Would the wings of a Boeing 787 be snapped off in the same turbulence in which a DC-8 lost an engine and...
From forbes.com:
In 1992, a DC 8 cargo aircraft suffered turbulence so severe over the Front Range of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains that its left outboard engine was completely ripped off as well as some 12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge. Mercifully, the pilot was able to make an emergency landing at Denver International.
If a 787 was put in the same turbulence as the DC-8, would the wings snap off? The DC-8 is from the '50s while the 787 is a new aircraft.
safety boeing-787 turbulence
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
add a comment |
From forbes.com:
In 1992, a DC 8 cargo aircraft suffered turbulence so severe over the Front Range of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains that its left outboard engine was completely ripped off as well as some 12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge. Mercifully, the pilot was able to make an emergency landing at Denver International.
If a 787 was put in the same turbulence as the DC-8, would the wings snap off? The DC-8 is from the '50s while the 787 is a new aircraft.
safety boeing-787 turbulence
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
6
12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge— that's not the same thing as the wing 'snapping off'. The wing was overloaded, and a portion of it was damaged and torn from the airframe, but the DC-8 in question did not lose any span. See the NTSB report: aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921209-1
– egid
Dec 17 at 18:25
Still classifies as wing damage. There's a photo of BOAC Flight 911 where the wing folded before the plane crashed (also due to turbulence) taken from a person on the ground who was filming the plane flying over Mt. Fuji.
– Willy A
Dec 17 at 18:30
2
Damage, sure. You are specifically asking if wings would "be snapped off", though. If you're actually asking if the 787 would suffer the same damage as the DC-8, you need to rephrase your question.
– egid
Dec 18 at 5:24
@egid I read the question as "would a modern aircraft be doomed by turbulence that an old aircraft survived (just)"
– Martin Bonner
Dec 18 at 12:17
add a comment |
From forbes.com:
In 1992, a DC 8 cargo aircraft suffered turbulence so severe over the Front Range of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains that its left outboard engine was completely ripped off as well as some 12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge. Mercifully, the pilot was able to make an emergency landing at Denver International.
If a 787 was put in the same turbulence as the DC-8, would the wings snap off? The DC-8 is from the '50s while the 787 is a new aircraft.
safety boeing-787 turbulence
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
From forbes.com:
In 1992, a DC 8 cargo aircraft suffered turbulence so severe over the Front Range of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains that its left outboard engine was completely ripped off as well as some 12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge. Mercifully, the pilot was able to make an emergency landing at Denver International.
If a 787 was put in the same turbulence as the DC-8, would the wings snap off? The DC-8 is from the '50s while the 787 is a new aircraft.
safety boeing-787 turbulence
safety boeing-787 turbulence
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
edited Dec 17 at 20:39
choster
1647
1647
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
asked Dec 17 at 15:34
Willy A
1028
1028
6
12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge— that's not the same thing as the wing 'snapping off'. The wing was overloaded, and a portion of it was damaged and torn from the airframe, but the DC-8 in question did not lose any span. See the NTSB report: aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921209-1
– egid
Dec 17 at 18:25
Still classifies as wing damage. There's a photo of BOAC Flight 911 where the wing folded before the plane crashed (also due to turbulence) taken from a person on the ground who was filming the plane flying over Mt. Fuji.
– Willy A
Dec 17 at 18:30
2
Damage, sure. You are specifically asking if wings would "be snapped off", though. If you're actually asking if the 787 would suffer the same damage as the DC-8, you need to rephrase your question.
– egid
Dec 18 at 5:24
@egid I read the question as "would a modern aircraft be doomed by turbulence that an old aircraft survived (just)"
– Martin Bonner
Dec 18 at 12:17
add a comment |
6
12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge— that's not the same thing as the wing 'snapping off'. The wing was overloaded, and a portion of it was damaged and torn from the airframe, but the DC-8 in question did not lose any span. See the NTSB report: aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921209-1
– egid
Dec 17 at 18:25
Still classifies as wing damage. There's a photo of BOAC Flight 911 where the wing folded before the plane crashed (also due to turbulence) taken from a person on the ground who was filming the plane flying over Mt. Fuji.
– Willy A
Dec 17 at 18:30
2
Damage, sure. You are specifically asking if wings would "be snapped off", though. If you're actually asking if the 787 would suffer the same damage as the DC-8, you need to rephrase your question.
– egid
Dec 18 at 5:24
@egid I read the question as "would a modern aircraft be doomed by turbulence that an old aircraft survived (just)"
– Martin Bonner
Dec 18 at 12:17
6
6
12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge — that's not the same thing as the wing 'snapping off'. The wing was overloaded, and a portion of it was damaged and torn from the airframe, but the DC-8 in question did not lose any span. See the NTSB report: aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921209-1– egid
Dec 17 at 18:25
12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge — that's not the same thing as the wing 'snapping off'. The wing was overloaded, and a portion of it was damaged and torn from the airframe, but the DC-8 in question did not lose any span. See the NTSB report: aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921209-1– egid
Dec 17 at 18:25
Still classifies as wing damage. There's a photo of BOAC Flight 911 where the wing folded before the plane crashed (also due to turbulence) taken from a person on the ground who was filming the plane flying over Mt. Fuji.
– Willy A
Dec 17 at 18:30
Still classifies as wing damage. There's a photo of BOAC Flight 911 where the wing folded before the plane crashed (also due to turbulence) taken from a person on the ground who was filming the plane flying over Mt. Fuji.
– Willy A
Dec 17 at 18:30
2
2
Damage, sure. You are specifically asking if wings would "be snapped off", though. If you're actually asking if the 787 would suffer the same damage as the DC-8, you need to rephrase your question.
– egid
Dec 18 at 5:24
Damage, sure. You are specifically asking if wings would "be snapped off", though. If you're actually asking if the 787 would suffer the same damage as the DC-8, you need to rephrase your question.
– egid
Dec 18 at 5:24
@egid I read the question as "would a modern aircraft be doomed by turbulence that an old aircraft survived (just)"
– Martin Bonner
Dec 18 at 12:17
@egid I read the question as "would a modern aircraft be doomed by turbulence that an old aircraft survived (just)"
– Martin Bonner
Dec 18 at 12:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's very likely that the 787 would have less problems with turbulence than the DC-8 did.
The wings of the Boeing 787 are more flexible than the DC-8, and that flexibility will damp the immediate impact of turbulence. More important, the Boeing 787 has a gust alleviation system that reacts to turbulence by counteracting the induced accelerations using the control surfaces.
Note that the aircraft certification standards have changed a lot since the DC-8 was certified. Originally the focus was very much on the maximum g-forces the wing could sustain, but this is not a very good measure for turbulence. The g-forces encountered in turbulence are the result of a combination of the turbulence itself and the aero-elastic response of the aircraft. Using a more flexible wing and gust alleviation systems will result in a much smoother ride (less g-forces) than a traditional very rigid wing.
Currently the certification standards define, in addition to a required g-force, the characteristics of the turbulence that the aircraft has to sustain. For example, see the FAA's regulation for large aircraft, FAR Part 25, Sec 25.341.
This takes into account a range of characteristics of turbulence that can be encountered as well as the dynamic response of the aircraft to that turbulence.
Apart for aerodynamic and structural differences between the DC-8 and the Boeing 787, better understanding of (mountain wave) turbulence, better weather prediction, better reporting of turbulence by aircrew (simply because there are more flights) and better weather radars on aircraft have reduced the risks of encountering turbulence since the DC-8 era.
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58154%2fwould-the-wings-of-a-boeing-787-be-snapped-off-in-the-same-turbulence-in-which-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's very likely that the 787 would have less problems with turbulence than the DC-8 did.
The wings of the Boeing 787 are more flexible than the DC-8, and that flexibility will damp the immediate impact of turbulence. More important, the Boeing 787 has a gust alleviation system that reacts to turbulence by counteracting the induced accelerations using the control surfaces.
Note that the aircraft certification standards have changed a lot since the DC-8 was certified. Originally the focus was very much on the maximum g-forces the wing could sustain, but this is not a very good measure for turbulence. The g-forces encountered in turbulence are the result of a combination of the turbulence itself and the aero-elastic response of the aircraft. Using a more flexible wing and gust alleviation systems will result in a much smoother ride (less g-forces) than a traditional very rigid wing.
Currently the certification standards define, in addition to a required g-force, the characteristics of the turbulence that the aircraft has to sustain. For example, see the FAA's regulation for large aircraft, FAR Part 25, Sec 25.341.
This takes into account a range of characteristics of turbulence that can be encountered as well as the dynamic response of the aircraft to that turbulence.
Apart for aerodynamic and structural differences between the DC-8 and the Boeing 787, better understanding of (mountain wave) turbulence, better weather prediction, better reporting of turbulence by aircrew (simply because there are more flights) and better weather radars on aircraft have reduced the risks of encountering turbulence since the DC-8 era.
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
add a comment |
It's very likely that the 787 would have less problems with turbulence than the DC-8 did.
The wings of the Boeing 787 are more flexible than the DC-8, and that flexibility will damp the immediate impact of turbulence. More important, the Boeing 787 has a gust alleviation system that reacts to turbulence by counteracting the induced accelerations using the control surfaces.
Note that the aircraft certification standards have changed a lot since the DC-8 was certified. Originally the focus was very much on the maximum g-forces the wing could sustain, but this is not a very good measure for turbulence. The g-forces encountered in turbulence are the result of a combination of the turbulence itself and the aero-elastic response of the aircraft. Using a more flexible wing and gust alleviation systems will result in a much smoother ride (less g-forces) than a traditional very rigid wing.
Currently the certification standards define, in addition to a required g-force, the characteristics of the turbulence that the aircraft has to sustain. For example, see the FAA's regulation for large aircraft, FAR Part 25, Sec 25.341.
This takes into account a range of characteristics of turbulence that can be encountered as well as the dynamic response of the aircraft to that turbulence.
Apart for aerodynamic and structural differences between the DC-8 and the Boeing 787, better understanding of (mountain wave) turbulence, better weather prediction, better reporting of turbulence by aircrew (simply because there are more flights) and better weather radars on aircraft have reduced the risks of encountering turbulence since the DC-8 era.
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
add a comment |
It's very likely that the 787 would have less problems with turbulence than the DC-8 did.
The wings of the Boeing 787 are more flexible than the DC-8, and that flexibility will damp the immediate impact of turbulence. More important, the Boeing 787 has a gust alleviation system that reacts to turbulence by counteracting the induced accelerations using the control surfaces.
Note that the aircraft certification standards have changed a lot since the DC-8 was certified. Originally the focus was very much on the maximum g-forces the wing could sustain, but this is not a very good measure for turbulence. The g-forces encountered in turbulence are the result of a combination of the turbulence itself and the aero-elastic response of the aircraft. Using a more flexible wing and gust alleviation systems will result in a much smoother ride (less g-forces) than a traditional very rigid wing.
Currently the certification standards define, in addition to a required g-force, the characteristics of the turbulence that the aircraft has to sustain. For example, see the FAA's regulation for large aircraft, FAR Part 25, Sec 25.341.
This takes into account a range of characteristics of turbulence that can be encountered as well as the dynamic response of the aircraft to that turbulence.
Apart for aerodynamic and structural differences between the DC-8 and the Boeing 787, better understanding of (mountain wave) turbulence, better weather prediction, better reporting of turbulence by aircrew (simply because there are more flights) and better weather radars on aircraft have reduced the risks of encountering turbulence since the DC-8 era.
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
It's very likely that the 787 would have less problems with turbulence than the DC-8 did.
The wings of the Boeing 787 are more flexible than the DC-8, and that flexibility will damp the immediate impact of turbulence. More important, the Boeing 787 has a gust alleviation system that reacts to turbulence by counteracting the induced accelerations using the control surfaces.
Note that the aircraft certification standards have changed a lot since the DC-8 was certified. Originally the focus was very much on the maximum g-forces the wing could sustain, but this is not a very good measure for turbulence. The g-forces encountered in turbulence are the result of a combination of the turbulence itself and the aero-elastic response of the aircraft. Using a more flexible wing and gust alleviation systems will result in a much smoother ride (less g-forces) than a traditional very rigid wing.
Currently the certification standards define, in addition to a required g-force, the characteristics of the turbulence that the aircraft has to sustain. For example, see the FAA's regulation for large aircraft, FAR Part 25, Sec 25.341.
This takes into account a range of characteristics of turbulence that can be encountered as well as the dynamic response of the aircraft to that turbulence.
Apart for aerodynamic and structural differences between the DC-8 and the Boeing 787, better understanding of (mountain wave) turbulence, better weather prediction, better reporting of turbulence by aircrew (simply because there are more flights) and better weather radars on aircraft have reduced the risks of encountering turbulence since the DC-8 era.
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
edited Dec 17 at 16:57
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
answered Dec 17 at 16:46
DeltaLima
52k5160227
52k5160227
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58154%2fwould-the-wings-of-a-boeing-787-be-snapped-off-in-the-same-turbulence-in-which-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
12 feet of its left wing’s leading edge— that's not the same thing as the wing 'snapping off'. The wing was overloaded, and a portion of it was damaged and torn from the airframe, but the DC-8 in question did not lose any span. See the NTSB report: aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921209-1– egid
Dec 17 at 18:25
Still classifies as wing damage. There's a photo of BOAC Flight 911 where the wing folded before the plane crashed (also due to turbulence) taken from a person on the ground who was filming the plane flying over Mt. Fuji.
– Willy A
Dec 17 at 18:30
2
Damage, sure. You are specifically asking if wings would "be snapped off", though. If you're actually asking if the 787 would suffer the same damage as the DC-8, you need to rephrase your question.
– egid
Dec 18 at 5:24
@egid I read the question as "would a modern aircraft be doomed by turbulence that an old aircraft survived (just)"
– Martin Bonner
Dec 18 at 12:17