I think this is about creating a generalizable computational model for these types of structures, which would then be tailored for the specific geometry of each eVTOL design. As stated in the article the specific structure here is not the same as any under development. Important was what was learned from this test- that the model did not accurately predict the structural collapse that was seen- this will allow for refinement of the model moving forward.
To me, this test isn’t about developing the perfect structure, but creating a computational tool to assist future and ongoing development of these structures, as well as to possibly facilitate certification of eVTOLs in the future.
“roof was loaded up with weight to simulate wings and engines”
I’m confused, why is there ‘engines’ instead of ‘motors’ on an "e"VTOL?
The test has very little purpose without a ton of high capacity batteries. Surviving the impact is only a small part of the risk. Next you have to survive the thermal run-away of the damaged batteries.
Engine and motor are synonyms in modern English usage. But don’t argue with me. Take it up with MIT. https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/whats-the-difference-between-a-motor-and-an-engine/
Also
https://bestride.com/news/entertainment/grammar-nerd-should-you-call-it-a-motor-or-an-engine
While you’re at it, drop a note to the boys in Milwaukee, who insist on using “The Motor Company“ as vernacular for Harley-Davidson.
Well, at least it’s a step in the right direction. Next step is testing actual models, with batteries and motors and wings or whatever structure houses the motors and propellers.
From the article, it sounds like it was an engineering validation test of the model used to simulate the crash, and not by itself a crashworthiness test. One has to start simple before going to the real thing, in order to be able to understand what is happening to the structure.
I would think that would be the case with any vehicle fire. If you’ve ever seen a vehicle fire on an ICE vehicle, it’s a scary thing to witness.
If the crash-worthiness team’s success is measured by a positive outcome, they’ve demonstrated that computer modelling does not always predict test results.
I can buff that out.
They are for the cameras. They undoubtedly have high frame rate movies and can model the deformation of the structure by measuring how each dot moves in relation to the others as the structure deforms and then fails.
If intended as an EVtol evaluation, then while there would not be a petroleum-based fire, there could still be a battery fire issue, neither were addressed here. But we don’t know the total scope or intent of the test.