Survey: Preferred Style of Folding Wings for Aircraft Subjects?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

A quick survey for our members that focus on aircraft models. 

What style or type of folding wing do you find most appealing?:

1. Parallel to the fuselage wing fold design.  This type of wing fold design is the type that is seen on aircraft such as the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, TBF/TBM Avenger, Fairey Fulmar, Fairey Firefly, and Supermarine Walrus?


Perpendicular to the fuselage.  This type type of wing fold design can be further defined into three sub-categories: 

2. The first of these is the Asymmetric wing fold design where one wing leads the other when folded down over the top of the fuselage on aircraft such as the S-3 Viking and S-2 Tracker. 

3.  The second type would be the Multiple section wing fold design as seen on several British aircraft designs that used multiple folds to reduce wing height when folded as seen on aircraft like the Westland Wyvern, Fairey Gannet, and Supermarine Seafire. 

4.  The third type would be the Uniform section wing fold design that is often seen on aircraft such as the A-1 Skyraider, F-9F Panther, AF-1 Fury, F-9 Tiger. 

Once you have cast your vote(s) you can comment on your preference and provide a reason for the choice if you so desire. 

*** link fixed.  Thanks Carl

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I like the parallel wing fold design for most applications where that type of wing fold can be applied.  Not so much for modern jet aircraft but more for the aircraft with a large wing used in support roles. 

Thinking about such an application for a C-130 for example where the wing folding parallel to the fuselage would be a better application for available hangar deck storage with the vertical tail folded down to reduce height for example. 

[LemonJello]

I can't say that I have a favorite, but this is a question that keeps bubbling to the surface whenever I think about my navalized A-10: do I want to just do a vertical/uniform folding wing or the parallel to the fuselage method? I'm leaning to the parallel style just because 1) I've seen other examples of an "A-10N" with the vertical fold and b) I think the parallel fold would both look cooler and be more conducive to stowing on the hanger deck. 

Modeling-wise the uniform/vertical is probably the easier of the two to construct, but why let that be a deciding factor?

[PR19_Kit]

I go for the multiple section wing fold design, but then I'm a Brit so I'm biased that way.  :)

I had an idea to do a USN TR-1 with the wings folded like that, but with maybe three or four sections. 

[Cliffy B]

I'm no aeronautical engineer but I believe the type of wing fold also has to do with the type of aircraft and the stresses, loads, and speeds it encounters.  I'd tend to think that the Grumman fold wouldn't work too well on a supersonic fighter unless it wanted its wings shorn off at Mach 2    The multiple wing folds were a result of a low overheads in the RN's CVs.  So...that all being said, decide on a subject and then decide on the wing fold.

Personally I like seeing models with the wings folded because it adds another level of visual interest to them and highlights their naval use.  Folding only one wing is my favorite though and it shows what it looks like both in the air and on the ground.  Pop some panels and add some mechanics tinkering/milling about and you have a simple yet highly believable and visually interesting little vignette.

[kitnut617]

There isn't any prefered system that I favour, they all have merits.  A question about the parallel fold system though, once weapons have been attached to hardpoints on the folding part of the wing, can they still be folded back ?  I've seen numerous photos of the uniform fold system where bombs and/or rockets are attached and the wing is folded up, but I've not seen any like that of the parallel fold system

[Logan Hartke]

I go for the multiple section wing fold design, but then I'm a Brit so I'm biased that way.  :)

I don't "get" your kind.   





*shudders*  My eyes!

Cheesr,

Logan

[jcf]

Robert, it depends on what is meant by parallel fold, on Fairey aircraft pre-Firefly
(the monoplane) the main planes swing aft, they do not swivel into the vertical plane
ala the Grumman types. I haveseen pics of Swordfish and Albacore with rockets/small
bombs in place with wings folded, not on Firefly.

The reason is simple physics, if the wings sweep back in plane the loads on the ordnance
mounting points stay the same, the loads shift on an up-and-over fold, but settle down to
a state close to flight position. So provided the wing hinge/spars etc. are strong enough a
straight fold to the rear type could, hypothetically, be parked armed.

With the skewed hinge rotating fold back the load surface, the underside of the wing,
and thus the load on the ordnance lugs is in a vertical position, which completely changes
the stresses. Add in that with the Grumman type the lower surface of the wing is towards
the fuselage you have less room for underwing stores to stay in place. On the Firefly the
lower surface faces out when the wings are folded so space isn't an issue, however, you
still have the problem of the stress on the mounts.

Logan, the Barracuda was designed by a Belgian, so make of that what you will ... 

[kitnut617]

Yeah, I meant the skewed parallel fold.  Just wondered if they were loaded up with the wings down, then the wings folded so they could be placed closer together just before take-off, or whether they were loaded just prior to take-off and left with the wings horizontal.  On the Grummans, the main load was carried in-board of the main u/c, but they did have RP's mounted out-board so just wondered ---

[Logan Hartke]

Logan, the Barracuda was designed by a Belgian, so make of that what you will ... 

I thought it was inspired by a pretzel.  I swear, the Barracuda is on of those aircraft that does NOT have a good angle.

Cheers,

Logan

[PR19_Kit]

Logan, the Barracuda was designed by a Belgian, so make of that what you will ... 

I thought it was inspired by a pretzel.  I swear, the Barracuda is on of those aircraft that does NOT have a good angle.

Cheers,

Logan

The Barracuda surely is one of the WEIRDEST looking aircraft the FAA ever flew (with the possible exception of the Blackburn Blackburn....) and the more bits of that fold up the weirder it gets!

One day I'm going to dig out my Frog Barra and build it with everything folded, maybe even some bits that Fairey never intended to fold.  :)

[GTX_Admin]

No preference - it is really a 'horses for courses' situation for me.  Therefore have not voted.

[Daryl J.]

I took the hinges off my F/A-18 kit.
Does that count?   

[jcf]

I'm with Greg, thus no vote either.

[kitnut617]

One day I'm going to dig out my Frog Barra and build it with everything folded, maybe even some bits that Fairey never intended to fold.  :)

There's an accessory set to do just that Kit, but do you think I can remember which outfit does it --- 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I go for the multiple section wing fold design, but then I'm a Brit so I'm biased that way.  :)

I had an idea to do a USN TR-1 with the wings folded like that, but with maybe three or four sections. 

I always thought the multiple section wing fold design was a bit strange as if they were creating it by trial and error instead of going straight to an established length so the end result was multiple folding sections.  Maybe it should be described as the "Origami style of folding wings" :)

They all have their niche and as mentioned in the OP my own preference for the wing folding parallel to the wings just means that you have a lower profile and overall height when the aircraft is all folded up in the hangar deck. 

I often wondered what the weight limits on ordnance loads would be for any wing folded up and it seems that the uniform over the top always seems to have been the best approach but with that comes the challenges for the ordnance crews and fuel guys in putting things on the aircraft that are not in a traditional location and in cooperation with gravity.  Aircraft such as the Skyraider and Corsair especially Korean War era images of these two aircraft show them getting bombed up with the wings folded or loaded and wings folded waiting for flight operations to commence with ordnance loads that appear to have no weight limitations. 

Like Mike says, having a model folded up does give is a unique appearance and it certainly has a smaller footprint on the display shelf.  Having one wing folded up also works in demonstrating how the wings are independent of each other and what both configurations (open and or closed) make the model look different from other aircraft. 

One of my other pet projects is to try and create an A-20 Havoc with folding wings and a tail hook as an attack aircraft for bombs and torpedoes with a solid gun nose and I find the parallel wing fold to be more appealing for the Havoc instead of uniform and over the top.  Though to be honest, for an aircraft the size of the A-20 you really have little choice if it were to fit in the hangar deck effectively with wings folded.  The multiple section over the top wing fold or asymmetric wing fold would perhaps solve that problem but you then find yourself with more critical tolerances after making your cuts for each section and in the case of the asymmetric wing fold you really could end up ruining the project if you are not careful with the pattern that needs to be cut to make it work. 

I guess that is why I created the poll to begin with was to get some second opinions.   

[kitnut617]

asymmetric wing fold would perhaps solve that problem but you then find yourself with more critical tolerances after making your cuts for each section and in the case of the asymmetric wing fold you really could end up ruining the project if you are not careful with the pattern that needs to be cut to make it work. 

With the Hawkeye and Greyhound you have both the parallel and asymmetric wing fold systems for basically the same aircraft.  It would be interesting to do an A-20 with either system but with twin tails to keep the tail height down.

[PR19_Kit]

I have it already Robert, saved up for a rainy day some years ago.  :)

Mine came from ED Models in Brum, and was an early pre-production shot from the creator of such things, Paul Lucas, but I think they put it out under their Airwaves label soon afterward.

I'll have to do my own extra folding bits though, how about a folding fin, even folded prop blades to keep the height down? A folding tailplane even? 

[Volkodav]

One of my other pet projects is to try and create an A-20 Havoc with folding wings and a tail hook as an attack aircraft for bombs and torpedoes with a solid gun nose and I find the parallel wing fold to be more appealing for the Havoc instead of uniform and over the top.  Though to be honest, for an aircraft the size of the A-20 you really have little choice if it were to fit in the hangar deck effectively with wings folded.  The multiple section over the top wing fold or asymmetric wing fold would perhaps solve that problem but you then find yourself with more critical tolerances after making your cuts for each section and in the case of the asymmetric wing fold you really could end up ruining the project if you are not careful with the pattern that needs to be cut to make it work. 

I guess that is why I created the poll to begin with was to get some second opinions.

Interesting I have considered a carrier version of the Bristol Beaufighter but (like every other project since fatherhood) never gotten around to it.  A parallel fold would be a must for the Beau due to RN hanger height restrictions in the series production version of the Ark Royal Class  .  The thought of the Japanese Carrier Fleet being jumped by RN and RAN FAA Torbeaus while launching their attack against Darwin on 19 February 1942 brings a warm inner glow.

[Logan Hartke]

For twin engine aircraft, I actually prefer asymmetric wing folds, but that's probably because my grandfather served on TF-1 Traders.



Cheers,

Logan

[Rickshaw]

Logan, the Barracuda was designed by a Belgian, so make of that what you will ... 

I thought it was inspired by a pretzel.  I swear, the Barracuda is on of those aircraft that does NOT have a good angle.

Cheers,

Logan

The Barracuda surely is one of the WEIRDEST looking aircraft the FAA ever flew (with the possible exception of the Blackburn Blackburn....) and the more bits of that fold up the weirder it gets!

One day I'm going to dig out my Frog Barra and build it with everything folded, maybe even some bits that Fairey never intended to fold.  :)

How did Eric "Winkle" Brown describe the Barra?  "An Iron-monger's paradise."  Even most of the FAA couldn't believe how the damned thing unfolded and flew! 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Barracuda: The original "Transformer"

[Alvis 3.1]

As a fully certified "Lazy Modeller" I prefer the one that is the simplest to model, the symmetrical fold.

Alvis 3.1

[Weaver]

Aircraft engineering-wise, I'd say the smallest number of the simplest folds is the best option, so from that POV, the simple fold is best if height isn't an issue, followed by the asymetric fold as the best compromise between simplicity and minimum height. Aesthetically though, the asymetric fold doesn't appeal at all.

In reality though, horses for courses. I'd rather have a decent aircraft that I can operate off my carrier at the price of a complicated fold, than not have it at all. If you've stuck with HMS Illustrious, would you rather have Swordfish or Barracudas?

Of course what I'd really prefer in reality is to design my carriers better, but that's another story....

[Rickshaw]

Of course what I'd really prefer in reality is to design my carriers better, but that's another story....

The problem has usually been that aircraft have evolved faster than carriers.  Carrier design tends to be cast in stone well before the aircraft that serve on them is.   So, you'll often see bigger, faster and more complex aircraft serving on a carrier which was designed decades before they were.   Changing the design of aircraft to fit the carrier also tends to be easier than changing the carrier to fit the aircraft.

So, if you're designing your carriers, always remember that bigger everything will usually mean a longer life than one that is designed smaller from the start!

[Old Wombat]

Generally, I'd say it's "horses for courses" but I'm going to focus on your mentioned build.

To the best of my knowledge all early parallel wing-fold systems were manual, which adds work for the flight deck crew. On the later ones the hydraulics become more complex & more prone to failure. They, also, create a wider footprint on the deck for multi-engined aircraft. The only reason the E-2 Hawkeye uses a parallel fold is because of the radar disk over its wings.

Actually, the asymmetric wing-fold system is really quite simple & involves no overly complex cutting. Having worked on S-2G's I like their wing-fold system, a simple hinge & hydraulic ram system &, unless you implement a folding vertical tailplane assembly, the wings usually sit lower than the tail. Another bonus is that the wings can be folded while the plane is taxiing to the deck spot, rather than having to stop & have the wings folded by the ground crew, which makes clearing the landing deck faster.

The A-20 has a high/shoulder mounted wing, like the Tracker, so for your A-20, this is the system I'd use. It's simple & effective. To get the correct cut angle on your wings for the asymmetric fold, simply trace your outer wing onto a piece of cardboard & cut out, then fit/dry-fit the wings to the fuselage & place the cutouts in a folded position over them. Find the angles you like & mark with a Sharpie - remember, closer to the nacelle is better for wing strength. Each aircraft type will be different because of the length of the outer wing, if the A-20's outer wing is short enough you may get a symmetrical fold. Cut (remembering to angle it outward slightly towards the lower surface) & detail to your liking.

I haven't mentioned the hydraulic pins which hold the wings together, because all folding-wing planes have them in one form or another, but remember to add them & the locking teeth to your detailing.



Guy

[GTX_Admin]

Interesting I have considered a carrier version of the Bristol Beaufighter b

You were saying...

[Old Wombat]

With the mid-fuselage, mid-nacelle mounting of the Beau's wings the parallel fold system would be more practical; not much bigger footprint on the deck but a much lower profile.



Guy

[Volkodav]

Interesting I have considered a carrier version of the Bristol Beaufighter b

You were saying...

Although for late 41 early 42 it would be based on the 1C or if accelerated the VIC not the TFX, that would be later 

[Rickshaw]

I think you'll need the TFX's fin extension and high dihedral tail plane on a carrier.  The swing on the Beau was horrendous and claimed more aircraft than the enemy did! 

[elmayerle]

Mechanically, I reckon the asymmetric fold would be the simplest, if a symmetric fold would result in wingtips hitting each other.  After that, I'd go with a parallel fold as the next least complicated.