Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
fitting analysis
- Thread starter minny
- Start date
43.13-2B, as I was made ABUNDANTLY aware from AEG, is only applicable to UNPRESSURIZED aircraft UNDER 12,500 pounds, so make sure you "fit" into this category (please read the bitterness in this...long story), but I agree with RB that it is probably a company guideline or a justifyable engineering judgement.
Determine the max clearance between the pin and the hole, misalign the pin by that much and work the geometry. For inline loads, I've seen a Fitting Factor of 1.15 generally applied.
Determine the max clearance between the pin and the hole, misalign the pin by that much and work the geometry. For inline loads, I've seen a Fitting Factor of 1.15 generally applied.
- Thread starter
- #4
in the AC or in your company doc's ??
if the AC ... not surprising.
if your company doc's , then ask your supervisor what he thinks you should do.
how critical is this ? ... is the joint flight critical ? is the margin (without misalignment) small ? both reasons to investigate misalignment. is the margin large ? is the joint secondary structure ? both reasons not to fuss over it.
if the AC ... not surprising.
if your company doc's , then ask your supervisor what he thinks you should do.
how critical is this ? ... is the joint flight critical ? is the margin (without misalignment) small ? both reasons to investigate misalignment. is the margin large ? is the joint secondary structure ? both reasons not to fuss over it.
For interior monument attachments (such as tie rod fittings), Boeing Doc. No. D6-55441 specifies to account for an additional load vector that is 10% of the axial load. This works out to a misalignment of about 5.7 degrees. Although some DER's want 7 degrees of misalignment. Just depends on who's approving it sometimes.
- Thread starter
- #7
- Thread starter
- #8
"What does DER mean?" ... i guess you're not in the states.
for generic reference try Michael Niu, else use something like 10%. this is not used to define the bearing, but rather to account for "realities", like your load not being axial. The aileron hinge will almost certainly be installed with spherical bearings, the real world being that the two sides of the hinge don't exactly align and the spherical bearing releases the joint, so there is no internal moment/fixity, but the load can still be applied off axis ... clear as mud ?
for generic reference try Michael Niu, else use something like 10%. this is not used to define the bearing, but rather to account for "realities", like your load not being axial. The aileron hinge will almost certainly be installed with spherical bearings, the real world being that the two sides of the hinge don't exactly align and the spherical bearing releases the joint, so there is no internal moment/fixity, but the load can still be applied off axis ... clear as mud ?
GBor
Your finagle factor of 1.15 is right out of 23.625 and probably Part 25 and 27 as well.
The problem is the definition of "fitting"?? I understand a seat belt fitting that goes between the nylon webbing and the seat. But what if the manufacturer identifies a widget as a "bracket" and the FAA says to apply the 1.15 factor.
I disagree but sometimes it's easier to fold-em than fight!!
JQC DER/DAR
Your finagle factor of 1.15 is right out of 23.625 and probably Part 25 and 27 as well.
The problem is the definition of "fitting"?? I understand a seat belt fitting that goes between the nylon webbing and the seat. But what if the manufacturer identifies a widget as a "bracket" and the FAA says to apply the 1.15 factor.
I disagree but sometimes it's easier to fold-em than fight!!
JQC DER/DAR
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question