SomebodyInTLS wrote:

You can but you need to be very careful about different stiffness ratios, thermal expansion ratios and other issues like galvanic corrosion etc. at the interfaces.

IMU the A380 ribs combining CFRP webbing with Al attachment feet was a good example of the inherent issues.

WIederling wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

You can but you need to be very careful about different stiffness ratios, thermal expansion ratios and other issues like galvanic corrosion etc. at the interfaces.

IMU the A380 ribs combining CFRP webbing with Al attachment feet was a good example of the inherent issues.

Yes, that was one case I was thinking of (and those "hybrid" ribs were subsequently replaced by plain ol' Al - something for the church of compsites disciples to reflect on... ). For another case... Parapente might want to take a look at the A350 diagrams - a metal nose section on a composite fuselage has already been done.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Yes, that was one case I was thinking of (and those "hybrid" ribs were subsequently replaced by plain ol' Al - something for the church of composites disciples to reflect on... )

The A380 wing skins are multilayer laminated Al. That makes the fully Al ribs "easy" for managing thermal tensions.
I do wonder how many of these mixed material weight saver solutions were incorporated in the A380.
( so far only the hybrid ribs have been ( an expensive ) suboptimal solution. )

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

WIederling wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

You can but you need to be very careful about different stiffness ratios, thermal expansion ratios and other issues like galvanic corrosion etc. at the interfaces.

IMU the A380 ribs combining CFRP webbing with Al attachment feet was a good example of the inherent issues.

Yes, that was one case I was thinking of (and those "hybrid" ribs were subsequently replaced by plain ol' Al - something for the church of compsites disciples to reflect on... ). For another case... Parapente might want to take a look at the A350 diagrams - a metal nose section on a composite fuselage has already been done.

That is interesting. So can the A350 not match the 787 in terms of pressurization (lower cabin altitude and more humidity) vs. older aircraft?

texl1649 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

WIederling wrote:

IMU the A380 ribs combining CFRP webbing with Al attachment feet was a good example of the inherent issues.

Yes, that was one case I was thinking of (and those "hybrid" ribs were subsequently replaced by plain ol' Al - something for the church of compsites disciples to reflect on... ). For another case... Parapente might want to take a look at the A350 diagrams - a metal nose section on a composite fuselage has already been done.

That is interesting. So can the A350 not match the 787 in terms of pressurization (lower cabin altitude and more humidity) vs. older aircraft?

The A350 matches the 787 in terms to cabin pressure and humidity.

Even the A380 had better (but not as high as the A350) humidity and air pressure and that has an aluminium fuselage.

texl1649 wrote:

That is interesting. So can the A350 not match the 787 in terms of pressurization (lower cabin altitude and more humidity) vs. older aircraft?

How do you jump to that tentative conclusion?

Boeing: 787 first _plastic_ airframe with cabin altitude below.... ( note the qualifier

InsideMan wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

Right now the LR does about 90% of the 757, a 40 year old design. So I would expect the 797 to bring forward efficiency. Meaning I wouldnt expect the LR to really be 90% of a 797 when all is said and done.

As for the rest. Anything is possible. Boeing could also give it away for free. What we do know is Boeing believes it is a 4K frame market, not 1k. History has shown the 757\767 are ~2400 frames in a different time in aviation. And the A330 is the size of a 787. The A330 Neo isnt exactly lighting it up vs the 787. It will not be able to compete with the 797 imo. Too expensive, too big, too much plane, too expensive to run.

And I don't expect this to cost 20 billion. A lot of the R&D for this was done with the 787 program. Now they need to take that and build a clean sheet MoM aircraft in the ~300-350,000 pound MTOW range that can do 4500-5000nm with 230-250 pax.

1. A twin aisle A/C will never be more efficient than a single aisle
2. where would this "new technology" come from to surpass a single aisle A321neoLR?
3. Boeing needs to recoup the R&D cost. If it is 10B$ or 20B$ doesn't matter it puts them at a disadvantage right out of the gate
4. yes, of course the A330 is too big. But if it is only used for certain routes (those the A321neoLR cannot do) it will only be too big (and to costly to operate) on those few routes.
THIS is what Airbus can offer to compensate either by offerering a dirt cheap price (R&D for A330 is long written off) or a discount on the A321s etc. as long as you can keep Boeing from selling 1000s of MOMs....

1. I am not entirely disagreeing with you here. But I think the wide body will be due to cargo capacity reqs by the airlines.
2. Eh the entire 787 program? A clean sheet design vs a 25 year old design? The LR doesnt quite replace the 757. It is close. The 797 would replace and surpass the 757.
3. Costs for a lot of this could be already buried in 787 program R&D.
4. There is a gap in both aircraft makers lineup. Something that sits in the 757\767 model range. A ~300,000-350,000 MTOW aircraft carrying 250 pax 4500-5000nm. The LR is too small(197,000MTOW), the A330(530,000 MTOW) too big. It is simple as that imo. It sounds like Airbus cant compete on cost\price vs the 787. Then they wont be able to compete on cost\price vs a smaller cheaper 797. They are cutting production for the A330 to 50\year.

The reason Airbus is shelving their plus and plus/plus concepts might be because they see a rather disturbing future.

This potential X7ab twin aisle ovoid shape maybe being designed for more than the NMA it might just be the basis of a NSA further down the line...
Think about it.The 737-6 is dead and the 737-7 is on its last legs particular with the new competitors (soon to be partners) coming on line.
The bulk of the market has shifted and will continue to shift further up as low cost travel expands.
What does that mean?
That the base aircaft is todays '8' at 190-200 pax ( one class) .the next size up is the dash10 (forget the 9) and the A321 at 230/240 pax one class.The proposed Airbus stretch (plus) was to 250 pax one class or 220 at 2 class -ie exactly the same length as the base level 797.So no investment fir the fuse required at all!

Sooo imagine a shrink (or double shrink).The fuse won't be too short at 7ab.So say 10 years from now-A new laminar wing and mark2 GTF engines.Beautiful aircaft to fly on with super fast turn round ability.
What's not to like?
Perhaps this possibility has caught Airbus' attention? Suddenly the initial 797 investment doesn't seem large at all!
Mind you could be seeing shadows where their are none.But you never know!

I think we shouldb't read too much in this rumoured to be shelved plus study. Airbus for now is the market leader, with 321LR soon entering service. A moderately upgraded A322 could be ready in 4 yrs. Most probably way cheaper and lighter than any 797 and with a karge commonakity with 6000 NEO's currently on order.

I am starting to believe that it has been shelved for the moment because what is coming will be a major up-date.

We have seen the CFRP wingbox, now we have seen the CFRP pressure bulkhead,...

https://www.premium-aerotec.com/en/medi ... ad-at-ila/

having worked on gate design and engineering at several airports, my personal opinion is that fitting the next generation aircraft within existing 737-900/ A321 gates would be a huge win for the manufacturer that can do it. In the US, the reduction in the 767 fleets spawned “re-gating” to allow for more large NB aircraft gates. I am curious to see if Boeing may take the 77X folding wing and apply it to the MOM concept. Not only have 767 gates been reduced, but so have 757 capable gates. For example, at terminals 4 and 5 in Los Angeles, eliminating some 767/757 gates resulted in the terminals adding 2 gates going from 13 to 15 (the re-gating project at T5 starts this fall). Fitting the aircraft on these gates would make the plane easier to schedule and more versatile.

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

having worked on gate design and engineering at several airports, my personal opinion is that fitting the next generation aircraft within existing 737-900/ A321 gates would be a huge win for the manufacturer that can do it. In the US, the reduction in the 767 fleets spawned “re-gating” to allow for more large NB aircraft gates. I am curious to see if Boeing may take the 77X folding wing and apply it to the MOM concept. Not only have 767 gates been reduced, but so have 757 capable gates. For example, at terminals 4 and 5 in Los Angeles, eliminating some 767/757 gates resulted in the terminals adding 2 gates going from 13 to 15 (the re-gating project at T5 starts this fall). Fitting the aircraft on these gates would make the plane easier to schedule and more versatile.

Nutsaboutplanes, what are the total cost of re-gating, e.g. from 8 smaller gates to 6 bigger or the other way around?

keesje wrote:

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

having worked on gate design and engineering at several airports, my personal opinion is that fitting the next generation aircraft within existing 737-900/ A321 gates would be a huge win for the manufacturer that can do it. In the US, the reduction in the 767 fleets spawned “re-gating” to allow for more large NB aircraft gates. I am curious to see if Boeing may take the 77X folding wing and apply it to the MOM concept. Not only have 767 gates been reduced, but so have 757 capable gates. For example, at terminals 4 and 5 in Los Angeles, eliminating some 767/757 gates resulted in the terminals adding 2 gates going from 13 to 15 (the re-gating project at T5 starts this fall). Fitting the aircraft on these gates would make the plane easier to schedule and more versatile.

Nutsaboutplanes, what are the total cost of re-gating, e.g. from 8 smaller gates to 6 bigger or the other way around?

It will vary based on location and complexity but it can be a big investment. Moving fuel pits, jet bridges, infrastructure like eclectical and data while also losing revenue generating gates (you have to reduce the flight schedule unless you have sufficient slack in your gating) and you can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars. A recent example that I worked on was more than 30. Apply this across the network at a large airline and the spend is considerable.

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

keesje wrote:

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

having worked on gate design and engineering at several airports, my personal opinion is that fitting the next generation aircraft within existing 737-900/ A321 gates would be a huge win for the manufacturer that can do it. In the US, the reduction in the 767 fleets spawned “re-gating” to allow for more large NB aircraft gates. I am curious to see if Boeing may take the 77X folding wing and apply it to the MOM concept. Not only have 767 gates been reduced, but so have 757 capable gates. For example, at terminals 4 and 5 in Los Angeles, eliminating some 767/757 gates resulted in the terminals adding 2 gates going from 13 to 15 (the re-gating project at T5 starts this fall). Fitting the aircraft on these gates would make the plane easier to schedule and more versatile.

Nutsaboutplanes, what are the total cost of re-gating, e.g. from 8 smaller gates to 6 bigger or the other way around?

It will vary based on location and complexity but it can be a big investment. Moving fuel pits, jet bridges, infrastructure like eclectical and data while also losing revenue generating gates (you have to reduce the flight schedule unless you have sufficient slack in your gating) and you can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars. A recent example that I worked on was more than 30. Apply this across the network at a large airline and the spend is considerable.

It a lot of money, but everything is a lot of money in aviation. If it lasts 20 yrs, has 7 flights a day, 50.000 flights, maybe 8 mln passengers will go that gate.. 30-50 more or less passengers represent a big amount of money.

keesje wrote:

I think we shouldn't read too much in this rumoured to be shelved plus study. Airbus for now is the market leader, with 321LR soon entering service. A moderately upgraded A322 could be ready in 4 yrs. Most probably way cheaper and lighter than any 797 and with a karge commonakity with 6000 NEO's currently on order.

Airbus refocusing on production is not a rumor, especially when Eric Schultz (CFO of Airbus) is talking about it. What shelve actually means is up for determination. Airbus explicitly said they are focusing on delivering what they committed to before moving to an upgrade. Just because you may not like it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t read into these statements.

Post #78 from this same thread with actually quotes from Airbus:

Revelation wrote:

mmo wrote:

Here is a much better synopsis of what is going at Airbus with respect to the 32X production and the Plus and Plus Plus programs.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now

The most interesting stuff to me was the direct quotes.

“We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development. Airbus’ management has come to the conclusion that “we need to deliver what we committed to first” before moving on to an A320neo family upgrade.

And later in the article:

Schulz conceded that “we are in a difficult situation today” and decisions have to be made “step-by-step” rather than all at once.

Total difference in tone from Leahy et al, IMHO.

I can't picture the same words coming from Leahy's mouth.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think we shouldn't read too much in this rumoured to be shelved plus study. Airbus for now is the market leader, with 321LR soon entering service. A moderately upgraded A322 could be ready in 4 yrs. Most probably way cheaper and lighter than any 797 and with a karge commonakity with 6000 NEO's currently on order.

Airbus refocusing on production is not a rumor, especially when Eric Schultz (CFO of Airbus) is talking about it. What shelve actually means is up for determination. Airbus explicitly said they are focusing on delivering what they committed to before moving to an upgrade. Just because you may not like it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t read into these statements.

Post #78 from this same thread with actually quotes from Airbus:

Revelation wrote:

mmo wrote:

Here is a much better synopsis of what is going at Airbus with respect to the 32X production and the Plus and Plus Plus programs.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now

The most interesting stuff to me was the direct quotes.

“We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development. Airbus’ management has come to the conclusion that “we need to deliver what we committed to first” before moving on to an A320neo family upgrade.

And later in the article:

Schulz conceded that “we are in a difficult situation today” and decisions have to be made “step-by-step” rather than all at once.

Total difference in tone from Leahy et al, IMHO.

I can't picture the same words coming from Leahy's mouth.

As I've said here more than once, "Facts are stubborn things"...

Everybody is absolutely free to believe that the folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies stopped because PW can't deilver some engines and the boys & girls are flown over to help solve that. And that Airbus stopped preparing market innitiatives, responses because of it. They already informed their customers to look elsewhere. Too funny.

keesje wrote:

Everybody is absolutely free to believe that the folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies stopped because PW can't deilver some engines and the boys & girls are flown over to help solve that. And that Airbus stopped preparing market innitiatives, responses because of it. They already informed their customers to look elsewhere. Too funny.

PW engine issues are not necessarily the only thing going on challenging Airbus from increasing the production rates and dealing with supply chain constraints. Why would I listen to you instead of the CFO of Airbus? That you think you are more credible is too funny. Airplanes arent designed in photoshop and the actual work going on regarding production issues, fleet support, and supply chain arent broadcast to the open public. Are you aware of everything going on with production for the A320neo? Are you implying there are no problems except for PW engine issues that would require engineering support that may divert resources from new derivatives?

I fully expect Research and Development work to continue, but I would guess that actually launching a new derivative requires far more than resources available within the Reseadch and Development teams.

keesje wrote:

Everybody is absolutely free to believe that the folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies stopped because PW can't deilver some engines and the boys & girls are flown over to help solve that. And that Airbus stopped preparing market innitiatives, responses because of it. They already informed their customers to look elsewhere. Too funny.

If you've read the thread, you've read me raise some of the same points and in response get told by several senior members that indeed "folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies" can and do excel at tasks designed to improve production line efficiency. Go figure. Then add in the words of Airbus's CCO and it seems to me we have to take it at face value instead of as humor.

As for telling customers to look elsewhere, that seems to be you making stuff up, since I don't see anyone saying that.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Everybody is absolutely free to believe that the folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies stopped because PW can't deilver some engines and the boys & girls are flown over to help solve that. And that Airbus stopped preparing market innitiatives, responses because of it. They already informed their customers to look elsewhere. Too funny.

PW engine issues are not necessarily the only thing going on challenging Airbus from increasing the production rates and dealing with supply chain constraints. Why would I listen to you instead of the CFO of Airbus? That you think you are more credible is too funny. Airplanes arent designed in photoshop and the actual work going on regarding production issues, fleet support, and supply chain arent broadcast to the open public. Are you aware of everything going on with production for the A320neo? Are you implying there are no problems except for PW engine issues that would require engineering support that may divert resources from new derivatives?

I fully expect Research and Development work to continue, but I would guess that actually launching a new derivative requires far more than resources available within the Reseadch and Development teams.

It is good to listen to the CFO of Airbus, if you would. When did he talk about shelving the A320/1 plus and plus plus project? He talked about concentrating on deliveries as it is, that can as well mean delayed rather than shelved.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Everybody is absolutely free to believe that the folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies stopped because PW can't deilver some engines and the boys & girls are flown over to help solve that. And that Airbus stopped preparing market innitiatives, responses because of it. They already informed their customers to look elsewhere. Too funny.

PW engine issues are not necessarily the only thing going on challenging Airbus from increasing the production rates and dealing with supply chain constraints. Why would I listen to you instead of the CFO of Airbus? That you think you are more credible is too funny. Airplanes arent designed in photoshop and the actual work going on regarding production issues, fleet support, and supply chain arent broadcast to the open public. Are you aware of everything going on with production for the A320neo? Are you implying there are no problems except for PW engine issues that would require engineering support that may divert resources from new derivatives?

I fully expect Research and Development work to continue, but I would guess that actually launching a new derivative requires far more than resources available within the Reseadch and Development teams.

It is good to listen to the CFO of Airbus, if you would. When did he talk about shelving the A320/1 plus and plus plus project? He talked about concentrating on deliveries as it is, that can as well mean delayed rather than shelved.

Here is the quote:

“We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development. Airbus’ management has come to the conclusion that “we need to deliver what we committed to first” before moving on to an A320neo family upgrade.

You can decide if that means shelved or delayed. To me, those words are more or less synonyms. Shelved to me means suspended but not discarded.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Everybody is absolutely free to believe that the folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies stopped because PW can't deilver some engines and the boys & girls are flown over to help solve that. And that Airbus stopped preparing market innitiatives, responses because of it. They already informed their customers to look elsewhere. Too funny.

If you've read the thread, you've read me raise some of the same points and in response get told by several senior members that indeed "folks doing wintunnels tests, CFD modelling, simulations dystem development and FEM models on new wingboxes, wingconfigurations and long term market studies" can and do excel at tasks designed to improve production line efficiency. Go figure. Then add in the words of Airbus's CCO and it seems to me we have to take it at face value instead of as humor.

As for telling customers to look elsewhere, that seems to be you making stuff up, since I don't see anyone saying that.

Keesje has been promoting the idea of an A322/A323 to respond to a 797/NMA/MOM for over a year. From March 2017:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1357281

keesje wrote:

2175301 wrote:

/

KarelXWB wrote:

Just because there is 'a gap' doesn't mean there is a business case. MOM is believed to be a niche market for some 1,000 airplanes. Not really worth investing $10 billion into this 'gap'./

I think Airbus or Boeing would have build a specific plane for a 1000 "niche" market. The problem is that the real MOM niche appears to many to be in the 200 - 400 plane range; and that is why no one is rushing to fill it. There is no way to justify the money for that small of a potential market.

Have a great day,

I think if we combine Intra Asia (China!), US transcon, EMEA and Leisure Operations, there's probably a market for around 2500 aircraft in the next 20 years. I think behind closed doors Boeing and Airbus acknowledge. What they say on conferences / investor meetings depends on short term goals, e.g. discouraging airlines to look at competing products.

I think for an A321 stretch a new wing, holding fuel for 4500NM and good airfield performance (Leisure market!) and facilitating 80-90inch fan engines is key. It would be a sub family, because the 150-180 segment is too competitive/ large to bold on a oversized wing.

The idea of Airbus shelving the A321 plus hurts his entire narrative for over a year, which may be why he is denying it. Airbus admitting production issues requiring additional resources also implies there are more production and supply chain issues that go beyond the PW Engine challenges

Isn’t it commonly understood that AB can respond w a 322 w/i 4-5 years?

If so why rush when they have more immediate need. Seems like a good decision.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Keesje has been promoting the idea of an A322/A323 to respond to a 797/NMA/MOM for over a year. From March 2017:

That's incorrect, I've promoting a re engined A321 stretch from 2010, before NEO launch, and re engined A320 plus from around 2006.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=392177

You can find discussion going ling before that.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/easyjet-requests-stretched-a320-156557/

Planeflyer wrote:

Isn’t it commonly understood that AB can respond w a 322 w/i 4-5 years?

If so why rush when they have more immediate need. Seems like a good decision.

The tension comes because many have projected that Airbus would do the A320+/++ program and the A320neo production ramp up at the same time.

Airbus CCO is telling us that they need to focus on the A320neo production line efficiency before going forward with A320+/++.

Above we read that Airbus was planning to already be showing preliminary designs to customers by now, but they've put that on pause.

I think all of this makes sense.

The magnitude and timing of production line rate increase is more aggressive than what was projected.

Given the huge volume of product they've got in the backlog, every euro they can wring out of the production line is multiplied many times.

In an ideal world they'd have the A320+/++ available for offer right now because this is when Boeing is really trying to line up NMA launch customers, but you can't have it all.

In hindsight Boeing's decision to do MAX 9 instead of MAX 10 makes more sense, doesn't it?

If they had skipped MAX 9 they'd have nothing bigger to sell than MAX 8.

If they had done MAX 10 instead of MAX 9 they would have been trying to add the new larger sized aircraft just as the production line was trying to scale up.

Now they have MAX 9 already being built for those who wanted earlier deliveries and MAX 10 available for those who are willing to wait till 2020.

A nice orderly transition for both the production line and the order book.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Keesje has been promoting the idea of an A322/A323 to respond to a 797/NMA/MOM for over a year. From March 2017:

That's incorrect, I've promoting a re engined A321 stretch from 2010, before NEO launch, and re engined A320 plus from around 2006.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=392177

You can find discussion going ling before that.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/easyjet-requests-stretched-a320-156557/

Is that why you choose to ignore the Chief Commercial Officer from Airbus and say we shouldn’t read too much into these statements?

I think it is quite possible any studies on A321 stretches may get re-energized if a 797 is launched.

It would seem the only thing 95% of us could agree on is that at some point, a future version of the A32X series will be launched. It's inconceivable with it's backlog today that this wouldn't be the case, absent some radical NMA derivative that forces Airbus to change gears entirely (I can't see that; 'revolutionary' and 'fantastically successful/available' tend to be mutually exclusive in a short time frame especially).

My believe is that Airbus is focused on the production ramp up and HR changes attendant to all of the organization's trials and tribulations the past couple years. I think a future A32X set of models will finally have different lengths/wings, and I hope some engine exclusivity as well just for fun, but there's no need for Airbus to posit/suggest such things as customers await engines for their Toulouse gliders of today. Their salesmen, after all, are mainly pitching A320NEO deliveries (and maybe A210?) toward 2024-2026 as it is, so there's no need to complicate their pitches/efforts with plausible alternatives, which they couldn't today sell anyway, in the 2027-2030 time frame.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/05/21/ponti ... more-27217

" Does it seem odd that Airbus is rumored to have scrapped plans to further modernize the A320/A321 just as major operational leadership is turning over? Perhaps not.

The only plausible explanation for this management shake-up is that the Board is attempting to sterilize the upper management ranks in such a way that creates immunity from the ongoing Serious Fraud Office investigation."

texl1649 wrote:

It would seem the only thing 95% of us could agree on is that at some point, a future version of the A32X series will be launched. It's inconceivable with it's backlog today that this wouldn't be the case, absent some radical NMA derivative that forces Airbus to change gears entirely (I can't see that; 'revolutionary' and 'fantastically successful/available' tend to be mutually exclusive in a short time frame especially).

My believe is that Airbus is focused on the production ramp up and HR changes attendant to all of the organization's trials and tribulations the past couple years. I think a future A32X set of models will finally have different lengths/wings, and I hope some engine exclusivity as well just for fun, but there's no need for Airbus to posit/suggest such things as customers await engines for their Toulouse gliders of today. Their salesmen, after all, are mainly pitching A320NEO deliveries (and maybe A210?) toward 2024-2026 as it is, so there's no need to complicate their pitches/efforts with plausible alternatives, which they couldn't today sell anyway, in the 2027-2030 time frame.

I think it’s more likely Airbus gives the C-Series the old college try and junks it without investing too much money and keeps the A320neo right where it is before replacing it with something new.

william wrote:

https://leehamnews.com/2018/05/21/pontifications-an-in-depth-assessment-that-people-matter-at-airbus/#more-27217

" Does it seem odd that Airbus is rumored to have scrapped plans to further modernize the A320/A321 just as major operational leadership is turning over? Perhaps not.

The only plausible explanation for this management shake-up is that the Board is attempting to sterilize the upper management ranks in such a way that creates immunity from the ongoing Serious Fraud Office investigation."

As I said in the other thread, I think this financial analyst is ahead of events. We don't have tangible evidence that the board is "attempting to sterilize the upper management ranks", although as a theory it is plausible. I think most if not all of it is an unfortunate convergence of retirement plans, but I would not be surprised if the board is over-reacting and cleaning house to be seen as "doing something".

My initial reaction is as above, I can't picture Leahy saying the same things that his replacement Schulz said with regard to having too many things to do at the same time. In that regard, I found the statement to be "odd".

I don't know what they are but there are serious issues going on at AB for the board to make all the upper management changes.

It's tempting to say it is related to the bribery investigation but then the CFO just departed who, if I remember correctly was key in uncovering it.

It sees reasonable that the 320++ delay is related to this but it is just a guess.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1JA1P5 has an interesting article about the technology being used on the new A320 production line in XFW, in particular about two new robots:

The two robots, whose names were chosen by employees, will in particular help to drill over 2,000 holes to join the two halves of the fuselage together, work normally done by humans.

They form part of a new final assembly line where the fuselage and wings are transported by automated moving tooling platforms, rather than being lowered by cranes onto fixed jigs, and where dynamic laser tracking is used to perfectly align aircraft parts.

The savings from the new technologies are not about time, but about precision and ergonomics, Airbus staff said.

So not really saving time, but presumably saving manpower expenses?

Roewe said around one-third of the new technologies on the new final assembly line could potentially be transferred to other lines, whether in existing ones in Hamburg, France, China, or the United States.

“The priority is to ramp up and then we will start thinking about what we can transfer,” he said.

So about 2/3rds potentially not transferable to the other lines.

Revelation wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-germany-production-robots/robots-luise-renate-join-airbus-a320-production-line-in-hamburg-idUSKBN1JA1P5 has an interesting article about the technology being used on the new A320 production line in XFW, in particular about two new robots:

The two robots, whose names were chosen by employees, will in particular help to drill over 2,000 holes to join the two halves of the fuselage together, work normally done by humans.

They form part of a new final assembly line where the fuselage and wings are transported by automated moving tooling platforms, rather than being lowered by cranes onto fixed jigs, and where dynamic laser tracking is used to perfectly align aircraft parts.

The savings from the new technologies are not about time, but about precision and ergonomics, Airbus staff said.

So not really saving time, but presumably saving manpower expenses?

Roewe said around one-third of the new technologies on the new final assembly line could potentially be transferred to other lines, whether in existing ones in Hamburg, France, China, or the United States.

“The priority is to ramp up and then we will start thinking about what we can transfer,” he said.

So about 2/3rds potentially not transferable to the other lines.

Saving manpower expense should also mean it is easier to scale up the production as they will only need a few more robots to do so. And that mean easier to make more parts in the same time.

Revelation wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-germany-production-robots/robots-luise-renate-join-airbus-a320-production-line-in-hamburg-idUSKBN1JA1P5 has an interesting article about the technology being used on the new A320 production line in XFW, in particular about two new robots:

The two robots, whose names were chosen by employees, will in particular help to drill over 2,000 holes to join the two halves of the fuselage together, work normally done by humans.

They form part of a new final assembly line where the fuselage and wings are transported by automated moving tooling platforms, rather than being lowered by cranes onto fixed jigs, and where dynamic laser tracking is used to perfectly align aircraft parts.

The savings from the new technologies are not about time, but about precision and ergonomics, Airbus staff said.

So not really saving time, but presumably saving manpower expenses?

Roewe said around one-third of the new technologies on the new final assembly line could potentially be transferred to other lines, whether in existing ones in Hamburg, France, China, or the United States.

“The priority is to ramp up and then we will start thinking about what we can transfer,” he said.

So about 2/3rds potentially not transferable to the other lines.

I find the comment about the priority being to ramp up sounding consistent with the message on why the A320plus was shelved. There must be a lot going on behind the scenes to work on production rate

Newbiepilot wrote:

I find the comment about the priority being to ramp up sounding consistent with the message on why the A320plus was shelved. There must be a lot going on behind the scenes to work on production rate

This new production approach may open up opportunities for design that were not available before. "Shelving" to enable the design teams to familiarise themselves with the new production system would make sense if that were the case.

FAL4 in Hamburg is very interesting in many aspects. Renate and Luise are only small part of it. But it is the first fully 3D production line at Airbus and while it looks completely normal, it is not. It starts with the space that is required and ends with a much more ergonomic work space. But those are not the key, the key is a much higher production flexibility.

seahawk wrote:

FAL4 in Hamburg is very interesting in many aspects. Renate and Luise are only small part of it. But it is the first fully 3D production line at Airbus and while it looks completely normal, it is not. It starts with the space that is required and ends with a much more ergonomic work space. But those are not the key, the key is a much higher production flexibility.

And that production flexibility will be very helpful if current A32x and A321plus / A322 are rolling down the same line with significant differences, e.g. wings.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

This new production approach may open up opportunities for design that were not available before. "Shelving" to enable the design teams to familiarise themselves with the new production system would make sense if that were the case.

I agree. Boeing has made it clear that manufacturing is going to be crucial to making the NMA business case close. In turn Airbus needs to make sure whatever they do next (plus, plus-plus, and/or clean sheet) is state of the art with regards to manufacturing not just now but also at the time it hits the market.

seahawk wrote:

FAL4 in Hamburg is very interesting in many aspects. Renate and Luise are only small part of it. But it is the first fully 3D production line at Airbus and while it looks completely normal, it is not. It starts with the space that is required and ends with a much more ergonomic work space. But those are not the key, the key is a much higher production flexibility.

The article said:

They form part of a new final assembly line where the fuselage and wings are transported by automated moving tooling platforms, rather than being lowered by cranes onto fixed jigs, and where dynamic laser tracking is used to perfectly align aircraft parts.

so it agrees with your point, a lot of this is about thinking in 3D.

Maybe you can say more about why you think the new FAL has a lot more flexibility. I'm not saying you are incorrect, I'm just wondering what made you say it.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

And that production flexibility will be very helpful if current A32x and A321plus / A322 are rolling down the same line with significant differences, e.g. wings.

Indeed. They very well could have gotten to the point of understanding what they wanted from +/++ and realized that the current FALs were already strained and could not deal with the introduction of such big changes without some deeper considerations.

Looks like the 757 is going to be harder to replace than I thought. I hope Boeing one-ups it with its next creation.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

FAL4 in Hamburg is very interesting in many aspects. Renate and Luise are only small part of it. But it is the first fully 3D production line at Airbus and while it looks completely normal, it is not. It starts with the space that is required and ends with a much more ergonomic work space. But those are not the key, the key is a much higher production flexibility.

The article said:

They form part of a new final assembly line where the fuselage and wings are transported by automated moving tooling platforms, rather than being lowered by cranes onto fixed jigs, and where dynamic laser tracking is used to perfectly align aircraft parts.

so it agrees with your point, a lot of this is about thinking in 3D.

Maybe you can say more about why you think the new FAL has a lot more flexibility. I'm not saying you are incorrect, I'm just wondering what made you say it..

The line moved away for using fixed jigs where you move the plane with cranes to using Mobile Tooling Plattforms (MTP). The MTPs are positioned by lasers and can quite easily be adjusted in case you would use parts of a different size, construction method or whatever. The MTP is much more flexible due to the use of cradles that allow for a fine positioning of the parts down to less than 1 cm (it is much less, I am just not sure if the exact value has been made public). So the working platform just need to know what you are building and could easily adjust to a different wing for example.

seahawk wrote:

The line moved away for using fixed jigs where you move the plane with cranes to using Mobile Tooling Plattforms (MTP). The MTPs are positioned by lasers and can quite easily be adjusted in case you would use parts of a different size, construction method or whatever. The MTP is much more flexible due to the use of cradles that allow for a fine positioning of the parts down to less than 1 cm (it is much less, I am just not sure if the exact value has been made public). So the working platform just need to know what you are building and could easily adjust to a different wing for example.

Very interesting, thanks for the reply!

Revelation wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-germany-production-robots/robots-luise-renate-join-airbus-a320-production-line-in-hamburg-idUSKBN1JA1P5 has an interesting article about the technology being used on the new A320 production line in XFW, in particular about two new robots:

The two robots, whose names were chosen by employees, will in particular help to drill over 2,000 holes to join the two halves of the fuselage together, work normally done by humans.

They form part of a new final assembly line where the fuselage and wings are transported by automated moving tooling platforms, rather than being lowered by cranes onto fixed jigs, and where dynamic laser tracking is used to perfectly align aircraft parts.

The savings from the new technologies are not about time, but about precision and ergonomics, Airbus staff said.

So not really saving time, but presumably saving manpower expenses?

Not yet at least. I feel like there's a human/ feel-good element to all this as well. Airbus cannot have too many robots too quickly, as it would cause strife with the unions. So they build up slowly, two at a time, and do feel-good things like having the employees name the robots.

What are the latest plans to use more laser welding technology? When if was in introduced for the A318 fuselage shells, it promised to make the parts up to 10% lighter and the production 20% cheaper.
https://www.findlight.net/blog/2016/11/ ... r-welding/
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S187538921100094 ... 7256cc9be8
http://www.dlr.de/fa/PortalData/17/Reso ... srw_10.pdf
http://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddes ... uary-2016/

rheinwaldner wrote:

What are the latest plans to use more laser welding technology? When if was in introduced for the A318 fuselage shells, it promised to make the parts up to 10% lighter and the production 20% cheaper.
https://www.findlight.net/blog/2016/11/ ... r-welding/
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S187538921100094 ... 7256cc9be8
http://www.dlr.de/fa/PortalData/17/Reso ... srw_10.pdf
http://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddes ... uary-2016/

Laser welding seems to be passé. There are still concepts using friction-stir welding to create very large, very thin metal sheets to increase panel size.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Laser welding seems to be passé. There are still concepts using friction-stir welding to create very large, very thin metal sheets to increase panel size.

A318 laser welding was mostly used for attaching stringers to skin, wasn't it?
( not making seamless larger panels )

WIederling wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Laser welding seems to be passé. There are still concepts using friction-stir welding to create very large, very thin metal sheets to increase panel size.

A318 laser welding was mostly used for attaching stringers to skin, wasn't it?
( not making seamless larger panels )

I expected that if successful, the technique would be quickly migrated from the 318 to its stablemates. Did that not happen?

JerseyFlyer wrote:

WIederling wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Laser welding seems to be passé. There are still concepts using friction-stir welding to create very large, very thin metal sheets to increase panel size.

A318 laser welding was mostly used for attaching stringers to skin, wasn't it?
( not making seamless larger panels )

I expected that if successful, the technique would be quickly migrated from the 318 to its stablemates. Did that not happen?

http://www.fdp.nl/cmsfiles/vulcanus/ter ... macher.pdf

from 2005.
A318 .. A340 .. A380
but apparently no backport to the A319..A321 types?
( or nobody is talking about it .. )

c933103 wrote:

Saving manpower expense should also mean it is easier to scale up the production as they will only need a few more robots to do so. And that mean easier to make more parts in the same time.

AFAIK automation makes a production proces much less scalable. A robot can only work at 100% of it's production rate 24/7. And it always has to be 100% crewed (robot operators). It's exactly this that's the billions of diverted production costs for the Boeing 787.
A manned proces assumes mostly 8hour work shifts. You can add or subtract a shift, expand or shorten shift duration. Speed up a prices by adding a person with only hardly any investment in tools.
Personally I'm very sceptical about the prospects of automation. It mostly doesn't lower production cost. The only thing that is traded is manual labor (cost) for capital labor (cost of robot). With lower tech. products you also trade low educated workers for high educated machine operators/developers.
If I'm not mistaken, Tesla (BEV manufacturer) learned this the hard way.

Hamburg FAL4 was developed to fit inside two A380 flight line hangars. That's why Airbus placed the half assembled planes on transporters. Only the hole driling robots and the wing positioning can be usefully for other FALs. But didn't the A380 FAL already work with positioning tooling!?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... SKBN1JE0ZE

More news on the so called XLR

A new version being studied, dubbed A321XLR, involves a further revamp of the A321LR aircraft which recently claimed a long-distance record for single-aisle jets during testing, the sources said. The A321XLR would include capacity for extra fuel.

I wonder where the extra fuel capacity will come from? A wing root insert will be expensive but I think can be done without a new aerofoil?

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, Tesla (BEV manufacturer) learned this the hard way.

Tesla like Boeing with distributed manufacturing tried to go the Cargo Cult way.
Make the visible moves ( B: outsource to no end, T: buy and install robots ) and
fall short on what capabilities/solutions are under the surface.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Saving manpower expense should also mean it is easier to scale up the production as they will only need a few more robots to do so. And that mean easier to make more parts in the same time.

AFAIK automation makes a production proces much less scalable. A robot can only work at 100% of it's production rate 24/7. And it always has to be 100% crewed (robot operators). It's exactly this that's the billions of diverted production costs for the Boeing 787.
A manned proces assumes mostly 8hour work shifts. You can add or subtract a shift, expand or shorten shift duration. Speed up a prices by adding a person with only hardly any investment in tools.
Personally I'm very sceptical about the prospects of automation. It mostly doesn't lower production cost. The only thing that is traded is manual labor (cost) for capital labor (cost of robot). With lower tech. products you also trade low educated workers for high educated machine operators/developers.
If I'm not mistaken, Tesla (BEV manufacturer) learned this the hard way.

Hamburg FAL4 was developed to fit inside two A380 flight line hangars. That's why Airbus placed the half assembled planes on transporters. Only the hole driling robots and the wing positioning can be usefully for other FALs. But didn't the A380 FAL already work with positioning tooling!?

The A320 final assembly lines are build for a maximum capacity of 8 frames per month with more than 1 shift per day. You can run them below that, as is done both in BFM and TSN, their they run them at 4 frames per month.
The fourth line in XFW was not fitted to the used building, the used building was big enough for the new FAL, that is a huge difference. A big part of the automation is also the automatic adjustment of the line to different fuselage sizes and other differences in the part. It goes so far that, the line will be able to adjust to for example new wings.

We should also not reduce thinking about automation to the FAL. Airbus is producing more of the components themselves, than Boeing, like for example the fuselage. A lot of the automation has been done at Airbus for the manufacturing of components.
With that in mind we should also compare workforce numbers between Boeing and Airbus. The last time I saw rough numbers, the workforce producing 737 and A320 family aircraft at Boeing and Airbus were similar, with Airbus running a slightly higher rate and a bigger part of the production included.