No malice in that statement. Since I found this site I often find bloomers like this. I came to the conclusion that the machines you use are so automated that you forget the basics.
Is it not perfectly obvious that if you slow the velocity the effects of the turbulance will be less? And that the heavier the mass of the 'plane the less the effect.
Don't take this personal...show me another airframe that is stronger than the 787....per metric tonne. Maybe the B748..?
So many variables here though..don't you agree.?
OK - no malice
But I am not using any machine!
If you read my original post (#6 in this thread) you will find a statement that makes it obvious that low velocity and high mass reduce the effects of turbulence.
I really don't know what you mean by 'stronger per metric tonne'. It is a meaningless concept.
Apart from the fact that nobody outside Boeing knows how strong the 787 will be, all aircraft are designed to the same rules which govern the loads the airframe must withstand. If anybody designs a structure that can withstand considerably more than the requirements then the aircraft will be too heavy (unless they deliberately build in some margin for growth).
I would just add that the critical case for turbulence loads is usually around FL200 for several reasons:
The design gusts are much lower at cruise altitudes
Aircraft generally cruise as high as they can for performance reasons. This means that they fly at a fairly high lift coefficient and are limited in the amount of 'g' they can develop there. I would say the maximum 'g' before running out of lift would be about 2.0 (at cruise AUW, where the aircraft must be designed for 2.5g at MTOW)
All of which is consistent with my remarks that just citing a turbulence penetration Mach Number says nothing about the aircraft strength