|
I can help with your first three questions:
#1: No. As you point out, no finite-element structural analysis of the aircraft was done or is planned. My guesses: at best Mr. Oliver is misinformed, at worst he carefully crafted his statement to make 2 accurate but unrelated statements and hope that the reader think they are connected (read the statement again: 1. Cessna is proficient in fatigue analysis; 2. the twin-boom design of the 336/337 has higher loading; it doesn't say that there was analysis).
#2: Cessna does not have a labor estimate and asked the user community to provide one.
#3: After considerable scrutiny of the SDRS data it appears that N2FOR was the N-number designation used by one facility for any foreign-registered aircraft SDRS. That N-number appeared in several Skymaster SDRS with different serial numbers, all serviced by the same facility. A more comprehensive search of all SDRS found the same N-number used by that facility for other aircraft (Pipers, Boeings, Lears, etc.). It caught your attention because this Skymaster was the only one with a wing-attach SDRS, but note that the service was in 1976 on a relatively new 337G with 570 hours, so clearly not a fatigue issue.
Ernie Martin
|
01-17-10, 08:45 PM
Threaded Mode