Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Doesn't The A350 Look The 787?  
User currently offlineFL370 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 11701 times:

i was looking at some photots from boeing and airbus, and i realized that the A350 looks almost like the 787. the wingtips of the a350 bend up like the 787, nose looks more aerodynamic. and some small details in between make them both look similer!!

can someone help me with this and tell the differences.
the one major difference i know about the two planes, is that one has 4models, and the other has one model.


fl370

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 11704 times:

That may be so -- but one could be lead to believe that since the technology right now is pretty well matched, you COULD be seeing duplicate technology on differently produced aircraft.

Airframe manufacturers (Russian ones excluded LOL re: Buran Shuttle & TU-144 LOL) do NOT model their aircraft so they 'look similar'. Looks come secondary to functionality and performance in this business!

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months ago) and read 11598 times:

Form follows function. Over time, each generation approaches nearer and nearer to perfect aerodynamic efficiency. That means they approach nearer and nearer to a particular shape. It's an example of evolutionary convergence.

I still think the A350 has better looking cockpit windows than the 787.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11442 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
I still think the A350 has better looking cockpit windows than the 787.

See if they stick around.... the 787 used to be much more attractive, before it started to look more and more like a 777 with curvier wings and a less attractive tail.

Both are very attractive aircraft, though I wish Airbus would come up with an attractive livery of their own ... similar to Boeing's dreamliner livery, which really goes a long way towards creating an attractive image for their aircraft.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11408 times:

Quoting FL370 (Thread starter):
one has 4models, and the other has one model.

Which one has one model, the 787 will have 3 probably four models.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
I still think the A350 has better looking cockpit windows than the 787.

I do like the windows because they have a dark tint, I don't know if that will stick around though.



"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11340 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 3):
the 787 used to be much more attractive, before it started to look more and more like a 777 with curvier wings and a less attractive tail.

By 'curvy' I assume you are referring to the insane wing flex in the Boeing renderings. Any bets on whether the 787's wings will actually flex that much, when it flies in a few months?


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11263 times:

Quoting FL370 (Thread starter):
i was looking at some photots from boeing and airbus, and i realized that the A350 looks almost like the 787.

You mean like this:



User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11249 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 3):
the 787 used to be much more attractive, before it started to look more and more like a 777 with curvier wings and a less attractive tail.

By 'curvy' I assume you are referring to the insane wing flex in the Boeing renderings. Any bets on whether the 787's wings will actually flex that much, when it flies in a few months?

Well, since the wingtips are flexed well up past the top of the fuselage... and not just during takeoff and climbout, but in the images at level flight, i'd be a little afraid if they did. I mean, if you look out the window and the wings are bending like crazy... i dunno...

i call it curvy because i have a hard time imaging it in reality, but i can't wait to see it when it flies!



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7539 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11172 times:

The redesign turned the A350 into the 787, just like the A380 looks almost 100% like the MD-12, the original A350 resembled a A330.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11054 times:

Right now the A350XWB's (Stupid name) windows are quite similar to the original 7E7 concept. Airbus will probably conclude that while they look attractive, the visibility is inadequate and the final shape will probably much more like the B787. That will make the B787 and the A350XWB Mk X even more similar. The primary difference at that point will be the chevron's on the engine nacelles and I think Boeing might have that patented.

User currently offlineBradleycheuk From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11017 times:

A question that has been bothering me is the 787's passenger windows without the sliding shades. They plan to have the windows tint itself b a touch of a button and vice versa, but wouldn't that add on to maintenance cost and the plane itself?

Thanks
Brad


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10906 times:

Quoting Bradleycheuk (Reply 10):
A question that has been bothering me is the 787's passenger windows without the sliding shades. They plan to have the windows tint itself b a touch of a button and vice versa, but wouldn't that add on to maintenance cost and the plane itself?

It's expected to reduce maintenance costs as the sliding shades break from time to time. Solid-state devices are generally more reliable than mechanical devices. It also saves weight, which contributes to cost savings.


User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3198 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10102 times:

Yawn, this subject's been done to death don't you think?!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
Form follows function. Over time, each generation approaches nearer and nearer to perfect aerodynamic efficiency.

Agreed: 707 and DC-8; L-1011 and DC-10, A300 and 767.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9033 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 6):
You mean like this:

Still can see the A330 lines on it




We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineTom_eddf From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9664 times:

Actually, my first thaught was the A350XWB cockpit windows, more than anything else, look a lot like those on a luxury coach  Smile by Neoplan, a stuttgart, Germany based manufacturer:



Well, at least both are some sort of "busses"  Smile


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8701 times:

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 1):
Airframe manufacturers (Russian ones excluded LOL re: Buran Shuttle & TU-144 LOL) do NOT model their aircraft so they 'look similar'. Looks come secondary to functionality and performance in this business!

While the Buran did look similar to the Shuttle Orbiter, there were major differences, too (like no cockpit windows, because it would not have a crew). The TU-144 completed design and began flying before the Concord did, so the Russians could actually say the French and British copied their design (without the retractable conards). The Mig-25 and F-15 also look similar (the F-15 was designed first), but the Mig-25 always looked bigger and heavier.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
Any bets on whether the 787's wings will actually flex that much, when it flies in a few months?

Boeing has a lot of experience with high wing flex, going back to the B-52 design, which had an astonishing 28' wing flex at the wingtip.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 9):
The primary difference at that point will be the chevron's on the engine nacelles and I think Boeing might have that patented.

I don't think so because the engines on the E-170/-190 also have chevrons, or shark teeth.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8643 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):

While the Buran did look similar to the Shuttle Orbiter, there were major differences, too (like no cockpit windows, because it would not have a crew)

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bburan27.jpg

Certainly looks like it had windows...

The first flight of the Buran was pilotless, but it was intended to have a crew.


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6465 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8610 times:

Don't we really have to wait until they are built to compare how they look. All we have now are drawings.

Also, airlines buying them could not care less how they look!


User currently offlineZerotwograss From Guatemala, joined Aug 2006, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8513 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
While the Buran did look similar to the Shuttle Orbiter, there were major differences, too (like no cockpit windows, because it would not have a crew).

Actually, the biggest difference between Buran and the Shuttle Orbiter was that Buran had no engines/rockets. Unlike the Shuttle which has 3.

Buran relied purely on 'strap-ons' for launch.


Having said that, I think they both look boring and unimaginative. Don't know about you guys....


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8223 times:

Computers are doing a lot of the designing. The 1s and 0s tend to come up with the same idea whether they be North American digits or European digits.


I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8210 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The TU-144 completed design and began flying before the Concord did, so the Russians could actually say the French and British copied their design (without the retractable conards).

The 144 was built, at least in part, from data gathered about the Concorde using less than respectable means. Some of the features found on the aircraft are attempts to replicate designs by British and French engineers. Obviously the talent of Russian engineers contributed to the design and helped get it into the air first, but there is still a lot of Concorde in the 144.

Also, the canards were a retrofit later to improve low-speed handling. The wing on the 144 was less advanced than Concorde's and the canards were needed to increase stability and controlability.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7902 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The Mig-25 and F-15 also look similar (the F-15 was designed first), but the Mig-25 always looked bigger and heavier.

Pretty sure the FOXBAT was the older one , by an 8 year margin i think.
The twin tail and very distinctive inlets where first seen on the big and fast Russian.



[edit post]
User currently offlineGarri767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7796 times:

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 1):
Airframe manufacturers (Russian ones excluded LOL re: Buran Shuttle & TU-144 LOL) do NOT model their aircraft so they 'look similar'. Looks come secondary to functionality and performance in this business!

eh, i think i have to give this speech every day. the TU-144 CAME OUT BEFORE concorde. now ill give ya the buran shuttle on that one though  Wink


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7756 times:

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 21):
Pretty sure the FOXBAT was the older one , by an 8 year margin i think.
The twin tail and very distinctive inlets where first seen on the big and fast Russian.

Again, correct -

Mig-25 project announcement 1961, first flight 1964, EIS 1970.
F-15 project announcement 1969, first flight 1972, EIS 1976.


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7583 times:

Facts first please!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
While the Buran did look similar to the Shuttle Orbiter, there were major differences, too (like no cockpit windows, because it would not have a crew).

The Buran was, for the most part, a copy of the Space Shuttle. Buran did have flight deck windows and was going to fly with a crew although its first and only space flight was not piloted.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The TU-144 completed design and began flying before the Concord did, so the Russians could actually say the French and British copied their design (without the retractable conards).

The USSR used industrial espionage to obtain Concorde data and plans. This has been proven. Actually BAC and Sud Aviation were working independently of each other on SST projects in the late 50's and were ready to start constructing prototypes as early as 1962. The Governments of France and UK signed an agreement for their joint venture in Nov. 1962 and the rest is Concorde history. OTOH, Tupolev did not start the development of the TU-144 until 1963. Late start, early flight, early retirement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The Mig-25 and F-15 also look similar (the F-15 was designed first), but the Mig-25 always looked bigger and heavier.

The MiG-25 was designed to counter the threat posed by the XB-70, YF-12, A-12 and SR-71. The prototype of the Foxbat, the Ye-155-R1, first flew in 1964. The F-15 was designed to counter the Mig-25 and first flew in 1972.


Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
25 N328KF : The funny thing is, you can trace a direct tit-for-tat lineage starting from the Vigilante -> Foxbat -> Eagle -> Flanker-A -> Raptor.
26 Braybuddy : These will be two of the blandest looking planes in the sky. I cannot get excited about either of them.
27 EI321 : Those original 787 windows did look rather unpractical from a design point of view. Well at least from a passengers point of view, the interiors will
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...
Chances Of Airlines Ordering The 787 Vs. The A350 posted Fri Apr 21 2006 19:30:02 by 1337Delta764
Excellent Article On The Qantas 787 Vs A350 Choice posted Fri Dec 16 2005 16:58:22 by ClassicLover
What Does The 787/A350 Look Like? posted Sun Feb 20 2005 03:56:33 by Lvkewlkid
Will The A350 Also Have Elect.chromatic Window Pnl posted Tue Dec 19 2006 22:59:09 by AutoThrust
Is The A350 Too Big For Some Who've Ordered It? posted Sun Dec 17 2006 10:33:41 by Eureka
Is The Aeroflot - 787 Deal Back On? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:38:33 by NYC777
Who Does The Unidentified 787 Order Belong To? posted Fri Jul 7 2006 02:13:44 by MCIGuy
Could Airnz Look At The A350 For The Future? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 22:27:50 by Freedom904
Structural Reinforcements For The New 787-9 posted Wed Jan 4 2006 22:11:12 by Atmx2000