After the whole Side of Body debacle, the next few days will be anxiety filled. Let's hope the SOB Modifications and updated computer modeling prove their worth. I wonder how long after the test it will take to interpret the results and confirm the test a success?
ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1408 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 28891 times:
One thing is for sure, the wing won't break before 150%. I am sure of this because the wing has already passed 150%.
The side of body modification has passed > 100% without damage.
As I understand it, you do not have to pass 150% without damage, rather without failure. So even if side of body modifications cause trouble closer to 150%. it would not be a problem, as long as the wing did not "break"
Further despite side of body problems, the wing is said to be heavier (? stronger) than necessary for the 788.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 28742 times:
Should be fine. The plane survived her flutter tests and high-speed dives and while those do not put 150% of design load on the airframe, they would have given Boeing a feel for how the structure is holding up. They also verified the Side of Body fix for lower loads (necessary to start the flight test program), so they're not shooting in the dark here with fingers crossed.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28530 times:
It seems that Boeing is very confident that they will pass this test, otherwise they would not communicate this "soft" date to the outside world.
At last, it seems that 787 program is now really gaining momentum, as seen from the outside, and positive news finally starts to make all the bad things fade away!
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 28018 times:
Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter): After the whole Side of Body debacle, the next few days will be anxiety filled.
How so? If anything, the SOB fix should make them *less* anxious that the wing will pass.
Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter): I wonder how long after the test it will take to interpret the results and confirm the test a success?
It's a binary test...either you get to 150%, or you suffer catastrophic failure on the way there. I don't think that takes very long to analyze.
Quoting ruscoe (Reply 1): As I understand it, you do not have to pass 150% without damage, rather without failure.
Correct. You need to get to 100% without permanent deformation (read: nothing beyond fatigue damage) and 150% without catastrophic failure. It's completely permissible to have an unusable wing after the 150% test, as long as it didn't completely come apart.
brenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1453 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 27863 times:
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 5): Will they stop at 150% or go to full wing break as they have done on previous models? If not, why not?
From what I've understood from the countless answers to this same question: It's unlikely they will attempt to break the wing.
Why not? The carbon fibre basically disintegrates when it breaks and will cover the test area with a layer of CF dust that will cost a few million to clean up (apart from screwing up the test schedule while they clean up).
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 27780 times:
While they are not going to commit to breaking it, I would imagine they will take the test to 150% of the ultimate load of the 787 program as a whole, not just the 788. In other words, the ultimate load projected for a 789-IGW version, if possible. Or does this not really matter?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
MoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 27763 times:
Quoting brenintw (Reply 6): Why not? The carbon fibre basically disintegrates when it breaks and will cover the test area with a layer of CF dust that will cost a few million to clean up (apart from screwing up the test schedule while they clean up).
Yeah, I guess a few million $$$ in cleanup isn't worth the ego/P.R./bragging rights such an event produces. Save the cash, put it back into the airplane then.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 27614 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7): While they are not going to commit to breaking it, I would imagine they will take the test to 150% of the ultimate load of the 787 program as a whole, not just the 788. In other words, the ultimate load projected for a 789-IGW version, if possible. Or does this not really matter?
I do not believe it is necessary. The data collected during the test verifies if the models are correct and if they are, then they're good for any future variant going forward that uses that wing.
Hence no new wing tests for the various 747 and 777 models that have significantly higher TOWs then the original. Same with the A380-800, which only tested the wing for the 560t TOW passenger version, I believe, and not the 590t freighter.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27292 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): I do not believe it is necessary. The data collected during the test verifies if the models are correct and if they are, then they're good for any future variant going forward that uses that wing.
and to be clear, I expect them to go past 150% by some decent margin to ensure that that its done and over once the data gets re-crunched. Far safer to go to 152% than to get nailed for only going to 149% and find some guy is going to try and prove his credentials by forcing a retest.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27065 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7): While they are not going to commit to breaking it, I would imagine they will take the test to 150% of the ultimate load of the 787 program as a whole, not just the 788. In other words, the ultimate load projected for a 789-IGW version, if possible.
I doubt they will, the 788 and 789 wings are not the same. It is also not required, the results can then be done by analysis and grandfathered under the 788 test results.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1408 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 26762 times:
Quoting mgmacius (Reply 10): Quoting ruscoe (Reply 1):
One thing is for sure, the wing won't break before 150%. I am sure of this because the wing has already passed 150%.
How come? Some sort of super secret kind of testing?
No, you can view a video on the boeing site of an unofficial , 787 wing break test which exceeded 150%
The test was 1/3 span if I remember but represented the site where failure is expected.
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 23563 times:
Quoting ruscoe (Reply 1): I am sure of this because the wing has already passed 150%
Quoting mgmacius (Reply 10): How come? Some sort of super secret kind of testing?
Quoting ruscoe (Reply 13): The test was 1/3 span if I remember but represented the site where failure is expected.
I was really hoping that some sort of pre-test had been performed "in secret" and that success of Sunday's test was a foregone conclusion simply performed to document the certification record. However, it seems clear that successful testing on a 1/3 span, while a good predictor, can not be extrapolated into a confirmation that full scale testing of the wing will pass 150% load test successfully. As we have seen in the past, extrapolating small scale testing and computer modeling can be wrong. The 1/3 test certainly did not help predict the SOB problems. In fact, Boeing noted shortly after disclosing the problem that their computer modeling was flawed and had to be revised. I would assume that the 1/3 scale test data was, in part, used in the prior computer modeling.
While I expect the Ultimate Wing Load Test to go well, it is based on the assumption that Boeing has used the lessons learned from some painful miscalculations in the past. However, I've thought this before and have been increasingly disappointed with each new set-back. And, let's not fail to recognize that the stakes are very high here. All structural elements of the wing will be in play with an actual load that has not been previously recorded. If for some reason there is a failure to meet the requirements of the test, the 787 program and Boeing will most likely have yet another serious set-back (on many fronts) to overcome. Given the perceived turn around and growing confidence in the 787 program, it is not an overstatement to say that Boeing must pass the wing load test without any deviation from expectations to maintain the upward trend in customer and investor confidence.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 23067 times:
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15): The 1/3 test certainly did not help predict the SOB problems.
But was the 1/3rd test designed to also test the Side of Body join area? If it wasn't, then...
Also, Boeing has performed full-scale predictive tests on a number of components, including fuselage barrels and wingboxes and the horizontal and vertical fins. This is how they discovered things like the Side of Body Join issues and that the main gear well center spar and vertical fin leading edge required reinforcement.
So again, to the people who think Boeing goes into every one of these certification tests on their knees with folded hands and crossed fingers because they have no idea how things will turn out...
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 23040 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 12): I doubt they will, the 788 and 789 wings are not the same.
Zeke, I seem to recall a few weeks ago Boeing decided to use the B-788 wing on the B-789. That would reduce costs and some of the delays with the B-787-9, but not for the B-787-8. Did you hear something different?
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22546 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): So again, to the people who think Boeing goes into every one of these certification tests on their knees with folded hands and crossed fingers because they have no idea how things will turn out...
I certainly don't and do not expect many other A.Netters would as well. However, as we have seen, Boeing is not infallible either...if they were, we would have been writing about this test over two years ago.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): But was the 1/3rd test designed to also test the Side of Body join area? If it wasn't, then...
....then it is not a good test to extrapolate the results into a predictor of success on Sunday. Please read in context as the purpose of the small scale wing load test was to validate the analytical models in designing the wing; modeling that ultimately failed to predict the SoB join area problem.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 20714 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 19): They may look similar to the naked eye, but they will be structurally different.
amazing double standards some have. We hear all the time about the wonderous A330/A340 wings that are the same and how only Airbus could concive of such god like designs.
Then we hear how omg Boeing is so fail, they have to redo a whole wing from scratch just because of a MTOW change. How silly and stupid they are. They even try to hide it by making both wings have the same dimentions!!!! FOOLS!!!!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 20570 times:
Zeke's comments make sense to me. The physical dimensions of the 787-8's and 787-9's wings might be identical, but there has to be some strengthening of internal structures (ribs and such), otherwise the 787-8 is carry around unnecessary weight.
The 777-300ER wing is not internally structurally identical to the wing of a 777-300 and would not be even without the extra span from the raked wingtips.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 20441 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20): Then we hear how omg Boeing is so fail, they have to redo a whole wing from scratch just because of a MTOW change. How silly and stupid they are. They even try to hide it by making both wings have the same dimentions!!!! FOOLS!!!!
Where on earth was any of that implied?
The way i read it: If you're going to load test a wing for the sake of the -900, you might as well use one designed to support the load of a -900.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 20298 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Zeke's comments make sense to me. The physical dimensions of the 787-8's and 787-9's wings might be identical, but there has to be some strengthening of internal structures (ribs and such), otherwise the 787-8 is carry around unnecessary weight.
Yes, but many here have been making it out to be a new wing design, instead of a mere thickness change in the required sections. Every airliner with common wings and MTOW changes has had thickness/material changes to a common overall design to allow for the extra loads. Yet for some reason, some here would like to have others believe that the 789 will require a whole new structural design to accomidate its higher MTOW.
Which flys directly in the face of 50+ years of jet aviation and wing design where designers routinely make small adjustments in the detail design of the main spars and other structural components to make even fairly large changes in max strength. Both Boeing and Airbus have become masters in changing the thickness of parts to optimize strength and wieght. As in taking a billet of aluminum and machining it to a precise 3d shape so that the webbing and flanges are only as thick as they need to be in any given spot. Airbus you might note even went farther and does a machined 3d thickness on wingskins to remove wieght compared to a conventional sheet aluminum that is a single thickness across the whole sheet.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 20143 times:
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15): However, it seems clear that successful testing on a 1/3 span, while a good predictor, can not be extrapolated into a confirmation that full scale testing of the wing will pass 150% load test successfully.
Of course not. If it could be extrapolated, they wouldn't bother doing the full wing test.
However, many people appear to be thinking it was a 1/3 *scale* wing...it wasn't. It was 1/3 of the entire wing (full scale, just not the whole wing), which included the portion that's predicted to be the weakest in the full wing. That means the only way they won't make the 150% test is if the failure point is somewhere else in the wing...and figuring out the weak point is typically much easier than figuring out the exact failure load.
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15): s we have seen in the past, extrapolating small scale testing and computer modeling can be wrong. The 1/3 test certainly did not help predict the SOB problems.
The 1/3 test didn't include the side-of-body joint...it's physically impossible for it to have seen the SOB problem.
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15): And, let's not fail to recognize that the stakes are very high here. All structural elements of the wing will be in play with an actual load that has not been previously recorded. If for some reason there is a failure to meet the requirements of the test, the 787 program and Boeing will most likely have yet another serious set-back (on many fronts) to overcome.
It would be just as serious as the A380 wing failing to make 150%...which is to say, lots of bad press for a few weeks, and essentially no overall program impact.
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 22): If you're going to load test a wing for the sake of the -900, you might as well use one designed to support the load of a -900.
True, but note the *if*. There's no reason to load test the wing to -9 (there's no such thing as a 787-900) loads. That's never been a requirement on any prior commercial jet and I don't see any reason to start now.
Tom.
25 WarpSpeed: Apparently, the Ultimate Wing Load Test has been concluded without failure. As the devil often lies in the details, a thorough analysis of the testing
26 NYC777: While the objective of the test is to verify that the wing is strong enough to handle the loads expected in flight, it also give Boeing valuable info
27 JoeCanuck: I wonder if they tested it to the -9 limits.
28 Pygmalion: Why would they do that?? its not a -9 wing or a -9 fuselage. They are not testing only the wing, they are pulling down on the fuselage while they pull
29 JoeCanuck: A good reason might be that since they announced they would not increase the wing size for the -9, they might be curious how closely the -8 wing is t
30 Asiaflyer: Both Boeing and FAA are interested to see how the material responded to this test and analyse it, as the plastic composite does not behave as aluminum
31 IAD787: First photo! Absolutely jawdropping: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ource-zy997-completes-150-ult.html Onward, IAD787
32 474218: I didn't hear that Boeing's previous distructive wing box test cost millions to clean up. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-destructive.test-on
33 dynamicsguy: That previous test wasn't conducted in the final assembly buildings so it would have been easier to contain the mess.
34 ruscoe: I would think that the main reason not to destroy the wing was to have it available for further testing, should the need arise. Cheers Ruscoe
35 474218: According to Boeing the static test are done 1000 feet away from the final assembly building? http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q2/080425a_pr.
36 Stitch: That should not be necessary. Once they analyze the final data, all future "tests" (for higher MTOWs and such) should be handled via computer modelin
37 XT6Wagon: The 9 will have thicker stuctural members, and I suspect the "barrel" around the wingbox will need some extra strength added in for the higher MTOW a
38 tdscanuck: There is no precedent in modern times for redoing the wing break test for derivatives. There's no need to do an ultimate load test on a -9 wing and,
39 Devilfish: Link doesn't work. Let's try this..... http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=33464 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-ultimate
40 WarpSpeed: What is the FAA's rationale for establishing 150% as the test threshold in the first instance? If "100%" is considered the maximum load a plane would
41 Pohakuloa: 25ft wing flex is just, wow!! and the picture is impressive to say the least.
42 474218: So Boeing does not have a dedicated fatigue/static test facility? Seems strange. Lockheed built one for the L-1011 and since then has been used for t
43 tdscanuck: I'm not sure where the original rational came from...probably as a compromise beween "just enough" (100%) and belt-and-suspenders (200%). As to why i
44 MD-90: I wonder how much weight Airbus manages to save by doing that? My God that's incredible.
45 XT6Wagon: Dunno, has to be a good bit since its a hell of a huge cost increase over using sheet. I think the TV program on the A380 has some info about it.
46 AirlineCritic: It does look impressive! Can anyone say how this compares to other aircraft in the same size category, such as A330 or B777? A side-by-side picture c
47 keesje: High res from Seattlepi http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/library/787ultimatewing-2.jpg
48 dynamicsguy: From Things with Wings on Aviation Week's site:
49 Rheinbote: I always took that one as a red herring. If the wing design is decidedly conservative, wing strength might actually go beyond what the test trestle c
50 ruscoe: I have no idea, but I have been told that static fatique testing goes on long after entry into service. Cheers Ruscoe
51 JoeCanuck: When testing lifting and pressure equipment, 150% is the testing standard for certification. It's to allow a large enough margin for normal wear and
52 nomadd22: One thing I'd always wondered. If the wing twists as it bends and the outer part changes AOA, is it possible that, as much as the 787 wing flexes, it
53 morrisond: The picture really reminds me of a bird in flight as it's wings are about to start the downstroke. Just think about the future possibilities of making
54 Stitch: It is in Building 40-23, which is between the 747 (40-22) and 767 (40-24) final assembly buildings. 747 pre-assembly is performed in Building 40-21.
55 SEPilot: tdscanuck, as usual, is right on. I would just add that nobody can predict exactly what the maximum load the airframe will see in actual service, and
56 justloveplanes: Is it confirmed the test went to 150% and no further?
57 GeorgiaAME: Rather amazing picture. For argument sake, would that aircraft still be airworthy/flyable after that 25' flex?
58 WestWing: I know Boeing deliberately did not push the load test beyond breaking point - there is no need to do so for certification. However, with the deformati
59 KC135TopBoom: Which the A-380 wong did fail, it initially broke at 147%, but the EASA allowed Airbus to submit a redisign on paper and computer modeling for the fo
60 DfwRevolution: I would be shocked if there wasn't! Materials exhibit two distinct behaviors: elastic deformation and plastic deformation. As long as the stress rema
61 ikramerica: Yes. The test is not to know of the wing will be perfect after loading to 150% and the plane could land and return to service, but to know that it wo
62 pnwtraveler: In real life an aircraft that experienced such a load level would be taken out of service for an extreme examination. Wings emptied of fuel, washed ou
63 lightsaber: But the FAA also looked into why there is that 150% for lifting equipment. "Wear and tear" can reduce the capability of lifting equipment to 80% of t
64 justloveplanes: What was the cause of this high stress on said 707?
65 AirlineCritic: High winds around Mt. Fuji. A search aircraft deployed after the accident experienced 9g accelerations. More information here: http://en.wikipedia.or
66 SEPilot: This applies to metals; CFRP behaves very differently. I suspect that rather than plastic deformation what you will encounter is local delamination a
67 bonusonus: Is there a video of the 787 150% load test yet? I can't seem to find it on the Boeing site...
68 astuteman: Have to agree my friend. Awesome! Many many congratulations to the team for passing this test Will be fascinated to hear the "wash-up" Funny in a way
69 EA772LR: That's incredible. Thanks for the link
70 allegro: First, congratulations to Boeing for the completion of this test without a catastophe. Whew ... So here is my issue with these new composite wings: I
71 morrisond: When the wing springs back, wouldn't that increase lift, like a birds wing?
72 KELPkid: Hope no pax. onboard a real production 787 ever have to see anything like that in flight
73 ADent: There was an Air China 747 that exceeded the flight envelope, sustained significant damge, but continued in service for many years. The A/C pulled 5g
74 tdscanuck: Boeing does the same thing. I'm not aware of any manufacturer that uses single-gauge wing skins anymore (for commercial jets anyway). That's the proo
75 AutothrustBlue: Proof that engineering is an art, as that wing flex is outstanding. Congrats to Boeing on a successful test.
76 WarpSpeed: I can't wait to watch and it would be really interesting to have audio in order to hear all the unique sounds of the wing flexing. I can imagine the
77 tdscanuck: Well, the 747, 757, 767, and 777 never had to do a new wing break test for any of their derivatives (and the 747-400 to 747-8 wing was a major redesi
78 JoeCanuck: Regardless, 1.5 times rated capacity is the standard for certification.[Edited 2010-03-30 00:51:11]
79 dynamicsguy: You would probably be fairly disappointed. The increase in load is slow and gradual, so without breaking it there's not much to see on a video which
80 SEPilot: So do you get "metal" deformation in plastic wings?
81 nomadd22: I hope they don't still use laminated metal. It could really get confusing.
82 WarpSpeed: Perhaps dull is a good thing; at least until the testing has reached its goal. As usual, good perspective...Of the examples you cite, would the wing
83 PolymerPlane: It was actually 145%. It was 3% from 150%, not 3% from 100% BTW, Do they test/analyze the resulting plasticly deformed wings aerodynamically? if the
84 SEPilot: I believe the reason the 748 wing was not required to be retested was that the structural design is the same; it is only the contours and wingspan th
85 tdscanuck: Yes, but it's a massive difference in design philosophy. Lifting equipment may be certified at 1.5, but the safety margin above 1.5 is typically 3-6
86 JoeCanuck: 1.5 is all it's tested to so safety margin above that point is unknown. In that respect, it is exactly like the ultimate wing load test. It's a pass/
87 astuteman: I don't necessarily think that's inconsistent. The 748's wing has been re-lofted to become supercritical. To my mind that implies that most of the ri
88 bonusonus: Generally, factors of safety (aka design factors) are multipliers between 1 and usually around 4 or 5, depending on the material and the application.
89 SEPilot: They definitely do not want any margin above the 150%. This would mean that the wing is stronger than it need be, and hence heavier. That will transl
90 ruscoe: Does anyone know if there is a requirement to check the wing strength for deflection downward in relation to the fuselage?. Thanks Ruscoe
91 JoeCanuck: Only for the aerobatic version of the 787...
92 tdscanuck: Yes. Although it's typically less stressful than the 150% ultimate load strength test, there's are requirements for taxi loads (wing bending down rel
93 nomadd22: Would hard landings with full wing tanks be the most negative stress you'd expect to see? Or is Tex Johnson one of the test pilots?
94 tdscanuck: That would be my guess, but it's possible there's an inflight gust condition that's worse. Tex's famous 707 barrel roll actually was very benign from
95 OldAeroGuy: The FAR Part 25 Maneuver Load Envelope calls for +2.5g and -1.0g with high lift devices retracted. With the applicable safety factor, this means +3.7
96 nomadd22: Is the 0g point actual 0g, meaning your lift equals the weight of the wings or 0g relative to parked? (It hurts to read that back, but you know what
97 tdscanuck: 0g relative to parked, to put it in the terms you're using. It's "0g" in the same sense that space crews are "0g". Tom.
98 ruscoe: [quote = WestWing, la r Thanks for that info. I presume this test has already been performed, or can the data be determined from the +g tests? Ruscoe
99 ruscoe: Should have also asked, what about the tailplane; Is it also tested to 1.5 times? Thanks Ruscoe
100 tdscanuck: Yes. The 150% test requirement applies to all primary structure. However, I don't think there's any requirement that you do it to the entire primary
101 WarpSpeed: Success is confirmed!....video included in milestone post...interesting to learn that the fuselage was pressurized to 150% as the wings were flexed to
103 trigged: Whoa. looks like a ballerina doing a pirouette! Congrats Boeing! I wonder what percentage it would have failed at if allowed to test to fail.
104 WarpSpeed: According to this article (link below)...there was some damage but as expected and within the formal parameters of the FAA test requirements. As some
105 tdscanuck: I'm not sure there's any other way you could do it. The fuselage is primary structure, so it needs to go to 150% as well, and since the fuselage reac
106 JoeCanuck: With the well deserved hype regarding this test, it's also must be a bit of a relief to know that the wing side of body mod held up as well as the res
107 DfwRevolution: Just my arm-chair analysis (and quite off-topic) but I would say the 737CL to 737NG wing changes were more significant. The 747-8 wing retains the 74
108 rheinwaldner: Good question! The ultimate safety feature would be wings that flex so much that the ultimate load never could be reached: - The more the wing flexes
109 Baroque: Now when we get commercial airliners with a little sign up at the front that says, please fold wings after landing that will be a game changer!!
110 ruscoe: I'm no engineer, but when the wings are flexed a great deal, does that mean that the lift is sideways towards the fuselage, increasing the bending mom
111 frmrCapCadet: Where's that guy who said the 787 wouldn't fly, and IIRC, also that it wouldn't pass this test- EVER?
112 Stitch: Probably cooling his heels in the pilot's lounge at TLS or XFW as he waits for the next A380-800 to become ready for flight. Airbus just announced KE
113 tdscanuck: That's one way to do it...the other is to just make it so the wing stalls before it can reach ultimate load. This latter version is relatively common
114 ikramerica: Shouldn't we also hold those a.netters accountable who supported him once his "delay prediction" was close to being right? (he had speculative number
115 WarpSpeed: That guy is old news and I envision a day when his only available flight will be on one of the thousands of 787s flying across the world!
116 TXJim: I've always maintained that engineering is an art whose quality can be measured rather than judged. I offer this test as evidence.
117 AirlineCritic: The point is that there will be a force component upwards and another force component inwards. If the inward component is significant, it will indeed
118 dynamicsguy: It will not make the wings bend even more because with the increase in inward component there is a decrease in upward component. The force is more or
119 tdscanuck: No. As dynamicsguy said, you're just trading components. The magnitude of the force depends almost entirely on speed along, not on wing bend. Out nea
120 ruscoe: Thankyou gentlemen. I think I get that now. Ruscoe
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1408 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1983 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1453 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jun 2007, 68 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
