# Best Non-Strategic Material?



## Clay_Allison (Feb 2, 2009)

Ok, I've been kicking around ideas about a light, cheap fighter made of non strategic materials that would be capable of successfully engaging the main fighters of the war if it had some kind of edge (surprise, pilot experience, numbers, etc.) for a while now.

My specific ideas have been responded to intelligently and I have gotten some support for the concept. But a central question has remained, which is the best way to build one?

There seem to be three choices:

1. Plywood and some steel framing;

2. Tubular steel and doped linen

3. Mixed construction, some cloth, some plywood, some steel.

The type of fighter I want is simple: highest horsepower:weight that can be attained with good flight characteristics, highest possible streamlining for speed. Should be modular enough to accept different engines' "power eggs" as availability permits. Proposed armament is 3x20mm cannon, two in the wings, one in the prop-hub or cowling.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 2, 2009)

Kind of like the Bell XP-77?

I would have to say wood and fabric. Wood structure and fabric covered.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 2, 2009)

The de Havilland Mosquito was made out of plywood but did not need surprise to defeat the enemy.

It had two Rolls-Royce or Packard Merlins which gave top speeds up to 425 mph depending on model and ceiling up to 44,000 feet also depending on model.

Common armament was four .303 Brownings with 8000 rounds total and four 20mm Hispano cannons with 1200 rounds total. All together 7,781 were built in factories in Britain, Canada and Australia. 

Typical combat range was 1,860 miles. So far I can find nothing on its radar cross section but I don't expect that wood reflects radio waves very well.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 3, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Kind of like the Bell XP-77?
> 
> I would have to say wood and fabric. Wood structure and fabric covered.


The XP-77 tried to use a cheap crappy engine and realized no advantages. I would want to use front-line production engines that don't suck.The Miles M.20 is a better example.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2009)

Wood was probably the best up front but it was difficult to maintain and repair in the field and the environment could play havoc as well. In essence, expect a "throwaway" airplane with a maximum airframe life of around 500 hours as the norm. Proof of that is the Mosquito which pretty quickly disappeared after the war.

Tube and fabric are probably the best for quick repair, again a bit of skill is required. Steel can be used for structural attach points and landing gear but you would have to watch corrosion, especially when placed around "dissimilar metals."


----------



## Waynos (Feb 3, 2009)

??? The Mosquito served with Bomber Command into the 1950's and in other roles into the 1960's both in the UK and overseas. The ones used in the movie 633 Sqn had only just been retired from service, hence their availability.

Its construction also used a balsa/plywood sandwich which allowed for a monocoque structure which was extremely strong and also very light without the added weight of a separate internal skeleton. This would probably be a good example to follow, being both lighter and stronger than a fabric covered wooden frame.


----------



## davebender (Feb 3, 2009)

This depends on the nation. Germany had plenty of aluminum during the late 1930s. What they lacked was high octane aviation fuel. Later nickel, tungsten and chrome would become a problem. Britain had high octane aviation fuel. What they lacked was aluminum.

These national strategic material shortages dictated weapons design. Britain got serious about building a high performance wooden combat aircraft. Germany looked for alternatives to sabot ammunition (required tungsten) and skipped production of the Jumo 004A engine in favor of the Jumo 004B which used less nickel and chrome.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2009)

Waynos said:


> ??? The Mosquito served with Bomber Command into the 1950's and in other roles into the 1960's both in the UK and overseas. The ones used in the movie 633 Sqn had only just been retired from service, hence their availability.
> 
> Its construction also used a balsa/plywood sandwich which allowed for a monocoque structure which was extremely strong and also very light without the added weight of a separate internal skeleton. This would probably be a good example to follow, being both lighter and stronger than a fabric covered wooden frame.


Take a Mossie from the UK and send it to a warm environment, especially during the winter months....For that matter do that to any wood aircraft. I guarantee you will have components that will shrink, and that will happen regardless of the process used for construction and no matter how well the aircraft is built.

Those that served into the 50s and sometimes into the 60s were not hard flown and had to be carefully maintained. Many of the post war Mossies still in use by commonwealth air forces were performing secondary roles. The IDF got Mossies and they didn't last too long as a front line combat aircraft.

It is difficult to do wood repairs and many times you are not going to restore the damaged area to its original integrity.

I agree about the strength of the Mossie's structure - it’s the ability of the airframe to be properly maintained and repaired as well as its degradation to the elements that would make it essentially a throw-away aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Ok, I've been kicking around ideas about a light, cheap fighter made of non strategic materials that would be capable of successfully engaging the main fighters of the war if it had some kind of edge (surprise, pilot experience, numbers, etc.) for a while now.
> 
> My specific ideas have been responded to intelligently and I have gotten some support for the concept. But a central question has remained, which is the best way to build one?
> 
> ...



If you want high performance - Plywood.

Tubular steel/doped linen has distinct deficiencies regarding 'go fast/take g's

The aluminum skin/shear panel/riveted airframe was the best compromise - but rivets were an amazingly high component of weight (and cost).

Plywood and more modern composites are not easy to repair.

Doped fabric is ok for speeds below 300+ kts for control surfaces but are not suitable as fuselage or wing coverings in a high performance fighter (WWII vintage and beyond)

Steel tubing requires welding for attach flanges, etc - a more labor intensive QC process.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Feb 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In essence, expect a "throwaway" airplane with a maximum airframe life of around 500 hours as the norm.



Did the Brits have this mindset regarding the Mossie?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Did the Brits have this mindset regarding the Mossie?


Not really but I think many designers and builders weren't expecting their aircraft to last more than a few hundred hours anyway.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Take a Mossie from the UK and send it to a warm environment, especially during the winter months....For that matter do that to any wood aircraft. I guarantee you will have components that will shrink, and that will happen regardless of the process used for construction and no matter how well the aircraft is built.
> 
> Those that served into the 50s and sometimes into the 60s were not hard flown and had to be carefully maintained. Many of the post war Mossies still in use by commonwealth air forces were performing secondary roles. The IDF got Mossies and they didn't last too long as a front line combat aircraft.
> 
> ...



I see what you are saying, it was just the line you put about the Mossie disappearing soon after WW2 that got me, because it didn't. Its true that the Mossies built during WW were not built for a long life, but does that also mean that they couldn't be? I don't know.

One of the major problems of the Mossie went sent to more tropical climes was that they literally came unglued, often in the air, which is unforgiveable. But I think this was brought about by the nature of dispersed unskilled manufacture rather than the nature of the concept of a wooden aircraft, extremes of temp notwithstanding. Did the original post referred to at the start of the thread specify tropical conditions? I only joined the idea with this thread.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I see what you are saying, it was just the line you put about the Mossie disappearing soon after WW2 that got me, because it didn't. Its true that the Mossies built during WW were not built for a long life, but does that also mean that they couldn't be? I don't know.


Either not from the wood fabricatrion process or if they were kept in hangars with some type of climate control.


Waynos said:


> One of the major problems of the Mossie went sent to more tropical climes was that they literally came unglued, often in the air, which is unforgiveable. But I think this was brought about by the nature of dispersed unskilled manufacture rather than the nature of the concept of a wooden aircraft, extremes of temp notwithstanding. Did the original post referred to at the start of the thread specify tropical conditions? I only joined the idea with this thread.


More the enviornment that would cause just about any wood airframe to fall apart if not carefully maintained and stored.

And again, although the Mossie was around in the post war years, examine their numbers and who operated them. When you're involved in "special ops" or flight test its a lot easier to really maintain your aircraft as more than likely you're only dealing with one or two airframes.


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 3, 2009)

Speaking of glue, that in itself can be a problem if you are short of appropriate manufacturing industries. The Ta-154 Moskito (geddit?!  ) literally came unstuck because German factories were producing substandard glue that would not hold the airframes together in flight conditions, even in a coll temperate climate like Germany's. Something to think about before building a wooden wonder....


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Feb 3, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Speaking of glue, that in itself can be a problem if you are short of appropriate manufacturing industries. The Ta-154 Moskito (geddit?!  ) literally came unstuck because German factories were producing substandard glue that would not hold the airframes together in flight conditions, even in a coll temperate climate like Germany's. Something to think about before building a wooden wonder....



I don't get the joke, and I usually pride myself by being one of the few Yanks who understand British humour (such as Monty Python).


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 3, 2009)

Not a joke as such, the Ta-154 was referred to as the Moskito, and this cannot be a coincidence, as like the de Havilland Mosquito, it was a wooden twin-engined aircraft. Like certain marks of the Mosquito, it was also intended for night-fighting. It seems that Kurt Tank was very explicitly acknowledging the British design when he created his own. More info here:

Focke-Wulf Ta 154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 3, 2009)

> The aluminum skin/shear panel/riveted airframe was the best compromise - but rivets were an amazingly high component of weight (and cost).



Could you give an example of a plane that was made this way?



> Wood was probably the best up front but it was difficult to maintain and repair in the field and the environment could play havoc as well. In essence, expect a "throwaway" airplane with a maximum airframe life of around 500 hours as the norm. Proof of that is the Mosquito which pretty quickly disappeared after the war.



Wood is probably what I'm looking at then. I want a high performance stopgap plane to arm the Chinese airforce (and others unable to get planes because America was only exporting to the UK and USSR). I think i would ask Fairchild to help convert the Miles M.20 design to Duramold (plastic impregnated heat-molded plywood) and get someone at Allison to make a "power egg" compatible with the design for the V-1710. Since it's an American idea, I'd probably arm it with 4x.50MGs with 250 rounds each. It's decent armament and almost exactly the same weight as the original 8x.303x350each.

I think the plastic impregnated duramold would be less moisture sensitive in particular and less elements-sensitive in general.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 3, 2009)

Supermarine made 2 Plastic(Aerolite) Spitfire fuses in order to save on strategic materials. It was a failure.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Could you give an example of a plane that was made this way?
> 
> >The aluminum skin/shear panel/riveted airframe was the best compromise - but rivets were an amazingly high component of weight (and cost). <
> 
> ...



The wood laminate is excellent strength to weight ratio (like aluminum) and trades off bonding/glue for drill/rivet construction. The wood weighs more than the aluminum, the glue/bonding less than rivets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I think the plastic impregnated duramold would be less moisture sensitive in particular and less elements-sensitive in general.


If it contains any type of wood material it can be susceptible to shrinkage. Additionally you're still running into the repair issue, especially in the field where you're going to have to have skilled workers and in some cases a controlled environment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2009)

> The aluminum skin/shear panel/riveted airframe was the best compromise - but rivets were an amazingly high component of weight (and cost).





Clay_Allison said:


> Could you give an example of a plane that was made this way?


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Feb 4, 2009)

I always say "Wrap your ass in fiberglass". Fiberglass was actually invented long before WWII. It was used in boats in the 1930s. I guess no one thought of using it in aircraft until after the war. Fiberglass is made from silica (sand). I think everyone had a lot of that during the war. 
The Brits developed viable polyester resins in the 1930s. It wasn't until the 1960s that aircraft parts were produced with fiberglass. We now call it "composites". Now, lots of aircraft are made using composite structural materials.
Talk about non strategic. You can literally build an airplane with a pair of scissors and a paint brush.


----------



## HellToupee (Feb 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wood was probably the best up front but it was difficult to maintain and repair in the field and the environment could play havoc as well. In essence, expect a "throwaway" airplane with a maximum airframe life of around 500 hours as the norm. Proof of that is the Mosquito which pretty quickly disappeared after the war.



Most planes pretty quickly disappeared after the war, metal and wood alike, most AC that served post war were built post war or towards the end. Over 1000 mossies were built post war. 

A mossie IX holds the record for most sorties flown by any bomber during ww2 so what ever its airframe life was it was suffient for the task.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The wood laminate is excellent strength to weight ratio (like aluminum) and trades off bonding/glue for drill/rivet construction. The wood weighs more than the aluminum, the glue/bonding less than rivets.


By all accounts the M.20 worked fine and I think that American (Hughes/Fairchild) Duramold Plywood would have made for a refinement of the design. Plus I think I would have added retractable landing gear and made it compatible with a power egg from both the V-1710 and the V-1650 (even if I had to put a weight in the tail to re-center the 200lb weight difference).


----------



## Graeme (Feb 4, 2009)

HellToupee said:


> Over 1000 mossies were built post war.



De Havilland persisted with wood products and a bonding technique utilising "Redux Adhesive"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redux_(adhesive)





Anyone know if the Sea Hornet experienced wood problems similar to the Mosquito? The Sea hornet had the same criss-cross wood technique applied to the fuselage as the Mosquito but used redux...





(Clay, have you had a look at the wooden French Caudron and Italian Ambrossini lightweight fighters of WWII?)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2009)

HellToupee said:


> Most planes pretty quickly disappeared after the war, metal and wood alike, most AC that served post war were built post war or towards the end. Over 1000 mossies were built post war.


Many of the aircraft that disappeared after the war were scrapped because their operators didn't need them and they cost money to maintain and operate.


HellToupee said:


> A mossie IX holds the record for most sorties flown by any bomber during ww2 so what ever its airframe life was it was suffient for the task.


How many hours on the airframe does that equate to? Sorties mean squat for maintenance purposes unless you're tracking cycles on the landing gear for take offs and landings or engine starts and shut downs, more common with turbo-prop aircraft. As far as I know neither was required to be tracked on the Mossie.

You're talking one airframe. Generally most WW2 aircraft including the Mossie lasted about 500 hours.

_"The Anglo-Belgian agreement of November 18th, 1946 regarding the delivery of aircraft and equipment by the United Kingdom to Belgium also included the formation of one nightfighter squadron equipped with 22 Mosquito NF30 fighters. The aircraft were delivered from november 1947 onwards with an additional two aircraft for use as instructional airframes. The nightfighter Mosquitos saw service with Nrs 10 and 11 Squadron and operated from Beauvechain. In 1953 two additional Mosquito NF30 were delivered. Build mainly out of balsa wood *the service life of a Mosquito was limited *and all operational aircraft were struck of charge by 1956 and scrapped." _

De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito NF.30. - Belgian Military Aircraft


----------



## drgondog (Feb 4, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> By all accounts the M.20 worked fine and I think that American (Hughes/Fairchild) Duramold Plywood would have made for a refinement of the design. Plus I think I would have added retractable landing gear and made it compatible with a power egg from both the V-1710 and the V-1650 (even if I had to put a weight in the tail to re-center the 200lb weight difference).



I would prefer stretching fuselage and playing with extra fuel capacity aft of cockpit to offset extra engine weight than adding ballast. Should give you more to play with re: pitch stability and would not be an issue with parasite drag - particularly aft of the wing.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I would prefer stretching fuselage and playing with extra fuel capacity aft of cockpit to offset extra engine weight than adding ballast. Should give you more to play with re: pitch stability and would not be an issue with parasite drag - particularly aft of the wing.


After I posted that I remembered the Fw 109 Dora had a little spacer to recenter it after the switch to the Junkers engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2009)

Graeme said:


> De Havilland persisted with wood products and a bonding technique utilising "Redux Adhesive"...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redux_(adhesive)
> 
> ...



Here some more info on Redux which is now a brand name owned by Hexcel. I've seen this stuff on a few airplanes with honey comb structures.

Hexcel.com - Adhesives Data Sheets


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 5, 2009)

I just realized that if we had been building some kind of Mosquito clone under license here, maybe with 6x.50 in the nose, we could have had a long-range escort in 1942!


----------



## ppopsie (Feb 6, 2009)

Metal wood;
I have been interested in some of the aircraft types, the Spitfire and the Lancaster for instance, had wooden parts such as plywood stringers and formers integrated with the light alloy airframe construction. In the case of the former some of the metal skin panels on the outer parts on the lower side of the wing, behind the main spar, were secured to the ribs by wood screws which were screwed onto plywood stringers that had been attached to the metal ribs along the lower edges with screws and nuts. Skin panels on a side of the vertical stabilizer were attached to the rib/spars by the same method. The inside structures of the wing tip panels were of all wood too.

In case of the Lancaster some of the parts were of wood; curved leading edges of the fins, the frames of the openings for each doors, the thick edge of the circular opening on the lower side of the fuselage, and the edges of the wing tip panels. Expensive wood materials such as laminated mahogany were specified for the use, though. 

I understand that these were employed primarily for the frexibility in designing and manufacturing, and secondly for the conserving metal materials. But I have been wonderling how these wooden parts became, say, after some years of serving under variable weather conditions during which period the parts must have been trapped inside of the structure and subjected to possible condensation/moisture. 

I saw a Lancaster at the RAF Museum in 2000, which had vertical stabilizer leading edge formers partially and appearently rotten and the edges of the skin panels originally attaced to the L/E former slightly detouched and raised. 

From these two examples I can deduce that if one get to operate the airplanes having these type of construction it is necessary to inspect often on the wooden parts and do repairs on them as necessary. These may produce more complicated situations than the case of all wood construction on a long run. 

The Mosquito;
As an airframe mechanic I had been wondering how they protect the airframe of the Mosquito from the moisture/water while it was in service. We use waterproof cover (tarpauline) for wooden gliders when they need to be parked outdoors and I knew it was quite necessary under the weather like in Japan. 

So, on reading carefully on the Mosquito F. MkII manual A.P. 2019B Vol.1 Sect.4. Chap.3 #129 through 133, I found however that they used waterproof covers only on the cockpit and the engine nacelles. That is the aircraft can be parmanently parked outdoors without protection provided that the inspection and servicing procedures as per instructed carefully followed. 

Also if an wooden aircraft like the Mosquito was used under very dry conditions like the one in the outback in Australia it would suffer considerable shrink on the wood materials since it contains more than 10% of water by weight. In such cases wooden part contacts with metal structural hardware would shrink through excessive drying and will cause looseness on fitting of such parts. These problems can also be adressed if proper inspection/maintenance procedure was taken but it shall be traded off with the efficiency of the aircraft for the role; maintenance cost.

From these I would rather think the British before and during WW2 had an idea that an airplane only necessarily be airworty for just a few years. It can be understood when considering about the life-cycle of the aircraft that was current in 30's, though.


----------



## davebender (Feb 6, 2009)

> I just realized that if we had been building some kind of Mosquito clone under license here, maybe with 6x.50 in the nose, we could have had a long-range escort in 1942!


I think that's a bad idea. The Mosquito would fare no better vs single engine fighters then the Me-410 did. 

If the U.S. Army Air Corps want to get serious about a long range bomber escort during 1942 then they should power the P-38 with Packard built Merlin engines. For that matter nothing prevents the P-51 from being powered with this engine during 1942.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 6, 2009)

davebender said:


> I think that's a bad idea. The Mosquito would fare no better vs single engine fighters then the Me-410 did.
> 
> If the U.S. Army Air Corps want to get serious about a long range bomber escort during 1942 then they should power the P-38 with Packard built Merlin engines. For that matter nothing prevents the P-51 from being powered with this engine during 1942.


I think that fighting with some cover fire from B-17s is different from flying close escort to Ju-88s. Agree on the other points though. I always thought that they should never have appoved the airacobra and should have had Bell building P-38s under license.

Having them equipped with Merlins would have been interesting. For several reasons the Allison's engine mounting didn't work well in the COld of Western europe.


----------



## mhuxt (Feb 6, 2009)

Post-WWII, Mossies were flown in action against targets in Malaya and Batavia. The last front-line RAF Mossie sortie was flown by an aircraft based in Singapore, I believe in 1956.

The Israeli Mosquitos suffered no operational losses in the six-day war, and the book I have on IAF Mossies, so far as I recall, doesn't complain about structural failures.

I think the French even flew them in Indo-China, though I've no info beyond that.

I've also read "somewhere" (so I can't give you a reference) that the late-44 difficulties suffered by FBs in India was traced to a manufacturing fault, not the glue. IIRC "Mosquito" by Sharp Bowyer says either the first or second Mosquito to arrive in the theatre had the formaldehyde glue.

Anyway, the best non-strategic material is clearly Kit-Kat. If I were marooned on a desert island and could only have three things, I'd have Kit-Kat, Kit-Kat, and Pamela Anderson, covered in Kit-Kat. 

I believe this settles the matter.


----------



## Timppa (Feb 8, 2009)

The first practical all-metal aircraft, the Junkers J1 (1915), nicknamed the Blechesel, was made of iron and steel, as the first aluminum alloys were initially prone to flaking and other undesirable characteristic flaws when worked in sheet metal form.







Later a couple of American companies specialized in aircraft made from stainless steel.

Budd Company made a flying boat, the Budd BB, and later Budd RB Conestoga transport:





Fleetwings made BT-12 primary trainer and Sea Bird amphibian:


----------



## parsifal (Feb 10, 2009)

"Properly Constructed" aircraft did not last that long during the war either. The average life expectancy of a P-51, EXCLUDING COMBAT LOSSES was a meree 10 months. Most WWII planes should be viewed as consumer items, so the cheaper the construction the better.

If the Mossie had an airframe life of 500 hours, that I think is typically about 10 months of regular flying....so the difference in life expectancy of a Mosquito, and a P-51 is basically zero. 

This is not so much a comment about maintenance, as to airframe life


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

parsifal said:


> "Properly Constructed" aircraft did not last that long during the war either. The average life expectancy of a P-51, EXCLUDING COMBAT LOSSES was a meree 10 months. Most WWII planes should be viewed as consumer items, so the cheaper the construction the better.
> 
> If the Mossie had an airframe life of 500 hours, that I think is typically about 10 months of regular flying....so the difference in life expectancy of a Mosquito, and a P-51 is basically zero.
> 
> This is not so much a comment about maintenance, as to airframe life


All very true - then add in operational and combat damage, field modifications and normal wear and tear. Basically many WW2 aircraft were "throw away" items.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 10, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All very true - then add in operational and combat damage, field modifications and normal wear and tear. Basically many WW2 aircraft were "throw away" items.


Most things are, in war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Most things are, in war.


Yep, for the most part.


----------



## ppopsie (Feb 11, 2009)

>Pamela Anderson:


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 22, 2009)

So, from what I've gathered talking to the people here:

I like steel tube and fabric for the fuselage and plywood for the wings. I'm thinking a really good wooden wing wouldn't lack much compared to an aluminum one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> So, from what I've gathered talking to the people here:
> 
> I like steel tube and fabric for the fuselage and plywood for the wings. I'm thinking a really good wooden wing wouldn't lack much compared to an aluminum one.



Most things are a compromise. While a wooden wing might only be a little heavier than a metal one the wooden spar/s and wooden ribs will take up much more volume inside the wing. This is what it possiable for the Late model Yak's with metal wings ( or at least metal spars) to have the big increase range, more room for fuel in the wings. 

While the surface finish might even be better on the wood wing leading to less drag IF DONE RIGHT. It is the getting it right part that is the problem. THere were several wooden/plastic aircraft in the begining of WW II as have been discussed in other threads. I have also wondered about "repairs" to several Soviet wooden aircraft because some of these wooden structures required "baking" in a large oven for several hours to set the glue/resin. 
At least one American wooden aircraft lost out because the 60 gallons of Vinyl-resin plastic used to bond it together was deemed a controlled war material.

Going back to the original idea, it looks attractive at first glance but all the really expensive stuff in an airplane has to be used in this airplane. A first rate engine, propellor, and cooling,/oil installation. Instraments and radios. Landing gear oleos and retracion mechanisms, Wheels and brakes. Armament. 

The only savings is on the airframe itself which on a pound for pound basis is the cheapest portion of the aircraft. 

How much is it going to cost to tool up a factory to make this airframe? I am assuming you do want interchangeable parts to make feild repairs easier so we can rule out getting wing panels from Harry and Burt's converted cow barn and stabilizers from Larry and Moe's bait shop. 

If you do use the baked resin process how much do those 20-30ft ovens cost? and how soon are you going to get them?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Most things are a compromise. While a wooden wing might only be a little heavier than a metal one the wooden spar/s and wooden ribs will take up much more volume inside the wing. This is what it possiable for the Late model Yak's with metal wings ( or at least metal spars) to have the big increase range, more room for fuel in the wings.
> 
> While the surface finish might even be better on the wood wing leading to less drag IF DONE RIGHT. It is the getting it right part that is the problem. THere were several wooden/plastic aircraft in the begining of WW II as have been discussed in other threads. I have also wondered about "repairs" to several Soviet wooden aircraft because some of these wooden structures required "baking" in a large oven for several hours to set the glue/resin.
> At least one American wooden aircraft lost out because the 60 gallons of Vinyl-resin plastic used to bond it together was deemed a controlled war material.
> ...


Fairchild and Hughes were making polymer bonded plywood aircraft, but the concerns you stated were the reason that I'd only go for plywood wings. Steel tubing and linen is cheaper than high grade plywood and glue. Metal wings would still be on the table. Linen wings won't stay rigid at high speed so they are a dead end.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Ok, I've been kicking around ideas about a light, cheap fighter made of non strategic materials that would be capable of successfully engaging the main fighters of the war if it had some kind of edge (surprise, pilot experience, numbers, etc.) for a while now.
> 
> My specific ideas have been responded to intelligently and I have gotten some support for the concept. But a central question has remained, which is the best way to build one?
> 
> ...



Hello Clay

On the end of 30ies about 1938-39:
I think the best non strategic material was the *soviet Delta-Drevesina* so called plywood, but in fact a real first generation_ composite_: 
-*26,5 kg force/mm² *of tensile-max strengh for a *1.3 density (1300kg/ m^3) *it means a strengh to weight ratio 20.3 N-m^3 better than duralumin of this years 14.3 N-m^3 or normal plywood 9.9N-m^3. Difficult to glue, no casein, no bones glue (strong cabinetmarking glue), only resin VIAM B-3 one.

-The soviet weldable chome molybdenium steel 30KhMA or KhGSA should be useful too, with its 110kg force/mm² tensile strengh instead of 65-90 kgforce/mm² for other countries.

So they had a hudge tecnical/scientifical advance due to VIAM reaserch institute these years on aviation material matters.



> The type of fighter I want is simple: highest horsepower:weight that can be attained with good flight characteristics, highest possible streamlining for speed. Should be modular enough to accept different engines' "power eggs" as availability permits. Proposed armament is 3x20mm cannon, two in the wings, one in the prop-hub or cowling.


Why not Polikarpov I-185, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_I-185

VG-33


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Why not Polikarpov I-185, then?
> Polikarpov I-185 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> VG-33



IS it just me or does anyone else think that the Polikarpov I-185 was just a little too good to be true?

Smaller airframe than a Bf 109 but using an engine the size (or bigger?) than a B-29 engine (R-3350).

"..... ease of flying. Importantly, I-185 flying characteristics were similar to the I-16's, which made the transition easy for even moderately experienced pilots."

Granted the Sovet engine is a bit lighter than a R-3350, a mere 2138lbs.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> IS it just me or does anyone else think that the Polikarpov I-185 was just a little too good to be true?
> 
> Smaller airframe than a Bf 109 but using an engine the size (or bigger?) than a B-29 engine (R-3350).
> 
> ...



It's a kind of simplified translation, usual in wiki. Good remark.

It's quoted from 18th Guards Fighter Regiment commander the major Chertov's compilated * report from april 42, the 1rst. From front line trials. "..._relatively_ ease of flying.....for moderalty experienced _I-16 pilots_.


Of course I-16 was a difficult plane to handle, but for a pilot accustomised to it, it was easy to take on the Polikarpov's I-18/I-200 (MiG-1)/I-185 family.

_
После облёта самолета И-185 М-71 докладываем свои соображения: скорость, манёвренность, вооружение, простота взлёта и посадки, малый пробег и разбег, равный И-16 тип 24, живучесть в бою, аналогичная И-16, сравнительная лёгкость и приятность в технике пилотирования, возможность ремонта в полевых условиях, лёгкость переучивания лётчиков, особенно с И-16, дают право рекомендовать пустить в серийное производство данный самолёт (докладная записка командира 18 Гвардейского ИАП майора Чертова от 1 апреля 1942 года)_


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 24, 2009)

Slightly OT...


> I think the best non strategic material was the soviet Delta-Drevesina so called plywood, but in fact a real first generation composite:


Delta-Drevesina is the good example to considering, what is, and what is not strategic material. Because for Soviets wood and plywood weren't strategic. But phenol resins*, indispensable to the production of the Delta, were strategic, because all were imported. After american embargo (with Winter War) and german attack deliveries were broken. It was necessary to take place Delta with usual plywood. This was one from major causes of Lavotschkin problems with his fighter. Deliveries were resumedas far as well I remember, in 1943.

* Sorry, i don't know exactly english name.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 24, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> Slightly OT...
> 
> Delta-Drevesina is the good example to considering, what is, and what is not strategic material. Because for Soviets wood and plywood weren't strategic. But phenol resins*, indispensable to the production of the Delta, were strategic, because all were imported. After american embargo (with Winter War) and german attack deliveries were broken. It was necessary to take place Delta with usual plywood. This was one from major causes of Lavotschkin problems with his fighter. Deliveries were resumedas far as well I remember, in 1943.
> 
> * Sorry, i don't know exactly english name.


I wonder how the Delta compares to the Hughes and Fairchild Duramold Polymer Bonded Plywood.


----------

