A380

[solinus]

What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

[david]

Or perhaps simply more like a company pushing the boundaries of what is
already known. For which they ought to be supported and applauded.

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

[Peter]

Post by david
Or perhaps simply more like a company pushing the boundaries of what is
already known. For which they ought to be supported and applauded.

As an electronics hardware/software designer, it does suprise me that
a 1 year or so delay is blamed on "complex wiring". How long have
these people been building airplanes?

It's possible that really is the reason but then we are really looking
at some poor project management.

[Sam]

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

Does it really matter?

[VinMan]

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft?

Poor managing skills which completely oversighted the collaborative
problems between the job done in Germany and the one done in Toulouse.
It seems it's the end of that sorry anarchy, at last.
Same tools and same methods.

Then you had that problem of overweight in the first phase, it has been
solved it seems but it took time.
Then they had this problem of structure, breaking slightly before the
theoric limit, they still have 30 000 working hours on that ahead.
Then there are these problems of electric wires, because of poor
understanding between G and Toulouse as said, and it will have to be
manually fixed on the first 10 or so aircraft.
Not so bad when you compare it to the F/A-22 program or JSF.

[Steve Firth]

Post by VinMan

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft?

Poor managing skills which completely oversighted the collaborative
problems between the job done in Germany and the one done in Toulouse.
It seems it's the end of that sorry anarchy, at last.
Same tools and same methods.
Then you had that problem of overweight in the first phase, it has been
solved it seems but it took time.
Then they had this problem of structure, breaking slightly before the
theoric limit, they still have 30 000 working hours on that ahead.
Then there are these problems of electric wires, because of poor
understanding between G and Toulouse as said, and it will have to be
manually fixed on the first 10 or so aircraft.
Not so bad when you compare it to the F/A-22 program or JSF.

Ascary coincidence is that I've worked on all of those aircraft, so errm
taking the common factor it's obviously my fault.

Colon-hyphen-etc

[Jeroen Wenting]

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

Both.
Plus bureaucracy, French planners, idiotic production systems (forcing the
assembly line to Toulouse is a disaster), etc. etc.
Not having to work for your money is a big part of it. Just hold up your
hand to Brussels and Strassbourg and you have another few billion in "loans"
you don't have to repay unless you really want to.

[Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

Having been involved in a/c wiring (and I remember the problems on the front
fuselage of Concorde), I think that Airbus simply underestimated the
problem. The A380 is a completely new a/c, not an enlarged A340. In addition
there may well have been a lot of late changes to the electrical equipment.
Regards Mike.

[Paul Keinanen]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:28:45 +0100, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT"

Post by Mike Cawood, HND BIT

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

Having been involved in a/c wiring (and I remember the problems on the front
fuselage of Concorde), I think that Airbus simply underestimated the
problem. The A380 is a completely new a/c, not an enlarged A340. In addition
there may well have been a lot of late changes to the electrical equipment.
Regards Mike.

Some news sources claim that the problem is with the entertainment
system wiring, when each airline wants a different entertainment
system.

However, since many airlines have ordered several planes (most likely
with a similar entertainment system), so if Airbus is capable of
making one plane with a specific entertainment system, why don't they
reschedule the production to make planes with that entertainment
system and later on start making planes with a different entertainment
system, instead of stalling the whole production line for the first
year to only 4 planes. Anyway, the explanation about the entertainment
system wiring sounds a bit strange :-).

Ethernet cabling is used extensively on the A380, but since several
planes are already flying, it is not likely that the problem would be
in the Ethernet wiring for the actual operational systems.

Paul

[solinus]

Thanks to those who have replied so far.

Sam, what can I say? You obviously gave a lot of thought prior to your
posting! Maybe you mistook the group! If on the other hand it was a
serious question I'm sorry, I just don't have the time nor the interest
to debate the matter with you.

[Flying Rat]

Post by Mike Cawood, HND BIT

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

Having been involved in a/c wiring (and I remember the problems on the front
fuselage of Concorde), I think that Airbus simply underestimated the
problem. The A380 is a completely new a/c, not an enlarged A340. In addition
there may well have been a lot of late changes to the electrical equipment.
Regards Mike.

much of it was down to software, basically the CAD packages the teams
used.

It's industry standard stuff from Dassault that Boeing use as well,
however thanks to piss-poor management the teams used different versions
which are incompatible.

When structures engineers made changes, the electrical people couldn't
integrate the changes into their models and vice versa. Effectively it
meant having to start the entire project from the beginning again. All
the modelling and design work had to be redone to allow the CAD packages
to operate in harmony, and design teams had to be trained up to use the
newest variant.

It's the only way forward that could be seen by Airbus. There were no
other options available as it's impossible to manage a project like this
in the Joe Sutter way. The last VLA project done by traditional methods
(the 747) didn't have anything like the electrical complexity.

FR

[pietro]

Who's Joe Sutter?

P.

[PeterD]

Post by pietro
Who's Joe Sutter?

"Boeing's most famous engineer and the father of the 747"

Google is your friend.

[jbaloun]

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

IAG Blog has a series of articles on the recent events at Airbus
including links to a CAD blog that offers insight into the CATIA
system. The A380 problem appears to be traceable to poor choices in
implementing the solid modeling software which then compounded as the
engineers tried to accommodate the customer requests in what has become
the most complicated wiring requirement for an air transport ever. A
confluence of a 45% increase in aircraft size, and wider demand for
connectivity, and using software tools which did not communicate well
between groups.

http://iagblog.blogspot.com/

Airbus has been in the business of building wide bodies for more than
30 years. They have been developing the A3xx double decker for more
than 10 years. They knew for years that they needed to develop the
wiring for the aircraft; an aircraft which is now about to be certified
airworthy. They really dropped the ball on this one.

I have a hard time understanding the Airbus business model. The A380
problems have placed a great strain on the Airbus company and the
Euro-political / Airbus-Eads-management arguments are now getting
international press. Maybe if a European could explain it I could
understand better?

James

[Clive]

Post by solinus
What's the real problem with this aircraft? Very highly paid
under-qualified design engineers or a company trying to rush out an
aircraft before the competition?

What about the airlines who are buying these things? Maybe they keep
changing their minds on configuration - you know, trying to get one up on
another airline who is also ordering the A380?

Different types/sizes of DVD... that sort of thing?

Clive