Quote:
Originally Posted by theunchosen
Its not that the landings are that rough at all(I didn't mean you specifically anyway ^_^), but its when the load is being applied and is greatest for a sustained period(takeoff). Obviously its one of the only times the plane climbs that far for several minutes, so also the only time the increased load is applied for several minutes.
|
Are you a pilot, or aeronautical engineer? I ask because quite a bit of what you've written is, in my experience at least, quite wrong. (I've held a pilot's license for about 30 years, BTW.)
First, on a normal takeoff the static loads aren't any greater than in flight (in both cases they support the plane's weight), though they are applied through different structures, and takeoff may (especially on a rough field) produce more & different vibration.
In climb, the structural loads aren't greatly increased - only a fraction of a G, unless you're talking about military/aerobatic planes) or much different than in level flight.
Landing? Well, you CAN plunk the thing down pretty hard, say in gusty crosswinds when you want to get it down & stick. And you can get quite a bit of vibration & bouncing when you land at some of the backcountry dirt strips around here. In normal conditions, however, a good pilot can land often land smoothly enough that you barely notice the touchdown.
My current plane was built in 1966. I've owned it about 15 years (in the course of which I've done quite a number of dirt strip (or handy road, dry lake, etc) landings. It gets its annual inspection, of course, and passes. No structural cracks or other problems, and no one has ever suggested that it be retired because of the number of takeoff/landing cycles. Indeed, no one has ever counted them.