Aircraft made in steel?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Captain
Stainless steel MiG-25s aside, steel is heavier than aluminium.
aviation.stackexchange.com
Also, steel is an alloy needing further working, while AIUI aluminum is mined and faster to get onto aircraft. Here in Canada, aluminum is readily available.
Why has aluminium, rather than steel, prevailed in airliner construction?
As any cyclist knows, steel has many advantages over aluminium: it's stronger (for the same size) it can handle greater forces without needing to be stiffer it has better fatigue characteristics i...
Also, steel is an alloy needing further working, while AIUI aluminum is mined and faster to get onto aircraft. Here in Canada, aluminum is readily available.
Last edited:
MiG-29 was not made of steel. There were many attempts in 1930 to use steel as frame material, whereas steel skin was rather unusual.
T Bolt
Colonel
The Budd RB-1 Conestoga, a stainless-steel cargo aircraft designed for the US Navy during WWII
The Bristol Type 188 research aircraft.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Bristol 188 - Wikipedia
Shortround6
Major General
There was an attempt by the Japanese to make a steel (or partly steel) Ki-84 called the Ki-113.
There were other attempts to make steel or part steel Aircraft.
Combination of steel and wood. worked so well that they used them for transports and glider tugs.
A problem when researching some of this stuff in that both Aluminum and Steel changed alloys and heat treatment from WW I to the end of WW II let alone later so what was best at any one time may not have been best 2 years later and then it may have flipped back just a few years after that.
Sometimes for very high strength parts (wing roots or engine mounts or landing gear mounts) they used steel or at least steel components as for the strength needed steel was lighter than aluminum for the time in question. But steel skin was almost always a no-no after WW I. Lightweight steel skin (fraction of ounces per sq ft) just buckled or wrinkled way to easy in use compared to similar weight aluminum skin which is around 2.4 times (?) thicker.
There were other attempts to make steel or part steel Aircraft.
Combination of steel and wood. worked so well that they used them for transports and glider tugs.
A problem when researching some of this stuff in that both Aluminum and Steel changed alloys and heat treatment from WW I to the end of WW II let alone later so what was best at any one time may not have been best 2 years later and then it may have flipped back just a few years after that.
Sometimes for very high strength parts (wing roots or engine mounts or landing gear mounts) they used steel or at least steel components as for the strength needed steel was lighter than aluminum for the time in question. But steel skin was almost always a no-no after WW I. Lightweight steel skin (fraction of ounces per sq ft) just buckled or wrinkled way to easy in use compared to similar weight aluminum skin which is around 2.4 times (?) thicker.
cvairwerks
Senior Airman
Fleetwings Sea Bird was all stainless....
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
As was the Typhoon and Tempest.
WW2 aircraft were generally not made from Aluminium but from Duralumin an alloy developed in Germany from 1909, it is an alloy of mainly Aluminium Copper Magnesium and Manganese. From an article/study posted here the alloys used by the USA and Germany were almost identical, British differed slightly
>90% (typically >93%) aluminium. Thus, if you just say "aluminium," you won't get much wrong. Or "aluminum"?
Last edited:
You will get a lot wrong making such a generalisation, like calling all steels "iron". Small percentages of alloying elements make a huge difference as does heat treatment. When an alloying element is 5% copper that is also another "thing". Aluminium in itself isnt rare, it just needs a lot of electricity to refine the pure metal.
Nope. Steel can contain 50% alloying additives, i.e. elements other than iron. Please use correct analogies.
PS. I could tell you a lot about aluminum alloys and their characterization (including elemental analysis). You may not believe me, but sometimes an opponent can have a pretty decent background in materials science.
After working testing steels from the age of 17 to 55 the chemical analysis of any heat treated metal gives you just enough information to make you look stupid on a discussion forum. The different quenching methods used by Vallourec Rouen France, Mannesmann Rath Germany, and Dalmine Italy produce completely different mechanical test properties with regards to longitudinal and transverse yield (0.5% total extension under load) on pipe products that have nominally identical chemical analysis . You are the third person to bluff and bluster your expertise in this sphere of science on here.Nope. Steel can contain 50% alloying additives, i.e. elements other than iron. Please use correct analogies.
PS. I could tell you a lot about aluminum alloys and their characterization (including elemental analysis). You may not believe me, but sometimes an opponent can have a pretty decent background in materials science.
Do you think that nearly forty years in a routine lab qualifies you to play the role of Captain Obvious on a forum?
A "routine job" have you ever seen a metallurgical investigation, or even a mechanical test? How many methods of determining "yield" do you know and have seen in an approved test house? Which testing spec do you normally work to?Do you think that nearly forty years in a routine lab qualifies you to play the role of Captain Obvious on a forum?
I don't need any of that to see the inadequacy of your analogies and your pointless nerdiness. All I can say is that I work in industrial R&D and solve somewhat more complex problems than steel analysis (and I am familiar with _all_ the major analytical techniques used for this purpose).
You dont need facts you prefer feelings and your feeling is you know everything, that's why you cant answer a question, you dismiss questions as "nerdiness", in fact you are just a troll.
I just know many different facts, moreover I can analyze them - as distinct from you, Cap.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
