Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Are The 380 Cabin Walls So Thick?  
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1607 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9116 times:

In looking at cabin photos of the 380, it appears that the side walls are extremely thick. What is the reason for that? Is it additional insulation or additional support?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetrent900 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 532 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9074 times:

If you take a look at the following photo it should answer you question -

http://www.airliners.net/photo/2328466/L/

The A380 frames are fairly deep to support, I assume, the large oval cross section. Add insulation onto that and you probably get a good 8 inches  

D.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4549 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8827 times:

Doesn't look all that thick, a lot of what you are seeing is insulation.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5528 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8824 times:

To accommodate the spliced wires?

I kid!



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2899 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8113 times:

I also noticed that when looking out of the window it is almost like a tunnel, quite unlike any other aircraft I've flown on.


I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1607 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7839 times:

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 4):
I also noticed that when looking out of the window it is almost like a tunnel, quite unlike any other aircraft I've flown on.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to. Trent1's response above, I think supplies the answer - the sidewall frame is pretty thick.


User currently offlineKenanC From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 months 21 hours ago) and read 6442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wish they could use all that extra space to make the seats wider... lol.


Flown: A319/20/21/33/43/88 B737/38/39/52/63/72/7W ERJ135/40/45 CRJ200 ATR42
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6461 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (11 months 16 hours ago) and read 6292 times:

I haven't flown on an A380, but it has been said by others that the cabin is pretty quiet, almost as quiet as the front rows of an MD-90. Likely Airbus put good sound isolation up high on the priority list. It doesn't go together with thin walls.


Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17054 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (11 months 15 hours ago) and read 6266 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 7):
I haven't flown on an A380, but it has been said by others that the cabin is pretty quiet, almost as quiet as the front rows of an MD-90. Likely Airbus put good sound isolation up high on the priority list. It doesn't go together with thin walls.

I would agree that it is about as quiet as the front of an MD-90. Apart from the insulation, those engines are pretty darned quiet.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5924 times:

There's a couple of engineering reason why the A380 frames are so deep (I am assuming that the frame spacing is the same as other models):

1) The larger diameter reduces the beneficial effect of hoop tension.

2) I heard that the A380 is design to fly at 6000 ft altitude cabin pressure. This increasing the strength requirement for the frame.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5103 times:

It does not look more thicker than other types in the pic.....why do you say so?.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5041 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 10):
It does not look more thicker than other types in the pic.....why do you say so?.

Yes, I wondered about that, when reading the thread the first time some weeks ago.

OTOH, it gets more interesting when looking at the completed plane with insulation etc.
Here you can see it fairly good - they are massive:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malay...d=bd87f1a43de0e517e0591fc9b019659f


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4888 times:

I'm not sure why this is such a mystery. The lower deck walls need to carry the weight of the upper deck and all cabin luggage bins, which is far heavier than the load of a conventional single-deck crown structure.

The aircraft is certified for up to 315 passengers upstairs, so you've got:
315 people x 70 kg = 22 tons of people
315 seats x 15 kg = 5 tons of seats
853 hand luggage x 8 kg = 7 tons of hand luggage
deck floor, fittings and other furnishings ... let's say 5 tons

That's roughly 40 metric tons (about like a large loaded semi-trailer truck) supported by the side walls through all the different loading cases that go up to multiple G's. It's really no wonder the side walls need to be so beefy.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2252 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4388 times:

May not be beefy enough.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_11_05_2013_p03-01-633564.xml

"EASA Mandates A380 Fuselage Check For Fatigue Cracking
November 05, 2013"

That big a airframe, bound to be some unexpected cracks that will show.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9111 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 13):

The AD refers to one fitting on one frame found during fatigue testing.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2252 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
The AD refers to one fitting on one frame found during fatigue testing.

The Airbus documents refer to the fittings on both the LH and RH sides of frame 56. And rather than just poo pooing the AD, maybe it would be best to read Airbus's own words about this AD.

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2013-0266

"During full scale fatigue testing of the A380 aeroplane, cracks were detected on
a cruciform fitting at frame (FR) 56. The results of the subsequent investigations
determined that the subject cracks were fatigue related and initiated by high
local stress.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural
integrity of the wing.


To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB)"

I like how Airbus says if the crack depth is more than 5mm, that Airbus should be contacted.
Think it is more significant than "one fitting on one frame."
Fatigue cracks that impair the structural integrity of a wing are not good.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3805 times:

What is this Cruciform fitting? I am not familiar with this term on the Airbus.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4549 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

What are you really asking ?


While the 'cabin walls' may appear to be quite thick a large part of that is the interior cabin structure which I doubt is load supporting, the fuselage skin obviously does support loads and is nowhere near as thick.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9111 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 15):
maybe it would be best to read Airbus's own words about this AD

Do you think I just guessed it was one fitting on one frame found during fatigue testing as I said above, or do you think I might have actually have read it ???



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
While the 'cabin walls' may appear to be quite thick a large part of that is the interior cabin structure which I doubt is load supporting,

From a fuselage interiors stand point, the thickness of the wall is really caused by the stack-up of the stringers and frames. Most of the insulation is placed in-between- the frames and is usually not as thick as the frames deep.

So as you look along the wall, the "high spot" would be were the frames are. The thickness of the sidewall and the insulation in that location is not very much (less an inch?) versus the depth of the frames (4-6 inches or higher). The low spot are where the sidewall are sculptured toward the skin where you only have the thickness of the stringers and the insulation. Stringers are about 2" (or taller for larger aircraft) and insulation could be anywhere between 2 to 4 " (I would guess). These are all estimate numbers from memory. Not sure how accurate it is anymore.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 16):
What is this Cruciform fitting? I am not familiar with this term on the Airbus.

It is a cross-shaped fitting that joins a center wing box stringer, a fuselage frame, and an outer wing box stringer. There is a nice diagram of something similar in this article. It is located in an area rather famously known as the "wing-body join," the point of convergence for a lot of stresses that have caused trouble in numerous airplane designs.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2252 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3448 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
Do you think I just guessed it was one fitting on one frame found during fatigue testing as I said above, or do you think I might have actually have read it ???

Why was it left out that it could affect the structural integrity of the wing ? Skipped over that part it seems. Funny that.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3431 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 19):
From a fuselage interiors stand point, the thickness of the wall is really caused by the stack-up of the stringers and frames. Most of the insulation is placed in-between- the frames and is usually not as thick as the frames deep.

Thank you for that. Makes perfectly sense when having a detailed look at the photo in the opening post and the temporary protections of the stringers.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 21):
Why was it left out that it could affect the structural integrity of the wing ? Skipped over that part it seems. Funny that.

But you left it out in your original post of the AD yourself...?? That makes it even more funny...


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2252 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting DUSint (Reply 22):
But you left it out in your original post of the AD yourself...?? That makes it even more funny...

Sorry, actually original post was about a article about the problem, nothing about the AD. Post about the AD included it. Funny how the Airbus fanboys come out and make false and wild assumptions. That is the funniest.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3384 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 20):
It is located in an area rather famously known as the "wing-body join," the point of convergence for a lot of stresses that have caused trouble in numerous airplane designs.

So this fitting is very critical indeed right? A crack here would be significant even if it's only one or two fittings per aircraft.

Replacing/repair the fitting may not easy either right. Although it may be easier than the 787 wing root fix.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2252 posts, RR: 26
Reply 25, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3354 times:

One can see where Frame 56 is located.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...g/files/2010/11/page-9-600x328.jpg



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 26, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

So frame 56 is at the rear wing spar.

User currently onlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

All aircraft are subject to Airworthiness Directives. For instance a quick scan finds Docket No. FAA-2013-0625; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-013-AD; Amendment 39-17638; AD 2013-22-06 which mandates checking of upper deck ties on the 747 noting if not addressed that "We are issuing this AD to prevent widespread fatigue damage of certain fuselage upper deck tension ties, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane"

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11819 posts, RR: 33
Reply 28, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3147 times:

Quoting StTim (Reply 27):
All aircraft are subject to Airworthiness Directives.

  

This frame 56 crack must have been discovered somewhere last year because the fatigue testbed has been broken up in the beginning of 2013. The EASA requires that operators perform a one-time inspection within 4,200 flight cycles or 30,900 flight hours after an aircraft's first flight. Airbus started wing crack modification on the in service A380s with Emirates in May 2013, meaning this one-time inspection can easily be combination with the wing modification. A redesigned frame 56 is already available.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineU271437 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2810 times:

The answer is here: It's incredibly quiet inside: http://youtu.be/Wa3-YqOsi-E

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Are The 380 Cabin Walls So Thick?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Are The TF-39 On C-5 Galaxy So Loud? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 18:02:08 by 747400sp
Why Are The Vast Majority Of Canards Pushers? posted Wed Jun 12 2013 13:21:37 by KELPkid
Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs? posted Mon Aug 29 2011 16:02:06 by 747400sp
732: Why Is The Front Right Door So Hard? posted Sun Jul 22 2007 21:02:05 by CanadianNorth
Why Did The L-1011's Brakes Overheat So Easily? posted Sat Feb 17 2007 00:53:06 by Blackbird
Why Are MD-11 No.1 Doors So Small? posted Sat Jan 19 2002 20:56:28 by Arsenal@LHR
Why Is The Approach To LAS So Rough In Hot Weather posted Thu May 17 2001 22:29:08 by Tripleseven
Why Was The L1011 So Popular With Pilots posted Thu Apr 18 2013 10:32:37 by g500
Why Are Canadian Fares So High? posted Wed Jan 9 2013 00:24:22 by heathrow
Why Are There Still Levers In The Cockpit posted Tue Dec 18 2012 01:56:51 by 456

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format