Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not really enough to convince me that this fear really materializes in reality.I cannot say, but 190 wasn't the only plane with one piece wing, for ex Brewster Buffalo had one and that structure had also its drawbacks, at least that was the opinion of S/L Churchill in his assestment on Brewster Buffalo as a combat plane. He was the leader of the Eagle sqn (RAF 71 Squadron) consisting American volunteer pilots. They were given three Brewsters, which must also have been 339Bs. He filed this report in October 1940.
"It is strongly recommended that this type should on no account be considered as a fighter without considerable modification.
The wings are not bolted to a centre section but appear to have a common main rear spar located through the fuselage. Changing wings in the event of accidents will therefore be uneconomical and slow.
The elevator is actuated by a push-pull tube. While this is a positive method of operation it is feared than an explosive shell or even a bullet . . . may shatter or collapse it. Experience has proved how much punishment the twin cable can stand without breaking down..."
So even the push-pull tube had its downside.
Which I always thought was due to the fabric covered aileron surfaces. Metal skinned elevators might have enabled the Fw 190 to keep its edge, but the question is if it was worth the trouble (and material).And as has wrote earlier 190 lost its lead in high speed, P-51B rolled better at 360+mph IAS and Tempest V at 365+mph IAS at 10000ft.
Juha
i've used this True Airspeed Calculator
Not possible without access to the airframe design/structures analysis - unless you want to start from scratch using the detail design and BOM, the Aero loads as calculated and presented to the structures group.
Yes,but that transference would explain why the rear spar is often referred to as auxiliary or secondary and also why many seem to consider the wing to have been a single spar design.
Steve
It uses one of the 5 Rule of Thumb calculations - Calculate your True Airspeed (TAS) [Aviation Rules of Thumb] - Flightsim Aviation Zone
From the same chart (My "Altitude vs True Airspeed" plots) I get 194Kts for the same calc as your link. BTW, the link calc is incorrect in that they used "8.0" for 8500/1000 when he reduced the equation to (.02 x 8) when he should have used (.02x8.5) x 170. The correct calculation would have been 198.9.
All these methods have the drawback of variations depending on Mach number, calibration deviations, surface pressure/temperature. For the Mustang calc, the incompressible flow became compressible at ~ .3M (or for STP at 10,000 feet =218.36 mph) - which is why I try to use the 'Book' Altitude vs True Airspeed - which is corrected for Mach number.
the example is incorrect but for us is ok 360+7,2*10 is 432, it's same of number 3 in your link and yes is the highest estimation (n° 1 and 2 give 410)
432mph or 410mph, I doubt that the P-51 or Fw190 could achieve this speed at 10000 feet at all.
cimmex
Not really enough to convince me that this fear really materializes in reality...
Sea Fury - 2 or 3 spars? The photo the the left is from Seafire, another is from Sea Fury.
View attachment 215568
In airframe design, it is rare for an aircraft with training edge control surfaces to Not have a beam we may describe as 'secondary'.
Sea Fury - 2 or 3 spars? The photo the the left is from Seafire, another is from Sea Fury.
View attachment 215568
By which definition no aircraft built with trailing edge control surfaces can be a single spar design. I don't believe that to be the case. There are too many references by engineers and designers to single spar wings that do have moveable control surfaces attached to the wing trailing edge. It may just be semantics or a question of degree. If the vast majority (pick a figure) of the loads are borne by the mainspar then this might be considered a single spar design.
Cheers
Steve
Seafire 1 spar, Sea Fury 2 spars. All the forces must go through the locking eyes.