[FulcrumPilot]

THE TECHNOLOGY INSIDE THE A380
By Matthias Gründer

Ever since the project was first conceived in 1994, the A380, which at that time was still known as the A3XX, has been an aircraft of superlatives: it will be 73m long, weigh 560t, have a wingspan of nearly 80m and carry 555 passengers at a speed of Mach 0.85 over distances of 15,100km. It will have 35% more seats than the Boeing 747, but 49% more cabin space. Not all of this space can be used for more seats, for example around the points giving access to the upper deck, which is why the manufacturer is thinking of installing bars, fitness rooms or shops here.

Airbus A380

Never before in the history of civil aviation have engineers been tasked with a technological challenge on the same scale. But building a passenger aircraft of these dimensions would not have been possible at all before, at least not if it was to be operated at a profit. It is only thanks to a true revolution in the area of the materials used in aircraft construction that it has become conceivable to even think of such a project: some 40% of all the components used on the A380 are to be fabricated out of various synthetic materials (see also "Fortron film flies in Airbus” in FLUG REVUE 12/2002).

These materials, which in some cases are completely new developments, are not only more resistant to environmental influences than the metals used up to now, but they will also help to significantly reduce the enormous weight of the aircraft. Experience suggests that during the design phase an aircraft always becomes too heavy as the designers always aim for high strength. Only later does the weight reduction phase begin, when the results of computer modelling through to flight trials are used to identify areas in which savings can be made. The more successful this phase is, the lighter and hence the more economical the end product will be.

The use of such large amounts of composite materials implies a significant leap forward in quality. Whatever is needed in the way of glass- and carbon-fibre reinforced mats, profiles and moulded parts will require automated production rather than manual labour, as has been customary up to now – and the development of numerous new materials and machines, from autoclaves through to industrial sewing machines.

Airbus Deutschland has founded a Composite Technology Center in its Stade plant specifically to develop such technologies. Here, carbon-fibre mats are sewn, textile objects of all possible geometries are impregnated with industrial resins and are moulded under pressure and temperature into components that will fulfil a wide range of functions. This work is supported financially by the German government's aerospace research programme and by the state of Lower Saxony.

Working closely with the Bremen-based Fraunhofer Institute for Production Technology and Applied Materials Research, the carbon-fibre producer Hexcel, the textile manufacturer Saertex and the DLR Institute for Structural Mechanics in Braunschweig plus numerous other companies and institutions, Stade is thus developing into a major competence centre for composite technology in aircraft construction. From semi-finished products through to surface protection, the steadily increasing demand for components made out of carbon-fibre reinforced plastics (CFRPs) is to be satisfied here, and not just for the A380, but for all Airbus programmes through to the A400M military transporter. The biggest component to have been built so far is the rear pressure bulkhead for the A380, which measures 5.5m x 6.2m.

Calculations performed during an early phase of the work indicated that the new technologies would not only enormously reduce the mass of the ultra-large aircraft, but that, if the parts could be successfully series produced, then cost savings in the order of magnitude of up to 30% might be achieved. Plenty of reason, then, to step up the combined efforts in this area.

On the A380, all the control surfaces, the floors of the decks and the above-mentioned rear bulkhead are to be constructed out of CFRPs, plus, for the first time in international aircraft construction, the wing boxes. These, compared with conventional metal constructions, will alone bring weight savings of around 1,500kg.

LAMINATE OUT OF GLASS AND ALUMINIUM

Another new material is glass fibre reinforced aluminium (GLARE), a laminate that consists of several layers of thin aluminium film and resin-impregnated glass fibre mats. The whole thing is then baked in an oven rather like bread, and, being 10% less dense than aluminium, it is significantly lighter, while also being significantly more robust. Tests have shown that cracks artificially introduced into this material did not expand even after several thousand hours of simulated flying. The entire upper stressed-skin fuselage on the A380 is to be constructed out of GLARE. This wonder-material is manufactured at Stork Aerospace/Fokker in Papendrecht, the Netherlands, where production commenced in July 2002.

The lower stressed-skin fuselage will still be constructed out of aluminium, however it will no longer be riveted but welded. The laser welding procedure is a production method developed by Airbus Deutschland, in which eight metres of outer skin can be attached to metal sheets and stringers for longitudinal stiffening per minute. This technology has already been used for some time on the much smaller Airbus A318.

Weight savings are also being made in the design of the hydraulic control system, which, instead of the 3,000 psi that were customary before, now operates at a pressure of 5,000 psi, which otherwise is only found on military jets. Two hydraulic control circuits and two electrical control circuits will replace the three hydraulic circuits previously used, resulting in a lighter and more reliable dual architecture. Similar efforts are being taken by the other Airbus partners and systems suppliers, so that the A380 is becoming a true compilation of the latest technologies, something which leaves the competition looking way behind the times.

State-of-the-art technology is also being implemented, for example, in the cockpit: eight large, colour multi-function displays, sidestick control and two interactive computers for the flight management system with tracker ball control are only a fraction of what awaits the crew during flight.

COMPLETELY NEW TRANSPORT METHODS

But it is not only research and development that are breaking new ground. Airbus's logistics planners face their biggest challenge in co-ordinating activities that are spread all around Europe. The division of work on the construction of the A380 follows the tried and tested pattern: Airbus France is responsible for the cockpit, the centre section of the fuselage and final assembly, Airbus Deutschland for the front and rear sections of the fuselage, the vertical tail, internal finishing and paintwork, Airbus España for the horizontal tail and Airbus UK for the wings.

Numerous suppliers from all over the world are providing subsystems and components. However, due to the size of the subassemblies, a completely new transport system is having to be developed, as transportation by air with the Beluga super-transporter is no longer feasible. Work is now under way on a combination of sea, river and road transportation.

The transport process begins with loading of the approx. 44t German sections of the fuselage, on a roll-on roll-off ship that has yet to be procured. The wings will be brought in the British Mostyn (a complete set will weigh about 33t). The front section of the fuselage will be unloaded in St. Nazaire, France, attached to the cockpit that has been built there and then re-shipped again, along with the centre section of the fuselage. The next stop is then Bordeaux, where all the subassemblies will be loaded onto river boats together with the Spanish deliveries and transported some 80km inland. The final leg of the journey then entails transportation over roads that have still to be built to Toulouse. The entire process will have to be repeated once a week in order to achieve the planned production rate of four aircraft per month. This at any rate is the present state of planning and does not take into account the objections of French residents to road transportation in the affected areas.

When the first blueprints for the A380 were developed back in 1996, the question was considered of whether the subassemblies to be transported should be designed in smaller units, so as to enable transportation as previously using the Belugas. All the calculations have shown since then that, for example, if the fuselage sections were constructed as only half-shells this would result in irreparable distortion of the structure during transportation, so the system described was the only possible choice. The possibility of piggyback transportation of the wings on a modified A340 was similarly rejected as not feasible after thorough investigation.

If the A380 is to celebrate its maiden flight at the beginning of 2006, then deliveries of the first subassemblies will have to begin in the autumn of 2003 – a lot of work for the logistics people, who have another year to get to grips with the problem. For at that point a complete fuselage together with wings is to be shipped to Dresden for exhaustive fatigue testing over the next few years. IMA and IABG will be carrying out these tests as they have done in the past on other Airbuses. Even if all those involved on the A380 programme are still a little reticent, nevertheless the giant is slowly taking shape.

[FulcrumPilot]

A380 PREPARES FOR ITS ROLL-OUT
By Sebastian Steinke

It is full house at Station 30 in the A380 assembly hangar at Airbus's Toulouse site: with its nose by the gate, as if it were about to roll out at any moment, prototype MSN 001 stands parked, flanked by MSN 002 and MSN 004 in the dock. When FLUG REVUE visited at the end of October, the first flying prototype, still with its green primer coat, was in the process of having engines two and four fitted. Next to a set of brand-new tyres, the elongated fairings for the flap drive units were waiting to be assembled. On the giant A380, they are about as big as phone boxes. MSN 001 will spend about another four weeks here so that, in addition to two other Trent 970 engines, the auxiliary power unit in the stern, the air-conditioning system and the fold-out ram air turbine (RAT), which feeds the emergency power system, can be assembled.

After that, for safety reasons, the prototype will go outside and spend between four and six weeks at external Station 18, where the tank system (initially with helium) and then the pressure cabin will be tested for the first time. Following a short intermezzo in the flight operations hangar, where MSN 001 and MSN 004 are exceptionally being painted instead of in Hamburg, the premier jet will revert to Station 18 after the ceremonial roll-out of the A380 on 18 and 19 January adorned in the future house colours of Airbus.

The maiden flight will probably take place in the first half of February, but before then Airbus has planned in another spell on Station 22 so that the latest software updates and equipment changes which have come about during the assembly period can be installed for the first flight. Finally, to prepare for the maiden flight, the entire aircraft will move back to Station 17, where it will be handed over to the in-house test flight organisation. Now the radio equipment will be checked, and the reverse thrust and RAT will be deployed on a test basis. The oxygen system will also be checked. As soon as engines and APU are running on the stand, the taxi trials and brake tests can commence. From a low speed, the prototype will then accelerate at full tempo along the Toulouse runway to decision speed V1. One to two days after this phase, the prototype will be ready for its maiden flight, assuming that A380 chief engineer Robert Lafontan has signed the clearance for flight.

“Structurally, the A380 looks very good,” says Charles Champion, Executive Vice President A380 programme, assessing the current production status of his new giant. There are no fundamental problems, says the young-looking engineer, just the usual “minor problems” on the production side, such as production tolerances and new systems. “It runs better than expected. Naturally you get a lot of Problem Reports (PRs) on any completely new aircraft, including ours.” For example, current issues include power distribution with novel, electronic load management, cabin communications and even systems which, although proven on other aircraft, have to be re-certificated for the A380 against the latest and in many cases more stringent regulations.

To ensure that the above procedure runs smoothly and on schedule through to the A380 maiden flight, the MAP (“Mise au point”) department is taking charge. This is headed by Marc Cousin of the UK, who already has to worry about MSN 002 even before the maiden flight of MSN 001. “We need the second aircraft for the ground vibration tests that have to be carried out before the first flight. At issue here are the vibration characteristics and the vibration damping on the real aircraft, as opposed to the theoretical results of the flutter calculation.” The ground vibration tests entail attaching inconspicuous vibration generators to the jacked-up aircraft and measuring the accelerations. However, as Cousin explains, “It is not a violent vibration test. You would not see much on a film.”

The static test fuselage MSN 5000 with its wings is also needed before the maiden flight: it is used to calibrate the sensitive measuring devices for the structural loading which are to be installed on board MSN 001. The test fuselage is already parked in its “stretch bed” in the test hangar. As if one were dealing with a huge puppet, a complex structure consisting of 300 movable mountings with 2,000 force application points, through which aerodynamic loads can be induced, hangs down from a scaffolding constructed out of 1,000 tonnes of steel, the height of a house and almost opaque, which extends up to the ceiling. Initially the test engineers will concentrate on the “normal” limiting load, raising the A380 wingtips by up to four metres, but eventually, the ultimate load will finally be ascertained here by brutally yanking the wingtips of MSN 5000 upwards by ten metres. In a separate control room with 20 display workstations, it is possible to monitor 8,000 parameters during these tests. As well as these tests, the last piece of the rear fuselage section of MSN 5000, constructed out of carbon fibre, will undergo structural investigation in Hamburg. For this purpose, the massive rudder fin will be laid flat at 90 degrees in a hangar in Finkenwerder.

The director in charge of the A380 structure is the German Jan Stüben. He explains that the design of the A380 has been calculated “conservatively” and has additional safety tolerances built in to it. “We start on the safe side and then optimise the weight,” he says, explaining his strategy. “It is an interplay between strength and weight. The more test results we have, the more we can improve the structure. That was also the case with the A340-600.”

Despite the complicated selection, Stüben is convinced by the mix of materials used on the A380. “It may be unusual, but it is the best for the required tasks.” The attachment of the wing he sees as the biggest design challenge. “With the conventional configuration, we are coming up against a limit. The forces on the bolts are becoming enormous.” In his view, it is difficult to imagine any aircraft significantly bigger than the A380, at least in the classic configuration used today.

However, the A380 family, which was designed with growth in mind from the start and will later be supplemented by versions for higher take-off weight (HGW) and higher capacity (A380-900), is well within the limits of what is technically feasible. The precursor to those variants will be the heavier A380-800F, a freight carrier capable of carrying a 150 tonne payload, over whose detailed design the engineers are poring, now that the A380-800 design work is complete.

Robert Lafontan, Senior Vice President Engineering for the A380 programme talks of a new accent in material selection. “We decided in the middle of October to use more components out of aluminium lithium in future instead of carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP). We can use that for the outside skin and also build stringers with it. Moreover, today we have ever better GLARE applications. This decision is not restricted to the A380, but applies across the company.”

Even if the recent weighing of the first real assemblies did not flag up any actual weight problem on the A380, reworking some of the components would make it possible to lose “hundreds of kilograms” (Lafontan) on the fuselage alone. The assemblies designed for the reinforced A380-800F cargo plane should therefore be adopted into the other A380-800 production at the latest from the first A380-800F production number, MSN 035, according to the chief engineer. Already today work is in progress on individual components for twenty A380-800's.

Lafontan explains the slight scepticism at Airbus over the material of CFRP, which stands in strong contrast to the Boeing concept for the 7E7, in terms of the lack of weight advantages in some cases. “Many component parts do not get any lighter when you build them out of carbon fibre.” Lafontan plans to retain the extremely strong, but relatively expensive CFRP for the outer part of the A380 wing. “For some tasks, carbon is the best solution. But for certain shock loads you have to take precautionary design measures. In our industry one has to consider the risk.”

To avoid the risk of any structural surprises, Airbus shipped a second winged A380 test fuselage with the internal factory number of MSN 5001 out to IABG in Dresden for dynamic structural testing at the beginning of October. At present the final assembly team, who have travelled in specially from Toulouse, are assembling fuselage segments and wings there in order that the test programme can commence in September 2005. Using hydraulic and pneumatic jigs, the aircraft can be exposed to the stresses and strains of 5,000 simulated flight cycles. The accelerated wear programme ranges from bumpy taxiing over poor runways through to the toughest turbulence, and should be completed in time for type certification in 2006.

From FLUG REVUE 12/2004

[Fyre4ce]

As an automotive engineer, I am always amazed by the massive fuel consumption of those big jet air liners. Let's compare its fuel consumption to that of my Chevy Cavalier.

Airbus A380:

Looking at the specifications, it has four turbofan engines with a maximum thrust of about 310 kN each. That's a total maximum thrust of 1.24 MN but the thrust at cruise at high altitude is probably more like 0.5 MN. Take a conservative estimate for the TSFC of the engines as 35 mg/N/s, and that gives a fuel consumption of 18-40 kg/s (or about 40-90 pounds/s). For a four hour flight the plane must take off with roughly 250,000 kg of fuel on board, roughly 46% of the vehicle's maximum takeoff weight.

The vehicle will carry 555 passengers at Mach 0.85. If the speed of sound is 295 m/s at cruising altitude and if wind speed is neglected, the ground speed is 250 m/s or 560 mph.

Chevrolet Cavalier:

The four-cylinder piston engine in the car, with a maximum rated output of 143 horsepower, consumes fuel at a rate of about 35 miles per gallon on the highway at a cruising speed of 70 mph. Assuming a fuel density of 6.5 pounds per gallon, this comes to a fuel consumption rate of 13 pounds per hour, or about 1/5000th the rate of the A380. With luggage, the Cavalier will carry three passengers comfortably.

Comparing the efficiencies of the two modes of transportation, by calculating the "people-miles" per pound of fuel, the following results are obtained:

A380: 2.2 people-mi/pound
Cavalier: 16.2 people-mi/pound

So, driving my car is more than seven times as efficient as taking an airplane like the A380, and a hell of a lot less expensive. :-) Can you imagine paying the gas bills for one of these things?

DISCLAIMER: the above analysis is an approximation only, designed to give an order-of-magnitude comparison. Do not fuel your aircraft based on these numbers.

[Luca Rescigno]

Those pictures showing the interior of the plane remind me of an old 50s concept drawing of what airliners would be like in the near future. It was laid out just like a train, with 6-passenger rooms with a table in the middle taking up about 2/3 of the width. Everyone looked so comfortable. And of course those ideas worked out really well.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:

So, driving my car is more than seven times as efficient as taking an airplane like the A380, and a hell of a lot less expensive. :-) Can you imagine paying the gas bills for one of these things?

I think you are forgetting that in your car you will take at least 10 times longer to get to a given destination as compared to an airliner. So this will make it pretty close in terms of fuel consumption.


Edit:
actually, if a Boeing 747 travels say 8000 miles using about 50,000 gallons of fuel, carrying about 400 SOB you will get a milege of 64 mpg for one passenger.

Seems like pretty darn better than if I hopped on into my good ol' saab!

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
I think you are forgetting that in your car you will take at least 10 times longer to get to a given destination as compared to an airliner. So this will make it pretty close in terms of fuel consumption.

That analysis included speed to the first power. If you wanted to transport a family of 4 people 500 miles, it would take 900 pounds of fuel by airliner and 120 pounds by car. It is the equivalent of a "miles per gallon." You end up paying a lot less money making the trip by car than by airliner.

Of course, there may be some value to people making the trip in a shorter period of time (there always is) so that is a factor. An airliner travels about 7 times as fast as a car and consumes fuel at seven times the rate per unit distance per person, so basically you have to pay in proportion to how fast you want to make the trip. Want to get to your destination seven times as fast? You have to pay seven times as much. In this sense it even out.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
I think you are forgetting that in your car you will take at least 10 times longer to get to a given destination as compared to an airliner. So this will make it pretty close in terms of fuel consumption.


Edit:
actually, if a Boeing 747 travels say 8000 miles using about 50,000 gallons of fuel, carrying about 400 SOB you will get a milege of 64 mpg for one passenger.

Seems like pretty darn better than if I hopped on into my good ol' saab!

I think your numbers are off. I don't think a 747 could travel 8000 miles on 50,000 gallons. Maybe if it were traveling in the jet stream, but on average I think it would take more than that. Where did you get that from?

EDIT: I think your numbers are a little ambitious (5000 miles on 50,000 gallons with 350 passengers is more reasonable) but are within an order of magnitude. The difference is that you assumed there is only one person in the car. Adding people and luggage to a car does not change the gas mileage on the highway by that much so you basically multiply the efficiency as you add people. If you are traveling alone, the car loses much of its advantage. If you are traveling with 3 people, the car is the clear winner.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:
I think your numbers are off. I don't think a 747 could travel 8000 miles on 50,000 gallons. Maybe if it were traveling in the jet stream, but on average I think it would take more than that. Where did you get that from?

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/747/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
http://www.aircraft-info.net/aircraf...oeing/747-400/

Its about 57, 285 gallons, max capacity. But the B744's can actually go non-stop from point a to point b anywhere in the world, eg. London, UK to sydney, Australia, which is 11,185 miles. so in this case the mileage is== 78.1 mpg per passenger!!!

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:

EDIT: I think your numbers are a little ambitious (5000 miles on 50,000 gallons with 350 passengers is more reasonable) but are within an order of magnitude. The difference is that you assumed there is only one person in the car. Adding people and luggage to a car does not change the gas mileage on the highway by that much so you basically multiply the efficiency as you add people. If you are traveling alone, the car loses much of its advantage. If you are traveling with 3 people, the car is the clear winner.

When the specs say that the B744 can fly 8300 miles non-stop with ~400 passengers, I am prompted to imagine that they mean full fuel capacity, which is about ~57,000 gallons? Whats so ambitious about this?

So even if it was only 5000 miles for 50,000 for 350 passengers (remember many of the commercial flight carry some commercial cargo as well) you still get 35 mpg per passenger!! beats driving that far any day jet stream assisted or not!!

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:
For a four hour flight the plane must take off with roughly 250,000 kg of fuel on board, roughly 46% of the vehicle's maximum takeoff weight.

Where the heck did you pull these numbers out from?


go here anyway to read about the QLR version:

http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/747X-5.html

[Sven G]

The A380 is all fine and promising for the current technology: almost like a high-speed air-train, for its passenger carrying capacity (not quite, but almost).

But, man, what could be accomplished if we were able to find some way to levitate aircraft so they could take off and land vertically: if it were some kind of powerful (pseudo-)electromagnetic levitation (we even talked about this some time ago on these forums, IIRC), we could have real air-ships, much larger than current aircraft, capable of transporting thousands of people; and they could take off and land in integrated transportation centres built around existing central railway stations, for example, thus allowing for the same traveling modes as trains also for intercontinental flights - from city centre to city centre. OK, a journey of fantasy - but it could happen, one day (especially if the industry didn't follow the status quo of the market, but tried to innovate in a really independent and human-oriented way).

Of course, teleportation would be even better!

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by Sven G:
we could have real air-ships, much larger than current aircraft, capable of transporting thousands of people; and they could take off and land in integrated transportation centres built around existing central railway stations, for example, thus allowing for the same traveling modes as trains also for intercontinental flights - from city centre to city centre.

Sound like they'd make for great Troop Movers .. I keep thinking of how this would be used for war...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You're talking bollox. It is not my fault that I am tall. I didn't stuff my face for years and then complain about being fat, I was born that way.

You were born 6'6"? Damn, it must have been a helluva delivery!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
It is not my fault that I am tall.

And neither is it the fault of the airline. They are under no obligation to fry you an extra sausage.

If you don't like their product, don't purchase it. When airlines start to notice that airlines with more leg space are starting to get more popular, they will react to it.

It is ridiculous what happens here, that people here are complaining that the A380 will not have a bar included and chaired like a cattle transporter when those very same people state that they are not willing to pay for the bar and the leg space. That's not how it's working.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Peter:
one guy thats a member here is an engineer working ont he airbus 380 project. Not sure who though

That would be me! Seems like I have been on vacation when this thread came up...

Thanks to all of you who smackdowned the idiotic posts in this thread!
I just want to point out that the "innovativ" Boeing mono-wing project has already been cancelled last year because Boeing wasn't able to build it!
The A3XX used to be a cooperation of AIRBUS and Boeing but since Boeing started to claim that it would be too difficult to realize and that there won't be a market for such a plane, we built it on our own!

Sorry Boeing, that you are now #2 in the civil airplane industry!

[BoomStick]

Did Airbus ever install overlimit controlls on the rudder yet?

Since it's fly by wire on a sidestick, there's no feedback to how much boot you've put in it.


I can only imagine the engineering that went into the verticle and horizontal stabs to keep them from disintegrating from the enormous stress they will be under.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by BoomStick:


Since it's fly by wire on a sidestick, there's no feedback to how much boot you've put in it.

I thought that artificial feedback was provided?

[driven]

Someone previously mentioned that a sidestick was superior .... how is this so? What are the advantages?

[BoomStick]

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.htm

My bad, a 300 has pedals without an overlimit/over-input limiter.

The 320 has a sidestick.

All I have ever flown is yoke and pedal multi/pistons.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And neither is it the fault of the airline. They are under no obligation to fry you an extra sausage.

I don't think it is a question of special privilege, but one of equal comfort for everyone. Is it reasonable that seating is purposely designed to fit the maximum number of passengers, without regard to the heights of those very passengers? You might think so, but I would wager that most people would not if asked.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And neither is it the fault of the airline. They are under no obligation to fry you an extra sausage.

If you don't like their product, don't purchase it.

That's a load of crap, and you know it.

Nobody is asking for any "extra sausages", just -Average- space. Average space does not mean seats designed for vertically challenged people and other various midgets.

What if the price of food went up 500 % all of a sudden and only rich people could afford it ?

A bunch of poor people and their babies might drop dead from starvation, but really who gives a crap ? If they don't like the product, they don't have to purchase it.

[badidea]

Normally I could lose my job for posting pictures but since those pics are already available on the net, here they are:

click for A380 size




Rollout is next week - first flight soon but secret!

[Spheric Harlot]

um...airliners.net image sessions do time out eventually, so none of your links work.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
um...airliners.net image sessions do time out eventually, so none of your links work.

They do work for me....what happens if you copy/paste the links?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by badidea:
They do work for me....what happens if you copy/paste the links?

408 Request Timeout.

They will NOT work for you once you clear your browser cache.

[veryniceguy2002]

Last year Airbus (with Rolls-Royce) start the engine certification program for the A380 engine, and this is (one of) the photos I send around to my people at work which shows how they did it (and you can see how big the engine is):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/673664/M/

[badidea]

Well then click this link: A380
and look at the first three pictures...

[badidea]

Originally posted by veryniceguy2002:
Last year Airbus (with Rolls-Royce) start the engine certification program for the A380 engine, and this is (one of) the photos I send around to my people at work which shows how they did it (and you can see how big the engine is):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/673664/M/

Nice one, haven't seen that one before - I have only seen pictures of a 747 with an A380 engine!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by badidea:
Well then click this link: A380
and look at the first three pictures...

Mercy buckets to you!

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally posted by badidea:
Nice one, haven't seen that one before - I have only seen pictures of a 747 with an A380 engine!

That 747 (I think you are referring that 747 owned by GE, in white colour) tested the A380 engine made by the Engine Alliance (GE and Patt & Whitney joint venture), engine model GP7200. The other photo is the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 tested on Airbus A340.

I have seen that 747 photo (I think) in hard copy... I couldn't find it in the web somehow?

[Hawkeye_a]

Ive been following this particular aircraft for a long time. i remember hearing about it, and i absolutely love it. Than god for European competition....Boeing vs Airbus. The Boeing 777 is an awesome aircraft, but personally i love the Airbus A340 and A320.

Of all the 'stuff' thats come out this century..... OSX, segway, electric cars,etc,etc... i honestly think that this A380 is the most profound of them all. And it's quite hlarious to see how boeing has reactected to Airbus recently, trying to use it's political muscle to try and keep their success to a minimal.

God bless competition, thats all i gotta say .

[iLikebeer]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
Sound like they'd make for great Troop Movers .. I keep thinking of how this would be used for war...

yeah, like this: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...alrus,,00.html
I've seen different pictures of it, but basically, it's an airship/lifting body design meant to get our tanks and other needed heavy machinery to a warzone faster than cargo ships can.


Do airbus and boeing make Vg diagrams for the rudder?

I think some of the blame for the A300 crash was a common misunderstanding of the definition of Va (maneuvering speed) and the FAA failing to change it or clearly define it. Most people just assumed it applied to yaw; but in reality, the definition only applied to roll and pitch. There was definately a gray area in training, design of aircraft, and knowledge that led to the accident.

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
jk, I can sleep on any plane, even if it is a slightly less well designed and scary Airbus.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by iLikebeer:
a slightly less well designed and scary Airbus.

luckily, there haven't been any of those around for decades now.

Troll.

[Hawkeye_a]

As far as sleeping on planes...... theyre all about the same...except for those lockhead tristars, with an engine on the back.

[FulcrumPilot]

We call it "The Beluga".

[mrtew]

Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:

We call it "The Beluga".

That's not the Beluga, that's the A380, but from that angle it does almost look like it!

[TETENAL]

I'm just watching a documentary about the A380 and they have shown testing in a wind tunnel and guess what – they have been using a Mac! And it was running System 7!

So the A380 is made with a Mac partially.

[badidea]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
So the A380 is made with a Mac partially.

The rest is done with HP visualize workstations (and some SGIs).

My new work horse (that I got a month ago) is this one:
click

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by badidea:
My new work horse (that I got a month ago) is this one:
click

And you're proud on that or what? This is a Mac site!

By the way, I see your location is Hamburg, are you the one designing the toilet? I have seen in the documentation that that's where they are made.

[badidea]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And you're proud on that or what? This is a Mac site!

I hope you forgot this:
Otherwise I am really sorry that I only use a Mac at home and not at work.........................NOT!

By the way, I see your location is Hamburg, are you the one designing the toilet? I have seen in the documentation that that's where they are made.

No, I am supervising the interface between the french and german sections of the A380!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by badidea:
No, I am supervising the interface between the french and german sections of the A380!

What interface? Aren't these parts simply screwed together? Do you speak French?

[chabig]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Did Airbus ever install overlimit controlls on the rudder yet?

Since it's fly by wire on a sidestick, there's no feedback to how much boot you've put in it.

I can only imagine the engineering that went into the verticle and horizontal stabs to keep them from disintegrating from the enormous stress they will be under.

All transport aircraft have rudder limiters. But that still doesn't prevent the pilot from doing things with the rudder that it was not designed to do, much like the pilot can fly the airplane into the ground if he wants to. And there is artificial feel in all of the controls. Trust me, you can feel how much rudder you've put in--the pedals move and they provide a resisting force that increases with displacement.

Chris

[badidea]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
What interface? Aren't these parts simply screwed together? Do you speak French?

Are you making fun of me??

french section:


german section:
very large picture

No, these party are not simply screwed together and before someone connects those parts in real life, someone has to check that all parts can really be connected at the right coordinates (from both sides)!!

Yes, I speak french but not very well anymore...the french have to speak english anyway!

[chabig]

Originally posted by driven:
Someone previously mentioned that a sidestick was superior .... how is this so? What are the advantages?

The advantages of a sidestick are many:
1) Lighter weight
2) It's out of the way and doesn't block the pilot's view of the panel
3) It's less likely to be bumped
4) It doesn't hinder egress like a yoke
5) It's easier to get into the seat
6) It leaves the center clear for other uses such as a table or keyboard
7) Most pilots prefer sticks to yokes. The only reason that yokes were invented was that early large airplanes had control forces so heavy that two hands were required. Now that airplanes are flown hydraulically, the yoke is an unnecessary relic. If you catch a Boeing engineer in a moment of candor, they'll tell you that it was a mistake to put a yoke in the 777. Mark my words--Boeing will never build another airplane with a yoke.

Chris

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by badidea:
Are you making fun of me??

Dude, most of us haven't the *slightest* idea about building aircraft. It's not something we all do every once in a while.

I would have just assumed that you're all using the same software, same templates, and that thus the coordinates for combining the fuselage would simply be globally defined as everything else within the individual sections probably is.

-s*

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by badidea:
Are you making fun of me??

No, this is a cool thing you work on, and I'm asking questions out of curiosity. I couldn't understand what you mean by "interface" in this context.

french section:

This actually looks like it has holes for screws in it.

before someone connects those parts in real life, someone has to check that all parts can really be connected at the right coordinates (from both sides)!!

I understand that the parts are built in different factories, but isn't the whole plane designed at one place? If the design is done as a whole in one place, that should guarantee that parts fit together.

the french have to speak english anyway!

Not sure that that simplifies communication.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I would have just assumed that you're all using the same software, same templates, and that thus the coordinates for combining the fuselage would simply be globally defined as everything else within the individual sections probably is.

-s*

That's what we all dream of but unfortunately it won't happen in the near future! I don't think that I can go further in detail here...

Using the same software and templates still wouldn't prevent any errors done by the designers on both sides!

[TETENAL]

So the design of the plane is scattered? This seems like a major mistake and error source to me.

[badidea]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
So the design of the plane is scattered? This seems like a major mistake and error source to me.

Yep, the french make the cockpit and center fuselage, the germans the front and after fuselage (between cockpit and wing and between wing and fin), the english the wing and the spanish the fin... (design and manufacturing)!

[glideslope]

Originally posted by chabig:
Mastrap,

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about different design philosophies.

The philosophical difference in Airbus' fly-by-wire design versus Boeing's is that the Airbus system enforces hard limits, so that the pilot cannot fly the airplane outside of its safe operational envelope. Boeing, when they designed the 777, decided to implement a system with a soft limit, so the pilot can fly to the limit, but then override the limit if desired. Let me stress that by overriding the limit you are taking the airplane into unsafe territory which may even include the in-flight breakup of the airframe due to over-stress.

The merits of each system are forever being debated. Generally, I think it's safe to say that older pilots, with no experience in fly-by-wire airplanes are opposed to hard limits because they don't appreciate the benefits. Younger pilots, and those with experience in fly-by-wire airplanes appreciate the control and protection afforded by hard limits. Airplane manufacturers build airplanes for customers. When Boeing built the 777, their first fly-by-wire transport, it was the customers who asked for the soft limit system. It was those same customers who asked for a yoke between the legs rather than a side-stick controller. This, in my opinion was a mistake, but remember that it was the old guys who made that decision. Now the 777 is 10 years old, and those pilots have retired. I think it's safe to say that Boeing will never build another transport airplane with a yoke. All new airplanes will have side-sticks because the benefits are so enormous.

Historically, there are few instances where a pilot "saved" the airplane by over-stressing it. And there are large advantages to designing in the the hard limits, since it is known in advance how the airplane will be flown. In the USAF, I flew both the F-16 and the F-15. The F-16 has a hard G limit, which cannot be overridden. The F-15 requires continual care by the pilot not to exceed G limits. It's safe to say that more F-15s were destroyed by over-G than F-16s. And when it was needed, the F-16 could be G'd up quicker than the F-15 because all you had to do was pull the stick to the stop and let the flight control system give you the G as fast as it could. In the F-15 you had to approach the limit with care so as not to overshoot.

So let's just say there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

By the way, the A300 loss was due to pilot misapplication of rudder, plain and simple, not control philosophy. Generally, rudder inputs aren't processed by the computer, except that the magnitude of the rudder movement is limited as a function of airspeed. That same pilot in a Boeing airplane would have broken the vertical tail off too. All transport airplanes are built to the same certification requirements. The certification requirements are predicated on expected pilot control inputs. Unfortunately, the requirements didn't anticipate the grossly inappropriate rudder input made by that pilot.

Chris

Chris,

Nice piece. Where have you seen that the 7E7 (787) is going to have Side Sticks? The information I have seen states a Yoke Control system?