Pros & Cons-Composite frame vs. wood airframe

[Benji]

Well guys, I just bought an used 3w yak 54, it has a problem, it was crashed, but I bought it in good price, so I will fix it, I will try it by myself, is my first time fixing composites. I hope everything to go ok

[jaguar bone]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Benji
	Well guys, I just bought an used 3w yak 54, it has a problem, it was crashed, but I bought it in good price, so I will fix it, I will try it by myself, is my first time fixing composites. I hope everything to go ok

Well IMO- that is courageous. Pretty smart too really. Learn those techniques on a bargain airframe so next time (??) you'll have the skills to do the repairs.
I believe the painting and finishing part is really the greatest obstacle in my head to overcome.
Benji - ya got ta post some B-4 pictures man!
You know we're all in this together!

Mah Gov-ment check supposed to be coming soon which means a third bird will be added to my hangar - and the Krill Katana S - has my heart. Oh what a glorious sickness to administer a remedy for!

[harrys]

remember always wood will absorb the engine vibrations... composite planes cant .. over all composite look good but again cant built it or repair it very, expensive spare parts.. so i am always wooody because its really gooody...

[Benji]

	Quote: Originally Posted by jaguar bone
	Well IMO- that is courageous. Pretty smart too really. Learn those techniques on a bargain airframe so next time (??) you'll have the skills to do the repairs. I believe the painting and finishing part is really the greatest obstacle in my head to overcome. Benji - ya got ta post some B-4 pictures man! You know we're all in this together! Mah Gov-ment check supposed to be coming soon which means a third bird will be added to my hangar - and the Krill Katana S - has my heart. Oh what a glorious sickness to administer a remedy for!

Yeeeah, I will post some pictures until I recieve it, it isnt to damaged, that yak was andrew jesky`s yak, now is mine, I will try to fix it the best way I can, I will use carbon fiber to lighten this.

[jaguar bone]

Latest revelation in my personal Pros & Cons comparison analysis... tho I reserve the right to reverse and correct as may be later found required to do!

I've been following the Krill Katana 39% build thread:
In depth build - Krill Katana 39%

My PERSONAL assesment of this "kit" is well now- less than I hoped it would turn out to be.


To further (tongue in cheek) compliment xtra330 assembly documentation and "job well done", I now feel a need to share this 'confession" about my un-decision regarding purchase the Katana S.
I'm feeling serious defeat too because I like what I've seen. I can't say enough good about what I see in the Krill craft as a plane- but gheese guys, I'm now blown away at the Katana as a composite high $$ kit!
WAY TOO MUCH TO DO! I'm simply not able to devote the time and space commitment. (for me persoanlly)

The efforts involved to get this bird ready to fly - is simply more than I'm prepared to invest to posses it.

I'll have to admit too- My tolerance for in depth building/assembling has been all but totally SPOILED by the cheaper wood ARFs too. Wood arfs are like choosing junk food really - and equally as bad in some ways.
Setting incidences, creating, laying out and installing hatch tabs ,vertical fin post, assembling and installing the fuel tank tray, finishing the servo hatch covers- ect, ect, ect - none of it really rocket science, none of it brain surgery for that matter - but just more steps than I'm personally prepared to invest - especially after plunking down $1,079.00 PLUS the shipping price for a 50cc bird?
True dat - Krill ain't 3rd world Chinese labor wages either - in their defense.

Personally a sad confession to make regarding the lack of motivation to build. When I entered the hobby in 1978 - if you wanted to fly it- you HAD to build it. Bitter sweet but we were all better for it IMO. Now its HOT POCKETS - cause they are fast easy and git the job done.

[reyn3545]

Its hard to argue with that logic.. we've all become "I want it now" junkies. I recently built an Extreme Composites Edge 540, and yes, there were several little things... things that they could have done for you... that would have made the build faster and better. tank trays, cutting slots for pull pull cables, installing a servo tray, other things that on this plane, really could only be done one way, so why leave it up to the builder to possibly do it wrong?

Anyway, with that said, I must also say that this plane flies better, truer than any wood arf I've owned. No covering to iron, and with a couple of coats of wax, it shines like a new car. I was so impressed that I sold my 50cc sized plane and ordered a Comp ARF 2,1M Yak.. shuold be here next week.

I've heard that on these smaller planes, they leave even more up to the builder, so I'm sure that I'm going to have a few late nights and frustration.... but if I make it to the end, hopefully I'll think it was worth it.

[jaguar bone]

	Quote: Originally Posted by reyn3545
	Its hard to argue with that logic.. we've all become "I want it now" junkies. I recently built an Extreme Composites Edge 540, and yes, there were several little things... things that they could have done for you... that would have made the build faster and better. tank trays, cutting slots for pull pull cables, installing a servo tray, other things that on this plane, really could only be done one way, so why leave it up to the builder to possibly do it wrong? Anyway, with that said, I must also say that this plane flies better, truer than any wood arf I've owned. No covering to iron, and with a couple of coats of wax, it shines like a new car. I've heard that on these smaller planes, they leave even more up to the builder, so I'm sure that I'm going to have a few late nights and frustration.... but if I make it to the end, hopefully I'll think it was worth it.

Good points too reyn . Components that will 95% of the time be done in the same place - same way, could at the least be given some type of registration marks or SOMETHING into or on the fuse and wings! Every freakin little thing has to laid out - in many instances starting on a concave surface. The lack of 90o and true flat frustrate me -personally. The manufacture can do it once and well even templates would make the layouts a breeze.

I'll admit - I'm frail and anxious- and can use the assistance to get it right - the first time. Did I mention I'm a frustrated builder too? Can't ever seem to complete the project fast enough. Sick-sad state of mind.
And after all that effort; as selfportrait said: "They all come with a guarantee to crash - ONE DAY!"

[catman3070]

You guys must remember that with a Composite plane once it is cut there is no going back. So if they cut the slots in the fuse for servo wires it won't look good if you install something different (i.e. different kind of servo tray, or servos in tail). Also with the smaller planes (referring to Comp-Arf since this is the only ones I have experience with) they are built on an assembly line. However once you get into the larger ones they are built by a team of individuals working on the same project. I have just finished the 3.3 Yak and it was far from an Arf. What was already completed on the aircraft made it more like a Quick Build. Basically all I had to do was mount the engine, servos, tailwheel of choice, and canopy. Everything else was completed and just needed to be bolted on.

Chane

[FastnLow]

I agree guys, my GCM and comp-arfs are alot of work to get in the air. My next biuld will be wood, I have never biult a wood arf, only kits. So it will be interesting to compare an Aeroworks QB or QQ arf to the composites I have already biult.

[DannyFlyer]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Flyinhigh
	Comps cost more up front, but last a lot longer, looking nicer and flying better along the way, baring the unmentionable. They are lower maintenance, with no covering to chase, wood to warp, glue joints to separate, etc. I don't know that they are any heavier if compared to a built-up that will withstand the same stress that comps do. Repairs to dings and mishaps can be easier on a built-up, but they happen easier, as well. Altogether, I favor the composites - my last three 40% planes will attest. My 260 had close to 100 flights before we parted ways, looking as good as new until then. My MX-2 has over 120 flights and is still in top form. My 3.3 M Yak is a beautiful plane and flies as well as any (it's also for sale, btw - time to buy a house) I can't think of any compromise that can be associated with comps that aren't worth the benefits. Nothing flies like them, looks like them, lasts like them........and heck, it's only money.

not to make an argumentative case just my own opinion the two things on composites i have seen is price and how easly they can break i have seen a compoite lighty hit a fence post as the owner of it was pulling it back into the pits so thay in my mind arnt very strong and whent a comp-arf type airplane gets a whole in the wing it is just as hard if not harder to replace that then on a wood airfram

with wood airframes i have seen my dads su-26 with over 300 flights and never hade a problem with it and i have had 2 extra 300s wood airframes both with over 100 flights till i dumb thumb on the sticks and never had any issus. I am sticking to wood i do love to looks of the comp-arf airframes just not the price and hassel.

Danny

[Tired Old Man]

Planes aren't supposed to run into things. The operator is presumed to be smart and skilled enough to avoid impacting fixed objects.... It's sort of like blaming landing gear for being poorly designed because it failed in a 4 "G" (ahem) landing or a 30 mph ground loop.

Nothing is indestructable, and everything has design limits. It's up to the user to exercise appropriate care and take responsibility for their own actions, not try to shift blame to the product or another person.

Painted composite planes are truly works of art, end up quite light, and have a method of repair that's different from wood repair processes. Most composite repairs are quite simple to accomplish once the user learns how to do them. If someone had been limited to owning and repairing only composite planes they would experience similar issues the first time they tried to assemble or repair a wood framed plane. It's all in what you know, and not knowing is where the perceived, not actual, difficulty occurs.

[crhammond]

	Quote: Originally Posted by FastnLow
	I agree guys, my GCM and comp-arfs are alot of work to get in the air. My next biuld will be wood, I have never biult a wood arf, only kits. So it will be interesting to compare an Aeroworks QB or QQ arf to the composites I have already biult.

Stacy - the newer QQ and AW quick builds just fall together. I built my QQ Python in 12 hours - including custom mounts for the pipes. Wood and composite have their pros and cons. I prefer composite once it is done as I find there is less overall maintenance and they look great for a very long time. Wood ARF s are great because they are cheap and super fast to get in the air and generally take less effort to repair.

Long Alberta winters mean 7 months of building time a year...

My Comp-Arf 260 took 40+ hrs. My 3W Extra took maybe 60 (some by me, some the the previous owner.) Now you want long - try a composite warbird. Just because they are "built", have panel lines and rivets doesn't take much away from the time required. I am over 150 hrs into my P-47 and P-51 (each) and neither are 1/2 way to flying yet... but I still get comments that "those shouldn't be allowed in expert because they are ARF's!" - total BS.

I have seent he Krill builds and yes they are much less ARF than most others. 3W and Comp-Arf are similar. The newer Comp-Arf's have more done for you (eg. canpoy frame tabs are pre-done.)