8O I think Airbus allready did a great job in getting the aviation industry out of the steam age ! ! ! How can you possibly write crap like this???achace wrote:I think Airbus is missing the chance to get the aviation industry out of the steam age.
A350 needs revision?
Moderator: Latest news team
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... +plan.html
I guess this is extremely important to the A350. And also I put my 2c on SIA ordering more A380s rather than 748s since they are using the size for comfort anyway...
I guess this is extremely important to the A350. And also I put my 2c on SIA ordering more A380s rather than 748s since they are using the size for comfort anyway...
-
foxtrot_lima_yankee
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 00:00
-If we look back to the previous 20 years, I think we could all agree to say that you have twice as much chance to survive a flight in an airbus plane than in a Boeing.
-We have approx. 6 Boeings accidents against 1 Airbus.
-Boeings are structurally weaker, and statistics show that Boeings easier suffer of structural fatigue than Airbus planes.
-B737 very often have pressurisation problems:recently: Helios B737 crash, Alaska pressurisation failures...
-Less accidents involving Airbus aircraft are due to aircraft failure.
-Accidents involving Airbusses mostly are due to external/human factors
-Over the past 20 years more than 10000 passengers have seen there death in a Boeing aircraft.
-For the same period, less than 2500 have seen their death on Airbus aircraft, mostly (1500) on A300 aircaft which are for a great amount being converted to freighters.
Airbus improved security:
The A300 happened to be a desastrous aircraft for Airbus, as many of them have crashed.
But since the creation of the A320 family, Airbus aircraft showed a great improvement in their systems safety. Until now, very little A320 A330 or A340 were involved in fatal accidents due to systems failures.
-Until last year August, the A340 had a remarkable safety history: 10 year without a single aircraft being lost. Unfortunately, in August last year, an Air France A340 overshot the runway at Toronto, leading to the loss of the aircraft, (although this landing was a personal decision of the flight crew who had been informed by ATC of a storm building up, with probable wind shears, turbulences and poor braking action and that the landing would happen at own risk.) No casualties.
Early this year a Turkish Airlines A340 also overshot the runway at JFK.No casualties
Someone in this forum stated electronic systems as being better than hydraulic systems. This depends of the point of view applied to this theme:
-Hydraulic systems are heavy and mostly occupy a lot of space. Electronic systems are lighter, simple and compact. As weight is an important factor in airplane efficiency, electronic systems seem to be the best solution for efficient aircraft.
-Hydraulic systems are more efficient and can easier carry heavy loads. In case of an electrical failure on the aircraft, hydraulics can be steered manually. I personally don t see Boeing equipping its B787 with electrical systems instead of hydraulics. What if both engines fail-->no electricity will be generated-->electrical failure-->all electrial components out of service--->no hydraulic systems-->ask passengers to hand out all their batteries in order to stick them all together and create a back-up generator??Come on that s too silly!!
Because of LCCs and stuff, people start thinking too much about ticket prices and services on board, forgetting the safety aspect.
It s better for an airliner to pay 15 million more for a decent aircraft rather than a totally "new project" from a company issuing aircraft that killed more than 10000 people over the past 20 years!
I donno about you guys but,
when I ll get my ATPL I definitely will go for an Airbus carrier.
Ps:about the overhead bins as storage: I ve flown on the Sabena A340s as well as the B747s of this same company as well as KLM and Lufthansa and I d like to say one word about this:on the B747, while descending or climbing you have this bad feeling and nightmares of those bins falling over your head as you see them moving (They are not fixed the way they should which also makes them pretty noisy. People would be impressed to see the few screws that are holding them.) I never felt sure on a B747, but always enjoyed the A340.
Message to the operators:
If you want to fly sure, choose Airbus.
If you want to fly cheap, choose Boeing.
-We have approx. 6 Boeings accidents against 1 Airbus.
-Boeings are structurally weaker, and statistics show that Boeings easier suffer of structural fatigue than Airbus planes.
-B737 very often have pressurisation problems:recently: Helios B737 crash, Alaska pressurisation failures...
-Less accidents involving Airbus aircraft are due to aircraft failure.
-Accidents involving Airbusses mostly are due to external/human factors
-Over the past 20 years more than 10000 passengers have seen there death in a Boeing aircraft.
-For the same period, less than 2500 have seen their death on Airbus aircraft, mostly (1500) on A300 aircaft which are for a great amount being converted to freighters.
Airbus improved security:
The A300 happened to be a desastrous aircraft for Airbus, as many of them have crashed.
But since the creation of the A320 family, Airbus aircraft showed a great improvement in their systems safety. Until now, very little A320 A330 or A340 were involved in fatal accidents due to systems failures.
-Until last year August, the A340 had a remarkable safety history: 10 year without a single aircraft being lost. Unfortunately, in August last year, an Air France A340 overshot the runway at Toronto, leading to the loss of the aircraft, (although this landing was a personal decision of the flight crew who had been informed by ATC of a storm building up, with probable wind shears, turbulences and poor braking action and that the landing would happen at own risk.) No casualties.
Early this year a Turkish Airlines A340 also overshot the runway at JFK.No casualties
Someone in this forum stated electronic systems as being better than hydraulic systems. This depends of the point of view applied to this theme:
-Hydraulic systems are heavy and mostly occupy a lot of space. Electronic systems are lighter, simple and compact. As weight is an important factor in airplane efficiency, electronic systems seem to be the best solution for efficient aircraft.
-Hydraulic systems are more efficient and can easier carry heavy loads. In case of an electrical failure on the aircraft, hydraulics can be steered manually. I personally don t see Boeing equipping its B787 with electrical systems instead of hydraulics. What if both engines fail-->no electricity will be generated-->electrical failure-->all electrial components out of service--->no hydraulic systems-->ask passengers to hand out all their batteries in order to stick them all together and create a back-up generator??Come on that s too silly!!
Because of LCCs and stuff, people start thinking too much about ticket prices and services on board, forgetting the safety aspect.
It s better for an airliner to pay 15 million more for a decent aircraft rather than a totally "new project" from a company issuing aircraft that killed more than 10000 people over the past 20 years!
I donno about you guys but,
when I ll get my ATPL I definitely will go for an Airbus carrier.
Ps:about the overhead bins as storage: I ve flown on the Sabena A340s as well as the B747s of this same company as well as KLM and Lufthansa and I d like to say one word about this:on the B747, while descending or climbing you have this bad feeling and nightmares of those bins falling over your head as you see them moving (They are not fixed the way they should which also makes them pretty noisy. People would be impressed to see the few screws that are holding them.) I never felt sure on a B747, but always enjoyed the A340.
Message to the operators:
If you want to fly sure, choose Airbus.
If you want to fly cheap, choose Boeing.
Message to the operators:
If you want to fly sure, choose Airbus.
If you want to fly cheap, choose Boeing.
Garbage!!! This is just another comment from somebody who wants an A vs. B war. I hate to break it to you, but BOTH ARE SAFE!!! Aside from the fact that this post has nothing to do with the A350, I hope the moderators will do something about this post. Additionally, if you want to use statistics to your advantage, you might want to learn how to interpret stats. to begin with!!! Has it occurred to you that Boeing has been around much longer than Airbus, a lot of their planes in operation are older, therefore they would have more accidents!?!?!?! Oh yeah, about the 787, you clearly need to do some research here, ever heard of a R.A.T.???
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
-
fokker_f27
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 00:00
- Location: Weerde, Zemst - Belgium
I agree with Knight255. Both Airbus and Boeing are safe. Sorry FLY but I totally disagree with you. There are many more Boeing aircraft in service. Many are older 737-200 and 747-100, which have worn out over the years. And the problem with hydrolic systems is that if one line breaks, then you've lost all control over the aircraft. And like Knight said, power can be generated with the R.A.T.
The most sexy girl in the sky: The Sud-Est Caravelle 12.
-
foxtrot_lima_yankee
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 00:00
Excuse me? never heard of an Airbus plane loosing entire parts of its fuselage...
I instead heard that it happened on Boeing airplanes several times...
Does it mean that older Boeings are more dangerous?
An interesting internet site for you :
www.aviation-safety.net
By the way, I don t see Ryanair flying A320s in the future. Airbus just has advanced feautres Boeing doesn t have yet, but many chauvinists do not want to admit it.
The first airplane having an "advanced" cockpit with modern features like FBW in the Boeing series is the 777. I admit that this plane is a wonder on itself. It until now has a good overall history.
I instead heard that it happened on Boeing airplanes several times...
Does it mean that older Boeings are more dangerous?
An interesting internet site for you :
www.aviation-safety.net
By the way, I don t see Ryanair flying A320s in the future. Airbus just has advanced feautres Boeing doesn t have yet, but many chauvinists do not want to admit it.
The first airplane having an "advanced" cockpit with modern features like FBW in the Boeing series is the 777. I admit that this plane is a wonder on itself. It until now has a good overall history.
-
foxtrot_lima_yankee
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 00:00
But the B777 isn t a cheap plane.
Alaska has new B737 NGs with cabin pressure problems...These are not old planes.
What I wanted to say, and yes it is directly related to this topic, if the A350 has a higher selling price than a Dreamliner, it is because of the higher quality of the plane itself. Airbus has improved cabin pressurisation systems. I wonder if Boeing will be able to deliver the dreamliners the way they promised they will:
-bigger windows: create extra drag and pressurisation problems.
-Interior design : the Business or 1st class seems to look nice. What about the economy class?
-Cockpit features: Seems to be the same as the 777.
-Fuselage: Full Composite structures. Interesting, but are they resistant to high temperatures? What about low temperatures?Aren t costs going to be too high? Solidity of structure?Time to assemble such structures?
-Powerplants: these seem to be the greater problems on the Boeing aircraft. Boeing aircrft had such noisy engines until now!I hope that they ll do something about that.
I never said that Boeing is not sure to fly with.
I just said that Boeing isn t as sure to fly with as Airbus.
Oh by the way the accidents I m refering to are accidents between 1970 and 1992, most happened on B747s. Is a 1 to 22 years old planed referred to as being old?
Alaska has new B737 NGs with cabin pressure problems...These are not old planes.
What I wanted to say, and yes it is directly related to this topic, if the A350 has a higher selling price than a Dreamliner, it is because of the higher quality of the plane itself. Airbus has improved cabin pressurisation systems. I wonder if Boeing will be able to deliver the dreamliners the way they promised they will:
-bigger windows: create extra drag and pressurisation problems.
-Interior design : the Business or 1st class seems to look nice. What about the economy class?
-Cockpit features: Seems to be the same as the 777.
-Fuselage: Full Composite structures. Interesting, but are they resistant to high temperatures? What about low temperatures?Aren t costs going to be too high? Solidity of structure?Time to assemble such structures?
-Powerplants: these seem to be the greater problems on the Boeing aircraft. Boeing aircrft had such noisy engines until now!I hope that they ll do something about that.
I never said that Boeing is not sure to fly with.
I just said that Boeing isn t as sure to fly with as Airbus.
Oh by the way the accidents I m refering to are accidents between 1970 and 1992, most happened on B747s. Is a 1 to 22 years old planed referred to as being old?
-
foxtrot_lima_yankee
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 00:00
Ram Air Turbines will never generate enough electricity to be able to feed a landing gear system powered by a turbine. Ram Air Turbines can be used as back-up systems to keep the connections between the switchs the pilots are pushing and the hydraulics, if you see what I mean. Someone in this forum was talking about the dreamliner removing the hydraulic parts of the plane in order to install electric systems. This is not a good idea.
I m not blaming the Dreamliner, I m just telling you this plane might not be as great as Boeing s marketing team shows it to you.
Just as the A380 has always been...
I m not blaming the Dreamliner, I m just telling you this plane might not be as great as Boeing s marketing team shows it to you.
Just as the A380 has always been...
What’s missing in the discussion is “what does re-design mean”?
Sort of like the first step in dealing with alcoholism, admitting you are an alcoholic.
Airbus has finally done that (and the truth really erupts that the fuel efficiency was really bad in the design vs. the 787). The next step is what to do about the materials issue. Do you continue to kludge and make it an aluminum frame and skin structure (regardless of all the alloys they talk about, that’s what it is) or do you go composite.
That’s a huge question, as it still won’t be fully competitive until they do, but that also would take more time and money, and obviously they are not prepped or versed in that field.
Which segment do you shoot for? Match the 787 straight up, or intrude into the 777 space (which at least would make it competitive there as the 777 is the aluminum frame and skin structure). Boeing has continued to innovate and improve the 777, it keeps getting more efficient. Obviously there are limits, but they could counter with an all composite wing for instance.
Of course that only pretty well matches Boeing, nothing new in that, and they are still reacting to Boeing, not coming up with innovation (though at this point, innovation would be a composite with a different style structure which they are not ready, able or capable of doing).
Boeing next move has to be getting the engine for the 737 replacement (of reasonably confident it will be ready) and then launch that. That would be a killer move as then the only one they don’t match is the A380, and that one they will let go (unless the blended wing structure gets airlines commitment.) That would take the Airbus money maker right out of the equation.
Airbus still has to be the A400 into production, and they are experiencing the pain of having a military aircraft program in the civilian side of the house (it just is not the same dealings, and I think that has siphoned hugely more resources out of them than they ever thought it would).
So, stay tuned, next round is roughly what the re-design looks like, then the float period, and then the commentary on whether it shapes up or not. At least ILFC insists it needs to be composite, and that would be a huge delay.
And the rumblings seem to be the launch aid is drying up, where do they get the money?
Sort of like the first step in dealing with alcoholism, admitting you are an alcoholic.
Airbus has finally done that (and the truth really erupts that the fuel efficiency was really bad in the design vs. the 787). The next step is what to do about the materials issue. Do you continue to kludge and make it an aluminum frame and skin structure (regardless of all the alloys they talk about, that’s what it is) or do you go composite.
That’s a huge question, as it still won’t be fully competitive until they do, but that also would take more time and money, and obviously they are not prepped or versed in that field.
Which segment do you shoot for? Match the 787 straight up, or intrude into the 777 space (which at least would make it competitive there as the 777 is the aluminum frame and skin structure). Boeing has continued to innovate and improve the 777, it keeps getting more efficient. Obviously there are limits, but they could counter with an all composite wing for instance.
Of course that only pretty well matches Boeing, nothing new in that, and they are still reacting to Boeing, not coming up with innovation (though at this point, innovation would be a composite with a different style structure which they are not ready, able or capable of doing).
Boeing next move has to be getting the engine for the 737 replacement (of reasonably confident it will be ready) and then launch that. That would be a killer move as then the only one they don’t match is the A380, and that one they will let go (unless the blended wing structure gets airlines commitment.) That would take the Airbus money maker right out of the equation.
Airbus still has to be the A400 into production, and they are experiencing the pain of having a military aircraft program in the civilian side of the house (it just is not the same dealings, and I think that has siphoned hugely more resources out of them than they ever thought it would).
So, stay tuned, next round is roughly what the re-design looks like, then the float period, and then the commentary on whether it shapes up or not. At least ILFC insists it needs to be composite, and that would be a huge delay.
And the rumblings seem to be the launch aid is drying up, where do they get the money?
-
fokker_f27
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 00:00
- Location: Weerde, Zemst - Belgium
One R.A.T. maybe doesn't, but five maybe do.Ram Air Turbines will never generate enough electricity to be able to feed a landing gear system powered by a turbine
But Boeing doesn't have a rudder problem like the A320. And the Aloha 732 was just performing too many short flights and wasn't maintained very good. Also it was a fairly old one. I watch "Aircrash Investigation"Excuse me? never heard of an Airbus plane loosing entire parts of its fuselage...
The most sexy girl in the sky: The Sud-Est Caravelle 12.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Airbus is at a crossroads - do they scrap the not inconsiderable investment they have made in the first 4 versions of the A-350 and loose additional years while working on a totally new plane, or do they continue to develop it as contracted for by several airlines while simultaneously developing a new plane. Either avenue will cost them a lot off money and lost sales.
If they develop a new plane (A-360?), what will it be? There will probably not be any major breakthroughs in technology within the next years, so they’ll be offering an Airbus copy of the 787. Also Airbus’ costs will probably be higher than Boeing’s due to the extra years of inflation and higher wages resulting from this inflation.
Boeing’s adoption of CRP (carbon reinforced plastic or composites) for the wings and fuselage will make the B-787 about 10 tons lighter, so it will be more efficient and offer maintenance advantages. The A-350 will offer CRP wings and empennage, but a lithium aluminum fuselage (lighter than the aluminum in the A-330, but heavier than CRP). The fuselage will retain the A-330’s width and offer less seating than the 787.
So what do we have here?
1. A heavier plane will be less fuel efficient.
2. An aluminum fuselage will be more subject to ramp damage.
3. A lower seating capacity plane that results in lower revenues for airlines.
4. A more expensive to buy plane due to the additional labor and fasteners required in assembly and inflation.
5. A plane delivered to customers at least 3 years after Boeing’s 787.
6. Airbus is currently engaged in a very expensive (and thus far money-loosing) effort with the A-380. Where will the extra billions come from, the European taxpayers?
Airbus, in order to remain competitive, must now price the A-350 at a very low price to gain an advantage over Boeing, and to compensate airlines for lower fuel efficiency in a time of rising fuel prices. Perhaps some customers might ask Airbus how much money Airbus will pay them to order the A-350!
If they develop a new plane (A-360?), what will it be? There will probably not be any major breakthroughs in technology within the next years, so they’ll be offering an Airbus copy of the 787. Also Airbus’ costs will probably be higher than Boeing’s due to the extra years of inflation and higher wages resulting from this inflation.
Boeing’s adoption of CRP (carbon reinforced plastic or composites) for the wings and fuselage will make the B-787 about 10 tons lighter, so it will be more efficient and offer maintenance advantages. The A-350 will offer CRP wings and empennage, but a lithium aluminum fuselage (lighter than the aluminum in the A-330, but heavier than CRP). The fuselage will retain the A-330’s width and offer less seating than the 787.
So what do we have here?
1. A heavier plane will be less fuel efficient.
2. An aluminum fuselage will be more subject to ramp damage.
3. A lower seating capacity plane that results in lower revenues for airlines.
4. A more expensive to buy plane due to the additional labor and fasteners required in assembly and inflation.
5. A plane delivered to customers at least 3 years after Boeing’s 787.
6. Airbus is currently engaged in a very expensive (and thus far money-loosing) effort with the A-380. Where will the extra billions come from, the European taxpayers?
Airbus, in order to remain competitive, must now price the A-350 at a very low price to gain an advantage over Boeing, and to compensate airlines for lower fuel efficiency in a time of rising fuel prices. Perhaps some customers might ask Airbus how much money Airbus will pay them to order the A-350!
I agree, CX, they are all very safe. If not, there will not be any competition. All airlines will order from the one who's safer.
Speaking of the A320, haven't we had a few incidents involving the landing gears, ie, JetBlue in LAX few months ago. And it's good to point out the B777 hasn't lost a plane yet.
Bottom line is that maintenance is the key for any airplanes to be safe. Unfortunately, some airlines just don't do a good job on that, and that's why the EU came up with a blacklist of airlines on safety.
Speaking of the A320, haven't we had a few incidents involving the landing gears, ie, JetBlue in LAX few months ago. And it's good to point out the B777 hasn't lost a plane yet.
Bottom line is that maintenance is the key for any airplanes to be safe. Unfortunately, some airlines just don't do a good job on that, and that's why the EU came up with a blacklist of airlines on safety.
The RAT only supplies power to flight control surfaces, landing gear must be lowered by hand pump.
this is for 757/767 but applies.
http://www.757.org.uk/systems/sys7.html
As far as Airbus and the A350, the biggest customers in the world have told them start over with a clean sheet, if they don't, they will lose out on sales and more importantly their credibility in the marketplace.
When your customers tell you what you need to do to compete, you better listen, or you risk alienating them as future prospects, they will just buy Boeing's.
The Airline Industry is about cost per seat mile, comparisons can be made until hell freezes over, but in the end its all about weight, build a lighter plane and the Industry will beat a path to your door, Boeing has done that and will continue to do that with the 737 composite and 777 as well.
Airbus has few if any choices, it must compete in all areas or it will fail.
they have some difficult times ahead, saner heads at Airbus will hopefully prevail and they can get it done, the industry needs at least two players, to have a balance.
Good luck to them
KT
this is for 757/767 but applies.
http://www.757.org.uk/systems/sys7.html
As far as Airbus and the A350, the biggest customers in the world have told them start over with a clean sheet, if they don't, they will lose out on sales and more importantly their credibility in the marketplace.
When your customers tell you what you need to do to compete, you better listen, or you risk alienating them as future prospects, they will just buy Boeing's.
The Airline Industry is about cost per seat mile, comparisons can be made until hell freezes over, but in the end its all about weight, build a lighter plane and the Industry will beat a path to your door, Boeing has done that and will continue to do that with the 737 composite and 777 as well.
Airbus has few if any choices, it must compete in all areas or it will fail.
they have some difficult times ahead, saner heads at Airbus will hopefully prevail and they can get it done, the industry needs at least two players, to have a balance.
Good luck to them
KT
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
smokejumper where did you hear that the 787 offers more seats than the A350? In fact it is the A350 which is higher capacity which will cross the 777's market, and which is why the 787-10X is being offered... And Airbus will respond by a larger A350 with maybe larger engines as well in the near future.. <-- but this is of course assuming the current A350 programme will does not go sideways... Also it is the Airbus' lithium/aluminium that is easier for maintainance, with the 787's fuselage probably easier to crack while those cracks cannot be identified easy enough (according to Airbus)..
If it was something like half a year ago that others told Airbus they need something better, there is a higher chance that they will scrape the current thing and go for something totally new, but they have gone so far with this now, new interior, cockpit, nose and NOW they are being told the thing is not good enough... i mean it's like doing an essay, if i have written only 500 words and you tell me it sux, i'll do it again, but after i've written 3000, i'll probably just do a proof-read and hand it in knowing i'll get a worse grade.
If it was something like half a year ago that others told Airbus they need something better, there is a higher chance that they will scrape the current thing and go for something totally new, but they have gone so far with this now, new interior, cockpit, nose and NOW they are being told the thing is not good enough... i mean it's like doing an essay, if i have written only 500 words and you tell me it sux, i'll do it again, but after i've written 3000, i'll probably just do a proof-read and hand it in knowing i'll get a worse grade.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Boeing 787 vs. Airbus 350 Passenger Counts - Responding to CX question of April 13:
Looking at manufacturer (web-site) data, the following seat counts are shown:
Boeing 787-3 – 290-330 passengers
Boeing 787-8 – 210-250 passengers
Boeing 787-9 – 250-290 passengers
Boeing 787-10 – 300-350 passengers
Airbus 350-800 – up to 253 passengers
Airbus 350-900 – up to 300 passengers
As for lithium aluminum vs. composite construction – composite is lighter and therefore more fuel efficient. CRP is MUCH more difficult to damage (ramp rash, common damage caused by replenishment trucks driving into planes at airports will be miinimized - this causes $millions of damage each year); many conventional planes have major dents and holes poked into the fuselage. Repairing a hole in a metal plane is easier than CRP repair, but Boeing has developed a relatively easy repair for CRP; also, CRP is not subject to propagation cracks – any cracks do not grow, as they do in metal planes. CRP offers a very low or no maintenance routine.
Just because you write an excellent essay, the professor may give you a poor grade, especially if your essay is about the wrong subject! If the subject is history and you wrote a Nobel Prize caliber essay on geology, your grade will be low. Airbus made major improvements to the A-330 (a good plane), but the airlines don’t want A-330 economics any longer; they want substantially better economics (The A-330 is to the B-787 as the B-767 is to the A-330)!
You say Airbus would have designed something better if they were told something better was needed half a year ago. They have been told this many times over the past 2 years as customers bought the B-787, Airbus just did not listen. They just kept putting more lipstick on the same old lady and calling her the new “Miss Universe”.
Looking at manufacturer (web-site) data, the following seat counts are shown:
Boeing 787-3 – 290-330 passengers
Boeing 787-8 – 210-250 passengers
Boeing 787-9 – 250-290 passengers
Boeing 787-10 – 300-350 passengers
Airbus 350-800 – up to 253 passengers
Airbus 350-900 – up to 300 passengers
As for lithium aluminum vs. composite construction – composite is lighter and therefore more fuel efficient. CRP is MUCH more difficult to damage (ramp rash, common damage caused by replenishment trucks driving into planes at airports will be miinimized - this causes $millions of damage each year); many conventional planes have major dents and holes poked into the fuselage. Repairing a hole in a metal plane is easier than CRP repair, but Boeing has developed a relatively easy repair for CRP; also, CRP is not subject to propagation cracks – any cracks do not grow, as they do in metal planes. CRP offers a very low or no maintenance routine.
Just because you write an excellent essay, the professor may give you a poor grade, especially if your essay is about the wrong subject! If the subject is history and you wrote a Nobel Prize caliber essay on geology, your grade will be low. Airbus made major improvements to the A-330 (a good plane), but the airlines don’t want A-330 economics any longer; they want substantially better economics (The A-330 is to the B-787 as the B-767 is to the A-330)!
You say Airbus would have designed something better if they were told something better was needed half a year ago. They have been told this many times over the past 2 years as customers bought the B-787, Airbus just did not listen. They just kept putting more lipstick on the same old lady and calling her the new “Miss Universe”.
Also, you have to consider that Airbus rejected the idea of the Dreamliners very early on. Once they found that they're wrong, they scrambled to compete. I think the fact that they beat Boeing in orders in the past few years make them over confident. On the flip side, when Airbus came up with A380, Boeing had several tries to compete with new versions of B747's being proposed. Surely, Boeing rejected A380 as well, but they didn't ignore it.
I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that Airbus fumbled and still struggled with the A350. They tried to minimize the investment of the A350, but they found out the hard way to realize that they need a completely new plane in order to compete the economics of B787. Potential customers have been telling Airbus to do more on A350; however, Airbus seemed to be in the state of denial for whatever reason.
Boeing is very smart to attack the A330 with the B787. A330 is a top selling plane, not to mention a very profitable plane for Airbus. B787 will cut into the A330/A340 segment, which we're already seeing the effect happening on A340, like the A340-200 and -300. The A330 will be in trouble by 2008/2009 when B787 starts flying. And that will be the worst years for Airbus in a while as A350 won't be available til 2010 or beyond (more delay?).
It will be more competitive when the replacements of B737 and A320 family come out by both manufacturers. But right now, the mid-size planes that Airbus has dominated in the past decade are going Boeing's way, at least that is what I see the next few years to be. The limit is how fast Boeing can make the B787 as early slots are all booked.
I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that Airbus fumbled and still struggled with the A350. They tried to minimize the investment of the A350, but they found out the hard way to realize that they need a completely new plane in order to compete the economics of B787. Potential customers have been telling Airbus to do more on A350; however, Airbus seemed to be in the state of denial for whatever reason.
Boeing is very smart to attack the A330 with the B787. A330 is a top selling plane, not to mention a very profitable plane for Airbus. B787 will cut into the A330/A340 segment, which we're already seeing the effect happening on A340, like the A340-200 and -300. The A330 will be in trouble by 2008/2009 when B787 starts flying. And that will be the worst years for Airbus in a while as A350 won't be available til 2010 or beyond (more delay?).
It will be more competitive when the replacements of B737 and A320 family come out by both manufacturers. But right now, the mid-size planes that Airbus has dominated in the past decade are going Boeing's way, at least that is what I see the next few years to be. The limit is how fast Boeing can make the B787 as early slots are all booked.
it must be admitted that until sth totally new from Airbus comes, the 777 and 787 will dominate in that segment..
Overall, discounting the 787-10, A350 offers more seats, and it won't be long until a larger A350 gets announced, they said they might put larger engines for it.. Should the current A350 continues, it must stretch more, making the cost/seat lower and get closer to the 787..
Overall, discounting the 787-10, A350 offers more seats, and it won't be long until a larger A350 gets announced, they said they might put larger engines for it.. Should the current A350 continues, it must stretch more, making the cost/seat lower and get closer to the 787..
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
There is a structural limit to how far a fuselage can be stretched. Granted, the longer the fuselage vs. it’s’ width, the better the “fineness ratio” and the more streamlined the plane can be. But there is a limit to the ultimate length of any structure. You can strengthen the structure to add length, but his increases the weight (not good). Airbus must scrap the existing fuselage design and develop a new, wider one to increase capacity. I do not know what this will do the wing design, as it currently stands; they may even need to develop a new wing.
India Airlines selected the B-787-8 after an extensive evaluation. One major point was the B-787’s greater passenger capacity than the A-350. Boeing designed the 787 to have 9 abreast seating with greater seat widths than the A-330. Airlines are specifying existing seat widths and this gives the 787 10 abreast seating and thus, greater capacity for a given length.
If you increase aircraft weight, you then need larger engines to power it; since they will use more fuel, you need to carry more fuel; since you need a greater fuel capacity, you need a larger wing to get the space for it; since the plane is now heavier, you need larger and heavier landing gear and tires.
You may recall that the US Navy specified an attack plane in the early 1950’s that had 2 engines, carried a specified bomb load over a specified distance and, weighed 30,000 pounds. Ed Heinemann, Douglas’ Chief Designer, told the Navy that he could meet all performance requirement, if they’d let him design the plane around his own specifications.
The A-4 was the result: 1 engine, all performance specs met! Heinemann later told it like this: “If I could use 1 engine, the plane would be lighter, because it was lighter, fuel consumption was lower, because fuel consumption was lower, less fuel needed to be carried, because less fuel needed to be carried, the wing could be smaller, because the wing was smaller, the heavy wing-fold mechanism could be eliminated, and so forth. It kept compounding and the plane kept getting lighter and more efficient.
Airbus needs to decide whether they will compete on product or price. They are heavily extended with the A-380, M-400M, and now the A-350. They need to sober up, scrap the existing A-350 and develop a new plane. Airbus is fortunate in one way though, they can get aircraft development funding from the European governments; Boeing can’t (although there is a learning curve from government funded R&D efforts – not the same) get direct development funding. The European taxpayer just keeps picking up the tab and (I believe) Airbus has not paid any of the money back.
India Airlines selected the B-787-8 after an extensive evaluation. One major point was the B-787’s greater passenger capacity than the A-350. Boeing designed the 787 to have 9 abreast seating with greater seat widths than the A-330. Airlines are specifying existing seat widths and this gives the 787 10 abreast seating and thus, greater capacity for a given length.
If you increase aircraft weight, you then need larger engines to power it; since they will use more fuel, you need to carry more fuel; since you need a greater fuel capacity, you need a larger wing to get the space for it; since the plane is now heavier, you need larger and heavier landing gear and tires.
You may recall that the US Navy specified an attack plane in the early 1950’s that had 2 engines, carried a specified bomb load over a specified distance and, weighed 30,000 pounds. Ed Heinemann, Douglas’ Chief Designer, told the Navy that he could meet all performance requirement, if they’d let him design the plane around his own specifications.
The A-4 was the result: 1 engine, all performance specs met! Heinemann later told it like this: “If I could use 1 engine, the plane would be lighter, because it was lighter, fuel consumption was lower, because fuel consumption was lower, less fuel needed to be carried, because less fuel needed to be carried, the wing could be smaller, because the wing was smaller, the heavy wing-fold mechanism could be eliminated, and so forth. It kept compounding and the plane kept getting lighter and more efficient.
Airbus needs to decide whether they will compete on product or price. They are heavily extended with the A-380, M-400M, and now the A-350. They need to sober up, scrap the existing A-350 and develop a new plane. Airbus is fortunate in one way though, they can get aircraft development funding from the European governments; Boeing can’t (although there is a learning curve from government funded R&D efforts – not the same) get direct development funding. The European taxpayer just keeps picking up the tab and (I believe) Airbus has not paid any of the money back.