Week 3 Airframe Evidence Log

Week 3 is about forces you cannot see directly.

Your log should show that you can reconstruct those forces from structure, mass placement, and symptoms.

Draw the force story

Sketch the fictional airframe you reviewed this week and label:

• thrust locations;
• approximate center of gravity;
• payload location;
• one arm-to-frame joint;
• one place where bending, torsion, shear, or vibration could enter the structure.

Add arrows. The drawing should explain where the load travels, not just where parts are located.

CG note

Write the payload-placement decision you made in Lesson 2.

Include:

• the candidate mounting location;
• how it changes the CG or moment;
• one advantage;
• one cost or risk;
• one limit you would need from real aircraft documentation before approval.

Inspection disposition

Choose one:

• ready;
• revise configuration;
• hold for review.

Then cite two pieces of supplied evidence that support the disposition.

Do not write “looks safe.” Use the mechanical reason: alignment, load path, clearance, vibration, joint condition, or unresolved damage.

The strongest and weakest evidence

Answer:

1. Which piece of evidence told you the most about the structural problem?
2. Which piece of evidence was easiest to misread?
3. What measurement or controlled test would reduce the remaining uncertainty fastest?

One sentence to carry forward

Complete this sentence in your own words:

A payload changes more than aircraft weight because...

Your answer should mention either moment, center of gravity, structural loading, or vibration transmission.

Exit standard

A good Week 3 log lets another student follow the force path from motor or payload into the frame and understand why your inspection disposition follows from the evidence.