Materials the aircraft were made from.

[navrad]

The Mossie was a 'Composite' plywood construction, using spruce outer skins with balsa sandwiched and then heat treated. Very similar to the modern carbon fibre aly composite construction racing cars. Formed over a concrete former. The reason for this type of construction was to avoid the use of alumnium which was at a premium.
The ungluing which occurred in the Far East was as a result of incorrectly assembled wing sections.

The geodetic Wellington was very strong developed from airship practice. To fly in one while it did tight turns was very interesting as there was a noticible lag as the fuselage twisted so that the tail was later to recover from the bank than the wings. The wings also tended to flap gently. The crew were not allowed to.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Okay Fireproof dope but fireproofed with what? Also the Hurricane seems to be shown in a lot of footage burning quite profusely suggesting that the fire-proofing dope may not have been totally effective.

Not when its covered with fuel or oil.....

 

[trackend]

Fireproof dope....

You refering to me Joe?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You refering to me Joe?

 

[trackend]

I think the Mossie was a brilliant concept. Introducing the ply balsa ply sandwich construction as a method of using available materials not only worked as well if not better than more conventional materials it left those alloys etc free for other manufacturers to use.
The sandwich concept is still widely favoured it the Yachting industry except its now GRP expanded poly GRP.

 

[HealzDevo]

Okay, so it is probably covered in oil when it is buring? I just knew that a lot of footage I had seen showed Hurricanes burning like crazy.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Okay, so it is probably covered in oil when it is buring? I just knew that a lot of footage I had seen showed Hurricanes burning like crazy.

More than likely fuel. When a tank is punctured and fuel goes into the slipstream it goes everywhere.

 

[HealzDevo]

Yep, understood. I understand the Mossie had a similar problem with burning did it?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep, understood. I understand the Mossie had a similar problem with burning did it?

Probably - even with fire resistant dopes and varnishes when he structure is burning the heat will breakdown any resistance and eventually overcome the structure. Aluminum will burn (and of course melt) when hot enough.

 

[HealzDevo]

Okay.

 

[AndyErsek85]

As far as sustaining battle damage - although a damaged Lanc may look like it could take more punishment, I'd put my money on the Spit. A typical WW2 bomber was probably designed to take +3.5 -1.5 Gs. I would suspect the Spit was probably stressed for at least +5 -3. Now of course with the Lanc being bigger, it will be able to sustain a 5 foot hole in it's wing, where a Spit might not fare that well, you have to put the size factor into perspective. I have a Spitfire and Lancaster pilot's notes on CD, I'll have to look to see if there is anything stating what they are stressed for....

Do you have any Reviews or written Facts which prove that? Not meant offensive, I really Need such records for my Research. That would help a lot.. Do you also know which safety factor for the spit was planned?

Thx in advance

 

[AndyErsek85]

Here it is!

You need Microsoft powerpoint to view it

Very nice Presentation

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Do you have any Reviews or written Facts which prove that? Not meant offensive, I really Need such records for my Research. That would help a lot.. Do you also know which safety factor for the spit was planned?

Thx in advance

I don't know off the top of my head but it's a lot higher than the numbers I posted on that old thread. The +5/ -3 is common for a civilian aerobatic aircraft and I believe can be found in CFR FAR 23

 

[AndyErsek85]

I don't know off the top of my head but it's a lot higher than the numbers I posted on that old thread. The +5/ -3 is common for a civilian aerobatic aircraft and I believe can be found in CFR FAR 23

Last week I calculated some values regarding to Clmax=1.63 where n+=7.23 and n-=-3.24 is that somehow possible? In that fact it's higher than the n=6 for aerobatic category airplanes at EASA CS 23.

Cheers Andy

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Last week I calculated some values regarding to Clmax=1.63 where n+=7.23 and n-=-3.24 is that somehow possible? In that fact it's higher than the n=6 for aerobatic category airplanes at EASA CS 23.

Cheers Andy

Andy = those numbers are the maximum G loading for certification in the US. Here's the link to the FAR eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

 

[pbehn]

Do you have any Reviews or written Facts which prove that? Not meant offensive, I really Need such records for my Research. That would help a lot.. Do you also know which safety factor for the spit was planned?

Thx in advance

The Lancaster was designed as a turret armed bomber. However the first prototypes didn't have turrets fitted to start with, despite their size the test pilots reported that they were a fantastic plane to fly with lots of power and comparatively little weight, no crew, no arms and ammunition, no armour and no bombs. A "g" calculation is based on a weight loading, the change in weight of a Lancaster carrying a Grand slam from the start of a mission to the end was huge. Its a little like quoting the G limits of a P-51, they do not apply to a P-51 with two external and one extra internal tank full of fuel.

 

[AndyErsek85]

Andy = those numbers are the maximum G loading for certification in the US. Here's the link to the FAR eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Thanks