What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

NEW V/S Modification video Anti-Splat-Aero

PerfTech

Well Known Member
....We have a new video up on our web site that shows our latest product and installation on the RV-9. We will have the one for the RV-7 along with kit pricing etc in a few days. Please have a look at the video and all of our other products as we are always adding new things for the RVers. Thanks all, Allan...:D
http://antisplataero.com/Videos.html
 
NEW V/S Modification

Good Mod. My RV7 will appreciate it. Always have wondered about the vilolent forces that slipping will apply to the verticle stabilizer.

The cracks others talk about are disturbing.

Your mod is just smart. I like your mention of RV's being great planes as is. The truth is that anything man made can be improved. Will be doing mod.

Thanks Allan
 
Looks pretty good. However I would use a drilling method that gets you perpendicular to the spar instead of at an angle.
 
Looks like a great idea, I'll be ordering this mod. Just from the amount of rudder pressure on takeoff, the fitting has to have a big load on it. Vibrations and buffeting from the prop wash and ground mishandling also lead to a possible failure point.
 
Question

You will note that the VANs instructions to install this bracket allows the builder to place the bracket in the back OR the front of the spar depending what fits best. Mine in fact is in the back where I believe it is not subjected to the point pressure that those mounted on the front experience. That said, will this new brace work irrespective of how your bracket is currently installed FRONT or BACK??
 
Allan, what a great mod! Thanks for once again creating something that really makes sense for the RV community. I'm wondering if you might be doing these brackets for the RV-8 in the future? If so, I will be the first to purchase.
 
...I had not seen a 9 with the bracket on the back of the vertical spar but was aware that some may be mounted as such. The side loading is the same and the mod will offer the added strength just the same. We will make those up to order on request and it shouldn't be any problem. Thank you for the question as I am sure others will want this as well.
.
...As for the RV-8, I will look at them as soon as the sevens are finished and will post results here. Just think of the force against this bracket when you are knife edge, or doing a point roll. Anyone involved in any aerobatics really should consider this little modification. Thanks, Allan...:D
 
Looks pretty good. However I would use a drilling method that gets you perpendicular to the spar instead of at an angle.

...Actually, the hole you see drilled from the front side in the video is a smaller pilot hole and the finish hole is drilled from the back side, straight in. Those particular holes in our brackets are also under size and get opened up when finished from the other side. I didn't put it in just to keep the video shorter and so I wouldn't need to move the camera. Perhaps I should have had that in there. Thanks, Allan...:D
 
stainless?

Allan,

I'm definitely interested in this product for my 7. If I recall correctly, your product is made of stainless steel. Any concerns with disimilar metals? Maybe we can just apply a piece of UHMW tape between the parts.

Thanks,
 
With this part installed, can the original part be inspected for cracks?

Dave

Ding ding - we have a winner! This is the singular biggest issue here. You're covering up a known potential failure point and preventing ongoing inspection. The good news is that the plates don't appear to be too difficult to un-bolt every hundred hours or so to continue inspection.
 
Allan...

Just a comment, your website states:
Though to our knowledge, no tails have fallen off yet
which does not seem to equate with C-GNDY TSB Report

It is way beyond me to judge the effect of such a mod in this accident, whether positive, negative or no effect. Just altering the stiffness of any component v flutter is an area I would not wish to pass comment on.

However, I do note that the V/S did not separate in the area of this mod, but in the spar just above this attachment plate (p6):
a10o0018_photo_2.jpg
a10o0018_photo_3.jpg


So whilst I have no doubt it 'adds considerable strength', (and adds stiffness), I am not sure it is in the "weakest point", and so I am not sure about the validity of 'and much peace of mind into the equation'?
 
With this part installed, can the original part be inspected for cracks?

Dave

....Yes! You can see the opposite side and both edges, also if you wish it is easily removed to look at the front side. The bottom line is you don't even need the original piece to be in tact as the new one is several times stronger and much tougher. By using the layered assembly the possibility of the tail departing is pretty much impossible. Thanks for the good question. Allan...:D
 
Ding ding - we have a winner! This is the singular biggest issue here. You're covering up a known potential failure point and preventing ongoing inspection. The good news is that the plates don't appear to be too difficult to un-bolt every hundred hours or so to continue inspection.

...When in the process of doing an annual inspection, if concerned this is easily removed. Getting the intersection fairing off is far more difficult than removing these two brackets one at a time. You are correct stating that we are covering a possible known failure point with a mod that will make this a non failure point, as long as it is in place. That is the idea and purpose of this part.
If your original bracket from Vans is not cracked when the add-ons are installed, you will never see a crack form. Thanks for the question. Allan...:D
 
Last edited:
By using the layered assembly the possibility of the tail departing is pretty much impossible.

I wouldn't go that far....

It is probably not obvious to someone not familiar with the load paths in aircraft structures, but nearly all of the load induced in the vertical stab is translated to the fuselage through the rear spar.
That is why it is a continuous assemble with a .125 thick doubler on it.

Case in point - The RV-10 (and now the 14) have a single 1/4 inch bolt for the fwd spar attach link.
 
Allan...

Just a comment, your website states: which does not seem to equate with C-GNDY TSB Report

It is way beyond me to judge the effect of such a mod in this accident, whether positive, negative or no effect. Just altering the stiffness of any component v flutter is an area I would not wish to pass comment on.

However, I do note that the V/S did not separate in the area of this mod, but in the spar just above this attachment plate (p6):
a10o0018_photo_2.jpg
a10o0018_photo_3.jpg


So whilst I have no doubt it 'adds considerable strength', (and adds stiffness), I am not sure it is in the "weakest point", and so I am not sure about the validity of 'and much peace of mind into the equation'?

...We were well aware of this accident and as stated before, this tail didn't fall off. It was sheered in half from surface flutter caused by balance issues and over speed. This plane was seeing speeds well over 280 MPH and recorded dives in excess 12,000 FPM. This is far and away beyond the design limits of this airplane and the outcome is predictable and pretty much what Vans cautions can happen. This failure is in no way even related to the subject of the V/S mounting bracket or the modification we are offering. Thanks , Allan...l:D
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't go that far....

It is probably not obvious to someone not familiar with the load paths in aircraft structures, but nearly all of the load induced in the vertical stab is translated to the fuselage through the rear spar.
That is why it is a continuous assemble with a .125 thick doubler on it.

Case in point - The RV-10 (and now the 14) have a single 1/4 inch bolt for the fwd spar attach link.

Would not go that far with it, two cases known now with a failure at this point on airplanes. I know of two law suits in play at this time dealing with failures at the same point.
 
Last edited:
Hi Allan...

Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I ask one or 2 more questions / make one or 2 more statements:
...We were well aware of this accident and as stated before, this tail didn't fall off. It was sheered in half from surface flutter ...caused by balance issues
Sorry, not my reading. Flutter was a possible factor. The rudder had possible balance issues, and split in half. The VS remained largely intact (see photos).

and recorded dives in excess 12,000 FPM ... This is far and away beyond the design limits of this airplane
I am not sure this is beyond the design limits of the RV-7? It is 125K in the vertical, something many RV pilots do on many days.

The fractures in the vertical spars occurred just above where the spars fastened to the fuselage. The fracture surfaces were consistent with faiure by overstress. There were no indications of progressive failure.
So the VS Spar(s) were determined the have failed due overstress, not flutter (I am not saying flutter did not occur, but if it did, it was the trigger, but the failure was due overstess).

This failure is in no way even related to the subject of the V/S mounting bracket or the modification we are offering.
OK - what exactly is the bracket offering that now enables you to flick / side-slip as you state?
When in a hard slip, rapid yaw movements, any aerobatic maneuver that ads stress to the V/S like snap rolls or worst case point rolls or knife edge flight this area is really stressed to the limits

Though to our knowledge, no tails have fallen off yet, we think it prudent to be sure this potential point of failure is eliminated
seems incompaible with
...We were well aware of this accident and as stated before, this tail didn't fall off
Maybe I am just unfamiliar with the "structural failure mode" of "falling off" as opposed to failing by overstress (in defined directions / types e.g. shear) or fatigue etc.?

Please do not get me wrong, anything that adds to the safety level of RVs, and in an area I do a lot of flying (aerobatics etc.) is great. The HS/VS attach and structure is clearly one concern. Here in the UK, the RV-8 was delayed aerobatic clearance for exactly such concerns until additonal testing was performed. All I am asking though is exactly what failure mode (and where) has been determined as most vulnerable that this product overcomes? Your text above repeatedly refers to "stress", and the TSB assessed this attachment area failed "due overstress". The 2 therefore seem directly related - but the mod does include the failure point?

Given your
this area is really stressed to the limits....accomplishes this beef-up in just a few minutes
can one ask, in figures or even just %, what the load increase of this "beef-up" is, in terms of the calculated ultimate load for the VS (as a whole)?

Have you approched Vans and asked them what calculations or testing was done on the (somewhat generic) VS attach area, and asked where the failures occurred, or were predicted to occur? The pictures to me suggest a fairly clear story - the VS was subject to a left/right load, and failed (as one might expect) where the structure was at it's weakest. Forward this seems to be the single spar at the rivet hole line (just above your mod area), and the aft spar at the attach bolt holes (where there is no doubling of plates etc.)
 
Would not go that far with it, two cases known now with a failure at this point on airplanes. I know of two law suits in play at this time dealing with failures at the same point.

-d- ? Reiley

"I know of", with out any specifics is not of much value.
 
Last edited:
...We were well aware of this accident and as stated before, this tail didn't fall off. It was sheered in half from surface flutter caused by balance issues and over speed. This plane was seeing speeds well over 280 MPH and recorded dives in excess 12,000 FPM. This is far and away beyond the design limits of this airplane and the outcome is predictable and pretty much what Vans cautions can happen. This failure is in no way even related to the subject of the V/S mounting bracket or the modification we are offering. Thanks , Allan...l:D
While I don't disagree with your conclusions regarding the accident, to say that "the tail didn't fall off" and the failure is "no way related" is quite a stretch.

The photos of the wreckage (not included in the initial TSB report but are included in the other reports that are available if you ask the TSB for them) show that the stock forward bracket held very securely despite the punishing forces that it was subjected to during the course of the accident. In fact, the forward spar failed before any of the stock mounting bracket did.

That leads me to conclude that the stock mounting arrangement *is* strong enough, when properly installed. As an aside, looking at the photos of the mounting bracket in the C-GNDY accident, there's some hinky rivet pattern going on there, that doesn't use all of the rivet holes... No idea why. Still, the part didn't fail.

Here is the relevant page from the more in-depth document:
http://www.b4.ca/temp/output.pdf

As your modification merely strengthens this existing bracket, doesn't it just reinforce the stress concentration that already exists at the end of the bracket?
 
...This thread seems to be wondering off from our original intention. We saw a problem with this original bracket and in our estimation have solved this problem. If it is your opinion that the original is adequate for your purposes then do not change it. Many people appear to feel as we do and have elected to do this simple modification. We are currently setting up our laser to do a second run of these parts, as the first fifty of the nines were sold in twenty four hours. We currently have orders for even more of the seven and eight modification brackets that will be available soon. I made a mistake commenting on the incident in Canada and it is irreverent to what we are trying to do with this mod. That failure obviously was not caused or effected by this bracket so it is of no issue here. Thanks, Allan..:D
 
Alan-

Interesting product. I had not seen any of the post regarding the possible cracks forming on this bracket.

Can you or some one else post a link to one of the older post please. I would like to see what the guys are saying who have seen this issues. Thanks.
 
New Tooling Finished

You will note that the VANs instructions to install this bracket allows the builder to place the bracket in the back OR the front of the spar depending what fits best. Mine in fact is in the back where I believe it is not subjected to the point pressure that those mounted on the front experience. That said, will this new brace work irrespective of how your bracket is currently installed FRONT or BACK??
.
....We want to let you guys know that we have finished the form die and tooling to make the mod for the assemblies that are mounted on the opposite side of the vertical spar. We have had several requests for this one and it seems about 15 % are on the back side. Please be sure to specify when ordering if you require this change (front or rear).
....We would like to say thank you for the fabulous response on this new product. We really appreciate this and all the kind words as well. Regards all, Allan...:D:D
 
Disimilar metals

Allan,

What is your recomendation to coat the new bracket with to avoid any dissimilar metal issues between the AL and SS? Is there a specific reason you went with 301 SS rather than a Chromoly application? Just curious. Thx.
 
Allan,

What is your recomendation to coat the new bracket with to avoid any dissimilar metal issues between the AL and SS? Is there a specific reason you went with 301 SS rather than a Chromoly application? Just curious. Thx.

...This material is a very desirable grade for this type of part. It is very corrosion resistant, very strong, very tough and requires no heat treating to achieve the strength (unlike 4130). If you are concerned about the dissimilar metals, for a little added protection you can apply a thin film of dielectric grease between the two surfaces. I have included below a basic spec. sheet that outlines the general information on this material. It is very widely used in aviation for high stress parts. Thanks for the question. Allan...:D
.
.
301STAINLESS.jpg
 
The OEM I worked for used this material in structural repairs quite often, the engineering requirements for protective coatings were one coat of epoxy primer and 2 coats of solvent resistant white epoxy paint after drilling and fitting. As far as I know, there were never any corrosion problems with it with this treatment. I'm not sure what treatment I will give the parts I ordered from Allen, but they will be coated. Hopefully I can find some of this primer and paint in small enough quantities to make this happen.
 
NOW IN STOCK!!!!!!!!!!

....We now have the V/S mods finished for the RV9s with the mounting brackets attached to the rear of the vertical spar as well as the standard front mounting. Please be sure when ordering to specify the one you need. We will be offering this bracket in both configurations for the 9, 8, & 7s perhaps the 6s if the demand in there Thanks, Allan...:D
 
Thanks Allan

Allan, thanks for the fast service. I ordered the complete nose wheel system today, including wheel, and I already got a shipment tracking number! Thanks for the advice too.
 
Now Available for the RV7s

....We now have the V/S mods finished for the RV7s & RV9s with the mounting brackets attached to the rear of the vertical spar as well as the standard front mounting. Please be sure when ordering to specify the correct one you need. We will be offering this bracket in both configurations for the 9, 8, & 7s perhaps the 6s if the demand in there Thanks, Allan....:D
 
....We now have the V/S mods finished for the RV7s & RV9s with the mounting brackets attached to the rear of the vertical spar as well as the standard front mounting. Please be sure when ordering to specify the correct one you need. We will be offering this bracket in both configurations for the 9, 8, & 7s perhaps the 6s if the demand in there Thanks, Allan....:D

I have yet to see why this product even exists. Sorry Allen, can you address the several people who have asked for, and not recieved, the evidence that there is a problem?
Where are the accident airplanes? Where is the structural analysis indicating a problem?
Other than a very short handful of some improperly installed parts showing cracks, what are you basing the need for this product on?
I do apologize if I have missed something in this or the other threads that provide the evidence of a problem.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to see why this product even exists. Sorry Allen, can you address the several people who have asked for, and not recieved, the evidence that there is a problem?
Where are the accident airplanes? Where is the structural analysis indicating a problem?
Other than a very short handful of some improperly installed parts showing cracks, what are you basing the need for this product on?
I do apologize if I have missed something in this or the other threads that provide the evidence of a problem.

.....Your questions are well founded, and I will attempt an answer, although it most likely will not justify the need for this product in some peoples eyes. Most here on this forum and a couple of others have seen the posts with photographs showing the cracks in the stock brackets. This in itself was enough to inspire several hundred people (myself included) to remove their intersection fairing and inspect theirs. These same people and many more have added this inspection to their annual check list as they are obviously concerned as well. We received several e-mails from owners stating, after inspection they discovered a small number of these parts were found to have a crack or what appeared to be the beginnings of one as indicated by stress lines in the paint. The jury is out on whether the installation was flawed or not. Most insist it was done correctly and wasn't a contributing factor. A structural analysis isn't necessary on the broken parts and our bracket will not fail even if it were installed wrong. I don't believe there have been any reported accidents due to this particular part and we hope it remains so. There are indications that this is a potential area of concern and we decided to eliminate the concerns at the cost of a few ounces. Once the mod is installed, this area in no longer a potential problem (regardless of how infrequent the occurrence). We feel it prudent to address the potential problem in advance and don't believe it necessary that someone dies before hand. I posted the upgrade we were about to perform on my RV-9 and potentially offer if there was sufficient interest. We were immediately inundated with requests from owners wanting this product. The first 100 sets were sold prior to their completion. That is why it exists! My biggest fears are in flight fire or major control surface failure and anything that can be done in those areas we think is justified. Thanks, Allan....:D
 
Last edited:
Thank you Allan. I was suggesting a structural analysis of your "fix". I would not venture into airframe parts manufacturing without knowing, but that is just me.
To many, you are a credible person on this site. People will think the problem is credible just by the nature of you advertising and marketing it.

If you are really concerned enough about this that you don't want to "wait for somebody to die", sell the parts at your cost. If Van's thought this was an issue (to date, they do not), they would be giving the parts away for free to anyone who wanted them, as they have done in the past. I am not suggesting you do that, but why make a profit on peoples fears, when those fears may very well be unfounded.

I will move on happily inspecting my V/S at every CI, just like I have always done. I am glad for the original post as I pay special attention to this area now, whether I need to or not. That is all that needs to be done here.
 
I wonder what the FAA would do if these cracks were discovered on a type certified aircraft? I would think an AD for inspections would be the minimum and a structural fix would be the maximum. There is a similar AD on Cessna singles vertical spar attach cracks. While this "fix" doesn't have an official structural analysis, it is likely to stop the total failure of the part, especially in between condition inspections when the part is not visible without dissasembly. If anyone doesn't think fix this is a good idea, it is certainly within their perogative to not buy it. I bought a kit for my RV9, I think it is cheap insurance. Just my opinion, and you know the old saying,,,,
 
Installed my kit today

Installed the v/s kit today on my 9A today it went as video showed,After 1200 hrs of flying I have never had a problem or cracks, but I always thought the part of the v/s looked a little on the weak side, I installed it for added strength and safety
Tim
 
Installed the v/s kit today on my 9A today it went as video showed,After 1200 hrs of flying I have never had a problem or cracks, but I always thought the part of the v/s looked a little on the weak side, I installed it for added strength and safety
Tim

Tim,

Way to go on the 9 slotted brace! The insurance will not hurt a thing. :)
 
Thank you Allan. I was suggesting a structural analysis of your "fix". I would not venture into airframe parts manufacturing without knowing, but that is just me.
To many, you are a credible person on this site. People will think the problem is credible just by the nature of you advertising and marketing it.

If you are really concerned enough about this that you don't want to "wait for somebody to die", sell the parts at your cost. If Van's thought this was an issue (to date, they do not), they would be giving the parts away for free to anyone who wanted them, as they have done in the past. I am not suggesting you do that, but why make a profit on peoples fears, when those fears may very well be unfounded.

I will move on happily inspecting my V/S at every CI, just like I have always done. I am glad for the original post as I pay special attention to this area now, whether I need to or not. That is all that needs to be done here.

....I fail to see what you are going for here but I will try to address your statements. I posted the materials information sheet for the materials (301 stainless) showing the attributes of this special alloy and it's intended use in the aircraft industry. This is a very highly accepted material used throughout the aircraft industry for structural parts because of it's tinsel strength, yield strength, fatigue resistance and the ability to handle vibration and shock loads. The fact that the manufacturer of the material provides us certifications and says this is the best available for the job at hand, being several times stronger than the stock aluminum part is good enough for me.
....Thank you for saying that I am respected by many on this venue and sincerely hope that is the case. I don't want to mislead anyone, induce fear or make a guy afraid to fly his airplane. All I can say is when I saw the photos of the cracks it sent chills up my spine. As stated before, "To our knowledge no total failures of this part have occurred." This being said, I don't want to be the first or for that matter have in the back of my mind that this could happen. I just feel better with it addressed, even though the odds are infinitesimally small. This isn't to say anything about vans engineering, as a few cracks over the thousands of airplanes they have produced over the years is I am certain a far better record than Boeing, Northrop, General dynamics or any other manufacturer one would look at.
....You say that were we concerned about a safety issue we should sell the items at cost. We try very hard to sell all of our products as inexpensively as possible making them affordable to most anyone. I defy anyone to produce or duplicate in quantity or quality any of our products and sell for less. We are after all in business and unfortunately it is necessary to make money or we would be out of business. Our facilities are state of the art with the finest equipment and staff covering all disciplines in the engineering and manufacturing areas. If anyone out there is concerned about this and feels they can't afford this mod due to over pricing, just give us a call and we will send you one, No Charge. Thanks, Allan...:D
 
If you are really concerned enough about this that you don't want to "wait for somebody to die", sell the parts at your cost.

I don't agree, I'm somewhat ticked off, and can't respond politely. I'll therefor remain quiet.

Other than that, I think it's a worthwhile product.......and you don't survive by giving away product at cost. Why even suggest it?

L.Adamson
 
I don't agree, I'm somewhat ticked off, and can't respond politely. I'll therefor remain quiet.

Other than that, I think it's a worthwhile product.......and you don't survive by giving away product at cost. Why even suggest it?

L.Adamson

I agree, arm chair engineers need to prove their point and leave the vendor alone or just keep off the thread. Allan IS a PAID VAF vendor and if I'm not mistaken abuse against a vendor is terms for Being Banning from the Forums for good... Would I be right Doug Reeves? Help Your Vendor Out Please. Allan designs and fabricates awesome products. :)
 
Last edited:
There are an awful lot of *actual* engineers on this forum, me included...and I tend to concur with the view expressed of "what problem are you solving?". When this issue was first identified and photos posted, there was quite a discussion, along with proposed fixes, possible causes, etc. However, I don't recall that anyone ever identified a root cause.

Additionally, the question of any fix causing some other potential problem is *not* "armchair engineering". It's called residual risk, and it's always considered when a mitigation for any risk (or a fix for some problem) is identified and implemented. That's an essential part of engineering.

I think the question of failure analysis is a very fair one. We could go around "beefing up" just about every joint, weldment, rivet line, bolted assembly or what have you until the cows come home based on a myriad of isolated failures (and waste time, money and weight) with no identified probably cause (or caused by incorrect assembly or poor workmanship, etc., but NOT the designed structure).
 
Another Arm Chair... when does it stop?
After everyone buys the ....
Wing attach support bracket
Horiz attach support bracket
Flap attach support bracket
The main gear skid

Hurry get on the list now....:eek:

The original issue could likely be fixed with a large area washer.
And that doesn't cost $54
 
Last edited:
There are an awful lot of *actual* engineers on this forum, me included...and I tend to concur with the view expressed of "what problem are you solving?". When this issue was first identified and photos posted, there was quite a discussion, along with proposed fixes, possible causes, etc. However, I don't recall that anyone ever identified a root cause.

Additionally, the question of any fix causing some other potential problem is *not* "armchair engineering". It's called residual risk, and it's always considered when a mitigation for any risk (or a fix for some problem) is identified and implemented. That's an essential part of engineering.

I think the question of failure analysis is a very fair one. We could go around "beefing up" just about every joint, weldment, rivet line, bolted assembly or what have you until the cows come home based on a myriad of isolated failures (and waste time, money and weight) with no identified probably cause (or caused by incorrect assembly or poor workmanship, etc., but NOT the designed structure).

Yeah... the last "engineer" I had dealings with in construction screwed everything up... went back to a common sense mode after that, everything went well with the project. YMMV....
 
After everyone buys the ....
Wing attach support bracket
Horiz attach support bracket
Flap attach support racket
The main gear skid

Hurry get on the list now....:eek:

The original problem could likely be fixed with a large area washer.
And that doesn't cost $54

You don't need to buy ANYTHING... and I'm sure it would be appreciated.
 
Let's all cool down a bit. I am not "abusing" Allan or his company. As I stated before, he makes a lot of interesting and good products. I think he has explained his position on this, something that had not been done before.

So, no sense in calling people names. Politely agree to disagree and move on.
 
I don't agree, I'm somewhat ticked off, and can't respond politely. I'll therefor remain quiet.

Other than that, I think it's a worthwhile product.......and you don't survive by giving away product at cost. Why even suggest it?

L.Adamson

Van's does it. If they thought it was a concern, they would do it again. Sorry I made you angry.
 
There are an awful lot of *actual* engineers on this forum, me included...and I tend to concur with the view expressed of "what problem are you solving?". When this issue was first identified and photos posted, there was quite a discussion, along with proposed fixes, possible causes, etc. However, I don't recall that anyone ever identified a root cause.

Additionally, the question of any fix causing some other potential problem is *not* "armchair engineering". It's called residual risk, and it's always considered when a mitigation for any risk (or a fix for some problem) is identified and implemented. That's an essential part of engineering.

I think the question of failure analysis is a very fair one. We could go around "beefing up" just about every joint, weldment, rivet line, bolted assembly or what have you until the cows come home based on a myriad of isolated failures (and waste time, money and weight) with no identified probably cause (or caused by incorrect assembly or poor workmanship, etc., but NOT the designed structure).

+1 for this view, I concur.
 
Back
Top