Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
stoxm73
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Mar 2012, 07:36

Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

#1

Post by stoxm73 » 24 May 2015, 06:42

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?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

#2

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 24 May 2015, 10:36

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.


Rescue193
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 06 Dec 2016, 13:31
Location: GB

Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

#3

Post by Rescue193 » 06 Dec 2016, 14:42

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.

Stovepipe
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 17:51
Location: near Dublin.

Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

#4

Post by Stovepipe » 06 Dec 2016, 20:35

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.

Tomg44
Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 12 Dec 2008, 12:10

Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

#5

Post by Tomg44 » 15 Dec 2016, 08:23

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.
Wellington11.JPG
Wellington7.JPG
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!
Wellington6.JPG
Here, damage to the frame seems to be localised but enough to have the slipstream strip the fabric.
Wellington10.JPG
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.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

#6

Post by Attrition » 18 Dec 2016, 02:25

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?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Was geodesic construction a better solution for the aircraft self-defense

#7

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 19 Dec 2016, 22:12

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"

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”