Your opinion on this landing

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Not likely with an aluminum structure. The failure will quickly lessen
the stress on the remaining structure and it will not self-destruct. I'm
still waiting to see the video of this self-destructing wing. I'm betting
it is urban legend, but if there's proof I'd love to see it.

I remember seeing a show on the making of the 777, and it was in a giant
wing testing rig, and it failed as was predicted at some certain spar
number, but a bunch of the rest blew apart too, since when the one place
failed. all of the stress was transferred to many other locations.

That type of failure is the only way I can see it all failing at the same
time, too.

The odds of the whole wing failing at once is......Astronomical!

I agree and that was my point. Having a few sheets of the skin fly off
in close proximity to the spar failure point does not constitute
self-destruction of the week as was claimed earlier. I just watched the
777 video and it is quite clear from both the visual evidence and the
narrators comments that the wing failed at a specific location.

Matt

Jose wrote:
I'm still waiting to see the video of this self-destructing wing.
I'm betting it is urban legend,

IT is not an urban legend. I have seen it.

Well, it's not an urban legend unless I'm also an urban legend.

You saw something than the video link posted here earlier?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Not likely with an aluminum structure. The failure will quickly
lessen the stress on the remaining structure and it will not
self-destruct. I'm still waiting to see the video of this
self-destructing wing. I'm betting it is urban legend, but if
there's proof I'd love to see it.

I remember seeing a show on the making of the 777, and it was in a
giant wing testing rig, and it failed as was predicted at some certain
spar number, but a bunch of the rest blew apart too, since when the
one place failed. all of the stress was transferred to many other
locations.

That type of failure is the only way I can see it all failing at the
same time, too.

The odds of the whole wing failing at once is......Astronomical!

I agree and that was my point. Having a few sheets of the skin fly off
in close proximity to the spar failure point does not constitute
self-destruction of the week as was claimed earlier. I just watched the
777 video and it is quite clear from both the visual evidence and the
narrators comments that the wing failed at a specific location.

Not sure how "week" got in there in place of "wing", but you get the
meaning. :-)

Matt

You saw something [other] than the video link posted here earlier?

Yes. When I find it I'll post it.

As for your comment that

"Having a few sheets of the skin fly off in close proximity to the spar
failure point does not constitute self-destruction of the week",

Nobody is claiming that the wing self destructed. Force was applied.
The claim is that it failed pretty much all at once. And once sheets of
aluminum fall off the wing, the wing is no longer a wing.

Yes, I saw the bent spar.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
You saw something [other] than the video link posted here earlier?

Yes. When I find it I'll post it.

As for your comment that

"Having a few sheets of the skin fly off in close proximity to the spar
failure point does not constitute self-destruction of the week",

Nobody is claiming that the wing self destructed. Force was applied.
The claim is that it failed pretty much all at once. And once sheets of
aluminum fall off the wing, the wing is no longer a wing.

The wing is no longer useful as a wing as soon as the spar breaks.
However, the claim was that the wing was perfectly uniformly strong and
would fail along its entire extent. I claim it will fail in one
location. Quite different.


Yes, I saw the bent spar.

Then you saw the point failure which I claim is how a wing will always fail.

Matt

However, the claim was that the wing was perfectly uniformly strong and would fail along its entire extent. I claim it will fail in one location.

No, the claim was =not= that it was perfectly uniformly strong.
The claim was that the strength varied along the length with the
expected loads, so that a failure would be (roughly) equally likely
anywhere along the wing. "Perfection" was not claimed, just "pretty close".

The video =I= saw showed the wing seem to snap at all places at once.
I'm sure slowed-down photography would show a first break and a second
break and all, but it did seem to just explode along its entire length.

Yes, I saw the bent spar.
Then you saw the point failure which I claim is how a wing will always fail.

Yes. This is different from the video I saw (which BTW did not show an
"after" picture where such a failure point would be seen anyway).

Maybe you're right. I'm not an engineer. It just seemed very close.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
However, the claim was that the wing was perfectly uniformly strong
and would fail along its entire extent. I claim it will fail in one
location.

No, the claim was =not= that it was perfectly uniformly strong.
The claim was that the strength varied along the length with the
expected loads, so that a failure would be (roughly) equally likely
anywhere along the wing. "Perfection" was not claimed, just "pretty
close".

The video =I= saw showed the wing seem to snap at all places at once.
I'm sure slowed-down photography would show a first break and a second
break and all, but it did seem to just explode along its entire length.

Yes, I saw the bent spar.
Then you saw the point failure which I claim is how a wing will always
fail.

Yes. This is different from the video I saw (which BTW did not show an
"after" picture where such a failure point would be seen anyway).

Maybe you're right. I'm not an engineer. It just seemed very close.

I am an engineer, and the kind of failure you at first described has in
infinitesimal chance of occurring.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I am an engineer, and the kind of failure you at first described has in
infinitesimal chance of occurring.


Last week you had a BS in Computer Science too.

"Sheista" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359




Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

Any landing you can taxi away from is a great landing.

I would say this was a good but not great landing.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

In article ,
"Danny Deger" wrote:

"Sheista" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359




Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

Any landing you can taxi away from is a great landing.

I would say this was a good but not great landing.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

As I understand it, it was not a landing accident at all! Apparently,
somebody either forgot to set the parking brake or forgot to chock the
plane and it rolled backwards, down the slope, through the fence and
into the waterway.