FlyingGiants Keyboard Deathmatch!!

[Dan J]

http://video.nbc.com/player.html?dlid=2546

Maybe Kris just needs a little help to get back in the game you what he needs?

...............The perfect cheer

[Eury]

Dammit Judge, I read that and now my head hurts.

[Biff]

Kris out?? More like Kris is working! You guys have very little short term memory. The day Kris doesn't respond to anything is the day he dies! Judge is heating up the action! I'd say there will be REAL FIREWORKS TONIGHT!!!

[TeamFlatout]

The Judge is in the ring, standing back, looking at Kris wobbling in his shoes. Judge is winding up his arm just like Sugar Ray Leonard waiting for the right time to unwind and knock his ass out. Soon you will see Judge standing over Kris and yelling at him like Smokey told Debo with his head shaking "YOU GOT KNOCKED THE F**K OUT" "AND YOU KNOW THIS MAAAAAAAAN"

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by 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: 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.

YAWN. . .Gee Bill. . you REALLY don't know very much about IMAC pilots. . .

Oh well, to counter your inanities with some LOGIC.

First, you have no clue about "logistical" really, you have no clue. . period.

Logistics is the main consideration for any modeler, since it tells him how much bang he is going to get for his buck. $1250 for a plane that flies as well as a $2500 plane is a logistical WIN.

Which also rebuts your second point, because cost is a VERY valid consideration for flying IMAC. If you can't buy the plane, you can't FLY the plane, so cost is a very important logistical factor.

Your third mis-statement, that repairability has nothing to do with the subject is, again, FALSE. If you can't fix the plane, you can't fly the plane. It's a chicken-egg equation, except this time we know that the chicken (Money and repairability) laid us an egg (an airplane to fly)

NOW .. to your points of contention. . . Wood distorts. I agree. . no sense in arguing physics. We all see it happening. Does this make the Composite Airframe better overall? No, it does not. If your only desire is to have a perfect plane forever and ever amen, then get the composite plane and wrap it in bubble wrap. The second you get a ding, dent, hole, structural damage, or the landing gear plate ripped out, you just threw your entire precious Composite Airplane out of whack. You add weight for the repair, you have to repaint it and go to extreme lengths to recover it's former perfect appearance, and this takes a lot of time, money, and effort. Many people do not have the skills to make extensive repairs, so they have to resort to BUYING new parts. Do the same damage to a Wooden plane, it's easily repaired, recovered, and graphics added and is again pristine and perfect looking. There's no sense in arguing the chemical and physics related differences in the two styles of building. I already laid that out in my first statement.

For your second point. . . Obviously you are too lazy to build a wooden airplane properly. Any decent builder can reproduce wooden planes that perfectly match eachother structurally. I hold up Exhibit "D" Dalton Aviation, as the STERLING example of just this ability. and I dare ANYONE to say Tony's planes are not PERFECT. It's really quite SIMPLE to do Bill. They use JIGS .. just like the composite plane builders, to position everything. I imagine that all those Chinese ARF builders use the same technology, including Lazer cut parts, jig alignment, assembly line covering to exacting tolerances, and perfect molds for the 'glass parts, in order to build such perfectly replicated, and structurally sound, planes.

On the flip side. . I have seen Comp-Arf's fresh out of the box, that had warped fuselages, different incidences for each wing, delaminated skins, split leading edges, and landing gear legs that had obvious voids and bubbles in them, and delaminated very quickly with never a bouncy landing. Now, I'm sure that CA covered these shortcomings. . eventually, but it totally blows away the "Perfectly consistent and exactly the same" statement you just made. So much for "Composite molded aircraft" being superior. Add in the horrible deviations in surface finish (bubbles, voids, pinholes, splash marks from the molds), paints that come off if cleaned with alcohol, and supposedly CNC designed mating areas that are nowhere close. consistent. . oh yeah .. consistenly bad in many cases.

One thing I will give to the Composite Molded planes, once they mold a mistake into the design, it's very easy to replicate it. I'll just hold up the Comp-Arf 3M rudder as the perfect example of a bad design that was perfectly repeated in every plane that was made. People crutched them for YEARS to stop the tail from wobbling back and forth, before CA finally got the message and fixed the rudder on the Superxtra. As a bonus, I'll refer to ANY landing gear plate on any CA plane. Then I'll throw in the inconsistencies of resin use in layups. I've seen the exact same planes come in weighing 5 lbs apart on the scales, from 16.5-22 lbs for the 3M Extra. This is consistency?? This is what you pay $2500 for? This is supposed to make you a better pilot??

Your thought process behind "composite planes help you reach your goal" concerning being able to fly consistently is just bizarre. . Planes that have shortcomings in their basic design only lead you to learn to fly around the design fault over and over again in order to make the plane fly correctly. If the plane has shortcomings to begin with, how the heck does that help make someone a better pilot??

Your next to last paragraph is just. . twisted. I'm sure you have heard of "Logic".. perhaps you should use some. I'm sure you have seen very nice full-sheeted wings that have the covering never bubble, and the rest of the airframe is just as pristine. Any wooden plane can be made like that, it's just a matter of putting out a little effort. In the end, it comes down to how well the wooden plane is built, and then maintained. Of course, the composite airframes need maintenance too.

I'm going to put your conclusion here so everyone can re-read it:

"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"

I want everyone to take a hard look at what he said. Does this really reflect the planes available from Dalton, Aeroworks, Wild Hare, Carden or other top line builders/importers? Is this man so blind that just because fiberglass is waterproof he actually believes it's better? And THEN he refutes his OWN position with THIS:

""Wood and composite both have advantages and limitations, but in the short term neither one will really make a difference to the pilot. Over the long term, different advantages and disadvantages manifest themselves, and again, it is not clear that they matter except on a personal choice level.""

EXCUSE ME????? Do we have a reversal of position here???? "It's not clear that they matter except on a personal choice level???"

So, to conclude this statement. Most of your points about "superiority" of Molded airframes are wrong. The only one that has merit is that over time, an undamaged composite airframe will show more consistent flying due to less degradation of the composite material (which I agree with). But, at the same time, a properly maintained wooden airframe will retain it's shaped quite well. Your contention that wooden airframes cannot be built to as consistent a standard as molded ones is a grandiose misstatement, and there are many cases of very badly built parts reaching the end user from top name composite aircraft companies. Tony Russo, and his Ilk, have proven, time and again, that Wooden planes are as close to perfect matches with eachother as anything that can be molded. Add in that the ARF manufactures rely on extremely close tolerances, and get the same consistency of production, for a LOT less money, and any advantage for molded airframes is lost.

Then we throw in that wood planes can be repaired and rebuilt by their owners, whereas the composite plane owner has to BUY new pieces.. Well .. . You just dont know IMAC flyers very well, do you?

Both types of airframes have advantages, and disadvantages, Bill. Perhaps, to be more balanced, in the future you would care to show the BAD side of composite airframes as well.

[Biff]

Sheeeooot, Kris wasn't working, HE WAS TYPING!!!

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Biff
	Sheeeooot, Kris wasn't working, HE WAS TYPING!!!

Actually, I got home at 5:45, after a long hard day, made a cup of coffee, and then had to stop laughing after I read Bill's statement before I could reply to it .. this only took 20 minutes.

[Dangerous Dan]

What spins better composite or wood?

Should you use 2 receivers in a composite and one in a wood plane because composite is conductive and reduces reciever sensitivity?

Which is most prone to weathervaning?

I have a BME 115, cans and a well balenced prop. Should I put it in a wood or composite plane?

Because composite is more Rigid is it ok to use JR servos with gear slop?

[cbk07]

KW, it seems to me you have logistical confused with logical.....then again, all these big words get me confused

I agree with you on one thing for sure....YAWWWNNNNNNN!!!!!

[ilovemetro]

Can i hear a slow clap for Kris?

[All Thumbs]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	YAWN. . .Gee Bill. . you REALLY don't know very much about IMAC pilots. . . Oh well, to counter your inanities with some LOGIC. First, you have no clue about "logistical" really, you have no clue. . period. Logistics is the main consideration for any modeler, since it tells him how much bang he is going to get for his buck. $1250 for a plane that flies as well as a $2500 plane is a logistical WIN. Which also rebuts your second point, because cost is a VERY valid consideration for flying IMAC. If you can't buy the plane, you can't FLY the plane, so cost is a very important logistical factor. Your third mis-statement, that repairability has nothing to do with the subject is, again, FALSE. If you can't fix the plane, you can't fly the plane. It's a chicken-egg equation, except this time we know that the chicken (Money and repairability) laid us an egg (an airplane to fly) NOW .. to your points of contention. . . Wood distorts. I agree. . no sense in arguing physics. We all see it happening. Does this make the Composite Airframe better overall? No, it does not. If your only desire is to have a perfect plane forever and ever amen, then get the composite plane and wrap it in bubble wrap. The second you get a ding, dent, hole, structural damage, or the landing gear plate ripped out, you just threw your entire precious Composite Airplane out of whack. You add weight for the repair, you have to repaint it and go to extreme lengths to recover it's former perfect appearance, and this takes a lot of time, money, and effort. Many people do not have the skills to make extensive repairs, so they have to resort to BUYING new parts. Do the same damage to a Wooden plane, it's easily repaired, recovered, and graphics added and is again pristine and perfect looking. There's no sense in arguing the chemical and physics related differences in the two styles of building. I already laid that out in my first statement. For your second point. . . Obviously you are too lazy to build a wooden airplane properly. Any decent builder can reproduce wooden planes that perfectly match eachother structurally. I hold up Exhibit "D" Dalton Aviation, as the STERLING example of just this ability. and I dare ANYONE to say Tony's planes are not PERFECT. It's really quite SIMPLE to do Bill. They use JIGS .. just like the composite plane builders, to position everything. I imagine that all those Chinese ARF builders use the same technology, including Lazer cut parts, jig alignment, assembly line covering to exacting tolerances, and perfect molds for the 'glass parts, in order to build such perfectly replicated, and structurally sound, planes. On the flip side. . I have seen Comp-Arf's fresh out of the box, that had warped fuselages, different incidences for each wing, delaminated skins, split leading edges, and landing gear legs that had obvious voids and bubbles in them, and delaminated very quickly with never a bouncy landing. Now, I'm sure that CA covered these shortcomings. . eventually, but it totally blows away the "Perfectly consistent and exactly the same" statement you just made. So much for "Composite molded aircraft" being superior. Add in the horrible deviations in surface finish (bubbles, voids, pinholes, splash marks from the molds), paints that come off if cleaned with alcohol, and supposedly CNC designed mating areas that are nowhere close. consistent. . oh yeah .. consistenly bad in many cases. One thing I will give to the Composite Molded planes, once they mold a mistake into the design, it's very easy to replicate it. I'll just hold up the Comp-Arf 3M rudder as the perfect example of a bad design that was perfectly repeated in every plane that was made. People crutched them for YEARS to stop the tail from wobbling back and forth, before CA finally got the message and fixed the rudder on the Superxtra. As a bonus, I'll refer to ANY landing gear plate on any CA plane. Then I'll throw in the inconsistencies of resin use in layups. I've seen the exact same planes come in weighing 5 lbs apart on the scales, from 16.5-22 lbs for the 3M Extra. This is consistency?? This is what you pay $2500 for? This is supposed to make you a better pilot?? Your thought process behind "composite planes help you reach your goal" concerning being able to fly consistently is just bizarre. . Planes that have shortcomings in their basic design only lead you to learn to fly around the design fault over and over again in order to make the plane fly correctly. If the plane has shortcomings to begin with, how the heck does that help make someone a better pilot?? Your next to last paragraph is just. . twisted. I'm sure you have heard of "Logic".. perhaps you should use some. I'm sure you have seen very nice full-sheeted wings that have the covering never bubble, and the rest of the airframe is just as pristine. Any wooden plane can be made like that, it's just a matter of putting out a little effort. In the end, it comes down to how well the wooden plane is built, and then maintained. Of course, the composite airframes need maintenance too. I'm going to put your conclusion here so everyone can re-read it: "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" I want everyone to take a hard look at what he said. Does this really reflect the planes available from Dalton, Aeroworks, Wild Hare, Carden or other top line builders/importers? Is this man so blind that just because fiberglass is waterproof he actually believes it's better? And THEN he refutes his OWN position with THIS: ""Wood and composite both have advantages and limitations, but in the short term neither one will really make a difference to the pilot. Over the long term, different advantages and disadvantages manifest themselves, and again, it is not clear that they matter except on a personal choice level."" EXCUSE ME????? Do we have a reversal of position here???? "It's not clear that they matter except on a personal choice level???" So, to conclude this statement. Most of your points about "superiority" of Molded airframes are wrong. The only one that has merit is that over time, an undamaged composite airframe will show more consistent flying due to less degradation of the composite material (which I agree with). But, at the same time, a properly maintained wooden airframe will retain it's shaped quite well. Your contention that wooden airframes cannot be built to as consistent a standard as molded ones is a grandiose misstatement, and there are many cases of very badly built parts reaching the end user from top name composite aircraft companies. Tony Russo, and his Ilk, have proven, time and again, that Wooden planes are as close to perfect matches with eachother as anything that can be molded. Add in that the ARF manufactures rely on extremely close tolerances, and get the same consistency of production, for a LOT less money, and any advantage for molded airframes is lost. Then we throw in that wood planes can be repaired and rebuilt by their owners, whereas the composite plane owner has to BUY new pieces.. Well .. . You just dont know IMAC flyers very well, do you? Both types of airframes have advantages, and disadvantages, Bill. Perhaps, to be more balanced, in the future you would care to show the BAD side of composite airframes as well.

And returning from his corner of the pits.. "The KrisW." Okay "The KrisW," I would say that was a flurry of come back, I’d even say 3D throws. And that upper cut, half Cuban regarding the Dalton’s being made the same (I have a Dalton) most every time was sure a high scorer. The rhetorical debate regarding repair ability... that was pretty even boys. That’s a pretty rocky road to go down, or a humpty bump in the road, to say the least.

Get ready boys, I’m sure one of these fellas are going to go for the first set of UNKNOWNS pretty quickly.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Wood and composite both have advantages and limitations, but in the short term neither one will really make a difference to the pilot. Over the long term, different advantages and disadvantages manifest themselves, and again, it is not clear that they matter except on a personal choice level. Having said that, I stand by my earlier post in saying that composite does have the advantage of a higher degree of airframe trueness, consistency in reproduction, strength in flight, and relative immunity to environmental variations causing changes to the airframe. Which are directly related to performance. But, I am not sure that many of us could possibly actually feel those advantages. Now, if you want to talk thermodynamics, that is another whole ball of wax. As we all know the first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics was given by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: "There is a state function E, called `energy', whose differential equals the work exchanged with the surroundings during an adiabatic process." This can be simply expressed by the formula: Casual inspection readily shows the brilliance of this posit. Related to IMAC planes it is clear that the energy function of a composite plane and its ability to exchange that energy with its surroundings is much greater than for an organic structure of a wood airframe. Proof of this is left as an exercise for the reader. Of course the second law of thermodynamics is also readily applicable to IMAC planes. As a refresher for those of you who may have forgotten the second law it says: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.. Mathematically stated: Now we can easily see by casual inspection that the drive towards a higher degree of entropy is greater for wood than for composite. Meaning of course that wood will tend to deteriorate into a useless pile of randomly arranged atoms at a much higher rate than will a composite structure. This of course would be catastrophic were it to happen during a flight, but even so, it will be no less bothersome if it were to occur between contests. Clearly composite is the better construction from the perspective of the 2nd law. It is important to be able to account for the useful work that can be converted within the system of interest, an IMAC plane in our case. This is easily derived from the following: With the follow on equation: Combined we can easily see that while useful work is an important quantity to extrapolate from our system dynamics it can in no way be considered a greater value variable than the non-useful work many postulate as having equivalent value. Again, proof of this concept is left as an exercise for the reader. But suffice it to say that with respect to an IMAC plane it is a clear fact that composite aircraft have the advantage once again. I am sorry to have potentially bored everyone once again with such trivial explanations of what is plainly obvious to even the most casual observer, but sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious for those that may have lost touch with the basic precepts of the argument. Thank you for your indulgence.

Plese read ONLY the first paragraph of this statement by Bill. It's the only one that matters. The rest is just mumbo jumbo that states obvious things (like things change temperature to match their surroundings .. well. . DUH!!!)

Actualy, Bill has just disproven his own theory, and I will explain in LAYMENS terms.

The entire premise behind Composite Airframes being better (in Bills thermodynamics post) is that they are more able to follow the temperature variances of their environment. He also attempts to convince the reader that ONLY wood deteriorates from temperature variances. Alas, the exact opposite is true.

When composites are molded, the resin cures. One sad fact about resins, however, is that they never STOP curing. The reaction, albeit extremely slowed by the solidification and stabilizeiton of the compound after the initial cure cycle, continues for the life of the resin. Over time this makes the resin become more brittle. Now, granted, this takes a LONG time, but the deterioration does happen.

If you subject a composite wing to a temperature extreme, say in the 200 degree range, what happens to the epoxy's molecular structure? If anyone would like to find out, take a heat gun and hit a piece of fiberglass with it. You will find that the epoxy de-solidifies and breaks down. Now, this is an extreme example, to be sure, but imagine what happens if you hit a piece of balsa with the same heat gun. You may, after a long time, make it darken and perhaps, with persistence, even get it to char a bit. But, does the balsa change shape, delaminate, or recure at a lesser strength? No, it does not, it just sits there, doing it's job, and if you damaged it, you can easily replace it with another piece of balsa.

The same holds true for covering. If it loosens, you heat it and retighten it in place. Simple, easy to do, and a loving statement by the planes owner of how much he cares about the planes appearance.

But, I digress. . Back to thermodynamics and composites. All composite planes are heat cured, to speed up the curing action. They are layered glass over a foam core, usually, and then use WOOD for other parts of the structure .. Yes, the same WOOD that Bill disparages as being unworthy is actually used to build Composite Aircraft. The wing ribs are micro-glass laminated balsa, the spars are glass overlaid balsa, the gear plate is chincy lite ply, the servo mounts are . . balsa and ply. Fuselage formers . .again. . balsa or ply laminated with glass or CF. it's funny, all the CRITICAL parts . .formers, lg plates, spars, servo mounts are (GASP!!!) WOOD.

Anyone care to take a crack at what happens when all these ply/balsa/composite joints gain and loose heat?? In a word. .NOTHING.

And here's why. The thermal variance is not high enough to damage the epoxy matrix, so they do not delaminate. It's also not high enough to degrade the woods fibrous structure. So. . the question begs to be asked. If the heat that Bill INSISTS is better handled by the Composite Airframe does NOTHING to affect it's wooden parts . . . .. How the HECK can it affect a totally wooden plane???

This folks, is known as LOGIC.
<