Boeing's New 787 Wings — Amazingly Flexible 564
An anonymous reader writes "Boeing is making the wings of its new 787 out of carbon fiber instead of metal. That means the wings are so strong and flexible that they could bend upward and touch above the fuselage — or come close. The company is expected to deliver the first 787 to All Nippon Airlines in May 2008. 'Boeing has completed static testing of a three-quarter wingbox, but engineers are still considering whether to limit testing of the full wing to a 150% load limit held for 3 sec. or to continue bending it to see when it breaks. 'There's a raging debate within the engineering team to see if we should break it or not,' says [787 General Manager Mike] Bair.'" They have come a long way in wing flexibility.
missed the best part... (Score:4)
Re:missed the best part... (Score:5, Funny)
Ornithopter? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:missed the best part... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate flying on any of the new Boeings. Have you flown on a 777 in a storm? You can actually see the fuselage bend and buckle...
As far as the 'new Boeings' part, it's not really a new thing. If you sit in an aisle seat far back in a 747 and sight down the seat line, you can see the fuselage bend. As far as I know, there has never been an inflight structural breakup of a 747 that was due to turbulence. They've had passengers killed by turbulence (UA over the Pacific), engines thrown in turbulence (Anchorage), but never has one come apart due to turbulence that I'm aware of.
Still, I can see that it would make some people nervous.
Re: (Score:2)
YMCA (Score:5, Funny)
I hope they test it! (Score:5, Insightful)
No one's ever really tried that before, so testing is critical.
Since this seems like such a new concept (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't follow plane technology too much), it would just seem prudent to try bending the wings until they break... how can they make accurate judgments and calculations without knowing exactly how much stress the wings can take before snapping?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You too?
I only got caught twice..
I liked the one with all the wheels on fire (aborted takeoff simulation). Full speed, full throttle down the runway with a fully loaded 777, and then stand on the brakes til it stops.. Very pretty.
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Funny)
Pfffft. Real slashdotters only need a headline.
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not used to all these new fangled additions to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Funny)
Does it run linux?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
In Soviet Russia, aeroplane wings break you!
etc, etc, etc.
Clearly, you must be new here.
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Meh! Everyone knows the summary bears no relation to the article.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Informative)
of course their is a downside to most changes.
by deform, you mean yield [wikipedia.org] so, yes if you exceed the limit of carbon fibre you likely have snapped, where as aluminum, you have destroyed the structure of the frame. So if they both exceeded this limit at the same load, the aluminum may allow you to make it through one event.
For this to be obviously safer, you need:
1) the yield points would have to be very close.
2) it must be a single yield event (not repeated yield points, leading to a quick fatigue failure)
3) you must know the event occured so that you will replace the yieldied aluminium part, before the next event.
4) the yield event would still have to be in the yield strength of the aluminum, and not exceed it to the point of failure.
I think that is the issue, all of these are false. Carbon fibre has a much higher yield point, the aluminum wings constantly need inspected for fatigue cracks, and with each cycle they become closer to the point of failure.
With the carbon fibre, as the wing bends, it is probably designed to self limit the load. Since the aluminimum cannot survive the same amount of movement, it cannot self regulate (it bends, which makes it hot, which makes it softer, which makes it bend more which makes it hotter and softer,...)
of course it takes alott of energy to bend carbon fibre also, so it is releasing energy as heat as well. Granted aluminum is a much better heat conductor, so it would naturally transfer that heat better. But carbon fibre is known to stay stronger at high temperatures than aluminum.
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct that microfine stress fractures are impossible to see in a pure carbon structure. To work around that, every object has a very fine fibreglass layer (070 or thinner) on the outside surface. When stress is applied, the fibreglass shows the stress marks and you can then visually see that something is wrong.
The biggest issue with C/f structures is design life. At the time when I was last working in the industry (mid 90's), they weren't even sure what the maximum life was. There was no data anywhere in the world. The sailplane factories were stating that 10K hours was the minimum and they would test after that (metal airframes were 30K hours before EoL). There were studies being done at Melbourne's RMIT (Australia). The last I heard there was they got to 17K hours before failure of one wing. Given the absurd number of hours a commercial airliner does compared to a sailplane, I would hope and expect that they have done some lifetime studies beyond that. I haven't yet seen any numbers from Boeing about expected airframe life for their pure composite structures.
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, while some failure modes might be worse than traditional aluminum wings, it's also likely to be better in others.
Then it becomes a matter of risk assessment and minimization. A good example would be seatbelts - there is the occasional accident where you'd be better off without the belt, but in the vast majority of accidents you're far better off with it on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Interesting)
Up until you get something that exceeds their theoretical load limit - either they misguessed or something else happened. There's a reason for the 150% requirement.
Personally, I'd test it up to 2-300%, just so they can slap it up as a 'safety' feature; Wings that are stronger than ever before. Twice as strong as FAA requirements!
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't need to. You test to 150% of the rated load factor.
I think for for airliners it is +3 -2 Gs. It has been a few years since I needed to know it.
So you would test the wing to 4.5 Gs.
If it passes it is good to go.
Testing to destruction is good data to have but not required. If they get to to a 9 g load and the wing doesn't break I really think they could stop. Any airliner pulling a sustained 3 Gs will end up on the nightly news.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, the Boeing engineers for this project may have no need to know what happens, but you never know...might that data prove useful for other applications of the material?
I am no engineer (software engineer doesn't count, I know), but I'd think you'd want to test things to failure, of course where practical (as in not with a new bridge or building). If for no other reason than you have to learn all kinds of interesting things from breaking things, no?
Maybe that notion falls apart (pun
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Informative)
Since you can not make the wing infinitely strong you you put operating limits in it.
One "neat" trick they use involves airspeed. When you start pulling Gs your stall speed goes up. Once a wing is stalled it stops generating lift so it unloads.
Back in the day your airspeed indicator had arcs. The green arc means that your wing will stall before it breaks.
The Yellow arc means that yes you can break the wing if you try.
The Red line means bad things are going to happen.
So when flying into storms the pilot can slow the the top of the green arc and be safe.
BTW a stall at altitude isn't a terrible thing. It is better than breaking the wing.
With this wing it may have an all Green arc.
As to breaking the structure to learn things. Yes but that kind of testing is expensive. If the wings of the 787 pass with a bigger than average margin then I would much rather see them do repetitive tests to see how it does with multiple over stress conditions.
The thing about some of the composites I have dealt with is some don't fail gracefully. I have parts of aircraft deform from stress but not totally fail. In other words it will get you home but she isn't going to fly again without A LOT of work.
I have seen carbon fiber get a good scratch in it and the next thing you know it is in a million part small parts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Funny)
If this doesn't bring my karma down
Re: (Score:2)
Since this seems like such a new concept (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't follow plane technology too much), it would just seem prudent to try bending the wings until they break... how can they make accurate judgments and calculations without knowing exactly how much stress the wings can take before snapping?
Not only that, you don't want to just take one data point. You need to break a number of them to get a good sample.
Is it obvious how much I like breaking crap?
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Informative)
My doctorate is in Mechanical Engineering - Materials, in this case fracture mechanics. The fact that the wing is so strong suggests that it may be being over-designed. My graduate structures professor, who worked on the 747, point out that airplanes are designed for what might be called simultaneous mode failures -- there is no point in having the wings significantly stronger than the fuselage, as once the fuselage breaks the wings don't do you any good, you have just been carrying too much material in the wings. The same is true for all sub-systems. Hence, you have to do a very exhaustive analysis of the expected situations and make sure that all of them are appropriately covered, then you add a safety factor.
Typically, fatigue cracking has been the limiting factor in aircraft structures, and has caused numerous crashes. With the experience that has been gained in military programs, we should now know enough to use these composites properly.
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I hope they test it! (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds as if Boeing uses a "factor of safety" of 1.5, where the maximum anticipated load is multiplied by the factor of safety to determine the design strength of the wing. The factor of safety is calculated based on the earliest failure mode of the part, so it could simply be that other failure modes than wing deformation and buckling (as seen in the youtube video) are what determines the factor of safety with this new carbon fiber wing.
It's probably designed to different criteria (Score:5, Interesting)
The first time this was really driven home to me was in undergraduate school in '88. A classmate was working on a portable carbon-fiber bridge project for the Army. It had to support the weight of a main battle tank crossing it. In the full-scale test demo, the general overseeing the project commented that you'd get one and only one tank crew to cross the bridge. He felt that after the other tank crews saw how much the bridge flexed, there was no way they'd want to drive on it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd be in favour of much more testing. Yes, the wings are more flexible, but is that necessarily a good thing? A Boeing is not in the same league as the round-the-world-nonstop aircraft, where wing flexibility has been paramount.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why (not)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
The three second requirement comes out of paragraph 305(b):
(b) The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least 3 seconds. However, when proof of strength is shown by dynamic tests simulating actual load conditions, the 3-second limit does not apply. Static tests conducted to ultimate load must include the ultimate deflections and ultimate deformation induced by the loading. When analytical methods are used to show compliance with the ultimate load strength requirements, it must be shown that--
(1) The effects of deformation are not significant;
(2) The deformations involved are fully accounted for in the analysis; or
(3) The methods and assumptions used are sufficient to cover the effects of these deformations.
If our intrepid engineers manage to test to 200% for 3 second, then somebody is going to come along and say, "let's see if we can make the wings lighter"
Good thing or bad thing?....depends upon your point of view I guess.
As it turns out, validating airframe structures with respect to FAA airworthiness requirements is kinda what I do for a living.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
The point I'm trying to make, and perhaps not clearly (and if so, my apologies--it's been a long day!), is that they could perform the testing at 100% load and still have adequate safety factors in terms of structural performance. The 150% load test assumes a load the aircraft will never experience and then qualifies that the structure maintains its integrity in extreme conditions.
The load rating (i.e. 100% load) is a product of the lowest common denominator of design safety factors throughout the aircraft. Testing beyond 100% load is an *extra* margin of safety because 100% load already incorporates safety factors appropriate for human life.
That is correct... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
What reasonable is, depends on which field you look at. The same standards do not apply to structural engineering (buildings), civil engineering (bridges, dams), aerospace engineering (aircraft), electrical power engineering (building wiring, electrical distribution systems), etc etc.
The FAA standards are, they set a specific limit load condition calculation for classes of aircraft (light aircraft are different from jet transports carrying people, etc). That's based on performance, operational usage, and the number of people typically carried. There are load cases for limit loads for gust loading (suddenly hitting a headwind when you're already pulling Gs), wind shear, emergency pull-ups, etc. A speed is established, called maneuvering speed, below which nothing you can do to the aircraft is credibly likely to ever cause the aircraft to exceed the limit loads.
Then, you add a 50% safety factor on top of those loads (failure load >= 150% of design limit load), and demonstrate to the FAA's satisfaction that the aircraft meets that ultimate load. For jet transports carrying people, the demonstration requires that you take it out to the 150% load limit and see if it breaks there.
Now, that ultimate load can be expected to cause permanent damage to the wings. Pretty much any aircraft exceeding the design limit load (100%) will get grounded, and anything approaching 150% is guaranteed to have damage. Since the test to 150% damages the test structure for any aluminum aircraft, the usual assumption is that it's a good idea to just keep testing past 150% until it breaks.
But you just need to prove that it meets the 150% for the FAA to be happy.
Designers try to make the failure point slightly, but not too much, past 150% of design limit load. Because adding weight is expensive (operations costs), and as others have mentioned it doesn't do any good for the wing to be stronger if the fuselage breaks first, etc. The loads are all balanced; it's inefficient for things to fail at different points.
These standards are reasonable, for transport aircraft. We know that because large jets are not falling out of the sky due to wing failures. I can't offhand think of the last one that wasn't due to some external cause (collision, etc). There closest incident recently was the American Airlines 587 crash in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_F
The 787 (Score:4, Funny)
If only one could find a 4ft diameter chrome exhaust tip...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Must resist onomatopoeic humor... (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares if they bend (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the surface area of the wings is held constant, then fuel consumption can be reduced significantly, as the downward pull of gravity is shrunk as well.
It also means they can change the angle of the wing to something less aggressive, since less air needs to be displaced to maintain adequate lift (because, as you say, the plane is lighter). If they didn't do that, the plane would actually have to fly slower in order to maintain a constant altitude.
Re:Who cares if they bend (Score:5, Funny)
No, I think that the "pull" of gravity is mass times the acceleration due to gravity. When you "pull" on something, you are talking about the force, not the acceleration. Not only are you a pedantic ass, but you are also wrong.
Slashdot Poll (Score:5, Funny)
1. Chicken out and don't break 'em
2. See how far they go and post it to YouTube
3. Orinthop mode! Pull 'em back and let 'em flap!
4. Cowboy Neal
Shopping for planes has never looked more fun (Score:4, Funny)
Boeing Client: No, thank you, I take them flexible, like my women.
While its great they are so flexible (Score:5, Insightful)
What? (Score:5, Informative)
If the aircraft is experiencing extreme conditions which are bending the wing excessively, then you _want_ to lose lift, rather than stress the wing and airframe more. Kind of like how sailors change to smaller sails during storms.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean who wouldnt want to see the 787 doing aerobatics at the next air show. I would definitely pay a ticket to see this. Maybe they could even get old Tex Johnston to fly it as well as he has some experience here...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, just because an aircraft can take the G loading do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's great that the wings can flex that much, but I hope it still requires just as much force to bend them 10 degrees out of normal as it currently does with a metal wing.
I say let 'em break it... (Score:3, Funny)
Mythbusters anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Also I wonder what would break first, the wing, or the connection to the plane. I'm expecting the video to hit the internet in about a week.
Do it MythBusters style! (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously though, that idea isn't useful only for entertainment and cool effects, it is useful to know the tipping point, what boundaries they're actually working with, and not just to see if it does or does not work. And as they so often tell there -- the only way to know for sure is to test it in the real world on a non-scale model!
One year ago? How about twelve? (Score:5, Informative)
The linked video may have been uploded about a year ago, but it cites as its source a PBS production from 1995. (Which, incidentally, is discussing an entirely different airplane, the 777.)
Errors in post? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone notice that the date on the file is 1/14/1995?
The implication that this was a 787 wing in test a year ago - is in error....
Old News: Flexible wings on the Boeing B-47 (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't break it (Score:5, Insightful)
The story was about one of the earlier Boeing's, they had stressed the wing to like 10 times any theoretical force that could be possibly placed on it during a rather publicized testing of its strength. They test folks were all about trying to break it.
During the process of doing this an exec asked them what they were doing. "Breaking the wing" they replied.
The exec said No, stop the testing.
Why? the testers asked.
Because the headline won't read ,
"Boeing wing breaks at 40 times the stress encountered during possible flight conditions",
Instead it will read
"New wing of new Boeing Jet Breaks".
Please note Its been awhile since I heard that story, but I think the point is pretty clear.
Time to cash in (Score:3, Funny)
747 Wing Flex (Score:4, Interesting)
This is your captain... (Score:5, Funny)
787 is a revolution in design and manufacturing (Score:5, Informative)
1) Yes, it's almost completely carbon fiber. This means that the plane can (and is) lighter, so it will be more fuel efficient. Also, it's easy to make complex curved shapes, so the wings and fuselage are slightly more aerodynamic. Because carbon fiber structures are so strong, the windows can be larger, and the plane can be pressurized to a lower altitude (it will be pressurized to 6000' instead of the typical 8000' of today's fleet). There is no corrosion, and little worry about fatigue in composites.
2) The plane is not built in Seattle, although that's where the final assembly takes place. All of the building takes place in multiple facilities around the globe, each producing parts to Boeing's plans. These parts will "snap together" in the Everett plant. The first 787 is being assembled right now, and will roll out on 7/8/7 (just over a week from now.) Apparently the left wing was off by 2 thousands of an inch or so, the right wing was absolutely perfect. Boeing converted three 747's to be gigantic cargo transporters to move all the parts from around the world to Everett.
3) The plane has almost completely electric, without the high-pressure pneumatic systems that older planes had. In particular, the AC systems are electric. This will be somewhat more efficient, and safer.
4) The plan for certification of the plane is borderline insane. The final assembly started a couple of weeks ago, and the plane will be rolled out in a week, the first flight will be in a couple of months, and the first delivery will be in Q2 2008. This is a tiny fraction of the time this process required on previous airplanes -- maybe 1/4 the time of the 777 and even less than that of the latest Airbus. This would be remarkable, even if the plane wasn't revolutionary in every other way, too!
5) Aviation Week and Space Technology visited the final assembly line recently, and were surprised to find that it was almost an empty building. That's not because they weren't ready -- that's because there are almost no tools needed to assemble the plane. They snap together the pieces, install the landing gear, and roll it down the building on its gear installing the various subassemblies. Boeing intends to assemble a plane every three days once they get going, a remarkable and unprecedented schedule.
Anyway -- there are so many revolutions in this airplane that I would have thought it was a scam if it was any other company than Boeing. It remains to be seen if they can meet their goals, but so far things are going remarkably according to the plan they laid out a few years ago.
Thad
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess I wasn't specific enough for possible robot readers like yourself. Even though it's common to see "nm", I understand that accuracy is more important than actual communication for some. So try to parse "n.m." instead. Thank you good bye.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Used to validate models (Score:3, Interesting)
First off the requirement is a 1.5 saftey factor, ie 1.5 times greater load on the wings then they would encounter during operations. In the past, wings were always broken on new planes. Not only is this fun (engineers do like breaking things, its true), but it provides very useful data to validate your computer models and test methodology. Not often does an engineer get to shatter such an expensive and large article! Predicting before hand when a wing will snap can be very useful on future airplane designs to optimize the structural layout. Remember, any load past the 1.5 saftey factor just means you made the wing too strong, and thus it has extra weight!
Now a days, the structural FEMs (finite element models) and load definitions from CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) have become so good, that its not necessary to validate the tools. They have been validated before, and there is a high level of confidence. Someone mentioned above me that these wings were different since they are composite, but in fact commercial airplanes have had composites in the wings for a long time. The military has been making nearly all composite airplanes for even longer.
The A380 from Airbus ran into trouble a few years ago, as they designed the wing for 1.5 load factor, but on testing it only made it to 1.48. Hence they had to add extra weight and strengthen it. But being that they aimed for 1.5 and got to 1.48 shows you how accurate the tools have become.
There might also be a cost element in this decision. I believe Boeing could potentially use that model for some other purpose, whether it be passenger escape tests, wing fuel fire tests, wing fatigue tests, or maybe even just for a model to sit in a hanger somewhere and generate PR. Personally, im hoping to see a great video on YouTube of those wings splintering into pieces!
Has nobody seen the fuselage pictures yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I am an engineer at an aircraft MRO. Once these things hit more than 15 years old, there are going to be a million problems with this fuselage. Carbon fibre is a very different beast to aluminium, or even fibreglass. For one, the carbon is a conductor of electricity, which can lead to galvanic corrosion (the circumferential frames are still aluminium, there are still metallic fasteners going through the skin to attach them). Also, repairs are going to be an absolute bitch.
Twice in the last month, we have had to fix large holes in the side of aircraft due to trucks driving into the side of them. These incidents happened at outstations (where there were no major repair facilities) and we had to send out a small team to assess and repair the damage. In both instances these were done by a repair engineer, inspector and a couple of sheet metal workers in a couple of days. They took a sheet of metal, an air compressor and a bucket of rivets.
Currently, composites are used on a number of components on almost all aircraft. Invariably they are removable components, like flight control surfaces, or fairings. In order to repair them, they are usually removed from the aircraft and repaired in a composites shop, where temperature and humidity can be controlled - preferably in an autoclave.
Now, how the hell is anyone going to remove a fuselage section to drag it into a shop?
wrong and wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comments about holes in planes ("ramp rash") are also off base. Boeing has two patch kits, one which can be applied in a very short time, the other which takes something like 36 hours to cure. Boeing has shown to the airlines t
Photos of the first 787 (Score:3, Interesting)
787 Photos [airliners.net]
DUH (Score:3, Funny)
hehe, 30 years later i still remember a trip to the local power station that had the test equipment for powerlines and stuff. They crushed a large ceramic insulator til it blew up. Took some insane amount of pressure like 20000 psi. Quite spectacular. They had a rig for pulling apart a powerline too, we would have killed for that test
Carbin Fiber flex? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pedantry (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, it kind of reminds me of when Airbus called Boeing's composite barrel design "old fashioned" [nwsource.com]!
Bearing in mind that nobody has produced such a design yet, including Airbus. Until Boeing did it a couple of weeks ago, that is.
The A350 was designed in direct response to the 787, which surprised Airbus in the amount of interest it received (they had at the time placed their bets on the now-troubled A380 program, which may never break even). Saying the 787 copied any of the A350's design or construction methods is getting it completely backwards.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing new? Even before Airbus... (Score:2)
A flying Ugly Stik [shakespeare-fishing.com]
RS
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's true that the A350 will use composites, but to imply that Boeing is trailing Airbus on this ("Nothing new") when Airbus is actually trailing Boeing is just inaccurate.
Re:I really don't see the big deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Design accommodations? (Score:5, Funny)
What? Give up slashdot? Never. I'll die first.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What the heck are you talking about?
Nothing about the wing flexing causes a loss of lift, aileron effectiveness, or engine intake efficiency unless the wi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)