Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Airbus uses what CAD?

327 views
Skip to first unread message

Gilles Lehoux

unread,
Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98
to

I suppose it's CATIA.
But this guy says it's CADSFIV (sp?).

------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilles Lehoux, P.Eng., Mech. Eng., Kites, Montreal, Canada
Director/Lingo & HTML programer
Email: gle...@usa.net
Web sites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2779/index.htm


Daniel Koch

unread,
Apr 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/26/98
to

Computervision (now owned by PTC) CADDS5

Patrick McConnell

unread,
Apr 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/26/98
to

On the 330/340 program they used CATIA, though they might have changed
since then. Since CATIA was written by a french company (Dassault), it
makes sense.

Patrick


S. Tom

unread,
Apr 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/26/98
to

gle...@usa.net.NOSPAM.THANKYOU (Gilles Lehoux) wrote:


>I suppose it's CATIA.
>But this guy says it's CADSFIV (sp?).

<snip<

I believe it's CATIA version 4 release 1.7.

Sherman Tom.


Arthur Utay

unread,
May 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/10/98
to

Airbus uses Computervision Cadds5
--
********************************************************************************
* A. W. Utay * Your mileage may vary *
* awu...@worldnet.att.net * *
* C180 N180Y * *
********************************************************************************


Javier Casado

unread,
May 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/10/98
to

Airbus is not really a single company, but a mixture of several
different companies from different european countries that work on a
same project. Thus, the CAD system depends on the company you are
considering: for example, CASA (Spain) uses CATIA (Dassault), but
A=E9rospatiale (France) uses CADDS V (Computer Vision, now part of
Parametrics). I am not sure what system uses British Aerospace or the
other companies in Airbus.
However, since the final assembly of the planes are made at Toulouse
(France), and since A=E9rospatiale is one of the main (or maybe the main)
contributor to the international consortium, the CADDS system may be
considered the Airbus CAD system.
Just a comment: since the company that distributed CADDS (Computer
Vision) has been absorbed by Parametrics (Pro/Engineer system), the
future of CADDS is quite dark. ;-)

Javier Casado, Spain.

Gilles Lehoux escribi=F3:

> I suppose it's CATIA.
> But this guy says it's CADSFIV (sp?).
>

Burkhard Domke

unread,
May 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/10/98
to

IIRC, Airbus Industrie uses no CAD at all, because they just sell the
airplanes made by the partners.

AFAIK, Deutsche Aerospace Airbus uses Computervision (now Parametrics)
CADDS5 at the moment.

Burkhard


Javier Casado

unread,
May 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/10/98
to

Airbus is not really a single company, but a mixture of several
different companies from different european countries that work on a
same project. Thus, the CAD system depends on the company you are
considering: for example, CASA (Spain) uses CATIA (Dassault), but
A=E9rospatiale (France) uses CADDS V (Computer Vision, now part of
Parametrics). I am not sure what system uses British Aerospace or the
other companies in Airbus.
However, since the final assembly of the planes is made at Toulouse

(France), and since A=E9rospatiale is one of the main (or maybe the main)
contributor to the international consortium, the CADDS system may be
considered the Airbus CAD system.
Just a comment: since the company that distributed CADDS (Computer
Vision) has been absorbed by Parametrics (Pro/Engineer system), the
future of CADDS is quite dark. ;-)

Javier Casado, Spain.

Patrick McConnell escribi=F3:

Gilles Lehoux

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Javier Casado <ingen...@aeromocion.com> wrote:

>Airbus is not really a single company, but a mixture of several
>different companies from different european countries that work on a
>same project. Thus, the CAD system depends on the company you are
>considering: for example, CASA (Spain) uses CATIA (Dassault), but
>A=E9rospatiale (France) uses CADDS V (Computer Vision, now part of
>Parametrics). I am not sure what system uses British Aerospace or the
>other companies in Airbus.

>However, since the final assembly of the planes are made at Toulouse


>(France), and since A=E9rospatiale is one of the main (or maybe the main)
>contributor to the international consortium, the CADDS system may be
>considered the Airbus CAD system.
>Just a comment: since the company that distributed CADDS (Computer
>Vision) has been absorbed by Parametrics (Pro/Engineer system), the
>future of CADDS is quite dark. ;-)

I am surprised that the Aribus members do not use Catia.
Especially Aerospatiale.
After all, Catia was developped by a french aeronautical company.

Can you explain the choice of CADDS5 over CATIA from the
point of view of an aircraft manufacturer?

I've heard that Catia does not handle solids well.
I've also heard that Catia had bought SolidWoks so this
may change.

Patrick McConnell

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Hm. Bombardier, the design/builder of the 330/340 keel beam and other
stuff, used CATIA when I was there. I assumed everybody else in the
consortium did too to facilitate the EMU (electronic mock up).

Patrick


Javier Casado

unread,
May 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/31/98
to

First, I didn't say that the Airbus members do not use Catia, but that
Aerospatiale does not use Catia (although this company is one of the major
members of Airbus). Other companies in Airbus do use Catia, such is CASA, and
maybe others.

I don't really know why Aerospatiale doesn't use Catia, that, as you say, is a
french system, and the main system in the aeronautical world. I don't know
CADDS deeply (I do know Catia fairly well), but I don't think there are
significant advantages to use this program instead of Catia. I even think that
CADDS can be considered today an old CAD system, by comparison with the main
CAD systems used today, such are Pro/Engineer, Catia, Unigraphics...

I disagree with the statement that Catia doesn't handle solids well. Maybe you
could say that about one year ago or so, when it didn't have as many
posibilities with solid working as other rival siystems had (Pro/Engineer, for
example), but it was always possible to work with surfaces (where Catia is
very powerful) and then convert them to solids. Today, however, and even more
in a near future (end of this year) with the newcoming of the version 5, Catia
will implement the last improvements in solid working, making the solid work
with Catia very similar to what it is in Pro/Engineer or SolidWorks.

Right, Dassault Systemes buyed SolidWorks last year, and probably this has had
some effect in the new version 5 of Catia and its "feature-based" solids.
However, my oppinion is that, although this will be a good improvement, the
Catia solids at this moment can not be considered bad. It is, mainly, a
different way to work with them.
Main advantages with the new solids philosophy will be, I think, in the work
with large assemblies, models with lots of parts assembled together. Single
part models will not be very affected by the change of philosophy. However,
this is just an oppinion, maybe influenced because of the fact that I am
accostumed to work with Catia...

Javier Casado
Eng. Dpt. Mgr., Aeronautica y Automocion S.A., Spain.

Gilles Lehoux escribió:

Christian Rheault

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Hello,

CATIA was developed (and still is) by Dassault. Back in the old days,
Dassault and Aerosptiale were fierce competitors in certain market segments
(miitary, space, etc...). Back then, Aerospatiale chose not to use a system
developed by Dassault, it's eternal rival. That is the main reason why
Aerospatiale started and still is using CADDS (Computer Vision).

In the end, it probably wasn't a smart decision. Although they're both good
systems, CATIA seems to have the upper hand at the moment, at least in
Aerospace. With so many risk sharing partnerships these days, it's
important to run a system that is widely used.

- Chris


Gilles Lehoux wrote in message ...


>Javier Casado <ingen...@aeromocion.com> wrote:
>
>>Airbus is not really a single company, but a mixture of several
>>different companies from different european countries that work on a
>>same project. Thus, the CAD system depends on the company you are
>>considering: for example, CASA (Spain) uses CATIA (Dassault), but
>>A=E9rospatiale (France) uses CADDS V (Computer Vision, now part of
>>Parametrics). I am not sure what system uses British Aerospace or the
>>other companies in Airbus.
>>However, since the final assembly of the planes are made at Toulouse
>>(France), and since A=E9rospatiale is one of the main (or maybe the main)
>>contributor to the international consortium, the CADDS system may be
>>considered the Airbus CAD system.
>>Just a comment: since the company that distributed CADDS (Computer
>>Vision) has been absorbed by Parametrics (Pro/Engineer system), the
>>future of CADDS is quite dark. ;-)
>

Ed Webster

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to
Forgive me if its been said before (I only caught part of this thread) I
replied via Deja News but it didn't appear in the my newsgroup?? British
Aerospace at Chester where I work is in the process of changing to Cadds
5 for the new A340-600. We still use Anvil cad for all the existing work
& I believe there are problems in moving most of this to Cadds 5. I
believe some of the reasons behind the move to Cadds was to have a
common platform between BAe, Aerospatiale & Deutch Airbus.
-- Ed Webster
Email Work edward....@bae.co.uk
Email e...@webster1.demon.co.uk
website http://www.webster1.demon.co.uk
North Wales
'Too much of a good thing is wonderful' Mae West

0 new messages