Composite or Built up which is best???

[Yak Attack]

In Australia the trend is composite ARF models, I have noticed in the US top modellers use built up airframes. Is it a question of weight or $$ ?? or what ??

[TazmanianDevil]

Good and big Q
For my opinion Wood is Good

[Fly-guy]

Being an Aussie.....

I will take a stab and say that generally speaking Comp ARFs are the most readily available and best supported plane we have available. They are excellent planes as far as I know.

Wood is great. My first gasser is a H9 Extra 260. However, I have limited customer support with this plane. If it was a Comp ARF I am confident that I could pick up the phone and ring Howie and say "Help me!" and he would oblige. The bigger companies don't have this kind of one on one support IMO and that is the main reason composite is the trend.

EDIT: I will add that the composite airframes are marginally more expensive than most built up planes, but then the quality is also second to none.

It isn't necessarily a question of weight. The Comp ARFs planes come out at a respectable weight and 3D great. That being said there is more room for modification to a built up airframe to make it lighter.

but thats just how I see it.


Marcus

[Plane Wrappers]

Compy's all the way baby!
I started the trend at our field a little over a year a go with a SuperXtra.
Today, the Bay City boy's ( Florida, USA) are 10 Compy's strong.
IMO they cant be beat. Straight every time, strong, lite, and easy to get hold of.
I have a custom scheme 3.3 yak for 2007 season that will be here in 2 weeks. Cant wait!
Hey Andrais, Time for a MX2 this time in the fantasy scheme.

[rdgood]

Compys are great airplanes. But I must talk about longevity here. The one main weakness with fiberglass airframes is that the fiberglass/sandwich skin IS the structure. I have seen three compys blow apart in midair due to folks trying to repair some hanger rash or repair the fuse undercarriage after a hard landing. These were very experienced pilots. Not saying its not impossible to repair one just saying that if you ding the structure or pound it in hard the odds increase of a stuctural failure. Having said that, they are great planes to own and they fly great!!! Just that if you do purchase one beware of this issue.


Ronster

[Aerotech]

Hello,

Thats easy. Wood......

Later

John

[JeeUm]

I think that whatever makes you happiest is the best, how's that for PC?

[as722]

Do a poll to see how many guys have gone from wood to composite and or from composite to wood. I've noticed a lot of guys will buy one composite airplane but usually don't buy a second one. About three years ago 90% of the airplanes at a local imac contest were composite but in the last couple of years I've noticed a huge decline in composite airframes at contest, I believe this is mostly because of the way they hold up and not so much because the way they fly.

Albert

[TheTank]

I agree with Fly-guy, i think it may be a support thing as to why they are so prevelant in AUS. I have owned both, they all fly great. I have a comp arf 2.6m with hundreds of flights on it, and its holding up great over the past couple years. The only thing I can recommend though, if you are going to buy a composite airplane, be 100% confident in your landings, and dont be one of those guys that goes into a panic when you have a deadstick. The only reason I say this, composite and wood are no different when it comes to knocking the gear out of them i feel, but repairing them can be a real PITA from what I have seen. My 2.6 had a flameout low with a buddy at the sticks, he went into panic mode, tossed me the TX from 2 feet away, and I ended up overshooting the runway while on the wheels and rolled through some knee-high grass, over the driveway, and into an alphalfa field... gear STAYED on, didnt even stress the blocks. I was definetly impressed, but as I walked over there, I was dreading to see the gear torn up... luckily it wasnt.

[TheTank]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Fly-guy
	Being an Aussie..... EDIT: I will add that the composite airframes are marginally more expensive than most built up planes, but then the quality is also second to none. Marcus

I actually think that wood airframes (custom built) are more expensive in most cases. Here in the states, to have a Dalton or Carden custom built and covered for you, you are looking at the 3000 to 4500 dollar range depending on the builder you go with. As for the big wood arfs, pretty similar prices, around 2K for a 40% airframe. Some are less, some are more. But the custom builds are definetly big dough.

[samsrc]

I've built and flown both and I think that there are pluses and minuses in both cases.

Wood:
- Generally cheaper if you build yourself.
- Easier to repair when damaged
- not always, but it is generally easier to build a lighter airframe in wood than glass...Not to say that you can't get a light composite airplane, it just usually takes a lot of money and skill on the company that is making it. (ie. materials, special techniques, etc)

Composite:
- Usually most composite planes look more scale, or have nicer lines. Reason being is that fuses can be made with curves easier as they are made in a mold right from the get go. Wood models tend to have flatter sides. (Not to say that you can't build a nice round fuse out of wood) But most of the kit manufactures will go with flat side, to make it easier for them to manufacture and for you to build.
- They generally take less time to build.

In the end go with what you like, and what you can get a hold of for a reasonable price.

Sam

[paffy]

For me, it's an ease of repairs. I fly a LOT and I realized that there will be minor crashes every season.

I have a garage full of Comp-ARF remnants - I still have 5 sets of stabs for sale.

I brought my current (wooden) competition plane back to life three times in last 2 years. All those mishaps with a composite plane would most likely end up with me buying just another one....

P.