Posted on 02/16/2006 2:01:08 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
Argh.
Yes, you're quite correct, but the ULoad is meant to address non-every-day-use, and should have margin itself. The static test should give an indication of the real margin. Playing the game, as they termed it, will cause the plane damage in severe conditions, and the failure of this test insures they will have a difficult time accurately predicting the failure stress.
They have screwed La Chien with this.
7E7 - Yeah, baby!
What is the french word for "OPPS!!"?
A-380 Ping!
Mmmm... C-17! They fly one over the house every year during the airshow, monster low.
I'm not entirely surprised that C-17 did have a similar problem, but this is a passenger plane in this story. Their lack of conservatism in design is a physical and perceptual problem for their customer base.
I take this is not a good result for Airbus.
I wonder if they will quietly re-write the specs for Va, Vb, Vne, Vno?
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
We were flying along, nice as you please, halfway across the Atlantic Ocean, when the wing fell off. I was shocked, I tell you...shocked!
Heh. Perhaps so.
An entire aircraft for this test. One or two prototypes are built for testing to destruction. They simply pull up on the wings and see how much deflection occurs before the wings break. The usual goal is 150% of design limit load. Looks like they hit 147% which is still quite good.
The video I have of the Boeing 777 wing test showed they got to 154% of design limit load before the wings broke. When the wings let go, it sounds like a cannon going off.
"And still flunks the test even though they've written the test."
Exactly. Much more succinctly put than I was saying.
Wouldn't beefing up equal higher fuel consumption? As I recall from reading a while back, they already had a problem meeting the fuel consumption standards they advertised to their customers.
I've had several British cars. I've had one French car. None of them were worth a darn, although the British cars were cute.
I'll not be flying this aircraft, thanks very much. One Pugeot was more than enough for me to understand French engineering excellence.
§ 25.303 Factor of safety. Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure. When a loading condition is prescribed in terms of ultimate loads, a factor of safety need not be applied unless otherwise specified.
Federal law, ours and EASA, says they are screwed
The Boeing 777 went 157% of wing load before it broke ... I saw it in a video during a tour at the Everett plant ....
Aren't these the people who's tail fin broke off in NYC in 2001 killing like 280 people???
Airbus: We've got it Close Enough
Regular, or extra crispy?
At the Boeing plant in Everett they have a 767 that they never were able to break the wing. We saw it during a tour. The whole fuselage twisted but the wing never broke ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.