Interesting to note that the Spitfire, Zero, Hellcat and Corsair to name a few 
all had fabric control surfaces.

 

A definite plus for fabric wings is a slight decrease in drag due to the lack 
of the rivet heads dragging in the wind, and the weight savings as Hartmut 
mentioned.

 

Having repaired both fabric and metal wings I will say that I prefer the fabric 
if the entire wing is to be recovered or small holes, and fabric top coats are 
in the lacquer family of paints and it is easy to spot paint and blend and 
there are very few colors offered so a match is fairly easy. It is also kinda 
cool to have knowledge of a dying art.

 

Metal is usually painted with enamels or polyurethanes and the new paint does 
not soften and bleed into the old and I swear there must be a thousand 
different "whites".

 

It takes a fair amount of skill to patch paint and blend those paints into the 
original finish. 

 

But I think the weight saving is a big plus for the fabric wings.

 

Bill
 


CC: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:24:22 -0500
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [ercoupe-tech] Metal Wings are 
stronger.....

  



One last comment on this thread as far as small aircraft are concerned, there 
is also the question of the inefficiency of craftsmanship vs mass production as 
far as fabric is concerned. It's not all about strength.

Helmut, I assume you know that the DC-3 has fabric control surfaces, including 
the ailerons? :-)

Art


Art Langston wrote: 
  

William, would you then suggest that either covering is there primarily to 
create lift, rather than provide structural integrity on a wing of this design? 

That was my conclusion.

Art N2666H


William R. Bayne wrote: 



I would suggest that any engineering evaluation use the correct approach in 
evaluating "stronger". 

Adding thin sheets to a wing structure already designed and capable of coping 
with the normal stresses of flight (plus a considerable safety factor)would add 
little, if any, to the overall load carrying capacity of an Ercoupe wing in 
terms of the additional stress said could carry before it failed under load. 
The materials and procedures utilized by the various STCs presently installed 
or available does not transform the Ercoupe wing designed for grade A cotton 
covering into a monocoque structure as would seem to have been inferred. 

"Monocoque" construction is defined as "an aircraft structure in which the 
outer covering skin carries all or a major portion of the stresses". 

The internal structural components, metal skin thickness, rivet type, size, and 
spacing of a stressed skin wing design would be quite different, and likely 
lighter. 

Consider also these questions: 

1. What practical purpose is served by increasing wing strength beyond 
regulatory design requirements? 

2. How much has the load capability of Ercoupe wing design increased when 
covered with modern synthetic fabrics of higher tensional strength abd 
durability than the original grade A cotton? 

Regards, 

WRB 

-- 

On Sep 10, 2009, at 13:05, Art Langston wrote: 




Chris, could you please share the engineering data with us and cite the 
documentation where we can read it? 

When finished, I believe the Polyfiber may actually be stronger than the 
aluminum. I've de-skinned Ercoupe wings, and the metal is very thin. Polyfiber 
is tough. 

Thanks 

Art N2666H 


Chris wrote:A metal wing is stronger than a fabric one.  The metal distributes 
the loads over the surface.  Would anyone want to consider a fabric covered 
fuselage? 


Chris 
Santa Cruz 
99674 


‘--o-O-o--’











_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on 
Facebook.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009

Reply via email to