Jerry Wass wrote:
rattlesnake wrote:
"Brian Whatcott" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news ....
Do you really, really think an airframe designer hasn't thought it
through?
Shouldn't you?

The airframe designer hasn't thought it through, at least of my
plans-build 'kitplane'. This aircraft was designed to fly nicely and
it shows it really does. But it absolutely was not designed for static
load testing (which in my view was a smart decision, because
designing-in hardpoints which are completely useless in flight is just
adding dead weight). Besides - you can't just add up the support
capability of seats and engine mount by ignoring the moment arms of
your construction.

And the moment legs, moment feet, etc....


Hehe....yes, indeed.
But hopefully in a static test (if it IS a static test) the clockwise
moments equal the anticlock moments.
Guess what? If they don't add to zero, the thing rotates.
No special hardpoints called for - just spread the reaction for test
loads proportionate to the mass involved. The design MUST be able to
react the loads due to the limit stresses on the aircraft mass as is,
else it's not a load test!
And a last thought for the anonymous poster: if an experimental design
has not been static tested at least once, you take your life in your hands.
And that's the great beauty of this free society - if you want to risk
killing yourself, you can. (But not in Germany under German rules, only
FAA rules)

Brian W