|
shrike@cyberspace.org wrote:
> Suprisingly I keep coming back to wood as material for mass production
> since the whole of the structure could be made of one material. There
> are obvious logistic benefits there, and I think most wood techniques
> could be practically achieved robotically.
Wood, especially good wood, is getting scarcer all the time.
Consistently good wood is hard to find. It's the reason ladder
manufacturers went to aluminum and/or fiberglass a long time ago. The
big Sitka Spruce and other types of trees that gave us good
aircraft-grade wood mostly went to build houses a long time ago when it
seemed we'd never run out of the stuff. What's left is protected in
parks.
Wood also needs more care in storage; it doesn't survive well
in moist conditions, especially warm, moist conditions, and the heat of
an intense sun can dry it out beyond the ideal 15% moisture content and
make if brash. Glues suffer in the heat. Wooden airplanes burn easily.
Gluing wood in the factory is a tedious affair, requiring a lot of
clamps, patience, and accuracy the first time. You cannot CNC-punch
wooden sheets like you can aluminum.
The companies that used to build wooden airplanes gave it up
long ago. I think the Bellanca Viking was among the last airplane to
use significant wood in it (in the wing). Is the Falco still in
production? How much does it retail for?
Aluminum and composites start to look better all the time, huh?
Dan
|
|
Re: Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
