XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 23, 2013 14:15:43 GMT 1
The dedicated assembly line for the -1000 (if built) will be similar to the current M50 building, it should have its own station 59 and station 50 for fuselage join etc. During the Paris airshow, Airbus said to add capacity the the FAL but it won't be a second assembly line. So I guess they will add a third building with more station 40s and station 30s. |
|
tris06
Final Assembly Line stage 1
Posts: 209 
|
Post by tris06 on Jun 23, 2013 15:38:11 GMT 1
The dedicated assembly line for the -1000 (if built) will be similar to the current M50 building, it should have its own station 59 and station 50 for fuselage join etc. During the Paris airshow, Airbus said to add capacity the the FAL but it won't be a second assembly line. So I guess they will add a third building with more station 40s and station 30s. That might make more sense as the current prototypes are spending far more time in stations 40,30 than 50-59. But still it would bottleneck a little on 50-59stations or very tight scheduling needed. So will they dial back the 18/24hr per day working on the prototype program,that they were doing for MSN 1? I hope all the estimations they have put up are very conservative and in reality can deliver up to 1 month earlier than predicted. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadow123 on Jun 23, 2013 17:44:44 GMT 1
Is there a picture of something like that, with all Stations of The Assembly line?
With a shaort discribtion of The Stations?
That would be nice.
Thank you :-)
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 23, 2013 18:19:07 GMT 1
Here you go:  |
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Jun 24, 2013 16:24:38 GMT 1
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 24, 2013 16:30:16 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Jun 24, 2013 17:21:35 GMT 1
Link doesn't work for me XWB
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jun 24, 2013 17:44:29 GMT 1
2 Questions: 1) How much more competitive is this simple engine derate compared to the 787-10? 2) Can Boeing do a similar version for its 777-8X to better compete with the A350-1000? I take it that the gains come from lower engine maintenance costs and possibly a slightly lower fuel consumption over the life of the aircraft due to lower degradation. And maybe lower airport fees with regards to noise, weights? |
|
|
|
Post by bmw801 on Jun 24, 2013 21:17:58 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jun 24, 2013 22:56:06 GMT 1
2 Questions: 1) How much more competitive is this simple engine derate compared to the 787-10? 2) Can Boeing do a similar version for its 777-8X to better compete with the A350-1000? I take it that the gains come from lower engine maintenance costs and possibly a slightly lower fuel consumption over the life of the aircraft due to lower degradation. And maybe lower airport fees with regards to noise, weights?
I suppose that the choice between A350-900 and B787-10 should in most cases be driven either by the range requirement or by the desired seat density. Both aircraft allow nine abreast seating, but this provides much more room per passenger on the A350-900 than on the B787-10. That is why SQ has ordered the A350 for itself and the B787 for its low-cost subsidiary Scoot. Conversely, some budget airlines might go for a very dense ten-abreast A350 ...
The differences between these aircraft should provide airlines with a much wider choice than they had been used to.
|
|
