In Jay wrote:
A building material that is less expensive and more available may in
practice end up building a lighter airframe. The reason is that
you're more likely to be able to use the exact right stock instead of
just over building because you couldn't find or afford the expense to
buy a special piece of the lighter guage material.

Speak for yourself. If my plans call for a specific material, that is
what I use. On the couple of occasions where I have deviated, I placed
long distance calls to the designer to get his okay on the changes.

Bend versus break. Old cars were build on rigid chassis, the safety
argument was that you want something really strong. But modern cars
are generally built uni-body designated crush zones to dissipate some
of the energy instead of transfering it to the passengers.

I'm all in favor of less rigidly constructed car chassis for other
people. That way, when I get into a collision with one of them, they
will serve as a crush zone for my rigid chassis and heavy duty bumpers.
If I get into an accident where (for example) my '73 pickup truck isn't
sufficient to protect me, chances are I wouldn't want to survive that
anyway. Not to say I won't try to improve my chances where it makes
sense; I just finished fabricating a set of brackets to convert the old
beast from lap belts only to lap with shoulder belts.

"In theory, practice and theory are the same. But in practice, they
are often very different."

"No plan survives contact with the enemy intact."

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/