Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.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 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.Why did the Spitfire need to be sturdier?.
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. ThanksWhen 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.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
Shall we start with the geodetic-framed Vickers Wellesley?The Vickers applied the geodetic structure on their Wellington bomber in the 1930s. However, such structure had never applied on the fighter.
Sure. The coating may come away, but these photos show us that covering or not, they can make it home.The " Wellington's robust fabric covered construction."?
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.
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.
Okay, we have your position, clear and concise.I will be a contrarian who says why bother, as in it shouldn't be done.
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.Is it possible that the american way of using material was not as gentle as the europeans.
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.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.