1800 lbf point load? My first thought would be crippling of the frames and stringers.
For reference, the Cessna 152 is ~1000 lbf. Consider that you have to design your cut-out to be beefy enough to land a light aircraft on.
Quick calc of F=ma (est 0.5kg mass):
F = m * a
8 kN = 0.5 kg * a
a =...
This might help. Actually all the AC23-* are probably worth looking at. Note that this link does NOT include Change 1, but does include the Appendix.
AC23-21
The "basic glider criteria handbook" has some good illustrations of sand bag tests. They don't talk about PPE, but do show wooden uprights. An internet search with the above search term should yield some good leads.
Late to the party, but anyway:
Epoxies are hygroscopic and can be brittle. Repeated thermal changes may induce some microcracking. Long term service may lead to corrosion problems due to a water pumping effect.
The metal filler may also scratch the base material.
You should also need to...
In two cases I can think of the solution is to replace the bolt if there is any doubt:
1) the bolt is for secondary structure, in which case it should <cough> have been designed with standard hardware and it would be cheaper to replace than to do an assessment.
2) the bolt is special and is for...
Hello,
Discussion at work about using drawing tolerances for justification. I'd like to hear your thoughts / pointers to guidance material.
Hypothetical Examples:
An L-section extrusion had gouge damage on the bulb which has been blended out.
1) The dimension of the bulb is less than the...
Configuration management is a big topic.
I think that every aero engineering company must have some kind of configuration management disclosed in their engineering manual. Usually, this should be enough for single modification project.
For some guidance, go to...
OK, so based on service experience, the static strength requirement has been set to meet the stiffness requirements to prevent flutter. I was hoping that there was some kind of rational analysis behind the numbers (24g? why not 22g or 27g? why the sudden jump in the mil-spec?) I just found the...
23.393 was created in Amdt 48, from a JAA suggestion contain modified version of the requirements of 23.657(c). (ctr-f "23.393")
FAR 23.657 at the time.
Tim
Hey,
Does anyone know of the history behind the mass balance load factors?
e.g. (limit loads perpendicular to the control surface):
MIL-S-5706, Para 4.9: 36g <= 9x(symmetric pull up load) <= 60g
FAR23.659: 24g
MIL-A-8870 Para 3.2.1.1.1.3: 100g
Tim
