I always hear about the Airbus A50 and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner being the most sophisticated and technologically advanced commercial aircraft in the skies. How much truth is there to this compared to other airliners?
Posted by Ryanlion1992@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 234 comments
CharmingSound@reddit
Wrong comparison. 787 Vs 330 neo is correct. Gee! 350 Vs 777x is the correct one. Might as well compare an Embraer 175 with a A340......
Lookingfor68@reddit
The A330neo was actually Airbus' first response to the 787. Well, aside from the "we don't need to do anything the A330 is fine as is", but Leahy got his ass handed to him and quickly pivoted to a re-engine of the A330. That was rejected by customers too. So they said they'd do a re-wing of the A330. Nope. Then it was a re-wing and fuselage widening, and called it A350. It finally took Steve Hazy slapping Leahy around to get them to go back to the drawing board and the A350XWB was born.
Expensive-Yam-634@reddit
Wouldnt the 350 and the 777 be a better comparison?
Chateaunole-du-Pape@reddit
No. 777 was designed in the 80s. 350 and 787 both in the 2000s.
Lookingfor68@reddit
Designed in the 90s, but sure, whatevers.
NakedJamaican@reddit
Nope
redditheeagle@reddit
787 and A350 both started the development with one significant goal. Getting rid of bleed air for managing cabin environment.
Afaik only Boeing actually managed to get this done for the 787. Airbus went back to bleed air.
Getting rid of „smoke incidents“ is one of the key innovations directly benefitting the passengers and crew.
ablietski@reddit
I wouldn't say Airbus had this idea at all. They considered it, but it was definitely not the 'single' most important goal, not by a long stretch.
Airbus was almost bankrupt after the colossal failure of the A380. They needed to be conservative with some of their A350 design considerations to ensure atleast some return on investment. They were not in a position to go all out. Mind you, the A350 was originally planned as just a re-engined A330 with some small changes. In the end they opted for a clean sheet, albeit very cautiously novel aircraft, filled with A380 tech.
astros1991@reddit
Why is the A380 a failure? In the early 2010s, it was very much celebrated and had massive orders from the gulf states.
euanmorse@reddit
It didn’t even break even on its development costs.
Slice5755@reddit
But when the A350 was being developed, the A380 was still receiving orders. No one knew at that time that a few years later, the A380 project would come crashing down.
NmDValkyrie@reddit
Because they still projected it to be absolute loss. To break event point they need to sell 420 A380, but after almost 6 years after their initial open order and when they started to developed the a350, they still yet to reach half of the minimum order. And on release day in 2007 their order is still less than half to reach BEP. For comparison the A350 needs only less than 100 planes to reach BEP. By the first year of opening the order they already break the minimum order more than twice and by the time of their offical launch and delivery they already reached about 700-800 orders
RosieDear@reddit
As an inventor and patent holder - there are some great books about the biggest inventions of the past that never broke even for the inventors/founders.
I'm glad they built the thing - but I'm not a stockholder. Of course, on the other hand it taught the entire world where the "line" is and now we prob won't have someone trying to build a bigger one unless they can magically mske it more effiicient.
NmDValkyrie@reddit
They never told us why they still continue to produce it despite less airlines putting down their money on the project at the time. But some sourced said that because Airbus were really wanted to experiment and invested new technology with the A380 as their blueprint. A lot of the tech in A350 were completely transferred from their A380 project and that's one of the reason they managed to pressed the A350 development cost much smaller.
That's why they still decided to continue the A380 project because at the same time they learned a lot and invested new things for their future project. Boeing at the time also did these new research and investment a lot but instead they used the 787 as the blueprint. That's also the reason why Boeing 787 development cost manage to reach 30 billion USD while Airbus only reached 15 billion USD to developed the A350.
Kjartanski@reddit
And the 777x, an Iterative design is set to cost upwards of 20 billion USD when completed….
Mcdonnell Douglas really fucking bought Boeing with Boeings money didnt they….
NmDValkyrie@reddit
And yet they didn't even implemented the bleedless system they invested alot from the 787 in the 777x which honestly such a bump. Maybe common certification is the main reason of such decision, but that's really a wasted on investment they already did back then. Boeing really missed so much thing with how they wanted to pressed cost on 737 max and 777X project by only maximizing in "re-engine" side. But they still ended with overbudget in the 777X and they needed more to "cleaned up" the mess in the 737 Max.
berger034@reddit
If they implemented the bleedless system, it would have added an extra layer in certification and they are already 7 years behind.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit
The 777X features a completely new wingbox, brand new cockpit avionics as well, completely new cabin architecture. It shouldn't have been 20 bil but saying they were cutting cost with 777X just means you don't understand the program at all, this is an A300 -> A330 level of upgrade, not a MAX or NEO.
NmDValkyrie@reddit
I'm not saying they completely cutting the cost. But with their initial 777X projected cost is 5-7 billion usd which closer to a330neo with 2 billion cost which only an engine improvement, that's still an indication that they tried to pressed the development cost. They should have invest more from the beginning and not completely abandoned their investment from the 787 instead. With how many they ended up right now, if they intended to invest more from the beginning they would ended up with newer tech than what they have today
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit
Well you could say 5-7 bil is close to A330neo's 2 bil but you could also say it is closer to the $12 bil projected cost for the A350 when you consider Boeing invested a lot in the 787 so that its innovations could be used for future programs. Apart from being bleedless and having a composite fuselage it is pretty much the most advanced airliner, the new avionics are present in 787 as well but 777X includes extra features like A350's BTV. And the thing is with the state Boeing was in during the middle of 777X development and all the FAA clownery, you really think even if they planned a more expensive program the costs wouldn't have dragged on to be higher in a similar fashion?
NmDValkyrie@reddit
My whole point isn't about the 777x itself. It's that Boeing is just simply really bad with their management on the whole development of 777X and the 737 max by trying so hard to minimize their budget and maximizing the goal, and then just ended up still lost so much money. The time and money they poured in the project is just such a mess. Here is the thing, Airbus spend 15 billion and 5-7 years to developed a clean sheet design which is the A350 and they're completely finished. Boeing decided to just expanded the 777, their initial projected were 5 billion with 2 billion extra for the wing, and they projected it to be finished in 5 years.
Yet after 15 years that project still not finished and their budget got inflated into 20 million. 15 years of development and 20 billion yet not even a clean sheet design and not all of the new tech that invested in 787 aren't there in the 777X. Yet airbus manage to do it with lower budget and shorter timeline. That's definitely a mismanagement of project. If only they intended the 777X with better management and actual realistic budget instead of the "pressed" 7 billion budget, they might got a better plane and actually flying right now. Or maybe even with higher initial budget they would still fumble it because how bad their management is, because let's not forget what happened to 737 max because that's also their worse outcome of this mismanagement and "trying to cut cost".
Yes airbus A380 development itself is already a mess, it took almost 15 years, but they started those development since the 90s which mean they already studied most of the new tech they implemented later much earlier than Boeing. But they manage to learn their mistake once, and implemented all of those newer tech in A350 clean sheet design, new engine and body with no insane overbudget and still actively updated them till today. Yes Boeing wanted to just expand the 777, yes most of the development time they got unlucky with FAA shenanigans, but still does it make sense for a plane that supposed to only improved the old design ended up having higher budget and timeline than a clean sheet design and while at the same time some of their newest tech that revolutionized the industry not even implemented? Yes they still got new tech like composite material and another avionics update, yet most of them are something that already exist in the 787 or an already ongoing updated tech, and that is not a justification for the 20 billion and 15 years.
And all of those development time they didn't completely faultless either, a lot of structural issue were main reason why FAA keep delaying their certification as well. The 737 Max tragedy also one of the reason their certification issue even thought they aren't directly related. They didn't learned their competitor mistake with management issue and instead make it even worse. The whole 777X development should have better tech than A350/787 and what they had today if they aren't actually incompetent and trying to cut cost.
Kjartanski@reddit
Well yes, they got the money guys from MD, who proceeded to absolutely gut the engineering design department for cost reasons
euveginiadoubtfire@reddit
Could you share some of the books? Thanks!
RosieDear@reddit
We could start with some related here:
Geoffrey Dummer -Brit Radar expert who first published the idea of the IC.
Sir Frank Whittle - Jet Engine (Brit) - He may have gotten a small pension from the Service.
Here is a Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq4K_RoS2nw
I will dig for the right book.......a partial list:
Goodyear
Tesla
Farnsworth (the TV)
Gutenberg
Salk (Polio)
Just those named above - are beyond measure in terms of the importance - TV (Philco is Farnsworth first name!)......FM Radio? Rubber that works?
clburton24@reddit
Do you know the names of the books?
berger034@reddit
They knew. the A350 program is the response to the 787 project around the same time the first A380’s were rolling off the lines at Talouse. They knew when airlines were climbing over each other trying to buy the 777’s. Airbus thought they knew better and that hub and spoke was still the business model. That model is only profitable for Emirates and that’s why they are asking for an A380neo
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
From the slow orders, they could project that it would hardly break even and not be a top seller like they hoped it would be.
Plus, the 787 was a huge success right off the bat and threatened the A330 part of the market - and their response with basically what became the A330NEO was rejected by airlines.
profprimer@reddit
Boeing did. They had successfully lobbied the FAA to reduce the safety margins for twin engine operations over water (ETOPS) to allow their twin designs to take on routes only available previously to two modern Airbus types, the A340-600 and A380 and a bunch of creaky old US types like the 747 and the MD three engined aircraft.
Those changes doomed two modern aircraft and created the point to point routings we have now. More small aircraft flying direct rather than the hub and spoke model.
zasedok@reddit
Neither did the 787. That doesn't make the company "almost bankrupt". When the A350 development started, Airbus had the A320 and A330 in production, both were strong sellers.
rsta223@reddit
The 787 absolutely more than broke even.
zasedok@reddit
Have you got any verifiable hard numbers on this? The 787 program cost ballooned to $32 billion, which is four times the original budget of $8 billion. By 2015 the official figure of was that a break even point would be around 1,100 units sold, but it got pushed further and further back. According to some, once you factor in the production issues, it may now need as many as 2,000 units to break even, assuming that everything goes smoothly from now on. To this date, 1,270 units have been delivered and thus fully paid for. So based on these figures it's not even close to breaking even. But, as was my original point, that doesn't make it a bad product and it doesn't mean that Boeing was wrong in launching it.
berger034@reddit
The break even in the beginning was 250 planes (I think a total of 251 were built as of 2019) but due to issues (over runs and over engineering ) that number jumped to 400+. They say Boeing tricked Airbus into thinking there was a need for super capacity due to hub and spoke (they denied of course) all the while Boeing was working on the 777 project at the time and thinking of 787 (7E7 project). While they were building the A380, they asked all the engine manufacturers if the (specifically Rolls Royce since they were using the Trent 900’s) if this was most efficient at the time, they confirmed it was. When Singapore took its first order, almost immediately more state of the art like the GEnX and Trent 1000 engines, upsetting Airbus. The Trent 900 is great engine but the economics of a single flight is what caused 50% of the A380 retirements during the pandemic. Some have been reactivated but at a serious cost (upwards of a $150m). Malaysia Airlines was trying to sell all 6 of their A380’s for 25 million each but no one was the cost. In the end, superior technology and engineering lost to economic utility.
nplant@reddit
A lot of people seem to have forgotten this by now, but when they started assembling A380's, they discovered that a lot of cables had been manufactured/specified slightly too short, and had to stop the production line for two years.
That was not only ridiculously expensive, but it also delayed entry into service and must have cost them orders.
moofie74@reddit
If it wasn't a failure, it would have continued production. It didn't make back its money, was designed in such a way to make a freighter conversion almost impossible, and simply misread what the market wants.
Sure they sold them to the Gulf carriers. And they'd like more, apparently. If it were profitable to continue making them Airbus would.
Safe_Application_465@reddit
Market changes .
The new aircraft allowed more point to point flights rather than the spoke and hub model supported by the A380
TheBlack2007@reddit
The A380 definitely still has its use cases. Otherwise, Airlines like Lufthansa wouldn't have brought it back post-pandemic - just like they originally planned to.
However, that use case doesn't justify the scope of the project, especially since it still shared that market with the Boeing 747, which remained in production even longer.
NmDValkyrie@reddit
Tbf the reason why 747-8 remained in production longer were because of the cargo variant. Their passengger variant which market shared with the A380 were only sold less than 30 planes and stopped getting order since 2017 while the A380 still got new order in 2019.
Also Lufthansa is one of the rare time where a very specific and pretty exact reason of why these jumbo jet were intended to be used. Both of Lufthansa's hub in Munich and Frankfurt are insanely slot restricted, so they can't employed more frequent flights with smaller twin jet like other airlines in Europe or America which they chose more frequent flights with smaller twin jet. So in order to maximize their market in those restricted airport, they use these jumbo jet so they can carry more passenger in less frequent flight. But then again not many airlines has this problem, so that's why there are less airlines that can justify and have the economy to fly those jumbo jets.
Gluecksritter90@reddit
Airbus was absolutely not "almost bankrupt".
li_shi@reddit
Yea, it was not and even if it was, it was not going to happen.
profprimer@reddit
Boeing successfully lobbying the FAA to change the ETOPS regs lead to the demise of two outstanding modern European four-engined aircraft: the A340-600 and the A380 - just as their own creaky old four-engined type needed replacing. The same way they lobbied the FAA when Concorde was in service because their own SST project had failed, on grounds of noise that time.
Boeing managed to break the no single data channel on flight controls rule by capturing FAA inspectors during the development of MCAS. Even worse they tried to blame dead pilots for not reacting to a system whose existence they had hidden and deliberately tried to suppress training on it. A regulator from a country on the continent the current US administration describes as a “shithole” spotted this but Boeing management covered it up. Their aircraft have also recently developed an alarming knack of failing in service owing to terrible quality - like failing to attach doors correctly to a MAX9.
Boeing seems to be the single biggest block to commercial aircraft development on the planet right now. Their aircraft are uniformly shoddy; reminiscent of US cars.
Clunky.
Airbuses feel like a BMW in comparison.
cktokm99@reddit
Weird as a passenger I prefer the a350
berger034@reddit
I don’t think this is true. There was never an intent on Airbus’s part to engineer a bleedless system. The program only came about cause Airbus was caught with their pants down at the announcement of the 787 program. They went and threw together the A330NEO and presented to the airlines and everyone said no, we want a cleansheet. It’s reflected in the amounts they spent on their programs. Airbus built the A350 of the tech they had with minor updates while Boeing spent tons on developing the future. I love A350 but Boeing did engineer a great plane, too bad they tried to go super cheap putting them together.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
Why is getting rid of bleed air even a problem? I didn't know about those fume events and was pretty shocked that regulators close their eyes to the workplace conditions of flight staff.
I imagine bleedless to be rather straightforward: use a beefier generator powered by the turbines, add some turbopumps that overcome the thin air and a ton of sensors. OTOH you gain weight savings from ripping out all the air pipes and your engine design is probably going to be simplified a bit.
berger034@reddit
Parasitic power robbed from the engines reduces efficiency. Efficiency is king for the 787. Also as a side benefit, miles of titanium and stainless steel piping replaced by “lighter” copper wire. It’s maybe like 5% that it robs but over an engine cycle that 100’s 1000’s of gallons of savings.
Winbot4t2@reddit
This cannot be understated. The removal of bleeds for everything but EAI makes the 787 the superior plane imo. Fume events are the biggest deal nobody's heard about.
ablietski@reddit
While this is of course a massive win for the crew and passengers, in terms of actual performance savings, Airbus determined it to be roughly the same as a non bleedless aircraft. The added weight of the massive electric architecture weighs pretty much equal.
Not having bleed is still a major advantage nonetheless
BoringBob84@reddit
... that they would go the cheap and less-risky route and stick to old technology. "More electric" architecture isn't just about weight. Eliminating bleed load from the engines makes then significantly more efficient.
Some1-Somewhere@reddit
That's what Boeing predicted.
The A330neo is surprisingly close to 787 performance, and Boeing didn't go bleedless with the 777X despite being a stone's throw from being a clean sheet. Suggests a lot of the benefits didn't pan out.
the_devils_advocates@reddit
Or that it would have changed the type rating
BoringBob84@reddit
Perhaps you have noticed the difference in the size of the engines between the 787 and the 777X and you could imagine how that would affect engineering trade studies.
Or maybe they did when you compare apples to apples.
Some1-Somewhere@reddit
And why would ~40% bigger engines turn the maths from 'obvious yes' to 'obvious no'? The 777X cabin and pressurisation/AC systems are proportionally larger to match, as presumably are engine start demands.
Especially with the considerable advances in power electronics over the intervening ~15 years from 787 final specification to 777X final specification.
BoringBob84@reddit
You should spend the multiple millions of dollars on engineering trade studies and testing to figure that out. Maybe the EU governments would subsidize that for you.
nplant@reddit
You're the one who's saying Airbus made the wrong tradeoff. Maybe post this as a reply to your original comment instead?
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit
Is the A330neo even close tho? Because Airbus is offering these planes for dirt cheap and the backlog is much smaller yet 787 outsells A350 AND A330NEO combined every year
ScipioAfricanusMAJ@reddit
The premise is the better engineering and best technology. Boeing goes one step further and does a full carbon fiber wrapped and treated carbon fiber fuselage that’s superior to the carbon fiber fuselage on the a350 reducing weight making the hvac weight increase irrelevant.
Basically 787 is the over engineered BMW and the 350 is a Toyota with old reliable cheap technology that doesn’t push the limits of engineering and science
nplant@reddit
That's a bit too extreme. More like the 787 is a BMW and the A350 is an Audi.
ScipioAfricanusMAJ@reddit
Not too extreme at all A350 is old tech and they didn’t innovate a single thing
nplant@reddit
That is simply wrong. Note that some of these were introduced on the A380 first, but counting that against the A350 wouldn't make sense:
ScipioAfricanusMAJ@reddit
Non of your points are ground breaking
A359 is inferior in every single aspect. They don’t come close to the same cabin pressure as the 787 because they use old outdated technology. Boeing developed a brand new fuselage weave that gives them superior stiffness. Airbus didn’t develop a single thing they just replaced panels like for like
Non of your points are innovation it’s just thugs you would expect a brand new airplane to have since the whole point of the a350 was to be a little bit better than the a330
Also why are you giving points for have 2 hydraulic systems? Oh wow! They still use the exact same hydraulic systems every airplane has been using for the last 100 years.
Boeing flies on a complete electronic architecture that had to be developed and built from the ground up literally pioneering it for all of aerospace
nplant@reddit
Now you're just talking out of your ass. Both Airbus and Boeing claim 6000 feet. (For the Boeing link, you'll need to move right under "A dream to experience")
The fact that it can lose all hydraulic systems and still limp home safely isn't impressive to you? How is this not innovation?
No they don't. The 787 uses hydraulics for most of its systems. Why do you speak like they replaced everything with electronics, instead of just some things?
ScipioAfricanusMAJ@reddit
A350 max differential pressure 9 psi
787 max 14.9 psi
A350 recommended pressurization cycles 35,000
787 recommended cycles 44,000 with a theoretical maximum of 66,000
The fuselage of the a350 did not innovate at all and is thicker hence heavier than the Boeing 787
nplant@reddit
A pressure differential of 14,9 psi is approximately one atmosphere, i.e. the pressure differential of a spaceship. Doesn't matter one bit what the theoretical maximum is. Both of them cruise at a cabin altitude of 6000 feet according to the manufacturer websites.
These are long haul aircraft. They are expected to accumulate less than 1000 cycles per year.
I quoted the manufacturer websites, you arrogant twat.
The fact that it didn't go as far as the 787, which I never claimed, doesn't translate to "not innovate at all".
Winbot4t2@reddit
Performance wise for sure. But ultimately as a pilot I think I’d personally prefer to minimize my chances of aerotoxic syndrome as much as possible!
redditheeagle@reddit
Indeed. Hence o feel it’s the only true, significant improvement directly aimed at the passenger and crew.
The „rest“ are just improved cost items, and the passengers only indirectly feel the effects. Either by weight or my maintenance improvements (essentially).
Of course this is controversial, but simply due to this i would prefer the 787 Oder the 350 on a booking. The 350 is an excellent plane (did some legs with China airlines on it). But it’s still only one bad seal away from a nasty experience that could easily have quite an impact.
PmMeYourAdhd@reddit
Well, significant is subjective, but I was a member of Boeing's consumer design panel for the 787, and they put more than a year of research and development, including studies with human subjects, into the electrochromic windows and multicolored LED cabin lighting.
This was all with the goal of figuring out from a physiological and psychological perspective, the best way to transition the human body across several time zones with least possible impact on passengers' Circadian rhythms, since it is a long haul plane. If the feature is active with a circadian program, the cabin lighting slowly changes color and intensity throughout the flight, and can also change base level shading on the electrochromic windows, to try to trick the body into falling into rhythm with the destination time zone as much as possible over the course of the flight. Unfortunately, whether or not this happens is based on customized software, and some carriers chose instead to use colors for branding, bypassing this feature entirely, but they're all capable if they load the right program, and Boeing spent a lot of time on it.
It's designed, if a circadian program is used, to simulate nature in a specific way to trick your body's circadian rhythm into thinking more or fewer hours passed than actually did, all just to slightly reduce jetlag. You can say that's not significant, and I won't even argue, but it's a small detail that's very high tech compared to prior generations, and a lot of research went in to it, explicitly for passenger comfort, mostly after the flight.
josephus12@reddit
Flew on an Ethiopian 787 from Addis once. It was maddening that for some parts of the flight, the window screens were locked on or off. The lights were on during what would have been hours of darkness and as well during those hours, they made intercom announcements virtually every 15 minutes. While it was a very cool plane, it was certainly the least rested I've ever felt after a long-haul flight. It was more like a CIA sleep deprivation psyop than a plane flight.
a1102210010@reddit
And then you have 787-operators like Scoot, who just turn up the lights all the way, from darkness with seemingly zero transition, in order to sell you on cup noodles, seat upgrades, and duty free, multiple times during the flight.
atlanta_dave@reddit
I’ve done a lot of transpacific and I always feel the best after the flight when it is on a 787. The work you did and all the other tech to improve experience really improves my “jet lag” and I appreciate it! Thank you.
Longjumping_Ad_5407@reddit
Until you fly on it… A350 is a much nicer plane. It’s the best thing in the skies as a passenger. More room, less noise.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Have flown on both plenty of times (including same airline and same routes.) 787 is far more preferable.
Tsao_Aubbes@reddit
A350's don't really have smoke and fume problems. That's a 320/220 problem.
collegefootballfan69@reddit
Just curious which airplanes were worst for fume events? Asking for a friend who has over 2mm on 727’s and MD-80’s and still remembers that oily smell and cigarettes
Neandertard@reddit
Bae-146 had a thoroughly ordinary reputation
blosch1983@reddit
And lots of fume event issues. I lost count of the amount of full air con pack strip/clean/rebuilds we did
Neandertard@reddit
It was the subject of so many complaints that we had a senate inquiry here in Australia.
sh14w4s3@reddit
The A32X family. The APU and APU compartment/section design of all those aircraft is an odour event magnet.
Winbot4t2@reddit
Of modern planes, the A320/A220 are the main culprits. But it can happen on any plane that uses engine bleeds for cabin air.
Bob_stanish123@reddit
787 has electric anti ice for the wings. Only bleed air anti ice for the nacelles.
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
EAI = engine anti ice
ProT3ch@reddit
I don't think the main goal was getting rid of bleed air. Something like a fully composite body and wings, are much more important. Airbus evaluated getting rid of bleed air and made a design decision that it is not worth it. The same way Airbus decided to not use chevrons on the engine, which was the good decision as Boeing is also not using it on the 777X.
BoringBob84@reddit
I am pretty sure that was a financial decision; not an engineering decision. They wanted a new aircraft to compete with the 787 fast and cheap.
Tsao_Aubbes@reddit
The A350 is a 777 competitor, not a 787 competitor - that would be the A330neo.
Markietas@reddit
Engineering and financial decisions can never be truly separated.
BoringBob84@reddit
I understand. I think it was a smart decision at the time. It is the same reason why Boeing went back to traditional technology on their next developmental program (737-MAX). New technology is expensive and risky.
redditheeagle@reddit
Might have phrased this poorly.
So all that composite and resulting efficiency target mainly the airlines directly. The passengers of course indirectly also benefit on cost etc.
But bleed air is one significant risk in today’s commercial flight industry and should not be downplayed.
Do some research on smoke incidents and you’ll understand why.
Bleed air is ancient design. Super smart and all, absolutely, but crucially also with some drawbacks that do not seem fit for >2020 and beyond.
NakedJamaican@reddit
Smoke/fume incidents on Boeing aircraft? I’ve never heard that being a major thing.
ProT3ch@reddit
Batteries are also a major hazard in aviation, and Boeing had a lot of issues with it catching fire. Look up all the incidents even with small ones causing fires on board. Not to mention the issues Boeing had with them on the 787. That is the system that replaced bleed air.
Both got certified, so both should be safe.
biggsteve81@reddit
The batteries did not replace bleed air, they replaced conventional batteries for starting the APU, and Boeing thought using lithium would save weight. It did, but the new fireproof box they sit in makes the whole thing heavier.
dedgecko@reddit
It’s not just a special box. There’s a lot of new plumbing for venting batteries should they enter thermal runaway. If I recall correctly, when the first ANA was evac’d at Boston, the smoke was seeping out from every gap possible in the fuselage. That should never happen again now.
ScipioAfricanusMAJ@reddit
Batteries theoretically will only continue to get safer and safer and better as time goes on. Bleed air is an ancient and at the end of the road as it comes to technology and innovation. Boeing can simply upgrade the battery to improve while bleed air will always have an inherited design risk
Tsao_Aubbes@reddit
This was absolutely not a goal during the 350's development, what? The main goal of the 350 was to leverage carbon composite and modern avionics tech (AFDX).
sir_thatguy@reddit
Service life on the CAC fan is kinda shitty.
aircraft_surgeon@reddit
Honestly traveling a lot for work the 787 is amazing to fly on long trips. Vs 777, a350 etc. because it doesn't dry out your sinuses the same way. I swear every time I fly to europe I. A 777 I feel like I'm coming down with a cold when I land vs. the 787 just feels better.
atlantic@reddit
A350 has the same cabin altitude as the 787.
NakedJamaican@reddit
Lower cabin plus better humidity on the 787
Poopy_sPaSmS@reddit
What's the benefit or reason this is a goal?
phatRV@reddit
Bleed air extracts the air that was going into the engine to produce thrust. Every molecule of air that wasn't used for propulsion is wasted energy, meaning using bleed air is less efficient. Plus in order to use bleed air, they have to design miles of plumbing into the wings, all over the fuselage. This extra weight added inefficiencies, and extra labor cost. The Boeing 787 also use electric braking which doesn't use the traditional heavy hydraulic system to save weight. Someone can verify this for me. There are other construction technique that Boeing 787 used such as fully carbon fiber wrap fuselage. The Airbus 350 uses the carbon panel which is structurally less efficient because they have to join the large seeams with big fasteners. However, there is a lot more manufacturing defects in the carbon fiber wrap barrel and Boeing spent a lot of money fixing this problem.
Alenia was contracted to produce the wrap fuselage but they fuc*ed up and Boeing eventually brought this back in house to control the manufacturing. This was one of the major reasons Airbus didn't use this technique. But in the end, Boeing solved this problem and the 787 airframe is a lot more efficient than the 350
NakedJamaican@reddit
Confirmed. And, by the way, those brakes are awesome. … except that they do tend to get hot
TastyCalligrapher421@reddit
The 787's wings are a true work of art.
Poopy_sPaSmS@reddit
Thank you for the explanation.
Great_Specialist_267@reddit
The 787 traded fire incidents for smoke incidents… The lithium ion batteries proved “problematic” in the early models.
Secret_Procedure_360@reddit
They are both basically made from plastic. With modern fly by wire Can bus. Electric brakes, no cabin bleed air from engines and more cabin pressure to make you feel more comfortable. 787 is rattly as fuck.
Lookingfor68@reddit
I know passengers generally like the A380, but it was obsolete when it was launched. Being a 4 holer in a twin world. It's also economically horrible to operate. Airlines do not make money with it, which is why it failed. But sure... passengers liked it.
sir_thatguy@reddit
Only the 787 has the electric driven cabin pressurization.
Bf109Emil@reddit
Just one example: the trim system.
B747: trims via the angle of the elevator which produces drag
A340/330: trims mainly via fuel in the horizontal stabilizer (trim tank) and only little corrections via the angle of the elevator
A350: has no trim tank in the elevator at all. It trims mainly via the change of the wing chamber by electrically moving the flaps for up to 3 degrees and only for minor corrections via the angle of the elevator.
And in general the efficiency is enourmus. During COVID we had an A350 flying non-stop from Hamburg to Mt. Pleasent AFB on the Falkland Islands and the captain later told me they had 30% range left as reserve 😎
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
Must have been a weird flight from Europe to South America with no one in the plane.
Bf109Emil@reddit
It was not empty at all. There were around 100 scientists on board with baggage and freight. It was a change of crew from the german southpole mission.
Lookingfor68@reddit
That's still very lightly loaded for an A350.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
Oh, I thought it was some strange empty flight to keep slots/ensure the pilots have enough hours.
esntlbnr@reddit
These were both developed in the mid 2000s.
Their predecessors (767s, A330s/A340s) were developed in the 1980s and 1990s, or even earlier (A300s in the 1970s, 747s in the 1960s). What other aircraft have been designed and certified entirely this millennium?
Just think about the technology in your computer, your phone, your fridge, your car. Of course they’re more technologically advanced than other airliners, simply by virtue of being developed later.
Difficult_Camel_1119@reddit
A220 is the 3rd new aircraft (+ the chinese one)
TomOnABudget@reddit
The 777 was a surprisingly recent design and the A380's development started in the late 90s.
rabidone2@reddit
I love the mats system on the 777. But could never wrap my head around how the mawiea?? Cabnets worked.
Responsible_Rule8829@reddit
Recent? 777 development began in the mid 80s and it's first airframe began manufacture in 1993. That's not recent at all.
BeneficialLeave7359@reddit
I worked on the remote telemetry system that Boeing used in testing the 777. It was basically an RV stuffed full of electronics racks towing a big ass satellite dish on a trailer.
Kseries2497@reddit
How similar did it look to the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle from Stripes?
BeneficialLeave7359@reddit
Haha. No, it had a much more squared off profile. I guess it was more like what Justice Thomas would call a motor coach.
I tried to find a picture but couldn’t find one. I do still have the project coffee mug which has the profile of silkscreened on it but the image wraps too far around the mug to get a good photo of it.
A_Tiger_in_Africa@reddit
That was one heavily armed recreational vehicle, man.
ultanna@reddit
As a Quebecois taxpayer, I'd say bombardier c-serie ... Please remember we put a LOT of money in there and it was sold 1$ to airbus ...
Elcapitano2u@reddit
Cries in American taxpayer
laughing_hyena1234@reddit
It’s a great plane doomed by PW engine
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
And by Boeing's foul play.
SwimmingThroughHoney@reddit
Sad whale noises...
machurto1@reddit
Quebec is still getting a share of profits, it wasn't just that 1$
biggsteve81@reddit
Don't forget the disaster that is the Sukhoi SuperJet.
tropicbrownthunder@reddit
That's basically the main reason that Interjet (AIJ) went bankrupt it's that them acquired 20something Superjets, and the maintenance costs, lack of dependability and shitty chain-of-supply for parts and service screwed the operations and put them in huge finnacial trouble even when it was about 25% of their fleet.
johndoe7376@reddit
Please explain
biggsteve81@reddit
It was developed in the mid-2000s, but has had a terrible service record. The company provided very little support for the aircraft (parts, etc.) which led to the bankruptcy of Interjet, and many other airlines have cancelled or reduced their orders because the planes are sidelined with reliability issues.
Some1-Somewhere@reddit
Plus now there's sanctions on Russia too.
Main_Violinist_3372@reddit
100%, and the safety records of the 787 and A350 prove it. To show how advanced and sophisticated these clean sheet designs are, their first ever operational hull losses were not because of mechanical failure or inherent design issues. Rather, the A350 had its first hull loss through it slamming into another a/c (JAL 516), and the 787 had its first hull loss by it being involved in a suicide/mass murder (AI 171). We’ve reached the point in aviation where clean-sheet airliner losses happen from the odds being stacked against them. And even in the case of the JAL A350 everyone onboard survived and was able to safely evacuate.
holysmokes126126@reddit
AL 171 was a suicide ?! Not much about in online / any links ?
d_maeddy@reddit
I don't think shutting down both engines right after takeoff classifies as fucking around and finding out anymore. Whatever the exact intentions were, the outcome of this action is very foreseeable isn't it
Bf109Emil@reddit
That is what Boeing wants as an outcome of the investigation because it is better for the profit. There are other possibilities which are far more realistic. The 787 has a system installed protecting the engines against N1 overspeed on ground which could be activated during the late takeoff roll. And there is the problem with water ingress via the external power connectors into the P100 electrical Panel.
Every systematical problem (like with the 737Max) is very expensive and hard to change.
The DFDR only records the cut-off signal and not the source. As we know now the RAT was already deployed before lift-off. Therefore it is also possible that the N1 overspeed protection kicked in and shut the engines down.
d_maeddy@reddit
Thank you for the info, I didn't know about this mode for the cutoff to be recorded.
Only having read about the voice recordings, it looked like a close case to me.
SecretGamer52@reddit
The engine switches were physically in the off position
Bf109Emil@reddit
They were found in the RUN position in the wreckage. And keep in mind to restart the engines you have to cycle the switches.
Bf109Emil@reddit
And a summary of events
SecretGamer52@reddit
Not officially declared as such, however it seems like the only possibe reason
AverellCZ@reddit
Which is why Boeing desperately needs a successor for the 737. To avoid another MCAS debacle.
rabidone2@reddit
The 787 E&E bay look like a normal aircraft bay while the 350 looks like a server room in a Amazon data center. There both extremely smart aircraft. But how they went about it is extremely different.
The 220 for how shit that aircraft is it's like a small 787 with its E&E bay layouts.
Responsible_Rule8829@reddit
I'd say the Bombardier C-Series (ok, the A220 but it'll always be a Bombardier) is the most advanced commercial airframe in service today and, along with the Global 7/8000, represent some of the latest and most technically advanced designs and S/W iterations available.
Uffffffffffff8372738@reddit
Most efficient engines, lowest cabin altitude, quietest cabin.
mpg111@reddit
From the passenger experience, a380 has the quieter cabin. Especially upstairs
unfurlingraspberry@reddit
Agreed. I have not flown on the top deck of an A380 but have flown bottom deck several times and I can attest to the fact that it is stunningly quiet. Definitely quieter than either the A350 or 787. I'd say the A380 is the nicest aircraft to fly on. Spacious, quiet and smooth.
hartzonfire@reddit
I have yet to fly on either aircraft and am eagerly awaiting experiencing this.
Longjumping_Ad_5407@reddit
A350, especially on 7+ hour flights is much nicer. Regularly fly on both throughout Asia and I’d take A350 everytime if I could.
Really the true comparison is A330 neo and 787. 777x v 350 is closer.
Uffffffffffff8372738@reddit
The 787 is leagues ahead of the A330nei
Positive-System-8810@reddit
Den A330 neo mit der B787 zu vergleichen ist völliger Unsinn. Die Flugzeuge gehören völlig anderen Generationen an, Trotz modernerem Cockpit und Triebwerken ist Airbus nur eine Weiterentwicklung.
TastyCalligrapher421@reddit
787 with GE engines is amazingly quiet if you're sitting up front, I found the A350 to be louder and didn't handle turbulence nearly as well.
DardaniaIE@reddit
Interesting to hear the A350 doesn’t handle as well in turbulence. Airbus were pretty in front with the gust load alleviation system (I think it’s called)
TastyCalligrapher421@reddit
It handled it well, but the 787's structural flexibility and wings are a work of art that cushions loads extremely well.
Of course the Airbus/RR fanboys will vote me down, can't dare say anything positive about the 787 or GE engines in their eyes. The A350 is a great aircraft, there's some aspects of it I prefer over the 787 too.
grumpsaboy@reddit
The problem with a passenger saying that a plane doesn't handle turbulence as well in their experience is that they have no clue what the actual external conditions were. It might handle turbulence a lot better but was in far worse turbulence in which case it will still feel worse.
trabuco357@reddit
I can’t discuss design or engineering specifics, but as a passenger, I gave flown both extensively and I much prefer the A350.
boojieboy@reddit
Passenger here, took my first transatlantic flight in 1970: never flown in a 787, but have the A350 many times, and I love this aircraft. Probably my favorite ever.
trabuco357@reddit
Imagine, my first flights were in DC-6’s!
twice_paramount832@reddit
Why?
Plastic_Cantaloupe31@reddit
I am going to be honest, i am scared of aviation in general, even in my trip in China i only used fast trains between distant cities
This fear is because of Boeing and youtube aviation crashes
Thats why in the maximum need, i only fly Airbus
Can’t trust modern aircrafts 😞
sir_thatguy@reddit
So you pick the one that’s strictly fly-by-wire with a history of overriding the pilot and causing a crash?
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
Both the A350 and the B787 have been flying for years now and neither had a crash due to the plane or the flight control computers. Both had hull losses due to humans.
TinaTheLiar@reddit
One interesting fact I learned working in the industry
In an emergency life/death situation a Boeing machine will let a HUMAN override the controls to the end... but an Airbus can and will override human inputs to the end...
Its a huge philosophical difference between the two companies.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
One isn't necessarily better than the other. A superior pilot might save a plane where computers wouldn't - but most pilots aren't top notch, they are around the average.
And live and death situations are rare, esp. on modern planes. Humans tend to make mistakes, and computers can catch them in time to avoid a mistake escalating into a live and death situation.
wongl888@reddit
Tell that to the captains of the downed 737-max.
SerDuckOfPNW@reddit
There is a difference between being able to do a thing and knowing how to do it.
RosieDear@reddit
Miracle on the Hudson......reportedly is the result of the airbus system.
I don't think many pilots consider themselves superior - and, BTW, that brings up the question....which brand has more crashes and/or events where "the pilot taking over" might have saved it (in modern times)?
I would think the proof is in the pudding. Airbus made a brave decision at first but it was based on logic. Pilots of these giant airships are like cruise ship captains and they can't possibly deal with every part of every system in every scenario. Automation, they say, allows the Pilot to do things knowing the other stuff is taken care of.
TinaTheLiar@reddit
I don't know why I feel better about a Human in a Boeing being better then a CPU in an Airbus driving me into the afterlife...
I think I've just experienced too many blue screen's and bad apps that I'm biased towards pilots not wanting to die too?!?
(sorry if this got dark... but its an important difference in philosophy for the 2 major builders of planes)
MotoJoker@reddit
The MAX disasters were partially pilots at fault. More so lack of training.
Littleplanesmtl@reddit
You think there’s no computer in a 787? That pilots control the flight surfaces with cables and pullees?
MilesHobson@reddit
The term fly-by-wire is misleading. One would expect it to mean exactly as you have guessed but it’s the opposite. It means flight surfaces controlled by actuators which are electrified by wires, like a light switch in a home or business. Because electric wires are much smaller than aluminum cables and pulleys several different pathways can be utilized, something called redundancy, in case some part of the plane becomes inoperable.
Winbot4t2@reddit
Modern Boeings like the 787 are also fly-by-wire with flight envelope protections like Airbus. They’re just not quite as thorough and do let the pilot override it should they desire. But they make it difficult to do so.
Gyat_Rizzler69@reddit
MCAS would like to have a word with you
agha0013@reddit
They are both the newest airliners developed, aside from maybe the A220/C-Series. They both included a lot of new developments, materials, and systems.
The 777X might change that once it enters service, but mainly because it has benefitted from a lot of 787 development
Difficult_Camel_1119@reddit
777x is still based on the old 777, so in total, 787 will still be the more modern one
mduell@reddit
Eh, newer engines, newer wing.
McCheesing@reddit
same innards
mduell@reddit
Engine has CMC nozzles and liners, which is new even compared to LEAP.
McCheesing@reddit
Yeah but the fuselage is the same. Is the 737 NG and Max the same jet? Technically no but actually yes
RosieDear@reddit
Aren't some things so well perfected that they can't be improved? That is, could such a large fuselage be vastly improved today?
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
You could probably save a lot of weight by going with CFRPs (carbon fibre/plastic) on the 777 fuselage. Going to be an engineering challenge, but Boeing has all the experience after 15y since the 787
MotoJoker@reddit
Those pieces of shit are far from perfect. They are as advanced as they can be though. Southwest essentially told Boeing that want a more modern 737 fleet and the two went to the FAA and asked what the max amount of things they could do to the A/C while keeping its type rating, FAA essentially gave them a shopping list and they got going. At its core, it is still 60s tech.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit
Even the A330NEO uses the old A300 fuselage will you claim the A330NEO is less advanced than say B757?
Alphasite@reddit
Not completely. It has a bunch of bits from the 787 like it’s windows, cockpit and avionics. And its own improved (wider) cabin interior.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit
The cabin is completely new as well, just the outer shell of B777 remains.
berger034@reddit
Yeah but the windows are so much bigger/s
RosieDear@reddit
I love the A220 - but you know the score. Next thing you know we'll be flying them coast to coast when it is best (for the passenger) for <4 hour flight (size interior, etc.)....
But given the oil shock they are likely to be even more popular.
burgleshams@reddit
I’d way way rather fly 5 hours on an A220 than on an A320 personally. 2-3 is a superior layout, quicker boarding, lower cabin alt, etc.
aero_r17@reddit
I believe the Embraer E-Jet E2 (especially the E195-E2) is often touted as a class leader in efficiency (although I think it's pretty neck-and-neck with the C-Series depending on mission); similar situation as your 777X example where it's not a true clean sheet, but more than a majority of the aircraft is new including wings and engines
Bf109Emil@reddit
QfoQ@reddit
Aircraft manufacturers are like graphics card manufacturers. You have AMD and you have Nvidia, here you have AB and Boeing. Nothing else matters.
Crafty_Pickle_@reddit
Given all the responses here and aviation enthusiasts always raving about the 787, I still can't fathom how the one in India recently crashed!
HydrodynamicShite@reddit
Suicide, those fuel switches were turned off on purpose
Bf109Emil@reddit
That is what Boeing wants as an outcome of the investigation because it is better for the profit. There are other possibilities which are far more realistic. The 787 has a system installed protecting the engines against N1 overspeed on ground which could be activated during the late takeoff roll. And there is the problem with water ingress via the external power connectors into the P100 electrical Panel.
Electrical_Yak_2662@reddit
787 ftw due to better air quality (bleedless electric fresh air pressurization and aircon) and more humidity.
Feeling much better after a 10 hour flight on a 787 vs any other plane will explain it to you. It's as if Boeing knew the airlines will cram as many people in as they can anyway, so let's engineer a plane that still improves everyone's travel experience in spite of tiny seat pitch while delivering excellent economy for the airline.
ShutterTorque@reddit
787 is still superior. Sorry but clean air for those flying >>>>
Tojo_Ce@reddit
Getting rid of bleed air is because of engine efficiency. It has nothing to do with air quality, as the air is tapped from the compressor where the air is not contaminated.
Yes, in rare engine failures the bleed air could be contaminated, but a 787 electrical failure could also leave you without fresh air.
What does matter however is cabin altitude, eg how closely the air pressure resembles the one on the ground, and both aircraft have made similar great improvements on this front.
fly_awayyy@reddit
Not true. The common cause of bleed contamination ironically on the A320 family or one of them is over filling the APU oil from not checking the oil level after a certain time after shutdown. Not only that from engine tapped bleed it’s hardly because of engine failures. IAE in their V2500 engine variant on the 320 family once again knows it’s a problem and has tried changing oils and now they knows it’s seal related.
Tsao_Aubbes@reddit
Completely wrong. APU smoke and fume events are driven by ingesting glycol or skydrol through the APU inlet, not APU overservicing.
Tojo_Ce@reddit
If you have oil in your compressor, you do have an engine failure.
Whether it is rare is another discussion. I’d say with 10k+ A320 family aircraft in active service, contaminated bleed air is a rare occurrence.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Winbot4t2@reddit
The A220 has had loads of issue with oil getting into the bleed system through bad seals. It doesn’t lead to engine failure/shutdown, although they were having failure issues unrelated to the fume events for other reasons.
ShutterTorque@reddit
I fly transcon once a week, in two years I have had inhaled oil thanks to pratt and shitney, thrice
fly_awayyy@reddit
Jesus Christ it’s a rare occurrence? Would you like to attend a ALPA meeting as a spokesperson on fume incidents since you so much. Please tell the collective consortium they’re idiots and your the expert and the committee they’ve made for this are nothing. And the graphs they show around carriers with aircraft types mean nothing. Oh and guess what they’re independent of engine failures. Send me a email, I’d love to have you attend, virtual or in person.
the_silent_redditor@reddit
Some people take bleed air real serious.. huh?
fly_awayyy@reddit
Yes the ones that have died or been seriously injured or affected by it. Seems like something to be serious about huh?
Tojo_Ce@reddit
Dear fellow human,
I don’t know much about the specifics as I’m just an avionics engineer. Hence the “please correct me if I’m wrong”.
I never called anyone an idiot, nor did I dismiss any of the concerns.
What I did specifically mention is that these “fume incidents” as you like to call them, are considered engine failures in my perspective, as the engine should not behave this way.
Regardless, with 10k+ aircraft in active service, performing 50k+ flights a day, it does seem like “fume incidents” are a rare occurrence.
Again: correct me if I’m wrong, but please keep this discussion civilised.
fly_awayyy@reddit
An “engine failure” and seal failure are two different things. Also seepage past seals. That’s not an engine failure . Not To mention over filling the APU oil reservoir which causes the same contamination in the packs. Where’s the engine failure in there?
Tojo_Ce@reddit
A seal in the engine not working as intended, is an engine failure. If your washing machine doesn’t clean the clothes, do you blame a specific component, or do you blame the washing machine? It’s supposed to work as a single functional unit, parts of it failing, means the entire unit failed.
Overfilling the APU reservoir is another thing. It means somebody did not do their duty properly. We have checks and balances in this industry for a reason. If the APU oil is overfilled, we don’t have a failing person, we have a failing system. Imo much worse than an engine failure, because this one will kill people for sure.
fly_awayyy@reddit
That’s not how the FAA defines or NTSB quite literally defines “engine failure” so once again you’re making up your own metrics and terms? By your logic a inop reverser is an engine failure too then right or any other equipment on the engine? But got it a defective reverser means an engine failure no? The why dispatch it? Why dispatch it with a defective starter valve with that logic?
Dabgod101@reddit
I've flown both and while I do personally hate the button windows of the 787 its still nice to fly but my god a 8 hr flight on the A350 was fucking peak and in general I like the A350 more cause it looks more fuckable with the slutty cockpit windows
bouncypete@reddit
I think to understand the answer to that question, you've got to know how other airliners work in the first place.
I haven't worked on the Airbus but I have worked in the 787 and yes, it's very, very different from earlier Boeing's. That said, there is some commonality with the 777 but there still is significant differences to the 777.
Even simple things like the potable (drinkable) water system is different. Because the 787 does not use bleed air, it can't use the air pressure to pressurise the water system so on the 787, it's electrically pumped around the aircraft. And it also has an ultraviolet filter in the water system.
Instead of individual computer boxes to control systems like brakes it used 16 General Orocessor Modules and the software is loaded onto up to 3 different GPM's for redundancy.
The brakes are electric, not hydraulic.
The hydraulic systems are 5,000 psi, not 3,000 psi.
The spoilers droop when the flaps are lowered to create a more efficient wing.
The power electrical equipment is liquid cooled, not air cooled.
Instead of thousands of wires running down the entire length of the fuselage all carrying power, there are far fewer wires running to Remote Power Distribution Units and the power branches off locally from the RPDU.
There is a lot, lot more but you get the idea. It's very different from previous Boeings.
Zertop@reddit
Love the dreamliner, but the A350 takes the cake for me!
skabberwobber@reddit
If they are being given out for free I'll take a 787. But if any brand new off the line aircraft is being given out ill take a 757.
skabberwobber@reddit
Actually I'll take a 747 nose loader.
UnrulySith@reddit
The 350s are razor. It was fantastic.
Clyde_Billingsbee@reddit
They look the same and do the same thing. Who gives a poo
one1200@reddit
A350 is definitely looks better
TexasBrett@reddit
The two newest aircraft are the most advanced. More at 7.
Taptrick@reddit
The 350 is more of a 777 competitor. The 330NEO is more equivalent to the 787.
herewego2019@reddit
350 is tall enough for future bigger engines.787 will then need MCAS.
NakedJamaican@reddit
This is true. And yet, somehow Boeing still can’t design a workable lavatory paper towel compartment.
YogiBearShark@reddit
Fly by wire and heavy use of light weight composites made the A320 a game changer.
DealKey8478@reddit
The A350 has a lot on common with the A380, basically just continuing the gradual improvements throughout all the models.
With Boeing there was a clear linage from the 737 to the 747, but with the 787 they really changed everything.
TLDR; A350 isn't a huge departure from previous designs. 787 is a dramatic departure.
micowywa@reddit
One is a great plane the other is an Airbus.
langley10@reddit
Remind me… which one had months and months of delays including a grounding and which one entered service on schedule?
TastyCalligrapher421@reddit
No delays? Qantas Project Sunrise was supposed to be delivered in 2022... Both companies have delays.
micowywa@reddit
That's not even what the post is about. It is comparing planes not deadlines. Irrelevant conclusion.
TheBlack2007@reddit
At least Airbus never had EASA Rubber Stamps to do certification in-house with no supervision...
-DoctorFreeman@reddit
Ypu mesn the other airñiners developed decades before these? Qell, the technology is deacdes more modern.
jpgene@reddit
Lots of great technical commentary here already. Both craft are fantastic and if focusing on passenger comfort, a big step above older jets. Both have improved cabin altitude, and the 787 has much improved humidity which I am sensitive too (afaik on the a350 improved humidity is a cost option for carriers to consider). Both are quieter than older designs. The a380 also has improved cabin altitude and quiet compared to the 77w and older designs.
hobbseltoff@reddit
The A350 and 787 both use electronic circuit breakers which saves a significant amount of weight compared to the old style.
mr_dee_wingz@reddit
The improvement on the hydraulic systems.
A320 with its famous barking dog PTU, to the A330 without it and the latest rendition of the A350 with 2 systems. Shows you how much improvement they have came over the years
chaz_Mac_z@reddit
One point to make: engine have two ports for bleed air, one for ground operation, and one for cruise. These can match the required pressure and airflow rates for the air conditioning packs at the design conditions. Not such a big deal for ground operations, but all the way from ground to cruise altitude, there is a mismatch, and energy wasted. Also, low passenger load counts in this. Or unexpected temperature at altitude. Electric compressors can run at whatever pressure is required, improving efficiency over the flight envelope.
SamArch0347@reddit
They are the most advanced, however size wise they are not direct competitors. The A350 competes with the 777 and the 787 competes with the A330 based on capacity.
mduell@reddit
I suppose it depends if 777X is in the skies that day.
NotACompleteDick@reddit
You could always read some of the thousands of previous runs through this subject. Financially the A350 is a success and Boeing will never recoup the cost of developing the 787.
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
I mean… a lot. Be more specific