Pros & Cons-Composite frame vs. wood airframe

[smokin]

it is tough to compare comp-arf planes to wood arf planes..... the quality and durability is just not the same. the real comparison would be between comp-arf's and pro-built daltons or cardens. then the playing field would be more level and the cost factors would be the same. it is hard to compare a $2000-$3000 comp arf with a $1500 wood kit and be fair, pricewise and/or quality wise. just my $.02!

wood or comp.......just fly it man!!!

[prizzy]

I just started flying my 40%er wood extra 300, I have been flying a comp arf for the last year. I am concerned about the maintenance required on the wood plane, and wonder about the longevity. I will report back after about 100 flights. I loved my comp, and the lack of maintenance and covering issues.

[jaguar bone]

Wow! Just look at those poll results now!!?
We who do not own one of these composites obviously are MISSING OUT on something!

[Benji]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Temptation
	Good luck on your project. I know the plane. Also, I just wanted to add, Andrew wasn't the one that crashed the plane. He sold it, and the new owner crashed it at the XFC.

Yeahp, the one that crased the plane was the new owner, but actually the plane is getting repaired.

[KrisW]

Ya know, I really love the comps. . . they are just so beautiful, and fly extremely well. but. . KA-CHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless I hit the lotto I may never own another one. .and if I do hit the lotto, I'll never own another wooden plane.

For now. . Scratch building is where it's at . .Kits suck. . EVERYONE has X, Y, or Z kit, it seems. And the ARF's, though of good quality, are just not quite up to the quality and flying capability that I want in a ready-made aircraft. I'm getting a real urge to do another DR-109, after I get the one I have back into the air. . .

[reyn3545]

I just finished my second composite.. a 50cc CompARF Yak. They are great flyers, and in this small size, the plane is more than a pound lighter than my old 50cc Aeroworks Extra. I'm still getting it balanced and trimmed in, but even on the first few flights it was easy to see that this is the straightest flying 50cc plane I've ever had. I've had 4 Aeroworks planes and love them all, but they don't compare in flight to the CompARF.

My other Composite is a 100cc Edge from Extreme Composites. Its my only 100cc plane, so I don't have anything to compare it to, but even at 27 pounds, it flies like a batt outta hell, really fun.

For the 50cc plane, the cost difference from an Aeroworks yak was only about $100, so it was a no-brainer. The 100cc was a little different story.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by reyn3545
	I just finished my second composite.. a 50cc CompARF Yak. They are great flyers, and in this small size, the plane is more than a pound lighter than my old 50cc Aeroworks Extra. I'm still getting it balanced and trimmed in, but even on the first few flights it was easy to see that this is the straightest flying 50cc plane I've ever had. I've had 4 Aeroworks planes and love them all, but they don't compare in flight to the CompARF. My other Composite is a 100cc Edge from Extreme Composites. Its my only 100cc plane, so I don't have anything to compare it to, but even at 27 pounds, it flies like a batt outta hell, really fun. For the 50cc plane, the cost difference from an Aeroworks yak was only about $100, so it was a no-brainer. The 100cc was a little different story.

I dunno. . .maybe it's the thought of plunking down $2800 NOW, instead of 1200 here, 800 there, etc etc etc for a wooden plane that just makes the Comps SEEM more expensive.

[reyn3545]

Not to mention the $20 you save on an iron!

[sensei]

I have made my living manufacturing composite products for the aerospace industry for nearly 30 years now, and I have also owned several C/A 3.3 Yaks, all sweet aircrafts and I enjoyed them allot, but the truth is; it is less expensive and more acheivable to build a balsa airframe lighter than an all composite airframe I have some ideas that I will try soon on a molded balsa/composite hybrid airframe that would still be open bayed and covered with Monokote. I believe this would be the lightest structure of all and possess great structural qualities.

Bob

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sensei
	I have made my living manufacturing composite products for the aerospace industry for nearly 30 years now, and I have also owned several C/A 3.3 Yaks, all sweet aircrafts and I enjoyed them allot, but the truth is; it is less expensive and more acheivable to build a balsa airframe lighter than an all composite airframe I have some ideas that I will try soon on a molded balsa/composite hybrid airframe that would still be open bayed and covered with Monokote. I believe this would be the lightest structure of all and possess great structural qualities. Bob

I've built a few CF rod fuselages, using tubular CF for the main longerons, and triangulating with thin CF rods. EXTREMELY strong (can't break them by beating them with your hand) and stiff, but at the joints the weight of glue/resin to join the CF rods was prohibitive, IMO. I'm sure that by modifying the jointing technique I could save more than a few ounces over using JB Weld as the joint cement. Doubling in critical areas, such as for wing tube socket, LG, servo mounts and such was down with 3mm Italian ply or aircraft quality 5-layer ply birch, but the weight savings over a balsa stick fuselage was negligible. They would definitely survive a hard landing or extreme flight stresses better than a wooden fuselage, but as I proved at JN. . it then becomes a matter of the Covering being able to handle the stresses imparted during extreme G maneuvering. Ultracote did not seem to be up to the task, as I split or blew off pieces of it 4 times during the event.

I've found that laminated CF is about the same weight as Spruce or Birch, though about 20 times as strong in tension. I have not pushed the limit on how thin the CF cross bracing rods can be, but I'm sure that the .050 I used with my last project could be halved to about .030" rods, with no strength problems. The main problem is keeping the joints intact under flight loads.

[smokin]

just finished unloading the planes from the trailer from flying last night..... the compy yak went right into it's spot and was no trouble at all.... the 37% wood ultimate........well she went right to her place on the bench to get the IRON!!! wrinkles man, i hate 'em. now the pau ulty flies great and is a well built arf, but covering maintenance cuts into my "post successful flying night" barley pop time!

[sensei]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	I've built a few CF rod fuselages, using tubular CF for the main longerons, and triangulating with thin CF rods. EXTREMELY strong (can't break them by beating them with your hand) and stiff, but at the joints the weight of glue/resin to join the CF rods was prohibitive, IMO. I'm sure that by modifying the jointing technique I could save more than a few ounces over using JB Weld as the joint cement. Doubling in critical areas, such as for wing tube socket, LG, servo mounts and such was down with 3mm Italian ply or aircraft quality 5-layer ply birch, but the weight savings over a balsa stick fuselage was negligible. They would definitely survive a hard landing or extreme flight stresses better than a wooden fuselage, but as I proved at JN. . it then becomes a matter of the Covering being able to handle the stresses imparted during extreme G maneuvering. Ultracote did not seem to be up to the task, as I split or blew off pieces of it 4 times during the event. I've found that laminated CF is about the same weight as Spruce or Birch, though about 20 times as strong in tension. I have not pushed the limit on how thin the CF cross bracing rods can be, but I'm sure that the .050 I used with my last project could be halved to about .030" rods, with no strength problems. The main problem is keeping the joints intact under flight loads.

Hello Kris,

The approach I am taking is completely different and I will post the progress when I get into it.
Bob