What are the tradeoffs of metal vs wood vs composites?
This can be a heated subject amongst builders, we’ll try to approach the subject generally and gracefully. Metal construction has the widest acceptance by the non-aviating public. It is relatively simple to work with, and is inexpensive. A metal structure is strong and of moderate weight and cost. But with improper care it corrodes, and events (like the Hawaiian 737 that lost its top) have reminded us that metal does have a finite fatigue life. Wood is the oldest aircraft structural material, but has a poor public acceptance. The strength-to-weight ratio and fatigue resistance of wood is excellent, the problem is simply its susceptibility to rot. Properly protected and stored, a wooden airframe will last decades. But if not cared for, it will be destroyed in a few short years. Wood also tends to be expensive, and the supply is erratic. Composites, “compost” jokes aside, have received much attention recently from private and commercial builders alike, largely due to work done a few year
