So, your only excuses for pretending to know the maximum speed of a 767 are your incredibly poor reading comprehension, your inability to use logic, and your willful ignorance of standard engineering practice? Ding, ding, ding!
> The three types of loads are air(flight), ground and water....
Bullshit! The five types of loads that can act on a structure are tension, compression, shear, bending and torsion, and structural engineers must deal with ALL sources of those loads. We're back to "debating" your inability to understand the meaning of the technical term "load."
What 25.301(b) actually says about "air, ground, and water loads" is that they must be put in equilibrium with the inertial forces, which is a condition that only applies when accelerating or decelerating, because those are the only conditions where there are any inertial forces. As predicted, you haven't the first foggy notion what that requirement means. The assertion that those are the only loads that engineers are required to analyze when designing an airplane is beyond idiotic, your reading comprehension difficulties and technical ignorance notwithstanding.
And as we've already discussed numerous times, 25.321 is in the Flight Loads section because it only applies to flight loads. There's no mystery about why you are trying to obfuscate the General section. What you're claiming, in effect, is that the FAA doesn't care about other stresses on the airframe as long as the wings don't break off from g-loading. This is... wait for it... abject bullshit.
But one false claim at a time: Where are these tests results that show a 767 falling apart at 425 KEAS, please?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read