A better choice for fighters' air-frame

[stoxm73]

The Vickers applied the geodetic structure on their Wellington bomber in the 1930s. However, such structure had never applied on the fighter.

Since the light alloy lattice-work gave a light structure with tremendous strength, it is possible that a lighter and sturdier spitfire could be available at the time of BOB.

 

[PAT303]

The Vickers applied the geodetic structure on their Wellington bomber in the 1930s. However, such structure had never applied on the fighter.

Since the light alloy lattice-work gave a light structure with tremendous strength, it is possible that a lighter and sturdier spitfire could be available at the time of BOB.

Why did the Spitfire need to be sturdier?.

 

[Shortround6]

People complain or criticize the Spitfire for being expensive to build.

This cannot be cheap to build. I don't believe (correction welcome) that any plane using metal skinning used geodetic construction.
Fabric covered Spitfire?
On the Wellington the entire strength came from the framework. the fabric just covered things up. On the Spitfire a fair amount of the strength came from the metal skin (which was much heavier per sq ft than the fabric). covering the Wellington with metal would add quite a few pounds.

The airframe weight of a bomber is considerable and saving a few hundred pounds out of thousands is commendable, saving a few dozen pounds out of hundreds on the Spitfire (or any other single engine fighter) might not be worth the trouble/expense?

 

[pbehn]

On the Wellington the entire strength came from the framework. the fabric just covered things up. On the Spitfire a fair amount of the strength came from the metal skin (which was much heavier per sq ft than the fabric). covering the Wellington with metal would add quite a few pounds.

When the Hurricane switched from fabric to metal skinned wings the metal skinned version was lighter and much better in dive performance. I presume that the fabric version needed more metal inside to cope with the load.

 

[Glider]

The wellington was also famous for flexing in flight, in particular the wings. That's one thing when your in a bomber that mostly goes in a straight line and may well help at low level with the variable wind / gust effects at ground level. However its most definitely not what you want, in a fighter which is going to be thrown around the sky.

 

[yulzari]

Vickers had to keep on making Wellingtons right through the war as they could not turn to metal skinned construction with the tools and staff i hand without a very major delay. Post war they quickly went to metal skinned construction with the Vickers Viking and it' service developments. The big 4 engined Vickers Windsor needed steel in the covering fabric to cope with the speeds and stresses.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Why did the Spitfire need to be sturdier?.

When you opt for lightweight construction in pursuit of performance, you risk sacrificing a little robustitude. All well and good in the "civilized" world of ETO, but in the rest of the world where airstrips are rougher and operating conditions harsher, it can turn into a liability. My engines instructor in mech school, an 8th AF mechanic, was assigned for a time to an outfit that supported a hodgepodge of American PR planes, including Lightnings, Mosquitoes, and Spits. He was appalled at the light construction of the Spitfires and said they were subject to twice as much damage in routine operations as any other plane.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Snautzer01]

When you opt for lightweight construction in pursuit of performance, you risk sacrificing a little robustitude. All well and good in the "civilized" world of ETO, but in the rest of the world where airstrips are rougher and operating conditions harsher, it can turn into a liability. My engines instructor in mech school, an 8th AF mechanic, was assigned for a time to an outfit that supported a hodgepodge of American PR planes, including Lightnings, Mosquitoes, and Spits. He was appalled at the light construction of the Spitfires and said they were subject to twice as much damage in routine operations as any other plane.
Cheers,
Wes

Wes, i do like your knowledge and certainly will not question it. But i knew a dutch fly boy flying i believe the nf-5 who said his american colleges were much much harder on their rides. Indeed if one of them would have handled his ride in such a way the would have had a bad day in the office. Is it possible that the american way of using material was not as gentle as the europeans. (Because when you can slam dunk your plane onto the surface because it can handle it and is the savest way why wont you now) And there for, if handeled the same way, that was the origin of the problem ?. Not saying what is best or such, just picking your brain. Thanks

 

[pbehn]

When you opt for lightweight construction in pursuit of performance, you risk sacrificing a little robustitude. All well and good in the "civilized" world of ETO, but in the rest of the world where airstrips are rougher and operating conditions harsher, it can turn into a liability. My engines instructor in mech school, an 8th AF mechanic, was assigned for a time to an outfit that supported a hodgepodge of American PR planes, including Lightnings, Mosquitoes, and Spits. He was appalled at the light construction of the Spitfires and said they were subject to twice as much damage in routine operations as any other plane.
Cheers,
Wes

The Spitfire, as originally designed had circa 660HP available on take off. It had to be a light design, once in production it isn't easy to beef it up and in any case it doubled in weight through the war.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Vickers applied the geodetic structure on their Wellington bomber in the 1930s. However, such structure had never applied on the fighter.

Shall we start with the geodetic-framed Vickers Wellesley?

Swap in a Merlin engine and reduce to Spitfire scale.

Or, make it a single-seat, cannon-armed, Sabre or Hercules powered ground attack fighter, Typhoon-sized with a Wellesley's robust construction.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Looking at this lumbering thing, it's hard to imagine British IL-2.

 

[Shortround6]

The " Wellington's robust fabric covered construction."?

BTW Wallis started his journey down the geodetic path with airships, of which the R-100 was an example.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The " Wellington's robust fabric covered construction."?

Sure. The coating may come away, but these photos show us that covering or not, they can make it home.

Don't get me wrong, I think stressed metal alloy skin and conventional framing is the way to go for fighters. But the question is how to use the geodetic design. I'll leave it to our resident contrarians to tell us why it wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't be done. Instead I want to assume the role of designer, taking orders from head office to figure out how we can do it.

 

[Shortround6]

I will be a contrarian who says why bother, as in it shouldn't be done. More expensive, not as strong (geodetic was stronger for weight that fabric covered normally framework where the frame work had to carry all the stress) as stressed skin construction for weight.

Since the light alloy lattice-work gave a light structure with tremendous strength, it is possible that a lighter and sturdier spitfire could be available at the time of BOB.

This premise is in error. A lighter and sturdier Spitfire could not have been available at the time of the BoB using geodetic construction. Or at least not one that performed better.

Wasting engineer resources (engineering manpower) on an inferior structural design was not something Britain could afford.

I'll leave it to our resident contrarians to tell us why it wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't be done. Instead I want to figure out how we can do it.

While your at how about figuring out how to make a fabric covered P-39. It makes about the same amount of sense.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I will be a contrarian who says why bother, as in it shouldn't be done.

Okay, we have your position, clear and concise.

What's your plan now? Leave the thread, or rebut any post contrary to your own?

 

[Shortround6]

I will continue to be a contrarian and give you a good reason not to do it.
Doped fabric covering was flammable and could be set on fire by rcmg tracer and incendiary bullets.
Yes, you can get thin sheet aluminum to burn but it takes a lot more to get it going.

 

[wuzak]

Could you make a geodetic wing as thin as the Spitfire's?

 

[PAT303]

Why waste time and resources developing a geodetic framed Spitfire, use it to put the MkIII into production instead.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Is it possible that the american way of using material was not as gentle as the europeans.

I suppose that's possible. I imagine a pilot used to Lightnings, Thunderbolts, or Mustangs might find himself a little ham-fisted in a Spitfire. Mr Hamm said most American recon pilots didn't like the job, would rather fly fighters, and didn't like the Spitfire. He also said pilots were required to be cross qualified in all aircraft types the unit had and jump from plane to plane for different missions, which I'm sure didn't help.
He said the Spitfires could easily be "bent" in the aft fuselage area and around the landing gear trunnions and IF they could be repaired and remain in rig (big IF), they were never as strong afterwards and susceptible to re-damage. A "repaired" Spit often flew "a little cock-eyed", according to him.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

Vickers had to keep on making Wellingtons right through the war as they could not turn to metal skinned construction with the tools and staff i hand without a very major delay. Post war they quickly went to metal skinned construction with the Vickers Viking and it' service developments. The big 4 engined Vickers Windsor needed steel in the covering fabric to cope with the speeds and stresses.

I thought the Windsor used some kind of plastic like PVC for it's skin -- something about a tuning fork needed to evaluate the frame.