PDA

View Full Version : BW: Airbus'megaplane has a weight problem


SLuca
19th Jun 2004, 10:30
Business Week online,
JUNE 28, 2004

EUROPEAN BUSINESS



Airbus' Megaplane Has A Weight Problem
The giant A380 must keep pounds down to meet fuel-efficiency targets, making it hard to outfit


In a cavernous factory on the outskirts of Toulouse, France, workers are painstakingly assembling a prototype of the Airbus A380, the biggest commercial aircraft ever built. Airbus says the double-decker jet is within its $13 billion development budget and on schedule for its first commercial flight, by Singapore Airlines Ltd., in the spring of 2006. But as the launch of this technological marvel draws near, its success increasingly will hinge on such seemingly mundane items as passenger seats and food-service carts.

To ensure that the A380 will be able to fly up to 14,800 kilometers nonstop while meeting ambitious fuel-efficiency targets, Airbus has told airlines and their suppliers that the plane's cabin furnishings will have to weigh 10% to 30% less than comparable ones on existing planes. ``The vendors have been told: 'If you do not get your weight down, you will not be on this program,''' says Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airlines Inc., which is scheduled to take delivery of 45 A380s, starting in October, 2006.

CRUNCH TIME
True, the launch of an aircraft always leads to a struggle between airlines who push for add-ons that increase the plane's weight and manufacturers who fret it will become too heavy to meet promised performance standards. Airbus warned suppliers of cabin furnishings well over a year ago that they would have to reduce the weight of many components. Even so, many suppliers and industry experts say tensions over the A380's weight are running unusually high. And time is growing short, with airlines such as Singapore, Emirates, and Qantas needing to finalize supplier arrangements now to meet scheduled launches in 2006.

One reason for the tension is that the A380 is heavier than Airbus had planned, even though big sections are being built with lightweight carbon-based composites. Since the plane's original design was approved in 2001, its expected weight has crept up by nearly 4 tons, to 243 tons, as Airbus added features such as quieter engines at the request of some airlines. The weight could notch up even more over the next few months as minor adjustments are made during final assembly, says Chris Stonehouse, an Airbus vice-president who oversees the A380 customer program. Even with the added weight, Stonehouse says, the plane will meet the performance guarantees spelled out in its contracts with the 11 carriers that have ordered it. If those terms aren't met, airlines could refuse to accept delivery or demand penalty payments.

But the added weight has greatly restricted the airlines' maneuvering room when it comes to outfitting the A380's interior, which is designed to hold at least 555 passengers. Most airlines plan to entice high-margin first- and business-class passengers onto the A380 with add-ons such as Internet workstations, seats that convert into beds, and perhaps even partitions to create private sleeping compartments. But loading up the premium cabins with luxurious extras makes them weigh more, and airlines can't easily find offsetting weight savings in the economy cabins, where they're counting on squeezing in as many passengers as possible. As the plane's weight rises, fuel consumption increases -- an especially urgent concern at a time of soaring fuel prices -- and so do airport landing fees that are based on the plane's empty weight.

That's why carriers and suppliers are scrambling to squeeze excess weight out of everything on board, from lavatories to lighting fixtures. ``It's a big problem and a big challenge,'' says Jacques Pierrejean, a veteran Paris designer who is helping Emirates plan the cabins for its A380 fleet. He says the pressure to cut weight on the A380 is greater than on any other plane he has worked on.

The airlines' dilemma was underscored recently when Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. delayed the scheduled delivery of its first A380 by 18 months, saying its suppliers were unable to guarantee delivery of cabin furnishings in time to meet the summer, 2006, launch date. Virgin declines to give details, and other early A380 customers say their launch plans are on schedule. But the weight problem may be especially perplexing for Virgin, which has a reputation for lavish first- and business-class cabins, including such features as personal wide-screen TVs and an onboard massage salon.

Many cabin suppliers can offer impressive weight savings by using next-generation materials -- but at a high price. Recaro Aircraft Seating in Stuttgart, Germany, says it can cut the weight of a seat as much as 30% by substituting carbon-based composites for steel in the frame and armrests. But the composites add more than $1,500 to the cost of a seat. ``Right now, the airline industry doesn't have the cash flow to pay for this,'' says Catharina Lübke, Recaro's head of strategic marketing.

The use of new materials even extends into lavatories, where suppliers such as Hamburg's Dasell Cabin Interior are developing lighter composites to replace fiberglass walls and ceilings. But airlines can't count on composites for quick weight loss everywhere. Galleys, for example, are likely to remain mostly aluminum. Composites would not only cost more but also would have to undergo lengthy testing and certification for heat resistance. And airlines are reluctant to invest heavily in galley improvements because they don't generate revenue, says Tim Miner, sales director for galleys at Driessen Aircraft Interior Systems, a Dutch manufacturer.

LIGHTER SOUNDS
In other instances, new technology could do the trick without a substantial price hike. That's the case with in-flight audio and video entertainment systems. Supplier Matsu****a Avionics Systems Corp. says it has devised lighter but more powerful gear that will weigh at least 30% less and take up 20% less space than systems on existing wide-body planes.

Despite the pressure, airlines say they're on track to achieve the needed weight savings. ``We've been working toward this goal for three years, and we're satisfied that we are where we should be,'' says Emirates' Clark. Even so, there's a risk that lighter-weight materials will make the plane less comfortable and appealing to passengers. ``It could go downmarket and look tacky,'' says Doug McVitie, a former Airbus marketing employee who's now a private aviation consultant.

But the pressure to cut weight won't be going away. Two years after the A380 is scheduled to enter service, Boeing Co. (BA ) will introduce the 7E7, a midsize jet the company says will offer a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency over existing jets of comparable size. For airlines, there's no miracle diet in sight.

Dr Dave
19th Jun 2004, 10:48
It appears that European Business is working on old data here (the A380 clearly did have a weight problem at one time). In a AWST article this week, Airbus have confirmed that the aircraft is now almost exactly on target (actually a hint under):

AWST article (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/06144air.xml)

"THE $10.7-BILLION program is on budget, on time and "on" weight, Forgeard says. The last point barely passes muster--the airplane is currently just a tad under target. But he is relieved, nonetheless. Late in the A380 development phase, the program was so far off goal it prompted an across-the-board airframe weight-cutting endeavor. After weighing more than 120 metric tons of subassemblies around the many production sites, the A380's airframe now appears to be about 0.2% lighter than predicted, according to A380 engineering chief Robert Lafontan."

Dr Dave

Sonic Zepplin
19th Jun 2004, 14:05
For most 2006 is a long way off

In terms of business development, product development, and the engineering that goes with it, it is just around the corner.

This is going to be an interesting program to watch as the aircraft is put together. No easy task for sure. I can imagine that tensions are high in Tolouse while teams of people are running around try to save grams of weight.

While both Airbus and Boeing build unique products
(this is not meant to bash either) the A380 is a enormous undertaking that could become a disaster. Remember the STARSHIP and this was much smaller.

The airlines that have placed orders have done so based on the aircrafts performance. When the STARSHIP and MD-11 didn't pass the test based on range and weight, the owners had to rearrange their plans and their planes in order to meet their business requirements.

If Airbus misses the mark with this one, the dream of the biggest could ruin many airlines growth plans for the future.

Stay tuned it is going to get more interesting as the time line closes.

As for me I would hedge my bets, but wish the BUS people all the best

PAXboy
19th Jun 2004, 17:28
... will hinge on such seemingly mundane items as passenger seats ... I do love those writing type people and their clever way of identifying what is mundane in an aircraft. :rolleyes:

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

casual observer
20th Jun 2004, 16:11
THE $10.7-BILLION program is on budget, on time and "on" weight, Forgeard says.

I will take Forgeard statement with a huge pinch of salt. History is not on Airbus' side. All Airbus four-holers have not been on time and "on" weight, and hence can be deduced not on budget either. Here's the history:

A340-2/300: original intent was 253.5t MTOW, and certified at 257t but still fell short of Airbus' original promises. I don't quite remember the timeline for this one.

A340-313X: when launched by Singapore, it was a 267t MTOW aircraft and to be delivered 3Q of 1995. Airbus certified the aircraft at 271t in 1Q of 1996, and delivered to SQ in 2Q, and the aircraft was recertified at 275t in 3Q.

A340-600: launched at 365t; delivered at 368t; and first delivery was about two quarters behind.

A340-500: launched at 365t; first delivery to EK was at 368t, but Singapore got a 372t version; it also had about six- to nine-month delay.

Has Airbus learned from the experience? I guess only time will tell.

Staller
20th Jun 2004, 16:48
Business Week online,
JUNE 28, 2004 ???

Is this what will be published or did I lose a week?

ecnalubma
20th Jun 2004, 17:01
Maybe if they reconsidered the water feature coming down the staircase, the shower stalls, the bar and staff. A lot of stuff put into the design that really isn't neccessary. IMHO

toon
21st Jun 2004, 08:01
why dont they just add 3 tonnes to the calculated weight then and that should be about right !!!!!:ok:

Anti-ice
21st Jun 2004, 08:46
How much would each extra ton on the A380 cost , in terms of fuel burn etc.....?

TwinAisle
21st Jun 2004, 11:50
An engineer writes....

Wait and see. I have never been involved in an aircraft project that didn't develop a bit of a weight problem along the way; some get slimmed down (back to the promised weights), others accept the weight penalty and the airline gets some compo - but more typically, the airline changes its mind about a few things and accepts that the thing may be a tad lardy.

Case in point - it is all very well for the likes of EK and VS to mutter on about the weight of the aircraft, but could they have put their hands on their hearts and quoted a guaranteed fixed weight for all those tarty first class seats when they ordered them? Bet they are all heavier than planned.... and so it will be up to Airbus to saw bits off the structure, or tell the airlines to lump it. A small item makes a big diffence - think of the weight of 500+ video screens for a start....

TA

Genghis the Engineer
21st Jun 2004, 12:05
I remember a rather counterproductive result on the Beaurofighter, when the government agency (NEFMA?) imposed per-gramme penalties on sub-system manufactures for providing overweight bits.

The consequence was that all the companies did a cost-benefit analysis, and decided it was cheaper to take the hit than do all the work to lighten everything down to spec.

Still, I suppose it shaved a few quid off the bill, but that wasn't really the point.

G