"rattlesnake" wrote in message
...

"Brian Whatcott" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
...
I'm thinking it would be stupid, or at least careless, if the load
were reacted through just one or two mount fixings.
Is that how the test was rigged?

roughly the setup was like this:
- plane upright
- tail and elevator loaded by about 430 lbs of bricks
- ailerons and flaps loaded by about 290 lbs of bricks
- both wings supported by 1.5 ton car jacks
- engine pushed down by about 1.100 lbs at position of the four attachment
points

I got a bad feeling before the test, but I have only two choices in my
country:
1: do this silly static test
2: reject it and never receive the permit to fly

I think the lower attach points can be repaired. Probably solid 3/4" rond
bars will be welded into the remaining tubes. However I lost some of my
confidence in this flying machine because I don't know what (invisible)
secondary damage may have occured.


While it is really tempting to brag about my father's prescience, in his
decision to leave your country many decades ago, this really does not sound
like it should be an outrageous or damaging test it done correctly.

Assuming that the "engine" was simulated with a rigid fixture that mounted
is essentially the same manner as the engine and about 4 time the weight of
the engine was suspended from the CG point of the engine, or alternatively
that the engine was mounted and that about 3 more time the weight of the
engine was suspended below the CG point of the engine, it would appear that
you simply need a new engine mount which is free of defect. In that case,
the test was well designed and appears to have accomplished its purpose.

OTOH, if this was a "dynafocal" mount, and also if the test procedure failed
to maintain the relative orientation of the four engine mounting points,
then the test procedure would appear to be at fault. It that case, you will
probably ned to perform the test again with a new engine mount.

Peter (Damm)