Interestingly the 154% number seems to be gone from the article now
The language is tricky, if you interpret it as I did, or 154% "more" than the design limit, then it is the design limit plus 1.54 more design limits. Like saying you salary is $100 and we're paying you 90% beyond your salary. Then you would expect to get $190.
If you interpret it to be 154% "of" the design limit, then I would agree it would be 1.54x the design limit.
Since other publications from Boeing, and Boeing staff at the "Future of Flight" museum in Everett have said that the planes are safer because they can withstand over twice their design limit, I read the 154% number as the amount "over" the limit.
Since folks from Boeing read Hackernews, it would be great for one of them to chime in here with some clarification :-).
The video was clear and left no room for interpretation.
Planes are safer because “they can withstand twice their design limit” is senseless. The 2x factor you are thinking of is the design limit. The design limit has all of the huge safety margins built in for the normal load limits.
The planes are designed to take at least 2x the max normal loads.
The language is tricky, if you interpret it as I did, or 154% "more" than the design limit, then it is the design limit plus 1.54 more design limits. Like saying you salary is $100 and we're paying you 90% beyond your salary. Then you would expect to get $190.
If you interpret it to be 154% "of" the design limit, then I would agree it would be 1.54x the design limit.
Since other publications from Boeing, and Boeing staff at the "Future of Flight" museum in Everett have said that the planes are safer because they can withstand over twice their design limit, I read the 154% number as the amount "over" the limit.
Since folks from Boeing read Hackernews, it would be great for one of them to chime in here with some clarification :-).