Boeing 777 Wing Test

[@nickwright6655]

154 has become a meme within my Aerospace Engineering class.

[@nick_roum]

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

[@anSealgair]

I was thumb up number 154

[@taeeliza6202]

same man

[@aidanarnold385]

@Nick Smith same man 👌🏻

[@ethanperreault7470]

I say it whenever something breaks lol.

[@Rasectos]

I like the part where he says "154."

[@DoctorYoda2]

Me too

[@SlimChanceDubs]

I didn't catch that part

[@TheMachRider]

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

[@Goldblasterblaze]

Which “154”?

[@Lex327]

2:20

[@xXADFSXx]

Ok so I took an aeronautics class in high school and we watched this video. I swear, for the rest of the year you could yell "154!!!' and get at least three explosion sounds in reply. My friend from that class and I still talk about it. I love it so much!

[@iced4life3]

+Alfred F. Jones Boom

[@u2mister17]

O-H....

[@eminesirin1874]

whats 154?

[@GrumpyOldMan9]

Next time in turbulence I'll just think of 154

[@nathanmark7035]

👍

[@fernandalbm590]

😂😂😂

[@Monkey80llx]

Real life turbulence does not slowly, gradually increase tension in one direction just once

[@NightShadowReal]

Before watching the video: "wtf is with the comments about 154?" After watching the video: "ONE FIFTY FOUR"

[@gerphoenix5786]

NightShadow xD

[@larrytealeaf3082]

One of us

[@ChocManus]

Sheep

[@estelaosorio7468]

Ben beep beep

[@Lex327]

2:20

[@cdbsk76]

airline clerk: 'here's your ticket, sir. Your flight departs at 1:54" me: 😳

[@Proton64]

You should not be on that flight

[@tonyroset3233]

😂😂😂

[@andrewdiaz1631]

Oh hell nah lmao

[@eminesirin1874]

whats 154?

[@Spacesatyr6565]

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

[@jnwahlgren]

I think the most impressive thing isn't that it made it to such high loading, but that both wings failed at the same time, and in pretty close to the same place. It's really hard to get that kind of symmetry with variability is manufacturing, etc. Hooray for quality control!

[@aegisfate117]

I think you meant to say "154"

[@austincox809]

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

[@bairking3496]

@@aegisfate117 touche

[@spayderninja]

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

[@WillaHerrera]

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

[@electronicsNmore]

They certainly did a great job designing those wings.

[@somfmusic1723]

154

[@keltonick]

oh fr?

[@alexdesimone6737]

I disagree

[@Orchid007]

@@alexdesimone6737 well you're wrong 💀

[@Fluxzone90]

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

[@kanyesrobloxaccount3933]

Hey Patrick. I thought of something funnier than 153. Let me hear it.. ... *O N E F I F T Y F O U R* *(BOOM)*

[@anom3778]

Thank you.

[@mivizzy4395]

In video form: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWHHlqdolNRpjqs

[@ScubaShneve]

This is the only time in the history of mankind that the number 154 has been cheered for.

[@still_guns]

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

[@mastercarpenterltd]

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

[@baloog8]

@@mastercarpenterltd so did happy gilmore

[@baloog8]

What about 154 AD new year?

[@mkultraviolenc3]

Excellent comment thread.

[@IceCold5078]

Didn't quite get at what percent wing collapsed

[@Drewster1984]

Lol!

[@pault5947]

164% are you deaf?

[@n0tbran]

154%

[@zauru192]

its 153 clearly

[@edwinrobert7192]

*21*

[@IceCold5078]

what really impresses me is that both wing gave in at the same time, to the split second. Unreal build quality

[@cameronpeterson1175]

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

[@hotliner2872]

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

[@Astro_Guy_1]

the unescessary amounts of quick repertitions have made it seem like "154" is a potent magic destruction spell

[@dareoism]

A nice EDM song begins at 2:26

[@matthewalford2762]

lol....

[@jigenappreciator4990]

BrotherMouzone i want this to be my ringtone

[@sebastianmorris17]

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

[@enzomaidana5369]

I'm amazed they broke at the same exact load. That level of engineering accuracy on massive structures is mind blowing. It gives me a whola lot of confidence if I ever have to jump in one of those big birds again. Props to engineers.

[@rm15667]

Props or jets. I don't mind.

[@johnrauner2515]

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

[@hotliner2872]

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

[@TC-yg4dn]

I am a retired Boeing engineer involved with the development of 777…and that's not quite what happened. After the first wing fails, the load on the opposite wing is reduced due to the fuselage rotating. What caused the second wing to fail is the shock wave traveling through the structure into the unfailed wing. In an actual flight that loaded the plane to 154% (couldn't really happen, but let's assume it can), the fuselage wouldn't be supported to limit rotation and the first wing would fail which would virtually eliminate the load on the opposite wing and the result would be no failure regardless of the shock wave. All this doesn't mean both wings can't fail in flight. If the airplane gets into a severe flutter situation, both wings can be ripped off due to high aeroelastic loading. Obviously the airplane is designed to never experience a flutter situation, but if we run 6 shimmy models on the landing gear and if all 6 predict no shimmy, then maybe we won't have shimmy.

[@gsxrsquid]

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

[@Eldrake]

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

[@hotliner2872]

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

[@bgowrwbw4755]

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

[@hotliner2872]

@@bgowrwbw4755 BSME 92, MSME 94, PhD Systems Engineering 2000 (with 2 years FT work at Ford Motor Company in between MS and Doctorate). Don't blame a guy for standing up for the structural engineers... if they did their job properly the wing should fail at the same load on both sides... this even happens in flight.... kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5myoH2sicmdqbM

[@johanjacobs9240]

So that means if you ever happened to be that unlucky passenger and hear"154...BANG" you're doomed.

[@YeahYepYes]

lol

[@ggi2826]

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

[@kurwaoczywiscie6582]

Note to self: don't ever shout "one fifty four" during flight

[@fasthonda]

154 154 154 154 154 154.

[@JustCauseChaos991]

Hmmm Not enough 154s :P

[@gaminggrounds4801]

HAHAHAHA

[@whatwouldbrianwilson]

Shakespeare wrote154 sonnets, the last being Sonnet 154

[@RoboTekno]

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

[@egoral]

Annoying

[@vyashtuijnman6417]

People should make a One Fifty Four meme for anything that snaps or breaks XD

[@TheDragonFlyerAviation]

ikr

[@snacklesskerbal2204]

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

[@NotPryda]

And that ladies and gentlemen is the reason Asiana 777 at SFO did not flip over. The wing took the load and stopped the flip. Incredible!

[@comsfan09]

My dad was a Boeing employee and was in the building when they did this test. He said, as you will assume, it was very loud.

[@Neo1HFS]

2:25 and onwards is the aviation equivalent of that one "dramatic indian drama character introduction" clip.

[@whatwouldbrianwilson]

With just 17 cuts, a pizza can be cut up into 154 pieces

[@bairking3496]

what? are you sure?

[@kirkkerman]

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

[@waltv3984]

Ah yes mathematics.

[@DSteuber0352]

But.... does it go boom?

[@gaijingojira3601]

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

[@pilottrevon]

1:54

[@Eric-gi9kg]

When I was a kid, I was fortunate to witness the wing test on 747 wing. EXTREMELY VILLANT and Loud when it goes.But also Very exillerating. I'll Never forget it.

[@cleistocactus]

I'm no longer worried about in flight wings breaking.

[@vietnam2013]

More impressive is how both the wings breaks at 154. That is some mad engineering.

[@lithiumdeuteride]

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

[@jarret45]

That's the same sound they hear when a Boeing whistleblower comes forward.

[@samschellhase8831]

What I think non-engineers might not know, is that design limit (and correct me if I'm wrong you full fledged engineers), is not just the force the wing should be subjected to, but the force it could be subjected to given a whole bunch of factors. And the fact that it surpassed that limit by another 53% more, is incredible

[@JK360noscope]

Everyone likes a "safety factor" of 50%

[@cameronpeterson1175]

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

[@dsdy1205]

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

[@straightpipediesel]

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

[@EdreesesPieces]

Actually , limit load is expected to occur at most 1 time during the life of the entire aircraft fleet, not just the one aircraft.

[@ZicajosProductions]

It's even funnier watching the "Closed Captioning" option try to interpret the sound of the wings snapping. They actually fit quite ironically :). Indeed, a very beautiful plane, the B777.

[@darkcupid3671]

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

[@Feylihn]

It met and exceeded the expectations and goals set at 150% of the engineered design limit for stress.

[@kevinlie3821]

Video: About a freaking unbelievable feat of wing engineering Comments: ONE FIFTY FOUR

[@mrsargemeister]

So the 777 wing can withstand 154% of design load. Question for an aerospace engineer....can the wing still withstand 154% at the very end of its service life or does it get de-rated with the number of hours and cycles?

[@arthursc2]

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

[@glennoc8585]

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

[@arthursc2]

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

[@moeshipley4170]

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

[@glennoc8585]

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

[@IgorKolosha]

All joking aside, this is one of the reasons I love flying on the 777--the piece of mind that it's one of the finest engineered airplanes in the world. Granted some of the newer models coming out are also very well made.

[@sibh6850]

but mh370...

[@beagle7622]

This was an outstanding series 7 hours from memory, when Boeing was managed by plane guys. Mullally was a brilliant engineer. But this was the time when Phil Conduit shifted the headquarters to Chicago.

[@AD_RC]

Mullally should've been the CEO

[@Liberty2358]

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

[@Mark-pp7jy]

I saw the entire documentary when it first aired. Not only was it fascinating to watch the build, but the music, especially at the end of each episode was amazing! Almost as complex as the aircraft!

[@yashpathak3765]

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

[@Mark-pp7jy]

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

[@busteraycan]

1:49 "watch this, I'll trigger a crowd clap"

[@sebastianmorris17]

I finally remember why in Grade 11 whenever someone bailed Skateboarding we'd say ONE FIFTY FOUR!!!

[@jonsmith904]

i'm confused...what number did the wing break at again?

[@tambok143143]

Darude - Sandstorm

[@Zultchy]

Louie Leal I fucking love you

[@kanealson5200]

Jon Smith Juan slipped de floor.

[@iukanaboi17]

Jon Smith im dead lol

[@sixstringlove8242]

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

[@yuriorlov47]

I saw this video in one of my engineering classes. It was incredible.

[@tima.478]

It was always interesting to me that this test was performed with the fuel tank access plates removed, which would not be the case in flight. With the access plates installed, It would also add even more strength to the wing!

[@hotliner2872]

The most impressive thing for me was both wings failed at exactly the same time. These are independent structures in terms of where they failed (mid wing), so this speaks volumes to quality of design and construction. I was actually expecting some lag between failures, in a structure like that there are literally thousands of opportunities for perturbation in either direction from the norm. So either they have reduced the perturbations into the noise, cancelled or at least RSSed them (i.e. one weak point either counters or is orthogonal to another, so the net effect is reduced... weakness A cuts strength in half, and weakness B cuts strength in half, but combined they reduce strength by just over a half ), for the result blew my mind. That is great engineering.

[@treloarw]

No other time would you find a large group of people so excited about the wings of an airliner shattering. 😉

[@Choatsy]

juan feefty fourrrrr

[@asylumskp4391]

This is like the vine boom sound effect but for airplanes

[@TheMachRider]

1:54 is the celebration that it didn't break. So you could say after 1:54 it breaks.

[@addison516]

bruh in my science class whenever the clock turns 154 we all immediately scream “154 *BOOM*” ok wtf r we doing

[@jonbaker3728]

My father worked with Boeing in the 60's-70's. He would tell me, while waiting for a plane trip, that plane wings were only strong in one direction. He said, you stand out on the end and jump, it will break clean off. Bastard never told me he was joking and I believed that from 5 to 15 years old. Miss you ya old bastard.

[@wparo]

Did it break at 153?

[@superskunkygrow]

nah 155

[@aweiss586]

ONE FIFTY FOUR.

[@lockheedx33]

@@aweiss586 ONE FIFTY FOUR

[@techmonster2632]

you are blind

[@pawataunanan2997]

@@techmonster2632 imagine replying to 2 years ago comment 🤣

[@FiveBlackFootedFerrets]

There's only one way to know for certain. Destructive testing was the standard for many years. It is expensive but reliable.

[@LeetKrew090]

best song ever 1 5 4!!!

[@Ev-wj3lm]

So many explosions, this looks like a character introduction in an indian serie

[@RahulRk-tr7ot]

🤣🤣. Bhai 😜

[@Ruin3.14]

Anybody that is afraid of turbulence and wing flex needs to be shown this video.

[@DistantLoner]

1:20 "It's a bird!" *takes off glasses and brings binoculars to eyes* "Aw. It's just a plane."

[@civicboi03]

Wow! That's Amazing!!! That the wings can withstand that much pressure at 154percent over design limit! Amazing that the wing Flex is at it's critical of 24Feet above the fuselage!!!!

[@IceCold5078]

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

[@MatrixReptilian]

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

[@andrewyeong6188]

Meanwhile in Tupolev design bureau: "154, hold my vodka!"

[@gauravudiyavar]

I forgot what percent of design load the wing breaks at, hence I had to come back to this video to refresh my memory. Gee, if only they could repeat '154' enough to allow me to remember.

[@Spouwmuur]

Do they only pull at the tip or do they pull at calculated lift vector points along the wing? And just to be sure: 150 is 50% over the max possible load?

[@trued2010]

its 54% beyond the intended design limit. the design limit should be above the max realistic load. if the max realistic load you expect is 10, you design it to not break until 15, the test would be simulating 15 + ( 15/100 * 54) = 23.1 you cant know the max possible load, you can only guess at what something can realistically be loaded to

[@Spouwmuur]

@@trued2010 Thx! And does it matter where on the wing you attach the cables or can they just pull on the tip only?

[@trued2010]

@@Spouwmuur it looks like they have cables connected all over the wing. The whole wing is going to be in the air not just the tip, so the whole wing needs to see load in the test.

[@Spouwmuur]

@@trued2010 But how do they determine the load each cable is needs? or do they all have the exact same load? *Thx for your reactions btw

[@trued2010]

@@Spouwmuur probably load cells on the lines.

[@therobloxsimulation6023]

Boeing 777 wing: I can bend about 45° more than my normal angle! Boeing 777x wing: yes

[@baronk666]

For some reason this reminded me of that scene from Airplane where Ted is having his flashback and the radio keeps saying "The decision....is yours!" Interspersed with clips of increasingly ridiculous planes crashing.

[@RRReid294]

The video needs more 154's

[@whatwouldbrianwilson]

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

[@skipgetelman3418]

That was impressive I flew the 777and loved it The best of 12 airliners I ever flew !

[@igfoobar]

Next time I'm on an airplane I'm going to call out "ONE FIFTY FOUR" ... anyone who freaks out in panic has watched this video.

[@patusher77]

one fiftyfoBOOOOMM!!!

[@PaladinV2]

Me: (Buys a candy bar from the store) how much will that cost? Clerk: 154. (candy bar explodes)

[@StjepanNikolic]

I'd like to see the same test done on 787 or later composite models...

[@mramzuk8]

What about bending in the opposite direction? Or sometimes the wings are unstable to flapping. Do the same parameters hold?

[@jonathanconklin6351]

Rubber ducky approves.

[@penzman5385]

I have the same warning system when a new girlfriend walks over the scale embedded in my washroom floor. 154!!!

[@adambrensen4050]

"154" This needs to be sampled

[@fjandro9646]

Idk why but this is the funniest meme I've seen in the last 6 months or so

[@markb6156]

Amazing strength! Chuck Norris's arms only tested to 153!

[@chyehuatyap6458]

Lol when I go to a flight I see a wing flexing me whispering:pls no 154 pls no 154 The pilot saying:154 put your seat belts on! Me:😶

[@LumaControl]

Everybody's calm until they suddenly hear 154 mid flight

[@Badhabitsjay]

Enough replays?

[@IBetNoOneHasThisUser]

No, I think we should have another 154 replays.

[@kasteman1]

Any armchair and sim pilot that criticizes test flight maneuvers as being excessive or unnecessary must watch this video to get a better perspective on the limits of modern day passenger jets. 95% of the stress tests we see here on KZbin are still well within structural limits.

[@kayleigh0494]

I'm here because of tiktok 154 ✌

[@voyager14]

I'm a recent grad. In 10 years this video will give me nostalgia I'm sure of it.

[@bryanjansen1456]

00:33... is that a duck??? Lol

[@GrabbaBeer]

So how many g’s does that mean it can handle then?

[@jjjillyeo]

154 is the number i'll think of on my deathbed now.

[@jjjillyeo]

***** 154 with the faith

[@nitroanilinmusic]

Yes I'm totally putting this in my samples folder

[@DexterEK95]

When ONE FIFTY FOUR isn't at 1:54 The universe : 2:22

[@johnnymitz]

The repeating "...54...blam...!" was good. It made me feel like I'm in a never ending damn nightmare.

[@iuriSalvador]

The machine submited the airplane by a winglock.. The airplane should have tapped.

[@MrNoahpugsley]

That was the exactly correct number of repeats of “154”. Kudos.

[@andreashoppe1969]

There ending of the video could as well be the beginning of a composition by Phillip Glass .… 154 bang, 154 bang, 154 bang, 154 bang…………… 154 bang … :), don't you think so? :)

[@teameymelli1]

I can watch the end of this video over 9000 times never get bored

[@12th.jahlil]

Pause at 0:32 is that a duck

[@3b3id]

Rubber duck. Lmao!

[@12th.jahlil]

Abdullah Eid LOL

[@prestonbrownlow2378]

below that it looks like a realistic duck head

[@cameronwebster6866]

It’s a safety duck.

[@maximlg253]

Sitting duck

[@sebastianmorris17]

Love this ahahha the look on buddies face when it gets past 151 is beauty

[@mortimersnerd7185]

One fifty what? I wish they would have repeated it.

[@ev446]

I missed it… what was it like one fifty something or other

[@markb6156]

I have a fever. .. and the only cure is...154!

[@derekwall200]

%154 thats pretty good, at what angle is the wing sitting at before failure? it looks like its anywhere between 55-65 degrees before it snapped

[@ggi2826]

Staring at the 9.30 kzbin.info/www/bejne/opLTd4Sia7eYsKM

[@bobalobalie]

WOW!!!!! Not sure what the percentage was. I think it was around 144% of design limit or something like that. Nonetheless, a wing that can go beyond 50% of what it will ever encounter in actual flight is some amazing engineering.

[@Sbinott0]

It was ONE FIFTY FOUR times the limit

[@shadowkillz9606]

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

[@ggi2826]

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

[@aqimjulayhi8798]

I’m at a McDonalds right now waiting for my food. The announcer going ‘one fifty four’ rang in my head as soon as I saw my pickup receipt came out as 154.

[@tsmcraedy4564]

A shame they didn't put that much effort in the software for the 737 max software.

[@sebastianmorris17]

LOL this was built when things were still built to last not be replaced. Nowadays economically, you'd be an idiot to build a wing this strong because it'd make you lose money. Nowadays that's not the case at all, hell Samsungs phone blew up in flames and their sales went UP after they made a new phone. If they put this much effort into something new, people wouldn't care.

[@mark675]

At least they tested something