Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Strengthen A380 Wing  
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12040 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14558 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In today's electronic version of FI, Airbus has briefed A380 customers on wing modifications it will make as a result of the static test failure just short of the required 150%.

Airbus will retro-fit reinforcements to certain stringers in the aircraft already built and produce modified components for newly produced wings.

The modifications will add just 30kg (16kg for the reinforcement strips and 14kg for bolts) to the weight of the A380.


Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1337 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14532 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scbriml (Thread starter):
The modifications will add just 30kg (16kg for the reinforcement strips and 14kg for bolts) to the weight of the A380.

Good news.

That's a pretty minimal weight penalty considering that even the 0.0X of a "g" failure margin represents a substantial amount of load/bending moment.



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14532 times:

Flight International, 23 May 2006 by Andrew Doyle/Berlin

Manufacturer to add strips to stringers after test rupture

...The manufacturer plans to retrofit reinforcements to certain stringers in Aircraft that have already been built and produce modified components for subsequent wings, said Airbus Chief Operating Officer and A380 programme head Charles Champion at last week's ILA show in Berlin.

"Our conclusion is that we going to add a few strip to stringers in the wing area involved," he said. The strips will be fitted on top of the stringers to "increase the resistance of the stringers at the limit [load]." The proposed changes have been submitted to the EASA for approval.


The article indicates customers have been briefed but doesn't report how much work will be involved.

[Edited 2006-05-22 09:56:29]

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scbriml (Thread starter):
The modifications will add just 30kg (16kg for the reinforcement strips and 14kg for bolts) to the weight of the A380.

One presumes this means only a 16kg increase on new wings on the assumption that the additional fasteners will not be required. Sounds like a fairly minor impact after all of our debating  Smile

Nice to see a resolution being published at long last too.

I'm assuming that they won't re-test, but use analysis of the additional strengthening to gain approval.

Regards


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14395 times:

Oh, man, I started to read this with a little trepidation, but it looks like Airbus can fix this problem easily. But from the story itself, this fix will still need to be approved by the authorities.

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14339 times:

Funny thing is Airbus' position had been they didn't need to do anything. They maintained the production wings had been improved. Apparently they were somewhat mistaken!

User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14293 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
Funny thing is Airbus' position had been they didn't need to do anything

I doubt they ever said "we won't do anything about it".

The test seems to have been efficient: a weakness have been found and the corresponding modification also. Very good !


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14293 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
I'm assuming that they won't re-test, but use analysis of the additional strengthening to gain approval.

Good news on weight, but whether a retest was required was always the big question in my mind. I'm not upto snuff about what they have said about the wing. I recall there being questions regarding whether there was wing damage from previous testing and whether the tested wing was a heavier wing and not a lighter wing created after the weight reduction program.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14214 times:

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 7):
I doubt they ever said "we won't do anything about it".

Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't quite say "won't"; what I did say was "didn't need".

If you doubt the accuracy of my statement please see this:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...wing+is+compliant+after+early.html
Here's the quote by Alain Garcia, VP Engineering at Airbus. "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.”


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14137 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't quite say "won't"; what I did say was "didn't need".

Yes, but you still said "do anything" ... like if they were looking at the problem like disoriented guilty children.

Just looking at the original thread:

Based on Noel Forgeard comment's in the March 14 FI, it sounds like structural strengthening will be required, but no re-test.

Exactly what was said, for the moment.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14089 times:

I guess, from my perspective, the VP engineering says " essentially no modifications" that means they don't have to do anything.

I provided you the quoted text, the link. You can read it anyway you want, but I stand by my remarks.

Forgeard's business is to sell airplanes, Garcia's is to engineer them. Big difference.

Bottom line, I think, is Airbus has royally botched the 380. If the wing has to be retested, which I am sure will happen if you read the FI link I provided, the deliveries will be delayed until next year. If that happens, you will see the 380 program flounder worse than it currently is.


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13952 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
I guess, from my perspective, the VP engineering says " essentially no modifications" that means they don't have to do anything.

I think 30kg of added weight easily falls into the category "essentially no modifications".


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 69
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13874 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
Forgeard's business is to sell airplanes, Garcia's is to engineer them. Big difference.

Well this is an interesting way to look at things. Mr Forgeard looks like an idiot but I'm sure that he is far from being one.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
Bottom line, I think, is Airbus has royally botched the 380. If the wing has to be retested, which I am sure will happen if you read the FI link I provided, the deliveries will be delayed until next year. If that happens, you will see the 380 program flounder worse than it currently is.

PhilSquares, why is it that I always get the impression that you would like the A380 program to fail?

Maybe you should approach Mr Chew, and bring up your concerns in regards to the A380. After all they will be taking up a few botched up A380 in the near future.  Yeah sure

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13842 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
If the wing has to be retested, which I am sure will happen if you read the FI link I provided,

From the FI story you linked to we have:


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”.


How can you reach the opposite conclusion from reading the same text?


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13642 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
Well this is an interesting way to look at things. Mr Forgeard looks like an idiot but I'm sure that he is far from being one.

Interesting way to twist things, but that was not my implication, stated or otherwise. So, don't try to put things into my postings.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
PhilSquares, why is it that I always get the impression that you would like the A380 program to fail?

Maybe you should approach Mr Chew, and bring up your concerns in regards to the A380. After all they will be taking up a few botched up A380 in the near future.

Honestly, I could really care less what happens. I have 5+ years left until I hit 60, I'm very happy to stay on the 747-400. I have flown the 320, with over 2500 PIC have been a TRI/TRE, I know Airbus systems, I have never stated any thoughts either way. So, again, don't try read anything into my posts.

Quoting Joni (Reply 13):
How can you reach the opposite conclusion from reading the same text?

I don't believe he works for the CAA anymore so what he thinks or believes is really irrelavant. More importantly it's what the JAA/FAA think. The FAA has made their position very clear. Does that mean it's cast in stone? No, but it sure does make it very difficult for a joint certification. Or Airbus could always do a certification for the JAA and then another for the FAA.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13534 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
Mr Forgeard looks like an idiot but I'm sure that he is far from being one.

Very true.  Smile

Actually, with his face, he must be really brilliant to have convinced people to let him lead Airbus.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13436 times:

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 15):
Actually, with his face, he must be really brilliant to have convinced people to let him lead Airbus.

Leprechauns are known to have certain abilities where treasure is concerned. Big grin


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13436 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 13):
How can you reach the opposite conclusion from reading the same text?

I don't see how anyone can reach conclusions either way. It's perfectly clear from the report that this is an Airbus proposal. EASA/FAA may accept it, or they may decide that further strengthening is required, or they may insist on a further full-scale test of the modified wing.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13325 times:

PhilSquares, you wrote that you are "sure" the wing will have to be re-tested and mentioned the article as a source of this certainty. I was just pointing out, that from reading the article it's difficult to be able to join your certain position:


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”.


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2087 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13273 times:

PhilSquares, how dare you use hard facts, and Airbus own words to discredit the 380, what are you thinking Big grin

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13273 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
Funny thing is Airbus' position had been they didn't need to do anything. They maintained the production wings had been improved. Apparently they were somewhat mistaken!

Another PR flub. Just what they needed after all the delays of EIS.

I wonder if it has dawned on anyone that the PR dept may be in need of overhaul.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 69
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13153 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 14):
Interesting way to twist things

Well we get used to these kind of things around here.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 14):
but that was not my implication, stated or otherwise

Well you could have fooled me.  Wink

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 14):
So, don't try to put things into my postings.

Never did. I was just simply pointing out how we share very different point of view.

One that caught my eye was the following.

Bottom line, I think, is Airbus has royally botched the 380.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 15):

Very true. Smile

Actually, with his face, he must be really brilliant to have convinced people to let him lead Airbus.

How very true.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13065 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2):
Flight International, 23 May 2006 by Andrew Doyle/Berlin

Manufacturer to add strips to stringers after test rupture

...The manufacturer plans to retrofit reinforcements to certain stringers in Aircraft that have already been built and produce modified components for subsequent wings, said Airbus Chief Operating Officer and A380 programme head Charles Champion at last week's ILA show in Berlin.

"Our conclusion is that we going to add a few strip to stringers in the wing area involved," he said. The strips will be fitted on top of the stringers to "increase the resistance of the stringers at the limit [load]." The proposed changes have been submitted to the EASA for approval.

The article indicates customers have been briefed but doesn't report how much work will be involved.

Wouldn't be the first big fella to wear a truss, Rupture-Eez or similar.

I worked on a Britt Airways Metroliner one time, it had had the MLG collapse in Carbondale Illinois. Well, what actually happened was the pilot was a bit of a hot dog, selected the up position on the takeoff roll so as to suck up the gear as soon as it broke ground. Well, it hit a whoops-de-do and that unloaded the squat switch enough that the gear started up, them Mr. Bozo chopped the power. It ground the keelsons pretty good in the engine nacelles and did a lot of other damage. Since the edge of the spar is exposed, it ground that pretty good too.

The Fairchild factory in San Antonio built an external jockstrap that went on top of the spar cap and beefed it up. The original was cleaned off, fastener holes were added, the jockstrap/rupture truss was attached with huckbolts, and it was flying happily for some years after-maybe even to this day.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13017 times:

I thought Airbus said first that the production wings are stronger than the test wings, then the wing they used was already broken before they used it for ultimate test load such that the new wing would have been much much stronger than the "broken one. Now they said they need to put 30 kg reinforcement. Now, people said Airbus did not put any spin to this problem, only some Boeing cheerleaders that wants A380 to fail. I think we all need to see the facts of the matter.

On a side note, when Airbus said that the production wings has been modified from the test wings, isn't it dangerous to present a test wings that has been altered from production wings? I thought the certification test is to test whether the production wings are airworthy. If the test wing is different from the production wings, how can you certify the production wing? Something smells fishy here.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12922 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 21):
Never did. I was just simply pointing out how we share very different point of view.

One that caught my eye was the following.

Bottom line, I think, is Airbus has royally botched the 380.

1) I don't have a point of view concerning the 380. It hasn't been in revenue service yet, in fact, it hasn't even been certified yet. It's still an experimental aircraft!

2) Just out of courtesy, I'd let someone know when you make a statement bold that wasn't printed that way originally.

3) With reference to your last statement, I just think Airbus needs to get it's PR act together. Airbus has flip flopped on this issue. As has been pointed out in these posts, Airbus initially said the wing tested was not as strong as the production version, so there was no need to do anything (Please note I said need). Since the wing failed at 1.47 load that was close enough to 1.5 where Airbus and JAA could extrapolate the results on the production wing.

Now we have a kit for wings already produced and a design change for all future wings. Those are two diametrically opposed statements.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 21):
Well we get used to these kind of things around here.

So that makes it acceptable?


25 Post contains links NAV20 : Completely agree with both of you. For confiirmation:- "However Garcia says that the failure of the wing below the 1.5 target will require “essenti
26 Slz396 : Fact is a 30kg modification is apparently more than enough to be officially proposed by the worlds biggest manufacturer of civil airplanes to solve so
27 Scbriml : Given the fact that the test wing failed at 96.7% of the target, it was always likely that a further test would not be necessary - as long as the fix
28 Raventom : Is this more delays for SQ?
29 Leelaw : What's conspicuous by its absence from Mr. Champion's comments to FI is the "de rigueur" (of late) "...we do not anticipate this modification will aff
30 Post contains links WINGS : That's rather funny PhilSquare, You had no trouble in expressing it with the following reply. That's correct PhilSquare. For that reason I apologize.
31 Post contains links Greasespot : And the fact the Boeing did exactally the same thing with the B737 classics when it's wing failed somehow does not concern you? http://www.b737.org.u
32 Halls120 : A pretty lame conclusion, if you ask me. At least part of the Airbus PR department must be native English speakers - what's their excuse? Agree.
33 Dougloid : What's your source of authority for making that statement? Oh that's right. See the above. Do not assume that what you think to be just and reasonabl
34 Polymerplane : Well I do not know the 90% statistics, but the fact of the matter is that even when the original design is not certified, yet Airbus has made modific
35 WINGS : Well Airbus is made up of different nationalities, I would not believe that the British arm of Airbus is solely responsible for the Airbus PR. The ma
36 OldAeroGuy : Agree with this statement although you should say EASA rather than JAA. Disagree with this statement. This wasn't a design improvement. It was a requ
37 Post contains images Astuteman : I would imagine the time needed to execute the change as it is described is "trivial" compared to the remaining timescale. I would guess the key is h
38 OldAeroGuy : Agree that the cert portion is never trivial. The stringer add-on probably requires entering a wing fuel tank and this is never fun if the airplane h
39 Slz396 : As you could have seen from actually reading carefully what I've said before jumping on your keyboard in anger because somebody might have mentioned
40 Post contains images Scbriml : Oops! Had my pre Sept 2003 head on. "Just", "reasonable" and "government" in the same sentence - I'm not that naive. However, there are numerous prec
41 OldAeroGuy : Yeah, but a lot has changed in 30+ years. The Cert Agencies aren't as friendly these days.
42 PolymerPlane : Back to my previous point. You have not even had a wing certified for A380, yet you already introduce modification. What's the point of certification
43 A342 : It may not be fun, but it can be done without too big difficulties.
44 Glideslope : Well, considering todays engineering recources it certainly make me wonder about the rest of the design. I could see this if we were in 1966. IMO, th
45 EbbUK : Me too, Do as Boeing did with 737. Gosh how dare they?
46 474218 : The problem with your interpretation of the static fatigue test failure is that other than the requirement to meet 150% of the design load all the ot
47 Post contains images Scbriml : They wouldn't have come from anywhere else would they? The wing broke a little way short of the required 150%. Airbus, and nobody else, should know e
48 AndesSMF : The actual quote from the article is: "Apparently this benefit was over-estimated and a set of wings failed in static tests at 95% of max load so the
49 Dougloid : Spoken with all the air of authority of a man who has spent no time anywhere near a wet fuel tank with the possibility of bashing rivets on his mind.
50 Dougloid : When was that?
51 Dougloid : No anger involved my friend. Merely wanting to know whether you know something the rest of the audience does not. That's how it came across.
52 Post contains images Lightsaber : First, I'm happy to hear the A380 "wing issue" can be laid to rest with less weight than could be lyposucked out of one passanger. Details are always
53 Cymro : What do you mean by cutting?
54 Par13del : I am impressed by the responses on this thread. This should have been a thread for the A380 and Airbus bashers to tee off and what happens, they don't
55 WingedMigrator : That may be. Without wanting to put words into anyone's mouth, I think A342's point may have been that still, this exercise is trivial when seen in t
56 Wjcandee : PhilSquares: What I like about you is that you are a rational person who likes to analyze facts. That's a good thing in an airline captain. But, you
57 Lightsaber : Added structure must go into the already completed wing. This comment was directly at the wing's already completed (e.g., the EIS airframes). The onl
58 Scbriml : Several mentions in this thread. See the 737 history link in reply #32.
59 Post contains links Leelaw : The full text of the FI article cited by the threadstarter is now available online: http://62.189.48.33/Articles/2006/05...+wing+after+March+static+te
60 Dougloid : I was hoping that you could direct me to primary source material. An enthusiast's site hardly reaches that level. It's along the lines of wikipedia.
61 Post contains images A342 : Thank you for explaining my point ! 1. I absolutely don't like it when someone is calling me "son", especially in such an insulting way, like you did
62 PlevTLS : Bit dramatic, I think you'll find that the Manhole doors on the bottom skin make a good entry for your averaged sized male. Not a great job in a wet
63 Dougloid : How about callow youth of no great sophistication then, with no familial relationship content? Not true. I respect informed opinion, which yours was
64 Rheinbote : Come down, Lightsaber - beefing up structures with doublers and triplers is pretty unspectacular business. Moreover, I'd be surprised to find much we
65 Lightsaber : Hence why I left the 3rd option... Ok, the more I think about this the less likely cutting open the A380 becomes. But I've seen it happen. Heck, I've
66 Post contains links Rheinbote : AFAIK, LBW so far is applied to lower lobe fuselage skin panels only. What I didn't know is that LBW had been employed since 2001, though! to quote A
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...
Airbus To Test A380 At Addis Ababa, Ethiopia? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 01:57:06 by ETStar
FI: Airbus To Keep A380 On Revised Schedule posted Tue Sep 6 2005 06:39:14 by Leelaw
Malaysia To Built A380 Wing Component. posted Fri Oct 4 2002 06:52:23 by Triple Seven
Airbus To Re-Test A380 Separations posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:26:40 by Leelaw
FI-Airbus Fight To Hold A380 Certification Schedul posted Mon Sep 18 2006 15:21:21 by Astuteman
Airbus Prepares To Fly A380 With Full Load Of Pax posted Tue Aug 1 2006 02:10:55 by Leelaw
Airbus Battles To Complete A380 Testing By Y/E posted Mon Jun 19 2006 15:49:51 by Leelaw
Airbus A350 Cockpit Redesigned To Mimick A380 posted Thu Feb 23 2006 18:54:45 by Leelaw
Airbus In Talks To Sell A380 To 3 Chinese Airlines posted Thu Jun 16 2005 07:27:14 by Jacobin777
Airbus To Announce New A380 Customer In Paris posted Mon Jun 13 2005 15:04:06 by Keesje