A350 rolled out!

I assume that the space lost to fuselage insulation and fittings are relatively constant across manufacturers (though some will claim an advantage), so extra inches in overall width are extra inches given to the cabin.

Thus, 10 extra inches on a 777 configured in 10 abreast seating is one extra inch per seat, given the same aisle width. That seems not insignificant to me. Then again, perhaps 10 abreast won’t be a realistic option for the 350 due to the smaller space.

Of course there is an aerodynamic cost to the wider fuselage, which some U.S. airlines have found to their detriment. I believe that JetBlue actually made the news a few years ago due to the large number of fuel stops their A320’s had to make with their transons (JFK-West Coast). Meanwhile, competitors narrower 737’s were making the flight non-stop. The alternative is to incur a payload penalty and leave people behind to facilitate an attempt at a non-stop.

Yes people continue to insist that a 4 or 5 inch difference between the 737 and A320 is significant and noticeable. Having flown both, I can tell you it is not. It all depends on the seats the airline fits.

Well, that depends on where the extra inches are lost.

I do find the A320 more comfortable, not due to the extra width – but due to the extended cabin height… I find myself having to stoop or duck my head whenever I board a 737 which I don’t have to do on-board an A320.

I was dining with friends on Monday night and we had a trio of ten-inch pizzas on the table.
Quite delicious they were, too, but if that is the difference in fuselage width between the B777 and A350, I wouldn’t have thought it that significant.

Yes people continue to insist that a 4 or 5 inch difference between the 737 and A320 is significant and noticeable. Having flown both, I can tell you it is not. It all depends on the seats the airline fits.

Quite delicious they were, too, but if that is the difference in fuselage width between the B777 and A350, I wouldn’t have thought it that significant.

Indeed, especially considering most of the 10 inches will be lost in the aisles and fuselage – rather than the seat width itself.

The 777 and 350 have almost exactly the same wing area, yet the 350 is 10 inches narrower…..:)

I was dining with friends on Monday night and we had a trio of ten-inch pizzas on the table.
Quite delicious they were, too, but if that is the difference in fuselage width between the B777 and A350, I wouldn’t have thought it that significant.

I always took the name as in comparison to the 330 and their early iteration of the 350.

I’ve looked around the internet and came up with the following fuselage widths (in inches):
B767 – 198
A300/330/340 – 222
B787 – 226
A350 – 234
B777 – 244

I’ve always thought it interesting that Airbus chose the XWB moniker to show the supposed superior comfort factor of the 350 over the 787, yet they remain curiously quiet of the comparison vis a vis the 777…..I mean, after all, they’re trying to run the 772 out of the marketplace with the narrower 350…..The 777 and 350 have almost exactly the same wing area, yet the 350 is 10 inches narrower…..:)

They are hell-bound to make it fly by February. Lots of pressure on the suppliers, also at the cost of testing.

Yeah, I know it is actually pretty wide….but I just thought the pictures made it look thin 🙂

Wikipedia says….Wider than the A300/310/330/340 family…wider than the 787 but narrower than the 777 …..10 abreast seating on 16.4 inch wide seats or 9 abreast on 18 inch wide seats

I’m not picking on it, but for an “Xtra Wide Body,” it looks pretty narrow and pencil like from those pictures!

I’m not picking on it, but for an “Xtra Wide Body,” it looks pretty narrow and pencil like from those pictures!

I agree is doesn’t look to be the most attractive aircraft that ever flew, but I suspect functional concerns are of utmost importance.
That said, it should look better when it’s finished.

The tail looks too small to me…..particularly the vertical stab, which appears really short. Perhaps an optical illusion?

I think it’s going to look a whole lot better, when that red nose is painted over, don’t tell Rudolph;) and they close those ‘barn doors’ by the nose gear.

I think it looks great! The fuselage makes me think of a stretched 757.

The front does look somewhat like an angry Pikachu, but it looks like cockpit visibility could be better compared to the 787.

a face only a mother could love… not as ugly as the 787, but not far off!

-Dazza

Thank you !! I think I’ll stick with ” Dreamliner “

looks like a stretch version already
hard to visualise without engines

First Airbus using majority of carbon fibre reinforced polymer, the 787 competitor, increased fuel efficiency and 8% lower operating costs than the B.787. 🙂

So whats the point in this airliner , compared with all the other airliners in the world ??Apart from its very pointy nose !!