Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:34 am

They have the ULA A380 made with new technologies and materials. They have a A330/340 replacement made with new technologies and materials and are calling it the A350. But if they called it the A360, then the A350 could be a narrowbody replacement made using these new technologies and materials and the A370 could be gap bridger between the A360 and A380. That would fit much better.
 
AlitaliaMD11
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:19 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:39 am

I personally think the A350 should just be named the A330-600 or 500. Same body, tail, and wing shape, just with different engines, like the A340-600 and A340-500.
No Vueling No Party
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:43 am

"I personally think the A350 should just be named the A330-600 or 500. Same body, tail, and wing shape, just with different engines, like the A340-600 and A340-500."

I agree. It will be like the A330NG. . .or as AlitaliaMD11 said, the A330-500/600. Save the other A3XX names for later. . . .Airbus should stick with what they have with the A340. . .A340-200/300, then the NG with the A340-500/600.

In the end, I really don't care, but it makes for good passing conversation. . .
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
AZA330
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:20 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:56 am

I've read somewhere else on this forum that the A350 will be more than an A330 with different engines, but I don't know how true that "new" was.
Anyway...hope it will be an aircraft with enough improvements to justify the name changing  Smile
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:58 am

90% of the plane is all new... And to be honest, if you compare the A350 to the A330, you really see that the A350 eyes bigger and like it has more 'mussels''
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:02 am

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 1):
I personally think the A350 should just be named the A330-600 or 500. Same body, tail, and wing shape, just with different engines, like the A340-600 and A340-500.

While I agree with you that it would make more sense to call it the A330-XXX, it is NOT "just the same plane with different engines". Anyways, we all know it's about marketing, and perhaps, just perhaps, they are not planning to make so many more different families and they don't need many more desginators.
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:07 am

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 4):
And to be honest, if you compare the A350 to the A330, you really see that the A350 eyes bigger and like it has more 'mussels''

I don't understand. Isn't it really down to the airline what they serve?
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:16 am

"you really see that the A350 eyes bigger and like it has more 'mussels''

Yummy.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:18 am

It certainly makes one wonder what they'll call the next gen A320. A420 might be possible, but will surely ask Airbus what they were smoking when they chose that number.  Smile

(For those not familiar with "420," it's somehow been adopted by cannibis users.)

The bigger question looms for Boeing, as "797" is the only number left in the series for their next gen 737.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:37 am

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 8):
The bigger question looms for Boeing, as "797" is the only number left in the series for their next gen 737.

Well perhaps Boeing will start again from scratch using 818, 828, 838, etc... while airbus uses 410, 420, 430, etc... But indeed Boeing has been around longer so they will probably run out of numbers first. Nobody really knows!

But at the end of the day, nobody except us gives a flying sh**  Wink
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
agill
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:14 am

Does it matter what they call it. Even if they would call it the Z485¤ it would still be a A350. The airlines know enough to spot the differences between the A330 and the A350 no matter what they call it.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:19 am

The next gen A320 will probably get a fractional name such as the A325, as thats where Airbus seem to be heading with their smaller range.
 
scott0305
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 11:02 pm

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:43 am

Why is it that for the narrow-bodies airbus uses fractional numbers A318, 319, 320, 321 but for the big beasts they use -200, -300, -800, -900 etc etc. Wouldn't it be better to use one system for all - so it would be A330, A331, A332 etc. Is this because the larger families aren't simple stretches and shrinks but more complex developments of the original airframe which don't necessarily fit into a neat sizing structure?
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:46 am

Quoting Scott0305 (Reply 12):
Why is it that for the narrow-bodies airbus uses fractional numbers A318, 319, 320, 321 but for the big beasts they use -200, -300, -800, -900 etc etc. Wouldn't it be better to use one system for all - so it would be A330, A331, A332 etc. Is this because the larger families aren't simple stretches and shrinks but more complex developments of the original airframe which don't necessarily fit into a neat sizing structure?

They do use that. That's why for example you have the 321-100 and 321-200 etc... The reason why fractional numbers were used for narrowbodies is because they are different aircraft.

But I do see your point... it is confusing since this rule does not work out the same way with the widebodies they make.
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
scott0305
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 11:02 pm

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:48 am

But the A321 and A320 are no more different than the A340-200 and the A340-600! No?
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: A350 Should Be A360

Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:07 am

Quoting Scott0305 (Reply 14):

Yes you're absolutely right... but thats why I said it was confusing and I understand your point at the end of my post  Wink

I merely wanted to point out that the A320 family also uses the -100 -200 etc... numbers.
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!