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
|
|||
|
|||
Why 4130 tube?
Why do we homebuilders use 4130 tube? My old Aeronca does just fine
being made of mild steel. A bit of napkin calcs says that going up just one tube diameter for the size tube we normally use, the area, and the strength/weight goes up between 15% and 20%. This pretty much offsets the difference in tensile strength between 4130 N and 1026, and more than offsets it for something like 1040. The "mild steels" can be welded using MIG or TIG with little worries about HAZ and since we are not heat treating the 4130 to obtain its strength advantage it seems to me to actually be a poorer choice for amateur aircraft construction. For a typical rag and tube plane, properly choosing the tube sizes should result in a weight gain of less than 15% for the same strength which is, what, around 20 pounds for something like a Tailwind or Aeronca. This to me seems like a good trade off to eliminate the possibility of cracked welds due to poor technique. Not to mention maybe saving a few bucks and being able to get the steel locally. Could the availability of cheap WWII surplus steel have created a tradition that has persisted in spite of other possibly superior options? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I regularly use square ASTM A500 tube for all sorts of stuff. I like it a
lot, because MIG welding is much easier, it is very cheap. It seems to resist corrosion much better. I left a rack on my pickup unpainted all winter and there was very little rust when I painted it last week. 4130 would have been badly corroded by now. Square tubing also means that when I cut an angle with my cutoff saw, it fits perfectly...no filing or joint jigger gadget needed. My Adventurer Amphibian kit uses square tubing of some sort. I expect it's just this same cheap structural stuff, even the engine mount and landing gear are made of it. The Adventurer has a bad reputation (for such a cool airplane), but not for THAT. http://beta.communities.fr.msn.ca/Ad...entalAmphibian I think the reason airplane types use 4130 is mostly tradition, and an insistence that we need to have the best. But "the best" hasn't been redefined since the 1950s. For a typical rag and tube plane, properly choosing the tube sizes should result in a weight gain of less than 15% for the same strength which is, what, around 20 pounds for something like a Tailwind or Aeronca. This to me seems like a good trade off to eliminate the possibility of cracked welds due to poor technique. Not to mention maybe saving a few bucks and being able to get the steel locally. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:07:22 +0000, Corky Scott wrote:
The last thing I'd mention is that because 4130 is stronger and stiffer, you can probably use tubing that is lighter than mild steel to construct your fuselage and still have a strong fuselage. In airplanes, saving weight is almost a formal religion. The more weight you save, the more weight you can carry, or the better the performance or both. Corky Scott 4130 is certainly stronger than mild steel, but the modulus of elasticity of all steel is about 29-30 ksi, with very, very small variations depending on alloy. So for a given tube diameter and wall thickness, the mild steel tube and the 4130 tube will have the same stiffness. If you increase the diameter of the mild steel tube to make up for it having a lower strength than the 4130, then the mild steel tube will be stiffer than the 4130 tube. The following links show modulus of elasticity of 29 ksi for mild steel, and 29.7 ksi for 4130 steel, or a 2.5% difference. Not really significant. http://www.matweb.com/search/Specifi...bassnum=M1030F http://www.matweb.com/search/Specifi...bassnum=M4130A -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Leon McAtee wrote:
Why do we homebuilders use 4130 tube? My old Aeronca does just fine being made of mild steel. A bit of napkin calcs says that going up just one tube diameter for the size tube we normally use, the area, and the strength/weight goes up between 15% and 20%. This pretty much offsets the difference in tensile strength between 4130 N and 1026, and more than offsets it for something like 1040. The "mild steels" can be welded using MIG or TIG with little worries about HAZ and since we are not heat treating the 4130 to obtain its strength advantage it seems to me to actually be a poorer choice for amateur aircraft construction. For a typical rag and tube plane, properly choosing the tube sizes should result in a weight gain of less than 15% for the same strength which is, what, around 20 pounds for something like a Tailwind or Aeronca. This to me seems like a good trade off to eliminate the possibility of cracked welds due to poor technique. Not to mention maybe saving a few bucks and being able to get the steel locally. Could the availability of cheap WWII surplus steel have created a tradition that has persisted in spite of other possibly superior options? I would think the 20 pound weight savings would be incentive enough. But that's just me. You know how hard it is to pull 20 pounds off of a bare airframe? Or a girlfriend? Richard |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
You know how hard it is to pull 20 pounds off of a bare airframe? Or a girlfriend? Lessee...20 pounds heavier, but not as brittle or corrosive...cheaper to acquire, and easier to work with... Sounds like my kind of girlfriend too. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A wise man, I think!
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Lamb wrote in message ...
You know how hard it is to pull 20 pounds off of a bare airframe? Or a girlfriend? Richard Depends on the girl............. one simple comment can do the job - if your willing to be the recipient of the other reactions as wellG 20 pounds may seem like a lot on a bare airframe but in the grand scheme it's not really significant. My Aeronca for example lost a LOT more than that with the change from Linen to Dacron. With the other modern materials available to us now, that 20 lbs (if that) can be made up for elsewhere. I know guys that have more than 20 lbs of junk stashed in their planes that they haven't even looked at for years. Other than weight - IS - there a reason not to use 1026 DOM? This assumes of course that the design is based on the slightly lesser strength and/or has adequate design margins to begins with. ================== Leon McAtee |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Leon McAtee" wrote in message
m... Other than weight - IS - there a reason not to use 1026 DOM? This assumes of course that the design is based on the slightly lesser strength and/or has adequate design margins to begins with. I'll never forget the time I machined a new axle stub for a friend's boat trailer. I bought a blank from the trailer parts company that was made from, "1020 *Plow* steel". We installed it, lowered the jack and the axle proceeded to slowly bend under the weight of the boat until the tire hit the fender. I bought a chunk of normalized 4130 and turned a new axle stub. He used it for five years and never had a problem. 'Course this would never happen with that 1000 series steel from XYZ company. Rich "Mebbe you could save a buck on the leather jacket and silk scarf" S. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driving sheet-metal screws into 4130 | Grandpa B. | Home Built | 10 | February 3rd 04 07:23 PM |
4130 Chromaloy Sheet Availability | c hinds | Home Built | 1 | January 24th 04 04:17 AM |
Tube Cluster Weld Question | Dick | Home Built | 6 | January 17th 04 12:10 AM |
Pitts Special Steel Tube Fuse Mod. | Martin Morgan | Home Built | 0 | November 23rd 03 11:08 PM |
4130 frame? | Steve Thomas | Home Built | 23 | August 27th 03 05:50 PM |