I love to watch wings flex on takeoff, or landing. I was just wondering how many feet the wings flex out on the end of the wing, say on a 747. If anyone knows, or could give me an estimate? Just curious. 
If you need me to explain more just ask.
A foot up or down would be ordinary and common. Probably 2 ft or more in moderate turbulence. Damage threshold is nowhere near this – I’m guessing tens of feet.
Ok, I was thinking on takeoff about three feet maybe, but it looks like i’m wrong.
I once sqw ( a few years back) that a 747 wing experiences structural failure at about 22-25 feet of flex. Not sure if that was the range or if it is in one direction. Again, years back, but directionally, this is accurate I believe
I’d guess the typical 747 takeoff flex is a few feet, up to perhaps 10-12 at limit load (2.5G turn).
Pretty cool. I think the 777’s wing went to 155% max load. Awesome to watch the testing of wing load.
[quote=“WiserTime07”]
154% actually
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o)
That is crazy to watch!
How could I forget… 154 BAM![/quote]
thats a bit misleading. if you stress the aircraft wings slowely you can get alot more flex, than if you stress the wings fast. think of a piece of taffy. you can bend it back on its self if you go slow or if its warm. but if you move it quick or if its cold, it snaps instantly.
i doubt they put those wings under the conditions they will be seeing at 40,000 feet, temperature and pressure.
but still fun video.
You should contact all those Stanford and Cal. Tech. types over at Boeing and clue them in on your taffy theory before someone gets hurt.
Thats too much. I knew there was a reason I keep coming back. Its a f-ing comedy show here.
This guy is on a roll, huh? Way to go MeekRN! Keep up the good work.
Hey guys, are they still using taffy to make the 767 and 777 wings? I thought they’d switched away from that. Like the 787 – those are yogurt, right?
No, Meek, the reason the wings could bend so far in the movie is that they designed them to absorb force with flex (as usual, for mass efficiency) and then deliberately tested them until they broke. The reason they don’t flex that much in flight is that they’re trying NOT to break them or frighten the passengers, and thus they’re avoiding supercells and 150 knot updrafts and staying far away from that number 154 (BAM).
A metal wing is not a shear-thickening material, nor do its mechanical properties change much with temperature. That’s what allows them to fly just as well on takeoff in Phoenix as at FL390 over Anchorage.
“…and finally, ladies & gentlemen, it is a violation of FAA rules to attempt to eat the wings of the aircraft while we are in flight. If you would like to enjoy them after landing, the captain will illuminate the ‘Pacman chomping the plane’ light. The starboard wing is strawberry taffy and is $5 per serving while the port wing is Grape taffy and is $4 per serving. Thank you for choosing Northwest/Delta.”
Y’all think if I spread salt water taffy on my wing spars inside my wings instead of CorrosionX, that would be a better solution to preventing corrosion from spreading? Would surely be a thicker coating the CorrosionX
One side effect question. Could it give me more wing flapping capability in turbulence? 
It’d sure be cheaper! Good on you for using CorrosionX though, lot’s of owners think it costs too much. Penny wise…
Lieberma,
Having spent quite a few weekends in Lewes, De on my grandfather’s boat, I wouldn’t use saltwater taffy. If you have dissimilar metals in contact with salt water you can set up galvanic action which will accelerate corrosion. You may want to try to find freshwater taffy.