FlyingGiants Keyboard Deathmatch!!

[Edge 540]

Everyone knows wood is better than those big hollow plastic planes. LOL

[SmoothFlying]

Does anyone know if KW is even around? Is he online? Or is he spell checking his work?

[Wayne]

Leseberg could still beat all of us with either.

Time for a new topic.

[shannah]

I have an idea... how about SPINS?

[ShortBus]

Foam is where it is at. sorry.

[Edge 540]

	Quote: Originally Posted by shannah
	I have an idea... how about SPINS?

No no, Max didn't mean deathmatch in a literal sense!

[Stainless Skills]

When you take a step back and ponder this sort of squabble you begin to realize that…….

This is soooo NERDY!!!!!!

But I will probably love reading all of it………

[wizard]

I am really surprised Kris hasn't been in yet. Just checked, looks like he probably hasn't seen this yet. His last activity on the site was 12 minutes before this thread was started.

Come on Kris...Defend your honor.

[SleepyC]

I say a slight veer into the direction of weatherveining and this thread has a chance!

[p sme]

	Quote: Originally Posted by SleepyC
	I say a slight veer into the direction of weatherveining and this thread has a chance!

hahahahaha

[snap a saurus]

I am making some popcorn, so I can be ready for the match.

[madmax]

Mkay, thanks for the responses guys, but let's please wait for Kris to make his inital demur. No more comments until he does so please.

Kris, you have the floor. Remember, the topic is:

Composite vs wood airframes: Performance considerations for advanced IMAC flight, and applied thermodynamics.

State your case, then it's on. Do it!

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Well, I just only saw this in the last few minutes. We all know that Wood is Good. But let's be real here, Glass kicks A$$ !! fg43 But even the best composite airframe will pay homage (that's a French word, it means to pay special respect or honor) to the position wood played in allowing us to get started in this wonderful hobby. Most of them use a bit of wood here and there just to remind us of our roots (that would be a pun - I KILL Me!!!). Without wood, there would be nothing worth winning with our glass slippers. As we progress I will of course educate you all to the Ultimate superiority of composite construction, not just for biplanes, but for most everything you can think of. Stayed tuned.

[Neogenesis]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Boulder
	Easy Huck, you might be next...

Sry Max....I had to break the rules here.....cause I had the pleasure of watching the ol Biffster knock the flying snot right out of Huck last year in Napoleon. Huck...sit down and know your role!!!!!



Neo

[Mithrandir]

Wood is Good....
But Mold'n is Golden...


But I saw a concrete plane on mythbusters once... can I argue for the cement plane!?!?!? huh??? Can I can I!??!!?

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Well, I just only saw this in the last few minutes. We all know that Wood is Good. But let's be real here, Glass kicks A$$ !! fg43 But even the best composite airframe will pay homage (that's a French word, it means to pay special respect or honor) to the position wood played in allowing us to get started in this wonderful hobby. Most of them use a bit of wood here and there just to remind us of our roots (that would be a pun - I KILL Me!!!). Without wood, there would be nothing worth winning with our glass slippers. As we progress I will of course educate you all to the Ultimate superiority of composite construction, not just for biplanes, but for most everything you can think of. Stayed tuned.

YAWN.. .

Is THIS the best the GREAT Bill Malvey, CD of a gazillion events and IMAC progenitor, can come up with . .quoting Cliched Advertising slogans??

PUHLEASE Bill, I thought you'd be able to do better with your first salvo. After all, you are THE Judge, and I'm sure your vast knowledge of aircraft design dating back far into the past would allow you a better quality answer than that. Didn't you fly IMAC when Quakers were all the rage?


Wood versus Composite. It depends on the actual flying qualities and airframe design. As we have never had an exact replica of a wooden design copied into Composite layup, it's kind of hard to match the two on a head-head performance criteria. So, this "topic" is difficult to debate from a strictly "which one flies better" aspect.

BUT, when you look at the logistical, cost, and repairability considerations of the two categories, Wood is superior in all three categories. It is less expensive, easier to work with, and more easily repaired than Composite construction. This is a given due to the jigsaw puzzle design of wooden aircraft, with many small parts being combined into a single flying airframe.

If you wish to consider other factors, such as space within an airframe, repeatable cookie cutter color schemes, toughness up to the point of destructive failure, and initial gut reaction to how the aircraft presents to the casual observor. . . the composite airframes will edge out the wooden ones in toughness to destructive failure, repeatability and intricacy of color scheme, and space within the airframe, and there will be a relative tie when the factor of initial gut reaction is considered depending on the quality of the covering scheme on the wooden aircraft.

When it comes down to IMAC flying, however, the last great factor is the pilot, and how well he handles the peculiarities of each aircrafts design. Chip Hyde, with a Bipe, won the TOC against the greatest flyers in the world with monoplanes. That pretty much settles the argument concerning pilot skill, tenacity, and ability being the determining factor in competition.

I, personally, am finding that the new Wild Hare 41% (actually it's 38%) Extra 300 is a very close match to the Comp Arf Super Extra. On a head-head basis here is how they compare:

The Wild Hare rolls more axially.
The Super Extra holds energy better
The Wild Hare has slower downlines
The Super Extra has crisper snap entrances and exits
Both have about the same vertical performance, takeoff and landing speeds, and roll rates.
The Super Extra is less controllable at the edge of the stalled wing flight environment, and will drop a wing quicker in a hard pull.
The Wild hare is a little more difficut to throw around quickly.
The Super Extra was much easier to install hardware in, and had a lot more room for full length exhausts, though the Wild Hare is eady to modify for the long pipes.
The Wild Hare WEATHERVANES less, probably due to the smaller fin. Whereas the Super Extra would actually have the tail weathervaning so hard the plane would counter track against the wind, the Wild Hare is more neutral and tends to self-ttack and stay on line better.

AND. . you can buy TWO Wild Hares for the cost of ONE Super Extra.

Which one will win in IMAC. . .Either, depending on who has the transmitter.


Now, I'm sure my opponent will try to slip in some acerbic comments about how a Demigod could just wave his hand and make the two designs perform exactly the same, but actually I am prevented by certain Laws of Deistic License from interfering in such a gross manner with normal day-day mundanities. Only miracles allowed, and making either type of plane better is up to the designers/builders/buyers, not those from a higher Plane.

I'll delve into the "Performance considerations for Advanced IMAC Flight" part of the question as soon as Bill moves up to Advanced Class flying, or I shall merely rebut his meager attempt at pontificating with knowledge he does not have, since he has never competitively flown Advanced IMAC Flight.

As for the "Applied Thermodynamics" portion of this subject, it would help of the Moderator would narrow the subject to one or two of several categories. . Engine design, Electronics, Exhaust principles, Air quality changes, Power versus heat efficiency, or the ability of the human head to radiate off the considerable caloric consumption of the Judges Ego (and whether possible brain damage is a problem)

Thank you, Mr. Moderator, I have finished my first statement.

AND, if I may be so bold as to point out. . "Homage" is actually a LATIN word, adopted by the French in the form of the word "omage" PLEASE reference Websters:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French homage, omage, from home man, vassal, from Latin homin-, homo human being; akin to Old English guma human being, Latin humus earth -- more at HUMBLE

French, FWIW, is not a distinct language, but a combination of many languages, including GAelic (the Gauls) Latin, Saxon (Saxony) and even some Germanic and Scandinavian influences. Saying a word is "French" means you must look further into it's etymology to ascertain it's foundational roots.


It's 2:49 a.m. I'm going back to bed. YAWN.