PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF 447 Search to resume
View Single Post
Old 1st Sep 2010, 02:21
  #2081 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
mm43

Let me go ahead and answer my own question, you may not have read my admission to Machaca that I ask questions sometimes to give whomever reads this a chance for better understanding with a second viewpoint. It's slightly deceptive, and I'm irritating myself with it at this point. "Arm36g" is single, composed of Aluminum alloy, probably hardened after pull extrusion, and it has a big hole in it where a bolt penetrates it to fasten it to the Rudder's Steel hinge cylinder (Barrel) (Please let it be steel ). If this is a Thru-bolt, I see the symmetry.

This is an asymmetrical approach to a solution for lateral retention. The Tip failed, it is missing. Why is this important?

1. It failed in tension, but only ostensibly. Using the word "Fracture" determines this.

2. The stress it transmits to the Rudder is asymmetrical, causing a torsion that would be obviated by a sister on the other side.

3. To fail in tension, the Hinges would have to have deflected enough to allow the "travel" through to the arm to cause separation at the center cross section of the arm's attachment (Bolt).

4. The bolt is bedded in resin or sealant, and appears NOT to have "bent" due to stretching at the arm. (Tensing)

5. The bolt is "undisturbed" it is likely the arm failed through either weakening by corrosion, or the tip fell off prior to this flight, since there is no evidence to conclude the failure was due impact.

6. Aluminum as a tensile member? Draw one's own conclusions.

Longitudinal support through to Frame 76? Not really. There is no support other than the HOOP (Frame). The frame is not visually different from either Machaca's photo, or the other diagrams. It is unremarkable forward of the 1A1B join, and the assumption is the Frames are similar in manufacture the length of the Fuse. As they gather the longerons for a matrix to bed the skin to, they are stressed for that task, there is no visual evidence the joins were supported other than by mere attachment to the HOOPS, more a liability to the Hoop than additive strength for the Bracket.
imo. Please continue, your grasp (and Machaca's, and HazelNuts39's) of the discussion is nails, and I feel the commentary is coalescing. imo.