RobertE Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Was it simply lower cost that caused them to use steel instead of aluminum? It seems like an odd choice, given the resulting corrosion problems. Quote
rbridges Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 may have been a safety reason, too. they probably incurred a weight penalty with the steel vs. aluminum. Quote
Shadrach Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: RobertE Was it simply lower cost that caused them to use steel instead of aluminum? It seems like an odd choice, given the resulting corrosion problems. Quote
jetdriven Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 I read, I think on here that Art designed a safety roll cage just like NASCAR.... Quote
stevesm20b Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 They used steel because it's stronger. Have you ever seen a race car with a roll cage built out of Aluminum? Quote
jetdriven Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Nah I think the real reason it's just an older design. Tube and rag was common in the 20s on up to the 50s. Think about all those cubs and champs. The original m20a had a wood wing. Al covered the tubes with metal and later metalized the wing. Quote
MooneyMitch Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: jetdriven I read, I think on here that Art designed a safety roll cage just like NASCAR.... Quote
MooneyMitch Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: jetdriven Nah I think the real reason it's just an older design. Tube and rag was common in the 20s on up to the 50s. Think about all those cubs and champs. The original m20a had a wood wing. Al covered the tubes with metal and later metalized the wing. Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: RobertE Was it simply lower cost that caused them to use steel instead of aluminum? It seems like an odd choice, given the resulting corrosion problems. Quote
RobertE Posted February 13, 2012 Author Report Posted February 13, 2012 Someone asked if I thought Mooneys suffered more from corrosion than other aircraft. I believe the answer is yes because a) two dissimilar metals in electrical contact give the opportunity for galvanic corrosion and aluminum oxide is dense enough to tend to stop much corrosion once it begins but steel isn't and, so, you gotta paint those tubes to provide a physical barrier, early on with the zinc chromate and, lately, with tougher epoxy paint. These aren't unknown or trivial problems so there must have been a reason and my guess is cost. Anyone else got an opinion other than cost given that aluminum structures can be made just as strong? Quote
N601RX Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 I've saw several pictures of crashed Mooneys, including Jolie's. There was one thing in common. The cabin area stayed intact. The wings and tail cone were trashed, but the bending stopped where the tubing started. Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: RobertE Someone asked if I thought Mooneys suffered more from corrosion than other aircraft. I believe the answer is yes because a) two dissimilar metals in electrical contact give the opportunity for galvanic corrosion and aluminum oxide is dense enough to tend to stop much corrosion once it begins but steel isn't and, so, you gotta paint those tubes to provide a physical barrier, early on with the zinc chromate and, lately, with tougher epoxy paint. These aren't unknown or trivial problems so there must have been a reason and my guess is cost. Anyone else got an opinion other than cost given that aluminum structures can be made just as strong? Quote
N601RX Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: RobertE Someone asked if I thought Mooneys suffered more from corrosion than other aircraft. I believe the answer is yes because a) two dissimilar metals in electrical contact give the opportunity for galvanic corrosion and aluminum oxide is dense enough to tend to stop much corrosion once it begins but steel isn't and, so, you gotta paint those tubes to provide a physical barrier, early on with the zinc chromate and, lately, with tougher epoxy paint. These aren't unknown or trivial problems so there must have been a reason and my guess is cost. Anyone else got an opinion other than cost given that aluminum structures can be made just as strong? Quote
Bolter Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: rbridges may have been a safety reason, too. they probably incurred a weight penalty with the steel vs. aluminum. Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: tomcullen Someone mentioned titanium. Excellent material for strength to weight, as it is better than aluminum or steel. Aside from cost, there are other issues with it in critical areas. For example, in high stressed parts (like a compressor in a gas turbine), it can develop cracks from nick and scratch damage that would be tolerated in steel or aluminum. It would be a bad prop material for that reason. For airframes, I suspect cost of raw material and manufacturing costs keep it exclusive to high dollar military jets and civilian large haulers. Started as just my 2 cents, but I think it ended at 2 bits' worth -dan Quote
MARZ Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: jetdriven I read, I think on here that Art designed a safety roll cage just like NASCAR.... Quote
Seth Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Quote: aviatoreb You sound like a materials engineer. It was me who mentioned Ti. Seems to me that the tubes of the air frame welding would be alot like a bicycle type application and not so much like a turbine or even a prop application. Yes, the material is expensive, but I wonder if it would be so very expensive since the major part of the expense of airplane stuff is the certification cost and not the marginal cost of the material. Ti bikes are not nearly as expensive as they used to be. Quote
triple8s Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Mooney isnt the only one. The Meyers 200D has never had an in-flight structural failure and has never had an FAA mandated Airworthiness Directive (AD) issued against the airframe. The 4130 chrome-moly steel tubular roll cage and understructure act like a race car protective cage during a crash. Several Meyers aircraft have been forced down in the trees and off airport runways with documented instances of the occupants walking away with only minor injuries or a broken bone. And I do believe it was for strength. Quote
triple8s Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 Here is a link that has the history and photos. A very odd thing is the designer name was also "Al". Personally I perfer the Mooney, better economy and MUCH better looking. http://www.meyersaircraft.com/Meyers%20History.html Quote
Seth Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 I was actually looking at vintage Meyers 145 or a Meyers 200D before deciding the Mooney was for me. I always thought it would be pretty cool to have an airplane with my last name. And yes, my name is indeed Seth Meyers - I get great reservations in New York (I've even used that to my adtantage twice). I saw a Meyers 200D being refuled in Wisconsin in 2009 and the pilot let me take a look inside. They are indeed more spacious than our Mooney's with a huge instrument panel. However, I still love my Mooney. I like our M logo as well. I didn't realize it had a similar roll cage. Pretty neat. It does amaze me with the amount of Mooney crashes where the occupants walk away. The Meyers 145 is what morphed over time into the Micco - there is one for sale on controller. That would be a fun plane to fly. Take care, -Seth Meyers (not of SNL) Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 14, 2012 Report Posted February 14, 2012 Quote: Seth You sound like a materials engineer. It was me who mentioned Ti. Seems to me that the tubes of the air frame welding would be alot like a bicycle type application and not so much like a turbine or even a prop application. Yes, the material is expensive, but I wonder if it would be so very expensive since the major part of the expense of airplane stuff is the certification cost and not the marginal cost of the material. Ti bikes are not nearly as expensive as they used to be. Quote
scottfromiowa Posted February 14, 2012 Report Posted February 14, 2012 Because gold was a little pricey and weighed too much? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.