A380: Repeating the 747's history?

I'm somewhat surprised to see Airbus having such difficulties
considering the A380's having been designed on a computer (3D digital
mock up). I thought the main benefit of CAD was to have the ability to
test for systems integration before any metal is cut(?) Of course this
is an extremely complex aircraft with many complicated systems that
must all play together, and the latest wiring harness issue may not be
related to any design deficiency.
By comparison, I recall seeing a documentary on the 747's service entry
(1970) that had its share of gremlins. (IIRC a big source of headaches
were the Pratt JT9D fans) The documentary didn't go into much detail
about the program's problems, (I'm sure there were a few) but that
airplane was designed by engineers on drafting tables and not
computers. I just assumed new aircraft designs would have smoother &
shorter development because of modern computing power.

In article . com,
"Kingfish" wrote:

I'm somewhat surprised to see Airbus having such difficulties
considering the A380's having been designed on a computer (3D digital
mock up). I thought the main benefit of CAD was to have the ability to
test for systems integration before any metal is cut(?) Of course this
is an extremely complex aircraft with many complicated systems that
must all play together, and the latest wiring harness issue may not be
related to any design deficiency.
By comparison, I recall seeing a documentary on the 747's service entry
(1970) that had its share of gremlins. (IIRC a big source of headaches
were the Pratt JT9D fans) The documentary didn't go into much detail
about the program's problems, (I'm sure there were a few) but that
airplane was designed by engineers on drafting tables and not
computers. I just assumed new aircraft designs would have smoother &
shorter development because of modern computing power.

Physical mockups were actually constructed at that time of various
components. If it didn't fit, you saw why.

john smith wrote:
Physical mockups were actually constructed at that time of various
components. If it didn't fit, you saw why.

Correct, but the CATIA program used in the A380 development allowed the
designers to virtually mock up the components and check for
interference etc. The same program was used during the 777 program
development, apparently with better results(?)

CAD programs like CATIA work great at making everything fit mechanically.
It sounds like a lot of the 380 delays are related to wiring issues due to
the large number of customizations for the individual airline customers. I
suspect that CATIA doesn't help solve that problem very much.

Mike Schumann

"Kingfish" wrote in message
oups.com...

john smith wrote:
Physical mockups were actually constructed at that time of various
components. If it didn't fit, you saw why.

Correct, but the CATIA program used in the A380 development allowed the
designers to virtually mock up the components and check for
interference etc. The same program was used during the 777 program
development, apparently with better results(?)

Today's WSJ (Thursday) reports that Airbus has announced the first
delivery of an A380 will not occur until October 2007, with service
beginning first quarter of 2008.

Mike Schumann wrote:
CAD programs like CATIA work great at making everything fit mechanically.
It sounds like a lot of the 380 delays are related to wiring issues due to
the large number of customizations for the individual airline customers. I
suspect that CATIA doesn't help solve that problem very much.


Hi Mike,

I worked on the 777, and CATIA does help with wiring in terms of
checking the routing of the wiring bundles, potential interferences,
and making sure that they reach to where they need to go.

The rest of it is schematics and good old fashioned engineering
planning and execution. It sounds to me like Airbus may have been a
little too disorganized in this department on the A380.

Many people may not realize it, but when Boeing came out with the
747-400 it was treated by Boeing as a fairly minor upgrade, but was in
fact closer to designing a whole new airplane. The result was not
enough up front engineering and a program fraught with problems.
Boeing took the lessons learned from the 747-400 and applied them to
the 777 with the intent to do it right from the start. As a result,
the 777 was the smoothest, most problem free airplane Boeing ever
designed (not without problems, but manageable).

Unfortunately Boeing has stepped back from the level of effort put
forth on the 777 for the 787 a bit due to the high development cost of
the 777. The 787 is having more problems than the 777 did, but not as
much as the A380. It remains to be seen how smoothly the 787
development turns out... I am hoping it comes together well because it
is a really cool airplane. The 787 is going to set a whole new
standard for commercial jets.

Dean Wilkinson

On 4 Oct 2006 13:29:06 -0700, "Kingfish" wrote:


john smith wrote:
Physical mockups were actually constructed at that time of various
components. If it didn't fit, you saw why.

Correct, but the CATIA program used in the A380 development allowed the
designers to virtually mock up the components and check for
interference etc. The same program was used during the 777 program
development, apparently with better results(?)

Ummmm....Airbus used CATIA for the 380, but had one big, big, problem: They
didn't require everyone to use the same VERSION. And the versions weren't
compatible.

http://aecnews.com/articles/2035.aspx

"It only makes sense if appeasement is a core corporate value"

Ron Wanttaja

Kingfish writes:

I just assumed new aircraft designs would have smoother &
shorter development because of modern computing power.

I think what actually happens is that designs take the same amount of
time as before, but the resulting aircraft is fifty times more
complicated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I just read an article indicating that the various countries involved used
non-compatible software, each thinking that theirs was the best, and they
were wrong.

Bob Gardner

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm somewhat surprised to see Airbus having such difficulties
considering the A380's having been designed on a computer (3D digital
mock up). I thought the main benefit of CAD was to have the ability to
test for systems integration before any metal is cut(?) Of course this
is an extremely complex aircraft with many complicated systems that
must all play together, and the latest wiring harness issue may not be
related to any design deficiency.
By comparison, I recall seeing a documentary on the 747's service entry
(1970) that had its share of gremlins. (IIRC a big source of headaches
were the Pratt JT9D fans) The documentary didn't go into much detail
about the program's problems, (I'm sure there were a few) but that
airplane was designed by engineers on drafting tables and not
computers. I just assumed new aircraft designs would have smoother &
shorter development because of modern computing power.

In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I just read an article indicating that the various countries involved used
non-compatible software, each thinking that theirs was the best, and they
were wrong.

why, that's hard to believe :-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate