Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not exactly: The Hornet had metal skins with wooden construction (I'm not sure if the whole skin was metal or not, but it had some). I was describing a plane that was of metallic construction.Wouldn't that be the Hornet?
Now this looks pretty useful though I'm not sure how to determine the surface area for a complex shape like an airplane and the various frames and stringers. Off memory, I only remember the surface area for triangles (1/2bh), rectangles (lw), circles (πr^2), cubes (6a^2), spheres (4πr^2), probably cylinders (2πrh), and I forgot how to do trapezoids, though I can probably find that one.Something from a boat building site . . . . Now as indicated in the chart, the weight of aluminum will depend on what alloy type of aluminum we're talking about. 2024 will generally be lighter than 7075 but heavier than 6061.
I assume if the thickness was brought down by 1/2 then the mass would go down accordingly right?Yeah, but most aircraft skins are anywhere from .032" to .040" thick, not 1/8 (.125).
That's quite impressive, from the standpoint of weight (the Mosquito seemed to be around 14000 lbs. empty) and performance. I assume it lacked the volume because it was skinnier (and it lacked the bomb-bay). Do you have any idea of what load-factor it was stressed for?There WAS a post WWII aircraft that was VERY Mosquito-like, build of Aluminum. It was the FMA I.Ae.30 Nancu. . . . It had a pair of Merlins, was faster than any Mosquito, and empty, was 13,686 lbs. Loaded was 16,755 lbs. Max speed 460 mph. Cruise 310 mph.
I'll order it when I get the chance...This is always a tremendously difficult question to solve on any topic, I heartily recommend to you a book by J. E. Gordon called "The New Science of Strong Materials."
That is pretty ironic...Gordon reflects that it was "one of Gods little jokes" that the SPECIFIC stiffness of virtually all usable structural materials is nearly identical.
I assume the need to build in resistance to this variable would drive up weight a bit.[/QUOTE]Wing flexure or fuselage twist would be two key metrics which essentially would produce an aircraft of exactly the same weight regardless of if they were made of iron or balsa wood!
But did de Havilland have the production facilities to produce aluminium Mosquitoes?
And the inexperience of Supermarine slowed the transition from prototype to production.
Now this looks pretty useful though I'm not sure how to determine the surface area for a complex shape like an airplane and the various frames and stringers. Off memory, I only remember the surface area for triangles (1/2bh), rectangles (lw), circles (πr^2), cubes (6a^2), spheres (4πr^2), probably cylinders (2πrh), and I forgot how to do trapezoids, though I can probably find that one.
As for the alloy-types: I thought 7075 was used only by the Japanese during the course of WWII.
What was used on most American & British combat aircraft?
In saying that however, the Mosquito has a lot of aluminium in it, although very little of that is structural.
Man, I get chewed out for anti British bias?
View attachment 670885
"Much of the airframe was composed of alclad, while detailed fittings were fabricated from stainless steel; metallic objects were anodised as an anti-corrosion measure. While the hull a sheet metal covering, the wings were covered with fabric"
This dates back the Southhampton series
View attachment 670886
"The Southampton's structure was revised substantially over successive batches. The Southampton Mk I had both its hull and its wings manufactured from wood, while the Southampton Mk II had a hull with a single thickness of metal (duralumin) (the Mk I had a double wooden bottom); this change gave an effective weight saving of 900 lb (410 kg) (of this 900 lb, 500 lb (230 kg) represented the lighter hull, while the remaining 400 lb (180 kg) represented the weight of water that could be soaked up by the wooden hull) allowing for an increase in range of approximately 200 mi (320 km).[7] All metallic elements were anodised to deter corrosion. During 1929, 24 of the Southampton Mk Is were converted by having newly-built metal hulls replacing the wooden ones.[7] Later on, the type was also furnished with metal propellers produced by Leitner-Watts.[9] Some of the later aircraft were built with metal wings and were probably designated as Southampton Mk III, although this designation's usage has been disputed."
There was an intermediate stop The Supermarine Scapa
View attachment 670887
The Scapa hull was an all-metal structure, while the wing and tail surfaces had metal structure with fabric covering.
Making water tight flying boat hulls is a lot different than making land planes but the Spitfire was a long long way from being Supermarine's introduction to metal construction.
wings were fabric covered but metal spars and ribs.Were these stressed skin designs?
The engine cowlings were aluminium, IIRC.
Man, I get chewed out for anti British bias?
I strongly agree with your recommendation of J.E. Gordon's book "The New Science of Strong Materials". He also wrote a book called "Structures, or why things don't fall down". Basically, it's more of the same. He had an interesting fascination with bias cut material in ladies dresses.This is always a tremendously difficult question to solve on any topic, I heartily recommend to you a book by J. E. Gordon called "The New Science of Strong Materials." It is very light reading and is a "popular science" book which requires no special training at all to appreciate, but will give you a dramatically better understanding of materials and structures. Its on the required reading list for almost all good 1st year engineering courses.
It could also be a lifesaver in winter at a forward airfield where fuel for a fire is needed quickly (jumps behind coffee table to hide as he has no coat or balsa P-39A balsa P-39 should easily reach 40 to 45 thousand feet. The tumbling and spin problems would be less violent, more like a falling leaf. My balsa flying model proves this.
If anyone wants to learn about Supermarine's construction methods (in quite a bit of detail) I suggest reading Spitfire odyssey by C.R. RussellMan, I get chewed out for anti British bias?
View attachment 670885
"Much of the airframe was composed of alclad, while detailed fittings were fabricated from stainless steel; metallic objects were anodised as an anti-corrosion measure. While the hull a sheet metal covering, the wings were covered with fabric"
This dates back the Southhampton series
View attachment 670886
"The Southampton's structure was revised substantially over successive batches. The Southampton Mk I had both its hull and its wings manufactured from wood, while the Southampton Mk II had a hull with a single thickness of metal (duralumin) (the Mk I had a double wooden bottom); this change gave an effective weight saving of 900 lb (410 kg) (of this 900 lb, 500 lb (230 kg) represented the lighter hull, while the remaining 400 lb (180 kg) represented the weight of water that could be soaked up by the wooden hull) allowing for an increase in range of approximately 200 mi (320 km).[7] All metallic elements were anodised to deter corrosion. During 1929, 24 of the Southampton Mk Is were converted by having newly-built metal hulls replacing the wooden ones.[7] Later on, the type was also furnished with metal propellers produced by Leitner-Watts.[9] Some of the later aircraft were built with metal wings and were probably designated as Southampton Mk III, although this designation's usage has been disputed."
There was an intermediate stop The Supermarine Scapa
View attachment 670887
The Scapa hull was an all-metal structure, while the wing and tail surfaces had metal structure with fabric covering.
Making water tight flying boat hulls is a lot different than making land planes but the Spitfire was a long long way from being Supermarine's introduction to metal construction.
That book was recommended to me by a university prof 40 years ago and I think I still have it somewhere - an excellent read.
As to the plywood thicknesses on the Mosquito, it ranged from 1.5 to 3mm on the fuselage and up to I think 5mm on the mainplane. Of course, the fuselage had an inner skin, typically 1.5mm thick, and an outer skin of varying thicknesses and grain patterns separated by 7/16 inches of balsa filler.
There was a thread on this topic a few years back. Metal Mosquito built massively in the US
And, somewhat related: What if the P-38 was made of plywood a la Mosquito?
Hers another video showing construction of the Mosquito. Very clever indeed.
The construction of the Mosquito was quite sophisticated using the different qualities of different types of woods to full advantage. Really the precursor to composites now used.
Fuselage is around 1/4" from memory. But, that's a sandwich of ply and balsa. From a subjective point of the panels I lifted, I didn't find them much different to what I would have expected from an aluminium one. But, that's only panels, and my highly uncalibrated arm...
The bottom of a flying boat hull has to take the impact of landing so it must by nature be stressed skin.Were these stressed skin designs?
The bottom of a flying boat hull has to take the impact of landing so it must by nature be stressed skin.