A380 wing snaps before design load limits..

[habubuaza]

So from what I see the United interpreted the Position and Hold as a takeoff clearance? Or am I missing something.

Not sure, but definately some sort of runway incursion

 

[EagleRJ]

But FAR 25.305 follows up with:

When analytical methods are used to show compliance with the ultimate load strength requirements, it must be shown that—

(1) The effects of deformation are not significant;
(2) The deformations involved are fully accounted for in the analysis; or
(3) The methods and assumptions used are sufficient to cover the effects of these deformations.

But when allowable deformation occurs in a structure, it is still capable of carrying the rated load. In this case, the wing broke.

I'm not sure about it, but I don't think Airbus is permitted to use a computer stress analysis to validate the wing structure- it has to be an actual test.
Airbus might try sneaking around the rules on this matter too. I heard that regarding the evacuation, they originally tried to certify the A380 based on "approximations" with existing data, using A330 data for the upper deck, and A300 data for the lower deck, and that idea was promptly shot down. It could be that they were simply trying to save the cost of a full-up test, or it could be that they too are worried about the A380 being able to pass.

 

[joe_pilot]

Nothing ugly about the shorts at all.

What!?? The Shorts is one of the ugliest airplanes ever built. Of course it IS so ugly, it is good looking.

 

[NoPax]

But FAR 25.305 follows up with...

Isn't the A380 being first certified under JAR-land rules and regs....what exactly do those say? It may be the same - I don't know. Lots of interesting info though.

and the A380 has yet to pass the 90-second passenger evacuation drill, a test some experts think it doesn't have enough doors to pass! No pass- no pax.
What a disaster.

No pax wouldn't be a total disaster...just a big double-decker freighter

 

[NoPax]

What!?? The Shorts is one of the ugliest airplanes ever built. Of course it IS so ugly, it is good looking.

An airplane built by ship-builders (and it still isn't waterproof from what I've been told)

 

[EuroWheenie]

Just a few corrections:

A/ The wing ain't French, it's British. Not the sort of people know to surrender.

B/ The A380 is already a commercial success, with 159 orders to date. Ugly or not. Check how many orders the 747 had 9 months before entering revenue service.

C/ Why no US airlines have bought them? Well, probably because the only viable candidates don't have any money!

D/ The evac test will be interesting. I have no doubt it will pass, eventually. Airbus will try to do it with max. pax load, which is in the 850ish range. Please bear in mind that no airline are planning to have more than 550 seats, and it will easily evac 550 people in 90 seconds. It's got, what, 18 doors? If the 747 can evac 490 using 5 doors, why shouldn't the A380 do 850 with 9? Oh, and the slides are American in design and manufacture!

As for the wing, I have no worries whatsoever that it will meet design and certification criteria.

 

[LJDRVR]

With a wing redesign coming, plus an additional static test, 159 airframes is far from the break even point.

 

[EagleRJ]

B/ The A380 is already a commercial success, with 159 orders to date. Ugly or not. Check how many orders the 747 had 9 months before entering revenue service.

But the rate of new orders has tapered off to near zero. Many airlines with existing orders and options appear to be having second thoughts, due to A380 performance shortfalls, operational issues, and the announcement of the B747-800. I don't know where the break-even is, but I don't know if you can pronounce the A380 a "commercial success" with 159 orders and none yet in revenue service. The 747 family is considered a success, but Boeing has built more than 1300 of them.

C/ Why no US airlines have bought them? Well, probably because the only viable candidates don't have any money!

Right, like Airbus never "gives" aircraft to operators that are in precarious financial condition, to boost their sales totals? Remember Independence Air?
More likely, US airlines don't see a need for an aircraft that can only fly into a handful of airports and is too big for any of their markets. It appears that they are happy with their 747s and 777s.

D/ The evac test will be interesting. I have no doubt it will pass, eventually. Airbus will try to do it with max. pax load, which is in the 850ish range. Please bear in mind that no airline are planning to have more than 550 seats, and it will easily evac 550 people in 90 seconds. It's got, what, 18 doors? If the 747 can evac 490 using 5 doors, why shouldn't the A380 do 850 with 9? Oh, and the slides are American in design and manufacture!

The A380 has 16 exits, and the 747 has 12. The main problem is that while the 747 has just a small first-class area on the second deck (with two dedicated exits), the A380 has a whole passenger deck. There are concerns with the height of those escape slides, as well as the possibility that passengers will use the stairs and overload lower level exits (as has happened in previous 747 evacuations). Link

 

[Golden Falcon]

The Shorts aka the "Irish Concorde" is a beautiful airplane

 

[dseagrav]

Name for me one ugly airplane that was ever successful.

The JU-87.

 

[Whale Rider]

Humpty Dumpty Jet

Hope we don't witness Humpty Dumpty A380 have a great fall!

 

[banned username 1]

Typical, it's French, it surrendered before it was supposed to.

That was the FI official "Best Comment of the Week"-- or should I say weak?

Good Show!!!

 

[JustFly]

The JU-87? That was a good looking airplane, especially the G model. Now the Blohm and Voss BV-141 is uuuuuugglllyyy!!!

 

[414Flyer]

I agree with the comment that it has not reached its break even point, and is probably far from it. I think it was well over 200 it was going to need, and I imagine some of these first ones sold were heavily discounted, to get those initial orders going.
747-800 ADV will put even more pressure on Airbus to lower prices more, since the ADV model gets a similar seat mile cost, but can use existing facilities.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Beech 1900D is one ugly airplane

 

[habubuaza]

Beech 1900D is one ugly airplane

How about the super guppy?

God! Why do I even know that airplane?

 

[TXGold]

The British may have built the Wing, but take a guess where it was designed. I bet money that the British built it perfectly.

 

[EuroWheenie]

TXGold

Sorry mate, but you're wrong. The wings are designed and built by BAe. Airbus (or rather EADS) tells the guys what they want, it's up to BAe to reach those goals. You may bet all you like, but the original A340-500/600 wings were not exactly built to perfection. They were in fact 2 tons overweight per shipset, and the guys at BAe with pencils stuck behind their ears had to go back to the drawing board for a while. Eventually, they did meet the design criteria.

Besides, if we are to speak of French built aeroplanes, most people I know will agree that the Dassault range of business jets are among the best, if not the best, built in the industry. The DA wings on the 50 are, incidentially, of a design that can be traced back to the Mirage F1 - one more piece of useless info you may throw around at your leisure

 

[EuroWheenie]

EagleRJ

But the rate of new orders has tapered off to near zero. Many airlines with existing orders and options appear to be having second thoughts, due to A380 performance shortfalls, operational issues, and the announcement of the B747-800. I don't know where the break-even is, but I don't know if you can pronounce the A380 a "commercial success" with 159 orders and none yet in revenue service. The 747 family is considered a success, but Boeing has built more than 1300 of them.

Airbus has publically stated that they consider A380 orders from 2 customers a year a success. So far, they've achieved that goal. In other words, they have met their own success criteria. They may not have met that of airliners.net members, but I'm quite certain EADS could give less what a.net members think. As for the aircraft having performance shortfalls, where did you pick that up? Has it been overweight? Yes, but which new design isn't fat to start off with? Annoucement of the 747-8? Sure, it's clocked up 34 orders from 2 freight operators, but remarkably not a single passenger order. Besides, noone (outside of the ill-informed) actually consider an aircraft seating 400 and a bit to compete with one seating 550 in similar configuration.

I don't know where the break-even is either, but let's not forget that the A380 is still 8-9 months from entering revenue service and will, conceiveably, remain in production for the next 20-30 years; plenty of time to reach break-even.

Right, like Airbus never "gives" aircraft to operators that are in precarious financial condition, to boost their sales totals? Remember Independence Air?
More likely, US airlines don't see a need for an aircraft that can only fly into a handful of airports and is too big for any of their markets. It appears that they are happy with their 747s and 777s.

And Boeing doesn't do the same? Please, give me a break. Since I'm not senior enough to know anything about what price Airbus and Boeing are offering their products at, and respectfully assume neither do you, all we can do is speculate. Does Airbus offer a discount? Damn right they do! Does Boeing? Of course they do! Offering heavy discounts to launch customers is a tactic employeed by both Airbus and Boeing. You don't honestly belive Boeing could have sold all those 787s at list price, do you? If you wan't to buy a 787 today, the price will be much different from that offered to ANA (or was it JAL?). Same with the A380. Nothing sinister or remarkable about that.

US Airlines may think they don't need the A380, and they may very well be right in their assumptions. However, none of the US majors flying intercontinental routes are hardly in a position where they can afford to buy anything but jungle jets. And of those, I do belive both CO and AA have signed exclusivity deals with Boeing to secure rather hefty discounts, effectively leaving them out of the equation. If airlines like UA and NW should bounce back, both of them could possibly use the A380 on heavily slot constrained routes. That is, unless they wish to hand over the Heathrow, CDG, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Amsterdam etc. markets to the competitor. Virgin Atlantic, for instance, rely rather heavily on the A380 to boost their share of the Heathrow-Kennedy market.

The A380 has 16 exits, and the 747 has 12. The main problem is that while the 747 has just a small first-class area on the second deck (with two dedicated exits), the A380 has a whole passenger deck. There are concerns with the height of those escape slides, as well as the possibility that passengers will use the stairs and overload lower level exits (as has happened in previous 747 evacuations)

BA and Virgin flies their 747-400s with business class on the upper-deck, to name but two carriers, and the aircraft is certified to carry M-class seats up there too (as used on domestic Japanese 747s). Noteably, it has never been subjected to an evac test with full capacity. As for the doors, my bad, it's 16 rather than 18. Still, 60% more doors for an aircraft holding 30% more passengers (in average airliner configuration - 390 for the 747 and 510 for the A380); I fail to see the problem! Will the A380 sail through evac certification? Of course not, at least not with 850 people onboard! Will it eventually pass, well, people whom I assume to be rather more clever than you and me in this particular field says it will, and I tend to acknowledge my personal limits.

 

[habubuaza]

EagleRJ



Airbus has publically stated that they consider A380 orders from 2 customers a year a success. So far, they've achieved that goal. In other words, they have met their own success criteria. They may not have met that of airliners.net members, but I'm quite certain EADS could give less what a.net members think. As for the aircraft having performance shortfalls, where did you pick that up? Has it been overweight? Yes, but which new design isn't fat to start off with? Annoucement of the 747-8? Sure, it's clocked up 34 orders from 2 freight operators, but remarkably not a single passenger order. Besides, noone (outside of the ill-informed) actually consider an aircraft seating 400 and a bit to compete with one seating 550 in similar configuration.

I don't know where the break-even is either, but let's not forget that the A380 is still 8-9 months from entering revenue service and will, conceiveably, remain in production for the next 20-30 years; plenty of time to reach break-even.



And Boeing doesn't do the same? Please, give me a break. Since I'm not senior enough to know anything about what price Airbus and Boeing are offering their products at, and respectfully assume neither do you, all we can do is speculate. Does Airbus offer a discount? dang right they do! Does Boeing? Of course they do! Offering heavy discounts to launch customers is a tactic employeed by both Airbus and Boeing. You don't honestly belive Boeing could have sold all those 787s at list price, do you? If you wan't to buy a 787 today, the price will be much different from that offered to ANA (or was it JAL?). Same with the A380. Nothing sinister or remarkable about that.

US Airlines may think they don't need the A380, and they may very well be right in their assumptions. However, none of the US majors flying intercontinental routes are hardly in a position where they can afford to buy anything but jungle jets. And of those, I do belive both CO and AA have signed exclusivity deals with Boeing to secure rather hefty discounts, effectively leaving them out of the equation. If airlines like UA and NW should bounce back, both of them could possibly use the A380 on heavily slot constrained routes. That is, unless they wish to hand over the Heathrow, CDG, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Amsterdam etc. markets to the competitor. Virgin Atlantic, for instance, rely rather heavily on the A380 to boost their share of the Heathrow-Kennedy market.



BA and Virgin flies their 747-400s with business class on the upper-deck, to name but two carriers, and the aircraft is certified to carry M-class seats up there too (as used on domestic Japanese 747s). Noteably, it has never been subjected to an evac test with full capacity. As for the doors, my bad, it's 16 rather than 18. Still, 60% more doors for an aircraft holding 30% more passengers (in average airliner configuration - 390 for the 747 and 510 for the A380); I fail to see the problem! Will the A380 sail through evac certification? Of course not, at least not with 850 people onboard! Will it eventually pass, well, people whom I assume to be rather more clever than you and me in this particular field says it will, and I tend to acknowledge my personal limits.

I'm sorry but the A380 was a HUGE mistake on Airbus' part. Why did they build it? What airline, went to Airbus and Boeing and said

"hey we need a colossal aircraft that is capable of carrying up to 850 passengers, and by the way we are willing to pay nearly $300,000,000 a piece for it and force most airports to spend millions more to update themselves to handle the weight of such aircraft" ? The answer is no one. Airbus built the A380 for bragging rights and that's it. Now they are struggling to meet performance criteria and to create a market for it.

OK, so what are you going to do when you have to fly New York to Hong Kong? Sorry A380 can't do that. How about Sydney London? Sorry need a 777 for that one. I mean come on what was Airbus thinking?

As for your comment on airliners being overweight..I would challenge you to tell me what successful airliner had an overweight issue?