Spitfire does it have a single-spar wing
- Thread starter thedab
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Went through this on an older thread. It has a single main spar but does have two spars in the wing.
Kryten
Senior Airman
Weak compared to what?, for it's application the wing was strong and reliable enough to carry the aircrafts various marks without a major redesign, it carried less bomb weight than a hurricane but unclear if that's due to lift rather than strength?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I remember reading somewhere that a clipped wing Spit could carry a heavier bomb load than a normal wing Spit, this seems counterintuitive to me surely a bigger wing means more useable lift.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
Perhaps less drag, which allows for some added bomb weight. Just a guess though.
- Thread starter
- #6
Right this is from Flight fedruary 8, 1940
wing | main spar | construction note | 1940 | 0363 | Flight Archive
it say that the Spitfire had a single-spar wing
what make a single-spar wing??
wing | main spar | construction note | 1940 | 0363 | Flight Archive
it say that the Spitfire had a single-spar wing
what make a single-spar wing??
Last edited:
Are you a troll trying to cause another flame war or am I just getting paranoid 
?
Anyway, I suggest you search for that other thread about this topic. Pretty much everything to be said was said there. To put it as neutral as possible:
Group 1 will say: On a single spar wing, one spar (the main spar) and the leading edge form the (D-)box that bears most of the forces / loads acting on the wing. The wing can still have one or more secondary spars, to hinge control surfaces to, but the load distribution makes it a single spar wing. This point of view defines the Spitfire and Bf 109 as single spar designs and is the pov of your article's author.
Group A will say: Simply count the spars. By that definition the Spitfire has two spars and the Bf 109 has three, I think, but I'm not sure on the latter.
?Anyway, I suggest you search for that other thread about this topic. Pretty much everything to be said was said there. To put it as neutral as possible:
Group 1 will say: On a single spar wing, one spar (the main spar) and the leading edge form the (D-)box that bears most of the forces / loads acting on the wing. The wing can still have one or more secondary spars, to hinge control surfaces to, but the load distribution makes it a single spar wing. This point of view defines the Spitfire and Bf 109 as single spar designs and is the pov of your article's author.
Group A will say: Simply count the spars. By that definition the Spitfire has two spars and the Bf 109 has three, I think, but I'm not sure on the latter.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #9
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I often find its better to do a google search than use the search function
- Thread starter
- #12
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Looks like two spars to me...sparring partners? The main aerodynamic loadings were taken care of by the mainspar and leading edge box. From what I have read somewhere (wish I could remember where) the design of the undercarriage meant that the landing loads were distributed evenly along the centre-section of the spar, plus the design of the the spar meant that it was more than strong enough to take the loads; if anything, in a heavy landing the undercarriage pivot point was more likely to break than the spar was to even bend.
No point in arguing. I know what Shenstone wrote, I can reproduce it here when I get home in about 10 days time. I may well have quoted him in that old thread in any case. If the word of the man who designed the wing isn't good enough for you then nothing will be
It seems obvious to me that he considered it a single spar design due to the vast majority of forces being borne by the main spar (and D box). I don't have figures available for that or what was borne by what you perceive as a second spar towards the back of the wing.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Every aircraft engineer will call it a single spar design. Show me one plane with aileron and flaps without a rear spar to attach them. I don't know any.
cimmex
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
With regards the Spitfires, there is a slim rear spar for mounting the flaps and ailerons to, this (was then, and now still) is termed parasitic or auxillary spar because it is designed only to handle the loads from them; the flaps and ailerons to the wing structure itself.
Where a spar handles a portion of those too loads along with the weight of the wing, its structural loadings, flight loadings and associated stresses and has attachment locations main fixings methods too, it is termed a 'Single Spar Wing' funnily enough.
Modern jets differ a lot from 40's props, even the teachers who teach the designers have changed along with systems, naming abbreviation methods etc, let alone 85+ years of technical development inbetween.
Spitting dummies out too early eh? wait a lil' longer 1st at least..
Where a spar handles a portion of those too loads along with the weight of the wing, its structural loadings, flight loadings and associated stresses and has attachment locations main fixings methods too, it is termed a 'Single Spar Wing' funnily enough.
Modern jets differ a lot from 40's props, even the teachers who teach the designers have changed along with systems, naming abbreviation methods etc, let alone 85+ years of technical development inbetween.
Spitting dummies out too early eh? wait a lil' longer 1st at least..
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And every mechanic or assembler will call it two spars based on the reasons you have given! This "singe spar" BS was a marketing tool.
"SPAR - any of the main longitudinal members of the wing of an airplane that carry the ribs"
One could come up with a ton of semantics, bottom line there's two spars in a Spitfire wing.
Last edited:
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
Obviously your ignoring the point of why its called a single spar wing FBJ, fair enough then, talk only about your own countries aircraft then. It got feth all to do with marketing, and all to do with loadings and stresses, that's why.
Last edited:
