A380: Repeating the 747's history?

[Kingfish]

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.

[john smith]

In article om>,
"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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Bob Gardner]

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.
>

[Bob Noel]

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

[Kingfish]

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(?)

[Marco Leon]

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.

Sounds like a failure of the Project Management Office (PMO). And don't
forget the fact that three delays were announced in the span of about a
year.

Bad PMOs have a habit of creating a slippery slope of cutting corners
coupled with a reluctance to bring up issues for fear of your boss
getting fired.

Will be interesting to watch. I'd hate to be the one to get version one
of the plane.

Marco

[Kyle Boatright]

"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.

As someone who is involved in the design of industrial equipment and
facilities, I submit that "computerization" - i.e. CADD and other time
saving tools have made it so easy to make design changes that designs are
seemingly *never* frozen. This means that all of the involved parties don't
get the opportunity to make sure their pieces actually fit the product at
its frozen stage. Beyond that, airplanes have closer tolerances and less
margin to move things around than many other items, meaning that making "my"
new assembly fit "your" new component can be extremely difficult. And may
involve the modification of several other components or systems via the
ripple effect.

On top of those issues, the complexity of aircraft systems has increased
several fold over the years. Integrating those systems is a far bigger task
than building a flyable airframe.

[Mike Schumann]

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(?)
>

[john smith]

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.

[john smith]

> 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.

According to an article in today's (Thursday) WSJ, Airbus will be
restructuring to eliminate waste. The article indicated that the dual
political structure will be eliminated. Last week Airbus announced that
it will be outsourcing alot of subassemblies and the currency of record
will be US dollars. Looks like a big shakeup is headed for the EU.

[Ron Wanttaja]

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

[Marty Shapiro]

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> 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 :-)
>

If this were the first airplane Airbus designed, the use of non-
compatible software causing delays would be much more believable. How many
airplanes does a company have to design before they learn the necessity to
ensure compatible design design software between all their divisions and
subcontractors?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:00:59 GMT, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:

> If this were the first airplane Airbus designed, the use of non-
> compatible software causing delays would be much more believable. How many
> airplanes does a company have to design before they learn the necessity to
> ensure compatible design design software between all their divisions and
> subcontractors?

This assumes engineering decisions are made based on engineering issues.
Increasingly, decisions are made for political reasons. If insisting the
engineers of Country B switch to a more up-to-date tool means that the Prime
Minister of Country B (a major stockholder) will call your boss and threaten
retribution, which way do you think the decision will fall?

I worked a program once (non-aviation) where an engineer did a very careful
trade study on suppliers, then was forced to select the one with the highest
cost and lowest quality. The company was trying to gain some critical licenses
in the country where the supplier was based.

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

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

[Stefan]

Marco Leon schrieb:

> Bad PMOs have a habit of creating a slippery slope of cutting corners
> coupled with a reluctance to bring up issues for fear of your boss
> getting fired.

Ingeneer: We need two years.
Sales: We want you to do it in one.
Ingeneer: That's impossible.
Sales: We've just announced our schedule of one year.
Ingeneer: But I said that's impossible.
Sales: Our schedule is published, do it in one year.
Ingeneer: Aaaargh!

One year leater, a press release: Our ingeneer department has failed to
stay within the schedule. The chief ingeneer has been fired and the
department will be reorganized.

[Kingfish]

john smith wrote:
>
>> According to an article in today's (Thursday) WSJ, Airbus will be
>> restructuring to eliminate waste. The article indicated that the dual
>> political structure will be eliminated.

Wow, Stefan hit it on the head!! Do ya think he might work for a
certain airframe mfr based in Toulouse??

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

a lot of problems allegedly seem to come through actions of the top
sales person, promising customers more "customizations" than can now be
handled in an effective production process.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

> a lot of problems allegedly seem to come through actions of the top
> sales person, promising customers more "customizations" than can now be
> handled in an effective production process.

Ah-hah!

Now *that* has the ring of truth to it. Anyone who has ever been
responsible for the delivery of complex technical projects can relate to it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Kingfish]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Kingfish,
>
> a lot of problems allegedly seem to come through actions of the top
> sales person, promising customers more "customizations" than can now be
> handled in an effective production process.

Sounds familiar. I've read the wiring issues have to do with the
in-flight entertainment system. Another tidbit I've heard is that
different software versions were being used by the subcontractors that
were working on the program.

[Jay Beckman]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" wrote:
>
>> a lot of problems allegedly seem to come through actions of the top
>> sales person, promising customers more "customizations" than can now be
>> handled in an effective production process.
>
> Ah-hah!
>
> Now *that* has the ring of truth to it. Anyone who has ever been
> responsible for the delivery of complex technical projects can relate to
> it.
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

The project doesn't even have to be very techncial for sales people to screw
the pooch.

I once had a sales person promise a client that they could have copies of
their 90-minute video in 60 minutes!!!

Who needs Eintstein's theories on bending time and space when you have sales
people who actually can do it!!??!!

Jay B

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote
>
> I once had a sales person promise a client that they could have copies of
> their 90-minute video in 60 minutes!!!
>
> Who needs Eintstein's theories on bending time and space when you have sales
> people who actually can do it!!??!!

Not a problem, given the proper tools. A high speed duplicator can copy a 90
minute video in far less than 60 minutes.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Beckman]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote
>>
>> I once had a sales person promise a client that they could have copies of
>> their 90-minute video in 60 minutes!!!
>>
>> Who needs Eintstein's theories on bending time and space when you have
>> sales people who actually can do it!!??!!
>
> Not a problem, given the proper tools. A high speed duplicator can copy a
> 90 minute video in far less than 60 minutes.
> --
> Jim in NC

Yes, but the client wanted them done in our real-time room.

And actually, the Sony "Sprinter" system can duplicate a two-hour movie in
about 72 seconds.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
(Former Manager, Head End Operations, High Speed Video, Malvern, PA .. A
division of Technicolor Videocassette.)
[Yes, THAT Technicolor...]

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Beckman writes:

> I once had a sales person promise a client that they could have copies of
> their 90-minute video in 60 minutes!!!

What's wrong with that? Copies can often proceed much faster than
playback.

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