[alking911]

صباح الخير والسرور

كيف حالكم ان شاء الله بخير

وكل عآم وأنت بألف خير

بمناسبة قرب شهر الفضيلة شهر رمضان المباركـ <<< بدري ياكابتن

اليوم جبت لكم معلومات من تجميعي عن الايرباص a350

ولاحظت وجود a370 واول مره اشوفها بصراحهـ

واتمنى قرائه ممتعهـ

صور ومعلومات عن احدث طائره في العالم
الايرباص A 350








الكابينه



تأتي هذه الطائرة ب 3 انواع
1- A350-800
2- A350-900
3- A350-1000

نوع الهيكل : عريض
المقاعد : من 260 الى 350 حسب نوع الطائرة
تم اعادة تصميم الطائرة 5 مرات

الطائرة صديقة للبيئة

السرعة : 8600 ميل بحري

السعر : 154 مليون دولار امريكي

تتفوق الايرباص a 350 على البوينغ 787 من حيث المدى واستهلاك الوقود بسبب محركها Trent XWB

دخول الخدمه 2013



The Airbus A350 is a long-range, mid-sized, widebody family of airliners currently under development, designed to compete with the Boeing 777 and Boeing 787. It will also compete with Airbus' own A330 and A340, since plans to discontinue those models have not been announced.
Development
Early designs
When Boeing announced its 787 Dreamliner project, it claimed the lower operating costs of this airplane would make it a serious threat to the Airbus A330. Publicly, Airbus initially rejected this claim, stating that the 787 was itself just a reaction to the A330, and that no response was needed to the 787.




AIRBUS A350 COCKPIT PHOTO
The airlines pushed Airbus to provide a competitor, as Boeing had committed the 787 to have 20% lower fuel consumption than today's equivalent types. Initially Airbus proposed a simple derivative of the A330, unofficially dubbed the 'A330-200Lite', with improved aerodynamics and engines similar to those on the 787. The airlines were not satisfied and Airbus committed €4 billion to a new design to be called the A350. The original version of the A350 superficially resembled the A330 due to its common fuselage cross-section and assembly. A new wing, engines and a horizontal stabilizer were to be coupled with new composite materials and production methods applied to the fuselage to make the A350 an almost all-new aircraft.



INTERIOR VIEW OF AIRBUS A350 AIRLINE SEATING - XWB EXTRA WIDE BODY
On 16 September 2004, then Airbus president and CEO Noël Forgeard confirmed that a new project was under consideration, but did not give a project name, and would not state whether it would be an entirely new design or a modification of an existing product. Forgeard indicated that Airbus would finalise its concept by the end of 2004, begin consulting with airlines in early 2005, and aim to launch the new development programme at the end of that year.
On 10 December 2004 the boards of EADS and BAE Systems, then the shareholders of Airbus, gave Airbus an "authorisation to offer (ATO)", and formally named it the A350.




A COMPUTERIZED DRAWING OF THE AIRBUS A350 XWB WITH SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIVERY
On 6 October 2005 full industrial launch of the program was announced with an estimated development cost of around € 3.5 billion. This version of the A350 was planned to be a 250–300-seat twin-engined wide-body aircraft derived from the design of the existing A330. Under this plan, the A350 would have modified wings and new engines while sharing the same fuselage cross-section as its predecessor. Controversially, the fuselage was to consist primarily of Al-Li, rather than the CFRP fuselage on the 787. It was to see entry into service in 2010 in two versions; the A350-800 capable of flying 8,800 nautical miles (16,300 km) with typical passenger capacity of 253 in 3-class configuration and the 300-seat (3-class) A350-900 with 7,500 nautical mile (13,890 km) range. It was designed to be a direct competitor to the 787-9, and 777-200ER.
Almost immediately Airbus faced criticism on the A350 project by the heads of two of its largest customers, ILFC and GECAS. On 28 March 2006, in the presence of hundreds of top airline executives, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, of ILFC lambasted Airbus' strategy in bringing to market what they saw as "a Band-aid reaction to the 787," a sentiment which was echoed by GECAS president Henry Hubschman. Udvar-Hazy called on Airbus to bring a clean-sheet design to the table, or risk losing most of the market to Boeing.



CLICK THE AIRBUS A350 SCHEMATIC ABOVE TO SEE IN FULL SCREEN
Several days later, similar comments were made by Chew Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines. Chew stated, "having gone to the trouble of designing a new wing, tail, cockpit" and adding advanced new materials, Airbus "should have gone the whole hog and designed a new fuselage." At the time, Singapore was reviewing bids for the 787 and A350.
Airbus responded by stating it was considering improvements for the A350 to satisfy customer demands. At the same time, Airbus then-CEO Gustav Humbert suggested that there would be no quick fixes, stating, "Our strategy isn't driven by the needs of the next one or two campaigns, but rather by a long-term view of the market and our ability to deliver on our promises."
On 14 June 2006, Singapore Airlines announced it had selected the 787 over the A350, ordering 20 787-9s. Emirates decided against making an order for the initial version of the A350 because of weaknesses in the design.

AIRBUS A350 AIRCRAFT
XWB
Interior of the Economy Class Of the A350 XWB.As a result of these criticisms, in mid-2006 Airbus undertook a major review of the A350 concept. The proposed new A350 was to become more of a competitor to the larger Boeing 777 as well as some models of the Boeing 787, with a larger fuselage cross-section able to accommodate 9 passengers per row in economy class. The A330 and previous iterations of the A350 would only be able to accommodate 8 passengers per row in normal configurations. The 787 can accommodate 8 or 9 passengers per row, while the 777 can accommodate 9 passengers per row (or, rarely, 10). From the point of view of a seated passenger, the cabin is 13 cm (five inches) wider at eye level than the competing Boeing 787, and 28 cm (eleven inches) narrower than the Boeing 777, its other competitor. All A350 passenger models will have a range of at least 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km).
There was some speculation that the revised aircraft would be called the Airbus A370 or A280, with Airbus going as far as accidentally publishing an advert referring to the aircraft as the "A280" on the Financial Times website. However, on 17 July 2006, at the Farnborough Air Show, Airbus announced that the redesigned aircraft would be called A350 XWB (Xtra Wide-Body).



Airbus achieved its first sale of the redesigned A350 four days after its unveiling when Singapore Airlines announced an order for 20 A350 XWBs with options of a further 20. Its CEO, Chew Choon Seng, said in a statement, that "it is heartening that Airbus has listened to customer airlines and has come up with a totally new design for the A350."
Late in 2006 a decision on formal launch was delayed as a result of delays of the Airbus A380 and wrangles about how the development would be funded. EADS CEO Thomas Enders stated that the A350 program was not a certainty, citing EADS/Airbus' stretched resources. On 1 December 2006 the EADS board agreed the industrial launch of the sixth iteration A350 with costs mainly borne out of cash-flow. First delivery for the -900 is scheduled for mid-2013, with the -800 and -1000 following on, respectively, 12 and 24 months later. At a press conference 4 December 2006 a few new technical details of the A350 XWB design were revealed, but no new customers were identified and John Leahy indicated existing A350 contracts were under re-negotiation due to increases in prices compared to the original A350s contracted.



AIRBUS A350 AIRCRAFT
On 4 January 2007, Airbus announced that Pegasus Aviation Finance Company had placed the first firm order for the A350 XWB with an order for two aircraft, though the variants were unspecified at the time.
The Airbus board of directors approved the industrial launch of the A350-800, -900 and -1000 in December 2006. The XWB will impose a couple of years of delay into the original timetable and almost double development costs from $5.3 billion to approximately $10 billion.
During 2007 Paris Air Show, Airbus won firm orders for 141 A350 XWB and at the Dubai Airshow it won firm orders for 165 A350 XWB.
Design
Older design for the cockpit of the Airbus A350, now replaced with all-new flight deck designOn September 2007, Airbus rolled-out new design advances to a gathering of 100 representatives from existing and potential XWB customers. The A350 XWB will be built on the technologies developed for Airbus A380 and will have a similar cockpit and fly-by-wire systems layout. Airbus claim that 52% of the aircraft will be made out of composites, 20% Al/Al-Li, 14% titanium, 7% steel and 7% the balance. This compares to the Boeing 787, which consists of 50% composites, 20% aluminium, 15% titanium, 10% steel and 5% the balance. October 2008 is the Airbus internal goal to freeze the design and Airbus expect 10% lower airframe maintenance cost and -14% lower empty seat weight than competing aircraft.
Airbus claim that the new design comprise a better cabin atmosphere with 20% of humidity level, pressurization at 6,000 ft (1,800 m) and flow management system that adapts cabin airflow to passenger load with draft-free air circulation.



Fuselage
The new XWB fuselage will have a parallel cross-section width from door 1 to door 4, unlike previous Airbus aircraft to provide maximum usable volume. The double-lobe (ovoid) fuselage cross-section will have a maximum outer diameter of 5.97 m (compared to 5.64 m for the A330/A340). The cabin's internal diameter will be 5.61 m wide at armrest level (compared with 5.49 m of the 787 and 5.86 m of the 777).
In the eight abreast two-four-two arrangement, which is a premium economy layout, the seats will be 19.5 in (49.5 cm) wide between 2-in wide arm rests. Airbus claims that the seat width will be 0.5 in greater than the seat on the 787 in the equivalent configuration. In the nine abreast, three-three-three economy layout, the XWB's seat width will be 17.7 in which will be 0.5 in wider to the proposed equivalent seat layout for the Boeing 787.
Airbus confirmed in early September 2007 the adoption of composite fuselage frames for the aircraft structure. The composite frames will feature aluminium strips to ensure the electrical continuity of the fuselage (for dissipating lightning strikes). However, the fuselage crossbeams remain metallic, but Airbus is running trade-off studies to evaluate the switching them to composite. The new design differs slightly from the 787 design which uses ovoid skin barrels on titanium ribs.
Airbus had signed a firm contract with BMW to have them develop an interior concept for the original A350.



Airbus A350 XWB

Wings
The A350 will feature new all-composite wings that will be common to all three proposed variants. With an area of 443 m² (4,740 ft²) it will be the largest wing ever produced for a single-deck widebody aircraft. The geometric wingspan of 64 m (210 ft) is 3.7 m greater than that of the A330 and the original A350. The current biggest twinjet wing belongs to the long-range Boeings 777-200LR/777-300ER, which have 0.7 m greater span but slightly less area. The new wing will have 35 degrees of sweep (5 degrees more than the A330) helping to increase typical cruise speed to Mach 0.85 and maximum operating speed to Mach 0.89.
Airbus is currently working on the detail of the wings' aerodynamics and it will not freeze the final configuration until the October 2008 design freeze milestone. A new trailing-edge high-lift system has been adopted with an advanced dropped hinge flap (similar to that of the A380) which permits the gap between the trailing edge and the flap to be closed with the spoiler. The manufacturer has carried out 1800 hours of low-speed windtunnel testing and results have led to a slight reduction of the static engine's thrust due to a better low-speed performance than anticipated. High-speed performance testing has begun at the European Transonic Windtunnel in Cologne, Germany and a final decision regarding winglet configuration is expected soon.
Airbus is planning a £570 million (US$760 million) investment to upgrade composite capability at its Broughton site in the United Kingdom, in preparation for its role as final assembly location for the A350 XWB wing.



Nose
The XWB's nose section will adopt a configuration derived from the A380 with a forward-mounted nosegear bay and a six-panel flightdeck windscreen. This differs from the dramatic four-window arrangement that was proposed in the original design. The new nose will improve aerodynamics and enable overhead crew rest installed further forward and eliminate any encroachment in the passenger cabin. The new windscreen has been revised to improve vision by reducing the width of the center post. The upper shell radius of the nose section has been increased.
The nose is likely to be constructed from aluminium but Airbus is currently running trade-off studies considering one-piece carbon fiber structure. According to Gordon McConnell, A350 Chief Engineer, a carbon fiber structure will need titanium reinforcements for birdstrike, thus the aluminium structure is the best cost wise.
Cockpit
The new revised design of the cockpit have gone away from the A380-sized display and have adopted a 15-in (38 cm) LCD displays. The new six-screen configuration will have two central displays mounted one above other (the lower one above the thrust levers) and a single (for each pilot) primary flight/navigation display with an on-board information system screen adjacent to it. Airbus claim the new cockpit will allow to put more advances in navigation technology on the displays in the future plus flexibility and capacity to upload new software and to combine data from multiple sources and sensors for flight management and aircraft systems control. The A350 XWB will also feature a heads-up display.
The avionics will be a further development of the integrated modular avionics (IMA) concept found on the A380. The A350's IMA will manage up to 40 functions (versus 23 functions for the A380) such as landing gear, fuel, brakes, pneumatics, oxygen system, full cabin pressurisation system and fire detection[36]. Airbus claims benefits such as reduced maintenance and less weight because IMA replace multiple processors and LRUs with around 50% fewer standard computer modules known as line replaceable modules. The IMA runs on a 100 Mbit/s network based on the avionics full-duplex (AFDX) standard, already employed in the A380 instead of the Arinc 429 system on the A330/A340.
Contract for the avionics suite is expected to be awarded soon.

AIRBUS A350-900 XWB (EXTENDED WIDE BODY)
Engines
For the engines Airbus has confirmed that they will retain a full bleed air system on their engines, rather than the bleedless configuration used on the Boeing 787. Rolls-Royce has agreed with Airbus to supply a new variant of the Trent engine for the A350 XWB, currently called the Trent XWB. After the low-speed windtunnel test, Airbus has frozen the static thrust at sea level for all three proposed variants in the 74,000-92,000 lb range.
GE has stated it will not offer the GP7000 on the aircraft, and that previous contracts for the GEnx on the original A350 did not apply to the XWB.
In April 2007, Airbus former chief executive Louis Gallois held face-to-face talks with senior General Electric management over finalizing the possible go-ahead of a new variant of the GEnx engine for the A350 XWB. Airline pressure for a GE engine option is believed to be coming particularly from US Airways and Singapore Airlines, as well as others within the A350 orders group that either originally selected GE or that have not yet settled for the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-powered option. But on June 2007, Rolls-Royce announced that it had signed its biggest ever contract with Qatar Airways for the Trent XWB to power 80 A350 XWBs on order from Airbus worth $5.6 billion at list prices and in June 2007, Airbus' Chief Operating Officer John Leahy indicated that the GEnx engine will not feature on the A350 XWB, claiming that Airbus wants GE to offer a more efficient version for the new Airbus airliner. Both Singapore Airlines and US Airways have selected the RR Trent XWB for their future fleet of A350.



The Trent XWB will feature a 118 in (3 m) fan diameter and the design will be based on the advanced developments of the Trent 900 (Airbus A380) and Trent 1000 (Boeing 787). The Trent XWB may also benefit from the next-generation reduced acoustic mode scattering engine duct system (RAMSES), which is a noise-dampening engine nacelle intake and a carry on design of the Airbus's "zero splice" intake liner developed for the A380.
Auxiliary power unit
The A350 XWB will feature a 1,700 shp HGT1700 APU by Honeywell, which has 10% greater power density than the previous generation of the Honeywell's 331 APU family. Honeywell will also supply the air management system which comprise the bleed air, environmental control, cabin pressure control and supplemental cooling systems. The ram-air turbine will be now localized on the belly and the generator requirement is 100 kVA compared to 150 kVA for the A380. The selection of U.S. based Honeywell supplier is part of Airbus strategy to select complete work packages to a smaller number of major suppliers who are becoming system integrators on the programme.
Landing gear
Airbus has adopted a completely new philosophy for the attachment of the A350 XWB’s main landing gear as part of the switch to a composite wing structure. Each XWB's main landing gear leg is going to be attached to the rear wing spar forward and to a gear beam aft, which itself is attached to the wing and the fuselage. To help reduce the loads further into the wing, a double side-stay configuration has been adopted. This solution resembles the design of the Vickers VC10.


وهكذا نكون قد انتهينا من تقرير و معلومات عن a350 باضافة طائرهـ غريبة a370

والسلام عليكم ورحمهـ الله وبركاتهـ

[ENG-MAN]

مشكور على المعلومات الطيبه والله لايحرمنا من جديدك

[إنسان ذوق]

أبدعت

بارك الله فيك وشاكر لك على المجهود الرآآئع صرآحه

[قمة الزعامه]

ابداع

معلومات رائعه

[KUWAIT AIRWAYS]

قواك الله عالموضوع ومشالله الطائره باين عليها مو هينه شكرا لك

[mohamedali]

مشكور على الموضوع المميز دا

بس انا احس فيها بعض الملامح من الدريم لاينر 787 وبالاخص الديزين بتاع النوز والجناح فى حد من الاخوة يوافقنى الرأى ؟

[عاشق 787]

اخي الكريم شكرا للتقرير الشاملـــ

الرجاء ذكر مصادر الموضوعــ
__



فيها شبه من 787 ولكن اتفق انه 787 اجمل بكتير
350 مشروع مقلد اوربي >>3


تحياتي لصاحب الموضوع

[alking911]

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة ENG-MAN  

مشكور على المعلومات الطيبه والله لايحرمنا من جديدك

الله يعافيك اخوي

[alking911]

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة إنسان ذوق  

أبدعت

بارك الله فيك وشاكر لك على المجهود الرآآئع صرآحه

العفوا اخوي انسان ذوق

تحياتي طال عمرك

[alking911]

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة قمة الزعامه  

ابداع

معلومات رائعه

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة KUWAIT AIRWAYS  

قواك الله عالموضوع ومشالله الطائره باين عليها مو هينه شكرا لك

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mohamedali  

مشكور على الموضوع المميز دا

بس انا احس فيها بعض الملامح من الدريم لاينر 787 وبالاخص الديزين بتاع النوز والجناح فى حد من الاخوة يوافقنى الرأى ؟

يعطيكم العافية اخواني ع مروركمـ بموضوعي

[alking911]

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة عاشق 787  

اخي الكريم شكرا للتقرير الشاملـــ

الرجاء ذكر مصادر الموضوعــ
_العفو اخي الكريم
والمصدر من المتصفح حقي
_



فيها شبه من 787 ولكن اتفق انه 787 اجمل بكتير
350 مشروع مقلد اوربي >>3


تحياتي لصاحب الموضوع

ومنور الموضوع
طال عمرك

[cpt.abdulkarim]

الطائرة فعلا مميزة ولاكن ال hud اللي هو نظام الرؤية في الظروف الجوية المنخفضة سبقتها 737ng
واعتقد التصميم مشابه للدريم لاينر حتى مكونات الهيكل طبعا البوينغ تتفوق من ناحية المحلركات رولزرويس افضل بكثير

تقرير من ويكبيديا وممكن تشوف موقع بوينغ
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a long range, mid-sized, wide-body, twin-engine jet airliner developed by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It seats 210 to 330 passengers, depending on variant. Boeing states that it is the company's most fuel-efficient airliner and the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction.[4] Its development has involved a large-scale collaboration with numerous suppliers.
On January 28, 2005, the aircraft's initial designation 7E7 was changed to 787.[5] Early released concept images depicted a radical design with highly curved surfaces. On April 26, 2005, a year after the launch of the program, the final and more conventional external 787 design was set.
Boeing unveiled its first 787 in a roll-out ceremony on July 8, 2007, at its Everett assembly factory, by which time it had become the fastest-selling wide-body airliner in history with nearly 600 orders.[6] By April 2010, 866 Boeing 787s had been ordered by 56 customers.[7]
The aircraft was originally scheduled to enter service in May 2008, but production had been delayed multiple times, and in August 2009, the scheduled service entry date was pushed back to the fourth quarter of 2010.[8] The aircraft's maiden flight, originally planned for August 2007,[9][10] took place on December 15, 2009 in the Seattle area.[11] The 787 is currently undergoing flight testing with a goal of receiving its type certificate in late 2010.
Background

During the late 1990s, Boeing began considering a replacement for the 767 when sales weakened due to competition from the Airbus A330-200. As sales of the Boeing 747-400 also slowed, the company proposed two new aircraft, the 747X, and the Sonic Cruiser. The 747X, competing with the Airbus A380, would have lengthened the 747-400 and improved efficiency. The Sonic Cruiser would have achieved 15% higher speeds (approximately Mach 0.98) while burning fuel at the same rate as the existing 767.[12] Market interest for the 747X was tepid, but the Sonic Cruiser had brighter prospects. Several major airlines in the United States, including Continental Airlines, initially showed enthusiasm for the Sonic Cruiser concept, although they also expressed concerns about the operating cost.[13]

Earlier proposed design configuration of the Boeing 7E7


The September 11, 2001 attacks upended the global airline market. Increased petroleum prices made airlines more interested in efficiency than speed. The worst-affected airlines, those in the United States, were considered the most likely customers of the Sonic Cruiser. So the company officially canceled the Sonic Cruiser on December 20, 2002, and switched tracks by announcing an alternative product, the 7E7, on January 29, 2003.[4][14] The emphasis on a smaller midsize twinjet rather than a large 747-size aircraft represented a shift from hub-and-spoke theory towards the point-to-point theory,[15] in response to analysis of focus groups.[16]
[edit] Design phase

The replacement for the Sonic Cruiser project was dubbed the "7E7"[17] (with a development code name of "Y2"). The "E" was said to stand for various things, such as "efficiency" or "environmentally friendly". In the end, Boeing claimed it merely stood for "Eight", after the aircraft was eventually rechristened "787".[4] A public naming competition was also held, for which out of 500,000 votes cast online the winning title was Dreamliner.[18]

All Nippon Airways launched the 787 Dreamliner program with an order for 50 aircraft in 2004.


On April 26, 2004, the Japanese airline All Nippon Airways (ANA) became the launch customer for the 787, then known as the 7E7, by announcing a firm order for 50 aircraft with deliveries to begin in late 2008.[19] ANA's order included 30 787-3, 290–330 seat, one-class domestic aircraft, and 20 787-8, long-haul, 210–250 seat, two-class aircraft for regional international routes such as Tokyo Narita–Beijing. The aircraft will allow ANA to open new routes to cities not previously served, such as Denver, Moscow, and New Delhi.[20]
Early concept images of the 787 included rakish cockpit windows, a dropped nose and a distinctive "shark-fin" tail.[21] The final styling of the aircraft was more conservative, the fin appearing visually similar to those of aircraft currently in service. The nose and cockpit windows were also changed to a more conventional form.

Size comparison of the Boeing 787-8 (black outline) with the Boeing 777-300 (pink), 767-300 (cyan), and 737-800 (green).


The 787-3 and 787-8 were to be the initial variants, with the 787-9 entering service in 2010. Boeing initially priced the 787-8 variant at US$120 million, a low figure that surprised the industry. In 2007, the list price was $146–151.5 million for the 787-3, $157–167 million for the 787-8 and $189–200 million for the 787-9.[22] Customer-announced orders and commitments for the 787 reached 237 aircraft during the first year of sales, with firm orders numbering 677 by the 787's premiere on July 8, 2007, and well before entry into service.[23] This makes the 787 the fastest-selling wide-body airliner ever before entry into service.[6]
The 787 uses the same technology proposed for the Sonic Cruiser in a more conventional configuration (see Features). Boeing claims the 787 will be near to 20% more fuel-efficient than the 767.[24] One third of the efficiency gain will come from the engines, another third from aerodynamic improvements and the increased use of lighter weight composite materials, and the final third from advanced systems. The most notable contribution to efficiency is the new electrical architecture which replaces bleed air and hydraulic power sources with electrically powered compressors and *****, as well as completely eliminating pneumatics and hydraulics from some subsystems (e.g., engine starters or brakes).[25] Technology from the Sonic Cruiser and 787 will be used as part of Boeing's project to replace its entire airliner product line, an endeavor called the Yellowstone Project (of which the 787 is the first stage).[26]

External features on the Boeing 787 include raked wingtips and noise-reducing engine nacelles with serrated edges.


Boeing selected two engine types, the General Electric GEnx and Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, to power the 787, both placed in pods. Significantly, this leaves Pratt & Whitney, which normally has an entrant in the market, unable to offer one of its engines to 787 customers. According to United Technologies Corporation CEO George David, Pratt & Whitney "couldn't make the business case work for that engine."[27] For the first time in commercial aviation, both engine types will have a standard interface with the aircraft, allowing any 787 to be fitted with either a GE or Rolls-Royce engine at any time. Engine interchangeability makes the 787 a more flexible asset to airlines, allowing them to change easily from one manufacturer's engine to the other's if required.[4] The engine market for the 787 is estimated at US$40 billion over the next 25 years. The launch engine for all three current 787 variants is the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000. Airbus has offered the competing A350 powered by a development of the Rolls Royce Trent turbofan, the Trent XWB.

Disassembled composite fuselage section of the Boeing 787


The 787's all-composite fuselage makes it the first composite airliner in production. While the Boeing 777 contains 50% aluminum and 12% composites, the new airplane uses 50% composite (mostly carbon fiber reinforced plastic), 15% aluminum, and other materials. The 787 fuselage was designed to be assembled in one-piece composite barrel sections. Each barrel would be manufactured in one piece and joined end to end during final assembly. The composite barrel approach was a departure from the multiple aluminum sheets and fasteners used on existing aircraft,[28] and eliminated the need for some 50,000 fasteners used in conventional airplane assembly.[29] Boeing built and tested the first commercial aircraft composite section while examining the Sonic Cruiser concept nearly five years before,[30] and regarded the 787 as a significantly refined product.[31] Further, the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey military transport is over 50% composites,[32] and the C-17 has over 16,000 lb of structural composites.[33]
The 787 underwent extensive wind tunnel testing at Boeing's Transonic Wind Tunnel, QinetiQ's five-meter wind tunnel at Farnborough, UK, and NASA Ames Research Center's wind tunnel, as well as at the French aerodynamics research agency, ONERA.

[edit] Production

After stiff competition, Boeing announced on December 16, 2003, that the 787 would be assembled in its factory in Everett, Washington.[4] Instead of building the complete aircraft from the ground up in the traditional manner, final assembly employs just 800 to 1,200 people to join completed subassemblies and to integrate systems.[34] Boeing has assigned its subcontractors to do more assembly themselves and deliver completed subassemblies to Boeing. Boeing would then perform final assembly. This approach results in a leaner and simpler assembly line and lower inventory.[35]
Boeing has previously shipped 737 fuselage barrel sections by rail from Spirit AeroSystems' Wichita, Kansas, facility to Boeing's narrow-body final assembly plant in Renton, Washington. As the major 787 components have many systems pre-installed before delivery to Everett, final assembly time is reduced to three days. This is less than a quarter of the time traditionally needed for Boeing's final assembly process.[36][37] In order to speed delivery of the 787's major components, Boeing has modified a few used 747-400s into 747 Dreamlifters. These widened airplanes can house the wings and fuselage of the 787 and other smaller parts.
[edit] Major components

Boeing manufactures the 787's tail fin at its plant in Frederickson, Washington, the ailerons and flaps at Boeing Australia, and fairings at Boeing Canada Technology. For economic reasons, the wings are manufactured by Japanese companies in Nagoya such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which also makes the central wing box.[38] This was a new and daring step for Boeing, which has historically guarded its techniques for designing and mass producing commercial jetliner wings.[39] The horizontal stabilizers are manufactured by Alenia Aeronautica in Italy; and the fuselage sections by Global Aeronautica and Boeing's Charleston facility[40] in North Charleston, South Carolina (USA), Kawasaki Heavy Industries in Japan and Spirit AeroSystems, in Wichita, Kansas (USA).[41]

The main landing gear of the Boeing 787


The passenger doors are made by Latécoère (France), and the cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door are made by Saab (Sweden). Japanese industrial participation is very important to the project, with a 35% work share, and many of the subcontractors are supported and funded by the Japanese government.[39] On April 26, 2006, Japanese manufacturer Toray Industries and Boeing announced a production agreement involving $6 billion worth of carbon fiber. The deal is an extension of a contract signed in 2004 between the two companies and eases some concerns that Boeing might have difficulty maintaining its production goals for the 787.[4] On February 6, 2008, TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, a subsidiary of the Tata Group (India) announced a deal to provide floor beams for the 787.[42][43]

Assembly of Section 41 of a Boeing 787


Messier-Dowty (France) builds the landing gear, which includes titanium forged in Russia, and brake parts from Italy,[44] and GE Aviation in Yakima WA builds several actuators for the landing gear. Thales supplies the integrated standby flight display and electrical power conversion system.[4] Honeywell and Rockwell-Collins provide flight control, guidance, and other avionics systems, including standard dual head up guidance systems.[4] Connecticut (USA)-based Hamilton Sundstrand provides power distribution and management systems for the aircraft, including manufacture and production of Generator Control Units (GCUs) as well as integration of power transfer systems from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU).[45] Labinal (France) builds the wiring systems.[45]
On June 26, 2007, the first Dreamliner, LN1/ZA001 finished major assembly and was towed to the paint hangar in the early morning.[46]


التتمة
v

[cpt.abdulkarim]

[edit] Ground testing

An important milestone in the launch of the 787 was the on-time certification of the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine on August 7, 2007, by European and US regulators.[47] The alternative GE GEnx-1B engine achieved certification on March 31, 2008.[48] On August 20, 2007, Hamilton Sundstrand stated that it had delivered its first two cabin air conditioning packs to Boeing for the initial flight-test of the 787 Dreamliner.[49] On June 20, 2008, the 787 team achieved "Power On" of the first aircraft, powering and testing the aircraft's electrical supply and distribution systems.[26]

Major assembly of the first test Boeing 787 was completed on June 26, 2007.


In addition to the flight test aircraft, Boeing has also constructed a non-flight 787 test airframe for static testing. On September 27, 2008, over a period of nearly two hours, the fuselage was successfully tested at 14.9 psi (102.7 kPa), which is 150 percent of the maximum pressure expected in commercial service (i.e., when flying at maximum cruising altitude).[50] In December 2008 FAA passed the maintenance program for the 787.[51]
On March 28, 2010 the 787 completed the ultimate wing load test which requires that the wings of a fully assembled aircraft be loaded to 150% of design limit load and held for 3 seconds. The wings were flexed approximately 25 feet upward during the test.[52] Unlike the 777 however, the wings were not tested to failure.[53][54] On April 7, Boeing announced that analysis of the data showed the test was a success.[55]
On May 3, 2009, the first test 787 was moved to the flight line following extensive factory testing. The tests included landing gear swings, systems integration verification, and a total run through of the first flight. Before first flight, the test aircraft must be put through additional power and systems tests, including engine run-ups.[56] Boeing spent most of May 2009 conducting tests on the first 787 prototype in preparation for the first flight.
[edit] Development problems and delays

For the assembly of the 787, Boeing assigned its subcontractors to do more assembly themselves and deliver completed subsystems with Boeing performing final assembly. Some subcontractors have had difficulty completing the extra work, because they could not procure the needed parts, perform the subassembly on schedule, or both. The remaining assembly work is left for Boeing to complete and is referred to as "traveled work".[57][58][59]

The 787 Dreamliner's first public appearance was webcast live on July 8, 2007.


Boeing premiered the first 787 at a rollout ceremony on July 8, 2007, which matches the aircraft's designation in the US-style month-day-year format (7/8/07).[60] However, the aircraft's major systems had not been installed at that time, and many parts were attached with temporary non-aerospace fasteners requiring their later replacement with flight fasteners.[61] Boeing had originally planned for a first flight by the end of August 2007, but on September 5 announced a three-month delay, blaming a shortage of fasteners as well as incomplete software.[9]
On October 10, 2007, a second three-month delay to the first flight and a six-month delay to first deliveries was announced. Boeing cited problems with its foreign and domestic supply chain for the delay, especially the ongoing fastener shortage, the lack of documentation from overseas suppliers, and continuing delays with the flight guidance software.[62][63][64] Less than a week later, Mike Bair, the 787 program manager was replaced.[65]
On January 16, 2008, Boeing announced a third three-month delay to the first flight of the 787. The company said that insufficient progress had been made on the factory floor to complete work that was originally planned to be carried out by suppliers.[66]

The first Boeing 787 underwent taxi tests at Paine Field in November and December 2009.


On March 28, 2008, in an effort to gain more control over the supply chain, Boeing announced that it plans to buy Vought Aircraft Industries' interest in Global Aeronautica, owner of the South Carolina plant that manufacturers major portions of the 787's fuselage. [67] In July 2009, Boeing also agreed to purchase Vought's facility in North Charleston, S.C. that makes 787 fuselage sections, for a total cost of $1 billion.[68]
On April 9, 2008, Boeing officially announced a fourth delay, shifting the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2008, and delaying initial deliveries by around 15 months to the third quarter of 2009. The 787-9 variant was postponed to 2012 and the 787-3 variant will follow but has no firm delivery date.[69]
The program was further delayed by a Boeing machinists strike during September and October 2008. On November 4, 2008, the company announced another delay, this time caused by the incorrect installation of some of the structurally important fasteners, stating that the first test flight would not be accomplished in the fourth quarter of 2008.[70] Boeing continued to emphasize that the new delay could be attributed directly to the strike.[71] After assessing the 787 program schedule with its suppliers,[72] Boeing confirmed on December 11, 2008, that the first flight would be delayed until the second quarter of 2009.[73]
On June 15, 2009, during the Paris Air Show, Boeing said that the 787 would make its first flight within two weeks. However, on June 23, 2009, Boeing announced that the first flight is postponed "due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft".[74][75][76] Boeing provided an updated 787 schedule on August 27, 2009, with the first flight planned to occur by the end of 2009 and deliveries to begin at the end of 2010.[77] The company expects to write off $2.5 billion because it considers the first three Dreamliners built are unsellable and suitable only for flight tests.[78]
[edit] Flight test program

Wikinews has related news: Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" makes maiden flight Boeing's program called for a 9-month flight test campaign.[79] Boeing's previous major aircraft, the 777, took 11 months with nine aircraft, partly to demonstrate 180-min ETOPS, one of its main features.[80] In December 2009, Boeing expected 787 flight testing to last approximately 8.5 months.[81]

Takeoff of the first Boeing 787 built on its maiden flight


The Boeing 787 flight test program is composed of 6 aircraft, ZA001 through ZA006. The first four aircraft are Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 powered jets while the last two are GE GEnx-1B64 powered. ZA001, on December 12, 2009, completed high speed taxi tests, the last major step before flight.[82][83][84]
On December 15, 2009, Boeing conducted the Dreamliner's maiden flight with the first 787-8, originating from Snohomish County Airport in Everett, Washington at 10:27 am PST,[85] and landing at Boeing Field in King County, Washington at 1:35 pm PST.[86] Originally scheduled for four hours, the test flight was shortened to three hours because of bad weather.[87]
The second 787, ZA002 in ANA livery, flew to Boeing Field on December 22, 2009 to join the flight test program.[88][89] The third 787, ZA004 joined the test fleet with its first flight on February 24, 2010. The fourth 787-8, ZA003 flew its maiden flight on March 14, 2010.[1] On March 24, testing for flutter and ground effects was completed. This cleared the aircraft to fly its entire flight envelope.[90]

The first 787 to visit Europe, ZA003 is on display at the 2010 Farnborough Airshow


On April 23, 2010 Boeing delivered their latest 787 to a hangar at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida for extreme weather testing. The 787 will undergo testing in temperatures ranging from 115 °F to -45 °F (46 °C to -42 °C). Boeing will take the 787 through the steps necessary to prepare for takeoff once the plane stabilizes at either temperature extreme. Various sensors will determine if all airplane operations proceed as anticipated. The weather testing was to be completed by May 7, 2010.[91]
On May 12, 2010 Boeing conducted the first General Electric GEnx engine runs on a Dreamliner. These tests used ZA005, the fifth 787 built, which is the first of two test 787s with the GEnx engine.[92] On June 16, 2010, ZA005 made its first flight and joined the flight test program.[93] The first five 787 test aircraft have flown 1,001 hours and 25 minutes in 311 flights combined as of June 16, 2010.[1]
In June 2010, gaps were discovered in the horizontal stabilizers of test aircraft, due to wrongly installed shims; all aircraft produced so far are to be inspected and repaired.[94] The 787 made its first appearance at an international air show at the Farnborough Airshow, UK on July 18, 2010.[95]

[edit] Design
[edit] Airframe:
The 787 features lighter-weight construction. Its materials (by weight) are: 50% composite, 20% aluminum, 15% titanium, 10% steel, 5% other.[96][97]; the craft will be 80% composite by volume.[98] Each 787 contains approximately 35 short tons of carbon fiber reinforced plastic, made with 23 tons of carbon fiber.[99] Carbon fiber composites have a higher strength to weight ratio than traditional aircraft materials, and help make the 787 a lighter aircraft.[97] Composites are used on fuselage, wings, tail, doors, and interior. Aluminum is used on wing and tail leading edges, titanium used mainly on engines and fasteners, with steel used in various places.[97]
The longest-range 787 variant can fly 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,700 km), enough to cover the Los Angeles to Bangkok or New York City to Taipei routes. It will have a cruising airspeed of Mach 0.85[100] (561 mph, 903 km/hr at typical cruise altitudes).
[edit] Flight systems


Boeing 787 flight deck


A version of Ethernet—Avionics Full-Duplex Switched Ethernet (AFDX) / ARINC 664—will be used to transmit data between the flight deck and aircraft systems.[101] The flight deck features LCD multi-function displays, all of which will use an industry standard GUI widget toolkit (Cockpit Display System Interfaces to User Systems / ARINC 661).[102] The Lockheed Martin Orion spacecraft will use a glass cockpit derived from Honeywell International's 787 flight deck.[103] The 787 flight deck includes two head-up displays (HUDs) as a standard feature.[104] Like other Boeing airliners, the 787 will use a yoke instead of a side-stick. The future integration of forward looking infrared into the HUD system for thermal sensing so the pilots can "see" through the clouds is under consideration.[4]
The 787 uses turbofan engines that are bleedless, thus eliminating the superheated air conduits normally used for aircraft power, de-icing, and other functions. These systems are to be replaced by all-electrical systems.[4] Another new system is a wing ice protection system that uses electro-thermal heater mats on the wing slats instead of hot bleed air that has been traditionally used.[105][106]
An active gust alleviation system, similar to the system used on the B-2 bomber, improves ride quality during turbulence.[107][108] Boeing, as part of its "Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2" project, is experimenting with several engine noise-reducing technologies for the 787. Among these are a redesigned air inlet containing sound-absorbing materials and redesigned exhaust duct covers whose rims are tipped in a toothed pattern to allow for quieter mixing of exhaust and outside air. Boeing expects these developments to make the 787 significantly quieter both inside and out.[109]
[edit] Interior


Mockup of early Dreamliner cabin concept


The 787 will seat 240 in two-class domestic configuration, with a 46-in (116.8 cm) pitch for first class and a 34-in (86.4 cm) pitch for coach class. 296 passengers can be seated in a high-density 3+2+3 / 2+4+2 coach arrangement with 36-in (91.4 cm) Business and 32-in (81.3 cm) Coach pitch. Up to 234 passengers may be seated in a three-class setup that uses 61-in (154.9 cm) pitch in First Class (2+2+2 or 1+2+1), 39-in (99 cm) pitch for Business (2+3+2 or 2+2+2) and 32-in (81.3 cm) for Coach (2+4+2).[110] Cabin interior width is approximately 18 feet (547 cm) at armrest,[110] and was increased by 1 inch (2.5 cm) over what was originally planned.[111] The 787's interior cabin width is 15 in (38 cm) greater than that of the Airbus A330 and A340,[112] but 5 in (13 cm) narrower than the A350-800 XWB[113] and 16 in (41 cm) less than the Boeing 777.[114] For economy class in 3+2+3 or 2+4+2 arrangements, seat-bottom widths will be 18.5 in (47 cm), comparable to that found on the Boeing 777, and recommended by detailed passenger ergonomics studies. For 3+3+3 and 2+5+2 maximum passenger density layout, the seat widths would be 17.18 in (43.55 cm), smaller than those found on the Boeing 737. The vast majority of airlines are expected to select the 3+3+3 maximum passenger density configuration on the 787.[115] (See wide-body aircraft for a comparison of cabin widths and seating).

Composite photo showing three-color options for Dreamliner cabin LED lighting.


The cabin windows are larger than all other in-service civil air transports (27 cm by 47 cm), with a higher eye level, so passengers can maintain a view of the horizon. Electrochromism-based "auto-dimming" (smart glass) reduces cabin glare while maintaining transparency. These are to be supplied by PPG Industries.[116] Similar to the previous Airbus A320 Enhanced, standard cabin lighting uses Light-emitting diode (LED)[117] in three colors instead of fluorescent tubes,[117] allowing the aircraft to be entirely 'bulbless' and have 128 color combinations.
The internal pressure will be increased to the equivalent of 6,000 feet (1,800 m) altitude instead of the 8,000 feet (2,400 m) on conventional aircraft. According to Boeing, in a joint study with Oklahoma State University, this will significantly improve passenger comfort.[107][118] A higher cabin pressure is possible in part because of better properties of composite materials.[29] Higher humidity in the passenger cabin is possible because of the use of composites, which do not corrode. Cabin air is provided by electrically driven compressors using no engine bleed air.[119] An advanced cabin air-conditioning system provides better air quality: Ozone is removed from outside air; HEPA filters remove bacteria, viruses and fungi; and a gaseous filtration system removes odors, irritants and gaseous contaminants.[97]
Boeing engineers designed the 787 interior to better accommodate persons with mobility, sensory, and cognitive disabilities. For example, a 56-inch (142 cm) by 57-inch (145 cm) convertible lavatory includes a movable center wall that allows two separate lavatories to become one large, wheelchair-accessible facility.[120]
[edit] Technical concerns

[edit] Composite fuselage

The 787's introduction of widespread composite material usage has drawn scrutiny. Former Boeing senior engineer Vince Weldon has suggested that the risks of having a composite fuselage have not been fully assessed and should not be attempted,[121][122] adding that carbon fiber, unlike metal, does not visibly show cracks and fatigue.[123] The rival A350 was later announced to be using composite panels on a frame, a more traditional assembly approach which its contractors regarded as less risky than Boeing's application of composite barrels.[124] Boeing has dismissed criticisms of its fuselage materials, insisting that composites have been used on wings and other passenger aircraft parts for many years and they have not been an issue. They have also stated that special defect detection procedures will be put in place to detect any potential hidden damage.[125]

Demonstration composite Boeing 787 fuselage panel at the Dreamliner Center in Seattle


Concerns have been raised about the porous properties of composite materials, allowing them to absorb unwanted moisture. As the aircraft reaches altitude, the moisture expands, and may cause delamination of the composite materials, and structural weakness over time.[126] Another concern arises from the risk of lightning strikes.[127] The 787 fuselage's composite could have as much as 1,000 times the electrical resistance of aluminum, increasing the risk of damage during a lightning strike.[128] Boeing has stated that the 787's lightning protection will meet FAA requirements.[121] FAA management is planning to relax some lightning strike requirements, which will help the 787.[129]
In 2006, Boeing launched the 787 GoldCare program.[130] This is an optional, comprehensive life-cycle management service whereby aircraft in the program are routinely monitored and repaired as needed. This is the first program of its kind from Boeing: Post-sale protection programs are not new, but have usually been offered by third party service centers. Boeing is also designing and testing composite hardware so inspections are mainly visual. This will reduce the need for ultrasonic and other non-visual inspection methods, saving time and money.[131]
According to Boeing Vice President Jeff Hawk, who heads the effort to certify the 787 for airline service, a crash test involving a vertical drop of a partial fuselage section from about 15 feet onto a one inch-thick steel plate occurred on August 23, 2007, in Mesa, Arizona.[132][133] Boeing spokesperson Lori Gunter stated on September 6, 2007, that results matched what Boeing's engineers had predicted. As a result the company can model various crash scenarios using computational analysis rather than performing more tests on actual pieces of the plane.[134][135] However, it has also been suggested by former Boeing engineer that in the event of a crash landing, survivable in a metal plane, the composite fuselage could shatter and burn with toxic fumes.[121
Weight issues

Boeing had been working to trim excess weight since assembly of the first airframe began in 2006. This is common for new aircraft during their development phase. The first six 787s, which are to be used as part of the flight test program, will be overweight according to Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson.[136] The first 787 is expected to be 5,000 lb (2,270 kg) overweight. The seventh and subsequent aircraft will be the first optimized 787s and are expected to meet all goals.[137] Boeing has redesigned some parts and made more use of titanium.[138] According to ILFC's Steven Udvar-Hazy, the 787-9's operating empty weight is around 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) overweight, which also could be a problem for the proposed 787-10.[139]

The prototype Boeing 787, used for the aircraft's maiden flight and test program.


In early 2009 a number of 787 customers started to publicly mention their dissatisfaction with the reduced specifications on the 787, specifically weight and range issues. Industry insiders have stated Boeing has reduced its range estimates for the 787-8 from 14,800–15,700 km to 14,150–15,170 km, a reduction of over 500 km. There have also been reports that this led Delta to delay deliveries of 787s it inherited from Northwest in order to take later planes which may be closer to the original estimates. Other airlines are suspected to have been given discounts to take the earlier models.[140] Shanghai Airlines stated in March 2009 it wished to either delay or cancel its first order. Boeing expects to have the weight issues addressed by the 21st production model.[141]
In May 2009, a press report indicated that a 10–15% range reduction for early 787-8 aircraft is anticipated because of these planes being about 8% overweight. This means a range of about 6,900 nmi (12,800 km) instead the originally promised 7,700 to 8,200 nmi (14,800–15,700 km). Substantial redesign work is expected to correct this, which will complicate increases in production rates.[142] Boeing confirmed on May 7 that early 787s would be heavy and is working on weight reductions. The company stated the early 787-8s will have a range of almost 8,000 nmi (14,800 km).[143]
[edit] Computer network vulnerability
In January 2008, previous Federal Aviation Administration concerns came to light regarding protection of the 787's networks from possible intentional or unintentional passenger access.[144][145] The computer network in the passenger compartment, designed to give passengers in-flight internet access, is connected to the airplane's control, navigation and communication systems.[144]

Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine fitted to the first Boeing 787.


Boeing called the report "misleading", saying that various hardware and software solutions are employed to protect the airplane systems, including air gaps for the physical separation of the networks, and firewalls for their software separation. Measures are provided so data cannot be transferred from the passenger internet system to the maintenance or navigation systems. As part of certification Boeing plans to demonstrate to the FAA that these provisions are acceptable.[144]

Engine interchangeability

The two different engine models compatible with the 787 will use a standard electrical interface to allow an aircraft to be fitted with either Rolls-Royce or General Electric engines. This will save time and cost when changing engine types.[146] However, ILFC's Vice President of Marketing, Marty Olson, stated that swapping different engines could take up to 15 days, and therefore would cost too much. "You'd have to take all the pylon, everything from the wing down, off," Olson said. Other aircraft can have engines changed to those of a different manufacturer, but the high cost makes it rare. Boeing said that the design is unfinished, and 24 hours is still the goal.[147

Variants

There are three variants of the 787 and all were first offered for sale in 2004. The 787-8 is to enter service in 2011. The 787-9 will enter service next in 2013. The last to enter service will be the 787-3.
[edit] 787-8


The Boeing 787-8, the first model of the aircraft to see production


The 787-8 is the base model of the 787 family with a length of 186 feet (57 m) and a wingspan of 197 feet (60 m) and a range of 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles (14,200 to 15,200 km) depending on seating configuration. The 787-8 seats 210 passengers in a three class configuration. The variant will be the first of the 787 line to enter service in 2010. Boeing is targeting the 787-8 to replace the 767-200ER and 767-300ER, as well as expand into new non-stop markets where larger planes would not be economically viable. The bulk of 787 orders are for the 787-8.
[edit] 787-3

This variant was designed to be a 290-seat (two-class) short-range version of the 787 targeted at high-density flights, with a range of 2,500 to 3,050 nautical miles (4,650 to 5,650 km) when fully loaded. It was designed to replace the Airbus A300/Airbus A310 and Boeing 757-300/Boeing 767-200 on regional routes from airports with restricted gate spacing. It would have used the same fuselage as the 787-8, though with some areas of the fuselage strengthened for higher cycles. The wing would have been derived from the 787-8, with blended winglets replacing raked wingtips. The change would have decreased the wingspan by roughly 25 feet (7.6 m), allowing the 787-3 to fit into more domestic gates, particularly in Japan.
This model would have been limited in its range by a reduced Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 364,000 lb (163,290 kg). (Actual range is calculated by the remaining available weight for fuel after the aircraft empty weight and payload are subtracted from the MTOW). A full load of passengers and cargo would limit the amount of fuel it could take on board, as with the 747-400D. This is only viable on shorter, high-density routes, such as Tokyo to Shanghai, Osaka to Seoul, or London to Berlin. Many airports charge landing fees based on aircraft weight; thus, an airliner rated at a lower MTOW, though otherwise identical to its sibling, would pay lower fees.

An artist's impression of the 787-3, which has winglets and a shorter wingspan


Boeing has projected that the future of aviation between very large (but close) cities of five million or more may stabilize around the capacity level of the 787-3.[148][149] Regions such as India and East Asia, where large population centers are in close proximity, offer many examples. Approximately 3.1 billion people live within the range of the 787-3 if used in India or China. Boeing has also claimed that the 787-3's efficiency could offset the higher landing fees and acquisition costs (compared to a single-aisle plane) and make it useful on such routes.
Boeing also believed legacy carriers could have used this variant to compete with low-cost airlines by running twice the capacity of a single-aisle craft for less than twice its operating cost (fuel, landing fees, maintenance, number of flight crew, airspace fees, parking fees, gate fees, etc.).
Beyond Asia, a range of 3,050 nm (5,600 km), or flight time of roughly six hours is sufficient to connect many major cities. The gate spacing constraint that the 787-3 was intended to overcome is really only a problem in Japan. In Europe, the -3 would still have been too wide for most short-haul gates and in the Middle East, India and China new airports are being built with wider gate spacing. Boeing had not planned to certify the 787-3 in Europe because of lack of interest in the model from potential European customers.
Forty-three 787-3s were ordered by the two Japanese airlines that operate the 747-400D, but production problems on the base 787-8 model led Boeing to postpone the introduction of the 787-3 in April 2008, following the 787-9 but without a firm delivery date.[69] Japan Airlines canceled all of its 787-3 orders, and All Nippon Airways reduced its order to 28 in May 2009 (canceled two from its original 30). All of these canceled 787-3 orders were transferred to 787-8 orders. In December 2009, All Nippon Airways converted their remaining 787-3 orders to the 787-8, leaving no orders for this type.[150] It is likely the 787-3 variant will be shelved entirely following the lack of interest by potential customers caused by it being designed specifically for the Japanese market.[151]
التتمة
v

[alking911]

كابتن عبدالكريم

سلمت طال عمرك ع الاضافة

نورت ابو ابو الموضوع بوجودكـ

[cpt.abdulkarim]

The 787-9 will be the first variant of the 787 with a "stretched" (lengthened) fuselage, seating 250–290 in three classes with a range of 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,750 km). This variant differs from the 787-8 in several ways, including structural strengthening, a lengthened fuselage, a higher fuel capacity, a higher maximum take-off weight (MTOW), but with the same wingspan as the 787-8.[152] The targeted date for entry into service (EIS), originally planned for 2010,[153] was scheduled for early 2013 in December 2008.[154] Boeing is targeting the 787-9 to compete with both passenger variants of the Airbus A330 and to replace their own 767-400ER. Like the 787-8, it will also open up new non-stop routes, flying more cargo and fewer passengers more efficiently than the 777-200ER or A340-300/500. The firm configuration was finalised on 1 July 2010.[155]
When first launched, the 787-9 had the same fuel capacity as the other two variants. The design differences meant higher weight and resulted in a slightly shorter range than the 787-8. After further consultation with airlines, design changes were incorporated to add a forward tank to increase its fuel capacity. It will now have a longer range and a higher MTOW than the other two variants. The -9 will be able to fly non-stop from New York to Manila or from Moscow to São Paulo and will have the lowest seat-mile cost of the three 787 variants.
Air New Zealand is the launch customer for the 787-9 and the second customer ever for the 787 behind ANA. Qantas, Etihad Airways and Singapore Airlines have placed the largest orders for the 787-9.
Future variants

[edit] 787-10

Boeing has stated that it is likely to develop another version, the longer 787-10, with seating capacity between 290 and 310.[156][157] This proposed model is intended to compete with the planned Airbus A350-900.[158] The 787-10 would supersede the 777-200ER in Boeing's current catalog and could also compete against the Airbus A330-300 and A340-300. Boeing was having discussions with potential customers about the 787-10 in 2006 and 2007.[159][160][161] This variant has not yet been officially launched by Boeing, but Mike Bair, at that time head of the 787 Program, stated that "It's not a matter of if, but when we are going to do it ... The 787-10 will be a stretched version of the 787-9 and sacrifice some range to add extra seat and cargo capacity."[162] The 787-10 has remained under consideration by Boeing.[163][164]
[edit] Other possible variants

Although no date has been set, Boeing expects to build a freighter version, possibly in 10 to 15 years.[165] Boeing is reported to be also considering a 787 variant as a candidate to replace the 747-based VC-25 as Air Force One.[166]
[edit] Orders and deliveries

Main article: List of Boeing 787 orders
The Boeing 787 has not entered service. The first 787 is scheduled to enter passenger service in 2011 with All Nippon Airways.[8] ILFC is its largest customer ordering a total of 74 Boeing 787s, which included 67 -8s and 7 -9s.[7][167]
Net orders (cumulative by year) Data through 13 July 2010.
Sources:[7][168][169]
Boeing 787 total firm orders 787-3 787-8 787-9 Unspecified Total firm orders 0 672 191
863

• Data through 13 July 2010.[7][150][168]

Orders and deliveries by year
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Net orders 56 235 157 369 93 -59 12 863 Deliveries - - - - - - - -

• Data through 13 July 2010.[168][169]

[edit] Specifications

Model 787-3 787-8 787-9 Cockpit crew Two Seating, typical 290-330
317 (2-class) 210-250
224 (3-class, typical) 250-290
280 (3-class) Length 186 ft (56.7 m) 206 ft (62.8 m) Wingspan 170 ft 6 in (52.0 m) 197 ft 3 in (60.1 m) Wing sweepback 32.2 degrees Height 55 ft 6 in (16.9 m) Fuselage dimensions Width: 18 ft 11 in (5.77 m) / Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m) Maximum cabin width 18 ft (5.49 m) Cargo capacity 4,822 cu ft (137 m3)
28× LD3
or 9x (88x125) pallets
or 8x (96x125) pallets + 2x LD3 6,086 cu ft (172 m3)
36× LD3
or 11x (88x125) pallets
or 11x (96x125) pallets Maximum takeoff weight 375,000 lb (170,000 kg) 502,500 lb (228,000 kg) 545,000 lb (247,000 kg) Maximum landing weight 355,000 lb (161,000 kg) 380,000 lb (172,000 kg) 425,000 lb (193,000 kg) Operating empty weight 223,000 lb (101,000 kg) 242,000 lb (110,000 kg) 254,000 lb (115,000 kg) Cruising speed Mach 0.85 (903 km/h, 561 mph, 487 knots, at 40,000 ft/12,200 m) Maximum speed Mach 0.89 (945 km/h, 587 mph, 510 knots, at 40,000 ft/12,200 m) Maximum range, fully loaded 2,500–3,050 nmi (4,630–5,650 km; 2,880–3,510 mi) 7,650–8,200 nmi (14,200–15,200 km; 8,800–9,440 mi) 8,000–8,500 nmi (14,800–15,700 km; 9,210–9,780 mi) Maximum fuel capacity 12,830 US gal (48,567 L) 33,528 US gal (126,920 L) 33,428 US gal (126,540 L) Service ceiling 43,000 ft (13,100 m) Engines (×2) General Electric GEnx or Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Thrust (×2) 53,000 lbf (240 kN) 64,000 lbf (280 kN) 71,000 lbf (320 kN) Sources: 787 brochure,[152] 787-8 Airport report,[110] 787-3 fact sheet,[170] 787-8 fact sheet,[171] 787-9 fact sheet[172]

[cpt.abdulkarim]

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة alking911  

كابتن عبدالكريم

سلمت طال عمرك ع الاضافة

نورت ابو ابو الموضوع بوجودكـ

ياهلابك كابتن جراح
ونورت ومبروك النجاح

تحياتي

[alking911]

كفيت و وفيت والله اخوي عبدالكريم

وتستاهل افضل تقييم

[alking911]

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة cpt.abdulkarim  

ياهلابك كابتن جراح
ونورت ومبروك النجاح

تحياتي

الله يبارك فيك حبيبي

[cpt.abdulkarim]

وهذي جداول مقارنة من ويكبيديا بين الايرباص والبوينغ او(Competition between Airbus and Boeing؟)

Competition by product

[edit] Range overlap

Though both manufacturers have a broad product range in various segments from single-aisle to wide-body, manufacturers' offerings do not always compete head-to-head. As listed below they respond with slightly different models.

• The A380, for example, is substantially bigger than the B747.
• The A350 XWB competes with the high end of the B787 and the low end of the B777.
• The A320 is bigger than the 737-700 but smaller than the 737-800.
• The A321 is bigger than the B737-900 but smaller than the previous B757-200.
• The A330-200 competes with the smaller B767-300ER.

Airlines can use this as a benefit since they get a more complete product range from 100 seats to 500 seats than if both companies offered identical aircraft.
[edit] Passengers/range km (statute miles) for all models


A chart comparing the passenger capacity (2-class typical) and range (maximum in nautical miles) of in-production, future, and out-of-production since 2000 Airbus and Boeing aircraft.




2,645 to 3,185 (2400 sm) 5,600 to 5,900 (3500 sm) 6,800 to 7,700 (4500 sm) 9,000 to 10,200 (5900 sm) 10,500 to 11,300 (6800 sm) 12,250 to 12,500 (7700 sm) 13,300 to 13,900 (8500 sm) 14,200 to 14,800 (9000 sm) 14,900 to 15,200 (9300 sm) 15,400 to 16,000 (9800 sm) 16,700 to 17,400 (10500 sm) 100-139 (B717-200) A318-100 B737-600








140-156
B737-700 A319-100 B737-700ER






148-189
B737-800 A320-200








177-255
A321-200 B737-900 (B757-200) (A310-200) (A310-300) B767-300ER B767-200ER

B787-8

243-375

(B757-300)
B767-400ER B747SP





253-300
(A300) (A300-600)

A330-200
A340-200
A350-800 B787-9
295-440
B787-3 B777-200
A330-300
A340-300 B777-200ER A350-900
B777-200LR 313-366








A340-500 A340-500HGW A350-900R 358-550

B747-100SR B747-300SR B747-100 B777-300 B747-200
B777-300ER A350-1000


380-419






A340-600 A340-600HGW


410-568





B747-400 B747-400ER


<467







B747-8

525-853







A380

[edit] Airbus A320 vs Boeing 737

Airbus A320 family
Boeing 737 A318 A319 A320 A321
737-300 737-400 737-500 737-600 737-700 737-800 737-900ER Two Cockpit crew Two 117 (1-class) 142 (1-class) 180 (1-class) 220 (1-class) Seating capacity 148 (1-class) 168 (1-class) 132 (1-class) 149 (1-class) 189 (1-class) 204 (1-class) 31.45 m (103 ft 2 in) 33.84 m (111 ft) 37.57 m (123 ft) 44.51 m (146 ft) Length 28.6 m (94 ft) 36.5 m (119 ft 6 in) 31.1 m (101 ft 8 in) 31.2 m (102 ft 6 in) 33.6 m (110 ft 4 in) 39.5 m (129 ft 6 in) 42.1 m (138 ft 2 in) 12.56 m (41 ft 2 in) 11.76 m (38 ft 7 in) Height 11.3 m (37 ft) 11.1 m (36 ft 5 in) 12.6 m (41 ft 3 in) 12.5 m (41 ft 2 in) 34.10 m (111 ft 10 in) Wingspan 28.3 m (93 ft) 28.9 m (94 ft 8 in) 34.3 m (112 ft 7 in) 25° Wing Sweepback 25° 25.02°



Aspect Ratio 8.83 9.16 9.45 3.70 m (12 ft 1 in) Cabin Width 3.54 m (11 ft 7 in)



Cabin Height 2.20 m (7 ft 3 in) 3.95 m (13 ft) Fuselage Width 3.76 m (12 ft 4 in)



Fuselage Height 4.11 m (13' 6") 39,300 kg 40,600 kg 42,400 kg 48,200 kg Typical empty weight 28,120 kg (61,864 lb) 33,200 kg (73,040 lb) 31,300 kg (68,860 lb) 36,378 kg (80,031 lb) 38,147 kg (84,100 lb) 41,413 kg (91,108 lb) 44,676 kg (98,495 lb) 68,000 kg (149,900 lb) 75,500 kg (166,500 lb) 77,000 kg (169,000 lb) 93,500 kg (206,100 lb) Maximum take-off weight 49,190 kg (108,218 lb) 68,050 kg (149,710 lb) 60,550 kg (133,210 lb) 66,000 kg (145,500 lb) 70,080 kg (154,500 lb) 79,010 kg (174,200 lb) 85,130 kg (187,700 lb)



Maximum landing weight 44,906 kg (99,000 lb) 56,246 kg (124,000 lb) 49,895 kg (110,000 lb) 55,112 kg (121,500 lb) 58,604 kg (128,928 lb) 66,361 kg (146,300 lb)



Maximum zero-fuel weight 40,824 kg (90,000 lb) 53,070 kg (117,000 lb) 46,720 kg (103,000 lb) 51,936 kg (114,500 lb) 55,202 kg (121,700 lb) 62,732 kg (138,300 lb)



Cargo Capacity 18.4 m³ (650 ft³) 38.9 m³ (1,373 ft³) 23.3 m³ (822 ft³) 21.4 m³ (756 ft³) 27.3 m³ (966 ft³) 45.1 m³ (1,591 ft³) 52.5 m³ (1,852 ft³) 1,355 m
(4,446 ft) 1,950 m
(6,398 ft) 2,090 m
(6,857 ft) 2,180 m
(7,152 ft) Takeoff run at MTOW 1,990 m (6,646 ft) 2,540 m (8,483 ft) 2,470 m (8,249 ft) 2,400 m (8,016 ft) 2,480 m (8,283 ft) 2,450 m (8,181 ft) .78 Mach Cruising speed .74 Mach .74 Mach .785 Mach .78 Mach .82 Mach Max. speed .82 Mach 5,950 km
(3,200 nm) 6,800 km
(3,700 nm) 5,700 km
(3,078 nm) 5,600 km
(3,050 nm) Range fully loaded 3,440 km
(1,860 nm) 4,005 km
(2,165 nm) 4,444 km
(2,402 nm) 5,648 km
(3,050 nm) 6,230 km
(3,365 nm) (5,510 nm on ER variants.) 5,665 km
(3,060 nm) 4,996 km
(2,700 nm) [5,925 km (3,200 nm ) 2-class layout w/2 aux. tanks] 23,860 L
6,300 US gal 29,840 L
7,885 US gal 29,680 L
7,842 US gal Max. fuel capacity 17,860 L
4,725 US gal 23,170 L
6,130 US gal 23,800 L
6,296 US gal 26,020 L
6,875 US gal 29,660 L
7,837 US gal 39,000 ft Service Ceiling 35,000 ft 37,000 ft 41,000 ft PW6022A, CFM56-5 IAE V2500, CFM56-5 Engines (x2) CFM56-3B-1 CFM56-3B-2 CFM56-3B-1 CFM56-7B20 CFM56-7B26 CFM56-7B27 CFM56-7



Max Thrust 20,000 lbf 22,000 lbf 20,000 lbf 20,600 lbf 26,300 lbf 27,300 lbf



Engine Ground Clearance 51 cm (20 in) 46 cm (18 in) 48 cm (19 in) [edit] Airbus A330 and Airbus A340 vs Boeing 767 and Boeing 777

Measurement A340-200 A340-300 A340-500/-500HGW A340-600/-600HGW Cockpit crew Two Seating capacity 261 (3-class) 295 (3-class) 313 (3-class) 380 (3-class) Length 59.39 m
194 ft 10 in 63.60 m
208 ft 8 in 67.90 m
222 ft 9 in 75.30 m
247 ft 0 in Wingspan 60.30 m
197 ft 10 in 63.45 m
208 ft 2 in Wing area 361.6 m²
3,892 ft² 439 m²
4,725 ft² Wing sweepback 30° 31.1° Height 16.70 m
54 ft 9 in 16.85 m
55 ft 3 in 17.10 m
56 ft 1 in 17.30 m
56 ft 9 in Cabin width 5.28 m (17.3 ft) Fuselage width 5.64 m (18.5 ft) Wheelbase 23.24 m
76 ft 3 in 25.60 m
84 ft 0 in 27.59 m
90 ft 6 in 32.89 m
107 ft 11 in Typical empty weight 129,000 kg
284,396 lb 129,275 kg
295,503 lb 170,400 kg
375,668 lb 177,000 kg
390,218 lb Maximum take-off weight 275,000 kg
606,300 lb 276,500 kg
609,600 lb 372,000/380,000 kg
820,100 /837,800 lb 368,000/380,000 kg
811,300/837,800 lb Cruising speed Mach 0.82 (896 km/h, 484 knots, 557 mph) Mach 0.84 (905 km/h, 490 knots, 560 mph) Take off run at MTOW 2,990 m
9,810 ft 3,000 m
9,840 ft 3,050 m
10,000 ft 3,100 m
10,170 ft Range fully loaded 14,800 km 8,000 NM 13,700 km 7,400 NM 16,020/16,700 km 8,650/9,000 NM 14,360/14,630 km 7,750/7,900 NM Max. fuel capacity 155,040 L 40,957 gal 140,640 L 37,153 gal 214,810/222,000 L 56,750/58,646 gal 195,881/204,500 L 51,746/54,023 gal Cargo capacity 18 LD3s/6 pallets 30 LD3s/10 pallets 32 LD3s/11 pallets 42 LD3s/14 pallets Service ceiling 11,887 m
39,000 ft Engines (4x) CFM56-5C2 (138.78 kN)
CFM56-5C3 (144.57 kN)
CFM56-5C4 (151.25 kN) CFM56-5C2 (138.78 kN)
CFM56-5C3 (144.57 kN)
CFM56-5C4 (151.25 kN)
CFM56-5C4P (149.9 kN) Rolls-Royce Trent
553/556 (236/249 kN) Trent 556/560 (249/260 kN)

Airbus A330 Series
Boeing 767 Series Boeing 777 Series A330-200 A330-300 A330-F
767-200ER 767-300ER 767-300-F 767-400ER 777-200LR Two Cockpit crew Two 253 (3 cl.)
293 (2 cl.)
405 (1-cl.)[1] 295 (3 cl.)
335 (2 cl.)
440 (1 cl.) - Seating capacity 181-255 218-351 - 245-375 301-440 58,8 m
(192 ft 11 in) 63,6 m
(208 ft 8 in) 58.8 m (192 ft 11 in) Length 48.5m 54.9m 61.4m 63.7m 17.40 m 16.9 m (55 ft 5 in) Height 15.8m 15.9m 16.8m 18.8m 60.3 m (197 ft 10 in) Wingspan 47.6m 51.9m 64.8m 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in) Cabin Width
5.64 m (18 ft 6 in) Hull Width 5.03 m [2]
233,000 kg (513,700 lb) Maximum take-off weight 179,170 kg (395,000 lb) 186,880 kg (412,000 lb) 204,110 kg (450,000 lb) 347,450 kg (766,000 lb) 182,000 kg (401,200 lb) 187,000 kg (412,300 lb) Maximum landing weight




2,200 m 2,500 m
Takeoff run




0.82 Mach (896 km/h) Cruising speed 0.80 Mach 0.84 Mach 0.85 Mach (913 km/h or 490 knots at 35,000 ft.) Max Speed 0.86 Mach 0.89 Mach 12,500 km 10,500 km 7,400 km (4,000 nm) Range fully loaded 12,250 km (6,600 nm) 11,300 km (6,100 nm) 6,100 km (3,270 nm) 10,500 km (5,645 nm) 17,450 km (9,420 nm) 139,100 L
(36,750 US gal) 97,170 L
(25,670 US gal) 139,100 L Max. fuel capacity 90,770 L
(23,980 US gal) 181,280 L
(47,890 US gal) 136 m³
26 LD3s 162 m³
32 LD3s 475 m³ Cargo (volume) / ULDs 81.4 m³ 106.8 m³ 454 m³ 129 m³ 150 m³
6 LD3s PW PW4000
GE CF6-80E1
RR Trent 700 Engines
(x2) PW PW4062
GE CF6-80C2B7F PW PW4062
GE CF6-80C2B8F PW PW4062
GE CF6-80C2B7F
RR RB211-524H PW PW4062
GE CF6-80C2B7F
RR RB211-524H GE 90-110B1 303-320 kN
68,000-72,000 lbf
Max Thrust
(x2)







Engine Ground Clearance 0.56 m (1 ft 10 in) 0.81 m (2 ft 8 in)
[edit] Airbus A350 XWB vs Boeing 787 and 777

A350 XWB
Boeing 777 Boeing 787 A350-800 [3] A350-900 [4] A350-1000 A350-900R[5] A350-900F 777-200LR 777-200F 777-300ER[6] 787-9 787-10 [7] Two Cockpit crew Two 270 314 350 310 90t cargo Passengers (3cl) 301 103t cargo 365 263 310[8] 60.7 m 67.0 m 74.0 m 67.0 m Length 63.7 m 73.9 m 63.0 m 68.9 m 17.2 m Height 18.8 m 18.6 m 18.7 m 16.5 m 17.0 m 64.8 m Wingspan 64.8 m 60.0 m 60.1 m 19 ft 6 in (5.96 m)[9] Fuselage Width 20 ft 4 in (6.19 m) 18 ft 11 in (5.75 m) 18 ft 4 in (5.59 m) Cabin Width 19 ft 3 in (5.86 m) 18 ft (5.49 m) 31.9° Wing sweep 31.64° 32.2° 28 36 44

LD3 containers 32[10] 37 pallets 44[11] 36 44 248 268 298

MTOW (t) 347.452 347.450 351.534 244.940 272.150 185 205 228.5

Max landing (t)


183.7 197.3
115.7[EW 1]


Empty weight (t) 145.2[EW 2]
167.8[EW 2] 115.3[EW 3] 125[EW 3] 129,000 138,000 156,000

Max fuel (l) 202,287 181,280 181,280 138,700 145,000 0.85 Cruise speed (M) 0.84 0.85 0.89 Max speed (M) 0.89 75,000 84,000 93,000

Thrust (lb) (× 2) 115,300 68,000 88,200 RR Trent XWB Engines GE90-110B GE90-115B RR Trent 1000 or GE GEnx 8,300 nm 15,400 km 8,100 nm 15,000 km 8,000 nm 14,800 km 9,500 nm 17,600 km 5,000 nm 9,250 km Range 9,420 nm 17,445 km 4,990 nm 9,065 km 7,900 nm 14,630 km 8,500 nm 15,750 km 7,500 nm[8] 13,890 km $208M $244M $270M TBA TBA Price $237M $232.5M $219M $178.5M TBA Empty weight EW:

1. ^ Proposed manufacturer's weight empty including expected overweight.
2. ^ a b Final operating empty weight
3. ^ a b Proposed operating empty weight not including expected overweight

[edit] Airbus A380 vs Boeing 747

Airbus A380
Boeing 747 A380-800 [12]
747-400 [13] 747-400ER [14] 747-8I [15][16] Two Cockpit crew Two 525 / 644 / 853 (3/2/1-class) Passengers 416 / 524 (3/2-class) 467 (3-class) 73 m Length 70.6 m (231 ft 10 in) 76.4 m (250 ft 8 in) 24.1 m Height 19.4 m (63 ft 8 in) 19.5 m (64 ft 2 in) 79.8 m Wingspan 64.4 m (211 ft 5 in) 68.5 m (224 ft 7 in) Main deck: 6.58 m (21 ft 7 in)
Upper Deck: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in) Cabin width 6.1 m (20.1 ft) 633 m² (333 + 300) Useful cabin-area


38 LD3 containers 30 28 36 276,800 kg (608,400 lb) Empty weight 178,756 kg (393,263 lb) 184,570 kg (406,900 lb) 214,500 kg (473,000 lb) 361,000 kg (796,000 lb) Max zero-fuel weight 246,074 kg 251,744 kg 291,000 kg (640,000 lb) 560,000 kg (1,235,000 lb) MTOW 396,890 kg (875,000 lb) 412,775 kg (910,000 lb) 442,000 kg (970,000 lb) 310,000 L (81,890 US gal) Max fuel 216,840 L (57,285 US gal) 241,140 L (63,705 US gal) 241,619 L (64,221 US gal) Mach 0.85 (900 km/h) Cruise speed Mach 0.85 (567 mph, 912 km/h at altitude) Mach 0.855, (567 mph, 913 km/h at altitude) Mach 0.96 (1030 km/h)[17] Max Operating Mach Mach 0.92 (987 km/h) 311 kN (70,000 lbf) Thrust (× 4) 63,300 lbf PW
62,100 lbf GE
59,500 lbf RR 63,300 lbf PW
62,100 lbf GE 66,500 lbf GP7270, Trent 970 Engines PW 4062
GE CF6-80C2B5F
RR RB211-524H PW 4062
GE CF6-80C2B5F GEnx-2B67 2,750 m (9,020 ft) Takeoff run at MTOW 3,018 m (9,902 ft) N/A 15,200 km (8,200 nmi) Range (3 class) 13,450 km (7,260 nm) 14,205 km (7,670 nm) 14,815 km (8,000 nm)
Cross-section comparison of Airbus A380 versus Boeing 747-400


The widebody 747-8, as the latest modification of Boeing's largest airliner, is notably in direct competition on long-haul routes with the A380, a full-length double-deck aircraft now in service. For airlines seeking very large passenger airliners, the two have been pitched as competitors on various occasions. Following another delay to the A380 programme in October 2006, FedEx and UPS canceled their orders for the A380-800 freighter. Some A380 launch customers deferred delivery or considered switching to the 747-8 and 777F aircraft.[18][19] Boeing advertising claims 747-8I to be more than 10% lighter per seat and consume 11% less fuel per passenger with a trip-cost reduction of 21% and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6% versus the A380. For the 747-8F's empty weight is expected to be 80 tonnes (88 tons) lighter and 24% lower fuel burn per ton with 21% lower trip costs and 23% lower ton-mile costs than the A380F.[20] In order to counter a perceived strength of the 747-8I, from 2012 Airbus will offer, as an option, of improved maximum take-off weight, thus providing a better payload/range performance. The precise size of the increase in maximum take-off weight is still unknown. British Airways and Emirates will be the first customers to receive this new option.[21] As of April 2009 no airline has canceled an order for the passenger version of the A380. Boeing currently has only two commercial airline orders for the 747-8I: Lufthansa (20) and Korean Air Lines (5).[22]
[edit] A330 MRTT - KC-45A

In March 2008 the announcement that Boeing had lost a $40bn contract to Airbus to build parts for the new in-flight refuelling aircraft KC-45A for the USAF drew angry protests in the US Congress.[23] Upon review of Boeing's protest, the Government Accountability Office ruled in favor of Boeing and ordered the USAF to recompete the contract. Later, the entire competition was first rescheduled, then canceled, with a new competition expected to be decided by March 2010.[24]
[edit] EADS A330 MRTT - Northrop Grumman KC 45 A versus Boeing KC-767

Data are preliminary and partially copied from A330-200 and 767-200ER.

A330 MRTT - KC-45 KC-767 Advanced Tanker
Length 59.69 m 48.5 m Height 16.9 m 15.8 m Fuselage Width 5.64 m 5.03 m Wingspan 60.3 m 47.57 m Surface area 361.6 m²
Engines 2x RR Trent 700 or
GE CF6-80 turbofans 2x Pratt & Whitney
PW4062 Thrust (× 2) 316 kN 282 kN Passengers 226 - 280[25] 190 Range 12,500 km 12,200 km Cruise speed 860 km/h Mach 0.80 (851 km/h) Max speed Mach 0.86 (915 km/h) Mach 0.86 (915 km/h) Max takeoff weight 230 t 181 t Max landing weight 180 t 136 t Normal fuel load 250,000 lb (113,500 kg) 161,000 lb (73,100 kg) Maximum fuel load 250,000 lb (113,500 kg) plus 95,800 lb (43,500 kg)
of additional cargo or fuel load over 202,000 lb (91,600 kg) Cargo (standard pallets) 32 (463L) pallets 19 (463L) pallets [edit] Competition by outsourcing

Because many of the world’s airlines are wholly or partly government owned, aircraft procurement decisions are often taken according to political as well as commercial criteria. Boeing and Airbus seek to exploit this by subcontracting production of aircraft components or assemblies to manufacturers in countries strategically important in order to gain competitive advantage.
For example, Boeing has offered longstanding relationships with Japanese suppliers including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries by which these companies have had increasing involvement on successive Boeing jet programs, a process which has helped Boeing achieve almost total dominance of the Japanese market for commercial jets. Outsourcing was extended on the 787 to the extent that Boeing’s own involvement was reduced to little more than project management, design, assembly and test operation, outsourcing most of the actual manufacturing all around the world.[citation needed] Boeing has since stated that it "outsourced too much" and that future airplane projects will depend far more on Boeing's own engineering and production personnel.[26]
Partly because of its origins as a consortium of European companies, Airbus has had fewer opportunities to outsource significant parts of its production beyond its own European plants. However, in 2009 Airbus has opened an assembly plant in Tianjin, China for production of its A320 series airliners.[27]
[edit] Competition through use of technology

One of the ways Airbus sought to compete with the well-established Boeing in the 1970s was through the introduction of advanced technology. For example, the A300 made the most extensive use of composite materials yet seen in an aircraft of that era, and by automating the flight engineer's functions, was the first large commercial jet to have a two-man flight crew. In the 1980s Airbus was the first to introduce digital fly-by-wire controls into an airliner (the A320).
Now that Airbus has established itself as a viable competitor to Boeing, both companies use advanced technology to seek performance advantages in their products. For example, the Boeing 787 will be the first large airliner to use composites for most of its construction.
[edit] Competition through provision of engine choices

The competitive strength in the market of any airliner is considerably influenced by the choice(s) of engine available. In general, airlines prefer to have a choice of at least two engines from the major manufacturers General Electric, Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney. However the engine manufacturers clearly prefer to be single source, and sometimes succeed in striking commercial deals with Boeing and Airbus to achieve their objective. Hence several notable aircraft have only provided a single engine offering: the Boeing 737-300 series onwards (CFM56), the Airbus A340-500 & 600 (Rolls-Royce Trent 500), the Airbus A350 (Rolls-Royce Trent XWB - so far) and the Boeing 747-8 (GEnx-2B67).[28]
[edit] Effect of currency on competition

Boeing's production costs are mostly in US dollars, while Airbus' production costs are mostly in euros. When the dollar appreciates against the euro the cost of producing a Boeing aircraft rises relative to the cost of producing an Airbus aircraft, and conversely when the dollar falls relative to the euro it is an advantage for Boeing. There are also possible currency risks and benefits involved in the way the aircraft are sold. Boeing typically prices its aircraft only in dollars, while Airbus, although pricing most aircraft sales in dollars, has been known to be more flexible and has priced some aircraft sales in Asia and the Middle East in multiple currencies. Depending on currency fluctuations between the acceptance of the order and the delivery of the aircraft this can result in an extra profit or extra expense - assuming Airbus has not purchased insurance against such fluctuations.[29]
[edit] Orders and deliveries

Orders
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 Airbus 117 271 777 1341 790 1055 370 284 300 375 520 476 556 460 326 106 125 38 136 101 404 421 Boeing 279 142 662 1413 1044 1002 272 239 251 314 588 355 606 543 708 441 125 236 266 273 533 716 Sources 2010: Airbus net orders until June 30 (https://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/o...nd_deliveries/)
Boeing net orders until July 21 (https://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm) Deliveries
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 Airbus 250 498 483 453 434 378 320 305 303 325 311 294 229 182 126 124 123 138 157 163 95 105 Boeing 222 481 375 441 398 290 285 281 381 527 491 620 563 375 271 256 312 409 572 606 527 402 Sources 2010: Airbus deliveries until June 30 (https://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/o...nd_deliveries/)
Boeing deliveries until June 30 (https://active.boeing.com/commercial/...Type=CurYrDelv)

Yearly orders.




Yearly deliveries.




Orders/Deliveries overlay.

التتمة
v

[cpt.abdulkarim]

[edit] Boeing's Product Plan

Since the 1970s Boeing has faced increasing competition from Airbus, which has expanded its family of aircraft to the point where Airbus and Boeing now cover an almost identical market. Airbus has delivered more planes than Boeing every year from 2003 onwards. Airbus orders have exceeded Boeing's in every year since 1999 except for 2000 and 2006, which went to Boeing. In 2005 Airbus won more orders by number, but Boeing won 55% by value. In summary, of the last 10 years (2000–2009), Airbus won 6,452 orders while delivering 3,810, Boeing won 5,927 orders while delivering 3,950.
The A320 has been selected by 222 operators (Dec. 2008), among these several low-cost operators, gaining ground against the previously well established 737 in this sector; many full-service airlines also have selected it as a replacement for 727s and aging 737s, such as United Airlines and Lufthansa; and after 40 years the A380 now challenges the Boeing 747s dominance of the very large aircraft market. The 747-8 is a stretched and updated version of the venerable 747-400 and will offer greater capacity, fuel efficiency and longer range. Frequent delays to the Airbus A380 program caused several customers to consider cancelling their orders in favour of the refreshed 747-8[30], although none has done so and some have even placed repeat orders for the A380. However, all A380F orders have been canceled. To date, Boeing has secured orders for 78 747-8F and 28 747-8I with first deliveries scheduled for 2010 and 2011 respectively, while Airbus has orders for 234 A380s, the first of which entered service in 2007.
Several Boeing projects were pursued and then canceled, like the Sonic Cruiser, launched in 2001. Boeing is now focused on the 787 Dreamliner as a platform of total fleet rejuvenation, which uses technology from the Sonic Cruiser concept. Despite having been delayed by more than two years, the 787 is the fastest selling wide body airliner in history. The 787's rapid sales success and pressure from potential customers forced Airbus to revise the design of its competing A350.
In 2004, Boeing ended production of the 757 after 1055 were produced. More advanced, stretched versions of the 737 were beginning to compete against the 757, and the proposed 787-3 will fill some of the top end of the 757 market. Also that year, Boeing announced that the 717, the last civil aircraft to be designed by McDonnell Douglas, would cease production in 2006. The 767 was in danger of cancellation as well, with the 787 replacing it, but recent orders for the freighter version have extended the program and the uncertainty of the deliveries of the 787 also prolongs the deliverance. The passenger version of the Boeing 747-400 ceased production on March 17, 2008. However, the freighter version will remain in production until the first delivery of the 747-8F.
Recently, Boeing launched five new variants of existing designs: the ultra-long-range 777-200LR, 737-900ER, 737-700ER, 777 Freighter and the 747-8. The 777-200LR has the longest range of any commercial aircraft and was designed to compete with the Airbus A340-500. It was first delivered in 2006. The 737-900ER and 737-700ER are the extended range variants of the -900 and -700 models. Due to rising fuel costs, the more efficient twinjet 777 has been winning orders at the expense of the four-engined Airbus A340.
There are 5,417 (April 30, 2009) Airbus aircraft in service, with Airbus managing to win over 50 per cent of aircraft orders in recent years. Airbus products are outnumbered by in-service Boeings (there are about 4,495 Boeing 737s alone in service[31], about 13,000 total[32]).
[edit] Safety

Both aircraft manufacturers have good safety records on recently-manufactured aircraft. By convention, both companies tend to avoid safety comparisons when selling their aircraft to airlines. Most aircraft dominating the companies' aircraft sales, such as the Boeing 737-NG and Airbus A320 families (as well as both companies' wide-body offerings) have good safety records as well. Older model aircraft such as the Boeing 727, Boeing 737 Original, Boeing 747, Airbus A300 and Airbus A310, which were respectively first flown during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, have had higher rates of fatal accidents.[33]
[edit] Controversies


The Boeing 787 (above) will compete with the Airbus A330 and the Airbus A350 on the medium to long range market.


[edit] Subsidies

Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks.
In July 2004 Harry Stonecipher (then-Boeing CEO) accused Airbus of abusing a 1992 bilateral EU-US agreement providing for disciplines for large civil aircraft support from governments. Airbus is given reimbursable launch investment (RLI, called "launch aid" by the US) from European governments with the money being paid back with interest, plus indefinite royalties if the aircraft is a commercial success[34]. Airbus contends that this system is fully compliant with the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. The agreement allows up to 33 per cent of the programme cost to be met through government loans which are to be fully repaid within 17 years with interest and royalties. These loans are held at a minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which would be below market rates available to Airbus without government support[35]. Airbus claims that since the signing of the EU-U.S. agreement in 1992, it has repaid European governments more than U.S.$6.7 billion and that this is 40% more than it has received.
Airbus argues that the pork barrel military contracts awarded to Boeing (the second largest U.S. defense contractor) are in effect a form of subsidy (see the Boeing KC-767/EADS KC-45 military contracting controversy). The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as does the large tax breaks offered to Boeing which some claim are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered substantial support from local and state governments[36]. However, Airbus' parent, EADS, itself is a military contractor, and is paid to develop and build projects such as the A400M transport and various other military aircraft.[37]
In January 2005, the European Union and United States trade representatives, Peter Mandelson and Robert Zoellick (since replaced by Rob Portman, and then Susan Schwab, and the present office holder, Ron Kirk) respectively, agreed to talks aimed at resolving the increasing tensions. These talks were not successful with the dispute becoming more acrimonious rather than approaching a settlement.
In September 2009, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported that the World Trade Organization would likely rule against Airbus on most, but not all, of Boeing's complaints; the practical effect of this ruling would likely be blunted by the large number of international partners engaged by both plane makers. as well as the expected delay of several years of appeals. For example, 35% of the Boeing 787 is manufactured in Japan. Thus, some experts are advocating a negotiated settlement.[38] In addition, the heavy government subsidies offered automobile manufacturers in the United States have changed the political environment; the subsidies offered Chrysler and General Motors dwarf the amounts involved in the Airbus-Boeing dispute.[39]
[edit] World Trade Organization litigation

"We remain united in our determination that this dispute shall not affect our cooperation on wider bilateral and multilateral trade issues. We have worked together well so far, and intend to continue to do so."

Joint EU-US statement[40]

On 31 May 2005 the United States filed a case against the European Union for providing allegedly illegal subsidies to Airbus. Twenty-four hours later the European Union filed a complaint against the United States protesting support for Boeing.[41]
Tensions increased by the support for the Airbus A380 have erupted into a potential trade war due to the upcoming launch of the Airbus A350. Airbus would ideally like the A350 programme to be launched with the help of state loans covering a third of the development costs although it has stated it will launch without these loans if required. The A350 will compete with Boeing's most successful project in recent years, the 787 Dreamliner. EU trade officials questioned the nature of the funding provided by NASA, the Department of Defense, and in particular the form of R&D contracts that benefit Boeing; as well as funding from US states such as the State of Washington, Kansas, and Illinois, for the development and launch of Boeing aircraft, in particular the 787.[42] An interim report of the WTO investigation into the claims made by both sides was made in September 2009.[43]
In March 2010, the WTO ruled that European governments unfairly financed Airbus.[44]

[كابتن20]

أشكرك اخوي على المجهود الرائع ومقدر جهودك
تقبل مروري...

[alking911]

اقتباس:     المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة كابتن20  

أشكرك اخوي على المجهود الرائع ومقدر جهودك
تقبل مروري...

كابتن
سلمت حبيبي ع وجودكـ في موضوعي
منور

[bojwais_95]

مشكووووور اخوي ابدعت الصراحة في الموضوع

[alking911]

الي زاد الموضوع ابداع مرورك خيو