Airbus prepares to shift to all-composite barrel on A350 XWB

ATWonline.com ^ | Friday May 25, 2007 | Geoffrey Thomas

[Paleo Conservative]

Airbus is set to make yet another design change to its A350 XWB, this time dumping composite panels on an aluminum frame for an all-composite barrel.

Pressure from major customers such as Emirates and ILFC is believed to be the catalyst for the pending revamp. News of the move, first flagged by this website in January (ATWOnline, Jan. 26), comes the same week that Boeing started final assembly on the 787.

While Emirates President Tim Clark told media the Dreamliner's finish resembled "a polished silver coffeepot," Airbus has been getting mixed reaction to its composite panel concept. Trade studies have been underway in Toulouse since late last year, according to company insiders. Last fall, ATWOnline revealed that Airbus was switching to the composite panel design from all-aluminum and that the aircraft's entry into service would slip to 2014 (ATWOnline, Oct. 25, 2006).

This latest change may push the EIS further out, but Clark told this website he repeatedly has told Airbus that "while the EIS is of concern, you must get it [the design] right." Singapore Airlines and Qatar Airways have pushed a similar message. Clark also has emphasized to the manufacturer that the future lies in a 787-style composite barrel structure, saying, "That is the way [the industry] is going to go."

Many at Airbus have been concerned that the A350 XWB "would be blown away" if Boeing turned to an all-composite 777 that could be built and enter service before the A350. With its rival capitalizing on a technology that eventually will flow through to both a 777 and a 737 replacement, Airbus must choose whether to move forward with an all-composite barrel or be left behind. Clark has stressed that he is "sold on the 787's 40% reduction in maintenance," something not possible with an aluminum frame.

So far, Airbus has been able to convert only one customer, Finnair (ATWOnline, March 9), to the new XWB, while it has secured new orders from Aeroflot (ATWOnline, March 23) and Pegasus Aviation (ATWOnline, Jan. 5). SIA (20), China Aviation Supplies Import and Export Group (20) and TAP Portugal (10) have yet to confirm their orders, while US Airways appears to be leaning toward the aircraft (ATWOnline, May 17).

The change to an all-composite barrel is expected to be confirmed at the Paris Air Show along with several major commitments from airlines and leasing companies. The move will affect Boeing, which has been waiting on Airbus to define the XWB before proceeding with the 787-10. The European company's shift to all-composite likely will push Boeing to move to a larger 787-10, possibly seating 330. That version requires a higher gross weight and bigger undercarriage (six wheel trucks) to meet range requirements and will need more passengers to compete with the claimed numbers for the XWB-900.

The original A350 was unveiled in September 2004 and "authority to offer" was announced that December. Full industrial launch came in October 2005, but the aircraft faced a redesign following criticism that began with ILFC Chairman and CEO Steven Udvar-Hazy's call for a revamp 14 months ago (ATWOnline, March 30, 2006). Airbus introduced the XWB last summer at Farnborough (ATWOnline, July 18, 2006) and launched the program in December (ATWOnline, Dec. 4, 2006).

[Paleo Conservative]

My guess is that if Boeing builds a BWB freighter there will be both civilian and a military versions. I’m pretty sure Boeing will promote it as a replacement for the C-5A’s. I’m pretty sure the cargo floor on the military version will be heavy duty enough to support M1A2 Abrams tanks.

[tanuki]

Thanks for the info. I didn’t know about the negatives to this design. Glad to see Boeing is on it, though. Definitely, military and cargo designs first would be the best option.

[ExcursionGuy84]

....the cargo floor on the military version will be heavy duty enough to support M1A2 Abrams tanks.

Wish I was a spider....that way, I'd give ya 8 thumbs up...but I'll bid with the 2 that all humans carry round with themselves.

[tanuki]

“..but remember, modern commercial aviation is an evolutionary business.”

Good point.

[Yossarian]

How about a BWB Bomber? Those B-52s will need replacement at some point, and that shape sure looks like it could hold a whole lot of bombs.

Any reason this wouldn’t make for a good bomb truck?

[Paleo Conservative]

How about a BWB Bomber? Those B-52s will need replacement at some point, and that shape sure looks like it could hold a whole lot of bombs.

Like this one?

Back when the Republicans controlled congress, Republican House members requested Northrop come up with a proposal for a stripped down B-2 for conventional bombing only. It wouldn't have all the expensive EMP shielding necessary for nuclear missions. Supposedly Northrop estimated they could build 40 of them at a flyaway cost of $700 million a piece. It would be much cheaper to get another production run of B-2's than to design a whole new BWB bomber from scratch. It's also possible to reengine the B-52's with modern high bypass engines and keep them flying till 2040.

[Yossarian]

Interesting about the B-2. That would also have the positive effect of keeping that production line up and running, for when we need a whole lot more of them. And by spreading out the initial investment of developing B-2 technoogy across more end-result planes, you'd end up with a lower per-unit cost.

It's also possible to reengine the B-52's with modern high bypass engines and keep them flying till 2040.

At some point won't metal fatigue due to loading/unloading cycles be a factor in their wings? In 2032 the youngest B-52H will be 70 years old!

In my commonsense (i.e. my egotistical opinion) world, I think you'd keep the BUFFs around that long perhaps, but in a backup, "Oh #*@% we need more bombers over target NOW!" mode from 2015 on.

[Paleo Conservative]

At some point won't metal fatigue due to loading/unloading cycles be a factor in their wings? In 2032 the youngest B-52H will be 70 years old!

But they only fly about 400 hours a year. The B-52H's were sitting on the ground in the US while D's, F's, and G's were flying missions in Vietnam and later when G's were bombing Iraq in the first Gulf War. It's the hours not the age of the aircraft that matter most. If new engines were put on the B-52H, it would improve the performance and reliability of the B-52. It would have greater range and loiter time. Loiter time is especially important when flying combat support missions. It's quite possible that the engines would never have to be taken off the wings, and the amount of maintenance hours necessary to keep the B-52's flying would drop dramatically.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I am only taking a guess, but, we can see Boeing launching the composite 737 replacement 12-18 months after the 787 enters service... or some were late 2008/ early 2009.

[appeal2]

I agree. Wouldn’t surprise me if it is already on the drawing board and they’ve been giving key customers sneak previews.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

LOL - good one! Baghdad Bob lives on!

[Prophet in the wilderness]

And just think, Airbus still is not finished with the A-380 yet, it's still not in service.
If Boeing can launch the 737 replacement, and manage to get it developed in a shorter time than the 787, Airbus is going take many years to caught up.

[dalereed]

“Time for Embraer to consider buying Airbus :)”

Just change the company name to Air Bust.

[gridlock]

This thing is vaporware. It will never get beyond the pretty-picture stage. To go to an all-composite barrel at this point basically means they are going back to the blank sheet of paper, and re-inventing all of the manufacturing and logistic innovations that Boeing already has in place for the 787.

If Airbus had money to burn, this might make sense, on some level. But Airbus does not have money to burn.

I find it deliciously ironic that Emirites is calling the shots, here. European taxpayers are going to be forced to pony up huge amounts of money, just to guarantee Emirites has multiple aircraft to choose from and compete against one another. So Jaques Lunche-Buckete is going to wind up subsidizing filthy-rich oil sheihks.

Socialism in action. Transferring money from the working class to the rich, as always.

[gesully]

American airlines had a camera in the front of their 707’s back in the late 60’s. Watching a landing was scary. The camera is fixed and what you saw was the runway jumping all around the screen as corrections were made during landing. I finally quit looking...just closed my eyes.