I must say i don’t understand the wing being too small or too large talk. Just like with 787 and many other family of planes from both boeing and airbus, wing on the 350 series will probably differ in wingspan from version to version, even though core design of the wing will be same. 787 for example is covering from 160 to 240 ton max take off weight with same wing design.

350-800 is smack in the middle of 787-8 and 787-9, seat number wise. Comparing it to any of the two would not be the wisest thing. Also, 1000 is, as has been noticed, in between of 777 planes. It can’t be just a random thing. When comparing seat numbers, every single 350 version is somewhere in the middle of 787 or 777 variants, including the 787-10. I would say airbus did that on purpose, making sure its planes are not going completely head to head with boeing. To me, they’re more complementing what boeing is offering. One can bet that airbus designers did far more work than you and i could ever do, and chose all the specifications carefully. I am guessing part of their reason is that they’re expecting bigger passenger increase in coming years, so those extra 15-25 seats per plane might actually be something that’d sell an airbus rather than a boeing – in certain cases.

Do you mean the Hypr? That thing is a no go. Sadly, we won’t see a supersonic plane anytime soon. It is just too damn expensive to go fast. Sonic boom can be dealt with to an extent, it wasn’t what killed concorde – it was politics (which used sonic boom) and just too damn high cost. To achieve and susatain mach 2, one needs several times more fuel than to go 0.9 mach, for the same airplane. Shortening a 3 hour flight to 2 hours or a 12 hour flight to 6 hours is just not justifiable enough for the several fold increase. And i’m not talking bout just about fuel. Development and maintenance of such a plane would also be vastly more expensive.

I was really rooting for boeing’s sonic cruiser back at its day, though it was still subsonic. Every little bit of speed increase is good, but while we may see something similar to that plane in terms of speed in the coming decade or two, going supersonic as regular way of commercial air travel will simply not happen in our lifetimes, save for a revolution in fuel/engine/flight technology.

Which is exactly what i have said. Without subsidies in one form or another, we’d still be riding in 70s or 80s tech airliners.

As for the airbus vs boeing subsidies war, i shall not get into that again. One can believe what one wants, just make sure to google the issue thoroughly before starting to advocate anything. “airbus subsidies” and “boeing subsidies” as search strings will give plenty of material to sift through. It is indicative that issue (at least for the time being) has been officially settled interally between airbus and boeing as soon as accusations started flying from both sides. Clearly no side has less to lose in such a war.

I for one hope both airbus and boing will have enough money at their disposal to compete with each other in such a way that no company ever has decisive advantage. It is better for both the average passenger as it is for average aviation technology enthusiast.

Probably by combination of its existing funds, funds made available by future sales of its products and also various government and non government loans and grants. Very usual stuff.

One has to understand that if we lived in a world where both airbus and boing would be designing and developing their planes exclusively with money earned from their commercial airliner sales – today we’d still be flying in 767 and a300 as the apex of airliner tech.

So most put 9 seats in 777, that’s certainly well within comfort level. Wasnt also whole hoopla bout bigger fuselage needed for 350 that one can’t cram 9 seats? It’s still a bit weird though, even if you put maximum of 10 seats in biggest 777 you still have bit less passengers than in a340 with 8 seats in a row. And diff in length of fuselage is negligable. Even if given 368 passengers figure is calculated with 9 in row, it doesnt quite add up. What is up with that?

About range of 777. 200ER has range of little over 7700 nm while 300ER is just under 7900 nm. For comaprison, 787-9 is quoted to have range of 8800 nm, while 8 and 10 models will have little under 8500 nm range. Only model of 777 that has superior range to any 787 is the newest one, 200LR, with 9400 nm range, achieved by engines that are comparable in tech level to newest stuff on 787. So, while there might be an odd model still out, it will be in minority, while most of 777 might find itself on the way out, especially when 787-10 comes out.

bring it on, your link is indeed to older version, it includes the figure for old, narrow fuselage cross section.

I actually don’t see why the big fight over 787 vs 380. Boeing says less stopover, longer flights with less passengers in a plane. Airbus says huge congestion coming, huge aircraft needed. And i think they’re both right. There is and there will be market for both planes, especially with the relatevely low productio rate of 380, need for such planes will always be higher than what airbus can deliver. Of course we wont see them everywhere like 787, but you can bet that on the most congested routes they’ll be a common site.

Real battle will be in ten years time anyway, with 737/320 successors.

Lets put some numbers down for comparison.

b777
200 model has 305 seating, 64 m long
300 model has 368 seats, 74 m long
both have cross section of 6.19m.

a340
300 model has 295 seats, is 63 m long
600 model has 380 seats, is over 75 m long.
both have cross section of 5.64 m.

Now, while b777 does have slight advantage in range, and perhaps
it carries more fuel rather than extra passengers, theres still a big
discrepancy in cabin seating area versus actual passenger seating number.
Does anyone know what are seat widths used? Cause, only way these numbers make sense (and they must, as they’re official figures) is if airlines using boeing decided to go for wider seats rather than more seats per row. So even though b777 is over half a meter wider it still has same number of seats per row. Also, info about used seat arrangements would be helpful. Ones i’ve flown in, had 2+4+2 arrangements, i’m talking both a340 and b777. Must say i didnt notice any extra seat width, if there was any.

So they were pretty comparable, those two planes. 4 v 2 engines decided that match, fewer always being more fuel efficient.

Now we have the following:

b787
8 series seats up to 250, is 57 m long.
3 series seats up to 330, is 57 m long.
9 series seats up to 290, is 63 m long.
10 series, though there’s no official data from boeing yet, is rumored to seat up to 350, with longer fuselage a must, figures thrown around are 68-70m long.
all the planes have a cross section of 5.75 m.

seeming discrepancy in length/seats is clearer when one knows 8 and 9 have 2.5 longer range over 3.

a350
800 series seats up to 270, is 59 m long
900 seats up to 314 , is 65 m long.
1000 seats up to 375, length not known, assumed around 70m.
all the planes have cross section of 5.82 m.

It is quite visible that airbus, with its 350 line is completely replacing both its 330 and 340 lines. (give or take a seat, range assumed to be comparable)

boeing on the other hand, is using 787 to more or less replace 777-200, with -300 still being on the table at least until 787-10 comes along. 30 seats more shouldn’t be much of a reason to stick with 777-300 unless range is bigger which doesn’t seem to be the case.

It is also visible that 787 is quite close to 777 in seating/length arena, even though 777 is 44 cm wider. Again makes me wonder just what is up with seating in 777? Why so few seats for so much area?

8,9 models of 787 will have a strong competitor in 350 quality wise, question of course being how many new buyers will come along? Because it’s pretty logical that airlines which have already bought 787 will stick with that for repeat purchases in the same class. 8 model is much better positioned of course, with 281 orders verus 68 for model 9.

10 model seems to be comparably worse off, being only on drawing boards with a rumored launch date of no earlier than 2012, versus 2014 for a350-1000. With no orders yet, its sale possibilities are no better or worse off than its competitor, even if it does fly full 2 years earlier.

787-3 has absolutely no competitor from airbus. extra seats versus range seems to be something boeing believes in a lot. And they may be right, with air traffic on the whole increasing. But, they may be right in the wrong time. So far model 3 got 43 orders, all of them back in 2004 when plane was launched. It could be airbus will offer something similar when time is right (as converting its a350-800 is doable) or it is waiting to get next gen 320-class which might also cover higher seating than current a321.

European average is less than 2.4% Also, Croatia for example spent 2% in 2004 and just 1.8% in 2005 on defense. 2% is again planned for 2006.

While true that those engines on the a-50 are certainly not as fuel efficient as their western counterparts, the 4 hour endurace is mentioned in the context of plane being on station 1000 km from base. That is roughly 3 hours of optimum speed time to get there and back. So total endurance is roughly 7 hours. Flight endurance for E2C is 6:15 mins, maybe little more (it is, after all, a relatively small plane). E3 is better at roughly 8 hours. Modern commercial jetliners do seem to make best platforms from endurance standpoint though, as both embraer and saaab2000 can go to 9 hours.

With proper engines, a50 could go a fair deal higher as far as endurance is concerned, thanks to its size and payload capacity. That thing can/could carry LOTS of fuel. But russians have only recently made some advances on large, high bypass turbofan engines, could be another 5-10 years before a version with good engines comes along.