Airbus A380 family

[kitnut617]

Interesting that neither the Engine Alliance or the Roll's was able to contain the fragments within the casing, considering they deliberately grenaded one on a test stand specifically to insure it would.

In the case of the Engine Alliance failure, it should be noted that the 'whole' fan detached itself from the shaft. I don't think the test you have linked to had that in mind ---

 

[galgot]

A lot of good engines have been matted to wrong airframe in the history of aviation. From being too heavy, draggy, prone to vibrations, cells have risked ruined the reputation of fairly good engines. Some had to be ran with power slammed forward, some at the wrong alt and in some case dev Time were inadequate.

I see… So on two incidents, each engine related, it must be the airframe fault… Damn Airbus.
This without knowing any investigations results. Or you know more ?

None of you learned about the P51A, the P36, the hispano engines etc...

Please teach us all… The P51A airframe ruined the Allison V-1710 Engine , or the opposite ? was not born at the time.

Interesting that neither the Engine Alliance or the Roll's was able to contain the fragments within the casing, considering they deliberately grenaded one on a test stand specifically to insure it would.

In the case of the Engine Alliance failure, it should be noted that the 'whole' fan detached itself from the shaft. I don't think the test you have linked to had that in mind ---

Yes indeed, and it was a different failure on each engine, a turbine blade on the Qantas Trent900, and the whole fan on the GP7200.

 

[draganm]

In the case of the Engine Alliance failure, it should be noted that the 'whole' fan detached itself from the shaft. I don't think the test you have linked to had that in mind ---

yes indeed, it took the ballistic protective enclosure with it. At least this failure missed the wing and luckily the passenger compartment too.

Yes indeed, and it was a different failure on each engine, a turbine blade on the Qantas Trent900,

I don't think it was just a blade, the entire intermediate disc fragmented from heating due to internal oil leak and fire. 3 large fragments some of which went thru the wing, I believe were recovered.

https://nsc.nasa.gov/SFCS/SystemFailureCaseStudy/Details/154

 

[galgot]

Yes indeed, and it was a different failure on each engine, a turbine blade on the Qantas Trent900,

I don't think it was just a blade, the entire intermediate disc fragmented from heating due to internal oil leak and fire. 3 large fragments some of which went thru the wing, I believe were recovered.

https://nsc.nasa.gov/SFCS/SystemFailureCaseStudy/Details/154

Thks for the info.

 

[DWG]

What do you think an airframe is?

Irrelevant to the question.

 

[DWG]

What's the most concerning here is the sudden absence of fact in the replies of some when it comes about Airbus.

I don't see any reason not to treat this as an attack on my professionalism as an aerospace engineer. With that in mind, I would remind you that a considerable part of my career, both civil and military, was spent working on Boeing projects. Never met a Boeing engineer I didn't like, or a project I wasn't proud to have worked on. Whereas the closest I got to working on an Airbus project was Eurofighter, where DASA/EADS/Cassidian was merely part of a consortium I worked for another member of. If anything I should be arguing in favour of Boeing, but I'm an engineer, facts matter. These are certificated airliners. When you claim we are arguing without factual support, you aren't just accusing us of being corrupt, and I use that word very deliberately, you are accusing EASA and the U.S. FAA of corruptly favouring Airbus and certificating an unsafe design. What exactly was the FAA's motive here?

Your argument about historical engines actually betrays that you are the one arguing from a lack of understanding, not that we are corrupting favouring Airbus.

 

[Archibald]

According to that flawed logic, a perfectly good engine all of sudden explodes because mated to a bad airframe. Which of course can only be an Airbus.
This is really ridiculous.

 

[Archibald]

What do you think an airframe is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuR27Wkc3Mc

Randy: Excuse me sir, there's been a little problem in the cockpit…

Ted Striker: The cockpit…what is it?

Randy: It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilots sit, but that's not important right now.

 

[TomcatViP]

Modal.


@DWG: I am taken aback. Sorry if I meant to discredit you in anyway. Not my intend. Open discussions involve having opposite opinions on some grounds (and not on some others).

 

[DWG]

@DWG: I am taken aback. Sorry if I meant to discredit you in anyway. Not my intend. Open discussions involve having opposite opinions on some grounds (and not on some others).

That includes showing respect for the opinions of others, which your comment did not.

 

[Aeroengineer1]

Interesting conversation. Overall there is a lack of viewing this as a system.

First and foremost, while I do work in the engine industry, I have no specific knowledge of this event other than what has been published in the news. I can say, however, that I design components in the fan section of the engine. The fan section, and for that matter, the entire engine does have significant interaction with the airframe. There was some discussion that it was not airframe dependent. This is not the case. Now as to if it is a Boeing, Airbus, etc airframe this is not of particular importance. Each group has slightly different methodologies to achieve very similar goals for airframe/propulsion integration. Even when a specific aircraft has an engine option from the different manufacturers, the structural pylon for each of those engines is different due to the differences of interaction of the engine with the rest of the structure.

As to the specific failure, it is a very unique failure. I have my theories on it, but from the looks the entire fandisk separated from the engine and then caused the loss of containment. With the emergency AD that was issued to inspect the fandisk, one might surmise that there is probable cause in that component itself (potentially a manufacturing defect), and not due to some other factor such as a bird ingestion. To call this a FBO (fan blade out) event would not be a proper characterization of the event, and the containment case is not designed for an event like this.

 

[TomcatViP]

@DWG: I am taken aback. Sorry if I meant to discredit you in anyway. Not my intend. Open discussions involve having opposite opinions on some grounds (and not on some others).

That includes showing respect for the opinions of others, which your comment did not.

Incorrigible...

 

[Arjen]

What's the most concerning here is the sudden absence of fact in the replies of some when it comes about Airbus.

I suspect this is what annoyed people. I didn't see it adding anything to the discussion, it being unspecific enough to apply to many who didn't merit such a sneer.

 

[draganm]

First and foremost, while I do work in the engine industry, I have no specific knowledge of this event other than what has been published in the news. I can say, however, that I design components in the fan section of the engine. The fan section, and for that matter, the entire engine does have significant interaction with the airframe. There was some discussion that it was not airframe dependent. This is not the case. Now as to if it is a Boeing, Airbus, etc airframe this is not of particular importance. Each group has slightly different methodologies to achieve very similar goals for airframe/propulsion integration. Even when a specific aircraft has an engine option from the different manufacturers, the structural pylon for each of those engines is different due to the differences of interaction of the engine with the rest of the structure.

Very interesting indeed. So a problem with the Engine nacelle / wing mounting structure design could affect engine life? How do they verify there are no unwanted resonances here? It would imply that even a very small harmonic oscillation could lead to an undesirable and catastrophic failure no?
I know that in general these types of things are very difficult to model or predict on any structure. On a massive 380 wing with 2 enormous engines spinning at 3K RPM it has to be quite a challenge.

 

[malipa]

To be honest I don't think you can either blame the engine OR the airframe in this case. This is a system of multiple components, and their interaction will probably have caused this shear off.
It's a bit odd to just start bullying Airbus for this. This interaction is a very hard one to correctly simulate, the field is highly complex. Engineers get a course called Vibrations about these issues and it is one of the more difficult courses.

 

[TomcatViP]

Nobody is "Bullying" airbus, we are simply arguing that with two different brand of engines failing, the airframe can't be white-washed like that.

Investigation needs (rationally):
Eng, yes
Airframe, yes
Program management, yes (sheduling mainly)

There is a video of the VNE test on the A380 outhere, have a look at it.

EDIT:
video posted below
https://youtu.be/s3-g9B6Fgjs

 

[galgot]

Nobody is "Bullying" airbus, we are simply arguing that with two different brand of engines failing, the airframe can't be white-washed like that.
...

Like the P-51A ?

 

[Aeroengineer1]

Actually small imbalances are accounted for in the design process. Engines are always out of balance, or perhaps better said, an engine is never perfectly balanced. They are designed for all sorts of conditions that are not ideal.

As to simulating things at certain frequency (rpm as you put it) is not particularly difficult. The goal of doing any sort of vibration analysis (not engine specific) is not actually simulating the part moving around at some frequency (think of a super slow motion of a part moving back and forth), but analyzing the dynamic loads and how often they occur in comparison with a load that is constantly applied. Hence you will have a steady load and an oscillating load if you will. Then you reference the material properties for that given steady load and oscillating load for a given temperature. The terms "Goodman diagram" or "Constant Life diagram" are good terms to search for something like this.

As to simulating interaction with the airframe, this too is similar to any sort of other analysis. There are just lots of load cases that you have to deal with.

First and foremost, while I do work in the engine industry, I have no specific knowledge of this event other than what has been published in the news. I can say, however, that I design components in the fan section of the engine. The fan section, and for that matter, the entire engine does have significant interaction with the airframe. There was some discussion that it was not airframe dependent. This is not the case. Now as to if it is a Boeing, Airbus, etc airframe this is not of particular importance. Each group has slightly different methodologies to achieve very similar goals for airframe/propulsion integration. Even when a specific aircraft has an engine option from the different manufacturers, the structural pylon for each of those engines is different due to the differences of interaction of the engine with the rest of the structure.

Very interesting indeed. So a problem with the Engine nacelle / wing mounting structure design could affect engine life? How do they verify there are no unwanted resonances here? It would imply that even a very small harmonic oscillation could lead to an undesirable and catastrophic failure no?
I know that in general these types of things are very difficult to model or predict on any structure. On a massive 380 wing with 2 enormous engines spinning at 3K RPM it has to be quite a challenge.

 

[starviking]

I have an experience of a friend to relate, possibly relevant, possibly not:

AF 380, a few years back now, sympathetic vibrations caused the external door handle in his section to oscillate rapidly and continuously.

Actually small imbalances are accounted for in the design process. Engines are always out of balance, or perhaps better said, an engine is never perfectly balanced. They are designed for all sorts of conditions that are not ideal...

 

[TomcatViP]

see video above

 

[galgot]

Well , very courageous and honest from Airbus to allow such an tv boardcast to be done during the testing. Wonder if North-American would have done the same during P-51A testing. Can surely take definitive and very professional judgement from it.

"…it's an aerodynamic monster. Big wing, shorter full decked fuselage were the ill-chosen decision from their management (the ones that are lecturing the industry). It led to an aircraft that has no real cruise speed, except slamming the gas forward to lower the time fuel is burned*."

What a big piece of flying Eurocrap, isn’t it ?
But nobody is "Bullying" Airbus of course…

 

[TomcatViP]

Similar problem with the 787 and its RR engines (notice the open talk and positive communication):

Rolls-Royce chief executive, Warren East, told investors: “Some parts of the [Trent 1000] engine are turning out not to last as long in service as their original design lives. As with any mechanical components, they wear out. And you have a design life and you expect to replace those components, and it turns out on inspection that we had to replace them sooner rather than later.”

[...]

Turbine blades in the engines are wearing out much quicker than expected, affecting around 200 planes and causing problems for a range of airlines including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

This week Air New Zealand grounded some of its 787-9 aircraft after two near-identical inflight incidents on successive days involving turbine blades.

Flights to Tokyo and Buenos Aires both encountered “abnormal indications” during the climb from Auckland and returned to base. Passengers reported hearing “clunking” and feeling severe vibrations. The aircraft landed safely.

Source:
The Independent

 

[Arjen]

What I read in the Independent's piece and numerous other articles, is that the current crop of big fans (GEnx, Trent 900/1000, GP7000) is experiencing component failures which seem to be connected with the sheer size of these new engines. Not a word of the airframe being involved.

 

[draganm]

What I read in the Independent's piece and numerous other articles, is that the current crop of big fans (GEnx, Trent 900/1000, GP7000) is experiencing component failures which seem to be connected with the sheer size of these new engines. Not a word of the airframe being involved.

that does seem to be the over riding theme here. The most powerful Turbine engine ever built, the one powering the 777, has had 3 major incidences in the last 3 years.
from Wiki, GE90

On May 28, 2012, an Air Canada 777 taking off from Toronto en route to Japan suffered failure of a GE90-115B at 1,500 feet (460 m) and returned safely. Engine debris was found on the ground.[23][24]

On September 8, 2015, a GE90-85B powering a Boeing 777-236ER on British Airways Flight 2276 suffered an uncontained failure during take-off roll leading to a fire. NTSB and FAA investigations were begun to determine the cause; initial findings were reported in September 2015.[25][26]

On June 27, 2016, a GE90-115B powering a Boeing 777-300ER, on Singapore Airlines Flight 368, received an engine oil warning during flight and returned to Singapore Changi Airport. On landing the malfunctioning right engine caught fire, leading to fire damage to the engine and the wing.[27]

So GE, Rolls, UEA, all have had significant failures. What does this prove, that engineering is pushing the boundaries of what's possible, same thing science has always done.
Mu biggest take-away is I really, really don't like to fly If I had to choose, give me a plain-jane 737 thank you very much
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKlIR-nzE6I

 

[DWG]

Interesting conversation. Overall there is a lack of viewing this as a system.

There was some discussion that it was not airframe dependent. This is not the case. Now as to if it is a Boeing, Airbus, etc airframe this is not of particular importance. Each group has slightly different methodologies to achieve very similar goals for airframe/propulsion integration. Even when a specific aircraft has an engine option from the different manufacturers, the structural pylon for each of those engines is different

I think you misunderstood the point I was making, because AFAICS you've just restated it. The nacelle/pylon complex is specific to each engine - fan radius, engine external geometry (and therefore nacelle geometry), mass flow, vibration modes, external airflow, exhaust nozzle geometry and airflow, and so on and on - which means the airframe to nacelle/pylon to engine interaction is unique to the engine, not common to the airframe. Which was my point. No common factor, no common cause.

I may not be an engine guy, but thinking about how the wing acts WRT to the things we hang onto it is pretty fundamental to being an FCS guy.

 

[DWG]

Nobody is "Bullying" airbus, we are simply arguing that with two different brand of engines failing, the airframe can't be white-washed like that.

You keep using emotive language like 'white washed', and 'absence of fact', to denigrate the opinion of people who've actually worked on this stuff. And now you've resorted to ableism to attack the people disagreeing with you by implying they are mentally ill.

A common mode failure requires that the systems in which failures occurred actually have common designs/structures up to the point at which the failures occur. But as Aeroengineer1 pointed out, the pylon/nacelle complex is specific to the engine (and generally designed by the engine manufacturers), which means the airframe (and airflow) is not common up to the point at which the failure occurs.

 

[Aeroengineer1]

Small correction, the engine manufacturers do not design the pylon. This is typically done by the airframer. There is, though, a significant amount contributed about the engine for the analysis of that pylon. Also the pylons are different for each engine. You cannot just take one engine off from one manufacturer and put the other on.

Nobody is "Bullying" airbus, we are simply arguing that with two different brand of engines failing, the airframe can't be white-washed like that.

You keep using emotive language like 'white washed', and 'absence of fact', to denigrate the opinion of people who've actually worked on this stuff. And now you've resorted to ableism to attack the people disagreeing with you by implying they are mentally ill.

A common mode failure requires that the systems in which failures occurred actually have common designs/structures up to the point at which the failures occur. But as Aeroengineer1 pointed out, the pylon/nacelle complex is specific to the engine (and generally designed by the engine manufacturers), which means the airframe (and airflow) is not common up to the point at which the failure occurs.

 

[fredymac]

Found this video which details early retirements of A380's from service. What I always found surprising is the number of A380's ordered by UAE Airlines (145 or almost 1/2 of total). UAE Airlines itself is surprising based on its passenger revenue-miles ranking. It is highly disproportionate to the population of its home country (or even the local region). IAG in the rankings is mainly British Airways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8iebIuIKrk

 

[TomcatViP]

And as a side note:
Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Airbus is drawing up contingency plans to phase out production of the world's largest jetliner, the A380 superjumbo, if it fails to win a key order from Dubai's Emirates, three people familiar with the matter said.

The moment of truth for the slow-selling airliner looms after just 10 years in service and leaves one of Europe's most visible international symbols hanging by a thread, despite a major airline investment in new cabins unveiled this month.


Airbus and Emirates declined to comment. Airbus also declined to say how many people work on the project.

Any shutdown is expected to be gradual, allowing Airbus to produce orders it has in hand, mainly from Emirates.

It has enough orders to last until early next decade at current production rates, according to a Reuters analysis.

The A380 was developed at a cost of 11 billion euros to carry some 500 people and challenge the reign of the Boeing 747.

Source:
Nasdaq.com

 

[TomcatViP]

Today Air France flight (A380) from Paris to L.A experienced an engine shutdown (inward) descending on L.A. Engine failure (GE). No passenger nuisances.

 

[TomcatViP]

Nive video of a crosswind landing:

https://youtu.be/a3K-Hj1FHjU

 

[Archibald]

What an amazing aircraft, it can even hover vertically like an helicopter ;D ;D

 

[kitnut617]

Must have been piloted by an ex-RN pilot the way he used that ski ramp ---- ;D

 

[TomcatViP]

Amazing how responsive are the crl commands.

But that slight/agressive push over might have scared the hell out of most passengers.

 

[robunos]

But that slight/agressive push over might have scared the hell out of most passengers.

That's nothing, he's taking off to the north west (BHX main runway is 150/330), so immediately after take-off he has to make a sharp right turn onto the correct course, and to avoid overflying too much of the built up area. It's quite impressive seen from the ground, with an aircraft of that size . . .


cheers,
Robin.

 

[TomcatViP]

Pushover during landing phase (see at 1:00)

 

[Arjen]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42732842

Superjumbo jet future secured by Emirates order
The Emirates airline has announced an order for up to 36 Airbus A380s.

The $16bn (£11.5bn) deal amounts to a reprieve for the A380 after Airbus threatened to stop making the jet if it could not come to a deal with Emirates.

Emirates is the only airline to have put the A380 at the heart of its operations and had been expected to place an order for more of the jets at the Dubai Airshow last November.

However, it then ordered 40 Boeing 787 Dreamliners instead.

Emirates said it had now made a firm order for 20 of the A380, the world's largest passenger airliner, with options to buy a further 16. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2020.

Emirates is already the largest customer for the plane, with 101 currently flying and 41 more firm orders previously placed.

On Monday, Airbus sales director John Leahy said the company would have to halt the A380 programme if Emirates did not place another order.

More at the link.

 

[Archibald]

ninja'd damn it

It's alive, aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiive !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c

 

[Michel Van]

In mean time at the Jean-Luc Lagardère Plant assembly hall in Toulouse, France

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AFf0ysgNiM

 

[galgot]

Joking... I love the mons... the A380.