just wondering ?

[acra]

I'd expect Aluminium to show signs of fatigue stress a lot sooner than steel with worse results, based on when I was looking for a new push bike.

That said, it is used in aircraft structures, so I guess it's feasible? Damn expensive though I'd imagine!

[jerkins]

Originally Posted by acra

That said, it is used in aircraft structures, so I guess it's feasible?

Aircraft get stripped down and thoroughly inspected at regular intervals - and they tend not to get the same pounding as a road-going car.

This has been discussed many times in several forums - the general opinion is that aluminium will suffer from fatigue cracking very quickly. It also age-hardens, which wouldn't help. So - OK for race cars, but not for road-going ones.

[twinturbo]

It would most probably way more to retain the require strength. The design does not lend itself to the material.

TT

[leroybrown911]

Aircraft actually take more of a hammering than a road car, its the buid philosiphy that makes it work. Steel is more practical than ali for a road car (that does not have to fly!)

[AshG]

planes are not welded for a start so there is no haz, they are made with screws rivets and glue. if you look back a bit into the history of planes there has been plenty of issues with ali fatigue look at the de Havilland Comet, they had a habit of falling apart in the air as did a fair few other planes that were conceived in the 50's. a lot of the new planes manufactured these days are made out of composite materials which are much stronger and lighter.

ali is a fantastic material but its really not suited to use on a chassis unless you can model it and do some fea to work out the issues due to the shortcomings of the material

[jerkins]

Originally Posted by leroybrown911

Aircraft actually take more of a hammering than a road car, its the buid philosiphy that makes it work.

I doubt whether an aircraft would hit as many potholes though...