Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350XWB - More Pictures.  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 21884 times:

Flight International has given us yet another look at what has been happening behind the scenes with the A350 program.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...350-aerodynamic-configuration.html







Airbus has released computer-aided design model images of the A350 that show its latest thinking on the fuselage and nose shape. The XWB's wing design has been refined and now incorporates a streamwise flap motion design to reduce drag and seven-spoiler configuration instead of the six previously planned.

The A350-800 has gained two additional LD-3 container positions in the rear cargo hold by rearranging the configuration and changing the cargo door latchings. This takes the rear hold's LD-3 capacity up from 12 to 14 containers.

As part of the operating weight changes introduced on all the A350 models to cope with the recently announced empty weight growth, Airbus is offering a 5t increase in the maximum zero fuel weight of the -1000 to boost structural payload capability by a similar amount.

Following a cost/weight/reliability/performance trade-off study, Airbus has switched from the original hydraulic thrust-reverser actuation specification to an electrical actuation, the method already in use on the A380.


Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 21812 times:

Exciting stuff! That nose is looking less shocking than the potential sketches a while back based directly on the A380 nose.

Would the increase in LD3 capacity from 12 to 14 be considered very significant or a deal-breaker for some airlines?


User currently offlineDecromin From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 21749 times:



Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 1):
Would the increase in LD3 capacity from 12 to 14 be considered very significant or a deal-breaker for some airlines?

Hmm - I'd be interested to hear about an airline that found having more cargo space available to them was a deal-breaker. I would have thought that every extra slot is potential profit, especially if it does not change the performance of the aircraft.


User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 21727 times:



Quoting Decromin (Reply 2):
Hmm - I'd be interested to hear about an airline that found having more cargo space available to them was a deal-breaker.

Apologies; I meant deal-maker


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 21502 times:



Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 3):
Quoting Decromin (Reply 2):
Hmm - I'd be interested to hear about an airline that found having more cargo space available to them was a deal-breaker.

Apologies; I meant deal-maker

Well probably whem you make one you break another, so that was a relatively easy "read through" and with a bit of humour added.  cheerful 

Looks nice, well as nice as images look at that stage. Details on the engines will be nice - need more than pics there!


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3374 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 21430 times:

I love the pointy nose and the big winglets Big grin

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8863 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 21333 times:



Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
Airbus is offering a 5t increase in the maximum zero fuel weight of the -1000 to boost structural payload capability by a similar amount

Interesting, wonder over what range that is available over, becoming more and more of a 346 replacement in every respect.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 21256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
Interesting, wonder over what range that is available over, becoming more and more of a 346 replacement in every respect.

Be interesting to know what the fuel burn difference is for a particular mission..  scratchchin 

Rgds


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 21000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 1):
Would the increase in LD3 capacity from 12 to 14 be considered very significant or a deal-breaker for some airlines?

It does narrow the gap a bit to the 787-9's 36 positions and now matches the 787-8's number of positions, so it cannot hurt.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1869 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20882 times:

I do not like the new winglets...

I guess we'll see the ready-to-be-frozen configuration at Farnbourough.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1590 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20798 times:

OMG this nose in the model is ugly as hell, what happened to this?  ill   irked 



Hope the model doesn't represent final design. At least they got some more LD-3 positions.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 9):
I do not like the new winglets...

Neither do I, but it might have been the only way to keep the span within 65m.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20573 times:

Great nose! Reminds me on the Coronado:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralf Manteufel



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Primamore



User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20457 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
OMG this nose in the model is ugly as hell, what happened to this?

I doubt that ever came from Airbus themselves...


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1590 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20407 times:



Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 13):
I doubt that ever came from Airbus themselves...


I really hope you are right. But the CAD image seems to be from Airbus.  Sad



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20315 times:

No surprises: the A350 will be yet another boring looking aircraft, based on the most generic configuration possible: The underwing-mounted Twinjet.
And the new pictures even show a more boring aircraft than the concepts like the Emirates layout-picture.
That happens when airlines are ONLY interested whats inside.

 yawn   yawn   yawn 


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8863 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20302 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
Be interesting to know what the fuel burn difference is for a particular mission

The time difference between the 744 and 773ER is a similar to that from the A346 to the A350XWB-1000 (both quad to twin). I wonder if the technology advances of the similar time frames results in similar improvements.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20153 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 15):
That happens when airlines are ONLY interested whats inside.

What else apart from the efficiency and what's inside should they be interested in?

Regards,
*D


User currently offlineDecromin From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20106 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 15):
No surprises: the A350 will be yet another boring looking aircraft, based on the most generic configuration possible: The underwing-mounted Twinjet.
And the new pictures even show a more boring aircraft than the concepts like the Emirates layout-picture.
That happens when airlines are ONLY interested whats inside.

Since all widebodies we've ever had fall into three catagories - underwing twins, underwing quads and trijets, looking for true uniqueness is always going to be difficult. Until we start seeing blended wing, or crazy lifting body designs, then those are the only three shapes you'll be likely to see in the foreseeable future.


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20037 times:

Might just be me...but the photos above look like the A350 is inching towards looking more and more like the 787. And due to the fact that I really like the 787's looks, I'm starting to like the newer look of the A350...go figure. So, it seems the challenge of telling a/c apart in the future will only get tougher...


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 19948 times:



Quoting Decromin (Reply 18):
Since all widebodies we've ever had fall into three catagories - underwing twins, underwing quads and trijets, looking for true uniqueness is always going to be difficult. Until we start seeing blended wing, or crazy lifting body designs, then those are the only three shapes you'll be likely to see in the foreseeable future.

BA experimented with underwing tri-jet configuration, but it led to a premature landing and a PR headache and thus was abandoned.  Wink


User currently offlineAf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 19823 times:

I thought the A350 was going to have a nose that looked like a large A330.


It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineAvalon2862 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 19425 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
OMG this nose in the model is ugly as hell, what happened to this?

Hope the model doesn't represent final design. At least they got some more LD-3 positions.

I could live with THIS design.. but the one with the test models is just plain FUGLY!!!


User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 19441 times:



Quoting Af773atmsp (Reply 21):
I thought the A350 was going to have a nose that looked like a large A330.

Initially, yes, however this changed to emulating the A380:



The Emirates renders show different but I wouldn't trust them. This latest rendition seems to take the A380 shape but improve it a little so it doesn't look quite as ugly as above!


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 19116 times:

You can see it is a bit flattened on the upper fuselage. An egg up side down..

25 ZSOFN : Just to clarify my own statement; I was referring to the Emirates render, not the latest CAD drawings.
26 ZRH : So what! Airlines are of course ONLY interested in economics and performance of an aircraft. The looks is not a criteria at all. It is only important
27 EA772LR : I think Airbus is wise to increase the MZFW on the 350-10 as much as they have. this allow more cargo potential, making the case for the 350-10 even s
28 Ikramerica : Brings it in line with the 787. Good thing. Well, the rise in OEW by 5t is no surprise to me, as I never thought Airbus would build a plane of that s
29 DL767captain : Gosh i hate this plane even more now! The plane already seemed strange looking to me before they changed the nose, now with it's pointy nose and weird
30 Ikramerica : I think it looks more distinctive now. And I like the trimmed down wingbox. Airbus aircraft tend to have bulky wing boxes, but this plane is sleeker
31 WingedMigrator : No such rise was reported. The article stated: MZFW = OEW + max payload. If MZFW and max payload increase by a similar amount, OEW must stay the same
32 Ikramerica : Can you give your best estimate for the current state of: OEW MZFW MTOW Structural Payload for the A350-1000. I can't reconcile that the A359 is 2t h
33 Rj111 : Rear mounted Twins? Rear mounted Trijets? Rear mounted Quads?
34 A342 :
35 RJ111 : *crawls back into his box*
36 Post contains images Keesje : The flat screens come in handy during those long flights. Only question where to insert the DVD..
37 EA772LR : Yeah really I thought that Airbus was going to be going to the 380 flight deck, as opposed to these much larger but fewer flat screens...??
38 Astuteman : As far as I can interpret, the A350-1000 has added 2 tonnes to its OEW also, which Airbus are compensating for by increasing OEW by 3 tonnes (simplis
39 Ikramerica : But you need 1t more of fuel? I think we need to start a thread: "Best estimate of A350X weights as they stand today" Attract some people who can sor
40 Post contains images Keesje : Ikra, not sure if it still accurate, about 1.5 years old..
41 EPA001 : These questions are very interesting indeed. I wonder if Airbus will release more details at Farnborough. And if they do so, of which version they wi
42 Ikramerica : Yeah, but I think they may be working on that, because if you go the Airbus site, that line, which used to be populated with your figure, is now empt
43 EA772LR : Excellent points Ikramerica, (by the way, I like the quote about the Wookie ) I think without major upgrades (748 style upgrades) to the 77W, it will
44 Thebry : LMAO!!
45 EPA001 : I think your assumptions are highly likely to happen. But, you never know. Maybe we will be surprised by one or the other parties involved in the sev
46 Ikramerica : I think Airbus is going to have to cave on this one. GE holds the cards here, as they have little incentive to do what Airbus is asking: design a new
47 HA_DC9 : Looking at that first CG image, It looks pretty good. I actually find the nose section more appealing than the 787's nose. I can grow to like this bir
48 PM : It never flew but ... aaaah, the BAC 3-11! This plane just looks better and better. It may not end up being a "777-killer" in economics but it sure a
49 Post contains images Keesje : I think if GE invests in doing a radical & expensive upgrade to the GE90 (which seems neccesary, the new Tent 900's prove pretty good) they will try
50 Flymad : Yeah, unfortunately it's only us crazy A-Netters who care what an a/c looks like. The airlines couldn't care a less, as long as it does what it is su
51 Rheinwaldner : A mindful observation! Airbus seems to reduce the unusable volume that would be caused by an exact circular cross section. The fuselage roof has quit
52 NA : That THIS is replacing the great A340s gives me pains. The skies will be boring when all those 787s and A350s are flying. The only good thing is that
53 PlaneHunter : Ok, and which of these managers has chosen a certain type over another just because it looks better in his/her opinion? Even if an airline manager lo
54 DocLightning : It's an interesting issue. A circular cross-section makes design and production easier, especially given the CFRP construction method of the 787. It
55 Rheinwaldner : The first AND the last from my viewpoint!
56 Ikramerica : They might, rabbit, they might. Especially if the efficiency gains lowers the MTOW of the 777 (due to less fuel required), which would lower the max
57 WingedMigrator : My estimates in light of all the recent changes: Max ramp weight 299.5 t MTOW 298 t MLW 227.5 t MZFW 213.5 t OEW 145 t Max payload 68.5 t I tend to t
58 SeaBosDca : I don't even want to think about the litigation/settlement discussions that would follow from such an offer... Seriously impressive if they do make i
59 Flyglobal : The engine solution I dream from is an A350-1000 powered with 4 P&W GTF's called A360. Other solution (not a dream): remembering the 3 howler concept
60 Post contains images Keesje : I don't think so.
61 HAL : As a pilot for Hawaiian - I'm practically drooling at the prospect of flying one of these in a few years. It's going to be fun! HAL
62 Areopagus : B-307, B-29, and A300 come to mind.
63 Scbriml : If the A300 cross-section is circular, then presumably the A310, A330 and A340 are likewise?
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...
More A380 Pictures posted Mon Dec 20 2004 19:22:37 by Sjoerd
More Fun With Pictures! posted Mon May 3 2004 00:57:00 by As739x
AA Wants More EZE Frequencies Too posted Wed Jun 11 2008 19:50:45 by MasseyBrown
AF : More Space In Tempo Challenge posted Wed Jun 11 2008 04:00:51 by SSCAF001
More Midwest WX 6/8.... posted Sun Jun 8 2008 16:55:36 by Bcoz
Any Pictures Of SQ At Moscow On The IAH Route? posted Sat Jun 7 2008 10:57:55 by BP1
More Cheap Journalism (alaska 261) posted Fri Jun 6 2008 07:18:00 by Rolfen
A350XWB Will Be On Time posted Thu Jun 5 2008 23:43:17 by Scipio
JetBlue- More E-mail Options To In-flight Wi-Fi posted Thu Jun 5 2008 11:06:27 by Werdywerd
HA Acquires 4 More 717s posted Wed Jun 4 2008 18:10:38 by LAXintl