The 60 minute Nebula version is here: nebula.app/videos/real-engineering-the-insane-engineering-of-the-787 Part two will launch on UA-cam in the next week.
Would mildly electrifying the aluminium and carbon fibre not provide an alternative source of ions and electron flow this drastically reducing galvanic erosion?
Watching your first videos on aircraft literally altered my career plans, I'm now 7 months away from graduating an aerospace engineer. You are having a big impact on many future engineers. Please keep doing more aircraft videos, they are absolutely amazing!
That's amazing. Congrats! Remember me when you are working on cool shit! I just report on what people like you will work on, I'm nothing without actual engineers
I have worked as an Engineer for over 45 yrs. I have a degree in Mechanical and Electronical Engineering. I worked on designing and building the machinery that made the 787 possible. Also the Scorsese Helicopters.
As an aeronautic engineer from the european concurrence, I greatly appreciate the depth of the informations you're giving 😅. No seriously your video are amazing! By the way I've worked on exactly that titanium additive manufacturing tech for a few years and there is still so much work that still need to be done to unlock it's full potential!
Literally like every aerospace engineer at my college watches this channel religiously. Nothing is gonna get done today except watching this video lol.
Ah i wish i were at your clg , my clg people dont a fkn shit , most of em are busy watching webseries. Even professors aren't useful. 1 more year and imma head out somewhere to Europe for better prospects
I am asking this question as there might be someone who know the 787 situiation very well, so, Is the 787 quality built or rushed? I have heard former boeing 787 engineers saying the plane has below standard parts fitted to it, Is Boeing just a renamed mcdonell douglas now? Is Boeing just wanting profit or do they care about making good planes? Are they lying? Is the 787 safe? Is boeing led by accountants now? And also, Will boeing fix the 787's issues like the contaminated wing carbon fibre and the panel gaps? I do not know who to trust, Boeing, or the former engineers saying that the plane is bad, and that the factories are very rushed, which boeing declines, I hope the 787 is a Quality and safe plane, as it is my favourite, I am just unsure of its quality, and reply and opinion will help me, thank you.
@@ngaviation3489 Oh my God thank you for this comment because I was almost gonna type the same thing word for word. I would really like some insight on this report. I’m pretty sure you and I watch the same or at least one of the same testimonials that included Boeing engineers and technicians
@@ngaviation3489 The FAA suspended the 787 production line, and it's still suspended . Boeing hasn't delivered one in over a year, for those quality assurance reasons you stated. No 787 has ever crashed, so idk if that answers your question about safety, seems safe to me. The so-called whistle blower was a man named John Woods who has said some stuff, he then tried to sue boeing for harassments in the work environment. Media took that and ran, running headlines calling him an outspoken whistleblower who got fired for trying to be safe. Which may be true. Woods claimed that boeing was treating him unfairly for trying to adhere to safety measures, but the court dismissed that as untrue. The issues with the 787 were with the assembly process, and that's what got suspended. The FAA just cleared the 787 for it's re-delivery plan. Seems like the 787 is pretty safe now, if it wasn't already. The worst design-related accidents with it were a couple of battery meltdowns. Planes these days are pretty safe. I personally don't think the 787 was ever a big deal. The john woods thing came and went, nothing real significant came of that, only after the 737 MAX resulting in heightened FAA enforcements (for good reason) did the 787 encounter major issues in terms of PR. "Is boeing led by accountants now" not really anymore, 5 years ago, most certainly, or at least those who were in charge were letting their wallets do the talking. The 737 MAX crisis has forced boeing to completely reorganize which is a good thing.
As a materials science engineer I have to applaud you for the accuracy of these videos. Inelastic vs elastic deformation, galvanic corrosion, S-N curves etc. I was not expecting such specific information to be explained in such an accessible and easily digestible format. This is my first video I’ve ever watched from your channel but you have a subscriber for life. Thank you for all of the work you put into these videos
@@KLucero22 I will start to my bachelor degree in materials engineering next semester, good to hear that someone from materials science engineering in the comments section.
I could feel McGregor wincing at that comment bet he unsubscribed right after. Not cuz it's a lie but cuz it isn't. Touched a tender spot for him. When you love what you do but your own body betrays you... Stupid frail human bodies. Where is our futuristic medical science we are always promised. Still waiting for a cure for ANY of the many types of cancer. Or a cure for diabetes. Until it's more profitable to chronically TREAT a patient over their entire life time than CURE it once, there is NO LOGICAL incentive for ANY for profit entity aka EVERY pharmaceutical company to ever search for a cure 🥺 Sorry McGregor. Greed causes medical science to fail you
Very nice video, super informative as always. One small note, aerospace composites are cured in an autoclave not an oven. This is important, because it makes scalability even more challenging. 1Bar isn't much, until it's over a surface area the size of a fuselage.
@@ronwesilen4536 an autoclave is a pressurized oven. This way, you can add pressure to push the composite down onto the tool. Bar is a unit of pressure measurement. 1Bar = 1 atmosphere (at STP), aka 14.7PSI or 101.3kPa depending on your preference. Autoclaves may, or may not, go to 1Bar depending on their size, application, etc. It was just an arbitrary number to illustrate a point.
@@dannydaw59 I think it was, I mean if they need to use an autoclave they’re not gonna put the fuselage in an oven just for a video. So I would say yes
When things were at their very worst: 2 Suns, Cross in the sky, 2 comets will collide = don`t be afraid - repent, accept Lord`s Hand of Mercy. Scientists will say it was a global illusion. Beware - Jesus will never walk in flesh again. After WW3 - rise of the “ man of peace“ from the East = Antichrist - the most powerful, popular, charismatic and influential leader of all time. Many miracles will be attributed to him. He will imitate Jesus in every conceivable way. Don`t trust „pope“ Francis = the False Prophet - will seem to rise from the dead - will unite all Christian Churches and all Religions as one. One World Religion = the seat of the Antichrist. Benedict XVI is the last true pope - will be accused of a crime of which he is totally innocent. "The time for the schism in the Church is almost here and you must get prepared now" "Arab uprising will spark global unrest - Italy will trigger fall out" The Book of Truth
@@kek397 True, in fact we've been trying to fly since the day someone decided to flap their wings like birds do. It evolves from that to building all kinds of glider. As we learn more about physics, humans are more and more capable of gliding until we eventually fly 🕊️
@@danielhandika8767 I think it's due to early childhood development, nutrition, stimulation, etc. So many kids are not given the resources they need to really thrive, and others are more fortunate. There will always be inherent biological differences, but these are then taken to a greater extreme thanks to differences in resources and education.
At 18:14, The HLFC panels are actually part of the Empennage Door Actuation System (EDAS). The doors are closed when on the ground. At low airspeed the doors open for "purge mode" sucking air in and sending it up the vertical stabilizer back out through perforations on the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. During cruise and high airspeed, the doors go into "suction mode" by creating a low pressure at the doors, reversing the airflow pulling air through the small perforations and sending it out the EDAS port. This decreases the thickness of the boundary layer airflow to maintain laminar flow and hence decrease drag along the vertical stabilizer. It is mainly used in "suction mode" as this reduces drag more. The "purge mode" is used more often to remove water and debris from the perforated holes. The EDAS system is only on the vertical stabilizer and is only applicable on all 787-10s and the 787-9s after production line number 526. Other than this part here this is an amazing, well thought through video. Very informative and enjoyable to watch!
This was a very informative and enjoyable video. Fun fact: many of the concepts discussed in this video are also considered in the design of tall building structures.
You can't just drop a nugget like that on me and leave my curiosity piqued without any sort of closure. I need to know about the Burj Khalifa's innovative de-icing system and the Millau Viaduct's highly efficient lifting surfaces dammit!
The concepts are great, indeed. But my only concern is that "Boeing cutting costs" in some cases is criminal. So let's hope there will be no problems with 787 after some years.
@@StrangerHappened "Cutting costs" in this case is not the same as, for example, some buildings in China being made with brittle steel and watery cement to save on construction costs. What the presenter meant by cutting costs was finding more efficient ways to manufacture the airplane while retaining the original strength. Example: the strongest airplane fuselage could be a plane made entirely of titanium with diamond rivets, but that would never ever be cost effective, and those parts could easily be substituted with easier to obtain materials like aluminium and in this case carbon fiber. And keep in mind FAA regulations exist to make sure manufacturers dont cut costs to the point of endagering passengers.
I was lucky enough to take a tour with my composites class before the pandemic to a Boeing facility that produced horizontal stabilizers for the 787. It was amazing seeing just how big they were.
Well they are, but they aren't. In absolute terms, they are pretty big. But compared to those on a 777 or 747 or C-5, they are pretty puny. A 787 is a relatively small aircraft, actually. Kind of mid-sized as airliners go.
@justforever96 no they are not... the smallest variant would be mid sized but the largest variant is almost 70 metres, which is like a few metres shorter than an a380. Also they're bigger than they seem. Sure it's a double decker plane but the a380 has a floor ontop of one deck, which is shorter than one entire fuselage. A 787-10 compared to an a380 isn't as big of a difference as you'd imagine, same with a 747. Don't even get me started on how the a350-1000 looks almost as big as an a380 in height when you place its outline against an a380 outline, while that plane is also not much bigger than a 787-10
My netflix is filled with heaps of netflix produced garbage fodder (movies, don't know about series). What I'm trying to say is that Real Engineering is way better than Netflix production value.
@@Czeckie I think Real Engineering is about the Netflix standard, good for entertainment purposes and reaches a wide audience, but not up to the engineering education standard yet
THANK YOU for telling me there is a longer version on Nebula AT THE BEGINNING. I keep getting told at the end of the video by other creators and I'm like, "I want to watch, but I don't want to watch the video over again..."
Excuse the Randomness but here you go, have some warm Recommendations, cause the Learning never Ends! (Thats the entire reason, yes) -It’s ok to be smart. -Professor Dave Explains. -Krimson Rogue. -Cynical Reviews. -Michio Kaku. -Veritasium.
I've watched the development of 787 on a pretty superficial level and I had completely missed that the hull is a carbon fiber composite. I had an impression on the plane like "better wings, lower fuel consumption, nice interior design". When you explained all the details in this video, I grew a whole new appreciation for the sophistication of the plane!
@@XRP747E probably because you would expect a pilot to know how an airplane works. If something goes wrong, what the heck are they gonna do if they don’t know how it works?
On the nose, rivets can contribute to a lot of parasitic drag, but further back they're in the boundary layer and barely make a difference. You'll notice that on Russian fighters, they only bother with flush rivets on the front of the airplane.
I was thinking that too, considering in other areas of aerospace such as with “rocket science”, whether your talking rough surfaces or outer protrusions on a rocket body, they literally make no difference whatsoever to either the performance or controllability of them, as testified by both Elon regarding the grid fins of the starship prototype, or even cooler the 3d printed rocket bodies (and everything else!!!) being manufactured by Relativity Space - which if you haven’t watched that video, you should!
In forward area, you will always find "flushed rivets / counter sunk rivets" but behind the wings and aft area of aircraft you will find rivets popped out of the skin because the turbulence in these regions has no effect on the fastener profile.
Took my first 787 flight from Philly to Dublin and it was phenomenal. Once you’ve flown on one, all later flight suck. I arrived feeling better than I have on flights half the length. And fast. With the strong tail wind it was over so quick.
In 3 weeks I will fly from Frankfurt to Chicago in a 789 united airlines. It will be my first long flight and I have been anxious. Any advice to relieve my uneasiness. It is silly I know.
@@mosbahiabdellatif5945 Just remember this: those pilots want to get there just as safely and quickly as you do. They're all very highly trained and experienced. I was a white knuckled flyer for a long time and once I had a woman sitting next to me tell me that. For some reason it made it all seem normal and I enjoyed the flight. Also remember that the less crap you have on you the easier clearing TSA will be. Remove all your jewelry, don't carry change, all your mouthwash and deodorant needs to be travel size or you're going to lose it. Same with fingernail clippers, razorblades, etc. Even a small pocket knife will be taken. And finally arrive at LEAST 2 hours before the flight is scheduled to leave. Trust me, it may seem like a long time, but it's not. Be polite and courteous to all airline employees. If you give them any shit like not wearing a mask or following their instructions, you will be kicked off. They are really cracking down on unruly passengers. Enjoy!
Awesome video! I’m an Engineer and my dad is a pilot. He is very skeptical of this plane but openly admits he doesn’t understand the tech. I occasionally dabble in explaining the benefits to him but this is brilliant - he will love this video! Thanks 🙏
@@InForTheLonghaul Yeah, they took on way too much of MD's killer cost cutting culture after the buyout. I don't trust them to be building craft with lots of dissimilar materials. And the stripping down of the lightning protection... no thanks. If I'm gonna fly in one of these newer widebodies I'll take an A350XWB for now
@@schwig44 Well to be fair, both the A350 and the 787 have 0 hull losses and 0 fatalities with the 787 having 4 more years of service... so technically the Dreamliner is the safest of the two Unfortunately, Boeing's recent track record kinda goes against that :/
@@wyskass861 no, the lack of pilot training was also boeing's fault. they insisted that pilots did not need retraining so the 737 max would be more appealing to airlines. Not the other way around.
you have to admire the aesthetics that the engineering can achieve, 787 has been my favourite airliner of all time since she was created, no one can reject that sexy curvature.
@@mamaharumi I think it comes from the fact that China, for a long time, was known for taking western products, reverse engineering them, then making the identical product and marketing it as theirs. I’m honestly not sure how prevalent this is today, but it was very common for a long time.
It’s insane how much thought and complexity actually goes into building something like an airplane. I always assumed it was just a very smart computer, landing gear, sensors, wings, control surfaces, an airframe, and a couple engines. Hearing about all of the materials and new technologies that add complexity was super interesting.
5-6 years ago I started watching you videos. I joined the navy soon after and Now I’m a level 3 electrician/ lead at Northrop Grumman. I love these videos man. I suggest them to all my friends and coworkers.
Having been a design and manufacturing engineer on the 787 program I really appreciated this video. There was so much content about the systems I wasn't aware of being on the structures side. Thank you for the creation and upload.
Hi Greco. How safe it is for the wing during lightning occurs without the copper mesh and the insulating cap as it is only relying on the edge sealant and compression ring as an insulation, where I believe it will get brittle overtime. Being an engineer myself and I've dealt with the selection of materials, it is a bit concerning. And coming from economic stand point did the cost reduction contributive?
@@siraajulmunirtomas3004 Hi Siraajulmunir, sorry I actually do not know. It was something we had to consider in our designs, but I am not sure on its performance and longevity. I am no longer at Boeing. But there is a department there called M&PT (Materials and Process technology) at a guess that department would look after that. But even still, if I knew, I dare say its not something I would be able to share openly on share as it would be intellectual property.
The F-4 Phantom has thousands of pin holes in their wing which bleed air from the engines were pumped to control the boundary layer of the airflow over the wing. Glad to see this technology being used.
My granddaddy was the pioneer in the use of reinforced carbon-carbon (the late 60’s-early 70’s term for fancy carbon fiber) on an airframe. He was a McDonnel Douglass engineer at the time and believed that it was the material of the future. All his bosses and coworkers thought he was crazy and it would fail catastrophically if it ever suffered a lightning strike. He finally convinced some of his higher ups to let him try it out on the airbrake for some F-15’s, as if that failed it wouldn’t bring down the aircraft. Eventually one of them did get hit by lightning and it didn’t explode or fall apart. That turned out to be the defining moment of his career. He went on to lead the design team for the ACES II ejection seat, and eventually become the Chief Program Engineer for the F-16 and F-18 projects. Unfortunately there isn’t much else myself or any of my family knows about what he actually did because most of it is still classified by the feds and he could never really tell any of us about most of the stuff he worked on and was pretty humble in general so nobody in our family ever even realized how big of an impact he had until he passed away and we saw the letters and the people who showed up for the funeral. This made my day to see what his idea has become over 50 years.
I'm not sure that's accurate for an entire aircraft because I believe they had issues with the lightning with the 787 Dreamliner and they had to impregnate some sort of conductor into the wings in the fuselage to dissipate the electricity of a lightning strike
@@andrewjackson5127 I agree, at the time I don’t think they were looking to it for use as an entire wing (which is also a fuel tank) or a fuselage (which is pressurized so people can breathe). At that time it was a very new material and they didn’t have the technology or knowledge to actually use it in things of that size so they were looking at it for use on small to medium size parts (control surfaces, structural bracing, etc). If I remember correctly the lightning still made a small hole in it, but the damage was limited to a small area directly where the strike hit and didn’t cause the whole part to delaminate and “blow apart”. In a fuselage or wing a small hole is a much bigger issue than an aeleron, rudder, access panel, etc… because with those you would lose your pressurization (not instantly, it’ll leak slowly depending on the size of the hole, but that still requires descending to low altitude so people can breathe, which means a lot more drag/fuel usage) or if it’s a wing then half your fuel leaks out. Either one wouldn’t bring a plane down immediately (unless the lighting caught the bow leaking fuel on fire) but if that were to happen in the middle of the ocean then the fuel loss or extra drag might be the difference between diverting to an airport and ditching in the ocean. Plus having one wing full of fuel and the other one empty might (or might not) cause some trim/balance issues. I’m just speculating on why they would need to add additional conductors (carbon is already fairly conductive and at lightning voltages practically everything becomes somewhat conductive) on the 787… i just know a little bit about what he did with it back in the 60’s and 70’s.
As an aerosexual with a career in aviation I did not expect to learn much from this video…but even topics that I’m already aware of go more in depth than anything I’ve seen. Thank you. 😎👍
I love how there are a lot of engineers/aeroengineers on this channel, meanwhile I'm sitting here as a CS graduate dreaming about planes and trying to understand how they work instead of working on my stuff lol
I'm going into my third semester of Aerospace Engineering and I'm noticing that this video creates a great link between the "final product" and all kinds of basics that are taught in the first two semesters. I'm recognizing tons of aspects from materials science, construction elements, applied mechanics etc. Awesome💪🏻
I don't believe you. You know the 787 was a disaster. 4 years late, contractors supplying substandard components which Boeings management accepted. It is all theory which does not represent the true experience of making this plane.
Excuse the Randomness but here you go, have some warm Recommendations, cause the Learning never Ends! (Thats the entire reason, yes) -It’s ok to be smart. -Professor Dave Explains. -Krimson Rogue. -Cynical Reviews. -Michio Kaku. -Veritasium.
@@greg4712 Also, from what I've been told, while the composite wings "can" bend more than aluminum in that elastic deformation zone, metal will plastically deform for a while rather than snap/break compared to composite materials, which might just break. Is that true? My information might be out of date but about 15 years ago when I was learning to fly I knew an A&P who said that metal will let you know it's beginning to have problems long before it's a problem, while composite materials keep it a secret until they essentially break. Hopefully some progress has been made since then...
@@padrejohnruffle That's because carbon fiber is the new "hip" material. I mean, people go so far as putting carbon fiber vinyl wraps in things to make it look like carbon fiber. The general population hears "carbon fiber" and thinks "futuristic". Engineers hear carbon fiber and hear "light-weight". What no one thinks of is possible downsides. Carbon fiber is stiff. Normally you think that's a good thing because you want a structure to be stiff, but in reality, stuff means that, instead of bending, it breaks. I think there's going to be a lot of bad news in the next 5-10 years regarding composite aircraft regarding their airworthiness. A crack in aluminum is relatively easy to control/fix. A crack in CF is a totally different ball game. Doing a patch job on a sheet of aluminum is relatively easy, not so much on CF, because CF gets its strength from being 1 continuous strand. You break that strand and you have a weak point, and a structure is only as strong as it's weakest point.
I wouldn’t be lying that you’re making all of us interested in engineering majors plus the quality of the videos is just outstanding and the content is so easy to understand. You’re truly changing the perspective of looking at things for an ordinary person for instance the next time i travel in a Dreamliner, I’ll know that this plane is nothing like a plane 50 years ago. Meaning being able to appreciate the advancements which have lead aviation to this point. Can’t wait for a video on Anti-gravity engines lol whenever your able to get your hands on one! Haha
I never thought I would watch a 30 minute video explaining the engineering behind an aircraft, understand it, and even feel amazed by it. Subscribing right away.
So the 787 has titanium fasteners that are potentially vulnerable to fatigue cracking early in their life (let me guess that FAA approval was pre-2020?) and the wings are now more vulnerable to lightning strikes. Just that these days Boeing engineers saying a cost cutting measure is safe doesn’t inspire a huge amount of confidence.
The laminar flow system you describe at 18 minutes didn’t originally ship on the B787-9 aircraft. Boeing forgot to update the computer system to compensate so airlines were reaching destinations on reserve fuel. On the -9 variant is was worth about 500 additional miles in range
Don't forget the indestructible 777 that was also ground (air?) breaking in its use of materials and technology decades before the Dreamliner. Note how the 777s that crash landed at LHR and SFO (SFO in particular, dam thing cartwheeled!), with no loss of structural integrity. 777 is a tough bird. 787 even tougher! Love being a passenger on both.
@@GudieveNing There have been several engineers who whistle blow about 787’s structural integrity thought and Boeing fired all of them. Looking at their records with 737 Max… you have to be an idiot to trust Boeing. Btw, 737 fuselage always broke up in 3 pieces when crash landed…. the engineers who whistleblow about 737 fuselage all got fired too.
@@tonamg53 Are all those who flew on Boeing aircraft idiots? I seriously doubt so! A lot have been put into making the 787 a spectacular airplane, if only you knew what's behind the engineering aside from just this video, believe me, you would have thought twice on your comment about not trusting Boeing.
I remember being fascinated by 2 'next gen' planes back then as a kid. First being the A380 and the other is the 787 (was still called 7E7 at the time)
@@MCyahhhhha it is efficient, when 100% full. On the same level of 787. Problem is airlines can’t fill all the seats 100% of the time, routes volume changes thought the year. Oh 4 engines cost more to run than 2 engines, 100% of the time.
@@nazhif1 Efficiency was actually the main drive to go for bigger planes back then, the approach was a different one though. Bigger planes really are more efficient every time so long as you can use all the capacity and especially so on long-haul routes. Airlines were trying to use that by advocating the hub-strategy instead of direct flights. People would travel to the biggest airports where the large and efficient planes pick them up and fly them to the other side of the globe. In theory, that's the most efficient approach and that's still the case with the new technologies. However, the hub-strategy is very inflexible. While smaller planes allow the airlines to re-arrange their routes quickly, an A380 is a very specialized plane that only makes sense for a very small number of routes. As an airline, you can't just re-assign an A380 to another route when that route doesn't fill its capacity and that's pretty bad when you consider how seasonal airline business is. Then there's economies of scale. Make a lot of something and it becomes cheaper and easier to improve upon. You can spread the enormous R&D costs over a large number of individual orders and that helps a lot to justify the costs. The A350 went through numerous upgrades because it's relatively easy and cheap to do so with a plane that you produce hundreds of. If you're not able to upgrade a plane every few years it'll get out-performed quickly and significantly. The A380 was a very efficient plane when it first hit the runways but after a few years, it just couldn't compete anymore. Upgrading it turned out to be prohibitively expensive because they simply weren't building that many.
Great video! A couple of (small) precisions: - The main role of the spars is not to resist the bending, but rather the shear, while bending is mostly resisted by the skin of the wing box - The reason of higher flexibility is also (and mainly) geometrical: a thinner wing box generates a higher wing deflection
"laminar flow" detected, Destin S from smarter every day appearance predicted. In all seriousness, amazing video. The elastic tailoring for the movement in flight is absolutely amazing. Thanks for pulling this data together!
These videos were not available back when I was graduating. Insane quality and very well explained without using math. Keep this thing going pal! By a fellow aeronautical engineer. Greetings from Italy!
I helped work on the 787 program way back 15 years ago as a contractor... but I've never actually seen one in person since what I was helping with was so early before production. I had a chance to tour the Boeing Everett factory which was cool.
One small issue with this video is the fact that the A-350 is also composed primarily of carbon fiber reinforced plastics, rather than aluminum. The video in and of itself, despite that innacuracy, is fantastic; by far the best video detailing the construction techniques of the 787.
Fun fact for the audience: I used to work as a de-icer in Canada and you really noticed how heat didn’t travel as well on the 787’s fuselage because of composite material.
Yes indeed, and it’s also the reason for an airworthiness directive that requires the slats to be inspected after every landing in icing conditions. Kind of a pain in the ass. If the slats get frozen to the structure the torque tube or transmissions can break causing an undetected failure of the position indicating system.
Your the reason I’m studying mechanical engineering now with hopes to work in the aerospace sector!! First watched your videos back in 10th grade! Cheers to the work you do for inspiring us! 🥂
Everyone who is going to be laid off has already been laid off. Boeing is a currently stable workforce size and still hiring for critical skill positions. I really don’t know why people comment this still?
*As a frequent busienss traveler, I go out of my way to avoid flying on the 787. Just one example of why, a flight attendent with an attitude will chose to take away passenger control of the window shades and decide to take away everyone’s view and close the shades or open all shades as she forces sun in the eyes of sleeping passengers for absolutely no reason.* The shades are electronically controlled and the flight attendants can and almost all the time do take control away from the passengers.
I'm irish and a bit of an engineering and aviation geek myself and I have no idea how I have never came across your channel until now! Love the narration and the references to various random things! Great videos and you've got a new subscriber 🙂
This can only be your favourite aircraft if you don't work on one as a daily job. Otherwise you'd know it's a fragile and unreliable piece of sh*t. Especially thanks to Boeing outsourcing the design and production of all the parts. Especially the Cabin Air Compressors, Forward Cargo Air Conditioning system, Integrated Cooling System, fuel nozzles and engine turbines are frequent offenders. They may seem minor but prices for these parts can easily reach €1000000 (not including labour). We always joke that the brakes last longer than the engines. To be fair, the brakes are very long lasting. The carbon fiber fuselage skin doesn't permanently deform when bumped into but the structure behind the skin can still be broken but now won't be noticed unless there is paint damage. So even though the skin is very strong, a minor 5 km/h bump already requires an extensive structural inspection (that is if ground handlers even bother to report such an apparent minor booboo). Which makes it very important for them to be able to report accidents without consequence. If a baggage handler would be fired he/she would never report an accident, which could be a hazard for flight safety.
Wright Brothers pioneered the use of 'composites' in powered aircraft, as well as 'contra-props'. Great video, very clear explanations of some very complicated processes.
I am a second year Aerospace student, working for my bachelor's degree. Boi o Boi. I finally know where and how what I've learned is applied. I am glad I found this channel.
Aero-elastic tailoring... A concept first used in Formula1 by Red-Bull, to get around the 'bendy wing' restrictions in F1. An ingenious concept that allows the wing to behave exactly like you want at different speeds. Unfortunately, other teams later caught wind of this and it was eventually out lawed by the FIA. Great to see this clever concept has found it's way into the aeronautical industry and is making air travel more efficient.
Its just amazing something that heavy can get up off the ground. That's some serious power! I used to be afraid to fly but knowing how they can fly on one engine and seeing how some on fire they still land safely
A minor thing that caught my eye: Even though gliders are (for the most of the time at least) unpowered they do benefit from storage volume. Most modern gliders are fitted with multiple tanks for water to increase their weight in good weather conditions. This increases the wing ballast which ensures that the glider has a better glide ratio at higher speeds. That is in reference to your explanation at around 12:05. Your video is great though and highly appreciated!
The downside of a unitary fuselage is the difficulty on repairing any damage that DOES occur. If you have riveted panels you can remove and replace individual panels.
In my opinion, the A-350 is the better aircraft but the 787 has the most beautiful wing design since Concorde, especially when viewed from the front or behind. Those achingly beautiful curved wings are so elegant and they're probably the biggest giveaway when plane spotting.
Even though I haven't flied, none of it, I think in an an all in all I would prefer the 787. especially the -8. My favorite on the variants. That could probably change when the 777-9 came, though :). That for sure, once you fly the these new planes, you never want to fly the old generation again
I had the pleasure of flying in two of these as a passenger. Amazing plane. Takeoff was so smooth and fast and cruising altitude was FL400 which surprised me.
at 51:46 of the Nebula video, you said: "...I'm a masochist that wants you to feel the pain I felt during my thermodynamics lectures in college." No, Brian that makes you a sadist. The fact I seemed to enjoy it, that makes me a masochist. =P Great video, by the way. XD
It is wrong to say aircraft must fly below their critical Mach number. In fact, airliners routinely cruise above Mcrit. The speed to be avoided is the drag divergence Mach number (Mdd) and is typically 5 to 10% higher. The limiting speed is Maximum Mach (MMO) where the adverse effects of compressibility are deemed unacceptable. That, if anything, is the speed “aircraft must fly below”.
The beginning part of the video drives so much into the fact that the wings are highly flexible but never talked about the performance advantage of having a flexible wing. The high amount of flex is actually a byproduct of the property of CFRP material, which has better specific strength. There is no significant advantage of using a flexible wing over a more rigid wing, aerodynamically speaking. In fact, there might even be minimal negative impact.
When you started talking about the hush hush laminar flow mechanisms, I genuinely felt hot under the collar... Nothing more interesting than trade secrets.
I am just a marketing person and I am addicted to your videos! Clearly I don’t fully understand all the details but find them extremely interesting. Respect to all engineers out there!
Excuse the Randomness but here you go, have some warm Recommendations, cause the Learning never Ends! (Thats the entire reason, yes) -It’s ok to be smart. -Professor Dave Explains. -Krimson Rogue. -Cynical Reviews. -Michio Kaku. -Veritasium.
The smallest of notes, but the mountain show in the video for Mt. Olympus is actually called the Brothers. Mt. Olympus is further north in the Olympic range! I really enjoyed this video, thank you for making it!
He's also implying, as if 787 was the first to use composite materials. Skipping over the fact that the largest passenger plane A380 was possible because of composites. My bet is that this is a Boeing sponsored video.
Never fly in an Airbus Side Stick design has fatal flaws Airbus will never admit. First Airbus had yokes and was a copy of Boeing then they thought they were clever and fighter pilot side sticks in and one pilot pulls his stick back while the other pilot pushed his stick forward then disaster ua-cam.com/video/kERSSRJant0/v-deo.html
@@FunFunFun8888 that accident was caused by bonin being stupid and pulling up when the plane clearly had no speed . Of course under the stress it s understandable, but he was an experienced pilot and that was inexcusable. If the side stick was the main problem then how come more boeings have fataly crashed recently then airbuses? So this side stick story is all bullshit justified by a true yet insignificant fact. It s true that the side stick played a part in disorienting the other pilots, but you can’t pin pilot error on the side stick. It wasn t neither the causing nor the decisive factor in the crash, and many planes function very well with it on board.
So fun fact, most large fibreglass and plastic composites are made completely by hand. I like to bring this up whenever someone talks about how automation will just make industry obsolete, completely forgetting that some parts are so complex it would be impossible to design a mold that could properly move the resin, and impossible to design a machine to do manual layup. There will *always* be people with little rollers and a spray gun making sure there aren't any bubbles.
I'd feel more comfortable with Boeing deciding to eliminate the lightning-conductive mesh from the outer skin of the 787 if they didn't have a bad recent track record with cutting costs in the wrong places.
Im just gonna comment here so the algorithm boosts this vid, because you deserve more attention with the amount of work that goes into making these videos :D Keep it up!
The laminar flow systems on the 787 have been phased out on the later aircraft. We were the launch customer and have 2 of the test aircraft flying in our fleet. The later aircraft have had the system deleted. The doors let in air that was ducted along the leading edge and vented out through 1000s of small holes in the leading edge. The area is very difficult to repair and the efficiency gains have not been realized hence the later aircraft not being fitted with the system.
Simply: Impressive and amazing. Can't state how thankful I'am to your great effort and informative documentaries about civil aviation. I will wait the next part with excitement.
This video, in my opinion , is one the most interesting and passionate I’ve ever seen! So inspiring and rich. As a pilot student with a career under development and a complete lover of aerodynamics and mechanics, I’m thrilled! Congrats for this amazing quality content!
Fascinating. How far this great endeavor has come considering it was only in 1903 that Wilbur and Orville Wright made their first flight. That was not long ago really.
I worked on the development of the Nacelle at rolls royce Derby for the 787 from Fan blade off to ETOPS and it was amazing for 7yrs. repairing and rigging the nacelle for test amazing life achievement to be part of the aircraft.
So from what I understand, the early 787s will be safer/better built than future 787s because of the extra titanium and the extra safety measures used in the wings regarding the lightning strike protection, etc. it’s a shame when companies take out safety measures regardless if it wasn’t needed to that extent in order to cut costs, you never know what could happen in that scenario.
This was always my thinking on 3d printing structural metal parts. If you cannot realistically improve sintering (in large part because of the huge parts and low production volume), then rough it with FDM and CNC the final shape. That said, find it strange that Boing, Airbus, GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and Lockheed (or a subset of these) hasn't banded together to create their own vertical integration titanium industry.
Former 87 quality inspector here. The aircraft really is a technological marvel, not just in the materials....but also in the technology used to manufacture this wonder. The tech we used to build and inspect this aircraft are years ahead of what most other aviation manufacturing companies have at their disposal. It really was a privilege to be a part of it.
Someone in my extended family worked on the 787 in its early development days. The informal inside 'code' for it was ATEK, for A Three-Eighty Killer. Boeing took a huge chance in taking the P-to-P position with the 787 vs. Airbus major hub position with the A380. This in part is what caused Airbus to develop the A350.
It was taking a massive chance on the 747 that turned Boeing into a dominant industry leader. They literally gambled the company on it, and would have been ruined if it was not a success. It can pay off. Most people forget there was a day when Boeing was just another airplane builder, and not a very big one. Douglas was the big name back then; Boeing had a hit with the 707, and gained some prominence, but they were far from dominating the industry,; it was possible the 707 was more or less a one-hit-wonder before Douglas regained their leadership. Then Boeing came out with the 747 and it was an immense success, putting Boeing right to the top of the industry, to where it is hard to imagine them being anywhere else. But it could happen. They are under serious attack lately by their competitors, and have had some bad luck. Hope they can weather it, but nothing is certain in this industry. If they do, it will probably be on the strength of the 787 and 777.
@@justforever96 Boeing produced the 727, 737 before the 747, and were and still are the most successful selling Boeing commercial aircraft. All of Boeing's commercial aircraft have been successful in terms of how many were and are sold.
The A350 was already being considered at the same time as the 787. It takes many, many years to design and develop a clean sheet aircraft. They didn't see the 787 and think, oh we should create something like that. One of the main reasons the A350 launched a few years after the 787 was because airlines demanded something even more competitive than the 787, so Airbus made many more modifications to the development. The result is that the A350 is larger, yet lighter than the 787. It's a superior aircraft in so many ways.
@@justforever96 Nope, the 787 is an all in all lighter than the a350 and itself is a better in many ways depending on the porpuse. Is jus the b777 vs the a330, but newer. The a350 works on the long haul market which big amount passengers at it supposed to be(at it is the 777 competitor ) In many things else, the 787 is more lighter, more easy to fill, and better fuel consumption(the a350 is more if large amount of passengers are need). The make it better on medium normal longhaul routes whit not require that big amount of passengers at any airport. That it a fect: the both are the new generation planes.
The 60 minute Nebula version is here: nebula.app/videos/real-engineering-the-insane-engineering-of-the-787 Part two will launch on UA-cam in the next week.
Superb
Ah nice! Exactly what I've been looking for :)
Maybe make videos half the length?
I'd be terrified flying across the pond with only two engines.
I want four engines for such a long flight!
Would mildly electrifying the aluminium and carbon fibre not provide an alternative source of ions and electron flow this drastically reducing galvanic erosion?
Watching your first videos on aircraft literally altered my career plans, I'm now 7 months away from graduating an aerospace engineer. You are having a big impact on many future engineers. Please keep doing more aircraft videos, they are absolutely amazing!
Best wishes in your future career. Old mechanical design engineer.
That's amazing. Congrats! Remember me when you are working on cool shit! I just report on what people like you will work on, I'm nothing without actual engineers
I have worked as an Engineer for over 45 yrs. I have a degree in Mechanical and Electronical Engineering. I worked on designing and building the machinery that made the 787 possible. Also the Scorsese Helicopters.
As an aeronautic engineer from the european concurrence, I greatly appreciate the depth of the informations you're giving 😅.
No seriously your video are amazing! By the way I've worked on exactly that titanium additive manufacturing tech for a few years and there is still so much work that still need to be done to unlock it's full potential!
your name kinda sounds french, are you from there ?
Literally like every aerospace engineer at my college watches this channel religiously. Nothing is gonna get done today except watching this video lol.
1 half hour video stops an entire day of work. Yeah, thats exactly whats happening to me.
@@Santisima_Trinidad while many people are losing brain cells watching Logan Paul
@@allamasadi7970 we are loosing extremely beefy braincells watching this.
@@allamasadi7970 you can enjoy something without putting others down for enjoying something else. Just saying.
Ah i wish i were at your clg , my clg people dont a fkn shit , most of em are busy watching webseries. Even professors aren't useful. 1 more year and imma head out somewhere to Europe for better prospects
As a former Boeing 787 Dreamliner structures and maintenance instructor, this video was a pleasure to watch and had great accuracy!
Any idea how they test the 150% thing? Is that done on the ground or do test pilots just have balls of titanium
I am asking this question as there might be someone who know the 787 situiation very well, so, Is the 787 quality built or rushed? I have heard former boeing 787 engineers saying the plane has below standard parts fitted to it, Is Boeing just a renamed mcdonell douglas now? Is Boeing just wanting profit or do they care about making good planes? Are they lying? Is the 787 safe? Is boeing led by accountants now? And also, Will boeing fix the 787's issues like the contaminated wing carbon fibre and the panel gaps? I do not know who to trust, Boeing, or the former engineers saying that the plane is bad, and that the factories are very rushed, which boeing declines, I hope the 787 is a Quality and safe plane, as it is my favourite, I am just unsure of its quality, and reply and opinion will help me, thank you.
@@somethingsomething404 On the ground in a test fixture. Very exciting stuff!
@@ngaviation3489 Oh my God thank you for this comment because I was almost gonna type the same thing word for word. I would really like some insight on this report. I’m pretty sure you and I watch the same or at least one of the same testimonials that included Boeing engineers and technicians
@@ngaviation3489 The FAA suspended the 787 production line, and it's still suspended . Boeing hasn't delivered one in over a year, for those quality assurance reasons you stated. No 787 has ever crashed, so idk if that answers your question about safety, seems safe to me. The so-called whistle blower was a man named John Woods who has said some stuff, he then tried to sue boeing for harassments in the work environment. Media took that and ran, running headlines calling him an outspoken whistleblower who got fired for trying to be safe. Which may be true. Woods claimed that boeing was treating him unfairly for trying to adhere to safety measures, but the court dismissed that as untrue. The issues with the 787 were with the assembly process, and that's what got suspended. The FAA just cleared the 787 for it's re-delivery plan. Seems like the 787 is pretty safe now, if it wasn't already. The worst design-related accidents with it were a couple of battery meltdowns. Planes these days are pretty safe. I personally don't think the 787 was ever a big deal. The john woods thing came and went, nothing real significant came of that, only after the 737 MAX resulting in heightened FAA enforcements (for good reason) did the 787 encounter major issues in terms of PR. "Is boeing led by accountants now" not really anymore, 5 years ago, most certainly, or at least those who were in charge were letting their wallets do the talking. The 737 MAX crisis has forced boeing to completely reorganize which is a good thing.
As a materials science engineer I have to applaud you for the accuracy of these videos. Inelastic vs elastic deformation, galvanic corrosion, S-N curves etc. I was not expecting such specific information to be explained in such an accessible and easily digestible format. This is my first video I’ve ever watched from your channel but you have a subscriber for life. Thank you for all of the work you put into these videos
@Thawne1338 no, I graduated almost ten years ago. I work in the polymer composites/plastics industry now
Big smile here... it was awesome :)
@@KLucero22 I will start to my bachelor degree in materials engineering next semester, good to hear that someone from materials science engineering in the comments section.
@@exabyte7832good luck! I’m starting my final year next quarter as an undergrad MSE major too.
Lmfao the McGregor shade was completely unexpected but absolutely perfect
Only Irish can shade the Irish
And the Dustin Poirier line lol. That’s great
Time stamp?
I could feel McGregor wincing at that comment bet he unsubscribed right after. Not cuz it's a lie but cuz it isn't. Touched a tender spot for him. When you love what you do but your own body betrays you...
Stupid frail human bodies.
Where is our futuristic medical science we are always promised.
Still waiting for a cure for ANY of the many types of cancer.
Or a cure for diabetes.
Until it's more profitable to chronically TREAT a patient over their entire life time than CURE it once, there is NO LOGICAL incentive for ANY for profit entity aka EVERY pharmaceutical company to ever search for a cure 🥺
Sorry McGregor. Greed causes medical science to fail you
@@DiggyPowell 6:19 including context
Very nice video, super informative as always. One small note, aerospace composites are cured in an autoclave not an oven. This is important, because it makes scalability even more challenging. 1Bar isn't much, until it's over a surface area the size of a fuselage.
Can you elaborate? I don't understand the difference between autoclave and oven. Also don't get the Bar thing. Thanks
@@ronwesilen4536 an autoclave is a pressurized oven. This way, you can add pressure to push the composite down onto the tool.
Bar is a unit of pressure measurement. 1Bar = 1 atmosphere (at STP), aka 14.7PSI or 101.3kPa depending on your preference. Autoclaves may, or may not, go to 1Bar depending on their size, application, etc. It was just an arbitrary number to illustrate a point.
Was that an autoclave in the video?
@@dannydaw59 I think it was, I mean if they need to use an autoclave they’re not gonna put the fuselage in an oven just for a video. So I would say yes
@@dannydaw59 4:34 is an autoclave.
Real Engineering blink twice if Wendover productions is holding you at gunpoint.
Nice
Sam should just rename his channel to Real Logistics.
You, sir, have earned a like from me.
@@nishyanthkumar omg it's Nishyanth Kumar!! I can't believe it.
When things were at their very worst:
2 Suns, Cross in the sky, 2 comets will collide = don`t be afraid - repent, accept Lord`s Hand of Mercy.
Scientists will say it was a global illusion.
Beware - Jesus will never walk in flesh again.
After WW3 - rise of the “ man of peace“ from the East = Antichrist - the most powerful, popular, charismatic and influential leader of all time. Many miracles will be attributed to him. He will imitate Jesus in every conceivable way.
Don`t trust „pope“ Francis = the False Prophet
- will seem to rise from the dead
- will unite all Christian Churches and all Religions as one.
One World Religion = the seat of the Antichrist.
Benedict XVI is the last true pope - will be accused of a crime of which he is totally innocent.
"The time for the schism in the Church is almost here and you must get prepared now"
"Arab uprising will spark global unrest - Italy will trigger fall out"
The Book of Truth
I think this guy put more effort into this video than Boeing have done with their new fleet of planes
the fact that human beings figured this shit out never ceases to amaze me
And we did so in just a little over 100 years. From some paper mache aircraft to this cutting edge flying vessel.
@@shadowkillz9606 the process began much before that, like discovering the laws of physics.
What amaze me more is intelligence gap humanity possess among them
@@kek397 True, in fact we've been trying to fly since the day someone decided to flap their wings like birds do. It evolves from that to building all kinds of glider. As we learn more about physics, humans are more and more capable of gliding until we eventually fly 🕊️
@@danielhandika8767 I think it's due to early childhood development, nutrition, stimulation, etc. So many kids are not given the resources they need to really thrive, and others are more fortunate. There will always be inherent biological differences, but these are then taken to a greater extreme thanks to differences in resources and education.
At 18:14, The HLFC panels are actually part of the Empennage Door Actuation System (EDAS). The doors are closed when on the ground. At low airspeed the doors open for "purge mode" sucking air in and sending it up the vertical stabilizer back out through perforations on the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. During cruise and high airspeed, the doors go into "suction mode" by creating a low pressure at the doors, reversing the airflow pulling air through the small perforations and sending it out the EDAS port. This decreases the thickness of the boundary layer airflow to maintain laminar flow and hence decrease drag along the vertical stabilizer. It is mainly used in "suction mode" as this reduces drag more. The "purge mode" is used more often to remove water and debris from the perforated holes. The EDAS system is only on the vertical stabilizer and is only applicable on all 787-10s and the 787-9s after production line number 526. Other than this part here this is an amazing, well thought through video. Very informative and enjoyable to watch!
wow.
I came looking in the comments because I knew someone would share the answers. THANK YOU.
A good video showing the EDAS actuation can be seen here ua-cam.com/video/Gzy0CNt7EFI/v-deo.html (narration in portuguese)
@@hupiscratch110 Thank you very much for that!
Have you got any idea how they'd re-paint this aircraft then ? With tiny holes, I can imagine, they can't just airbrush over it all .. ?
This was a very informative and enjoyable video.
Fun fact: many of the concepts discussed in this video are also considered in the design of tall building structures.
Innovations in aviation have contributes so many daily things we don't know of
ua-cam.com/video/l9jacVw1HFo/v-deo.html
You can't just drop a nugget like that on me and leave my curiosity piqued without any sort of closure. I need to know about the Burj Khalifa's innovative de-icing system and the Millau Viaduct's highly efficient lifting surfaces dammit!
The concepts are great, indeed. But my only concern is that "Boeing cutting costs" in some cases is criminal. So let's hope there will be no problems with 787 after some years.
@@StrangerHappened "Cutting costs" in this case is not the same as, for example, some buildings in China being made with brittle steel and watery cement to save on construction costs. What the presenter meant by cutting costs was finding more efficient ways to manufacture the airplane while retaining the original strength. Example: the strongest airplane fuselage could be a plane made entirely of titanium with diamond rivets, but that would never ever be cost effective, and those parts could easily be substituted with easier to obtain materials like aluminium and in this case carbon fiber. And keep in mind FAA regulations exist to make sure manufacturers dont cut costs to the point of endagering passengers.
10:23 Aspect ratio
11:11 Gliders
11:36 Vortex drag
12:22 Supercritical aerofoil
13:18 Aerofoil dynamics
based
ua-cam.com/video/rvkEpstd9os/v-deo.htmlsi=URQ1QGqKOC0uV01F - The 787 battery is insane engineering.
I was lucky enough to take a tour with my composites class before the pandemic to a Boeing facility that produced horizontal stabilizers for the 787. It was amazing seeing just how big they were.
jealous
I get to see them park outside and do test flight in everette, so cool!
Well they are, but they aren't. In absolute terms, they are pretty big. But compared to those on a 777 or 747 or C-5, they are pretty puny. A 787 is a relatively small aircraft, actually. Kind of mid-sized as airliners go.
@justforever96 no they are not... the smallest variant would be mid sized but the largest variant is almost 70 metres, which is like a few metres shorter than an a380. Also they're bigger than they seem. Sure it's a double decker plane but the a380 has a floor ontop of one deck, which is shorter than one entire fuselage. A 787-10 compared to an a380 isn't as big of a difference as you'd imagine, same with a 747. Don't even get me started on how the a350-1000 looks almost as big as an a380 in height when you place its outline against an a380 outline, while that plane is also not much bigger than a 787-10
The production value is stunning. You need Netflix deal or something.
My netflix is filled with heaps of netflix produced garbage fodder (movies, don't know about series). What I'm trying to say is that Real Engineering is way better than Netflix production value.
ua-cam.com/users/shortsxHIHJfgOlvc?feature=share
@@Czeckie I think Real Engineering is about the Netflix standard, good for entertainment purposes and reaches a wide audience, but not up to the engineering education standard yet
THANK YOU for telling me there is a longer version on Nebula AT THE BEGINNING. I keep getting told at the end of the video by other creators and I'm like, "I want to watch, but I don't want to watch the video over again..."
i just watch them twice if they're good enough
Why not skip to ~30 minutes into the nebula video?
Excuse the Randomness but here you go,
have some warm Recommendations, cause the Learning never Ends! (Thats the
entire reason, yes)
-It’s ok to be smart.
-Professor Dave Explains.
-Krimson Rogue.
-Cynical Reviews.
-Michio Kaku.
-Veritasium.
@@Isometrix116 Some creators seem to make different cuts, or at least that's the perception that they give.
I have no intentions to study engineering but I absolutely love to learn new things. Thank you for these!
0p
ua-cam.com/video/rvkEpstd9os/v-deo.htmlsi=URQ1QGqKOC0uV01F - The 787 battery is insane engineering.
I've watched the development of 787 on a pretty superficial level and I had completely missed that the hull is a carbon fiber composite. I had an impression on the plane like "better wings, lower fuel consumption, nice interior design". When you explained all the details in this video, I grew a whole new appreciation for the sophistication of the plane!
I'm an airline pilot and I learned so much in this video, which just shows how good your videos are. Thanks!
What kind of aircraft do you fly?
This is disturbing without clarifying exactly what you fly :D
@@dicekolev5360 Respectfully, why 'disturbing'?
@@XRP747E probably because you would expect a pilot to know how an airplane works. If something goes wrong, what the heck are they gonna do if they don’t know how it works?
I would be so glad to sit in ur flight which airline u work for 🥴😶🌫️
On the nose, rivets can contribute to a lot of parasitic drag, but further back they're in the boundary layer and barely make a difference. You'll notice that on Russian fighters, they only bother with flush rivets on the front of the airplane.
Plus most planes use flush rivets anyway.
@@AaronShenghao since before WW2. It was a Howard Hughes thing for his race planes.
I was thinking that too, considering in other areas of aerospace such as with “rocket science”, whether your talking rough surfaces or outer protrusions on a rocket body, they literally make no difference whatsoever to either the performance or controllability of them, as testified by both Elon regarding the grid fins of the starship prototype, or even cooler the 3d printed rocket bodies (and everything else!!!) being manufactured by Relativity Space - which if you haven’t watched that video, you should!
They use flush rivets lol. Nose is a aero dynamic critical area so they have to be a bit more precise with their countersink depth.
In forward area, you will always find "flushed rivets / counter sunk rivets" but behind the wings and aft area of aircraft you will find rivets popped out of the skin because the turbulence in these regions has no effect on the fastener profile.
Took my first 787 flight from Philly to Dublin and it was phenomenal. Once you’ve flown on one, all later flight suck. I arrived feeling better than I have on flights half the length. And fast. With the strong tail wind it was over so quick.
In 3 weeks I will fly from Frankfurt to Chicago in a 789 united airlines. It will be my first long flight and I have been anxious. Any advice to relieve my uneasiness. It is silly I know.
@@mosbahiabdellatif5945 Just remember this: those pilots want to get there just as safely and quickly as you do. They're all very highly trained and experienced. I was a white knuckled flyer for a long time and once I had a woman sitting next to me tell me that. For some reason it made it all seem normal and I enjoyed the flight. Also remember that the less crap you have on you the easier clearing TSA will be. Remove all your jewelry, don't carry change, all your mouthwash and deodorant needs to be travel size or you're going to lose it. Same with fingernail clippers, razorblades, etc. Even a small pocket knife will be taken. And finally arrive at LEAST 2 hours before the flight is scheduled to leave. Trust me, it may seem like a long time, but it's not. Be polite and courteous to all airline employees. If you give them any shit like not wearing a mask or following their instructions, you will be kicked off. They are really cracking down on unruly passengers. Enjoy!
I love the 787 ive flown it from paris to dallas in 2017 with american airlines but bro you should try the a350 its also incredible
I found A350s much more comfortable, quieter and with much better infotainment. Both planes were flown by Quatar.
@@kfl16 The A350 is a much more comfortable plane to ride on, but the 787's wing is really amazing 👍👍👍
Awesome video! I’m an Engineer and my dad is a pilot. He is very skeptical of this plane but openly admits he doesn’t understand the tech. I occasionally dabble in explaining the benefits to him but this is brilliant - he will love this video! Thanks 🙏
@@InForTheLonghaul Yeah, they took on way too much of MD's killer cost cutting culture after the buyout. I don't trust them to be building craft with lots of dissimilar materials. And the stripping down of the lightning protection... no thanks. If I'm gonna fly in one of these newer widebodies I'll take an A350XWB for now
@@InForTheLonghaul Very true many of Boeing's own staff have been whistleblowing how bad this 787 and Max's have been built with nonstop cover-ups.
The 787 has been flying for 10 years already , skeptics get over it.
@@ExploringCabinsandMines Oh, we will. In an Airbus ;)
@@schwig44 Well to be fair, both the A350 and the 787 have 0 hull losses and 0 fatalities with the 787 having 4 more years of service... so technically the Dreamliner is the safest of the two
Unfortunately, Boeing's recent track record kinda goes against that :/
"Boeing argues... these expensive features were not needed."
Like redundant sensors, properly written software, and pilot training?
With enough software this can be made to fly exactly like a 737.
@@wyskass861 no, the lack of pilot training was also boeing's fault. they insisted that pilots did not need retraining so the 737 max would be more appealing to airlines. Not the other way around.
Oof, gottem
Luckily, 737 team is not in charge of 787 team.
@@TheYang2208 where’d you hear that? NPR? 😂
you have to admire the aesthetics that the engineering can achieve, 787 has been my favourite airliner of all time since she was created, no one can reject that sexy curvature.
Yes, and please tell any Chinese friends to not steal / directly copy IP from western / non-communist nations.
@@theegg-viator4707 maybe you should tell any western friends not to steal and rob artifacts from the rest of the world
@@hongluzhang7771 笑死我了，你在喷什么乱七八糟呢？ 谁偷谁知道，别再给华人丢脸吧你……
@@theegg-viator4707 dude what kind of wiedro shit are you on about
@@mamaharumi I think it comes from the fact that China, for a long time, was known for taking western products, reverse engineering them, then making the identical product and marketing it as theirs. I’m honestly not sure how prevalent this is today, but it was very common for a long time.
It’s insane how much thought and complexity actually goes into building something like an airplane. I always assumed it was just a very smart computer, landing gear, sensors, wings, control surfaces, an airframe, and a couple engines. Hearing about all of the materials and new technologies that add complexity was super interesting.
The animations, the sound and editing take this from an amazingly well-researched script to an easy to understand and a complete pleasure to watch.
5-6 years ago I started watching you videos. I joined the navy soon after and Now I’m a level 3 electrician/ lead at Northrop Grumman. I love these videos man. I suggest them to all my friends and coworkers.
That's awesome. What's your favourite NG plane to work on?
Having been a design and manufacturing engineer on the 787 program I really appreciated this video.
There was so much content about the systems I wasn't aware of being on the structures side.
Thank you for the creation and upload.
Hi Greco. How safe it is for the wing during lightning occurs without the copper mesh and the insulating cap as it is only relying on the edge sealant and compression ring as an insulation, where I believe it will get brittle overtime. Being an engineer myself and I've dealt with the selection of materials, it is a bit concerning. And coming from economic stand point did the cost reduction contributive?
@@siraajulmunirtomas3004 Hi Siraajulmunir, sorry I actually do not know. It was something we had to consider in our designs, but I am not sure on its performance and longevity. I am no longer at Boeing. But there is a department there called M&PT (Materials and Process technology) at a guess that department would look after that. But even still, if I knew, I dare say its not something I would be able to share openly on share as it would be intellectual property.
@@grecoconduris6716 Thank you for the response.
@John Smith The 787 windows are the biggest of any passenger airline. How big do you need?
As a Fabricator that works on the 787 program, its awesome to see the engineering side of the parts i make
The F-4 Phantom has thousands of pin holes in their wing which bleed air from the engines were pumped to control the boundary layer of the airflow over the wing. Glad to see this technology being used.
My granddaddy was the pioneer in the use of reinforced carbon-carbon (the late 60’s-early 70’s term for fancy carbon fiber) on an airframe. He was a McDonnel Douglass engineer at the time and believed that it was the material of the future. All his bosses and coworkers thought he was crazy and it would fail catastrophically if it ever suffered a lightning strike. He finally convinced some of his higher ups to let him try it out on the airbrake for some F-15’s, as if that failed it wouldn’t bring down the aircraft. Eventually one of them did get hit by lightning and it didn’t explode or fall apart. That turned out to be the defining moment of his career. He went on to lead the design team for the ACES II ejection seat, and eventually become the Chief Program Engineer for the F-16 and F-18 projects. Unfortunately there isn’t much else myself or any of my family knows about what he actually did because most of it is still classified by the feds and he could never really tell any of us about most of the stuff he worked on and was pretty humble in general so nobody in our family ever even realized how big of an impact he had until he passed away and we saw the letters and the people who showed up for the funeral. This made my day to see what his idea has become over 50 years.
I'm not sure that's accurate for an entire aircraft because I believe they had issues with the lightning with the 787 Dreamliner and they had to impregnate some sort of conductor into the wings in the fuselage to dissipate the electricity of a lightning strike
@@andrewjackson5127 I agree, at the time I don’t think they were looking to it for use as an entire wing (which is also a fuel tank) or a fuselage (which is pressurized so people can breathe). At that time it was a very new material and they didn’t have the technology or knowledge to actually use it in things of that size so they were looking at it for use on small to medium size parts (control surfaces, structural bracing, etc). If I remember correctly the lightning still made a small hole in it, but the damage was limited to a small area directly where the strike hit and didn’t cause the whole part to delaminate and “blow apart”.
In a fuselage or wing a small hole is a much bigger issue than an aeleron, rudder, access panel, etc… because with those you would lose your pressurization (not instantly, it’ll leak slowly depending on the size of the hole, but that still requires descending to low altitude so people can breathe, which means a lot more drag/fuel usage) or if it’s a wing then half your fuel leaks out. Either one wouldn’t bring a plane down immediately (unless the lighting caught the bow leaking fuel on fire) but if that were to happen in the middle of the ocean then the fuel loss or extra drag might be the difference between diverting to an airport and ditching in the ocean. Plus having one wing full of fuel and the other one empty might (or might not) cause some trim/balance issues.
I’m just speculating on why they would need to add additional conductors (carbon is already fairly conductive and at lightning voltages practically everything becomes somewhat conductive) on the 787… i just know a little bit about what he did with it back in the 60’s and 70’s.
that's amazing
Yet, Columbia didn't explode but fall apart (in part) because of that. Huh.
As an aerosexual with a career in aviation I did not expect to learn much from this video…but even topics that I’m already aware of go more in depth than anything I’ve seen. Thank you. 😎👍
Aerosexual 😂😂
Attack helicopter cousin?
Read this as aerospace before seeing the comments....🤣🤣💀
I love how there are a lot of engineers/aeroengineers on this channel, meanwhile I'm sitting here as a CS graduate dreaming about planes and trying to understand how they work instead of working on my stuff lol
@@MrMediator24 me me i am here i identity as attack helicopter
I'm going into my third semester of Aerospace Engineering and I'm noticing that this video creates a great link between the "final product" and all kinds of basics that are taught in the first two semesters. I'm recognizing tons of aspects from materials science, construction elements, applied mechanics etc.
Awesome💪🏻
"to recoup cost as fast as possible, it was essential that boeing reduce the cost of production". i.e. Less bolts
This video quite literally summed up my last 4 years studying as an aerospace engineer.
I was like that di caprio pointing at the tv meme because of all the references at things I studied recently 😂
Yeah dude this video makes me feel like I could have done my four years of AE classes in 30 mins
I don't believe you. You know the 787 was a disaster. 4 years late, contractors supplying substandard components which Boeings management accepted. It is all theory which does not represent the true experience of making this plane.
As someone watching German television, I learned nothing new about composites in aircraft building. 🤷
Will I like aerospace engineering? I love planes, math, and building the electric systems for rc planes. I am looking for a career path.
This is the best engineering channel on youtube, so high quality videos and so entertaining
👍👍ua-cam.com/video/HpdYNTcu4UM/v-deo.html
hi you are very sus
Excuse the Randomness but here you go,
have some warm Recommendations, cause the Learning never Ends! (Thats the
entire reason, yes)
-It’s ok to be smart.
-Professor Dave Explains.
-Krimson Rogue.
-Cynical Reviews.
-Michio Kaku.
-Veritasium.
What about Boeing 737 Max and all the documentaries on UA-cam covering the crashes?
Will the passengers be informed when buying tickets like in US.?
@@slevinchannel7589 I watch at least 2 of them :)
I was hoping you would talk about how to repair the fuselage, because it seems way more complicated than traditional metal structures.
I’m an aircraft structural repair design engineer and can confirm that composite is way much harder to repair than traditional metallic structures.
@@greg4712 Also, from what I've been told, while the composite wings "can" bend more than aluminum in that elastic deformation zone, metal will plastically deform for a while rather than snap/break compared to composite materials, which might just break. Is that true? My information might be out of date but about 15 years ago when I was learning to fly I knew an A&P who said that metal will let you know it's beginning to have problems long before it's a problem, while composite materials keep it a secret until they essentially break. Hopefully some progress has been made since then...
@@jimberglund6979 you’re absolutely right!
@@jimberglund6979 Yes, that surprised me too in the video. That bit sounded like a carbon fibre composite commercial.
@@padrejohnruffle That's because carbon fiber is the new "hip" material. I mean, people go so far as putting carbon fiber vinyl wraps in things to make it look like carbon fiber. The general population hears "carbon fiber" and thinks "futuristic". Engineers hear carbon fiber and hear "light-weight". What no one thinks of is possible downsides. Carbon fiber is stiff. Normally you think that's a good thing because you want a structure to be stiff, but in reality, stuff means that, instead of bending, it breaks. I think there's going to be a lot of bad news in the next 5-10 years regarding composite aircraft regarding their airworthiness. A crack in aluminum is relatively easy to control/fix. A crack in CF is a totally different ball game. Doing a patch job on a sheet of aluminum is relatively easy, not so much on CF, because CF gets its strength from being 1 continuous strand. You break that strand and you have a weak point, and a structure is only as strong as it's weakest point.
I wouldn’t be lying that you’re making all of us interested in engineering majors plus the quality of the videos is just outstanding and the content is so easy to understand. You’re truly changing the perspective of looking at things for an ordinary person for instance the next time i travel in a Dreamliner, I’ll know that this plane is nothing like a plane 50 years ago. Meaning being able to appreciate the advancements which have lead aviation to this point. Can’t wait for a video on Anti-gravity engines lol whenever your able to get your hands on one! Haha
I never thought I would watch a 30 minute video explaining the engineering behind an aircraft, understand it, and even feel amazed by it. Subscribing right away.
Didnt expect the 787 to be in the same playlist as the SR-71 and the A-10 and X-15
Doesn't seem like it, but it did kinda start the whole composite thing.
So the 787 has titanium fasteners that are potentially vulnerable to fatigue cracking early in their life (let me guess that FAA approval was pre-2020?) and the wings are now more vulnerable to lightning strikes.
Just that these days Boeing engineers saying a cost cutting measure is safe doesn’t inspire a huge amount of confidence.
Just wait for the software update so 737 pilots can fly it :)
The laminar flow system you describe at 18 minutes didn’t originally ship on the B787-9 aircraft. Boeing forgot to update the computer system to compensate so airlines were reaching destinations on reserve fuel. On the -9 variant is was worth about 500 additional miles in range
source
I love how you can tell that he was almost breaking out laughing while saying "less farting is always nice"
Wonder how many takes it took to not laugh
And burps!
The only disadvantage of no smoking.
It used to be much easier to get away with a sneaky fart!
That somehow reminded me of the completely unrelated channel "Half as interesting"...
@@keksdieb4020 well, they're not completely unrelated, Real Engineering actually had a guest appearance of sorts in an HAI video
The Boeing 787 is truly a masterpiece of aviation. It's by far my most favorite airplane.
Don't forget the indestructible 777 that was also ground (air?) breaking in its use of materials and technology decades before the Dreamliner. Note how the 777s that crash landed at LHR and SFO (SFO in particular, dam thing cartwheeled!), with no loss of structural integrity. 777 is a tough bird. 787 even tougher! Love being a passenger on both.
@@GudieveNing There have been several engineers who whistle blow about 787’s structural integrity thought and Boeing fired all of them.
Looking at their records with 737 Max… you have to be an idiot to trust Boeing.
Btw, 737 fuselage always broke up in 3 pieces when crash landed…. the engineers who whistleblow about 737 fuselage all got fired too.
Sources: Trust me bro 💀
@@tonamg53 that's cuz Boeing's currently run by greedy accountants instead of passionate engineers.
@@tonamg53 Are all those who flew on Boeing aircraft idiots? I seriously doubt so! A lot have been put into making the 787 a spectacular airplane, if only you knew what's behind the engineering aside from just this video, believe me, you would have thought twice on your comment about not trusting Boeing.
I remember being fascinated by 2 'next gen' planes back then as a kid. First being the A380 and the other is the 787 (was still called 7E7 at the time)
I think I took the a380 once from the emirates. Its absolutely enormous but not efficient right?
I was interested of B-7J7!
@@MCyahhhhha it is efficient, when 100% full. On the same level of 787.
Problem is airlines can’t fill all the seats 100% of the time, routes volume changes thought the year.
Oh 4 engines cost more to run than 2 engines, 100% of the time.
@@MCyahhhhha well at the time it was but I think that was before airlines wanted fuel efficient planes.
@@nazhif1 Efficiency was actually the main drive to go for bigger planes back then, the approach was a different one though. Bigger planes really are more efficient every time so long as you can use all the capacity and especially so on long-haul routes. Airlines were trying to use that by advocating the hub-strategy instead of direct flights. People would travel to the biggest airports where the large and efficient planes pick them up and fly them to the other side of the globe.
In theory, that's the most efficient approach and that's still the case with the new technologies. However, the hub-strategy is very inflexible. While smaller planes allow the airlines to re-arrange their routes quickly, an A380 is a very specialized plane that only makes sense for a very small number of routes. As an airline, you can't just re-assign an A380 to another route when that route doesn't fill its capacity and that's pretty bad when you consider how seasonal airline business is.
Then there's economies of scale. Make a lot of something and it becomes cheaper and easier to improve upon. You can spread the enormous R&D costs over a large number of individual orders and that helps a lot to justify the costs. The A350 went through numerous upgrades because it's relatively easy and cheap to do so with a plane that you produce hundreds of. If you're not able to upgrade a plane every few years it'll get out-performed quickly and significantly. The A380 was a very efficient plane when it first hit the runways but after a few years, it just couldn't compete anymore. Upgrading it turned out to be prohibitively expensive because they simply weren't building that many.
Great video! A couple of (small) precisions:
- The main role of the spars is not to resist the bending, but rather the shear, while bending is mostly resisted by the skin of the wing box
- The reason of higher flexibility is also (and mainly) geometrical: a thinner wing box generates a higher wing deflection
"laminar flow" detected, Destin S from smarter every day appearance predicted.
In all seriousness, amazing video. The elastic tailoring for the movement in flight is absolutely amazing. Thanks for pulling this data together!
I watched the hour long version in Nebula. Your channel is worth the whole subscription alone
Modern aircraft design is incredible.
Or we could just shoot people in cannons
These videos were not available back when I was graduating.
Insane quality and very well explained without using math.
Keep this thing going pal!
By a fellow aeronautical engineer.
Greetings from Italy!
The 787 is by far the most comfortable airplane I've ever flown in
have u flown a350? im not saying u are wrong im just curious as to which modern plane is most comfortable
A350 is way better 😂
I can say from my own experience the a380 is also very very comfortable
What exactly made it more comfortable for you?
@@makr0295 good but i mean the A350 is just a barely audible humm mid flight (i flew on it last in 2018 so i may be wrong)
as someone who studied civil engineering, that explanation of the stress-strain diagram side-by-side with the pull-out test was very satisfying
I helped work on the 787 program way back 15 years ago as a contractor... but I've never actually seen one in person since what I was helping with was so early before production. I had a chance to tour the Boeing Everett factory which was cool.
So did you see anything bad there? What do you make of the whistle blower claims?
One small issue with this video is the fact that the A-350 is also composed primarily of carbon fiber reinforced plastics, rather than aluminum. The video in and of itself, despite that innacuracy, is fantastic; by far the best video detailing the construction techniques of the 787.
Fun fact for the audience:
I used to work as a de-icer in Canada and you really noticed how heat didn’t travel as well on the 787’s fuselage because of composite material.
Yes indeed, and it’s also the reason for an airworthiness directive that requires the slats to be inspected after every landing in icing conditions. Kind of a pain in the ass. If the slats get frozen to the structure the torque tube or transmissions can break causing an undetected failure of the position indicating system.
Your the reason I’m studying mechanical engineering now with hopes to work in the aerospace sector!! First watched your videos back in 10th grade! Cheers to the work you do for inspiring us! 🥂
I was actually able to tour the Boeing plant that produces this plane! It was one of the inspirations for me wanting to go into aerospace engineering
Where was it??
@@Bella_Rei There's a plant in South Carolina, I think that's the plant that pumped out the 787s
Depends on the year, they where also made in Everett Washington till last year, though they are still in Everett for repair from South Carolina.
Good luck keeping your job working for Boeing
Everyone who is going to be laid off has already been laid off. Boeing is a currently stable workforce size and still hiring for critical skill positions. I really don’t know why people comment this still?
The sly McGregor dig was crazy
You make weaving all the very technical information into a interesting and understandable story seem easy.
'Oversimplified' does the same for History, aye?
This is so awesome. Even better than some documentary films.
Guys share and engage in it so we could get more. Make it worth it for this guy.
“Your nearby airports has more flights then ever before”
Luxembourgers:
X to doubt
Haha
Me in a province on a mountain in the Philippines: *interesting*
luxem burgers
Its alright. You have enough money to buy your own airplane.
787 was the first plane i ever flew. From Stockholm Arlanda to Fort Lauderdale - Miami
Literally just flew in one and was admired by the engines on the wings. They’re huuuge in person
Usually, I'm the one admiring planes. Planes generally lack the cognition to admire me 😦
@@MrC0MPUT3R lol
@@MrC0MPUT3R You need to hang out in better airport hangars.
Outstanding! As someone who works in airframe design I'm amazed at your ability to concisely and clearly present the concepts involved 10/10
*As a frequent busienss traveler, I go out of my way to avoid flying on the 787. Just one example of why, a flight attendent with an attitude will chose to take away passenger control of the window shades and decide to take away everyone’s view and close the shades or open all shades as she forces sun in the eyes of sleeping passengers for absolutely no reason.* The shades are electronically controlled and the flight attendants can and almost all the time do take control away from the passengers.
I'm irish and a bit of an engineering and aviation geek myself and I have no idea how I have never came across your channel until now! Love the narration and the references to various random things! Great videos and you've got a new subscriber 🙂
my most favorite airplane.
a350-1000 is better imho but i digress
@@astre7904 Best airliner
C-130 change my mind
@@connormoore22 They are cool but the novelty wears off when you become the passenger one too many times.
This can only be your favourite aircraft if you don't work on one as a daily job. Otherwise you'd know it's a fragile and unreliable piece of sh*t. Especially thanks to Boeing outsourcing the design and production of all the parts.
Especially the Cabin Air Compressors, Forward Cargo Air Conditioning system, Integrated Cooling System, fuel nozzles and engine turbines are frequent offenders. They may seem minor but prices for these parts can easily reach €1000000 (not including labour). We always joke that the brakes last longer than the engines. To be fair, the brakes are very long lasting.
The carbon fiber fuselage skin doesn't permanently deform when bumped into but the structure behind the skin can still be broken but now won't be noticed unless there is paint damage. So even though the skin is very strong, a minor 5 km/h bump already requires an extensive structural inspection (that is if ground handlers even bother to report such an apparent minor booboo). Which makes it very important for them to be able to report accidents without consequence. If a baggage handler would be fired he/she would never report an accident, which could be a hazard for flight safety.
Wright Brothers pioneered the use of 'composites' in powered aircraft, as well as 'contra-props'. Great video, very clear explanations of some very complicated processes.
I am a second year Aerospace student, working for my bachelor's degree. Boi o Boi. I finally know where and how what I've learned is applied. I am glad I found this channel.
Aero-elastic tailoring... A concept first used in Formula1 by Red-Bull, to get around the 'bendy wing' restrictions in F1. An ingenious concept that allows the wing to behave exactly like you want at different speeds. Unfortunately, other teams later caught wind of this and it was eventually out lawed by the FIA. Great to see this clever concept has found it's way into the aeronautical industry and is making air travel more efficient.
It's actually a very old concept from the 50s. Even the US military has tested it before Red Bull even existed.
Was just thinking the same thing about the suction system I’d imagine it’s quite a similar concept to that of fan cars
Its just amazing something that heavy can get up off the ground. That's some serious power! I used to be afraid to fly but knowing how they can fly on one engine and seeing how some on fire they still land safely
A minor thing that caught my eye: Even though gliders are (for the most of the time at least) unpowered they do benefit from storage volume. Most modern gliders are fitted with multiple tanks for water to increase their weight in good weather conditions. This increases the wing ballast which ensures that the glider has a better glide ratio at higher speeds. That is in reference to your explanation at around 12:05. Your video is great though and highly appreciated!
The downside of a unitary fuselage is the difficulty on repairing any damage that DOES occur. If you have riveted panels you can remove and replace individual panels.
And to make retrofits. I would assume converting them into freighters later on is almost impossible
In my opinion, the A-350 is the better aircraft but the 787 has the most beautiful wing design since Concorde, especially when viewed from the front or behind. Those achingly beautiful curved wings are so elegant and they're probably the biggest giveaway when plane spotting.
Even though I haven't flied, none of it, I think in an an all in all I would prefer the 787. especially the -8. My favorite on the variants. That could probably change when the 777-9 came, though :). That for sure, once you fly the these new planes, you never want to fly the old generation again
I had the pleasure of flying in two of these as a passenger. Amazing plane. Takeoff was so smooth and fast and cruising altitude was FL400 which surprised me.
at 51:46 of the Nebula video, you said:
"...I'm a masochist that wants you to feel the pain I felt during my thermodynamics lectures in college."
No, Brian that makes you a sadist. The fact I seemed to enjoy it, that makes me a masochist. =P
Great video, by the way. XD
That's wrong, very wrong.
It is wrong to say aircraft must fly below their critical Mach number. In fact, airliners routinely cruise above Mcrit. The speed to be avoided is the drag divergence Mach number (Mdd) and is typically 5 to 10% higher. The limiting speed is Maximum Mach (MMO) where the adverse effects of compressibility are deemed unacceptable. That, if anything, is the speed “aircraft must fly below”.
👍
Woah! I didn’t know someone had developed FDM with metal filament! That’s amazing!
The beginning part of the video drives so much into the fact that the wings are highly flexible but never talked about the performance advantage of having a flexible wing. The high amount of flex is actually a byproduct of the property of CFRP material, which has better specific strength. There is no significant advantage of using a flexible wing over a more rigid wing, aerodynamically speaking. In fact, there might even be minimal negative impact.
When you started talking about the hush hush laminar flow mechanisms, I genuinely felt hot under the collar... Nothing more interesting than trade secrets.
I am just a marketing person and I am addicted to your videos! Clearly I don’t fully understand all the details but find them extremely interesting. Respect to all engineers out there!
McManus vs McGregor 2021, you called him out!
McGregor loses by ko
Excuse the Randomness but here you go,
have some warm Recommendations, cause the Learning never Ends! (Thats the
entire reason, yes)
-It’s ok to be smart.
-Professor Dave Explains.
-Krimson Rogue.
-Cynical Reviews.
-Michio Kaku.
-Veritasium.
The smallest of notes, but the mountain show in the video for Mt. Olympus is actually called the Brothers. Mt. Olympus is further north in the Olympic range! I really enjoyed this video, thank you for making it!
You noted the A350 as an aluminum airplane. It’s actually more composite by weight (53%) than the 787 (50% by weight).
Akshewallay
He's also implying, as if 787 was the first to use composite materials. Skipping over the fact that the largest passenger plane A380 was possible because of composites.
My bet is that this is a Boeing sponsored video.
@@Nikhil-ty3rk The A380 actually even has a hybrid material somewhere in between a composite and a metal, called GLARE.
Never fly in an Airbus Side Stick design has fatal flaws Airbus will never admit. First Airbus had yokes and was a copy of Boeing then they thought they were clever and fighter pilot side sticks in and one pilot pulls his stick back while the other pilot pushed his stick forward then disaster ua-cam.com/video/kERSSRJant0/v-deo.html
@@FunFunFun8888 that accident was caused by bonin being stupid and pulling up when the plane clearly had no speed . Of course under the stress it s understandable, but he was an experienced pilot and that was inexcusable. If the side stick was the main problem then how come more boeings have fataly crashed recently then airbuses? So this side stick story is all bullshit justified by a true yet insignificant fact. It s true that the side stick played a part in disorienting the other pilots, but you can’t pin pilot error on the side stick. It wasn t neither the causing nor the decisive factor in the crash, and many planes function very well with it on board.
So fun fact, most large fibreglass and plastic composites are made completely by hand. I like to bring this up whenever someone talks about how automation will just make industry obsolete, completely forgetting that some parts are so complex it would be impossible to design a mold that could properly move the resin, and impossible to design a machine to do manual layup. There will *always* be people with little rollers and a spray gun making sure there aren't any bubbles.
I'd feel more comfortable with Boeing deciding to eliminate the lightning-conductive mesh from the outer skin of the 787 if they didn't have a bad recent track record with cutting costs in the wrong places.
Yup
well. carbon fiber IS highly conductive... so maybe it isn't needed?
@@narmale Not as part of a composite. Described at 24:20 - 24:40
@@dennisnickoloff1723 yeah thats what i get for commenting early... wrote this before that part 😖
@@narmaleHate to admit it, but I've done that also 😂 👍👍
This is ridiculous, the sheer amount of thought and enginering they put into this plane is crazy! love the wings of the 787!
Im just gonna comment here so the algorithm boosts this vid, because you deserve more attention with the amount of work that goes into making these videos :D
Keep it up!
Im the one designing that algo and I approve of this
This is a reply for that very same purpose!
Great idea
completely shocked at that McGregor vs Dustin Poirier reference
Yes didn't expect that either..... i had to repeat 3 times to believe what i heard
two worlds collide
yea it came out of nowhere and it may throw off those watching with no idea of MMA
yup
where where where? please tell me
The laminar flow systems on the 787 have been phased out on the later aircraft. We were the launch customer and have 2 of the test aircraft flying in our fleet.
The later aircraft have had the system deleted.
The doors let in air that was ducted along the leading edge and vented out through 1000s of small holes in the leading edge.
The area is very difficult to repair and the efficiency gains have not been realized hence the later aircraft not being fitted with the system.
The 787 is the most comfortable passenger jet I've ever flown on. It's so quiet!
Try the A380. Its cabin is even quieter.
@@AMSFlyer racist
Thanks!
Simply: Impressive and amazing. Can't state how thankful I'am to your great effort and informative documentaries about civil aviation. I will wait the next part with excitement.
This video, in my opinion , is one the most interesting and passionate I’ve ever seen! So inspiring and rich. As a pilot student with a career under development and a complete lover of aerodynamics and mechanics, I’m thrilled!
Congrats for this amazing quality content!
What about Boeing 737 Max and all the documentaries on UA-cam covering the crashes?
Will the passengers be informed when buying tickets like in US.?
Fascinating. How far this great endeavor has come considering it was only in 1903 that Wilbur and Orville Wright made their first flight. That was not long ago really.
I was a structural engineer at Boeing and worked on the development of 787 for almost a decade - and this video was very accurate! Well done.
I worked on the development of the Nacelle at rolls royce Derby for the 787 from Fan blade off to ETOPS and it was amazing for 7yrs. repairing and rigging the nacelle for test amazing life achievement to be part of the aircraft.
wow, i live close by, theres a sense of pride to be had
So from what I understand, the early 787s will be safer/better built than future 787s because of the extra titanium and the extra safety measures used in the wings regarding the lightning strike protection, etc. it’s a shame when companies take out safety measures regardless if it wasn’t needed to that extent in order to cut costs, you never know what could happen in that scenario.
This was always my thinking on 3d printing structural metal parts. If you cannot realistically improve sintering (in large part because of the huge parts and low production volume), then rough it with FDM and CNC the final shape.
That said, find it strange that Boing, Airbus, GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and Lockheed (or a subset of these) hasn't banded together to create their own vertical integration titanium industry.
Former 87 quality inspector here. The aircraft really is a technological marvel, not just in the materials....but also in the technology used to manufacture this wonder. The tech we used to build and inspect this aircraft are years ahead of what most other aviation manufacturing companies have at their disposal. It really was a privilege to be a part of it.
Someone in my extended family worked on the 787 in its early development days. The informal inside 'code' for it was ATEK, for A Three-Eighty Killer. Boeing took a huge chance in taking the P-to-P position with the 787 vs. Airbus major hub position with the A380. This in part is what caused Airbus to develop the A350.
It was taking a massive chance on the 747 that turned Boeing into a dominant industry leader. They literally gambled the company on it, and would have been ruined if it was not a success. It can pay off. Most people forget there was a day when Boeing was just another airplane builder, and not a very big one. Douglas was the big name back then; Boeing had a hit with the 707, and gained some prominence, but they were far from dominating the industry,; it was possible the 707 was more or less a one-hit-wonder before Douglas regained their leadership. Then Boeing came out with the 747 and it was an immense success, putting Boeing right to the top of the industry, to where it is hard to imagine them being anywhere else. But it could happen. They are under serious attack lately by their competitors, and have had some bad luck. Hope they can weather it, but nothing is certain in this industry. If they do, it will probably be on the strength of the 787 and 777.
@@justforever96 Boeing produced the 727, 737 before the 747, and were and still are the most successful selling Boeing commercial aircraft. All of Boeing's commercial aircraft have been successful in terms of how many were and are sold.
The A350 was already being considered at the same time as the 787. It takes many, many years to design and develop a clean sheet aircraft. They didn't see the 787 and think, oh we should create something like that. One of the main reasons the A350 launched a few years after the 787 was because airlines demanded something even more competitive than the 787, so Airbus made many more modifications to the development. The result is that the A350 is larger, yet lighter than the 787. It's a superior aircraft in so many ways.
@@justforever96 Nope, the 787 is an all in all lighter than the a350 and itself is
a better in many ways depending on the porpuse. Is jus the b777 vs the a330, but newer. The a350 works on the long haul market which big amount passengers at it supposed to be(at it is the 777 competitor ) In many things else, the 787 is more lighter, more easy to fill, and better fuel consumption(the a350 is more if large amount of passengers are need). The make it better on medium normal longhaul routes whit not require that big amount of passengers at any airport. That it a fect: the both are the new generation planes.