I think VB is looking to speed up the process to make many at a time to offer a kit... For that its likely faster than the 4130 method but as you said for a one off just weld it..So I'm not sold on this concept. I think I could cut, cope and weld a 4130 structure faster than I could program, drill and pop a aluminum copy. I'm pretty sure my 4130 example would be lighter, cheaper and far more robust than the proposed.
Aside from the slight "inconvenience" of learning to weld, where is the advantage for a one off design? Or are we following the same fantasy where we are all going to become kit "manufacturers" and revitalize the industry with single place, 65 mph aircraft?
What is the context here - an airplane or production of kits? And what is the "design to" philosophy - cost, schedule, or quality?
Great idea, Not all the world is the USA and the rest of us pay a fortune for aircraft grade alloys. So if it can be a version that uses a commonly available one that would mean a lot more around the world could be built and lowers the cost further.If you guys could think about a square tubing Airbike/Ranger built with a world wide available 6060 alloy, this would be great.
The first post invites criticism, and I see some issues.You don't do any of the programing, you download it. And this thread really isn't about your 4130 welding skills, it's about aluminum tube and gusset parasols.
EXACTLY.My experience around airplanes, and hanging around several people who were much smarter than me, has taught me that there's a reasoin and a use for every common aircraft building method and material. Welding works great for the people who are set up to weld. Wood works great for the people who have those tools and like working with wood. Same with sheet metal, plastic, etc.
IMHO there are a lot more people out there that are willing to learn how to pop a rivet than learning to weld.....For a certain demographic or target population builder, I think AL tube and gusset is attractive. Whether that demographic population is tens of thousands of people, or two dozen... I'm not sure. But it would be a much smaller bet than investing in huge molds for a plastic airplane, or huge jigs for a steel tube airplane.....
what does it weigh? is it strong enough? lots of ideas here but there is lots more to do than toss around concepts......TLAR is not a reasonable way to design a structure.Im just daydreaming, a Cloudster style fuselage with tube and fabric wings and tail.
What do you think?
Watch out for that shark, Fonzie! If I'm drifting my own thread off into oblivion, it's not intentional. The original purpose was to split off and continue a discussion on whether and why the T & G method is worth pursuing for small low performance homebuilts, on the basis of cost and ease of assembly.So this thread kind of jumped the shark... If this thread is indeed a "...how to become an effective kit manufacturing business...", then I'd suggest defining the market and price point before settling on a manufacturing process. T&G might very well be the most effective solution but, as my chief engineer used to say, "without data, it's just whining".
That's the thing, this is the proper engineer sort of thinking, going back to first principles and such. It's a valid approach when someone says "I have an idea for a mission, what's the best way to accomplish it?"T&G might very well be the most effective solution but, as my chief engineer used to say, "without data, it's just whining".
Honestly with how minimal that box is, I wonder if you'd be better off with just an aluminum sheet box with L-angles in the corners. You'd have to really model up both and do some comparisons; but I am pretty sure that a few flat strips of pre-drilled .025 riveted to some L-angle longerons, while using a lot more rivets, will save time and weight if you're trying to make a simple box boom. That could easily transition to a tube+gusset cage up front.Of course the Cloudster built in aluminium tubing and gussets.