![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |