Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Fabric Control Surfaces?  
User currently offline3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6053 times:

At the local airshow last weekend, there was a two-seat Yak 7. In doing a walk-around, I noticed it had fabric covered control surfaces. I know that many metal planes had fabric covered controls - from a search, I found that even the fairly modern Do-228 has them.

My question is why?

Reducing mass way out on the moment arms would make for better maneuverability... But there can't be that much difference, can there? Initially, I thought it might be to allow faster repairs of battle damage, but using that logic the whole plane should use fabric - unless the controls are bullet magnets...

Anyone got the answer?


"Simplicate and add lightness." - Ed Heinemann
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

Cheap, light weight (easier to balance) and since they are non-structural fabric covering was the an excellent choice. Remember, at one time the entire aircraft was fabric covered.

User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6039 times:

Fabric control surfaces provide more than a double weight savings, because the required balance weight is also reduced. The balance weight is heavier than the control surface since it's closer to the hinge.

[Edited 2006-11-01 04:35:07]

User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6023 times:

I know WWII aircraft such as the Vought F4U Corsair had fabric control surfaces...they were designed that way to be lighter on the controls.

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6020 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



So let's say I owned a fabric 140, or maybe a Citabria, and it needs all new fabric. What do people typically spend to completely re-cover fabric planes of this size? I realize the cost depends on myriad factors, but I'm just wondering what an average total price would be.



2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5984 times:

Weight Saving = $$$ Saving.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5934 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):
just wondering what an average total price would be

From a 1998 Sport Aviation article.

"All of the materials to cover a J-3 Cub size airplane will cost around $2,500 to $3,000 regardless of the covering process. If someone gives you a quote much lower than that they are not including everything that you need. You will spend that much money when all is said and done. Look at it this way, you are going to save approximately $10,000 in labor costs by covering the airplane yourself. Yes, that’s correct, the price charged by most professionals to cover an airplane will range between $8,000-$12,000."



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6822 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

Nowadays fans don't realize how many airliners had fabric rudders back then-- all the DC-4/DC-6/DC-7 series, all Constellations-- but maybe not Viscount/Britannia?

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5848 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Vzlet (Reply 6):

Thanks, Vzlet. I didn't realize labor costs were so high...



2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5839 times:

On WWII birds, in many cases wood and fabric control surfaces were done in an effort to spare valuable war material (like metals).


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 9):
On WWII birds, in many cases wood and fabric control surfaces were done in an effort to spare valuable war material (like metals).

Indeed. It also made repairs easier since they could be done in the field.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5819 times:

I'm under the impression that fabric (or other lightweight material) is used primarily for the anti-flutter balance-related reason that Bobster2 mentioned. On the T-34, for example, all control surfaces except the trim/servo tabs are magnesium. If (and I'm assuming here) magnesium is not only more expensive than aluminum, but more difficult to repair, what reason sways the cost/benefit equation in its favor?

That said, the T-34 stabilizers (horizontal and vertical--did you know that they're interchangeable?) are also magnesium. That would save weight compared to aluminum, but obviously isn't for a flutter-related reason.

(And this post ends up being more contributory than conclusive! Any expert opinion out there?)



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5804 times:

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 11):
I'm under the impression that fabric (or other lightweight material) is used primarily for the anti-flutter balance-related reason that Bobster2 mentioned.

That's my understanding of the situation, in fact I want to say that their are several examples of aircraft that where designed with metal control surfaces, experienced flutter during flight test and where reworked with fabric for the production models. The Corsair AFAIK was one of these aircraft.

I also think that is how the A4 Skyhawk ended up with it's distinctive external rib rudder.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5704 times:

Thanks for the replies, guys. I hadn't thought about flutter and the counter-balance...

And, L-188, you are correct, the A-4 got the unique rudder after encountering flutter during testing. They simply remade it with the skin in the middle and the ribs on the outside. Heinemann said the fix worked and they were moving so fast that they never did go back and find the reason for the flutter...



"Simplicate and add lightness." - Ed Heinemann
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5626 times:

I remember the Piper PA18 used to have warm Linseed oil poured into the Metal Frames prior to Fabric coating as a Corrosion preventive measure.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5570 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 14):
I remember the Piper PA18 used to have warm Linseed oil poured into the Metal Frames prior to Fabric coating as a Corrosion preventive measure.
regds
MEL

As I recall, this is how just about all American planes with metal frames and fabric covering were constructed.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineBuzz From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 697 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

Hi KELPKid, Buzz here... across the river from you. I'm fond of the "new" polyester fabrics, last a lot longer than the Grade A cotton and they're relatively easy to repair (glue on, dope on), and it's about twice as strong as cotton.

On a lot of the fabric covered surfaces, the side loads aren't very high. So fabric covered surfaces are sufficiently strong and a maybe equally light, but more durable (hailstorm? ) and easy to repair. But the skill to do fabric is sort of vanishing.

To cover an entire Champ, or Cub it's now about $4000 of materials: polyester fabric and dopes, fabric tapes, rib stitching or screws. It it somewhat time consuming, but not worse than putting aluminum skin on an RV wing. Need to spray things, that causes some problems.

T-34 magnesium controls: Mag is quite prone to corrosion... I don't like it. It's lighter. But metal control surface panels tend to be thin, easy to damage. So your repair needs to be light... yet strong.

Hey KELPKid, we ought to go Champ flying... if the rain lets up and a few grass airstrips dry out.


User currently offlineErj-145mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 306 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5494 times:

During WWII there were two fighters built with metal covered control surfaces, one was pre war designed and built.

They were the P-38 and the P-47.

Control surfaces have to be light enough to be able to balance, we're already talked about that.

When most of these airplanes were designed, metallurgy wasn't to the point where it is today and the metal was too thick to be practical to keep from cracking when extruded thin enough for control surfaces.

Today, sheet aluminum is available in thicknesses as thin as .016", and still be crack resistant.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2548 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting Erj-145mech (Reply 17):
During WWII there were two fighters built with metal covered control surfaces, one was pre war designed and built.

They were the P-38 and the P-47.

Just two? These were not the only WWII fighters with metal skinned control surfaces. For example: later model Spitfires, FW-190, etc. I'm not sure but I would assume the P-51 also had metal covered control surfaces.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):
I know WWII aircraft such as the Vought F4U Corsair had fabric control surfaces...they were designed that way to be lighter on the controls.

Fabric covering does not necessarily make the controls feel lighter, even though the control surface itself is lighter. Control feel is governed by hinge moments, mechanical advantage, etc. Fabric covered controls are less well sealed so much less effective at high speed, requiring higher deflections and so greater forces. Early Spitfires had fabric covered ailerons. At high speeds these became less effective and so actually increased control forces. Metal covered ailerons were then fitted, which increased aileron effectiveness and reduced control forces at high speeds.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Fabric Control Surfaces?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Point Control Surfaces Ineffective posted Fri Aug 4 2006 22:17:25 by Sean1234
Movable Control Surfaces On MD-90 Engine Pylons posted Sun Oct 16 2005 22:59:08 by 2H4
A330 Control Surfaces posted Tue Apr 5 2005 13:20:50 by Night Hawk
Control Surfaces On The Wing posted Tue Sep 16 2003 18:35:39 by DIJKKIJK
Why No Start-up Control In US? posted Tue Oct 22 2002 12:52:40 by FLY 8
Why 2 Engines More Efficient Than 3, Or 4? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 03:13:12 by MarkC
Why Airbus For Start-ups? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:27:42 by AirWillie6475
Why No Further A330 Stretch? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 03:50:51 by MarkC
Why Does The Tower Give Out Altimetric Reading posted Fri Nov 10 2006 02:58:14 by YULspotter
A340-600 Why No Body Gear Steering? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:16:18 by BALandorLivery

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format