This is how fine the science of building airplanes is. This story involves a failure though. But as the article explains, also a success. We all want our airplanes to be safe. And these days we do not see stories weekly or monthly about an airplane crash that is commercial. People interested in air safety can read such reports if they want to. https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...it-dramatically-during-september-stress-test/ By Dominic Gates Seattle Times aerospace reporter Read article using link
I wonder if all this miracle Carbon Fiber replacing metal has been evaluated for material "fatigue"? Moi No
Thanks for participating in this topic. Carbon fiber technology is always being studied by aircraft builders.
I'm glad they found that out before the planes hit the market. I used to get a magazine devoted to analyzing aircraft crashes back in the '80s. Can't remember the name, but it was a real eye-opener as far as the causes of those aircraft.
They were at 170% max pressure and it didn't last quite as long as it should have. No big deal. A few minor mods and it will be fine. Not as bad as the time they snapped the wings off of a 787. But max stress tests are designed to test absolute limits. This is why they do stress tests. It is a part of the design process, as are failures.
When I actively was flying as a pilot, the Government sent us each month analysis of aircraft failures. I studied them to try to learn lessons so I would avoid such problems.
OK, Carbon Fibre in general is stronger and can handle more flexing cycles than can aluminum for aircraft.
For How Long? As long as the aluminum? Yes DEAR But material fatigue is about after so much "flexing" or other factors with use the material, fatigues. As in becoming brittle. Not its' NEW abilities compared to . . .
No no no I gave you plenty of information Well, this is the deal. carbon Fibre is superior to aluminum and it is not close
Regarding material fatigue? That is all I want to know. No I'm not going to read some reference. It's my reading troubled nature. Really.Plus today you can find a reference to support whatever you want to support. And then get into researching the worthiness of the authors, their funding, etc. So trusting the worthiness of @Robert references, How Does Carbon Fiber Material Withstand Fatigue Compared To Aluminum?
It is no big deal. They had to withstand 170% of max stress for a period of time. It didn't last quite as long as it should have. So they will have to study the failure and make the required improvements. This is perfectly normal for the design process. Sometimes they intentionally destroy the test device to verify the absolute limits. And this is not some big secret. I was talking with a Boeing engineer on Friday who told me all about it. And this has nothing to do with fatigue. Fatigue failures occur due to many cycles, not due to single-cycle max limits.
"Boeing got an unexpected jolt in September when engineers in Everett put the new 777X airframe through an extreme test of its structural strength. Just as the test approached its target stress level, an explosive depressurization tore through the fuselage. Boeing has kept the details secret, but photos obtained by the Seattle Times show that the extent of the damage was greater than previously disclosed and earlier reports were wrong about crucial details. The test plane is a complete write-off, its fuselage skin ripped wide open just behind the wing. A passenger door that blew out and fell to the factory floor was a secondary impact of the initial rupture, which was located far below the door." This is precisely how engineering works! Something is designed, it is prototyped, and in the case of airplanes it is then rigorously tested...in fact destructive testing is quite common...
