WIX Archives
Re: Full size flying Spit replicas...
Posted by bdk on Mon Dec 03, 2001 02:32:12 PM
In reply top Re: Full size flying Spit replicas... posted by Steve Young on Mon Dec 03, 2001 01:24:13 PM
: Secondly, and a bit more seriously - I'm a bit concerned a
: bout the idea of a wooden replica being marketed as being
: able to do everything an original Spitfire could. Please s
: omebody put me straight if I've got this wrong, but surely
: a wooden airframe can't be as strong as the stressed skin
: original?
Steel is stronger than aluminum, so why aren't airplanes made exclusively of steel?
How strong does a "Spitfire" need to be? With no armament and ammunition (the primary purpose of the aircraft after all), the payload and hence the gross weight is much reduced. The reduced aircraft load makes a lighter airframe structure feasible. Wood aircraft are known to be traditionally lighter than equivalent metal aircraft, so there is even more of an advantage there. The main reason wood is not a popular construction material is the labor intensive coonstruction and the poor durability under exposure to the environment. This isn't such a problem now for a homebuilt or limited use aircraft, but it spelled the death of aircraft like the DeHavilland Hornet.
True, wood isn't as strong- so you use a greater volume of it. Fortunately wood has a lower density than aluminum, so it can balance out. The fact that wood has directional strength (grain), makes it more akin to composite than metal. This is where the advantages of wood can be used to greatest effect.
So, a wooden Spitfire replica can do everything an original Spitfire can (from a flight performance perspective)- perhaps even better since it will be lighter. It isn't a Spitfire though, so it won't have provisions for guns and will never have the historic value.
BK