GE Happy To Power A350-800 & A350-900
No GE Engine For A350-1000 While Committed To Rival 777-300ER
Airbus’ Vice President of Marketing, Andrew Shankland, gave a market assessment of the upcoming A350XWB family in Hamburg, Germany as part of Airbus Innovation Days briefings earlier this week and highlighted the wide market appeal as being part of the success of the airplane sales thus far.
“There are a number of reasons why the market has enthusiastically taken to the A350 XWB. The first reason is that Airbus has taken the ‘family approach’ with three variants that are all fully launched and ordered by our customers,” said Shankland.
“In turn, this means that the A350 XWB is not only able to replace Boeing 767′s and compete with the 787, but also replace the Boeing 777. In effect, when ordering the A350, customers have one family replacing two or more families.“
Image courtesy of Airbus
Airbus’ A350 Market Update also noted how “the A350 XWB is a step ahead of the 787, and a generation beyond the 777, in 2008 it received 186 gross orders, in contrast to the 787 which received 94 orders, and the 777 with 54 new orders.”
Of course, this failed to take account of how good the year before (2007) was for Boeing with some 1413 net orders – in no small part attributable to the (then) 141 firmly ordered 777′s alongside the 787 which racked up 346 firm orders. The A350XWB family too, had a scorcher of a year with a culmulative total of 292 orders (2007). (Not that any one year sets a trend, as we all know…)
Moving away from the three-way tussle between the 777, 787 and A350, the big Airbus twin still has just one powerplant under the wing in the form of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB. Certainly no bad thing at all – one only need look at the success Boeing has had with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER families equipped with just the General Electric GE90-110/115B engines – particularly when Boeing launched both jets without a traditional launch customer back in February 2000.
Rumours of General Electric coming on board the A350XWB program have been varied as much as the A330-derived A350 was, with no real conclusion due anytime soon either. The prospect of any convergence is firmly quashed by GE, dashing hopes for airlines and Airbus about getting a second propulsion unit to power the entire A350XWB line-up.
“GE has offered a GEnx solution for both the A350-800 and the A350-900 versions, and will not compete on the A350-1000, which will compete directly with the highly successful GE90-powered Boeing 777-300ER. To date, Airbus has not expressed an interest in GE’s offer,” says GE’s Rick Kennedy.
GE has been wary of pouring huge sums of money into an all new engine for the A350XWB family and is unlikely to change its mind anytime soon, although the company is clear that it is willing to power two of the three A350 variants currently on offer.
“Airbus wants GE to develop a new engine — in the same thrust class as the Rolls engine — that would then compete head-to-head across all three A350 variants. GE is not sure an acceptable business case can be made for such an enormous investment, when GE already is enjoying extraordinary success on the GE90-powered 777-300ER,” adds Kennedy.
Image courtesy of Boeing
Whether Airbus and GE can come close to an agreement is not immediately clear, however, that GE believes in the 777 despite a potential worthy A350 rival may be down to in part its own financial commitment in the 777 program, notwithstanding the phenomenal success over the last few years of the 777-300ER.
Equally, with the A350-1000 not having the same level of market success as its A350-800/900 siblings, questions still remain as to whether the jet can have or indeed offer as much comfort for passengers against the wider 777-300ER, which seems to be one of many big selling points on the big Boeing twin. Of bigger concern to GE is the fact that of the thus far 75 firmly ordered A350-1000′s, 65 are sandwiched between the big three Arab carriers in Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways (with Asiana Airlines being the only other firm customer).
It’s fairly easy to see why GE doesn’t believe the multi-billion dollar investment would not be a viable business proposition when the A350-1000 has such a narrow band of interest, despite its so-called marketing advantages. In the long term, “never-say-never” would be apt, but GE’s stance hasn’t changed much, if at all since the A350 came into being, thus making the likelihood of a GE-powered A350-1000 more of a “nay” than a “yay“, facilitated in part by the fact that it is making happy sums of money from the virtually unchallenged 777-300ER.
The prospects of GE powering the A350-800/900 seem good, however if Airbus continues to insist on an all-new application for all three models or none at all, GE probably is not going to get too upset given the healthy sales it has racked up with the GEnx on the 787 Dreamliner, as well as having a monopoly on the 747-8 program too.
For Airbus, the A350XWB has indeed proven to be the “shot in the arm” it needed to address the less than popular A340 family, customer response to it has indeed has been positive with almost 500 orders.
That alone is testament to the fact that the A350 can indeed survive, progress and expand under the power of the Trent XWB engine. If it emerges that Airbus and GE cannot agree on a deal that would see a second engine powering the A350, would that really be such a bad prospect?
The airlines that have ordered the A350XWB certainly do not think so, even though they may want to see more than one engine choice.
For now, GE seems happy to stick with a successful formula in the 777-300ER – quite frankly, who can blame them?
“Actually there was PLENTY during the IAM strike”
– Somebody was criticising Boeing during the strike (other than IAM)?
Sheesh, when it comes to anything that even mildly challenges their seemingly adolescent hypersensitivities about everything Airbus, some Airbus aficionados display all the tolerance of, and may have even tighter sphincters than a sixteenth-century Jesuit. It smacks of cultlike devotion.
Change ‘Airbus’ to ‘Boeing’ and you have perfect example of a typical member of ‘Boeing badge only’ fan club. It would be better of people just contribute something meaningful to any discussion, rather that ‘coin’ meaningless phrases.
Many contributors her provided interesting information with some links, giving more insight into many aspects of the A350. At the end of the day we are all supposed to be aero-enthusiasts.
Seems to me someone so dry, dour, and humorless would find it difficult to be “enthusiastic” about anything. OK, I’ll give it a try, tighten the ropes securing my robe and quietly return to my cell in order to contemplate how to be more decorous in my approach to future colloquy. Ad Majorem Airbusei Gloriam.
“tighten the ropes securing my robe” — were they loose all this time? Please do that then.
Leelaw,
Don’t try to turn it around on me. That you used it at other places is no excuse and I would have made the same comment had I seen you use it there, be that pro or against Airbus, Boeing or anyone else.
Sorry, nothing wrong with “fuhrerbunker” in the context it was used unless you’re hypersensitive to the point of being incapacitated, in which case you probably shouldn’t be reading this blog. Given your earlier comment offering a rather low opinion of these proceedings in general, I’m surprised you’re here at all. Don’t you have better things to do than whine about places you obviously disdain into which you voluntarily enter?
Ahh, classic Leelaw: Bigotry and claims about no humor.
Sorry Sir, you are humorless, frequent a blog which you obviously disdain, a whiner about the trivial, and like to level false accusations as well.
MPTA-098,
“michael di marco, perhaps you just haven’t really tried looking for the information you desired.
Page 19
http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400006/7/19/41508197.pdf
-Cabin altitude at or below 6000ft.
-20% humidity level”
You are seeing what you want to see and ignoring what it infers. The statement has two parts.
Part 1 Cabinet attitude at 6000ft.
If the statement had stopped here, then the 350 matches 787 from tarmac to tarmac. However, there is part 2
Part 2 Or, Cabinet attitude below 6000ft
Below implies at a higher attitude, 8000ft. Part 2 acknowledge and confirm my statement, 6000ft @ takeoff & landing and 8000ft @ cruising.
-20% humidity level
20% @ 6000ft is better that @ 8000ft, nevertheless, 20% is 20% is it not?
“Apparently, the windows on the A350 will be an inch wider and a couple of inches shorter than those on the 787.”
You are missing the point. If the frame/panel (4-shell) is superior to the monolithic barrel, then why can’t Airbus match or exceed Boeing’s attitude and window specifications? Please explain.
““This appears closer to the true. EK claim that per their mission rules 777-300ER carries 6,000kg (13,200#) more cargo than -1000 confirms that the -1000 OEW is around 350,000.”
With all due respect Michael, do you seriously believe that number? Just for comparison; 350,000 lb is 2,200 lb more than the OEW of the 777-300. The respected WidebodyPhotog of a.net is estimating the OEW of the A350-1000 to be 330,000 lb:”
With all due respect MPTA-098, the comparison is with the 777-300ER. Its OEW is 370,000 lb.
http://theaviationspecialist.com/master_lh_mission_dataset.gif
Looking back at my last reply to Brian, it looks like I mixed up the A359’s OEW figures (must have been to0 tired). According to WP’s charts, the OEW for the A350-series is as following:
A350-800 / 122.7 t
A350-900 / 132 t
A350-1000 / 149.7 t (333,000 lb)
I would guess WP is using Piano or some other fancy mission analysis tool.
“MPTA-098 “In addition, the 787 has one extra circumferential joint vs. the A350 (4 vs. 3).””
Correcting your error here,
Mathematically, the numbers of circumferential joints is N+1.
N is the numbers of barrels.
787 have 6 monolithic barrels.
350 have 3 (4-Shell) barrels.
The correct numbers are (7 vs. 4). And, by the way let not forget the 4 longitudinal seams that run the full length of the 3 (4-shell) barrels. If you do the math, the 350 has double the length of joints.
Let’s see the situation once again.
1. Airbus does not want to put the same 787 engines on the A350. The reason is because it can’t justify a better engine DMC on the A350.
2. The only way to show a better engine DMC is by using a different engine (than the one on the 787). RR develops the TrentXWB specifically for the A350.
3. For some reasons, GE is not keen to develop a specific engine for the A350 like RR does.
It clear to me the A350 must live with only one engine offering, which is not a problem at all.
Leelaw,
I don’t disdain this blog but I do disagree with much what is said on it.
It is sad that people like you can’t handle different opinions without having to label it as Airboosting and Befending and then resort to nazi references instead of arguments for your points.
If you can’t handle that not everyone agrees with you and can’t make arguments to the point then I suggest you stay away instead of jumping the shark.
michael di marco pe,
I think the 6000ft refers to the altitude not the pressure altitude, so below means less altitude and therefore higher pressure, i. e., the same as the Boeing 787.
Leelaw sez
It’s nice that our ever reliable flak/spin doctor lets us in on all the chatter taking place around the various water coolers in the “Fuhrerbunker” on “Planet Airbus.” Unfortunately, the accompanying background music is limited to only two tunes:
1. Airbus Uber Alles
2. Everything’s Coming Up Airbus (all the time)
Pray tell, m’good fellow, what IS that purple stuff in the water cooler?
“Pray tell, m’good fellow, what IS that purple stuff in the water cooler?”
Sadly, it’s indeed a concoction right out of Jim Jones’ tome on mixology. Counselor, perhaps I missed the court decision where “fatuous Airbusiers” were declared to be a “protected class,” to be shielded from “knuckle dragging” bigots like me?
MPTA-098,
Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing about how Airbus actually builds aircraft. There IS a circumfrential joint between sec 11 and 12 on A380, and there will be one on A350. Especially seeing as most of sec 11 is Aluminum, and section 12 is composite. There most certianly is one. The terms sec 13/14 are used to indicate the forward fuselage section, as will be manufactured in Nordenham and Hamburg. This section is then flown to St. Nazaire in France for mating with the aft end of sec 12… two joints so far.
Sec 13/14 (one section) is mated to the forward end of sec 15 which will be made in Kinston, NC and assembled in St. Nazaire. So now 3 joints.
The Aft end of sec 15 mates with the Aft fuselage section (sec 17/18, one section again) that is fabricated in Augsburg, and assembled in Hamburg, so 4 joints now.
While YOU may not count the joint between 17/19 and sec 19, Airbus CERTAINLY does, and an airplane is not going to fly with out it. That makes 5. The connection between 19 and 19.1 is certainly there as well in Airbus’ definition, since, again they are made from different materials in different cities entirely. That makes 6.
Your showing of Garcia’s picture is nice… but it’s what is termed “A Cartoon”. You will also note that in Garcia’s “cartoon” that sec 17/18 isn’t 4 panels in a barrel, but actually, 5.
As for the A380… go and study what Meaulte does. Come back when you are worthy.
If I understand well Airbus refuses to put GEnx engines on the A350-800/900 and requested a unique GE engine for the whole A350 family.
On the other side, GE refuses to build a specific engine that covers the whole A350 application (-800/-900/-1000). But Ge is willing to offer slightly modified GEnx for the A350-800/-900. GE seems to consider the A350-1000 as a separate case.
Rolls Royce accepted to build an engine for the 787 (Trent 1000) and it also accepts to build an engine dedicated to A350XWB (Trent XWB).
Recently Rolls Royce announced that A350-1000 will receive a modified TrentXWB because of the higher thrust requirements.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/03/323310/rolls-royce-reveals-trent-xwb-upgrade-plan-for-a350-1000.html
Actually, there will be two sub-types of TrentXWB engines that are not fully interchangeable.
Do I get it right?
“You are seeing what you want to see and ignoring what it infers. The statement has two parts.”
Cabin altitude at or below 6000ft: Means that the cabin will be pressurized to an altitude of maximum 6000 ft at FL410.
Interestingly, Gulfstream is opting for conventional aluminum construction for most of the G650’s structure but with extensive use of metal bonding instead of riveting, and significantly lower cabin altitude than either the 787 and the A350.
http://www.gizmag.com/business-travel-at-800-mph–the-gulfstream-g650/9000/
“The G650 is designed to provide the most comfortable and productive cabin environment. A cabin altitude of 4,850 feet at FL510 and 2,800 feet at FL410 reduces fatigue, increases mental alertness and enhances productivity, while a quieter cabin provides a more comfortable environment for conversation or relaxation.”
“You are missing the point. If the frame/panel (4-shell) is superior to the monolithic barrel, then why can’t Airbus match or exceed Boeing’s attitude and window specifications? Please explain.”
Airbus (and Boeing as well as other OEMs) can easily exceed the window specifications for the 787. However, as in all other matters regarding the design of a LCA, there’s a trade off between window-size and the weight-penalties of larger windows.
It’s interesting to note that the “Big Bang Team” from Universidad Politécnica de Valencia in Spain chose a (lighter) windowless cabin proposal for a new eco-efficient aircraft design to reach Airbus’ “Fly Your Ideas” contest final.
http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/09_05_07_fyi_contest_final.html
“With all due respect MPTA-098, the comparison is with the 777-300ER. Its OEW is 370,000 lb.”
Again, with all due respect, I used the 777-300 to underline the fact that the A350 will be DOA, if it’s heavier than the 773A Simple as that.
As you know, the A350 will be of similar length to the 773A (and the 77W) and have slighly lower MTOW. They both have about the same wing area, but significantly, the fuel capacity is larger on the 773A (more structure required): 171,160 litres (45,220 US gal) on the 773Avs. 156,000 litres (41,215 US gal) on the A350-1000. However, the primary drivers of fuel efficiency is not MTOW, it’s OEW, cruise L/D and SFC (i.e. the Brequet range equation).
Furthermore, the surface wetted area is one of the most powerful design driver for a LCA. For minimum OEW, you want to minimize the wetted area (and use simple geometry and “load paths” which certainly are trade offs), and for minimum drag, you also want to minimize the wetted area (and select shapes that match the design speed). Clearly, the greater the diameter of the fuselage, the greater the wetted area and, therefore, the higher the friction drag. The fuselage wetted area will be significantly less on the A350 which is due to the smaller cross-section as well as the fact that the A350 will have a double-bubble shaped fuselage which wastes significantly less internal space than that on the 777. Consequently, less wetted area means less structure and material, and yet you want to convince people that the A350-1000 will be 2,200 lb heavier than the 773A. Again, with all due respect, you should try doing some number crunching using the Brequet range equation, and you’ll probably end up around 325,000 lb and 330,000 lb as well.
“Correcting your error here, Mathematically, the numbers of circumferential joints is N+1. N is the numbers of barrels. 787 have 6 monolithic barrels.
350 have 3 (4-Shell) barrels. The correct numbers are (7 vs. 4). And, by the way let not forget the 4 longitudinal seams that run the full length of the 3 (4-shell) barrels. If you do the math, the 350 has double the length of joints”
Actually, it’s N-1.
Between sections-41/43/44/46/47/48 there are 5 circumferential joints, or 4, if you don’t count the circumferential joint between section-47/48, where the former is the aft pressurized fuselage section (also including the one-piece dome, inserted between sections 47 and 48), and the latter, the unpressurized empennage section-48. Since section-19, the unpressurized empennage section on the A350 will be a one barrel 787-like structure (although constructed on a superior “inside” mandrel), I did not include that extra circumferential joint in the example above.
http://www.aint.com/pdfs/AIT_787Projects_BRO003.pdf
It’s funny how mentioning those circumferential joints have led to quite a few tangential comments.
Conclusion: The 787 has one more circumferential joint than the A350, but the latter requires more fasteners in the shell/barrel assembly due to the longitudinal joints between the 4 panels. However, the increase in OEW due to the extra fasteners and associated hardware required for assembling the 4 panels together in a barrel, is more than compensated for by the lighter and more optimised panels.
“Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing about how Airbus actually builds aircraft. There IS a circumfrential joint between sec 11 and 12 on A380, and there will be one on A350.”
Again, there’s no circumferential joint between sections 11/12, and the circumference of the joint beteween them are more like 270 degrees than the 360 degrees required for a circumferential joint. Méaulte produces section-11 and section-12, and both are delivered to Saint-Nazaire for integration with the bottom fuselage panel:
Take a close look at the first image:
http://events.airbus.com/A380/ow_openpict.aspx?url=./Images/MME/660.JPG
http://events.airbus.com/A380/Default2.aspx?ArtId=667
Sections 11/12 are then joined at the Saint-Nazaire plant and integrated with the bottom forward fuselage panel which is common for both sections.
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=306088&nseq=467
On the A300/A310/A330/A340, there’s a circumferential joint between sections 11/12. Due to the unique bay design for the nose landing gear on the A380 (a design which also is being adopted by the A350), there is no circumferential joint between sections-11/12 on the A380, which BTW, should be apparent even to “experts”.
“Especially seeing as most of sec 11 is Aluminum, and section 12 is composite.”
This is correct, but again, the joint between them will not be circumferential, or 360 degrees, but somewhere around 270 degrees in circumference.
“While YOU may not count the joint between 17/19 and sec 19, Airbus CERTAINLY does, and an airplane is not going to fly with out it”
Again, before taking off in a tangential direction, you could have looked at the context of my original argument, where I compared the number of circumferential joints on the “4 pannel pressurized barrel sections” on the A350 with the single piece pressurized barrel section on the 787, and where I pointed out that the A350 has one less circumferential joint than the 787. Since section 19 on the A350 is a one piece barrel empennage section, similar to the one the 787, I didn’t include the joint between sections-18/19 because section-19 is not made of 4 panels.
“As for the A380… go and study what Meaulte does. Come back when you are worthy”
Me thinks you may have seen Wayne & Garth talking to Alice Cooper and Aerosmith just too many times.
NB. When I’ve been talking about circumferential joints between major fuselage assemblies, I’ve meant full circumferential joints, and not partial circumferential joints, as is the case between sections-11 and -12 on the A380.
Sadly, it’s indeed a concoction right out of Jim Jones’ tome on mixology. Counselor, perhaps I missed the court decision where “fatuous Airbusiers” were declared to be a “protected class,” to be shielded from “knuckle dragging” bigots like me?
Yes indeedy. Jimmy was quite the bartender, wasn’t he?
RFK said “Some think of things that are and say ‘why?’. I dream of things that never were and say ‘why not?’.”
Then there are those of us who dream of things that shouldn’t be and never will be, and say ‘why bother?’.
So GE won’t build any dedicated engine for the A350XWB. But that’s not a problem, is it?
MPTA-098, whatever dude. You can’t change facts, and you show quite clearly you have no clue how either the A380 nor the A350 are and will be built. You can try to change your argument to suit whatever Airbusien logic you wish, but that does not chang how Airbus ACTUALLY builds an aircraft.
Section 12 does not some how mystically extend forward under sec 11 on A380. The unpressurized portion of sec 11 is manufactured by Latecoere and delivered to Airbus St. Nazaire where it is incorporated into sect 11. There IS a joint between 11 and 12, and yes, despite your protestations, it does in fact go all the way around. In fact, if you had bothered to go to the Aerolia web site, you might have learned something…they have a nice picture of an A380 sec 11 on the assembly jig. I know… too much work for you, and it might force you to admit you were wrong. Your last rant, just proved my point, again.
Who cares how many circumferential joints either plane has.
Metal is easier to join and requires more joints. FRP’s are harder to join require fewer joints.
The net difference is small.
“Who cares how many circumferential joints either plane has.”
Aren’t such concerns, at this stage at least, mostly a case of whose sales pitch you want to latch on to/promote/believe?
Yes, indeed “who cares” especially when an Airbusien was using it to claim some kind of mark of superiority, only to be proven wrong, and totally without clue. Yes, indeed… who cares that most Airbusiens have no clue.
76. Erik Bloodaxe | May 19th, 2009 at 14:29
in my experience Airbusiens ang Boeingites have one thing in common:
a total lack of clue
“Section 12 does not some how mystically extend forward under sec 11 on A380. The unpressurized portion of sec 11 is manufactured by Latecoere and delivered to Airbus St. Nazaire where it is incorporated into sect 11.”
Again, the forward lower shell (bottom forward fuselage panel and associated structure; stringers, frames etc) on the A380, is part of both the pressurized lower fuselage of Section-11 and lower fuselage of section-12. I’m surprised that an “expert” such as yourself, can’t seem to figure it out.
Looking for example at this first picture:
http://www.pictaero.com/en/pictures/picture,593
… it’s obvious that the circumferntial joint /just behind the cockpit windows) is not a full circumference. The shared bottom forward fuselage panel extends from section-13 to the unpressurized composite forward nose gear bay.
As for being “lazy”, why didn’t you click on this page when “visiting” the Aerolia website:
http://www.aerolia.com/uk/produits/gros-porteurs.php
Aerolia delivers these sub assemblies to Airbus for its large aircraft family:
» Section 11
» Section 12
» Lower shell 11-12
In fact, the A320 family also have a common lower shell for sections 11/12 (i.e. not a full 360 degree circumferential joint)
http://www.aerolia.com/uk/produits/monocouloirs.php
» Section 11
» Section 12
» Lower shell 11-12
» Section 13-14
and some more pics:
http://www.pictaero.com/en/pictures/picture,8381
http://www.pictaero.com/en/pictures/picture,10203
http://planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=733865
http://planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=413094
You can continue to insist that the sky is purple, the grass blue, and that you are correct; but that does not make it so.
There CLEARLY is a joint between sec 11 and 12, your continued protestations that there isn’t fly in the face of reality. Section 11 does not just magically adhere to sec 12, no matter how much your Airbus Uber Alles cheerleading would like to think. For someone so fixated on Airbus being soooo great and grand, you really should learn how they build airplanes.
Eirik Haraldsson: “There IS a joint between 11 and 12, and yes, despite your protestations, it does in fact go all the way around.”
The question here is not if there’s a joint between section 11/12, but if it goes “all the way around” as you insisted in your earlier remark. Clearly it doesn’t, end of story.
First you claim there is no joint. Then you say well there IS a joint, but I don’t count it because it doesn’t go all the way around. Still not grasping the concept that the sections are not held together by Airbusien magic goo. The joint DOES go all the way around. Go learn about how aircraft are built. I’m not suggesting that you become an Industrial Engineer, but at least getting a basic clue would be enough.
I’m through with you. You are so obstinate in your illiteracy, that it is just stupidity now.
Apparently, our resident flak/spin doctor has exhausted all available Airbus talking points and clip files on the subject of “joints,” yet his internal computer still solves “Airbus Uber Alles.” Perhaps another tune needs to added to his repertoire, maybe “If I Only Had a Brain” would be appropriate?
Just keep ranting. I can sympathize with your awful predicament of not knowing how to scale back your idiocy, as well as your petulant and nonsensical attacks. Someday perhaps, when you grow up, you will see that you are everything you accuse me of.
So, just to conclude; starting with the A320, the fuselage sections 11/12 of all Airbus LCA are designed in such a way that they share a common lower shell section (like two separate condos on top of a common basement structure). Consequently, there’s only a joint between sections 11/12 on the upper fuselage (shell). If you don’t believe it, I’d suggest that you present documentation to support your claim that “the joint does go all the way around”. If you can’t find it, well to bad.
MPTA-098:
You can easily begin to establish bona fides as an independent thinker without a preordained partisan agenda by citing an instance in your various and voluminous analyses posted to this blog where you’ve concluded Boeing is superior to Airbus in some significant or material way. Otherwise, if it looks like a flak, walks like a flak, and talks like a flak, it’s a flak.
leelaw, erik, MPTA-098.
What if the unthinkable happens and you’re all right.
No section 11-12 aren’t held together by airbus magic – don’t be insulting, and no – there’s no full circumferential joint between both sections.
Leelaw, I seem to remember you demanding dispositive proof in an earlier thread – have you even looked at MPTA’s links? All we have from Erik is claims and insults, that’s the side you back with further insults?
You do seem to allow yourself being pushed ever more Boeingward. is the global downturn affected your IQ now?
and still – who gives a flying… one more join isn’t going to affect the balance much – the 350 will require more fasteners to hold the shells together and the 787 carries extra weight because composite doesn’t lend itself well to fastener joints. (try glue – we do)
end of rant??
“What if the unthinkable happens and you’re all right.”
Not beyond the realm of possibility.
“have you even looked at MPTA’s links?”
I did, before my eyes glazed over I didn’t really see even a preponderance of evidence establishing his seemingly meandering point.
“You do seem to allow yourself being pushed ever more Boeingward”
Why does complaining about a user being an Airbus flak necessarily make me more pro-Boeing? I have no interest in any form of cheerleading, doctrinairely partisan or more subtle, for any multi-national corporation, particularly one whose top-leadership are such shameless dissemblers; you know, the “Potemkin Dreamliner Hoax” and all.
In my previous reply I offered a perfectly reasonable challenge to help MPTA-098 to establish his bona fides, perhaps he’ll bite.
Ikkeman
“787 carries extra weight because composite doesn’t lend itself well to fastener joints. (try glue – we do)”
Indeed, well at least we know you are an Airbusien with actual skin in the game.
To your point about the 787, you are quite correct. Mostly because the Boeing engineers had to be draged kicking and screaming into the composites world with near about ZERO prior experience. Litterally before the 787 you could count the number of composites engineers as under a score. Then Mr. Gillette made the decision to go composite and it made everyone have to learn about composite structures. The fasteners are there because the average Boeing engineer is extremely conservative, and Boeing doesn’t trust bonding. Never have. It’s one of those things like welding, they tried it once decades ago (in a stupid application) and it failed (no surprise), now they won’t touch it ever again. Additionally, bonding is the worst job a Boeing machinist gets, they usually put the new guy on the job. It’s smelly, time consuming, gooey work that is despised by all. Consequently, they get horrible quality which reinforces the concept that bonding is just shit, never mind that Airbus uses it with great effect in the crown of everyone of their aircraft… go figure.
All that said, one needs to understand that the 787 will be the worst composite plane Boeing ever builds. They do seem to have learned some lessons from the past (shocking, I know) and have plans to fix whats wrong with the plane. Of course the wing is still a “black Aluminum” disaster, but eventually the next composite wing design will be better.
The main problem with the A350 is that Airbus wasn’t ready to do it. The panel concept is right out of TANGO, and TANGO showed that it was a DUMB idea, but similar to Boeing, that’s what they had so they went with it. Johnny shithead Leahy’s protestations and blathering about it being better because you can “replace a panel” are laughable, but so is he.
It’s not the actual Engineers or even the managers at Airbus that have disdain for, but rather the Fan boys. The twits like MPTA who are Airbus Uber Alles, Airbus is always right no matter what. These people usually have no skin in the game, and are just cheerleaders. 99.9% of them have no clue what it takes to build an airplane, nor have a concept of how or why things are done. For these people, I have nothing but contempt.
Leelaw | May 20th, 2009 at 19:53
it’s not your complaining about airbus fanboys – it’s the total lack of Boeing fanboy criticism.
You are not in my experience pro either company, and I respect your opinions for that – but you are much less patient with those that prefer Airbus.
Oh, and I’ve seen that glaze over effect when those without technical inclination are presented with data. I do believe MPTA is technically correct – the lower shell is continues between section 11-12, but whether you accept that as proof of his original point is a matter of semantics.
Erik Bloodaxe | May 21st, 2009 at 14:43
so what Sir, are you. MPTA may be a fanboy, but even a broken watch is right twice a day. and I do believe there is no 360 degree circumferential join between section 11-12. At least, you’ve provided no data to support your claim as he has.
on your points on the 787 and 350. Couldn’t agree more. looking forward to what lessons B will apply to the NB replacement. Interested in hearin when Mr Leahy would propose to replace an entire panel.
everybody dislikes fanboys, none more so than fanboys.
[i]it’s the total lack of Boeing fanboy criticism.[/i]
Which user on this blog that’s a Boeing fanboy reaches the level of the person in question…he’s in a class by himself, he even leaves my buddy Keesje behind in the dust. I’ve called numerous Boeing fanboys out on the Seattle P-I blog and gone to some lengths to correct them when they mangle history or misstate facts about e.g. “launch aid.”
[i]glaze over effect when those without technical inclination are presented with data.[/i]
Be gentle. Remember how nicely I corrected you when you spouted that absolute rubbish about the process of mortgage foreclosure in the US on the P-I blog? BTW, did you receive my peace offering? You may want to check your junk e-mail folder.
Ikkeman,
The original argument came because Fanboi MPTA said there was no joint at all, then the argument of it must be a 360 degree, came when he failed in his first argument. There IS a joint, it does go all the way around sec 11 holding it to sec 12, there is no Airbus magic holding the plane together. It is not a perfect concentric circle, but that was NEVER part of the argument. The argument was is there a joint. Keep to the argument, or don’t bring the case, councilor. The simple fact is there are holes drilled in Aluminum, fasteners fitted into those holes holding the fuselage together, the intricacies of the panelization of the nose section are irrelevant at that point, the FACT is there IS a joint, which MPTA originally tried to claim did not exist. He also didn’t count joints between Sec 17 and 19, and the 19 to 19.1 joint because they didn’t meet HIS specification. Next he will claim that joints made on every other Tuesday in months starting with the letter M don’t count either. Give me a break. Like I said I don’t expect him to be an Industrial Engineer, but having a clue before opening is mouth would be nice.
I am no fanboy. I point out stupidity where I see it. I’m equally critical of Boeing for their failures. Don’t even get me started on the whole 767-400 pile of dog meat.
This sets me apart from the likes of MPTA and his kind who can see no fault whatsoever in their beloved Airbus.
Erik,
if your definition of a joint in this question is: “The simple fact is there are holes drilled in Aluminum, fasteners fitted into those holes” You’re 100% right. There is a circumferential hole between 11-12.
If you add the “holding the fuselage together” bit your argument derails slightly. the circumferential (the word does imply a 360 degree join) fasteners between 11-12 do keep the respective upper and side panels together, but the lower panel is single piece, and the joint to the frame then becomes a case of holding the panel in shape, not holding it together.
again, we’re arguing semantics. Check how the frames are held to the 787 fuselage. yes, the 350 has more fasteners (longitudinal, even if it doesn’t have more circumferential – which it may), but the frames aren’t bonded to the 787 fuselage either. Aluminum can more easily be optimized around a joint – or at least we know better how to do it – so the excess weight incurred because of the fasteners on both fuselages may very well be very similar.
The 787 is a worst case composites design – it’s all black metal approach. I’m sure Boeing will do it very differently next time around.
Leelaw, I don’t see that glaze effect as something bad – My gf has the exact same reaction to me talking shop. I know my interest for technology and engineering in it’s naked form isn’t shared by most.
And no – I never did read your peace offering. The email address I use to register at these blogs is not one I ever actually read, as it attracts prodigious amounts of spam. But thank you for the effort and inclination.
Well, I want to to thank you all for very imformative responses to this entertaining article. Besides the Brequet range equation & better mathematical manipulation of MTOW, OEW, MZFW , I have also learned important terms such as Airbusien (there’s a Français or Deutsche touch there, I think) Boeingites and others!! hahaha!
It’s good to question. A while ago, we bought some of the most advanced airplanes known to man, and nobody questioned anything, and a local authoritative – ahem – magazine test flew one and said it was unlikely that the Boeing 777-300ER would be flying into Johannesburg for the foreseeable future – commenting on airport modifications to accomodate it and the A380. It gives me great pleasure to see it flying in ever so often. But the damn thing is so quiet, I miss it almost as often.
It broke my heart to see that order go that way, but Boeing deserved that for all its years of twiddling its thumbs. Now its playing with plastic dreams – and that hurts everyone else. But, at least, company events have put them in their place – until the plastic fantastic flies..
I like RRs’ stance. Keep out of the airframe business and do-yer-best for the customer. That way you can’t shoot yourself in the foot. I hope RR never go looking for exclusive deals to make ‘a business case’ out of a project because open competition benefits the majority.
I know Boeing and GE are hard core commercial enterprises (and Airbus could learn a lot here because the Yanks have a knack for knowing what the market wants) but polarising GE to Boeing and RR to Airbus will, I think, end up satisfying in the longerterm, nobody.