FlyingGiants Keyboard Deathmatch!!

[Dangerous Dan]

A little wood for the fire..

For Judge

I witnissed a WildHare 41% and a Composite 40% plane Have a Mid-Air. Full Throttle Gear To Gear. The wildhare was scattered over 2 acres. The composite landed replaced the spinner and flew the rest of the contest. The wild hare is less than 1/2 the cost.

For KrisW,
I made a Bad judgement call. I ran the cowes into the lower pasture and proceded to Fly My Dalton in the now vacent cow pasture. On the third flight I hit a hole in the ground that I did not see. It brought my plane to a complete stop from 20+MPH, about 1 foot after touching down. It ripped out the LG. A few afternoons in the shop and the plane was better than new. If It had been a composite I would be ordering a new $1000+ fuse! I have also winnessed a composit plane taxi into a pole at around 1/4 throttle and split the wing and fuse total loss.

[Dangerous Dan]

Also I was curious If A composite plane scores better in spins than a wood plane?

[Judge]

So, 889 words and what you basically said is wood costs less and is easier to repair. Oh, and the usual personal attacks were included just to keep the word count up I suppose. Well done.

In the end you concluded that either one can fly as well as the other and it really comes down to pilot skill, and with that I agree. However, your main arguments do not impact the questions at hand, which are "performance considerations and thermodynamics".

But let's look at them anyhow:

	Quote:
	BUT, when you look at the logistical, cost, and repairability considerations of the two categories, Wood is superior in all three categories.

First, I have no clue what you mean by "logistical" considerations. To me this would mean ease of assembly, transport, etc. I will make the point that a composite plane inherently has less work required to make it ready for flying, even compared to the best of the imported wood ARFs. Perhaps the logistics of shipping a box of sticks is less than that of a composite plane, and that I will grant. But a big wood ARF will have no logistical advantage over a composite plane.

Your second point, cost, has no bearing on the question at hand.

Your third point, repairability, again, has no bearing on the question at hand.

I agree that this is really an odd question to deal with since it is not clear that the construction of the plane has that great of an impact on the flight performance. That is until you consider factors like trueness of construction, repeatability of set up from plane to plane, ultimate strength and resistance to distortion/failure under flight loads, and resistance to changes due to temperature and humidity variations. All of which do directly impact the performance of an IMAC plane. On these points, a composite plane wins all day, every day.

First. Each and every molded plane is a direct copy of the one that preceded it. Wood planes may or may not replicate the desired airfoil, exact shape, or have the inherent trueness of a molded airplane. It simply cannot compare. Wood planes with foam cores for instance are very prone to airfoil distortion due to inconsistencies in cutting the cores and variations in the wood used to skin the wings. Plus, one wrong swipe of the sanding block while prepping the wings can alter the airfoil which will directly impact the performance of the wing, and almost certainly not in a positive manner.

Second. Since each and every molded plane is a direct copy of all its brethren from the same mold you can be assured that your model will fly like the prototype. You simply cannot say this about the wood planes. Given the inherent variability of wood/foam construction it is impossible to make two wood planes identical. So while you may see one wood plane and like how it flies, there is no guarantee that another one will fly the same. Composite planes give you a greater chance of achieving this performance goal. Beyond that, should you decide to get another model of the same plane, the composite plane will do a better job of being as close as possible to the one before it than wood. Therefore your set up and flight performance will be easier to replicate with the composite plane. A true performance advantage since time spent to replicate the desired characteristic of the composite plane is less than that of a wood plane.

Third. Composite is flat stronger than a wood plane. Period. I cannot see any serious argument made to counter this. With so many potential failure points in a wood plane (every glue joint can be a failure point) and problems with the strength of the wings, quality of the skinning/gluing, wing tube failures, etc. it is simply a fact that a composite plane is stronger than a wood plane. Also, since the wings are hollow versus solid, the moment of inertia around the roll axis is lower which directly translates into a performance advantage.

Finally. A wood plane is more likely to distort under changing environmental conditions. We see that very graphically out here in the west. Take a plane from the cool west coast up to Vegas. The wood loses water content, shrinks, distorts, and stresses the glue joints. The covering sags altering the airfoil and detracting from the aesthetics of the plane. Distortion of the airframe to this degree cannot possibly be a positive effect. Add to that the fact that over time the distortion to the wood airframe will result in changes to the basic rigging of the plane and you end up with a plane that will not fly the same as it ages as it did when new. A composite airframe will not change over time. It is not effected by changes in humidity and is far less prone to change due to temperature variation.

In summary, a composite plane has the clear advantage in performance when measured against the parameters of airframe trueness, consistency in reproduction, ultimate strength and ability to resist distortion during flight, and resistance to changes due to environmental variations. All of which means it will perform better, with less variation, from start to finish than wood.

[All Thumbs]

Score one for Mr. Malvey! (Medium K-factor here) Andreas will be contacting you shortly regarding a newly formed factory rep. position.

[Toro]

you like apples ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.HOW you like DEM APPLES ?

[JimC-MD]

Can I have my half hour back?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[madmax]

Wow! Just Wow!

And Judge comes out swinging with a keyboard kung-foo roundhouse punch that I don't think I've seen before! KW is bewildered and is struggling to stand upright! Could this be a first round KO?!?

[Andy540T]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Toro
	you like apples ? . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .HOW you like DEM APPLES ?

Nice

Score one for Judge

[Dangerous Dan]

Could it be the impossible has happened KrisW is speechless? What will his new Avitar look like. Is that a towell I see.

[sweetpea]

This is as much fun as watching the WNBA

[JimC-MD]

	Quote: Originally Posted by madmax
	Wow! Just Wow! And Judge comes out swinging with a keyboard kung-foo roundhouse punch that I don't think I've seen before! KW is bewildered and is struggling to stand upright! Could this be a first round KO?!?

Kung-foo roundhouse punch?!?!?! The proper name was "The great crane flies on it's back"............................................. ..........................

Wait, maybe that was from the Kama Sutra. That could work too, because this looks more like love taps so far to me........ Both contestants are trying to put their SPIN on the topic. I would say that Kris stalled and then flew forward with his entry while the venerable Judge did a wing over into a discussion that did not seem germane. Both were off by more than 90 degrees so I will zero both maneuvers for now.


BTW, it is kung FU not foo. Besides, in a discussion like this FU seems more to the point.

[madmax]

On a side note, could one of you guys please integrate the word "dictate" somewhere in this discussion? That would be dandy, thank you.