Re: Old Timers


Jim Patillo
 

John,

Knock it off with the "optimism" crap and other negative and pompous
remarks you're making to me and others! I'm really getting tired of
it. As I told you in my e-mail stop the sophmoric stuff. Use those
comments somewhere else.

I too believe there may be a problem but with a lot more emperical
data on this airframe/spar than you posess. We pilots flying LS1s'are
living in the environment, you are viewing it from a distance. You
make the coment "at least half of your spar "is sound so far", you
don't know that so don't make that statement.

The point is I didn't "overload" my airframe before I had a failure.
The airframe never saw loads above those published during those
initial hours and I was very sensitive to the loads on my plane, CG
and otherwise during the flight test phases. It's never had a hard
landing or even been sideways on the runway. Since that time several
of us have flown regulary with higher gross weights. Bob Farnam, Bob
Malechek, Phil Lankford with a "K", myself and others. Why haven't
more of those airframes failed?

The QAC/Designer/Engineer "Tom Jewett" died in the crash of Big Bird
on or just before the time of the Q200 so who knows how they came up
with a design load. Gene Sheehan certainly wasn't capable. Knowing
that group at the time, they may have arbitrarily "picked a safe
number" until they had more time to quantify.

I suspect the reason you haven't heard from any "old timers" is they
have been paying attention and checking their spars and don't even
want to enter this kind of exchange with someone who "isn't involved"
directly. Isn't it interesting you are now raising and making a big
deal out of these concerns two years after I made them public. Where
were you then when Bob Farnam and I came up with the fix for the
spar? Where were you when I did the initial flight testing? Where
were you when I wrote the article to alert others to the possible
problem? What has prompted you to come out on this subject again??

That said, You've raised concerns that are valid and people are
listening. For that I thank you. Now if you're so capable come up
with a plan of assessment that is simple and can be done reasonably
easy and I don't mean static loading it til you really do overstress
the frame!

Jim

"JohntenHave" <Jtenhave@m...> wrote:
Well Jim,

As OJ once said, "I will have stab at this one"

You get marks for optimism! That said, yours is one of the failed
airframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half of
your
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you should
ask,
then answer, Jim.

"What would responsible advice be to someone who had an identical
failure to yours but had yet to detect it?"

In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, there is a real
risk
that there are more of these spars out there. I agree that this is
an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.

In no particular order I suggest that the silence (and I agree, it
is
deafening)could be due to:

a. the fact I am completely wrong in interpreting two primary
structural failures in a fleet of (how many?) flying airframes as
flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian fleets.
(anyone want to put bet with their life?)

b. Different risk perceptions between engineers and pilots.

c. Lack of understanding of failure consequences.

d. Failure to admit that the Q-200 airframe is not as safe as
previously assumed.

e. The problem is not correctly understood.

f. The SMS*

g. don't give a damn

You make a good point about high hour airframes but let me qualify
it.

500 hrs + may mean that they have inadvertently verified their
spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as you
have
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may also
be
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axis
and
therefore the defect is progressing at a slower rate. It may also
be
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,
but
that will be cold comfort as a new Q 200 speed record is set in the
vertical.....

What does this mean? It might mean this is just too hard so let's
not
look and maybe it will go away. It might mean that the Q-200 is a
high
risk airframe to fly but owners do not want the face the hard facts.

This can be fixed guys, but before it is fixed the problem needs to
be
acknowledged, defined, the cause verified and repair schemes
developed.

In the meantime it is terribly unwise to overload this airframe,
the
faith you place in it is not justified.

Regards

John

* Stunned Mullet Syndrome



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over
500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!

Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.