With Geoff’s information it seems likely that the wings folded just outside the landing gear, probably folded backwards to lay flush with the fuselage. Just a guess though :p

Isn’t there for some reason a Javelin at a museum in Italy?

Correct Sir! 😀 It is a former gate guardian from a former German RAF base (whose name excapese me at the moment, but could be Gunslow ). I saw it on top of a hill just outside Rimini, Italy about one month ago. According to the thread (that can not be found anymore) it was in a very bad condition.

Engines look like P&W PT6 Turbines

I think a flying Hornet is a little too much to ask for.

There are however a at least two projects ongoing to get a static example. One is in Scotland and the other in the Southern part of the UK. Exact status of either project is unknown to me, but I seem to remember some talks about joining them to gether.

There is a Hornet guru lurking somewhere among us, hope he sees this thread 😀

This is a tough one aj 😀 I will try to make some sense out of all of this.

All light aircraft have to be able to withstand a certain amount of g to get certification. In which way that g is applied does not matter at all. It can be in a pull out from dive, or performing aerobatics the aircraft is not stressed for.

Let’s look at your Cessna C172 example. A fully loaded C172, at 2300 Ibs, has a limit load factor of 3.8g positive. What that means, is that it can go up to 3.8 g without any damage to it’s airframe, through out it’s service live. Then there is another definition, the so called ultimate load factor. Ultimate load factor has to be at least 150% (FAR 23 regulations) of limit load factor, which means it is 5.7 g for the C172 (when new!). Once an aircraft reaches it’s ultimate load factor, damage is caused to it’s structure. It is not neccesarily a catastrophic failure (though it might be), it might be ‘just’ wrinkles in the skin or popped rivets etc. But there is a grey area, between the limit- and ulitmate load factors, that is dangerous as well. If an aircraft exeeds it’s limit load factor, but does not go all the way to the ultimate load, no damage will be apparent from the outside, no matter how well you examine. However, fatique will set in, and lower the g threshold at which structural failure will occure. On an old aircraft that has many cycles of exeeding the limit load, a structural failure might happen at a g load well below the original ultimate load factor.

Now, how are these things monitored you might ask. Well they are not. In the standard light aircraft today, there is no, non-resetable g-meter to monitor loads on the airframe. And they are not needed in my opinion. History tells us that the pilots flying these aircraft are careful, and I can not remember any accident where a light aircraft just broke up in flight with no apparent reason. Most of the in-flight brake ups happen after loss of control in IMC, or, after performing unauthorized aerobatics. Both scenarios place heavy loads on the airframe.

As to the checks that would have to be made after a high g pull out from a dive, I do not know of any such checks, and it is difficault to know exactly how much g was pulled as g meter is very seldom installed. Sure, if you have obvious structural damage, like wrinkles in the skin, or popped rivets, the relevant part (most likely the wing) would have to be replaced.

I hope this answers your question.