If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
composites vs. aluminum
I know this gets talked about all the time...but I have aquestion I was
hoping someone smarter than me could help me with. An aluminum evangelist showed me this link: http://www.aerotalk.com/myth_02.cfm The author asserts that: " The ratio of empty to gross weight is one of the most telling measures of structural efficiency. The equations are basic:EMPTY WEIGHT + PAYLOAD = GROSS WEIGHT Reduce empty weight by 100 lbs and the pilot can load an extra 100 lbs of payload, fuel/ baggage/ people. EMPTY WEIGHT/GROSS WEIGHT = WEIGHT EFFICIENCY RATIO The lower the ratio, the more efficient the design." He goes on to use this determination of strength/weight (or, structural efficiency) to determine that composites do not offer a greater strength/weight ration in airframe construction applications. But then I read about the new 7E7, which is a largely composite aircraft, thus lighter, thus more efficient. How do I reconcile these conflicting pieces of information? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"John C" wrote in message ...
EMPTY WEIGHT/GROSS WEIGHT = WEIGHT EFFICIENCY RATIO The lower the ratio, the more efficient the design." He goes on to use this determination of strength/weight (or, structural efficiency) to determine that composites do not offer a greater strength/weight ration in airframe construction applications. Just how did he do this? But then I read about the new 7E7, which is a largely composite aircraft, thus lighter, thus more efficient. How do I reconcile these conflicting pieces of information? The information is not necessarily conflicting. You can build heavy out of any kind of material. It's just that composite planes are so easy to build overweight compared to other materials. Also most of the homebuilt moldless composite planes are way over built/designed due to quality control issues. The plane must be designed for the worst case builder and thus ends up just strong enough when built by a poor craftsman and heavier than it could have been if all the builders were good craftsmen. The double bite comes when the poor craftsman uses too much resin and filler. Not only is his weaker than it could have been, it's heavier than one built by the good craftsmen. When you have good quality control you can design the composite part to tighter standards, and end up with a very efficient structure. Think how heavy some RV's would be if the homebuilder had to roll his own aluminum from billets...........or make his own plywood for wing skins..... It's all about quality control. =================== Leon McAtee |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You can do best with a combination.
Composites can make complex shapes and be used to make a slicker yet lighter fuselage, but if you use a simple airfoil, it is tough to build lighter than an aluminum wing without getting expensive. A lot also depends on what speed the plane will be cruising at. The higher the speed, the more important to be slick. I would be interested to know at what speed do wing rivets really start to hurt vs. the extra weight of a normal homebuilt composite wing. I would be willing to take one of our more experience builder's best guess. "John C" wrote in message ... I know this gets talked about all the time...but I have aquestion I was hoping someone smarter than me could help me with. An aluminum evangelist showed me this link: http://www.aerotalk.com/myth_02.cfm The author asserts that: " The ratio of empty to gross weight is one of the most telling measures of structural efficiency. The equations are basic:EMPTY WEIGHT + PAYLOAD = GROSS WEIGHT Reduce empty weight by 100 lbs and the pilot can load an extra 100 lbs of payload, fuel/ baggage/ people. EMPTY WEIGHT/GROSS WEIGHT = WEIGHT EFFICIENCY RATIO The lower the ratio, the more efficient the design." He goes on to use this determination of strength/weight (or, structural efficiency) to determine that composites do not offer a greater strength/weight ration in airframe construction applications. But then I read about the new 7E7, which is a largely composite aircraft, thus lighter, thus more efficient. How do I reconcile these conflicting pieces of information? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
John C wrote:
I know this gets talked about all the time...but I have aquestion I was hoping someone smarter than me could help me with. He goes on to use this determination of strength/weight (or, structural efficiency) to determine that composites do not offer a greater strength/weight ration in airframe construction applications. You can compare the same airframe with Al alloy and carbon fiber: Michel Colomban MC100: 202Kg empty (F-PECH) Colomban Robin MCR01: 235kg empty (G-BYEZ) http://www.avnet.co.uk/lts/pages/mcr1.htm But then I read about the new 7E7, which is a largely composite aircraft, thus lighter, thus more efficient. Scale effect and industrial way to built, no experimental built. How do I reconcile these conflicting pieces of information? Basicaly, the composite carbon-epoxy is the best for strength. But, in the case of MCR01, a carbon fiber skin for the wing, just enough for loads is too thin face a little gravel. For durability, its need more fiber, more epoxy, more weight. In fine, the skin is still in Al alloy. By -- Gardan GY20 Minicab F-PRAZ Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 24th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 03 03:52 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |
A Source for Aluminum | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | October 11th 03 01:38 AM |