Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
In WWII, Vickers used geodesic construction to manufacture several models of bomber, such as Wellington. This kind of structure was reported to be very sturdy.
I wonder whether it was really effective against large calibrate ammunition, like 20 mm, or even 30 mm?
I wonder whether it was really effective against large calibrate ammunition, like 20 mm, or even 30 mm?
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
Actual framework was aluminum , aluminum is not that tough against explosive 20/30mm rounds. Yes the geodetic gave the Wellington a sturdy light airframe, but its claims of toughness , IMO, seem to come more from the Wellington losing parts of its skin due it burning or getting torn off leaving the frame exposed and intact and then those bombers landing back at base.
Granted some Wellingtons made it back with heavy structural damage, but many other aircraft did too. Also Wellingtons, to preserve their "lightweight" had neither armor nor seal sealing fuel tanks , so they were much like Japanese bombers IMO. Many of them didn't make it back because of holed fuel tanks, Wellingtons would have suffered from this also, nifty airframe structures notwithstanding.
Granted some Wellingtons made it back with heavy structural damage, but many other aircraft did too. Also Wellingtons, to preserve their "lightweight" had neither armor nor seal sealing fuel tanks , so they were much like Japanese bombers IMO. Many of them didn't make it back because of holed fuel tanks, Wellingtons would have suffered from this also, nifty airframe structures notwithstanding.
Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
The geodetic (geodesic) structure, fabricated from duralumin rather than aluminium, was a technology that was developed for the construction of airships when Barnes Wallis worked for Vickers (although I don't believe the technique was employed in the construction of the R100) and was extremely efficient at encapsulating a very large volume in a rigid structure of extremely light weight. But, for heavier-than-air flying machines (aeroplanes!) it was really a 'solution looking for a problem to solve'.
Its true the Vickers Wellington (and Warwick et al) was rugged. It could, and did, enable the aircraft to sustain a great deal of structural damage, which was just as well given that it was slow, had a poor service ceiling and its defensive armament and protection was, frankly, inadequate for daylight operations in hostile or contested airspace, but the lack of such equipment wasn't the fault of the designers. Nevertheless, even with those faults corrected, the Wellington was woefully outdated by 1940 and virtually obsolete by 1942 when production of the type reached its peak. However, because Vickers had invested so much in the tooling and production for the geodesic structure, which incidentally militated against modification and/or improvement, production continued and roles were 'found' for the aircraft for which it was never intended nor particularly well-suited. Indeed, the geodesic form was, in aeronautical engineering terms, a bit of dead end. As far as I'm aware no other manufacturer (on any side) used it during the war and, again as far as I'm aware, no airframe manufacturer has used it since.
Also, and I admit this is a bit of a barbed remark, if you could make an aeroplane that could survive losing a significant proportion of its airframe and still keep flying why not just make it smaller so it could fly higher and faster so be far less likely to get hammered in the first place? Let's try using wood instead of duralumin, stick to conventional design techniques and call it... oh I dunno... let's call it the De Havilland Mosquito.
Its true the Vickers Wellington (and Warwick et al) was rugged. It could, and did, enable the aircraft to sustain a great deal of structural damage, which was just as well given that it was slow, had a poor service ceiling and its defensive armament and protection was, frankly, inadequate for daylight operations in hostile or contested airspace, but the lack of such equipment wasn't the fault of the designers. Nevertheless, even with those faults corrected, the Wellington was woefully outdated by 1940 and virtually obsolete by 1942 when production of the type reached its peak. However, because Vickers had invested so much in the tooling and production for the geodesic structure, which incidentally militated against modification and/or improvement, production continued and roles were 'found' for the aircraft for which it was never intended nor particularly well-suited. Indeed, the geodesic form was, in aeronautical engineering terms, a bit of dead end. As far as I'm aware no other manufacturer (on any side) used it during the war and, again as far as I'm aware, no airframe manufacturer has used it since.
Also, and I admit this is a bit of a barbed remark, if you could make an aeroplane that could survive losing a significant proportion of its airframe and still keep flying why not just make it smaller so it could fly higher and faster so be far less likely to get hammered in the first place? Let's try using wood instead of duralumin, stick to conventional design techniques and call it... oh I dunno... let's call it the De Havilland Mosquito.
Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
geodesic construction was also rumoured to get loose over time. I read an account of one war weary Wellington that was issued to a crew after repair and they said that it creaked and groaned the whole time in flight and wouldn't hold a straight course.
Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
There was plenty of space between the frame components to permit a projectile to pass through without damaging them. Presumably the projectiles exploded on impact, and would have been fused to explode on impact with the metal skin used on most aircraft. The doped linen which covered the Wellington was unlikely to trigger an explosion. A projectile entering the fuselage from a fore or aft direction had more components to impact.
Redundancy has long been regarded as a desirable property in ensuring the safety of structural systems.
A study in 1939 concluded that the Wellington was too sturdy! Here, damage to the frame seems to be localised but enough to have the slipstream strip the fabric. Geodetic/Geodesic construction was used in the wings only of the 1st batch of Vickers Vikings post-war.
It is still used in Architecture - Google Lamella Roof and/or Geodesic Dome. Some of the examples are truly spectacular.
Redundancy has long been regarded as a desirable property in ensuring the safety of structural systems.
A study in 1939 concluded that the Wellington was too sturdy! Here, damage to the frame seems to be localised but enough to have the slipstream strip the fabric. Geodetic/Geodesic construction was used in the wings only of the 1st batch of Vickers Vikings post-war.
It is still used in Architecture - Google Lamella Roof and/or Geodesic Dome. Some of the examples are truly spectacular.
Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
I was looking at Potter, J. D (1970). Fiasco: The Breakout of the German Battleships. London: Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-434-59801-4. and noticed that he described 20 mm hits on British aircraft being seen by the Flak gunners on the Brest Group as it dashed up the Channel and making only small holes. Perhaps monocoque fuselages were also relatively immune to serious damage by that size round; could that be why the 20 mm class of AA gun was superseded by 37-40 mm?
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense
The mississippi fabric picture is what I was talking about when I said missing fabric could make it appear a Wellington had suffered a lot of damage, but actually did not, other than shedding alot of "skin"