What Ever Happened to RAPIDC? 9

[inertia4u]

I'm curious, I can't seem to find the FAA program Called
RAPIDC (Repair Assessment Procedure and Integrated Design - Commuter)? I've found numerous links only to PDF files talking about the program, but I can't seem to locate the actual program.

Anybody know where I can find it, or what happened to it?

-----
Nert

 

[prost]

I think I have the entire set of files, which I downloaded 11/13/2006, I think it's version 2.0. Perhaps the FAA is not supporting it anymore?

I didn't install it on my PC, so I can't vouch for or take blame for problems it might create on your computer.

I couldn't find RAPIDC on FAA's site either.

Do you want the full set of files? I have user manuals and the installation *.exe file, and can stick the files on a public FTP if you like (my own site, not engineering.com's, which doesn't allow me to post files for some reason).

 

[inertia4u]

Thank you for the offer, but I'll decline. I was really hoping that someone could point the way to where the FAA keeps it, if they still do (i.e. I need something that is "currently supported").


Cheers,
NERT

-----
Nert

 

[Dan320]

Prost;
I would be interested to download the RAPIDC software.

Regards,

Dan

 

[prost]

OK, I can put it on my work's ftp site. Is that acceptable to you? Remember, I can not take responsibility for it, if it goofs up your computer. I can guarantee that I took it off the FAA site "as is", so I haven't done anything to it.

It's about 40 MB in size, so make certain you have either a long time to wait or broadband Internet connection.

 

[Dan320]

Prost,
I'm ready when you are.
We have a fast connection, 40Mb should not be a problem this end.

Dan

 

[prost]

OK, here it is:

http://www.apesolutions.com/spd/public

Download the whole directory, RAPIDC.

You are also welcome to download any of that other junk on there. The two PDFs
Stress_Course_for_Liasion_Engineers.pdf
and
Aircraft_Structures_for_Engineers___Solutions.pdf

are particularly interesting, IMO. They are some notes and solutions from a stress course for liaison engineers that Boeing gave years ago. (I know, I know, liaison is misspelled in the name of the PDF!).

 

[rb1957]

thx very much prost, except for calling the stuff "junk" !

 

[Dan320]

Thanks a lot, let's hope it's not too complicated for me...
Dan

 

[prost]

Sorry, no offense meant. I've had a chance to look over that stress course in some detail; it's pretty darn good, IMO. If we ever hire a newbie engineer again, that course will be the first thing she does.

I for one have my doubts about utility of the MIL 5 update file there.

 

[Dan320]

Seems the RAPIDC software available is a beta version with a lot of limitations. The working parts work nicely though.
Thanks anyway.
Wonder if a complete version is coming or if "official interest vaned"?

Dan

 

[rb1957]

"vaned" ... that'd be german for "waned" ?

 

[Dan320]

Jawohl!

 

[der8110]

No plans for further development, unless you write your congressman. "Interest waned" is a good way to describe it, money was there for only a couple years. Actually flowed from the FAA Tech Center to Galaxy Scientific to Boeing (Douglas) to the actual programmer. Might be mistaken on names but it was subbed to a sub of sub. There might have also been internal infighting, heard on several occasions that "RAPID (or RAPIDC) is not accepted" from certain ACO's and Transport Canada. When asked why, silence. Hard to fathom after looking at the Methods Manual; it's about as well thought out as can be imagined. Someone probably worried about a complex process being "dummied down." Debatable both ways.

 

[Dan320]

I work for a MRO and we frequently repair outside the SRM, in which case we have to go to Boeing or Airbus for approval. This software seemed like a quick way of ensuring better repair suggestions with better chance for approval. Too bad it was only a Beta version. Maybe the sub-sub- people can fix it and sell it?
Worrying about "dumming down" the process is quite unfounded. It needs to be "dummied down" for safety.
To elaborate, when certificating an airplane design the flying qualities must not necessitate "undue piloting skill".
I wish there was a similar requirement for SRM:s. I know one large european manufacturer whose SRM is so complicated and difficult to work with that I am worried there are repairs done with the best intentions that still are not iaw the SRM.
You need to remember that in real life there is little or no time for analysis at the MRO end. Where I work there is barely time to make decent drawings of the damage and repair.
Although the software is for commuters and not transports, the static part would be a valuable tool.
The TC-holder still has the final word.

Dan

 

[Dan320]

Re. RAPIDC, seems one can update the software with whatever combinations of fastener type, diameter, sheet type and thickness you need.
A lot of manual work, using data from MIL-HDBK-5 or your own sources, but it is probably worth it.
When all else fails, read the manual... And look for new information, not just information that confirms your pre-concieved notions.

Dan (No, not from Germany, rb1957)

 

[Dan320]

Re. RAPIDC:
I have so far updated the .DAT-files with MS20470AD, HLT335, HL329, HL326 for 7075T6, 2024T3 and Ti6Al-4V.
Can't make the program accept Ti as a skin material, only as doubler material.
Is anyone out there interested in updating and exchanging files to make this a joint effort?

Brgds
Dan

 

[sigmatau]

Dan,

A couple of things... In working for an MRO, if you hardly have time to draw up the repair, how do you have time to run Rapid? I've found it to very time consuming to use. You don't have to go to Boeing or Airbus for approvals, some DER's can approve them also. In my experience, they're alot faster than Boeing or Airbus. For 2nd tier operators, cheaper too.

 

[Dan320]

sigmatau,

If you come up with a good repair suggestion to Boeing, it usually goes a lot faster. It's trying to find where the optimum is. Do I make an elaborate design and risk having them change most of it, meaning I wasted time? Or do I send only the damage description and wait?
Don't get me wrong, they (Boeing, Airbus) are generally very fast and it's not a big problem really. It's just that I want to be more a part of the process than merely making drawings.
Re. DER's, you still have to go to Boeing or Airbus for the damage tolerance assessment, right?

 

[sigmatau]

No, you don't have to go to Boeing or Airbus for the DT. In any case the DT usually isn't approved for about a year... you can always ask them to provide it. It takes a bit to do the DT. You can run the numbers just as easy as they or anyone else can for static. Your MRO doesn't have a DER or SFAR36?