Airbus' intelligence report on the 787
 

Airbus has prepared a little dodgy dossier on the 787 and what's gone wrong in it's production. The methods used are allegedly a little shady.

The story from Flight International:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ons_learnt.pdf

The FlightBlogger Blog which contains a link to the document itself:

FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis

Airbus Dreamliner Dossier Revealed
 

By Jon Ostrower on December 3, 2008 4:30 PM


In addition, Airbus believes that both the General Electric GEnx-1B and Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines are rumoured to have missed specific fuel consumption targets by 2-3% and 3-4% respectively. "We've continued to make tweaks to the engine and we will make fuel spec when we reach entry into service," GE said.

Rolls-Royce did not return calls seeking comment.

Airbus speculates that a rumoured design change to the Trent 1000 low-pressure turbine could require Dreamliner One to switch to GEnx engines.
Though, a 787 programme source confirms that Rolls-Royce compatible pylons had been recently reinstalled on Dreamliner One.

I guess it wouldn't be in Airbus' interest to bag the opposition now, would it.:hmm: Just like Boeing did for the A 380 and others......

I think there nothing wrong with manufacturer A making an internal presentation on manufacturer B..

Will the LPT design change hold up the flt test program for the 787 ?

Will the LPT redesign lower the fuel burn ?

Will airlines have to pay for the cost to incorporate the design change into their Trent engines?

Will airlines switch engine choice to GEnx from Trents ?

As long as it does not violate IP and data protection laws.

Very good! :D

Is Trent XWB based on Trent 1000?

If yes, do Trent 1000 problems afflict the delivery date or range of Airbus 350?

It appears as if the LPT re-design will entail broader chord baldes which may mean a re-design of turbine casing which surprise surprise is a very long lead item - big risk of not making certification flt. testing.

After working many years on passenger aircraft, I would feel very uncomfortable flying on anything with a complete carbon firbre skin.
Especially considering the amount of hit-and-run incidents that occur to airframes by people maneuvering ground equipment. Human nature, IE; people too scared to report a mistake.
All it takes is a good bump to seriously weaken a carbon fibre material, damage that may or may-not be detected by the human eye, and then you have an accident waiting to happen.
I know more and more aircraft outer structures are being made by this material, but an entire fuselage? Come on.....

I hear ya..
Nothing beats properly selected Spruce and doped silk.
And bracing all around.
Two wings, just in case. None of this cantilever, crap. You look at it and you just know that it's gonna break. People tried it and it broke.

Sorry.. I'm feeling mean. :E
On a more serious note: with metal structures, we ended up finding methods to detect weakening of the material (fatigue cracks, and I don't know what else). Does anyone have a quick reference to what is state-of-the-art in this department for carbon composite structures? And I mean detection, not repair. The latter seems to be fairly simple, I've read.
People talk a lot about hidden delaminations as the worst thing to deal with. For this we have tapping tests.

You have raised a very important point BALSA MODEL. With previous aircraft structures, there was a wealth of experience in carrying out airframe inspections to look for potential failures. However, with this newer type of material, there is little experience worldwide when the time comes to start looking at these airframes. It will probably be a trial and error/learn from other people's mistakes learning curve.

The composite fuselage pressurized exec jet, the Raytheon Premier has been in service for quite some time now and has not gone poof in flight.
Pressurization cycles have not revealed any anomolies.

What life limit (if it has), does the 'goo' have that is used as the bonding agent? I suppose it is the same as or similar to the Dreamliner's 'goo'.

Do a google search for " Carbon Reinforced Fibre ,NDT, aircraft maintenance "

I've got a carbon fibre airplane built in 1986 and housed outdoors in Canada and Alaska all it's life with not a sign of any problem. Easy to maintain and repair, light and super strong no corrosion, impervious to fuel and oil. Wouldn't use anything else!

Boofhead,

I would be interested to know if your airplane weighs more than it did 22 years ago, other than can be explained by equipment changes, mods and repairs etc?

Wil.