If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
Howdy,
After reading a bit about the early Lockheed Vega, the Focker Albatross DIII and the Dehavilland Mosquito I was a bit suprised that plywood monocoque construction hasn't been used in any more modern airplanes. (Or at least none that I can think of) What gives? Is it cheaper to use glass than wood? Anyone here have any experience with this type of construction and how it compares to truss style construction? -Thanks! -Matt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
wrote in message oups.com... Howdy, After reading a bit about the early Lockheed Vega, the Focker Albatross DIII and the Dehavilland Mosquito I was a bit suprised that plywood monocoque construction hasn't been used in any more modern airplanes. (Or at least none that I can think of) What gives? Is it cheaper to use glass than wood? Anyone here have any experience with this type of construction and how it compares to truss style construction? It is The Falco comes to mind. It is available as a kit here, and as a production aircraft in Italy. (or it was available in Italy) -- Jim in NC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
On 20 Oct 2006 15:47:10 -0700, "
wrote: Howdy, After reading a bit about the early Lockheed Vega, the Focker Albatross DIII and the Dehavilland Mosquito I was a bit suprised that plywood monocoque construction hasn't been used in any more modern airplanes. (Or at least none that I can think of) What gives? Is it cheaper to use glass than wood? Anyone here have any experience with this type of construction and how it compares to truss style construction? Jim gave the Falco as an example of a monocoque wood aircraft, but keep in mind that the three you mentioned are *molded* wood aircraft. Not really efficient, for a homebuilt, unless you're planning on selling kits. Ron Wanttaja |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
Ron Wanttaja wrote: On 20 Oct 2006 15:47:10 -0700, " wrote: Howdy, After reading a bit about the early Lockheed Vega, the Focker Albatross DIII and the Dehavilland Mosquito I was a bit suprised that plywood monocoque construction hasn't been used in any more modern airplanes. (Or at least none that I can think of) What gives? Is it cheaper to use glass than wood? Anyone here have any experience with this type of construction and how it compares to truss style construction? Jim gave the Falco as an example of a monocoque wood aircraft, but keep in mind that the three you mentioned are *molded* wood aircraft. Not really efficient, for a homebuilt, unless you're planning on selling kits. Ron Wanttaja It also depends on what you consider more modern, the last of the all-wood european sailplanes were in the 70's but the performance had reached impressive levels. The most common would have to be the Ka6cr but the K6e was definitely the 15metre machine to have, far superior to most other 15m gliders of the time. Wood gliders finished for the most part with the SHK1, the 17m follow-on to the 15m Standard Austria. It was a plain timber monocoque, but it made good use of glass for finishing the wings and nose. There's still a few gliders for homebuilding made with a monocoque construction, but I think even a simple monocoque is probably just too much work for a one-off. Carlo Selman |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:02:20 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com... Howdy, After reading a bit about the early Lockheed Vega, the Focker Albatross DIII and the Dehavilland Mosquito I was a bit suprised that plywood monocoque construction hasn't been used in any more modern airplanes. (Or at least none that I can think of) What gives? Is it cheaper to use glass than wood? Anyone here have any experience with this type of construction and how it compares to truss style construction? It is The Falco comes to mind. It is available as a kit here, and as a production aircraft in Italy. (or it was available in Italy) How about the Barracuda? Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote How about the Barracuda? Does the Barracuda get its strength from its skin, or from a wooden framework with plywood covering it? I don't know. -- Jim in NC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
How about the Barracuda? Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com As I recall the Barracuda was just a plywood covered conventional spruce frame. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:58:52 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote How about the Barracuda? Does the Barracuda get its strength from its skin, or from a wooden framework with plywood covering it? I don't know. Again as I recall the Barracuda has a Warren Truss Fuselage, that is it has both verticle and diagonal members. the strength is shared. On the other hand DeHavilland aircraft frame had only verticle members therefore the skin prevented the structure from skewing. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:56:12 GMT, Ed Sullivan
wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:58:52 -0400, "Morgans" wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote How about the Barracuda? Does the Barracuda get its strength from its skin, or from a wooden framework with plywood covering it? I don't know. I'm not sure how much strength the skin addes in the Cuda so I passed this question on the the Barracuda users group. If my memory holds out I'll bring their answer(s) back. Again as I recall the Barracuda has a Warren Truss Fuselage, that is it has both verticle and diagonal members. the strength is shared. On the other hand DeHavilland aircraft frame had only verticle members therefore the skin prevented the structure from skewing. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
It is called "complimentary structure". Most GA aircraft have a
structure consisting of a skin (alum or plywood) that carries most of the load. However, the stringers and longerons have an important function, that is, they provide out of plane stiffness to the skin, thereby preventing it from buckling under load. Each element of the structure has an axis about which it is weak, and it needs the other elements to provide strength in that direction. They need each other very much. Bud Morgans wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote How about the Barracuda? Does the Barracuda get its strength from its skin, or from a wooden framework with plywood covering it? I don't know. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
compound curves in plywood | BA-100 | Home Built | 58 | April 13th 05 05:29 AM |
cvjetkovic ca-65 skyfly- plywood spar? | patrick mitchel | Home Built | 3 | October 16th 04 05:26 PM |
Air Conditioning System for Homebuilts? | JPAviation | Home Built | 18 | February 6th 04 03:24 AM |
Homebuilts by State | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 03 08:30 PM |
Substitute for Mahogany plywood | Kelvin & Janice Rempel | Home Built | 1 | September 5th 03 08:02 PM |