Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5458843/

Topic: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: PlaneInsomniac
Posted 2012-05-07 00:58:34 and read 17251 times.

Airbus has announced that they will alter the design of the A380 wing in order to address the wing crack issues:

- new metal alloy will be used
- weight will not increase
- performance will be unaffected
- new wings will be in planes delivered from late 2013 / early 2014 onwards

Source: spiegel.de (in German):
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unt...dert-fluegel-am-a380-a-831692.html

They quote Financial Times Deutschland.

[Edited 2012-05-07 01:09:34]

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Design
Username: someone83
Posted 2012-05-07 01:03:22 and read 17196 times.

They are not changing the design, but the production method......

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-05-07 13:29:10 and read 13819 times.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Thread starter):
- new wings will be in planes delivered from late 2013 / early 2014 onwards

So the question is, does this mean stress analysis is complete or that drawings are released? (Well... CATIA models with process notes...). I suspect the former and not the later.

Quoting someone83 (Reply 1):
They are not changing the design, but the production method......

Google translation states a new alloy. While the exterior shape might not change, are they changing any manufacturing methods? e.g., adding shot peening to the process? By our company process, the drawing would be revised (or CATIA model release revision updated).

Fatigue is still as much of an art as a science. It is an area where subtle material changes can triple service life. Little manufacturing process variations can change a parts life by a factor of ten.

So will QR Accept a 2014 A380 now?  

Now to go over to:
A380 Production Thread Part 11 (by SA7700 Nov 28 2011 in Civil Aviation)

References this article (hattip N14AZ): http://www.industryweek.com/articles...ar_end_26891.aspx?Page=2?ShowAll=1

A new manufacturing process is being tested and certified by engineers, and then repair kits will be produced and should be available for airlines as soon as in October.

Airbus has insisted that the cracks do not pose a safety risk, and envisages that the repairs can be made in 2013 when the aircraft undergo regular servicing.


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: voar
Posted 2012-05-07 14:46:18 and read 12228 times.

I wonder if this change will require new certification tests such as fatigue testing and ultimate load destruction tests.

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: PlaneInsomniac
Posted 2012-05-07 14:56:45 and read 12002 times.

Quoting voar (Reply 3):
I wonder if this change will require new certification tests such as fatigue testing and ultimate load destruction tests.

Here is the original FTD article (also in German):
http://www.ftd.de/unternehmen/handel...a380-fluegel-aendern/70033195.html

This article states that EASA still has to "agree to" the changes.

Further interesting points in this article:
- Airbus has so far listed 105 million EUR as costs associated with the wing cracks
- Construction rate for the A380 was reduced from 2.7 to 2.3 planes per month
- Due to reduced availability of already delivered planes to the airlines, further payments are likely
- Change affects the installation of new "clamps" ("klammern")

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-05-07 15:03:08 and read 11873 times.

Quoting voar (Reply 3):
I wonder if this change will require new certification tests such as fatigue testing and ultimate load destruction tests.

It will certainly not require a new ultimate load test. There might be fatigue tests, but I expect those would be "small scale" and performed with a smaller, representative section and not an entire wing.

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-05-07 15:34:30 and read 11313 times.

Quoting voar (Reply 3):
I wonder if this change will require new certification tests such as fatigue testing and ultimate load destruction tests.

It should not require anything of the kind. OEMs change the manufacturing process, materials used, even suppliers based upon in service experience. It is one of the reasons why air travel is so safe, the OEMs react to in service discoveries, and are proactive in getting them rectified.

The OEMs have approved engineers in house that can certify changes, this would be initially be done to the production of new wings, and then transferred to in service aircraft. This is mainly a details design issue, added to a change in manufacturing process. Nothing has been mentioned to suggest that the certified wing loads need adjusting.

OEMs would typically issue a service bulletin (SB) outlining the changes, and these are typically picked up by the regulators like EASA/FAA and made into an Airworthiness Directive (AD). The SBs are typically “suggested” fixes as OEMs cannot really compel an operator to carry them out, and ADs are normally made compulsory by the regulators.

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: IL96M
Posted 2012-05-07 16:24:44 and read 10522 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
the drawing would be revised (or CATIA model release revision updated).

CATIA 3D models are directly used for production. 2D Drawings would only be produced for explanatory purposes, if at all, but play no role in production nowadays.

  

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-05-07 21:42:33 and read 7206 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 6):
It should not require anything of the kind. OEMs change the manufacturing process, materials used, even suppliers based upon in service experience. It is one of the reasons why air travel is so safe, the OEMs react to in service discoveries, and are proactive in getting them rectified.
Quoting IL96M (Reply 7):
CATIA 3D models are directly used for production. 2D Drawings would only be produced for explanatory purposes, if at all, but play no role in production nowadays.

I think I know that.   But the models will have details (e.g., shot peening). Even though this is the rule, most of us still say 'drawing release:'   

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
(Well... CATIA models with process notes...)

An interesting side note, one of the major aerospace companies is about to leave CATIA.    Back to UG!   
(Side note, I really like what I've seen with NX.)

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: clickhappy
Posted 2012-05-07 21:50:31 and read 7123 times.

Quoting IL96M (Reply 7):
2D Drawings would only be produced for explanatory purposes, if at all, but play no role in production nowadays.

Lots of aerospace parts are manufactured off of 2D drawings.

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-05-07 22:15:45 and read 6822 times.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 9):
Lots of aerospace parts are manufactured off of 2D drawings.

Large or small shop? Large shops do not want the paper and pens (FOD issues) nor keeping track of which paper has the correct effectivity for each airframe going down the line. CATIA/UG make life easier when multiple variations are in production.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: clickhappy
Posted 2012-05-07 22:18:59 and read 6775 times.

Large. As large as it gets. Also, just because it is 2D, doesn't mean it is on paper, lol.

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-05-08 06:10:10 and read 4830 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):

Large or small shop?

With CATIA V5 being modular and runs on Windows, even small shops can afford to buy/lease it.

And if you want to work for the 787, you will need to have V5 no matter if you are large or small.

Even if the parts are/were on 2D drawing, most likely every shop now-a-days would want a 3-D model just so they can program their NC machine. I mean, if the guys who build those custom motorcycle have their own 3-D system with their NC machine, then it would be prehistoric if an aerospace machine shop don't have any 3-D capabilities today.

As for parts lists and process/production notes . . . PDF have made great strides . . .   

bt

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-05-08 08:20:24 and read 4464 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
I mean, if the guys who build those custom motorcycle have their own 3-D system with their NC machine, then it would be prehistoric if an aerospace machine shop don't have any 3-D capabilities today.

IMHO, many aerospace machine shops are behind automotive and other industries.

I'm not arguing that 3D models are the primary way to do it. I do not see paper in the large shops anymore. I would like to see every shop go to a 3D model. However, some good shops have stuck to paper.   

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
And if you want to work for the 787, you will need to have V5 no matter if you are large or small.

Subs of vendors are not on Catia always. The vendor creates the V5 for Boeing, but the actual part production is often done to paper. I do not agree, but it is being done.

I think we're 'talking past' each other. I would like every shop to be 3D based NC machining in a 'dark shop' environment where 1st shift services the machines and everything else happens overnight. That has been true in automotive vendors for a dozen years.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
then it would be prehistoric if an aerospace machine shop don't have any 3-D capabilities today.

Some of the shops are. I'm not talking 1st tier vendors for the most part.

1st tier vendors and the big aerospace companies are all 3-D models. 2nd tier vendors have Catia, but do 'mixed work.' 3rd tier vendors are often 'prehistoric.' They are 3rd tier for a reason...

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Alters A380 Wing Due To Crack Issues
Username: A342
Posted 2012-05-11 05:53:37 and read 3547 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
Large or small shop? Large shops do not want the paper and pens (FOD issues) nor keeping track of which paper has the correct effectivity for each airframe going down the line. CATIA/UG make life easier when multiple variations are in production.

I can tell you that for example the factory where the rear pressure bulkhead for the 787 is produced uses both. All NC machines use 3D Catia models, but in the shop these are supplemented with 2D drawings on paper for easier reference and manufacturing documentation is attached to them.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/