A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aluminum differences



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old August 23rd 04, 10:27 PM
Stephen Mitchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No I include structural parts in my discussion. There is no reason why
structural parts should not be made from the alloys under discussion. They
can be, have been and will be ... you just need two important ingredients:

1. Data on the strength and fatigue characteristics so you can do the
analysis and ensure that the sections are large enough.

2. A paper trail providing an acceptable level of quality assurance for the
material.

You can built an airplane out of any material you want if it satisfies these
two requirements - granted some materials are more efficient (better
"strength to weight" ratio than others).

I don't see the relevance to Zenair and blind (POP) fasteners.





"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news ...
In article ,
Philippe wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:



6063 is commercial cheese ... would be the lower strength of the

three
alloys mentioned. Don't have data handly but you can find it on the

web.

Nothing stopping you using it in an airplane if you select an

appropriate
size to account for its lower strength. I have used it in some
modifications to a restricted category aircraft. Just be aware that

you
cannot by 6063 to an accepted aeronautical spec such as QQ_A Fed Spec

etc
so you might want to allow an extra margin of safety to account for

the
commercial nature of the material.



Bottom line: DON'T do it! Real, aircraft grade aluminum is not all

that
expensive -- just check the Airparts catalog or their ad in Sport
Aviation. 2024-T3 is the standard aircraft structural aluminum, and
substituting a lesser grade only adds weight and can reduce safety in
structural applications.


Are you sure that all aircraft parts are designed for ultimate stress
ability. Sometime, it's for stability in compression and the best

ultimate
resistance is not needed.
For example, a 0.5mm skin on a MCR01 is oversized.
Another example: Zenith aircraft don't use 2024.


By


You should note that I specified STRUCTURAL aluminum. Yes, nonstructural
parts are made for other reasons and have a places for other grades of
aluminum.

BTW, Zenith also uses pop rivets rather than driven rivets, so they
should not be used as an example.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.