I think that given a free choice, a plastic tank is the right way to go.
Nearly all cars now use this material as is doesn't corrode, it's
dimensionally stable, durable and crash tolerant.
The problem with the Europa tank is that it was made from the wrong
material and (unbeknown to the factory at the time) absorbed fuel and
distorted. Also unexpected was the strength with which epoxy resin
bonded to the tank. If built according to instructions, the tank could
move, but some enthusiastic builders piled on the laminations that
created stress risers which, after the passage of time, caused the
plastic to fracture.
Since we have no (cost effective) way to re-manufacture the tank out of
a suitable plastic, the only options are to replace it with "more of the
same" - meaning that in another ten years it could fail again, or revert
to the material of choice for aircraft designers over the years -
alumin(i)um.
This may not be the optimum material (as other posters have outlined),
but it is the next best option for home-builders wanting to create a
"one-off" that is light weight and (if mounted correctly) fatigue resistant.
Fibreglass (chopped-strand-mat/polyester resin) is a non-starter as it
hardens over life and becomes extremely brittle. This was banned for use
on motorcycles in the UK over forty years ago as any accident almost
inevitably resulted in a fireball.
One avenue that does not seem to have been explored is the use of
flexible "fuel bladders" as used in the car racing world.
Nigel
On 27/03/2014 00:24, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> Just to play devil's advocate, whats the attraction of an aluminum
> fuel tank over a plastic one, or a fiberglass one?
>
> I am familiar with the problems with Europa's plastic tank, but that
> does not mean aluminum is better. You are trading off one problem for
> another.
>
> On that thought, can a tank be 3D printed?
>
>
|