EDITED AND WARNING BY MODERATOR.

Over G,
You either partake in a discussion, or you don’t. If you disagree with someone, you make a reasonable counter-argument. Typing blablablablablablablablablablablablablabla is not a counter-argument, it is something which gets deleted.

Now try again.

Dranio

– Riveted structure has better fatigue strength and is easier for repair than welded structure.
– Rivets increase strength, because they are expanding during riveting and the hole’s edges are internally herdening.

Welding joint always decreasing strength.
Also if cracks are appearing, riveted structure is better, because the hole can stop those cracks.
Of course production time is long, is necessary to drill pilot holes, after that redrill, deburr, countersunk holes (for countersunk rivet heads) and rivet (make closing heads).

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: please read an structural-materials book…..

SOC

Plus MiG did notice that there was a shortage of experienced riveters at the time, so welding was the logical choice.

Noooooo SOC, not again buahhh 😮 this is (i think) an construction-design thread, not an foxbat thread, the russians are not soooo stupids to make an riveted steel plane (maybe are exeptions, maybe)

About the topic.
Yes the Al is hard to weld (because that stupid oxide layer)so the only practical solution are rivets, the riveted unions reduce the transverse piece area, the rivets increase the deformation “pressure”,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,there are more blablablablabla comparing welding/riveting, but im tooo lazy to say all, 🙂 🙂 🙂 ,a question (for who knows), you can weld aluminium with argon-plasma arc????

PLA

You guya forgot the most important one… Glueing… Fokker was famous for that.

Interseting, maybe is the same compositives concept??????

regards

Hello,hello

Well Gavin, interesting discussion, but i think that with the original wing design youre sacrificing supercruiser performance (aerodynamical-structural) for subsonic maneuverability, what you think????

i dont know the reason of the change in the intake shape (maybe handling-agility-manteining the flow in the fuselage)

Look SOC you work for thr usaf, lets end this discussion, i respect your postion…

calm down and read the thread from the start….

Yes the plan was designed as an defend sistem against the Valkery and the A-12, but it doent mean that it dont have agility!!!!

take it easy SOC……

Look SOC the point here is that one thing is supersonic G an another is subsonic G, i dont need diagrams or that “Stall speed, corner velocity (minimum speed needed to attain the maximum G-loading, as this is lift-dependant), maximum velocity. Vertical axis: positive and negative G-loading of a particular aircraft. Once corne……..”, pufff….

Also the sr71 is not an agile design…