Aircraft Structural Components

1. Introduction to Aircraft Structures History

As with all other aspects involved with an aircraft, the structural design and
layout has changed markedly over the history of flight, in line with
technological advances and new discoveries. These notes will highlight some
of the more substantial developments made during the history of manned
flight and includes comments on the reasons behind the changes and any
repercussions.

2. Earliest Aircraft

2.1 Wooden Biplanes

The earliest aircraft of all, of course, is the Wright Flyer (1903) – Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 Structural layout and configuration of Wright Flyer

Its main structural characteristics include:

Biplane main wing, canard, rudder and fore/aft fuselage all use similar
structural arrangement of rectangular trussed sections comprising:
Solid vertical strut members.
Wire bracing stretched from corner to corner.
Wing section formed by thin ribs in flight direction and skin covering.

The basic philosophy behind this structural design, and of many similar
aircraft built just afterwards, was:
• The use of biplane main wings led to a lighter & stronger structure than
would result from using a single wing structure (monoplane), as would have
been suggested by observations of bird flight.
• The rectangular frame shapes were held in place by two light diagonal
wires rather than one single heavy diagonal member.
• Wire bracing was used to support all the tensile loads.
• The compression loads were concentrated into a small number of compact
rods.

The materials used were the cheapest available at that time and also the
most easily worked. This included:
• Wood for the vast majority of the structure - firstly bamboo then spruce.
• Piano wire for bracing.
• Cotton muslin fabric for skin covering.

This was the dominant design for many years (until the mid 30’s) & such
designs are still occasionally used, for the likes of aerobatics & crop-sprayer
aircraft. The major structural advantages of the layout are high rigidity and
consequently good bending and torsional resistance. This layout is suitable
for aircraft with low wing loading (W/S) requirements (e.g. aerobatics types
with good low-speed manoeuvrability needs). The layout results in a very
light aircraft, typically only about 10% of the weight of an equivalent sized
modern metal-skinned aircraft!

The majority of WWI aircraft were based upon this configuration – see Figure
2.2 for some typical examples.

Figure 2.2 Biplane fighter aircraft of WWI – Breguet 14 & Sopwith Camel
(both 1917)

2.2 Wooden Monoplanes

This new concept originated in Europe and included the use of a dedicated
trussed fuselage and monoplane wing. The concept was largely ignored by
the Britain aircraft manufacturing community due to conservatism and
concerns over strength & durability. Some of the most prominent early
aircraft to use this design approach were those of Louis Bleriot, the first to
successfully undertake an aerial English Channel crossing (Figure 2.3).

The wing structure comprised two thin wooden spars with external wire
bracing to independently support lifting & landing tensile loads (Figure 2.4).
The fuselage structure incorporated a standard civil engineering Pratt truss
type of design, comprising 4 main longerons running down its length with
additional support from spacers, struts & cross-wire bracing (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.3 Bleriot XI (1909)

Figure 2.4 Bleriot aircraft wing structural details

Figure 2.5 Bleriot aircraft fuselage structural details

By the end of WWI (1918), certain aircraft structural design features were
virtually standard. To improve lift, wings were now manufactured with much
thicker sections and had much less lower surface curvature. This allowed for
the use of deeper spars, thus improving wing second moment of area values
(Figure 2.6) and thus the overall wing strength and stiffness. This
consequently removed the need for external wire bracing. Examples of such
aircraft include the Fokker D.VII (1918) and Fokker DR-1 (1917) (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.6 Sectional depth effects on structural deflection

Figure 2.7 Fokker D.VII and Fokker DR-1

2.3 The Use of Metal
There was a fairly gradual change-over from the use of wood to the use of
metal from WWI onwards, though the Junkers J-1 monoplane (1910) was built
entirely from metal (steel tubing & thin sheet iron coverings) while the
Fokker DR-1 triplane (1917) also used steel tubing for fuselage truss
members.

Figure 2.8 Junkers J-1 and Fokker DR-1

Figure 2.9 Hawker Fury (1931)

A major reason for the greater use and adoption of metal for the airframe
was due to the short supply of spruce directly after WWI. It was a fairly
gradual changeover, however, with some manufacturers reluctant to move
away from their wood-working facilities and experience. For instance, a
typical aircraft of the 1930’s, the Hawker Fury (1931) only used metal in the
form of steel tubes for the main fuselage members, along with the usual
cross-wire bracing. Wood was still used extensively elsewhere.
The change to all or mostly all metal construction was almost complete by
the time of Hawker Hurricane (1935), and certainly prior to start of WWII in
1939. Some still used fabric coverings for the wing and/or fuselage, however,
such as the Hurricane and Vickers Wellington. The most notable all-wooden
aircraft by the time of WWII was the highly successful Mosquito fighter
aircraft.
 Figure 2.10 Hawker Hurricane (1935) & Boeing P-26 Peashooter (1932)

2.4 Stressed-Skin Construction

A major universal breakthrough in aircraft structural design occurred in the
1930’s, with the advent of stressed-skin or semi-monocoque construction
methods. This arose because of the major problems caused by the standard
internal cross-bracing in the fuselage as aircraft developed requirements to
carry passengers & payload internally. Designers soon recognized that the
designs applicable to flying boat fuselage construction (Figure 2.11) were
also appropriate for transport aircraft use. The main structural advantage is
that the skin is then an integral load-carrying working part of the overall
structure. The wording can be broken down into:
• “mono” - one piece
• “coque” - skin or egg shell
• “semi-” - makes use of additional internal stiffening framework.

This concept has been used on virtually all aircraft designed since 1930’s.

Figure 2.11 Sikorsky S-42 Clipper (1934)

Soon after the fuselages came stressed-skin wings. This was mainly driven
by the US designers, who were dominant in building large capacity
transports & bombers at that time, e.g. the B-9 and B-10 bombers; the
Boeing 247, DC-1, DC-2 and DC-3 airliners.
 Figure 2.12 Douglas DC-1 (1933) & Being B-9 (1931)

By this stage, the standard airframe was of aluminium alloy construction with
a structural load carrying skin riveted to frames, longerons (for fuselage) or
spars (for wing), ribs & stringers. The European designers and manufacturers
lagged behind their US counterparts by about 5 years, mainly because they
were working on smaller aircraft and it was more difficult to scale down the
stressed-skin technology. Messerschmitt (Germany) and Supermarine (UK)
were the only Europeans making stressed-skin wings by the mid 1930’s.

Figure 2.13 Standard airframe construction by mid 1930’s

Figure 2.14 Messerschmitt Bf-109 and Supermarine Spitfire (both 1939)

3. Major Aerostructures Developments since WWII

3.1 Pressurized Fuselages

The use of cabin pressurization in the mid 1940’s to improve the flying
environment for passengers and crew led to considerably increased fuselage
strength requirements. Some of the earliest aircraft to use pressurization
were the Lockheed Constellation, Douglas DC-6 and Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, all of which cruised at around 20,000 ft with cabin pressures
equivalent to that experienced at 8,000 ft altitude. This directly led to the
adoption of circular sections as the norm, minimization of structural cut-outs
& careful consideration and alleviation of stress concentrations (by using
rounded fuselage door corners, etc.).

Figure 3.1 Lockheed Constellation & Douglas DC-6

3.2 Aeroelasticity Problems

Rapid advances in aerodynamics & propulsion technology during the 1940’s
led to higher speeds, more lift and increased wing loadings. As a direct
result, several previously unknown aeroelastic phenomena became apparent
for fighters during WWII, including:
• Wing and control surface flutter
• Divergence
• Control surface (especially aileron) reversal.

All of these problems forced the need for increased wing torsional (twisting)
stiffness. A particular problem for WWII fighters was the lack of roll response
in high speed dives – several aircraft (e.g. the Spitfire, P-51 Mustang, etc.)
reduced the wing span in order to help alleviate the problem.
 Figure 3.2 P-51 Mustang (1942)

3.3 Manufacturing Techniques – Integral Construction

Increased aircraft speeds, allied with the advent of the turbojet propulsion
era and design against metal fatigue, led to the need for thicker wing skins.
These were consequently more difficult to wrap around the internal
structural framework. By the 1950’s, the skins were usually pre-formed by
rolling or, alternatively, by stretch-forming. By the late 50’s integral
construction was commonly being used to form the skin and stringers as
one. These would be machined from a solid slab of aluminium alloy with
perhaps 95% of original material removed.

Advantages include:
• Less riveted fasteners so less wing drag.
• Fewer stress concentrations so reduced fatigue issues.
• Easier optimal tapering of skin thickness with weight benefits.
• Easier to seal fuel tanks.
• Improved fuel tank volume.

3.4 Metal Fatigue Problems

The potentially catastrophic effects of metal fatigue were highlighted for the
aerospace community in 1954 when 2 DeHavilland Comet jet airliners
disintegrated in flight within 3 months of each other. This can be mainly
attributed to the non-consideration of low-cycle pressurisation &
depressurisation and the resultant effects on weakening the structural
strength (i.e. metal fatigue). The resultant cracks first appeared in areas of
high stress concentrations, in these cases at the corners of the non-rounded
windows, and soon propagated with disastrous consequences.
 Figure 3.3 DeHavilland Comet (1954)

Subsequent aircraft fuselages were better designed to withstand such

problems, through the use of: increased skin thicknesses, rounded windows,
multiple load paths (“fail-safe” design), the use of crack-resistant copper-rich
aluminium alloys and the increased use of welding, bonding, chemical
etching and integrally machined panels.

3.5 High Speed Problems

3.5.1 Swept Wings
After WWII, major wing structural design changes were caused and forced by
adopting Busemann’s wing sweep theory for reducing high-speed wing drag.

Figure 3.4 Saab J-29 Tunnan (1948) & Boeing B-47 Stratojet (1947)

Figure 3.5 F-86 Sabre (1947) & MiG-15 Fagot (1949)

3.5.2 Area Rule Technology
Major fuselage structure changes were forced by the adoption of Whitcomb’s
area ruling theory. This involved the incorporation of a gradual change in
overall sectional area, in order to reduce the high speed wave drag
component. In particular, this requires the reduction in fuselage area where
the wing and tail is attached and the narrowing down elsewhere, thereby
producing an 14 ideal Sears-Haack body area distribution. This clearly
complicated the fuselage structural design and layout processes.
Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitcomb_area_rule for more details.

Figure 3.6 F-102 A Delta Dagger (1956) & B-58 Hustler (1959)

Although the rule still applies, the visible fuselage “waisting” is no longer
common; the same effect is now achieved much more subtlely by careful
positioning of aircraft components.

3.5.3 Thin Wings

Much thinner wings were needed as aircraft speeds continued to increase
during the 1950’s and 60’s, due to aerodynamic considerations (in order to
reduce the magnitude of the wave drag due to thickness component). An
example includes the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (1956) with a cruise speed
in excess of Mach 2 and a wing t/c ratio of only 3.4%. The adoption of such
thin wing sections led to the common use of multi-cell & multi-spar wing
structures:
 Figure 3.7 Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (1956) & A-5 Vigilante (1958)

3.5.4 Kinetic Heating

Ever-increasing aircraft speeds during the 1950’s led to additional previously
unencountered problems in the form of large temperature gradients due to
kinetic (aerodynamic) heating. These effects can easily lead to significant
thermal stresses and expansion/contraction problems and are big design
considerations for supersonic aircraft, e.g. Concorde & B-58 Hustler, where
steadystate temperatures of up to 128oC may result for Mach 2 cruise.
Design solutions include careful material selection (the increased use of
high-temperature resistant steel, titanium, etc.) and the incorporation of cut-
outs to accommodate thermal expansion limits.

Figure 3.8 Concorde (1 976) & B-58 Hustler (1959)

The XB-70 Valkyrie (1964) had even greater problems than Hustler or
Concorde due to its even higher speed (Mach 3 cruise). This meant that the
aircraft developed maximum local temperatures of about 340oC and average
airframe temperature of about 280oC during its flights. The design solution
adopted by the structural and materials design engineers incorporated:
• Titanium alloys used for the forward fuselage skin & frames and high-
strength H-11 steel used for the stiffeners.
• Brazed stainless steel honeycomb sandwich panels used for the
intermediate fuselage & wing.
• Titanium wing spars with sin-wave webs.
• H-11 steel & titanium alloy skin for aft fuselage.
• Welded joints.

Figure 3.9 Valkyrie XB-70 (1964)

3.6 Computing Advances
Computers were first used in earnest on aircraft during XB-70 Valkyrie
structural development programme. The standard structural hand
calculations were heavily supported by extensive use of matrix structural
analysis methods on computers. All of the major components were analyzed
using the force method of linear elasticity with three basic elements (rod,
shear panel & built-up beam) used for the modeling. The computer codes
used by the engineers were all written in the assembly language and were
run on an IBM 7095 mainframe computer.

Finite element analysis was used first of all during the structural support and
development phases of the Boeing 747 airliner design programme in the mid
1960’s. The improved analysis capabilities (all later verified through testing)
led directly to the evolution of several new design concepts. This included
the aeroelastic tailoring of the nacelle & wing/body intersection in order to
reduce potential flutter problems and also allowed for the major extensive
use of composite materials.

3.7 Advanced Materials Technology

3.7.1 Sandwich Structures
This is an ideal way of providing thin sheets with an improved compressive
buckling stability. The Mosquito (Figure 3.10) was first to use a form of
sandwich construction; its fuselage comprised plywood skins and a balsa
core.

Figure 3.10 DeHavilland Mosquito

The most common form of sandwich material uses a metal (usually

aluminium alloy) core of honeycomb cells with thin aluminium alloy facing
skins (Figure 3.11). This type of material has been in common use since the
1960’s for many thin, secondary aircraft sub-structures (e.g. flaps, spoilers,
etc.). It has also been used extensively in spacecraft applications.
 Figure 3.11 Honeycomb sandwich panel construction

Some of the advantages associated with the use of such honeycomb

sandwich materials include:
• Excellent resistance to buckling & sonic fatigue.
• High values of specific strength & stiffness.
Disadvantages include:
• Costly, complicated & lengthy manufacturing processes.
• The thin, fragile facing skins are susceptible to damage.
• Field repair is a difficult and specialized task, making it unsuitable for many
military applications.
• Attachment of hardware to the panels difficult, necessitating the use of
special “inserts”.

3.7.2 Composites
Composites are simply combinations of two or more different materials so
have been in general use for many years in differing forms:
• The DeHavilland Mosquito fuselage used spruce fairings on balsa wood
core, as described earlier.
• Fibreglass/polyester composites were used for the radomes on many WWII
aircraft.
• Fibreglass was used for the facing skins on aluminium honeycomb
sandwich panels for the Boeing 747 control surfaces (1969).
The modern conception of a composite material, however, is that of Carbon-
fibre Reinforced Plastics (CFRP), which is becoming increasingly dominant
and of widespread use in the aerospace field, e.g. CFRP makes up:
• 26% of the total weight of the AV-8B Harrier (1981) – including the wing,
forward fuselage, horizontal tail.
• 72% of the total weight of a Beech Starship (1986).
• 12% of the total weight of a Boeing 777 (1995).
• 50% of the total weight of a Boeing 787 (2008).
 Figure 3.12 Beech Starship & Boeing 787

3.7.3 Other Advanced Materials

Many other materials have been suggested, developed and sometimes tried
on aircraft structures, including:
• Aluminium/lithium alloys.
• Aramid/aluminium laminates.
• Metal matrix composites.
• Thermoplastics, etc.