time. The autoclave is quickly full. So your yearly capacity is very limited.
-
Airliner_World
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 01 Jan 2006, 00:00
I guess the 'composite' that Airbus refers to, must be somewhat different to Boeing's 787 composite or else they are just picking up a rock and drop it onto their own feet...
But I really do hope not just the new A320 will be announced, but also another model... i don't care if it won't be ready until 2020 or something, but at least we know they have plans to be competitive..
But I really do hope not just the new A320 will be announced, but also another model... i don't care if it won't be ready until 2020 or something, but at least we know they have plans to be competitive..
The remarks were fully intended to be sarcastic.
At one time, Airbus was leading in technology and aircraft innovations. They were also fortunate in timing (as Boeing has been on other occasions), and did well.
Now they are reactionary and entranced, so its “if we do it that means it’s the best thing since sliced bread, if Boeing does it you are all going to crash and die”.
Another tidbit they have not “revealed” is that the proposed A350 is going to have the entire tail section made of composites (gasp!). Yep, everything outside the rear bulkhead.
And while I will continue to state until its built, the 787 composite airframe is not guaranteed, it does look to be the future of aircraft construction.
I would guess that Airbus is so consumed with the A380 and the A400 (and trying to defend the existing lines with derivatives) , that they do not have the resources to make the move to composites.
So its self serving rhetoric, if you are in a lame position, slam the other guy, don’t work to get yourself competitive again. .
I also agree about Foregard (yes sp), I think he is a purely corrosive. He was willing to tear the organization apart on his power play. Gustav seems to be a lot more what you want in a leader, unfortunately for Airbus, Foregard is in charge for a long time to come (maybe)
The question on a composite A320 replacement is how soon? If Boeing goes ahead in 2008 with the 737 composite replacement as planned, and they achieve the assembly results they think they can get with the B797 (3 days from start to finish in the assembly shed), then the one opening you would normally have (slot limitations and airlines needing aircraft) could quite possibly not be there, as Boeing would be able to crank out as many as the market needed, then throttle back when it slows down.
At some point you then have to come up with another
At one time, Airbus was leading in technology and aircraft innovations. They were also fortunate in timing (as Boeing has been on other occasions), and did well.
Now they are reactionary and entranced, so its “if we do it that means it’s the best thing since sliced bread, if Boeing does it you are all going to crash and die”.
Another tidbit they have not “revealed” is that the proposed A350 is going to have the entire tail section made of composites (gasp!). Yep, everything outside the rear bulkhead.
And while I will continue to state until its built, the 787 composite airframe is not guaranteed, it does look to be the future of aircraft construction.
I would guess that Airbus is so consumed with the A380 and the A400 (and trying to defend the existing lines with derivatives) , that they do not have the resources to make the move to composites.
So its self serving rhetoric, if you are in a lame position, slam the other guy, don’t work to get yourself competitive again. .
I also agree about Foregard (yes sp), I think he is a purely corrosive. He was willing to tear the organization apart on his power play. Gustav seems to be a lot more what you want in a leader, unfortunately for Airbus, Foregard is in charge for a long time to come (maybe)
The question on a composite A320 replacement is how soon? If Boeing goes ahead in 2008 with the 737 composite replacement as planned, and they achieve the assembly results they think they can get with the B797 (3 days from start to finish in the assembly shed), then the one opening you would normally have (slot limitations and airlines needing aircraft) could quite possibly not be there, as Boeing would be able to crank out as many as the market needed, then throttle back when it slows down.
At some point you then have to come up with another
Here is a more solid timeline, which puts them way behind what looks to be Boeing 2008 launch target and probably airbourne in 20010-11.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10822337/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10822337/
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
On January 12, RC-20 wrote:
"The question on a composite A320 replacement is how soon? If Boeing goes ahead in 2008 with the 737 composite replacement as planned, and they achieve the assembly results they think they can get with the B797 (3 days from start to finish in the assembly shed), then the one opening you would normally have (slot limitations and airlines needing aircraft) could quite possibly not be there, as Boeing would be able to crank out as many as the market needed, then throttle back when it slows down."
The issue with cranking production up or down quickly doe to short assembly times is more complicated. You have to order the parts a long time in advance so the suppliers and sub-contractors and order raw materials, manufacture and test the assemblies and, deliver them. This can be years in the timetable. The real advantage of short assembly time is lower assembly cost.
"The question on a composite A320 replacement is how soon? If Boeing goes ahead in 2008 with the 737 composite replacement as planned, and they achieve the assembly results they think they can get with the B797 (3 days from start to finish in the assembly shed), then the one opening you would normally have (slot limitations and airlines needing aircraft) could quite possibly not be there, as Boeing would be able to crank out as many as the market needed, then throttle back when it slows down."
The issue with cranking production up or down quickly doe to short assembly times is more complicated. You have to order the parts a long time in advance so the suppliers and sub-contractors and order raw materials, manufacture and test the assemblies and, deliver them. This can be years in the timetable. The real advantage of short assembly time is lower assembly cost.
Everything is a cycle, how successful the A380 will be in the future is unknown, maybe you will see nothing but A380s in the skies in 20 year's time...
And what Airbus is saying now is obviously new generationS of aircrafts with composites, so unless Foregard dude is joking around, it will start to look good again for Airbus not long from now(2015? doesn't seem too late)... And considering they didn't come up with anything too new since the A380, I am guessing the next aircraft to be announced - the A320 replacement, will feature something special unlike the A350... And of course, if he really said "new generationS" of planes, not only the A320-replacement is on the cards, but at least one more model right?
And what Airbus is saying now is obviously new generationS of aircrafts with composites, so unless Foregard dude is joking around, it will start to look good again for Airbus not long from now(2015? doesn't seem too late)... And considering they didn't come up with anything too new since the A380, I am guessing the next aircraft to be announced - the A320 replacement, will feature something special unlike the A350... And of course, if he really said "new generationS" of planes, not only the A320-replacement is on the cards, but at least one more model right?
From timeline, Airbus will attempt to come out with the A320 composite replacement in 2015.
If Boeing initiates manufacture for the 737C (C for composite) in 2008, they will have an aircraft in the air in 20010 or 11. That’s a 4 year lead to establish market share and confidence (not to mention already riding on learning curve work done by the 787). If they can make 30 a month now, how many can they crank out with the new assembly methods? 100-150?
Then an airline has to look at when they need an aircraft, how soon they can get it, how it stacks up on the technical details in comparison to the competition, and make a decision.
Airbus will be competing their 1st generation composites against Boeing 2nd generation composites at that point, and a roughly 3-4 year lead by Boeing.
As for the comment “you cannot predict where its going”, the reality is that you can be sure there will be a lot more something else than A380s flying around.
Let me present our present situation up here. Alaska Airlines is the dominant carrier out of Anchorage (though they are now based in Seattle). We are 3.5 hours flying time from here to there, add another hour for our next largest city (Fairbanks).
They have a number of direct flights to other US locations (Denver which is another 2.5 hours away).
They also depart a lager number of flights all at the same time (barely spaced 5 minutes apart) to Seattle and then as far away as Washington DC. You would think they would be flying a A300/767 from here to Seattle (the equivalent of the A380 argument). They fly nothing but 737s (or if Airbus the A320 and its type derivatives would be their choice).
While it cost more in pilots, apparently its so much more flexible, and they get the aircraft utilization up to a phenomenal rate, its worth it (and flexibility). 6 smaller jets work better than one big one.
So, regardless of “possibilities” the reality is that the A320/737 segment is going to be the high volume aircraft of the future, followed in decreasing order by the A350/787-777s and then the mix of A380 and B747-8s.
IF you look at the figures, it appears that the B747-8 beats the A380 (800?) in seat economics, and only looses with the larger 900.
The phenomenal thing about the 787 is that it has seat costs the same as the 747-8 or A380 (which is a first for a smaller aircraft). I don’t know if that includes the revenue from the additional cargo capacity.
Other than size the A380 did not advance Airbus at all in competitiveness. That required the composites. And even if an airline decides to buy it, with the 747-8 being used as a threat, they are not going to see anywhere near the revenues they anticipated. Boeing would not even have to sell a single passenger 747-8 to make that program worth it in removing revenues from Airbus. Like the A350 however, they will sell some, as Airbus left such a huge gap between their product line, it will suit and fit certain routes, application and needs. And Airbus still has to crank out the –900.
There seems an attitude that Airbus can simply come out with an aircraft and catch up immediately. That’s not true. The US took the airline industry by storm in the late 50s, and did not give up that leadership until the mid nineties (though Airbus was setting the stage to do so earlier).
Once you get behind, it requires a breakthrough technology and sometimes circumstances (both occurred for Airbus) to breakthrough. Boeing is not going to forget its lesson. That’s why with the current direction and airframe mix, you are seeing speculation that Airbus will drop to as low as 30% of the market in the future.
If Boeing initiates manufacture for the 737C (C for composite) in 2008, they will have an aircraft in the air in 20010 or 11. That’s a 4 year lead to establish market share and confidence (not to mention already riding on learning curve work done by the 787). If they can make 30 a month now, how many can they crank out with the new assembly methods? 100-150?
Then an airline has to look at when they need an aircraft, how soon they can get it, how it stacks up on the technical details in comparison to the competition, and make a decision.
Airbus will be competing their 1st generation composites against Boeing 2nd generation composites at that point, and a roughly 3-4 year lead by Boeing.
As for the comment “you cannot predict where its going”, the reality is that you can be sure there will be a lot more something else than A380s flying around.
Let me present our present situation up here. Alaska Airlines is the dominant carrier out of Anchorage (though they are now based in Seattle). We are 3.5 hours flying time from here to there, add another hour for our next largest city (Fairbanks).
They have a number of direct flights to other US locations (Denver which is another 2.5 hours away).
They also depart a lager number of flights all at the same time (barely spaced 5 minutes apart) to Seattle and then as far away as Washington DC. You would think they would be flying a A300/767 from here to Seattle (the equivalent of the A380 argument). They fly nothing but 737s (or if Airbus the A320 and its type derivatives would be their choice).
While it cost more in pilots, apparently its so much more flexible, and they get the aircraft utilization up to a phenomenal rate, its worth it (and flexibility). 6 smaller jets work better than one big one.
So, regardless of “possibilities” the reality is that the A320/737 segment is going to be the high volume aircraft of the future, followed in decreasing order by the A350/787-777s and then the mix of A380 and B747-8s.
IF you look at the figures, it appears that the B747-8 beats the A380 (800?) in seat economics, and only looses with the larger 900.
The phenomenal thing about the 787 is that it has seat costs the same as the 747-8 or A380 (which is a first for a smaller aircraft). I don’t know if that includes the revenue from the additional cargo capacity.
Other than size the A380 did not advance Airbus at all in competitiveness. That required the composites. And even if an airline decides to buy it, with the 747-8 being used as a threat, they are not going to see anywhere near the revenues they anticipated. Boeing would not even have to sell a single passenger 747-8 to make that program worth it in removing revenues from Airbus. Like the A350 however, they will sell some, as Airbus left such a huge gap between their product line, it will suit and fit certain routes, application and needs. And Airbus still has to crank out the –900.
There seems an attitude that Airbus can simply come out with an aircraft and catch up immediately. That’s not true. The US took the airline industry by storm in the late 50s, and did not give up that leadership until the mid nineties (though Airbus was setting the stage to do so earlier).
Once you get behind, it requires a breakthrough technology and sometimes circumstances (both occurred for Airbus) to breakthrough. Boeing is not going to forget its lesson. That’s why with the current direction and airframe mix, you are seeing speculation that Airbus will drop to as low as 30% of the market in the future.
Stand by to be severely flamed!Smokerr
I agree with you, you think like an airline, and that's the important lesson.
There will be many opinions on your post pro and con but your opinion is shared by most in the Airline industry, Airbus has a lot of catching up to do, and may never make up the difference, the biggest factor I believe is Foregard, who bad mouthed their own customers, Boeing, and anybody else who happened to be in earshot, as well they made promises to customers, and failed to live up to them, all the while failing to communicate the facts to those customers.
Airlines are not stupid, they don't like being lied to, they have no respect for suppliers who bad mouth their competitors, and tell us facts not fiction.
The Financial community! being the important factor in supplying the cash for aircraft appears to also agree with your 30 % market retention for Airbus, they now face financing obstacles for both the proposed 320 composite as well as the A350, these combined with the losses incurred with the A380 to date, are sure to drain the capital sources available to Airbus.
Another huge factor was the change in Leadership at Boeing, they were guilty of lack of direction, that the status quo was good enough.
They now have a steady hand at the helm, who listens to customers, values their opinions, and most importantly also thinks like an airline.
KT
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
You never know.