The Tupolev Tu-154 must not be a very popular plane in your class haha

I was thumb up number 154

same man

@Nick Smith same man 👌🏻

I say it whenever something breaks lol.

Me too

I didn't catch that part

where? time stamp would be helpful. EDIT: Found it 1:54

Which “154”?

2:20

👍

😂😂😂

NightShadow xD

One of us

Sheep

Ben beep beep

2:20

You should not be on that flight

😂😂😂

Oh hell nah lmao

whats 154?

The best part about this is that that would be 13:54 as well

+Alfred F. Jones Boom

O-H....

whats 154?

This comment is at 154 likes Never like or dislike it again

No sorry but thats wrong, I actually cheered at the number 154 only the other day.

@@mastercarpenterltd so did happy gilmore

What about 154 AD new year?

Excellent comment thread.

154

oh fr?

I disagree

@@alexdesimone6737 well you're wrong 💀

@@alexdesimone6737 REALLY?!!!! What could they have done better? Is it ENTIRELY flawed? Is it not enough that it can withstand 153% of the HIGHEST amount of load it will ever naturally face? How would you have designed it and how much extra would your design allow it to take?

Thank you.

In video form: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bZaUmNdjxNWaiH0.html

Lol!

164% are you deaf?

154%

its 153 clearly

*21*

I think you meant to say "154"

This is actually expected behavior and I think the engineers would have been baffled if both did not break in the same second. The moment one section fails, the static event is changed to a dynamic event and large stress waves propagate out due to the sudden release of the stored elastic energy. These move throughout the airplane and cause a sudden spike in stress which would push the other (already highly stressed) wing past the breaking point.

@@aegisfate117 touche

The shock wave of one wing failing travels through to the other wing and causes it to fail also.

@@austincox809 thank you. I didn't feel like typing that all out. Of course I would have gone much more in-depth but i like the way a little kid can read your explanation and get the real answer.

lol....

BrotherMouzone i want this to be my ringtone

Imagine the video just timed out perfec that 1:54 was when it happened

Hmmm Not enough 154s :P

HAHAHAHA

Shakespeare wrote154 sonnets, the last being Sonnet 154

You forgot the 'BOOOOOOOOOOOOM!' between each one (^__^ )

Annoying

One actually broke first, which sent a shock load into the other causing it to break too. If you tested them separately they would almost assuredly break at different loads, but they'd probably be in the ballpark with each other assuming both were designed equally and fabricated similarly.

Hello from the future. I just made the same comment which you did 9 years ago. Bummer it took so long for someone else to notice. There may be more below, I have not looked yet. Tho I am cheating a little, professionally I manage variability in the manufacture of integrated circuits (where we operate in ps time units, literally 1ps is a thing, and design aspects are 10 atoms thick so +/- 1 atom is also a thing). So I have realistic expectations. I am very curious to know how you did too, if you ever get this person from the past.

@2:21

lol

😂😂

Every plane needs to be able to handle 150% of the plane maximum load.

what? are you sure?

@@ericturner2477 Yeah but if you do 9 straight cuts through the center and 7 concentric ring cuts around the middle, you can get 18 sectors divided into 8 pieces each, therefore 154 pieces. Though that's only 16 cuts...

Ah yes mathematics.

But.... does it go boom?

- Hey, how many slices does this pizza have? - ONE FIFTY FOUR *pizza explodes and everyone cheers*

Props or jets. I don't mind.

I'm no engineering expert but I suspect the breaking point was not exact for both. When one went, the other one was so close, the shockwave transmitted into it pushed it over the edge. Microseconds in it, but unlikely the exact same time. Two in quick succession, one triggered by the other.

Hello from the future. I just made the same comment which you did 5 years ago. Bummer it took so long for someone else to notice. There may be more below, I have not looked yet. Tho I am cheating a little, professionally I manage variability in the manufacture of integrated circuits (where we operate in ps time units, literally 1ps is a thing, and design aspects are 10 atoms thick so +/- 1 atom is also a thing). So I have realistic expectations. I am very curious to know how you did too, if you ever get this person from the past.

ikr

Just visit EJ_SA on twitch. It’s been a meme there for years

And if the first wing fails in flight it doesn't matter if the second wing fails :D

What WOULD it take to hit 154%? 500mph Cruising speed minimum radius 90° back turn?

Claiming to be a retired boeing engineer etc etc is kind of pointless, 99% have nothing to do with this test. Q1: Structural Engineer? Q2: Wings? Didn't think so. Watch the video, see the facts, stop spewing inane BS and embarrassing yourself.

@@hotliner2872 Exactly what qualifies you to criticize a retired engineer you know nothing about, or call his/her statements "inane BS?" I'm an engineer (not aeronautical) and what he said reflects sound engineering principles and makes complete sense. He or she doesn't have to be involved in this specific test, or the engineering of the wing, or even be a structural engineer to understand what happens. Most of it goes back to engineering fundamentals; if you had an engineering degree you would know this.

@@bgowrwbw4755 BSME 92, MSME 94, PhD Systems Engineering 2000 (with 2 years FT work at Ford Motor Company in between MS and Doctorate). Don't blame a guy for standing up for the structural engineers... if they did their job properly the wing should fail at the same load on both sides... this even happens in flight.... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o85_oq2nucrOo4U.html

One failed first, and the shock wave caused the other to fail. This happens frequently in failure tests. It's unlikely both wings would have failed within 1% of the same load if they were tested separately.

+Joe N. You just made my night. "154 FAITH" "154 WITH FAITH" "154 RUN" "154 WITH FAITH"

Everyone likes a "safety factor" of 50%

As a structural engineer I admit I had to do some digging here. I originally posted here that this is correct, but now I amend my comment. I believe in the aircraft industry, design limit load and limit load are the usually taken to mean the same thing. There are other industries where "design limit load" does include factors and plain old "limit load" does not include the factors. I think what is best is if you add factors, it is best to explicitly state it somehow like "factored limit load" or "I define design limit load to be the highest expected operating load multiplied by the required safety factors". Just make it clear. The ultimate load is the limit load multiplied by a factor, often 1.5 in the aircraft industry. So ultimate load is 1.5 * limit load, which is why everyone here was cheering at 150% of limit load. It met the ultimate load requirement. (Just some additional information: limit load (LL) is the maximum expected externally applied load. You can't have any permanent detrimental deformation at this load. Ultimate load (UL) is the limit load multiplied by a 1.5 factor of safety in this instance. You can have permanent deformation at this load, but it shouldn't break.)

the max loading for heavy transport aircraft, B777 included, is 2.5 g's. One fifty four means 1.54 x 2.5 = 3.85 is the g loading at which the aircraft wing is expected to fail. That's very far outside any standard flight profile.

@@cameronpeterson1175 The other thing they're worried about is how much _over_ 1.50 it breaks. That's why they're equally nervous as the loads keep climbing. Mass is critical in any vehicle; failure above 1.50 means you overdesigned it, and the structure is heavier than it needs to be. Typically, engineers intentionally err on the side of underdesign, so that it breaks before the required loads. This happened on the A380, for example. You find the part that failed, make it a little thicker, and do it again.

Darude - Sandstorm

Louie Leal I fucking love you

Jon Smith Juan slipped de floor.

Jon Smith im dead lol

Jon Smith One fifty something or other. I will have to watch it about four more times to catch it...

Mullally should've been the CEO

No, we did not move to Chicago until after the 1997 merger, this test was done before 1994 when the 1st 777-200 was delivered. I have seen a copy of this test on VHS tape.

Major League Baseball teams played 154 games a season prior to expansion in 1961

🤣🤣. Bhai 😜

Aluminum has a finite cyclic life. The stress it can handle will lower as the wing gets older. However, you are perfectly safe because it takes 10's of thousands of hours of flying to fatigue the wings/fuselage of a modern aircraft

arthursc2 I have an older mid 90's carbon kevlar composite mountain bike and i have literally flogged the living daylights out of it and it's still going strong. Even with my other aircraft aluminium bike it's still sound. Aircraft alloy is so different to the run of the mill DIY alloy from walmart.

I think you missed the part where I mentioned "10's of thousands of hours" Also, there is no such thing as "aircraft aluminum." There are alloys, such as 6061, 7075, 5052, etc. Then there are alloys specific to aircraft use, such as 7050 (8% stronger than 7075) and 2024 (more ductile than 5000 series, able to be bent and formed). Aircraft aluminum is a marketing term applied by salesman to any alloy family to make you think it is somehow superior, when he is simply selling you 6061-T6 or 7075-T5. Each alloy has a specific set of uses, varying from weldability to machinability to ductility. Knowing the intended load and use is crucial to selection of alloy. Anyway, my point is that aluminum, whether it is inside of it's expected load or out of it, has a finite lifespan. And the load and life will change depending on alloy. You can cyclically load it within 50% of it's intended load, and after enough cycles, it will fail. Even .5%. Will it take millions of cycles? Yes, but the failure will occur. This is why aircraft wings have a replacement life, to avoid such a failure.

As others have said, aluminum alloys, and other metals, have a finite fatigue life. You can illustrate this by bending a paper clip repeatedly. Small amounts of deflection have little effect, and it takes much longer to exceed the endurance limit of the paper clip. Increase the amount and frequency of the deflections and you'll break it more quickly. The structural properties of materials used in aircraft are very well known and engineers have years of test data at their disposal during the design phase of an aircraft. The lifespan of a commercial aircraft is measured in cycles, with one takeoff, flight and landing counting as one cycle, and aircraft are designed for a certain number of cycles. They are also inspected for cracks and other failures on a regular basis.

Actualy Arthur when sales people refer to Aircraft grade 'alloy they' re ineed referring an alloy used in Aircraft. 6061 has been used for MTB and road bike frames since the late 80's. It is a quality alloy not gimmick. When a bike frame manufacturer quotes it's place in aviation they are correct. Many alloys are used widely due to aviaion.

Rubber duck. Lmao!

Abdullah Eid LOL

below that it looks like a realistic duck head

It’s a safety duck.

Sitting duck

***** 154 with the faith

What's the name? Where can I find it?

@@yashpathak3765 Are you asking about the music, or the documentary? (PBS, "21st Century Jet". ) The music is by Denny Gore, but I've never been able to find it online or elsewhere. Sorry.

but mh370...

actually 154 percent of design limit is 54 percent over design limit

Every plane needs to be able to handle 150% of the plane maximum load.

mr rambo xD

It was ONE FIFTY FOUR times the limit

That wing can go beyon 150% and the absolute design limit is 154% did you even watch the video?

Every plane needs to be able to handle 150% of the plane maximum load.