New problems for the Airbus A380

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 12 Aug 2006, 00:27

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

I no longer have the article on it, so cut me some slack if I get some of the details wrong.

The background was, that after they had designed the beast, and presented the details, the airline executives reviewing it noted that it (vague on this part) it either did not meet the noise standards, or did not meet the standards that were being implanted and would apply when it came into service.

I am not familiar with all of that, but Heathrow was at least one of them, possibly CDG, and the German cites (Frankfurt and????).

So, in order to meet the regulations, they had to re-design (I believe casings, possibly pylons and maybe some engine details as well).

The egg on their face was the fact that the noise regulations were either in place, or going to be, and as those cities are amongst the prime originations and destinations of the A380, it was major screw up. How in the world do you miss something like that?

That’s what makes me wonder just what else have they missed, not tested the way it needs to be etc.

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 17 Aug 2006, 04:44

Bracebrace wrote: 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.

Evolutionary? Yes.
Revolutionary innovation? No, absolutely not.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 17 Aug 2006, 05:30

Like most Airbus airliners, the A380 will be a technological wonder. With all the cables to support this bird, it is no surprise that there have been delays. Anyways, why is all this negativity surrounding this plane? It seems some people here, and in other places, and pundits like Richard Aboulafia, all want this plane to fail.

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 17 Aug 2006, 17:29

I have no interest in seeing it fail, but other than size I don't see the "technological wonder" you are taking about.
BTW I see Airbus will be paying Quantas....
"Australia’s Qantas Airways is to receive more than A$100 million in damages from Airbus for delays in deliveries of its 12 firm-ordered A380-800s..."
Story here: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... +more.html

I would love the know the details of the settlement Airbus struck with Singapore Air.
It is this kind of "paying buyers to buy our product" nonsense that turn fuels my dislike of Airbus.

teach · Post by **teach** » 17 Aug 2006, 20:48

It is this kind of "paying buyers to buy our product" nonsense that turn fuels my dislike of Airbus.

What a pile of crap. This is in no way 'paying buyers to buy the product', it's paying the contractually agreed compensation for being late with the deliveries. If Boeing is late with their deliveries, they have to do the exact same thing. Just ask the airlines who had Boeings on order in the late 1990s when Boeing's quick production ramp-up turned ugly and they fell behind on deliveries.

This is normal industry practice and has absolutely nothing to do with Airbus.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 03 Sep 2006, 04:05

An interesting write-up in the July 34 e3dition of Av Week. They sited 4 areas that had the A380 behind schedule in the latest problem (wiring)..

1. The computer design tool did not accurately depict the aircraft.
2. There were so many changes, and those did not get into the software correctly, that there were errors there.
3. The aluminum wire has a large bend radius, and that was not put in as well.

I forget what the fourth was. I suspect that is not the last time the aluminum wiring is an issue.

achace · Post by **achace** » 03 Sep 2006, 04:28

There has been much said about the aluminium wiring, but probably the use of this is limited to main busbars which are usually fabricated anyway, and some of the high load power cables.

Because the aircraft is so big, there is more available space to accommodate aluminium conductors, something a smaller aircraft (in terms of volume) cannot enjoy.

The selection of aluminium offers weight saving, but its application has limits.

Almost certainly the electronics are conventional copper core because they are very small and need flexibility to get into tight corners, and the fibre optics wont be aluminium.

Cheers
Achace

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 20 Sep 2006, 18:12

Further 6 month delay!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/09 ... delays.ap/

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 20 Sep 2006, 22:24

David747 wrote:Like most Airbus airliners, the A380 will be a technological wonder. With all the cables to support this bird, it is no surprise that there have been delays. Anyways, why is all this negativity surrounding this plane? It seems some people here, and in other places, and pundits like Richard Aboulafia, all want this plane to fail.

I do not believe that Richard Aboulafia has any real problem with Airbus or the A-380. His objections (like mine) seem to center around the economic issues of a very expensive plane to develop, the limited market for such a large plane (how many people really want to fly to a hub city to catch an A-380 to another hub city and then change to a third plane to fly to their deistination?) and major governmental subsidies. Subsidies distort the market.

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 20 Sep 2006, 22:30

RC20 wrote:An interesting write-up in the July 34 e3dition of Av Week. They sited 4 areas that had the A380 behind schedule in the latest problem (wiring)..

1. The computer design tool did not accurately depict the aircraft.
2. There were so many changes, and those did not get into the software correctly, that there were errors there.
3. The aluminum wire has a large bend radius, and that was not put in as well.

I forget what the fourth was. I suspect that is not the last time the aluminum wiring is an issue.

The 4th I believe is Electromagnetic Interference generated around the cables is different from the original Cu and needs to be sorted out. I have read this but can't remember the source.

\Ruscoe

David747 · Post by **David747** » 20 Sep 2006, 22:32

I saw on CNN that Airbus will announce more delays in the coming days? any more news on this issue?

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 20 Sep 2006, 22:51

[quote="PYX"]I have no interest in seeing it fail, but other than size I don't see the "technological wonder" you are taking about.

I think this is one of the basic problems the 380 carries with it.
It's advantages come from it's size, not it's technology.

5000PSI hydraullics are new to commercial aviation but have been used in military aircraft for a long time. GLARE is not being proposed for widespread use on the 350XWB, there must be a reason. Empty and gross weight per seat is more than the 747, but the 380 was designed more than 30 years later!. Inflight entertainment systems are being hard wired at least in the initial aircraft, compounding wiring problems, Boeing are going for wireless, which Airbus will have to do eventually. The computer systems on the 380 are not as "open" as they could be.

Airbus initially sought 15% better economics than the 747, but failed to take into account that the 748 would not stand still, so now over 30 years after the introduction of the 747, the 380 does not have a clear enough advantage over the 747, to make it the clear leader (except for size), that it should be.

It is the fact that even much smaller aircraft like the 787 and proposed 350, will have worse but similar seat costs, which allows the Boeing concept of point to point (now being accepted by airbus with the 350) to become a reality and eat into the 380 market.

In a nutshell it is just not advanced enough, to stand head and shoulders above the opposition, which it clearly should have done.

Ruscoe

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 20 Sep 2006, 23:31

I wonder if the A380 could be converted into a troop transport. If a C-5 costs a billion dollars apiece, imagine how much savings you can get using A380's. The C-5 fleet is undergoing a modernization effort to extend their life, but the cost of the modernization is more than the cost of new A380's and new maintenance equipment/procedures.

Of course, I know that would never happen.
1) That idea would be too clever for our bureacracy known as the federal government.
2) Boeing and Lockheed would stop paying their congressmens.

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 21 Sep 2006, 00:15

Kinda out of left field, but I'll reply.

The C-5 and the A380 are two totally different aircraft with totally different missions. The C-5 is designed to carry bulky cargo with roll on/roll off cargo support. The A380 can't accomplish either of these tasks. Plus the C-5 hasn't been produced in almost 15 years so it isn't like the USAF is ordering new owns. While it is true that troops have flown on C-5, the primary mission of the C-5 is bulk transport. The C-17, while smaller than the C-5 or the A380 is more likely to carry troops, but the USAF is just about finished ordering them and Boeing is about to shut that production line down. The airframe of the C-5 has many more years left in it so replacing it is totally out of the question. Of course Airbus could bid on a replacement contract (Lockheed would probably team with them), but as I said above, the A380 isn't really capable replacing such and aircraft.

The Navy selected an "ordinary" B738 over Lockeed's updated P-3 for their P-3 replacement Aircraft. Now you can point out that BAE wasn't chosen with their Nimrod because they didn't have a US partner, but I think this shows that the DoD is looking at using commercial airframes where possible. I've even heard that Italy is thinking of buying a derivative of the B738 (the wedgetail) that would be serviced by Alitalia, further reducing costs.

That is possible on patrol aircraft, but nothing that Boeing or Airbus currently makes can replace aircraft such as the C-5 or C-17 (ignoring the fact that Boeing does produce the C-17). Of course when specifically deploying troops to the far reaches of the globe, the US Department of Defense does contract out this work to US Flag carriers (such as US Airways) which allows the Air Force to do more with less aircraft.

Where did you get the cost of a C-5 as a billion dollars? A C-5B costs $167.7 million, less than a A380.

Bracebrace · Post by **Bracebrace** » 21 Sep 2006, 01:34

Ruscoe wrote:the 380 does not have a clear enough advantage over the 747, to make it the clear leader (except for size), that it should be.

That A vs B debate again...

Considering the "advantages", you always have to keep one thing in mind: the A380 is a product that is in a "birth" stage, with child diseases but offering a flexible platform for new versions and modifications in the future.

The 747 on the other hand is in a "recycled" stage and by now it is stretched and modified up to its limits, making every further modification more and more difficult with time.

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 21 Sep 2006, 03:54

Bracebrace wrote: The 747 on the other hand is in a "recycled" stage and by now it is stretched and modified up to its limits, making every further modification more and more difficult with time.

Sorry, not true.
The 747-8 will be the first stretch of the 747 fuselage. The -400 is exactly the same length as the -100. There have been shorter versions, but never, until the -8, a longer version.
The 747-100 entered service in January 1970, over 36 years ago, and no one, including airbus, has come up with a better design for a jumbo jet. A good design is like good music; it is timeless.

Stepha380 · Post by **Stepha380** » 21 Sep 2006, 08:01

David747 wrote:I saw on CNN that Airbus will announce more delays in the coming days? any more news on this issue?

Only four aircraft delivered in 2007 instead of 9.
AF deliveries are moved until April 2009.

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 21 Sep 2006, 10:43

More delays!

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1877182,00.html

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 21 Sep 2006, 10:48

Bracebrace I'm not trying to start an AvB war. Ithink it is fair and reasonable to compare and contrast similar aircraft.

However even simple reporting of all the bad news which is coming out regarding the 380 would make it look so.

Ruscoe

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 21 Sep 2006, 10:55

PYX wrote: The 747-xxx entered service in January 1970.

The 747-XXX has not entered service. It has never taken off. The airframe is not airworthy and the engines are mockups. The flight scenes in Casino Royale are presumably fakes.