Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
Factory, design flaws caused A380 cracks
Airbus blamed a combination of manufacturing and design flaws as more examples of wing cracks arose during checks on the A380, while analysts said its bare-all strategy of addressing the problems in public should limit any lasting damage. A top executive at the European planemaker said it had established how to repair the cracks found on a small number of parts inside the superjumbo's wings. (www.reuters.com) Altro...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Economies of scale to achieve efficiencies is fine up to a point. As long as we fly there will be accidents. Building these larger monsters means the day will come that we will gasp at the carnage.
Operator error as far as engineers are concerned.
Figured that when I heard of the first cracks. Glad they caught the early, and hope they don't find more.
Get some of that 500 MPH duct tape
just like the other 3rd world country
tried to use along the pilot's outside
window - frame.
just like the other 3rd world country
tried to use along the pilot's outside
window - frame.
I think you nailed it. I would use super glue first followed by the tape. Problem solved.
James..my gut feeling here is that this aircraft is suffering some high G landings. Reason: the damn thing takes a hell of a long runway to stop and pilots want to get the thing down over the numbers as fast as possible. Hence the often hard landings
The design saftey spec is 1.5 max load. So this machine should not break even when landing at 600 tns gross and 750 tns at MTO should be survivable.
In service the frequency at which the machine is landed over say 1.1G is mucher higher than the designers expected. The damn thing flaps like bird when it lands at anything over 1G.
If they had extended the runways before building the A380 my guess is this problem would not have arisen.
The design saftey spec is 1.5 max load. So this machine should not break even when landing at 600 tns gross and 750 tns at MTO should be survivable.
In service the frequency at which the machine is landed over say 1.1G is mucher higher than the designers expected. The damn thing flaps like bird when it lands at anything over 1G.
If they had extended the runways before building the A380 my guess is this problem would not have arisen.
Additionally...in flight turbulance stress must be included into the math...my guess is that it was...but the heavy landings were not. In my view this is a big problem with idealised paradigms as used in CAD programmes..they are wonderful tools to make something right on the limit of cost and mass.
Boeing used Catia CAD software on design of the 777 and the estimates of the effectiveness of this CAD package was pretty extensive. Far less re-work required and made the assembly faster. The 3-D aspects from Catia allowed engineers to see everyone work - electrical, hydraulics, structures, etc. A lot of times,these problems went unsolved until prototype construction had started and they find an electrical cable is supposed to go where a fuel line goes.
Airbus, in the case of the A380, had so many different countries and manufactures involved, there could have been a breakdown in overall systems engineering. That was clear with the wiring in the A380 and that caused a lot of the A380 delay trying to work out that problem.
Bottom line, developing a new airliner is one giant crap shot. I don't remember the title of the book written about 1980 on the development of the L1011 and DC-10 along with Boeing's 747. Lockheed's L1011 was the real loser and the DC-10 (a snake bit plane) never reached the breakeven point. Costs to develop and time are the areas where manufacture generally gets caught in. Costs more and takes longer than scheduled.