[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Troll

Well there's a difference between using aluminium composites and using riveted sheets of aliminium. My understanding is that most Boeings still use rivets and sheets of aluminium (at least for the outer skin whereas Airbus employs composites. I could be wrong though but I thought this was one of the major advantages of Airbus over Boeing and one of the biggest reasons why Airbus went from 0 to market leader.

Aluminum alloys, not aluminum composites. Take the Al-Li alloy for instance. It has all the benefits of metal and all the benefits of carbon composites and none of its drawbacks.

It is however more expensive than carbon compisites. Today these plates of alloys are welded together, using few if any rivets. Rivets could well be used, but it saves weight to weld the metal together.

The A350XWB fusilage will be made mostly of Al-Li, laser welded. That means it will be very strong and very light, with all the benefits of metal, the weight of composites and the decades of experience in maintainance that comes with it.

So, rivets were used in the olden days to stitch a fusilage together. Not so much anymore. To some extent of course, but metalurgy has come a long way since the 60s so they're more of a supporting or redundant fasteners.

The reason why Airbus went from 0 to the market leader has much to do with the innovation and forward thinking at Airbus. The use of composites has never been very much at either Airbus or Boeing, although up until this moment Airbus has always used more composites in their planes than Boeing.

The tail of the A300 is made of composites for instance. That's a plane from the 70s!

Anyway, the reason for Airbus going from zero to hero is probably linked to other even more important things than composites.

V

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

You assumed wrong. The A380 is mostly aluminum, very little if any composites.

Approximately 25 % of the A380 is made of composite materials.

By comparison, take a look at some of today's fighter jets and some planes still under construction:
F18: 16 %
F22: 20 %
F35: 35 %
A350: 45 % (+ 17 % Al Li alloy)
B787: mostly (that's all I could find, sorry).

If you want to know which parts of the A380 are made of composites, take a peek here. Another question to the aircraft engineers/pilots here: what if a lightning strikes an aircraft made mostly out of composites?

Does anyone know what the percentage of composites on the Dreamliner is? All I could find is `mostly' (> 50 %?, > 80 %)?

I've taken a tour at Eurocopter and they claim that because they make some crucial parts from composites, their maintenance intervals are a lot longer than that of their competitors.

[GSixZero]

quote: 787 Dreamliner

The 787 will contain just 20 percent aluminum. Composites will make up nearly 100 percent of the 787’s skin and 50 percent of all materials in the plane.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

A350: 45 % (+ 17 % Al Li alloy)

...and the other 38%?

also are we talking about the A350 mk1, mk2 or XWB?

V

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by voodoo

...and the other 38%?

also are we talking about the A350 mk1, mk2 or XWB?

V

Well, I got the information from a German web page. I'm not really sure which model they were referring to, but I assume it's the Mk 2 since it's a rather recent report (July 2006).

If anybody has more accurate information … 

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo

The A380 can probably freight whales, but it is not confined to that.. do you know.

How are you going to get in a long whale container without a nose door?

Originally Posted by voodoo

Aluminum alloys, not aluminum composites. Take the Al-Li alloy for instance. It has all the benefits of metal and all the benefits of carbon composites and none of its drawbacks.

Al-Li has the strength, modulus, weight, corrosion, and fatigue performance of CFRP? No.

Originally Posted by voodoo

The tail of the A300 is made of composites for instance. That's a plane from the 70s!

Yea, look how well those Airbus composites served American Airlines!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell

Al-Li has the strength, modulus, weight, corrosion, and fatigue performance of CFRP? No.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but yes. It has all the benefits of CFRP and none of the disadvantages.

Yea, look how well those Airbus composites served American Airlines!

Served them quite well. They use a lot of A300s.

V

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Sorry to rain on your parade, but yes. It has all the benefits of CFRP and none of the disadvantages.

Thanks for providing the facts to back up your assertion!

[TETENAL]

The delivery of the A380 has been delayed by one year. This is starting to sound like Vista.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The delivery of the A380 has been delayed by one year. This is starting to sound like Vista.

Why would they delay it for a year. I thought they had like 9 of these things flying already. Just deliver one of them. Do like M$, let the customer work out the bugs.

heheheeheehehe

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Why would they delay it for a year. I thought they had like 9 of these things flying already. Just deliver one of them. Do like M$, let the customer work out the bugs.

heheheeheehehe

That is the million dollar question.. seeing as Airbus has already:

- Designed the A380
- Made the tools for A380 production
- Built 9 A380s already
- Flown the A380 already
- Is almost done with the flight certification of the A380
- ...?

Why such a long delay in production? Something is wrong in the production flow, but what that is only EADS knows. We will probably not know until the A380 is in full production.

Airbus is like Apple in many ways. One thing is being extremely secretive about how its mechanisms work and another is the extremely rare ability to screw up when one least expects it.

V

[driven]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The delivery of the A380 has been delayed by one year. This is starting to sound like Vista.

The difference is that you can beat real dollars that Vista will crash shortly after launch. Hopefully we don't say the same about the A380.

[analogika]

Actually, it's quite well documented that one of the major problems in the production flow are the far-too-numerous customization options - one of the selling points of the aircraft.

It's a typical case of designers and marketers not asking engineers.

It turns out that nearly EIGHTY PERCENT of cable trunks need to be completely reconfigured for the available customizations (out of dozens of kilometers of wiring), basically requiring a completely custom re-wiring for each, rather than a standard-series electrical system with some adaptations for each customer.

Morons.

[Buckaroo]

I thought they fixed this by the supplier of the fuselage delivering each seperately.

[marden]

The Seattle Times: Business & technology: Airbus A380

First profitable A380 superjumbo will now be the 421st sold, Airbus says

By Richard Blackden
Bloomberg News

Archive | Diagram of the Airbus A380

Airbus, the world's largest maker of commercial aircraft, conceded today that the chances of making a profit on the 555-seat A380 model slipped years into the future because of cost overruns and production delays.

The planemaker will reach the breakeven point in the program with the delivery of the 420th A380, according to the latest analysis, compared with 270 aircraft in a 2005 business plan, Airbus said today in a report posted on the Web site of parent company European, Aeronautic Defense & Space (EADS).

Airbus has so far received orders for only 159 A380s and customers, angered by the delays, have threatened to cancel some contracts. Under current planning, Toulouse, France-based Airbus will deliver only 84 of the planes by 2010, compared with the 159 aircraft estimated as recently as June, with a total operating loss in the period of $6 billion.

EADS said Oct. 3 that the A380's first delivery is now scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2007, a year after the most recent plan and the third postponement in 16 months. The delays, first disclosed in June 2005, have prompted the departure of two top executives. Airbus estimated as recently as mid-2004 that the A380 would be profitable after 250 deliveries.

The A380's lifetime deliveries will total 751 aircraft, unchanged from a 2005 forecast, Airbus Chief Financial Officer Andreas Sperl said in the Web site report. That compares with 1,000 A380s that Airbus expected to sell over the model's half- century lifecycle in May 2004.

Airbus risks airlines making operating-cost comparisons with Boeing's smaller 787 model, which will be going into service about the same time, said Hans Weber, president of San Diego-based Tecop International, a consulting company.

Tecop has estimated Airbus will sell 496 A380s, including 43 freighter versions, through 2025, and "since we did this study in 2001, we think there are indications the number will be smaller," Weber said. The A380 is designed to serve routes linking large hub airports, while the 787 will allow more so- called point-to-point routes between less populated cities.

The Seattle Times: Business & Technology: First profitable A380 superjumbo will now be the 421st sold, Airbus says

[KeyLimePi]

The A380 is starting to remind me of the L-1011. That plane was also very advanced for its time but it ran into problems, both physcial and political, and they never sold enough to make a profit on it. It nearly bankrupt Lockheed.

Helluva airplane, though.

[Buckaroo]

I wonder what the break even point will be when they actually get to 421? After labor strikes, etc.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by KeyLimePi 

The A380 is starting to remind me of the L-1011. That plane was also very advanced for its time but it ran into problems, both physcial and political, and they never sold enough to make a profit on it. It nearly bankrupt Lockheed.

Helluva airplane, though.

The L-1011 is still an amazing piece of work. Very advanced for its time. I suppose if Airbus didn't have a complete family of planes then it might well be in the same situation as Lockheed was in with the Tristar.

The A380 is going through a lot of straits but it is a niche plane, even for Airbus. The largest market is in narrowbodies and medium-widebodies. The A380 may well be a loss leader, but it won't scare Airbus away from the civil-aviation industry.

That's my prediction. Besides, a duopoly is far more preferrable to monopoly. Imagine how much MS would suck without Apple keeping them on their collective toes. Competition is very good and yet Apple and MS don't split the market as brotherly between themselves as Airbus and Boeing.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I wonder what the break even point will be when they actually get to 421? After labor strikes, etc.

Hard to say. Losses can be cut with tax breaks, because Airbus has a whole family of planes that is selling well. On the whole, this is just an excercise for accountants.

Still, I'm reserving any judgement until I see the A380 fly in revenue service for a few years. It's too soon now. The plane isn't in mass production yet. Every single body flying now was pretty much hand-crafted - at least on the inside. The fusilage and the main parts are of course all ready.

V

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The L-1011 is still an amazing piece of work. Very advanced for its time. I suppose if Airbus didn't have a complete family of planes then it might well be in the same situation as Lockheed was in with the Tristar.

The A380 is going through a lot of straits but it is a niche plane, even for Airbus. The largest market is in narrowbodies and medium-widebodies. The A380 may well be a loss leader, but it won't scare Airbus away from the civil-aviation industry.

That's my prediction. Besides, a duopoly is far more preferrable to monopoly. Imagine how much MS would suck without Apple keeping them on their collective toes. Competition is very good and yet Apple and MS don't split the market as brotherly between themselves as Airbus and Boeing.

V

I was under the impression that the L-1011 was a faulty design and at one time I would have refused to fly on the craft. But after checking Google looking for crashes I was surprised to find this:

Crashes and accidents - L-1011

This lists the serious accidents and crashes in the history of the L-1011 TriStar
Unlike its rival, the L-1011 got a good start when it comes to reliability. Despite the initial problems with the engines, after Rolls-Royce bankruptcy, the TriStar has been relatively lucky, at least when comparing with the DC-10. Here are, however, all the serious accidents with the L-1011

Eastern Airlines, 29/12 1972

Late evening 29th of December 1972, Eastern Airlines flight 401 approached Miami with 176 passengers on board. When the gear was extended the crew found that the nose wheel didn't locked in its position. The aircraft aborted the landing, climbed and the flight crew of three tried to solve the problem. Then it's a bit strange. When this problem occurred, it seems as the crew became to busy trying to find out weather the gear was down and locked or not, that they failed to notice that they were loosing altitude. Eventually the aircraft went down some 20 miles from Miami Airport. A total of 103 passengers and crew lost their lives in this accident, including two that died later on hospital due to their injuries.
The aircraft involved in this accident was: 193A-1011 registered N310EA

Saudi Arabian Airlines 19/8 1980

The most serious accident up do this date, where the L-1011 has been involved, occurred in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Six minutes after take-off from Riyadh, the crew got a warning of fire in the aft cargo compartment. A few minutes after that passengers reported smoke in the rear cabin and panic broke out. The aircraft turned and returned to Riyadh were it landed safely. The crew continued to taxi clear from the runway and told the tower that they would evacuate. But when the aircraft came to a stop and no evacuation were done, the rescue personnel decided to open one of the doors. When they succeeded, they found the whole cabin in flames. All 301 passengers and crew were killed. The cause of the fire is unclear, but more seriously is the fact that the crew simply doesn't seems to have realised how serious the situation was. After the landing they should have stopped the aircraft and evacuate immediately.
The aircraft involved in this accident was: 193S-1169 registered HZ-AHK

Delta Air Lines 2/8 1985

The TriStar was on approach to Dallas/Ft Worth Airport in very bad weather conditions when it suddenly suffered from windshear. The aircraft touched down short of the runway, on the highway, where it stuck a car and killing the driver. Then the aircraft became airborne and touched down on the runway. It did however started to drift and ended up crashing into a water tank. 135 passengers were killed and 30 survived.
The aircraft involved in this accident was: 193C-1163 registered N726DA

Trans World Airlines 30/7 1992

Immediately after take-off from JFK, when the aircraft reached some 20 feet of altitude, the stick-shaker activated. The flight crew closed the throttles, landed the aircraft, and applied full reverse-thrust and maximum breaks. The runway was however to short and the crew turned the aircraft into the grass where the gear broke and the aircraft caught fire. All passengers were able to evacuate and only one received serious injuries. No one was killed. Later it became evident that this particular aircraft experienced no less than nine similar false stall warnings. The maintenance department ignored this fact and the aircraft were in service. The crew failed to notice that is was a false stall warning and aborted the take-off after lift-off.
The aircraft involved in this accident was: 193B-1014 registered N11002

Delta Air Lines 24/8 1995

Inflight, over the Pacific, the aircraft suddenly experienced explosive decompressions. It however remained airborne and returned to Los Angeles were it landed safely. When it landed it became evident that the aircraft had a 3.6 meter wide hole in the fuselage.
The aircraft involved in this accident was: 193A-1003 registered N781DL

L-1011 write-offs

Date: Registration: Serial: Airline:
721229 N310EA 193A-1011 Eastern Airlines
800819 HZ-AHK 193S-1169 Saudi Arabian Airlines
850802 N726DA 193C-1163 Delta Air Lines
910627 D-AERI 193L-1114 LTU
920730 N11002 193B-1014 Trans World Airlines
950824 N781DL 193A-1003 Delta Air Lines

Crashes and accidents - L-1011

[mduell]

Note that the breakeven figure increase (~250-270 -> 420) includes a decrease in IRR from 19% to 13%. How much higher would it be to maintian a decent IRR? Mind you the cost of capital is around 10% according to Airbus.

[Peter]

you'd refuse to fly on an aircraft?
No aircraft thats actually being used by an airline would be that accident prone

[ghporter]

That list of "major accidents" is pretty short. There have been a bunch of accidents with 747s (including the Tenerife, Canary Islands accident where two 747s taxied into each other in a fog).

The only really technical design accident with the L-1011 was the Eastern accident; nobody knew that the autopilot would disengage without warning anyone, and while the crew was investigating the nosewheel problem, someone applied just enough pressure to the yoke. The autopilot disengaged and the plane went into the (commanded by yoke input) shallow dive that ended in the ground.

The Saudi accident was pure bad behavior by the aircrew-one must ALWAYS consider a fire indication a real threat and evacuate the aircraft immediately. The first Delta accident had nothing to do with the type of aircraft-any aircraft in that location would have been impacted by windshear. The TWA accident was entirely due to bad maintenance practices compounded by aircrew not crosschecking to see that they weren't really stalling. The second Delta accident was something the FAA attributed to a combination of metal fatigue and corrosion that was missed because of Delta's maintenance schedule and a lack of management commitment to maintenance.

Of these FIVE accidents, only one was at all due to the aircraft's design, and that was corrected. The autopilot problem's investigation led to ALL commercial aircraft autopilots being altered to notify the aircrew when they disengaged.

I've been inerested in airplanes since BEFORE the L-1011 came out. I had a poster of that HUGE aircraft on the wall of my room in junior high. It's a great plane with a great record.

[driven]

Wasn't the Eastern accident ('72) the subject of a movie at some point? (I have a vague memory of this ...)

[forkies]

looks like fedex gave airbus 380 the finger

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by forkies 

looks like fedex gave airbus 380 the finger

A major blow to the A380F. A bit strange IMO since FedEx were the last to order the A380 and thus have been waiting for it for the least amount of time.

Now it is just UPS with 10 frames and ILFC with 5 A380Fs left.

V

[Buckaroo]

A380 redsign to acommadate late deliveries.

[Sayf-Allah]

The 380 test landing in sidewind (35-45knots) in Keflavík, Iceland.

Mbl.is - Frétt - Aðflugsæfingar Airbus A380 tókust vel

[Sky Captain]

That's cross-wind.
Any flight into Newark NJ is a 25mph+ crosswind.
I have to drop a wing to stop the drift from centerline.(sideslip in)
The bigger planes you crab over the runway, stab the rudder and let it drop to the runway.
To drop a wing over could drag an engine pod on the pavement.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

That's cross-wind.

I wasn't sure what it was called. Thanks for the correction.

It was weird though. International flights had been cancelled that same morning because of the weather (second storm of the season). When Airbus heard that they decided to take the plane up to us (Iceland) to check it out.

[Sky Captain]

If it's for test flight purposes and to find what the demonstrated cross wind ability is, it's just fine to do so.
But the last thing you want to do is crack up a plane on landing. Full of passangers.
It's a wise decision not to land in adverse conditions.
I've diverted to alternate airports before and waited out adverse conditions.
But may have attempted a landing alone(without passangers, ferry flight).

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The L-1011 is still an amazing piece of work. Very advanced for its time. I suppose if Airbus didn't have a complete family of planes then it might well be in the same situation as Lockheed was in with the Tristar.

Growing up, I was a commercial passenger plane fanatic, and the TriStar was my favorite. A safe plane, and more elegant looking than the DC-10.

[Buckaroo]

Oops

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Oops

That's a pretty cool model!

Next up, please psot pix of crashing R/C model Mercedes's to show us how unsafe those socialist death traps are...

Oh, and WTF? -

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

[img]already posted funny picture[/img]

A380 redsign to acommadate late deliveries.

There's neither a red sign nor a comma and a date in that picture!
What were you trying to say??

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Growing up, I was a commercial passenger plane fanatic, and the TriStar was my favorite. A safe plane, and more elegant looking than the DC-10.

Well said and I agree completely. Although I wasn't born when the TriStar made its first flights, I have always been impressed with it. A very elegant and classic design.



V

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by badidea 

There's neither a red sign nor a comma and a date in that picture!
What were you trying to say??

Sorry, I was just being bad.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Oops

So what's that a picture of? Is it a fake? Did that happen? Tell!

[exca1ibur]

Do you see the two radio antenna on the top of the plane? Its a large scale RC, not a real A380

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

So what's that a picture of? Is it a fake? Did that happen? Tell!

It's an Remote Controlled airplane. Just do a search in Googel for "A380 crash" and this is the first link. It's a joke, I'm just being bad.

[badidea]

[TETENAL]

The movie of the crash:

http://www.modelljets.com/Daten/peter380.avi

[ghporter]

What sort of plugins does QuickTime need to play that? It complains that I'm missing something but doesn't tell me what.

[TETENAL]

I use 3ivx, but it should work with DivX as well. I'm on a G5 right now, so I can't tell which of those is universal.

3ivx D4 X 4.5.1 - MacUpdate
DivX 6 Codec for Mac

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

What sort of plugins does QuickTime need to play that? It complains that I'm missing something but doesn't tell me what.

Don't bother. It's not worth even starting up quicktime for!

[Mediaman_12]

You can tell it's 'scale' anyway. Look 'handholes' in the end of that ad board. there's also that rock over on the right.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Originally Posted by mduell

Al-Li has the strength, modulus, weight, corrosion, and fatigue performance of CFRP? No.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but yes. It has all the benefits of CFRP and none of the disadvantages.

What do you make of the recent statements from Leahy about using CFRP panels instead of AlLi on the A350XBW?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What do you make of the recent statements from Leahy about using CFRP panels instead of AlLi on the A350XBW?

That the latest revision of the A350 has an EIS so far in the future that Airbus might as well use CFRP fusilage. It is cheaper than LiAl, but otherwise gives the same structural benefits. It makes sense for the industry to change to composite.. price is everything and profit margins rule in the end. Airbus wasn't ready to go fully composite with the original A350 before. Now, they believe they are. I really don't care either way, but I know I prefer metal planes. A personal preferance.

Leahy is a salesman and like Randy Baesler at Boeing and Steve Jobs at Apple, I don't take their words as gospel.

V

[glideslope]

I'd say "if the 350 has a EIS in the future". Nothing is certain. Especially after the crazy cancelation of the EADS Board meeting yesterday. The good old French and their non repayable loans. Although, it could be a disguised attempt to fend off Russian investment.

EADS needs to be watching Russia and their desire to own EADS (49%)

Even before the 350 launch they need to demonstrate the 380 can be built without the loss of thousands of EU jobs.

Then the 320 expansion is no small tast involving as much management ability as a launch. Also explaining how the expansion will not layoff thousands of EU workers. (China)

And when they start to get this done Boeing will drop the 737/777 replacment on them.

I love it when this thread pops up in here.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

That the latest revision of the A350 has an EIS so far in the future that Airbus might as well use CFRP fusilage. It is cheaper than LiAl, but otherwise gives the same structural benefits. It makes sense for the industry to change to composite.. price is everything and profit margins rule in the end. Airbus wasn't ready to go fully composite with the original A350 before. Now, they believe they are. I really don't care either way, but I know I prefer metal planes. A personal preferance.

Leahy is a salesman and like Randy Baesler at Boeing and Steve Jobs at Apple, I don't take their words as gospel.

V

Well, Steve is pretty dam close. Randy uses facts on his blog. Leahy is all PR Bullsh**.