Talk:Airbus A350/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A question.

The title of this article is "Airbus A350 XWB", although when a certain variant is referred to, the "XWB" is gone. This is what I mean:

Aircraft series: Airbus A350 XWB

Variant 1: Airbus A350-900

Variant 2: Airbus A350-1000

Variant 3: Airbus A350-900ULR

Notice that none of the variants have "XWB" in them. Why is that? Is it because "Airbus A350-900 XWB" (for example) would be too long? Or is it due to something else?

Something very similar happens with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner:

Aircraft series: Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Variant 1: Boeing 787-8

Variant 2: Boeing 787-9

Variant 3: Boeing 787-10

...and Boeing 777X series:

Aircraft series: Boeing 777X

Variant 1: Boeing 777-8

Variant 2: Boeing 777-9

EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

To distinguish with the initial A330-derived A350. Read the history for more. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Units

[moved from my talk page, more relevant here.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)]

---

[Context: the discussion is about the units used to measure the distance between NYC and SIN for the -900ULR flight]--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

---

I don't like miles either, but please remember that the world is bigger than yourself. Most of our UK and US readers probably only know statute miles, while av pros and geeks prefer nautical miles. Wikipedia should be written for those folks as well. As Airbus use nm as their primary unit, see e.g. their technical documentation, page 154, nm should be the primary unit per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Units. [unsigned, 19:39, 29 October 2019, ExcitedEngineer]

Airbus is an european airframer, and preferred units are thus the metric system. UK is metric since 1965. The ACAP is not technical documentation but a memento for airport planning. Airbus engineering is done in meters. If an other unit is to be shown, the customary unit in aviation is the nmi. If there is already a mile conversion, an another conversion in land miles would be superfluous. I do not care about units, all are fundamentally abstract. I do care about wikipedia legibility. 2 units are already hard to read. 3 are too much. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no doubt the engineering at Airbus is performed in metric, however their preferred unit in external communication is still nm. In my opinion, it is clear as day that in modern aviation, we use feet for altitude, knots for speed and nm for distance. Also, there is no guideline that states two conversions are too many. As per MOS:CONVERSIONS: "Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice versa – and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions – a double conversion may be appropriate.". Many readers unfamiliar with aviation will know only km or only statue miles. It is a minor inconvenience to see a value expressed in three units, it is a major inconvenience to see it expressed in two and understand neither. In all honesty, I tend to stay away from talk page discussions like these and feel we have both spent way too much time on such a trivial issue. However, I do think it lays bare a need for better guidelines in wikiproject aviation. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Aircraft is the more appropriate Wiki project for aircraft. It is busier and falls under WP:Aviation. Listing two unit conversions here does seem excessive in this case, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Aircraft is indeed more specific to this page, but it uses the style guide over at WP:Aviation.ExcitedEngineer (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Air has its own guide, a page content page at WP:Air/PC. And WP:Air is still more active. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Conversions are free, and most English speakers are used to using either kilometres or miles, so they should definitely both be included; and as it's related to aviation it seems appropriate to also include nautical miles. So, as I see it, the only decision to make is which is primary: kilometres or nautical miles. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)?

WP:Air specs gives a good guide: use the manufacturer's national system first, eg metric for european/russian aircraft, imperial for US/UK pre metrification.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@ExcitedEngineer in modern aviation, we use feet for altitude, knots for speed and nm for distance. Not only. Flight levels are not really in hundreds of feet but in equivalents in pressure altitude. The Mach number, not a constant speed, is critical for transsonic airliners. Even the distance is often given in hours as most jetliners have a similar speed. And many parts of aviation are metric first: gliding or within Russian influence... The unit itself is an abstract thing and does not matter so much. We could convert in furlongs or in light years if we want to, but Wikipedia has to stay readable. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: just a wee correction: the UK may have metricated some things over the years, mainly to do with commerce, manufacture, trading weights and measures, and government administration - but Joe Public still very much use imperial measures, particularly for their pints of beer, their weights (stone and pounds), their heights (feet and inches) and distances are very much still measured in inches, feet, yards and miles and speeds and speed limits are in mph. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto: I know the nuance. On the mainland we still use the pint to order beers (and we lose a bit: it's half a liter not 0.57 L) or the pound at the grocery store (0.5kg, a bit more than 0.45 kg). I measure my surfboards or screens in ftin. When I rent a UK car, mph is used but it does not matter as the dashboard is also in mph. On the other hand, Flight International gives metric units first since a long time (and even metric only in the metrification period). While wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it still thrives for quality. I think it would be preferable to follow Flight than average Joe.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My impression, confirmed by a quick straw poll, is that on the vast majority of aviation pages we tend to follow industry practice and use nmi and km only, with statute miles rarely added. This is equally true for pages relating to US manufacturers. It might be useful to clarify this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Units – or perhaps better still, continue this discussion on the style guide talk page to get wider project consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Units is clear that if Airbus use nm then we should use nm on any Airbus article. Certainly, add km conversion but more than that gets tedious. I see no need for discussion of other options unless we want to revisit the guideline, and the place to do that is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

In its ACAPs, Airbus use nmi along km (not miles) only in its payload-range diagrams. In most tech specs (weight, dimensions) the preferred units are metric, and the imperial units are between parentheses. That's the way its specs are displayed in Wikipedia, too. I think this present consensus is shared between you, me, Rosbif73 and Fnlayson for 2 units (nmi and km). correct me if I'm wrong.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I have not checked whether Airbus habitually put nm or km first, but I am sure others will soon clarify that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Airbus uses nautical miles exclusively (A350) or primarily (A320) in its payload-range charts and exclusively in its press releases and its section on the A350-900ULR. So can we at least agree that per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Units, nm should be the primary unit? ExcitedEngineer (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@ExcitedEngineer: I agree with nautical miles being primary. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The ICAO, while insisting on standardising with the metric system, has put termination of the customary units for specific measurements off indefinitely. See International_Civil_Aviation_Organization#Use_of_the_International_System_of_Units. It's true that statute miles are hardly ever used by manufacturers or in industry literature, but our audience is different. About half of our readers are from the US or the UK. The vast majority of them are either much less familiar or completely unfamiliar with nautical miles and kilometers. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with unit variation but looking at aircraft articles, it's always possible to link the units or add lk=on to convert templates, like 10,000 km (5,400 nmi).--20:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The best way to cater for those who prefer miles - and why make it any more difficult for them than for those who prefer kilometres - is to follow the advice given in MOS:CONVERSIONS. It says Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses. And as double conversions are possible I would propose that we do that now, rather than waste anymore time on this valueless discussion. The syntax is "{{cvt|16,561|km|nmi mi}}" which renders as "16,561 km (8,942 nmi; 10,291 mi)" or "{{cvt|16,561|km|nmi km mi|order=out}}" which renders as "8,942 nmi (16,561 km; 10,291 mi)", depending on which is considered to be the primary unit. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

So why stop here? Why not going the extra mile (pardon the pun) for 16,561 km (8,942 nmi; 10,291 mi; 82,320 furlongs; 0.00011070 AU; 3,430 leagues; 3,293,000 perches; 9,731,000 sm)? The point is, we have to found an equilibrium between exhaustivity and readability. The current usage in aircraft article is km + nmi. 3 units may be a deterrent, more so because the nmi and mi are close.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If you can show there is a likely call for those other units too, then you might have a good point. However, there is no recommendation for them mentioned in the MOS. I think, for now, that kilometres and miles cover the vast majority of English speakers, but neither cover enough to justify omitting the other. So let's just stick with the normal three, unless we are happy to drop nautical miles. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're less familiar with aviation units, even in UK/US, distances are quoted in nmi and airspeed indicators are in knots, not in mi and mph, which are used for ground transportation. nmi should prevail over mi.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: it is not whether I am familiar with aviation units that matters here, it is whether a significant number of readers are likely to benefit from the addition of the conversion to miles that matters. And as it is so easy to accommodate both nautical and statute miles (it is not an either/or) then it is clear that we would need a very strong argument indeed (which I do not think we have seen yet) to deny those readers that courtesy. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As Marc says, in aviation (as in the maritime) when a distance is given in "miles" it means nautical miles.[1] Those in the field are so familiar with nm they do not bother to specify. The uninformed writer or reader will be unaware of this and may falsely assume that "miles" unspecified means statute. Consequently, secondary and tertiary sources are often either unclear or unreliable as to what "miles" they are quoting. Those who are clear about it may well prove to be following industry practice.[2] Confirming the accuracy or otherwise of every number in unclear sources is not really practical, while discovering how many readers actually care that much about exact numbers of statute miles is even more subjective: uninformed editorial opinion is worthless. There is an obvious case here to include statute miles on a case by case basis, as and when both context and reliable source material demand it, but not otherwise. This article is no different from any other in this respect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Units part II

@Marc Lacoste: why, specifically, {{convert}} is "not needed" here? GregorB (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello to you too. Because the ref states both units: This gained an additional 22.3m2 (240ft2) of wing area. Convert templates are useful when the ref lacks one.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• OK, but this is really just two ways to the same destination (except maybe for rounding or an error). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I took issue with Marc over this some time back, as the results should of course be the same in theory. But I have since understood his logic; in practice, when a reference states two units, we often don't know which way round the conversion was done, nor how many digits were intended to be significant, so rounding issues can and do crop up. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, very good points! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• But do we need to retain the rather substandard ft², even if the source uses it? GregorB (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course not, apply the relevant WP:MOS! (thanks to Rosbif73 for putting in better words than me the reasoning!)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert of formatting edit

@Marc Lacoste: I do not understand why you reverted my edit – the use of {{cvt}} generates exactly the same values while keeping consistent formatting. I see that you want to keep the values from the ref, but the template does not change something as slight as rounding (the numeric representation is identical), and the mathematical conversion certainly does not change. Could you please explain your reasoning, and why I should not reinstate this change when it seems to benefit the article at no cost? ComplexRational (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @ComplexRational: it's to avoid rounding errors, the source already have made the conversion, but the original number is not known. A future edit may output the result differently (I saw it before in /specs/ sections), so I avoid the template when both are stated by the source. If your goal is to have consistent formatting, you can use a non-breaking space or the {{val}} template: a separation of content and presentation. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

OK then, I used {{val}} instead and I think this resolves the problem. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by output, but I'll leave it to this for now (unless/until different values are published). Thank you for your response. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting the title (A350 XWB vs. A350)

This was discussed a few times in archive 1. The main arguments (simplifying; feel free to review archive 1 for details) for including XWB were (1) Airbus uses it and (2) it distinguishes from the A350 (developed from the A330) before the "wider composite design." BUT, (1) Airbus doesn't even mention "XWB" on its web site (at least not in any prominent way; it simply uses "A350" and "A350 family") and (2) there is no separate article "A350" that exclusively discusses the earlier design idea derived from the A330. It has been eight years since the last discussion about the title. I read various aviation blogs and such, and they rarely mention "XWB," and certainly not automatically as part of defining or introducing the A350. It seems that the usage "A350" without any mention of "XWB" is commonplace now. There may have been a time when "XWB" was more common, but now even Airbus seems not to emphasize it. Wikipedia no longer has a separate A350 article that discusses the earlier usage of "A350." Maybe it's time for another move discussion. Holy (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The goal is to use the WP:COMMONNAME. Searching "Airbus A350" -"XWB" gives 3.76M results; "Airbus A350 XWB" gives 0.318M results. The "XWB" suffix should be dropped.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The XWB part should be removed from the article title, imo. This article covers both the early A330-based A350 concept and the current A50 AWB. Removing XWB from the article title would better match common name usage and also content of the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree entirely, XWB should be removed. I'd even venture to say that this would be an uncontroversial move and shouldn't need a formal move request. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree it can be removed, it cant be considered a common name now, it was just used for marketing related to Airbus changing the design a few times so as not to confuse the original customers. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done BilCat (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

New Production Standard (NPS)

There is no info I can find on this page about the NPS, which is already in service. Thanks. 88.98.85.216 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So fix it yourself, or at least give someone a start by posting a link to where you found this information, if there is one. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ACJ350 section outdated

"ACJ350" variant info says that it is based on the -900ULR though I have not been able to find any source to back this. On the Airbus site , the ACJ350 can be based off of the -900 or -1000, not the ULR.

Range is also incorrect, also from the previous link, the -900 base has a 20,550 km/11,100 nm range, and the -1000 is stated to have 19,100 km/10,300 nm range.

Apologies as I'm new here and have little / no clue on formatting and the guidelines on page editing which others here are much more experienced in, else I'd edit it myself. Mainly created an account because I noticed this error. -notbingbadaboom- (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

In December, I reorganized the lead section to follow the WP:LEAD guideline by summarizing the main article sections (development, design, Orders and deliveries as prescribed in WP:Aircontent). Yesterday, @Josephua: changed it again with the edit summary: Re-organized the lead. Format based off of the Airbus A330. I reverted the WP:BOLD change, explaining section summaries per WP:LEAD. The A330 lead should be changed to comply. It was reverted again (in contradiction with WP:BRD policy) stating Disagree. The A330 is a good article and therefore is more authoritative and should be used as a reference. The A350 XWB lead also borrows from some extent from the A380 lead as well, which is a good article as well, which is a more authoritative reference. As a result, as good articles, their leads fit WP:LEAD. Also, the A350 lead changes was requested to fulfill GA guidelines. I'll agree the A380 lead section is a good example, as I did a similar process, but the A330 lead section is not really a good example, as it has no real structure and is not really in line with the WP:LEAD guideline. I have updated the A330 lead section in a similar fashion since. Being a GA is not synonymous with prefect quality in every section, and a wikipedia-wide guideline should prime over some individual example. Note the debate is more on the organization than the content itself. Any thoughts from other editors?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead should follow the general flow of the article rather than jump around, the current lead is also a really bad example in the first paragraph jumping straight into fact and figures, they should be latter. You would expect the first paragraph to be fairly simple but introduce the main points. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed the lead to fit MilborneOne's preferences. Basically, since most of the first paragraph of the A380's lead started with the history part, I moved the fact and figures into the third paragraph and merged the first paragraph and second paragraph together. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 21:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I have also made changes to the lead, one that is more in common with the lead of the A380, such as:

• It succeeds the A340 and competes with the Boeing 787 and 777 is deleted. In relation to other sentences of the lead, it just plainly sounds weird. I already mentioned a competitor in the history (development) section, which is the Boeing 787. This is like the A380 article lead, which mentions the Boeing 747 as a competitor in the development section.
• Moved The A350 XWB is based on the technologies developed for the Airbus A380 and includes a similar cockpit and fly-by-wire systems layout. It is also the first Airbus mostly made of carbon fibre reinforced polymer. and The A350 XWB has two variants: the A350-900 and the longer A350-1000, with the former typically flying 300 to 350 passengers over a 15,000 kilometres (8,100 nautical miles; 9,320 miles) range while the latter accommodating 350 to 410 seats over 16,100 km (8,690 nmi; 10,000 mi). to the last paragraph. This paragraph would be used to summarize both the design and variant sections in conjunction with the operators section.

I'm trying to achieve the goal of having three beefy paragraphs as requested in the Good Article Review, while at the same time be reminiscent of the authoritative references, in which is the A380 article, as the A330 article's lead is controversial. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 22:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"sounding weird" is not a good reason for deletion, you should rephrase not delete. As the A350 evolved, the main competitor shifted from the 787 to the 777, and it still is the A340 successor.

The "A380 technologies" is vague and honestly, the A350 is barely related to the A380. Airbus have glass cockpit and fly-by-wire controls since the A320. I think there is no common type rating with the A380, but with the A330.

the /variants/ section are more related to the /design/ paragraph than to the /operators/.

The goal of "three beefy paragraphs" is vague and should be less important than being faithful to the article layout.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think with the recent new changes by Marc, I think the lead right now is fine, and better than the lead layouts in previous versions. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 12:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder about the relevance of fly-by-wire in the current lead. As Marc mentions, all Airbuses since the A320 have had fly-by-wire, as do all modern airliners for that matter, so why mention it at all? Furthermore, the only mention of fly-by-wire in the body is an unsourced claim that the systems are similar to those in the A380. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree the FBW bit could be ditched. The common type rating with the A330 seems more noteworthy, as it is an incitative to all-Airbus widebody fleets - similarly to the common 777/787 rating.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

FBW May still warrant a fleeting reference, but in the body. I don’t know if all modern airliners have it? The 737MAX still has wires and pulleys driving hydro-electric actuators at the control surfaces. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Clean-sheet western mainline airliners are FBW since the A320 (intro 1988; the last conventional controls was the B757 - 1983); the regional jets since the E-Jet (2004, open loop); large business jets since the Falcon 7X (2007).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Now the aircraft has already been in service for several years, how relevant is it to mention the history of earlier design in lead section? Shouldn't the A330 redesign mentioned in history section? Harshana.nadeeshan (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The opening paragraph about the A330 seems appropriate considering that it explains why the A350 became a clean sheet redesign. It should be included under History as well, in more detail, but the lede says it all really. ~~