Airbus A380 Main Gear Problem
- Thread starter BrettInLJ
- Start date
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
You know anything about what happened. Tire marks look like it slid just about sideways. Someone trying to do donuts in it?
Looks like there are more troubles with the A380, than is being let out!
For those of you who aren't passingly familiar with what this is all about .. someone was trying to turn AirBus' great big, brand-new, A380 aircraft a little too sharply (we don't know whether under it's own power, or while it was under tow).
AirBus elected NOT to make their main landing gear system (four separate gear with four wheels apiece) steerable. Why? You save a considerable amount of weight -- not to mention some serious extra cost -- by not doing so. There is a trade-off, however ...
When you have non-steerable gear that are configured like they are on this aircraft, you have scuffing/skidding going on whenever you turn the aircraft. This isn't an unusual design for a wheeled vehicle, though. For instance, a dual-axle semi-trailer does the same thing when it's being maneuvered sharply within a warehouse parking lit. What makes the A380 so special, is the incredible amount of weight on each huge tire, in conjunction with the widely-spaced gear. In concert, these two aspects considerably magnify the inherent problem -- to the point where the asphalt (not just the rubber tire) is taking it in the shorts ... not to mention the stress and overload that's happening to the entire structure between the tire and the gear attaching points in the wing structure. Note the apparent bending of the gear in one of the shots! No, Mildred, that is NOT a good thing to be happening to your aircraft's main landing gear. Unless they're making everything out of rubber, those stress loads have GOT to be off the scale!
As new-aircraft design problems go, this will likely prove to be a very expensive one for AirBus to deal with. It's either that, or the aircraft will only be able to operate in and out of airports that have the extra fifty-acres it will need to get safely turned-around. It'll be interesting to see how they solve this one.
For those of you who aren't passingly familiar with what this is all about .. someone was trying to turn AirBus' great big, brand-new, A380 aircraft a little too sharply (we don't know whether under it's own power, or while it was under tow).
AirBus elected NOT to make their main landing gear system (four separate gear with four wheels apiece) steerable. Why? You save a considerable amount of weight -- not to mention some serious extra cost -- by not doing so. There is a trade-off, however ...
When you have non-steerable gear that are configured like they are on this aircraft, you have scuffing/skidding going on whenever you turn the aircraft. This isn't an unusual design for a wheeled vehicle, though. For instance, a dual-axle semi-trailer does the same thing when it's being maneuvered sharply within a warehouse parking lit. What makes the A380 so special, is the incredible amount of weight on each huge tire, in conjunction with the widely-spaced gear. In concert, these two aspects considerably magnify the inherent problem -- to the point where the asphalt (not just the rubber tire) is taking it in the shorts ... not to mention the stress and overload that's happening to the entire structure between the tire and the gear attaching points in the wing structure. Note the apparent bending of the gear in one of the shots! No, Mildred, that is NOT a good thing to be happening to your aircraft's main landing gear. Unless they're making everything out of rubber, those stress loads have GOT to be off the scale!
As new-aircraft design problems go, this will likely prove to be a very expensive one for AirBus to deal with. It's either that, or the aircraft will only be able to operate in and out of airports that have the extra fifty-acres it will need to get safely turned-around. It'll be interesting to see how they solve this one.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
The only thing I can add is that they're pushing back the delivery dates, and folks like Emirates, Qantas, and Singapore are pissed.
But folks, as much as you pick on the 380, and I've done it, calling it hideous, tell me this.
If someone gave you a decent sized paycheck to fly it, how many of you would turn it down?
I think someone said in the chat room "I'd fly a pink Shorts if they paid me enough."
But folks, as much as you pick on the 380, and I've done it, calling it hideous, tell me this.
If someone gave you a decent sized paycheck to fly it, how many of you would turn it down?
I think someone said in the chat room "I'd fly a pink Shorts if they paid me enough."
BrettInLJ
Well-Known Member
I got the email with this text as well. Supposedly it is from a British employee who is working directly on site, and for obvious reasons is choosing to remain anonymous. Again, though without a source there is no way it should be taken as gospel as most things that circulate on email. Time will tell.
EatSleepFly
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think someone said in the chat room "I'd fly a pink Shorts if they paid me enough."
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that was yours truly... and I would.
I think someone said in the chat room "I'd fly a pink Shorts if they paid me enough."
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that was yours truly... and I would.
TrinidadGT20
Vice President of Awesome
Possible reasons:
1. Its crushing ugliness
2. Those darn teenagers and their joyrides
3. Dragracing wore out the tires
4. Pulled only .0001 lateral g's on the skidpad before failing
5. Dexatrim and dieting obviously didn't work
1. Its crushing ugliness
2. Those darn teenagers and their joyrides
3. Dragracing wore out the tires
4. Pulled only .0001 lateral g's on the skidpad before failing
5. Dexatrim and dieting obviously didn't work
tonyw
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that was yours truly... and I would.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, that comment really stood out, and I'm with you 100 percent. I don't care if the plane is ugly if they'll pay me well to fly it!
Let's put it this way -- remember the line from Top Gun about flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog poop out of Hong Kong?
Well, Maverick and Goose may not have wanted to, but I'd have no problem doing that if the pay was right.
I believe that was yours truly... and I would.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, that comment really stood out, and I'm with you 100 percent. I don't care if the plane is ugly if they'll pay me well to fly it!
Let's put it this way -- remember the line from Top Gun about flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog poop out of Hong Kong?
Well, Maverick and Goose may not have wanted to, but I'd have no problem doing that if the pay was right.
[ QUOTE ]
Yup, that comment really stood out, and I'm with you 100 percent. I don't care if the plane is ugly if they'll pay me well to fly it!
Let's put it this way -- remember the line from Top Gun about flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog poop out of Hong Kong?
Well, Maverick and Goose may not have wanted to, but I'd have no problem doing that if the pay was right.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's an awesome attitude. How far along are you in your training?
Yup, that comment really stood out, and I'm with you 100 percent. I don't care if the plane is ugly if they'll pay me well to fly it!
Let's put it this way -- remember the line from Top Gun about flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog poop out of Hong Kong?
Well, Maverick and Goose may not have wanted to, but I'd have no problem doing that if the pay was right.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's an awesome attitude. How far along are you in your training?
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
For the appropriate kind of cash, I'd fly it.
Hell, I fly a super stretch DC-9-82 with a EFIS retrofit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm, aren't you effectively doing that already?
For the appropriate kind of cash, I'd fly it.
Hell, I fly a super stretch DC-9-82 with a EFIS retrofit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm, aren't you effectively doing that already?