Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Flickr Photo Pool -> Airliners-India -> Tech/Ops -> Sturdy airframe Airbus or Boeing or??
Post Info TOPIC: Sturdy airframe Airbus or Boeing or??
ssbmat


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Date:
Sturdy airframe Airbus or Boeing or??
Permalink Closed

Hi,


I know I am commiting the aviation equivalent of sacriliege here by opening this topic. but I would really like to know if there is a grain of substance in this argument. So here goes-


I know that all modern planes Boeing as well as Airbus are designed to the same exacting standards for certification of airworthiness. However, just like you can nurture a good old Premier Padmini for 30 years , you can also bust a solid Merc by subjecting it to road torture.


In reading various opinions in many fora over the net, there is a perception that Douglas and Lockheed, followed by Boeing, built planes that really last, while Airbusses are usually meant to be replaced every 20 years. How true is this perception ?


 I know IC has been operating Airbuses since 1976, and also that the B737-200s are also over 25 years old.


But from a technical standpoint, are Boeings built 'tougher' than Airbuses or vice-versa ? Or is it PURELY a maintenance/overhaul issue? Are there some inherent design/build advantages of one type over the other ?


A lot has been made of two incidents about Airbus-the fatal AA587 tail separation owing to wake turbulence and excess rudder inputs  & recently the A380 wing spar failure during static testing.


It was proved that the A300-600 tail in fact, experienced loads upto 1.9 times design limits-but it is also true that the plane did crash. Does this mean that the 1.5 structural design limits are not beyond natural forces ?


 I do know that the Boeing 737s exhibit less wing flex overall and so does the A310.. infact a ride during turbulence in an A310 is very taut..but these are just typical imaginary effects I guess.


But regardless, I would like to know some informed opinion on this-maybe something from the hangars ?


? 


 



__________________
tayara mechanici


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 312
Date:
Permalink Closed

ssbmat wrote:


 I know IC has been operating Airbuses since 1976, and also that the B737-200s are also over 25 years old.


 I do know that the Boeing 737s exhibit less wing flex overall and so does the A310.. infact a ride during turbulence in an A310 is very taut..but these are just typical imaginary effects I guess. 






Most of the Express courier Airlines in EU i.e. DHL & TNT operate A300B4s. These are solid work horses and accomplish their mission successfully and profitably. Some of these are late 70s construction and are expected to continue into service atleast for the next 6yrs as per the reps from these airlines.However the subsequent generation of Airbuses were built a lot lighter, as most of these aircrafts are built on the principals of FAIL SAFE STRUCTURES i.e. The weakest structure fails first to highlight areas of weakness without reducing safety. Boeings are built under same principals however the strength of the weakest member of a Boeing structure is marginally higher than that of an Airbus.


A whack on the side of an Airbus will result in replacing a few structural members whereas the same knock on a BOEING could ground the aircraft for days till the BOEING Engineers assess the extent of damage as it is transferred to the rest of the structure around the point of impact as it might not be evident to a naked eye. Doors is another area where AIRBUS scores over BOEING, the gated doors on B737, 747, 757 are very cumbersome and maintenance intensive whereas the AIRBUS hinged doors with guide arms designed for the A300B4 is still in use all subsequent types including the B777.


In the last 6yrs I have noticed BOEING following AIRBUS procedures as far as Structural Damage limitations are concerned, recent past incidents of B747 crashes have generated most of the changes i.e China Airlines and TWA. In the same breath the A306 & A310 are notorious for their Wing structure damage, i have not seen anything similar on the B757 or B767.


Having worked on both types for the last 20yrs, personally i believe that BOEINGS are, as you rightly mentioned built tougher (helping them fly higher with lower SFC, marginally) however AIRBUS are more maintenance friendly i.e. Easier to repair. I find AIRBUS are more maintenance friendly but might not be necessarily lower maintenace cost to a comparable BOEING aircraft. 


I work as a Licensed Engineer in hvy Maint presently, with approvals on A300B4, A300-600, A310, A320s, B757 & B767. I started my career working as a Engine mechanic on B747, the last para hopefully gives you a flavour of where i am coming from and is not necessarily to trumpet what i have to say.


Cheers


 


 



__________________
ssbmat


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Date:
Permalink Closed

I think it got a very good answer to my question.


Thanks!


It is also possible that airplanes of the past, esp. the 40s thru 60s may have been 'over-engineered' because there were no accurate models for airframe reliability and strength and each new design, essentially pushed the limits further ! I can imagine the headaches the engineers and designers must have gone through with just blackboards and slide rules..whereas modern planes seem to be designed "optimally" using CAD/CAM techniques.


 



__________________
JumboJet


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 1252
Date:
Permalink Closed

Airbus = workhorses.


Boeing = sleekhorses.



__________________
I love the smell of Jet Fuel in the morning.
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Flickr Photo Pool -> Airliners-India -> Tech/Ops -> Sturdy airframe Airbus or Boeing or??
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard