A380 wing snaps before design load limits..

[Hung Start]

Hmmmm,, wing fails below design limits. I can see the spin when or if it does fail. "Overactive imputs from a poorly trained FO"

Sounds like a certain tail that fell off to me.

All politics, boys. Just politics.

Hung

 

[EagleRJ]

Boeing has designed aircraft that were commercial failures, but they had the good judgement not to forge on ahead with them when it became clear that they were not economically viable.

Look at the Boeing 2707, the 300 seat Mach 2.5 transport that was launched to go up against the Anglo-French Concorde. The project was technologically feasible, but it became clear early on that ticket prices would have to be so high to reach the break-even that no one would want to fly on it.
The 2707 project was cancelled (funding and environmental concerns also played a part) and a full-size mockup is all that the program ever produced.

The Concorde program forged on ahead, breaking records for cost overruns, delays, and partner infighting, and in the end a handful of planes were "sold" to BA and AF for one Pound each. Even in service, the aircraft served mostly as national icons- they wasn't profitable even with $10,000 tickets. A technological leap ahead it most certainly was, but it was an economic failure.

There have been several other major airliner projects from Europe that have been revolutionary from a technology standpoint, but failed to sell- most notably the Bristol Brabazon and the DeHavilland Comet. Both aircraft were capable of succeeding in the market, but misjudging industry interest and developmental problems killed their chances for commercial success.

It looks like not much has changed with the A380. Airbus tried to build the aircraft and THEN determine if there was a market for it- all for the sake of "having the biggest". All of the delays and problems in the A380 program are making the launch airlines very nervous, and you can be sure that prospective customers are watching the program very carefully, especially in light of the wing failure.

Of course, the risk inherent in a program like this is a lot more acceptable when you are a quasi-state run company like EADS. Not since the Soviet design bureaus have we seen such insulation from risk and bottomless funding.

 

[MACH-TUCK]

Just as a side note... Those kids on Airliners.net although sometimes goofy they do some good work in digging up information. They kinda remind me of an eager beaver intern at a law firm doing all the nitty gritty as far as researching stuff.

Here's a recent near disaster at KMDW that was put out by one of these kids...

http://www.liveatc.net/forum/files/kmdw_315_670.mp3

I mean who the hell can find this $hit?

hOLY crap...Where did they get that? They really do know how to dig $hit up.. I wonder when that happend?

 

[BoilerUP]

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

You've obviously not yet caught the brunt of the Gulfstream pilots on the Corporate board for this comment...

 

[jackspat2]

As a passenger, I wouldn't want to fly on the A380. I already think it's a pain in the ass enough to fly on the 747 with all those people. I've read articles that at some airports, the actual corridors for which the people walk down to get their baggage will need to be widened to satisfy safety concerns. Can you imagine 2 A380s and a 747 being unloaded in the same vicinity? I just hate having to wait in line to get a taxi or get my bags or go through immigration. Thats how passengers are going to look at it. On the other hand, the cost per seat ratio may be cheaper to fly on this plane, but I think all the extra money that is going to be spent to accommodate this plane will outweigh that cost for the time being. The current baggage systems may not be adequate enough to handle the extra load from the A380. If you want to keep your bags, don't fly the A380. Thats going to be a new slogan for now on.

Those are some of my thoughts on the plane from a passenger's perspective. I actually do not know for fact that they are correct, so correct away.

 

[nimtz]

The JU-87.

Not many soldiers the Wermacht 6th Army at Stalingrad would agree with you about the success of that 3 blader.

 

[EuroWheenie]

Eagle

Look at the Boeing 2707, the 300 seat Mach 2.5 transport that was launched to go up against the Anglo-French Concorde. The project was technologically feasible, but it became clear early on that ticket prices would have to be so high to reach the break-even that no one would want to fly on it. The 2707 project was cancelled (funding and environmental concerns also played a part) and a full-size mockup is all that the program ever produced.

Funnily, Boeing spent more money on the 2707 than the frogs and poms did on the Concorde.

Even in service, the aircraft served mostly as national icons- they wasn't profitable even with $10,000 tickets. A technological leap ahead it most certainly was, but it was an economic failure.

Actually, no. Up until the crash in Paris the Concorde was turning a healty profit for BA. Indeed, it was an extraordinary way to loose money in the first many years of operation, but in the end they did make it work.

Of course, the risk inherent in a program like this is a lot more acceptable when you are a quasi-state run company like EADS. Not since the Soviet design bureaus have we seen such insulation from risk and bottomless funding.

Smiley noted. But just to set the record straight, Airbus SAS is a publically traded company on the Dutch stock exchange. Yes, the French and German governments hold minority stakes. EADS is a profitable company, and a rather healthy one at that. As for subsidies, it'll be interesting to see how the WTO will rule on the A vs B war.

Boiler

I think even G drivers can recognice a fine product when they see one. Not that Gulfstream builds inferior aeroplanes of course!

Jack

Me neither. In a perfect world airlines would transport myself around in a G550

Nimtz

Don't diss Aunty JU! I have had the distinct pleasure of riding the JU with Lufthansa Traditionsflug. Marvellous piece of kit. The LH version, incidentially, ir powered by Vasps - and what a fantastic sound 3 of those make!

 

[spudskier]

'nuff said

 

[doug_or]

Me thunks there some confusion between the JU-52 (3 engine transport) and 87 (blows things up) here?

 

[EagleRJ]

I don't think the Ju-87 is ugly. It looks mean and purpose-built, like the A-10. There were much stranger-looking aircraft built during WWII.

There's a well-known rule of thumb in aircraft recognition (for pre-War aircraft):
If the plane is wierd, it's British.
If the plane is ugly, it's French.
If the plane is wierd and ugly, it's Russian.

I'm not sure where that leaves the A380, but it leaves out some German aircraft from WWII that were pretty bizarre. The Germans designed aircraft that overall were more utilitarian than Allied aircraft. Look at the Heinkel 111. It's nowhere near as good looking as the B-17, but it got the job done. Simple shapes made it easy to produce in large quantity, too.

 

[nimtz]

Me thunks there some confusion between the JU-52 (3 engine transport) and 87 (blows things up) here?

Yeah that was my bad. Been reading too many Stalingrad books lately. Talk about a sh!tty freight gig!

 

[Whale Rider]

DATE:21/02/06
SOURCE:Flight International
Airbus has to prove A380 wing is compliant after early 'rupture'

Airbus to cite structural analysis and production line improvements to ensure certification after “rupture”

Following the failure of an A380 wing during ultimate-load tests last week, Airbus must convince authorities that the A380’s structure complies with certification requirements through analysis of structural calculations combined with data on the improvements introduced on production A380s.

The wing of the A380 static test specimen suffered a “rupture” below the ultimate-load target during trials in Toulouse, but Airbus is confident that it will not need to modify production aircraft.

After completing limit-load tests (the maximum loads likely to be encountered during normal service) on the A380 static test airframe, progressively greater loads are applied up to 150% of limit-load, which is defined as ultimate load. Engineers develop finite element models (FEM) to calculate the load requirements.

“The rupture occurred when we were stepping between 1.45 and 1.5 times the limit load, between the inboard and outboard engines,” says Airbus executive vice president engineering Alain Garcia. “This is within 3% of the 1.5 target, which shows the accuracy of the FEM.”

While this type of failure has precedents, experts say the aim in such tests is to reach the ultimate-load target, without failing, before testing to destruction. Garcia says the trial was an “extremely severe test during which a wing deflection of 7.4m [24.3ft] was recorded” and that the A380 wing was designed to have “no margin” at ultimate load. “We had a weight-saving programme and ‘played the game’ to achieve ultimate load,” he says.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) says the maximum loading conditions defined for the A380 certification state: “The aircraft structure is analysed and tested to demonstrate that the structure can withstand the maximum loads, including a factor of safety of 1.5.”

Garcia says: “We will use this calibration of the FEM to prove the adequacy of the structure on production aircraft,” adding that “essentially no modifications” will be required for production aircraft: “We have refined the structural design for subsequent aircraft due to increased weights, etc.”

Jonathan Howes, technical director of UK-based certification consultants AeroDAC and, until recently, leading structures certification specialist for the A380 at the UK Civil Aviation Authority, says the rupture “was so close to the ultimate target that it is almost certain to allow approval to be given without the need for a re-test, but this will be subject to a negotiation between Airbus and EASA”.

MAX KINGSLEY-JONES / LONDON

 

[NoPax]

DATE:21/02/06
SOURCE:Flight Internationa

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) says the maximum loading conditions defined for the A380 certification state: “The aircraft structure is analysed and tested to demonstrate that the structure can withstand the maximum loads, including a factor of safety of 1.5.”

Garcia says: “We will use this calibration of the FEM to prove the adequacy of the structure on production aircraft,” adding that “essentially no modifications” will be required for production aircraft: “We have refined the structural design for subsequent aircraft due to increased weights, etc.”

Jonathan Howes, technical director of UK-based certification consultants AeroDAC and, until recently, leading structures certification specialist for the A380 at the UK Civil Aviation Authority, says the rupture “was so close to the ultimate target that it is almost certain to allow approval to be given without the need for a re-test, but this will be subject to a negotiation between Airbus and EASA”.

MAX KINGSLEY-JONES / LONDON

It says 'maximum loads including a 1.5 factor of safety', but appartently that means..."ahhhh...close enough fellas."

“We had a weight-saving programme and ‘played the game’ to achieve ultimate load,”

Nice 'game' your playing folks...whose winning? Lives and careers depend on it.

 

[XShipRider]

Field of Dreams

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?

I agree with you in part but there is a market segment for which this
aircraft could be the ticket. That is, the trans-Pacific market. The Asian
market, the most populous market on the planet, is the only one suited
for mass movement over long distances. A regional jet this is not.

You're right on the upgrades to infrastructure, many cities do not want,
or better do not have, the necessary cash for strengthening the
ramps, taxiways and runways.

Did Airbus use the Field of Dreams mentality on this one? Or did they
really do the market research?

It seems to me they could easily have made a competitor to a 747-esque
aircraft and given Boeing a run for their money. What's the name of the
game today? Fuel and maintenance costs? Incorporate every single
widget and tech' upgrade possible and you lure customers. Start talking
cash in investors pockets through decreased operating and TCO...
the customers will beat down your door.

 

[Hung Start]

All that means is "we will re-calibrate the gauge to give us the readings we need".

Yup,, it sure is a level playng field. No doubt.

Hung