Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Airbus A380 develops cracks in wing structure.
12 views
Skip to first unread message
David E. Powell
Jan 10, 2012, 3:46:58 PM1/10/12
to
Australian Engineers recommend grounding world's largest airliner:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084242/Airbus-A380-Worlds-biggest-planes-sky-worthy-say-engineers.html
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084242/Airbus-A380-Worlds-
biggest-planes-sky-worthy-say-engineers.html>
Airbus has stated that corrective inspection and maintenance
procedures have been developed, and that the cracking was not in
structurally important areas of the structure. More details in the
article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084242/Airbus-A380-Worlds-biggest-planes-sky-worthy-say-engineers.html
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084242/Airbus-A380-Worlds-
biggest-planes-sky-worthy-say-engineers.html>
Airbus has stated that corrective inspection and maintenance
procedures have been developed, and that the cracking was not in
structurally important areas of the structure. More details in the
article.
Ken S. Tucker
Jan 10, 2012, 5:27:58 PM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 12:46 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:
If it wasn't designed to happen, why does it happen, is there
something
we don't know?
You see David, engineers don't invent anomalies, managers uninvent
them.
Ken
wrote:
> Australian Engineers recommend grounding world's largest airliner:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084242/Airbus-A380-Worlds-bi...
>
>
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084242/Airbus-A380-Worlds-
> biggest-planes-sky-worthy-say-engineers.html>
>
> Airbus has stated that corrective inspection and maintenance
> procedures have been developed, and that the cracking was not in
> structurally important areas of the structure. More details in the
> article.
'A little bit of a crack in "O-rings" we can overlook, keep flying'
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084242/Airbus-A380-Worlds-
> biggest-planes-sky-worthy-say-engineers.html>
>
> Airbus has stated that corrective inspection and maintenance
> procedures have been developed, and that the cracking was not in
> structurally important areas of the structure. More details in the
> article.
If it wasn't designed to happen, why does it happen, is there
something
we don't know?
You see David, engineers don't invent anomalies, managers uninvent
them.
Ken
Dan
Jan 10, 2012, 6:24:14 PM1/10/12
to
On 1/10/2012 4:27 PM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> You see David, engineers don't invent anomalies, managers uninvent
> them.
> Ken
Translation please.
> You see David, engineers don't invent anomalies, managers uninvent
> them.
> Ken
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Jim Wilkins
Jan 10, 2012, 6:45:56 PM1/10/12
to
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:SNSdneIUtZU9VZHS...@giganews.com...
Dan
Jan 10, 2012, 7:01:47 PM1/10/12
to
David E. Powell
Jan 10, 2012, 10:59:34 PM1/10/12
to
Ken S. Tucker
Jan 11, 2012, 3:30:40 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 10, 7:59 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
I was obviously referring to Challenger, when anomalies occurred
in the O rings.
Management has been partly blamed, by having engineers 'prove
it's unsafe, rather than prove it's safe'.
As Jim wrote, "It's not a fault, it's a feature." became the rationale
for using the existing O-ring system.
It was thought to be an O-ring characteristic, feature if you will.
Back to the A380, do you recall the C-5A Galaxy wing problems,
well the problem 'looks' similiar, it was fixable.
Ken
in the O rings.
Management has been partly blamed, by having engineers 'prove
it's unsafe, rather than prove it's safe'.
As Jim wrote, "It's not a fault, it's a feature." became the rationale
for using the existing O-ring system.
It was thought to be an O-ring characteristic, feature if you will.
Back to the A380, do you recall the C-5A Galaxy wing problems,
well the problem 'looks' similiar, it was fixable.
Ken
Dan
Jan 11, 2012, 3:51:08 AM1/11/12
to
Paul F Austin
Jan 11, 2012, 9:35:42 AM1/11/12
to
Remember the BUFF fleet getting new wings? Fixable. But how much? Of
course transports never have fatal design flaws. Oh, wait, Electras and
Comets and A300 vertical stabs...
I'm actually pretty sanguine about Airbus keeping the wings on the Air
Whale but it may be expensive. EADS doesn't have pots of cash lying
around and going back to the sponsoring countries for more probably
isn't on.
I love the description "hairline cracks". Of course _all_ cracks start
out as hairlines. Until catastrophic failure occurs, then the gap
gets...bigger than a hair.
Paul
Starshiy
Jan 11, 2012, 10:21:31 AM1/11/12
to
>
> I'm actually pretty sanguine about Airbus keeping the wings on the Air
> Whale but it may be expensive. EADS doesn't have pots of cash lying
> around and going back to the sponsoring countries for more probably
> isn't on.
>
> I love the description "hairline cracks". Of course _all_ cracks start
> out as hairlines. Until catastrophic failure occurs, then the gap
> gets...bigger than a hair.
>
> Paul
device ???
Cracks on the A380 have devolped not on a structural part but only on
covering panels
Stop bashing european aircrafts ....
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/cracks-found-in-a380s-during-qantas-repairs-20120105-1pmyv.html#ixzz1ibrUx52e
Starshiy
Jan 11, 2012, 10:49:43 AM1/11/12
to
Le 11/01/2012 16:21, Starshiy a écrit :
> Cracks on the A380 have devolped not on a structural part but only on
> covering panels
> Stop bashing european aircrafts ....
> http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/cracks-found-in-a380s-during-qantas-repairs-20120105-1pmyv.html#ixzz1ibrUx52e
Just a few information for your US vanity: more than 30% of the 787 are
> Cracks on the A380 have devolped not on a structural part but only on
> covering panels
> Stop bashing european aircrafts ....
> http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/cracks-found-in-a380s-during-qantas-repairs-20120105-1pmyv.html#ixzz1ibrUx52e
made in europe....
Paul F Austin
Jan 11, 2012, 11:00:19 AM1/11/12
to
defensive of Airbus? It's a matter of record that EADS is having
business problems. The military side isn't generating profits that can
support the Airbus operations, A300M is _way_ late. As I said, I don't
think these cracks are a major problem but the fixes for these cracks
have to come out of profits from within the Airbus business unit at a
time when the A380 is cash-negative. The narrow-body business that
Airbus expected to reap with the NEO upgrade is facing tough competition
from B737NG and B737MAX. When the A350 starts delivering, that will help
EADS' bottom line just as getting B787 deliveries going is helping
Boeing. And, yes I know were the B787 assemblies are made.
Airplane tin-bending is a _business_. It has nothing to do with the
dimensions of your dangly bits.
Paul
vaughn
Jan 12, 2012, 7:57:44 AM1/12/12
to
"Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8uqdnfTT3qijL5DS...@supernews.com...
>It's a matter of record that EADS is having business problems.
Can you mane an American manufacturer of large airframes that isn't having
business problems? ...if not right now, that at least periodically.
Vaughn
Paul F Austin
Jan 12, 2012, 11:47:15 AM1/12/12
to
drives margins to the wall. In addition, it's a stretch to call
_airlines_ a business since there's so much capacity that it's almost
impossible to make a profit.
Paul
Ken S. Tucker
Jan 13, 2012, 7:39:54 AM1/13/12
to
I have some experience with structural design.
I really do shoot for the 150%+ mark, it's very important,
Keep in mind Airbus are real experts though, and we have
a report here of their design achieving only 145%,
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-to-reinforce-part-of-a380-wing-after-march-static-test-206797/
that's 10% LESS than the safety requirement (5% of 50%).
If i did that, I'd be graded less than A. If the pros do that it's
a mathematical failure.
Note in the article an additional 66# of 'beefing' up the wing
will get a load increment from 145% to 150% ... well 66#'s
added to a huge a/c A380 is like a few rolls of duct-tape.
That fix sounds a bit scary. So what to do?
Well one can question the 150% standard, but should have
been specified.
To NOT meet the 150% is IMHO incompetent if it were me.
Ken
Alistair Gunn
Jan 13, 2012, 1:12:17 PM1/13/12
to
Paul F Austin twisted the electrons to say:
billionaire and start an airline! About 10 years ago I remember someone
describing British Airways as a pension company that also ran an airline.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> Nope. Commercial aircraft production is a cut-throat business that
> drives margins to the wall. In addition, it's a stretch to call
> _airlines_ a business since there's so much capacity that it's almost
> impossible to make a profit.
Alledgedly the fastest way to become a millionaire, is to be a
> drives margins to the wall. In addition, it's a stretch to call
> _airlines_ a business since there's so much capacity that it's almost
> impossible to make a profit.
billionaire and start an airline! About 10 years ago I remember someone
describing British Airways as a pension company that also ran an airline.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
David E. Powell
Jan 13, 2012, 1:44:50 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 1:12 pm, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul F Austin twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > Nope. Commercial aircraft production is a cut-throat business that
> > drives margins to the wall. In addition, it's a stretch to call
> > _airlines_ a business since there's so much capacity that it's almost
> > impossible to make a profit.
>
> Alledgedly the fastest way to become a millionaire, is to be a
> billionaire and start an airline!
Ouch! Sometimes I don't know how Richard Branson does it.
> Paul F Austin twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > Nope. Commercial aircraft production is a cut-throat business that
> > drives margins to the wall. In addition, it's a stretch to call
> > _airlines_ a business since there's so much capacity that it's almost
> > impossible to make a profit.
>
> Alledgedly the fastest way to become a millionaire, is to be a
> billionaire and start an airline!
About 10 years ago I remember someone
> describing British Airways as a pension company that also ran an airline.
profit margin, even most years when they make a profit. GM was in the
red for a while in the 90s or 2000s during high sales years. Expenses
& efficiency were killing them.
Keith W
Jan 13, 2012, 2:21:22 PM1/13/12
to
David E. Powell wrote:
> On Jan 13, 1:12 pm, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Paul F Austin twisted the electrons to say:
>>
>>> Nope. Commercial aircraft production is a cut-throat business that
>>> drives margins to the wall. In addition, it's a stretch to call
>>> _airlines_ a business since there's so much capacity that it's
>>> almost impossible to make a profit.
>>
>> Alledgedly the fastest way to become a millionaire, is to be a
>> billionaire and start an airline!
>
> Ouch! Sometimes I don't know how Richard Branson does it.
>
He cherrypicks his routes and unlike AA or United doesn't try
> On Jan 13, 1:12 pm, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Paul F Austin twisted the electrons to say:
>>
>>> Nope. Commercial aircraft production is a cut-throat business that
>>> drives margins to the wall. In addition, it's a stretch to call
>>> _airlines_ a business since there's so much capacity that it's
>>> almost impossible to make a profit.
>>
>> Alledgedly the fastest way to become a millionaire, is to be a
>> billionaire and start an airline!
>
> Ouch! Sometimes I don't know how Richard Branson does it.
>
and run a complex network. It's not just Branson who does this.
In the UK Easyjet founder Stelios Haji-Ioannou made a shit load
of money with the same business plan as did Michael OLeary with RyanAir
Keith
0 new messages