...click on 'A350' on the bottom menu, then over to the photograph and click on the 3th and 4th folders underneath the photo, for the A358 and A359 respectively. Then click on the magnifying glass icon to see them in a seperate window.
MidnightMike From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8876 times:
Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3): Hmmm - looks to me like someone changed "A330-200" to "A350-900" and fattened up the engines. How does that cost EUR3 bn in launch aid ?
An all composite wing is going to cost some serious money, plus the R&D.
Widebodyphotog From United States, joined Jun 1999, 915 posts, RR: 59 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8559 times:
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2104 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8495 times:
Slight typo: the A350 has two engines not four. It looks like they've upped the speed. Apparently the higher cruise speed of the 777 was recognised as an advantage. I guess that means a new wing.
£37 Aberdeen to Birmingham, £38 Birmingham to Watford => trains are rubbish!
Korg747 From United States, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8423 times:
If the A350-900 is aimed to compete with the 777-2ER then really Boeing has nothing to worry about. just look at how much more the 777s can take versus the A 350.
BoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 474 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8390 times:
Yeah, 4 engines for the A359
Have you noticed the cabin width? It is still the same than the A333 one's. That's not what Mr Leahy said... (Actually, should we really believe him? )
I think that things are far from being frozen yet. The B787 is 2 year ahead and we have much less info about it. Do you think Airbus could release (slightly) wrong specs to give Boeing wrong targets?... Seems streched to me but I've been surprised by A & B media games more than once.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2674 posts, RR: 61 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8348 times:
Quoting Korg747 (Reply 9): If the A350-900 is aimed to compete with the 777-2ER then really Boeing has nothing to worry about. just look at how much more the 777s can take versus the A 350.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8232 times:
Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 10): Have you noticed the cabin width? It is still the same than the A333 one's. That's not what Mr Leahy said...
It was also said someplace that the increase was the internal width of the cabin - IE thinner cabin linings, more space without an increase in the crossection
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8534 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8216 times:
Quoting Korg747 (Reply 9): If the A350-900 is aimed to compete with the 777-2ER then really Boeing has nothing to worry about. just look at how much more the 777s can take versus the A 350.
Looking at the numbers I don't think Boeing will agree. The 350 takes more cargo (ld3, pallets) & how many carriers really needs those 300 extra miles on top of a 14-15 hour flight? Fuel consumption & price seem more important.
Korg747 From United States, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8173 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): Looking at the numbers I don't think Boeing will agree. The 350 takes more cargo (ld3, pallets) & how many carriers really needs those 300 extra miles on top of a 14-15 hour flight? Fuel consumption & price seem more important.
Yes but look at the Payload the A350 can take versus the 777s. So in a way the extra 2 LD3 the A350 can take don't really make much of a difference unless you want to fill them with plastic toys everytime. the Extra 300 miles can always be translated to weight.
RJ111 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 2790 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8167 times:
But the A350 uses significantly less fuel. And yes, a lot of the time cargo does space out as supposed to weighing out.
The former is clearly more important as QR ordered say 30 of them today and no 772ER's?
One thing that does suprise me is that the A359 on paper doesn't look like much of an improvement over the A343. Almost identical in regards to payload/range and OEW. I assume the improvements must comes in the form of higher payload ranges, not necessarily the extremes of both criteria.
Baflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8160 times:
Comparing the A333 to A359 details in the table in reply 6, where does the A359 store 8 more LD3 containers AND 42,000 litres of fuel with only 1.5m extra fuselage length?
Most frustrating part of being an atheist - Never being able to say "Told you so".
The 772ER has a Design MTOW differential of ~116,000lb over the A359 for only a ~16,000lb difference in OEW. Based on the study you had mentioned several months ago to incorporate composite skin structures forward and aft of the wing, and the resultant 20,000 lb drop in OEW, the A359 would be 4,000lb heavier than the modified 772ER. The max. range difference would increase from 230nm (as shown above) to over 1,000nm. In addition, the 772ER still has the 23in advantage in cabin width and a 22in advantage in fuselage diameter. In addition, with an 18,000lb thrust differential/powerplant, wouldn't it be more prefereable in hot & high operations? Any idea on what the operational economics compare between the 772ER and the A359?
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5671 posts, RR: 36 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8035 times:
Looking at the Airbus site, the 358 and 359 have the same MTOGW, 540.1lbs.
Airbus also says the cruise Mach number is .86. That is faster than most Airbuses.
These numbers just don't work out correctly.
The heavier 359 should also have a slightly higher MTOGW, even though it has more than 1,000nm less range.
RJ111 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 2790 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7920 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19): The heavier 359 should also have a slightly higher MTOGW, even though it has more than 1,000nm less range.
It doesn't necessarily have to, The A359 won't be able to lift as much fuel/payload simultaneously as the A358. Airbus often give a stretch/shrink model the same or very similar MTOW - the A332/A333, A342/A343, A345/A346, all have the same MTOW despite being different sizes. Boeing's 772ER/773A and 773ER/772LR have the same or similar MTOW's too.
Also mach 0.86 is the maximum cruise speed not necessarily the recommended cruise speed.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 2790 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2141 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 116 posts, 
From Tanzania, joined Jun 2005, 682 posts, 
From France, joined May 2005, 474 posts, 
)
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2674 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8534 posts,