• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

Minimum tube diameter-practicality beats engineering

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

32fordboy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Montrose, Colorado, USA
Going through my sets of steel tube airplane plans, I notice the tail diagonals on the lighter planes is usually .035 x 5/8th diameter tube from the base to the tip. Many of these planes probably have far smaller loads on those tubes than the 5/8 can take.

Now, I haven't gone through the structures to see what the loads are, of course, but I also notice how some very tiny planes are entirely 5/8, the Earlybird Jenny comes to mind.

Question: when it comes to practicality, has 5/8 been used as a safe minimum? Say a 1/2 inch tube is perfectly capable of carrying the load. Do designers tend to step it up to 5/8ths because in the practical world, 1/2 is easier to damage in ground handling, etc?

Just something I noticed, putting all calculated numbers aside.
 
Back
Top