I had a pair on a Top Cub I purchased with 62 hours on it that were leaking when I purchased it, and it was always flown gently with Clay Hammond as a safety pilot for the owner, so I don't believe abuse was an issue. Noticing leaks and inspection for bending are still probably the best ounce of prevention.
An earlier post asking about testing racing shocks, on and off road, was posted a number of years ago. Mathematics and real world testing are the primary ways of testing in these venues. Damper dynos are reserved for the very top end of racing no matter the category. They give a readout in much the same way an engine dyno does. Temps are important here, not high or low, just what the anticipated operating temperature is expected to be. Because of the design, shim stacks, needle valves, and orifice holes are very predictable so not much need for a "tester," the dyno provides a less expensive means for testing new theories without causing wear on the rest of multi million dollar vehicles. I have been thinking about getting an old hydrosorb and experimenting. The off airport needs that we use them for today are probably a little more demanding than the days before ABWs came around and allowed for a much larger selection of LZs, this probably means our setup is not optimal. I would like to make them adjustable, but the bias should be for more rebound dampening. A complete hydraulic damper should be able to be made much lighter and more adjustable than the current offerings. However, since there are very short cycle times here, Burl may have the best solution for all but the most hardcore competition planes, (and they may be best for them too) not having AOSS I tend to wonder how ambient temperature extremes affect them. Different criteria in the competition planes, smooth asphalt, different braking, weight, etc. Wish I could try a set of AOSS, not certified for Top Cubs, but Burl said he would get them certified if 13 of us TC owners order them at the same time, or commit and pay.
