John, whilst your questions wondering what analyses have been done on MR2/4 etc. are of relevant and of interest, in one of your earlier posts you appeared to have already made up your mind.....
- it crashed, if all the leaked reports are to be believed, because it was not an airworthy aircraft, and it would appear that not only was the accident predictable but it was predicted, and the rest of the Nimrod fleet may be in the same state. Why is this – because it appears that what should have been a temporary installation to meet the urgent operational needs of the Falklands War has become a permanent fit,
....other posts have already suggested that the ad-hoc falklands fit was extensively re-engineered (including, I think it would be fair to assume, appropriate failure mode analysis) many years ago. Hence I fear your assumptions that this is the cause are probably flawed - like me you just don't have the facts to make such assertions.
This speculation is dangerous and furthermore you & others are quoting standards and in doing so are superficially appearing knowledgeable on these matters (which maybe true), but as you admit you don't know the details on Nimrod then your speculation is just that - speculation without detailed facts on this particular subject.
You all know that adherance to standards in itself is no guarantee of safety either so implying otherwise is also misleading out of context. Whilst you know this, it seems clear to me that this could be taken out of context by those who perhaps do not understand the detail of what this means from an engineering perspective (i.e. journolists and others following this thread with interest).