Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
(OP)
Howdy all,
We are repairing a V2500 thrust reverser used on an Airbus A 319/320/321. In the A320 SRM the entire nacelle is indicated to be secondary structure on pages 5/6. In figure 23 Sheet 4 on page 72, and the key to figure 23 on page 73 it indicates that the trust reverser translating sleeve attachment is a principle structural element, and _not_ a fatigue critical structure. I'm am trying to figure out what I need to have a repair to some minor damage approved.
Is this primary structure?
Will I need a damage tolerance evaluation for this repair?
Am I the only one confused by this SRM?
The damage is a shallow wear grove on the T-hinge on the translating cowl. This is .005" to .010" deep on a structure that is ~.250 thick. This is minor by my estimate, and I want to blend and alodine the wear area and then coat with dry film lubricant.
Thanks for everyone's help.
-Kirby
We are repairing a V2500 thrust reverser used on an Airbus A 319/320/321. In the A320 SRM the entire nacelle is indicated to be secondary structure on pages 5/6. In figure 23 Sheet 4 on page 72, and the key to figure 23 on page 73 it indicates that the trust reverser translating sleeve attachment is a principle structural element, and _not_ a fatigue critical structure. I'm am trying to figure out what I need to have a repair to some minor damage approved.
Is this primary structure?
- The Venn diagram on page 2 has all principle structural elements as primary structure.
- It also states any PSE is FCS, but then why have a key that has columns for PSE and FCS and mark the PSE but not the FCS?
Will I need a damage tolerance evaluation for this repair?
Am I the only one confused by this SRM?
The damage is a shallow wear grove on the T-hinge on the translating cowl. This is .005" to .010" deep on a structure that is ~.250 thick. This is minor by my estimate, and I want to blend and alodine the wear area and then coat with dry film lubricant.
Thanks for everyone's help.
-Kirby
Kirby Wilkerson
Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.





RE: Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
I suspect that there are very limited rework limits provided in the SRM, and going beyond these is going to be very difficult to substantiate. Maybe the basis of analysis is a full scale test of a B/P system. If so, it'd be interesting to see how the OEM substantiates typical MRBs in production ??
I think i'd involve a DER, I'd also see what I can get from Airbus fleet support.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
RE: Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
-Kirby
Kirby Wilkerson
Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.
RE: Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true.
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible.
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion"]
o Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. [Picasso]
RE: Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
RE: Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
Aerospace Stress Analysis and FEA Courses
http://www.stressebook.com
Stressing Stresslessly!
RE: Confusion about PSE vs FCS for secondary structure.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?