Door blows out during ground test on Boeing 777X jet
Those were entire outer wing sections folding up. To park at LGA IIRC.
This time it's more like just the raked wingtips folding (no moving parts in the folding section).
This time it's more like just the raked wingtips folding (no moving parts in the folding section).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All tests which clear the aircraft for first flight are purely based on calculated loads, and traditionally those required adjustment through flight testing.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation
First, let me declare my interest. I am an (English) ex-Boeing VP of many years.
Second, let me declare my frustration. The speculative comments on this issue are more akin to the Daily Mail or Sky News, not a supposedly professional site for pilots. I guess many pilots here get frustrated about comments from non-pilots (not to mention wannabe engineers). I wish there were a filtering system to weed out the idiots.
Third, these tests are usually designed precisely to test aircraft to destruction point.
Fouth, regarding secrecy, the original 777 ‘exploding’ wing break test is available online and there is no particular Boeing policy (or indeed US law) on what is or is not published.
Fifth, why does everyone want to be an aerospace engineer? Let the pros do their job and release the aircraft when they are ready. Yes, the MAX has issues but this is not related and to say that the 777 should not be stretched a la 737 (which I agree should have been a new airframe) is frankly laughable.
Fed up with the Boeing bashing. It’s a fine company with fantastic professionals, from the CEO to the guys that clean the floors at Renton or Boeing Field. Do you want Boeing to fail? Or do you all really want to sidestick for the rest of your days?
Second, let me declare my frustration. The speculative comments on this issue are more akin to the Daily Mail or Sky News, not a supposedly professional site for pilots. I guess many pilots here get frustrated about comments from non-pilots (not to mention wannabe engineers). I wish there were a filtering system to weed out the idiots.
Third, these tests are usually designed precisely to test aircraft to destruction point.
Fouth, regarding secrecy, the original 777 ‘exploding’ wing break test is available online and there is no particular Boeing policy (or indeed US law) on what is or is not published.
Fifth, why does everyone want to be an aerospace engineer? Let the pros do their job and release the aircraft when they are ready. Yes, the MAX has issues but this is not related and to say that the 777 should not be stretched a la 737 (which I agree should have been a new airframe) is frankly laughable.
Fed up with the Boeing bashing. It’s a fine company with fantastic professionals, from the CEO to the guys that clean the floors at Renton or Boeing Field. Do you want Boeing to fail? Or do you all really want to sidestick for the rest of your days?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe every aircraft goes through a "High blow" test prior to leaving the hangar it's at 12.1 psid, the first 777 a seal failed and was redesigned, in March of 2006 China Airlines 747-400F blew the nose door open it opened with so much force it went over the limit and smashed the cockpit windows, China Airlines tried and failed to reject the aircraft, Boeing repaired it and delivered it as required, however China Airlines never painted it, it was white, interestingly the pressure wasn't high at the time the door opened. The test is usually done late at night with minimal employees in the hangar, the aircraft is then released to the flight line.
The fatigue airframe was most likely well above normal and abnormal limits so don't think it will cause any delay perhaps a modification to extend the airframe life and a cycle limitation on pre modified aircraft until modified.
The fatigue airframe was most likely well above normal and abnormal limits so don't think it will cause any delay perhaps a modification to extend the airframe life and a cycle limitation on pre modified aircraft until modified.
Last edited by CCA; 9th Sep 2019 at 12:40.
in March of 2006 China Airlines 747-400F blew the nose door open it opened with so much force it went over the limit and smashed the cockpit windows, China Airlines tried and failed to reject the aircraft, Boeing repaired it and delivered it as required, however China Airlines never painted it, it was white
I'm also fed up with the Airbus bashing. It's no less a fine company than Boeing, and its professionals are no less fantastic than Boeing's, from the CEO to the guys that clean the floors at Toulouse and all the places where Airbuses are made.
[Declaration of non-interest: I have no stake in either Airbus or Boeing.]
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How different are 777 and 777X fuselages? I take it no substantial changes were done to the new model other than lengthening. Could FAA, who is very "vigilant" of anything Boeing at the moment, dig deeper into this and demand additional testing of the current 777? And, a more pressing question I suppose, can the current 777 be affected?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only half a speed-brake
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHOA! My trolldar just went off.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Weedon, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure the cleaners and many of the folks above them are "fantastic professionals", but the CEO's public performance these last few months suggests he, at least, may not actually stand up to scrutiny.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pittsspecialguy : joined today , 2 posts . one praising BCAL, (agree fully it was a very fine airline), the other saying
.
and
Nice way to start winning friends here , but welcome nevertheless.
And there is nothing wrong with side-sticks, as the first side-stick controlled aircraft was a Boeing one, just flew in it in OSH a few weeks ago.
I wish there were a filtering system to weed out the idiots.
and
Do you want Boeing to fail? Or do you all really want to sidestick for the rest of your days?
And there is nothing wrong with side-sticks, as the first side-stick controlled aircraft was a Boeing one, just flew in it in OSH a few weeks ago.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, we want Boeing to produce first class planes that do not fall from the sky, because Boeing did not tell the pilots what it built into them. And we want Boeing to communicate honestly, openly and transparently, what many of us did not feel in the past 9 months. And we want Boeing to return to a safety conscious collaboration mode with the certifiers.
But, I have a neighbour who was a passenger on a Boeing flight out of Hawaii to NZ which ended because of some rather suss Boeing engineering. He's also an engineer, though not the aviation type, but he was astounded at the design of your cargo door locks.
pittsspecialguy : joined today , 2 posts . one praising BCAL, (agree fully it was a very fine airline), the other saying
.
and
Nice way to start winning friends here , but welcome nevertheless.
And there is nothing wrong with side-sticks, as the first side-stick controlled aircraft was a Boeing one, just flew in it in OSH a few weeks ago.
.
and
Nice way to start winning friends here , but welcome nevertheless.
And there is nothing wrong with side-sticks, as the first side-stick controlled aircraft was a Boeing one, just flew in it in OSH a few weeks ago.
He neither downed Boeing nor Airbus and just told why we need both.
How different are 777 and 777X fuselages? I take it no substantial changes were done to the new model other than lengthening. Could FAA, who is very "vigilant" of anything Boeing at the moment, dig deeper into this and demand additional testing of the current 777? And, a more pressing question I suppose, can the current 777 be affected?
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some want some don't. So far I haven't seen a rush to the profession. I ended there almost by accident. Bloody dull work at times, like XMM telescope tube with a zero thermal coefficient of expansion ...
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, let me declare my interest. I am an (English) ex-Boeing VP of many years.
...
Fed up with the Boeing bashing. It’s a fine company with fantastic professionals, from the CEO to the guys that clean the floors at Renton or Boeing Field. Do you want Boeing to fail? Or do you all really want to sidestick for the rest of your days?
...
Fed up with the Boeing bashing. It’s a fine company with fantastic professionals, from the CEO to the guys that clean the floors at Renton or Boeing Field. Do you want Boeing to fail? Or do you all really want to sidestick for the rest of your days?
Without the MAX it would have for sure been a side note to special intrest groups. However the MAX crisis is entirely home made and so is the scruntity BA is facing now. Nothing to be frustrated about.
I would hope other entities would learn from that but I'm sceptical.
I'm not sure how the side stick is related to that though. However I am sure that a competitor for AB will be found with or without side stick.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, let me declare my interest. I am an (English) ex-Boeing VP of many years.
Second, let me declare my frustration. The speculative comments on this issue are more akin to the Daily Mail or Sky News, not a supposedly professional site for pilots. I guess many pilots here get frustrated about comments from non-pilots (not to mention wannabe engineers). I wish there were a filtering system to weed out the idiots.
Third, these tests are usually designed precisely to test aircraft to destruction point.
Second, let me declare my frustration. The speculative comments on this issue are more akin to the Daily Mail or Sky News, not a supposedly professional site for pilots. I guess many pilots here get frustrated about comments from non-pilots (not to mention wannabe engineers). I wish there were a filtering system to weed out the idiots.
Third, these tests are usually designed precisely to test aircraft to destruction point.
This was the FINAL ground test for certification...no learning here, this is to show the ac meets specs. It blew on the blow test and as Boeing stated, they had to stop the test.
The final test for cert is to show that all of the other testing and design assumptions have passed, and the ac is ready to be cert to fly.
This reads that they stopped the test before it was completed, correct?
On the blow test, there are 3 parts..static, working load, and ultimate.
Static tests the normal pressure
Working load tests the assumes highest pressure the fuselage will have ONCE in its service.
Ultimate load tests the working load by 1.5 times.
Boeing claims it had to stop the test...at which point did it stop?
The wording, failed under much higher that normal operations, stil could mean the working load test.
Think about it, if it had failed under ultimate, 1.5...that could be understood, because ultimate at 1.5 is the assumed failure pressure.
Given all of the secrecy, lack of disclosure, and other issues, I tend to believe it failed before working load....
As noted by the "ex-VP" videos are online and the ground testing was usually a media event....this one was closed doors to regulators. (and it failed with all of the regulatory agencies present, )
Time for Boeing to start telling the truth.
