Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
First Flying A350 Prototype Rolls Out  
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45502 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I guess many of you have seen it already:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...CFGFG%7Ctwitterfeed%7CFlightglobal

Pictures of the first A350.

What do you guys think? Like? Dislike?

Thanks.

wilco737
  


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
176 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1730 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45524 times:

WOWWWWWWW

Times flies so fast... when is first flight schedule??

It looks awesome and weird at the same time.... because the parts missing and the paint but it will be an awesome plane...

i don´t know why but i though she´s going to get the same landing gear than a B777 but maybe that´s only for the -1000 version.


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45454 times:

I love it.
Thanks for posting wilco737.


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45425 times:

It looks much sleaker than I thought it would!! It's going to be one hot plane  


Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlineAntonovA330 From Switzerland, joined Jul 2007, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45392 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Thread starter):
What do you guys think? Like? Dislike?

Hmm, aesthetically, it doesn't look too appealing at this stage. Let's wait and see how it looks when it's more progressed, particularly with engines.



Good day to you sir! Please turn left, your seat is in the first row.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45384 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AntonovA330 (Reply 4):
Let's wait and see how it looks when it's more progressed, particularly with engines.

It already looks much better then in the computer renders imho. And with the engines, the wing tips and a paint job it will look stunning imho.  .


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting AntonovA330 (Reply 4):
particularly with engines.

Yes, the engines make a big difference in the general look. Without engines it looks strange, but I guess with engines attached it could look a lot better than it does now.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45278 times:

Hmm.. looks like a 757 to me.. but, that's just my opinion..


Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineLostSound From Canada, joined May 2012, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 45224 times:

I already think it's sexier then the 777. I'll hold off on a final opinion until it's painted though.


"Our hands are full, our lives are not"
User currently offlinesenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 45189 times:

I kind of like it.

As you said - without engines it has this "ready to scrap" look, but once they are mounted it will look quite nice.
To me, the MLG looks surprisingly long (but maybe that's also because no engines are next to it yet).
Maybe the -1000 will look much more massive when it gets the T7 MLG.


User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 45135 times:

How tall is the 350? It looks like its belly is awkwardly high off the ground but it may just be the picture angles.


"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlineLostSound From Canada, joined May 2012, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 45082 times:

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 10):

How tall is the 350? It looks like its belly is awkwardly high off the ground but it may just be the picture angles.

It's missing the undercarriage and engines. I think once those are on, it won't look so fragile.  



"Our hands are full, our lives are not"
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 45080 times:

The wheels are interesting.. Obviously the nose design is based on the A380 but looks a lot more stylish (the gear bay is similar) also the main landing gear looks different... Apparently it is very similar to the design used on the VC10... I'm looking forward to seeing the completed bird!


Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44991 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Thread starter):

It is not really the roll-out it is moving it from one production station to another, just like they move the fuselage on wheels to the station it was removed from for wing installation.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1730 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44992 times:

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 10):
How tall is the 350? It looks like its belly is awkwardly high off the ground but it may just be the picture angles.

So much weight still to come.... just the engines are a few tonnes, plus interiors, equipments.... and undercarriages..


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44968 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
It is not really the roll-out it is moving it from one production station to another, just like they move the fuselage on wheels to the station it was removed from for wing installation.

I just quoted the headling the article used...

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1613 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44933 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 7):
looks like a 757 to me.. but, that's just my opinion..

Not just your opinion! Except for the nose it looks a lot like a 757 (to me at least), and that's a good thing!  
Quoting LostSound (Reply 8):
I already think it's sexier then the 777

Although I am a bit of an A-fanboy I must say there a few things sexier than the 777, and at the moment the A350 isn't one of them (yet).

Quoting LostSound (Reply 11):
It's missing the undercarriage

Check below where the wheels are attached, it think that might be the undercarriage.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44913 times:

Came out at the right time of year with that nose eh.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44835 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 15):
I just quoted the headling the article used...

I understand, rollout is a milestone used in industry normally associated with the completion of assembly and moving to the flight line. The time between rollout and first flight is often indicative of delays in the testing.

WingedMigrator (http://www.airliners.net/profile/wingedmigrator) has done a great chart tracking the different production steps on previous programs, milestones like rollout come to an important marker when comparisons are made, it helps us track delays.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44636 times:

Nose is all wrong for an Airbus. In fact, it looks just as wrong as the nose of a 787. Don't like neither, though I am a big fan of the spiritual ancestor of both: The Comet. Too bad both Toulouse and Seattle made such a crap job of copying it.


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 19):
Too bad both Toulouse and Seattle made such a crap job of copying it.

I guess the laws of aerodynamics are to blame. And not Seattle or Toulouse.  . And I think both the B787 and A350 are looking very good.


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44605 times:

The profile of the front reminds me of the Vanguard/Merchantman


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair T. Gardiner - WorldAirImages


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralf Manteufel



User currently offlineLostSound From Canada, joined May 2012, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44570 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 16):
few things sexier than the 777

It's all in opinion, to me the 777 doesn't have really any style. Kind of the average looking plane.
Definitely not ugly, but nothing to write home about.

Quote:
Check below where the wheels are attached, it think that might be the undercarriage.

It's not completed. You can still see all the exposed wiring and airframe parts hanging below the belly.  Wink

[Edited 2012-12-04 05:54:54]


"Our hands are full, our lives are not"
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 44531 times:

Looks as if a 757 and an ERJ had a baby  

User currently offlinecelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 44327 times:

OMG, I thought the B787 looks ugly but this is even worse looking!!
Is there a reason why Airbus change their graceful look? Aerodynamic?


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1613 posts, RR: 7
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 46298 times:

Quoting LostSound (Reply 22):
Kind of the average looking plane.

I got the 767 reserved for that label  



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 46143 times:

Ugly front end as expected. The A330/340 is a beauty against it. Otherwise, a boring big twinjet like everyone else.

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 47072 times:

Fix her up, slap on some paint and a pair of rollers and she'll look fantastic  

User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4471 posts, RR: 7
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 46841 times:

Quoting na (Reply 26):
a boring big twinjet like everyone else.

Agree 100%.

Though I'm happy that finally they got rid of that awful "tapering" or whatever you call it that was at the rear of the plane where the last few rows of windows were moving higher and higher the further back you went.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 46538 times:

It looks like a big 757 with a more-pointed nose.

User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 46463 times:

Somehow I think it doesn't quite look ready to fly.

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1885 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 45838 times:

I like the wings. I don't like the nose.


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1636 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 45850 times:

It sure has an interesting nose! The A330 and 340 are beautiful aircraft (unlike the 380, IMHO) and I look forward to seeing her painted and taking to the skies.


Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 45708 times:

It's weird seeing an Airbus single-deck widebody that doesn't look like an A300.

User currently onlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 45408 times:

When comparing with the most recent WB design - much better looking than the 787 which looks like a chubby barrel with no proper legs.

User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 44689 times:

Don't like the nose section. Even the 777 looks more interesting. Just my 2 cts.

User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2408 posts, RR: 24
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 44830 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 19):

I agree. The nose section on both the 787 and A350 look horrible. Why didn't Airbus go with this design?



So much better!


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 44631 times:

Quoting senchingo (Reply 9):
To me, the MLG looks surprisingly long (but maybe that's also because no engines are next to it yet).

Mmmm. looking at the 2nd picture, from the height of the wingtip it looks tall indeed. OK, maybe with the engines and the winglets it will flex down a bit (not sure how much) , but how big are those engines as a a fan diameter?
Did A. reserve some margin for mounting a future GTF   or higher BPR verisions of the RR?

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:58:43]


chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 44606 times:

Starting to look like an aeroplane... really nice what I see so far.

Once the engines are on it's gonna look really cool - the profile at which they hang is slightly different due to the pylon mount which I think will add to the overall beauty of this plane...

The nose reminds me slightly of the Dornier 728 Jet.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Zeitler - Flying-Wings




146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinelufthansi From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 44227 times:

Looks like a 787 after re-entering the atmosphere from outer space and suffering from the friction heat...  


Life starts at take-off!
User currently onlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 44084 times:

Is the landing gear the real stuff or just some interim gear used to roll the airframe around? I seem to remember that often some non-functional stuff is used before the aircraft gets kitted out properly.

User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 43071 times:

Looks like a 757 on Steroids. I like it. Will look even better when it has engines/WT and a paint job.

User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2526 posts, RR: 7
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 42449 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 7):
Hmm.. looks like a 757 to me.. but, that's just my opinion..

To me as well - of course it's not "finished" yet so looking forward to the end product

Quoting flood (Reply 27):
Fix her up, slap on some paint and a pair of rollers and she'll look fantastic

   Yep, that should do it


User currently offlineDrmlnr1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 42274 times:

It looks unique. The 787 is a much sleeker aircraft. What's up with the red nose? Are they calling that bird Rudolph??? (Just a little holiday humor)


Flying is relaxing!
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10898 posts, RR: 37
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 41692 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Thread starter):
What do you guys think? Like? Dislike?

From the aesthetics point of view, I don't like what I see on the picturres.
I think the Dreamliner is much much more beautiful, elegant, a true class act.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 7):
looks like a 757 to me

This was my first thought when I saw the picture on the Airbus facebook page. I never liked 757s.

Waiting to see the fully completed aircraft with paint and the whole thing and the first test flight when it takes up to the skes - and most of all flying on it. I have been lucky with first inaugural flights on totally new aircraft types.

Maybe I will be lucky again with this one - might not like it - we will see when the time comes.


    



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19722 posts, RR: 58
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 41285 times:

I agree with those who are a bit bugged by the nose. The weird "crook" in the nose just below the cockpit windows is off. It's too obtuse of an angle, more so than in the 737 or even 757 noses. On the other hand, it's not a smooth curve like on the 787, either. It's just kind of a "lukewarm" angle. It sort of reminds me of the Space Shuttle nose, which I always thought was a bit funny-looking, too.

It will be interesting to see her with winglets, engines, and paint.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 40902 times:

The nose is very similar to the 787, no doubt about it, BUT I think it looks great, I really do. Sometimes a new acft takes a while to grow on me (the A380 still hasn't!), but I think this looks great.

Great to see that it has seen the light of day, probably a bit behind schedule, but nothing like as far behind schedule as the 787 (which I also think it a great aircraft!).

As to the nose, clearly the A300 nose (which was followed by the A330/340) was developed around 1970, by wind tunnel technology at that time, which must have come on in leaps and bounds since then (as every technology has); I always like the A300 nose, but clearly the A350 will benefit from the new technology and understanding that is now available; really, it has to, given the competition is faces.

Roll on mid-2013!


User currently offlinesqsfo From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 40793 times:

it looks like a stretched boeing 757, and I actually like those. At the same time, I think the photographs were not detailed enough and could have been better. This truly marks the next step in Aviation; Earlier this morning I had a professor give a lecture on NextGEN ATC 

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 40356 times:

A bit bae146 looking nose? The ugly windows of the A380 really smears it. I am not too found of the A330 nose either though.

User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 40175 times:

Quoting Drmlnr1 (Reply 43):
What's up with the red nose? Are they calling that bird Rudolph???

It's family resemblance. They all look like that as babies.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eurospot
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Isett



User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 39845 times:

The nose really seems elongated. How do the pilots see the ground over that thing?

User currently offlineklmcedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 812 posts, RR: 22
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 39734 times:

The MD-11 is a cool and mighty looking plane.
The 747 still remains the best looking plane out there.
The A330 is the best looking NG plane.
The 777 is nothing special, good looking, but that's it.
The 767 is just the triple 777's little brother. Good looking, nothing more.
A380 has a weird nose, but it's massiveness makes it look very awesome.

The state of the art 787 and A350 are ugly looking mothers.
I hope the interior of these planes is gonna make up for the ugliness on the outside.
All that, off course is just my humble opinion.


User currently offlineLostSound From Canada, joined May 2012, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 39271 times:

I hope they paint the window gaps like they have in all of their press images.

http://www.airbus.com/typo3temp/pics/773ccc760b.jpg

That looks pretty awesome! Almost like the original concept.



"Our hands are full, our lives are not"
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 38751 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 36):
Why didn't Airbus go with this design?

That's what i'm asking me the whole time. This would have been so gorgeous much more beatiful then 777, 787, and even the graceful A330/A340 nose.

                 

For me the A350 looks like a CSeries on Steroids.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 38245 times:

What I find interesting - and I wonder why nobody adressed this issue so far - is the distance between the two MLG carriages. It looks, well, "extra wide" compared to other airplanes of that size. Then again, it was often reported that the XWB will have a VC10-like MLG. But now seeing it for the first time, waow. I could imagine the XWB will have little tendency to jump from one side to the other after touchdown because of this layout. Then again, maybe it just looks like this. Can anybody compare the distance between the MLG carriages with the respective distance of other airplanes, e.g. 330, 777 etc.?

User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3303 posts, RR: 30
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 37127 times:

That's a great looking aircraft.

The first Airbus I actually find visually appealing.



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 37029 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Thread starter):
What do you guys think?

Looks like Airbus rolled out the 789 before Boeing could.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 35016 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 34):

When comparing with the most recent WB design - much better looking than the 787 which looks like a chubby barrel with no proper legs.

I think you can attribute the 787's "chubby" appearance to it being the shrunken version in the family. The A358, had it been rolled out first, likely would have appeared the same. The A359 does appear to be sitting higher off the ground, but once all the weight/engines are added, this will likely be not quite as noticeable.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 53):
For me the A350 looks like a CSeries on Steroids.

In my opinion, I've always thought the noses of the C-series and 787 were most similarly shaped, and they have the very similar 4-window cockpit. The A350 has a more unique look to it, with the 6-pane window configuration and it's nose having a different shape in my view. However, I like the appearance of both...I'm surprised so many dislike the appearance of the 787/A350, I personally think they both look great, and have a modern, sleek appearance to them.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 34644 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 5):
It already looks much better then in the computer renders imho. And with the engines, the wing tips and a paint job it will look stunning imho

I think it will look graceful and elegant too (and remarkably similar to the 787..)

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 56):
Looks like Airbus rolled out the 789 before Boeing could.

LOL  


User currently offlineLH600 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 164 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 34481 times:

I love airbus but this kind of looks like a 757/TU-204...

User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3205 posts, RR: 9
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 33667 times:

It will look a lot better with the the nose gear's forward-front doors closed while the undercarriage is extended. Yes the nose does resemble that of the Vanguard and perhaps the Comet and Caravelle a little too.

Can't wait to see the wings flex as it lifts off for the first time.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19722 posts, RR: 58
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 33339 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 53):
That's what i'm asking me the whole time. This would have been so gorgeous much more beatiful then 777, 787, and even the graceful A330/A340 nose.

Does anyone know why they made the change? Obviously, Airbus has little regard for the external aesthetic of their aircraft (I get the sense that they care even less about it than Boeing) but I wonder what engineering advantages or advantages in pilot visibility brought about the change from the original "bullet" nose section.


User currently offlineokAY From Finland, joined Dec 2006, 663 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 32701 times:

Quoting klmcedric (Reply 51):

Well said! I do not like the B787 and I am not impressed by A350. But is it just the fact that we are not yet used to the design, thus we need to let it grow on us? I remember disliking triple-7 when it was introduced, now I find it really good looking. Anyway, I do not like the B787 nor the A350 nose, they look like Alien is trying to form on it or something... And not a big fan of the new "in-nose" front landing gear design of Airbus.

My list goes as follows:

MD11 - I don't know what it is but I think the threeholers just look awesome!
MD80 - Looks like a swan
A330 - one of the best looking long haulers at the moment
B777 looks majestic and well in proportion
B747-200 - best looking of the jumbo series and she looks so great (come on Baltia, give us a 747-200, one more time, please!)
A300 - I like the Airbus design of having the tail slightly upwards

I do not like the design of A380. She looks way of out proportion, she does not look good on the ground nor while air-borne. I call her the flying whale.

okAY


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 32011 times:

Like the nose section. Looks like a wide 757.

Will be interested to see the wing performance. Looks fairly generic IMO.

Exciting times.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 933 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 31830 times:

Im not gonna be one of those guys that says it looks ugly because as we all know its all about aerodynamics, but to me this plane looks like an A330 with a 787 nose lol.
Unfortunately most current commercial aircraft all look generally the same now with exception to the A380 and 747. I think Boeing really knew what they were doing back when they designed the original 737,757, and 767 aircraft as they obviously carved the path for the most aerodynamically friendly and efficient aircraft.

How is this aircraft going to differ from the 787? Does it also have a composite fuselage?


User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1963 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 31853 times:

What a rip... looks just like a 787. Cockpit windows and all. Wow.


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlinebjwonline From UK - England, joined Mar 2007, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 31552 times:

To me the cockpit windows look a bit creepy, kind of like a gas mask from WWII. I'm just not sure, the whole thing just looks a bit awkward, I wish I waited now to not see it until official roll-out...

User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3205 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 31365 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 61):
Airbus has little regard for the external aesthetic of their aircraft (I get the sense that they care even less about it than Boeing)

Well this is clearly in the eye of the beholder as I find the 788 a stubby funny looking design like the 733. The triple-7, while an incredible aircraft, has a forehead with an apparent receding hairline. The A300 and the A330/340 family are particularly attractive aircraft. The A340-500, from a looks perspective, ne plus ultra IMO.

The A380-900 will be the model of whale-jet that will suddenly make everything make sense when it comes to the design aesthetics of that aeroplane.

I love the fact that this Airbus, the A350, looks somehow European with its unusual - Comet, Caravelle, Vanguard, BAC1-11 like - nose.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel and Robert Fall
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Freer - Touchdown-aviation



or


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Fitzgerald
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Simpson




come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 31266 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 23):
Looks as if a 757 and an ERJ had a baby  

a very very large baby 


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30961 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 63):
What a rip... looks just like a 787. Cockpit windows and all. Wow.

My first thought also.

I guess both have found a similar optimal solution to the problem at hand...


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30946 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 67):
The A340-500, from a looks perspective, ne plus ultra IMO.

So true, so true!  


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19722 posts, RR: 58
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30909 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 67):
I love the fact that this Airbus, the A350, looks somehow European with its unusual - Comet, Caravelle, Vanguard, BAC1-11 like - nose.

Really? I think the Comet is closest to the 787 nose in that it has a perfectly smooth side profile with no change in angle at the lower edge of the cockpit windows.

You have to remember, whether the aircraft looks "stubby" is solely an issue of length. The 73G looks stubby. The 738 and 739 do not (All 737's have essentially identical fuselage mold lines to the 707 and 727).

Whether the A319 (which is an ugly duckling) is stretched into an A321, the nose is still ugly. Same is true of the A380. The A300/A330/A340 nose is the only attractive nose Airbus ever did manage to make, IMHO, and I swear that must have been an accident.  

Just to clarify, I'm not a Boeing fanboy. I have nothing but respect for the products of both companies. I just think that Airbus seems to make uglier planes.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30827 times:

Here some more fuel for the discussion, the lady in person live outside on a rainy December day in Toulouse going from hangar 40 to 30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQsnCRGlYe4



Non French in France
User currently offlinesawtooth From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30496 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 72):

Unfortunately that videos aspect ratio has changed making the plane look very stubby/squashed, not very useful in assessing the new design.


User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 796 posts, RR: 8
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30337 times:

Looks great to me! With regards to the 'original design'; economics and practicalities reign supreme over aviation enthusiasts desires.


A380 Crew
User currently offlineBritishB747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30137 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 12):
Apparently it is very similar to the design used on the VC10

Must be designed for those hot and high empire routes.



AB6 319 320 321 AR8 737/3/4/6/G/8 744 752 763 77W 788 D10 D38 DH4 E75 F70 M83
User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 30059 times:

Looks like a plucked chicken with the engines off and fairings around the wings roots removed. Still its a much more lanky looking bird then I expected but really, what were they thinking with the flight deck windows.

User currently offlineairbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 29833 times:

Very ugly nose due to those weird front windows. Otherwise just another twin wide body jet. Prefer the 787 even though I'm a 330 fan.

Not looking forward to flying this one.

Airbuster



FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 29740 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 69):
What a rip... looks just like a 787. Cockpit windows and all. Wow.

My first thought also.

I guess both have found a similar optimal solution to the problem at hand...

Have to agree, the shaping looks similar with a lower apex / point versus say a 777 nose apex more in the middle.

However I also agree it's better looking than expected. It looks like the A380's younger and thinner sibling, or a 753 with a face lift.

It looks quite nice in fact!


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 29602 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My word, I had no idea we were at this point already! This is properly exciting. While it's only possible to tell so muuch until the paint and the engines go on, I think that it will look gorgeous.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineTPAJAY From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29624 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 65):
What a rip... looks just like a 787. Cockpit windows and all. Wow.

I think as technology in carbon fiber and in other aerodynamic properties evolve, they all, no matter from which corporation or brand, will look a like. I' remember as a kid looking at a car magazine of "vehicles of the future", I vividly recall I believed those all looked the same also, regardless of manufacturer!

Bravo Airbus, Love live Boeing!


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbuster (Reply 77):
Not looking forward to flying this one.

I am sorry, but as a great fan of aviation I look forward to frankly every flight. Even if the airplane is old(er) or maybe not my favorite airplane or airliner. All kinds of judgement are passed here without seeing the airplane in full livery, and without the engines and without completed wings. So all comments so far about ugly should be taken at least with 1,000 lbs grain of salt. Wait till the full airplane has been assembled and look again. To me she is looking better already then what I have seen on the renders.

And then, when I saw the B787 from very close by she surprised me as being much more impressive to see then what I expected from seeing her on so many pictures or videos. No doubt the A350-XWB will have the same effect on me.  .


User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29507 times:

Quoting airbuster (Reply 77):
Very ugly nose due to those weird front windows. Otherwise just another twin wide body jet. Prefer the 787 even though I'm a 330 fan.

Not looking forward to flying this one.

Airbuster

Because you don't like how it looks? How does that make any difference to your in-flight comfort? If you aren't looking forward to flying it, don't fly it. No-one is forcing you mate.

I personally think it will look great. What is the point in all planes looking exactly the same just stretched or shortened?

Will look great in SU livery!


User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29351 times:

Quoting klmcedric (Reply 51):
The 747 still remains the best looking plane out there.
Quoting klmcedric (Reply 51):
The 777 is good looking,

I agree with the above statements, and I find that I will have to wait for the finished product and see it in the air before I will call it ugly, but it is on its way to that moniker.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29397 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 65):
What a rip... looks just like a 787. Cockpit windows and all. Wow.

The same requirements at basically the same size being solved by the same physics and same technology...shocker, they look the same.

Tom.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29141 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 84):

The same requirements at basically the same size being solved by the same physics and same technology...shocker, they look the same.

Precisely. I suppose they should have made it a triplane with six engines - pretty much the only way that people weren't going to leap to the oh so predictable, reactionary conclusion that it's a rip-off of the 787 or any other bird.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29117 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 81):
I am sorry, but as a great fan of aviation I look forward to frankly every flight. Even if the airplane is old(er) or maybe not my favorite airplane or airliner. All kinds of judgement are passed here without seeing the airplane in full livery, and without the engines and without completed wings. So all comments so far about ugly should be taken at least with 1,000 lbs grain of salt. Wait till the full airplane has been assembled and look again. To me she is looking better already then what I have seen on the renders.

With you 100%.

Frankly, there are designs I like more than others, but ugly is a strong word, and I don't think Airbus or Boeing make a single "ugly" plane. Flying machines are, by their very nature, beautiful, at least in my opinion.

While I'm not a fan of the style of the forward half of the A380, it is saved by it's stunning wings. I also found it to look far better in real life than in pictures.

The 788 is great, but I think it will really come to life as a 789.

As for the 359, she's a looker. The flight deck windows look a little cartoonish to me, but I think they'll look better once it's painted. I suspect the 358 will appear a little stubby, like the 788.

Congrats, Airbus!


User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29104 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 85):
Precisely. I suppose they should have made it a triplane with six engines - pretty much the only way that people weren't going to leap to the oh so predictable, reactionary conclusion that it's a rip-off of the 787 or any other bird.

The Boeing fanboys would still find something to criticise if they made that :P


User currently offlinewilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 29036 times:

Like someone stated, its weird seeing a widebody Airbus that does not look like an A300. The aviation enthusiasts and kiddos may not like the nose but the air apparently does. It doesn't look half bad.

It sits kind of high, but on the 787-10, it was stated the A350 wheels are bigger than normal. And I imagine the raised high is so that long body can rotate without leaving paint on the runway.


User currently offlinenitepilot79 From Turkey, joined May 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 28006 times:

To be blunt; this nose, like the 787's, has a very downward-pointed look. I hate this look. Also, each aircrafts' flight deck windows resemble something out of a Hollywood spoof film.


En Buyuk Turkiye, Baska Buyuk Yok!
User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 27940 times:

For me its looks ok, but the nose gear is too far forward in my opinion. Makes it look weird. But great to finally see it 


Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 27636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 86):
With you 100%.

Thanks for that.  .

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 86):
lying machines are, by their very nature, beautiful, at least in my opinion.

They sure are. You are 100% correct imho.  


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5731 posts, RR: 31
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 27229 times:

Another boring underwing twin without even the graceful upsweep taper of the A330 to make it visually appealing. This would have looked great thirty years ago, but now it's just yet another uninteresting-looking twinjet.   

User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26111 times:

The nose needs to be "larger" if you know what I mean to please me aesthetically. It looks like the A350 ran into a wall nose first and this is the result.


Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 24653 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 92):
Another boring underwing twin without even the graceful upsweep taper of the A330 to make it visually appealing. This would have looked great thirty years ago, but now it's just yet another uninteresting-looking twinjet.   

That is far more aerodynamically efficient than anything else (excluding 787).


User currently offlineAF185 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23492 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 36):
Why didn't Airbus go with this design?

The front section, especially the cockpit windows, looked much nicer on that design indeed!


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23440 times:

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 89):

To be blunt; this nose, like the 787's, has a very downward-pointed look.

That's because it points downwards more...the point on the radome is lower on both.

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 89):
Also, each aircrafts' flight deck windows resemble something out of a Hollywood spoof film.

Nobody that's making a purchase decision cares what they look like from the outside...they care what they look like from the inside. And they're both *awesome*.

Tom.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6294 posts, RR: 33
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23437 times:

The A340-500/600 will have no problem retaining the Airbus beauty title.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the final effect of engines, paint and other bits being added is being underestimated. It looks weird at the moment because it's so bare and unfinished. To all the nay-sayers I say give it a chance and look at the bird when she's truly ready to fly.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23084 times:

Maybe paint will help, but that is ugly. It is too long and narrow, and this is the smallest version? I hate the Windshield, it looks like a Russian plane. I doubt that paint will help with that. With all the hype that Boeing had with the 787's bigger windows, it doesn't even look like these windows have caught up to the size of a 737!

User currently offlinesqa380fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 37 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23098 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 28):
Though I'm happy that finally they got rid of that awful "tapering" or whatever you call it that was at the rear of the plane where the last few rows of windows were moving higher and higher the further back you went.

Couldn't agree with you more. It was making my OCD go out of control.


User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23031 times:

Quoting cosyr (Reply 99):
it looks like a Russian plane

That isn't a bad thing. Lots of Russain planes look better than their Airbus/Boeing counterparts.


User currently onlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 23034 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 92):
This would have looked great thirty years ago, but now it's just yet another uninteresting-looking twinjet.

Right. You could say forty years ago. Without the wingtips it is like an overgrown Dassault Mercure of the 60'es. If only the Mercure had got its intended engine - the SNECMA M56 instead of the PW JT8D, then except for the wingtips (and size) we would have to go to wheel count to distinguish the A350 from a 45 years old Mercure.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tsuyoshi Hayasaki - AroundWorldImages



It's a natural law that they all become so equal looking. Only the 737 sticks out with some special character because it still keeps the nose of the Boeing 367-80 of 1954 vintage.

Still I think they are immensely beautiful all of them. Comet, Mercure, B367-80 - and A350.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2526 posts, RR: 7
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22861 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 84):
The same requirements at basically the same size being solved by the same physics and same technology...shocker, they look the same.

Shocking indeed - what were the odds of that happening?  Wow!
I want to see it all decked out with engines and winglets and a nice coat of paint in daylight. She'll be a beauty I'm sure.


User currently offlinejet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22660 times:

Not bad looking, and I think it looks 757-ish too.

I'm surprised it looks kinda skinny. Strapping the engines on will probably add perspective and fatten it up.


User currently offlineusair330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 824 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22291 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Thread starter):
What do you guys think? Like? Dislike?

I would have to see it completed, but so far it looks heavy and weird.


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 856 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21432 times:

Holy ground clearance. That plane has long legs. I can't wait to see it officially rollout after paint. It is going to be a beautiful plane.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 4
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21395 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 46):
The nose is very similar to the 787

No, it's not.

Quoting LostSound (Reply 52):
I hope they paint the window gaps like they have in all of their press images.

Yeah, they appear to have conceded it's necessary to make it aesthetically appealing. Pug ugly otherwise.

Quoting LH600 (Reply 59):
It will look a lot better with the the nose gear's forward-front doors closed while the undercarriage is extended.

I agree - the forward nose doors are so long that they extend up the nose itself. Is this a normal feature of in-production frames?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 61):
Obviously, Airbus has little regard for the external aesthetic of their aircraft (I get the sense that they care even less about it than Boeing)

I think Boeing actually hired a design specialist with the 787 - while they snipped a lot of his ideas (I think he worked on the vertical stabiliser in particular), I think they did actually make an effort to stylise the 787 as much as possible.

And have you seen the pics of the JAL 787 at San Diego? Spectacular and really showed off how sleek it is.

Quoting bjwonline (Reply 66):
To me the cockpit windows look a bit creepy, kind of like a gas mask from WWII. I'm just not sure, the whole thing just looks a bit awkward, I wish I waited now to not see it until official roll-out...

Yeah that's an interesting comparison. I can see the resemblance.

Overall, it lacks the sleek look of the 787, which I think pulls it off despite the "stubby" boddy. So far, the 350 is shaping up to be the most generic twin widebody yet.


User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21121 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 107):
Overall, it lacks the sleek look of the 787, which I think pulls it off despite the "stubby" boddy. So far, the 350 is shaping up to be the most generic twin widebody yet.

I think that title has to go to the 767.


User currently offlineTJCAB From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21007 times:

Quoting airbuster (Reply 77):
Not looking forward to flying this one.

seriously? Because of its looks? Hard for me to imagine any member of this site making such a statement w/o even flying the thing; but then again, it is your right.

For me, I want to fly on as many different planes as I can, so long it's not proven unsafe! Long live aviation, long live innovation and long live variety.


User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20561 times:

That is one ugly aircraft - too bad.


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineboeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19908 times:

At first glance I thought it was a 757 haha! Didn't really seem to get the hype that the 787 got that's for sure!!

User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19884 times:

757 and VC-10 are my all time favourites. I'm adding this one to that list.

Great pane, different looking and I can't wait to see it rotate and rocket into the sky.

Anybody know when we can expect it to appear with engines and paint?



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19778 times:

Her wings look beautiful when viewed from the rear.

Thank you Airbus UK, for designing another set of graceful wings. I expect this bird to exceed expectations in flight testing.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlinegiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 19593 times:

The nose section of A350 XWB reminds me of Space Shuttle.

In my eyes 787 and A340 are the sexiest bird around, 787 quoting - as others have said - Caravelle/Comet and displaying great proportions. A340 is just sheer elegance.

I like either the more stubby fraction with beautiful birds like A300/310, B737 short versions, B767 or
long, elegantly stretched birds like A330/A340, B777.

B747 has never really appealed to me. B757 and A380 are the least beautiful birds to me.



I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19722 posts, RR: 58
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 19546 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 96):
Nobody that's making a purchase decision cares what they look like from the outside...they care what they look like from the inside. And they're both *awesome*.

Well, they mostly care about what the balance sheets say...

Quoting TJCAB (Reply 109):
For me, I want to fly on as many different planes as I can, so long it's not proven unsafe! Long live aviation, long live innovation and long live variety.

   You may think it's ugly, but a true enthusiast is enthusiastic whenever any new type flies. And a true enthusiast wants to take it for a ride.


User currently offlineshamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 14
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 19317 times:

Looks great to me! The nose is interesting, clearly inherited a lot from the A380 and those cockpit windows give it a very mean look, especially when viewed head on.

The winglets will be the cherry on the cake for this aircraft I think, almost like a half blended winglet and half raked wingtip.



Shamrock350


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 18490 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 92):
Another boring underwing twin without even the graceful upsweep taper of the A330 to make it visually appealing. This would have looked great thirty years ago, but now it's just yet another uninteresting-looking twinjet.   

Can never please a.netters can they? lol. Im not targeting you in any way at all, but I think we just need to get with the times, Theres nothing wrong with you thinking its another boring aircraft, but its not everyones opinion to think all next generation twin jets are boring. They still come in all shapes and sizes and just because they dont have 3 or more engines like previous generation aircraft doesnt mean they are boring... But thats just my opinion.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1342 posts, RR: 2
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 18431 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 81):
So all comments so far about ugly should be taken at least with 1,000 lbs grain of salt. Wait till the full airplane has been assembled and look again. To me she is looking better already then what I have seen on the renders.



I am afarid that people underestimate how much paint will do - in particular to the nose section as it is now having several shades of green.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 102):
Without the wingtips it is like an overgrown Dassault Mercure of the 60'es


??? I fail to see any significant similarity at all (save from being a twin with engines mounted on the wing). At least one of us must be in dire need new glasses  Wow!


User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 18104 times:

The brutal fact is commercial aviation economics are driven by those that travel inside the plane, not those that look at it from the other side of the airport fence = I doesn't matter what it looks like!


707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlinea36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17901 times:

What an awkward looking aircraft. I am sure it will be beautiful once completed though...  

User currently offlinehb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17183 times:

It looks awesome. I like the nose/window configuration/shape. Also, once installed, the belly fairing with its long rearward strake will look sweet. I think it'll be a great looking aircraft. I have a 1:200 model of the current 350 shape on my desk, and it is going to be a very attractive bird.

User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5731 posts, RR: 31
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16918 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 117):
Can never please a.netters can they? lol. Im not targeting you in any way at all, but I think we just need to get with the times, Theres nothing wrong with you thinking its another boring aircraft, but its not everyones opinion to think all next generation twin jets are boring. They still come in all shapes and sizes and just because they dont have 3 or more engines like previous generation aircraft doesnt mean they are boring... But thats just my opinion.

Looks like I'm showing my age, but there was a time when you could very easily pick out aircraft from a distance! I know the reasons why aircraft are evolving to practically the same shape, so it seems we're stuck with underwing twins for everything that flies, apart from VLAs, until some other form of transport is devised. The beautiful upsweep of the A330 can't have been that bad for economics given it's track record, and it's a shame Airbus didn't stick with this design instead of going for a standard tubular design with the A350.

The fact that the underwing twin has become the standard design for most modern aircraft will probably make manufacturers baulk at going down the BWB route, as no doubt airlines will need a lot of convincing to commit to anything the flying public would consider too revolutionary, no matter what the economics are.

My interest in airliners is now being chipped away with every new aircraft launch . . .  

[Edited 2012-12-05 01:12:35]

User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16173 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 122):

I understand where your coming from. Even though im in my 20s, ive had my share of spotting of the previous generation of aircraft and you are right that you could spot them from a distance. It may be harder now that most designs are going to the tube with wings with underwing engines, but for me I still get excited seeing any aircraft, even new ones like the 787 and hopefully the A350. But I guess in a few years from now ill be saying the same as you...



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineairbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16081 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 81):
Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 82):

Guys I completely understand what you mean. But I should have elaborated my comment, I mean it from a Pilot's point of view. I'm not looking forward to actually flying as in piloting this one. I think the nose is really ugly and otherwise nothing special about it. At this point it looks as if I wouldn't feel very proud of the machine I'm flying. If I have the choice to fly something else I'd happily take it.

I don't know if you understand what I mean but even if it's a great machine but ugly that does play it down. It's a bit like you prefer to drive a Mercedes than a Dacia.

I'm sure someone will find something to flame about in this post but the bottom line is. I like good looking things and that includes the plane i'm flying!



FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16101 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Congratulations to Airbus on reaching this milestone. Personally, I think the A350 is a fine looking aircraft. I don't understand why people are calling it "ugly". Maybe that's just me.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 117):
I think we just need to get with the times, Theres nothing wrong with you thinking its another boring aircraft, but its not everyones opinion to think all next generation twin jets are boring. They still come in all shapes and sizes and just because they dont have 3 or more engines like previous generation aircraft doesnt mean they are boring... But thats just my opinion.

  

Well said. We do indeed need to move ahead with the times. It is because of advancements in technology that we're able to see efficient twin jets fulfilling missions that used to be the domain of quad engined jets. I think such advancements in technology should be celebrated.

For the eagle eyed plane spotter, it is not that difficult to pick one twin widebody from the other, although I will grant that it would be a more difficult task for the novice as there are fewer distinguishing features.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 15295 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 125):
I think such advancements in technology should be celebrated.

I certainly find nothing to celebrate about negative developments in design, developments that lead to less variety and less attractiveness. Granted, there are clever technological evolutions INSIDE, less fuel consumption, new materials, aerodynamic detailing etc (three cheers to the engineers!) but all that is clad in increasingly boring generic tubes with wings (three boohs for the designers and responsible managers!)


User currently offlineTJCAB From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14155 times:

Quoting na (Reply 126):
I certainly find nothing to celebrate about negative developments in design, developments that lead to less variety and less attractiveness. Granted, there are clever technological evolutions INSIDE, less fuel consumption, new materials, aerodynamic detailing etc (three cheers to the engineers!) but all that is clad in increasingly boring generic tubes with wings (three boohs for the designers and responsible managers!)

...and the airlines can't care less about that. As said before, planes don't sell on their visual merits (like some cars). The A-380 has proven to be quite arodynamic. Look what happened to the 787's tail; engineering trumps design; Form follows function.

Pesonally, I am pleased with what I see so far!


User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14115 times:

I will echo the 757 sentiments. But it needs engines for proper visual balance.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14049 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbuster (Reply 124):
I think the nose is really ugly and otherwise nothing special about it.

If I am not mistaken this is the first Airbus which is equipped with curved windows in the cockpit. That is already very special and will show a lot better when the paint job is done. Like I said before, just wait and see.

And piloting an aircraft from the most modern cockpit in civilian airliners, and also from a very roomy, comfortable and quiet cockpit, what more could you ask for if you were going to pilot the A350-XWB?  .

[Edited 2012-12-05 04:28:41]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13590 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 129):
what more could you ask for if you were going to pilot the A350-XWB

A reading light that would allow for the illumination of enroute maps when unfolded to around the size of a newspaper, nice shades that can block the sun out when it is low on the horizon. The ability to load frequencies from the electronic charts into the standby position of radio. Higher humidity, lower noise, better temperature control, and its own fresh air supply that is greater than the cabin (keep smoke/fumes from elsewhere in the airframe out of the cockpit).

Maybe even extend the fuel interning system to supply the cargo hold and avionics bays as well.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1853 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13538 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 60):
It will look a lot better with the the nose gear's forward-front doors closed while the undercarriage is extended.
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 107):
I agree - the forward nose doors are so long that they extend up the nose itself. Is this a normal feature of in-production frames?

the nosegear doors look odd. reminds me of another plane but I can't put my finger on it right now. sort of like a Canadair CL-215. I wonder how much wind will be whipping around in the gear bay., and the noise it will create.

Looks nice, hard to get the scale without engines, but the guy standing under it in the first pic helps.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineFocker From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13422 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 130):
A reading light that would allow for the illumination of enroute maps when unfolded to around the size of a newspaper, nice shades that can block the sun out when it is low on the horizon. The ability to load frequencies from the electronic charts into the standby position of radio. Higher humidity, lower noise, better temperature control, and its own fresh air supply that is greater than the cabin (keep smoke/fumes from elsewhere in the airframe out of the cockpit).

Maybe even extend the fuel interning system to supply the cargo hold and avionics bays as well.

Zeke, is Airbus (and B for that matter) doing anything with comments from flight crew like yourselves in designing their new aircraft?


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13349 times:

Airbus have done a great job stylizing the A350. Once the wing tips go on it will look one very graceful bird.

It all looks very sleek.


User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13319 times:

Quoting shamrock350 (Reply 116):
Looks great to me! The nose is interesting, clearly inherited a lot from the A380 and those cockpit windows give it a very mean look, especially when viewed head on.

Yeah, mean is what they are going for, then a goatee painted on the front to try to improve its look.

Quoting na (Reply 126):
I certainly find nothing to celebrate about negative developments in design, developments that lead to less variety and less attractiveness. Granted, there are clever technological evolutions INSIDE, less fuel consumption, new materials, aerodynamic detailing etc (three cheers to the engineers!) but all that is clad in increasingly boring generic tubes with wings (three boohs for the designers and responsible managers!)

I see your point, but you know why all aircraft seem to be boring? It is because they have design parameters they have to go by and most of the design is done by computer on a computer so there is going to be an inherit similarity to the aircraft. Look at the way the new cars are all looking the same, same principal, it's because they all designed by a computer. You, and I am talking to all the people who think that aircraft are boring should look at the differences that have increased the profitability of the aircraft to be sold to the airline industry, they don't look for how the design looks, but for the increases in money they make the airline.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12856 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 130):
Maybe even extend the fuel interning system to supply the cargo hold and avionics bays as well

I shudder to think about a meeting with the regulators where you propose to pump low oxygen air into the pressurized cabin volume.

Quoting Focker (Reply 132):
Zeke, is Airbus (and B for that matter) doing anything with comments from flight crew like yourselves in designing their new aircraft?

Boeing has, not sure about Airbus. Higher humidity, lower noise, better temperature control, and dedicated fresh positive air supply to the flight deck are all on the 787.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12752 times:

Quoting Focker (Reply 132):
Zeke, is Airbus (and B for that matter) doing anything with comments from flight crew like yourselves in designing their new aircraft?

They do, however the message sometimes gets lots in translation between the end use and the designer, they have different points of view, and different ways to assess the objective.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 135):
I shudder to think about a meeting with the regulators where you propose to pump low oxygen air into the pressurized cabin volume.

Regulators seem to be happy enough to dump a whole heap of halon and then trickle feed it for hours to meet current regulations. This is the sort of alternative I was thinking of http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...ndation%20proceedings/Goldburg.pdf

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 135):

Boeing has, not sure about Airbus. Higher humidity, lower noise, better temperature control, and dedicated fresh positive air supply to the flight deck are all on the 787.

On paper, often does not translate into what the end user desires.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 12489 times:

Quoting TJCAB (Reply 127):
...and the airlines can't care less about that. As said before, planes don't sell on their visual merits (like some cars). The A-380 has proven to be quite arodynamic. Look what happened to the 787's tail; engineering trumps design; Form follows function.

So what. I must not follow the preferences of the airlines´ beancounters, I can say what I think, and I dont like what I see. period. Form follows function, in aviation probably more than anywhere else, sure. But that doesnt mean this form is pretty.
The OP´s question was
"What do you guys think? Like? Dislike?"
and I say DISLIKE.


User currently offlinerikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 12409 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 67):
its unusual - Comet, Caravelle

Just a quick note: If I remember correctly, the Caravelle used the Comet nose.

I have to agree with the people who have referenced the Vanguard. I would also suggest that the A350 nose has a small resemblance to the Nimrod:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Graham Wasey




AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11833 times:

Quoting bjwonline (Reply 66):
To me the cockpit windows look a bit creepy, kind of like a gas mask from WWII. I'm just not sure, the whole thing just looks a bit awkward, I wish I waited now to not see it until official roll-out...

I agree. I understand the shape of the nose is determined by aerodynamics... but how about the shape of the cockpit windows? Any reason they have to look so weird? I amcurious to know from the experts here: What would have prevented them from retaining the A300/330/340 window shape, or indeed going with the sexy "shades" look in their earlier renderings?


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6388 posts, RR: 3
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11833 times:

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 138):
I have to agree with the people who have referenced the Vanguard. I would also suggest that the A350 nose has a small resemblance to the Nimrod:

  

Quoting wilco737 (Thread starter):
Pictures of the first A350.

What do you guys think? Like? Dislike?

I'll bet it will look much better in fully assembled form   Looks somewhat incomplete at the moment, it doesn't even have slats and fairings installed!

P.S. Looks like Airbus did away with the "airbus point" on the tail (i.e. APU exhaust outlet is almost at the same height as the top of the fusleage crown), there goes another Airbus spotting feature  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 141, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11821 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
. I understand the shape of the nose is determined by aerodynamics... but how about the shape of the cockpit windows? Any reason they have to look so weird?

They do not look weird to me at all. They are beautiful. And I repeat that if I am not mistaken these are the first curved windows Airbus is using in a cockpit design.  .


User currently onlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 142, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11177 times:

So when is it going to get fully painted?

User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 13
Reply 143, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11090 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 122):
so it seems we're stuck with underwing twins for everything that flies, apart from VLAs, until some other form of transport is devised.

Designs have converted to the best set-up - just like we cannot tell buses' makers by just looking at the windows.

Airplanes = Buses with wings



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11002 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
What would have prevented them from retaining the A300/330/340 window shape, or indeed going with the sexy "shades" look in their earlier renderings?

Commonality with the A380.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 145, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10968 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
I agree. I understand the shape of the nose is determined by aerodynamics... but how about the shape of the cockpit windows? Any reason they have to look so weird?

Cockpit windows are a phenomenal pain in the rear. Airplanes don't like flat surfaces in general, glass makers hate not-flat surfaces, pilots hate not being able to see, and structural engineers hate trying to resist a 450 mph bird using a transparent laminate.

They look weird because the engineers are trying to harmonize a huge number of directly conflicting requirements without spending a gajillion dollars.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
What would have prevented them from retaining the A300/330/340 window shape, or indeed going with the sexy "shades" look in their earlier renderings?

Aerodynamics is why they don't have the A300/330/340 windows (the fuel efficiency drive on the A350 is much stronger than it's ever been for any aircraft except maybe the 787). The sexy "shades" look died to commonality, and hence risk/cost/schedule, to the A380.

Tom.


User currently offlinehb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 146, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10616 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 131):
the nosegear doors look odd. reminds me of another plane but I can't put my finger on it right now. sort of like a Canadair CL-215. I wonder how much wind will be whipping around in the gear bay., and the noise it will create.

Keep in mind that the main nose-gear doors will be normally closed when the gear is extended (as per the 380 etc). Airbus a/c always look a little weird when they are on the ground with the gear-bay doors deployed.

As for the nose/cockpit shape, my understanding is that the windows etc are based directly on the A380 cockpit. There is a Flight Global article on this somewhere.


User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10292 times:

With the Sud Aviation Caravelle being one of my favorite aircraft in my youth so many years ago, this does have some nostalgic effect on me and I really do want to see it complete.

Unlike some others, I find the high stance on long legs quite elegant, but am also aware this will be somewhat hidden when the engines are finally bolted on.

What surprises me most are some of the reactions such as not wanting to fly on this, the latest offering from some incredibly clever and talented people, all the while purporting to be an aviation fan. I guess I have a different definition.

Roll on the first flight...



maxter
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 148, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10252 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 145):
Cockpit windows are a phenomenal pain in the rear. Airplanes don't like flat surfaces in general, glass makers hate not-flat surfaces

Makes sense. Howver haven't curved glass cockpit windows been around for a while now? L1011 and the 747 both appear that way, but I may be wrong...


User currently offlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10254 times:

Seems everyone on A.net has forgotten what the 787 looked like in production?



Give it time, the A350 will shine in the skies, just like the 787.   



A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10213 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 135):
I shudder to think about a meeting with the regulators where you propose to pump low oxygen air into the pressurized cabin volume.

Then again, it might be a good way to quiet down rambunctious New Zealand soccer teams.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 151, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 149):
Seems everyone on A.net has forgotten what the 787 looked like in production?

Very good comparison.  . And she turned out to be a beautiful aircraft. No doubt that will also be the case for the A350-XWB.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 152, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10392 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 148):
Howver haven't curved glass cockpit windows been around for a while now? L1011 and the 747 both appear that way, but I may be wrong...

The 747 is definitely curved, at least on the #1 windows. I'm not sure about the L-1011. Curved glass has been available for a long time, the glass guys know how to do it...they just hate doing it (because it's a *lot* harder) so they're far more expensive. You need a compelling reason to do it...the A350 and 787 have compelling reasons.

Tom.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1145 posts, RR: 13
Reply 153, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10016 times:

I don't know if I would say curved glass is hard, exactly. Expensive, yes absoutely. It's simple enough, you run the flat glass plates thru a lehr (furnace) and let them sag to shape on properly curved irons. At least, that's how you do a car windshield, I'm assuming that aircraft windows are the same, just bigger and thicker. You spend a lot of power running the furnace, and for large pieces, the lehrs are large, meaning even more expense. It's all a ton of custom setup (maybe even a custom lehr if the pieces are large enough), so if you don't have sufficiently large production runs, the glass makers are going to charge you kajillions of dollars per piece.


Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 154, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9982 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 153):
At least, that's how you do a car windshield, I'm assuming that aircraft windows are the same, just bigger and thicker.

That's the basic process, except you need to do it for a complex laminate. Aircraft windows aren't just glass, there are glass layers on front and back with a thick layer of streched acrylic in the middle and a thin transparent conductive layer for resistive heating. So do that whole process several times for each window and then get it to stick together perfectly with no optical defects.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 153):
so if you don't have sufficiently large production runs, the glass makers are going to charge you kajillions of dollars per piece.

Exactly. And even a big production run for an aircraft window is going to be ~1000.

Tom.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1342 posts, RR: 2
Reply 155, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9580 times:

As to the windows I think that this is most of all a question of using shaded glass and doing the right paint job. If you look carefully the the rendering here on the official a350 homepage and compare it to what we have seen you can actually see that this seems to be the case.

http://www.a350xwb.com/


User currently offlinelostsound From Canada, joined May 2012, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9552 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 155):

Yes, I too am wondering if the final aircraft will carry on the blacked out cockpit window frames.
Looks really sharp like that!



"Our hands are full, our lives are not"
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1342 posts, RR: 2
Reply 157, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9352 times:

Quoting lostsound (Reply 156):
Yes, I too am wondering if the final aircraft will carry on the blacked out cockpit window frames.
Looks really sharp like that!


Whether it will or not I don't know - but is certainly has the potential.


User currently offlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9300 times:

I have a feeling the blacked out windows was just a way to say, "hey, look how futuristic that A350 looks..."


A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 592 posts, RR: 0
Reply 159, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9211 times:

I think it will be one sexy looking bird when fully assembled. Agree she looks a little dodgy with the nose gear doors open, but that will not be the norm. So far, so good.....

User currently offlinelexer From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 160, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 8953 times:

What a beauty! I love the long legs and the space shuttle windows.

The 787 has very short and stubby legs, that can't be good. It looks too much like the 767, the ugliest around. Nice wings though.


User currently offlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 161, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8734 times:

Actually, doesn't Boeing tout the low to ground 787 and 737 as better and faster for ground operations?


A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 162, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8478 times:

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 161):
Actually, doesn't Boeing tout the low to ground 787 and 737 as better and faster for ground operations?

They definitely do for the 737. I don't recall them saying anything like that for the 787...although short for it's size, the 787 is still far off the ground. You're not going to be doing much servicing without a stand of some kind and, once you've got a stand, you don't care so much how tall it is.

Tom.


User currently offlineTJCAB From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 163, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8174 times:

Quoting TPAJAY (Reply 80):
Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 65):
What a rip... looks just like a 787. Cockpit windows and all. Wow.

and one could say the 787 from caravelle and that from comet and that copied from vanguard...we can go on, then the A340 from IL86

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 115):
You may think it's ugly, but a true enthusiast is enthusiastic whenever any new type flies. And a true enthusiast wants to take it for a ride.

indeed!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 125):
Well said. We do indeed need to move ahead with the times. It is because of advancements in technology that we're able to see efficient twin jets fulfilling missions that used to be the domain of quad engined jets. I think such advancements in technology should be celebrated..

..just like most hi-speed trains look very similar

Quoting na (Reply 137):
The OP´s question was
"What do you guys think? Like? Dislike?"
and I say DISLIKE.

ok settle down now nobody said you should feel otherwise. no need to yell.  


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 164, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8072 times:

Quoting lexer (Reply 160):
It looks too much like the 767, the ugliest around.

Disagree, i the 787 doesn't have many similarity with the 767. And the uglies plane around is definitvly the 777.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinehb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 165, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8048 times:

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 161):
Actually, doesn't Boeing tout the low to ground 787 and 737 as better and faster for ground operations?

The low to ground 737 is an artefact of the 60's design - it's certainly not a feature. I recall that integrating modern turbofans in the > -200 73s was a nightmare given the short ground clearance and the FOD ingestion risk is higher for low a/c.. I wasn't aware that the 787 was all that low - particularly as it was a clean sheet design.

As for ground loading - perhaps this is an advantage for the 73 as it can't take LD pallets and needs to be ground loaded anyway. But otherwise (and for the 787) I can't see any benefit. Having walked around the 787 a couple of times, it doesn't seem any lower to the ground than any other modern aircraft.

So lower = better and faster? Doubtful. I've certainly not noticed any quicker turnaround for the 737 compared to the 320 on intra European operations.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 166, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7943 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 164):
Disagree, i the 787 doesn't have many similarity with the 767. And the uglies plane around is definitvly the 777.

My vote for the ugliest goes to the A380. Love the aircraft as a passenger though!


User currently offlinebluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 167, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7762 times:

I will wait until the new girl gets her full make up before passing judgement. Agree nose is different but certainly think this will look nice once complete.

Sadly A380 never grew on me and is still ugly whale but as someone else said here recently the size compensates for it.


User currently offlinestarrymarkb From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 168, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7552 times:

Quoting TJCAB (Reply 163):
..just like most hi-speed trains look very similar

At the moment they don't really. The Japanese seem to favour Duck Bill noses while Europeans are more conventional pointed (with some exceptions) Though I will be interested to see which style wins in the long term.


User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 169, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7498 times:

This 757 version 2.0 o/ like it

User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 170, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6416 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 166):
My vote for the ugliest goes to the A380. Love the aircraft as a passenger though

This is exactly my opinion. But even the ugliest child has its lovers. The A350 will have to be in its natural environment, flying for me to say if it is as ugly as the A380.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineb757capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 171, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

I thought it looked like a 321 on drugs!

Very neat!



The views written by this user are in no manner the views of my employer and should not be thought as such.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 172, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5632 times:

Quoting hb88 (Reply 165):
The low to ground 737 is an artefact of the 60's design - it's certainly not a feature.

You may want to tell Boeing that...they've marketed the heck out of "eye level maintenance" for decades.

Tom.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3560 posts, RR: 26
Reply 173, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think you will find the 727 was also close to the ground.. a major weight saving item especially with integral air stairs..

However back to the subject, I wouldn't call moving the plane between buildings roll out.. although the hair splitters will disagree. Also I wonder if some of the design changes were to make in more un 787ish. I have to admit it went together faster than I expected.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19722 posts, RR: 58
Reply 174, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 173):
However back to the subject, I wouldn't call moving the plane between buildings roll out.. although the hair splitters will disagree.

It rolled out of a building for the first time. It didn't slide out. It didn't ride out on something. Or walk out. Or fly out. Or even swagger out. It rolled out.

No hair-splitting needed.  


User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 175, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

I find the A330 one of the most graceful aircraft in the skies today, to me the 787 looks like an updated 767 and first impressions of the 350 it looks like a Comet or maybe a VC10 from the 'front end' and the nosegear landing doors look a bit odd from the current 'norm' though I'll wait until it's had a coat of paint for final judgement, that can make all the difference in appearance. Still, there's only so much you can do when the remit is to make the most efficient aircraft for the beancounters, graceful good looks don't always naturally follow.

User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1342 posts, RR: 2
Reply 176, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 175):
I'll wait until it's had a coat of paint for final judgement


Reserve that judgement also until the fuselage and wings are completed and engines are mounted - it certainly also will change the way she looks. The front landing gear doors will also be closed in normal operations.


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...
First United B787 Rolls Out posted Thu Oct 13 2011 12:05:40 by IAHFLYR
Tupolev Rolls Out First Tu-204 SM posted Tue Dec 28 2010 08:56:04 by SIBILLE
Hawaiian Rolls Out First B763 With Winglets! posted Thu Nov 12 2009 20:09:13 by 777ER
Airbus Rolls Out A350 Fuselage Barrel posted Tue Aug 4 2009 08:44:10 by WINGS
KLM's First 737-700 Rolls Out At Renton posted Wed Jul 9 2008 16:02:04 by Flynavy
Airbus Rolls Out A350 XWB Design Revisions posted Tue Sep 25 2007 15:47:45 by Carls
Embraer Rolls Out First Phenom 100! posted Mon Jun 18 2007 19:54:16 by PPVRA
First 787 Nose Section "rolls Out" In Wichita posted Tue Apr 17 2007 03:00:11 by Gunsontheroof
British Airways Rolls Out "Know Me" Via Ipads posted Tue Nov 20 2012 14:40:18 by g500
Thai Airways Rolls Out IPads. posted Tue Jun 26 2012 06:14:19 by SIA747Megatop