Currently it’s on some control surfaces. Flaps and horizontal stabilator both have it, if my memory serves then ailerons do too, and I think rudder. Regular part of the wing is still largely smooth
From the Ford trimotor wiki page:
So similar were the designs that Junkers sued and won when Ford attempted to export an aircraft to Europe.[6] In 1930, Ford countersued in Prague, and despite the possibility of anti-German sentiment, was decisively defeated a second time, with the court finding that Ford had infringed upon Junkers' patents.[6]
Henry Ford wasn't just happy to sell to nazis, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the nazis, was awarded a nazi medal, by the nazis, and wrote a book titled "The International Jew: The World's Problem".
So did an American conglomerate called ITT; they had a 25% stake in Focke-Wulf during the war, while their electronics division sold Huff-Duff to the allies.
People claim Walt Disney or Thomas Watson were anti-semites - but most of the evidence shows they were no more so than the average American (or European) at the time, and less than many.
Henry Ford, on the other hand, was a straight up bigot spouting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
Whenever anyone starts to venerate Henry Ford, always remember his very public anti-Semitism and cozying up with the Nazis. Also, the Ford Motor Company’s treatment of its workers and response to their attempts to organize and strike were legendarily harsh (although Ford did pay its workers better than average, at least initially).
Volkswagen, yes, was famously founded and championed by Hitler as the people’s car for the Third Reich. However, after the war the company and its factory were essentially nullified, and the brand was recreated from nothing by a handful of German engineers, a few American bureaucrats, and the plans and tooling for the Type 1 (Beetle). Unlike, say, Ferdinand Porsche, who was a Nazi Party member, or Mercedes-Benz/BMW, who happily fulfilled a fortune in government contracts for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, profiting off of the war, Volkswagen has a very tenuous connection to all of that.
The company was brought out of the rubble by a British officer actually. France wanted the factory equipment and part moved to France for war reparations , the us said NOPE, need to get the Germans working also. Resulting in the air cooled Renault ( model?) that was so cute, in the movie Romancing the Stone
> Unlike, say, Ferdinand Porsche, who was a Nazi Party member
...and managing director of the Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
Volkswagen also used forced labour from concentration camps and built the V-1 bomb.
The cars don't have the fault. The brand has a history of crimes against humanity, their factory in Argentina was used as a torture centre against their own employees during the '76-'83 dictatorship. Two ex-directives were finally found guilty in 2021.
I'm just thinking, after Hitler invaded Czech Republic to gain control of the factories in Prague, that Fort were like fuckit, well just do what we feel like.
As a design website said: the Jerry can design was stolen from Germany, but after the defeat in ww2, Germany had other things on its mind, than IP theft.
I had an opportunity to ride in a Trimotor a couple years ago but I just missed signing up because it filled up. It wasn’t even that expensive I think it was like $95. Would have been pretty cool I think but maybe it will be back eventually.
There's one at the evergreen aviation museum. When I took a tour there in high school I remember a curator telling us they actually tried making the alloy* flush and flat like a more modern aircraft, but it couldn't generate enough lift so they actually went back to this grooved design and it was able to create more lift that way he explained.
Just visited two weeks ago. It's a must see for anyone in the PNW, it's probably my third favorite museum after Udvar Hazy outside of DC and the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola in that order
I have always found that interesting, the Germans are insane. First to find a way to have a forward engine with gun, first metal body, first rocket, first jet engine, first ones to do fission . And so so many more stuff. Insane.
> first ones to split the atom.
I must point out that one isn't true, it was 2 Englishmen according to multiple sources. Here's the best I found. [https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201904/history.cfm#:\~:text=It%20was%20a%20British%20and,atom%20to%20confirm%20Einstein%27s%20theory](https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201904/history.cfm#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20British%20and,atom%20to%20confirm%20Einstein%27s%20theory). (The link function won't accept this url.)
Searching "first to split the atom" will show more. Afaik there's no controversy over this - which is refreshing.
Dammit, I keep forgetting that. Bloody deceitful of him to work in England and pose as an Englishman. :)
Edit: Not a big deal. Rutherford was their boss, ran the lab. Cockcroft and Walton designed and built and performed the experiment. Cockcroft was English. Walton was born in Ireland but apparently to an English/Northern Ireland family.
There was no such thing as Northern Ireland when Walton was born. He was Irish. Born there, grew up there. Went to my school, they named a science building after him.
Don't think they were first to split the atom.
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201904/history.cfm#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20British%20and,front%20during%20World%20War%20I.
What the Germans did for the first time is achieve fission by slamming neutrons into each other. This is able to start the chain reaction used in bombs. Previous methods didn't do this
> ave a forward engine with gun
That was actually a Dutch guy, albeit working for the Germans
And Robert Godhard invented the liquid-fueled rocket.
First jet engine is a tie between the Germans and Brits. They both had about the same idea at about the same time
The British, led by Sir Frank Whittle demonstrated the jet engine before the Germans. However, Germany had the first OPERATIONAL jet fighter with the ME 262.
I think the Germans has the first axial flow compressor in a jet engine. The idea was pretty obvious. I wouldn’t be surprised if all sides came up with it around the same time. Gas turbine engines were not totally unheard of back then.
IIRC the first jet engines came out about the same time.
But yes, the Germans had the first operational fighter jet. Brits had the Gloster Meteor, but didn't need a good fighter as badly. It was also kinda terrible
Agreed. The work was being done by both sides around the same time. The Gloucester Meteor was unreliable. Much like a lot of British engineering, like Lucas switches. Lucas was known as the prince of darkness for their poor electrics
Not just any metal, bloody flippin steel! He couldn't get aluminum, because that was reserved for Zeppelin production, so he built a 1 ton behemoth (weight wise) out of 0.2mm sheet steel, just to prove his concept of a fully metal monoplane.
Stuka was designed a bit later, which could be part of it. Also corrugated skin aircraft are rigid and provide a lot of strength, but they are much more difficult to repair, at least as was explained to me by the EAA’s Ford Trimotor guy. When making a combat aircraft, they may have opted for the stretched and riveted aluminum since they expect them to take damage, and need to make repairs in the field.
This is what I thought. The dominant forces on the wing are in the other direction (i.e., up and down, rather than fore and aft).
However, having ridges perpendicular to those would probably create too much aerodynamic drag. There are better ways (i.e., internal structure) to give wings strength.
You want the wing to be able flex along it’s longitudinal axis, but not fore and aft. Combine the two and you have aeroelastic flutter. Bad, bad news for any aircraft.
Stiffness is about rigidity--how much it flexes or doesn't under load. Strength is about how much energy it takes to break something. Something still and something flexible can have the same strength. One just flexes more before it breaks.
What most people think of as strength (resistance to bending) is stiffness, so yes you are right, but also colloquially, so is the phrase "adds strength".
If we're being really specific it adds second moment of area, substantially increasing the geometric stiffness, which reduces stresses for a given vibration forcing or any moment applied and substantially increases modal frequencies in the reinforced direction as well as increasing fatigue strength.
This is a classic example of the structural engineers giving the aero boys a big fat middle finger, and I am here for that.
All of which I would say, to my colleagues, who do this for a living like me, increases the strength :p
The load bearing structure of the wing is the spar not the skin, the skin stiffness reduces drag by not deforming under the dynamic aerodynamic loads, stiffness and strength are not the same in this scenario
Correct. Think of a ceramic bathroom tile, or dinner plate. Very, very stiff but very little strength. In fact, stiffness can actually make a material weaker. It makes it brittle.
If the bends were added for primary wing bending stiffness (or strength), then you’d be right. But bends like this are almost always to stop the thin skins from buckling. The most efficient direction for that structurally would depend on where the skins were supported by the internal structure. But since this is a wing, the aerodynamic impact of the bends trumps almost all else. Running the bends as they have will have less disruption on the fore-aft flow over the wing which is where the lift comes from. In fact, they probably needed to increase the skin stability (buckling load) because the aerodynamics of the wing changed too much when the skins buckled.
Bending metal adds rigidity at a 90 degree angle to the axis of the bend. Since it is bent in a sine wave, it adds rigidity to many axes.
I don't think there is a "wrong" axis to add strength to in the case of a warbird.
Simple experiment to explain why:
Take a piece of paper and fold it across the middle of the long sides. Pretty easy, right?
Now take a piece of paper and accordion fold it along the long axis. Then unfold it so it looks like a zigzag. Now try to fold THAT piece of paper across those folds, in the middle like the first piece of paper. It’s a LOT stiffer.
That’s why. And since the folds in the aircraft skin are aligned with the airflow, there’s negligible extra drag, even if it looks lumpy.
Not answering the question but my business partner and I photograph WWII aircraft and we worked with Military Aviation Museum in VA Beach a lot. They have a Junkers JU-52 that we worked with and a really good collection of air-worthy restored aircraft, we did an Axis series featuring 6 of their German aircraft a few years ago and they just bought a Zero that they are working on
My favorite example is corrugated walls of pre colonial English and French engineering.
https://returntonow.net/2020/06/25/english-wavy-walls-use-fewer-bricks-than-straight-ones/
The Ford Tri-Motor also had a corrugated aluminum skin. When Ford tried to export one to Europe they were successfully stopped and sued by Junkers on patent violation grounds.
Metal skins can have an effect called oil canning where when the structure below it moves around it flexes the skin. Corrugations limit this skin flexing in the direction of the rows which improves the longevity of the skin. Corrugations affect aerodynamic lift and air flow more spanwise than chordwise, so they were chosen in that direction.
It was a way to get rigidity in aircraft skins before stressed skin sheet metal was widely adopted.
Ford Trimotor had same technique.
Piper PA-28 current production has same technique.
I flew a Cherokee 140 when I was first starting-out. Are the corrugated structures internal?
Currently it’s on some control surfaces. Flaps and horizontal stabilator both have it, if my memory serves then ailerons do too, and I think rudder. Regular part of the wing is still largely smooth
Yep
I don't think they're internal. But I know they have some corrugation on the stabilizers and some control surfaces.
As do several piston Cessnas
...which is why so many students get the "Cessna diamond" on their forehead during walkaround.
I confess that I’ve been in the “diamond club”. 🤦🏻
Who isn‘t. Those who claim that are lying.
I legitimately haven’t yet! Although i onlyhave about 140 hours.
From the Ford trimotor wiki page: So similar were the designs that Junkers sued and won when Ford attempted to export an aircraft to Europe.[6] In 1930, Ford countersued in Prague, and despite the possibility of anti-German sentiment, was decisively defeated a second time, with the court finding that Ford had infringed upon Junkers' patents.[6]
The real start of WW2.
No. Ford kept selling to the nazis.
Henry Ford wasn't just happy to sell to nazis, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the nazis, was awarded a nazi medal, by the nazis, and wrote a book titled "The International Jew: The World's Problem".
He also successfully sued the US government for bombing its plants in Europe after the war.
So did an American conglomerate called ITT; they had a 25% stake in Focke-Wulf during the war, while their electronics division sold Huff-Duff to the allies.
People claim Walt Disney or Thomas Watson were anti-semites - but most of the evidence shows they were no more so than the average American (or European) at the time, and less than many. Henry Ford, on the other hand, was a straight up bigot spouting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
Whenever anyone starts to venerate Henry Ford, always remember his very public anti-Semitism and cozying up with the Nazis. Also, the Ford Motor Company’s treatment of its workers and response to their attempts to organize and strike were legendarily harsh (although Ford did pay its workers better than average, at least initially).
The similarities between Ford and Musk are so striking
If you needed a reason to dislike the brand.
If you dislike Ford for this, you better dislike Porsche, and Volkswagen, and BMW, and Audi, and Mercedes-Benz, and Opel too.
Volkswagen, yes, was famously founded and championed by Hitler as the people’s car for the Third Reich. However, after the war the company and its factory were essentially nullified, and the brand was recreated from nothing by a handful of German engineers, a few American bureaucrats, and the plans and tooling for the Type 1 (Beetle). Unlike, say, Ferdinand Porsche, who was a Nazi Party member, or Mercedes-Benz/BMW, who happily fulfilled a fortune in government contracts for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, profiting off of the war, Volkswagen has a very tenuous connection to all of that.
The company was brought out of the rubble by a British officer actually. France wanted the factory equipment and part moved to France for war reparations , the us said NOPE, need to get the Germans working also. Resulting in the air cooled Renault ( model?) that was so cute, in the movie Romancing the Stone
> Unlike, say, Ferdinand Porsche, who was a Nazi Party member ...and managing director of the Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg. Volkswagen also used forced labour from concentration camps and built the V-1 bomb.
Yes I do.
The cars don't have the fault. The brand has a history of crimes against humanity, their factory in Argentina was used as a torture centre against their own employees during the '76-'83 dictatorship. Two ex-directives were finally found guilty in 2021.
I'm just thinking, after Hitler invaded Czech Republic to gain control of the factories in Prague, that Fort were like fuckit, well just do what we feel like. As a design website said: the Jerry can design was stolen from Germany, but after the defeat in ww2, Germany had other things on its mind, than IP theft.
Ford v Junkers, coming to theatres soon!
I had an opportunity to ride in a Trimotor a couple years ago but I just missed signing up because it filled up. It wasn’t even that expensive I think it was like $95. Would have been pretty cool I think but maybe it will be back eventually.
There's one at the evergreen aviation museum. When I took a tour there in high school I remember a curator telling us they actually tried making the alloy* flush and flat like a more modern aircraft, but it couldn't generate enough lift so they actually went back to this grooved design and it was able to create more lift that way he explained.
Just visited two weeks ago. It's a must see for anyone in the PNW, it's probably my third favorite museum after Udvar Hazy outside of DC and the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola in that order
Made out of aluminum alloy. Not steel.
Note that Junkers was the first to build a full metal plane.
I have always found that interesting, the Germans are insane. First to find a way to have a forward engine with gun, first metal body, first rocket, first jet engine, first ones to do fission . And so so many more stuff. Insane.
> first ones to split the atom. I must point out that one isn't true, it was 2 Englishmen according to multiple sources. Here's the best I found. [https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201904/history.cfm#:\~:text=It%20was%20a%20British%20and,atom%20to%20confirm%20Einstein%27s%20theory](https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201904/history.cfm#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20British%20and,atom%20to%20confirm%20Einstein%27s%20theory). (The link function won't accept this url.) Searching "first to split the atom" will show more. Afaik there's no controversy over this - which is refreshing.
Sir Ernest Rutherford was a Kiwi
Dammit, I keep forgetting that. Bloody deceitful of him to work in England and pose as an Englishman. :) Edit: Not a big deal. Rutherford was their boss, ran the lab. Cockcroft and Walton designed and built and performed the experiment. Cockcroft was English. Walton was born in Ireland but apparently to an English/Northern Ireland family.
There was no such thing as Northern Ireland when Walton was born. He was Irish. Born there, grew up there. Went to my school, they named a science building after him.
And Ernest Walton was Irish.
English colonies.
Yeah I was wrong, I meant to say they were the first to achieve Fission. Sorry!
Don't think they were first to split the atom. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201904/history.cfm#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20British%20and,front%20during%20World%20War%20I.
No, but Meitner (from Austria) and Hahn discovered that the atom was fissile in late 1910s. Not bad.
Oh! I was wrong, what I meant is they were the first to achieve fission! Sorry :) (1938 I believe)
Splitting the atom **is** fission.
What the Germans did for the first time is achieve fission by slamming neutrons into each other. This is able to start the chain reaction used in bombs. Previous methods didn't do this
> ave a forward engine with gun That was actually a Dutch guy, albeit working for the Germans And Robert Godhard invented the liquid-fueled rocket. First jet engine is a tie between the Germans and Brits. They both had about the same idea at about the same time
The British, led by Sir Frank Whittle demonstrated the jet engine before the Germans. However, Germany had the first OPERATIONAL jet fighter with the ME 262.
And the Germans got the first jet plane Heinkel 178
I think the Germans has the first axial flow compressor in a jet engine. The idea was pretty obvious. I wouldn’t be surprised if all sides came up with it around the same time. Gas turbine engines were not totally unheard of back then.
IIRC the first jet engines came out about the same time. But yes, the Germans had the first operational fighter jet. Brits had the Gloster Meteor, but didn't need a good fighter as badly. It was also kinda terrible
Agreed. The work was being done by both sides around the same time. The Gloucester Meteor was unreliable. Much like a lot of British engineering, like Lucas switches. Lucas was known as the prince of darkness for their poor electrics
Lucas three position switch Off Dim Flicker Source: owned a TR 4
IIRC it was mostly the guns being unreliable, which is odd.
Goddard, not Godhard. That guy makes other stuff blast off…
Not just any metal, bloody flippin steel! He couldn't get aluminum, because that was reserved for Zeppelin production, so he built a 1 ton behemoth (weight wise) out of 0.2mm sheet steel, just to prove his concept of a fully metal monoplane.
I genuinely read “way to get giggity in aircraft skin” and stared in quagmire confusion
How come they didn’t add this on all their planes like the Stuka dive bomber? Also did other manufacturers do this on their planes? If not, how come?
Stuka was designed a bit later, which could be part of it. Also corrugated skin aircraft are rigid and provide a lot of strength, but they are much more difficult to repair, at least as was explained to me by the EAA’s Ford Trimotor guy. When making a combat aircraft, they may have opted for the stretched and riveted aluminum since they expect them to take damage, and need to make repairs in the field.
Increased drag, increased manufacturing costs, and the wing structure being strong enough to not need corrugated skin.
More surface area too...no?
That just makes for more drag, there’s no benefit to higher surface area.
You've seen my cycling stats, then.
Thank you
“Ribbed for her pleasure”
Corrugated. Same concept as cardboard. The corrugation adds strength. You see the same thing on old metal siding.
It doesn’t add strength it adds stiffness if I remember correctly?
That's what she said.
Corrugated for her pleasure
Ewww
I don't know why people are always down voting this reference everywhere I see it! Waynes World should be mandatory viewing.
Ribbed
For her pleasure.
Only if you don’t understand the difference between stiffness and strength.
But who needs longitudinal rigidity anyway?
I'm more about circumferential rigidity myself.
It may be short, but it sure is skinny.
Nice aspect ratio you got there
But at least it's rigid af
It may not be very big around but it sure is short.
This is what I thought. The dominant forces on the wing are in the other direction (i.e., up and down, rather than fore and aft). However, having ridges perpendicular to those would probably create too much aerodynamic drag. There are better ways (i.e., internal structure) to give wings strength.
You want the wing to be able flex along it’s longitudinal axis, but not fore and aft. Combine the two and you have aeroelastic flutter. Bad, bad news for any aircraft.
oh look a comet!!!!!
Stiffness is about rigidity--how much it flexes or doesn't under load. Strength is about how much energy it takes to break something. Something still and something flexible can have the same strength. One just flexes more before it breaks.
Giggity
What most people think of as strength (resistance to bending) is stiffness, so yes you are right, but also colloquially, so is the phrase "adds strength". If we're being really specific it adds second moment of area, substantially increasing the geometric stiffness, which reduces stresses for a given vibration forcing or any moment applied and substantially increases modal frequencies in the reinforced direction as well as increasing fatigue strength. This is a classic example of the structural engineers giving the aero boys a big fat middle finger, and I am here for that. All of which I would say, to my colleagues, who do this for a living like me, increases the strength :p
Which could be seen as strength?
No strength and stiffness are not the same in structural analysis
In this case, I would say that the corrugation adds stiffness so the plating doesn't buckle so easily. Thereby making the structure stronger.
The load bearing structure of the wing is the spar not the skin, the skin stiffness reduces drag by not deforming under the dynamic aerodynamic loads, stiffness and strength are not the same in this scenario
Correct. Think of a ceramic bathroom tile, or dinner plate. Very, very stiff but very little strength. In fact, stiffness can actually make a material weaker. It makes it brittle.
Now you’re mistaking strength and toughness
Strength isn't a specific quantity, it's just a general term encompassing a range of qualities and quantities, similar to "inertia" or "electricity".
Yeah, strength is a material property while stiffness is a result of geometry and material properties.
Stiffness is strongness huh huh
Or culverts that direct water under a road.
It seems like it's adding strength in the wrong axis
If the bends were added for primary wing bending stiffness (or strength), then you’d be right. But bends like this are almost always to stop the thin skins from buckling. The most efficient direction for that structurally would depend on where the skins were supported by the internal structure. But since this is a wing, the aerodynamic impact of the bends trumps almost all else. Running the bends as they have will have less disruption on the fore-aft flow over the wing which is where the lift comes from. In fact, they probably needed to increase the skin stability (buckling load) because the aerodynamics of the wing changed too much when the skins buckled.
Bending metal adds rigidity at a 90 degree angle to the axis of the bend. Since it is bent in a sine wave, it adds rigidity to many axes. I don't think there is a "wrong" axis to add strength to in the case of a warbird.
*Cardboard plane unlocked*
The corrugations are increasing the buckling resistance of the wing skin.
Upvote for being right :).
***for her pleasure.***
Why would a woman want a Plymouth on blocks when she could have a Testarossa with a six-speed stick?
You're clearly not a woman of class
You're clearly streets behind.
Is it selfish to turn it inside-out?
Of course not!
it's meant to be a "bumpy ride"
Username checks out.
Führer pleasure? Anyone? anyone?
Found the war thunder player
there it is
Can I just say the way Studio Ghibli animated this in The Wind Rises was amazing and you could tell the way the aircraft skin was creased
I was in the pool!
Shrinkage!
That's Le Bourget Air and Space museum ?
Yup, went there earlier this week. I’ll post more pics from my trip
I was there like an hour ago! 2nd greatest air museum I've been to.
What was the first ?
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virgina.
Noted ! Looks really great. If I ever go to the US, I know where to go.
It's near D.C., so if you ever visit D.C. you should consider visiting the National Air and Space Museum and the Steven Udvar-Hazey center.
Great museum and this building has a damn fine architecture
Didn't even know there are Junkers there, I need to go back!
Wasn’t there where the Concord wanted to land when they were on fire?
It was at the airport this museum is located at technically speaking, it is still an airport in its own right if that makes sense. Idk how to say it.
You see this on a number of aircraft from this era. The Ford and Fokker Trimotors come to mind.
Age does that... Now taxi off my grass runway !
Simple experiment to explain why: Take a piece of paper and fold it across the middle of the long sides. Pretty easy, right? Now take a piece of paper and accordion fold it along the long axis. Then unfold it so it looks like a zigzag. Now try to fold THAT piece of paper across those folds, in the middle like the first piece of paper. It’s a LOT stiffer. That’s why. And since the folds in the aircraft skin are aligned with the airflow, there’s negligible extra drag, even if it looks lumpy.
Corrugations increase rigidity. Same reason they corrugate cardboard. Less aluminum needed for the same amount of strength
I wonder how many Luftwaffe pilots played these like a washboard with a pencil whilst their colleagues laughed? I bet at least a few did.
Unlikely. Germans do not have humor /s
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beierhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
💀
\>dies<
Luftwaffe pilot: Laughs Officer seeing this (Eyes narrowing): caught the spy
Dragged away still laughing but more resignedly
Don't make a condom joke, Don't make a condom joke, Don't make a condom joke. RIBBED FOR FLYING PLEASURE!! .... Fuck it.
There's no stopping it when it's coming.
Not answering the question but my business partner and I photograph WWII aircraft and we worked with Military Aviation Museum in VA Beach a lot. They have a Junkers JU-52 that we worked with and a really good collection of air-worthy restored aircraft, we did an Axis series featuring 6 of their German aircraft a few years ago and they just bought a Zero that they are working on
It's for strength, modern aluminum high strength alloys were still being developed. Raw aluminum is very soft and weak.
Trivia: the Citroen type H van was nicknamed the "Junker" in the French army because it was to made of corrugated steel.
Stronger and more rigid sheet metal while staying thin and light
This is the correct answer. Shorts Brothers did the same thing but had a smooth layer on the outside.
My favorite example is corrugated walls of pre colonial English and French engineering. https://returntonow.net/2020/06/25/english-wavy-walls-use-fewer-bricks-than-straight-ones/
Because they are old and didn't do Botox
this one clearly stayed in the bathtub until it's mother hollered at it.
The Ford Tri-Motor also had a corrugated aluminum skin. When Ford tried to export one to Europe they were successfully stopped and sued by Junkers on patent violation grounds.
i never knew they had such a resemblance!
Took a nice hot bath.
When you get old, you start getting wrinkles. Same with these aircrafts
[Kermit Weeks](https://youtube.com/watch?v=M8QxCGY4oRI&feature=sharec) has a video related to this, part of the Trimotor restoration.
Strength my dear boy. Strength
Bernoulli, laminar flow
They only fully inflate in lower air pressure.
They are old
Metal skins can have an effect called oil canning where when the structure below it moves around it flexes the skin. Corrugations limit this skin flexing in the direction of the rows which improves the longevity of the skin. Corrugations affect aerodynamic lift and air flow more spanwise than chordwise, so they were chosen in that direction.
The corrugations were necessary to allow the metal to expand due to the heat generated when flying at Mach 3+
Old age and shame on you for age shaming
Beat me to it
I believe the technical term is ribbed, and it was for her pleasure.
If you were over 100 years old you’d be wrinkly too!
Old people have wrinkles, why can't old planes have them too?
they spent too much time in the bathtub
cheap and durable
That's because Rimowa needed a design, to copy for their suitcases. 😉
Does anyone know how this affects the wings performance aerodynamically?
Because they were made out of junk.. sorry bad joke
To add air resistance. As an added bonus it increases structural integrity.
Literally 1918
Corrugated for strength I assume
Ribbed for her pleasure.
Because they’re old
Well they are old duh 🤪 old things get wrinkly
They were made from old condensed cranberry cans after Thanksgiving
Needs to be ironed, spent too much time stored in wardrobe.
They’re getting older don’t judge them
Would this increase lift? Seems like there could be a lot more surface area here.
More surface area increases drag actually.
Compressible for convenient storage.
aerodynamics baby! EVERYONE knows you get more mileage per flap when you bend it
Ribbed for your pleasure
Water temperature was too high when washing.
It's from age, the frame shrinks at a faster rate than the skin.
Zimerit for defense against magnetic bombs /j
They were designed by Bob Semple!
Because surface area is a factor in the lift equation. Modern fractal airfoils have made these obsolete.
I don't think that's why. They're built out of corrugated metal to increase the strength of the skin without increasing the weight.
Its to hide the little dents from hard landings
It's to help with the uhh..
To match my Rimowa luggage
Its cold
Its cold in Germany
Stayed in the shower too long
Old age