Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:12:41.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Speeds of Monoplanes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

J. Hanson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fact that attention must be given to stiffness as well as strength in aeroplane design is now generally recognised. The provision of adequate strength alone is not sufficient to ensure that an aeroplane is immune from such troubles as flutter, loss of lateral control due to twisting of the wing and wing divergence. This is illustrated by the case of the Puss Moth. As shown in R. and M. 1645 this machine was examined in detail by the Aeronautical Research Committee and found to be completely satisfactory as far as the existing official airworthiness requirements were concerned, and yet it experienced failures which were attributed to flutter, an instability involving the stiffness of the wings and tail.

In the earlier stages of the investigations into these stiffness problems it appeared to many practical people that the work. was of academic interest only. As a matter of fact it was of subsidiary importance while operational speeds of aeroplanes were relatively low, but the higher speeds of the modern aeroplane make such problems of direct practical interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 41 , Issue 320 , August 1937 , pp. 703 - 726
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bibliography

General.

Report on the Puss Moth Accidents by the Accidents Investigation Sub-Committee. R. & M. 1645. Problems involving the stiffness of aeroplane wings. H. Roxbee Cox. Journ. R.Ae.S., February, 1934.Google Scholar
Wing stiffness of Monoplanes. A. G. Pugsley and A. W. Clegg. R. & M. 1742. A study of the Flexural Axis positions for certain Box Sections. D. Williams and D. W. G. Fairbank. R. & M. 1751.Google Scholar
On the approximate representation of elastic structures by semi–rigid forms. A. G. Pugsley and H. Roxbee Cox. A.D. 3053 (unpublished).Google Scholar
Theory of Loss of Lateral Control due to Wing Twisting. H. Roxbee Cox and A. G. Pugsley. R. & M. 1506. Critical Reversal Speed for an Elastic Wing. A. G. Pugsley and G. R. Brooke. R. & M. 1508.Google Scholar
Reversal of Aileron Control due to Wing Twist. W. J. Duncan and G. A. McMillan. R. & M. 1499.Google Scholar
Calculation of Critical Reversal Speeds of Wings. D. M. Hirst. R. & M. 1568. Theoretical Relationships for an Aerofoil with Hinged Flap. H. Glauert. R. & M. 1095.Google Scholar
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Semi-Rigid Wing. A. G. Pugsley. R. & M. 1490. The Aileron Power of a Monoplane. A. G. Pugsley and H. Roxbee Cox. R. & M. 1640.Google Scholar
Stability of Static Equilibrium of Elastic and Aerodynamic Actions on a Wing. H. Roxbee Cox and A. G. Pugsley. R. & M. 1509.Google Scholar
The Flutter of Aeroplane Wings. R. A. Frazer and W. J. Duncan. R. & M. 1155. A Statistical Method of Investigating the Relations between Elastic Stiffnesses of AeroplaneGoogle Scholar
Wings and Wing-Aileron Flutter. H. Roxbee Cox. R. & M. 1505. Flexural-Torsional Flutter of a Simple Cantilever Wing. D. Williams. R. & M. 1596.Google Scholar