A350 Rollout
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
From: Smogsville
A350 Rollout
If it looks right it flies right as they say.
Photo gallery*| Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
Photo gallery*| Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 0
Likes: 1
From: Polar Route
The wings' chord length looks too short for the size of the fuselage. It looks as if it might not have enough wing, sorta like the MD-11. No wonder Airbus is making the wing bigger on the A350-1000. I hope it works as advertised... Otherwise they are going to have to turn up the heat on the engines, which means it will never hit its specs.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
The wings' chord length looks too short for the size of the fuselage. It looks as if it might not have enough wing
Joined: Jul 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 172
From: with the ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
It didn't take the (unpaid?) publicity consultant for the Boeing Company long...and since McDonnell Douglas was taken over, isn't the MD11 just another ageing Boeing?
Last edited by Captain Dart; 14th May 2013 at 09:49.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
The vertical and horizontal tail surfaces look totally inadequate as well - oh, hang on a minute, could that be some sort of photographic distortion? 
Good looking aircraft - can't wait to fly it!
STP
Good looking aircraft - can't wait to fly it!
STP
Last edited by Steve the Pirate; 14th May 2013 at 10:23.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: SE Asia
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 0
Likes: 1
From: Polar Route
I must admit that I enjoy getting you all riled up in defense of your beloved Airbus. Is it your heritage that causes you to vehemently defend all things EADS? Or is it that you fly Airbus now and will very likely continue to do so for the rest of your CX career? Maybe both.
It was just an observation, but thank you for the reminder about size and distance. The fact is that the -1000's wing has a much longer chord. Obviously Airbus thought it needed more wing than the -900. It is also a fact that many airlines are opting for the -1000 over the -900, including CX.
That said, I hope the -900 does well because it has the potential to open up long thin routes for CX. Flying to smaller, long haul destinations is not something that CX has traditionally done. It would be nice to expand the route map a bit.
In terms of wind tunnels and design, it would not be the first time if things did not pan out as expected. The MD-11 certainly came up short, as did the A346. So let's not pretend that could not happen again, even if it is the 21st century
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: HK
cxorcist
Nice try.
But wrong on so many levels, try your argument against yourself and your "love" of anything Boeing.
You are also completely wrong about the 346, it was not designed for the JFK route that was the 345.
You don't get us riled up its just tiresome.
Nitpicker - probably elf and safety!
Nice try.
But wrong on so many levels, try your argument against yourself and your "love" of anything Boeing.
You are also completely wrong about the 346, it was not designed for the JFK route that was the 345.
You don't get us riled up its just tiresome.
Nitpicker - probably elf and safety!
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 966
Likes: 0
From: up here, everyone looks like ants!
"can't wait to fly it!"
Surely you meant "can't wait to interface with it's fatally flawed, un intuitive organic/digital input system"?
The last aircraft I "flew" was a 737...and that's a stretch.
Surely you meant "can't wait to interface with it's fatally flawed, un intuitive organic/digital input system"?
The last aircraft I "flew" was a 737...and that's a stretch.