The last paragraph says Airbus has declined that they have made this decision..
But to be honest, while this sounds good, Airbus will really be kinda 'dead' in the next few years, and dont' forget they also need to do a A320 replacement in the same time frame.. And this also means there won't be a huge radical new model in the next probably 15-20 years! Also by the sounds of the article it seems like the A350 can take care of all the 787s and also all the 777s...
Airbus won't redesign A350
Moderator: Latest news team
and i think Airbus should start to worry about this:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... hase+.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... hase+.html
Why? As long as the A320 keeps selling the way it is, there's no need for Airbus to do that. Boeing is also not in a position to launch their 737 successor, as they're tied down with the 787 and 747-8 for now. Furthermore, the engine manufacturers aren't ready with their new engines for such a plne yet either.and dont' forget they also need to do a A320 replacement in the same time frame..
One also has to wonder: if this new A350 indeed beats the 777, including the largest versions, will it not put Boeing to the dilemma of where to put their resources: in a 7773ER successor or a 737NG successor?
If this plane becomes reality and becomes as good as rumored, Airbus won't be the only one that has to make choices...
Airbus has announced tentatively another redesign of the A350 with a wider aluminum fuselage and composite wings.
The 1000 series may require four engines ?
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4991
The 1000 series may require four engines ?
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4991
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
If I'm correct, the cross-section of B787 and B777 are about the same, which can go 9 seats across. That means if the new A350-1000 turns out to be a very good plane, Boeing can go with a bigger B787 with bigger engines. I don't think that would be a problem.One also has to wonder: if this new A350 indeed beats the 777, including the largest versions, will it not put Boeing to the dilemma of where to put their resources: in a 7773ER successor or a 737NG successor?
I don't think Airbus can come up with the A350-1000 til about the middle of next decade, as they seems to slide their timetable many times already.
-
chornedsnorkack
- Posts: 428
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
The external fuselage widths:CXRules wrote:If I'm correct, the cross-section of B787 and B777 are about the same, which can go 9 seats across.One also has to wonder: if this new A350 indeed beats the 777, including the largest versions, will it not put Boeing to the dilemma of where to put their resources: in a 7773ER successor or a 737NG successor?
B747: 650 cm
DC-10/MD-11: 602 cm
Tristar: 597 cm
A300/310/330/340: 564 cm
Il-86/96: 608 cm
B777: 619 cm
There are of course differences in wall thickness and floor placement. Note the 45 cm difference between 777 and 787. 777 can go 10 across - and so can MD-11 and even Tristar.
Yeah, I'm afraid all this means in 10 years those of us travelling long haul economy will be doing so in 9 abreast cabins, meaning 1 or even 2 double-excuse seats. Apparently, final customer (the traveller) support for the 2-4-2 configuration wasn't enough for Airbus to keep their nice cabin width.
And a lot of the weight disadvantage of the 346 vs the 773ER stems from the fact that the fuselage needed reinforcement when it was stretched, due do the narrower section.
And a lot of the weight disadvantage of the 346 vs the 773ER stems from the fact that the fuselage needed reinforcement when it was stretched, due do the narrower section.
10 abreast on 777
Thai flys 777 with 3-4-3, UA with 2-5-2
-
chornedsnorkack
- Posts: 428
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
Other 10-abreast
Emirates also have 10 abreast on 777, e. g. see
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1028452/L/
(the very last rows narrow in tailcone, but the full 3-4-3 is clearly seen here!=
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1028452/L/
(the very last rows narrow in tailcone, but the full 3-4-3 is clearly seen here!=
B777: 6.19mIf I'm correct, the cross-section of B787 and B777 are about the same
B787: 5.74m
That's almost as much of a difference as that between the A330 and the rumored widened A350. This means that stretching the 787 to fit as many as a 777-300ER becomes troublesome: It would need to be even longer than the A340-600, with the long but narrower fuselage (compared to the 777) requiring more strengthening and thus, more weight. The plane would also need a new, larger wing. All in all, such a plane (let's call it the '787-11') would appear to be a 'stretch too far' for the 787, kind of like the A340-600 was perhaps a stretch too far for the original A300 barrel.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
We'll just have to wait and see what Airbus proposes. Right now it is not even a paper airplane; very little design has taken place, especially if new wings are needed on top of the new fuselage. Airbus may be starting all over and scrapping all the work done on the A-350 to date - we'll just have to wait until they make a real announcement!
I recall that the first concepts of the 787 Dreamliner were put together by a team of industrial designers(not aeronautical). They seem to have got it right, but once the airplane designers got at it, subtle changes, necessary for it to work were introduced.
If Airbus took a similar route in this alleged re-design, I would give the concept phase to either mobile home or small boat designers. It obviously wouldnt fly until re-worked, but I bet the weight would come down dramatically once all the spare un-used space was eliminated by people who know how to maximize use of available room.
My old idea of getting the on-board baggage under the seat in front for instance would lower the ceiling height dramatically, and that would do something really serious to the weight (and cost) of the fuselage, maybe to the point of keeping the original A350 engines in a wider fuselage.
Had my two cents worth, lets wait and see.
Cheers
Achace
If Airbus took a similar route in this alleged re-design, I would give the concept phase to either mobile home or small boat designers. It obviously wouldnt fly until re-worked, but I bet the weight would come down dramatically once all the spare un-used space was eliminated by people who know how to maximize use of available room.
My old idea of getting the on-board baggage under the seat in front for instance would lower the ceiling height dramatically, and that would do something really serious to the weight (and cost) of the fuselage, maybe to the point of keeping the original A350 engines in a wider fuselage.
Had my two cents worth, lets wait and see.
Cheers
Achace
That's what I thought too. I remembered the cross section of the 777 is below that of the MD-11.CXRules wrote:According to the Boeing website, the interior cross section width is the following:
B777 5.86 meter
B787 5.74 meter
And since (according to Flight) Airbus is planning to widen the cross section of their future A350, it would bring it over the 6m mark, meaning around the same as the MD-11 and wider than the 777 (and obviously the 787). In which case, high density 10-abreast seating could be achieved in better (I'm not saying comfortable) conditions than on the 777.
To be confirmed by official Airbus information (but apparently Airbus is waiting until July).
I would also like to add something: remember Boeing originally launched the 707 with a cabin cross section that only allowed 5-abreast seating (just as the Convair 880/990). Douglas then started offering their future DC-8 to customers, with a 6-abreast cross-section, and that prompted Boeing to hurrily widen the 707 so it could match the DC-8 in width. No one recalls that as a wrong move from Boeing. They were simply bright enough to understand Douglas was right and to adapt their design.
Maybe tha'ts what Airbus is doing now with their A-350...