let's edit it. ...the most important thing is that the two of us understood each other ...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
?
Had to look that one up. Maybe so, but I do not like to think so.
You consider everyone to be a fool. The nonsense of your I beam analogy presumes that structural steel is chosen for strength not cost, structural steel is gash steel, marginally better than rebar, I hope that doesn't hurt your structural engineer sensibilities. I have read a lot on the construction of the Mosquito and things like finite analysis, the way you address the topic is like a biologist talking of moo cows and baa lambs. Now, about the Bauschinger effect?Learn to read, or possibly learn to think about what you read relative to what your have read in the previous posts. My example of the I-beam in no way, either directly or indirectly, implies that the airframe of the Mosquito should be made of steel.
Two, re: "Exactly my point, it isn't complicated."
If it was not "complicated", there would be noneedreason for this discussion. Nor would there be any need for engineering classes, or physics classes, or fabricating classes (including how to test materials), nor would there be any need to learn higher mathematics, or concepts/methods such as finite element analysis.
If you want a formal engineering description and analysis of the merits of a Mosquito airframe made of Duramold vs typical aircraft quality aluminum of the time, go ahead and try it. Once you learn all the engineering terminology, analytical methods and mathematics used, plus get ahold of a complete set of blueprints for the Mosquito airframe, sort out how the aeronautical engineers of the time would have gone about using aluminum to build a comparable airframe (ie learn what is needed to become an early-1940s aeronautical engineer), then actually perform the finite element analysis needed to determine what bits support what structure to resist what stress and how 'strong' the bits have to be to support the loads put on the structure, all having to work in concert to achieve the goal of not failing from one cause or another, you just get back to me.
Also, I do not understand why you think that I should have to explain something like the cylinder example - or the implications that it has for an airframe made of the same material (either material) - in terms of your liking. I can not see that I am under any obligation to do so - I am not being paid to teach you engineering methods or mathematics, nor have I been asked to do so as a favor.
The above may sound a bit snarky, but it really is not meant that way (well, except for the "you just get back to me" part, I must admit that is intended to be snarky).
There could be a few reasons for that.Sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to tell me.
Here is one you will like (seriously its so funny) An engineer who used to be my boss phoned the company I worked for and said "we have done a critical analysis and for the fibre stress involved with these pipes they are perfectly acceptable". The coordinator said to the engineer (wait for it, it really is funny) don't waste my time with this stupidity, the specification says "no cracks", you fool (I knew you would see the funny side of an engineer being an ass). The engineer didn't waste the coordinators time again. I spent my life surrounded by engineers, exactly half of whom were trying to blow smoke up my ass. The clever people are not the engineers who work with standards but the ones who write the standards, and in my lifetime I worked with three of those, two of whom introduced the super duplex stainless steel pipe to market.So did I.
Dear ThomasP, I hope we will be able to continue discussion about Euler's critical load ( and also Johnson's parabolic formula, of course), Bredt's Formula and Mohr's circle and their application to airplane design in other places.
Ciao
Antonello
I worked with some very exotic and expensive alloys and top end engineers from all over the world. I will not be talked down to by "bob the builder" there are some top end engineers from aeronautics who don't feel the need and manage to actually discuss aircraft and their construction without being the big "I am" they are also absolutely precise about what they are actually discussing. That's because they are proper engineers who are at all time and in all cases precise.Gentlemen, please play nice!
I worked with some very exotic and expensive alloys and top end engineers from all over the world. I will not be talked down to by "bob the builder" there are some top end engineers from aeronautics who don't feel the need and manage to actually discuss aircraft and their construction without being the big "I am" they are also absolutely precise about what they are actually discussing. That's because they are proper engineers who are at all time and in all cases precise.
You mean discussing the Mosquito not a tower block?That's fine, again play nice or for starters this thread disappears and I don't think anyone really wants that!
You mean discussing the Mosquito not a tower block?
There are some aspects of rectangular hollow sections that are fascinating, some structural engineers have regaled me for hours, you should broaden your horizons.I MEAN STOP THE RANTING - BOTH OF YOU! CAN I BE ANY CLEARER!
pbehn - really? I guess you can give us a dissertation next week!There are some aspects of rectangular hollow sections that are fascinating, some structural engineers have regaled me for hours, you should broaden your horizons.