91–100 of 120 posts
I like how their PR person says "Safety is the highest priority at Boeing." I feel like the reality is that "doing what our customers tell us so we sell more airplanes than Airbus" is their actual highest priority. I wonder how they fix that. I wonder if it's even possible for a publicly-traded corporation to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
90% of $100 is not $190
Interestingly the 154% number seems to be gone from the article now The language is tricky, if you interpret it as I did, or 154% "more" than the design limit, then it is the design limit plus 1.54 more design limits. Like saying you salary is $100 and we're paying you 90% beyond your salary. Then you would expect to get $190. If you interpret it to be 154% "of" the design limit, then I would agree it would be 1.54x…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here is another video of a 777 wing test where it broke at 154% of the normal load I really hope you mean 154% of the max load, and I hope that max load is engineered to be far above what should be seen in actual service. 50% over the normal service load is not what I would consider extreme, and not something I would expect to be acceptable in an aircraft.
Ok, I'm hijacking this thread because there's some confusion about 'limit' load. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf...
It'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…
If you're testing it up to the limit then no, it is not expected.
But if you're pushing it beyond the design limit then yes, it is expected to break.
Some wing tests are done beyond the limit, some are done below the limit (non-destructive tests cost less, that's why they're preferred, but for a new design they might just push it beyond the limit to see when does it effectively fail)
Anyways, there the undeniable effect of climate change / extreme weather. Planes have to catch up to security standards so no lives are lost. Silly to point fingers at companies like it’s their fault. Industry needs to move as one towards safety.
It'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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The entire point of these tests is specifically to break things When you do these types of tests you are testing for a expected outcome. If you do a test and the outcome is un-expected (i.e. the fuselage fails prematurely) it means your engineering and the expectations built around that engineering are wrong.
This is incorrect. These tests are specifically done because they want to gather data on what the failure loads (which are previously unknown) are.
Comments here on this are like reddit comments, please shut the fuck up if you have nothing of value to add. I don't have downvote power so need to call all of you out. Simply quoting the article is not a valid comment; it does not generate discussion.
Thank You. This is my take on it: 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 topological parlour trick of making a quarter fall through a dime si…
(new as in, comparatively few composite body jets at scale are being tested, few models have existed, compared to the numbers of more traditional material jets which have undergone this specific test)