Interesting how it broke much more cleanly than the 777, which just shattered. I would've thought it'd be the other way around, but then, I'm no engineer.
Cool video. Though this test probably yields a lot of data which is useful, I would assume they also do dynamic tests where the wing is loaded and unloaded repeatedly as you would expect it to experience in flight verses a constant applied load as seen here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Don't forget that this is the SECOND wing stress test, the first, a massive failure, resulted in yet another lengthy delay in release to boeings customers. Airbus is proving far superior in so many ways.
i seen this when i was going through school from start to finish it's a longer version of this but the stress test was bad ass i love working on carbon. tho im 4th generation into aircraft im the first to work with it. a lot of stuff this can be used for besides planes.
@IExposeMormonism WTC planes wings hit to the building like sword, unlike this wing that was broken with payload.
Do you seriously think that when plane hits to the building wings dont come in in like whole body of the plane and break to very small parts? Stupid conspiracy theorists with no common sense.
@Pvjinflight Watch some videos of plane crashes. I made a plane play list, have a look. The Boeings on 911 were very special. They weren't Boeing's. Also, No rotation takes place when either plane impacts the WTC. none. Should there be a little? Shouldn't maybe a little bit of wing tip, edge and tail break off? But none does this
@IExposeMormonism How many of those plane crashes happened when plane was flied with full power to the building? You cant really compare normal plane crash and WTC.
Watch this: watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
Even when plane hits to the concrete wall nothing breaks off from it when it smashes to the wall. WTC wasnt so hard so plane go through the wall.
@Expose Mormonism i saw a piece of soft foam tear though a carbon fiber support structure. what kind of soft foam does that i say to you? come on now, you saw it also, think, think ok here it comes, the space shuttle disaster. i new you could do it.
@datzfast Not a good comparison you misstate the facts. Nano Thermite has been repeatedly found by physicist's using electron microscopes. The truth is out there, don;'t be afraid to explore. Do you have an explanation for wings that fold back at the Pentagon but stay rigid at the WTC and shear outer walls, floors, even backbone beams? little wing tips and edges and the tail! did that
@IExposeMormonism yes i have an answer, the pentagon is a military war planning fort expected and built to be bombed repeatedly. the twin towers are comercial structures bulid to maximize low cost construction. if you cant see the differance,you might be a red neck, but i think your just fucked up.
@IExposeMormonism yeah the truth is out there. That the WTC conspiracy has been debunked countless times. Just like the lunar conspiracy. (which was also debunked millions of times)
Maybe the government is tricking you into thinking that they faked all these events so that they can use you as a tool to expose their filthy little lies and bring them down just like they almost brought their own defense down when they attacked their own pentagon.....
EpiDemic117 You are rather ignorant. Nano Thermite is a proven fact, every dust sample examined under scanning electron microscopes shows the stuff. When you see wings act like the WTC wings, gliding seamlessly through steel and concrete, intact, when you see a fuselage do that, get back to me... And let me know if you Ever find a chair, computer, piece of glass, desk, filing cabinet, or any concrete chunks over 100 lbs because in 3.5 years of looking neither I nor any rescue worker found such
@IExposeMormonism the only retard idiot is the one who believes that OUR OWN government would attack the WTC and it's own base of military operations the pentagon. you hoaxtards are dumb enough to believe that our government is working with extra terrestrial aliens and is planning on ending the world in 2012. Moar bullshit pwease!
@IExposeMormonism nano thermite doesn't have the capability of making clean cuts on that picture that hoaxtards love the fap about. it's a sloppy reaction similar to how hoaxtards jizz all over their screen when they hear about recent bigfoot sightings.
@IExposeMormonism yeah and when the government faked it all they secretly hired all of the firefighters, paramedics, police officers, and other personnel that responded on the day of attacks and not a single person that witnessed the attacks on that day knew that our evil government did it. Obama is secretly osama bin laden to!!! his middle name is Hussein! HOW CAN HE NOT BE LOL!!11!!!one11!!!one1!11
@IExposeMormonism so our terrorist government fooled everyone else except you and a few other people because you are a cool person with pimples on your face that did drugs while you where in highschool and college and simply did not believe what the lieing crowd said in their propagandized beliefs that follow Americas evil Nazi government..... oh yeah srsly.
@datzfast First off it's not a soft piece of foam. It was a huge chunk of solid foam insolation. Secondly the space craft was traveling faster than the speed of sound. That means things at those speeds act more violently. IT wasn't the thermal protection tiles that cause the break up. IT was the wing edges made of carbon carbon.
Perhaps it was the Folding Wings at the Pentagon or the very rigid wings at the WTC that inspired these tests. But both wing events look anything like reality.
...Now look at climate change. 108 models, 108 drastically different results. Climate data is not nearly as accurate or abundant as the data for carbon composites, such as this wing. Then the data is put through models that were made on a best-efforts basis by individual teams. And now are 'leaders' are ramming legislation down our throats that will drastically increase taxes & prices of everything.
It's interesting to note that with all the super-expensive bleeding-edge computer models that they still test it. After all, the models are only as good as the programers and the data the worked with, despite the data being extensive. And if reality didn't match the model, there could be lives and jobs/income lost....
In the automotive seating business, we used to do an ultimate static strength test on seating components. Much simpler of course. The idea is the same, basically. Load to spec, then ramp to failure. Either a sudden fail, or a gradual. There is also fatigue life cycle, which places a much smaller load over and over, usually 20,000 cycles. You fat guys out there, your seat will fail much sooner, especially when you lean back on the seat to get your wallet at the McD's. Eat more salads.
@2007TypeR That would no doubt be a fatigue type test, flexing the wing thousands of times under a lower load than the ultimate strength test. I've seen a video of such a test. Flex to # cycles specified, then continue to failure, which should be many times the spec. Do it again to more samples, If the results are widely varied, problem. Statistical crunching will reveal the standard deviation, go from there. Am I wrong? And use production samples before mass production, not prototypes.
This is a static test, its meant to see what the wings can handle before breaking in any direction, not a fatigue test. boeing builds its airplanes to withstand 150% more than the worst anticpated conditions it will face, so in this case they took a prototype (all 87s at the moment built are prototypes) and bent the wings until they break to see how far they can go before breaking and what will the results be. In this case the 87 passed its test with flying colors.
@bradams115 Yes I know it's an ultimate static strength test. What you're replying to is my answer to another comment on the effect of turbulence and wing flexing. The static test differs from the fatigue test. Fatigue is sneaky; What was strong today can deteriorate over time. They do both. The static test tells them how much strain the wing can take, before failure. The fatigue test tells them how, over time, the wing can withstand everyday wear and tear.
@soco13466 ah, didnt realize you were answering someone else question and thought you were just mixed up on what was going on in the video and i was just try to clarify what was happening.
@atomicfire001 Not really, not so much difficult, just different (maybe its just cause I know composites better than metals). First off, the wing in not one piece. Replacing panels, or the leading edge is not very hard. Hell we had 18 yr old's straight out of high school doing it in the Navy.
yougeo is right though, when composite fails, its almost always a catastrophic failure, meaning its completely fucked. Rather than alloys which can deform and still be good enough to get you back home.
composites have been used for years on other planes such as fighters and the such so its strength has been tested over time, this is just the first major use in a commercial application. as for the sun exposure they already know that the composite material can not be in direct sunlight at all due to it altering the composition, this is why parts of the aircraft will never see daylight until having primer or paint on it at the minimum
they even replaced the light bulbs in the factory to ultra low uv emitting lights to accommodate this, you cant even have a flashlight on board that isnt certified. and it is true that composites fail in a more dramatic way, such as just breaking rather than tearing like metal, its shear over all strength though compensates for this, to some extent. its a unique plane, great in so many ways, bad in its own ways, it will be interesting to see how it does out in the fleet
@qwerty112311 yes, but only for fairings & such as has boeing, but the 787 is the first aircraft to use composites for Fuselage & wing stucture, which is an entirely different ballgame. if your fairing cracks, it's a cosmetic problem. but if your fuselage cracks, the aircraft could could crash.
@kdraper2007 true that, just a technicallity, but airbus has not had problems with composites, so these claims that it is more dangerous is horseshit. look at JAL123 an Air China 747 who's flight number I cannot remember and a ton of other cases in which aluminum failed terribly.
@kdraper2007 Military aircraft have been using composites widely for years and they really dont have any problems. It is a proven technology, it just happens to be that this is the first time it's been used so much on a commercial plane. At any rate I'm sure this plane is just as safe if not more so then any other plane built in the last 15 years.
They breaks wing every day?for each plane made?
suspendbrid 1 month ago
@suspendbrid
Just one for FAA certification.
They build an airframe like the one you fly in, they then stress two components:
1) The wingbox, that big, ugly (but extremely necessary) thing under the middle of the fuselage that the wings connect to
2) The wings
In 2006 it was a big deal when the A380 wingbox failed at only 147%. They are supposed to fail at >150% for current specs of most planes.
These are stressed to the point of breaking, so they destroy these test aircraft intentionally
Knepperify1 4 weeks ago
Interesting how it broke much more cleanly than the 777, which just shattered. I would've thought it'd be the other way around, but then, I'm no engineer.
SirTastyCakes 1 month ago
extreme earthquake success!
markallayban 3 months ago
Cool video. Though this test probably yields a lot of data which is useful, I would assume they also do dynamic tests where the wing is loaded and unloaded repeatedly as you would expect it to experience in flight verses a constant applied load as seen here.
kabodkhwaamkhid 5 months ago
ANA 787 DELIVERY CELEBRATION (FULL VIDEO)
/watch?v=BFscb7lbKnk
fadmanzano 5 months ago
damn, they just broke millions of dollars -.- Y U no give it to me??
Phil1480 5 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't forget that this is the SECOND wing stress test, the first, a massive failure, resulted in yet another lengthy delay in release to boeings customers. Airbus is proving far superior in so many ways.
demoninepro99p 5 months ago
@demoninepro99p they had the same problem with there a380 wing test and had to redisgn
airplanes66 4 months ago
Chuck Norris walked in during the tour, cleared his throat , and the Boioioinngg 787 wing failed the break test
Q: Do people have a Thorax?
DancingSpiderman 7 months ago
Wow, it is amazing at how slowly the metal fails and suddenly ka boooom!!
michaelvincent178 10 months ago
yarr, destructive testing is my friend!
driftability 1 year ago
im standing pat
datzfast 1 year ago
HELLO DR.BULLOUGH
steake182 1 year ago
i seen this when i was going through school from start to finish it's a longer version of this but the stress test was bad ass i love working on carbon. tho im 4th generation into aircraft im the first to work with it. a lot of stuff this can be used for besides planes.
onesick77 1 year ago
Well, at least this wing breaks. At the WTC/911 the wings tips edges, tail and all entered the WTC fully intact....What kind of wings do that?
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism WTC planes wings hit to the building like sword, unlike this wing that was broken with payload.
Do you seriously think that when plane hits to the building wings dont come in in like whole body of the plane and break to very small parts? Stupid conspiracy theorists with no common sense.
Pvjinflight 1 year ago
@Pvjinflight Watch some videos of plane crashes. I made a plane play list, have a look. The Boeings on 911 were very special. They weren't Boeing's. Also, No rotation takes place when either plane impacts the WTC. none. Should there be a little? Shouldn't maybe a little bit of wing tip, edge and tail break off? But none does this
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism How many of those plane crashes happened when plane was flied with full power to the building? You cant really compare normal plane crash and WTC.
Watch this: watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
Even when plane hits to the concrete wall nothing breaks off from it when it smashes to the wall. WTC wasnt so hard so plane go through the wall.
Pvjinflight 1 year ago
@Expose Mormonism i saw a piece of soft foam tear though a carbon fiber support structure. what kind of soft foam does that i say to you? come on now, you saw it also, think, think ok here it comes, the space shuttle disaster. i new you could do it.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast Not a good comparison you misstate the facts. Nano Thermite has been repeatedly found by physicist's using electron microscopes. The truth is out there, don;'t be afraid to explore. Do you have an explanation for wings that fold back at the Pentagon but stay rigid at the WTC and shear outer walls, floors, even backbone beams? little wing tips and edges and the tail! did that
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism yes i have an answer, the pentagon is a military war planning fort expected and built to be bombed repeatedly. the twin towers are comercial structures bulid to maximize low cost construction. if you cant see the differance,you might be a red neck, but i think your just fucked up.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast Your reasoning is inadequate.so is your analysis of me. This explanes, so to speak, your inability to reach a good conclusion.....
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism yeah the truth is out there. That the WTC conspiracy has been debunked countless times. Just like the lunar conspiracy. (which was also debunked millions of times)
Maybe the government is tricking you into thinking that they faked all these events so that they can use you as a tool to expose their filthy little lies and bring them down just like they almost brought their own defense down when they attacked their own pentagon.....
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
EpiDemic117 You are rather ignorant. Nano Thermite is a proven fact, every dust sample examined under scanning electron microscopes shows the stuff. When you see wings act like the WTC wings, gliding seamlessly through steel and concrete, intact, when you see a fuselage do that, get back to me... And let me know if you Ever find a chair, computer, piece of glass, desk, filing cabinet, or any concrete chunks over 100 lbs because in 3.5 years of looking neither I nor any rescue worker found such
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism the only retard idiot is the one who believes that OUR OWN government would attack the WTC and it's own base of military operations the pentagon. you hoaxtards are dumb enough to believe that our government is working with extra terrestrial aliens and is planning on ending the world in 2012. Moar bullshit pwease!
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism nano thermite doesn't have the capability of making clean cuts on that picture that hoaxtards love the fap about. it's a sloppy reaction similar to how hoaxtards jizz all over their screen when they hear about recent bigfoot sightings.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism yeah and when the government faked it all they secretly hired all of the firefighters, paramedics, police officers, and other personnel that responded on the day of attacks and not a single person that witnessed the attacks on that day knew that our evil government did it. Obama is secretly osama bin laden to!!! his middle name is Hussein! HOW CAN HE NOT BE LOL!!11!!!one11!!!one1!11
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism so our terrorist government fooled everyone else except you and a few other people because you are a cool person with pimples on your face that did drugs while you where in highschool and college and simply did not believe what the lieing crowd said in their propagandized beliefs that follow Americas evil Nazi government..... oh yeah srsly.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 You got everything wrong again, but you tried. Go get a flu shot and chill out with a news report
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@datzfast First off it's not a soft piece of foam. It was a huge chunk of solid foam insolation. Secondly the space craft was traveling faster than the speed of sound. That means things at those speeds act more violently. IT wasn't the thermal protection tiles that cause the break up. IT was the wing edges made of carbon carbon.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
I was specting more "EPICNES"
EstebanCRC 1 year ago
I do have to admit, some of you writing are some real idiots! You, should do some studying before you post next time.
ci216c 1 year ago
@ci216c I agree Someone always posting comments trying to be smart when they know so little!
FlightSimGuy9782 1 year ago
Perhaps it was the Folding Wings at the Pentagon or the very rigid wings at the WTC that inspired these tests. But both wing events look anything like reality.
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
...Now look at climate change. 108 models, 108 drastically different results. Climate data is not nearly as accurate or abundant as the data for carbon composites, such as this wing. Then the data is put through models that were made on a best-efforts basis by individual teams. And now are 'leaders' are ramming legislation down our throats that will drastically increase taxes & prices of everything.
00dfm00 1 year ago
It's interesting to note that with all the super-expensive bleeding-edge computer models that they still test it. After all, the models are only as good as the programers and the data the worked with, despite the data being extensive. And if reality didn't match the model, there could be lives and jobs/income lost....
00dfm00 1 year ago
In the automotive seating business, we used to do an ultimate static strength test on seating components. Much simpler of course. The idea is the same, basically. Load to spec, then ramp to failure. Either a sudden fail, or a gradual. There is also fatigue life cycle, which places a much smaller load over and over, usually 20,000 cycles. You fat guys out there, your seat will fail much sooner, especially when you lean back on the seat to get your wallet at the McD's. Eat more salads.
soco13466 1 year ago
new youtube
juniosonga333 1 year ago
new youtube is shit
juniosonga333 1 year ago
What about turbulance and short sharp wing flex? how do they test that?
2007TypeR 1 year ago
@2007TypeR That would no doubt be a fatigue type test, flexing the wing thousands of times under a lower load than the ultimate strength test. I've seen a video of such a test. Flex to # cycles specified, then continue to failure, which should be many times the spec. Do it again to more samples, If the results are widely varied, problem. Statistical crunching will reveal the standard deviation, go from there. Am I wrong? And use production samples before mass production, not prototypes.
soco13466 1 year ago
@soco13466
bradams115 1 year ago
This is a static test, its meant to see what the wings can handle before breaking in any direction, not a fatigue test. boeing builds its airplanes to withstand 150% more than the worst anticpated conditions it will face, so in this case they took a prototype (all 87s at the moment built are prototypes) and bent the wings until they break to see how far they can go before breaking and what will the results be. In this case the 87 passed its test with flying colors.
bradams115 1 year ago
@bradams115 Yes I know it's an ultimate static strength test. What you're replying to is my answer to another comment on the effect of turbulence and wing flexing. The static test differs from the fatigue test. Fatigue is sneaky; What was strong today can deteriorate over time. They do both. The static test tells them how much strain the wing can take, before failure. The fatigue test tells them how, over time, the wing can withstand everyday wear and tear.
soco13466 1 year ago
@soco13466 ah, didnt realize you were answering someone else question and thought you were just mixed up on what was going on in the video and i was just try to clarify what was happening.
bradams115 1 year ago
wtf is that george lucas at 1:40?
b7342 1 year ago 49
@b7342 Nope its his brother john lucas ;)
youngfart40 1 year ago
@b7342 yeah the millennium falcon is next..
randygalati 1 year ago
awsome!
invaleader 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
great! now all we need is bomb proofing
cjellwood 2 years ago
AHAHHAAH great comment!
invaleader 1 year ago
Real problem with composite is lack of prefailure indication.
Metal fails slowly (usually).
composite fails suddenly.
composite also has less data on longterm essential material weakening from temperature and sun exposure variations.
yougeo 2 years ago 10
Composites are also much more difficult, if not sometimes impossible to repair
atomicfire001 1 year ago
If it failed in mid flight, repair wouldn't really matter.
noiseache 1 year ago
@atomicfire001 Not really, not so much difficult, just different (maybe its just cause I know composites better than metals). First off, the wing in not one piece. Replacing panels, or the leading edge is not very hard. Hell we had 18 yr old's straight out of high school doing it in the Navy.
yougeo is right though, when composite fails, its almost always a catastrophic failure, meaning its completely fucked. Rather than alloys which can deform and still be good enough to get you back home.
Valyn 1 year ago
@yougeo Are you questioning the Boeing overlords?
obscene678 1 year ago
composites have been used for years on other planes such as fighters and the such so its strength has been tested over time, this is just the first major use in a commercial application. as for the sun exposure they already know that the composite material can not be in direct sunlight at all due to it altering the composition, this is why parts of the aircraft will never see daylight until having primer or paint on it at the minimum
bradams115 1 year ago
they even replaced the light bulbs in the factory to ultra low uv emitting lights to accommodate this, you cant even have a flashlight on board that isnt certified. and it is true that composites fail in a more dramatic way, such as just breaking rather than tearing like metal, its shear over all strength though compensates for this, to some extent. its a unique plane, great in so many ways, bad in its own ways, it will be interesting to see how it does out in the fleet
bradams115 1 year ago
@yougeo yup but composites are light =]
Indianmalujl 1 year ago
@yougeo Airbus has been using composites for decades.
qwerty112311 6 months ago
@qwerty112311 yes, but only for fairings & such as has boeing, but the 787 is the first aircraft to use composites for Fuselage & wing stucture, which is an entirely different ballgame. if your fairing cracks, it's a cosmetic problem. but if your fuselage cracks, the aircraft could could crash.
kdraper2007 5 months ago
@kdraper2007 true that, just a technicallity, but airbus has not had problems with composites, so these claims that it is more dangerous is horseshit. look at JAL123 an Air China 747 who's flight number I cannot remember and a ton of other cases in which aluminum failed terribly.
qwerty112311 5 months ago
@kdraper2007 Military aircraft have been using composites widely for years and they really dont have any problems. It is a proven technology, it just happens to be that this is the first time it's been used so much on a commercial plane. At any rate I'm sure this plane is just as safe if not more so then any other plane built in the last 15 years.
03chrisv 5 months ago
cool!
Gamer0210 2 years ago
better under test conditions than in flight!
nwaairlinkazo 2 years ago
cool, never seen one of theese tests before
tround88 2 years ago 19
I watched the 777 wing break. There was so much tension on the wing it started to create ripples in the fuselage
flyingking12093 2 years ago 24
@flyingking12093 It actually has three loads imposed on it. Tension (bottom wing), compression (top of the wing) and shear (middle of wing)
Ten0fSwords 1 year ago
@flyingking12093 My dad worked on the 777 and said that test was very loud when they did it.
comsfan09 7 months ago
@flyingking12093 That's gotta be one of the best videos on the net.
qwerty112311 5 months ago