Best Non-Strategic Material?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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).

"..... 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.

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.

Best Non-Strategic Material?

More options

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

VG-33

Banned

Shortround6

Major General

VG-33

Banned

Tzaw1

Airman 1st Class

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads