That, ,my fellow FReepers, is the fatal flaw in this design. Carbon fiber and aluinium are (IMHO) not compatable for expansion/retraction in flight cycles.
I am beginning to believe that Airbag is totally hosed and in addition to loosing it arse on the 380 will lose the game on the 350.
Now if Boeing goes plastic on the NG 737 they are really in trouble.
Comments/Thoughts.
““a more normal company, where governments have legitimate interests but don’t interfere in management decisions.’
We want taxpayer money, but to run the company as we see fit.
Taxation without representation is just an American paranoia.
Airbus probably should write off doing another version of the 350 and try to beat Boeing to the punch with an up to date plane in the 320 - 737 range.
The differential expansion issue is no small issue to me, a consumer of flight services.
I think Jaguar, several years back, had the same issue: aluminum engines, IIRC, and some other alloys for certain other parts connected to the engine. Differential expansion at operating temperatures made for a poorly functioning engine.
I am not an expert here by any means, but an airframe that has the slightest issue with this is not one I would fly in. Didn’t the 1950s British aircraft industry tank with its Cosmo (not sure on the name) because the aircraft cycled many flights and developed airframe problems — resulting in large loss of life?
Error-Bus needs to just go under soon.
This is a good example of what the EU can do.
I'm afraid that Boeing will try to go after a plastic 777 next in order to compete with the A350-1000, which would be a mistake in my opinion.