MARCH 18, 1920

'

THE CASE FOR THE CANTILEVER WING

BY " MARCO POLO " (Continued from page 288.) The Question of Strength be more economical to employ more than two spars in a HITHERTO the cantilever wing has been studied from the cantilever wing. This would have the result that the ribs aero-dynamical point of view only. Structurally the canticould be built yery lightly, being in fact, nothing more than lever is generally supposed to work out considerably heavier light longitudinal stringers. For some reason not immethan the braced wing. With a carefully-graded section and diately apparent, the position of the centre of pressure has suitable construction, there does not appear to be any reason not been dealt with in R. & M., No. 322, although one would why the cantilever should not be built for very little, if any, have imagined that this is of some importance even in proincrease in weight. The fact that it has a high maximum peller design, and consequently, it has not been possible to lift coefficient is at once a point in its favour in this respect, determine exactly the maximum part of the total load which since this enables a smaller wing to be employed. In the may have to be carried by each spar at the extreme positions opinion of the writer, the cantilever wing should be built of of the centre of pressure. In Fig. g, I have plotted the metal, somewhat on the lines of the Boulton & Paul machine bending moments for the complete wing. It will be seen exhibited at the Paris Show, but having, of course, tapered that the maximum bending moment, which, of course, spars, to conform to the tapering wing section. While on the occurs at rib c, where the wing is supported, is slightly under subject of spars, the writer is inclined to think that for 8,ooo lb.-ins. This is by no means high, and brings out very cantilever wings the usual two-spar arrangement is not clearly the advantage of a graded wing. If the same load necessarily the most economical. The reason for the general had been evenly distributed along the span, the bending adoption of this arrangement in ordinary monoplane and moment at c, using the well-known cantilever beam formula, biplane wings is that if more than two spars are employed M = would have been about 13,750 lb.-ins., which is either the lift bracing is increased, with a corresponding increase in resistance, or internal members of great strength very much in excess of that attained in the tapered wing. and weightmust be used for transmitting the load from In order to obtain some slight idea of the spar size and spar m

SECTION

ANGLE OF BENDINS LIFT LOAD INCIDENCE COEFFICIENT CARRIED(lfe> MOMENT

-A?O'

0/8
O37 O6O

1
k > i

- 3*40' - 3*80'

-3*0'
- 2'+0'

080
O98

- 220'

9 (
e
d

-2'o'
- lUo- I2O'

-fo'
- *0'

c
b

Hi 130 160 178 190 2/0

225

2 -42 ; 8 -76 II -9O 15 -10 17-90

2.1 '10 26'60

2 9O

S66
8*0

1000

1088 10741012
957

30 so
33-30 36-80 4-1 -SO 4-7 SO

732.
4-00 O -6/O

a
the braced main spars to the auxiliary spars. Now, in a cantilever wing, the first of these objectionsthat of added bracing and resistancedoes not apply, while the provision of longitudinal members in the wing, capable of transmitting the load from main to auxiliary spars is a fairly simple matter, since it merely resolves itself into attaching all spars to the body, either direct or by a system of cabane legs -having horizontal top members to which all the spars are attached, I t is, therefore, a question whether it would not

- SO' - O'O'

256

-J8O

weight which will obtain, I have made the bold assumption that for this particular wing the rearmost point reached by the centre of pressure is 7 of the chord from the leading edge. For such a deeply-cambered section this may be somewhere near the mark, and if it is assumed that the rear spar be placed at this point, we may assume that for maximum load the rear spar may have to carry the entire weight of the machine. This, then, means that the maximum bending moment at c on the rear spar will be about 8,000 lb.-ins.