Arc,
I'd be genuinely interested to know how a 'programme of stress testing' was carried out at (presumably) RAF Swanton Morley.
Apart from the technical aspects of how any 'stress testing' was devised on a composite airframe, and how it was applied, whether ultimate stress tests were carried out, the standard of the airframe selected, etc., the big question for me would be why this work wasn't carried out by the aircraft DA?
Oh, and what technical authority (and certification) did RAF Swanton Morley have to carry out such testing? And what was the DA's involvement in the testing? Who approved the 'cyclic' test profiles? And why was it necessary? Were the RAF planning to operate the aircraft outside its existing certified usage spectrum and/or configuration that underpinned the existing safety statement? Who approved the resultant 27,000 launch life? What fatigue monitoring and airframe inspection programme was put in place to follow on from this 'in house' 'stress testing'?
Updated - a subsequent post (thanks Why oh why) appears to confirm that the RAF are operating the aircraft at an increased MAUW (625 Kg versus 580 or 597 with a 'BGA uplift'). So is there documentation (and DA approval) for that? What's urgently needed is sone transparency here. This isn't a 'national security' matter - the ATC is a 'youth organisation' paid for by the RAF (i.e. us) and they have already admitted that they have had airworthiness 'challenges'. Time to find out what these were.
Best regards as ever to all those clever fatigue testing people,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 15th Dec 2016 at 10:44.
Reason: Update