Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Thunderbolt56]

Yes, the key here (regarding the "strength" query), is mass. Wood was MUCH heavier to achieve the same (or slightly greater) terminal strength thus it also negatively affected top speed and maneuverability. It was, however, very available and could be worked into a functional item in just about anyone's back yard.

[RAF74_Winger]

S!

If you look in ANC-18, the standard for design of aerostructures in wood, there isn't much data. But they do say that for fully reversed loading (R=-1) in douglas fir, the fatigue limit is around 30% of the ultimate strength.

Modern aluminium alloys have a fatigue limit about the same, but the older aluminium alloys used on WWII fighter aircraft, although almost as good were very prone to stress corrosion cracking. I think the main argument against wooden aircraft is not so much strength or lightness, but that they are prone to moisture absorption and so require hangars to be stored.

W.

[RAF74_Winger]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

Wood was MUCH heavier to achieve the same (or slightly greater) terminal strength

Not quite true. When you consider pure tensile stresses, yes that is the case. In bending however, with careful design, wooden structures can be much lighter than even aluminium.

W.

[AndyJWest]

I think it is misleading to talk about 'wooden' structures without looking in more detail at the finer points of construction - a Mosquito fuselage for example is a 'composite' of thin plywood skins on a balsa core, and may well actually have been stronger than an aluminium structure of the same weight. I suspect the real objections to the use of wood in aircraft are more related in problems with consistancy, protection against moisture, and difficulties in bonding (less of a problem now than during WWII). In a sense, the move from metal aircraft construction to composites (carbon fibre etc) is going full circle - wood is a natural 'composite', and has the advantage of millions of years of natural selection to perfect the 'design'.

[erco]

There is an old story that goes like this:

Two airplanes are, late one night, sitting in a hangar, one made of wood and the other of metal. The metal airplane, feeling very superior and modern, looks sideways at the wooden airplane and whispers, "Dry rot". The wooden airplane, knowing the true score, whispers back, "Metal fatigue".

The point being that a wooden structure, properly protected from moisture, has a virtually unlimited life, being free from fatigue issues. Many restorations of antique aircraft have reused spars that in some cases are over 60 years old. Metal fatigue can be mitigated with good design (DC-3, anyone?), but will always be an issue. Wood needs more particular and specialized care, which is a big selling point for metal structure.

Many purpose-built aerobatic monoplanes and biplanes use wood for their wing structure, where it's high strength and light weight are useful.

[He111]

wouldn't it be good to have a player control each character in a bomber, you could have specialist pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and noob gunners!

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by He111

wouldn't it be good to have a player control each character in a bomber, you could have specialist pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and noob gunners!

There's not much demand for navigators in IL-2, but you can fly as a gunner in online co-ops already, He111. TD are also looking at doing this for dogfights, as they said earlier.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by jermin

then why aviators adopted metalic structure and abandoned wooden one while wood is better?

Wood was harder to work with in mass-production to close tolerances, as well, I think. You can't cast wood.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Being better at a certain type of fatigue does not make it better at everything else. I am sure that metals are both much more durable all-round and have much better strength for any given size and mass. The Mosquito, for example, is very heavy.

Exactly. A similar part with similar terminal strength, made of wood is noticeably heavier, then metal one.
Besides, wooden structures decay much faster, then metal (it doesn't apply to wood only, but also to the glue, used to bond wooden parts). Not a big deal during the war, where planes don't live too long anyway. But important for the peace-time maintenance. For instance, the factory declared life span of a wooden Yak airframe was max 2 years. After which it should have been scrapped. Same for Mosquito, I guess.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Wood was harder to work with in mass-production to close tolerances, as well, I think. You can't cast wood.

Not quite. In the 1940s USSR, for instance, it was more difficult to build metal airframes, teach workers and produce raw materials for them, then for the wooden ones. I guess, nowadays, it may be opposite, it largely depends on current technological level in the country's industry as a whole.