Creative Speculation

... so un-fucking-believable.

> If it only takes a "few minutes" to find the relevant "FAR", why has it taken you more than a month to post it?

Unbelievable, because I don't know very many people who would assert that 25.629 is the "relevant FAR" and yet simultaneously assert that it isn't relevant at all because it says "constant Mach number and constant altitude," and then claim to have won the "debate." Regardless, the rather obvious answer to your irrelevant question is that I've been (unsuccessfully) trying to get something resembling a cogent response to some FARs that are unquestionably relevant:

FAR 25.301(a) says, "Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety). Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads." So, 25.301 applies to relevant-but-irrelevant 25.629, too, and yet your only "rebuttal" so far is that you don't even understand what "load" means in structural engineering, much less the basic engineering concepts of "limit" and "ultimate."

FAR 25.303 says, "Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure." And again, you claim that this FAR doesn't mean what it clearly says because aviation expert Balsamo believes that the vertical "flight loads" discussed in a following section are the only "external loads" on an airplane.

Anf then, FAR 25.305(e) says, "The airplane must be designed to withstand any vibration and buffeting that might occur in any likely operating condition up to VD/MD, including stall and probable inadvertent excursions beyond the boundaries of the buffet onset envelope." I don't see any "unless otherwise provided" clause that identifies that as an ultimate load case rather than a limit case. Nor do I see any "unless otherwise specified" exemption to the factor-of-safety requrements of 25.303. Nor do I understand the "logic" of ignoring this requirement for "any likely operating condition up to VD/MD" just because 25.629 refers to constant speed and altitude. Neither will anyone else find these exemptions, Rob, because they don't exist.

Since it seems the Hot Air Core isn't willing to engage "engine guy", I have identified another engineering forum where I can pose the question. But I'm not in a hurry; I will give you one more opportunity to make your own case on a forum of your own choosing before I do that.

All in or fold, Rob, and I'll post another prediction in invisible ink.

[font color=white]Balsamo will NEVER attempt to make his case on a forum where professional aeronautical engineers might respond.[/font]