Airbus 350 a dead copy of Boeing 787

[Dr Mordrid]

Apparently not an original thought in their rushing to catch up little heads

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5880/

B-787


A-350

[Jon P. Inghram]

Sorry, but when looking at those pictures, the 787 is clearly much larger.

[VJ]

I wonder if this isn't to be expected. I mean, most cars nowadays also have a similar shape.

In my opinion, it is a consequence of the "form-follows-function"-philosophy. Aerodynamics is one field where this key.


Jörg

[Dr Mordrid]

But when Boeing first showed the 787 design they were criticsed for the wing/fin shapes because they were 'pretty' and not 'functional'. Can't have it both ways

Also on the Airbus front; here's a statement from Honywell that seems to indicate that the A380 may never fly:

Honeywell's Cote said A380 delays 'not a problem'

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters)

The chief executive of Honeywell International Inc., the world's largest maker of cockpit electronics, said on Thursday that delays in the launch of Airbus' superjumbo jet the A380 were "not a problem" for the company.

"If you've spent the money to be on any platform you'd just as soon see the platform take off," David Cote, who is also Honeywell's chairman, said in an interview.

"I wouldn't be happy about saying, 'Gee, all that money we spent on the A380 was wasted,' but the money's been expensed, gone, you just move on," Cote said. "I would just as soon see it fly, but if it doesn't, it's not a problem for us."

Airbus and parent EADS last week pushed back the release date of the A380, which seats up to 853 passengers, by another six months.

Cote said Honeywell, based in Morris Township, New Jersey, could make up any lost business from the A380 program by selling cockpit electronics and other airplane components to other plane manufacturers.

Hmmmmmmmmmm....

[VJ]

But when Boeing first showed the 787 design they were criticsed for the wing/fin shapes because they were 'pretty' and not 'functional'. Can't have it both ways

Actually, the wing shape provides for roll-stability (the same reason why wings are often in a V-shape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral

And aviation often goes with the saying: "If it looks good, it flies good."

Also on the Airbus front; here's a statement from Honywell that seems to indicate that the A30 may never fly:

Well, euhm, the A380 doesn't look very good...


Jörg

[Dr Mordrid]

Actually, the wing shape provides for roll-stability (the same reason why wings are often in a V-shape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral

And aviation often goes with the saying: "If it looks good, it flies good."

Jörg

I said thats what reviewers said. Generally I agree with looks/flies, but that doesn't explain the Warthog

[az]

Er, wait... you see one pic and you say there has been "not an original thought" in them designing the plane? Surely you aren't that stupid. Also, the Honeywell CEO doesn't imply tha A380 "may never fly", and you know it. It's all just wishful thinking on your part.

[VJ]

Er, wait... you see one pic and you say there has been "not an original thought" in them designing the plane? Surely you aren't that stupid. Also, the Honeywell CEO doesn't imply tha A380 "may never fly", and you know it. It's all just wishful thinking on your part.

Ok, but you have to admit that it is strange when he says: if it doesn't fly, it's no big deal.
(could be he was misquoted of course)

Given the fact that their first version already flew, I have little doubt that the A380 will make it to market, if with a delay.


Jörg

[Nowhere]

And anyway Boening dropped pretty nose and fins of their plane (boo - since LOT will be getting them). And while I can't see details of fins on the pic of new Airbus...the nose does appear to more fit the wings

[Wombat]

Also, the Honeywell CEO doesn't imply tha A380 "may never fly", and you know it. It's all just wishful thinking on your part.

Damn, somebody's defensive. But yeah, he sure as hell is implying that the A380 may never fly. His words are exactly the thing an American CEO would say in that situation. It walks the line just right: it doesn't set him up for defamation by Airbus, but it also protects Honeywell's stock from a drop when A380 doesn't fly.

[Technoid]

Doc, do you got stock in boing or is it just ultrapatriotism gone wrong?

[schmosef]

The images don't work for me...

[Dr Mordrid]

Neither. I just think the Airbus mgt. has jumped the shark in many ways.

[az]

Damn, somebody's defensive. But yeah, he sure as hell is implying that the A380 may never fly. His words are exactly the thing an American CEO would say in that situation. It walks the line just right: it doesn't set him up for defamation by Airbus, but it also protects Honeywell's stock from a drop when A380 doesn't fly.

Maybe I'm too defensive, I shouldn't react in that way to Mordrid being offensive, I know. Mea Culpa. The A380 already flew. Honestly, do you believe any of the two big plane makers to develop a plane up to that point, sell hundreds of it and then shelf it? And the stuff about the A350XWB vs. 787 he posted are just crap phrased like facts. This destructive attitude and all this Schadenfreude are quite tiring.

[Wombat]

Honestly, do you believe any of the two big plane makers to develop a plane up to that point, sell hundreds of it and then shelf it?

Umm, yeah. It happens all the time with military craft. Airbus seems to be having a lot of problems, and lost sales. A lot of customers are becoming more unhappy with the thought of rebuilding their gates to accomodate this plane. There comes a point where a redesign is the best option.