@@Gamerboy-gy1rl Well, with the slight difference that Airbus didn't kill clients of their clients by blunt greed..... at least not as "out in the open for everyone to see"
The MCASS system was rushed to production. Airbus has a similar situation with their anti stall system minus the crashes of course. Boeing's MCASS can be shut off and left off,the Lion Air pilot turned the MCASS off and on six times.. Airbus system computer however can't be shut off,that system is meant to take control of the A/C from the flight crew.. Airbus has put it's anti stall system development on hold,perhaps scrapping it for a pilot friendlier alternative.
If this type of structural failure happened in the sky the aerodynamics would be so bad I'd question whether or not the plane would be able to crash land.
@@ryannayr140 this type of structural failure is near impossible in the sky. The difference between cabin pressure and outside pressure could never be as high as it was in the test. And if pilots notice that there is a problem with cabin pressure they just fly to a lower altitude or in the worst case depressurize the cabin.
@@CaptainChrom It's not about the aircraft surpassing the load during one particular flight - but the accumulated cycles the frame endures over time, which fatigues the structure. Especially since Boeing is trying to match the 6000 ft cabin pressure to match the A350. Interestingly, there is an online discussion that Boeing (once again to match the seat size of the A350) thinned the frame along the cabin floor of the 777 to squeeze in more seats and match the 18" width.
From engineering standpoint it was definitely a very solid test result, and Boeing engineers should be proud. However, if Boeing is smart, they will repeat the test after reinforcements. Not because it’s needed, but because their company image needs lots of reinforcement right now. ;0)
The cost is too much for a re-test. They only did the first one because it is obligatory. Boeing does not care about reputation anymore . They have the govt in their back pockets just getting another several billion $ order from them. The old days of competition with Douglas et al which benefitted the consumer in $ and safety are all but gone. It's the nature of the monopolistic beast - it encourages mediocrity - just look at the 2 party state of the USA being on the same page and what that has done to their foreign policy over the years. Case closed. ..
@@jefftegg5320 and the last 2 737 max crashes attest to that, correct? Or is that fact also rubbish? Obviously you had no close to you on those flights that boeing, to this day, are still trying to pass off as 'pilot error '. Part of the failure process serves to tell us what we need to do better, not what we should accept because it suits an agenda.
As a cycle and destructive test engineer for 30+ years, this test was as expected. There is always a tolerance for test expectations and I am sure that it was greater than + or - 1%. The engineers nailed it... this destructive case could not be duplicated or expected in normal flight - this type of failure would only happen in an aircraft unsurvivable scenario. Also, if you want to get into the weeds the engineers have to find what exactly failed and WHY IT FAILED? The majority of test failures happen because of 1st run structural pieces that were either manufactured wrong -which could include incorrect material or improper construction like weld sizes or fit. The design may have been spot on and the manufacturing of a single piece of this complicated structure was made incorrectly. The point is that this test within 1% was awesome result from a testing perspective and proved the design was close to perfect. You don't want to over design or under design a product like this... you have to find that balance and they did.
To add to this there are tolerances in every part of the system, from design and manufacture to the test equipment. For a worst case scenario where every part of the system is at the wrong end of its allowable tolerance span it will probably add up to more than one percent in the end.
If they are designing to a 150% safety margin then the pass level should be 145% If the requirements are 150% to pass then you design for 155% as a minimum
@@aviationismylife6814 Ahh that makes more sense. When the regulatory safety margin is 150 and say the company preferred margin is 175 then a 173 could still be considered close enough
@@dasy2k1 well yes boeing set there's test at the maximum there aircrafts can handle. This is 100% success as these aircraft will never be put to this point in everyday use. The tests boeing does is so extreme that the plane would have to be maximum weight going maximum speeds while doing military style maneuverability to actually break up mid air and even then its possible it still wont break easy.
My wife has been putting me through a continuous load and stress test well above recommended limits for years now. I am beginning to show some signs of normal wear but continue to function well. I have not experienced any explosive decompressions and all of my hatches are intact, although im still awaiting my final manufactures approval =-P Thank you Sir for all of your information and wonderful videos. they are educational and very entertaining as well. Id like to wish you and everyone else in the comments a very happy and safe Christmas ! =-)
In terms of engineering I consider this failure a success. To calculate a model with FEM and come out just 1-2% off in reality just shows the accuracy of engineering. Same happened to the A380 in 2004. The ULT was failed and corrections were done with FEM only as far as I know. To stay competitive in this market nowadays calls for repetitive optimization. Aircraft manufacturers cannot afford to overengineer planes because of weight savings. Good video!
I was working for McDonnell Douglas in the mid-1990s in an office across the street from the DAC ass'y plant for MD-80/90 and MD-11. One morning I heard a very loud bang coming from the direction of Long Beach Airport that sounded like a metallic explosion. It was as loud as lightning and just-as-sudden. I inquired and was told it was the life-stress-test of the new MD-11 wing which had been robotically flexed and flexed and flexed thousands of times to deliberately induce metal fatigue. The bang was the wing finally snapping, ending the test, which lasted months. I had been given an opportunity to volunteer for another test (which I declined). M-D employees filled an MD-11 cabin to capacity. Then they were given a simulated evacuation situation where monitors were timing how long it took to completely evacuate the fuselage. This was taken seriously. In fact, in this test one employee volunteer broke her arm. But the point was that M-D had to prove to FAA that the exits were sufficient to evacuate everyone within a specified time period.
As an industrial mechanic (dual vocational aprentisship in Germany) and now a student bachelor of engineering I can say that the Mythbusters were correct that failure is allways an option, HOWEVER it's only truly a failure if you don't learn from it. Therefore this was not a failure, but a success with a slight setback all within the expected margins. If anything the 1% difference shows that the models were exeptionally well made and that the wizardry that is engineering is reaching a point where we can expect things long before they should be expected, the goal of engineering is closing in on the natural limit of: "How flimsy, weak, cheap and unprecise can I make it, while still being on the safe side of the safety margin, even if it's just barely?" I also highly suspect that the smallest material imperfections were a tiny ammount higher then the expected average which is why it got so close to the limit value, not uncommon for prototype pieces and the first pieces of a newly produced piece of equipment. In general points I agree with Smelly Elvis. Oh and don't forget the most valued words in all things science, no not "Eureka I found it!" but rather "Huh that's odd".
I love aviation and the technology, and I have a lot of admiration of both the Airbus and the Boeing engineers, so I dont really get why so many makes it Boeing vs Airbus, just because they are business competitors. I love how they dont just copy eachother, but actually do a lot of new thinking in ways to improve airplanes. The competition is a business level issue, so if you love engineering and aviation, leave the business out of it. Its allowed to love many many types of airplanes. So far all the problems I have seen around aviation manufacturing is all down to beancounters, and not engineers. To Boeing employees and Airbus employees reading here, keep making great planes, and I will keep admiring and travel on them.
Excellent. I remember watching a video of a Boeing aircraft (777?) having it's wing bent until it broke. But.. a young Boeing engineer had predicted the bend and the spar that would fail. And there was a loud bang when it broke.. And he smiled. He was right on. As an aside, the comments have been great...
lol Yeah, the people in the comments are quite foolish. Sound like bleating sheep making noise based on zero thought. It's a wonder they can breathe on their own. 1.48% is pretty damn good IMO. So long as you don't have two pilots have heart attacks at the same time, the plane will survive.
Well.. I'm honestly smitten by that adorable puppy hanging around him while he's busy discussing about the aircraft. So now, all I care about is how cute that little fella over there haha. ♡
No aircraft design knowledge however I spend 25 years as a Chassis Designer/Engineer in the automotive industry. Destructive testing has been practiced for many years, whether it's putting cars into the barrier or individual component catastrophic failure. The only way to find the limit is to push past that limit, sometimes that limit is not even known until the test results.
These kind of comments are the ones that should be looked at. Not those type of comments where "That's a fail engineering, no way will the 777x be up in the skies". Just bullshit, test are here for a reason, it is to continually improve the aircraft in every ways, what are those ppl thinking!?
It's a little tough for most people to understand intuitively, as most products (cars, trucks, etc) have much larger safety factors that you can easily eat into. The large difference is that you don't abuse airplanes; people will lose jobs over if those hard "1.0" limits are exceeded, whether by accident or intent. As you said, normal airplane operation doesn't come anywhere close to the 1.0 limit, and this was a test to destruction. It'd be like putting more and more weight on the back of a pickup truck until the axle broke and destroyed the suspension and drivetrain along with it. If engineers say they think the pickup truck will handle 15 tons before failing, and it only handles 14.8 tons, they're going to call it good and set the rated limit at 5 tons (for an ultimate safety factor of 3) so that when someone steps over the 1.0 rated limit and loads 7 tons, they aren't in danger of breaking an axle while on the highway. They're doing much the same with the 777, but because pilots and crew won't exceed the rated limits, they can set that rated load closer to failure, say at the analog of 10 tons; still safe, but no wiggle room.
This is an ultimate static strength test, and I used to test various automotive seat recliners. The parts were designed to resist failure at a specification that was well beyond minimum FMVSS standards. We expected the assemblies to fail well beyond the specs. They were always tested to failure, after holding at the specified level for several seconds. I'm no aviation expert, but I think that if aviation had to go well beyond the specs, the planes would be too expensive to build, plus the fact they have to minimize the weight of the plane. In any case, if a plane is in such a situation that caused these levels of stress, they're probably toast as it is. Most of what I've seen of breakups, they were out of control, and it was basically a question whether after the crash, where the pieces landed.
I had formed a similar opinion when the story was initially reported as the door falling out. It's a stress test meant to measure the amount of pressure the aircraft can take before it breaks. If it's close to the expected threshold, the recommendation would be to reinforce the weak points, test again and keep it moving. I really think persons are attributing normal bumps in aircraft certification to the Max issue and painting a narrative whereby Boeing can't catch a break, and my personal opinion is that's truly unfortunate and more than a little unfair. It's a completely different aircraft model with separate engineers and overall build crew. Smh
The press, especially the press here in the U.S. hasn't been taken seriously since the early 2000's. When print media couldn't sell newspapers any more, and failed to adopt the internet in the 90's, we lost all of the real journalists. The people who would actually research what they were talking about were gone, and we were left with a bunch of Twatter morons.
I would go out on a limb and say the 777 program has produced the nicest, safest, and downright sexiest airliners that have come from Boeing. I know if I was flying over an ocean tomorrow, I would want to do so in a Triple. Gotta give it up for the EU too...the A-350 is equally as sexy and impressive. Two fantastic airplanes.
Full agree, totally unfair, uneducated people making dangerous imagined conclusions. Remember, a good reporter doesn't get the great story, a good reporter makes the story great.
A good explanation of engineering limits, testing, and the real safety implications. Given you’re prepared to actually put your life on the line, accepting that this type of test result does occur, that should be enough to give folks with less understanding of the process some comfort. It gives me lots!
Thanks for putting the photos of the fuselage failure in context. So much is being said about how “dramatic” this catastrophic failure was … it must be viewed in light of what was being done (which you explained quite well) and that, in truth - this test was a success. 👍🏽
So this might seem like an odd comment to make but I just wanted to thank you for the fact your audio is so loud and clear in these videos. Even the most professionally produced videos on RUclips seem to mix their mic a little quiet a lot of the time and it makes it harder to balance the volume while doing multiple things at once, especially if you have audio processing issues like I do.
The whole idea is that over a 40 year lifetime of an aircraft, structural strength will go down, hence the 150% limit. But not by that much or by that fast. Look at bridges, 100 years later some of them are still carrying loads that are far beyond their limit criteria.
Because of the 737 disaster there is a major tendency in the sensationalist media to over-criticize everything Boeing does, but personally I'd rather rely on serious aircraft engineering experts to analyze and fix the problems. This is one of the world's greatest aircraft manufacturers, with a fantastic history of achievement. Their recent problems are a result of bad decision-making by upper management. I sincerely hope Boeing will rebuild and recover and get its reputation back as soon as possible.
Patxi has been paying attention to all of Petter's videos - he is the best qualified doggie on You Tube and is effectively type-rated on the 737 now. FACT!
As mentioned, this was within 1% of design limit. Remember that aircraft are made from thousands of components, made by different people in different factories, each within a certain tolerance. That necessary tolerance means no two parts are identical, but they meet spec. They are then assembled by different people on different shifts on different days. A failure in the first airframe within 1% is amazing. I forget the example I was given way back in the day, but on a wholly sheetmetal plane like the 747, where each component was made within +/- .030" meant that two planes built to the same spec could differ in length by 1 or 2 feet in length. I even heard that fuselage barrels could differ in diameter, so much so that they'd have to cut a saw kerf down the length, cinch it shut and rivet it together before join. Good old days!
Well in Software Engineering I like this saying: A test is only successful if you >find< issues, else it would be a waste of time and money because you just did not try harder than the users usually do. :-D
Yes, it failed when calculated to fail, within the margin of error. In other words, a complete non-event, but probably blown up to be something by people with little or no technical knowledge?
If I ran Boeing, I'd repeat the test with stress fixes implemented even if FAA will determine it's not needed. Boeing must restore public's trust and must return to it's engineering roots.
@@francisdexaviermaurinus4695, indeed the test must be repeated, in order to fill to confirm all the criteria values, 100%!! Not even 0,000001 less!!! Yes Boeing must restore and reinforce our trust as soon as possible. Boeing should become an honest and competent company, in order to create and build solid airplanes again. We need Boeing. I don't want to think, our life when we fly, my family, my friends, everyone of us is been putting on such significant risk.
@@antoniosoares2947 Literally nothing in your life is tested to the degree of an airplane. they are also not testing it for your safety. They are testing for the safety of what is on the ground. It is cheaper for you to die in a crash than have you come out alive but injured. If a plane crashes in a populated area such as a city it can cause a lot more damage than if a few passengers die.
I agree. These days Boeing is about diversity and inclusion and reducing co2 emissions to tackle climate change bs. Boeing should be laser focused on engineering and satisfying its customers instead of all the politically correct progressive garbage.
"Literally nothing in your life is tested to the degree of an airplane." When one AoA sensor in a 737 Max goes bad, the plane tries to crash. You'd think testing the software response to basic component failures would be a fundamental part of the testing procedure.
Sir, If I get really lucky. You will never stop making videos. What I would not give to to be about thirty years younger and your first officer. Wow how I hope you keep going about teaching us all about modern flight.
@@markj2093 There was a testing limitation on 787 that prevented further load increase. "today" is not new; planes typically fail quite close to 150% and therefore some are below 150% (an example is the A380 wing). As long as it's quite close, the structure can be increased accordingly
It has been long time that I'm following your channel and I really like your way to explain, because you are not only a pilot that loves explaining aviation concepts. Watching every video I every time feel that you really know deeply even what you shouldn't supposed to know. And that's awesome! Keep going mentour! 💪
I was a project manager for this test program and was running the observation room where leadership were watching from via video feed. Let me tell you that when they say it shook the ground... it SHOOK THE GROUND. It was like a huge bomb went off. All the exterior safety doors in the hanger blew open and they're was airplane debris scattered all throughout all throughout the hangar. It was wild!
Petter, while the test may have reached 1.48 of the load, isn't it a requirement that the airframe be able to hold the stress at 1.5 for 3 seconds before given a passing grade? This would mean that it could not reach the point at which it was to hold the load for the allotted time. Thank you.
did you not watch the video. the test still gives useful data. it shows the simulations are close to real life, so with just a small reinforcement, they KNOW the plane will then hold up to the full 150% and thus they do not need to do the test again. Its not really a fail/pass test, it's much more about the data that it gives and verifying the data matches theory and models. I'd say being that close actually is a very good result. Basically same thing what mentour said, so watch the video first before commenting
@@iPelaaja1 Well MK, everyone seems to have their own agenda. Petter omitted to mention that the test needs to be held at 1.5 for 3 seconds. Given the recent history of Boeing, I'm not sure 'very good result' is what is needed in the industry. Had you been paying attention, you might have noticed that the 3 second hold was not mentioned. Perhaps you might go rewatch the video yourself, then re-read my comment, before commenting. Please do try to keep up.
@Pure Really? Funny - I thought I saw members of the 'air industry' hauled in front of congress for killing over 300 people, the other day. I'm pretty sure that there is an aircraft model taking up employee parking spots because they cannot be delivered to customers and I'm think I heard that a certain model is late (once again) for it's first flight because of engine and test issues - and has had orders cancelled. But maybe you're referencing the European air industry - in which you are correct. sir. It's doing swimmingly!
@Pure Nice. You tell that to the family members who lost people. "Hey Folks, listen - count yourself lucky because it was only some 300 dead. Make sure you thank brilliant Boeing on your way out" I'm taking a wild guess, but you don't work in the Boeing legal dept., do you?
A real 3D test I can depend on compared to computer models - 2018 Florida Intern. Univ.(FIU) w/ a engineering firm designed a 175 ft walkway that failed during construction that was under designed by 90% killing 6. A second engineering firm had also approved the work as safe.
REQUEST: Please do a video on how pilots park at the stand using the lights that guide them in, etc. When I used to go to big airports and stand at the spectators' gallery, you couldn't see these lights or guidance systems from the public viewing areas, so please do a video on them! Excellent video today, by the way. Thanks again.
@@borbalbuddy I think he meant that they designed it to just barely pass the test instead of focusing on getting it to higher standards. But only he can tell what he had in mind. EDIT: Since everyone lost their mind I just wanted to explain what the OP said, not saying he was right. I actually think it's quite wrong, but since I responded to a comment asking explanation for another comment I though it was obvious I was not taking sides... Lister right, The A380, is one of the safest a/c out there and it got this test by breaking at like 147 or 148%. Every bit of over engineering is weight = bad fuel performance. Also those tests are so brutal it's actually a great thing it got to 149.8%
Oh I know... either two ads before a video... ads IN the video... ads at the end of the video... or, if you use ad blockers; huckstering as part of the video. RUclips is rapidly losing its appeal.
Your dog is fantastic! 🤣 and so are your videos, your detail is impeccable. I’ve been watching your channel for a while but I just wanted to tell you that I really enjoy your content and delivery. Awesome stuff as usual...👍🏻👍🏻 🛫
Great video and explanation of what happened . Even better was your summation on the impact this so-called " failure " will have upon the design going forward . Thanks for all your efforts !
Had the same problem with stress fractures on the door frame on the C130-J model when using JATO bottles. We just reinforced the door with a slightly thicker frame backer and it was signed off good to go. That was decades ago and no problems worth noting.
Yes, the computer models need to be calibrated.. these tests make the comp models more and more accurate as the data is used to calibrate. 1.48 is a pass. People have been flying for years on planes that may not make 1.35 ..for years, and happily trot away from it criticizing something made of modern materials that exceed the old fashioned plane they just got off.
Of course they need to be tuned and the only real way to do that is breaking such an expensive jetliner. No choice. But this speaks good about Boeing. They are doing what they are supposed to do.
Well, yes, and no. Yes, models need validation, but ideally the validation can be done at a lower level, on less expensive samples. And I love it that everybody just assumes that the engineering models were at fault, and not MATERIALS or manufacturing QUALITY. This way lies failure.
I have to confess. I dont fly nor do i try to board such a deathtrap anyday soon, i doo fly low and fast on my motorcycle thou. But i find your videos oddly satisfying and relaxing to watch.
Great video! I'm curious to learn more about the whole testing/certification process. Can you make more videos about that? Couple of specific questions: 1) This was a test of just one unit of an assembled aircraft. Given that there is always some statistical variation between different units of almost any product, how does Boeing and the regulators make sure that other assembled units, even after reinforcements, don't fail at much lower stress levels? If the average level where a rupture happens is 155%, it's still not good if the variance among units is 10%. I'm sure there is a lot of statistical testing done on the various parts and then simulations on the whole unit based on that, but maybe there are some factors in assembly or something else that can cause variation in the strength of the final assembled unit. So really the question is how is statistical variation of assembled units considered in these strength tests? Question 2) is that once the model goes into production how do they make sure that the assembled units stay within the requirements?
Failing at about 1% below the limit tells a lot about the engineering expertise of the designers as they design the plane to be OK up until as close as possible to the limit but above. So in fact I'm impressed by the mechanical engineers of the plane. They were not over engineering the plane by a very thin margin. Kudos. Anyway the fuselage will have to go back to the drawing board for a reinforcement.
Yes, they were trying to hit 1.5 or more and they hit 1.48. It is said that the smaller manufacturers of smaller aircraft tend to be more over-designed because they don't have the R&D budget, i.e. it is much harder for them to hit 1.5 exactly.
in terms of software, enhancements could fail like the 737MAX's MCAS, but structural reinforcement is by definition reinforcement there's no such thing called reinforced vulnerabilities
@@MIO9_sh Well, yes there could be. If you reinforce a week point, the stresses that originally broke that weak point could be redirected elsewhere on the air frame and could then break at that point.
the test is not really done to verify the stresses it can take and more to verify the computer model. since the result was very close to the expectation it can be reinforced with additional simulations knowing that those simulations are reliable
Excellent explanation! Cannot wait for this aircraft to be certified. I love the triple seven and I’ve traveled all over the world on them. Very comfortable!
I completely understand the point of view of the engineers commenting in this thread. But as a non-engineer, I have two questions of the engineers. First, how close to meeting the stated objective is "good enough" to preclude running another (very expensive) test to destruction? This plane failed at 149%. A commentor below claims the A380 failed at 145%. Would 140% be OK? How about 135%? What other factors besides making changes on a computer model should be considered in making that decision? Second, how well are engineers able to respond to pressure from other parts of a corporate structure which takes other things into account besides engineering? The Challenger disaster is a fine example of how engineers who KNEW there were problems with the Shuttle's O-rings were not taken seriously by management because "we never lost a Shuttle before" and because NASA (and apparently Ronald Reagon) was tired of the delays leading up to the launch.
While most engineers have a standard of what they deem should be a minimum, there are some that are a little bit more easy to bend when they know their job depends on it. Depends on how well you're able to sleep at night.
This is why not everything is set in stone and hard rules, but left to engineers and certifiers to decide. That is the entire point of engineering - to make decisions.
Mentour why dont you do a video about the 787 problem about flight control wires being shorted by silver shards and that over 25% of the onboard oxygen supply systems being ineficient but still being installed on planes
Sadly, he tends to stay away from anything that's controversial or could put his career in danger of he talks about it. Still love his content, but would be good to hear more about some serious issues
For how long was 148% of the limit loads sustained? The FA Regulations require ultimate loads (150% of limit loads) have to be sustained without rupture for at least 3 seconds.
irrelevant. the data verified the computer models, now they just trim the values a bit, add slight reinforement and plane is ready to fly. no need to waste yet another airframe to be destroyed
@@lvl10cooking the fire issues were mediated and the engine issues are on rolls Royce. Not everything is Boeings fault. Its systemic throughout the airline industry
That's true, I never really thought about pressurization as to fits of doors and openings in general. Guess that's no windows in a submarine. Except the Seaview. Thanks again
Another good informative video on current news issue. Thanks for reassurance on threshold of safe limits in structure tests... PS a little English correction: at 2:26 said, "that we haven't overseen something" - meant overlooked something.
It is a static test airframe. It is tested to destruction. It is done to identify weaknesses in the airframe. Generally the first two or three airframes are used so improvements can be made before the plane goes into full manufacturing. It is not a disaster. It is expected.
Germans started it first for safety. They made first full size wind tunnel and load tests. In war time they use Zuse's world's first programmable digital computer to calculate airplane aerodynamic. Results was excellent. First jet flight and first near sound barrier flight and swept-back wing design. First unmanned space flight. First helicopter in service.
@@verttikoo2052 ... Yes, but the Comet didn't start the pressurization test. The Comet started the FATIGUE tests, i.e. where you load and unload the structure (pressurization included) thousands of times replicating realistic service loads, not where you load it up once (pressurization included) to the ultimate load it is supposed to resist.
Lotus AMG Is there ever any normal conditions on a plane. Bad weather. Wind shear. Wake turbulence. Drunk passengers just a day in a pilots job all he wants is his passengers safely on the ground that’s what he’s trained for but if in Max case where a Micas could overrule competant pilots then were in the realm of the unknown especially if they had only 50 mins I pad training no sim training. Not even in their handbook in cabin. The pilots were left defenseless Boeing must pay the price for this shocking mal practice ❤️✈️🇬🇧🇺🇸😂
I really enjoy your channel and all your content. I also LOVE your pup/dog. it's hilarious! I am not a pilot or have any interest. I am just an inquisitive person who likes to learn and you teach very well! Thanks
this "its good enough" mentality is quite scary considering what boeing has pulled off in the last couple of years. mcas, structural problems of the 737ng, you name it. they are pushing the boundaries of "how much can we safe before we get in to trouble" quite hard. and i feel like if they wont learn their lesson anytime soon, more lives will be taken.
With Boeing, there's a thin line between safety and profit. They build to a minimum standard to juusst be safe, but have costs as low as possible to not cut into profit
@reverse thrust no, just stating facts. All manufactures build as cheap as possible to keep costs low and profit high. Most times its fine, but sometimes people pay for it. (Boeing's MCAS, for example)
"It takes 50 years to build a reputation and just a handful of greedy managers on the 737 Max project to ruin it." Right Boeing?
Same with Airbus the neo have problems bad
@@Gamerboy-gy1rl Well, with the slight difference that Airbus didn't kill clients of their clients by blunt greed..... at least not as "out in the open for everyone to see"
Exactly F*CK Boeing!
The MCASS system was rushed to production.
Airbus has a similar situation with their anti stall system minus the crashes of course.
Boeing's MCASS can be shut off and left off,the Lion Air pilot turned the MCASS off and on six times..
Airbus system computer however can't be shut off,that system is meant to take control of the A/C from the flight crew..
Airbus has put it's anti stall system development on hold,perhaps scrapping it for a pilot friendlier alternative.
@@mixedboi;Let's see your engineering degree.
" even though the damage in the pictures looks dramatic, the damage is dramatic." lol
If this type of structural failure happened in the sky the aerodynamics would be so bad I'd question whether or not the plane would be able to crash land.
@@ryannayr140 most likely it'd just disintegrate into multiple pieces though with some extreme luck it's possible the plane might stay in one piece.
@@ryannayr140 this type of structural failure is near impossible in the sky. The difference between cabin pressure and outside pressure could never be as high as it was in the test. And if pilots notice that there is a problem with cabin pressure they just fly to a lower altitude or in the worst case depressurize the cabin.
@@CaptainChrom It's not about the aircraft surpassing the load during one particular flight - but the accumulated cycles the frame endures over time, which fatigues the structure. Especially since Boeing is trying to match the 6000 ft cabin pressure to match the A350. Interestingly, there is an online discussion that Boeing (once again to match the seat size of the A350) thinned the frame along the cabin floor of the 777 to squeeze in more seats and match the 18" width.
MyTech, thank Christ! ✝️
From engineering standpoint it was definitely a very solid test result, and Boeing engineers should be proud.
However, if Boeing is smart, they will repeat the test after reinforcements. Not because it’s needed, but because their company image needs lots of reinforcement right now.
;0)
Haha funny joke for the last part lol
The cost is too much for a re-test. They only did the first one because it is obligatory.
Boeing does not care about reputation anymore . They have the govt in their back pockets just getting another several billion $ order from them.
The old days of competition with Douglas et al which benefitted the consumer in $ and safety are all but gone.
It's the nature of the monopolistic beast - it encourages mediocrity - just look at the 2 party state of the USA being on the same page and what that has done to their foreign policy over the years.
Case closed. ..
@@jeremiahjohnson6082 well considering flying has never been cheaper or safer, I'd say your comment is utter rubbish
@@firmaneffendi2801 heh heh -
@@jefftegg5320 and the last 2 737 max crashes attest to that, correct?
Or is that fact also rubbish?
Obviously you had no close to you on those flights that boeing, to this day, are still trying to pass off as 'pilot error '.
Part of the failure process serves to tell us what we need to do better, not what we should accept because it suits an agenda.
As a cycle and destructive test engineer for 30+ years, this test was as expected. There is always a tolerance for test expectations and I am sure that it was greater than + or - 1%. The engineers nailed it... this destructive case could not be duplicated or expected in normal flight - this type of failure would only happen in an aircraft unsurvivable scenario.
Also, if you want to get into the weeds the engineers have to find what exactly failed and WHY IT FAILED? The majority of test failures happen because of 1st run structural pieces that were either manufactured wrong -which could include incorrect material or improper construction like weld sizes or fit. The design may have been spot on and the manufacturing of a single piece of this complicated structure was made incorrectly. The point is that this test within 1% was awesome result from a testing perspective and proved the design was close to perfect. You don't want to over design or under design a product like this... you have to find that balance and they did.
To add to this there are tolerances in every part of the system, from design and manufacture to the test equipment. For a worst case scenario where every part of the system is at the wrong end of its allowable tolerance span it will probably add up to more than one percent in the end.
If they are designing to a 150% safety margin then the pass level should be 145%
If the requirements are 150% to pass then you design for 155% as a minimum
@@dasy2k1 well its pass the FAA recommended but fall short to boeing test
@@aviationismylife6814 Ahh that makes more sense.
When the regulatory safety margin is 150 and say the company preferred margin is 175 then a 173 could still be considered close enough
@@dasy2k1 well yes boeing set there's test at the maximum there aircrafts can handle. This is 100% success as these aircraft will never be put to this point in everyday use. The tests boeing does is so extreme that the plane would have to be maximum weight going maximum speeds while doing military style maneuverability to actually break up mid air and even then its possible it still wont break easy.
My wife has been putting me through a continuous load and stress test well above recommended limits for years now. I am beginning to show some signs of normal wear but continue to function well. I have not experienced any explosive decompressions and all of my hatches are intact, although im still awaiting my final manufactures approval =-P Thank you Sir for all of your information and wonderful videos. they are educational and very entertaining as well. Id like to wish you and everyone else in the comments a very happy and safe Christmas ! =-)
You should reinforce yourself with food to build a thicker haull in order to withstand the extra stress. j/k
@@awdrifter3394 I follow your recommendation on a regular basis, and I can confirm that it does indeed make my hull bigger.
haha, your wife, hilarious stuff
You made my day with that hilarious comment 😂
🤣🤣🤣
In terms of engineering I consider this failure a success. To calculate a model with FEM and come out just 1-2% off in reality just shows the accuracy of engineering. Same happened to the A380 in 2004. The ULT was failed and corrections were done with FEM only as far as I know. To stay competitive in this market nowadays calls for repetitive optimization. Aircraft manufacturers cannot afford to overengineer planes because of weight savings.
Good video!
Well said
I think you mean over build[to make up for a lack of engineering], not over engineer.
@@mytech6779 Yes overbuild is maybe more fitting ;-)
I agree, this is within about 1.000000000001% of perfect
@mPky1 You've never ever done anything related to FEM calculation in a professional context, that's for sure.
This result is a perfect result.
Boeing on January: This is gonna be my year.
Boeing on December: pls stap.
"Stap" ???
@@Milesco r/wooooosh
@@gasviation9077 Yep, 'fraid so. Whatever the inside joke was, I didn't get it.
I was working for McDonnell Douglas in the mid-1990s in an office across the street from the DAC ass'y plant for MD-80/90 and MD-11. One morning I heard a very loud bang coming from the direction of Long Beach Airport that sounded like a metallic explosion. It was as loud as lightning and just-as-sudden. I inquired and was told it was the life-stress-test of the new MD-11 wing which had been robotically flexed and flexed and flexed thousands of times to deliberately induce metal fatigue. The bang was the wing finally snapping, ending the test, which lasted months.
I had been given an opportunity to volunteer for another test (which I declined). M-D employees filled an MD-11 cabin to capacity. Then they were given a simulated evacuation situation where monitors were timing how long it took to completely evacuate the fuselage. This was taken seriously. In fact, in this test one employee volunteer broke her arm. But the point was that M-D had to prove to FAA that the exits were sufficient to evacuate everyone within a specified time period.
Hahaha I love the idea of having green pillow on the right/starboard side and red on your left/port side.
As an industrial mechanic (dual vocational aprentisship in Germany) and now a student bachelor of engineering I can say that the Mythbusters were correct that failure is allways an option, HOWEVER it's only truly a failure if you don't learn from it.
Therefore this was not a failure, but a success with a slight setback all within the expected margins.
If anything the 1% difference shows that the models were exeptionally well made and that the wizardry that is engineering is reaching a point where we can expect things long before they should be expected, the goal of engineering is closing in on the natural limit of: "How flimsy, weak, cheap and unprecise can I make it, while still being on the safe side of the safety margin, even if it's just barely?"
I also highly suspect that the smallest material imperfections were a tiny ammount higher then the expected average which is why it got so close to the limit value, not uncommon for prototype pieces and the first pieces of a newly produced piece of equipment. In general points I agree with Smelly Elvis.
Oh and don't forget the most valued words in all things science, no not "Eureka I found it!" but rather "Huh that's odd".
I love aviation and the technology, and I have a lot of admiration of both the Airbus and the Boeing engineers, so I dont really get why so many makes it Boeing vs Airbus, just because they are business competitors. I love how they dont just copy eachother, but actually do a lot of new thinking in ways to improve airplanes. The competition is a business level issue, so if you love engineering and aviation, leave the business out of it. Its allowed to love many many types of airplanes. So far all the problems I have seen around aviation manufacturing is all down to beancounters, and not engineers. To Boeing employees and Airbus employees reading here, keep making great planes, and I will keep admiring and travel on them.
J=k=k=jjkmkk=k====k(k=jk=j=j=j==kkm================j==j=j=====j====j===============j===========jj====jj==========j=j=ijjjj=j>nnnnn>;nnn>=;jiijjjjjijjijjjijijjjjij=j=j=====j=====j===j=======j================j=============j=========================jj====jjj==j=j=====j===================j===========j======j==jj==j=jjj=j=j=====jj===j===kk(((k((((((k((((((((((k(((((((((((((((k(((((kk(k
Just like crash-testing cars. Just a bit more expensive.
"bit" more. Yeah. That test was hundreds of millions!
@@tcpnetworks Volvo's crash testings run over hundreds of millions
Can you buy it only for destruction??
@@kratokat3431 not any more oops that was Saab cars.
Excellent. I remember watching a video of a Boeing aircraft (777?) having it's wing bent until it broke. But.. a young Boeing engineer had predicted the bend and the spar that would fail. And there was a loud bang when it broke.. And he smiled. He was right on. As an aside, the comments have been great...
lol Yeah, the people in the comments are quite foolish. Sound like bleating sheep making noise based on zero thought. It's a wonder they can breathe on their own. 1.48% is pretty damn good IMO. So long as you don't have two pilots have heart attacks at the same time, the plane will survive.
Me too. Not sure if a 777 but it was a destructive test for sure
Videos on current developments in the aviation world like this one will be very helpful.
Thank you for the video.
Well.. I'm honestly smitten by that adorable puppy hanging around him while he's busy discussing about the aircraft. So now, all I care about is how cute that little fella over there haha. ♡
Who, Takes care Of The Furbaby, When Dad's Flying?
@@garrybracken8933 I know right. I don't have any idea who. I might go and apply as puppysitter. 😂
@@juliegriar9495 it looks like a mop
Right! Who cares about this airplane shit? If the doggie is not in the right seat I'm getting out!
@@marcusrat4466 🤣
No aircraft design knowledge however I spend 25 years as a Chassis Designer/Engineer in the automotive industry. Destructive testing has been practiced for many years, whether it's putting cars into the barrier or individual component catastrophic failure. The only way to find the limit is to push past that limit, sometimes that limit is not even known until the test results.
This is why flying is so safe, the manufacturers test these things to well beyond real world conditions. Great video as always👍
These kind of comments are the ones that should be looked at. Not those type of comments where "That's a fail engineering, no way will the 777x be up in the skies". Just bullshit, test are here for a reason, it is to continually improve the aircraft in every ways, what are those ppl thinking!?
Yes, but you also have to consider the abuse the plane will go though during its lifetime... a bit over specification is certainly needed
@Wolfgang Preier what incident at Gibraltar?
It's a little tough for most people to understand intuitively, as most products (cars, trucks, etc) have much larger safety factors that you can easily eat into. The large difference is that you don't abuse airplanes; people will lose jobs over if those hard "1.0" limits are exceeded, whether by accident or intent. As you said, normal airplane operation doesn't come anywhere close to the 1.0 limit, and this was a test to destruction. It'd be like putting more and more weight on the back of a pickup truck until the axle broke and destroyed the suspension and drivetrain along with it.
If engineers say they think the pickup truck will handle 15 tons before failing, and it only handles 14.8 tons, they're going to call it good and set the rated limit at 5 tons (for an ultimate safety factor of 3) so that when someone steps over the 1.0 rated limit and loads 7 tons, they aren't in danger of breaking an axle while on the highway. They're doing much the same with the 777, but because pilots and crew won't exceed the rated limits, they can set that rated load closer to failure, say at the analog of 10 tons; still safe, but no wiggle room.
This is an ultimate static strength test, and I used to test various automotive seat recliners. The parts were designed to resist failure at a specification that was well beyond minimum FMVSS standards. We expected the assemblies to fail well beyond the specs. They were always tested to failure, after holding at the specified level for several seconds. I'm no aviation expert, but I think that if aviation had to go well beyond the specs, the planes would be too expensive to build, plus the fact they have to minimize the weight of the plane. In any case, if a plane is in such a situation that caused these levels of stress, they're probably toast as it is. Most of what I've seen of breakups, they were out of control, and it was basically a question whether after the crash, where the pieces landed.
I've been following you way before i was a pilot when the channel was so small you had 5k subscribers now you have 500k awesome!
Boeing needs to be skeptical... one more mistake and that might be it for them.
I had formed a similar opinion when the story was initially reported as the door falling out. It's a stress test meant to measure the amount of pressure the aircraft can take before it breaks. If it's close to the expected threshold, the recommendation would be to reinforce the weak points, test again and keep it moving. I really think persons are attributing normal bumps in aircraft certification to the Max issue and painting a narrative whereby Boeing can't catch a break, and my personal opinion is that's truly unfortunate and more than a little unfair. It's a completely different aircraft model with separate engineers and overall build crew. Smh
But EXACTLY the same mindset!!!!
Genevieve Campbell More than unfair. Criminal slander, IMHO. Stirring up controversy where there is NONE !!!
The press, especially the press here in the U.S. hasn't been taken seriously since the early 2000's. When print media couldn't sell newspapers any more, and failed to adopt the internet in the 90's, we lost all of the real journalists. The people who would actually research what they were talking about were gone, and we were left with a bunch of Twatter morons.
I would go out on a limb and say the 777 program has produced the nicest, safest, and downright sexiest airliners that have come from Boeing. I know if I was flying over an ocean tomorrow, I would want to do so in a Triple.
Gotta give it up for the EU too...the A-350 is equally as sexy and impressive. Two fantastic airplanes.
Full agree, totally unfair, uneducated people making dangerous imagined conclusions. Remember, a good reporter doesn't get the great story, a good reporter makes the story great.
A good explanation of engineering limits, testing, and the real safety implications. Given you’re prepared to actually put your life on the line, accepting that this type of test result does occur, that should be enough to give folks with less understanding of the process some comfort. It gives me lots!
Thanks for putting the photos of the fuselage failure in context. So much is being said about how “dramatic” this catastrophic failure was … it must be viewed in light of what was being done (which you explained quite well) and that, in truth - this test was a success. 👍🏽
It was dramatic. I was the project manager of that test program and to say this event was dramatic is an understatement
So the structure yielded right when the engineers expected it to give way?
Task failed successfully!
So this might seem like an odd comment to make but I just wanted to thank you for the fact your audio is so loud and clear in these videos. Even the most professionally produced videos on RUclips seem to mix their mic a little quiet a lot of the time and it makes it harder to balance the volume while doing multiple things at once, especially if you have audio processing issues like I do.
What happens after 1000 cycles? All of a sudden 1.499 becomes 1.299?
The whole idea is that over a 40 year lifetime of an aircraft, structural strength will go down, hence the 150% limit. But not by that much or by that fast. Look at bridges, 100 years later some of them are still carrying loads that are far beyond their limit criteria.
@@tazzer9 - that's because they were designed by humans with common sense, not computers.
Because of the 737 disaster there is a major tendency in the sensationalist media to over-criticize everything Boeing does, but personally I'd rather rely on serious aircraft engineering experts to analyze and fix the problems. This is one of the world's greatest aircraft manufacturers, with a fantastic history of achievement. Their recent problems are a result of bad decision-making by upper management. I sincerely hope Boeing will rebuild and recover and get its reputation back as soon as possible.
Your copilot is adorable!
Wait...dog is his co-pilot? :-)
Patxi has been paying attention to all of Petter's videos - he is the best qualified doggie on You Tube and is effectively type-rated on the 737 now. FACT!
@@SpamMouse Bravo
@@christalbot210 much like Snoopy
I like how he wakes up when the wing breaks.
I like your co-commentator! Showing his back perfektly expresses his thoughts about te 777x! ;-)
I believe there is a difference between failed at the test and failed structurally as expected by the test.
It was expected to break, but it broke too early and failed the test
There is...but it failed at 99% of the test load...not 100%
As mentioned, this was within 1% of design limit. Remember that aircraft are made from thousands of components, made by different people in different factories, each within a certain tolerance. That necessary tolerance means no two parts are identical, but they meet spec. They are then assembled by different people on different shifts on different days. A failure in the first airframe within 1% is amazing.
I forget the example I was given way back in the day, but on a wholly sheetmetal plane like the 747, where each component was made within +/- .030" meant that two planes built to the same spec could differ in length by 1 or 2 feet in length. I even heard that fuselage barrels could differ in diameter, so much so that they'd have to cut a saw kerf down the length, cinch it shut and rivet it together before join. Good old days!
@@thetowndrunk988 Fortunately for Boeing, no one takes the press seriously any more. Whatever they put on the screen is scrutinized.. and rightly so.
Well in Software Engineering I like this saying: A test is only successful if you >find< issues, else it would be a waste of time and money because you just did not try harder than the users usually do. :-D
The dog's poses in the videos... LOL!!!!
As an aircraft mechanic I appreciate your thoughtful presentation.
This video is absolutely fantastic!
Brings back memories of the failed V1 RTO test on the A340. "L'escaliers! L'escaliers!"
conclusion: It is a successful failure.
More like a programed controlled on purpose failure
Task failed successfully
APOLLO13 was just that successful failure
Pretty much the story of my life, I have done crazy awesome things, but I have nothing to show for it.
Yes, it failed when calculated to fail, within the margin of error. In other words, a complete non-event, but probably blown up to be something by people with little or no technical knowledge?
If I ran Boeing, I'd repeat the test with stress fixes implemented even if FAA will determine it's not needed. Boeing must restore public's trust and must return to it's engineering roots.
Repeat the test for what? Was Ok? Is like building another empire state building to see if you can build it. When you already did.
@@francisdexaviermaurinus4695, indeed the test must be repeated, in order to fill to confirm all the criteria values, 100%!! Not even 0,000001 less!!! Yes Boeing must restore and reinforce our trust as soon as possible. Boeing should become an honest and competent company, in order to create and build solid airplanes again. We need Boeing. I don't want to think, our life when we fly, my family, my friends, everyone of us is been putting on such significant risk.
@@antoniosoares2947 Literally nothing in your life is tested to the degree of an airplane. they are also not testing it for your safety. They are testing for the safety of what is on the ground. It is cheaper for you to die in a crash than have you come out alive but injured. If a plane crashes in a populated area such as a city it can cause a lot more damage than if a few passengers die.
I agree. These days Boeing is about diversity and inclusion and reducing co2 emissions to tackle climate change bs. Boeing should be laser focused on engineering and satisfying its customers instead of all the politically correct progressive garbage.
"Literally nothing in your life is tested to the degree of an airplane." When one AoA sensor in a 737 Max goes bad, the plane tries to crash. You'd think testing the software response to basic component failures would be a fundamental part of the testing procedure.
The brown fluffy airplane going around you there is having some difficulties to land lol...
Excellent intelligent discussion, thank you.
Best aviation info on RUclips- complete with puppy action ! Love your channel- Rich
Editing hint: never never never cut to B-roll when cute doggo is busy being cute. 🤗
pixelkat1819 😂👍🏼
Sir, If I get really lucky. You will never stop making videos. What I would not give to to be about thirty years younger and your first officer. Wow how I hope you keep going about teaching us all about modern flight.
Almost any test aircraft gets written off when they're done. They take so much abuse that a further use after testing doesn't make sense...
Not quite. One of the Boeing 747-400 test aircraft did sold to Northwest, and guess what happened?
I was told at Hawker Siddeley that tests are not designed to see if the plane passes the accepted limits but to see where they fail.
@@markj2093 There was a testing limitation on 787 that prevented further load increase. "today" is not new; planes typically fail quite close to 150% and therefore some are below 150% (an example is the A380 wing). As long as it's quite close, the structure can be increased accordingly
I think these kind of videos of big news events IMO are great because you get to see a pilot prospective
Yeah, true. And this one tends to be waffling a hell of a lot due to him being a Boeing boy!
@@duncanhowarth9514 he's not an Boeing boy where are you getting your information?
It has been long time that I'm following your channel and I really like your way to explain, because you are not only a pilot that loves explaining aviation concepts. Watching every video I every time feel that you really know deeply even what you shouldn't supposed to know. And that's awesome! Keep going mentour! 💪
Your dog is so fluffy
I was a project manager for this test program and was running the observation room where leadership were watching from via video feed. Let me tell you that when they say it shook the ground... it SHOOK THE GROUND. It was like a huge bomb went off. All the exterior safety doors in the hanger blew open and they're was airplane debris scattered all throughout all throughout the hangar. It was wild!
Petter, while the test may have reached 1.48 of the load, isn't it a requirement that the airframe be able to hold the stress at 1.5 for 3 seconds before given a passing grade? This would mean that it could not reach the point at which it was to hold the load for the allotted time. Thank you.
frankpinmtl KAPOWWWW
did you not watch the video. the test still gives useful data. it shows the simulations are close to real life, so with just a small reinforcement, they KNOW the plane will then hold up to the full 150% and thus they do not need to do the test again. Its not really a fail/pass test, it's much more about the data that it gives and verifying the data matches theory and models. I'd say being that close actually is a very good result. Basically same thing what mentour said, so watch the video first before commenting
@@iPelaaja1 Well MK, everyone seems to have their own agenda. Petter omitted to mention that the test needs to be held at 1.5 for 3 seconds. Given the recent history of Boeing, I'm not sure 'very good result' is what is needed in the industry. Had you been paying attention, you might have noticed that the 3 second hold was not mentioned. Perhaps you might go rewatch the video yourself, then re-read my comment, before commenting. Please do try to keep up.
@Pure Really? Funny - I thought I saw members of the 'air industry' hauled in front of congress for killing over 300 people, the other day. I'm pretty sure that there is an aircraft model taking up employee parking spots because they cannot be delivered to customers and I'm think I heard that a certain model is late (once again) for it's first flight because of engine and test issues - and has had orders cancelled. But maybe you're referencing the European air industry - in which you are correct. sir. It's doing swimmingly!
@Pure Nice. You tell that to the family members who lost people. "Hey Folks, listen - count yourself lucky because it was only some 300 dead. Make sure you thank brilliant Boeing on your way out"
I'm taking a wild guess, but you don't work in the Boeing legal dept., do you?
Oh wow, finally a mentour video under 10 minutes and without repetition.
A real 3D test I can depend on compared to computer models - 2018 Florida Intern. Univ.(FIU) w/ a engineering firm designed a 175 ft walkway that failed during construction that was under designed by 90% killing 6. A second engineering firm had also approved the work as safe.
Mistakes are very good teachers. But failures are very good punishers.
I was expecting the dog to make a successful fall.
Tristan Ahnenberg I read this at juuuust the right time to leave me in stitches :D
REQUEST: Please do a video on how pilots park at the stand using the lights that guide them in, etc. When I used to go to big airports and stand at the spectators' gallery, you couldn't see these lights or guidance systems from the public viewing areas, so please do a video on them! Excellent video today, by the way. Thanks again.
Thanks for keeping it short this time Mentour!
As an aviation guy I always like the info you share. Definitely a lot of good info on your channel.
This speaks a lot to the quality of engineering when failures occur so close to the maximum design load.
Good or bad?
@@borbalbuddy I think he meant that they designed it to just barely pass the test instead of focusing on getting it to higher standards. But only he can tell what he had in mind.
EDIT: Since everyone lost their mind I just wanted to explain what the OP said, not saying he was right.
I actually think it's quite wrong, but since I responded to a comment asking explanation for another comment I though it was obvious I was not taking sides...
Lister right, The A380, is one of the safest a/c out there and it got this test by breaking at like 147 or 148%.
Every bit of over engineering is weight = bad fuel performance.
Also those tests are so brutal it's actually a great thing it got to 149.8%
@@federico339 I'm presuming that's a bad thing.
@@federico339 you know that they tested the aircraft with 150% of the maximum load it has to endure to get certified? The 50% are the safety margin.
@@borbalbuddy his comment is saying engineering is good. Everyone with common sense could understand that
Good stuff. Can't wait to see the 777X in action.
I miss the videos that didn’t spend the first half plugging sponsors.
Oh I know... either two ads before a video... ads IN the video... ads at the end of the video... or, if you use ad blockers; huckstering as part of the video.
RUclips is rapidly losing its appeal.
I GET SO PISSED, MANY TIMES I REFUSE TO WATCH IF THE ADS POP UP IN MY FACE. THEY LOSE ME.
Really great explanation of how planes are yes tested and what this means and proper interpretation for modifications.
After watching a lot of airplane crash videos this channel really helps calm me down lol
yeah, honestly as someone who has always wanted to fly an airplane, I really don't trust them!
@@buddymoore6504 The weakest link in you flying an airplane is you.
Your dog is fantastic! 🤣 and so are your videos, your detail is impeccable. I’ve been watching your channel for a while but I just wanted to tell you that I really enjoy your content and delivery. Awesome stuff as usual...👍🏻👍🏻 🛫
The test was almost a success..... just like the MCAS in the 737 was almost successful.
MCAS was a huge success! You might say it was a real overachiever, in fact...
@@ryankennedy3109 Like the clocks in the Starliner?
Great video and explanation of what happened . Even better was your summation on the impact this so-called " failure " will have upon the design going forward . Thanks for all your efforts !
It actually sounds like you are on Boeings paylist. A faillure is a succes !!
Had the same problem with stress fractures on the door frame on the C130-J model when using JATO bottles. We just reinforced the door with a slightly thicker frame backer and it was signed off good to go. That was decades ago and no problems worth noting.
Computer models require validation, and this kind of tests are needed for that. There's always feedback between codes and experimental tests.
Right! No substitute for empirical testing, which, as Mentour points out, refines the model.
Yes, the computer models need to be calibrated.. these tests make the comp models more and more accurate as the data is used to calibrate. 1.48 is a pass. People have been flying for years on planes that may not make 1.35 ..for years, and happily trot away from it criticizing something made of modern materials that exceed the old fashioned plane they just got off.
Of course they need to be tuned and the only real way to do that is breaking such an expensive jetliner. No choice. But this speaks good about Boeing. They are doing what they are supposed to do.
Well, yes, and no. Yes, models need validation, but ideally the validation can be done at a lower level, on less expensive samples. And I love it that everybody just assumes that the engineering models were at fault, and not MATERIALS or manufacturing QUALITY. This way lies failure.
Your pupper is so cute
This doesn't really matter to me, I'll fly on older Boeing's up to 787, else I'm strictly AIRBUS.
I think I won't really fly on any Boeing aircraft designed after the merger of Boeing-McDonell
@ 1:35..the chillest dog on the internet
Who's here to see the cute puppy?
I have to confess. I dont fly nor do i try to board such a deathtrap anyday soon, i doo fly low and fast on my motorcycle thou. But i find your videos oddly satisfying and relaxing to watch.
Great video! I'm curious to learn more about the whole testing/certification process. Can you make more videos about that? Couple of specific questions: 1) This was a test of just one unit of an assembled aircraft. Given that there is always some statistical variation between different units of almost any product, how does Boeing and the regulators make sure that other assembled units, even after reinforcements, don't fail at much lower stress levels? If the average level where a rupture happens is 155%, it's still not good if the variance among units is 10%. I'm sure there is a lot of statistical testing done on the various parts and then simulations on the whole unit based on that, but maybe there are some factors in assembly or something else that can cause variation in the strength of the final assembled unit. So really the question is how is statistical variation of assembled units considered in these strength tests? Question 2) is that once the model goes into production how do they make sure that the assembled units stay within the requirements?
Failing at about 1% below the limit tells a lot about the engineering expertise of the designers as they design the plane to be OK up until as close as possible to the limit but above.
So in fact I'm impressed by the mechanical engineers of the plane. They were not over engineering the plane by a very thin margin. Kudos.
Anyway the fuselage will have to go back to the drawing board for a reinforcement.
Yes, they were trying to hit 1.5 or more and they hit 1.48. It is said that the smaller manufacturers of smaller aircraft tend to be more over-designed because they don't have the R&D budget, i.e. it is much harder for them to hit 1.5 exactly.
What if the reinforcements introduces new vulnerabilities? Always retest, always!!!
Obviously you don’t understand how this works.
That's not how it works.
in terms of software, enhancements could fail like the 737MAX's MCAS, but structural reinforcement is by definition reinforcement there's no such thing called reinforced vulnerabilities
@@MIO9_sh Well, yes there could be. If you reinforce a week point, the stresses that originally broke that weak point could be redirected elsewhere on the air frame and could then break at that point.
the test is not really done to verify the stresses it can take and more to verify the computer model. since the result was very close to the expectation it can be reinforced with additional simulations knowing that those simulations are reliable
Excellent explanation! Cannot wait for this aircraft to be certified. I love the triple seven and I’ve traveled all over the world on them. Very comfortable!
I completely understand the point of view of the engineers commenting in this thread. But as a non-engineer, I have two questions of the engineers.
First, how close to meeting the stated objective is "good enough" to preclude running another (very expensive) test to destruction? This plane failed at 149%. A commentor below claims the A380 failed at 145%. Would 140% be OK? How about 135%? What other factors besides making changes on a computer model should be considered in making that decision?
Second, how well are engineers able to respond to pressure from other parts of a corporate structure which takes other things into account besides engineering? The Challenger disaster is a fine example of how engineers who KNEW there were problems with the Shuttle's O-rings were not taken seriously by management because "we never lost a Shuttle before" and because NASA (and apparently Ronald Reagon) was tired of the delays leading up to the launch.
While most engineers have a standard of what they deem should be a minimum, there are some that are a little bit more easy to bend when they know their job depends on it. Depends on how well you're able to sleep at night.
This is why not everything is set in stone and hard rules, but left to engineers and certifiers to decide. That is the entire point of engineering - to make decisions.
That dog is fantastic😂😂😉
The test is done on a new structure with the certain knowledge that failure will occur sooner as the structure ages.
Love your puppy
Mentour why dont you do a video about the 787 problem about flight control wires being shorted by silver shards and that over 25% of the onboard oxygen supply systems being ineficient but still being installed on planes
Sadly, he tends to stay away from anything that's controversial or could put his career in danger of he talks about it. Still love his content, but would be good to hear more about some serious issues
New doesn’t mean better. I would prefer flying the old 747 which is much more reliable. At least it passed all the stress tests.
For how long was 148% of the limit loads sustained? The FA Regulations require ultimate loads (150% of limit loads) have to be sustained without rupture for at least 3 seconds.
irrelevant. the data verified the computer models, now they just trim the values a bit, add slight reinforement and plane is ready to fly. no need to waste yet another airframe to be destroyed
FAA is a fully owned subsidiary of Boeing. 777X is going to get certified no matter what, just like 737 Max.
Does Easa still trusts the FAA in cooperation with Boeing?
They shouldn't. Especially after the MCAS issues and the fire issues of the 787.
No they dont
@@lvl10cooking the fire issues were mediated and the engine issues are on rolls Royce. Not everything is Boeings fault. Its systemic throughout the airline industry
EASA was fine with Airbus not making any changes to the A380 after the plane failed its ultimate load test by 3%, when the wings broke, back in 2006.
That's true, I never really thought about pressurization as to fits of doors and openings in general. Guess that's no windows in a submarine. Except the Seaview. Thanks again
Very interesting mentour ✈️
Another good informative video on current news issue. Thanks for reassurance on threshold of safe limits in structure tests...
PS a little English correction: at 2:26 said, "that we haven't overseen something" - meant overlooked something.
Well explained, but would I trust the Boeing results, not until EASA say it’s safe. They don’t have a monetary interest in the aircraft.
It is a static test airframe. It is tested to destruction. It is done to identify weaknesses in the airframe. Generally the first two or three airframes are used so improvements can be made before the plane goes into full manufacturing. It is not a disaster. It is expected.
De Havilland Comet started all this testing 🙄
Wrong. The Comet started the FATIGUE testing. The ultimate load testing existed long before the Comet.
adb012 This was a pressurizing test at the same time
Germans started it first for safety. They made first full size wind tunnel and load tests. In war time they use Zuse's world's first programmable digital computer to calculate airplane aerodynamic. Results was excellent. First jet flight and first near sound barrier flight and swept-back wing design. First unmanned space flight. First helicopter in service.
@@verttikoo2052 ... Yes, but the Comet didn't start the pressurization test. The Comet started the FATIGUE tests, i.e. where you load and unload the structure (pressurization included) thousands of times replicating realistic service loads, not where you load it up once (pressurization included) to the ultimate load it is supposed to resist.
Why 🙄?
A well done explanation of a highly technical issue, as well as a real time example of canine yoga...
If it happened during normal conditions there would be a real problem.
Would it fall out of the sky or just be really hard to handle?
But this is the point of the test, which is beautifully described in the video. The plane failed way past normal conditions.
Lotus AMG Is there ever any normal conditions on a plane. Bad weather. Wind shear. Wake turbulence. Drunk passengers just a day in a pilots job all he wants is his passengers safely on the ground that’s what he’s trained for but if in Max case where a Micas could overrule competant pilots then were in the realm of the unknown especially if they had only 50 mins I pad training no sim training. Not even in their handbook in cabin. The pilots were left defenseless Boeing must pay the price for this shocking mal practice ❤️✈️🇬🇧🇺🇸😂
I really enjoy your channel and all your content. I also LOVE your pup/dog. it's hilarious! I am not a pilot or have any interest. I am just an inquisitive person who likes to learn and you teach very well! Thanks
The dog is absolutely not interested in planes.
I'm both a plane person and a dog person. Throw in some antiques and this channel is all I need...
Happy New Year Captain !
What we have here is a public relations message from Boeing for everyone to rest assured that Boeing is doing their job when it comes to safety.
That's why these tests are conducted, to find out any flaws with the design before the first flight
this "its good enough" mentality is quite scary considering what boeing has pulled off in the last couple of years.
mcas, structural problems of the 737ng, you name it.
they are pushing the boundaries of "how much can we safe before we get in to trouble" quite hard.
and i feel like if they wont learn their lesson anytime soon, more lives will be taken.
With Boeing, there's a thin line between safety and profit. They build to a minimum standard to juusst be safe, but have costs as low as possible to not cut into profit
@reverse thrust no, just stating facts. All manufactures build as cheap as possible to keep costs low and profit high. Most times its fine, but sometimes people pay for it. (Boeing's MCAS, for example)
Great vid as always.. Thanks Petter. Merry Christmas to u and your family.