Stupid them to test to the levels that allow something visually happen that lets all the armchair viewers throw in their opinion of how smart they are and how stupid Boeing is.
Stupid, stupid Boeing.
Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
51–60 of 120 posts
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#52ok 1: the wings were bent in an extreme manner. so you have a cylinder to a close approximation, with a hole in the side of it. Then you have two levers [wings] affixed to said cylinder, then you apply force to the levers, and distort the cylinder thus distorting the hole in the cylinder.... at this point i would invoke a toplogical parlour trick of making a quarter fall through a dime sized hole as an analogy. https…
If you dont think this is the case then lets hear your critique, please tell me why you think this is not the case.
then if there is time left i can change my most recent actions in this thread
..."The test is meant to push the plane beyond its limits. Engineers had the plane pressurized and on the ground. They loaded it up well beyond capacity and BENT ITS WINGS in an extreme manner, in a way almost certain to never happen in the real world."
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#53"The test is meant to push the plane beyond its limits. Engineers had the plane pressurized and on the ground. They loaded it up well beyond capacity and bent its wings in an extreme manner, in a way almost certain to never happen in the real world." "Dr. Curtis said this is not the time to race to conclusions, and it could be something totally innocuous that caused the door to come off. But it could cause delays. "I…
"It's unlikely this will speed up certification." I assume "this" in the above is equivalent to "the door blowing off the airplane". I think we have a solid conclusion here, despite the previously stated desire to avoid racing towards them.
What is the solid conclusion?
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The A380 was already in production at the time of the Feb 2006 test. No modifications to the wings were required because it did not fail it's structural stress test. The entire point of the test was to gather data on what load the test wings (which are weaker than the production wings) failed at, which is why they intentionally broke the wings. The engineers then used this data to calculate the load limit that the pr…
> The A380 was already in production at the time of the Feb 2006 test. There is more than one version of the A380. But there was no A380 Airbus with a 550 seat capacity in service at that time. The whole point of that wing testing was so this newer, higher capacity A380 could get certification. http://www.modernairliners.com/airbus-a380/airbus-a380_histo... 25 October 2007 - The first commercial flight of the A380 to…
>There is more than one version of the A380.
There is only one version of the A380, the A380-800.
>But there was no A380 Airbus with a 550 seat capacity in service at that time.
I didn't mean "in service", I meant "in production". You're right that it wasn't in service at the time, but pieces of the plane had already been started to be produced, thus "in production".
>The whole point of that wing testing was so this newer, higher capacity A380 could get certification.
There was/is no "newer, higher capacity A380". This was the certification for the original (and only) A380.
We're just arguing semantics and talking past each other. During the test, the wings 'failed', but this failure was intentional. I see where you're coming from in your statement that it was a "failure", but my point is that the test passed, because the test did exactly what was needed to provide data for the necessary certification, which was achieved based on the test.
edit: edited to be less inflammatory
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pure ignorance on my part, but do plug type doors seal as strongly when on the ground ?
One would presume this is purely a function of the pressure differential between the cabin and environment, which they presumably controlled for.
Doesn't sound like it.
"Engineers had the plane pressurized and on the ground. They loaded it up well beyond capacity and bent its wings in an extreme manner..."
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You would expect things to break during a stress test. Except, the whole point of the test is to stress the plane and to have nothing break. The test is designed to make sure the aircraft has built-in safety (i.e. is over engineered). When the A380 was attempting to earn it's certification it failed a similar static wing test: http://www.airmech.co.uk/forums/showthread.php/5340-A380-Win...
> Except, the whole point of the test is stress the plane and to have nothing break. That depends on the type of stress test. Some stress tests are to confirm it acts as expected. Other stress tests are used to determine modes of failure. Good engineering isn't just building stuff to spec and assuming it works, just as good programming isn't just writing code and assuming it works as expected because the compiler doe…
Very importantly, this hasn't been described as a "test failure."
No indication of what the test criteria were, if any. Some tests, especially those past design limits, are just for informational data.
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#57The front fell off. It's perfectly normal. They towed it out of the environment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
Actually he said "It's not very typical."
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#58..."The test is meant to push the plane beyond its limits. Engineers had the plane pressurized and on the ground. They loaded it up well beyond capacity and bent its wings in an extreme manner, in a way almost certain to never happen in the real world."
I almost didn't shit my pants when the door blew off. I almost didn't didn't make it out of the burning building. 'Almost Certain' to never happen in the real world. Not very scientific to me. Sounds like PR talk.
The goal is roughly that if you manage to hit some of these numbers, it's because things have already gone catastrophically wrong.
It's not feasible to ask for certain safety in all possible conditions. The only thing that can manage that is a bomb shelter with 50 parachutes.
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#59It's a stress test. You would expect things to break during a stress test. > "They loaded it up well beyond capacity and bent its wings in an extreme manner, in a way almost certain to never happen in the real world." Here is another video of a 777 wing test where it broke at 154% of the [s/normal/maximum theoretical/] load - a bit beyond what was expected by the engineering team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2H…
"A door blew off a Boeing 777X as the new plane was undergoing what was supposed to be its final structural inspection by federal regulators." It's literally the first sentence of the article. I doubt Boeing were pushing the envelopes further than the FAA required. And a door fell out.
The second, third, and fourth sentences seem to imply otherwise?
>The test is meant to push the plane beyond its limits. Engineers had the plane pressurized and on the ground. They loaded it up well beyond capacity and bent its wings in an extreme manner, in a way almost certain to never happen in the real world.
and also further down, more "not necessarily a normal test" evidence:
>... The ultimate load test is the latest in a series of tests that Boeing has been conducting on this full-scale test airplane over the past several months."
Re: Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
#60It's a stress test. You would expect things to break during a stress test. > "They loaded it up well beyond capacity and bent its wings in an extreme manner, in a way almost certain to never happen in the real world." Here is another video of a 777 wing test where it broke at 154% of the [s/normal/maximum theoretical/] load - a bit beyond what was expected by the engineering team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2H…
That's...not something any client wants to hear.
if they're interested in knowing non-theoretical failure limits, and how it behaves under failure: yes, of course they want to hear that.