The best response to the report was an Airbus spokesperson who said, why would anyone question that we have this fixed.
I could say.
1. Engine installation re-design required because someone did not figure out that it had to be quiet enough to fly into Heathrow (and others).
2. Last minute overweight issue (and regardless of what the comeback was, you don’t spend over a billion Euros at the end of an aircraft development unless you really blew it. You track the weight from the start and work it out over time.
3. Wing breaking before it was supposed to
3. Cable problem 1
4. Cable problem 2
5. Not to mention the tail issue.
This all smacks to me of extremely poor management, and panic moves to correct. I would be very unhappy if I had to fly in it (until it has at least 5 years in service).
New problems for the Airbus A380
Moderator: Latest news team
Agreed, and all the modifications on first airframes are transformed into built-in in as the production ramp up.smokejumper wrote:In designing a plane, the designers try to minimize weight to maximmize the economics. During the test program, problems often arise that require the additon of extra strength or stiffening (which adds weight). This is part of the normal developmental process. Assuiming that it has been identified and resolved, it is not a big deal, if the added weight is not excessive.
It is a far cheaper way in terms of cost/time/ressources, than to built prototypes.
I do not know for sure, but I wondered: did the Boeing 747 programme have also a delay in 1969/1970? I think it was a delay of nine months for the first planes to Pan Am?
Another big bird is the Galaxy. I remember faintly of having read that the Lockheed Galaxy C-5 have some serious trouble to meet specifications in terms of payload capacity due to some unexpceted cracks at the wingbox?
I think large projects are very prone to delays and 9 months does not sound severe to me (if they meet the specs at the end).
-lr.
Another big bird is the Galaxy. I remember faintly of having read that the Lockheed Galaxy C-5 have some serious trouble to meet specifications in terms of payload capacity due to some unexpceted cracks at the wingbox?
I think large projects are very prone to delays and 9 months does not sound severe to me (if they meet the specs at the end).
-lr.
I think it has been said in another thread that the 747 encountered more problems during development as opposed to the A380, but you can't really compare them because back then we do not have so powerful computer simulations.... but it is just so normal for problems to be discovered on the A380 during its development/testing phase, i mean that is better than discovering problems after it enters service...lastrow wrote:I do not know for sure, but I wondered: did the Boeing 747 programme have also a delay in 1969/1970? I think it was a delay of nine months for the first planes to Pan Am?
Another big bird is the Galaxy. I remember faintly of having read that the Lockheed Galaxy C-5 have some serious trouble to meet specifications in terms of payload capacity due to some unexpceted cracks at the wingbox?
I think large projects are very prone to delays and 9 months does not sound severe to me (if they meet the specs at the end).
-lr.
All the other 975 A380 will be delivered on time, don't worry :pang:David747 wrote:The 747 program faced Engine problems, and a few problems with the flaps in the right wing. But unlike the A380, most of the 747 customers got their planes on time.
excerpt from http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... Aero21.htm
Flight tests between February and December (1969) revealed several problems, the most significant with the engines, which were underpowered for the increase in weight and size that had occurred since earlier designs. The engine problem hadn't been solved by the time the plane entered service in January 1970, and airlines experienced one delay after another because of engine troubles. At one point early in 1970, Boeing had some 30 planes parked at its plant that could not be delivered until Pratt & Whitney had corrected the deficiencies of its JT-9D engine. It took a year before the engine problems were solved. In the meantime, too little money was coming in, the country was experiencing an economic recession, and new orders were drying up. The company almost went broke.
It is cheaper to solve all the problems before deliveries. While in service, it becomes a nightmare.
hi, actually I have read it too, but I wanted to mention it since this thread appeared to ignore the delay of the 747.CX wrote:I think it has been said in another thread that the 747 encountered more problems during development as opposed to the A380, but you can't really compare them because back then we do not have so powerful computer simulations.... but it is just so normal for problems to be discovered on the A380 during its development/testing phase, i mean that is better than discovering problems after it enters service...
regarding the comparsion, I do not agree with you: you have computer simulations, but the a380 will be more advanced. Thus, you can compare both development programmes as being the largest effort to build a commercial airliner at their time.
-lr.
And aircraft at that time suffered dreadful accidents as a consequence. DC10,707's, 747's and TriStars of that area all crashed through mechanical failure or structural problems or other design issues. That doesnlt tend to happen nowadays partly due to experience, partly due to simulation but I suspect also because things aren't rushed.
No one can say but how do we now that if another year was spent analyzing DC10 design and testing that some of those horrific crashes in the 70's would hve happened? We will never know and I would rather that the theory wasn't tested with any new airliner!
No one can say but how do we now that if another year was spent analyzing DC10 design and testing that some of those horrific crashes in the 70's would hve happened? We will never know and I would rather that the theory wasn't tested with any new airliner!
I hope so. As I said before, the problems the A380 is facing are just the pains of getting a new plane into the market.Stepha380 wrote:David747 wrote:The 747 program faced Engine problems, and a few problems with the flaps in the right wing. But unlike the A380, most of the 747 customers got their planes on time.All the other 975 A380 will be delivered on time, don't worry :pang:
I am suspecting that RC20 is a nom de plume for Randy Baselar.
I have never read such ill informed rubbish.
Let us take the noise issue as an example!
If the machine was failing to meet its requirements, then why have SIA just ordered an additional 9, all of which will have to fly into LHR.
Admittedly Airbus havent made any claims regarding its noise tests, but remember that decibels are a logarithmic progression, so all they need to do is JUST meet the requirement. Bettering it by even a half dB would be an overkill, and weight is important.
Cheers
Achace
I have never read such ill informed rubbish.
Let us take the noise issue as an example!
If the machine was failing to meet its requirements, then why have SIA just ordered an additional 9, all of which will have to fly into LHR.
Admittedly Airbus havent made any claims regarding its noise tests, but remember that decibels are a logarithmic progression, so all they need to do is JUST meet the requirement. Bettering it by even a half dB would be an overkill, and weight is important.
Cheers
Achace
I worked for MD during the 1970's when some of those planes went down. Aside from the cargo door failure the others where either mantinence errors or plain stupidity. Today's engineers have a lot of past experience to assist them in their designs along with some impressive design software. When flight 191 crashed in Chicago in 1979 the plant went silent, as did the DC-10 program.
-
Zenfookpower
- Posts: 158
- Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 00:00
- Location: The Great Lakes (USA)