Blog

A350 XWB schedule holds, but are there early signs of trouble?

While there are no overt red flags that came out of the Airbus press conference on Tuesday in Seville, the event marked a rhetorical course correction three and a half years out from first delivery of the A350 XWB.

Airbus has maintained that the A350-900 set to delivery to Qatar Airways in mid-2013 following a 15-month flight test program with five aircraft. A mid-2013 (May-August) delivery puts the A350’s first flight somewhere in the February to May 2012 time period, 25 to 28 months from now.

Tom Enders, Airbus CEO, established watch areas for parts of the aircraft’s design that are currently requiring additional (manpower) resources. While not a direct indication of any future issues, Enders has said the composite paneled fuselage and wing require extra attention:

We have today, more than 3000 Airbus engineers working on the program, plus another 3000 engineers with our partners. It is clear we need further ramp up in resources, we need further reinforcements, particularly in the fuselage and wing areas. We have important milestones ahead of us. Manufacturing has started, as you would imagine, as such a stage that program has a lot of challenges for us: New materials, processes, weight, schedule, just to mention the usual suspects.

Ultimately the time frame remains unchanged for first delivery, but Bloomberg/Newsweek reported that, Airbus Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier said that the company has used “some of its margin” on the schedule of first deliveries.

According to the report, “challenges” have centered around “composite wings and fuselage, including systems installation and incorporating lightning strike protection.”

While not entirely unrelated, Airbus has also decided to alter its design strategy for the smaller A350-800 by offering a shrunken -900 rather than differentiated structure that would’ve optimized the weight of the aircraft. However, Airbus has opted to have a common landing gear, wing and fuselage while offering a 6000lb higher maximum zero fuel weight 250 nm increase in range, in exchange for “a couple of percent” fuel burn penalty with the added weight.

With resources needed on the wings and fuselage design of the -900, it is not entirely unsurprising that Airbus has chosen to focus on that design first rather than turn significant attention to removing unneeded structure from the -800.

The A350-800 is a total of 10 structural frames shorter (21 feet) than the -900, with six removed forward of the center wing box and four from the aft.

Video Capture Credit Airbus

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 13, 2010
Movie Monday – January 11 – 707 Year One

Movie Monday returns this week with a stroll down nostalgia lane and a look at the first year of service for the Boeing 707 in 1959. 50 years after it was produced, we take for granted how jet travel transformed how quickly we can move across the planet. The narrator talks of the time between points shrinking by half, making cross-country commuting a reality to “be home by dinner” on the West Coast after having lunch in New York. An act that has become a regular part of our lives in 2010 was an unequivocal transformation in how people move by the beginning of 1960.

The video also covers the flight testing of the 707-320 Intercontinental and high-speed 720, as well as the MATS 707 tasked with transporting President Eisenhower overseas.

Unfortunately, the user who uploaded this series of videos disabled embedding so I cannot post them directly here on FlightBlogger. However, I have provided the links below in five 7-8 minute parts. Definitely worth taking the time to watch today. Enjoy!

707 Year One – Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4 // Part 5

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 11, 2010
Video: ZA001 and Mt. Rainier

The seemingly ubiquitous Liz Matzelle captured ZA001 coming home to Boeing Field after more than five hours of test flight over eastern Washington this afternoon.

▶ Video originally embedded here

vimeo.com
This Flash-based video is no longer available.

▶ Video originally embedded here

vimeo.com
This Flash-based video is no longer available.

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 10, 2010
FlightBlogger on the Web (January 1-8)

It was a busy first week of the year and one of my resolutions is to make sure to do on the web posts more consistently, so here’s a recap of week one of FlightBlogger on the Web:

Guggenheim cancels orders for two Boeing 747-8Fs – FlightGlobal

Guggenheim Aviation Partners (GAP) has cancelled half of its 747-8F order, the company confirms.
GAP reduced its order for the new jumbo freighter by two, with two remaining 747 aircraft on order.

ANA abandons 787-3 – FlightGlobal

Boeing’s orderbook for the 787-3 has dwindled to zero following a decision by Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) to convert its remaining 28 orders for the short-range variant to the long-range 787-8

Boeing to incorporate side-of-body mod into 787 production – FlightGlobal
Boeing received its 15th 787 centre fuselage on 5 January, marking the arrival of the last centre wing box requiring a full side-of-body modification and reinforcement that will be completed at the company’s Everett, Washington facility

Dreamliner production challenges lie ahead – Flight International

While the most visible part of the 787 programme is centred on the start of flight-testing the largely composite twin-engined jetliner, Boeing continues to evolve the Dreamliner’s production system while tackling the challenges that lie ahead for the base of global suppliers.

FlightBlogger on Tumblr
Keeping with the ‘In Beta’ policy for FlightBlogger, I’ve added a new channel for content for the blog that I hope will really further enhance and streamline this site. I’ve tried for a while to pull together the disparate social media multimedia services into an integrated package while still making sure that this page is still for comprehensive written content. I’ve created a new page at Tumblr (http://flightblogger.tumblr.com) that allows me to record and share and upload audio, quick video, links, quotes, photos on the fly. Tumblr is designed for speed. It will be put into full effect during the Singapore Air Show early next month and we’ll see how it goes.

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 9, 2010
ANA closes the order book on the 787-3

About 23 months ago, in the midst of arguably the most chaotic period of the 787 program during the winter of 2008, Boeing quietly placed the short-range 787-3 on the back burner, shifting much-needed engineering resources toward the 787-8 and follow-on 787-9.

Since that time, the 787-3 has been on a slow descent toward joining a collection of never-built aircraft variants. That descent ended today as ANA zeroed-out the -3 order book; converting its 28 remaining short-range Dreamliners to long-range -8s.

While Boeing has not formally changed the status of the 787-3 as an aircraft for sale, it has now entered a gray area of a “market viability study” that will determine whether or not it ever gets built.

The short-range -3 was given life as a mark on a whiteboard on October 26, 2002, when Boeing gathered the strategic thinkers of the world’s biggest airlines together. They were asked to label a graph, the horizontal axis was range and the vertical was seat count. Those marks eventually became the 787-8, 787-9 and 787-3.

While the attendants of the meeting were never disclosed, the airline(s) indicating a preference for the 787-3, a high-capacity, short-range wide-body, later became clear as the order book climbed toward its peak of over 900 orders, 43 of which were for the 787-3 from JAL (13) and ANA (30). In fact, when it ordered what was then the 7E7 in 2004, the -3 made up the majority of their respective orders.

In fact, the 787-3 was widely believed to be a major enticement to All Nippon Airways to serve as launch customer for the 787. When it was first launched, the 787-3 would follow just in 2010, two years behind the 787-8 set to be delivered in May 2008 as a replacement for the A300 and 767.

Though, engineers who were closely involved in the development of the 787-3 say the biggest challenge the aircraft faced was was its weight and whether enough structure could be removed to reduce the empty weight of the aircraft, while upping the seat count and delivering significant enough gains in efficiency over the shorter domestic routes. One person close to the program even speculated that a newly wingletted 767-300ER could have been extremely competitive against the 787-3.

Steven Udvar-Hazy, head of the International Lease Finance Corporation said at the Singapore Air Show in February 2008, that he preferred “another version of the 787 that is lighter, that addresses more the performance capabilities at…more the medium haul end of the market.”

Regarding the 787-3, he quickly added that:

That might be a more practical product line that will have a wider application with more customers than the -3 and we’re encouraging Boeing to come up with a 787 derivative to address that middle market which has wide global appeal to airlines in North America, European airlines, Middle East, China and South America and intra-Asia and US trans-con market and so forth. The -3 doesn’t quite do it. It seems too heavy.

Yet, in the end, for ANA and JAL – which converted its orders to -8s in June – it all came down the non-specific timeline for when they could actually receive their first -3. Officially, Boeing never publicly committed to anything more than “The 787-3…will now become the second derivative of the airplane family.”

In a statement earlier today, Boeing said it simply came down to the wishes of its very patient customer: “The 787-8 is available sooner for delivery than the 787-3 would be.”

With the 787-3 now in an amorphous phase of its existence, Boeing has an opportunity to look at the 787-3 to see if it may find new life as Mr. Hazy’s much desired mid-range wide-body.

Where one door closes, another opens.

Photo Credit Boeing

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 8, 2010
Sources: Airbus inks agreement with CFM and P&W; to lay groundwork for A320 re-engining

Airbus has moved closer to launching a revamped A320 family after signing agreements with CFM International and Pratt & Whitney which will lay the groundwork for re-engining the twinjet, FlightBlogger has learned.

While the scope of the agreement – which was signed within the past week – remains unclear, multiple industry sources say that this step is more technical in nature. The agreements are aimed at formally establishing specifications, performance and fuel burn requirements for such an engine, rather than any new A320 version’s commercial viability. Additionally, the sources add that the agreement is a clear signal of the seriousness by Airbus to re-engine the A320.

Airbus chief operating officer of customers John Leahy said at the Dubai air show in November that “The more you convince yourself it is 2024 for the next-generation single-aisle, the more you realise you must do something with the existing aircraft.”

Although Airbus did not explicitly confirm or deny such a formalized agreement exists between itself and CFM and P&W, the airframer says it “is constantly in technical dialogue with all the major engine suppliers”.

P&W declined to address the existence of such an agreement, saying that “We are in discussions with all aircraft makers about the benefits offered by the [PW1000G] with its geared turbofan technology.”

The engine maker adds: “Our preferred channel to market for the next generation or re-engined Airbus and Boeing single-aisle aircraft is through our successful partnership International Aero Engines (IAE). We will continue to work with our existing technology partners to bring this engine to market for our customers.”

IAE says that it “continues to discuss all potential future engine developments to enhance the aircraft’s performance”. P&W and Rolls-Royce are major partners in the IAE consortium that offers the V2500 engine on current A320 models. CFM engines power both A320 Family and Boeing Next Generation 737s.

During the 2009 Paris air show the head of IAE partner MTU Aero Engines Egon Behle told Air Transport Intelligence that as IAE crafts its strategy for an engine to power A320 and Boeing Next Generation 737 replacements, “There are certainly some obstacles to remove.” Behle noted Rolls-Royce and Pratt “do have different proposals” to narrowbody development.

The PW1000G geared turbofan engine has been selected by Bombardier to power the 100-149-seat CSeries family, as well as the 150-240-seat Irkut MS-21 and Mitsubishi’s 70-96-seat MRJ.

Airbus says of its future relationship with IAE on the A320 that “our aim, as we have clearly stated previously, is that any such offering(s) should come to market via the established CFM and IAE partnerships respectively”.

Airbus and P&W partnered in 2008 to test a PW1000G demonstrator under the wing of an A340-600 at the airframer’s Toulouse base. While the move ignited speculation about the future application of the engine, both parties were quick to say it was not a sign of a formal plan.

While CFM denies there is a legal agreement signed between itself and Airbus, the joint venture between General Electric and Snecma says that it is in “constant negotiation” with Airbus and continues to supply the European airfamer with data for potential “study engines” for the A320.

Any offering by CFM for the A320 is almost certainly to come in the form of the LEAP-X engine, the successor to the CFM56.

The LEAP-X1C was selected in December by Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac) to power the C919 aircraft, a direct future competitor to Airbus and Boeing in the 150-to 200-seat narrowbody market expected to enter service in 2016.

A December 2009 report by AirInsight concluded that “Airbus will decide to re-engine the A320, and make that announcement and engine selection early in 2010.” Adding that, “We expect both LEAP-X and the P&W GTF, the latter offered through IAE, will be selected as the candidate engines.”

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 7, 2010
The C919, CFM and the catalyst for re-engining A320 and 737

Last month, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) selected the CFM (GE & Snecma) LEAP-X1C engine to power the C919, the nation’s entrant into the 150 to 200 seat market. The selection of the next generation CFM engine gives the LEAP-X a launch customer that comes with a guaranteed market: China.

That fact alone may be the final catalyst for a major leap forward from Boeing and Airbus, as airlines continue to call for all-new designs from both air framers.

History, while not repeating itself, is once again rhyming. The calls to replace the 737, and now the A320, are loud and clear, though top engineers at both companies believe that the gains of 20-30% efficiency sought by the airlines just aren’t possible with today’s engine technology.

We again hear calls about blunting the introduction of new aircraft; how either company could stop the CSeries CS100/300 and MS-21, both powered by the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G engine, and Comac C919 right in its tracks with a fresh design from the American or European airframers.

Between 1984 and 1988 when Airbus was moving beyond the A300 and A310 into the single aisle market to develop the A320, Boeing was creating an expanded 737 family with the -300 -400 and -500.

The 1986 Northwest Airlines order for 100 A320 aircraft changed the face of aerospace, giving Airbus a significant early foothold in the US market.

Bob Alizart, executive assistant to former Airbus CEO and managing director Jean Pierson, said of the A320 in John Newhouse’s 2007 Boeing versus Airbus :

“Boeing should have killed this upstart. If Boeing had produced a clean sheet of paper the A320 never would have become Airbus’s bread and butter.”

But coming off of the 757 and 767 development programs in the early 80s, the family of three major derivatives for the 737 was the only feasible course.

The same calls were reiterated in 1996 when United ordered A319s, which were competing against the 737 Classics. Rather than a clean sheet design that would have been prohibitively expensive following the estimated $14 billion price tag of the 777, Boeing developed the 737 Next Generation family.

Though the Boeing strategy hardly needs any vindication stronger than the 7177 orders earned since March 1984 when the A320-100 was launched, yet Airbus has earned 6467 orders since then as well. Arguably, the competition has allowed both products to survive as long as they have, with perpetual improvements continually introduced.

Though the C919’s LEAP-X selection potentially presents a unique competitive landscape for Boeing and Airbus in China. Boeing estimates China to be a 3,770 aircraft, $400 billion market over the next 20 years. More than 2,600 of those are forecast to be narrowbody aircraft.

China has also erected what the US is calling a “trade barrier” that provides products accredited for “indigenous innovation” preference in government purchases, which could potentially pose threat to Boeing when it comes to fleet acquisition for state-owned airlines.

Once again, while the impetus for a clean-sheet design from Boeing and Airbus remains, the commercial justification for such a course is unfeasible with significant resources already devoted the 787 and A350 programs. However, re-engining the 737 and A320 to take on the C919 and (a potentially even higher-capacity) CSeries in the heart of the narrowbody market is looking like the most likely course of action.

A recent report by Air Insight concludes that a 2010 announcement of re-engining for both the A320 and 737 is virtual certainty. Though the decision to re-engine both aircraft rather than develop an entirely new type will put the 737 and A320 on roughly equal footing with their new similarly-powered Canadian, Russian and Chinese competitors rather than blunting their rise before even getting off the ground. As a result, Boeing and Airbus’s market share in the 100-200-seat category – now about 88% – could slip to as low as 40% in competition with new airframers.

While China and the C919 are far from the only impetus driving a re-engining decision by Airbus and Boeing, any roadblock to accessing the Chinese market is sure to push each airframer’s decision to re-engine their narrowbody cashcows that much closer.

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 6, 2010
Yarn v. Cray Super Computers: Yarn wins

New Wing , originally uploaded by longbachnguyen.

If you look closely, all those red marks on the ZA001’s wing, flaps and engine pylon are pieces of yarn. All the computer models running on all the super computers in the land are no match for seeing it with your own two eyes in flight.

When Mike Carriker discussed the new instrumentation added to ZA001 between first and second flight, the addition of yarn to the left wing was exactly what he was talking about.

The yarn will demonstrate how the airflow moves over the wing of the 787 and validate (or challenge) the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models developed for the program.

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 6, 2010

What’s an aircraft equipment capability suffix?

You’re probably thinking: “What the heck is Jon talking about?”

When an aircraft files a flight plan, the crew specifies what type of aircraft they’re flying (C172, B788, A380, B734, A321, etc.). To provide the most information to ATC in the flight plan, crews will also include a suffix and a letter designation after the type.

For example, an Alaska Airlines 737-400 which flies precision routes in and out of Alaskan airports would be B734/Q. The “/Q” suffix means that aircraft is capable of RNP approaches while operating in a RVSM environment for aircraft separation minimums.

The suffix designations are specified by Chapter 5, Section 1 of the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). Also, if you happen to see an “H/” prefix (H/B772/Q), the letter designates a “heavy” call sign to the aircraft.

Here’s the complete list of FAA AIM suffix codes and their significance:

Suffix	Equipment Capability
	NO DME
/X	No transponder
/T	Transponder with no Mode C
/U	Transponder with Mode C
	DME
/D	No transponder
/B	Transponder with no Mode C
/A	Transponder with Mode C
	TACAN ONLY
/M	No transponder
/N	Transponder with no Mode C
/P	Transponder with Mode C
	AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)
/Y	LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with no transponder
/C	LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS, transponder with no Mode C
/I	LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS, transponder with Mode C
	ADVANCED RNAV WITH TRANSPONDER AND MODE C (If an aircraft is unable to operate with a transponder and/or Mode C, it will revert to the appropriate code listed above under Area Navigation.)
/E	Flight Management System (FMS) with DME/DME and IRU position updating
/F	FMS with DME/DME position updating
/G	Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), including GPS or Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), with en route and terminal capability.
/R	Required Navigational Performance (RNP). The aircraft meets the RNP type prescribed for the route segment(s), route(s) and/or area concerned.
	Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM). Prior to conducting RVSM operations within the U.S., the operator must obtain authorization from the FAA or from the responsible authority, as appropriate.
/J	/E with RVSM
/K	/F with RVSM
/L	/G with RVSM
/Q	/R with RVSM
/W	RVSM

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 5, 2010

Video: The sound of takeoff – 777 v. 787

I’m very much alive and kicking and my apologies for not posting much in the last two weeks. I’m back from some much-needed time off and I’m (enthusiastically) tackling a mountain-sized to-do list I’m thrilled 2010 is now fully underway with a big year ahead (which I’ll cover later this week). By the looks of the stock market, aerospace is breathing a collective sigh of relief after a rocky 2009 (Boeing up almost 4%, Embraer up almost 5%, Spirit up 3.25%, Lockheed up 2%, Northrop Grumman up 1.7%).

Here’s a brief list of the items I’m working on for this month: Top 10 Aerospace Stories of the Decade, 787 Flight Test update, pre-flight preparations for the 747-8 – including an interview with Joe Sutter, a guide to the flight deck of the 787 and a structural overview of the A350 XWB. Needless to say, I’m going to be busy with the Singapore air show coming up in early February.

In the meantime, I put together a video comparing the sound of the 777 and 787 on their respective take off rolls. Last week, an Aerologic 777-200LRF and 787 ZA001 departed KPAE within minutes of one another. A close friend captured both departures from the same spot on the grassy knoll in Everett. I spliced the footage together to give an sense of the different sound each aircraft makes as it takes off.

The comparison is rough as the 787 is idling near the 777 as it takes off and the 787 has its APU running when it begins its take off roll, but the video should give a preliminary comparison of the different sounds of a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 and a General Electric GE90-115BL. Enjoy!

This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

January 4, 2010