There are clearly two issues in this discussion:
(1) the increased Australian TOW, and
(2) the known problems with the wing.
The known spar issues have no proven association whatsoever to do with the increased TOW applied in the Australian STC.
Some investigation, would to me, indicate that the known problems with the spar relate to the "inner" wing - ie: inboard of the engines. Both of the failures in Australia were, I understand, in the outer wing.
I agree with the previous two posts, an apology in the Australian would be the right thing to do. And the sub-editor should butt out of what he obviously knows nothing about.
I have not identified a single pilot who believes that an unmodified factory standard Shrike was ever able to demonstrate a 1% engine-out climb under the certification conditions at any weight in excess of 6,750 lb.
Crap – Look harder! I recall a number of the Exec pilots acted as observers on test flights back in the early 70's and the Shrike at 7150lb made the required climb at 5000ft. There were others around at the time that would verify that also. The VFR requirement I recall was to maintain height at 7400lb - it did that also.
I hesitate to enter a dialogue on a forum where I am anonymously accused of dishonesty, opportunism, sensationalism, ignorance of contextual issues, and onanism.
Paul, it is good to see you here, however get your facts right, publish at an appropriate time with due consideration for factors at the time and perhaps this dialogue would not occur.
I don't plan to continue debate on this forum.
Your call. And I say again, it is good to see you post here. But just like our mate Dick has found, to ignore this type of discussion only makes it worse - for yourself as a industry advocate and the credibility of both you the journals you write for. You should be well aware after many years writing about aviation matters that when you fail to get it right, you can always expect some flak!
In this case it is well deserved!