Boeing 787 and Airbus a350 differences

[B16a]

Hi all,
I was just wondering how much there is of a difference in technology between the B787 and A350 i know their missions are not exactly comparable but has Airbus's approach been to conservative or am I missing something.
Many thanks for your input

[mo_bhaiyat]

From what I know the main difference is the fact that the 787's systems are all electrical or predominantly where as the 350 has similar systems to the 330.

[DozyWannabe]

Actually as I understand it the A350XWB - which is a significantly different beast from the A350 as originally proposed - has an all-new systems layout and design, largely derived from that which went into the A380. The training ethos for the A350XWB also has a greater emphasis on hand-flying than the Airbus FBW types that have come before. Also, based on what I've read you are correct in your assertion that the A350XWB is a slightly more conservative design when it comes to reliance on electrical systems - this has been a rare case where a US design has been something of an R&D guinea pig as opposed to its European counterpart - see also Airbus's reversion to NiMH batteries for certain applications while the issues with Li-Ion designs are ironed out.

You can get a pretty decent overview of the relationship between the A350XWB and B787 from the relevant Wikipedia pages for both types - in fact the larger A350s are designed to compete with the proposed B777X.

While researching the recent JAL orders for the A350XWB, I came across this quite interesting article outlining the relationship between the types - though obviously it is restricted to how those differences apply within JAL's business model:

http://airchive.com/blog/2013/10/07/...-airbus-order/

[B16a]

Thanks for your reply's.
thanks DozyWannabe for that link was definitely insightful as to the operational capabilities / market segment these aircraft will fit into.
I wonder how much of the 787's design features will make it to 777X that is if Boeing definitely launch it which is pretty likely by the looks of things.
Now time for a visit to Wikipedia for some reading.

[llagonne66]

Fuselage structural differences

Regarding the build up of the fuselage Boeing went for the "barrel" approach whereas Airbus stayed with the usual frames / stringers and skin approach.
Regarding repairs in service, future will tell if Boeing has been too innovative on that matter (please refer to the on-going story with the Ethiopian 787).

[DaveReidUK]

Regarding the build up of the fuselage Boeing went for the "barrel" approach whereas Airbus stayed with the usual frames / stringers and skin approach.

It's not clear what distinction you are trying to make - those fuselage components that Airbus build from frames, stringers and skin, and then nail together to make a complete aircraft, are commonly referred to as barrels, just as Boeing's are termed.

[tdracer]

It's not clear what distinction you are trying to make - those fuselage components that Airbus build from frames, stringers and skin, and then nail together to make a complete aircraft, are commonly referred to as barrels, just as Boeing's are termed.

The 787 fuselage 'barrel' sections are manufactured as a single piece - not separate pieces that are then bolted together. As noted this may complicate the repair of the Ethiopian 787 - since they can't just unbolt the damaged skin and bolt a new one in place - if the existing area can't be readily repaired they will need to replace the entire tail section 'barrel'.

At least in theory, the Boeing approach should be lighter, but as noted they pay for it in other areas....

I've not actually seen one, but the autoclaves where they bake those complete barrel sections must be massive

[B16a]

I didn't realise Boeing had changed the assembly process so drastically I knew that they had taken a major step forward with materials and processes but didn't realise how much. Has that technique been used in smaller aircraft and scaled up or is it a new process for the aviation industry ?
Thanks again to all who have replied.

[Pub User]

Some smaller aircraft (military jets) have been made of carbon fibre since the late 1980s.

[Capn Bloggs]

The training ethos for the A350XWB also has a greater emphasis on hand-flying than the Airbus FBW types that have come before.

Nothing at all to do with being "different". The "ethos" was/is purely and simply a belated reaction (more like dragged, kicking and screaming) to the reality that pilots, with the overt/covert help of management and the manufacturers, have been seduced by the automation and can no longer fly. Airbus had to do something because one of their prized jets was crashed by pilots who couldn't fly (aided and abetted by a complex machine). Nothing to do with type, per se.

A350 pilots might get more hands-on during their type rating, but mark my words, on the line it will be back to the same old same old...

[DozyWannabe]

*sigh* - Except in practice, brand A never pushed automation harder than the competition. The reason it was perceived as such was because journos were incapable of separating FBW from automation.

The modern problem of overreliance on automation, such as it is, is industry-wide, and it was at the behest of the airlines - not the manufacturers.