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

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

[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.