De Havilland Mosquito (Wood vs. Metal)

MikeMeech · May 30, 2022

pbehn said:
I was talking about the surfaces, if you take the dope (or doped linen) off a 1939 Hurricane what sort of aeroplane do you have?

Hi
Well it would be unable to fly, however, so would most aircraft of the period, if the fabric was removed, as even the 'metal covered' aircraft had fabric covered rudders, elevators and ailerons. So aircraft like the F6F-5 (all) would not fly or the P-51B (rudder and elevators) and many other aircraft if this fabric was removed. It was later in the war as 'speeds' increased with the added stresses that thin alloy on the control surfaces was used more. Larger aircraft like the C-47 and C-54 kept them fabric covered during the war so doped fabric was an important item in aircraft construction, the Hurricane just used the construction technique that was common when it was designed. North American also used the steel tube fabric covered fuselage in its BC-1 (RAF Harvard I) trainer, the Australian built Wirraway (and Boomerang) inherited this NAA construction.

Mike

FLYBOYJ · May 30, 2022

SaparotRob said:
The L-1011 was a great plane at the wrong moment.

It was - very advanced for it's day, a bit over-engineered and it was a handful to maintain. Right when it was getting on track Lockheed decided to stop building it.

SaparotRob · May 30, 2022

I really like the tri-jet layout. Looks better on the B-727 though.

ThomasP · May 30, 2022

British TARE in WWII included only the fixed equipment, coolant, and trapped oil and fuel. It did not include guns, ammunition, ammo boxes, blast tubes, bombs, bomb shackles/hangers, pyrotechnics, electronics (except usually the antennas), or other items of normally removable military load.

The attached pdf gives examples for the Beaufighter.

Howard Gibson · May 30, 2022

yulzari said:
Does anyone have figures for the flax reinforced resin Gordon's Aerolite plastic Spitfire fuselage of 1940?

From the only photograph I have seen it looks like they made it as sheet assembled by riveting rather than bonding but I could well be wrong.

Is it sacrilege to post this?

Warbird From Scratch: A Homebuilt Spitfire

It has an Allison V-1710.

33k in the air · May 31, 2022

ThomasP said:
British TARE in WWII included only the fixed equipment, coolant, and trapped oil and fuel. It did not include guns, ammunition, ammo boxes, blast tubes, bombs, bomb shackles/hangers, pyrotechnics, electronics (except usually the antennas), or other items of normally removable military load.

The attached pdf gives examples for the Beaufighter.

Thanks for that nicely detailed weight info. Do you have similar files for other British WWII aircraft?

Engineman · May 31, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
Yep!

I worked on the P-3, B-2 and L1011 production lines. In all cases when these aircraft were rolled out of the factory floor, they had all fluids except fuel on board. IIRC the first place they went to was "fuel soak" were the fuel tanks were filled. The aircraft was not moved for a given amount of time to see if any fuel leaks were discovered. Once that was complete, the fuel was drained and then the aircraft was weighed.

Yes, the L1011 fuel/pipes/system/tankage included about 1100kg of unusable fuel that didn't show on the gauges. In the Trimsheet that was included in the ZFW (zero-fuel-weight).
Great to hear you worked on the L1011, what specialisation if I might ask? The TriStar was a great flying machine, especially the -500.

Eng

FLYBOYJ · May 31, 2022

Engineman said:
Yes, the L1011 fuel/pipes/system/tankage included about 1100kg of unusable fuel that didn't show on the gauges. In the Trimsheet that was included in the ZFW (zero-fuel-weight).
Great to hear you worked on the L1011, what specialisation if I might ask? The TriStar was a great flying machine, especially the -500.

Eng

Thanks - I was in Quality Assurance. I used to investigate issues during assembly with our component suppliers and would also deal with failure reports coming in from operators. It was a great time.

Engineman · May 31, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
Thanks - I was in Quality Assurance. I used to investigate issues during assembly with our component suppliers and would also deal with failure reports coming in from operators. It was a great time.

Yes, Quality! That is what the L1011 had, right through it. We operated the -500 at over half a Million pounds MTOW, in fact almost 550,000lb, still Perf A.
On top of the great performance, it had great systems and really good redundancy. A great aircraft!

Eng

MiTasol · Jun 2, 2022

pbehn said:
I presume the question was whether you could make what you want, at the time from a given material. The Spitfire had steel wing spars (later stainless steel), but it was a pair of spars of nested construction, put together with a lattice strapping them together and a "D" shaped leading edge to reinforce it, as you said a structure, not just a material choice.

I have only worked on half a dozen Spitfires (Mk V and VIII) and those spars are nested alloy - NOT steel

MiTasol · Jun 2, 2022

pbehn said:
I dont know, but Supermarine didnt have any experience of making planes out of Duralumin until the Spitfire was ordered. Neither did Hawkers, the Hurricane was mainly made from "dope" until 1940.

Hurricanes had a bolted steel tube fuselage and the wing spars were fabricated from thin rolled steel. The Mk 1 wing structure was also a steel warren truss design - all carried forward from the Hart/Hind/Demon etc.

MiTasol · Jun 3, 2022

pbehn said:
I dont know, but Supermarine didnt have any experience of making planes out of Duralumin until the Spitfire was ordered. Neither did Hawkers, the Hurricane was mainly made from "dope" until 1940.

And I also forgot - the Supermarine Stranraer and Walrus also had all metal fuselage. The Walrus wings had built up wood ribs and stainless spars.

Reluctant Poster · Jun 3, 2022

MikeMeech said:
Hi
Well it would be unable to fly, however, so would most aircraft of the period, if the fabric was removed, as even the 'metal covered' aircraft had fabric covered rudders, elevators and ailerons. So aircraft like the F6F-5 (all) would not fly or the P-51B (rudder and elevators) and many other aircraft if this fabric was removed. It was later in the war as 'speeds' increased with the added stresses that thin alloy on the control surfaces was used more. Larger aircraft like the C-47 and C-54 kept them fabric covered during the war so doped fabric was an important item in aircraft construction, the Hurricane just used the construction technique that was common when it was designed. North American also used the steel tube fabric covered fuselage in its BC-1 (RAF Harvard I) trainer, the Australian built Wirraway (and Boomerang) inherited this NAA construction.

Mike

I would also add that the F4Us wings were fabric covered aft of the main spar.

Zipper730 · Jun 3, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
It was - very advanced for it's day, a bit over-engineered and it was a handful to maintain.

Was the maintenance related to the autopilot, or other systems?

Right when it was getting on track Lockheed decided to stop building it.

Ironic. Did they realize things were getting on track?

I remember hearing that, in terms of capability, it was probably comparable to the 767. There was a 767 pilot who said that, in terms of features (autopilot), the L-1011 had some capabilities the 767 didn't. That said, the 767's cockpit had better looking displays and followed the rule of cool better (rule of cool sells).

If I recall most of the original problems were owing to the RB211. It's possible they couldn't have gotten RR to have built the engine if they didn't agree to it (but having a CF6 option would have made it easier to sell).

FLYBOYJ · Jun 3, 2022

Zipper730 said:
Was the maintenance related to the autopilot, or other systems?

Autopilot was fine IIRC, many electrical issues with different systems

Zipper730 said:
Ironic. Did they realize things were getting on track?

When they saw a break even point that I believe was hoped around 1985 or 1986. I believe upper management wanted to sell over 500 aircraft.

Zipper730 said:
I remember hearing that, in terms of capability, it was probably comparable to the 767. There was a 767 pilot who said that, in terms of features (autopilot), the L-1011 had some capabilities the 767 didn't. That said, the 767's cockpit had better looking displays and followed the rule of cool better (rule of cool sells).

If I recall most of the original problems were owing to the RB211. It's possible they couldn't have gotten RR to have built the engine if they didn't agree to it (but having a CF6 option would have made it easier to sell).

The L1011 was the first widebody to be able to land blind and from what I remember, it was the quietest widebody built.

Zipper730 · Jun 6, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
Autopilot was fine IIRC, many electrical issues with different systems

Oh, okay

When they saw a break even point that I believe was hoped around 1985 or 1986.

Wait, I thought the production line closed in 1983 or 1984?

FLYBOYJ · Jun 6, 2022

Zipper730 said:
Oh, okay
Wait, I thought the production line closed in 1983 or 1984?

84' - it was hoped by 85 or 86 the break even point would have been reached.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 6, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
84' - it was hoped by 85 or 86 the break even point would have been reached.

With your experience working there on that plane, do you have any insights as to why that decision was taken? Was the 767 too competitive with its economics of two engines vs three, or was there some other factor involved?

FLYBOYJ · Jun 6, 2022

Thumpalumpacus said:
With your experience working there on that plane, do you have any insights as to why that decision was taken? Was the 767 too competitive with its economics of two engines vs three, or was there some other factor involved?

PROFITS!

The 1011 was the best widebody in the world and could have been competitive with the 767. Lockheed had all profitable programs going during that period, the only money loser was the L1011. Many believe that if management held out one more year they would have had another 200 or 300 orders or options. After the L1011 was cut, Lockheed stock went through the ceiling and then split.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 6, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
PROFITS!

The 1011 was the best widebody in the world and could have been competitive with the 767. Lockheed had all profitable programs going during that period, the only money loser was the L1011. Many believe that if management held out one more year they would have had another 200 or 300 orders or options. After the L1011 was cut, Lockheed stock went through the ceiling and then split.

Would airlines have placed those orders when we have what is presumably a more economical-to-operate plane coming online? The airline would probably see twins as more profitable given that seating isn't that different but maintenance is presumably reduced by one-third?

De Havilland Mosquito (Wood vs. Metal)

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Senior Master Sergeant

Attachments

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads