Aclco From Italy, joined Jun 2006, 26 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 14006 times:
Airbus confirms on Flight global the switch to A380's style nose for A350XWB and other design specs like AlLi nose section, A380 nose landing gear bay, six windows cockpit glazing, metallic frame crossbeams and composite main frame.
Aircraft concept will be frozen in October 2008, I think there's a lot of room for other significant changes looking to what happened in the recent past..
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13986 times:
that looks really strange to me, the nose gear looks too far up
6YJJK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13939 times:
"Concept freeze" - I take it that's not the same as "design freeze"?
Without wanting to open up a whole can of of worms, and ignoring all the previous iterations... does it usually take over a year to nail down the basic concept? Not trying to troll here - just looking for a general indication of how long it usually takes.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 70 Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13840 times:
Quoting Aclco (Thread starter): Airbus confirms on Flight global the switch to A380's style nose for A350XWB and other design specs like AlLi nose section, A380 nose landing gear bay, six windows cockpit glazing, metallic frame crossbeams and composite main frame.
What a disappointment. I was hoping tha Airbus would have managed to come up with something better.
Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 5): I prefer the original XWB nose but it doesn't look that bad.
That photo actually does not look that bad. Hopefully Airbus will tweak it up a little.
Legoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3301 posts, RR: 44 Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13818 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 6): That photo actually does not look that bad. Hopefully Airbus will tweak it up a little.
I believe the drawing in the article is just flightglobal's own conception drawing, and not from Airbus itself, so I would not expect it to look that bad.
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
FAEDC3 From Ecuador, joined Jun 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13616 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 4): So Airbus has taken A350 XWB's design cues from an aircraft that looks like it has an extra 21st chromosome?
Is this really the most aerodynamic approach for a smaller airframe?
The article says that they dropped the original concept nose for this one as it performs better aerodynamically. I would think that Airbus´ engineers had chosen performance and discarded looks... I don´t love it either, but well, I still have the hope that the final design differs in some way from the Flightglobal´s concept drawing
Jtdieffen From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13595 times:
Does this mean that Boeing supporters get to make jokes at Airbus's expense now regarding the dropping of the sleek look in favor of more traditional shapings, like many A supporters still do regarding the 787s transition from shark to (mostly) regular old jetliner?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21026 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13578 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 8): The Al-Li nose section makes perfect sense then...
So the cockpit might rust off and fall off during flight. So what? It won't be a valid concern until Dan Rather finds out about it!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13436 times:
Well at least you wont be able to confuse it with a 787 anymore.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21026 posts, RR: 60 Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13262 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): this could help speeding up cockpit design, reducing costs..
cockpit commonality could be a XWB selling point for A380 operators..
Or, it might be a selling point for A350 operators to buy that A380 in the future.
The 767 and 777 shared the same nose section to speed up cockpit design and reduce costs. It's been done before.
I'm glad to see Airbus doing what is right for them, rather than just copying the 787 in every way, which it looked like they were doing. Boeing went to 4 windows instead of six, and Airbus copied, but I'm not convinced there is any great reason to only have 4 windows, and always wondered why Airbus just decided "me too" on that one. Not to mention the shape of the nose, which was a stylistic choice by Boeing that they had to "make work" in the wind tunnel. Why copy that?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26688 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13262 times:
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13246 times:
Daammn! Terrible news. This looks so horrible. What a dissapointment. The other nose was so beatiful.
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 8): Very relieving to think that this probably ain't the last design iteration of the nose.
I hope you are right.
Quote:
He adds that strength requirements for birdstrike protection were partly behind the decision to adopt a metallic nose structure. "If we went for a composite structure we'd have to reinforce the area above the cockpit with titanium which is expensive,
So? How did it Boeing ? I'am i right or i'am right, this ugly Al nose will add more maintenance work(corrosion) then a CFRP nose?
Airbus is still not back, they are to conservative to less innovative, then they were 20 years ago.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26688 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13225 times:
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13106 times:
Glidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 50 Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12992 times:
What a shame to see an AC enter service in 2013, which has a nose like AC's had already 50 years ago!
I really hope AIRBUS comes up with a good compromise between something more modern and good aerodynamic figures at the end.
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12895 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): am guessing additional CFRP layers, as was done with the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer when the initial design failed a bird-strike test.
Well thanks interesting, we might say that to Airbus this wouldn't be so expensive. It really seems they don't know that. I admire the innovation Boeing is showing with the 787.
I highly doubt now the A350 will ever be in the same ligue in terms of maintenace cost compared to the 787.
United350 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 4 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12653 times:
Damn...I was really an A350 fan (hence the user name).
On the other hand, if they can give a similar nose to the NSR (if this nose can be modified for a narrowbody) it'll give them complete commonality from the bottom up (even more than they have now).
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12548 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 22): Aerodynamics scales both up and down very well - one of the reasons you can wind tunnel test models.
Aerodynamics don't scale well. You have to keep the Reynold's number and Mach numbers the same for dimensional similarity.
25 Caminito: I must say in advance that the smallest of the concerns regarding the A350 progress should refer to its looks! The main question to be addressed is: h
26 Vega9000: This is the price of efficiency? One ugly plane after another? If spotters were considered weird people because they love to take pictures of beautifu
27 Moo: Apologies then. No, the nose section was never firmly declared to be composite. Titanium is both expensive to buy and expensive to work with, if you
28 TeamAmerica: My understanding is that the metal crossbeams are used as part of the electrical system ground (earth). Changing those to composites would complicate
29 Caminito: Thanks for your comprehensive comments. Is this now firm and definitive? I assume (.correct me if necessary) that Boeing had to solve the same problem
30 Moo: Maybe. Boeing has hedging on titanium prices and longterm deals with significant suppliers to maintain low pricing for themselves. The problem has be
31 DL767captain: any good photo shop people out there that can put this nose on a full picture?
32 797: UGLY! The only reason this A350 was perhaps sexier than the 787 was because of its incredible nose design... Now it's just a fake copy of the dreamlin
33 Tdscanuck: "Concept freeze", I would suspect, is freezing the gross aircraft configuration (length, width, capacity, range, etc.). Design freeze is when you hav
34 Kaneporta1: The image from FI does the A350 no justice, personally, I think the new nose looks a lot better.
35 ORDFan: I think the cockpit windows on the A380 look kind of small; but maybe that's just because the plane is so big? Does anyone know what the visibility is
36 Glacote: Could you please elaborate on that? What happens to each if I double all dimensions? Thank you...
37 Ikramerica: That's because the instruments are more important than the view...
38 Caminito: Moo: I do not understand to what you refer saying that the problem has been solved repeatedly. The corrosion issue is only partially solved! Possibly
39 AirRyan: The A380's nose is the ugliest thing on the aircraft and so to take that ugly grille from it and put it on the A350XWB in what was otherwise a sleek d
40 Tdscanuck: If you double the dimensions (and keep everything else the same) you double the Reynolds number and keep the same Mach number. Reynolds number scales
42 BlueSky1976: What a dissappointment... Well... I guess that means sayonara to A350 as one of my favourite plane designs...
43 HB88: The view from the 747 flight deck has always struck me as quite restricted. I've also thought the actual physical space of the 74 cockpit is really q
44 Areopagus: What is the difference between those "crossbeams" and stringers?
45 MBJ2000: Me too. The old nose while nice was too much futuristic space ship style. The new nose reminds me a little bit of the mad dogs and this gives me the
46 Columba: No please don´t. The A350 was a very good looking design until now
47 Rheinbote: The way the 'cross-beams' are depicted in the FLIGHT drawing, they would have to be called 'stringers' more properly. But Al-Li stringers on a CFRP sk
48 777236ER: If you double all the dimensions the Reynolds number doubles. The Reynolds number is the ratio of the inertial forces to the viscous forces, so with
49 Trijetman: What is keeping Airbus form using curved cockpit windows? Why would a rounded nose with rectangular flat areas be more aerodynamically efficient than
50 Moo: While there is metal involved in the construction of an aircraft, there will be corrosion, and there will be maintenance schedules to deal with that
51 ANITIX87: You mean the 787's nose? In all seriousness, this looks a little odd, but as some said, it is a drawing by flight global, and not by Airbus. I'd expe
52 Tdscanuck: None, as far as I can tell. There's no technical reason they can't, so I would assume they figured out that the increased cost of curved windows didn
53 EBJ1248650: Looks better than the first design, IMHO.
54 Caminito: Thank you, Moo. Understood. Essentially, the problem of the composite contacts with metal can be "solved", but for maintenance sake such contacts sho
57 Gunsontheroof: Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad! That's really a shame--the latest concept drawings (the "less A330, more 787" ones) were looking pretty good. I suppose we'll have
58 Caminito: Sorry ! Thrust, no subconscious reasons !!
59 Chris133: The plane is not even born yet and already looking for a nose job.
60 Rampart: As did the 757 and 767, I believe, accounting for the 757s distinctive nose, different from the 707 through 737. I recall reading that somewhere -Ram
61 XT6Wagon: So wait, The previous 4 window A350 nose was to offer significant drag reduction... and suddenly the A380 6 window nose offered even more? sorry Airbu
62 TeamAmerica: You're thinking of cockpit commonality. The 757 section 41 is not shared with any other aircraft.
63 Rampart: This is going to bug me now that I can't find a source. If "section 41" identifies the entire nose section, I agree with the difference between 757 a
64 474218: The drawing in the FlightGlobal article points to a stringer and calls it a crossbeam? I have never heard stringers called crossbeams, I would think
65 Tdscanuck: There was an accommodation...the 757 has to have virtually identical field of view to the 767 in order to maintain the common type rating. That's why
66 777236ER: The 4-window cockpit offered drag reduction? Who said that?
67 Rheinbote: At first glance the FLIGHT drawing suggests that the artist might have meant 'stringers' when he depicted what he called 'crossbeams' - but Al-Li str
68 Rampart: Yes, that's what I was getting at, thanks. Just wish I could remember where I read it, outside of here. -Rampart
69 NA: Not good. They take the ugliest part of the A380 and stick it on the bestseller-hopefully-to-be A350. The Airbus designers should fight for a better
70 Caminito: If this is so, also the reporter himself, Max Kingsley-Jones must have misunderstood Airbus' McConnell, as the article states: Could you also elabora
71 WingedMigrator: Is it? Here's a cross section of the A380 nose... looks pretty similar to me (minus a front bulkhead on the gear bay, which is perhaps what you're re
72 Teme82: I do hope they don't copy it 1:1 copy of A380 nose. Like that bump that makes it look bad. :P
74 Rheinbote: The A380 nose landing gear bay has a pressure bulkhead only to the rear and above. Edit: Just checked the A380 technical press briefing: The term 'cr
75 Clipper136: The 757 was to have the same cockpit as the 727....all early drawings of the concept showed a 727 style nose and a t-tail . The 767 cockpit was added
76 474218: Has to have more pressure bulkheads than rear and top? How about the sides and front they also have to be a pressure bulkhead or the fuselage would n
77 BlueSkys: Wow, i did not think anyone can call that plane good looking... SOMEONE BEAT THAT THING WITH AN UGLY STICK!!! It looks like an anorexic 380... I real
79 747400sp: Too bad. It was a good looking plane with it past nose design. Let's just hope it not ulgy.
80 Victor009: I just cannot understand why people are behind the looks of plane (its nose, tail, blended winglets etc etc or whatever). The main thing to see is the
81 Pellegrine: I Agree, those buying it aren't too concerned about such minutiae like the profile of the nose. I think it looks sort of Space Shuttle-esque.
82 Mir: Good thing you're not running an airline then, since favoring aesthetics to economics would lead to ruin pretty damn quick. Let's wait until some pic
84 Ikramerica: me too. cross beams obviously meant the beams that create the main deck floor. What's interesting is the 777 has composite cross beams and metal fuse
85 Hloutweg: I add this graphic to the thread to illustrate how is that they have used, proposed to use, and will probably use in their aircraft. The profile draw
86 Keesje: Thnx for the week end work, cool graphics they don´t have to be 100% accurate - confirmed to give the picture. I wonder how they are going to fix th
87 NA: I disagree. Can´t remember that the 747 was said to be ugly at first. I liked it from the very beginning. As the Beluga. It was, is and will remain
88 Revelation: While I don't particularly like the various looks/livery threads, I do realize that in life we have both engineers and artists, and everything in bet
89 Columba: Any idea when we will see the first pictures from Airbus ? Might be interesting to see the aircraft as the whole so you can see the proportions and th
90 TP313: I think the Convair 880/990 nose shape is a closer match
91 Victor009: Rather than all of us hitting our heads and some arguing on some non-sense ponits, lets just wait for Airbus to come up with some pictures and drawing
Sponsor Message: 
From Italy, joined Jun 2006, 26 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 678 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6099 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, 
I was hoping tha Airbus would have managed to come up with something better.
From Germany, joined May 2006, 1956 posts, 
From Ecuador, joined Jun 2007, 145 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, 
What a dissapointment. The other nose was so beatiful.
I'am i right or i'am right, this ugly Al nose will add more maintenance work(corrosion) then a CFRP nose?
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
