BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
- Dec 21, 2006
- Reaction score
What is nonsense? Asking? Were they stiff, or flexible? Did it matter?Utter nonsense. As is the fire dump measurements fairytale as is the fuselage to wing attachment were drilled to chalk marks.Looking at the structure of Nimrod, if any area was going to have 4 inches of wriggle room it is the 'spectacles'. Jig built wings, fuselages and centre wing boxes, all connected by these, that hardly seem to be monocoque structures amenable to jig assembly.
With root bending in low level turns, thrust loads, endless maintenance over decades, it is hard to imagine they were not supposed to 'give' in some way and at some time. As I understand it, this was also the area that caused various problems on the MRA4. Were the new, bigger 'spectacles' designed to be too stiff or something similar? Maybe that is the source of the 4 inch myth - maybe they did not 'give' like the old ones? Too stiff and stress would develop.
Just repeating over and over again won’t make it real