3.8 Article

Brazilian Air Force aircraft structural integrity program: An overview

期刊

出版社

INST AERONAUTICA & ESPACO-IAE
DOI: 10.5028/jatm.2009.0101107111

关键词

Fatigue; Damage tolerance; Structure; Service life

资金

  1. Brazilian Air Command

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents an overview of the activities developed by the Structural Integrity Group at the Institute of Aeronautics and Space - IAE, Brazil, as well as the status of ongoing work related to the life extension program for aircraft operated by the Brazilian Air Force BAP. The first BAF-operated airplane to undergo a DTA-based life extension was the F-5 fighter, in the mid 1990s. From 1998 to 2001, BAF worked on a life extension project for the BAFAT-26 Xavante trainer: All analysis and tests were performed at IAE. The fatigue critical locations (FCLs) were presumed based upon structural design and maintenance data and also from exchange of technical information with other users of the airplane around the world. Following that work, BAF started in 2002 the extension of the operational life of the BAF T-25 Universal. The T-25 is the basic training airplane used by AFA - The Brazilian Air Force Academy. This airplane was also designed under the safe-life concept. As the T-25 fleet approached its service life limit, the Brazilian Air Force was questioning whether it could be kept in flight safely. The answer came through an extensive Damage Tolerance Analysis (DTA) program, briefly described in this paper: The current work on aircraft structural integrity is being performed for the GAFF -5 E/F that underwent an avionics and weapons system upgrade. Along with the increase in weight, new configurations and mission ptqfiles were established. Again, a DTA program was proposed to be carried out in order to establish the reliability of the upgraded F-5 fieet. As a result qf all the work described, the BAF has not reported any accident due to structural :failure on aircraft submitted to Damage Tolerance Analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据