I love the A350-1000! Flew it on Qatar Airways and the hugest thing for me was the air quality. It didn’t feel as dry inside. Plus the interior was so spacious!

@monika.alt197

2 жыл бұрын

1000 factorial? That's a massive number. Btw, do you watch twosetviolin? You seem to be a violist.

@itsme-vw5yo

8 ай бұрын

​@@monika.alt197 So defensive He's just telling what he experience in the a350

@niceboiboinice9046

7 ай бұрын

787 gang

2:18 You could have added that "But, while A220 series can fly, the 737 Max cannot". Lol Also, team A350 all the way. But we don't have to scream it all the time.

@astrotw3680

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, we're the true ones💪🏽

@John.0523

3 жыл бұрын

Only the 737 Max 8 is the grounded one, he brought up the max 7, different

@viniciusmagnoni6492

3 жыл бұрын

We're so sure of the a350 superiority that we don't even fell the urge to shout to everyone about it. Team a350 all the way, the aircraft is in another level.

@jardarsundeolsen3123

3 жыл бұрын

@@John.0523 all 737 MAX are grounded, as they all share the same systems. Not just the 8.

@gamehub2641

3 жыл бұрын

@@jardarsundeolsen3123 facts

Team A350 over here! Always been an Airbus man myself but have a lot of respect for Boeing (I hope they sort their issues out)

@aarondynamics1311

3 жыл бұрын

I wish more people were like you.

@crimsaki5273

3 жыл бұрын

#TeamAirbusA350

@rajnirvan3336

2 жыл бұрын

I want to try both A350 & B787 someday

@bestpolanball4764

2 жыл бұрын

#TeamAirbusA350

@rajnirvan3336

2 жыл бұрын

@Vesta 2022 sounds great

The A350 only has (2) variants, yet can both compete with the many variants of the B787 (3) and the B777 (2). If you ask me, that's versatility and competition whilst being cost-effective. Team A350 for sure.

@anthonystatie1688

3 жыл бұрын

The original B777 has 5 variants But there all pretty much the same with diff names

@augustkoningen9970

3 жыл бұрын

Well, that is what a desperate band-aid does. Boeing built so many kind of planes because they wanna fill specifics sectors of the market. Airbus just wanna, You know, dont die for Boeing and Embraer.

@DogGamingYT

3 жыл бұрын

Team boeing

@zedriclouis87

3 жыл бұрын

actually, the A350 has THREE variants. the -900, -1000, and the -800.

@austrone8586

3 жыл бұрын

@@zedriclouis87 dont forget the A350ULR

Boeing designed the B787 as a B767 replacement and Airbus designed the A350XWB as a B777 replacement. Both aircraft initially proposition has minimal overlaps. However Due to some turns of events and decisions, the B787 which was originally designed for 8 abreast configuration ended up with a majority of 9 abreast economy layout. This indirectly resulted in the B787 stepping into the A350-900 market segment and somewhat competes with it indirectly. As mentioned in the video, The decision to launch the stretch B787-10 was to defend against the A350-900. And the now defunct A350-800 was initially targeted at the B787-9.

I flew numerous times in both 350 & 787 in different airlines. Somehow the general / overall feel for 350 is much more comfortable and roomier. It has to be the seats configuration & interior.

@sizzlemann

3 жыл бұрын

Yep, because the A350 is a wider plane so it would feel roomier. When the 777x comes out it will feel roomier than the A350 because the interior width is 14 inches wider. Seats are all the airlines choice. It has nothing to do with the plane.

@sizzlemann

3 жыл бұрын

@inspector morse British Airways is in the process of changing all their business class seats to the new layout on existing planes. Yes, the airlines all have a choice of seat designs they want from 3rd party companies. The leaflets are for what the plane can look like. It's up to the airline for final say.

@ImmortanDan

2 жыл бұрын

Well, the 787 is flat out narrower while having (usually) the same number of abreast economy seats. I've rubbed shoulders with people in economy 787s, not a good sign.

A350-900 no doubt!! The best sleep on a flight of my life was on a Latam flight flying one of them. The air was very breathable, it was dead silent, seats comfortable, lighting natural... clear winner for me.

Corby getting facial hair is the best thing to come out of 2020

@bidhanchandraroy5524

3 жыл бұрын

Best video yet lol

@dattaxpony920

3 жыл бұрын

We need to get him down to just the moustache...

@DogGamingYT

3 жыл бұрын

Riyad Moussaid you mean coby right?

@riyadmoussaid3891

3 жыл бұрын

Krish R Gaming and Vlogs The additional R is part of his post lockdown look

@cobyexplanesfan1238

3 жыл бұрын

Corby

Team a350. It’s more capable and viable for the job it’s built for (replacing the 777) than the 787-10 and the 777x is still in the development phase. The 787 was probably built to replace the 767 and the a330 is also built for that job.

@dotheroar2524

3 жыл бұрын

I love the a350! It is so quiet!! I just remembered it being quiet. 747 I remember being very loud. A330 is also pretty quiet.

@RobbieIsbell

3 жыл бұрын

The 787 was designed to replace the 767. That is true.

@panzerkampfwagentigerausfb9036

3 жыл бұрын

Yep, team a350 I love a350

I've flown on the AIr NZ 787-10 and the Cathay A350 and I liked them both. Big windows are nice and the engines are quiet. Not really too much between the two aircraft, to be honest. Both are engineering marvels and a pleasure to fly.

a350 team way better plane in terms of room comfort quietness

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother

@Cars-N-Jets

3 жыл бұрын

Ata Korkut Fact. I was on Lufthansa’s A350 from ORD-MUC and back and when I got back home it turned to my favorite plane. Still like the 787 and 777 series tho I have never been on any of those yet.

@atakorkut5110

3 жыл бұрын

@The Rails Aviation probably built better by workers how u say less coked up and more unionized so u can't shit on their wages to sell million dollar planes to billion dollar companies at a 50% discount

When you realise that the A350 is made to replace the A340 and A380 to compete against to the 777, 777X and 787 I am team A350 too Edit: Thanks for all the likes, never knew this would be one of the top comments

@zedriclouis87

3 жыл бұрын

yup. It's so versatile af

@butter2065

3 жыл бұрын

Yesss A350 gang

@chiragraju821

3 жыл бұрын

Andres Camargo 🤩🤩🤩🤩

@sulil1938

3 жыл бұрын

But can it compete against the BIG BOYS in the freight market like the 777F? I think that's the bigger question that everyone tends to ignore

@mikan004

3 жыл бұрын

@@sulil1938 hmmm, you got a point, hopefully we see a freighter for the A350

I always believed that the 787-10 was meant to be a replacement for the 767-400ER

@intergalactic_butterfly

3 жыл бұрын

Capacity-wise, the 787-9 better replaces the 767-400ER. However the 767-400ER was more recently produced, right at the turn of the century, so neither Delta nor United need to retire them yet, and will likely replace them (and probably their -300ER variants too) with the future NMA, in whatever form the NMA takes.

@travelbugjay4300

3 жыл бұрын

@@intergalactic_butterfly well said

@nntflow7058

3 жыл бұрын

B767-400ER have similar capacity to B787-8.

@intergalactic_butterfly

3 жыл бұрын

@@nntflow7058 Depends on how an airline outfits their 787s. Some 787-8s have a capacity similar to a 767-300ER while others, yes, do have a capacity similar to the -400ER. Boeing largely marketed the -8 as a 767-300ER replacement however.

@dennisthebrony2022

Жыл бұрын

​@@intergalactic_butterfly ​​​Let me put it this way: 787-8: Replacement for A330-200s and 767-300ER 787-9: Replacement for the A330-300s and 767-400ER (Even Though Some Airlines (Like American) Use It To Replace The 777-200ER As Well) 787-10: Replacement For The 777-200 (Non-ER Variant (Won't Replace The ER Due To Limited Range)) A350-800 (Non Existent): Replaces the A330-300 and A340-200 (Although the A330-900Neo Takes Over The A350-800's Role) A350-900: Replaces the A340-300 and the 777-200ER A350-1000: Competes With The 777-300ER, 777-8X and 777-9X, and replaces the A340-600

Always confused the Dreamliner with a DC-3...Cheers to Coby.

@randomcontentgenerator2331

3 жыл бұрын

huh?

@ScottRothsroth0616

3 жыл бұрын

Randall Carrier Lol.

@user-fn1xm3pq6t

3 жыл бұрын

DC-3 has props and 787 dosen't.

@mohamedmane4874

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-fn1xm3pq6t lmao

@rais1953

Жыл бұрын

I never have. When I was a kid on the farm we used to watch the DC-3s heading north over us to northwestern Western Australia. All that noise and unpressurised - it must have been a uncomfortable journey. The 787 on the other hand is one of the most comfortable planes.

A350 gang

I'm not gonna lie but the A350 looks slick

@faviovid9718

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah because it looks like the 787

@samuelharper9411

3 жыл бұрын

Favio Vid nah it looks better

@superskullmaster

3 жыл бұрын

sam it’s easy to copy someone and make improvements.

@samuelharper9411

3 жыл бұрын

@@superskullmaster lmao they don’t copy eachother they just use the latest technologies meaning they look similar due to that being a more aerodynamic design

I’m team 787 when it comes to looks, team a350 when it comes to comfort

@futurepilot5287

3 жыл бұрын

So damn true

@Arkan_Fadhila

3 жыл бұрын

cant agreed anymore!

@TomekSw

2 жыл бұрын

A350 windshield is the sexist thing in engineering. ❤️

@jatterhog

Жыл бұрын

@@TomekSw not really, without the black paint it actually looks quite bad lol

@jatterhog

Жыл бұрын

Reminds me a little bit of the Sud Caravelle

Team A350 fo’sure ;)

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother

a350team here :( ( its just better)

@andrewmueller8542

3 жыл бұрын

Facts

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother

@antyoof9508

3 жыл бұрын

I’ll team777 to compete with u :0)

@ankgamer7959

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@johnpauljoseph1453

3 жыл бұрын

A350

Why is 6 scared of 7? Because 7 8 [ate] 9. Couldn’t think of any other jokes.

@SushiVoador

3 жыл бұрын

Wow what an original joke

@ahzanw6606

3 жыл бұрын

???

@aarondynamics1311

3 жыл бұрын

approximately -0.89594417

The A350 pretty much has sunglasses on but the 787 is just futuristic looking, a true dream. #Team Dreamliner!

@johnhenry6762

3 жыл бұрын

It just proves that the A350 was designed to compete with the 787. The blackout of the cockpit window frames was to hide the A350's old look to the 787's newer look. Also they needed to cut down on development time cause the 787 was ahead in it's progressing to deliveries of the type to airlines.

@chidiivan5125

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnhenry6762 absolutely... They were really pressed to make the A350 jet look futuristic.... Its a cool look though because I have always disliked the airbus cockpit window design. I'm sad Boeing didn't try something cool on the 777x though.. Would have been dope.

@johnhenry6762

3 жыл бұрын

@@chidiivan5125 Perhaps when strong glass like material that is cheap to replace is developed (no blackout required at that point).

@chidiivan5125

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnhenry6762 lol,.. Yeah. When it comes down to it, both aircrafts are amazing. Power of competition.

Team a350 here

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother

Coby! Another great video. You do an excellent job of breaking things down and providing insightful analysis. Keep it up!

#teamA350 He protecc He attacc But every time 'Sheldon' explanes I stood back

I'm definately team 787 but you probably knew that just from my profile picture

@hanmilife

3 жыл бұрын

Hopper Me too.

@zexky5954

3 жыл бұрын

How bout me?!?!!!

@zexky5954

3 жыл бұрын

Dont forget me !!!!

@futurepilot5287

3 жыл бұрын

Dream☽Liner

Team 787 here, and it’s not even close. The 787 just looks so futuristic and elegant with its curved wings, engine chevrons, big windows, windscreen and the way it verticals stabilizer is curved rather then being flat. I have an ANA 787-9 1:200 on my work desk, and it always brings a smile to my face when I need a breather.

@planeup__3049

Жыл бұрын

Team dreamliner !! 🏅

@rin13955

Жыл бұрын

Let's go

@Qacc6

Жыл бұрын

I think from the outside the 787 looks a bit squat, sitting low to the ground, leaning forward, while the A350 is an overall better proportioned aircraft, without sacrificing the aerodynamic modern look.

In the end, the 787-9 was intended for flying "long, thin" routes on point-to-point services between smaller cities. For example, it allowed Chinese airlines to operate out of airports besides Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou on long-distance routes.

I'm Team Both. I love the because I’ve been on Lufthansa’s A350 from ORD-MUC and back but I still love the 787 as well. Same with the 777 series I just haven’t been on a 787 or 777 yet. But I’ve seen a Thai 777 at Munich. Overall I love all the planes I named in this list.

@jacyfisk7437

2 жыл бұрын

Me too

@drutalero2962

2 жыл бұрын

Been on both 777 and 787 . Amazing beautiful aircraft.

Never knew there was a Boeing A350 until I saw the thumbnail😆

Great video. Let me tell you what happened since I was on the 787 Design team. At the time, Airbus was trying to compete with Boeing, and we were so far into the design phase, that we were getting ready to do our final layout design. Airbus waited, and I suspected that they did this on purpose to see what our final design was going to look like. Then Airbus decided to do a little bigger on certain aspect. So yeah, the 787 was the first to enter the market, it was the first to gain a lot of orders. We originally had 4 design variants. 787-3, -8,-9 and -10. The -3 was smaller and it was going to have metal wings. The marketing team has found that we would never make money on the -3, so it was scrapped. We started producing the -8. First flight took place December 2009. A350 First flight took place in June 2013. That's nearly 4 years gap. So, it was originally going to be competitors, but Airbus cheated by delaying the project. I was on the program for 7 years. But I can tell you this...787 Dreamliner is way ahead of A350, not by design advantage, but ahead in design knowledge. Boeing is ready for 797 with 787 background.

Team 350 .

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother

Wow this is truly the hard one. Last year I flew on Singapore Airlines that took me on both A350-900 and B787-10. Hands down no comparison. B787-10 was a plane in its own. At 6'3" seats are dreadful and the B787-10 was heaven. When I got on the A350-900 it quickly dawn on me the layout was the same as their B777-300er. However, the A350 was quieter and roomier the the older B777. Thumbs up to both planes!

I love flying on the 787 🥰

Your channel is awesome from top to bottom I subscribed yesterday and watched all of your videos Keep up the great content 👍

Love your videos dude! and well explained about the two planes ✈️

I flew on A350-900on singapore airlines and 787 -10 on anz but I have to say the air quality is more than just talk in the a350 and the cabin was top class! Definately team A350 on this one but I am a great admirirer of boeing too :)

5:01 A350

@ScottRothsroth0616

3 жыл бұрын

Brick Life Thanks.

A350 ALL THE WAYYYYY

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother

@leadiet2972

3 жыл бұрын

@@holdensv2000 thx

@leadiet2972

3 жыл бұрын

@@arnulfonapoleonhernandez-g1995 nah man, 787 carries less, less range, and less time capability with 1 engine. Also the most fuel efficient plane for its size. I would like to hear you again

@rajnirvan3336

3 жыл бұрын

Both great in their own way. Can't wait to fly on them someday

@leadiet2972

3 жыл бұрын

@@rajnirvan3336 same

Knowing that the A350 carries DNA from A380 gives me goose bumps. In a good way.

At first I was all about the 787, especially that wing but the A350 is winning me over.

@gwhyte01

5 ай бұрын

why would the wing on the a350 be better than the 787. it just folds at the tip. the 787's wing actually flexes. much more useful.

Hi Colby that's another EXCELLENT video - thank you! Wikipedia has a very good page on this general topic which is well worth a read - "Competition between Boeing and Airbus". The articles main point is that GENERALLY speaking the product range of Airbus and Boeing COMPLIMENT each other rather than compete with each other The points that you make in your two videos is consistent with Wikipedias

787 is my favorite. i flew one to france and back and it was better than any other plane experience i had. it was nice and quiet and did quiet well in the massive amounts of turbulence we had on the trip.

The beard looks definitely better! Also the video was really interesting

the a350 has much better comfort than the 787 or 777 so its a no brainer, when i have to chose, i would 10/10 fly with a a350 over a 787 or 777

@petergajda3732

3 жыл бұрын

I do not have an opinion on this topic. Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion? Thanks!

@George-vv7rn

3 жыл бұрын

I’m going on two in December, 777-300er to Qatar and the a350 to Johannesburg, I’m a350 gang too but who knows

@ThirdEngr

3 жыл бұрын

A lot of how you define “comfort” though is up to how the airline furnishes the aircraft and the class of cabin you’re in. Take the economy section of each I’ll compare: Emirates Airlines, their 777’s are definitely more comfortable than Air France’s 777. However I’d prefer the Air France 777 over the Lufthansa A350. (Yes, I have flown all several times and feel qualified to judge.)

@MajinOthinus

3 жыл бұрын

@@petergajda3732 Can't speak for him, but for me (holding the same opinion) it was a few things: The A350 cabin feels way nicer than the 777's or 787's cabin; it's ceiling is higher (and the cabin is a bit more roomy in general (especially compared to the 787), the air quality is better (higher pressure and humidity) and it's so much more quiet. The lights are quite nice too, but not really the main selling point. I also dislike the 787's window dimming, since it doesn't really stop all the light from entering and I get headaches from the lighting it generates, but that might just be me personally.

Team a350!

The B787 was born to replace another Boeing product: B767. The A350 was later born to compite with the B787 and to replace the A330 but Airbus decided to upgrade the last to Neo. Airbus never expected that the life of the A340 will that short same with the A380. Now, the B777X was born to replace the old B777 versions and the B747, but will be the plane to replace also the A340 and A380. At the end, the only wide body planes flying for the following 30+ years will be the B747-8, B787, B777, and the A350.

737 MAX vs A320? More like 737 MAX vs A320neo

Excellent video! A350 fan here.

Cabin width; A350; 5.61m 787; 5.49m Cabin length; A350-900; 51m A350-1000; 58m 787-8; 42m 787-9; 48m 787-10; 53m Empty weight A350-900; 135t A350-1000; 155t 787-8; 120t 787-9; 129t 787-10; 135t Surely both type of widebody doesn't compete each other although there's some close number between them 😎🛫👍🏻

@chingweixion621

3 жыл бұрын

The key capacity indicator here is the length of the cabin. Due to some turns of events and decisions, the B787 which was originally designed for 8 abreast configuration ended up with a majority of 9 abreast economy layout. This indirectly resulted in the B787 stepping into the A350-900 market segment and somewhat competes with it indirectly.

another excellent video Dr. Cooper

No matter what, even if Boeing releases new super hot jet, the A350 will always be my favorite. Mainly because Philippines Airlines operates it and I like them.

@zedriclouis87

3 жыл бұрын

Totally agree. Its comfortable af, plus the expert pilots (with the smooth landings), its all-out comfort.

@elite_facts_10140

3 жыл бұрын

Zedric Louis Bores Same here. I’ve not flown on the Philippines Airlines version but I have flown in the Qatar Airways 900 and 1000 variants. I also got to fly on the 787, and I can say, I think I prefer the A350. It’s technology is slightly more advanced.

Definitely A350. Worked on the A380 for almost 10 years and pax loved to fly on it!

As.a 787 pilot I will say excellent video Corby ! Keep up the good work.,

Hi , what is the music that plays in your intro? Nice videos btw.

Hey, i love your videos man! Very clear and informative. I can see that you are a Boeing guy! That's ok because i am!

A new video? But...but...it’s not Saturday?! 🤪

They are competitors in the replacement cycles, 777-200s and even 777-300s will be primarily replaced by these two aircraft. Airbus is marketing the a350-900 against the 787 in the 200 campaigns and Boeing is marketing the 787 against the a350 in 300 campaigns. The a350-900 and the 787-10 are both less optimized than their siblings.

Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 both are so cool in their on places... Its so difficult to choose one... I will go with the Boeing 787 😊🙏 cuz its name is a Dreamliner and A350 named it XWB (eXtra WideBody) damn both look so beautiful though but again in their own ways... 😅

Team a350 bro, hands down in Range and pax yet fuel efficient, modern and quiet. 787 is great but it’s a slightly smaller plane.

Go Team 787! I flew the 787, and it was my best ever flying opportunity! Cant say the same about the A350

I would go with the 787, however, I believe that Airbus is better suited for passenger planes while Boeing is better at making cargo planes.

@sebastiansellers5849

3 жыл бұрын

Ferrari is good at making cars but Ford makes a mean van :)

@grahamturner2640

3 жыл бұрын

John Garrett Is there a cargo variant of the 787?

@johngarrett434

3 жыл бұрын

@@grahamturner2640 From my quick 60 seconds of research, it doesnt look like there is a truly cargo 787, however Boeing has ones such as the 757, 767, 777, and of course the 747 as all excellent freighters.

@ScottRothsroth0616

3 жыл бұрын

Graham Turner In 30 years from now.

@superskullmaster

3 жыл бұрын

Well the A340 vs 777 proved Boeing is a leader in innovation.

Suggestion for future topic: given that B787 and A350 are the newest, most-advanced widebodies, how do they differ / which is better or worse in passenger in-flight experience, irrespective of the furnishings chosen by a specific airline.

Great video! Just a few points to make: - 787-10 has range 6345nmi, 777-200er 7065 and A350-900 8100nmi - A350 is arguably also reactionary to the hugely popular 777 outselling A340 at the time, and the new 787 - 787-9 is indeed most optimised but -10 is also optimised in seat cost just that it takes a hit in range Thanks for the great video looking forward to more!

A350 don’t have engine problems :)

@Alhy-ls3dv

3 жыл бұрын

neither does the 787,just avoid the Trent and you are fine

@sizzlemann

3 жыл бұрын

Airbus and Boeing don't build the engines. So your point is worthless.

Well done, Coby

A350-900 is the competitor of B787-9 & B787-10. A350-1000 is the competitor to the B777 aircraft.

@KasabianFan44

3 жыл бұрын

Wow, it’s almost like you didn’t pay any attention to either of Coby’s videos! 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

@chingweixion621

3 жыл бұрын

@@KasabianFan44 actually marquis is not wrong. In terms of the length of cabin, the A350-900 is right in between the 2 B787 variant. The B787-9 was originally designed for a smaller market, to replace the B767-300ER, but most airlines opted for a higher density layout and that lead it to indirectly compete with the A350-900. The A350-1000 on the other hand was designed to directly replace the B777-300ER. It's has almost the same exact cabin dimensions in terms of length, only few inches different. The only substantial difference between the two is the A350-1000 has 4 doors while the B777-300ER has 5 doors.

@KasabianFan44

3 жыл бұрын

Ching Wei Xion “In terms of the length of cabin, the A350-900 is right between the 2 787 variants” - wow, not only is this completely not true at all, but clearly you didn’t pay attention either. This video literally says that the only planes of comparable sizes are the largest 787 (-10) and the smallest A350 (-900). And even then, this video explicitly says that the A350-900 is over 20 seats bigger (NOT smaller!) than the 787. These are facts that you can very easily look up yourself; it will take you about 2 minutes, and you will save yourself the time you’d otherwise spend on pointless arguing. For the last time: there exists NO variant of the A350 that is smaller than any 787. There would have been, had the A350-800 been built as originally planned, but that was cancelled soon after the -900’s first flight.

@chingweixion621

3 жыл бұрын

@@KasabianFan44 I'm sorry to say this but coby has got his fact wrong on this. You can spend 10 mins to compare the dimensions provided on the airport planning and characteristics document available from both airbus and boeing websites. Take the distance from the first door to the last and you will see that what I mentioned was right. With both aircraft having the same seating configuration of 9 abreast in economy and 1-2-1 in business, there is no way the A350-900 can seat more people with the same standard/specification.

@KasabianFan44

3 жыл бұрын

Ching Wei Xion Wrong, you say? Considering that on their official websites the companies state that its three-class A350-900 can seat about as many passengers as a two-class (!) 787-10, I’ll have to go with Coby’s word on this. Annoyingly Boeing doesn’t give maximum capacity in its spec but I can assure you it’s nowhere near the 440 mark that Airbus claims for its -900. www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a350xwb-family/a350-900.html#details www.boeing.com/commercial/787/#/technical-specs

I’ve flown on both planes many times with several different airlines. Dreamliner any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Every time I’ve flown on the A350 I notice a ton of exhaust getting into the cabin when firing up the engines. The 787 is quieter and I love the adjustable tint windows.

@sking2173

3 жыл бұрын

I am hands-down a 350 supporter, but I have noticed that kerosene smell on startup, and it is unpleasant. I've also noticed it on the 330's. I believe that the 350 is quieter, though I haven't used a meter on either of them. Those 787 tinted windows? Both good and bad. They won't completely block the sun like the shades, BUT, the FA's are able to override the one idiot on the entire plane that wants to open his shade when everyone else on the aircraft has theirs closed and are trying to sleep.

Boeing’s philosophy of stretching Engineering to meet Market needs. Maybe you could do a video on this. When I learned that the 737 has the highest landing speed? ,tail strike concerns and generally a more primitive approach than its competitor, I wondered now much of a handicap this is for Boeing.

@sking2173

3 жыл бұрын

The 737 MAX also has that delightful MCAS system ...

Good video very informative

excellent explanetion !!

Team A350 here for sure. And yes we were quietly confident in your other video 😁

Hey Coby! When are you going to do a video on Microsoft flight sim 2020?

As your video says, it’s absurd to ask which one I prefer because they are different, it is like asking: which plane you prefer, the a340 or the 767? Makes little sense even though some variant might compete against each other

nice video!!

nice vid :3

Personally, its quite hard to choose which aircraft should operate if i have an airline, regardless of cost, given that i do love all four of the twinjet widebody (A330, A350, 777 and 787). But i'll make it short for my personal likes, at least for airliner in the 2020s, regardless of the cost to operate: On narrowbody, the A220 will be the overall workhorse. This operate along with 737ng (-800 and -900er) that delivered in early 2010s, and the A320neo and A321neo. The A330neo have always become one of my favourite aircraft, even all the way to its first Airbus, the A300. This aircraft will do work as the workhorse widebody on mid-to-long haul. Probably replacing the A330ceo. The 777-200, both ER and non-ER, while a lovely aircraft, needed to be replaced as it aged. Not concerning the cost, it would be replaced by the 787-10 and A350-900, for mid-haul and long-haul respectively. In mixture of the A340-600, 777-300 and some 747-400, it will be replaced by 777-300er on earlier retired model, and A350-1000 on later retired model. Last but not the least, the remaining 747-400 will be replaced by the 747-8i. The A380 would be nice, but rather in small quantity in second-hand (and later refurbished) from airline that are having trouble on getting rid of it. Also, the thumbnail looks like an idea for fictional widebody twinjets in games, like GTA.

Am a boeing fan and surely like the Dreamliner especially the b787-10 but the a350 family is also cool especially the a350-1000 and also cant wait for the B777x-9 & 8 to enter into service

Name of intro music? Love your videos btw

Oops Rolls Royce engine fan blades cracking just this week.

@kristofinportugal

3 жыл бұрын

But at least it's still flying... How is the max doing? 😂

Team 787 all the way!

i just love the look of the 787, I mean the a350 too but 787 more so. So I am probably team 787

@sking2173

3 жыл бұрын

I think the B787 wing is beautiful, but I prefer riding in the A350 ...

see i love both but personally i have to go with the 787 because i love the look more

5:52 What airport is that?

787! 787! 787! P.S.: I am a Mcdonnell Douglas lover, but definitely, Boeing is better then Airbus!

A350 is the superior aircraft hands down

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother far better

@felixhellbadtur

Жыл бұрын

Nah

@SuperShushi187

Жыл бұрын

The 787 is more efficient and advanced

@abdelkadermehiz9407

Жыл бұрын

I think the 787 is the better choice

@Spoolingturbski

6 ай бұрын

787 is far better than the A350. Its materials and engineering alone make it better

Team A350 Actually I'm team Airbus.

Totally team 787!!

Thanks !

I have flown both A350 and 787. I think A350 does better than 787. Again this is just my opinion and it could be because one was Egypt Air and the other was Qatar. I think 350 feels bigger, better and more comfortable than 787. Plus I hated that window dimming feature because I felt like I had no control if I want to look outside when feeling claustrophobic. Lastly, I think in coming years, 350 will compete with 777X more than anything else. 787 will be there but will fall out of the competition and let’s see what Airbus has to offer as an alternative.

If I were an airline replacing 777-200s I would go for the 787-10 over a350 because then I could have commonality with smaller variants of the 787. These smaller variants would be a lot more useful than a350-1000s. And for where the lower 787-10 range becomes an issue, just use a 787-9 with more frequencies. United, Air New Zealand, and British Airways have all likely ordered the 787-10 for this reason!

Team A350 here. I used to prefer all Boeing. However, after flying on competing Airbus planes, even within the same carrier, I have since shifted to prefer Airbus. They are just much more comfortable as a passenger. Now I actively look for what plane is on a route before booking and will often choose an Airbus option over a Boeing option if there are choices within my timeframe and preferred carriers. To me, the 787 has fantastic marketing, and is a great plane on it's own, but it just doesn't quite measure up to passenger comfort on the A350. I think the marketing is why so many "prefer" the 787. Let's go team A220/A320Neo/A350!

I totally love both of them my only issue with the a350 is the design I like the Dreamliner better in that category

Hi Coby, I could not see where else to ask a question that you might be able to do a video on. So here goes. My understanding is that composite fuselages as used on the 787 and a350 are much better and stronger to withstand the wear from repeated cycles that planes go through. However they are long-haul planes and undergo a lot less cycles than say the 737 and A320 families. I'm wondering why then when the proposed 797 was being touted, and before Boeing got distracted with their other problems, and being a clean sheet design, why a composite fuselage was not considered. Is there a reason why any future clean sheet, short haul designs would not feature a composite fuselage which would surely reduce maintenance costs for Airlines with planes that are undergoing a lot of cycles. Additionally, with more short-haul planes flying longer distances , composite fuselages represent a significant weight saving that would allow these single aisle planes to fly more point-to-point distances over longer and skinny routes. Is it a matter of cost? In other words, are composite fuselages a lot more expensive? Thanks for considering this and I look forward to your thoughts.

@chingweixion621

3 жыл бұрын

Hi Gary, there are several aspects that needs to be considered. Although composite fuselage does improve the fatigue lifespan and helps reduce maintenance costs its processing time and cost is still not as mature to be considered for high volume manufacturing, at least not in the past 10 yrs. For narrow body aircraft like the A320 and B737 this additional cost will need to stand its ground against cheaper traditional metal fuselage. In this situation, we can look at the A220-300 which has a composite fuselage vs A319neo which is a metallic fuselage. Both the aircraft belong in the same segment and data so far points to the A220 being some 5% more efficient than the A319neo. However upon further analysis, it is found that the 5% efficiency gap is large attributed to 2 factors. The A220 has a longer and thinner fuselage which contributed to a lower induced drag by having a smaller cross sectional area. On top of this The A220 also has a more sophisticated and modern supercritical wings with better aerodynamics compared to the A319neo. All composite fuselage do provide some weight savings, however evidence so far has only pointed to minor pockets of contribution here and there from the weight savings with the use of composites fuselage. In other words, if I can make the same A220-300 out of traditional metallic materials, I would likely only see 1% or less of efficiency gap. For small single aisle aircraft, the weight saved and efficiency gain from using the more advanced composite materials is not significant. At least in this point in time, the benefits has not outweigh all other factors sufficiently to entice manufacturers like airbus and boeing to invest in a new clean sheet single aisle version of B787/A350 that utilises large amounts of composite. My take on the future NSA is that with the aftermath of the pandemic going to be felt throughout the decade, it is increasingly more likely that airbus and boeing would reengine the existing B737max and A320neo once again as technological and manufacturing advances for composite has taken a back seat in times of this crisis.

@garyb.1047

3 жыл бұрын

@@chingweixion621Thank you very much for that response. Two things. Are you saying then that the weight gains are most significant on a large jet making the fuel savings more desirable? And no longer routes where plane has to carry more fuel? In which case wouldn't it still be more feasible to use composite fuselages on an narrow bodied as these planes are now flying much longer inter-continental routes? 2. However, I also did mention the increased amount of cycles that's single-aisle planes go through. Surely the composite fuselage reduces significant major checks and rebuilds and repairs compared to an aluminium fuselage. In short, the plane lasts longer.

@chingweixion621

3 жыл бұрын

@@garyb.1047 "Are you saying then that the weight gains are most significant on a large jet making the fuel savings more desirable?" Yes. considering where CFRP can be applied, larger planes does provide more weight savings. 10% weight savings on a 150T widebody aircraft is 15T saved versus 10% weight saving on a 40T A320 is only 4T. Percentage wise the savings remains the same, but 4T can be easily negated by other design factors etc. In other words, there are lower hanging fruit for the single aisle that are easier and cheaper to implement rather than going with the composites. "And no longer routes where plane has to carry more fuel? In which case wouldn't it still be more feasible to use composite fuselages on an narrow bodied as these planes are now flying much longer inter-continental routes?" Yes, composite fuselage will still provide the savings and in the case of longer flights and the savings becomes more significant. However this is only applicable for flights on the longer sectors which only accounts for 10%-20% of the flights in recent years. 80% of Single aisle narrowbody aircraft are still mainly serving short routes of less than 2000NM therefore the savings provided if we were to measure by weighted average is still not much. Factors like fleet commonality and crew training could easily offset these gains. That is the reason why you do not see many operators of A319 choose to switched over the the A220 despite its superior performance, flexibility and efficiency. Most operators still choose to stay with the same aircraft, upsize their aircraft to A320neo to maintain the optimal efficiency. The savings is just not that significant. "2. Surely the composite fuselage reduces significant major checks and rebuilds and repairs compared to an aluminium fuselage." Yes composite fuselage does provide that savings, however they are also required to be handled with care. Composite fuselage are to a certain extent fragile and requires careful handling. A hard knock from the aerobridge docking could result in costly repairs. What I've heard so far is the repairs to the composites aircraft like the A220, B787 and A350 are times more costly than older aluminium aircraft like the A330 or the B777. You may have saved quite a bit from the early years of the aircraft with less checks and repairs, but the cost would quickly climb in the later years. This is what some are speculating on why many airlines are letting go of their B787-8 despite the aircraft is still one of the most efficient one in the market today. Thus this makes it an even bigger issue for narrowbody aircraft to use composite fuselage as these aircraft makes up to 10 flights a day compared to a B787 which typically only fly up to 2 flights a day. Still for the A220 it is too early to tell if this is also the case as the aircraft is only a little over 5 years and there are less than 120 in service. (B787 has close to 500 in service 5 years after EIS). The other factor which i've indirectly mentioned above is the fleet commonality. How justifiable would the business case be if the airframe manufacturer is to developed a clean sheet single aisle aircraft using composite fuselage that is specifically for flights above 4hrs? The proposition is not likely to stand alone on its own as the market currently accounts for 10%-20% of these flights. The remaining portion of the business case would be and estimation, prediction & speculative. The best example would be Boeing's NMA. It took boeing several years to gather enough interest from airlines across the globe and multiple iterations of their business forecast, revising to a higher number each time just to make the business case stand on its own. But a simple A321XLR launch from Airbus threw the entire business case in doubt again. Expanding further, we can also look at the A330neo vs B787-9. The A330neo is proving to hold its ground against the lighter and supposedly more efficient composite aircraft. However since its EIS, numbers are circulating around various forums and it does seems that the A330neo despite its heavier aluminium fuselage is capable of matching the operational economics of the B787 on short and medium haul segment. But as expected its heavy fuselage has weigh down its efficiency on long haul segment. This actually shows that the composite fuselage despite its weight savings are not so significant as other designing factors and it is possible to be offset. So unless the composite fuselage can bring significant enough gains for single aisle aircraft (manufacturing cost, maintenance and weight savings) such that it cannot be easily offset by other factors, otherwise my opinion of composite fuselage is an overrated hype.

and this video is a1 and describes my exact views on both planes

Im team A350

@holdensv2000

3 жыл бұрын

good choice brother

I don't think I have a preference anymore. I used to think the a350's snub-nose looked a little awkward, but I'm over it and I think both are absolutely gorgeous airframes. I would love to get a chance to fly on both types, either as a passenger or in the front!!!

Guys that are passionate about something are so loveable

While Singapore airlines have both A350-900 and 787-10 doing the same routes 😂

The 350's have some recent performance improvement packages (PIP) that push the GW and range a bit more. Could you add that info in your comparison? For example Delta's original 350's had difficulty ATL JNB ATL The newer recently delivered 350's have "PIP"'s This used to be a 777 route.

Both planes look really nice