It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A380 fails key structural test.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
test post




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
depends on whether you have a choice of airlines. For example, If you're flying on Southwest Airlines, I can assure you you'll be flying in a Boeing 737. It's the only aircraft they use. (It's also a big part of thier business model, as it reduces parts inventory, different airframes for pilots/mechs to qualify and stay proficient for, ect.)



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Ah yes, but that doesn't stop you having a go at Airbus where there is also not a design flaw, see the double standard here? You see I knew someone would leap to the defence of the DC-10 and lo and behold if it isn't one of the very members thats having a go at Airbus and with far less reason. But hey, I'm just a sneaky European



The defense of the dc-10 has nothing to do with who made it. it has to do with the fact that the fear of the plane are not founded in who made the plane but with perceived problems with the design and performance, which the design and performance of the plane had nothing to do with its problems.

of course you should know that reality is not based on fact but based on perceived facts. just like you are basing your reality on



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
depends on whether you have a choice of airlines. For example, If you're flying on Southwest Airlines, I can assure you you'll be flying in a Boeing 737. It's the only aircraft they use. (It's also a big part of thier business model, as it reduces parts inventory, different airframes for pilots/mechs to qualify and stay proficient for, ect.)


Boeing covered up some problems with the 737

Safrty at issues: the 737

the Seattle Times did a very good in depth investigation into the ruder design problems. It is not Boeings shining star on this plane but well worth the reading.


i haven't read about any problems since they retrofitted the old designs with the new ones

[edit on 18-2-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The fear of the DC-10 comes from the fact that it has the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick with wings.

The rudder issues with the 737 have been corrected, and they just delivered number 5000, so it can't be TOO bad of an issue. They only lost two planes, with the others being saved before crashing. (Two confirmed)



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
the investigation is from 1996 and there were 4 spectacular crashes not just 2. they have fixed the problem. the military flies DC-10's all the time with out problems, most notably the KC-10 tanker. but then the military does very precise procedures when it comes to maintenance, not like airlines might use or their contractors



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Yeah, the military just sets them on fire on the ground.
They go through reskinning, and tear down a lot more often than the civilian airlines do.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigx01


The defense of the dc-10 ............etc


Nice attempt, but does it work? Me and you getting into a slanging match is pointless and boring for other readers so we'll have to let other members make up their own minds as to which viewpoint in that exchange is the more valid.

And no, I'm not asking for a poll here guys, lets just keep the thread on topic



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
What is this?

The links and quotes clearly show the early (non-production spec) wing only just failed to meet that particular spec and the company knows the production version will fully meet the required spec.

(It doen't get certification if it doesn't meet the CAA and FAA spec.s, right?)

Some people are just desparate for any lame little dig they can make.

Tune in to reality guys, Airbus (the British part of the operation, actually) have been making excellent wings for the various types in the most advanced materials available since Airbus got started.

Never once has the quality of those wing designs or their manufacture been a factor in a single airbus accident.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
One thing we have all glossed over and that did not clue in untill I was reading about this in AWST is future applications of the wing.

According to the article (Source AWST Feb 20th, 2006) EASA requires that the wing be stressed to its "ultimate" load and hold for 3 seconds which did not happen in this test.

The Airbus offical quoted said they had enough information from the test to validate models and another static test would not be required. Furthermore he indicated that only minor changes would be needed.

The implication in the article is that this wing design is also the basis for the heavier freighter version and the planned -900 version. So would a major redesign be needed will be the question.

Did the wing fail early because of weight savings programs? A similar sitiuation occured during the C-17 development phase when the government mandated a test even after the engineers said it would fail????



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
So would a major redesign be needed will be the question.


- Have another look at what was posted Fred.

The wing that failed was not a production wing.

It was a pre-production version, they already know the actual production version is stronger.

That is why they are confident despite - or in fact because of - this test.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
[That is why they are confident despite - or in fact because of - this test.


I will but even so, why would the test a sub standard wing if they knew it would fail. This is abit of a PR nightmare. i do understand Boeing will spin stuff like this as well.

I admit my ignorance of this type of testing procedure, but how is the testing of a different wing configuration going to validate the model if the actual wing flying is different (even slightly)? Should not all aircraft producers be required to actually test this type of failure?



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Funny - I was always of the opinion that one should do better then stated goals, not except a result that almost meets them.

I dunno, maybe it is a cultural difference between the US and Europe.


[edit on 20-2-2006 by American Mad Man]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
This is abit of a PR nightmare. i do understand Boeing will spin stuff like this as well.


- Naaa, not really Fred, those who insist on the pedantic quibbling are trying to mould a public perception but the wider public are hardly the audience that matter in this.

The minds of many in the US are already made up anyway so who cares if they become even more closed and chauvinist about Airbus, they are not the whole world's buyers and operators or even passangers?


how is the testing of a different wing configuration going to validate the model if the actual wing flying is different (even slightly)?


- As I understand it the pre-production wing is not quite as strong as the production version (there are differences but not radical design differences).
That is known (through previous tests and modelling.......tests and modelling which this particular test has just added to and fully validated).


Should not all aircraft producers be required to actually test this type of failure?


- In an ideal world maybe.
Had the wing failed catastrophically well before the designed spec you would no doubt have seen just that happen too.

However, what we know is that the wing missed test spec by approx 3% and Airbus are certain that the production wing is stronger than this early example.
Nothing unusual in that.
Hence no-one sees the need to dot every 'i' or cross every 't' in this.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I will but even so, why would the test a sub standard wing if they knew it would fail. This is abit of a PR nightmare. i do understand Boeing will spin stuff like this as well.


They have a computer model of the prototype wing, which they can now say overpredicts max strength by 3%.


They have a computer model of the real wing - they must be satisfied it says the max strength is at least 3% greater than that needed for the max limit loads tests. [which in incidentally, a 3% shortfall is nothing - when do airliners do 4.5g?]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The minds of many in the US are already made up anyway so who cares if they become even more closed and chauvinist about Airbus, they are not the whole world's buyers and operators or even passangers?

Careful there, you're promoting a dangerous misconception that the U.S. is full of close minded arogant people. That's a mud-singing match we need to avoid here.

Personally, I believe they should test out the current wing. Right now, they do not have a wing proven to meet the standards in a physical test. Testing a nearly identicle wing to almost there doesn't count.

Those standards exist for a reason, and it's not to ensure commercial airliners can do barral rolls. It's to ensure that when they encounter turbulance that will bounce the wings, the wings aren't going to fail. Also keep in mind that aircraft regularly exceed 1G, every time they take off or turn. Asking for 1.5 is not unreasonable.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Its nothing to do with 1.5G, that may be why you think its so important? the figure 1 represents the maximum load the wing can ever reasonably be expected to bear, 1.5 represents a 50 per cent higher loading than the wing will ever be reasonably expected to bear, hence failing at 1.47 ( or 'only' 47 per cent higher loading than the wing will ever encounter in real terms) is nothing to be concerned about. If it failed at 1.1 or 1.2 there would be real cause for concern, but the fact that it is only 0.03 away from a 50 per cent safety margin is neither here nor there.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I haven't read the regs in a while, but as far as I remember, the design envelope of a civil airliner is from -0.5g to + 3g.

So with a 1.5 limit load the g loading is actually + 4.5.


I did say this earlier, but it seems to have been missed.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
and I stand corrected.

Though my earlier argument about the importance of meeting established standards still stands.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
After reviewing the situation, as mentioned at the start of the thread, Airbus has announced that it will be using strengthened stringers in that part of the wing which broke under test. Aircraft already built will have stiffeners added to reinforce them, in totla the mod will add about 80Kg to the overall weight of the modified aircraft, a little less to the new build wings with the new stringers in from the start. There is no critical reason for this but it allows the wing to achieve the 150% margin Airbus promised and will allay any fears in that direction, which is felt worth the extra weight.



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join