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
"JohntenHave" <Jtenhave@m...> wrote:
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you shouldask,
then answer, Jim.an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.is
deafening)could be due to:spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as youhave
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may alsobe
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axisbe
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,the
faith you place in it is not justified.