Exclusive: Airbus Dreamliner Dossier Revealed

By presenting and copying Boeing proprietary docs in an internal presentation is not only unethical but also illegal.

Not surprised at all and thanks for shedding light on the same day that the Airbus Air Canada kickbacks are back in the news.

Plus ca change...

Here come the lawyers.

Interesting... We've found out more about the 787 program status from Airbus than we have from Boeing. I wonder if Boeing's customers are in the same boat?

I think it's funny that there's a disclaimer at the end talking about intellectual property rights, etc. etc. While I'm not accusing Airbus of industrial espionage, one can't help but wonder since they were pretty vague about the sources and methods. Don't Boeing's intellectual property rights mean something?

But, I think this information was bound to come out sometime, whether from (very reluctantly) from Boeing themselves or not.

Here's a question I have from reading this: Do you think the scathing assessment of low-skilled labor at the supplier level will taint any customers' desire for this aircraft?

Also, I think it's interesting that we haven't heard more about wing defects and supply issues. Most of the blame and criticism from Boeing for delays and "travelled work" seemed to have been placed on fuselage sections and those suppliers (such as Vought).

Okay, that's my ten cents... (I've been saving up!!)

-Rick

So what's the big deal? Airbus does a competitor analysis of the Dreamliner. Well, I would be worried if they didn't do that.

And - aren't you actually committing a worse offence than Airbus? Airbus used some Boeing information for an internal briefing - probably picked up the information at an airshow - after all, it says Boeing PROPRIETARY, and not Boeing Confidential. However, you have actually made an internal Airbus document public, against the express statement at the end of the same document. Or do you have the express written consent of Airbus to put it on your website?

Great work! One would expect this sort of investigative activity to occur (I'd like to see Boeing's intel on the A350XWB), but to gain access to it is commendable. Thanks again for doing what you do best - giving us view of the aerospace industry that is new and fresh.

Jon, this is scoop of a lifetime!!
I would bet my bottom dollar that Boeing produced something similar for the A380 and the A350. Indeed there is more information about the 787 than we could ever hope to find out.
Congratulations!

Darn journalists! Exposing clearly marked "company internal". How rude......:)

US agencies providing information for US national
corporations is a well established custom.

I really don't see the tiniest reason for
crying foul here.

Respect in this context can not be in an
americans vocabulary. They just don't know
what they are talking about.

uwe

If there is a trade publication equivalent of the Pulitizer prize, Jon Ostrower just sealed it.

As a journalist, I am very dismayed with the release of such internal information by this website both from Airbus' and Boeing's standpoint. Admittedly, it is not uncommon for companies to perform competitive analysis of various products and industry practices. However to publish a clearly internal-Airbus document with potentially sensitive data from Boeing and even Airbus (in terms of how they gather their data , which incidentally may be illegal), especially in light of the disclaimer/warning on the last page from Airbus, when it doesn't provide any intrinsic investigative value (such as fraud, illegal activities, etc.) is not only reckless and irresponsible, it may also be illegal. I think Mr. Ostrower just subjected himself to some serious liability (and potential legal ramifications) for passing along sensitive data regardless if you are a fan of Airbus or Boeing. This is reminescent to the muckrakers in the early 20th Century with the major meat-packing plants...it will be interesting to see if Airbus or Boeing takes on this website and any other websites that are distributing the data. Only time will tell as this is tanamount to receiving and passing stolen goods in the legal world...

i'm sure airbus will learn a lot from the 787

for their 350xwb design

including fuselage barrels instead of fuselage sections

this will speed up a bit 350xwb execution

to catch up with the 787

One wonders about ethics and its place in business when reading something like this. Perhaps, we could get parties on both sides of the pond to discuss issues thereof. Ethics, that is.

One has to wonder if it was a major mistake on the part of Boeing to allow Spirit to happen. Well, this whole thing is getting more interesting.

All along, good engineers (and others) within Boeing knew the mess that was being covered up. But, nondisclosure is a fairly strong muzzler. If only, we could hear from them and not the dancing Scott C.

For some reason, forums like Jon's are allowed to venture to where others cannot. I wouldn't say that all of those issues are settled, but for now it is good to see this type of analysis aired.

Yet, we all know that book cooking (and other things that are shady) led to SOX. As we heard yesterday, that too is giving Boeing (and many others) grief.

But, there needs to be something comparable for engineering. The belief seems to be that FAA scrutiny is sufficient. But is it?

Quality is built in; poor processes cannot guarantee quality. And, the process is only as good as the player, no matter what Lean may try to tell us otherwise.

Re searching for "Boeing Proprietary PPT" try using a wildcard:

"Boeing Proprietary *ppt"

If born out, the drop in the range of the B787 would be a major disappointment that reminds one of the MD11. Having said that I think that it has been known for some time that, at least initially, the B787 was not going to perform as well as the original aspirations. Perhaps we should reserve judgement at least until after the aircraft has actually been flown.

I look forward to Boeing's public response to this and hope that it has the good sense to respond with facts and not litigation directed at bloggers.

I'd be surprised if Airbus didn't leak this intentionally in a roundabout way. What better way is there to get it out to the airlines than via a journalist who will not reveal the source?

I think any judgement should be reserved until a response from Boeing comes.

The sources and validity of this information is not known nor is the accuracy of it.

This must be the way that Airbus chooses to compete with a document they put together to show the weaknesses of their competitor. Hard to believe that the Airline Carriers do not ask questions and receive responses .

I am not sure I trust the word of any competitor who has enormous problems themselves..

As someone who engages in market intelligence (or competitive intelligence, if you will) on behalf of clients and for my own purposes, I've undergone training by SCIP, the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals.

SCIP has professional standards as well as providing training on the do's and don'ts (including legal pitfalls). Corporations that have CI departments (Airbus, Boeing, GE, and just about every Fortune 500 company) are well aware of legal pitfalls and industrial espionage issues. Airbus Americas has to comply with US laws in addition to whatever European laws apply to Airbus (Toulouse).

Simply doing a Google search with the terms "Boeing proprietary ppt" to double check the Airbus claims of public domain doesn't cut it (with all due respect to Jon, who scored a fabulous coup with this story). Search terms often have to be more specific and slide shows often show up in searches with PDF rather than PPT as the search term because the PPTs have been converted to PDF.

That Airbus is vague about how it goes about its CI work is to be expected and not nefarious. Their methods are, ahem, proprietary (as are Boeing's) as to how they do their CI. Of course Airbus won't detail this.

As for the debate of posting the Airbus document, with copyrights identified, this becomes murkier and subject to First Amendment issues. As a blogger myself, I do take a more conservative approach for a variety of reasons but neither am I a full-time journalist anymore (as I once was), as Jon is. Boeing is certainly very sensitive to copyright issues, going so far as to ask my permission on occasion to redistribute items internally I write even though these are clearly in the public domain.

As a part-time journalist, Jon has a tremendous scoop and detail. Boeing's complaint is with whoever leaked proprietary information to Airbus and Airbus' complaint is who leaked it to Jon. I imagine the Plumbers Unit at Airbus is working hard to find out.

Well, if the 787 program is as "Effed" up as Airbus
says it is, why aren't 787 customers cancelling
their orders???

The more we learn about the 787 program, it seems
the more we see just how far Boeing is pushing the
technological envelope.

And for all the problems the 787 program's having,
I think the recent order from AA is a very strong
endorsment in the folks at Boeing who are laboring
to get their new baby airborne.

Can't wait to see 1st flight :-)

While I'm not someone who engages in market intelligence on a regular basis, I do pay attention to my company's competition in my own industry (not aviation-related). As such, "lessons learnt" from competition almost always include not only competitor's weaknesses and potential failures, but just as importantly their strengths and competitive advantages. To completely ignore a competitor's strengths, would be a failure of such exercise. I find it hard to believe that Airbus would make such an obvious omission. This leads me to agree with Royce's comment above. I think it is right on the money. It would not surprise me one bit to find out that the document was leaked intentionally.

Noted in part:

"In addition, Airbus believes that both the General Electric GEnx-1B and Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines are rumoured to have missed specific fuel consumption targets by 2-3% and 3-4% respectively.

"We've continued to make tweaks to the engine and we will make fuel spec when we reach entry into service," GE said.

Rolls-Royce did not return calls seeking comment.

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

So the GEnx engine beats the Trent with regards to fuel consumption. The GEnx engine is one generation technalogically ahead of the Trent and I expected this outcome.

Boeing will not have a problem hanging GEnx engines on the wing instead of Trents since the same pylon is good for both engine types.

It's not too late for airlines who went for the Trent to switch engine choice in favor of the GEnx engine. Of course there would be a penalty to pay. Fuel burn would a major driver in engine choice and the tally of each engine manufacturer's orders would prove this to be true since the GEnx has outsold the TRENT by almost two to one on the 787 program.
Please refer to the engine tally link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders

The most embarrassing part is the one about Trent engines being worse than GEnx.

John, your definition of 2-1 is "interesting".

With no engine yet selected for over 200 787s, the battle for the 787 market is far from over.

I think it is a major mis-read of this document to consider it anti-
Boeing propaganda. Boeing is literally writing the book on building a large commercial aircraft using predominantly composite materials and titanium. They are also writing the book on highly distributed aircraft design and production. It's a massive advantage for Airbus to get a read on what does and doesn't work in the attempt to lower the cost of development.
It seems unconscionable to reward (lowest bid?) contracts to companies using inexperienced entry level labor *and* QA's to write it. The question of the hour is what do the customers think?

Jon,

Your scoop has given those of us who report airline affairs in Australia more information on the state of the program than we have received from Boeing since the faux rollout.

Consider this. Had Boeing said back then, or even early this year 'we have issues' and been more open,I suggest it would have be rewarded most likely with a handsome order for 777-300ERs for delivery starting later this year (something Qantas should have done years ago) and the deferral of what is nevertheless the biggest order for 787s by an airline so far until 2014, and for the -9s, which will hit all the range payload sweet spots.

Boeing would not only have sold Qantas more by total value, but have definitely locked out the A350.

Instead, it has kneecapped its credibility and seriously annoyed and commercially damaged its biggest airline customer yet.

By cutting the marketing babble and concentrating on concise and accurate and timely updates I believe Boeing would have gained another several billion dollars in orders for the 777s from Qantas on top of the original order for 787s.

To JE:

I too would read this document as "gathering of fact"
and not as "look at crummy boeing, we are bigger better faster ...".

The interesting things to notice here are:
Production ramp up seems to stumble over
lacking effort from US native suppliers
and not the overseas ones.

Good QA and fresh, inexperienced and marginaly
qualified hires don't mix.

I do not see Boeing as a forerunner in distributed
design and production. Airbus has been working under
that auspice from day one.

Same with "firsters" like FBW and Composites.

Though they have more experience in those fields
Airbus is very reluctant to build a one piece hull.

This should give some cortical pause.

uwe

I echo the concern raised by commenter "concerned journalist".

While there is nothing in the documeny 787 customers do not already know, why risk posting something that is evidently not for the publics eyes?

Proprietary means just that- proprietary!

And what's with all the British spellings in this blog ; "programme, installed". Looks like this was ghost written by one of Flight Internationals English writers like David Kaminski-Morrow or Max Kingsley.

Also very odd that Airbus would even want this out in the public domain.

The bigger question is what Boeing will do.

A couple of points for those posters who immediately jumped to the legal issue -

1. Plastering 'proprietary information' banners on documents does not make it proprietary information - there are requirements within the laws which cover trade secrets with regard to whether the information was actually proprietary, and any litigant would have to prove that said documents do indeed meet the requirements.

Having the banners on documents is pretty much nothing more than legal boilerplate these days, and means nothing in 99% of situations. Nothing that I can see here in the report is really proprietary - confidential, sure, but not proprietary.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act defines a trade secret as something in tangible or intangible format which:

    (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and
    (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. 

I very much doubt that Boeing could prove in a civil case either of the above - there is no evidence at all that the information contained does in-fact derive independent economic value as there is no information contained on processes or other such information Airbus could implement to build aircraft.

2. 'Publicly available' does not necessarily mean 'available to the public' - if a customer, analyst or other person unaffiliated with Boeing has this document without an NDA preventing disclosure, its legally publicly available if that customer or analyst or whomever can be persuaded to hand it over.

3. There is no issue of copyright here - Airbus prepared it as an internal report, for dissemination internally and possibly to affiliates. Under copyright law this would not count as distribution, and as such there is no infringement. The leak does also not count as an infringement, unless it could be proven that Airbus leaked it deliberately.

I don't want to belittle the efforts Boeing are making here, although they were born of desperation (no new program in nearly 20 years, losing top spot to Boeing and the far from ready Sonic Cruiser being trotted out in an attempt to deflect criticism of, and attention gained from, 2 other cancelled derivative programs. Imagine Boeings shock and surprise when people wanted to know far more more about that program than Boeing was willing (able?!) to provide!!).

They are indeed breaking ground on "all composite" commercial aircraft design and manufacture. Ironically Airbus was criticised some 7 years ago for using "too much" composites after the A300 incident in New York, shortly after the Sept 11 attacks.

However, Boeing is not even close to being the groundbreaker for a highly distributed aircraft design and production program. Although it is for a smaller aircraft, Bombardier first used a global supply chain with risk sharing partners, including MHI, as a matter of fact.

On another point, cost cutting must inevitably lead to a reduction in quality. I do not know any successful companies that have used expensive suppliers/partners when a equal or better quality supplier/partner is available at a smaller price!! Thus this saving at the beginning, by using low cost, lower quality, less experienced suppliers/partnere, in my personal opinion, leads to more costs downstream. But the people making these original calls do not seem to have to answer for these decisions.

Airbus had demonstrated this with the A380 and Boeing has further reinforced this with the 787! The real big question is, has either of these companies truly "learned" from this. The indications so far are that Airbus has not (but this will not become obvious for another 3 or 4 years) and with Boeing, it wll take up to 10 years before one can accurately answer the question.

Globalisation means cheap labour. Cheap labour does not learn overnight and can often learn the wrong lessons. Therefore one program that has been botched does not necessarily mean that the correct lessons will have been learned.

Only time will tell!

If this leak is not orchestrated then Airbus has a serious confidentiality breach. How can such a document get out from their offices?
Can this be a deliberate maneuver to stop 787 sales?

"By Rene Abad on December 3, 2008 9:32 PM

i'm sure airbus will learn a lot from the 787 for their 350xwb design including fuselage barrels instead of fuselage sections

this will speed up a bit 350xwb execution"

You obviously didn't read the bit about how Spirit's tape lay-up was LESS THAN HALF AS FAST AS PROJECTED.

If, as I believe, the A350 panels will be more traditionally draped then a similar set of panels could be quicker to produce (that's without the effects of integrating stringers, etc.).

By the way, CFRP is still nowhere near as good a material to manufacture and repair as the marketing people had all the customers believe. I wish Boeing luck and hope they've found and solved some of the trickier problems that have come to my knowledge. I'm sure there are still a lot more out there to be discovered - hopefully before they become safety issues.

It is time for Boeing to drop Spirit as a supplier and bring the work back in to the company and guard the IP!

To the poster who noticed the "British Spelling", I think you'll find that British spelling is the normal method applied to english speakers all over the world. Only in America can you find anomalous spelling such as sox, tires etc.

> It is time for Boeing to drop Spirit as a supplier and
> bring the work back in to the company and guard the IP!

Currently, there does not seem to be much "tangible" IP.
What we seem to see is brilliant PPTs not making the
transition to RealLife ;-)

uwe

Boeing at one point critcized the A380, the KC-45A refueling tanker. But enough already. Everyone back to your corners, back to work and do your best.

Conundrum for Jon: sue Jon or sue Airbus? Guess who has more money (albeit with tax-payer backing)?

On a more serious note, I don't see dramatic shortcomings that cannot be fixed over time nor serious design failures. Of course time is money and that's what Boeing will be paying out a lot to it's customers going forward.

That should read:

Conundrum for Boeing: sue Jon or sue Airbus? Guess who has more money (albeit with tax-payer backing)?

Come on. Like Boeing doesn't do excactly the same with Airbus!

What is the point of pointing that out? Will it make Airbus stop? Damn no! Will it be something new for Boeing? That's a no. They both know what the other is up to! That's part of the game.
By the way, making this report downloadable here is illegal too. It is, minus the Boeing's slides, the property of Airbus. Boeing's slides are its property. Both are allowed to sue the author.

Last comment: T. Varadaraj, do you really believe that the $20bn+/year of tax deduction granted to Boeing by several states isn't cheating tax payers? Or making all the big studies on military programs paid by tax payers (like composite elements studies). Or opening a legal research structure in Europe to benefit from this tax payers money?

The WTO case is a bit more complex than you may think, sorry.

The document is ridiculous. The Head of Airbus Engineering Intelligence cannot put rumors as elements to be considered as lessons to learn from. A document called "lessons learnt" must be factual.

Why the hell did he compare the performance of two competing engines in a document called "lessons learnt". It does not make any sense.

That presentation is of a very bad taste. It must be a hoax.

WOW, Jon!

I'm not sure which is more intriguing: How Airbus got this information or how you got yours!

Please feel free to report on Boeing's responses. I'd be interested to see if they pursue this as industrial espionage or if this is just business as usual.

Excellent work, ol' chap!!

Look at the logo on the last page.
BAe Systems is not anymore in Airbus.

The presentation is a very bad hoax.

Hey Jon,

Thanks for the hard work. But in all reality there was nothing earth shattering in the Airbus report. In fact I was a little disappointed. I was hoping that Airbus would get in to more detail about the design of the 787 in the report. But there was no analysis or critique of the systems on board the 787. If any thing I am sure Boeing is having good laugh at Airbuses expense at the lack of information in the report.

Like Airbus has room to comment on other company's problem. A380 was 2 years late with wiring problems and section not matching up. Enough said about the A400M. Before you go babbling on about other company's problem, make sure you don't have it yourself. If you are so good at what you do, why do you care what other company are doing wrong. You think the customers are not aware of the problem and they need you to tell them. Let's see how well you do on the A350WB ... oh, it's aready late even before design.

Reply to CML, who said - 'Like Airbus has room to comment on other company's problem'

Airbus are not commenting, this is supposed to be an internal only report for the purposes of process study, so they can both avoid the same issues on their own projects and they can guage the level their competitors major project is at.

Its hard to call it a comment when its never meant to be heard....

'Like Airbus has room to comment on other company's problem'

Says who? Has the EIS date moved at all? No? How can it be late then?

In future, let's spell our words in modern English.

Eg. why do we need to spell programme instead of program.
Let's make life easier for ourselves. This is just one example.

Now with regards to the Trent's 4% fuel burn disadvantage.
This is bad and airlines will demand compensation from the engine manufacturer flying with this fuel penalty, just like Qantas received compensation for the RB211 fuel hogs that were installed on their early 747s. Better still, it's not too late for airlines to switch their engine choice from Trent 1000s to the more fuel efficient GEnx engines.

"Airbus speculates that a rumoured design change to the Trent 1000 low-pressure turbine could require Dreamliner One to switch to GEnx engines."

So will airlines that have selected this engine have to bear the cost of incorporating this change into their engines by the way of a Service Bulletin or an Airworthiness Directive?

I should hope not!

> How can such a document get out from their offices?

With all the contractors hanging around in Airbus offices, I have always wondered how they could keep anything confidential.

A confidential report is one that can only be accessed by 10 legitimate persons and 100 administrators.

I understand that QF had to pay for part of the redesign to their RB211s.

@Ig: There are two thing, that live forever ... diamonds and outdated presentation templates .... so that isn´t a proof for a hoax ...

Robert, don't get your panties into a twist! You can call programme a "program" if you want.

FF2, no worry, the knickers are easy to unwind:)

Here's another word that's goofy.
Aluminium.
Now isn't it a lot easier to spell it aluminum.

Realize that language is an organic structure, and that you aren't always correct in your pronunciation or spelling. Let's use your "aluminium" example. Humphrey Davy (an Englishman) invented the name "alumium" for the metal. However, in common usage the name evolved into "aluminum" to match the naming convention of other elements. In 1925 the United States decided to switch back to the original spelling and pronunciation of the word, at which point we dominated the aluminum industry.

Thanks for inventing it, but let's go modern with the language.

Now back on topic about Airbus document thievery.

Wow I'm shocked how little people seam to know about the engine buisness; Ofcourse the SFC is not there yet, it never is a the dev stage! They don't normaly hit target until the engine is well into machourity. 'Romours say that' Whose romours? The GE press office?? I hear the GEnX does not have two of it's TAPS combustors the same as the design has changed that often and yes RR are having a turbine design change.... which was delivered last month. As per usual it is all smoke, mirrors and spin to see who can shift more units before they do the SFC vs cost to change vs liablity payment calculation. The only way anyone will ever find out a true comparison is if an airline buys both; BA GE90-94B on the 777, they were so impressed it's been Trent 800 ever since!

Bob, BA will replace some of their their fuel guzzling RR 744s with more efficient GE90 powered 773ER,
It's a known fact that RR engines are more expensive to maintain and also drink more fuel than the competition.

By the way, a TAPS combustor change is not as major a redesign as a LPT.

Fuel Burn Data.

Source:
Boeing

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_perf.pdf

The GE90-94B has a fuel consumption of 284.8 lbs/seat for a 3000 nautical mile trip
while the RR Trent 895 consumes 291.7 lbs/seat for the same distance.

So the Trent burns 6.9 lbs of fuel for each seat for each 3000 nautical miles.
With a seat configuration of 300 seats, that equals 2070 lbs or just over a ton of fuel for each 3000nm.

ICAO emissions data with an engine in a Test Cell environment also indicates that RRs burn more fuel than the GE and the PW engines.

Here is the ICAO data link that you noted, Robert.

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702&pagetype=68

From a review of this data, yes indeed, it indicates that RR engines consume more fuel than their competitors.

Take for example the GE90-94B producing 93,700lb.t.
It's fuel flow is 3.514 kg/s

The Trent 895 with a similar max sea level thrust of 95,000lb.t.
indicates a fuel flow of 4.03 kg/s.

its as well a known fact that are americans and american companys are world leaders in marketing and in the showbusiness. the latest events in the financial system has proven, that show and shine can lead to a quite expensive outcoming. in this case boing has been very sucessful in selling planes without the real prove that this thing fulfills its expectations. we will see what this plane can really do and how save it is in service.

europeans were not been taken seriously on quite a few topics, such as wars, cars´ fuel consumption ( ineurope nobody drives a car which drinks 25 litres per 100 km, excessive debt making in private households and so on. maybe we can learn loads from americans, but the should not think that we´re fools.

hi Someone in Toulouse (airbus?)

tape lay up is very amenable to robotics and automation

with the proper in-process and output qa, of course

airbus' sections will have nearer the same labor input as aluminum planes

compared to the faster barrels assembly of 787

and barrels have more integrity

sure composites have shorter airliner use history

and sure boeing is looking into it very carefully

lest we have a comet situation for composites

"You obviously didn't read the bit about how Spirit's tape lay-up was LESS THAN HALF AS FAST AS PROJECTED.

If, as I believe, the A350 panels will be more traditionally draped then a similar set of panels could be quicker to produce (that's without the effects of integrating stringers, etc.).

By the way, CFRP is still nowhere near as good a material to manufacture and repair as the marketing people had all the customers believe. I wish Boeing luck and hope they've found and solved some of the trickier problems that have come to my knowledge. I'm sure there are still a lot more out there to be discovered - hopefully before they become safety issues."

well, i'm glad that Airbus published the study. in the long term it will help both aerospace giant to avoid project management and production pitfall in near and far future.

Way to arrive, Jon.

Generations of newshounds (literally) have been digging for this!

"By Rene Abad on December 4, 2008 9:56 PM

tape lay up is very amenable to robotics and automation [...] airbus' sections will have nearer the same labor input as aluminum planes compared to the faster barrels assembly of 787"

Take a look at the production of GLARE panels at Fokker (a material which, incidently, is a heck of a lot better than CFRP or aluminium in just about every respect) and you'll see how automated complex lay-ups with varying thicknesses and/or fibre orientations, integrated stringers etc. can be done.

"and barrels have more integrity"

Except that the highly-tailored & fully-integrated manufacturing I'm talking about is *not* happening for the 787. The barrels currently have a much more "generic" nature, with cut-outs, addition of stringers etc. all requiring extra work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying panels are by definition better than barrels - but there are advantages and trade-offs for both approaches... so I don't believe at all that panels have to be slower and more labour-intensive overall.

"sure composites have shorter airliner use history and sure boeing is looking into it very carefully lest we have a comet situation for composites"

The thing is: there are certain types of stresses that CFRP is good at... provided it is subjected to those expected stresses in the expected conditions. On the other hand, it is hard to use in production and there are a lot of unknowns when it comes to design and manufacture... including interaction between CFRP parts and other components.

Let me put it this way: the seemingly trivial fastener problems that Boeing have experienced mean I'll be keeping an eye on the first few aircraft out of the hangar door.

The real story can be found by going to the web - looking for "ACM - fire - smoke - toxicity". (ACM advanced composite matrials). The United States Navy has at least two excellent papers posted and the Australian Aviation Accident guys have produced another very good document. If you want to read what the FAA has to say about the deadly hazards of burning carbon/epoxy materials search for "faa - atlantic city - safety". For our monthly reports (no charge) go to tatsco.com.

I'm going to "pass" on riding in a large composite airplane.

Pragmatic Jim
jim@tatsco.com

It will be interesting to see if Boeing swap out the Trent engines for the GEnx engines for the initial test flight. I hope they do so as I feel that an American airliner should fly with American engines and not foreign engines.

That is major surgery to an engine, redesigning a Lo Pressure Turbine to achieve better fuel consumption as Rolls Royce have done. If this does not meet the target fuel burn figures, the Trent will be out of the picture.

Boeing could then go with a single engine supplier, GE, as they did for the 777-300ER. Too bad the timing was out a bit as they could hang new Pratt GTFs on the wings.

T1000 missed book SFC by 3-4%

T1000 waiting for a revised LPT with broader chord blades,
would entail a redesign of the turbine casing, which
will mean the revised engine may not be available in time
for certification flight testing

Missing SFC targets by that much is a huge handicap.

Is there a possibility of Boeing excluding this engine from the 787 program?

I like Jack's idea in a previous post.
Boeing should have gone with one engine supplier, GE. for the 787.

Sales of the 777-300ER are not curtailed because of a sole engine manufacturer.

Questions for JO: Is Airbus to blame for 787 delays? Can you write an article about Airbus sabotage at Boeing or it’s suppliers? Was Airbus behind Boeing’s design errors or at least union strike?

Boeing investors and customers are looking at Boeing to take responsibility for 787 delays. Blame/attention shifting to Airbus will not help at all.

Is there any possibility of Boeing changing to GE as a one source supplier of engines if the Trent were unable to make the fuel burn target?

Boeing could very well change to a one engine vendor but it would sure leave RR in an awful mess!

To all and sundry who are promoting the GENX over the Trent, one should be aware of the following...

Fuel flow at max thrust is not a driver for overall economy, max thrust is only maintained for 30 seconds or so. Fuel flow at cruise and descent are far more important.
The GENX engine is far heavier than the Trent, so this offsets the the difference in SFC. On previous apps the lighter less efficient Trent has made for an overall more efficient installation.

There was talk that a few months back GE suffered a pump blowing up on the FTB.

There are major questions over GENX and Trent due to the "more electric architecture. The additional heat rejection off the generators causes a major headache for both, but RR should be better place to withstand this as the accessories are fancase mounted. GE core mounted accessories need huge amounts of shielding and preferential cooling which all detracts from performance.

It is not surprising that someone at vought might be an informant for airbus in this report. It wouldn't surprise me if these people were doing terrible work on purpose while on the airbus payroll. Their work is such garbage.

Dear Robert
"program" is not a real word. It is an americanism like the words labor, harbor, realise etc. These wrongly spelt words irritate readers in the English speaking world.
Using word imagery such as "Airbus document thievery" and your RR comment is rather rich. These companies have have many customers - what do you know that they do not?

Boeing and their partners had many production problems and it is very common to any start up program. Every one who is a part of the 787 (including the airlines) knew production problems and the schedule slide, therefore this not a new news. However this document does contain much proprietary info that should have not published. But at the same time this dossier do not say that this is a bad design or 787 will not fly. That is a very good news for Boeing and I am not be surprised that Airbus also follows 787 foot prints in near future. I hope every one remember A380 also had many production problem at the start up stage. This is normal and Airbus do know that 787 made a huge impact on aviation ind than A380 or A350...

Stuart,

Even at idle, climb-out, and approach flight conditions, RR engines consume more fuel than GE or Pratt.

The data in this link below proves this fact.

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702&pagetype=68

To JE: "It seems unconscionable to reward (lowest bid?) contracts to companies using inexperienced entry level labor *and* QA's to write it. The question of the hour is what do the customers think?"
******
When I read that, I thought...."Am I going to get on this thing when it goes into service?"
There's a lot of investigative journalism still to be done. Yes!! This story has only just begun!

How politicized will the Certification of Air Worthiness process be?
Old buddy network between Boeing and the Certification authorities? We've seen it before, haven't we? Officials getting jobs at Boeing later!
This thing must be stress tested to Hell before I get on it!

thanks someone from tolouse

i'm sure someone from tolouse is very familiar with glare as it is widely use on the whale jumbo 380

how much of the xwb is made up of glare?

overall the 787 barrel approach is more amenable to robotics, faster assembly, less labor than the xwb sections

robotics - the future of aircraft assembly

there will be more composite/other component interaction in critical areas in the xwb section design

the 787 is not all composites but with metal superstructure all around for the stress points you mentioned

"I'll be keeping an eye on the first few aircraft out of the hangar door."

i think that goes both to the 787, and the xwb sections that have more fastening points

when is the final configuration of the xwb?

the main difference between all-composite fighters and all-composite airliners are the bending moments, due to the airliner size

composite fighters are tested to 10g's, far higher than any airliner will experience in its flight envelope

as to fires, the jury is still out though i think the composites will last longer before losing structural integrity but the gases may be another issue - solution is better interiors and wiring design (fly by light?)

"By Rene Abad on December 6, 2008 9:10 PM
how much of the xwb is made up of glare?"

Not enough, in my opinion. Beyond that, I can't comment.

"overall the 787 barrel approach is more amenable to robotics, faster assembly, less labor than the xwb sections"

I think we'll just have to disagree about that. I think panel manufacture is actually easier to automate, since the difficulty of working inside a large closed barrel (with extra finishing and assembly required) is a disadvantage compared to automated cutting, layup and positioning of fibre layers and components on a flat-bed mould before entering the autoclave.

The theoretical disadvantage of panels is the extra material, complexity and manufacturing of the longitudinal joints. But it's all a trade-off... that disadvantage could be offset by easier/faster/cheaper design and manufacture of the panels, better material tailoring and higher integration.

"there will be more composite/other component interaction in critical areas in the xwb section design"

I'd agree if you meant "there will also be" instead of "there will be more". Both aircraft have these interfaces, the question is how many of those will have issues.

"the 787 is not all composites but with metal superstructure all around for the stress points you mentioned"

... which is one type of potentially troublesome interface I was referring to.

""I'll be keeping an eye on the first few aircraft out of the hangar door."

i think that goes both to the 787, and the xwb sections that have more fastening points"

Of course.

"when is the final configuration of the xwb?"

Not at liberty to comment.

"composite fighters are tested to 10g's, far higher than any airliner will experience in its flight envelope"

Also *TOTALLY* different design and manufacturing principles. Like saying an F1 car (with it's dedicated support-team of dozens of people) shows the way to making a better runabout for doing your weekly shopping in.

"as to fires, the jury is still out though i think the composites will last longer before losing structural integrity but the gases may be another issue - solution is better interiors and wiring design (fly by light?)""

I haven't heard about CFRP burn-through properties, though I suspect they can't be good at all. Epoxy would vaporise and burn very quickly so the fibres would quickly lose structural integrity. The gases produced are indeed very dangerous. The regulations did not stipulate anything regarding burn-through of structures last I heard (2001). Only interior fittings are specified. Incidently, GLARE not only doesn't burn, it actually insulates and has been proposed as a fire-wall material.

Too bad so many are missing the point and watching the messenger instead of the message.

This is excellent information well presented, and is indeed many lessons learnt for all who care to look. Thanks also to the mysterious Someone in Toulouse for helpful info and intelligent perspective.

One lesson is how unrealistically optimistic Boeing has been. Being more conservative/realistic may cost a few orders, but wouldn't the increased credibility add business in the long term?

And what about product quality being sacrificed to haste? An aircraft lost will hurt sales a lot more than rushing production will help. Of course this doesn't matter now with the worldwide recession underway, I'm sure most customers now hope Boeing's production schedule slips a lot further.

thanks again Someone in Toulouse

"Also *TOTALLY* different design and manufacturing principles. Like saying an F1 car (with it's dedicated support-team of dozens of people) shows the way to making a better runabout for doing your weekly shopping in."

i'm sure both boeing and airbus treat airliner design and production as if it's an F1 car rather as a weekly runabout

specially on the 787 and xwb with its new materials

a comet like situation can bring down the culprit company

looking forward to the xwb final configuration

and to the 787 first flight

An F1 car is comparable to a testbed or
technology demonstrator.
Thin savety margins and excessive cost
per unit and personel requirements are
justified because it is a one off item.

This is incompatible to the requirements
commercial aircraft are designed to:

Low manufacturing cost per unit.
QA via controlling the manufacturing process.
High efficiency with no compromise to savety.

uwe

To all of the comments about the GE and RR issues. GE have also just changed their LPT, and it didn't work as they expected. They are also having problems with TAPS, heat management and many other things all part of the development cycle.
RR are also having their issues as noted in the Airbus briefing. The fact is until the Flight testing starts no one will know the relative competitiveness of the engines. RR engines may burn more fuel flow, but the fact that they are lighter means that the overall mission performance is generally the same if not better than the competition. Hence why the Trent series of engines are by far the best selling engines on wide bodied aircraft.

Most likely the turbine casing for the Trent 1000 will require a change since the LPT redesign will require broader blades.
This will be a long lead part and will risk not being on time for flight certification testing.

The big question is, will this bring the fuel burn into the desired target?

GE engines outsell RRs by a long way.

747 GE was the favored powerplant
767 same as above
787 almost 2 to 1

Thanks, JOHN MACILREE !

Your tip gave me:

http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/aviation_forecast_2008/agenda_presentation/media/george_metcalf.pdf
(I think this one was already mentioned above.)

https://www.dodmantech.com/pubs/DMC97Pro/SALAZAR.pdf

[PPT] Valuing R&D: Investment and Risk Modeling Methods and Tools at Boeing

[PDF] Business Continuity— Pandemic Planning

....and much, much more.... .

So stop crying "ethics." When you are so angry about free markets and their tools, go do something real about it. This is all business as usual.
A knowledgeable user of the internet can find sooooo much, more than you would think or like.

The English spellings of common words are most likely due to all of the centuries of inbreeding on the British isles. That is also the reason they speak with that gay-sounding accent. We won the War of Independence against those flute-playing sissies. So we will spell our "Americanisms" any way we damn well please.

I did some contract work on the 787 in Japan as well as the U.S.. The statement that Boeing attracts only the best and brightest employees certainly does apply to the 787 program. It will surprise me if this aircraft ever gets off the ground. Clueless management coupled with clueless partners from around the globe does not make for a successfull program.

Airbus has had some success at globalization due to a somewhat competent management team. They have pulled through the majority of their problems and are now producing airplanes. Meanwhile, the folks in Charleston, SC will continue to try and make themselves look important while the aircraft are delayed again and again. The truth is they do not have a clue how to fix the problems on the 787. Boeing continues to demonstrate imcompetence on a global scale.

I do not care what a bunch of inbred English sissies think!!!

I read on another site that the 787 looks great but so does the Sydney Opera House.
It took about seven years to work out how to build that

Look at the facts for modern widebody aircraft and you will see that the Trent is by far the best selling engine in this class. Ahead of GE and P&W, overall GE sell more engines in the market place but this is due to the 737 and A320, but for widebody aircraft the Trent wins hands down.

There is no disputing this fact.

Proud American. You give all Americans a bad name with your childish rant about the English.

If anyone was to talk about inbred I would look at this country first before saying disparaging remarks about the English.

In terms of spelling, there are differences the correct way of spelling in "English" is as defined by the British, not by us. However, the American spelling is the way we spell words and isn't incorrect, it just isn't English, it is American English. A bastartized version of the original.

the economic depression may be a blessing for 787

it gives boeing the time to fix it

boeing has accepted the fact that they underestimated the impact of

simultaneously introducing composites and outsourced manufacturing

it's a very steep learning curve but

the 787 will arrive on its own good time

and will be a very successful airliner

now lets watch out for the 350xwb final configuration

it will surely benefit from the 787 lessons

You folk over there on the British Isles are buried knee deep in history including your language. It's time you modernized some of your words. Why the heck does a word like programme need an extra m and an e. Get with the times and go modern for Pete's sake.

Also get in step with Europe, drive on the RIGHT side, accept the Euro as the European monetary standard and the metric system. You did join the EU, didn't you?

Boeing are just dragging their feet with the 787 program now to allow RR to straighten out their poorly designed Trent engine in order to keep the flight test program going smoothly.
After all it is a generation behind the GENX engine. When you really think about it, what earth shattering new technology does the Trent bring to us?
Sweet nothing as far as I have read.

Don't forget, the Genx is also currently down against spec. RR have a task to catch up with the GE and then incrementally improve the performance of the Trent engine to meet specification. But there's no point in dropping the Trent unless GE improve their engine AND RR don't.

I don't know why people are so hung up on Britishisms versus Americanisms. These days, no-one in either place can spell anyway. You write tomato's; I write tomatoes...

What makes people think that the GENx is a generation ahead of the Trent. Where is the evidence? The new technology consists of a carbon fiber fancase that distorts, so what. The RR fan system is still lighter and as reliable as the GE carbon fiber version. What is the earth shattering technology beyond that. The RR engine has a lot of new internal technology that is not preached about and has led to significant improvements, but they continue to use some previous Trent technology to carry on with the winning family.

Where is the GE90 on reliability on the 777, it is the worst engine of the three manufactures especially the 1115B, that engine is close to having ETOPS removed.

Both engines have significant new technology within them, Both engines will perform the job as well as each other, there will be very little difference between the two. Engine fuel burn is just a part of the picture, overall aircraft fuel burn is what counts and this will be very similar between the two.

GE currently have large problems on the GENx and have a big re-certification job to complete. RR also have there issues. There is very little difference between the two engines and that will get closer as the 787 flies.

Peter,

Just because as an American don't spell programme with an me at the end doesn't mean it is modern. It just means your are lazy

I like to think that we Americans invented the modern version of the language. The easier that the words can be speld, the more user friendly it becomes. Why make the words more dificult to spel by ading unecesary leters. I find that the modern version is being used more and more in the British Isles as time goes by.

Jack,

The GEnx IS a step ahead of the Trent as far as technology goes.
First big fanned engine with a composite case that DOES NOT DISTORT as you noted.

GE do not have "large" problems with the GEnx, also as you noted.

The composite fan blades are revolutionary, even more so than
the -90. The architecture of the rotational machinery is a big change. The TAPS combustor is revolutionary. The metallurgy is more advanced than the Trent 1000. As well, a fuel burn that beats and will remain lower than the Trent 1000.

I do not like the Trent's design from the standpoing of peripheral accessories mounted on the fan case. Pratt and GE mount their accessories nice and snug around the LP core in a warmer environment.

Trent engines are renowned to be more expensive to overhaul than the competition.

Trents have had their share of problems, from the BA 772 incident at LHR with two unresponsive power-ups and just a few days ago, a DL772 slow to power-up on one engine going into LAX. I have a hunch that this is a design flaw in the fuel plumbing to the FCOC.

For the number of hours that the -115 has flown, it has proven to be a great and reliable engine. Most reliability issues can be attributed to substandard maintenance practices at the airline.

Olly

I agree the TAPS combustor is a big step forward, hence the fact it doesn't work quite as advertised. Why else did they spend long periods of time doing combustor testing in Alaska recently.

The new LPT doesn't work as expected and there is still a significant shortfall in performance, more than the Trent 1000 in its current guise, this is fact.

The casing does distort, although not as much as previously, explain why they had many engine failures at high power otherwise.
.
The composite technology is revolutionary and is excellent work, however at the moment the Trent fan blades weigh less than the GEnx equivalent. Having said that as time goes on the investment in composites by GE will pay dividends, not at the moment though, although the gap is closing.

The Trent engines meet all certification requirements for the fuel system, and yes the BA incident was unfortunate, but is not a fundamental engine issue.

In terms of fan case vs core mounted accessories. There are many opinions on this and none of them are right or wrong. The RR design is a much cooler environment that makes life easier for the units, it is also usually easier for maintainability.

Metallurgy is a big one, GE has advanced materials due to the US government subsidizing the design for military applications. Many of the materials used are NASA designed and developed. RR also has advanced material, however they are not widely known. The Trent 1000 has these materials embedded, don't know anything about them though.

Finally, how is the GEnx ETOPS test going? Oh that's right they haven't started due to numerous issues with the FAA.

As stated both engines will be successful, and both will be very good products, they may not be there yet, either of them. I am sure that they will both get there. The market is distorted in the GENx favor, but this will equalise over time. With the A350 RR is actually extending its lead of GE in the widebody market.

RR do not have NASA nor the space program research in advanced materials to fall back to in order to incorporate this technology into their metals. Any new metallurgy ideas will be pirated by them.

Quote from Jack in the previous post.

"RR also has advanced material, however they are not widely known. The Trent 1000 has these materials embedded, don't know anything about them though."

Chuck

You are right RR has no NASA metallurgy in their engines, which is what I was trying to say, any advanced materials have been designed and paid for by them.

So that is a big advantage for Pratt and GE.

In other words, it means that they are going to be in the forefront of engine development with regards to materials which is most important.

Rolls Royce cannot take advantage of advanced space engineering and will lag behind unless they buy it or steal it.

Agree.

Rene: At the rate the 787 delays are coming, the 787 will be catching up with the A350XWB!!! :)

Chuck

Or design it themselves, which is what they have been doing.

Materials isn't everything in engine design, it is a big part, but aerodynamics, architecture etc. are just as important if not more so. If RR had the material technology that GE & Pratts have they would by eons ahead of the competition.

The materials aspect just levels the field.

As I keep saying the two engines will be very similar with regards overall mission performance. When you take in to account fuel burn (GE has a slight advantage) of the engine, and weight (RR has an advantage) and any other aspects, both engines will be very similar.

hi anonymous

maybe 0.5 % probability

and i'm hoping airbus, after learning a lot from the 787, will not repeat the whale jumbo jet saga with the xwb

specially fastening the composite sections to the metal superstructure

i heard design freeze is this wednesday 17 dec?

'By Anonymous on December 13, 2008 3:18 PM
Rene: At the rate the 787 delays are coming, the 787 will be catching up with the A350XWB!!! :)'

I got the slides from another website. The link is:

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Jack,

Materials are #1 in engine technology.
They "drive" the geometry and arctitecture of the machinery.

US National Transportation Safety Board said it is investigating an incident last month in which a Delta Air Lines 777-200ER experienced an "uncommanded engine rollback in the cruise phase of an intercontinental flight." DL Flight 18 was over Montana en route from Shanghai to Atlanta on Nov. 26 at about 12:30 p.m. MST when the incident occurred to the No. 2 engine. The aircraft is powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 895s, the same type of engines that powered the British Airways 777 that crash landed at London Heathrow last January after it suffered a dual engine rollback on final approach (ATWOnline, Sept. 5).

According to NTSB, the crew of the DL jet descended to 31,000 ft. whereupon "the engine recovered and responded normally thereafter" and the crew elected to continue to ATL, where the aircraft landed without further incident. NTSB said flight data recorders and other applicable data and components were retrieved from the aircraft for testing and evaluation. Senior Air Safety Investigator Bill English, who is serving as the US Accredited Representative in the Heathrow accident investigation, is the investigator in charge of the Delta incident. The UK Air Accident Investigations Brach has assigned an Accredited Representative to the Delta case and "is working closely with the NTSB to determine if there are issues common to both events."

I specialise in marketing & competitive intelligence and regularly give training courses on how to find competitive information online. In my Competitive Intelligence training courses I give Boeing as an example of a company that regularly used to put material that should be proprietary and confidential on their website. I showed how such material could be easily found - by advanced search techniques (not just boeing proprietary ppt). These techniques are fully legal and do not involve anything more than a thorough knowledge of Google advanced searching, etc.

The important thing is to understand what the term "confidential" actually means. If something is confidential than it should NOT be made publicly available on an open-to-anybody web-site. If it is, then it is no longer confidential, irrespective of any labeling on the data or documents.

If it was made available illegally (e.g. by a disgruntled employee) then the company would have a legal case against this employee for leaking the information, and possibly even anybody using it. However if it was made available on the company's own web-site, this argument fails as obviously the information is not viewed as confidential as the website is part of the company's own PR and such information is therefore public domain and free-to-use by competitors.

Unfortunately for me I can't use Boeing as a current example any longer, as most (perhaps all) such material has either now been removed, or is password protected. (Some may still be available though to industry players - including Airbus. I've not checked this, and if it is, then it could still be viewed as legitimate to use, public domain data).

I think that it's quite feasible that Airbus used completely ethical and legitimate search approaches to find materially that was publicly available if you knew how to search properly. I still have screen prints of stuff that should never have been made available that I use to show how stupid some companies are with their own information security.

ISO 9001 standard is not product specific and can be used by a wide range of manufacturing and service companies. Long time ago, I saw a flag-size poster on a theater in Singapore bragging about its registration to the ISO 9001 standard. One of my European colleagues recently mentioned that he received an application to register a church choir.