Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 And A350 Look The Same?  
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 23695 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23636 times:

I guess the wings will bend like the 787s?

User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23615 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 1):

I thought the a350 is going to have winglets like the a330s and a340s?


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23586 times:

The nose section/cockpit windows on the A350 look very different. The nose is pointier and it has much smaller spaceshuttle-style windows.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23421 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bo...g_787-8_Dreamliner_N787FT_KBFI.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dreamliner_render_787-9.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A350XWB-941_ETIHAD_AIRWAYS.png

As you can see, the B-787-8 has a very different nose and tail (beyond the vertical fin) than the B-767-300ER, but are about the same size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_787_size_comparison.svg

The A-350 has the A-380 style nose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A350xwb_nose_2009B.png


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30565 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23380 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At cruising altitude they'll probably look similar, but on departure / approach or on the tarmac they should easily be differentiated.

User currently offlinetonytifao From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 1014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23270 times:

787 to me seems way sexier  

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4704 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23238 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tonytifao (Reply 8):
787 to me seems way sexier

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.  .

[Edited 2012-11-25 14:56:47]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23048 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.

User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 22452 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
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 22267 times:

Quoting aviateur (Reply 9):
ALL planes nowadays, pretty much, look the same. Sad but true.

Not quite. 737s and A320s still look quite different.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinesonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21899 times:

"As you can see, the B-787-8 has a very different nose and tail (beyond the vertical fin) than the B-767-300ER, but are about the same size."

You can see realy see how much different the nose in the link below. Also the 787 fusalage is slightly larger.


http://www.google.com/search?q=787+a...t=safari#biv=i|4;d|lLV0sBxTn7Vi4M:


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4414 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21808 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.


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21632 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 12):
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.

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.


User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1624 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 21300 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.



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

If you can't spot an A380 from all the rest.....  

Rgds


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2373 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15998 times:

I guess we'll have to wait and see it in real life, but based on the drawings, the A350 looks really ugly.

The 787 is much better looking, but even on that plane, i am not too fond of the nose section.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30565 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15573 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2373 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15367 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.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14916 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.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4704 posts, RR: 38
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14662 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 18):
The A340-500 and -600 are good looking

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.  .


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14629 times:

The 350's windows will also be a bit shorter and a tad wider if I recall - I'm not sure if you'll be able to tell from a distance.

What struck me about the 787 is how smooth it's fuselage is - very few rivets and such. It will be interesting to see how the 350 compares.

I do like the 350 cockpit windows. Very mod!


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12921 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)
User currently offlineLostSound From Canada, joined May 2012, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12270 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.



"Our hands are full, our lives are not"
User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12012 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).


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 24
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9270 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 24):
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).

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 years back and the A300 cockpit windows looked like little portholes compared to the 767 and especially the MD-11.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offline3MilesToWRO From Poland, joined Mar 2006, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9279 times:

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, actually. Nice view, I won't deny, but just this. And those thin, pointy, bending wings don't help when you see the planform.

User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8536 times:

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 26):
And those thin, pointy, bending wings don't help when you see the planform.

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, graceful and elegant wings"! To me they make pretty much every other previous commercial aircraft wing look plain and stubby.

From the look of images I've seen, the A350 wings have potential for similar grace. But, my appreciation for the 787 wing really grew after I saw them in flight from the inside, so it'll be a little while before I can do real comparison.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8280 times:

Quoting tonytifao (Reply 6):
787 to me seems way sexier  
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 10):
787 to me seems way sexier  

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.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30565 posts, RR: 84
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):
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.

It had better be for the A350-900, at least, considering they're starting assembly of test frames.


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8218 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 21):
I do like the 350 cockpit windows. Very mod!

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 cockpit window frame. It looks much better like this but whether airlines follow suit is another matter. I guess it's almost an acknowledgment from Airbus that the cockpit windows are a little, ahem, less than attractive.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1308 posts, RR: 52
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8123 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):
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.

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 other. Right now - the 787 hands down - but that is not fair yet cause it is not apples to apples.



rcair1
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24824 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8110 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 30):
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 21):
I do like the 350 cockpit windows. Very mod!

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 cockpit window frame. It looks much better like this but whether airlines follow suit is another matter. I guess it's almost an acknowledgment from Airbus that the cockpit windows are a little, ahem, less than attractive.

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 number of parts needed.

A350



787



User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8057 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
on'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 number of parts needed.

A350

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 without "eyebrows".



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7918 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
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 number of parts needed.

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 and #3 windows...the #2 window on the 787 is *enourmous*...the nose-on shots don't do it justice. The upside is that it's got fantastic side visiblity and no post at the pilot's shoulder...the downside is that the #2 window is incredibly heavy and requires two extremely strong people or a crane to change.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 33):
Would the four windows that the 787 has be lighter in weight that the 6 on the A350?

Given that CFRP/metal is generally stronger than glass in a structural application, the 6 windows are probably lighter. Window thickness goes up quickly with increasing area due to the pressure load.

Tom.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 7200 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 34):

Given that CFRP/metal is generally stronger than glass in a structural application, the 6 windows are probably lighter. Window thickness goes up quickly with increasing area due to the pressure load.

  

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 have fewer stringers, doublers and installation drawings to release and parts to assemble and install.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 7102 times:

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 development and certification costs. Certifying new windows is very difficult and adds a great deal of cost and risk to a program. Airbus made a conservative strategic and a business decision to go with the A380 cab design, even if it cost them a bit in terms of "beauty", which is very difficult to quantify and attach a value to.

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1542 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 7021 times:

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 wing does seem rather unremarkable.


Ruscoe


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 6969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):
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.

????

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

Quoting dfambro (Reply 27):
What I love about the 787 is those "thin, pointy, bending wings", except I'd call them those "long, slender, graceful and elegant wings"! To me they make pretty much every other previous commercial aircraft wing look plain and stubby.

What's puzzling about that is that they are almost exactly the same span, surface area and aspect ratio as the A330's wings......

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 30):
I guess it's almost an acknowledgment from Airbus that the cockpit windows are a little, ahem, less than attractive.

Dunno why. The A380 is absolutely gorgeous IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygfIN11QUHE

I know it's now convention to deride this beautiful plane for its looks, but I remain mystified as to why people still insist that this spectacular aircraft is ugly.
Each to their own I guess.

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30565 posts, RR: 84
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 6917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 find the 747 attractive in three-quarters view from the aft when rotating off the runway. *shrug*

As to the A330s and 787s wing - the A330's wings don't have that upward curve which, IMO, adds a large amount of grace to them.


User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 6871 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
Quoting dfambro (Reply 27):
What I love about the 787 is those "thin, pointy, bending wings", except I'd call them those "long, slender, graceful and elegant wings"! To me they make pretty much every other previous commercial aircraft wing look plain and stubby.

What's puzzling about that is that they are almost exactly the same span, surface area and aspect ratio as the A330's wings......

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 the tip, the impression is completely different to me.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 6656 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
I know it's now convention to deride this beautiful plane for its looks, but I remain mystified as to why people still insist that this spectacular aircraft is ugly.

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 stubby/fat (it's short relative to its diameter) the A380 is even worse. The nose, most of all, because what are actually fairly big windows are dwarfed by the *massive* forehead...it just doesn't look right. As an engineer, it's fine...as an aircraft aficionado, it just doesn't look graceful. It looks freaking big.

Tom.


User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 6612 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 24):
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).

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. The 787 also is a decent-looking plane (despite its too-small, fish-like tail). But neither hava quarter of the character or sexiness of SO MANY classic jetliners, from the VC-10 to the 727 to the 747 to -- do I even need to say it? -- the Concorde.

The 747 is a far more elegant piece of engineering than the 787. It's not even close.

Dude, not to sound like a snob, but you're out of your league on this one, I'm sorry.


- Patrick Smith



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 6540 times:

Quoting aviateur (Reply 42):
The 747 is a far more elegant piece of engineering than the 787. It's not even close.

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 piece of engineering. To repeat:

Quoting aviateur (Reply 42):
Dude, not to sound like a snob, but you're out of your league on this one, I'm sorry.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 6470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
As an engineer, it's fine...as an aircraft aficionado, it just doesn't look graceful. It looks freaking big.

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 fits. I can't see how it is anything other than that.

As I say. Each to their own

Rgds


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 6209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
I know it's now convention to deride this beautiful plane for its looks, but I remain mystified as to why people still insist that this spectacular aircraft is ugly.
Each to their own I guess.

I think it does look ugly close to the ground but when its flying it looks like it belongs in the air.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
What's puzzling about that is that they are almost exactly the same span, surface area and aspect ratio as the A330's wings......

I think the A330 looks even more graceful because of the slightly thinner fuselage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lowrM-780tg

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
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 stubby/fat (it's short relative to its diameter) the A380 is even worse.

I think the A380 and 787 both suffer from stumpy landing gear aswell, not nearly as athletic looking as the 757.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
The nose, most of all, because what are actually fairly big windows are dwarfed by the *massive* forehead...it just doesn't look right

All modern airliners seem to be coming out very "foreheady" though. I dont like it.

Fred


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10647 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 6114 times:

Both are of the most generic configuration imaginable, twinjets with underwing engines. Of cause that makes them very similar and boring at first.

The 787 though has a very beautiful nose section, while the A350 imho is downright ugly at the front. Its predecessors A340/330 have a much prettier cockpit area. Airbus made a big mistake here. The 787 has the most graceful wings aside the 747. Here the A350 will be pretty close though, but its winglets will make it distinctive. The A350 possesses the nicer, sleeker and more elegant tail section, although the falling roofline on both doesnt look good.

That said, in my eyes the 787 is the nicest looking twinjet so far, dont really know if the A350 will change that, as its nose is so ugly.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
????

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

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 model just the same.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
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 stubby/fat (it's short relative to its diameter) the A380 is even worse. The nose, most of all, because what are actually fairly big windows are dwarfed by the *massive* forehead...it just doesn't look right. As an engineer, it's fine...as an aircraft aficionado, it just doesn't look graceful. It looks freaking big.

This is exactly how I feel, well put.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5889 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 44):
For me watching that video of the Malaysian A380 doing its stuff at farnborough, "graceful" is the only adjective I can find that fits.

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 diversity in the aviation world so everyone can be right. 

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 48):
Who said a big gal can't be graceful?

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 - that's just me  
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 48):
Look up Dancing with the Stars Kirstie Alley

Kirstie Alley ?      
Rgds


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

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 look the same.


User currently offlineaircanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

Quoting zhiao (Thread starter):
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.

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 but customers wanted a whole new airplane, new technologies, new looks and new equipment so Airbus decided to draw a newer look that looks very identical to 787.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5513 times:

Quoting zhiao (Thread starter):
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.

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 10:58:10]


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5461 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):

It had better be for the A350-900, at least, considering they're starting assembly of test frames.

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? I will believe it when it is in the air.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30565 posts, RR: 84
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5399 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting brilondon (Reply 52):
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.

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 Aug 20 2010 in Civil Aviation) - ginned up by some website that is now defunct.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 53):
What if the tests destroy the aircraft and it doesn't fly?

I give Airbus enough credit as engineers that the bird will fly.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 53):
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?

If these "test frames" are for certification purposes then they have to be per production standards on a certified production line.

Even if they destroy the frame (as some test frames are not meant to fly) and the destruction is lower strength value than expected (as in the A380 wing ultimate test), there are procedures they can do to satisfy the regulatory agency to get the "production" frame to fly.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5018 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 43):
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 piece of engineering. To repeat:

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 point. Certain aesthetic standards are beyond the subjective. Arguing that the A340-500 is the best-looking jetliner in history is a * BIT * like saying that an American strip mall is a more beautiful structure than the Chrysler Building. (That's not doing enough credit to the A340, which is a good-looking plane, but you see my point.)


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4805 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
I know it's now convention to deride this beautiful plane for its looks, but I remain mystified as to why people still insist that this spectacular aircraft is ugly.
Each to their own I guess.

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 angles look great, though.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
The nose, most of all, because what are actually fairly big windows are dwarfed by the *massive* forehead...it just doesn't look right. As an engineer, it's fine...as an aircraft aficionado, it just doesn't look graceful. It looks freaking big.

  



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4384 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 55):
If these "test frames" are for certification purposes then they have to be per production standards on a certified production line.

There is no requirement that test frames be built to production standard or on a certified production line...the production certificate is usually granted considerably after the initial test articles are built.

The only requirement is that articles used for certification be representative of what will be certified...the OEM's and regulators get to yell at each other all the time about what's "representative."

Tom.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
There is no requirement that test frames be built to production standard or on a certified production line..

My mistake on the certified production line. However, when I mean production standard, I meant that the same procedures and processes used on the production frame must be used on the test frames including QA, Non-conformity etc . . . otherwise you would introduce so many variables into the test frame that the argument about what is "representative" would be even worse.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3999 times:

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?

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3955 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 60):

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 technology ended up on the 787.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 60):
How far from the 787 is the A350 in the electrical architecture

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 probably like a 380   ) on the electrical .



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3820 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 61):
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 technology ended up on the 787.

This is only true to a degree. Many A380 technologies, particularly in the airframe, wing design and control laws (all developed internal to Airbus) are proprietary to Airbus and not available to other OEMs. The same is true for Boeing. Also, in many cases suppliers are building to the OEM spec/design, as opposed to the OEM buying something "off the shelf" from the supplier. Many Boeing and Airbus technologies are being supplied by 3rd party suppliers, but that does not make the technologies available to competitors.

Bottom line: if one company had a some degree of advantage over the other in design capability or intellectual property, they would be able to distinguish their products by a corresponding degree over the competitor. The fact there is significant parity in the industry is more because the companies have similar capability than it is because they use the same suppliers.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 59):
However, when I mean production standard, I meant that the same procedures and processes used on the production frame must be used on the test frames including QA, Non-conformity etc . . .

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 frame that doesn't run through the same procedures/processes as the production frames. Between the built-in instrumentation (e.g. wire bundles and sensors buried in the wing), modifications for test purposes (e.g. extra connectors into the systems), and test parts (e.g. instrumented load pins), there is a whole other set of processes going on. Those are typically *also* certified process, but not the same as the ones used in production.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 59):
otherwise you would introduce so many variables into the test frame that the argument about what is "representative" would be even worse.

That's why it still has to be done to certified processes...this is a big part of why the OEM's are also certified as repair stations.

Quoting sweair (Reply 60):
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?

In terms of architecture, most of it is very similar. However, the 787 has an HVDC system that the A350 simply doesn't need because the 787 needs to shunt what would be bleed air power on the A350 through the electrical system on the 787. There is no real equivalent to that system on any other airliner right now.

Tom.


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...
What If 787 And A350 Kill The 777? (Part 1) posted Wed Feb 22 2012 03:01:54 by na
2 Holers, Boring And All Look The Same posted Sat Apr 20 2002 14:41:22 by Galaxy5
Marketing Gimmicks On The 787 And A350? posted Wed Apr 1 2009 11:43:00 by CEO@AFG
Doesn't The A350 Look The 787? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 01:06:57 by FL370
How Quiet Are The 787 And 747-8 From The Outside? posted Mon Jun 7 2010 22:19:50 by A380900
787 And A350 Final Prices posted Fri May 7 2010 21:31:09 by panais
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 (#2) posted Tue Dec 8 2009 22:33:47 by Diamond
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 posted Mon Dec 7 2009 19:45:42 by AeroPiggot
Cubs And Sox . . . On The Same Flight? posted Fri Mar 13 2009 09:11:53 by Allstarflyer
Airlines Operating A310 And 767 At The Same Time? posted Mon Sep 10 2007 17:01:51 by N14AZ