A380 Wing Comes Off
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 Wing Comes Off
This has just popped up on ATI:
"The wing of the Airbus A380 static test specimen has suffered a structural failure below the ultimate load target during trials in Toulouse, but the European manufacturer is confident it will not need to modify production aircraft."
"The wing of the Airbus A380 static test specimen has suffered a structural failure below the ultimate load target during trials in Toulouse, but the European manufacturer is confident it will not need to modify production aircraft."
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like the vertical fin separating from an American Airlines Airbus departing from JFK in November 2001, the French will rule that the test bench operator was to rough on the equipment, like the pilot of the airbus that crashed.
Long live the manufacturer of disposable aircraft!
Long live the manufacturer of disposable aircraft!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember the C17 wing broke early too. Sometimes it happens, usually because the test loading of the wing is not adequately representative of the in-service loading.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MD-90 split in two during testing hard landings too.
The bottom line is that the majority of problems are found during testing rather than during passenger operaations.
The bottom line is that the majority of problems are found during testing rather than during passenger operaations.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how often posts are made by individuals how are willing for the A380, in fact Airbus in general to fail.
I fly the 737 and work for an all-Boeing airline. I can see their strong points and their weak points, and I'm quite happy to comment on them, however without any experience of Airbus products, save a few times paxing on them, I don't really feel qualified to comment on their merit.
I wish others would do likewise.
PS I hope the A380 is a big technical and commercial success. Success improves the breed in general.
I fly the 737 and work for an all-Boeing airline. I can see their strong points and their weak points, and I'm quite happy to comment on them, however without any experience of Airbus products, save a few times paxing on them, I don't really feel qualified to comment on their merit.
I wish others would do likewise.
PS I hope the A380 is a big technical and commercial success. Success improves the breed in general.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the majority of problems are found during testing rather than during passenger operaations
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just curious how much time Airbus marketing has spent before they came out with this.
As for EASA (and FAA consequently) it would be interesting what change is Airbus proposing in order to justify this.
Catch is that usually local CAA allows some test flights based on limit loads only and then the rest of the stuff based on the ultimate loads (1.5 x limit loads).
If you go to break the wing that means all the other test went smoothly. No it is unclear if they have finished ultimate loads tests or no. Also there is no word for what loadcase did the structure failed.
Still this is embarrassing and the only thing they could say is that "FEM was correct". Too bad.
Stating they will "use calibration of FEM" is, ahm, questionable. One can always do this with bad results so...
As someone said once in the end Airbus=EASA, Boeing=FAA and thus the way things will resolve themselves.
As for EASA (and FAA consequently) it would be interesting what change is Airbus proposing in order to justify this.
Catch is that usually local CAA allows some test flights based on limit loads only and then the rest of the stuff based on the ultimate loads (1.5 x limit loads).
If you go to break the wing that means all the other test went smoothly. No it is unclear if they have finished ultimate loads tests or no. Also there is no word for what loadcase did the structure failed.
Still this is embarrassing and the only thing they could say is that "FEM was correct". Too bad.
Stating they will "use calibration of FEM" is, ahm, questionable. One can always do this with bad results so...
As someone said once in the end Airbus=EASA, Boeing=FAA and thus the way things will resolve themselves.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like the vertical fin separating from an American Airlines Airbus departing from JFK in November 2001, the French will rule that the test bench operator was to rough on the equipment, like the pilot of the airbus that crashed.
Long live the manufacturer of disposable aircraft!
Long live the manufacturer of disposable aircraft!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: lots of different places....
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Testing is there to prove analysis, any data whatsoever that came out of this test is useful. They can only test for a very limited amount of loadcases and represent them as best they can. The tests are not completely accurate.
The results will be used to parallel the more comprehensive analysis and if they correlate the assumption that the rest of the analysis is good will be made.
Every test I have been involved in has had the conclusion of failure, you rarely get the opportunity to see how it breaks and test articles are not cheap.
I agree as above, this is no news. All part of aircraft development.
The results will be used to parallel the more comprehensive analysis and if they correlate the assumption that the rest of the analysis is good will be made.
Every test I have been involved in has had the conclusion of failure, you rarely get the opportunity to see how it breaks and test articles are not cheap.
I agree as above, this is no news. All part of aircraft development.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect this could be handled by a 3% reduction in MTOW for existing hardware, and a bit of beefup in subsequent airframes...
And if they planned the test well, the test specimen might have been a bit undersize, in which case the analysis could possibly show that production standard hardware needs no modification.
And if they planned the test well, the test specimen might have been a bit undersize, in which case the analysis could possibly show that production standard hardware needs no modification.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roadtrip
Well, If you can't meet the standard, change the standard. Problem solved.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure some of you have read this correctly
“This static test airframe has the first set of wings built, and we have refined the structural design for subsequent aircraft due to increased weights etc. We will use this calibration of the FEM to prove the adequacy of the structure on production aircraft.”
Bascially what they are saying is that the current one failed close to the point predicted in the FE analysis. The wing has been redesigned anyway, and now they have calibrated the FE model and it is accurate they are happy to take the FE analysis of the new wing as read.
Whats the problem? Standard practice, calibrate an FE model at a few test points and then use the model. If you don't like that process then don't get in an aircraft, or a boat, or a car, or .....
“This static test airframe has the first set of wings built, and we have refined the structural design for subsequent aircraft due to increased weights etc. We will use this calibration of the FEM to prove the adequacy of the structure on production aircraft.”
Bascially what they are saying is that the current one failed close to the point predicted in the FE analysis. The wing has been redesigned anyway, and now they have calibrated the FE model and it is accurate they are happy to take the FE analysis of the new wing as read.
Whats the problem? Standard practice, calibrate an FE model at a few test points and then use the model. If you don't like that process then don't get in an aircraft, or a boat, or a car, or .....
Umm, sorry but this is no big deal. What it shows is that the Finite Element Modelling and the testing rig produced failure within 3% of where it was supposed to be - which is nothing.
I haven't found out the Airbus G limits but the failure load was 1.45 times the +G limit so it has no effect on aircraft performance or weights.
Furthermore, both Airbus and Boeing use failsafe design techniques so that the failure of one structural element does not cause the rest of the structure to fail (absent the tail attachments).
This testing will go on forever, with cracks appearing and being fixed etc. etc.
I haven't found out the Airbus G limits but the failure load was 1.45 times the +G limit so it has no effect on aircraft performance or weights.
Furthermore, both Airbus and Boeing use failsafe design techniques so that the failure of one structural element does not cause the rest of the structure to fail (absent the tail attachments).
This testing will go on forever, with cracks appearing and being fixed etc. etc.