|
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 27, 2019 14:46:15 GMT 1
The picture of the fuselage split looks worse than what I thought we had been told which is was that the cargo hold door had popped 😟
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Nov 27, 2019 14:52:46 GMT 1
A shocking picture. It's more than just a cargo door popping open for sure. Seems to be the fuselage around the cargo door that ripped open. They might need another test frame with production already running. It will take time.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Nov 27, 2019 15:35:11 GMT 1
The picture of the fuselage split looks worse that what I thought we had been told which is was that the cargo hold door had popped 😟 That definitely looks far worse that what it was made out to be. Perhaps people should save this image quickly before Boeing deletes it from the internet!
|
|
|
Post by marlibu on Nov 27, 2019 15:39:04 GMT 1
You beat me by 1 minute Baroque... that photo looks a lot scarier than whatever they're saying. I thought the whole.point of the test was to pass the test.. the structshould have held its integrity during the test.. It failed, but, they're accepting the failure...I wish that could happen on my jobs...although, I can still accept this was 50% more than the regular operating pressures...
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Nov 27, 2019 17:23:54 GMT 1
Love it - it says Breaking News
|
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by sciing on Nov 27, 2019 19:35:40 GMT 1
The result of a tiny failure is than of course larger disintegration. It is quite impossible to stop the growth of the failure. The point is not to prevent the further damage but the initial weakpoint.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Nov 27, 2019 20:33:10 GMT 1
Love it - it says Breaking News It's an explosive revelation. A bombshell, if you will.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 28, 2019 0:13:19 GMT 1
The result of a tiny failure is than of course larger disintegration. It is quite impossible to stop the growth of the failure. The point is not to prevent the further damage but the initial weakpoint. I guess the whole fuselage surface would have had high speed cameras recording during the test ?
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Nov 28, 2019 8:58:16 GMT 1
I wonder could this be related to the CFRP-wing and the (modified) metal fuselage having different material bending properties? The full carbon 787 seems to have done well in static testing. Now the "known" 777 fails.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Nov 28, 2019 13:36:12 GMT 1
I wonder could this be related to the CFRP-wing and the (modified) metal fuselage having different material bending properties? The full carbon 787 seems to have done well in static testing. Now the "known" 777 fails. Well, for one, the new 777X fuselage is not the same as the one we have today. Boeing is pushing this metal frame to its limits in an attempt to keep up with the comfort of its carbon fibre competition. - thinner sidewalls - higher pressure cabin - larger window cutouts - higher cabin air humidity - longer fuselage As far as I can see, such a combination of factors is going to result in a frame structure that is weaker than the one we have in the current generation 777s. The question is if Boeing has done enough analysis to show that it can still be kept to the same acceptable minimum standards. The 777X test fuselage blew open at 148% which is manageable when it comes to resolving it to pass the certification, but it is a worrying sign to me that it is not holding up as well as its previous version did. What other "misses" are being baked into this now due to management pressures that will turn up later. I have no trust in Boeing in this regard after their botched MAX development.
|
|