wilco737 From Greenland, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 8533 posts, RR: 78 Reply 6, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 43727 times:
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.
senchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 43546 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.
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 846 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 43492 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."
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1345 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 43437 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), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
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
wilco737 From Greenland, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 8533 posts, RR: 78 Reply 15, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 43325 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.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, RR: 73 Reply 18, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 43192 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
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1015 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 42993 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
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.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6953 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 42888 times:
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3755 posts, RR: 4 Reply 28, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 45197 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.
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1216 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 44895 times:
DTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 588 posts, RR: 2 Reply 32, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 44207 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.
Ronaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 43046 times:
Don't like the nose section. Even the 777 looks more interesting. Just my 2 cts.
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 218 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 42988 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
btblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 546 posts, RR: 4 Reply 38, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 42963 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.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3644 posts, RR: 5 Reply 40, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 42441 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.
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.
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
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16934 posts, RR: 57 Reply 45, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 39641 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.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11996 posts, RR: 36 Reply 46, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 39259 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.
sqsfo From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 39150 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
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 38532 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.
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1216 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 38202 times:
The nose really seems elongated. How do the pilots see the ground over that thing?
klmcedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 800 posts, RR: 24 Reply 51, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 38091 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.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2341 posts, RR: 25 Reply 54, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 36601 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.?
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3263 posts, RR: 33 Reply 55, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 35483 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."
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 56, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 35385 times:
davs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 363 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 33371 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.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 58, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 33000 times:
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.
motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2815 posts, RR: 10 Reply 60, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 32023 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16934 posts, RR: 57 Reply 61, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31695 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.
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.
glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 30367 times:
Like the nose section. Looks like a wide 757.
Will be interested to see the wing performance. Looks fairly generic IMO.
Exciting times.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
TrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 769 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30186 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?
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2 Reply 65, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30209 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.
bjwonline From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29908 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...
motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2815 posts, RR: 10 Reply 67, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29721 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.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 906 posts, RR: 2 Reply 69, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29317 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...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16934 posts, RR: 57 Reply 71, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29265 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.
seachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 216 posts, RR: 9 Reply 76, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28415 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.
justloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 876 posts, RR: 1 Reply 78, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28097 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.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6347 posts, RR: 23 Reply 79, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 27959 times:
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. ✈
TPAJAY From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 27981 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!
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 81, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 27952 times:
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. .
baldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 27864 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?
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.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6347 posts, RR: 23 Reply 85, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 27498 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.
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. ✈
BoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 315 posts, RR: 33 Reply 86, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 27474 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.
baldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 87, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 27461 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
william From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 88, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 27393 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.
nitepilot79 From Turkey, joined May 2008, 248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 26363 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.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5304 posts, RR: 35 Reply 92, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 25586 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.
gingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 856 posts, RR: 5 Reply 93, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 24468 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.
baldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 23010 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).
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 96, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21797 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*.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6207 posts, RR: 42 Reply 97, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21793 times:
The A340-500/600 will have no problem retaining the Airbus beauty title.
What is it with all the "is there a possibilty airline X will.." threads? The answer it'll is possible.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6347 posts, RR: 23 Reply 98, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21630 times:
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. ✈
cosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 222 posts, RR: 0 Reply 99, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21441 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!
sqa380fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21455 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.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, RR: 55 Reply 102, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21391 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.
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
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2248 posts, RR: 8 Reply 103, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21218 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?
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.
jet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 104, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21017 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.
usair330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 791 posts, RR: 1 Reply 105, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 20648 times:
aerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2441 posts, RR: 4 Reply 107, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19752 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.
baldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 108, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19478 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.
TJCAB From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 277 posts, RR: 0 Reply 109, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19364 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.
aerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4634 posts, RR: 51 Reply 110, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18918 times:
giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 114, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17950 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
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16934 posts, RR: 57 Reply 115, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17903 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.
shamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6124 posts, RR: 15 Reply 116, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17674 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.
817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1488 posts, RR: 1 Reply 117, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16847 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.
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1091 posts, RR: 0 Reply 118, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16788 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
aviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16461 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!
hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 31 Reply 121, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 15540 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.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5304 posts, RR: 35 Reply 122, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 15275 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 . . .
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...
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
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!
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 125, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14458 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.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 126, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 13652 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!)
TJCAB From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 277 posts, RR: 0 Reply 127, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12511 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.
holzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12471 times:
I will echo the 757 sentiments. But it needs engines for proper visual balance.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 129, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12404 times:
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? .
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, RR: 73 Reply 130, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11945 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
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1783 posts, RR: 2 Reply 131, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11893 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.
Focker From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 132, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11777 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?
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3271 posts, RR: 1 Reply 134, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11675 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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 135, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11212 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.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, RR: 73 Reply 136, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11108 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.
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
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 137, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10845 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.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10189 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?
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5962 posts, RR: 4 Reply 140, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10189 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:
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 :-)
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 141, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10177 times:
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. .
incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3789 posts, RR: 14 Reply 143, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9446 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.
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1426 posts, RR: 1 Reply 144, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9358 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?
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 145, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9323 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.
hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 31 Reply 146, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8971 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.
maxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 147, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8648 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.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8608 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...
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1577 posts, RR: 0 Reply 150, posted (6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8569 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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 152, posted (6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8748 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.
PITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 966 posts, RR: 12 Reply 153, posted (6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8372 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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 154, posted (6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8338 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.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1091 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7936 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.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1091 posts, RR: 0 Reply 157, posted (6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7708 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.
rbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 576 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7567 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.....
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 162, posted (6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6833 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.
TJCAB From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 277 posts, RR: 0 Reply 163, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6530 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.
hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 31 Reply 165, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6404 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.
bluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6118 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.
starrymarkb From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 168, posted (6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5908 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.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3271 posts, RR: 1 Reply 170, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4772 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.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2498 posts, RR: 21 Reply 173, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3786 times:
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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16934 posts, RR: 57 Reply 174, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2795 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.
BD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 603 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2724 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.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1091 posts, RR: 0 Reply 176, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2600 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From Greenland, joined exactly 9 years ago today! 
, 8533 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1280 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2006, 929 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jul 2007, 319 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6636 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2012, 161 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1271 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1015 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1022 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 257 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 237 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1733 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2096 posts, 
From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 218 posts, 
or higher BPR verisions of the RR?
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 546 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 211 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2248 posts, 
Yep, that should do it
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10346 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1597 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 800 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2815 posts, 
From Finland, joined Dec 2006, 554 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 91 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2010, 1915 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6347 posts, 
From Turkey, joined May 2008, 248 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1488 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 664 posts, 
From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 545 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3789 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
