Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350/60/70  
User currently offlineSpectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1132 times:

I wasn't around when ever the A380 was launched, so I probably missed all the talk about the name, but would anyone kindly tell me what happened to A350, A360 and A370? Are these already designated to future aircraft projects? I have read quite a few articles and discussed iyt with some people and i have yet to find out a satisfactory reason.

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 1, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1095 times:

No one knows really what happened to these three desgnations. AFAIK, there are no other current projects at Airbus with the designations A350/A360/A370. Here is an explanation as to why the went for 380 (although I am not sure it holds that much water...):

350 - Not much a jump from previous technology (A340)

360 - Signifies a fulol circle, whereas the Super-Jumbo is something all-new, not a rehash

370 - 7 is an unlucky number in Chinese/Japanese languages (this doesnt address Boeing's lack of lack of sales for its 7x7 series)

Thus they chose 380, which has the following connotations:

8 is a lucky Asian number

80 is twice 40, A380 carries almost twice as much as A340

8 represents the double deck configuration.


Thats whats been written, anyway, but I doubt its validity...



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineJohnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

if you take a closer look at the recent airbus-family, all planes have been developed in a "family-like" order, every addition featured new technologies and advances, but it was still a "family". the a-380 doesn´t fit that "family" anymore, because it´s a totally different design and plane. so a lower designation wouldn´t have implied such an evolution.

daniel



If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
User currently offlineNightfly From Germany, joined Nov 2000, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1056 times:

VirginFlyer is exactly right. Airbus told official that this is the reason for the name A380.

Best regards,
nightfly


User currently offlineWishihadalife From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

Maybe Airbus is admitting that they expect to have the 350/360/370 actually flying before the 380 even gets off the ground.

Call me a skeptic, but thats just the way it is.


User currently offlineN-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1017 times:

Here's an interesting hypothesis for you that might've played into AB's decision...

Boeing's current highest-numbered airliner is the B777, and there's no B787 in sight. Could the "80" be to one-up the "77" in Boeing's jet?

Hmmmm...


User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1017 times:

The A380 will have basically the same cockpit. I'd say that's commonality

User currently offlineSpectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1003 times:

I was speaking with someone and we thought that perhaps they had a few other planes on the drawing board, like a A310 replacement, or even some sort of regional jet.

User currently offlineN-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 996 times:

If Airbus really wants an RJ, they could probably talk BAe into giving them Avro without even thinking about it. The RJX would be selling much more with the Airbus nameplate and, perhaps, cockpit commonality with the 320/330/340/380?

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...
A350/60/70 posted Sat Jan 6 2001 03:19:03 by Spectre242
Smoking Jets From The 60's - 70's posted Thu Dec 9 2004 17:05:08 by NSFGUY
Airline Nostalgia-Interior Decor Of 60's/70's posted Mon Jun 18 2001 03:42:17 by TeXstud323
A350/70 --Randy's "Leap Frog" Analogy posted Fri Jul 7 2006 20:40:09 by AeroPiggot
If QR Firms Up Their MOU For 60 A350 posted Wed Sep 21 2005 09:11:34 by Manni
Paris: Qatar Airways Order 60 A350 And 20 B777 posted Mon Jun 13 2005 13:11:55 by Sq212
Crash West Of Dulles - Late 60's/Early 70's posted Tue Feb 17 2004 20:57:03 by Contrails
Why Not The DC-9-60 Or The DC-9-70? posted Wed Jan 21 2004 03:53:06 by Thrust
Why No DC9-60 And DC-9-70? posted Tue Sep 26 2000 00:29:42 by Fjnovak1
Is The A350 A Modern Day Caravelle? posted Thu Dec 21 2006 04:07:14 by Stirling