Interest in a modern incarnation of the Farman F.455 Moustique?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,706
Location
World traveler
Unfortunately, there seem to be some pages missing from the UNT Digital Libary scan of that report. Since NTRS took down most of their material, I can't seem to find another copy online, but here is the original FLIGHT magazine article that was the source.
 

Attachments

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,706
Location
World traveler
In a recent visit the Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace in Le Bourget, I was able to access the museum's files on a few light planes, including one of my favorites. With apologies for the quality as I did not have a scanner, so this is a scan of a photocopy, and light blue and black on white printing did not copy well, here is the original Farman factory brochure for the F.455, later known as the Super Moustique. The artist's conception from the brochure separately is quite nice and shows some differences from the actual plane, notably two separate windscreens instead of the single windscreen of the sole prototype in Le Bourget. Perhaps a modification after the first test flights proved too "refreshing?" Cheers, Matthew
 

Attachments

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,706
Location
World traveler
With some recent discussion about rubber press forming (pseudo-hydroforming) of small metal parts, I am taking another look at the Vickers-Wibault metal construction using stock metal extrusions (see attachment in post #41 above), especially the zig-zag "wandering web" combined with ordinary aluminum angles as in illustrations 1, 4 and 6 below:

wandering web.jpg

A few questions for those with more engineering knowledge than I have...


  • I think this would be much easier to build than a closed box spar because of easier access to both sides for riveting, perhaps even using light, cheap ordinary rivets and a rivet squeezer. Any other particular advantages/disavantages to this approach come to mind?

  • What would be the impact in terms of strength/stiffness in bending and torsion of flipping the angles around to form the corners of a box beam rather than a hollow I-beam?

  • What would be the pros and cons of forming the "wandering web" from multiple, easier to make Z- or A-shaped pieces rather than a continuous zig-zag?

Cheers,

Matthew
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,152
Location
KBJC
Seems like a lot of work vs a conventional built-up spar. What advantage do you suppose the wandering web will give you?
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,706
Location
World traveler
Old question but here goes anyway....my thinking was that the diagonal bracing aspect of the wandering web would provide greater torsional stiffness especially for a largely monospar design in which all the major forces go through the main spar and the any rear spar is just a false spar for aileron/flap attachment.

Seems like a lot of work vs a conventional built-up spar. What advantage do you suppose the wandering web will give you?
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,881
Location
Memphis, TN
I bet the Wibault was a lot more flexible than wanted. It did not have a good record. You can see where PLZ got their look. To me it looks like the front side caps can shuffle independent of the rear. Not one homogeneous spar. Complicated to make. Why did they? Probably because at the time any idea in aviation would get tried. It was all metal and they got money to try. Good ideas tend to get copied. No one copying.
 

AdrianS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
755
Location
Australia
With some recent discussion about rubber press forming (pseudo-hydroforming) of small metal parts, I am taking another look at the Vickers-Wibault metal construction using stock metal extrusions (see attachment in post #41 above), especially the zig-zag "wandering web" combined with ordinary aluminum angles as in illustrations 1, 4 and 6 below:

View attachment 42850

A few questions for those with more engineering knowledge than I have...


  • I think this would be much easier to build than a closed box spar because of easier access to both sides for riveting, perhaps even using light, cheap ordinary rivets and a rivet squeezer. Any other particular advantages/disavantages to this approach come to mind?

  • What would be the impact in terms of strength/stiffness in bending and torsion of flipping the angles around to form the corners of a box beam rather than a hollow I-beam?

  • What would be the pros and cons of forming the "wandering web" from multiple, easier to make Z- or A-shaped pieces rather than a continuous zig-zag?

Cheers,

Matthew
What about heat expansion?
That long wandering web would try to grow in length - would that be a reason to cut it into segments?
Or would it just spread the cap angles a mite, much like a solid cap would grow?
 

billyvray

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
893
Location
Newnan, GA
I agree, that the independent caps might be able to move. Now, the view (#3) showing the C channel top and bottom and the corrugated panel in between might be good, approximating a box spar.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,865
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
That internal bucking bar is a good idea, but to really make it work there has to be some kind of lever or cam or ramp that allows the contact face of the bar to move inward as the rivet "shop head" becomes shorter and wider. Otherwise you are relying on the entire assembly flexing enough to allow the bucking bar to contact the rivet as it shrinks in height. That is stressing and potentially damaging the assembly around the rivet.

OR.... just accept that Heintz and Kolb and others figured out a much easier way, use high quality blind rivets and tighten up the spacing slightly to achieve the same strength. :)
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,881
Location
Memphis, TN
All I need is to rivet something I can’t inspect. The shop head would look like bent over nails. I guess with a second or third person could hold the bucking bar against the shank and work it while someone else riveted. Doable but kind of a pain without some practice.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,881
Location
Memphis, TN
Pulled rivets are not one to one replacements. A lot of the time they can be, but not guaranteed.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,706
Location
World traveler
I never said they were, plain and pulled rivets come in many different materials and strengths. I just meant that the awkwardness of trying to buck plain rivets to attach a tube inside a tube is a perfect application for an appropriate-strength pulled rivet.

Pulled rivets are not one to one replacements. A lot of the time they can be, but not guaranteed.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,752
Location
Orange County, California
Pulled rivets are not one to one replacements. A lot of the time they can be, but not guaranteed.
No, but if you're designing to their allowables in the first place, they're not "substituting" for anything. Cherry aerospace-grade blind rivets can absolutely be used in primary structure - if you design to their allowables from the start, just like any solid rivet.
 

Richard Roller

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Messages
79
Location
Olathe, Ks.
Bucking solid rivets in tubes is commonly done using two tapered bars sliding over each other. One can also use tubes to contain the river shank inside your tube while driving the rivet.
 
Top