Dromader Mk II.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No disagreement from me either: as stated, I was only asking the question – out loud – due to a lack of knowledge and fishing for answers. I did find a reference book though -Fundamentals of Structural Integrity - A.F. Grandt - which, for me at least, is a helpful guide. The ground damage itch is scratched and I learnt a bit – so colour me happy.
Seems that damage due 'ground loads' was not a 'significant' factor; thought there may be something in it, but Lumps trumped the oleo card which pretty much put a hat on it for me.
Hard to get past the Currawong statement though, a second careful read of the ATSB report takes you, inevitably to the conclusions drawn.
It is still a complex issue though, even the ATSB don't leave it cut and dried. Going back to the 2008 report; it seems as though there was a 'joint', no blame effort made to effect a cure, which I applaud. I will reserve my opinion on the time scale and 'official' response until we see a final outcome of this last event.
And anyway – it's all YR's fault – he got me started. (Thumbs up and big smile).
Seems that damage due 'ground loads' was not a 'significant' factor; thought there may be something in it, but Lumps trumped the oleo card which pretty much put a hat on it for me.
Hard to get past the Currawong statement though, a second careful read of the ATSB report takes you, inevitably to the conclusions drawn.
Put simply, the airframe is/was operated beyond design life, at beyond design weights, at beyond design airspeeds.(ATSB).
The effect of ground operations on the fatigue life of the airframe is a very very distant fourth consideration, in this case, in my humble opinion.
The effect of ground operations on the fatigue life of the airframe is a very very distant fourth consideration, in this case, in my humble opinion.
And anyway – it's all YR's fault – he got me started. (Thumbs up and big smile).
