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

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

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

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

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

"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

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.

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.

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

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