Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Geodetic/geodesic Construction: Why Not?  
User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1036 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2209 times:

Just a question driven by idle curiosity: why have aircraft designers not made wider use of the seemingly pioneering geodetic or geodesic construction principles developed by Barnes Wallis from his experience with airships and then used in aircraft such as the Vickers Wellington?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_airframe

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWesternDC6B From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just a shot in the dark here, but I imagine there'd be limits on things like window shape and placement, cargo and passenger door configuration and placement, pressure bulkhead design, and other such things.

It IS an interesting question, though.



Be kind to animals - Take a grizzly to lunch today.
User currently offlinewingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

No reason why geodesic structure can't be used on modern aircraft, it's just that most modern aircraft (pressurized or not) all seem to be designed with semi-monocoque stressed skin structures, which results in metal/composite panels with stringers/longerons and no need for a geodesic framework. The Wellington had doped fabric skin so the framework was structurally necessary.
Maybe it's worth revisiting though?



Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

I think it was only used for unpressurized aircraft; with a pressurized frame you might worry more about having longer tension members even if they are in a diagonal grid.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Geodetic/geodesic Construction: Why Not?
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...
737: 1 Pack + 2 Bleeds. Why Not? posted Sat Jun 23 2012 12:05:03 by smartt1982
MV-22 Rotor Rotation, Why Not Centerline? posted Sat Feb 11 2012 23:14:45 by bomber996
Runway Intersection Take Offs- Why Not? posted Fri Feb 10 2012 06:50:11 by smartt1982
Why Not Much Interest From Airlines In HGS? posted Mon Nov 14 2011 02:34:18 by windshear
Why Not Ram Air Instead Of Bleed Air To The Cabin? posted Tue Nov 8 2011 16:50:42 by horstroad
Why Not A Regular Door For Upper Deck posted Sat Aug 20 2011 04:20:48 by beeweel15
Why Not Land With Packs Off? posted Tue Mar 15 2011 20:08:39 by Speedbird741
737-900: Mid-aft Door, Why And Why Not posted Tue Jan 11 2011 20:49:04 by richiemo
Anti-reflective Nose Paint. Why Not Used Anymore? posted Mon May 31 2010 09:51:01 by TravelAVNut
Heated Runways: Why Not? posted Mon Feb 8 2010 07:35:35 by 777fan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format