zhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 356 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 20 hours ago) and read 21545 times:
Is it just me, or for us looking at the sky will it be very hard to distinguish the types? I feel like the look very similar, except that the 787 has a nicer nose, and obviously is smaller.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11715 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (6 months 19 hours ago) and read 21271 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 4): The nose section/cockpit windows on the A350 look very different. The nose is pointier and it has much smaller spaceshuttle-style windows.
Correct. Additionally the B-787 wing has a very different shape, esspecially inboard of the engines.
I saw the B787-8 yesterday from very close by when the bus at FRA luckily drove very slowly passed the B787 from Ethiopian Airlines. And I must say she looked very beautiful and impressive. More then I expected from seeing her in so many pictures and videos.
Hopefully I get the same opportunity with an A350 as well soon. . Her wings are even more promising to me. .
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11715 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (6 months 18 hours ago) and read 20898 times:
The engines and nacells are very different between the two. For those that cannot tell one engine from another, just look for the chevrons. Only the B-787 (of the two) will have them. The chevrons seem to becoming one of the features to identify a Boeing airplane in the future. The B-787, B-747-8, and B-737MAX all have them. My guess is the B-777X will have them, too.
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (6 months 16 hours ago) and read 20302 times:
It's not like the 787 and A350 are the ONLY similar-looking models out there. ALL planes nowadays, pretty much, look the same. Sad but true.
When I was a kid, even from ten miles out you could pick out a DC-9 from a 727, an L-1011 from a DC-10, a 707 from a DC-8... Planes had very distinctive profiles. I feel bad for today's plane spotters. Airports are SO bloody boring compared to how they used to be.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3683 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 months 12 hours ago) and read 19658 times:
Quoting aviateur (Reply 9): When I was a kid, even from ten miles out you could pick out a DC-9 from a 727, an L-1011 from a DC-10, a 707 from a DC-8... Planes had very distinctive profiles. I feel bad for today's plane spotters. Airports are SO bloody boring compared to how they used to be.
Agree 100%
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 10):
Not quite. 737s and A320s still look quite different.
Not really, especially when you compare (as aviateur did above) to what used to be in the skies in the 1970s.
Not quite. 737s and A320s still look quite different.
Not really, especially when you compare (as aviateur did above) to what used to be in the skies in the 1970s.
I agree with Antoniemey. If you get past the fact that they both have one engine hanging under each wing, the two appear very different considering their similar sizes and the fact that they are used inter-changeably on/compete for the same routes. The planes' nose profiles, tail shape, engine shape, height off the ground, wing-tips, and even the shapes of the two fuselages are distinctly different, and allow them to be identified as one or the other from a very far distance in much the same way that you could distinguish past planes.
N243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1494 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (6 months 11 hours ago) and read 19150 times:
Quoting aviateur (Reply 9): I feel bad for today's plane spotters. Airports are SO bloody boring compared to how they used to be.
This is what I tell to the MD-80 haters I meet every so often in the industry. Just wait 5-10 years when everything out there looks the same, and the Mad Dog will be sorely missed.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 15, posted (6 months 10 hours ago) and read 18495 times:
Quoting aviateur (Reply 9): When I was a kid, even from ten miles out you could pick out a DC-9 from a 727, an L-1011 from a DC-10, a 707 from a DC-8... Planes had very distinctive profiles. I feel bad for today's plane spotters. Airports are SO bloody boring compared to how they used to be.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26726 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (6 months 3 hours ago) and read 13423 times:
Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 16): I guess we'll have to wait and see it in real life, but based on the drawings, the A350 looks really ugly.
I wouldn't call it ugly, but I do think the 787 is a better-looking plane. Then again, I find most of Boeing's line-up better-looking than Airbus' (though I would say my least-favorite on an aesthetic basis is the 757-300 and the best is the A340-500).
AirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2091 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (6 months 3 hours ago) and read 13217 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): I wouldn't call it ugly, but I do think the 787 is a better-looking plane. Then again, I find most of Boeing's line-up better-looking than Airbus' (though I would say my least-favorite on an aesthetic basis is the 757-300 and the best is the A340-500
I agree. The A340-500 and -600 are good looking.. But almost all Boeing models are good looking as well.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 19, posted (6 months 3 hours ago) and read 12766 times:
Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 16): I guess we'll have to wait and see it in real life, but based on the drawings, the A350 looks really ugly.
I like it, although I think it looked a lot nicer when it had its own nose as opposed to the grafted A380 nose. I certainly understand why they went the latter route though.
For me, when beauty is the only factor to be considered, the A340-500 easily beats all others out there. Even the ones which are not in service yet. But looks alone are not enough to be successful. .
frmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1501 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (6 months 1 hour ago) and read 10771 times:
Is this a fair comparison, friends describe the various birds on our feeders as 'little brown birds'? If you really know what you are looking for the differences are obvious. But I would not say 'very' obvious. Likewise two engine planes are not 'very' different. On the ground you can compare the size, close up you can see the engine chevrons, a little further away the various kinds of wing tips. The other things are pretty subtle to the uninitiated.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
LostSound From Canada, joined May 2012, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 months ago) and read 10120 times:
Both the A350 and 787 look sexy to me. But for me most of Airbus's line up looks a bit better style wise.
All subjective though. Both companies make brilliant products.
jollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 180 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 months ago) and read 9862 times:
Alas, no trouble telling them apart at first glance.
Despite Airbus being "home team" for me, I'm afraid there's no doubt the 350 turned out much less sexy that the 787. On paper and before final design freeze it looked like there might have been some competition, but alas, "in the flesh" the 350 will have to compete on realiability and performance alone: the beauty contest is lost by a good margin.
I have to say, the chances for the 350 were not good to start with: the 787 turned out to be amazingly good looking, a solid contender to the crown of best looking airliner ever (still held by the A340-500 IMO).
25 N766UA: I don't know why airbus insists on such tiny cockpit windows, it doesn't help the proportions of their jets. I spent a winter working at UPS a few ye
26 3MilesToWRO: Well, we've had SP-LRA 787 doing touch-and-gos at Wrocław airport this weekend and, how to say it... Nothing special. Looks like any other Boeing, ac
27 dfambro: Ah, taste is such a fickle thing. What I love about the 787 is those "thin, pointy, bending wings", except I'd call them those "long, slender, gracef
28 brilondon: And real. While I know the A350 will eventually be built, it has not become real yet and I will not concede that the design is finalized.
29 Stitch: It had better be for the A350-900, at least, considering they're starting assembly of test frames.
30 aerokiwi: Aren't they the same as the A380? From all the renderings from Airbus, the windows have been framed in black to create the illusion of one continuous
31 rcair1: For me - it is not that the design is finalized - it is that I've seen it in flight. That's what I need to see before I can judge one versus the othe
32 Viscount724: Don't know why the A350 (and A380) need 6 cockpit window panels while the 787 only requires 4? Seems like a useful maintenance saving to reduce the n
33 brilondon: Would the four windows that the 787 has be lighter in weight that the 6 on the A350? This was one of the reasons given the 737 now is being built wit
34 tdscanuck: It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of trades. The A350 will have comparable viewing area to the 787. The A350 is using considerably smaller #2
35 bikerthai: From a cost stand point however, 4 windows may be less complex to design and cheaper to install . . . while you have a more expensive windows, you ha
36 CM: The real problem with 4 larger windows versus 6 smaller ones (particlularly 6 smaller ones from a cab that is already certified) is the difference in
37 Ruscoe: In the air I think it will be the 787 wing will be easy to spot. I am yet to see a completed 350 wing, but from what I have seen, the shape of the 350
38 astuteman: ???? Most of the first flying A350 has been constructed and it is in assembly. There have been a plethora of images posted on this forum What's puzzl
39 Stitch: I don't find the A380-800 to be an attractive plane except when viewed head-on, and then only because of those magnificent wings. Then again, I only f
40 dfambro: Sure, the 787 and 330 wings would probably look really similar ... if you cut off the last 20 feet with a chainsaw. But taking the comparison out to
41 tdscanuck: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, obviously, but for me it's a proportion problem. For the same reason that the 787-8 fuselage looks kind of stub
42 aviateur: Best looking airliner EVER? The A350-500? No offense, but are you out of your bird? (How old are you?) The A340 (any variant) is a good-looking plane
43 tdscanuck: Err, no. The 747 may be a far more elegant piece of *design* (beauty is in the eye of the beholder though) but it's *far* from being a more elegant p
44 astuteman: I'm sorry, Tom. For me watching that video of the Malaysian A380 doing its stuff at farnborough, "graceful" is the only adjective I can find that fit
45 flipdewaf: I think it does look ugly close to the ground but when its flying it looks like it belongs in the air. I think the A330 looks even more graceful beca
46 na: Both are of the most generic configuration imaginable, twinjets with underwing engines. Of cause that makes them very similar and boring at first. The
47 brilondon: Until I see it in its final build, and I am not alone here, the A350 is just be a model until it actually is in the air, a really big model but a mod
48 bikerthai: Who said a big gal can't be graceful? Those in the States have seen it before. Look up Dancing with the Stars Kirstie Alley. There is enough diversit
49 astuteman: FWIW I admit it looks a bit frumpy on the ground. But when she's "dancing" ... Admittedly I have a problem thinking any aircraft doesn't look good -
50 babybus: Ermmm....The 787 and the 777 look the same from below, if you hadn't noticed. Like a lot of middle market cars, aircraft in the same category all now
51 aircanada014: this topic has been discussed before when Airbus decide to redesign their A350. originally Airbus was going to keep the A330 stylish look the same bu
52 brilondon: How do I find out how big the A350 is? I have been asking about a side by side comparison and no one has given me the comparison.[Edited 2012-11-28 1
53 brilondon: Just saying that I don't think anything of "building test frames" as being in production. What if the tests destroy the aircraft and it doesn't fly?
54 Stitch: There is a side-by-side image of the various planes in the opening post of this thread - Thai Airways: A350 Preferred For Cargo Over 787 (by keesje A
55 bikerthai: If these "test frames" are for certification purposes then they have to be per production standards on a certified production line. Even if they dest
56 aviateur: Okay, it's a bit semantic, but I see what you mean, design -v- engineering. As for beauty and the eye of the beholder, we take this for granted. To a
57 Antoniemey: It's all in the angle you look at it from. If you're looking at a 3/4 view of the front of the A-380, she looks like a fat bald man. Most other angle
58 tdscanuck: There is no requirement that test frames be built to production standard or on a certified production line...the production certificate is usually gr
59 bikerthai: My mistake on the certified production line. However, when I mean production standard, I meant that the same procedures and processes used on the pro
60 sweair: How far from the 787 is the A350 in the electrical architecture? It is still bleed air but do they take a note out of the 787 somewhere else?
61 zeke: You should expect to see similar technology. The suppliers serve all manufactures, as technology advances, it ends up on new models. A lot of A380 te
62 Aquila3: Yes, it goes on both sides when the innovations are really important. At the end the Dreamliner is a FBW bird basically like a (gosh!) 320 (most prob
63 CM: This is only true to a degree. Many A380 technologies, particularly in the airframe, wing design and control laws (all developed internal to Airbus)
64 tdscanuck: Although that's generally true of the construction of the parts of the test frame common to the production frame, there's a lot of stuff on the test
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 356 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1557 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 959 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2091 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 180 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
