A Clean Sheet Widebody: The Story Of The Airbus A350 

Yes, there are some concepts around. It would’ve basically looked like an A330 with bigger engines, it still had the old A330 winglets though

Well at least it wasn't MAX like!

love the sound... If i can turn it down, but when at FL330 STILL LOUD! especially with all the cargo thai has onboard the engines are high performance and thus LOUD, love the sound but atleast in a sim you can turn it down.

No one can beat the b777, no offense.

@@abdulwasey3506 If it is 777-300ER

@@abdulwasey3506 As long airlines maintain 9 abreast, unfortunately most 777 operators milked their cash cow by installing 10 abreast seats. Boeing management already given green light to 11 abreast seats which is an abomination!

@@Chris58851 COVID 19 gave a big hit to the industry, I wouldn't be surprised if they went 12 also.

@@abdulwasey3506 Let's face it, 777 burns significantly more per trip than similar sized A350. 777X failed to close the gap. There's a reason why Boeing chose not to head-on, despite they know VLA is not the future.

Airbus made a big mistake when they cancel A350-800. They should have modified it and launched it as regional aircraft.

@@nntflow7058 Still can it would replace a330 .

@@williamdodds1394 maybe not… because Airbus is still pushing forward with the A330neo.

Yup it is more comfortable, but it's also worth noting the 787 is in a completely diff category compared to A350. 787 made A330 irrelevant while A350 will decimate 777-200ER and LR

@@jonny1013 Overall you are right. But the subtlety is that the 787-9 which sells very well and which outsells the A350-900, slightly replaces the 777-200ER downwards as the A350-900 does upwards. 777-200ER 63 meters long carries 32LD3. The 787-9 62 meters long carries 36 LD3 containers (X4 more than the 772) and the 66-67 meters long A350-900 carries 36 LD3 containers (like the 787-9). This means that the 787's box and wings are much smaller than those of the two aircraft. The 787 is a leading animal that covers a GAP lower than the 777 and A350 but covering the core of the market with the 787-9. The whole 787 family had a sales record with 1,500 aircraft sold in +15 years

@@jonny1013 Yeah, but I'm looking forward to try A330neo and compare it to 787

Its the perfect choice for any type of flight

@@jonny1013 The 787-10 does compete with the A350 and recently there are upcoming HGW variants for the 787-9 and 787-10 which match the A350-900 range

It’s fantastic. I used to fly the A320. As I went through the course, my partner and I were almost continually amazed by how clever the design was and how they’d sorted many things that were a pain in the A320.

A380 was probably the worst flight experience I have ever had. The cabin is so quiet from the engines that all you hear is angry mother's screaming at their kids in for 10 hours with 500 people

actually raccoon

You really should mate if you get the chance. I've travelled multiple times on the A350 with Qatar Airways and the experience has always been great!

Yup i was thinking the same.

But will the design allow for a further growth without sacrificing on efficiency?

Relatively speaking, A350 is not as radical as 787. But that also means technologies are proven and better understood, contributes to its higher reliability.

False. The 787 is better because the engines are bleedless. The 787 is more Electric The CFRP fuselage is an one piece design The A350 CFRP fuselage is a traditional 4 panels

@@steinwaldmadchen please stop lying ! Your sources

The Airbus A350 is a direct competitor with both the Boeing 777-200 and -300 as well as the 787-9 and -10. After all, the A350 was designed in response to the B787. However, the new 777-9 would sit in a category of its own due to the increased size.

787 is better imo. So beautiful

In what way? the 787 is older

@@sc1338 The 787 cabin just feels you are in an old 777-200 or even 747 . Don’t get me wrong Boeing was very innovative in making this super plane but A350 flight experience feels superior.

@@ricky1231 ikr

To be fair, some of the technologies are already ironed out in A380, so it's mature on A350. And 787 is more radical in some ways. But is Boeing fooling themselves twice? 777X doesn’t look very good to me......

A bit

@@alunesh12345 yeah even Jesus would choose the A 350 over a 787

I think there’s nothing planned right now, but they already have the 767F, 777F and maybe 777-8F which already cover the capacity of the 787

The only 787 that I will fly is that of Japan Airlines, with the eight-across seating. The nine-across 787 is a very uncomfortable.

@@sking2173 I didn't know some airlines fly 8 across in the 787. I felt 9macross in 787 was cramped but far less so than 10 across in 777 or what could be in 350.

@@allankamen9875 - ANA and Japan Airlines (JAL) both fly 787’s in the 8-across coach layout. JAL has two variants, the nicer being their “SkyWider” version, which is 2x4x2, almost 19” wide seats, and the pitch is 33”. It’s quite spacious for coach, and transforms that nasty little 787 into a comfortable traveller. As most of my flights are trans-Pacific, and me being a full-sized western male, I’m not about to be squished into narrow seats for 10-14 hours. When I fly on 777’s, it’s 9-across only; I like Emirates’ 380 (but despise their 777’s); I find the 350 to be very comfortable (I’ve never even seen one in 10-across, and don’t want to). Happy flying !!

@@sking2173 ANA retrofitted to 9-abreast 787 and 10-abreast 777 later on.

@@steinwaldmadchen - Thanks! I didn’t know that. I haven’t flown ANA in a long time, and apparently I won’t be flying on them anymore ...

spitfire is a fighter plane, which should be analouged to military fighter jet like f35 rather than civilian transport like a350

Capacity wise it’s set to compete with the 787 as it’s also a cheaper alternative

Its not competing with none. Just a rip off for the A350-800.Thats why they scrapped the plan for the -800

Qatar Airways, claimed lots of things, I feel was just an outright con to gain lost Covid money. Airbus had said it would do any repairs but that wasn't enough for Qatar.If Boeing gains by this, then good luck with that. EASA has come out against Qatar, saying they could find nothing wrong with the A350 certification and recertified it.

Probably not. High capacity aircraft aren't in demand at the moment. Just look at the -1000 and the 777X sales

Thats a good question. the 777x trouble is, the need to fill it entirely to make it viable financially. Airlines, with the available aircraft in the market, might think twice. Such a huge outlay requires certainty in passengers available to travel at one time. Airbus would be better off, making the A350-900/1000 NEO's. Probably with the new RR Ultra engine.

You're right, Its 65 Km from Saint Nazaire...

Cost wise A350 is just 11 billions when 787 skyrocketed to 32 billions. And Airbus are reported to sell A350 at premium up to 50% over 787. That's how they managed to breakeven much quicker despite not reaching 787's production efficiency.

That’s correct! A350-900ULR vs 777-200LR too these two are so underrated

Okay everyone, take your proper seats once again and PLEASE do try to REMEMBER it's AIRBUS A350 EYELINER vs BOEING 787 DREAMLINER (except the A350-1000 vs B777-300/9X). Please, PLEASE, no more arguments. Class dismissed.

@@johnhenry6762 - Ah its you again, lol you really can’t get over this 😂, no matter what you do or say A350 and 787 were never competitors, Airbus even said itself during the debut or launch of the A350 that it was built to compete and replace the 777 (i really don’t see the point of disagreeing with the manufacturer itself, also i’m not sure if that clip is on youtube but you can go to their website for that info) and many airlines have replaced the it with the A350, and your proof will just be comparing their similar innovation and features, which you always do, but you should be aware that in commercial aviation aircrafts are compared by range and capacity, i’ve seen many of your comments, what’s next A220 vs 787? Both new planes, very efficient, etc can they compete? I guess so since that’s how you compare planes anyway 😂

@@owenpatal Man, you sure are all over the place on this AIRBUSTED A350 EYELINER vs the beautiful and handsome BOEING 787 DREAMLINER (DREAM-COME-TRUE-LINER). Look Roescoe, who are you going to believe, AIRBUSTED (who created the "EYELINER") or me, who criticizes it and AIRBUSTED? They became a deceitful and desperate bunch. Me, I'm a righteous one. If you heard them say anything to the contrary of why the A350 EYELINER looks like it does, go find out what input SINGAPORE AIRLINES had on having AIRBUSTED redesign their offering to go against the 787 Dream-Come-True-Liner's new-look design. AIRBUSTED is just saving face by saying what you said they said. I mean, what would the World think, AIRBUSTED following BOEING (which is true). I've been following this topic even before the name A350 even existed and the 787 was already in it's final design phase. AIRBUSTED was given an altimatum by S.A. to come up with a competitor to the 787 pronto after AIRBUSTED presented a A330 look alike (titled A350) and S.A. said no! It must look modern like the 787 DREAMLINER. So voila, the A350 EYELINER came to be. Then AIRBUSTED came out with their -1000 to go after the 777X (9) type. The A330's were already dealing with the earlier 777's. So who are you going to believe, what AIRBUSTED said (who made the A350 Eyeliner), or me, the righteous one? By the way, have you prayed lately? I meant to add- the first offering to SINGAPORE AIRLINES by AIRBUSTED was the A350-800 (A330 look-a-like) that S.A. rejected and at that time the World and S.A. was first seeing the 787-8 being shown (note the BOEING's "-8" and AIRBUSTED's "-800 designations). The problem with the A350-800 was it looked like a A330 which S.A. did not like. So AIRBUSTED later came back to SINGAPORE AIRLINES with the re-design. The thing is, BOEING was already coming out soon with the 787-9, so when AIRBUSTED presented the new A350, it was now the A350-900 ( take note- "-9" for the second 787 variant and "-900" for the second A350 variant). The thing is, the AIRLINES were purchasing left and right the 787-8's and AIRBUSTED made the rejected A350-800 (A330 look-a-like) disappear (no takers) and came out with the BOEING 787 DREAMLINER look-a-like A350-900XWB (AIRBUSTED needed something a little extra over the 787-9 by making the "XWB"creation to help the A350 along since the AIRLINES placed so many orders for the 787-8 and now the orders were coming in as well for the 787-9. Now, as for your thought on the A350 vs B787 topic, AIRBUSTED is now going after the 777X (9) with the A350-1000 variant. So yes, A350 vs B777, but only after first being the "A350 vs B787" topic. Have a nice flight. And always remember to stay buckled at all times while seated.

@@johnhenry6762 Just to remind you A330NEO is the half-baked A350Mk1. Airbus just replaced the engine and did a few tweaks on the winglet, and it just trail 787 by 2%. And they spent only 2 billion to do so, in contrast to 787's 30+ billion. Guess what'd happen if they further improve the wing and replace the fuselage with Al-Li.

Wagner Bejarano De Carvalho Airbus is not only French: it is multinational group of French, German, US investors and Spain companies.

Oh please, both Boeing and Airbus are going to be staying at the top for a long time

@@ktjmitchell7722 The problem with Boeing is they essentially screwed every project these days. 737MAX and 787 supposedly should print them money, but one was ground for 2 years while the other was plagued with issues and deferred cost. They're too big to fail, but things would remain tough for years. Airbus mainly suffer from higher production costs, with A220 being the biggest problem child. A330NEO order book is a bit shaky. Otherwise they're good, they have a solid lineup and very healthy cashflow,. They've been aggressive these days.

Oh really? Everyone says the French have the problem with arrogance. Boeing still selling more 787s lol

@@sc1338 Good for Boeing then. Just one problem - A350 is more profitable overall. Airbus charges each frame ~50% higher according to rumor, while project cost is less than half of 787. They can live with higher production cost and smaller backlog at the moment, though I won't be shocked if they go agressive later on. Chances are A350NEO could be earlier than 787NG with their involvement in UltraFan.

they have arrived, and my brain cells are coming out of my eye

Not really. The 350s wings are delaminating

@@sc1338 also, the a350 doesn't have as much engine troubles as the 787 (rr's fault).

@@dihydrogenmonoxide9210 that’s true, but like you said RRs fault

@@sc1338 The A350 didn't have a world wide grounding.

not at all

Thats why Air Canada tried so hard to copy it! Should have bought the A350

I think that’s the plan for Qantas‘s project sunrise

@@spongebubatz Could be possible because of geography of Australia and New Zealand

@@nrajgopal2046 that’s actually the plan: An A350-1000ULR so far exclusively for Qantas

@@spongebubatz Ok

@@spongebubatz There's a reason why 359ULR is needed - SIA is known to be conservative regarding reserved fuels, while SIN and NYC is prone to traffic delays. So while A350 can reach there (which they did, during the pandemic) they need higher fuel soft cap plus a few other tweaks to fulfill their requirements other than 5t MTOW raise. For Qantas, 319t 351 should be sufficient, so for now no ad hoc changes.

Disagree, Qatar claimed a lot of things, mainly, I feel to get back lost Covid monies. Airbus said it would repair the paintwork, but that wasn't enough for Qatar screaming the Aircraft was unsafe. EASA has refuted Qatars claims in that they said they could find nothing wrong with the A350 certification and rectified it. Airbus has washed its hand of Qatar. If Boeing gain by this, then good luck with that.

Its the opposite to my opinion.

They are no direct competitors, the 350 is bigger (to compete also with the 777) and offers more range. Both have their intended purpose and their market

Only if built in Washington but even then its not a good as the A350. When I fly, I always defer to the A350

Airbus A350 XWB is the EMPEROR

They’re based in the UK and rarely do visits to some locations, they’re more an explanatory channel with sticks to stock footage

They won’t if you continue spamming

A clean sheet is a design from scratch - they drew the entire plan new. No, it's not based on the 787. Not more than some Boeing jets are based on Airbus aircraft and their innovations. There are a number of technical solutions that differ between 787 and 777. What you mean doesn't matter because you are wrong.

@@Sedna063 Boeing made planes and after that airbus made planes which must be better than it's counterpart. So the base of an airbus design starts with Boeing. The a350 was based on the 787. Later on they've based it on the 777 (around introduction of the -900). A380 based on the 747. A330 based on the 767. a320 based on the 737. So basicly airbus only make planes after Boeing. Indeed cleansheet is something made from scratch. But the specs are used from a existing plane. So it's not so clean anymore. Just copy paste, change something and it looks like new. But it isn't new. The 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and 787 are cleansheet because not a single one made these type of planes and specs before. So everything after that will be a updated and mordernised family or competitor.

They didn't copy the 787 they took advantage of all the latest advancements in aircraft design, many of which were developed during the 787 program

@@aarondynamics1311 we are saying same thing. No need to claim clean sheet. If there was no 787, there wouldn't have been a 350.

The only major thing in common is they're both composite heavy. Others from fuselage construction to bleed/bléedless engines to design philosophy is completely different, just to say. Just like MAX followed A320NEO, but they're not the same.

@@steinwaldmadchen you review a programme and adapt yours. I still believe if there was no B787, A350 would have been something else. Thanks man

@@kingsleychima841 you’re talking gibberish. The two aircraft are very different and Airbus invented the wide body twin configuration anyway.

@Shanghai biased? Boeing did come out with a dual aisle wide body composite aircraft first. Airbus copied that just like Boeing copied the a300. Does that make you feel better? I really care about your hurt feelings

@@whiteandnerdytuba - Airbus did a great job of copying the 787 because the 350 is the superior aircraft !!

@@whiteandnerdytuba A300 was the first commercial aircraft featuring composite and supercritical wing. Unfortunately 767's wings are nowhere as advanced, despite launched a decade later. 787 and A350 are very different animal, fuselage, wing, bleed air to almost everything are designed with different philosophies. Airbus do take advantage of being late mover, but they also inherited technologies from A380. If anything, A350 is basically a carbon copy of 777 in terms of capacity and payload. It’s onee the closest 1-to-1 replacement you can get from a rival product.

@@steinwaldmadchen lots of words and yet the a350 is smaller than the 777 with less range. Try again

@@whiteandnerdytuba Wrong. Compare any 9-abreast 77W config with similar 351 config from the same airline you'll get almost same seat count. The difference is purely about 10-abreast. Payload wise the difference is ± 5t, with 777 more below around 7000nm, 350 more beyond that. 351's max payload range is ~500nm behind 778, while significantly higher than 77W. 351 can do SYD-LHR while 77W can't even do SYD-IST with profitable payload. Another fanboy comment with no evidences.

Fun Fact: Boeing have spent over $32 billion on the 787 and still not broke even yet.

@@tomstravels520 Being first and innovation always costs more to the first manufacture in this case Boeing. To step outside and construct an airplane away from traditional methods in to the world of composites was inspirational. Fact the 787 came first, and Airbus had to do some thing quickly, and not with a revamped A330 which no one was interested in buying. The A350 was not even in Airbus thinking at the time, it was of the 787 they built it.

@@paulgriffiths6237 the 787 was not the first plane to be built using composites. It was the first to have the whole fuselage done with composites. A380 had parts of fuselage made from composites and even the A320 and earlier had a composite tail. Yeah I’m sure the innovation gets attraction but when you’ve been making the plane for over 10 years with over 1000 orders and still not made a profit from it….they’re either having to spend millions on sorting out problems or selling them dirt cheap

@@tomstravels520 The point I am trying to get across is without the existence of the Boeing 787 the A350 wouldn't have been built. Airbus was focused on the A380 and trying to sell it without success. This not a Boeing v Airbus discussion about which is my favourite. This is about a video that talks about a clean sheet design, that had to be done, nothing less would do. All future airplanes will be built this way composites and other amazing materials from both manufacturers and of course China's aerospace industry. The Boeing company has produced some of the most iconic civil and military aircraft in history, and to almost breaking point with the 747.

@Shanghai wrong. And this even comes from Boeing’s own website, the aircraft is 50% composite, not “fully”. I’m not a Boeing hater(yes I admit they let me down with the design of the Max and I’m waiting to see if it really has been fixed). I’m a fact checker and the fact is the A380 had composites in its fuselage and was released before the 787. The facts that I know just don’t always line up well for Boeing. The fact is Boeing have spent more on the 787 and not broke even. You can’t argue with that. I never disagreed that the A380 wouldn’t exist without the 747 (I didn’t get notification of last message). Boeing innovates on the aircraft itself but they way I see it Airbus innovates on the technology used on the aircraft and in the cockpit. Fly by wire and digital cockpits may not have existed as soon if Airbus didn’t apply it to the A320. Paul said the 787 was the first plane to be built out of composites. It wasn’t. The A380 was 16 percent composite. And had more than any other aircraft before it. Was 787 the first plane to have a fuselage made entirely from composites? Yes. But that is not what was said

Nice story! Btw I’ve been in first long haul flight with the A350 from Manila to New York back in June 25 of this year. I was at the economy class seating and yeah, the experience was superb.

As an economy class peasant I cannot relate

I imagine all business class seats to be superb, especially since I've only flown economy lol. I'm sure people who fly business class constantly have their complaints/opinions on which carrier has the best.

you won't be disappointed

@@LCFC_Chris yes sir

Flew Singapore to Brisbane. It was so quiet, you could even hear the movie with the shitty earbuds they give you in cattle class. Was hella impressed with the A350. The only downside was Typhoid Ginger sitting in the same row coughing and having the nerve to tell a baby to shut up.

@@bengaltiger96 I was also about to go to Brisbane, but the flight got cancelled lol I hope the replacement flight is also on an A350

same

Assigning gender to an aircraft is strange

@@Tedandtay88you’re going to be in for a absolute shock when you find out that languages like French, Spanish, German etc. assign genders to all nouns lmao

777X TO BE EXACT! 😁😁😁😁😁

@@lamjerrey6352 Not really, the A350 went into service quite a while before the 777X is scheduled to, so if anything the 777X is made more to compete with the A350, not the other way around

Indeed.

300,000 people live in Nantes. Who cares.

I think the video was recorded before the announcement

@@MarcusNesbitt4 The announcement was in July so this video is at least that old. As announcements go it is pretty important.

Maybe Earlier ?

@@MyJerseybean I don´t know it. This was at least the annotation by Airbus.

Fair points. B777X might compete well with the A350 in the short term. When A350neo rolls around, the B777X might ride into the sunset. Then the metal vrs composite construction will definitely open a gap between the two in terms of their efficiency.

@@mandandi A350NEO won't be coming for at least another 20 years, by then Boeing will most likely be starting work on a cleansheet widebody to replace the 777X

@@ktjmitchell7722 Admittedly, that's been the case so far with the current NEOS. But if an engine becomes available - RR is working on one currently to be available before the end of the decade - and a business case can be built for a stretch to A350-1100 for instance, then I don't see why the same engine cannot fit on the A359 and A350-1000 and make a NEO by the end of this decade. The A350-1100 would better compete with B777X on the high end. RR will be gaining money on a new investment too. Airlines will be happy to invest in a more efficient powerplant. The current NEOS have proved that so far.

@@mandandi Think "Freight Applications After Passenger Service" before running all over the place with your limited scope, lopsided views on "Metal vs Composite" line of thought of "Fly Into The Sunset" for B777's where it's more like "Into The Future" for BOEING 777's. Just wait it out until a composite aircraft has proven itself for Freight Duties, unlike the 777 which has and doing favorably may I add.

@@ktjmitchell7722 A350 is already 10 years from EIS when 777X finally reach EIS. Airbus already broke even with A350, so does RR woth TXWB-84 (TXWB-97 not yet). RR already working on the conceptual UltraFan, while Airbus was reported employed engineers on A350NEO 1 or 2 years ago. Seems they two work close together regarding UltraFan. All hint the otherwise......