I don’t think so just looking at their aircraft building history, this one competed another, and other aircraft was built after an aircraft of the rival successful. Competition is normal
Yes there is no war, do the best at the best cost at much more security and safety because Airbus is intelligent and he perfect know that what happened to Boeing could very well happen to them…
One thing to Airbus' advantage is passenger confidence in Boeing fleet. With all the negative press regarding safety issues with Boeing's planes, however unfounded, passengers could lose confidence in their reliability.
This is all supposition, Airbus has not indicated that it will build a A350-2000. It has said, it will wait to see how the market responds. Right now Airbus is not struggling for orders but struggling with its suppliers, who even now, after two years after Covid have still not caught up. Building yet another aircraft with the supply chain so bad is fraught with financial pit falls. Airbus are wise to hang back, there aren't enough orders to warrant another Aircraft just to placate a ignorant media.
Stretching the fuselage was the approach Boeing took in developing the 737max to avoid going through recertifcation by using proven components and subsystems. However, the lengthened fuselage and additional weight, without corresponding changes to the planes engines and wing lift capability, would mean it should still go through retesting and recertification, or potentially face safetyy problems experienced by the 737max.
I’ve seen of lot of videos like this one lately that are more infomercial than real news, that are stuffed full of corporate sounding repetitious nonsense. I guess one good thing is you can get the message after about 30 seconds and can switch it off knowing you won’t learn anything else.
12:51 - No, I'm not concerned with aircraft emissions when flying. Carbon dioxide is plant food and greens the planet. Furthermore, there is a strong link between solar cycles and atmospheric temperature. As for the carbon dioxide levels, they actually lag rises and falls in atmospheric temperature; when temperatures rise the oceans out-gas more carbon dioxide, raising atmospheric levels.
Not sure whether it's that simple as just stretching the fuselage. There could be a problem with tailtrikes and also there might be the need for an entirely new wing that would provide the lift to accommodate those extra 40 pax
The fuselage cannot be stretched indefinitely. The landing gears and wings have to be overdesigned to begin with. The fuselage itself has to have enough strength to withstand extra stress due to new weight and increased dimension from nose gear to main landing gears. The engines have to be more powerful as well.
I'm no aviation expert, but increasing the capacity by 40 seats in economy ? Doesn't sound to me like something that a manufacturer would see as worthwhile from a financial point of view. Airbus will focus on the their 350 F, next gen aircraft, higher efficiency, sustainable fuels, etc. I'd say this is click bait, which I fell for.
Why would they consider a similar sized aircraft like the 77X? Airbus is doing just fine, the A 350-1000 is for most airlines already more efficiënt than a 77X. Airbus learned a lot by the A 380 and are the leading manufaturer.
An A350-2000 is all very well until you realise that there is no spare capacity with which to build it. The A350 is sold out until about 2030, the A350F will pick up steady orders, and with rumours of new orders from Emirates, Qatar and others for passenger and/or freight A350s, that will keep the line busy until an A350Neo can be built in the early 2030s, to replace aircraft ordered now. With RR upgrading all the Trents, with arguably the most important being the XWB-97 for the improved A350-1000, I cannot believe Airbus will spend money to compete any further with their existing aircraft, for which they have hundreds of orders. I did seem likely that this would happen, but the vast order book for the A350 accrued in 2023/4, now makes this very unlikely........
Airbus needs to address the single Engin option of the 1000 first, if they are able to have an alternative for a 2000 series, for sure it would probably work. But obviously, they want to avoid another A380 like loss.
The existing A350 is sold out until 2030, so why would Airbus be interested in an expensive engine option (presumably GE), just to sell a few A350s to US airlines that want US engines when, apart from Delta, the A350 has been a huge success around the world, without US sales. Airbus simply cannot increase production more than they're doing already. So more US sales apart from DL are unlikely. In Feb 24, AA were reported interested again, but nothing came of it. United have it on order starting 2027 delivery, and if they're sensible, they'll take them, or they could sell their slots to other airlines. That's the only forseen flexibility. I realise why GE might want a slice of A350 action, with the 777X going nowhere now until maybe 2027/8, but GE already refused to build an engine for the A350-1000 during development. They snubbed Airbus, and I think Airbus would be most reluctant to allow GE onboard again, especially with the new uprated XWB-97 for the A350-1000 due, which will increase time on the wing, a problem for desert based airlines. There is no sensible reason for any engine option on the A350 right now. RR are doing great, and oh, they have an exclusive until 2030, at least...........
On my comments for an SST, Boom and the oil companies have come up with an organic SAF fuel for the Boom SST. Also the up to date technology has eliminated the need for an afterburner and made the aircraft as quiet as any other aircraft. The only environmental problem that remains is sonic booms which bars SST's from going supersonic over land but some engineers at Lockheed Martin are working on a way to reduce sonic booms.
Re-engineering just causes problems because Boeing is not able to re-engineer aircrafts as you have seen in case of the 737MAX. They did the big mistake in trying that. Instead of spending the 737 a higher landing gear, they made the wrong solution to shorten the pylons for the new gas turbines. MCAS always made trouble.
What are you waffling on about ? Airbus is now the industry leader with at least a 5 year waiting list. They don't need an opportunity from Boeing to build an A350 2000. Boeing lost the war against Airbus in the late 80's when they refused to develop the 737 replacement after Airbus released the A320 and then in the late 90's they didn't copy Airbus by future proofing the 777 and as a replacement for the 747 with the new glass cockpit difigtal flyby wire force feedback stick controls. Instead Boeing waited 10 years for many airlines to switch to the A320, to release the 737 NG patting themselves on the back for having the most popular airliner .. that was designed in the late 60's. The A320 was designed in 80's ... with the latest technology and future proof ... to be better the the 737 in every way. See. Boeing completely screwed up by not developing the 737 replacement that would be better than the A320. And the A350 was built by Airbus ... because Boeing stupidly built the 787 ( without new side stick control glass cockpit) because nobody wanted a new variant of the 747 to counter the A380, instead of offering a 777 X with composite wings, reduced weight, new engines ... and simply doe NG, Max & X versions of the 757, 767 back in early 2000's. Again. Airbus is now the industry leader with a very long back order list. There aircraft are superior in every way to anything Boeing is making ... because Boeing did not did not build the 737 replacement to compete & dominate the A320. The 777 would have been modeled on the 7N7, Boeing continue with NG, Max & X versions of 757 & 767 until customers switch to the 7N7 and the new 787 with composite body & wings. Boeing screwed themselves by doing absolutely nothing when the A320 entered service for Aiir France in late 80's. The A320 was clearly better in every way to the 737 designed in the late 60's.
The thing is Airbus need to keep developing new aircraft to avoid falling into the same trap Boeing did in the next 10 years or so. I also think that they need to start at least looking at a replacemetn for the A320, probably in 10 years or so as Boeing cannot possibly do another generation on the 737 after all the Max issues so they're goign to need to compete with whatever boeing produces....
@@tomriley5790 Nope. Although Airbus deserves to be #1 Maker with the best aircraft ....,they were fortunate Being did not make the 727 (small, twin), 737 ( medium, trijet), 747 ( Large, quad) by the start of the 70's. and all with tall landing gear anticipating larger frugal engines. They by mid 80's replace. The 757, 767, 787 should have replace the jets of the 60's. Airbus is not going to make similar mistake afte mistake for over 50 years not only the last 10. Both companies will secure their market share, and be able to match new designs with near identical performance numbers. Boeing is never going to be #1 again, unless they surprise everyone with something truly revolutionary. Not happen. Airbus 2/3 Boeing 1/3.
I would like to see the A380 900 back into production .. But it would be cheaper to bring the A350--2000 instead and would be better better than the Boeing 777X .
The A380-900 had been the visionary stretch version that was never finalized,. The decision to develop and produce a new airliner needs approval of many stakeholders, beginning with the full Executive Management and the Board of Directors (these institutions are usually separated in Europe, unlike in the USA). Potential creditors would raise eyebrows, and financial analysts would bash the company and send the stock nosedive. After the commercial failure of the original A380 and the dismanteling of the manufacturing system, it would be completely impossible to get a new positive decision.
Dear "FLIG AVIA" - pls. consider no longer to overload your videos by too many tracks that lead away from the core topic (i.e. here the envisioned A350-2000)
Boeing should discontinue the 777X and just improve the 777-300 with upgrades. Also if that Boom SST works out tje airlines will be demanding a larger capacity SST .Boeing and Lockheed Martin need to team up and build a larger SST. The Boom SST looks like it could be stretched some to get 100+passengers. Also they could up the power of the engines. Also an SST could make more flights accross the oceans and the problems with the Concorde have been overcome with technological advances with all aspects of the aircraft.
Are you trying to tell the story of aviation? Why not mention the Wright siblings? You're telling to much fluff befor you get to the story mentioned in the title.
Airbus has the ability to build this and kill Boeing but they are not going to do that simply because they don’t want to do that, being the sole main manufacturer of all planes will only lead to destruction because that’s just how businesses work, the airbus ceo says that he does not delight in Boeings hardships because he values their competition and what they bring to the market, as he says they should be working together to bring quality aviation products.
@@albertogambino2562 Look again, closely. The "topic" is about stretching an aircraft for greater capacities when the industry was going the other way, causing Airbus to stop or cancel its existing large capacities series: the A340 and the A380, respectively, each flying on 4 engines. It seems that everybody is jumping in the navgeek bandwagon without any clue what aviation and its history are about. A little knowledge about airplanes could easily turn this channel into a valuable resource of information about the aviation industry. The A350 came about after multiple decisions to respond not just to fuel efficiency but to more contemporary environment matters. Gathering data, videos and documents is just one aspect of the work behind the scene before even publishing a well polished, carefully articulated video.
I wish Indonesia add more AIRBUS types over BOEING for the future of developed country ever for Indonesia on 2045 years later. Especially Garuda Indonesia as I need except for Lion air, maybe just choose BOEING be the world's most worst airline ever as I hate it. Also, for military industry and Presidential plane for replacing BOEING to AIRBUS it's been great than ever exist.
Airbus is not building an A350-2000 because they consider the A350-1000 to be large enough. Airbus' Head of Marketing, Stan Shparberg, said that the A350-1000 is the company's flagship product.
I give not one iota of a damn on how much emmisions a plane uses, we need planes and we want planes, i don't care if they don't come up with a new form or fuel for 500 years.
Build A350-2000 PROVIDED Airbus learn from Boeing’s fatal mistake with the BOEING 737 MAX. By this I mean, installing a bigger engine to an existing aircraft. Just saying.
This is what Airbus did on the 330 neo and it poses no problem... Find out... The 737 has a ground clearance problem with the large LEAP engines because it is short on legs
For Airbus sake it will be wise to stuck with the current A-350 900 and 1000 variants. And concentrate on more efficient low carbon emission t.f.e.'s The blended wing fuselage concept is really something that needs to progress. Hydrogen propulsion sounds a bit too risky. No one would fly on a hydrogen bomb with wings. Think about what happened to the Zepplin filled with helium. The hydrogen fuelcell/electric propulsion can be the most viable option for short and medium range a.c.
It is clear and will happen very soon, plasma energy will be used by every day households and will be free energy (No long need to pay bills), surely the aviation industry can utilise this too right?
No narrow minded propaganda Airbus has been the first for many years and makes the best planes and that's fine if that pisses you off ..boig boing is odated and cheesy
"Environmentally friendly". This word should be banned for aircraft. This 777x is only more fuel efficient than other aircraft, but it is by no means environmentally friendly. It still needs 70,000 liters for a long-haul flight. This is a disaster for the environment. You can't make this toxic machine look better than it actually is. It is simply the less environmentally harmful choice, but that doesn't make it "environmentally friendly".
I would love to see an A380 Neo.
Me too
everyone would like that
@@miguelmonteiro7942 same
Airbus Forever!!!
Definitely go for it, A350 2000❤❤
who will supply the parts???????/
I don't think Airbus is interested in beating Boeing. They do their own thing and do it well. And look at the Boeing struggles in disbelief.
I don’t think so just looking at their aircraft building history, this one competed another, and other aircraft was built after an aircraft of the rival successful. Competition is normal
Yes there is no war, do the best at the best cost at much more security and safety because Airbus is intelligent and he perfect know that what happened to Boeing could very well happen to them…
One thing to Airbus' advantage is passenger confidence in Boeing fleet.
With all the negative press regarding safety issues with Boeing's planes, however unfounded, passengers could lose confidence in their reliability.
This is all supposition, Airbus has not indicated that it will build a A350-2000. It has said, it will wait to see how the market responds. Right now Airbus is not struggling for orders but struggling with its suppliers, who even now, after two years after Covid have still not caught up. Building yet another aircraft with the supply chain so bad is fraught with financial pit falls. Airbus are wise to hang back, there aren't enough orders to warrant another Aircraft just to placate a ignorant media.
Stretching the fuselage was the approach Boeing took in developing the 737max to avoid going through recertifcation by using proven components and subsystems. However, the lengthened fuselage and additional weight, without corresponding changes to the planes engines and wing lift capability, would mean it should still go through retesting and recertification, or potentially face safetyy problems experienced by the 737max.
I’ve seen of lot of videos like this one lately that are more infomercial than real news, that are stuffed full of corporate sounding repetitious nonsense. I guess one good thing is you can get the message after about 30 seconds and can switch it off knowing you won’t learn anything else.
Aiirbus does nt need to kill anyone he has been.dominating the game for years.
That’s right
12:51 - No, I'm not concerned with aircraft emissions when flying. Carbon dioxide is plant food and greens the planet. Furthermore, there is a strong link between solar cycles and atmospheric temperature. As for the carbon dioxide levels, they actually lag rises and falls in atmospheric temperature; when temperatures rise the oceans out-gas more carbon dioxide, raising atmospheric levels.
The most practical answer😎
2:32 'GASP".....the Beauty....The A350 Airbus....😘❤❤❤❤
Not sure whether it's that simple as just stretching the fuselage. There could be a problem with tailtrikes and also there might be the need for an entirely new wing that would provide the lift to accommodate those extra 40 pax
The fuselage cannot be stretched indefinitely. The landing gears and wings have to be overdesigned to begin with. The fuselage itself has to have enough strength to withstand extra stress due to new weight and increased dimension from nose gear to main landing gears. The engines have to be more powerful as well.
I'm no aviation expert, but increasing the capacity by 40 seats in economy ? Doesn't sound to me like something that a manufacturer would see as worthwhile from a financial point of view. Airbus will focus on the their 350 F, next gen aircraft, higher efficiency, sustainable fuels, etc. I'd say this is click bait, which I fell for.
Not in economy just split maybe thats what he means.
Why would they consider a similar sized aircraft like the 77X?
Airbus is doing just fine, the A 350-1000 is for most airlines already more efficiënt than a 77X.
Airbus learned a lot by the A 380 and are the leading manufaturer.
An A350-2000 is all very well until you realise that there is no spare capacity with which to build it. The A350 is sold out until about 2030, the A350F will pick up steady orders, and with rumours of new orders from Emirates, Qatar and others for passenger and/or freight A350s, that will keep the line busy until an A350Neo can be built in the early 2030s, to replace aircraft ordered now.
With RR upgrading all the Trents, with arguably the most important being the XWB-97 for the improved A350-1000, I cannot believe Airbus will spend money to compete any further with their existing aircraft, for which they have hundreds of orders.
I did seem likely that this would happen, but the vast order book for the A350 accrued in 2023/4, now makes this very unlikely........
Airbus needs to address the single Engin option of the 1000 first, if they are able to have an alternative for a 2000 series, for sure it would probably work. But obviously, they want to avoid another A380 like loss.
😂😂😂
The existing A350 is sold out until 2030, so why would Airbus be interested in an expensive engine option (presumably GE), just to sell a few A350s to US airlines that want US engines when, apart from Delta, the A350 has been a huge success around the world, without US sales. Airbus simply cannot increase production more than they're doing already. So more US sales apart from DL are unlikely. In Feb 24, AA were reported interested again, but nothing came of it. United have it on order starting 2027 delivery, and if they're sensible, they'll take them, or they could sell their slots to other airlines. That's the only forseen flexibility.
I realise why GE might want a slice of A350 action, with the 777X going nowhere now until maybe 2027/8, but GE already refused to build an engine for the A350-1000 during development. They snubbed Airbus, and I think Airbus would be most reluctant to allow GE onboard again, especially with the new uprated XWB-97 for the A350-1000 due, which will increase time on the wing, a problem for desert based airlines.
There is no sensible reason for any engine option on the A350 right now. RR are doing great, and oh, they have an exclusive until 2030, at least...........
On my comments for an SST, Boom and the oil companies have come up with an organic SAF fuel for the Boom SST. Also the up to date technology has eliminated the need for an afterburner and made the aircraft as quiet as any other aircraft. The only environmental problem that remains is sonic booms which bars SST's from going supersonic over land but some engineers at Lockheed Martin are working on a way to reduce sonic booms.
1 and 2 with appropriate time gap (in any sequence).
Nice.
✈️
Why Boeing not just re-engineer the beautiful 747 with just 2 engines and composite materials???
Re-engineering just causes problems because Boeing is not able to re-engineer aircrafts as you have seen in case of the 737MAX.
They did the big mistake in trying that. Instead of spending the 737 a higher landing gear, they made the wrong solution to shorten the pylons for the new gas turbines. MCAS always made trouble.
More airlines trust Airbus aircrafts than Boeing's for safety and reliability!
The plural of aircraft is aircraft.
The A350 2000 incorporates many 777X "attributes". How can this avoid a completely new aircraft registration?
AIRBUS = 350 -
2000 - New - Models : Lançaments- P/ :
2027 ~ 2028 : New ~ Model's :
Geração = 2000 :
New - Geração -
Maior - New -
Tamanho ! ❤:
Airbus - A350 -
2000 New -
Geração - Model's - 2000 : Parabéns !!!
Airbus : ❤❤❤
Lançaments :
Airbus : Séries 350 - Model's -
Geração = 2000 ;
Parabéns !!!
Airbus ‐ inc ;
Airbus = 2025 ❤❤❤❤.
What are you waffling on about ? Airbus is now the industry leader with at least a 5 year waiting list. They don't need an opportunity from Boeing to build an A350 2000.
Boeing lost the war against Airbus in the late 80's when they refused to develop the 737 replacement after Airbus released the A320 and then in the late 90's they didn't copy Airbus by future proofing the 777 and as a replacement for the 747 with the new glass cockpit difigtal flyby wire force feedback stick controls.
Instead Boeing waited 10 years for many airlines to switch to the A320, to release the 737 NG patting themselves on the back for having the most popular airliner .. that was designed in the late 60's. The A320 was designed in 80's ... with the latest technology and future proof ... to be better the the 737 in every way.
See. Boeing completely screwed up by not developing the 737 replacement that would be better than the A320.
And the A350 was built by Airbus ... because Boeing stupidly built the 787 ( without new side stick control glass cockpit) because nobody wanted a new variant of the 747 to counter the A380, instead of offering a 777 X with composite wings, reduced weight, new engines ... and simply doe NG, Max & X versions of the 757, 767 back in early 2000's.
Again. Airbus is now the industry leader with a very long back order list. There aircraft are superior in every way to anything Boeing is making ... because Boeing did not did not build the 737 replacement to compete & dominate the A320. The 777 would have been modeled on the 7N7, Boeing continue with NG, Max & X versions of 757 & 767 until customers switch to the 7N7 and the new 787 with composite body & wings. Boeing screwed themselves by doing absolutely nothing when the A320 entered service for Aiir France in late 80's. The A320 was clearly better in every way to the 737 designed in the late 60's.
The thing is Airbus need to keep developing new aircraft to avoid falling into the same trap Boeing did in the next 10 years or so. I also think that they need to start at least looking at a replacemetn for the A320, probably in 10 years or so as Boeing cannot possibly do another generation on the 737 after all the Max issues so they're goign to need to compete with whatever boeing produces....
@@tomriley5790 Nope. Although Airbus deserves to be #1 Maker with the best aircraft ....,they were fortunate Being did not make the 727 (small, twin), 737 ( medium, trijet), 747 ( Large, quad) by the start of the 70's. and all with tall landing gear anticipating larger frugal engines. They by mid 80's replace. The 757, 767, 787 should have replace the jets of the 60's.
Airbus is not going to make similar mistake afte mistake for over 50 years not only the last 10. Both companies will secure their market share, and be able to match new designs with near identical performance numbers. Boeing is never going to be #1 again, unless they surprise everyone with something truly revolutionary. Not happen.
Airbus 2/3
Boeing 1/3.
I would like to see the A380 900 back into production ..
But it would be cheaper to bring the A350--2000 instead and would be better better than the Boeing 777X .
exactly
The A380-900 had been the visionary stretch version that was never finalized,.
The decision to develop and produce a new airliner needs approval of many stakeholders, beginning with the full Executive Management and the Board of Directors (these institutions are usually separated in Europe, unlike in the USA). Potential creditors would raise eyebrows, and financial analysts would bash the company and send the stock nosedive.
After the commercial failure of the original A380 and the dismanteling of the manufacturing system, it would be completely impossible to get a new positive decision.
Dear "FLIG AVIA" - pls. consider no longer to overload your videos by too many tracks that lead away from the core topic (i.e. here the envisioned A350-2000)
Thanks for your feedback!
A major contribution to BS - as Airbus is not working on this at all. The improve the 900 and 1000 model. No more fake news please.
🤦
Yeah, why not stretch that further and make it an a350-5000 😅
Boeing should discontinue the 777X and just improve the 777-300 with upgrades. Also if that Boom SST works out tje airlines will be demanding a larger capacity SST .Boeing and Lockheed Martin need to team up and build a larger SST. The Boom SST looks like it could be stretched some to get 100+passengers. Also they could up the power of the engines. Also an SST could make more flights accross the oceans and the problems with the Concorde have been overcome with technological advances with all aspects of the aircraft.
Should be called A350-1100, If it is a straight stretch of the fuselarge
No Google tem uma imagem só pesquisar bem legal modelo q fizeram
bring the A380 back in
A380 an absolute Flop
@@brettdemauna9994 every body i know loves flying in it. THe US didn't like it as it replaced the 747.
@@angeri8565. The US literally ditched the 747 & opted for a greener & more efficient twin 787,
i want to see a double decker!
Are you trying to tell the story of aviation? Why not mention the Wright siblings? You're telling to much fluff befor you get to the story mentioned in the title.
He needs to stretch the vids, in order to place ads.
Thıs channel is BS...!!!!!
also this is all written by AI ... there is no human narrator either
Airbus has the ability to build this and kill Boeing but they are not going to do that simply because they don’t want to do that, being the sole main manufacturer of all planes will only lead to destruction because that’s just how businesses work, the airbus ceo says that he does not delight in Boeings hardships because he values their competition and what they bring to the market, as he says they should be working together to bring quality aviation products.
This Airbus's NEW Aircraft Being Build EXACT Boeing's Killer - what are you trying to say?
Good avionics . aeronautics & expensive but must be install four engine
drill baby drill.
Both A350 and A380
Pure and utter clickbait speculation AI stuff?
0:21 A340
Where? I only see a big A350 without engines.
@@albertogambino2562 Look again, closely.
The "topic" is about stretching an aircraft for greater capacities when the industry was going the other way, causing Airbus to stop or cancel its existing large capacities series: the A340 and the A380, respectively, each flying on 4 engines.
It seems that everybody is jumping in the navgeek bandwagon without any clue what aviation and its history are about.
A little knowledge about airplanes could easily turn this channel into a valuable resource of information about the aviation industry.
The A350 came about after multiple decisions to respond not just to fuel efficiency but to more contemporary environment matters.
Gathering data, videos and documents is just one aspect of the work behind the scene before even publishing a well polished, carefully articulated video.
I wish Indonesia add more AIRBUS types over BOEING for the future of developed country ever for Indonesia on 2045 years later. Especially Garuda Indonesia as I need except for Lion air, maybe just choose BOEING be the world's most worst airline ever as I hate it. Also, for military industry and Presidential plane for replacing BOEING to AIRBUS it's been great than ever exist.
1 & 2
Boeing is paid by Airbus to make commercials.
But both of course!
Airbus is not building an A350-2000 because they consider the A350-1000 to be large enough. Airbus' Head of Marketing, Stan Shparberg, said that the A350-1000 is the company's flagship product.
I think they will because compared to the 777X, the A350-1000 is still a bit smaller. The competition will not stop at any segment.
Telling the story of the A350-2000 and beginning with over 2:00 min B777 is boaring
The A.........350
A350
That's a great aircraft!
Both
How is Boeing still in business
1
2
😎
Bla bla, what a waffling repeat of the same, same, same "facts".
You could have done this video in a length of 5 minutes.
Built not build.
350
I give not one iota of a damn on how much emmisions a plane uses, we need planes and we want planes, i don't care if they don't come up with a new form or fuel for 500 years.
very practical thinking!
22222222222222222222 a380
Great!
Build A350-2000 PROVIDED Airbus learn from Boeing’s fatal mistake with the BOEING 737 MAX. By this I mean, installing a bigger engine to an existing aircraft. Just saying.
This is what Airbus did on the 330 neo and it poses no problem... Find out... The 737 has a ground clearance problem with the large LEAP engines because it is short on legs
The size of the engines wasn’t a problem, the length of the landing gear is the real problem of the 737.
Encore une annonce putaclic.
No
Pin me I have been a fan for a long time
😎
For Airbus sake it will be wise to stuck with the current A-350 900 and 1000 variants. And concentrate on more efficient low carbon emission t.f.e.'s The blended wing fuselage concept is really something that needs to progress. Hydrogen propulsion sounds a bit too risky. No one would fly on a hydrogen bomb with wings. Think about what happened to the Zepplin filled with helium. The hydrogen fuelcell/electric propulsion can be the most viable option for short and medium range a.c.
Thanks for your comment.
@@FLIGAVIA Pleasure. 👍
New pencil plane
It is clear and will happen very soon, plasma energy will be used by every day households and will be free energy (No long need to pay bills), surely the aviation industry can utilise this too right?
Thanks for your feedback!
I see you’ve got some woke children on here complaining about hurty words like ‘killer’…..grow up and join the real world
Hydrogen! Greenhouse effect! Just imagine the hurricanes and floods this year alone!
Blah blah blah. Your word salads are not useful.
Could we PLEASE not use words like "KILLER" to describe aircraft. It's NOT funny. Thank You.
Thanks for your feedback
Really,..........lighten up Francis.
Meanwhile no GE90 engine are installed on an Airbus airplane, there will not be a Boeing killer
GE90 isn`t relevant anymore, that old tech as good as it was at the time just isn`t fuel efficient enough for AB or Boeing.
This chanel seems to be the Airbus propaganda department.
Just because people care so much about Airbus. That's all.
No narrow minded propaganda Airbus has been the first for many years and makes the best planes and that's fine if that pisses you off ..boig boing is odated and cheesy
A350 not A380 that’s one ugly aircraft A350 yes yes yes
"Environmentally friendly". This word should be banned for aircraft. This 777x is only more fuel efficient than other aircraft, but it is by no means environmentally friendly. It still needs 70,000 liters for a long-haul flight. This is a disaster for the environment. You can't make this toxic machine look better than it actually is. It is simply the less environmentally harmful choice, but that doesn't make it "environmentally friendly".
How much of this video is truth ??? feels more like a clickbait to me
A350
1
2
Great choice!
350
Great!
2
Great choice😎
2
2
Great!
2
2
Great!
2