Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380's Style Nose For A350XWB Confirmed  
User currently offlineAclco From Italy, joined Jun 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15155 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..

Here's the article:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-a380-style-nose-for-a350-xwb.html

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15135 times:

that looks really strange to me, the nose gear looks too far up

User currently offlineSpeedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15088 times:

That is one ugly plane now!

User currently offline6YJJK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15088 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.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15074 times:

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?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineShamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15049 times:

I prefer the original XWB nose but it doesn't look that bad.



User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14989 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.  Sad 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.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3313 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14967 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'?
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14893 times:

"The change addresses concerns over possible corrosion risks between metallic frames and carbonfibre"

The Al-Li nose section makes perfect sense then...  sarcastic 

Very relieving to think that this probably ain't the last design iteration of the nose.  crossfingers   duck 


User currently offlineFAEDC3 From Ecuador, joined Jun 2007, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14765 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  Sad


User currently offlineJtdieffen From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14744 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?  Wink


Regards! JDief
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14727 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!  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14691 times:

Does this mean they're going to place the cockpit too low in proportion to the rest of the nose? I have the perfect name for it.

Harbour porpoisejet



[Edited 2007-09-21 22:04:03]

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 14585 times:

Well at least you wont be able to confuse it with a 787 anymore.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 14499 times:

this could help speeding up cockpit design, reducing costs..

cockpit commonality could be a XWB selling point for A380 operators..



User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 14411 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.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 14411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Alas, aerodynamics trump aesthetics once again.  Sad

User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 14395 times:

Daammn! Terrible news. This looks so horrible.  vomit   cry  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 ?  Angry 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.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 14374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 17):
How did it Boeing?

I 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.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14255 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 17):
How did it Boeing ?

I suppose Boeing spent the money for titanium framing. Airbus didn't say they couldn't do it...only that it was more expensive. dollarsign 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 45
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14141 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.

Regards,

Patrick



Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14044 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.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13839 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
Is this really the most aerodynamic approach for a smaller airframe?

Aerodynamics scales both up and down very well - one of the reasons you can wind tunnel test models.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 17):
I'am i right or i'am right, this ugly Al nose will add more maintenance work(corrosion) then a CFRP nose?

I personally do not think you are right.

Airbus already has significant CFRP structures in contact with Al-Li structures:

- A380 tail section
- A380 rear pressure bulkhead
- A380 center wing box
- A380 upper deck floor beams

I personally do not think maintenance of the nose section and cabin section join is going to be an issue at all.

But thats just my humble opinion.


User currently offlineUnited350 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13802 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).


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13697 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images 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
41 MD-90 : Transition training time is lessened.
42 Post contains images BlueSky1976 : What a dissappointment... Well... I guess that means sayonara to A350 as one of my favourite plane designs...
43 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links Caminito : Thank you, Moo. Understood. Essentially, the problem of the composite contacts with metal can be "solved", but for maintenance sake such contacts sho
55 PC12Fan : Reminds me of a DC-8 actually.
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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
73 RicciPettit : I personally love that new nose.
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 Post contains images 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
78 Post contains links and images WingedMigrator : No. The nose landing gear is mounted entirely outside the fuselage pressure vessel. View Large View MediumPhoto © Goldmann Air Spotters The land
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 Post contains images 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
83 Post contains images Caminito :
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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
92 Post contains images Hloutweg : Correct, and here's proof of that:
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...
A380 Lowerdeck Question For Cargospecialists posted Tue Sep 18 2007 15:10:01 by Schreiner
ILFC:customers Still Pushing For A350XWB Redesign posted Thu Jul 12 2007 10:31:04 by Flying-Tiger
GP7000 Could Become Genx Alternative For A350XWB posted Mon Jun 11 2007 10:07:49 by Keesje
Airbus Adopt VC10 Landing Gear Concept For A350XWB posted Mon May 28 2007 11:49:23 by Bells
Airbus' Cabin Vision For A350XWB posted Tue Apr 17 2007 13:55:09 by EI321
Should Airbus Put The A380 Style Interior On A330? posted Sun Apr 1 2007 15:15:03 by EI321
No GP7000 For A350XWB-1000 posted Thu Mar 8 2007 07:11:05 by PM
Three More A340 For Swiss Confirmed posted Mon Nov 13 2006 16:51:53 by Sr176
Four A380's In 2007 - For Who? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 18:55:07 by Clickhappy
A380 04 Ready For Test In AUH posted Thu Jul 20 2006 18:09:07 by JBOND