Originally Posted by Philthy
Semi-monocoque wouldn't you say, Mel?
Looking at the drawing I would agree, as it seems to conform to the following description of a semi-monocoque design:-
A semi-monocoque design overcomes the strength-to-weight problem of monocoque construction. In addition to having formers, frame assemblies, and bulkheads, the semi-monocoque construction has the skin reinforced by longitudinal members.
As against the true monocoque construction which uses formers, frame assemblies, and bulkheads to give shape to the fuselage. With the skin carrying the primary stresses. Since no bracing members are present, the skin must be strong enough to keep the fuselage rigid. The biggest problem in monocoque construction is maintaining enough strength while keeping the weight within limits.
However, Oliver Tapper in his book "Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913" states in his description of the Whitley "The biggest departure from the normal Armstrong Whitworth practice was in the fuselage, which was of light-alloy monocoque construction". Also Francis K Mason in "The British Bomber" also describes the aircraft as having of a monocoque fuselage. Yet when Mason describes the A.W.29 he does refer to this aircraft having a semi-monocoque rear fuselage.
Mel