Kaysfeld

Do you think Toyota would do something about this? Please, keep us updated as most of us can't follow "Technical vorld" in Swedish.

In a news reportage on the National Swedish TV channel SVT about the Toyota Hilux (Shown on "Aktuellt och Rapport" 30 of October 2007), the Toyota rep. in Sweden is cited for saying that he don't understand how this could happen, and they will investigate further.

The news clip can be found here: http://svt.se/svt/play/video.jsp?a=955354

for the ones that understand Swedish.

Lets hope something positive will come from this investigation.

If you like to make swerving maneuvers like that instinctively just for a soi dog then you really shouldn’t be behind a wheel. Don’t forget about the poor motorcyclists you have just flattened in the process. Also I would say that a new driver wouldn’t be able to pull off a move like that even in the Mitsubishi, they would most likely end up plowing into the side of the road.

It is probably thrue that it is not worth the risk taking evasive action in a pickup to save the life of a dog. But what do you do if it is a little boy or girl running out in front of you?

Do you just plow through without trying to avoid the collision? I think not.

Therefore even a pickup should be able to take evasive action.

First, let's keep things in perspective - "mortal danger" is a relative concept. In Thailand half a dozen people in the open pickup bed is not considered a danger, so I doubt Thai would consider a slim chance of flipping over in a Vigo to be truly dangerous.

You are right it is a relative concept, seen in the eyes of a Scandinavian.

When you look at the mortality rate in the Thai traffic, many Scandinavian would probably say that it was mortally dangerous to drive in any vehicle in Thailand.

In Denmark it just made big news when the yearly mortality rate had gone up to nearly 400 dead per year. In Thailand this number was more that 12.000 (2006) dead from more that 110.000 accidents with a population about 12 times greater. And 2006 was a good year, down 2400 dead from the year 2003’s numbers.

I think I will get back on the Mitsubishi... I still think it looks better than the rest or maybe different.

Be sure to get the one with ESC/ESP. Maybe its only in the export version.

You can download the whole test from the Magazines website for about 100 Bath.

It is a big test (22 A4 pages), and go into great detail.

If you wait a month og two it will be available free of charge from the website.

Good trip.

Does the Thai made L200 (triton) have the same control system?

Yes - I think all are Thai made - I believe it's the only pick up on the market with an electronical control system.

I Sweden you can get a L200 in a lower trim (cheaper) version which doesn't have the ESC/ESP system, but this is not the standard version, and have to be ordred specially.

I am afraid this could be the standard version in Thailand.

The Toyota Hilux might drive better on 15" alloy than on 16" low profile.

The Toyota Hilux supplied by Toyota was the full trim version with the sport 16" alloys.

After the failed test Toyota blamed wrong tires for the result.

Toyota supplied the wrong tires so what an explanation. It is almost funny.

So the Magazine got Toyota to also supply them with a Toyota Hilux in standard trim on 15" standard tires.

The Magazine was now pressed for time because of their deadline, so they had to do the test on a day where the road was a little bit wet. They made the test on a different type of road, to see if this changed anything.

They still had the original Hilux on 16” wheels so they ran the test on this one first.

The result was the same as before. The Toyota fails again, and it failed again in a very nasty way.

There was no warning before it almost turned over. The back-end didn’t first slide or anything, It just suddenly started turning over.

When they did the test on the 15” version. It still failed, but this time there was a little warning. The back-end started losing grip, which made it slightly easier to recover. The Magazine concluded that this was because of the higher tire walls combined with the wet weather.

But it didn’t change their opinion about the Toyota Hilux.

But it did win in one category. The backseat was the best.

Ironically and more worryingly, a buddy of mine was thinking of buying a Fortuner for the wife and kids, but the rep told him better to buy a Hilux because of Fortuner propensity to topple with high speed evasive maneouvers. Remember the Land Rovers from a few years ago that had to be retrofitted with better suspensions after one toppled at speed under non emergency maneouver.

High centres of gravity and big bouncy wheels are a very bad combination. They are prone to wander across lanes without steering repsonse to the driver because the wheels are so big and the steering rack is set for off roading.

http://simon.helenheart.com/ok96.html

I always have believed and will believe that pick ups are not meant to be used as high speed motor cars. Great in a straight line, but dangerous taking corners at speed.

Yes, very worrying if the Toyota Fortuner is even more dangerous than the Hilux.

The Fortuner is clearly a family vehicle and as such should be optimized for road driving. Its tires should be good road tires, not off-road tires, which is not safe at all on normal roads. Esc/Esp is a must have on such a vehicle.

How much is 4 wheel drive vehicles really used off-road?

I think that most rarely use them off-road. It is just nice when you visit family out in the country, that you don’t have to worry about big holes and poor roads. Good road tires can still manage this. And still most 4 wheel drive vehicles have tires optimized for mud.

Many accidents with these kinds of vehicles could probably be avoided if they had good road tires with superior dry & wet weather characteristics. This would greatly improve the steering control and behavior in heavy rain.

I have seen for myself how poor a new pickup behaves in heavy rain:

Once when I was driving in one of the airport limousines on the way to Hua Hin, the rain started purring down heavily, as it often do in Thailand. The road was straight and in good condition with 2 lanes in each direction with a ditch between.

In front of us was a tall 4x4 pickup. I remember that I was feeling sorry for the people sitting out in the rain on the truck body. Suddenly it was clear that the truck started aquaplaning. It slowly but surely started to move to the right towards the ditch in the middle. I was like everything happened in slow-motion. For many seconds the truck slowly but clearly moved toward the ditch. Nothing the driver did changed the direction of the truck. Finally it went in. From then on nothing was slow motion anymore. When it hit the water in the ditch it was like an explosion. Water, car parts, bodies and cargo was flying in all directions. It looked very serious.

But the limousine driver didn’t want to stop to help. He claimed it was dangerous to do so.

So I don’t know exactly how bad it was, but everybody without a seat bell would probably not have made it. Even with seatbelt I doubt that you would survive such a crash. The ditch and water was deep, and the risk of drowning was great.

If this pickup had had tires made for wet conditions on the road, nothing would probably have happened, but it likely had standard off-road tires as most other pickups, so the driver didn’t stand a change when the centripetal force took control over the vehicle.

Pick-up's = Death machines ??????? Over-reacting a little aren't we?

Even a pushbike can cause death in the hands of an idiot.

Yes, you are right, I was overreacting a bit.

The stupidity of the post I was reacting to made me a little angry.

Some pickups seem more dangerous than others.

And there are also many other dangerous types of vehicles and drivers out there.

But is seems that a Toyota Hilux could easily become a death machine even in the hands of a good driver.

I believe that all car manufactures should do their best to make cars safe.

No tall vehicles should be without it. They know that.

Saving a few $ not fitting these systems, is like playing a gamble with their customers lives.

A SUV like the Fortuner shouldn't be without it. There can be 7 lives in there.

I should think that a few extra bath is well invested in an ESC/ESP system.

In a group test of pickup trucks the Toyota Hilux failed to safely do the evasive manoeuvre the Swedish Motoring magazine "Teknikens Värld" do on all cars during testing.

This was the same Motoring magazine that forced Mercedes to change the design of the A type 10 years ago, because it failed the same test.

See the video from the test on this page:

<a href="http://www.teknikensvarld.se/tvtv/071031-toyota-hilux/" target="_blank">http://www.teknikensvarld.se/tvtv/071031-toyota-hilux/</a>

Is seems like it is safer to just go straight on with this car in an emergency. Evasive manoeuvre can maybe be even more dangerous, unless you have extreme driving skills.

It is a shame that many Thais care more about the looks of their car, than about safety.

They simply prefer large alloys and crome to ESP and other safety systems.

In Thailand only the rich drive safe cars.

Get real, A pick up is a pick up, is a pick up, not a Porshe, A Merc, or whatever ! they are basicly all light on the back end, therefore to be driven accordingly, and then they are safe. No motor is safe in the hands of fools !

So according to you many pickup drivers must be fools, because there are so many accidents with these cars. There is nothing wrong with the pickup only the drivers. Hmmm…

A pickup is a pickup, is a pickup not a car, so it should not be used as such. It is foolish to think that a pickup can do other things that going straight. Maybe you don't expect more from a pickup. But as I have to drive in the same traffic with these death machines, I would prefer that not to many pickups come tumbling out of control while I am driving or walking.

Maybe we all have to live with this and accept the Status Quo.

Ok, good discussion, but I take issue with the last line of the Original Post:

It is a shame that many Thais care more about the looks of their car, than about safety.

They simply prefer large alloys and crome to ESP and other safety systems.

In Thailand only the rich drive safe cars.

CAUGH!!!!! Indeed: In Thailand only the rich drive fancy imported cars like BMW's, Mercedeses, Audi, Volvo (as one might expect).

BUT: They then still have their 3 and 5 year old kids playing around on the back seat, not even in seatbelts, never mind a child safety seat which costs a fraction of even just the alloys on their fancy imported car...

The rich are more safety conscious than Uncle Daeng & Auntie Dao the gas-delivery couple with both their kids in the side-cart of their motorcycle?? Come ON!! Look around.

[/rant]

Thank you.

All the cars you are mentioning above is very safe cars, so basically there is noting wrong with my statement :"In Thailand only the rich drive safe cars."

But you are right that many couldn't care less about safety, when they let their children run around in the car.

In just a 40-50 km/hour accident the child would fly like a bullet trough the cabin killing the front passenger/driver if hit. Such a child will not stand a chance of surviving.

Driving a car with 6 front airbags is also extremely dangerous is you don't wear the seatbelt.

In an accident the airbag could probably kill you instead of saving you, if you don't have the seatbelt on because your face will come to close to the front air back when it explodes.

So I agree with you that just driving a safe car don't make you safe, if you walk around with your head under your arm.

Yes kaysfeld, your translations are correct.

Thank you for confirming my translation,

and thank you for the post which I totally agree with.

How did the Isuzu?

Here is the summary from the group test in translated form:

Ford Ranger

A Mazda BT- 50 with Ford logo. More expensive parts than the Mazda and even some more expensive to buy. Nobody is talking about buying the Ford in stead if the Mazda.

Isuzu D-Max

Loud during travel and the detail quality isn’t the best. Apart from this a good comeback for the Isuzu on the Swedish market. Takes more load and highly useful both for work and free time. Good price.

Mazda BT-50

Low mileage costs speaks for the Mazda. Also good cargo capabilities. Besides this the Japanese if beaten by its countrymen in most areas, with making a fool of itself. A choice for you who think almost only with your wallet.

Mitsubishi L200

Our winner, because its only poor in the cargo capacity. 760 kilo is not much more than a normal van. L200 behaves confidently and comfortable. Important is also that it has a good stability control system.

Nissan Navara

The car everybody was most comfortable in. – if you sit in the front. The back seat is a joke, as is its cargo capacity. Also very expensive to buy. Most like a real car inside, where r Nissan have many things right. But is is still far from best.

Toyota Hilux

Clearly the most Cargo truck feeling in this group. In the from you sit poorly. Doesn’t take much cargo. But worst is that the safety is missing in an evasive manoeuvre. Don’t buy this car before Toyota have equipped it with utrustat den med a stability control system.

Original Swedish text can be found at:

http://www.teknikensvarld.se/documents/for...-l200/index.xml

Yes, totally useless post. I mean, who cares about the safety of a car in Sweden? We are in Thailand her and love our Pickup trucks, no matter what these wise guys in Sweden tell us.

Yes, totally useless post. In Thailand all drivers are immortal so who needs safe cars. Or at least the drive like they are.

In modern cars, there is almost always active stability control (ESP), but only one of the tested pickup’s had such a system.

Which one? How did the Isuzu?

Bird

No it was the Mitshubishi, as can also been seen on the video.

I have to come back to you about Isuzu, as I have only read the Toyota part.

But as I understand from what I have read so far, none of the others performed so poorly as the Toyota.

You’re correct; it most likely isn’t just the tyres. What I was saying is if the tyres were less grippy i.e harder rubber (not more expensive) then it would be less likely to tip up. You can make any car tip up and roll if you but wide enough grippy tyres on. Toyota should investigate the problem but to be honest its a pickup and in Europe it still isn’t common to see families driving round in a hilux. The translation sounds a bit scare mongering although it could be the translation you used.

It is true that not many families use these cars in Europe, but in Thailand they do to a large degree, why I think this information is extra usefull in this forum.

All cars in such test are either supplied by the official imported or by one of their dealers. Why should they put on wrong tires for a test performed by Swedens most recognized Motoring Magazine.

I think the translation is quite right and sound is as in the Swedish test.

Is there any Swedish out there that can confirm me in this?

It most likely wouldn’t happen with different tyres, no not more expensive tyres, DIFFERENT tyres. The idea would be to stop the tyres gripping so well, therefore a harder compound rubber or a narrower set of tyres. Some of the tyre responses really enlighten me in the fact that a lot of people dont have a clue what they are talking about. For example, if you put a set of grippy soft tyres on the triton it might well do the same thing. It could be simply a case of Toyota changing the factory and recommended tyres to something else.

But it is still Toyotas problem.

If it is as simple as you believe it is, and I don't believe so, Toyota can't deliver the car with mortally dangerous tires.

I believe that most drivers in Thailand would not have a chance with even the most expensive tires money can buy.

Most simply don't have the driving experience, speed and skills necessary to save this situation without an ESP system helping them.

The whole thing was in Swedish.

I have tried to translate the Swedish text, but as I’m not Swedish and not native English speaking, please bear over with any mistakes I might have made. What is said on the video pretty much have the same meaning as what is said here. Here it goes:

Toyota Hilux is mortally dangerous![/b]

In 1997 the Mercedes A-class rolled over in an Elk test made by Teknikens Värld. Now, ten years later, is it the Toyota Hilux ”turn” to fail totally in this test!

Pickup’s have gone from being the workman’s car to be sold and marketed as family cars. Teknikens Värld has tested six pickup’s where their car like abilities i pointed out and carried in front of the sales arguments.

The Magazine makes the so called Elk test on all cars that are tested, and it is an evasive manoeuvre test that is very revealing to how a cars body is constructed. In modern cars, there is almost always active stability control (ESP), but only one of the tested pickup’s had such a system.

Toyotas pride – Hilux – failed miserably in the Elk test. Tanks to great skills and experience we managed to exactly avoid a rollover. The result is unambiguous. Under an evasive manoeuvre in normal traffic, the Toyota Hilux will roll over.

Teknikens Världs editor-in-chief Daniel Frodin now demands that Toyota must take its responsibility and as soon as possible equip the Hilux with stability control system. And naturally must the customers whom have already bought a Hilux get this retrofitted. If this isn’t done, it shows that the Japanese company is incredibly nonchalant with its customer’s life. And Teknikens Värld advice definitely against buying a Toyota Hilux before it has become safe.

Read more about the mortally dangerous Toyota Hilux and the other pickups in our test in Teknikens Värld number 23/2007. In the shops November 1. and if you prescribe already on October 31.

Could simply be down to the tyres on the vehicle. Perhaps the Toyota's are a little stickier resulting in more grab and less slide. A change of tyre spec may solve the problem.

No doubt SUVs in general have a higher incidence of rollover which is verified by statistics. SUVs overall are inherently more dangerous vehicles than regular cars, again backed by statistics. However, in some crashes, according to statistics, the heavier the vehicle the safer it is, but it depends on the crash scenario as this is not true in every situation.

Certainly, in a SUV to SUV crash the occupants will usually suffer more trauma than the same scenario involving regular vehicles due to the better impact absorbing ability of regular vehicles compared to SUVs.

The bottom line is that drivers should always drive within their vehicle's capabilities, meaning the driver should be aware of their vehicle's characteristics, and their own driving ability, regardless of the type of vehicle being driven.

I drive a Vigo and this video doesn't worry me since the chances that I will have to make such a manoeuvre are quite low.

I do agree though that for some drivers an SUV gives a false sense of safety. I also drive a Honda Jazz and while I feel safer driving the Vigo the reality is that I'm probably safer in the Jazz.

I agree with you at all your points.

You are probably safer in your Jazz than your Vigo, unless you are hit by a large SUV or truck out of control.

Changing the tires from standard to good ones might be enough, so an experienced driver would have made this manoeuvre. The tires are definitely the best investment in safety that you can do on any car.

If I had been on the standard tires on my wife’s Nissan Queeen Cab that day, I would probably not have made it. I also send my warmest thanks to the computer company, which as a marketing stunt, gave me a free driving course on a racing track, where we spent the day making these kinds of evasive manoeuvres and braking on both dry and very slippery roads. If my wife had been driving she would just have pressed the brakes, and the motorcycle driver would probably have been dead, or seriously hurt.

But for Mercedes Benz in 1997, changing the tires wasn’t enough to fix the problem; they also added an ESP system as standard among other things.

At that time ESP was still expensive. Today it doesn’t cost must to produce, compared to the benefits it give to a tall car. No SUV is safe without it.

You (the clip) didn't mention which Toyota Hilux. Was it a current model? If so, what model? Looking at pics means nothing. Is it an intrinsic engineering problem? How does the COG (centre of gravity) compare between both vehicles in the clip? The whole thing was in Swedish.

What about older vehicles? What about the old Toyota Landcruisers that I love? I guarantee that these older vehicles would fail under such tests.

A ridiculous post especially since there has not been any factual data to back this up (ie driver ability, engineering etc). BTW, how does one perfectly equate driver ability since most people on earth need instructions upon how to breath? And what about the number of people that drive automatics? Does that come into the equation? Were the vehicles in the clip "automatic" ? It sounds a bit like the guy who loves to quote Ferrari & "racing techniques" in an otherwise "average driver" forum.

Totally useless post. Next time you get an idea about driving, make sure that you spend your energy upon learning how to drive...particularly in a "manual" vehicle.

I didn't mention it because it doesn't mention other that Toyota Hilux. The Vigo name isn’t used in Sweden. But if you take a look at the video you can see for yourself which model. The sound and text may be in Swedish, but the pictures speak for themself.

This Magazine came out yesterday, so I don't think they will test and old Toyota against other new Van's. If anything the models sold in Europe should drive better, because everybody known that most European put safety very high.

I am sure that an old Toyota Landcruisers will also be dangerous in any high speed turn.

This truck isn't made for the road. In its right element, off-road, there are not many that can match it.

But many don't buy pickup because the need to carry large cargo off-road.

They buy them because they look cool and are cheap.

Monster cars, with poor driving characteristics in the hands of drivers with no or very poor driving training sound like a dangerous cocktail.

Are you now a racing fanatic because you want cars to be safe?

For me people can buy these cars and drive themselves to death if they wish so, it is their decision.

The problem is that they all to often take many innocent people with them in death.

To be honest, I very much doubt that you would be able to pull off that kind of swerve in the street without killing some people on the pavement or knocking off a few people on motorbikes. Also I would guess half of the 4x4 vehicles on the market would do that as well.

It is true that most pickups have extreme poor driving capabilities. But this does make the situation any better, only worse.

There are so many cars on the streets of Thailand that is both dangerous for the driver and passengers, as well as everyone that happen to come in their way.

But as you can see on the video, the Mitsubishi pickup managed the test safely for both the ones in the car and the ones that would happen to be close to it.

It is true that you can't make this evasive manoeuvre on a crowded street in the middle of a city.

But does this mean that you shouldn't make safe cars?

I was in a similar situation in Thailand 8 years ago when a motorcycle came out from a small side road onto the main highway with great speed. I was driving 80 km/h and there were not enough road to break.

Luckily in that split situation I could see that that there was no cars oncoming cars, so I turned sharply to the right and straight again in the opposite side of the road. The car (Nissan Queen Cab) didn't turn on me and behaved quite good for such a cheap car. This surely saved the Thai drivers life.

He continued into the left side of my car as he was still trying to cross the main road with my horn and tires shouting.

But thanks to my evasive manoeuvre he walked away probably very shaken but not stubbed. He didn’t have a scratch, which couldn’t be said for my car.

In a group test of pickup trucks the Toyota Hilux failed to safely do the evasive manoeuvre the Swedish Motoring magazine "Teknikens Värld" do on all cars during testing.

This was the same Motoring magazine that forced Mercedes to change the design of the A type 10 years ago, because it failed the same test.

See the video from the test on this page:

http://www.teknikensvarld.se/tvtv/071031-toyota-hilux/

Is seems like it is safer to just go straight on with this car in an emergency. Evasive manoeuvre can maybe be even more dangerous, unless you have extreme driving skills.

It is a shame that many Thais care more about the looks of their car, than about safety.

They simply prefer large alloys and crome to ESP and other safety systems.

In Thailand only the rich drive safe cars.

In reading that article, it seems this announcement really is just a marketing ploy by Airbus

That may be, but Flight International is one of the most trusted in the Airline business, if not the one.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/airbus3.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/asB777vsA340issues.htm

I fail to see the value in the conclusions in a 3-4 year report about the Airbus 380.

There is no doubt that the 777 is the more economical aircraft over the Airbus 340-500/600. 2 engines is cheaper to buy and run than 4. But many would argue that the 340 is the most relaxing and safest to fly. Economics isn't all.

The aircraft will be obsolete before it is delivered.

The airlines still seems to have faith in Airbus.

PARIS 2007: Carriers order and commit to 728 Airbus jets

Airbus secured agreements for 728 aircraft during the Paris Air Show after landing firm orders for 425 and commitments for a further 303, eclipsing Boeing’s firm booking of 66 jets.

Read more at:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...728-airbus.html

Bangkok Airways A350WXB orders may never be delivered. Most aircraft this far along with order less than a hundred will fail. How many times has the A350 been re-designated?

Better equipment would be A330-200/300 or 777-200ER.

Do you really think that the A330-200/300 or 777-200ER is a better solution.

I don't think so. For the shortterm yes, if you need the aircraft within the next few years.

But for the long term the Airbus 350XWB is a much better choice, also better than the 787 and 777,

because it give the airline commonality in a way the 787/777 combination doesn't do.

Because of the delay and late entry into the market, Airbus can incorporate many new designs which make the 350XWB more advanced and comfortable for the passanger (wider seats) than the 787/777 combination.

You say that the 350XWB will fail because there isn't customers enough. Don't count on it.

None of the original Airbus 350 customers have cancelled their orders.

Though they haven't finished price negotiations with Airbus, Airbus think that most will convert their orders to the 350XWB. If it is so, the 350XWB will be well on its way, and might catch up with the 787/777 within a few years in order numbers.

-----------------------------------------------------

FYI

Order burst for Airbus SOURCE:Flight Daily News. DATE:18/06/07

While Airbus may be smarting about the success of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, it believes the delays to its XWB programme may have

given it a competitive advantage. Mike Martin reports.

Airbus received a major boost to its A350 XWB (Extra Wide Body) programme just ahead of Paris air show: Qatar Airways and Aer Lingus signed deals for the type, as manufacturer Airbus continues to refine designs for the aircraft towards a concept freeze at the end of 2008.

Though significantly behind the rival Boeing 787 programme – both in terms of the development timescale and orders to date – Airbus said that delays to its own programme have enabled it to come to market with a better product.

350XWB PICTURE

Qatar Airways signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to buy 80 A350XWB aircraft. The agreement supersedes an earlier one signed in 2005 for 60 of the original A350 aircraft with the deal made up of 20 A350-800s, 40 A350-900s and 20 of the largest in the family, the A350-1000. Deliveries will begin from 2013.

Agreement

The agreement was signed at the Elysée Palace in Paris in the presence of His Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Emir of the State of Qatar, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the new president, by Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al-Baker and Airbus president and chief executive Louis Gallois.

This will make the airline the largest customer for the A350XWB to date and the first one in the Middle East region.

However, discussions are ongoing with Emirates which has a similarly large requirement for long-range twins.

Aer Lingus become the latest airline to select the type with its biggest ever commitment for long-haul aircraft, the Irish airline decided to buy six A350 XWBs along with six additional A330-300s.

The A350 XWB family of aircraft was conceived as a comprehensive medium-capacity aircraft family with an extra-wide fuselage cross section. The long range twin will be available in three basic passenger versions - all with cruise speeds of Mach 0.85.

The A350-800 can fly 270 passengers up to 8,500 nm/15,750 km in a three-class configuration. The A350-900 will have a range of 8,400 nm/15,540 km, while the A350-1000 version can fly a distance of 8,300 nm/15,400 km., with seating capacities for 314 and 350 passengers, respectively.

The operating reach of the A350-900R version will provide ultra long-range performance, and a freighter configuration designated the A350-900F will complement the passenger models.

The latest innovations in terms of advanced technologies will be incorporated in the A350XWB, including all-new, easy to maintain, and much lighter Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) paneled fuselage skins. Over 60 per cent of the airframe will be made of advanced materials.

The race for space in the new generation of long range twins – which pits the A350 XWB family of aircraft against Boeing’s 787 family – has seen more work on the Airbus aircraft’s diameter. Airbus said that at 559 centimetres, the A350 XWB’s internal diameter is well ahead of its rivals, but the work has had an interesting result from the airlines.

According to Airbus chief operating officer customers John Leahy some airlines are exploring the possibility of high-density ten-abreast seating configurations to make the most of the additional space.

category

“Some are looking at it,” he said. “We are looking at it. At nine-abreast, we will offer the widest economy class seat and the widest premium class seat. However, some airlines are looking at this and asking is we can squeeze another seat in. We are looking at it.”

He added: “There is no doubt that Boeing started this whole category of product and that we came to the party late. But if you come to the party late, you have to have a better product.”

The most recent design work on the aircraft has seen not only work on the fuselage to create a slightly wider cabin, but studies into a more conventional nose profile for the aircraft derived from the A380. Airbus is also looking at a variable camber wing to improve cruise efficiency.

One of a number of design studies, the possible reconfiguration of the nose profile would see the landing gear positioned much further forward than in previous Airbus widebodies and see it located directly under the cockpit. A result of the change was the shifting of the flightcrew rest area from below the cockpit to the ceiling area.

Meanwhile, talks continue between Airbus and General Electric aimed at getting GE to offer its GEnx engine for the A350 XWB. Rolls-Royce, with its Trent XWB is already on the programme, but no agreement has been reached yet with GE, which would offer airlines a choice of engine.

While GE is thought to have plans for an engine that would cover the two smaller A350 variants, it is believed to be reluctant to offer a powerplant for the larger A350-1000 aircraft. This is because the type would compete head-on with members of the Boeing 777 family where GE has exclusive engine supply deals.

“It has always been our intention to have more than one engine supplier,” said Didier Evrard executive vice president, A350 programme.

Evrard said that the A350XWB programme is the first to be carried out under the Airbus Power 8 restructuring exercise, put in place after the costly and embarrassing delays to the A380 programme. This will involve new ways of working and a rethink on relationships with suppliers.

“We want to involve our suppliers at a much earlier phase,” he said, adding that the key risk-sharing partners will be known by this summer.

Airbus is extending its civil aircraft market leadership in terms of the use of advanced materials in the A350 XWB programme. Some 60% of the airframe will be made with advanced materials and the aircraft will feature an all-composite wing.

“We went down this route after careful consideration,” said Gordon McConnell, A350 XWB chief engineer. “The decisions were based on 20 years of experience in putting carbon onto the primary structure.

From http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...for-airbus.html