Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Should Be A360  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2809 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

They have the ULA A380 made with new technologies and materials. They have a A330/340 replacement made with new technologies and materials and are calling it the A350. But if they called it the A360, then the A350 could be a narrowbody replacement made using these new technologies and materials and the A370 could be gap bridger between the A360 and A380. That would fit much better.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2105 times:

I personally think the A350 should just be named the A330-600 or 500. Same body, tail, and wing shape, just with different engines, like the A340-600 and A340-500.


No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

"I personally think the A350 should just be named the A330-600 or 500. Same body, tail, and wing shape, just with different engines, like the A340-600 and A340-500."

I agree. It will be like the A330NG. . .or as AlitaliaMD11 said, the A330-500/600. Save the other A3XX names for later. . . .Airbus should stick with what they have with the A340. . .A340-200/300, then the NG with the A340-500/600.

In the end, I really don't care, but it makes for good passing conversation. . .



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineAZA330 From Italy, joined Feb 2004, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

I've read somewhere else on this forum that the A350 will be more than an A330 with different engines, but I don't know how true that "new" was.
Anyway...hope it will be an aircraft with enough improvements to justify the name changing  Smile


User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2487 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

90% of the plane is all new... And to be honest, if you compare the A350 to the A330, you really see that the A350 eyes bigger and like it has more 'mussels''

User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2010 times:

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 1):
I personally think the A350 should just be named the A330-600 or 500. Same body, tail, and wing shape, just with different engines, like the A340-600 and A340-500.

While I agree with you that it would make more sense to call it the A330-XXX, it is NOT "just the same plane with different engines". Anyways, we all know it's about marketing, and perhaps, just perhaps, they are not planning to make so many more different families and they don't need many more desginators.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2809 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 4):
And to be honest, if you compare the A350 to the A330, you really see that the A350 eyes bigger and like it has more 'mussels''

I don't understand. Isn't it really down to the airline what they serve?


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

"you really see that the A350 eyes bigger and like it has more 'mussels''

Yummy.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

It certainly makes one wonder what they'll call the next gen A320. A420 might be possible, but will surely ask Airbus what they were smoking when they chose that number.  Smile

(For those not familiar with "420," it's somehow been adopted by cannibis users.)

The bigger question looms for Boeing, as "797" is the only number left in the series for their next gen 737.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 8):
The bigger question looms for Boeing, as "797" is the only number left in the series for their next gen 737.

Well perhaps Boeing will start again from scratch using 818, 828, 838, etc... while airbus uses 410, 420, 430, etc... But indeed Boeing has been around longer so they will probably run out of numbers first. Nobody really knows!

But at the end of the day, nobody except us gives a flying sh**  Wink



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Does it matter what they call it. Even if they would call it the Z485¤ it would still be a A350. The airlines know enough to spot the differences between the A330 and the A350 no matter what they call it.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

The next gen A320 will probably get a fractional name such as the A325, as thats where Airbus seem to be heading with their smaller range.

User currently offlineScott0305 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Why is it that for the narrow-bodies airbus uses fractional numbers A318, 319, 320, 321 but for the big beasts they use -200, -300, -800, -900 etc etc. Wouldn't it be better to use one system for all - so it would be A330, A331, A332 etc. Is this because the larger families aren't simple stretches and shrinks but more complex developments of the original airframe which don't necessarily fit into a neat sizing structure?

User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting Scott0305 (Reply 12):
Why is it that for the narrow-bodies airbus uses fractional numbers A318, 319, 320, 321 but for the big beasts they use -200, -300, -800, -900 etc etc. Wouldn't it be better to use one system for all - so it would be A330, A331, A332 etc. Is this because the larger families aren't simple stretches and shrinks but more complex developments of the original airframe which don't necessarily fit into a neat sizing structure?

They do use that. That's why for example you have the 321-100 and 321-200 etc... The reason why fractional numbers were used for narrowbodies is because they are different aircraft.

But I do see your point... it is confusing since this rule does not work out the same way with the widebodies they make.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineScott0305 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

But the A321 and A320 are no more different than the A340-200 and the A340-600! No?

User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Quoting Scott0305 (Reply 14):

Yes you're absolutely right... but thats why I said it was confusing and I understand your point at the end of my post  Wink

I merely wanted to point out that the A320 family also uses the -100 -200 etc... numbers.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A350 Should Be A305 posted Fri Apr 15 2005 01:49:23 by Ruscoe
My Humble Opinion On What A350 Should Be posted Fri Nov 26 2004 21:33:16 by TP313
Leahy: 747 Should Be Recertified posted Wed Jan 31 2007 21:28:05 by Douwd20
Lgat Should Be Remained Open posted Wed Jan 3 2007 00:26:17 by 1981
Will Airbus's "XWB-A350" Be Delivered On Time? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:20:39 by OU812
EWR OSL Should Be Important To SK posted Mon Dec 4 2006 06:45:06 by Flybynight
This B737-100 Should Be Preserved... posted Tue Aug 15 2006 14:12:25 by UK_Dispatcher
Heathrow "should Be Phased Out" posted Mon May 29 2006 10:03:57 by Superhub
Some Pax Should Be Taken Outside And Whipped! posted Sat May 20 2006 08:14:34 by Aerofan
Concorde Noise Should I Be Thankful Or I Miss It posted Sat Mar 25 2006 01:27:45 by 747400sp