Testing the wing of the Boeing 777
Posted by Twitter_2006@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 111 comments
Footage is from the PBS Documentary Jet of the 21st Century.
Posted by Twitter_2006@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 111 comments
Footage is from the PBS Documentary Jet of the 21st Century.
CampDracula@reddit
This video never gets old. ONE FIFTY FOUR
SeaMareOcean@reddit
Is there an equivalent for the 787, or any subsequent aircraft? It’d be great to see a modern version with a few more pixels.
Bobby__Generic@reddit
Boeing never destroyed the 787 wing to ultimate load out of safety concerns
StartersOrders@reddit
Airbus have footage of the A380 wing as I saw it at a talk they did once. No idea if it made it to the internet though.
That thing bending looked frankly ridiculous!
felinefluffycloud@reddit
NUMBA NINE
felinefluffycloud@reddit
The great Peter Coyote on the voice over.
Ok-Professional-32@reddit
Golden days of Boeing ... When engineers ran the company and corporate big wigs supported the engineers
BoringBob84@reddit
What are you talking about? Frank Shrontz was the CEO. He was am MBA.
Ok-Professional-32@reddit
Reqd my reply carefully buddy ... Since Boeing - McDonnell Douglas merger ... Company has gone south ... 777 was the last truly Boeing plane ... Built on solid engineering
BoringBob84@reddit
I did - tough guy - and you are misinformed. I have read the sensational tabloids too. I also have direct experience in the industry.
Ok-Professional-32@reddit
So enlighten the rest of us ... Direct industry experience ... Is Boeing the same company since the merger ? I'm not tough or anything ... Just a curious individual who happens to be in an industry where I get to meet a lot of pilots ... Stretching back to Concords and Tristars ...
BoringBob84@reddit
If you were genuinely curious, you wouldn't use ridiculous hyperbole. Boeing has done many great things (and also made many mistakes) since the merger.
That has always been the case.
Ok-Professional-32@reddit
Again, which part of my original comment diminishes Boeing’s past greatness? Acknowledging its decline doesn’t erase its legacy. It’s a well documented, widely observed reality that the company lost direction after the merger. Or would you prefer we revisit the 737 MAX crises and the ongoing 787 issues.
BoringBob84@reddit
Would you prefer to talk about how Airbus recently botched the flight control software in the A320 and caused uncommanded control surface movements? How do you deceive regulators by changing software and failing to do mandatory regression testing?
That is the difference between you and I. I have worked with both of these companies (and others). I am not a fanboy of either. They have done great things and they have made mistakes.
It is telling that you want to talk about MCAS and do not want to talk about successes in 777-X flight testing. Believe whatever sensational tabloid nonsense that you want, but don't try to pretend to me that you are some kind of an objective observer.
Ok-Professional-32@reddit
The sensationalism here seems to come from a reluctance to accept reality and taking offense at a straightforward observation: the company has changed. That’s all. I sincerely hope it returns to its roots and regains the level of greatness it once had. I speak as both an observer and an enthusiast, and I’ve worked with both companies. Making mistakes is part of any organization. What matters more is how those mistakes are handled. It becomes a different matter when issues are concealed, when those raising legitimate concerns face pushback, and when accountability is denied until it can no longer be avoided. These are facts, not opinions.
And tell you what ... I used to be a Boeing fanboy. Not anymore. " If it's not Boeing I ain't going " used to be my line like every proud Boeing pilot. Not anymore.
BoringBob84@reddit
You are not the first egotist on the internet who is so certain in what he believes that he claims it as fact. I am not deceived. None of those vague accusations are true, but they sell a lot of tabloids to gullible people.
Ok-Professional-32@reddit
Alright buddy … I’m officially a conspiracy theorist and a secret prepper. If that label makes you sleep better at night, I’ll wear it with pride. I genuinely wish you all the best, and may all your flights be smooth, calm, and as non bumpy as a cloud with excellent customer service.
BoringBob84@reddit
Your increasingly insulting emotional reactions here tell me how objective and informed you really are.
EGLLRJTT24@reddit
What's up with the ellipsis?
Sure, Boeing's company culture has shifted since the McDonnell Douglas merger. But the CEO at the time of the 777s development and manufacture (when this documentary was filed), contrary to your claim of "when engineers ran the company", was Frank Shrontz. His background was two years of US Army service, and then earning an MBA (business admin degree) from the Harvard Business School.
His pre-CEO roles at Boeing were all managerial, he never designed the jets he was overseeing, he never turned a wrench on them. He was a suit through and through.
wolf101123@reddit
When Boeing was run by engineers, not scumbags on Wall Street
whatdahelldamnguy@reddit
100%
BoringBob84@reddit
No - 0%. The CEO had an MBA.
whatdahelldamnguy@reddit
Lmao so did Edward Lampert
BoringBob84@reddit
I am not sure what you are laughing about, nor how a former executive from another company is relevant. Frank Shrontz had a business degree and he was the Boeing CEO during 777 development.
MegaBusKillsPeople@reddit
I never feared commercial airlines before, but after watching this test the first time I knew I was right not to be worried.
Every_Tap8117@reddit
only if it flaps like a bird should you be.
KBraid@reddit
just like the silver bullet?
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
Allan Mulallay is a legend.
shelf_paxton_p@reddit
Scored a great goal for Fulham
suckmywake175@reddit
As a Ford guy, I agree!
Bottasche@reddit
If only someone could have kept Harry Stonecipher and the rest of the MD execs away from Boeing leadership
Viking_Musicologist@reddit
Agreed. My Dad got a chance to hear him at a seminar when he visited the Rockwell Collins facilities in Iowa.
He has such an amazing sense of humor. I remember he said that Boeing should model themselves after Fisher-Price in that components go in one way only. It was really funny because one of his coworkers suggested they bring in Fisher-Price products during a meeting to prove his point.
ViceroyInhaler@reddit
Hey if it helps just remember that immediately after this Boeing basically fired half their engineers laying off thousands of employees and started to cheap out on the manufacturing process. Then the C suite gave themselves massive bonuses instead of reinvesting the money into the business.
mylicon@reddit
Kind of makes sense to reduce design engineering headcount when design is completed.
MrBadMeow@reddit
This guys voice remind of old History Channel or Science Channel
Viking_Musicologist@reddit
If you are talking about the Narrator it is Peter Coyote.
He's the same narrator who did a lot of Ken Burns documentaries.
MrBadMeow@reddit
that’s where i probably heard him from. I’ve seen Civil War a few times and the Vietnam series Ken Burns did.
myseptemberchild@reddit
I’m interested in how this changes in older aircraft (20-30 years plus) which have undergone the stress of tens of thousands of flight hours and how much this would reduce the aircraft’s ability to withstand turbulence.
jayrady@reddit
It's called cylicic fatigue and this test is a part of how you determine that.
AverellCZ@reddit
I have a friend who works at Lufthansa Technik - he told me that no plane ever crashed from turbulences, unless the pilot screwed something up. But the wings can take it. Multiple times.
OptiGuy4u@reddit
Looks like your friend is just a bold faced liar liar pants on fire. (Or they just didn't know it had happened)
AverellCZ@reddit
Oh gosh, there was indeed one crash in 1966 with an airplane type that is not in service anymore since...? And it wasn't the wings in that specific case.
OptiGuy4u@reddit
"No pLaNe EveR CrAsHEd FrOm TurbULAncE"
Why can't people say "Oh, thanks for the correction". 🙄
AverellCZ@reddit
Next time try something like "There actually was one case...." - instead of opening with insults. It will work wonders.
OptiGuy4u@reddit
Lighten up Francis. Liar liar pants on fire is an obvious joke.
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
BOAC Flight 911 crashed due to turbulence.
Here you go
AverellCZ@reddit
Ok, ok - 1966 with a Boeing 707 and it wasn't the wings that gave up in that case.... Unless I somehow end up on a 707 (are there any still flying?) I'm good.
ryguymcsly@reddit
Suspected load of at *least* 7.5Gs? That's some turbulence not much would survive.
Grouchy-Ad778@reddit
My read of that sentence was that the 7.5G’s occurred at some point after the plane started breaking up
39Poppy@reddit
ONE FIFTY FOUR
AlternativeEdge2725@reddit
ONE FIFTY FOUR
ecafsub@reddit
KSSHHHHHHHHHHH
Changoleo@reddit
SKADOOSH
coldcherrysoup@reddit
ONE FIFTY FOUR
Brainrants@reddit
ONNNNNNE FIIIIIIIFFFFFTY FOOOOOOOOOUR....
-Uploading@reddit
BRRRAAAAGGGAAADDDAAAAMMMM
blip_shabloimps@reddit
Guys. Dying.
WholeInstance4632@reddit
ONE FIFTY FOUR
HeyImGilly@reddit
KABOOM
notjamesdean@reddit
ONE FIFTY FOUR
Hermiones_Pepperonis@reddit
Got my new ringer. Thank you.
FrustratedPCBuild@reddit
Yeah, someone needs to set that to music.
AlternativeEdge2725@reddit
Wait, what level did it fail at? I missed that
ecafsub@reddit
Narrator sounds like Peter Coyote
LeeOCD@reddit
Peter Coyote narrations are my favorite!
Debaucherousgeek73@reddit
That's because it's him.
elmaterino1@reddit
I’m no engineer. But I think it’s fair to ask (what seems to be) a common sense question. And by all means, someone smarter than me should reply. But shouldn’t this test be performed in a way that applies the load in a much faster, intermittent kind of way? Like more consistent with real life air turbulence?
The slow, incremental and deliberate application of force until failure doesn’t really seem to mimic real life.
FarButterscotch4280@reddit
Good question. The loads were applied incrementally up to a certain calculated percent , then held. Then after that point, it was calculated that the wing would permanently deform with more load applied to it, so it was pulled continually to destruction.
quietflyr@reddit
Engineer here, formerly an aircraft structural integrity engineer, as a matter of fact.
Its counterintuitive, but test for certification are not always designed to mimic real life.
Certification standards like proof load at 150% of limit were developed over time as things that were "good enough". Aircraft which were proven to sustain this kind of load have, over the years, shown they're strong enough to withstand any loads they will practically see in service. Yes, a dynamic load test simulating actual turbulence (also, by the way, this test isn't designed to simulate turbulence, it's designed to simulate heavy manoeuvring) could be done, but it would cost a lot more (the test apparatus is much more expensive) and wouldn't materially affect safety. So it's not done.
Party-Ring445@reddit
Those are called dynamic loads. This is an ultimate static loads test where things are at equilibrium. Dynamic loads is taken into account in the sizing and is covered by the 150% limit load..
fxlr8@reddit
So, for what load it was rated for?
thepookster17@reddit
The max expected operational load is 100% limit load. Aircraft primary structure will typically be designed to an ultimate factor of safety of 1.5, effectively meaning there should not be catastrophic failure below 150% of the rated load. A perfectly designed part in an ideal world would fail at exactly 150%. Too much higher than that means unnecessary added weight, lower than 150% means there was some kind of analysis, material, or manufacturing miss.
TbonerT@reddit
What’s the load, not the percentage?
Chip042@reddit
A load factor of 2.5 to 3.8 g for limit load in maneuver. Exact load would depend on what the max take-off weight is but this from FAR 25.337. Other loads could be used depending on which was higher and how Boeing certified the airframe with the FAA.
start3ch@reddit
I’d assume you want it distributed so even under the worst case allowable material strength, at the worst temperatures, it survives the ultimate load.
39Poppy@reddit
153
stickied@reddit
153.9
gudangairam@reddit
153.99
Viking_Musicologist@reddit
154 *BOOOM !!!*
Rayd8630@reddit
Repeating, of course.
xPredator86x@reddit
I would be this is following the ultimate load test. first would be a Limit Load test, which is the maximum load the wing would ever see in service, followed by a Ultimate load test, which is 1.5x limit load. so in this case, the wing failed at 1.54x limit load, or just beyond ultimate load, which is the target, as it indicates that the wing is just strong enough to pass the tests, but without additional strength/weight.
RonaldoAce@reddit
well obviously not 154!
FinancialWelder5172@reddit
My next tattoo is gonna be 154
PowerOfEternity@reddit
I remember when this documentary aired the first time. Now I feel old.
lordnacho666@reddit
It's great engineering because not only does it survive the rated load, it breaks soon after.
flightwatcher45@reddit
Bingo, not over built. Anyone one can make a wing that is way stronger. The key is to make it juuuust strong enough.
proxpi@reddit
"Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands"
haarschmuck@reddit
Have to remember that the wing and wing box is basically the entire aircraft and everything else is attached to that. So if the wing/box is good the aircraft is good (in most cases).
United_Perspective63@reddit
Wild That back then the construction was considering 1.5 factors for the Mac safety margin.
rsta223@reddit
That's been standard in aircraft design for quite some time now.
dontevendrivethatfar@reddit
This is why I never take my 777 over 152% load limit
coolcalmcasey@reddit
That documentary is fantastic. So glad it's on YT.
DardaniaIE@reddit
From a programme management perspective, it was a master stroke. Alan Mullally (almost certain that was his name?) invited a TV crew in, as a way to help his team behave with each other, knowing they’ll be on display.
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
That's why I shared the links in case people want to watch it in full.
pornborn@reddit
So, the design load was equivalent to about 2.5G’s. 150% of that would be an additional 1.25G’s for a total of 3.75G’s.
For reference, when an airplane is in a coordinated turn at a constant altitude, a 60° bank angle results in a 2G load.
A coordinated turn is a maneuver in which the forces acting on an airplane are perfectly balanced, meaning the aircraft flies without sideslip and occupants feel no lateral acceleration, only increased pressure straight down into their seats.
TDWolfy@reddit
Was this an MTS rig?
Akash_Nijjar@reddit
say what you have to say but 777 is the most iconic plane after 747. It essentially was a replacement of a quad engine jet.
BackgroundGrade@reddit
Bombardier couldn't get the CSeries wing to break. They called it off because the forces in the rig were getting dangerous.
henryhttps@reddit
The 777 had such great success, largely thanks to Allan Mulally. He made it what it is today and did so with intelligence, charisma, and morality. Let him be a model to follow. Boy, do we need one.
Viking_Musicologist@reddit
He also had an amazing sense of humor as well. I remember how he compared building an airliner to putting together his kids toys and also the story of how Boeing engineered a brake for the toilet seats in the lavatory so it does not make a loud slapping sound when you close it.
webfootedwombat@reddit
Seems like I’ve seen this clip somewhere before. Oh I remember now, FUCKIN EVERYWHERE!!
The19thStep@reddit
this is like watching those hs engineering class competitions where kids stress test the bridges they made out of angel hair pasta and glue
Equivalent_Salad_389@reddit
I remember watching the blade off test footage for the engines. Honestly stunning that the case could contain all that stuff.
AlarmDozer@reddit
Dang, dude. NWA had a 747? Ah, man. I missed out.
Jaded_Character_2975@reddit
I wonder if the boing horse lover guy was in the audience
par-a-dox-i-cal@reddit
Wonder if the fuselage was pressurized.
LewisMiller@reddit
Anyone got a link to full video?
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
Episode 1-4
Episode 5
Full documentary.
NixiofRivia@reddit
Great Doc !
rstinut@reddit
The whole series is on YouTube and a must watch if you’re into aviation at all
dinomax55@reddit
Amazing