Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith701801-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mcjon77

Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 55
Location: Chicago

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:19 pm Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Hi guys,



Just wanted to know if anyone has tried substituting .020 for the .016 skins on the fuselage and wings.  I thought that their might be a discussion about this before, but after searching, I couldn't find it.



Thanks!

_________________
Jon McDonald
Building Sonex #1287
Next up CH 701 Very Happy

john.marzulli(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

This has been covered on the older combined Zenith list. A few people have done it, and it has been approved by Zenith.

 John Marzulli



http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

http://MarzulliPhoto.net/

http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

 

 On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:19 PM, mcjon77 <mcjon77(at)yahoo.com (mcjon77(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "mcjon77" <mcjon77(at)yahoo.com (mcjon77(at)yahoo.com)>

 

Hi guys,



Just wanted to know if anyone has tried substituting .020 for the .016 skins on the fuselage and wings.  I thought that their might be a discussion about this before, but after searching, I couldn't find it.

 

Thanks!



--------

Jon McDonald

Building Sonex #1287

Thinking ahead about a Zenith CH 701 





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288565#288565

 h as List Un/Subscription,

 www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List

 ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 =====



[b]

stepinwolf

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 133
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:23 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Jon,

  

 I figured it out a little while back with one of the local suppliers, and  by doing so, there is a approx. 30 lbs weight penalty, and an increase in  strength of the aircraft of 25%, not to mention eliminating a good portion of  the oil canning.

  

 fly safe

 Robert 

 the 701 & 750 scratch

  

  

 [quote]   ---

_________________
Long wing + vga's, = lo & slo

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:04 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Hi Jon,

I built a 601HDS and used .020 where .016 was called out on the plans. 

Just handling .016 is a frustration because it will bend to nearly any

soft touch, handling etc. I looked at .020 that could easily be damaged 

thru handling and went to .025.  The net result was a better looking set 

of wings and

fuselage. I've seen 701 upper wings skins hanging on a wall and watched 

the shape change while sunshine and shadows moved across them.

By all means, go with .020 and avoid .016 where possible. Do figure the 

weight added and work it up from there.



Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com



mcjon77 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Hi guys,



 Just wanted to know if anyone has tried substituting .020 for the .016 skins on the fuselage and wings.  I thought that their might be a discussion about this before, but after searching, I couldn't find it.



 Thanks!



 --------

 Jon McDonald

 Building Sonex #1287

 Thinking ahead about a Zenith CH 701 





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288565#288565

lrm(at)skyhawg.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:41 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

I was over at a friends yesterday and noticed that his 750 has .020 

skins on the wings.  Zenith continues to get wiser.  Pegastol wings 

always used .020 and twice the ribs.  Just some info.  Larry



John Marzulli wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   This has been covered on the older combined Zenith list. A few people have

 done it, and it has been approved by Zenith.

 

 John Marzulli

 

 http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

 http://MarzulliPhoto.net/

 http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

 

 

 On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:19 PM, mcjon77 <mcjon77(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 

> 

>

> Hi guys,

>

> Just wanted to know if anyone has tried substituting .020 for the .016

> skins on the fuselage and wings.  I thought that their might be a discussion

> about this before, but after searching, I couldn't find it.

>

> Thanks!

>

> --------

> Jon McDonald

> Building Sonex #1287

> Thinking ahead about a Zenith CH 701 

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288565#288565

>

lrm(at)skyhawg.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:04 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Not wanting to argue, but it struck me that your weight gain might be a 

little off or maybe not.  I did some calculating using the weights 

supplied in the Airparts Inc. catalog.  The difference between .016 and 

.020 is +.23lbs per linear foot.  That means a 8ft piece of .020 would 

weight 1.84lbs more.  If you used 6 sheets per wings, that would be a 

little over 11 lbs per wing or 22 lbs for both.  Could be over 30 for 

the whole aircraft.  Not bad considering the benefits.  A ton easier to 

work with, helps with beer canning, doesn't dent near as easy and so on. 

  That's not counting the added strength. Zenith must saw the 

advantages, like I said earlier, the 750 wings use it.

Anyway, just thought I'd pipe in for what it's worth.  Take care, Larry 

N1234L



Robert Pelland wrote:

[quote] Jon,

 

 I figured it out a little while back with one of the local suppliers, and by doing so, there is a approx. 30 lbs weight penalty, and an increase in strength of the aircraft of 25%, not to mention eliminating a good portion of the oil canning.

 

 fly safe

 Robert 

 the 701 & 750 scratch

 

 

   ---

stepinwolf

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 133
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:58 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Larry,

  

 I think we are both very close to the total weight increase.  It was  some time ago, but I seem to recall how we arrived at the numbers.  The  local aluminum supplier, has all his pricing on a dollar per pound basis, so we  took the weights supplied by the mill for both thicknesses, ( all weights are  calculated by the square foot and not linear ) multiplied by the amount of  sheets needed, and we came to about thirty pounds, give or take a few, for the  complete airframe.

  

 Personally I used the .020 everywhere the .016 was called for, and never  regretted my decision, especially when the time came to manipulate ( I always  work alone ) the 12' sheets.

  

 Larry, and by the way, we are not arguing, just expressing are own opinions  )

  

 Fly safe

 Robert

  

 [quote]   ---

_________________
Long wing + vga's, = lo & slo

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:04 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Spruce has a table with weight per sqr ft. Look at the  bottom of this page:

  

 http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/mepages/aluminfo.php

  

 It is fuzzy but legible. If you have a printed catalog the  table is there too.

  

 -- Craig



   From:  owner-zenith701801-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert  Pelland

Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:58 AM

To:  zenith701801-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List:  Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

 

 Larry,

  

 I think we are both very close to the total weight increase.  It was  some time ago, but I seem to recall how we arrived at the numbers.  The  local aluminum supplier, has all his pricing on a dollar per pound basis, so we  took the weights supplied by the mill for both thicknesses, ( all weights are  calculated by the square foot and not linear ) multiplied by the amount of  sheets needed, and we came to about thirty pounds, give or take a few, for the  complete airframe.

  

 Personally I used the .020 everywhere the .016 was called for, and never  regretted my decision, especially when the time came to manipulate ( I always  work alone ) the 12' sheets.

  

 Larry, and by the way, we are not arguing, just expressing are own opinions  )

  

 Fly safe

 Robert

  

 [quote]   ---

n752ms(at)softcom.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:48 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

When I was considering scratch building my 701 I looked at using .020 

instead of .016 for all of the parts.  I found a 35 pound increase in the 

weight.  .020 is a little easier to handle but not that much.  Like a lot of 

builders just looking to start building, I thought I had a lot of great 

ideas to improve the design.  It turns out that I used some of my ideas, and 

I like and use them every time I fly.  But most of my ideas never made it 

into the build, I found most had no real advantage as to final weight or fly 

ability.



If my 701 was 35 pounds heavier I would have to leave behind the stove and 

food on my camping trip.  Not an option!



As far as "fixing" some problems, I'm not sure what they are.  The 701 has 

not had a in-flight structural failure in 20 years, so I'm not sure you need 

to make it 25% stronger and I have not heard of any metal fatigue from oil 

canning.  But it will sure tell you when you are off the ball.  Nothing a 

good headset won't fix.



I have had my 701 flying for about a year now and oil canning is not and 

issue for me.



I recently saw a Savannah at a fly in with Pega-Stol wings,  what a 

mechanical nightmare and heavy.  There is a reason a number of people have 

gone out of business trying to make that wing work and nothing but bad 

reviews on assembling them.  And a very small advantage in top speed.  I 

don't know about you, but I didn't build this plane to go fast and loose 

STOL performance.



Mark S.

701/912ULS

80 hrs





---

mcjon77

Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 55
Location: Chicago

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

.016 weighs .225 lbs per square foot according to Wicks Aircraft.

.020 weighs .282 lbs per square foot according to Wicks Aircraft.

this means a difference of .057lbs per square foot.



A 4x12 sheet of aluminum is 48 square feet.

This means that there is a 2.736 lbs increase per sheet used.

My bet is that it is somewhere between 30-35lbs difference (11-13 sheets).

_________________
Jon McDonald
Building Sonex #1287
Next up CH 701 Very Happy

mksoucy(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:50 pm Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Well said Mark as nice as it looks .020 is 1/4 thicker hence 1/4 heavier. A little oil canning sounds much better than trees smacking an overweighted plane 



Sent from my iPod



On Feb 28, 2010, at 2:47 PM, "Mark Sherman" <n752ms(at)softcom.net> wrote:

vgstol(at)bigpond.net.au
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:44 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

.020 is a ridiculous weight penalty for such an aircraft.

  

Oil canning is easily eliminated by .016 angle in the fuselage, and intermediate foam ribs in the wing, both stuck in with Sikkaflex or similar polyurethane adhesive. 

 A couple of pounds maybe, and very effective.  Tried and proven.

JG



On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:34 PM, mksoucy(at)yahoo.com (mksoucy(at)yahoo.com) <mksoucy(at)yahoo.com (mksoucy(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "mksoucy(at)yahoo.com (mksoucy(at)yahoo.com)" <mksoucy(at)yahoo.com (mksoucy(at)yahoo.com)>

  

 Well said Mark as nice as it looks .020 is 1/4 thicker hence 1/4 heavier. A little oil canning sounds much better than trees smacking an overweighted plane

 

 Sent from my iPod

 

 On Feb 28, 2010, at 2:47 PM, "Mark Sherman" <n752ms(at)softcom.net (n752ms(at)softcom.net)> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

John Bolding

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 281

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

In looking back after messing around with these little airplanes for almost 

40 yrs I can say with conviction that the most important aspect of building 

an airplane you can enjoy to the fullest extent is KEEP IT LIGHT.



I've also discovered that first time builders are more commonly guilty of 

this sin than someone who understands the ramifications of building a lead 

sled.



I have been blessed to have met and personally know(n) several of the well 

known designers of small aircraft , Van (I built an EARLY RV)   CG Taylor 

(yep, THAT one), Dave Thurston, John Thorp, Dave Blanton, Bob Barrows and 

EVERY ONE of them would beat it into your head to not add unnecessary 

weight.  Thorp wrote an article for Sport Aviation in the 70's I think about 

adding a multifunction stick grip (1#) to the top of the stick in a T18 and 

he chased that ONE pound all thru the structure showing how it affected 

performance and how other things were influenced by it.



Boeing and Airbus would send you a BIG pile of $$ if you could tell them how 

to save 30# on one of their aircraft, giving up that much weight on a 1100# 

plane is foolish. (I'm being generous with the word foolish)



I've got a buddy that just finished a Glasair TD,  he has constant speed 

prop, LOTS of filler and paint, heavier engine, 80 gals worth of tanks, 

autopilot, Garmin 530 and every instrument known to man , radio stack that 

would do justice to a

Gulfstream V, leather upholstery.... you get the picture.  Would you believe 

his airplane is 280# heavier than mine, our s/n's are 14 apart.   Can't wait 

to outrun/outclimb/fly slower on less fuel  in an aircraft that has 30 less 

hp. than he has.



Add ONLY Lightness.



John

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

I agree with you John, but there are good reasons to use .020 over .016 

when the .016 is too frail for the job and so easily damaged.

Depends on your perspective and how long you want to keep the plane. 

Better advice is to drop 30 lbs off your own frame.

I've done that and kept it off.



Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com



John Bolding wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <jnbolding1(at)teleshare.net>



 In looking back after messing around with these little airplanes for 

 almost 40 yrs I can say with conviction that the most important aspect 

 of building an airplane you can enjoy to the fullest extent is KEEP IT 

 LIGHT.



 I've also discovered that first time builders are more commonly guilty 

 of this sin than someone who understands the ramifications of building 

 a lead sled.



 I have been blessed to have met and personally know(n) several of the 

 well known designers of small aircraft , Van (I built an EARLY RV)   

 CG Taylor (yep, THAT one), Dave Thurston, John Thorp, Dave Blanton, 

 Bob Barrows and EVERY ONE of them would beat it into your head to not 

 add unnecessary weight.  Thorp wrote an article for Sport Aviation in 

 the 70's I think about adding a multifunction stick grip (1#) to the 

 top of the stick in a T18 and he chased that ONE pound all thru the 

 structure showing how it affected performance and how other things 

 were influenced by it.



 Boeing and Airbus would send you a BIG pile of $$ if you could tell 

 them how to save 30# on one of their aircraft, giving up that much 

 weight on a 1100# plane is foolish. (I'm being generous with the word 

 foolish)



 I've got a buddy that just finished a Glasair TD,  he has constant 

 speed prop, LOTS of filler and paint, heavier engine, 80 gals worth of 

 tanks, autopilot, Garmin 530 and every instrument known to man , radio 

 stack that would do justice to a

 Gulfstream V, leather upholstery.... you get the picture.  Would you 

 believe his airplane is 280# heavier than mine, our s/n's are 14 

 apart.   Can't wait to outrun/outclimb/fly slower on less fuel  in an 

 aircraft that has 30 less hp. than he has.



 Add ONLY Lightness.



 John

bobkat

Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Location: Bismarck, ND

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:38 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Let us all know how you did that, Larry!  LOL

I took off the slats to run some V speed tests without slats and the first 

thing I did was hit some small bird and dent in the leading edge!  I haven't 

painted it yet so I'm usure how to get rid of the dent.  One thing I've been 

considering after reading this topic is that if I have to reskin the leading 

edges of the wing before painting, I'd go to heavier aluminum.  Wouldn't add 

much weight if one only did the leading edge and it could add a bit of 

stiffness to the wind, not that that's required.   Wouldn't matter if you 

"goose" a goose or other heavy bird but might help with the little guys.

---

stepinwolf

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 133
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Larry,

  

 It look's as though there are as many opinions on the 30 lbs issue as there  are 701 flyers.  As for myself I can live with the extra 30 lbs ( everybody  and his dog, knows that lighter is better ) since I fly alone.  I  also considerablely reduced the wing loading by increasing the wingspan (  I have a copy of Mr. C. Heinz original sketches ) by 550mm on each  wing.  I was not comfortable in any increase outboard of the strut  attachment point, so as not to increase the fragility of the wing, the  extra material was inserted between the fuselage and the outer strut  attachment bracket.

  

 My humble calculations ( I might be wrong on this ) give me a new wing  loading of 7.85 for the extended wingspan, as compared to the regular 9.0 that  is given for the normal 701 wing, so I think it will more then compensate  for the slight increase in weight.  I also have an 80 HP Rotax mounted, and  it is much lighter then all the auto conversions that are presently flying quite  well.  One way or the other it is an experimental, and the decision  was ultimately mine, and one that I can live with it.

  

 By the way, I don't sleep out, I don't need to haul a stove, and if I ever  need to cook, I can do it on the hot coals. ),   just  kidding,,,,,

  

 Robert

 the 701 & 750 scratch

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

_________________
Long wing + vga's, = lo & slo

n752ms(at)softcom.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Larry.



You say the .016 is to frail, what facts do you base this on?



Mark S.



Sent from my iPhone



On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:48 AM, Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>  

wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 >

 I agree with you John, but there are good reasons to use .020 over . 

 016 when the .016 is too frail for the job and so easily damaged.

 Depends on your perspective and how long you want to keep the plane.  

 Better advice is to drop 30 lbs off your own frame.

 I've done that and kept it off.



 Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com



 John Bolding wrote:

> 

> >

>

> In looking back after messing around with these little airplanes  

> for almost 40 yrs I can say with conviction that the most important  

> aspect of building an airplane you can enjoy to the fullest extent  

> is KEEP IT LIGHT.

>

> I've also discovered that first time builders are more commonly  

> guilty of this sin than someone who understands the ramifications  

> of building a lead sled.

>

> I have been blessed to have met and personally know(n) several of  

> the well known designers of small aircraft , Van (I built an EARLY  

> RV)   CG Taylor (yep, THAT one), Dave Thurston, John Thorp, Dave  

> Blanton, Bob Barrows and EVERY ONE of them would beat it into your  

> head to not add unnecessary weight.  Thorp wrote an article for  

> Sport Aviation in the 70's I think about adding a multifunction  

> stick grip (1#) to the top of the stick in a T18 and he chased that  

> ONE pound all thru the structure showing how it affected  

> performance and how other things were influenced by it.

>

> Boeing and Airbus would send you a BIG pile of $$ if you could tell  

> them how to save 30# on one of their aircraft, giving up that much  

> weight on a 1100# plane is foolish. (I'm being generous with the  

> word foolish)

>

> I've got a buddy that just finished a Glasair TD,  he has constant  

> speed prop, LOTS of filler and paint, heavier engine, 80 gals worth  

> of tanks, autopilot, Garmin 530 and every instrument known to man ,  

> radio stack that would do justice to a

> Gulfstream V, leather upholstery.... you get the picture.  Would  

> you believe his airplane is 280# heavier than mine, our s/n's are  

> 14 apart.   Can't wait to outrun/outclimb/fly slower on less fuel   

> in an aircraft that has 30 less hp. than he has.

>

> Add ONLY Lightness.

>

> John

>

stepinwolf

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 133
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Mark,

  

 Although the fragility question was not addressed to me, I feel  compelled to respond to this one.

  

 Purchase a sheet of 4' x 12' .016 aluminum get it into your  workplace and try, by your self, to move it around and manipulate  the sheet without causing any damage to it.  

  

 You will then know the real meaning of frail, with out the need of any  additional facts.

  

 Build & fly safe

  

 Robert

  

  

 [quote]   ---

_________________
Long wing + vga's, = lo & slo

john.marzulli(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:41 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

My only problem handling and adding smilies to the skins came with the wings. A better approach would have been to use multiple skins. This would make it easier to get to the fuel tanks as well if you ever had to.

   

 John Marzulli



http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

http://MarzulliPhoto.net/

http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

 

 On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com (larry(at)macsmachine.com)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Zenith701801-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com (larry(at)macsmachine.com)>

 



I agree with you John, but there are good reasons to use .020 over .016 when the .016 is too frail for the job and so easily damaged.

Depends on your perspective and how long you want to keep the plane. Better advice is to drop 30 lbs off your own frame.

 I've done that and kept it off.



Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com   

 



John Bolding wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "John Bolding" <jnbolding1(at)teleshare.net (jnbolding1(at)teleshare.net)>

 

In looking back after messing around with these little airplanes for almost 40 yrs I can say with conviction that the most important aspect of building an airplane you can enjoy to the fullest extent is KEEP IT LIGHT.

 

I've also discovered that first time builders are more commonly guilty of this sin than someone who understands the ramifications of building a lead sled.



I have been blessed to have met and personally know(n) several of the well known designers of small aircraft , Van (I built an EARLY RV)   CG Taylor (yep, THAT one), Dave Thurston, John Thorp, Dave Blanton, Bob Barrows and EVERY ONE of them would beat it into your head to not add unnecessary weight.  Thorp wrote an article for Sport Aviation in the 70's I think about adding a multifunction stick grip (1#) to the top of the stick in a T18 and he chased that ONE pound all thru the structure showing how it affected performance and how other things were influenced by it.

 

Boeing and Airbus would send you a BIG pile of $$ if you could tell them how to save 30# on one of their aircraft, giving up that much weight on a 1100# plane is foolish. (I'm being generous with the word foolish)

 

I've got a buddy that just finished a Glasair TD,  he has constant speed prop, LOTS of filler and paint, heavier engine, 80 gals worth of tanks, autopilot, Garmin 530 and every instrument known to man , radio stack that would do justice to a

 Gulfstream V, leather upholstery.... you get the picture.  Would you believe his airplane is 280# heavier than mine, our s/n's are 14 apart.   Can't wait to outrun/outclimb/fly slower on less fuel  in an aircraft that has 30 less hp. than he has.

 

Add ONLY Lightness.



John



	
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List

 ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 =====



[b]

n4546v(at)mindspring.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:48 am Post subject: Substituting .016 for .020 on the skins?

Hello Listers:



It's interesting that the rear fuselage side/top skins aft of the cabin on 

my '48 Bonanza are .016 2024 Alclad.  The red ink markings are clearly 

visible after 62 years.



Regards,



Randy, Las Vegas



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Larry.



 You say the .016 is to frail, what facts do you base this on?



 Mark S.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith701801-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum