Safety of steel tube fuselage

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Alan Waters, Sep 20, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 20, 2019 #1
  2. Sep 20, 2019 #2

    RSD

    RSD

    RSD

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2019
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    35
    Not quite sure that Ag planes are the right thing to use as an example - they don't fly high nor particularly fast
     
  3. Sep 20, 2019 #3

    TerryM76

    TerryM76

    TerryM76

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Steel tube structures are probably the best overall for crash protection, given what we see in motor sports and as mentioned in the link above. Unfortunately its getting harder to find the skill sets necessary to fabricate a tubular structure nowadays......I seriously need to get back to redeveloping my mediocre skills. AG planes are perfectly good examples in my opinion.
     
  4. Sep 20, 2019 #4

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    3,163
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    Considering most crashes occur at ground level, the cruising altitude of the aircraft is almost irrelevant.

    You can attain fatal deceleration from less than 10 feet altitude if you get it wrong
     
  5. Sep 20, 2019 #5

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,911
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Location:
    US
    I think they are a good proxy, especially as many times when they hit the ground/an object it is not under ideal conditions (e.g they hit an unseen wire or don't quite clear a treeline, they aren't necessarily slowed down for landing/impact when bad things happen).
    OTOH, I'm not ready to say that a designed-for-crashworthiness composite cockpit can't be as good as a steel tube fuselage. Those Formula 1 cars hit some unforgiving things at tremendous speeds and unusual orientations and the drivers often come away uninjured. There are lightweight (and expensive) composite sailplanes that have good crashworthiness. And there are AL frame airplanes that also do well in crashes. I do think it's easier to design and build a very safe steel tube airplane than just about any other kind, and as a bonus it provides a very handy way to distribute the point loads we have in airplanes (landing gear mounting locations, engine mounts, wing spar carrythroughs, occupant restraints, etc).
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
    delta likes this.
  6. Sep 20, 2019 #6

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,908
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    o_O
     
  7. Sep 20, 2019 #7

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,501
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Ag planes are designed for loads far in excess of other aircraft, and have specific structure to protect the pilot in a crash. Comparing them to a typical HBA is akin to comparing a Sherman tank to a go-cart.

    There are valid comparisons to be made wrt crashworthiness of a structure, but direct comparisons are difficult due to performance differences of aircraft, design margins in structures (a Pitts S-1S, for example, is certificated at +6 / -3 g, not too different that several semi-monocoque aluminum fuselages, but the Pitts is routinely flown at load factors up to +9 and -7, values that would fail the aluminum fuselages. I.e., Their designs are very different, even though they are considered to be designed for the same load factors.) and treatment of factors such as injury from splintering carbon, etc.

    Steve probably has some relevant information.


    BJC
     

Share This Page

arrow_white