Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Vertical Tail Load Test  
User currently offlineEgronenthal From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13051 times:

I've heard several rumors to the effect that the A380 vertical tail structure failed during static testing at 90% of load (I don't know if this is design load or ultimate load), and that this is adding to the delay in test and production.

I can't find anything on news sources. Has anyone heard anything about this?

59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13033 times:

Suggest you check the source of your rumour . . .


Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineCDNpax From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 45 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13021 times:

So far we've heard the wings, landing gear and now the tail have failed!!

Let's let the rumours rest, shall we?


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12963 times:

I'm no A380 fan - but '90% of load' sounds crazy at this late stage of the design, just about impossible.

Unless they put an A300 tailfin on by mistake......  Smile



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12868 times:

ROTFL-

Do I really need to tell you what you are hearing/spreading as a rumour here is BS, or can you come to that conclusion yourself?

I mean, not everybody can have the same insight in airplane design and certification, but just think about it for a second.... What you are telling us is that the tail of the A380 snaps at 90% of its max load, right? And you are aware the A380 test flies almost every other day I am sure? Do you seriously believe ANYBODY would test fly a plane that has not passed at least all the BASIC structural test safely?!

Just like any other plane nowadays, the A380 had to proof already a big part of its structural strength BEFORE its maiden flight in order for it to get permission to fly as experimental (test) plane. How would you feel about it if your civil aviation authorities would not demand from ANY manufacturer the guarantee the plane he is about to test fly would not all of a sudden disintergrate in flight, thus not only posing a risk to the crew on board, but also to the people on the ground??? See how ridiculous this rumour is???

What remains to be done on the A380 are FATIGUE tests, to see how many cycles (times) certain parts of a plane can be stressed to their limits, before they give in, but that's not what the rumour is about, is it? Maybe it's time launch a new one???


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12391 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Egronenthal (Thread starter):
I've heard several rumors to the effect that the A380 vertical tail structure failed during static testing at 90% of load (I don't know if this is design load or ultimate load), and that this is adding to the delay in test and production.

Damn, now the secret is out.  sarcastic 

If the static test tail had failed at 90% loading, they wouldn't be flying the A380 today.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineUlfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12759 times:

Quoting CDNpax (Reply 2):
So far we've heard the wings, landing gear and now the tail have failed!!

Let's let the rumours rest, shall we?

I actually disagree. If someone has a rumor lets talk about it so we can know what is rumor and what is not. At least as long as it is stated as above that this is a rumor and there is a question about it. Now I do agree in no dealing with the rumors that are worded as attacking as opposed to those that are asking if anyone else has heard that.


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6096 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12672 times:

You know you guys get very defensive when someone says they heard a "RUMOR". Its not he is trying to spread it as fact. If a rumor comes out that an airline is looking or starting a new route, people are all over it and excited. But heaven forbid a rumor comes out that the A380 or 777LR failed a test and the defensive stance comes up. We are all professional here and can take rumors with a grain of salt. Lets not shoot the messenger of a rumor cause a fare share of them end up being fact or have at least a little truth to them.

Ulfinator, Im with you, let the rumor out and see if there is fact behind it. If people are so defensive over a rumor, well prove its wrong! The whole biting off people's heads over a rumor, when they said it was a rumor, is getting old.

Ok, im vented

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 12644 times:

Plus, discussing a rumor provides the opportunity for people like Sabenapilot to provide interesting information that can help us learn.


An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5633 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12437 times:

Trouble with rumours is that they are often started maliciously. Which means anyone can post anything on here, saying they heard it as a rumour.

Then airliners.net becomes a conduit for malice.


User currently offlineBsmalls35 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12362 times:

If it were not for rumors there would hardly be posts on this site. Seems to me that a lot of the topics and posts here, especially the civil aviation forum, are rumors, speculation and what ifs. I see nothing wrong with this. Most of us are adults and can take information about a rumor with a grain of salt and not jump to the conclusion that the rumor is fact.

User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12273 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 9):
Trouble with rumours is that they are often started maliciously. Which means anyone can post anything on here, saying they heard it as a rumour.

Then airliners.net becomes a conduit for malice.

I would say most of the 'rumours' on A.net are as you described Braybuddy. Some of them have been really doing the rounds judging by the number of times they come up. One that comes to mind is the dissatisfaction that SAA has for the A346. Although some see A.net as a rumour mill, I personally read the forums to find out factual information and reasonable speculation on something e.g.. Aer Lingus' plans for longhaul expansion and what airplane they will order etc. You sure have to wade through a lot of BS to get to the good stuff and I have often stopped reading a thread because it degenerated into a stupid A v B slagging match. Some folks just cannot hide their contempt for one manufacturer or another like the Airbus basher further up on this thread (I won't mention any names). It makes you wonder what kind of aviation fans some folk are.

GU  confused 



I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12260 times:

I'd be speculating about what happens over in Toulouse, but as I recall the static testing on the C17 wingset was going on while the first one was being put together....not sure whether it had flown....the test was 150 per cent of design maximum load and the wingset let go at 140 per cent.....apparently with a mighty roar or so I was told by someone who was on duth when they let go.

If the premise of the rumor is accepted as correct in all its particulars, a failure at 90 per cent of design maximum would be enough for concern but not necessarily enough to stop flight testing.


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6096 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12237 times:

Bradtbuddy, then if you think is maliciously posted, post an article showing its wrong. Like I said above, take it with a grain of salt and if its a rumor started for this reason, shame on the. Remember a lot of people on here post enough we know who to take seriously and who not to.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12143 times:

Quoting AS739X (Reply 13):
if you think is maliciously posted, post an article showing its wrong

Well, it would be hard and ridiculous for Airbus, Boeing or any manufacturer to make a press conference or a declaration to a journalist to deny a rumor EVERY TIME there is one on A.net.  Yeah sure

It's too easy to say something and come up with a "prove it's wrong".
I won't write an example for you as some people here will take my words seriously, but just think of anything I could say about your beloved manufacturer, the only limit is your (or my) imagination... Then it would be difficult for you to prove it's wrong as A, B, E, or any manufacturer simply don't care about what I can say. I hope you got the idea.

The first to state something has to prove it's true. End of story.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11979 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 4):
And you are aware the A380 test flies almost every other day I am sure? Do you seriously believe ANYBODY would test fly a plane that has not passed at least all the BASIC structural test safely?!

But if they only fly with very light load, then it is still safe.

They first revealed the plane on Jan 18, but it took to the sky more than three months later. Anomaly 1.

It's been more than 3 months since first flight, they still have only one test plane in operation. The second plane is said to take the first flight in October. By three to four months into the flight test program, all test planes should have already been flying. Anomaly 2.

It usually takes 12-14 months to certify a brand new aircraft, and the original schedule for the A380 certification plan was about 12-14 months. Now Airbus is scheduled to certify the aircraft in October 2006. That's almost 18 months since the first flight and the end of April. Anomaly 3.

This can only mean Airbus is working on some major redesigns or modifying manufacturing processes. They are flying the first aircraft only to tell the world that the certification process is underway. I don't mean this rumor is true, but it's not improbable considering all the anomalies surrounding the A380 program.


User currently offlineAntiuser From Italy, joined May 2004, 657 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11299 times:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 15):
But if they only fly with very light load, then it is still safe.

F-WWOW was loaded up to just a little under MTOW for the first flight, and if I recall correctly, has already been flown at full MTOW.



Azzurri Campioni del Mondo!
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11282 times:

Quoting Antiuser (Reply 16):
F-WWOW was loaded up to just a little under MTOW for the first flight, and if I recall correctly, has already been flown at full MTOW.

I don't believe so. IIRC, the takeoff weight was in the 400-450t range. The MTOW of the aircraft is 560t.


User currently offlineWiggidy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11164 times:

First flight was 75% MTOW. They announced at the paris air show that the A380 has a MTOW of over 500t. It has flown to this range according to Airbus, so I doubt any structural problems occur at less than 100%. It could be possible however that it failed at around 130% or so and they were shooting for 140-150%, that has happened before but I find this HIGHLY unlikely with how the program is proceding. Just my 2 cents
-Wes


User currently offlineKhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 425 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10471 times:

Maybe they meant 190%, not 90%.  eyebrow  Just a thought. And maybe it is complete BS. Either way, I think we will just have to wait until Airbus announces or releases the information. Maybe I'm just crazy!

KhenleyDIA



Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
User currently offlineKnoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 258 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Antiuser (Reply 16):
and if I recall correctly, has already been flown at full MTOW.

It has flown indeed at MTOW many many times already. It went to Istres AFB to do some tests at MTOW.

The vertical tail failure rumor was around earlier this year, and now it comes back.

Believe me, I have discussed with airlines representatives who knew about small issues that were kept silent even internally, so I would think a vertical tail redesign would have been known widely now among them.



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9707 times:

Quoting Egronenthal (Thread starter):
I've heard several rumors to the effect that the A380 vertical tail structure failed during static testing at 90% of load (I don't know if this is design load or ultimate load), and that this is adding to the delay in test and production.

I can't find anything on news sources. Has anyone heard anything about this?

Would say that the rumors are wrong, if something like this did happen, it would have been leaked to the media already.....



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9198 times:

Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
We are all professional here and can take rumors with a grain of salt

Are we? And can we?

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8788 times:

Once again, we see a discussion going a bit like this:

*) I've heard that blablabla.....(here: the tail fails at 90% of max structural loading)
*) a few forum members step in to briefly reply they don't believe a word of it
(carduelis, CDNpad, NAV20)
*) someone else gives a TECHNICAL and LEGAL reason why it can't be true
(sabenapilot in this case)
*) a few die-hard believers scrape together a few half 'facts' which are totally unrelated to give the rumor some new credibility, yet totally ignore the LEGAL and TECHNICAL objections to the rumor.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 15):
They are flying the first aircraft only to tell the world that the certification process is underway. I don't mean this rumor is true, but it's not improbable considering all the anomalies surrounding the A380 program.

Sorry Dynkrisolo, but what you are telling there makes no sense at all and with a minimum of reasoning, you can find that out for yourself:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 15):
If they only fly with very light load, then it is still safe.

Surely you don't really think for a second Airbus (or any other manufacturer) can just do its structural integrity tests behind closed doors and then communicate the end result to the certification authorities when successful? Do you really believe ANY aviation authority will tolerate ANY manufacturer to fly a plane (even if only as test plane) which does not meet ALL (temporarily) certification requirements and thus put the lives of the people on the ground at risk (for instance the ten thousands at the Paris air show)? Come on, think about it, what you are saying is that if a plane's vital structure fail at 90% of the load it is LEGALLY required to sustain, the authorities would say: 'ok, you may fly it, but fly it gently and smoothly until you've fixed it' and in the mean time let it participate in an air show over Paris for over a week???

IF the A380 indeed failed it's structural tests before reaching the LEGALLY set CERTIFICATION criteria, then it would see it's temporarily airworthy certificate revoced with immediate effect by the embedded JAA inspectors supervising these tests at Airbus and it wouldn't be flying, not even small sorties on quiet days at low weight and with minimal maneuvering!

Besides, fly at very very light loads??? The A380 has been doing Vmu (including tailstrike tests) at Istres up to MTOW only 2 weeks ago, so I am eager to find out what you consider heavy structural loading then???

The reasons for the delays are well known I thought: cabin interior.

Also...

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 18):
They announced at the Paris air show that the A380 has a MTOW of over 500t. It has flown to this range according to Airbus, so I doubt any structural problems occur at less than 100%.

When we talk about the LOAD on the tail, we are not talking about the WEIGHT, but more the STRESS put on the tail. WEIGHT of the plane obviously is a factor too in all this, but turbulence's, lateral forces, rudder deflection, airspeed, body angle etc are all much more important.
You can easily load a tail to its Max load even when the plane is well below MTOW as has been so 'professionally' demonstrated by an AA A300-600 F/O right after take-off in JFK some years ago...

[Edited 2005-08-11 11:01:05]

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12391 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
We are all professional here

I think you'll find the idiot to professional ratio is significantly in favour of the former.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
25 SKA380 : I've heard several rumors that the 772LR has a wing that will snap with just 1% overload.. Prove me wrong guys!
26 MidnightMike : Oh goodness, that is a very stupid comment as the 777-200LR already went through the testing & evaluation period that there is no need to prove you w
27 Braybuddy : It is almost impossible to disprove malicious rumours. Time is the only way of disproving them. If for example, someone posted a rumour saying that t
28 CHRISBA777ER : My thoughts on the A380 delays (sorry for the long post) You have the MD11 factor here i think - some aspects of the plane are not as good as they sho
29 Milan320 : It's still going through testing in order to be granted certification. /Milan320
30 SKA380 : It was a joke, just in case you didnt get that..
31 AMSSFO : Anyone ever thought about how you can easily change 140% in 90%? It's very easy: when 150% of the max load is you goal and it let go at 140% then tha
32 Dynkrisolo : Sabenapilot, I just got to chuckle when it comes to you defending Airbus. Let me make myself clear, I am not implying that this rumor is true. My most
33 Post contains images Sabenapilot : So again I have to ask you a rhetorical question: Do you really think a TAIL strike does not put stress on the vertical TAIL of a plane? Tell that to
34 Post contains images MidnightMike : Actually, I did not get the joke, next time, add one of those little smileys
35 Dynkrisolo : Does tail strike put the vertical tail in either tensile or bending stresses? The answer is a definite no. Since when is tail strike meant to be a te
36 Post contains links Sabenapilot : http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-jal123.shtml Still standing by your initial claim it is very well possible a plane manufacturer would dare
37 Sabenapilot : The 772LR is a basic 772 with somewhat more range, thus does not have to undergo a full certification program. The reduced test program is only aimed
38 Post contains images A330 : Dynkrysolo, with your last posts, YOU prove that you have no clue about aircraft strucural loads, flight testing and certification progresses. First o
39 Post contains images David L : So, to summarise: a reasonable question but the answer is that no-one here can supply any evidence to support the rumour. I got your point - I thought
40 Dynkrisolo : There were many new aircraft tested before that had made similar or more technologoical leap at the time of development as the 380 is trying to do no
41 Flashmeister : Do you still remember the fabulous entertainment system on the MD-11, which brought SR111 down due to a sudden ignition of the aircraft's cabin insula
42 Sabenapilot : Flashmeister- re-read my post and you will see it does not say Airbus needs a real airline cabin interior to test all those fancy aftermarket items li
43 Sabenapilot : Dynkrisolo, I really don't know what you are up to, but you are defending the undefendable and by doing so you're at the brink of making a fool of you
44 Aerobalance : Caught on to this one late...... The inside word is unacceptable performance at 1.9 times rated load...... sssshhhhh, don't tell anyone that I told yo
45 Post contains links Dynkrisolo : This is the major flaw of all of your arguments: It doesn't need a temporary airworthy certificate to test flight the 380. Show me any FAA or EASA re
46 Sabenapilot : So what you are saying is anybody can just screw together some pieces of metal, fit a few jet engines to it and start flying over densely populated a
47 Sabenapilot : Which would be a pretty fantastic result, knowing the LEGALLY REQUIRED stress limit the tail is to sustain, is 1.5 times the nominal load.
48 Sabenapilot : Eh, I am afraid that is wrong as well. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) is an organisation representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities
49 Astuteman : I think Knoxibus is right - this is the old "additional exceptional load test" that was done (and failed) in January. It was fixed by adding 2Kg addi
50 Post contains links Dynkrisolo : I have already answered this part. So, I will just requote myself: If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. LOL! Since when does Al Qaida need t
51 Starlionblue : Sure. Cause unexpected turbulence never happens...
52 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : That's all you can come up with? Turbulence or not, the forces on the vertical tail would still be proportional to the actual aircraft loading, no? I
53 Sabenapilot : Only if the manufacturer is situated within the EU (which is the case for Airbus). The rules applied however are still JAR and nothing else. Anyway,
54 Dynkrisolo : Everything you described here is not an airworthiness certificate. Just to remind yourself of what you said: So, I stick by what I have said previous
55 Post contains links NAV20 : I don't want to get involved in the main argument, because I think the tailfin thing is probably a non-issue. But as a pilot yourself, Sabenapilot, y
56 Knoxibus : Well technically he is right, because MSN 002 and MSN 007 A380s will be fitted with COMPLETE cabin (different IFE systems, all possible galleys, seat
57 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : Right from the beginning? Are you sure? Then would you tell me where they put the testing and data acquisition equipments? Where do they put the wate
58 PlevTLS : Out of the 4 test Aircraft (MSN's 0001, 0002, 0004 & 0007) two will be configured to test flight performance ie: with minimum cabin fittings, mainly w
59 Dynkrisolo : Thanks. This is the way I understood. After all, it's a type certificate. You seldom put airline specific interior for a type certificate.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The First Painted A380 Vertical Tail (SQ)! posted Mon Apr 4 2005 06:38:59 by Jacobin777
FI-A380 Performs 1st RTO Test posted Tue Aug 1 2006 10:51:34 by Astuteman
Airbus Prepares To Fly A380 With Full Load Of Pax posted Tue Aug 1 2006 02:10:55 by Leelaw
A380 - A Weak Tail Section? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 01:08:24 by Okelleynyc
A380 04 Ready For Test In AUH posted Thu Jul 20 2006 18:09:07 by JBOND
A380 - Spotted Tail posted Wed Jun 22 2005 01:32:28 by Air NZ
Pax File Complaints Against A380 China Test Flight posted Tue Nov 28 2006 05:06:25 by Jimyvr
A380 Test Drive In India? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 04:41:32 by Amritpal
Airbus To Re-Test A380 Separations posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:26:40 by Leelaw
A380 With Test Passengers posted Mon Nov 6 2006 21:54:16 by Door5right