Amazing aircraft, now the next few years is crutial for airbus, just as it was for Boeing with the 787! I can't wait to see the aircraft in full revenue service!
Congratulations? It might be a little early for that. Airbus fanboys always get all excited about new Airbus planes and immediately start the "better than Boeing" because they think Airbus doing something for the sixth time now (introducing a new plane) actually compares to Boeing doing it several dozen times over 100 years now. But unfortunately for Airbus fanboys, the last few Airbus "masterpieces" that were going to show Boeing and Lockheed what's up by "killing" the 747 and C130, have actually ended up looking more like a bad paint-by-number painting. After all, the A380 didn't even pass the ultimate wing load test, which is why Airbus will never be able to sell one in the U.S., even though they claimed they'd "fixed" the problem by adding 100 pounds or so of material in the wings and said they were "confident" it would pass. I don't recall ever seeing or hearing that they'd even retested. Much less passed. And given the Airbus propaganda avalanche every time they pass another "milestone" by simply meeting basic expectations and requirements of performance, I'm sure if they HAD passed the second test, it would have been everywhere. Instead, all I've read or heard about A380 wings is how badly damaged one was by an exploding RR Trent and how during the investigation and inspection after the rotor disc failure, they found cracks in the wing rib feet. Of course, cracked parts in a wing were "no threat to safety" for Airbus, but since they did end up allegedly "fixing" them, I have to think SOMEONE thought it was a big enough deal to force them to do it. After all, we know they wouldn't have done it otherwise. Just like they didn't feel compelled to use the appropriate material for the wing rib feet in the first place. That kind of makes me wonder if the reason they didn't test another wing is because they only used the specified material in the first one and knew the second test would crack feet and scatter them everywhere. And now they've got cracks in the A400M somewhere. Once again, supposedly "not a threat to safety", but once again they're allegedly fixing them, so it must be important to someone. And this time they're saying 7 months per aircraft to repair the problem. Now I'm not an aircraft builder, but I am a mechanic and I have a good idea how planes are built. And I know it doesn't take 7 months to build an A400M, or at least it SHOULDN'T. So I have to think that if their repair will take 7 months, they're pretty having to disassemble the entire aircraft and start over. That makes me think it's either a fuselage issue or a wing issue. But since on nearly-new planes that have barely flown and haven't even been formally accepted by the military that bought them yet, a crack this soon would say "wing" to me, since they're the only parts of the plane that have been heavily loaded. And I could certainly see it taking several months to remove the engines, remove the wing, disassemble the wing, replace the flawed parts, reassembled the wing, etc etc etc. The only question is if its even worth it to go to all that work or if the wing and/or fuselage should just be replaced with new. One other thing about that whole cracking thing that has me thinking is those engines. The fact is that Airbus basically put a swept wing for a JET aircraft on the plane, and then mounted those big-ass and very heavy turboprops on it. Now why they put turboprops on a swept wing when the Russians already proved it's a shitty idea is anyone's guess. But if they intended to build a jet and then at some point too far along to turn back had to abandon the jet engine idea and go turboprop, then it would be understandable if the jet wing wasn't liking the turboprops. I'm not an aircraft designer, so I really have no idea, but I do think that when only about one or two other multi-engine transport planes have ever been built with a swept wing and turboprops, there are probably several good reasons for it. And if I were Airbus and building my FIRST turboprop 4-engine military transport, I think I'd seek out the best experts and engineers with experience in that area I could find. Overall, I think Airbus will be doing "good" to make it another 5 years before their inability to deliver on promises combined with their inability to stop making promises finally put them in a hole so deep that even all the taxpayer money in the EU can't save the company. Because after all, it is very hard to stay in the airplane building and selling business if no one wants your airplanes, or can't/won't buy them even if they DO want them because whoever is controlling the cash flow looks at the history of the company and decides they can't possibly buy planes today they won't get for ten years after production starts, if they ever get them at all. Just out of curiosity, exactly what about this twin-engine widebody commercial passenger aircraft makes it so much "better looking" than the other twin-engine widebody commercial passenger aircraft you mentioned? And more importantly, could you even tell them apart if they were painted the same and sitting side by side?
Chad Meyer why can't we all just get a long. As an aviation enthusiast, I like both. Personally I think the a350 is better than the 787, but the a350s winglets don't look nice :/. I think the 747 is better than the a380, and so on. Airlines buy both, so why not appreciate both?
i dont know how other airlines' doing, but cathays' 350 fleet keep having trouble. no big one, but its pain in the ass. maintenance guys dont like to work on it. for me, the 350 and 787 have the same father the 767, gave birth by different mother, and i dont like to work on 767, 787 and 350 as a maintenance guy. i like 777 and 330, especially 777. well designed. and one thing, who the hell design the latching mechanism of those trent xwbs' c-duct? airbus guys or RR guys? anyway its such a stupid ass design.
Your grammar is soo comical. Don't judge the livery by the looks, judge on how it performs. The purpose of the A350 is compete against the 787. The looks almost look the 787, but styled differently. So don't jump to conclusions until the correct facts are provided. The plane hasn't life off the ground yet. Gezz.
