|
Re: Whitley test "produced a failure at 98% of the design load" is that good?
In general, this is not a good thing. however, reports like this are quite common. We need more information on the test and the follow up before we declare the Whitley a bad aircraft. In my experience, test results like this can be refined by more detailed analysis of the real design load, and the test setup. I had a wing spar fail at apparently 98% load back in the 1970s. A detailed review and recalculation of the test setup, minus some time saving shortcuts used in the initial test design, convinced us the spar had actually failed at 101%.
Also, failures like this can lead to minor redesigns of the failed area, and then further testing or even just analysis to prove the structure airworthy. They can also lead to minor changes in the flight envelope (like speeds and g-loads) until a fix is completed on the whole fleet. Again we can't condemn this aircraft without knowing if this sort of subsequent activity took place.
One also needs to know the purpose of the test. Was this part of the original qualification testing? Was this an early development article, with the test results being used to refine the design? Was this a high time in-service airframe? There are a number of possibilities, all with different implications of this failure.
|