Airbus said on Thursday a wing for the world’s largest airliner, its A380 superjumbo, suffered a “rupture” during stress tests in a factory at its headquarters but said it did not expect the incident to delay first deliveries.
“There was a rupture… the incident happened when it was going from 1.45 to 1.50 (times) its limit load,” an Airbus spokeswoman said.The massive wing, with a span of almost 80 metres (262-1/2 feet), means the A380 barely squeezes into standard airport docking bays. It is designed to carry four engines with the thrust of 3,500 cars.
When the rupture occurred, the wing was bending more than 7 metres, the spokeswoman said.
She said the company was pleased with testing overall and did not expect the incident to delay the plane’s type certification due later this year ahead of its first delivery to Singapore Airlines .
One of the test A380 aircraft is set to fly at the Asian Aerospace air show in Singapore next week.
Yesterday evening EADS papers went down first 15 % then only 8% at the Frankfurter Stock Exchange.
Airbus wrote then a letter to all A380 customers.
Is Airbus too honest or is this story bad PR???
The big test will be in March, when in Hamburg 873 passengers and crew members have to evacuate shortly an A380 in 90 seconds.
Source: Flight International – Airbus A380 test wing breaks just below ultimate load target
By: PMN - 19th February 2006 at 21:19
“Designed to carry 4 engines with the thrust of 3500 cars”.
Thrust of 3500 cars? That is one of the most utterly meaningless quotes I’ve ever seen. Are we talking 3500 mini’s or 3500 BMW 750’s here?
Paul
By: Schorsch - 19th February 2006 at 20:04
Are you sure about that?
I was fairly certain that Quad aircraft wings are inherently heavier that Twin aircraft wings for due to the extra strengthening to accomodate the extra engine on each wing?
It is the other wayround: structurally it is best to have the numerous engines hanging under the wing. But this is only a structural advantage, taking all factors into account may change the picture.
By: Bmused55 - 19th February 2006 at 00:50
Twin engined wings don´t bend as much as single engined wings. Twin engined wings are usually a bit lighter than single engined wings……….
Are you sure about that?
I was fairly certain that Quad aircraft wings are inherently heavier that Twin aircraft wings for due to the extra strengthening to accomodate the extra engine on each wing?
By: Puffadder - 18th February 2006 at 18:26
If I remember from the B777 manufacturing video they bent the wing up 26 feet before it failed. 7m, being approx 23 feet, is a little short especially as you would expect it to move further with the additional wingspan. All this is assuming there is a direct relationship between wing loading and deflection, which I hope you will agree is a fair assumption.
SQ will be asking some fairly serious questions if it does cause a delay having already been delayed. I am sure they wouldn’t be happy!
Twin engined wings don´t bend as much as single engined wings. Twin engined wings are usually a bit lighter than single engined wings. The outer engine acts as a counter weight. Thus the 24.3 feet deflection that was achieved before failure is actually quite good. Also the failure occurred with the first set of wings that Airbus produced. Subsequent sets are somewhat stronger.
By: Skymonster - 18th February 2006 at 17:00
Taking into account the prediction and the measurement accuracy, including in the test set up, the satisfactory results achieved so far as well as the proven good prediction capabilities should enable Airbus to fully demonstrate compliance with the certification requirements, with some optimisations if needed, in time for type certification later this year.
I think that’s techno-speak for “well we didn’t quite make the target, but it was roughly in line with expectation, and we can fix it”
From what I understand, the predictions were sufficiently accurate to and the margin sufficiently small to allow a revised structure (if it hasn’t been revised already) to be demonstrated to meet certification requirements through interpolation of existing results (rather than breaking another wing)???
Andy
By: fightingirish - 18th February 2006 at 12:42
Looks like the story was just only a storm in a teacup at the Frankfurter Stock Exchange.
By: ianthefish - 18th February 2006 at 11:51
From the source:
Over the past year and a half, the A380 static test airframe was submitted to “limit loads”, which were completed before first flight. The frame was subsequently and step by step progressing towards reaching “ultimate loads”, i.e. 1.5 times “limit loads” as needed for certification. Eleven out of the 12 load cases, including wing load cases, were demonstrated by the end of December 2005. The last test was performed on 14th February, during which the wings were submitted to the ultimate bending loads.
The ultimate loads were achieved in the step up between 97 percent and 100 percent (1.45 and 1.5 limit loads) before the wings ruptured between both engines. The recorded test data were in line with predictions, which demonstrates a very good prediction capability as applied for the first time to such complex structures of the size and type of the A380. A full analysis of the test data is now being undertaken.
Taking into account the prediction and the measurement accuracy, including in the test set up, the satisfactory results achieved so far as well as the proven good prediction capabilities should enable Airbus to fully demonstrate compliance with the certification requirements, with some optimisations if needed, in time for type certification later this year.
By: Shadow1 - 18th February 2006 at 04:45
It’s funny how everyone immediately jumps to the conclusion that something negative happened! I think that EADS and Airbus are taking this very seriously and are careful not to upset those who purchase the aircraft any further. However, I am sure that, considering the fact that they are currently testing the aircraft, they were sure they would see this wing reach the breaking point.
By: coanda - 17th February 2006 at 23:26
oh so it must be true then?! 😉
By: tenthije - 17th February 2006 at 21:50
hmm I am not aware of the legal limit being 1.2. Is that an EASA requirement for large aircraft then? I’m not disputing it, I am just curious, because if the legal minimum limit for large aircraft is 1.2, then we could make lighter aircraft…….
coanda
Don’t know what organisation set that target.
I read of that limit at airliners.net.
By: coanda - 17th February 2006 at 20:11
hmm I am not aware of the legal limit being 1.2. Is that an EASA requirement for large aircraft then? I’m not disputing it, I am just curious, because if the legal minimum limit for large aircraft is 1.2, then we could make lighter aircraft…….
coanda
By: tenthije - 17th February 2006 at 17:25
Failure at 1.48 is a non-event. The legal limits are 1.20, so Airbus passed the limits with a very healthy margin. I do not know what Airbus was aiming for. So perhaps they did not reach their target, but they reached the legal limit easily.
By: Schorsch - 17th February 2006 at 13:15
failure at 1.46 really ain’t bad……..I think this is better than the 340 static failure tests.
However, at least it failed where it should fail, and I think, from what I have heard at work, it failed in the expected way.
That is consistent with my information.
By: coanda - 17th February 2006 at 13:10
failure at 1.46 really ain’t bad……..I think this is better than the 340 static failure tests.
However, at least it failed where it should fail, and I think, from what I have heard at work, it failed in the expected way.
By: Schorsch - 17th February 2006 at 10:47
Is Airbus too honest or is this story bad PR???
Airbus is very honest in this case.
The FEM predicted the failure very accurate and actually it failed at something like 1.46. That is normal tolerance of the model. The wing was object of tests before and the structure at the failure spot was already altered due to over-limit-load stresses. They will repair/replace the wing and repeat the test. More a cost issues than an engineering problem.
By: Hugh Jarse - 17th February 2006 at 10:41
If I remember from the B777 manufacturing video they bent the wing up 26 feet before it failed. 7m, being approx 23 feet, is a little short especially as you would expect it to move further with the additional wingspan. All this is assuming there is a direct relationship between wing loading and deflection, which I hope you will agree is a fair assumption.
SQ will be asking some fairly serious questions if it does cause a delay having already been delayed. I am sure they wouldn’t be happy!
By: Grey Area - 17th February 2006 at 10:37
A slightly different take on the same story, from today’s edition of the highly-respected “SpeedNews” e-mail bulletin:
“AIRBUS completed A380 wing-fuselage static structural tests in which wing was subjected to close to 1.5 times limit load before rupturing between engines (in line with predictions); test data is now being analyzed.
Airbus says aircraft should be able to meet certification requirements (with optimizations if needed) in time for type certification in 2H06.”
I think the telling phrase here is “in line with predictions”.
Bit of a non-story, methinks.
By: Mark L - 17th February 2006 at 10:21
I’m not sure what the structural weight limitation flexibility is, but 1.45-1.50 sounds pretty reasonable to me?
Sign In
February 17, 2006 at 9:54 am