Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8397 posts, RR: 66 Posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5220 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
If the Airbus A358 is an 'all new' airplane, why does it have the same length and width as the A332?
If passenger comfort is an issue why not widen the fuselage? If cargo is an issue why not make it longer so that it takes more containers?
Also I notice that the fuel payload is the same between the A358 and the A332, does this mean that the actual fuselage and wing box are actually not new? That they are basically putting new engines and a reskinned wing and calling it a all new design? Is it an all new design?
If this has been discussed before my apologies.
I've been dating too. Nice girl, she's an author. She wrote the book on male sexual dysfunction. You've probably read it
RJ111 From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2004, 2766 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5182 times:
FlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4180 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4973 times:
Dimensions mean ZILCH! You have to look at the new materials, systems, engines, and technologies incorporated into the cabin interior. That's why it's all new. If "all new" was characterised by dimension then I can think of a couple of aircraft pairs off the top of my head already
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3160 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4867 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7): The B764 has a larger wingspan and longer cabin length than a 763, but it is not a new aircraft, see my point?
No I don't.
If new cabin length, new wingspan, new wing area, new engines, new materials, new systems, new weight, lower fuel burn, longer range etc is still all the same plane for you then tell me what make an aircraft really new?
Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8397 posts, RR: 66 Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4841 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Some other numbers that don't seem to be adding up, so I am looking for clairfication.
The A358 will carry the same fuel load as the A332, 36,750 gallons.
The A358 max takeoff weight is shown as 540,000 pounds while the A332 is shown at 507,000 pounds.
They both carry the same amount of passengers, and the A332 carries more cargo (I think).
But the A358 has a range listed as 8,880 NM, while the A332 has a range of 6,750 NM.
So how can a plane that weighs 6% more achieve 25% more range? Are the new engines (more powerful on the A358 vs. A332) that much more efficient? 25% from the engines and a redsigned wing?
It seems like such a leap.
I've been dating too. Nice girl, she's an author. She wrote the book on male sexual dysfunction. You've probably read it
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4810 times:
Clickhappy-- If this has been discussed before my apologies.
Well I don't know about your needing to apologise right here, but then hey where have you been because yeah it sorta has
It does seem to me though like the A350 is still very much just a smoke-and-mirrors PR offering from Airbus so far, not very successfully trying to buy a bit of time while backstage some of their guys are working long hours trying to figure out what the heck they're actually going to offer, and then build.
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3160 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4797 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9): So how can a plane that weighs 6% more achieve 25% more range? Are the new engines (more powerful on the A358 vs. A332) that much more efficient? 25% from the engines and a redsigned wing?
Exactly. It must have many more "new" things. So you have just proven that it's not all the same aircraft
RJ111 From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2004, 2766 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4778 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9): So they have proposed a 'new' plane, using 'advanced techniques and materials' that weighs more and carrys the same, yet is a much better performer.
Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8397 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4763 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Well, what are these 'new' things, as you put them.
We have aerodynamics, engines, weight, and what else?
I've been dating too. Nice girl, she's an author. She wrote the book on male sexual dysfunction. You've probably read it
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4715 times:
Clickhappy-- I don't believe that it is smoke or mirrors.
Okay, but for me anyway so far it pretty much has been. Now of course, they are indeed going to actually come out with something at some point in the not-too-distant future. And it'll have to be rather different indeed otherwise wow are they ever going to be in trouble But it's just that so far the whole 'warmed-over A330' tag for their PR shucking and jiving has I think been largely apt, and a bit laughable too.
Airbus builds a fine product and is run by professionals.
They've had their slip-ups though, especially lately. And at times run jointly by political swirlings too (let's face it, it's such a hugely-big-ticket industry that it's just about impossible to avoid, for all major players)
I am just trying to make the numbers work, and in my mind they don't, so I am hopeing that someone can explain it.
I sure can't explain it at this point either but yeah so far it doesn't look like much of an "all new" plane at all, no matter what Mr. Leahy might effuse to the contrary.
Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8397 posts, RR: 66 Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4702 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
What about comparing the A358 to the 788? They will be using (basically) the same engines, correct? So any gain in efficency will be shared by both types?
ETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1894 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4701 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter): If the Airbus A358 is an 'all new' airplane, why does it have the same length and width as the A332?
If passenger comfort is an issue why not widen the fuselage? If cargo is an issue why not make it longer so that it takes more containers?
Airbus has stated that the 350 is 90-something percent different than the 330. Also, the range and economics that come with the new plane make it a lot more different than the predecessor. It's kind of like asking why Boeing is going with the 787 when it could have stretched/reworked the 777 or even the 767.
I wonder if this is due to moving the crew rest area downstairs?
That would mean less room for cargo on A350.
BTW I'm really impressed by the A350 orders. I don't think it's smoke and mirrors, except perhaps for the Indian beer company buying 15 widebodies. I think almost all the airlines are really good at studying the airplanes they buy, and they are very good at getting guarantees written into contracts. Just like Clickhappy, some of the numbers aren't making sense to me, and it's natural to ask why.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2568 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4563 times:
Quoting ETStar (Reply 14): Airbus has stated that the 350 is 90-something percent different than the 330.
They've said that the part numbers of 90% of the parts are different. If one is cynical, one can wonder if they changed the part number of the rivets to get maybe 60-80% of the differences.
Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8397 posts, RR: 66 Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4520 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Here is another way to look at the (odd) numbers, this time comparing the 764ER to the 788 and the A358 to the A332.
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2471 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4488 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18): The A358 carries the same amount of fuel as a A332, yet goes 24% (I called it 25% earlier) farther.
How is that possible? For Boeing, more = more, for Airbus, the same = more?
Not really a sensible argument because the range of an aircraft is a far more complex function than just fuel volume.
For a start the A350-800's MTOW will be 12T higher than that of the A330-200 (245T vs 233T) Secondly, through the use of advanced composites, the A350-800 will weigh 8T less than the dimensionally similar A330-200.
Also, like the 787 the A350 features the next generation of engines which are expected to increase fuel efficiency giving more range for a given fuel volume.
So for a given payload the A350 will be able to fly further than the A330, because the new aircraft has a 20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying ability as well as more efficient engines.
I think you mean US gallons. It would be 248,932 lb.
Quoting Crosswind (Reply 19): So for a given payload the A350 will be able to fly further than the A330, because the new aircraft has a 20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying ability as well as more efficient engines.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8397 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2004, 2766 posts, 
From Austria, joined May 2005, 4180 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3160 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2471 posts,