FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I stand corrected the type II did have some armor and self sealing tanks....
Didn't help much.
Didn't help much.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
However, because the skin is stressed, its actually tougher than if it wasn't.In reguards to the airframe, the Hurricane would be far tougher than the
F4F or the p 40. There are several reasons for this.
The F4F, P40 and most WW II planes are of stressed skin construction, meaning that the skin of the aircraft is part of the load bearing structure of the aircraft. Any damage to the skin brings a resultant loss in the structural integrity of the airframe. These airframes are vunerable to machine guns ripping the skin or the overpressure from cannon shells rupturing the skin. The Hurricane is based on an older English method of construction. Although tubular steel airframes had been used since WW I, most of these used low quality mild steel that was welded together. This resulted in a heavy airframe that wasn't really that strong. Hawkers solution to the problem was to use lightweight high quality steel alloys held together with mechanical fastners.
This type of structure is very resistant to damage especially from over pressure but also from mg fire. It was also much more easily repaired. The wing is a two spar structure running clean through the fuselage. The spars are also made of steel , the two in the center section being made of heat treated spring steel using Hawkers welll known dumbell spar. The only stressed skin construction on the Hurricane was from the gun bays outward to the wing tips. Keep in mind the Hurricanes wings are also 18 inches thick at the gun bays adding to this immense strength. For its size the Hurricane is relatively light , the main drawback of this type of construction is that it leads to a bulkier less efficient airframe.
Slaterat
I do agree with this one.I've always thought...that the Oscar was a very clean and sleek design.
However, because the skin is stressed, its actually tougher than if it wasn't.
One of the benefits of placing things under a certain amount of tension is added resiliency.
Granted, I do agree with you that the any damage would degrade the integrity of the skin, but the plane didn't have a monoque body. It was still skin applied to a frame, so its not like the plane would just fold up and fall out of the sky.
It would only make the plane a little less "bullet-proof" in that area of damage.
...and bolts?
This reminds me of a tank that was once part of the USA's arsenal.
The M3 "Lee" tank.
Most (if not all) used bolts to fasten the hull together.
Because of this, the tankers used to call that one "A Bucket of Death".
An enemy's shell didn't neccessarily have to penetrate the armour to inflict injury or death, because the resulting impact would break some of the bolts causing them to fly around inside the tank.
That's why Sherman's (which was based on the M3) went, first, to a riveted hull, then to a welded hull, and finally a cast hull.
Each succeeding form of construction made for a safer environment for the people inside, over the prior one.
I do agree that bolting the frame together makes maintenance/repair easier, but I wouldn't say it was an aspect of making the plane any "tougher" than most others.
Plus most explosive shells, flack, or bullets hitting an aircraft wouldn't be of the same nature as the shells hitting a tank, along with the different nature of aircraft structure to tank construction.
Welsing tends to give a more rigid structure, with the welded joints being the most rigid parts, but these areas would be prone to fatigue and failure and were more brittle to begin with. (welds usualy being more hard and brittle than the base metal) On the other hand bolts and other metal fasteners allow alot more "give" and shifting of the structure and would be much more resistant to fatigue from landing and maneuvering. (and general loading on the a/c) It would probably be more restant to battle damage as well as a hit to a weld could result in the subsequent failure of the entire weld, while the same construction with fasteners would have some degree to redundancy due to multiple fasteners and the greater flexibility or "give" in the structure would be less likely to fail with most battle damage.
Plus most explosive shells, flack, or bullets hitting an aircraft wouldn't be of the same nature as the shells hitting a tank, along with the different nature of aircraft structure to tank construction.
Welding tends to give a more rigid structure, with the welded joints being the most rigid parts, but these areas would be prone to fatigue and failure and were more brittle to begin with. (welds usualy being more hard and brittle than the base metal) On the other hand bolts and other metal fasteners allow alot more "give" and shifting of the structure and would be much more resistant to fatigue from landing and maneuvering. (and general loading on the a/c) It would probably be more restant to battle damage as well as a hit to a weld could result in the subsequent failure of the entire weld, while the same construction with fasteners would have some degree to redundancy due to multiple fasteners and the greater flexibility or "give" in the structure would be less likely to fail with most battle damage.
I'm not a welder, but I've done some welding, and worked and talked with a lot of guys who make their living stickin pieces of metal together. So I'm sure there's others who have a better understanding of this, but here goes....
Generally when a weld breaks, at least a good weld, it's not the weld material that breaks, but the steel. It might break at the point it's welded, because that is usually a stress point, but technically it is not the weld that breaks (this would be a breakage due to fatigue or stress).
Depending on the type of rod used the weld is usually stronger than the original material. Again depending on the type of rod used, the weld may or may not be more brittle than the original material, I believe that aluminum weld is not that brittle, most of the breaks on aluminum that I've seen are not at the weld points. Of course my experience there is with livestock trailers, it might be quite different in aircraft. I reckon Flyboy would have some knowledge to share there.
I agree that a mechanical fastener is going to give more flexibility, but I'm not sure that a welded joint would be more susceptible to battle damage, in fact I believe it would be more resistant to impact and explosive force than the original material.
Claidemore
More than likely however, the tube structure will take some damage if a round is exploded within the fuselage.The advantage of a steel tube construction against explosive shells is actually mostly independend of the connection method. Unless directly struck, a steel tube will probably take no damage from a 20 mm shell exploding nearby.
Claidmore,
Thanks for educating the others on those aspects of welding that you pointed out.
My own experience and knowledge of the aspects of welding seem similar to yours.
As far as I know, what you related is quite true.
If one welds two pieces of metal togther and the weld breaks under a stress test, the weld is considered "bad".
It should always be the strongest part of the new piece.
No worries ElvisHowever, I seem to have (once again) overstated in my post that garnered so much response.
My mention about welding was only in passing (relatiing to the construction history of the M4 Sherman tank), and my point was that the post I was replying to stated that the Hurricane was tougher because it used "mechanical fasteners" (bolts).
I disagree with that statement and used the story of the M3 Lee tank as an example of why I am in disagreement.
That was all.
My apologies to the others for any misunderstanding my post may have created.
Elvis
Hi Flyboyj,
>More than likely however, the tube structure will take some damage if a round is exploded within the fuselage.
Hm, Germans tests on the gunnery range seem to indicate that a conventional aircraft tube structure stays intact, at least in the sense that it will allow the aircraft to fly home and possibly to be repaired. The tubing presents a comparatively small attack area to the shockwave of the explosion, and a high strength (compared to the surface of a stressed-skin aircraft).
Maybe it's just that I'm talking about the macro structure of the tubing while you're talking about the crystal lattice of the material? I imagine that at that level, you'd see distinct traces of the damage, especially when we also figure in the fragmentation effect.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Ununiformity with the weld would be defined as a bad weld (possibly welding material related, but still a bad weld).See my last post - sometimes a good weld will break under stress if there in ununiformity within the weld and adjoining areas, a reason for a welded structure to be annealed and re-heat treated after welding.