Testing the wing of the Boeing 777

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

Reqd my reply carefully buddy

I did - tough guy - and you are misinformed. I have read the sensational tabloids too. I also have direct experience in the industry.

[-]

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

Just a curious individual

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.

Safety over stock price

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 we revisit the 737 MAX crises and the ongoing 787 issues

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

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.

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

Alright buddy

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

The max expected operational load is 100% limit load.

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.

[-]

Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)

Episode 1-4

Episode 5

Full documentary.

[-]