It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More A350 info

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
As you all know, the 4billion EURO A350 project was a recently announced Airbus project to counter the 7E7/787.

There will initially be two versions of the A350, the -800 and the -900. They will both use the same basic engine as the 787 except for the fact that Airbus will remain with the bleeder type to provide power for the hydraulics systems, with initial engines being supplied by General Electric GEnx 72A1 and not Rolls Royce Trents as some people have suggested. The first aircraft into service is planned for second half 2010.

The A350-800 will seat 245 passengers in a long range configuration and have a range in excess of 8,600 nm (15,900 km). The A350-900 will seat 285 and have a range of more than 7,500 nm (13,900 km).

Contrary to popular belief, the A350 is not a direct competitor to the 787, its more a competitor to the A330-200 on the longer ranged routes, which owns more than 60% of the of its market and are getting pretty old at this point in time.

The A350 will include a lot of technology developed for the A380, including droop nose wings, reduced drag engine nacelles and pylons. This coupled with the Common Type Rating it shares with the A330, meaning that any A330 pilots can fly an A350 with no extra training, reduces costs quite a bit, offering the aircraft as a drop in replacement for current older A330s.

Southern California-based Aerostructures Division has been the first external company to be told that it has won a contract to supply parts for the A350 - supplying engine housings and reverse thrusters.



Personally, I dont think it looks that much different from the A330, and I prefer the 787 for its looks and advanced style.




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I agree with that final comment Richard. One thing that baffles me about Airbus' designations at the moment is the way they call the launch versions -800 and -900, they are doing the same thing with the A380 when for three decades now the common sense approach of most manufacturers has been to call the 'Mk 1' of a new airliner -100 then next -200 and so on as the type matures and is developed further. There's no law against it of course but the current Airbus way does look odd and I'm not sure why they chose to do it.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I agree with that final comment Richard. One thing that baffles me about Airbus' designations at the moment is the way they call the launch versions -800 and -900, they are doing the same thing with the A380 when for three decades now the common sense approach of most manufacturers has been to call the 'Mk 1' of a new airliner -100 then next -200 and so on as the type matures and is developed further. There's no law against it of course but the current Airbus way does look odd and I'm not sure why they chose to do it.


The reason Ive heard for why they do that, starting with the A380, is that the planes released as -800 etc are 'fully developed' aircraft, they wont have any reconfigurations done, no new engines will come along later in the aircrafts life, there wont be any new stretched or shortened versions etc.

Basically its a way of saying to airlines 'no use in waiting, the aircraft isnt going to dramatically change over the course of its life'. Both the A330 and A340 had new stretched versions introduced, the engines changed over the course of the past 10 years, and this disuades airlines from purchasing initial versions incase newer versions are released.

Look at it like this for a more obvious example - each version of the 747 (-100, -200, -300, -400) were basically new aircraft that just looked similiar to previously released models, they could have been called the 797 (7107?
) etc for thats how different they were. Following this course of naming would actually put the A350 as the A330-700 or similiar, as its simply a remodelled A330 with vast improvements.

[edit on 26/3/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I think A330-700 would be better actually, for this particular plane, as with the 737. each of the planes from A300 through A310, A320, A330, A340 and A380 were distinctly different aircraft whereas this A350 is merely an upgrade, albeit a far reaching one. Besides this assertion that there wont be any major changes over the life of the plane seems rather narrow minded to me. How can they possibly KNOW that there won't be a major discovery around the corner that will make an updated version of the plane more attractive? Or are they saying to airlines that no matter what developments are ahead they will not incorporate them? That would be an odd stance to take. Of course the easy answer to that would be that they would simply call it the A360 but in that case why bother with series numbers at all? I like things the simple way



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Waynos -

The thing I *think* that has changed recently is the willingness of the airlines to choose their own engines etc rather than going with manufacturer provided engines. For example, only the very recent model of aircraft has really come with an option to choose what engine you wanted, earlier versions you were stuck with whatever Airbus or Boeing decided to give you or you could do after market upgrades.

This way, you as a client still have the option of persuing your own upgrades to the aircraft, which makes it possible for Airbus to remove that 'upgrade' from the list spec of the aircraft. The aircraft will still adapt with time, but you wont see anything like what has happened with the 747 during its life.

The aircraft industry has become less 'buy off a production line' and more 'taylored to your specification each time'. The -800 and -900 versioning just basically says 'this base airframe wont change drastically, so you can alter the aircraft in 10 years time to the same upgrades you do today'.




top topics
 
0

log in

join