"The ruptured wing was one of the earlier "heavier" proto-types. If newer wings are thinner, they may be even more vulnerable to stress failure. The FAA in Washington said it remains vigilant. "The standard is 1.50, and has to be met," said a spokesman.
"In modifications of older aircraft this can often be done through data analysis, but the A380 is a new type of aircraft," she said. Without FAA certification, the plane would not be allowed to land in the US.
Washington is expected to be tough, given that the composite tail of an Airbus A300-600R snapped off after takeoff in New York, killing all 265 people on board.
Airbus officials said the A380 wing rupture occurred during the last of 12 tests, after the wing had already been subjected to heavy stress.
They were confident that data analysis would put any doubts to rest. So far, customers are keeping quiet, with exception of John Plueger, president of the aircraft leasing company ILFC, who said the ruptured wing had "gotten his attention" and would be watched carefully.
Jonathan Howes, a director of AeroDAC consultants and a former EASA certifier on the A380, said the rupture would not hold back the aircraft.
"You never want a test to fail, but this is business as usual in aircraft design. You have a test failure - you fix the problem," he said. "
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18447 posts, RR: 59 Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 13379 times:
Quoting BoeingBus (Thread starter): Jonathan Howes, a director of AeroDAC consultants and a former EASA certifier on the A380, said the rupture would not hold back the aircraft.
"You never want a test to fail, but this is business as usual in aircraft design. You have a test failure - you fix the problem," he said. "
Exactly. It's not that it will fail to be certified, but if it will be delayed further and/or cost money to fix, or if they have to sacrifice a newer wing to the test.
While the idea that the "heavier" wing would be stronger makes sense, it may not be the real case. Might be the other way around.
I've always believed those first few A380s would have to have a slightly lower MTOW certification, but I'm not sure how happy SQ will be with that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7196 posts, RR: 42 Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13342 times:
That's potentially a terribly damaging story - particularly since it links the share sell-off to the A380's development problems:-
"France's media group Lagardère and Germany's DaimlerChrysler both said they intended to cash in profits to fund other investments, and increase the volume of EADS shares trading on the open market. The move follows reports that Britain's BAE Systems may sell its 20pc stake in Airbus.
"The Franco-German pair signalled long ago that they would dispose of EADS stock, but not until the new A380 super-jumbo had been delivered to its first customer, Singapore Airlines in December.
"They now appear to be jumping the gun, selling before the world's biggest and most ambitious passenger jet is certified for flight, and before it is clear if the A380 has enough bankable orders to justify its $11bn (£6.3bn) development costs. The sales come at a time when the aircraft industry is nearing the likely top of the cycle, and as a revitalised Boeing fights back with the new 787 Dreamliner jet.
"The disposals also come six weeks after an A380 wing ruptured with an almighty crack during a stress test in February, a problem that is not yet resolved."
Interesting times ahead.
[Edited 2006-04-06 04:32:22]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Thebry From United States, joined Jan 2006, 365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13241 times:
My God... I thought the wing stress issue was behind Airbus, and that there were other issues (weight, etc.) that they needed the extra time to resolve. This wing thing could drag things out even longer. Singapore Airlines had to know that being a launch customer would result in some delays as the inevitable "first-off-assembly-line" issues cropped up. Hopefully they've got a lot of patience.
OldAeroGuy From United States, joined Dec 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 61 Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13167 times:
Quoting Thebry (Reply 3): Singapore Airlines had to know that being a launch customer would result in some delays as the inevitable "first-off-assembly-line" issues cropped up. Hopefully they've got a lot of patience.
I would guess you've never had to deal with SQ in a business situation.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18447 posts, RR: 59 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13139 times:
Singapore and patience...
A friend of mine was in a program where a Singapore company, with help from the government, sent him to college and then he was indentured to the company for X number of years. But they were not going to let him take 4 years to do it. He was required to take 25% more credits each quarter as well as the summer session, and was not allowed to join extra curricular activities that might detract from his ability to finish his education on their schedule. I don't think I would define that as patient. But I do understand it is SOP for Singapore students working in this system.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
AirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2521 posts, RR: 39 Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13037 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
"They now appear to be jumping the gun, selling before the world's biggest and most ambitious passenger jet is certified for flight, and before it is clear if the A380 has enough bankable orders to justify its $11bn (�6.3bn) development costs. The sales come at a time when the aircraft industry is nearing the likely top of the cycle, and as a revitalised Boeing fights back with the new 787 Dreamliner jet.
The article also mentions that ILFC in particular is very carefully watching the wing test. The news that the FAA is not inclined to give Airbus a bye is not good news for Airbus. It means that at a minimum they will have to retest the wing. That might be what is behind the 3 month delay at EK?
As far as the investers go, I am going to go a bit against the grain and say that this might be good news for Airbus. Airbus's corporate structure is completly out of wack with reality, with so many different possibilities for deadlock it's bound to eventually be a study at Harvard on how not to structure a company.
AirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2521 posts, RR: 39 Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12998 times:
One other comment before the inevitable FAA bashing hits, the FAA is already somewhat annoyed with Airbus over the A300 tail. On top of it, the A300 tail fell off causing the crash shortly after 9/11, which means a inordinate number of American's where watching coverage of the crash. That also makes it a bit of political liability to just green flag the test.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5179 posts, RR: 86 Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12874 times:
Quoting BoeingBus (Thread starter): "You never want a test to fail, but this is business as usual in aircraft design. You have a test failure - you fix the problem," he said. "
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): While the idea that the "heavier" wing would be stronger makes sense, it may not be the real case. Might be the other way around.
This is very true. When the wing was lightened, did it reduce stress where the test sample broke?
What I didn't know is that the test wing was heavier than the flight wing... oh boy. The FAA isn't friendly to *any* company that changes sheet metal gauges on them. Structural types are very conservative and changing metal thicknesses is against their mindset... While much can be proven by analysis, if the wing sheet metal thickness was changed between the test wing and the flight wings... oh, I wouldn't want to be dancing with the FAA over that. How was the wing lightened? Where?
That said, I still think the A380 will get certified via analysis. However, that is dependent on no more suprises.
A friend of mine was in a program where a Singapore company, with help from the government, sent him to college and then he was indentured to the company for X number of years. But they were not going to let him take 4 years to do it. He was required to take 25% more credits each quarter as well as the summer session, and was not allowed to join extra curricular activities that might detract from his ability to finish his education on their schedule. I don't think I would define that as patient. But I do understand it is SOP for Singapore students working in this system.
I worked with a girl who went through a similar thing in Malaysia. They fronted a ton of money to send her to U-Mich, and expected her to return to Malaysia to work for the big oil company there (Petronas?). She diverted, and took a job with my company -- two years later, Malaysian authorities seized her parent's properties in Malaysia and threatened to prosecute if she didn't return home and repay her debt to Petronas (the girl signed a 10-year work contract to get them to pay for her education).
No obvious connection - but Gustave Humbert for one will have trouble doing a solid day's work today. His files will be in a mess, courtesy of the Surete' Nationale.
MrMcCoy From United States, joined Sep 2005, 377 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12698 times:
This thread is going to likely get long and nasty, once the inevitable pro-Airbus-Come-Rain-or-Shine person runs along and deviates the subject.. but this is yet another SERIOUS blow to the A380 program. It's not a coup de grace, but it's certainly another gash. I'm sure Airbus can fix it--it's what aircraft manufacturers do when a problem presents itself--but you can count on Singapore and Emirates getting pretty frustrated over this one.
As if Airbus didn't have enough to deal with.
It only takes five years to go from rumor to standard operating procedure.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10189 posts, RR: 71 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12651 times:
Of course the WhaleJet will be certified. The big questions are:
1) Will Airbus need to break another wing?
2) Will the early WhaleJets be certified for a lower MTOW?
YULWinterSkies From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1484 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12626 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13): This is ridiculous. How many times are we going to post the exact same information and say "its only getting worse for Airbus"?
The plane is going to certify. There's no doubt in ANYONE's mind, and if you have it, you're fooling yourself.
N
Neil I second you.
The A380 "will never fly". The A380 "will never pass the evacuation test with >800 pax". Logically, it will never be FAA approved. Oui monsieur.
Following the reasoning with composite, shall we assume the 787 will also be in big trouble at some point?
MrMcCoy From United States, joined Sep 2005, 377 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12552 times:
Where are your eyes? Nobody's saying the Chattanooga Beluga isn't going to get FAA certified.. the thread is simply discussing the wing strength obstacle. Cool down.
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13): This is ridiculous. How many times are we going to post the exact same information and say "its only getting worse for Airbus"?
I don't see it getting any better.. Do you?
It only takes five years to go from rumor to standard operating procedure.
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1663 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12451 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 6): The news that the FAA is not inclined to give Airbus a bye is not good news for Airbus.
It's not just the FAA. The European authorities are just as hard-nosed as the FAA, as they very well should be.
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 6): It means that at a minimum they will have to retest the wing.
It remains to be seen if another wing will have to be broken... test is only one of several possible ways of verifying compliance with a requirement (1.5 times limit load) that nobody, not the FAA, not EASA, not Airbus, has called into question.
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 7): the FAA is already somewhat annoyed with Airbus over the A300 tail.
How so? The NTSB did not find anything lacking in the matter of the structural strength of the tail on the A300.
Quoting MrMcCoy (Reply 12): this is yet another SERIOUS blow to the A380 program
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7196 posts, RR: 42 Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12405 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17): It remains to be seen if another wing will have to be broken... test is only one of several possible ways of verifying compliance with a requirement
With respect, WingedMigrator, some doubt is cast on that by what the FAA 'spokesman' said:-
"In modifications of older aircraft this can often be done through data analysis, but the A380 is a new type of aircraft," she said."
Looks as if that may be the nub of the argument.
I've said before that the quickest way for Airbus to end the problem is to break another wing. That may now be the ONLY available strategy. But it would admittedly be a helluva gamble - 'double or quits', as they say.
I certainly don't envy the Airbus engineering staff at this time.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
JumboForever From France, joined Jul 2005, 198 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12358 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17): Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 6):
The news that the FAA is not inclined to give Airbus a bye is not good news for Airbus.
It's not just the FAA. The European authorities are just as hard-nosed as the FAA, as they very well should be.
I completely agree. Either the beast will get a joined certification on the same day, or it won't be certified at all. Can you imagine the consequences if it's certified in Europe and not by the FAA, or the opposite be it a Boeing plane? This is not going to happen, in any case.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10189 posts, RR: 71 Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12309 times:
Quoting JumboForever (Reply 19): Either the beast will get a joined certification on the same day, or it won't be certified at all.
There is no possibility whatsoever that the WhaleJet will not be certified. It might take a lot longer than anyone imagines. It might be at a lower MTOW than anyone imagines. However, it will be certified and it will be certified worldwide.
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1096 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12279 times:
If it is necessary to break another wing could Airbus do so via a expedited method which tests the ultimate strength but bypass's a lot of the other time consuming testing?
Breaking another wing will obviously mean somebody will need to defer at least one delivery. This should not be too hard to handle.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18447 posts, RR: 59 Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12246 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13): This is ridiculous. How many times are we going to post the exact same information and say "its only getting worse for Airbus"?
It's new information. So, I'd say, at least once.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): Of course the WhaleJet will be certified. The big questions are:
1) Will Airbus need to break another wing?
2) Will the early WhaleJets be certified for a lower MTOW?
Yep, just what I said, and it's not evil or hateful to point this out. The plane is very close to certification, but it just won't be as easy as it might be. The wing isn't as good as they thought, the weight is more than they thought, the engines had to be bumped up in thrust, the wake vortex isn't as small as they thought, but despite all that, it will be certified.
That's what happens when you try to build something bigger than the market has seen by 33% and cut the design margins razor thin. No room for error means that you play the risk game, and it might be a very expensive game when all is said and done.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12141 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22): That's what happens when you try to build something bigger than the market has seen by 33% and cut the design margins razor thin.
Cant agree more. Engineering is usually about overdesigning (3 to 4 hydraulic systems, 3 separate artificial horizons, 2 computer systems, plus redundant backups) and cutting the margins thin can be a gamble.
But the A380 will be certified, no question about that.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11935 times:
If the authorities want it tested again, the wing should be tested again, its as simple as that and Airbus would be stupid if they havent considered this possibility and have an alternate plan in effect. I doubt however that it will conflict with other ongoing certification testing, because it doesnt involve a flying aircraft, so it can be done in tandem.
However, talk of teh A300-600s tail failure is slightly looking to be sensationalist media reporting more than anything, because the tail failed well past its certificated limits and ultimate load level (it didnt just 'fall' off by any means), so it wouldnt have anything to do with this test unless they are to raise the ultimate load limit for the tail section. The issues Airbus had to correct after the A300-600 crash was to add travel limiters to the rudder section, not strengthen the tail, and even the NTSB made a special mention in their press report to say the tail section wasnt to blame.
Quoting BoeingBus (Thread starter): Washington is expected to be tough, given that the composite tail of an Airbus A300-600R snapped off after takeoff in New York, killing all 265 people on board.
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 7): One other comment before the inevitable FAA bashing hits, the FAA is already somewhat annoyed with Airbus over the A300 tail. On top of it, the A300 tail fell off causing the crash shortly after 9/11, which means a inordinate number of American's where watching coverage of the crash
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1100 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11863 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): "The disposals also come six weeks after an A380 wing ruptured with an almighty crack during a stress test in February, a problem that is not yet resolved."
"Almighty crack"; now thats real artistic license
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 6): It means that at a minimum they will have to retest the wing.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): 2) Will the early WhaleJets be certified for a lower MTOW?
Lower MTOW seems logical for the first few planes. Can they certify the first few at 3% lower MTOW, and do another test in parallel? This would allow the production line to keep moving. Airbus really needs to get a couple of the WhaleJets in service and the "end of 2006" date is looming closer and closer.
I wonder if the 787 will fly before the WhaleJet enters service?
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17): How so? The NTSB did not find anything lacking in the matter of the structural strength of the tail on the A300.
I think there was the issue of leaking hydraulic fluid that NAV20 uncovered.
26 RichardPrice: That was another seperate issue that had nothing to do with the crash, and had nothing to do with the structural strength of the tail, just the rudde
27 Motopolitico: Keeeeeeeeeesje, where aaaaaaaaare you?
28 Iwok: Yes, I was referring to a more general problem with leaks; should be an easy fix. -iwok
30 Kangar: I think this sums up the quality of research in this article..... That is absolute bullshit. Airbus did the exact same exercise for the A330 when it
31 DistantHorizon: Can't you finally drop that ofensive nickname? If you really LOVE aviation, you should. Anyway, for the rest of the world it will always be Superjumb
32 Ikramerica: Hmmm, the 330 was not an entirely new plane, but a derivative of an existing plane (340) with a shared basic structure and wing, only modified for 2
33 Keesje: Huray! Excuse but I wouldn't it be more exiting if he said it hasn't to be met? Ah.. Oh man, we found someone, this is serious stuff. I think the tim
35 Ken777: Every time I see a picture of the 380 I look at the wings and consider them magnificent. After the test I just consider them magnificent in appearance
36 RichardPrice: Actually, the very first link on that Google News page has the following:
37 NAV20: Just for the record, that's not correct. The NTSB's most recent investigation mainly centred on the March 2005 Air Transat case (lost rudder while cr
38 Astuteman: If I recall correctly, you don't have any qualms at all about being abusive, and on a far more personal level too, when it suits you. If you don't li
39 Kangar: Calling something bullshit is not abusive, it's staight talkin' as your kinfolk like to describe it. Avoid the topic at all costs. We both know what
40 Ruscoe: If the FAA is nicked with Airbus I think the reason is more likely to be the lobbying Airbus did, rather than any technical concern. The vertical stab
41 Keesje: I think both were designed in parallel to fit 2 or 4 engines from 1987. First flight A330: '92 A340: '91 & pls stop agreeing with me, I like to keep
42 Monteycarlos: I for one am happy to agree with the subject of this thread - I believe if a plane doesn't get over 150% of the ultimate load then it should not be ce
43 Geo772: But the A380 wing fails at below 150%. Considering how much work and effort has gone into designing these wings it must have been awful for the desig
44 Starlionblue: The strength of the A300 fin was not really in question. It was found (both in certification and after the accident) to be stronger than requirements
45 BR076: It's funny , because in Seattle the nickname for the 747 is Whale , I saw a documentary on Discovery Channel some days ago when someone mentioned tha
46 Okie: That is the real question. According to the article EASA has yet to decide. The FAA is skeptical. Until EASA and FAA announces what date they will de
47 Tod: If Airbus deviates from the certification plan submitted to the FAA, then the FAA must approve the change in certification basis. Ever seen (or actua
48 Molykote: I don't disagree with you over the sensationalism, but the issue of structural modification vs. limiting the rudder travel address the same issue in
49 BOAC707: Ok...for the uneducated...(me) Is the the 380 classified as an experimental aircraft at present? If it doesn't have certification as of yet, how is it
50 Katekebo: Yes, the A380 is flying now under the "experimental" category.
51 MrMcCoy: Oh, get off it DH. WhaleJet it is, WhaleJet it will remain.
52 Molykote: Why does WhaleJet offend so many people? Get lives.
53 DTWAGENT: No matter what anyone is saying. I'm not flying that bird until it has been in service for several years. If I get on it, I want to make damn sure tha
54 PlaneHunter: Surfing through certain threads on a.net is like reading tabloid papers' headlines... The "link" is simply an interpretation by one individual. PH
55 Works4boeing: Anyone want to bet that in a couple of years we'll be seeing this EXACT same thread? Just change A-380 to 787 and Airbus to Boeing. All of this is why
57 A319XFW: And it has been a known problem for a bit. Here is a point for discussion for you all: Apparently plastic deformation starts at around 1.3 for wing b
58 LTBEWR: Could the failure at 1.45 x, only 3% less than desirable 1.50 x standard be just that particular wing for testing was just so slightly off tolarance?
59 DIA: So what!? Is Airbus just giving everyone an FYI here, or are they justifying the failure because it was on the "last test?" Additionally, how will th
60 RichardPrice: Yes, but the other possibility is that this wing was slightly over tolerence, and other wings could fail at 1.39. This is why the testing is done all
61 Strudders: DTWAGENT Sound reasoning, however, Does this mean you will not fly on the 787 or A350 for a couple of years after they are launched? Best Regards Pet
62 OldAeroGuy: If this were to be true, then the wing production process would be seriously flawed. All wings must be good for a 1.5 load factor or better. It is no
63 A319XFW: The maximum aircraft are going to (supposed to) see in service is a factor of 1. The 1.5 is the engineering safety factor on top.
66 BR076: You are right, same as I'll not fly a plastic plane before it is at least some years in service.
67 Zvezda: When a pilot has a choice between overstressing the wing or CFIT, human pilots choose to overstress the wing -- even exceeding the elastic limit (lea
68 Gavilan: A quick fix is to reduce the takeoff weight by a factor at which the applicant can show that the structure can hold ultimate loads for three seconds.
69 JAXFLL: The wing components would be inspected and then repaired or replaced as required. It is very expensive to scrap an entire aircraft.
70 Starlionblue: Ehm. no. Even the 1.0 stress level is a worst case oh-my-god-the-wings-are-going-to-snap-any-minute-kind-of-place. You would hardly ever see this in
71 Ikramerica: Astuteman, 1. we were in the middle of a long argument where you were making things up or purposely ignoring or altering reality, and... 2. if making
72 JayinKitsap: There are relatively few cases in engineered designs where stresses are taken above yield. One is concrete prestress /post tensioned reinforcement -
73 RichardPrice: From Flight Safety Magazine So it does happen, and Im still wondering what happens to the aircraft afterward
74 A319XFW: It depends on the NDT, twist etc etc. Options could be scrap the aircraft or a major repair.
76 BoogyJay: Funny! ... As I know mechanical engineers, some of which have studied composites, that say they will fly 787s as soon as they get delivered, when the
77 RichardPrice: I think that was my point Possibly. Dunno if you were agreeing with me or not. Its late.
78 Lightsaber: Thank you for adding some new *usefull* information into a topic that has gone too far off track. So... I've heard rumors a "heavy wing" was teasted
79 787engineer: Composites are actually more resistant to fatigue/creep than Aluminum. Ask them to double check their books, or run some tests of their own. The thre
80 BoogyJay: The problem was lying there... Their main argument is that not everything about composite is known (and hence is not in books), especially things lik
81 RichardPrice: If there was any doubt over the longterm viability of composites in aircraft, Im sure it will get voiced by the authorities during certification test
82 Starlionblue: Well I see what you mean. But for the record I'm not saying it should be certified at less than 1.5. Rules are rules and the aviation industry isn't
83 787engineer: Even I, an employee of Boeing, would take their press releases with a small grain of salt. Our PR department is very good; I'm not saying they would
84 Lnglive1011yyz: Thank you. Take a look back in history folks. What was the last Commercial jet that did NOT get certified? Can ya think of one? If you can, let us kn
86 Kangar: Sorry Ikra, I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Calling something bullshit is hardly an abusive attack spree to my mind, but maybe in you
87 Antoniemey: You know, all the back and forth about the comparability/suitability of composites and metal in this thread the past day or so makes me think... I won
88 Aeronut: Landing gear are often made of steel and FATIGUE and STATIC strength drive the design. Think Mil-HDBK-5 will have some information on fatigue propert
89 Aeronut: I think you are correct, they will find a way around it. That wing is strained gauged to the max. They should have a great idea exactly what was happ
90 HighFlyer9790: I dunno...i think the A380 will eventually enter service but some orders may be lost due to all this humble-jumble. just my
91 Deputydawghere: I know nothing about the engineering aspects of planes like you guys, however, I just hope she gets certified and graces the skies.
92 BoeingBus: Either way you paint this story... its a mess! I find it strange that the wing tested will not be what is in production. I find this sneaky and very f
93 DL021: Does anyone here think tha the airplane will have a public relations problem if they don't retest a wing physically? The public failure of the wing te
94 Aeronut: The first CRJ was lost in flight test, all hands died including the FAA observer. It went on to be a terrific success. This failure is nothing. Unles
95 N328KF: The Audi 5000 story was from 60 Minutes, and it was contrived. That is, the show paid people to rig the car to behave according to the accusations. N
96 Starlionblue: Yes, so sneaky. The coverup is clearly apparent. Come on... I dunno. Because Airbus have been doing this for over thirty years? There is pretty good
97 NAV20: I don't know that the authorities will 'tell' Airbus to do anything, Aeronut. As I see it, they will just be saying that they cannot certify the aero
98 DL021: 60 minutes.,....you are correct that it was contrived and incorrect but it killed Audi sales in this country for several years. My point is that Airb
99 Zvezda: That would involve paying serious penalties to the airlines. I think option #2 is the least likely of the three. I expect the WhaleJet to eventually
100 Aeronut: The wing that is tested never has the exact configuration on the production aircaft. You test the wing, hopefully pass, and use what you learned to c
101 MD-90: Superjumbo? I don't recall hardly ever reading that on a.net, and I certainly have never heard it in person in the USA. That's normal. Things will st
102 NAV20: We're not really disagreeing, Zvezda. Obviously, even if they have to settle for a lower MTOW on the first batch, they wouldn't leave it at that, the
103 Aeronut: You are right,the cert authorities wouldn't tell you to do another test, but if they won't accept analysis and you don't want to place limitations on
104 Cloudy: Well, there were also a lot of other ideas that the sceptics were correct about. For example, the flying car and the supersonic airliner. Both were b
105 Antoniemey: There are still some inventors working on different forms of flying cars. The Moon and Mars were a problem of lack of public interest and government
106 Shenzhen: Wouldn't all the material that make up the wing be averages, meaning no two pieces are the same, therefore you test x number then assign it a number
107 WingedMigrator: If you're going to do that, then you might as well test each and every production wing, just to be extra sure! Oh come on... Do your own Google test
108 Shenzhen: Has the FAA ever certified a new aiplane before, that failed the wing test, which didn't pass the same test later? Cheers
109 AndesSMF: The original 737 wings failed at 95%. Boeing incorrectly estimated the bending relief provided by the engines. The wings was redesigned, and here we s
110 Slarty: If that is true, then I am now really concerned about the A380. Has there been any confirmation of this, or an explanation of how this could possibly
111 Monteycarlos: Careful there... that plane is like a newborn child to many people who post here. You can't go insulting it on a whim like you can the 380! Around ab
112 Shenzhen: Were the wings retested after the redesign to ensure they met the 1.5 requirement? Thanks,
113 MD-90: I wouldn't think that Whalejet would equal superjumbo, but Superjumbo is hardly dominant.
114 NAV20: No - working from Zvezda's observations, plus logic. Plus, I've had to certify things in my own professional field (not aviation). My guess (only a g
115 OldAeroGuy: No, the design and production process has to assure that all wings produced will meet the 1.5 strength factor. The certification process doesn't allo
116 VEEREF: Certification is a guarantee eventually. But more a question of economics. Can the airplane take more setbacks and still become a profitable venture?
117 Dougloid: Good point. They pulled the pin on an order for 20 MD11s for a lot less than is on their plate now-perhaps because there was an alternative in the sa
118 787engineer: I think this also addresses this: Considering the accuracy in the design and construction of modern airliners today I wouldn't expect another wing bu
119 NAV20: 787engineer, I was told that some composites (in this case used in boats) are believed to have similar characteristics to steel (i.e. unlike aluminium
120 Ruscoe: Yes, I can't quote the Ref. but I looked at this once and the resins typically used in aviation carbon fibre are not damaged by hydraulic fluid. Rusc
121 Poitin: Find that a little hard to believe as Skydol is a phosphate ester mix and as such is a fairly aggressive solvent for many organic compounds. I quote:
122 Dougloid: One night on the flight ramp I got the tiniest speck of it in an eye, and it felt like a charcoal briquette was being rammed in my eye, which ended u
123 Poitin: Such esters are good solvents for fat, like in your skin and eye. All you did with the olive oil was to dilute it, which is a damn smart thing to do.
124 Starlionblue: Ah, how I long back to the good old days of the cold war. Nuclear destruction around the corner and unlimited aerospace budgets! As has been said, wi
125 AirA380: Maybe there are some Boeing fan in FAA to make a380 certification harder!!!!
126 Starlionblue: I guess it's possible, but I'm pretty sure Airbus would cry foul pretty fast if the FAA was anything but scrupulously impartial.
127 N328KF: You are both aware that FAA and EASA do joint certification, right? Meaning they both have representatives at the same meetings and everything is don
128 BoeingBus: If there are issues with certification you will see JAA, FAA, and EU AA - all in hand to critique the A380. These members dont participate in Airline
129 Lightsaber: Really? Then I have worked for two aerospace companies with much differnt approaches. Oh, I understand +/- .010" and even can concieve of +/- 0.030"
130 Starlionblue: I know. I wasn't forceful enough in my denial. As you say this isn't like a trial movie. Everyone sits in the same meetings and there's a refreshing
131 Lumberton: Let's have some balance here, shall we? Just to show that its not just the FAA that's being the stickler here, a paper in the UK is carrying this quot
132 Monteycarlos: I don't count on the fact that they have had to do so. If keeping in the original structure of the spars and ribs, they more than likely have redesig
133 Poitin: I for one would like to know exactly what "earlier 'heavier' proto-types" means. Since Airbus mills the skin panels (one is about 110 feet long) redu
134 Kangar: 787 engineer, your original statement made it look like you thought steel had an infinite fatigue life, that was what I was questioning. Your graph g
135 Poitin: Oh, common Kangar! Taking the test out to "infinite" would take forever. And if 100,000,000,000 cycles isn't enough for the life span of most aircraf
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2004, 1565 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7196 posts, 
However, that is dependent on no more suprises.
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10189 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1484 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2005, 198 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1100 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
