Quote (balrog66 @ Sep 13 2018 10:11pm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0777 wing stress test.
Failure at 154% of target. And the target already includes safety margin. Planes are retardedly redundant in terms of engineered safety. Mostly because almost any failure can turn out to be catastrophic.
Normal drag equation suggests it's almost 3x the drag compared to cruising altitude and velocity. With 3 being bigger than 1.5, I dunno ^^.
Jk ofc.. Those numbers are correct, but they don't incorporate the decreased angle of attack to reach the same lift at low altitude/high speed, causing a guesstimated 10%+ drag reduction. (minor, but it add up). The design targets on where the 150% margin is put on, are ofc not the normal cruising speed and altitude forces. They take the more severe weather conditions and possible stalls and bird strikes, The wings need to withstand more than "normal operation". On top of that, is the 150%
If some one wants to look up the design minimum for longitudinal forces on commercial aviation. Be my guest. From what I remember for lift forces that's around 6x, so 6 times the normal operational demand. Longitudinal requirements will likely be lower than the 6x demand, but 3 doesn't seems outlandish. Or make it 1.8x and then add the 150% margin and the 10%+ angle of attack difference
This post was edited by Knoppie on Sep 13 2018 05:28pm