XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Oct 16, 2013 19:23:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by digitalairliners on Oct 16, 2013 20:21:57 GMT 1
Thanks XWB, I saw your post but thought that PAMELA was part of the initial static testing. I see now it is "Process for Advanced Management of End of Life Aircraft" www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/aircraft-end-of-life/pamela/Still seems a little strange to me to ship it all the way to TLS to break it into bits. Would have thought it was cheaper to send some Airbus engineers to Dresden to observe the process? There seems to be another bit behind in this photo? www.flickr.com/photos/48242948@N03/10278026803Guess time will tell, supose really I'm really just hoping they add it to the new museum they are building. |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Oct 17, 2013 1:24:08 GMT 1
I assume 5001 has moved out of the main thread now.
Although we can't see under the wrapping, it appears, at least superficially, to be a very neat cut, following the initial join.
I wonder if special care was taken to achieve this. I would hate to think that section joints are the easiest points to break a fuselage!
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Oct 17, 2013 10:53:24 GMT 1
That's another possibility. One day we will know  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Oct 17, 2013 21:20:21 GMT 1
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Apr 8, 2014 9:50:59 GMT 1
XWB Hope this post sneaks in under the radar  Any idea what the centre section is being used for in Toulouse? Any idea why it was separated from the frame? Any idea what's happening to the remaining 'bits'? |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Apr 8, 2014 12:22:49 GMT 1
Another 'under the radar' (I hope!)
I remain concerned that the certification process requires a frame which seems to be tailored to a test regime, rather than representative of a production frame.
If it's lighter, assembled differently and missing components like the vertical tail plane, it wouldn't be an unreasonable question to ask "what does it actually prove?"
The obvious defence is "the regime has worked up till now".
I can see the fatigue test regime being computerized, which I don't think is unreasonable considering the criteria deemed to be the 'requirement' for the current test regime. In some ways it would be better, when like a flight simulator, unlikely but potentially catastrophic events can be mimicked without risking losing a physical 'bit of kit'.
Time will tell, but you heard it here first!
|
|
