Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
IIRC the wing delamination was mentioned in the USAF 1946-47 test report on the Me 163. They had planned to actually fly the captured airframe but did not do so when they found the problem.
I might have read it in one of the DTIC reports, but am not sure.
PS Could it have made a difference as to when the wings were built - ie before/after the Tego-Film glue plant was destroed? I do not know if tye used Tego-Film in the construction of the Me 163 wings.
I have read that the Me 163 wings delaminated also, but due to their short operational life time - and resulting low number of flight hours - the deterioration of the wings did not manifest as a problem in operations.
IIRC the wing delamination was mentioned in the USAF 1946-47 test report on the Me 163. They had planned to actually fly the captured airframe but did not do so when they found the problem.
I might have read it in one of the DTIC reports, but am not sure.
PS Could it have made a difference as to when the wings were built - ie before/after the Tego-Film glue plant was destroed? I do not know if they used Tego-Film in the construction of the Me 163 wings.
You can also add the He 162 in the wooden wings group...did they also have wood glue issues?
There is more to it than simple bonding strength. Basic hide glue is stronger than the parent wood and good hide glue joints will fail in stress tests by the failure of the wood rather than the glue bond. It is the reliability of application and coping with stress cycles and environmental conditions. Caesin glues were used in WW1 on, say, the Fokker DVIII but had failures due to water ingress. Mosquitos had failures in early models in hot humid conditions when from a particular contractor but changes to staff training and glue type removed the problem. There were alternatives glues for Focke Wulf of very adequate strength, but not resistant to environmental issues nor the stress cycles. Hence the delaminations in use when applied to the airframes mentioned above. Cynically, in service the Luftwaffe wooden fighters were more likely to be shot down than survive long enough for the glue to fail.I believe that the German factory producing a very strong wood glue for the Ta 154 was bombed and there was not a suitable replacement. The alternative glues available were many times less strong in bonding strength. I don't have the reference at the moment.
Eng
Yes, there is more to it than bonding strength. The Ta 154 wooden structure was designed for the superior performance of the Goldmann Tego-Film Phenolic resin laminates and glue product. The whole production of Tego-Film was lost to bombing in a raid on Wuppertal in Feb '43. On the Ta 154 another adhesive was then used, produced by Dynamit AG but it was not suitable and the Ta 154 was not produced.There is more to it than simple bonding strength. Basic hide glue is stronger than the parent wood and good hide glue joints will fail in stress tests by the failure of the wood rather than the glue bond. It is the reliability of application and coping with stress cycles and environmental conditions. Caesin glues were used in WW1 on, say, the Fokker DVIII but had failures due to water ingress. Mosquitos had failures in early models in hot humid conditions when from a particular contractor but changes to staff training and glue type removed the problem. There were alternatives glues for Focke Wulf of very adequate strength, but not resistant to environmental issues nor the stress cycles. Hence the delaminations in use when applied to the airframes mentioned above. Cynically, in service the Luftwaffe wooden fighters were more likely to be shot down than survive long enough for the glue to fail.
Hi,Hey Engineman,
Are you sure about the Casein glue being used on the Mosquito? My understanding is that DH used Casein for the DH.91 Albatross, but switched to Beetle Cement (at least for the most part) for the production Mosquito. I have run across mention of some problems with the wood delaminating with the Beetle Cement alone, after which they switched to a combination of Beetle Cement and Aerolite adhesive.
The Americans did fly the 163 but only as a glider towed by a B-29. They had plans to make powered flights but the wing delamination precluded that, they did comment on the variability of the workmanship in the five 163's they had, and swapped wings to make up an airworthy example.IIRC the wing delamination was mentioned in the USAF 1946-47 test report on the Me 163. They had planned to actually fly the captured airframe but did not do so when they found the problem
See post #6The Americans did fly the 163 but only as a glider towed by a B-29. They had plans to make powered flights but the wing delamination precluded that, they did comment on the variability of the workmanship in the five 163's they had, and swapped wings to make up an airworthy example.
View attachment 749658