New problems for the Airbus A380

[TexasGuy]

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!

Did an L-1011 ever crash due to mechanical or structural failures? I dont know of any that crashed because of that. I know of them crashing due to pilot error and windshear.


...

[CX]

FInal paragraph of that article:
German national carrier Lufthansa, a major Airbus customer, is already estimating internally that the A380 will consume 14 percent more fuel than Airbus has officially disclosed.


Is this true? I seriously don't believe SIA will order more of them if that's the case, especially if they are going for less than 555seats..

[Stepha380]

FInal paragraph of that article:
German national carrier Lufthansa, a major Airbus customer, is already estimating internally that the A380 will consume 14 percent more fuel than Airbus has officially disclosed.

The A380 statisitcs have always been for a 555 seats configuration. If you put 14% fewer seats, it increases the consumption per passenger, but it doesn't change the airplane characteristics.
I think we need more details about this assumption because it is unclear.

[achace]

There are so many different ways of calculating operating costs.

The engines leaving Derby are within tolerance as far as sfc is concerned, and if the reported 14% was fuel burn, Airbus and RR would go broke, as this would become an issue of range.

Doubtless this Lufthansa figure relates to passenger numbers.It has rightly been pointed out that the passenger load is normally 555 for Airbus performance figures.

It would be an interesting point as to operating costs in a JAL high density configuration, which would probably be in excess of 800 pax.

This airplane after a couple of years will be configured for 600 plus by most operators, because the economics would be superb, and it would still offer more space than an extended 747-8.

Cheers
Achace

[PYX]

The more you post the more you are starting to sound like that ace used car salesman, John Leahy.

[RC20]

I have predicted that the A380 would not meet its fuel burn specifications (based on all the engine redesign, weight issues and redesign and the fact that the wing is a big compromise, i.e. they have to fit in the 89 meter box, so it can’t be as long as they would like for best aerodynamics).

However, keep in mind, it would not be 14% less than advertised, but 14% lower than the specified.

In other words, John and the boys get together in the bar at Toulouse, grab the old weegie board and come up with 20% better fuel burn.

Then its only comes out as 17.2% better (the 2.8 is the 14% less).

As I recall, I figured 1.5-3% less than they forecast.

How big an issue that is depends on the stage lengths, how overweight it is, pax seating setup, as well as now many actually are in it (say it seat 480, but they run 80% full, then they really only carry 384).

Also keep in mind, an airplane is nothing more than a revenue generator. Ryanair has gambling, Singapore just gets paid to fly aircraft that don’t meet the specifications!

However, if the 747-8 does meet its spec (and Boeing is conservative with their claims) then it could mean that the 747 is more economical. That would give Randy something to blog about, and John and the Toulouse gang heartburn.

[CX]

I have predicted that the A380 would not meet its fuel burn specifications (based on all the engine redesign, weight issues and redesign and the fact that the wing is a big compromise, i.e. they have to fit in the 89 meter box, so it can’t be as long as they would like for best aerodynamics).

However, keep in mind, it would not be 14% less than advertised, but 14% lower than the specified.

In other words, John and the boys get together in the bar at Toulouse, grab the old weegie board and come up with 20% better fuel burn.

Then its only comes out as 17.2% better (the 2.8 is the 14% less).

As I recall, I figured 1.5-3% less than they forecast.

How big an issue that is depends on the stage lengths, how overweight it is, pax seating setup, as well as now many actually are in it (say it seat 480, but they run 80% full, then they really only carry 384).

Also keep in mind, an airplane is nothing more than a revenue generator. Ryanair has gambling, Singapore just gets paid to fly aircraft that don’t meet the specifications!

However, if the 747-8 does meet its spec (and Boeing is conservative with their claims) then it could mean that the 747 is more economical. That would give Randy something to blog about, and John and the Toulouse gang heartburn.

Again, I just don't believe SIA will order 9 more beasts if it underperforms because you can bet that SIA is the airline that will put the least amount of seats in their A380s than any other airlines. I guess they are also the airline who knows most about the A380.

[Stepha380]

I give up to answer RC20 post (F++++ ridiculous)

I will now post good news in this thread until the name changes to A380 news.

The first comes from a company I worked for 2 years ago, and it was a pleasure to work there.

http://www.aircelle.com/news_update_17.html

[RC20]

I give up to answer RC20 post (F++++ ridiculous)

I will now post good news in this thread until the name changes to A380 news.

The first comes from a company I worked for 2 years ago, and it was a pleasure to work there.

http://www.aircelle.com/news_update_17.html

I am sorry Stepha380 feels he has to get down to foul language.

Airbus can be a fine company to work for, and still have product issues, as well as integrity issues (you do have to wonder where they are going when the send European jobs to China and where that will end)

John Leahy is noted for his unsupported statements (or he and Airbus are). I can think of the A350 ones, "All New", "The Most Advanced Aircraft in the World", and it will have 30% better fuel burn that its competition".

That was on an airplane with a slow wing, a derviative of the A330 and its airframe that dates back to the 70s (A300/310/330 heritage). Does anyone seriously think that it was more efficient than a far lighter all newdesing fueselage aircraft?

It still gets back to the aeroydnamics of the A380. Could they have made it more efficient if they had not been restricted by the 89m box requirment? For sure.

Did they add to it with the noise debacle, also yes. Was weight an issue, yep, when you spend over a billion bucks at the end of the devlopment to address that, you have problems (and it may not all be gone, thats not a succesffull time to be working it techcnialcy, it should be done early in the program)

So, I think one can reasonably wonder if it meets what they guaranteed.

Does it work for SIA anyway? The anser is now yes. Is that based on it meets the gurantee, or that the combination of what they bought it for, the penalties for non performace they get, what it carries, how they can configure it (which certianly a 747 cannot be), and all the rest plays into it?

Boeing is talking about going with s longer 747-8 pax, because a lot of the interested parties are not concnered with the added range the short version gets, they want pax count.

The 747-8 freighter is selling, because the extra ragne the A380 offers, is not what (most) of the freight moving people want. UPS and FedEx are not going to use that range (at least moste of the time), it will "short hop" into Anchroage, because thats what works for them, their route setup and how they distribute.

Is the A380 an amaxing aircraft, it certianly is, I look forward to seeing it.

How it is judged is going to take a while. That goes anywhere from how reliableit is with all its new systems, to the issues that the 747 had with the engines and cargo door, and the likes of the DC10 mess. Can that happen again, it certainly can, and its more likely if its an ego project and has major issues during development (and I call the noise and weight issues major).

I am in awe of what Boeing has done with the 787. I also think that the jury is out on that one. Where it stands above the A380, is that its a technological leap (or an attempt at one). I still am amazed at how much Boeing has put on the line, not just the fuselgage which is huge, but the no bleed air systems, the move to all electric systems.

I think they will make it work, and I think they will have issues. But those will be based on the huge leap, not the stuff they should have down pat by now.

Boeing may have had issues, but they did deliver better performance than they said they would, and they have cleared up the issues and kept the performance promises better than advertised.

[achace]

RC20,
Can you fill me in on what the noise debacle is, as obviously I missed it somewhere.
Cheers
Achace

[Stepha380]

We are all waiting for sources:

no hydraulic
noise issue
non-meeting of the performance in 555 seat configuration
....

[achace]

I get a bit bored with the Airbus A380 Navigator, but they specifically state that the beast has achieved its noise level requirements, so please lets stop denigrating what is and will be proved to be a great achievement in aviation, just as the 747 has been.

Cheers
achace

[teach]

However, keep in mind, it would not be 14% less than advertised, but 14% lower than the specified.

???? What exactly is the difference between advertised and specified here?

In other words, John and the boys get together in the bar at Toulouse, grab the old weegie board and come up with 20% better fuel burn.

Then its only comes out as 17.2% better (the 2.8 is the 14% less).

As I recall, I figured 1.5-3% less than they forecast.

Seriously, that jibberish makes absolutely no sense. Where did those numbers come from in the first place???

Singapore just gets paid to fly aircraft that don’t meet the specifications!

...and then orders nine more, and signs for the next big project of Airbus, the A350. Makes sense...

if the 747-8 does meet its spec

What makes you think the A380 doesn't meet its performance guarantees? The Spiegel article? Because the claim in that article is just proof that whoever wrote it has no idea what he's talking about.

[PYX]

....so please lets stop denigrating what is and will be proved to be a great achievement in aviation....
Cheers
achace

My aren't we "sensitive."
Other than size, what exactly is the "great achievement" you are talking about? From what I've read about the 380, while it is huge, it does not represent any major breakthroughs in technology. As far as appearance, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and this beholder finds it to be one of the least attractive aircraft ever designed.

[Bracebrace]

Other than size, what exactly is the "great achievement" you are talking about? From what I've read about the 380, while it is huge, it does not represent any major breakthroughs in technology.

Depends on what you call "great achievement". Even the B777 is called a great achievement, which I agree, although the innovations found on the airplane are not that big. What does it have that others didn't have? Electronic control of the hydraulic system? Supersized engines? A new wing? FBW with a yoke?

A380 has some remarkable new things. A hydraulic system with a unique much higher working pressure than what we're used to. 3000psi became the standard over the years, and nobody questioned it anymore. Airbus decides to change it. There's another interesting standard, one which always leads to unanswered questions of my brother in law (an engineer): why do they use 400Hz AC? Why 400? Why not 350? Why not 450? Airbus decides to change it this time: they don't change the number, they simply go with variable frequency, something others have always found "problematic".

There are other smaller changes, like the standardized engine power indication system (pilots won't have to think in EPR, N1, IEPR variables anymore, but one standard parameter for all engine types). Small, but nice.

Certainly some interesting changes, time will tell if they really are innovative.

[earthman]

Other than size, what exactly is the "great achievement" you are talking about? From what I've read about the 380, while it is huge, it does not represent any major breakthroughs in technology.

Depends on what you call "great achievement". Even the B777 is called a great achievement, which I agree, although the innovations found on the airplane are not that big. What does it have that others didn't have? Electronic control of the hydraulic system? Supersized engines? A new wing? FBW with a yoke?

From what I've heard, the revolutionary part of the 777 was that it was completely designed on computer systems, including a virtual mechanic to see if all places were reachable for maintenance.

[teddybAIR]

They should rename this topic into "clash of the ego's"

I'm wondering: you all seem to be alble to assess whether the A380 project will or will not meet it's specifications and even give an estimate about how many % it will be under or above that. Well, then why are you wasting your time on this forum? I mean, with those great skills you could just be applying at airbus right now and earn the big $'s. So let's maybe stick to the news and stop making wild 'guesstimates' about these projects, no?

Come on, back on the constructive track please!

[Zenfookpower]

They should rename this topic into "clash of the ego's"

I'm wondering: you all seem to be alble to assess whether the A380 project will or will not meet it's specifications and even give an estimate about how many % it will be under or above that. Well, then why are you wasting your time on this forum? I mean, with those great skills you could just be applying at airbus right now and earn the big $'s. So let's maybe stick to the news and stop making wild 'guesstimates' about these projects, no?

Come on, back on the constructive track please!

[David747]

[quote="RC20]

John Leahy is noted for his unsupported statements (or he and Airbus are). I can think of the A350 ones, "All New", "The Most Advanced Aircraft in the World", and it will have 30% better fuel burn that its competition".

I wouldn't say that they were unsupported statements, Leahy's description of the A330+20 was based on the performance of the A330 and the fact that the New A330+20 :laugh: would have a new wing on the frame of a very successful airliner like the A330.

That was on an airplane with a slow wing, a derviative of the A330 and its airframe that dates back to the 70s (A300/310/330 heritage). Does anyone seriously think that it was more efficient than a far lighter all newdesing fueselage aircraft?

Well, we won't know, but the A330+20 could have been an efficient airliner had Airbus decided to build it as it was, the success of the A330 alone would have justified putting in a new wing and powerplant to the frame, but of course, there was very little interest in the A330+20.

Did they add to it with the noise debacle, also yes. Was weight an issue, yep, when you spend over a billion bucks at the end of the devlopment to address that, you have problems (and it may not all be gone, thats not a succesffull time to be working it techcnialcy, it should be done early in the program)

Airbus will fix whatever glitches, or problems the A380 has in regards to weight, and wake turbulance from its powerplants, lets remember, the A380 is still in testing stage, and is still trying to enter the market, but once it enters the market and all the problems have been figured out, the A380 will be, in my opinion, a successful program.

Boeing is talking about going with s longer 747-8 pax, because a lot of the interested parties are not concnered with the added range the short version gets, they want pax count.

I hope Boeing does stretch the 748 and gets orders for it, but the reality is, are there customers who will be willing to invest in this new version of the 747? I don't think so, the fact that the 747-400 ER didn't sell very well tells me the market for a 747 sized airplane is not there, and if there is a market for large planes, customers would rather invest in a plane like the A380. I hope i'm proven wrong though, I would love to see 747-8 Pax on CX livery, Lufthansa, BA, etc.

The 747-8 freighter is selling, because the extra ragne the A380 offers, is not what (most) of the freight moving people want. UPS and FedEx are not going to use that range (at least moste of the time), it will "short hop" into Anchroage, because thats what works for them, their route setup and how they distribute.

748 freighter will be used for long haul delivery of cargo from hubs, the A380 will come into play by deliverying large quantities of Cargo to these hubs, I agree with your analysis here.

I am in awe of what Boeing has done with the 787. I also think that the jury is out on that one. Where it stands above the A380, is that its a technological leap (or an attempt at one). I still am amazed at how much Boeing has put on the line, not just the fuselgage which is huge, but the no bleed air systems, the move to all electric systems.

787 program to me shows that Boeing learned its lesson, when the A330 introduced, Boeing's response was the B767-400, and well, you know the rest. Today, the 787 program represents two things, taking a risk by using technology such as composites for the fuselage, and more importantly, introducing a brand new airframe for a market that is going to grow in the next 40 years. That is why the 787 has been successful thus far.

[bits44]

Airbus workers in Germany lose some wiring work to India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 886174.cms