Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Giant Scale Aircraft - General
Reload this Page >

Do we not like aluminum scale planes?

Notices
Giant Scale Aircraft - General Discuss all other giant scale aircraft here.

Do we not like aluminum scale planes?

Old 04-06-2014, 11:15 AM
  #26  
Kentli22
Thread Starter
 
Kentli22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: hong kong, HONG KONG
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

To me a scale aluminum plane is more scale than wood because a real plane is build out of metal. Aluminum vs. wood is like wood vs. epo. Of course I'm relatively new to this hobby, people who know better may think otherwise. I think as long as the size is not too small, the wing loading is not an issue. the fabrication technique is not an issue, the cost of material is not an issue, so why no manufacturer making them? If everything is being equal, would people buy them as much as the wooden models? It would be nice if those in this industry can share their professional point of view.
Old 04-06-2014, 11:37 AM
  #27  
BobH
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Springfield, VA,
Posts: 8,049
Received 21 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

As you said you are "new". I make come components for the Scale industry so I a little bit about the industry. Firstly all things are not equal.
Cost of production will certainly increase if the plane is all metal. More parts will be needed. Per material aluminum isn't as strong as balsa ounce per ounce. Weight will increase per plane hence larger engines will be needed. Labor cost will increase due to the increase parts list.
You are welcome to produce an all metal plane and see how it sells. Perhaps set an example for others?
The market place typically determines what's best for it.. so far after all these any years metal hasn't done that.. just my Opinion
Old 04-09-2014, 08:24 AM
  #28  
Bax
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Monticello, IL
Posts: 19,483
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

One thing that hasn't been said is that the kit market has been shrinking for years. It's very difficult to bring out a new kit that uses the traditional balsa/ply construction, let alone anything more "exotic". Even with a high level of prefabrication and excellent parts cutting, kits just don't sell well at all. That's why there are so few kits brought out by the major manufacturers...even those with plenty of tooling and machinery available. Kits, as a rule, just don't sell in high-enough quantities in today's market to make their production justified.
Old 04-09-2014, 09:28 AM
  #29  
Kentli22
Thread Starter
 
Kentli22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: hong kong, HONG KONG
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

That sounds really sad for the model industry.

Does the "kit" that you were mentioning includes everything such as RTF and ARF?
Old 04-10-2014, 01:17 AM
  #30  
TomCrump
 
TomCrump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 7,614
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Kentli22
That sounds really sad for the model industry.

Does the "kit" that you were mentioning includes everything such as RTF and ARF?

Most builders don't want the same stuff as used in ARFs. We want high quality accessories, and prefer to choose our own.
Old 04-10-2014, 11:58 AM
  #31  
invertmast
My Feedback: (23)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Capon Bridge, WV
Posts: 8,192
Received 223 Likes on 114 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Maybe because it's impossible to have your radio system to function at 100% wile it's in an aluminum aircraft.
Really!? Impossible? Nothing is impossible to those willing to try and persevere, as videos of all metal RC airplanes flying has proven, it is possible.

Last edited by invertmast; 04-10-2014 at 12:01 PM.
Old 04-10-2014, 12:41 PM
  #32  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by invertmast
Really!? Impossible? Nothing is impossible to those willing to try and persevere, as videos of all metal RC airplanes flying has proven, it is possible.
So after a month your going to pick on my answer. Just how does one persevere 2.4 GHZ through aluminum? This can't have anything to do with the outcome of the other thread could it? What is so difficult for you and your friend to understand that this is my field of vocation?

Even though did you not read and understand my answer. 100% would be the key. Thomas please enlighten me to as what you deem safe, 90% functionality? 80% maybe. just where do YOU draw the line?
Old 04-10-2014, 10:07 PM
  #33  
invertmast
My Feedback: (23)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Capon Bridge, WV
Posts: 8,192
Received 223 Likes on 114 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
So after a month your going to pick on my answer. Just how does one persevere 2.4 GHZ through aluminum? This can't have anything to do with the outcome of the other thread could it? What is so difficult for you and your friend to understand that this is my field of vocation?

Even though did you not read and understand my answer. 100% would be the key. Thomas please enlighten me to as what you deem safe, 90% functionality? 80% maybe. just where do YOU draw the line?
Sorry man, but i don't peruse every single thread of every subforum every day on here.. i have better things to do with my time.. like building something and enjoying life and family..

The way I look at something.. if its not working 100% it is not working correctly and won't work properly. If its not working properly its not working well enough to fly unless the pilot/owner is a complete idiot.

I understand its your "vocation", but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't possible. Many people have predisposed dispositions on things because of their vocations, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are 100% undeniably the "end all" of correct information. Granted you should take what they have to say and listen to it, but I also believe in researching and testing to determine if they are truely knowledgeable or just a Blow hard full of hot air. I have seen many "experts" with the vocation experience and college education to back it up who were complete morons and couldn't tell righty tighty from lefty loosey if it was tattooed to their hands. A college educated person with a barely passing grade gives the guys with extraordinary passing grades a bad name. Since i don't know you from the next joe-blow, i can only listen to what you say and take it with a grain of salt.
While i know that is hard to take when as you say, it is your "vocation" in this field, its hard to take your "its impossible to do" to heart when I have been watching all metal aircraft fly on both 72mhz (FM and PCM) and 2.4ghz radio technology since 1996. And its not as if its been in low rf environments either. Many of the flights have occured at Joe-Nall, the largest RC fly-inn in the world. The RF environment there is not exactly noise free, same goes with the flights that have occured at Top-Gun which is located on Lakeland-linder Regional airport (yes, it is physically ON the airport property), Again, not a "RF" free zone considering it has a VOR, ILS, Weather station, operational Control tower and on average 250 aircraft operations a day.
If these all metal planes can be flown reliably without any control problems (as witnessed via the Spektrum flight-log for rx link performance) in these High RF noise enviroments, then it MUST be possible. While I do agree that there are those situations and locations that it may not be possible, I have witnessed that it is in-deed possible and respectably disagree with you saying it is "impossible".

The entire thing is that the owner/pilot MUST perform a thorough range check and adjust receiver antenna positions to get the best RF link at all attitudes. the metal will block the signal (just like the stainless steel and carbon fiber in RC jets does) but with PROPER setup and testing, the risks can be negated as much as possible just like with any other RC model.

Also if we were awarded the pleasure of a 100% perfect RF link 100% of the time we would never hear of loss of control problems.. EVER, but that is rarely the case.. well, according to those guys that most every club has... ALL of my airplanes are range checked per the manufacturers suggested procedure. For complex or high dollar aircraft are concerned, I take it one step further and keep a "flight log" installed at all times and religiously check it before and after every flight to monitor my RF link. If any abnormalities are found (such as a large jump in packet losses on a single antenna, or higher than average number of fades) the reason is investigated before the next flight. These models also get a more thorough range check in that the model is placed in all expected attitude arrangement in regards to the the TX antenna position and each position is tested for 1 minute to check the RF link for each remote receiver. Again, if any one receiver has a significantly higher number of packet losses, that antenna is repositioned and the entire range check procedure is repeated until the best RF link is obtained.

I am VERY particular in how my aircraft are setup (actually, i am a bit OCD about it). If its not 100% up to my standards, it doesn't fly.. period until it meets my standards. I pride myself in being one of those guys who can show up at the flying field, pull my equipment out, fly all day with no problems, pack everything up and go back home

Proper SETUP is what i am trying to get across on ANY aircraft. It doesn't matter if its carbon fiber, metal, or unobtanium. Anything can be made to be reliable IF you are willing to take the time to test and refine the setup. Hell, i have a Hotliner that does over 280mph that is Entirely built from Carbon fiber. It only has 2 little antenna's that are obscured from the TX antenna no less than 50% of the time in flight. I've never once had an issue with that airplane's RF link, and it is what i would consider the Worst RF challenge ever in regards to rx installation.


If you took my comments as a personal attack, i apologize. I just think its a bit premature to say that anything is impossible, b/c just think... 10-15-20 years ago people were saying private space flight was "impossible"... the X-prize winners proved that to be false.

Last edited by invertmast; 04-10-2014 at 10:22 PM.
Old 04-11-2014, 07:16 AM
  #34  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

While I'm going to agree with most of your post and as I said in the other thread that my perspective has changed some with our discussions. Obviously it is being done so the reliability is higher then what I had originally anticipated. I'm still going to hold my ground some and say that although some guys are successful I still have to say it's with a lesser degree of reliability. There just simply is no way you are going to install an RX with internal antennas into a metal structure and get the same signal saturation. Now you may get enough to operate the model in most environments but what about that one time when you can't? Of course this is speculation on my part but why wouldn't someone who has done his homework on this topic share what he has found? it could very well put this debate to rest could it not? My theory and it is nothing more then that is that he has discovered that he has in fact reduced his safety margin and by posting such findings he would eliminate his plausible deny ability and be open to a higher level of liability should there be an accident. Again you are correct that nobody on RCU should take what anyone says at full face value. However is what you read makes some sense then do your own investigations and deem what is safe and what is not. Obviously I am of the opinion that an all metal airframe is beyond my personal safety margin, you may not and that is perfectly fine. Then again the reason for my opinion is based on my 36 years of flying R/C and my 15 years experience in the RF industry.
Old 04-11-2014, 08:13 AM
  #35  
invertmast
My Feedback: (23)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Capon Bridge, WV
Posts: 8,192
Received 223 Likes on 114 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
While I'm going to agree with most of your post and as I said in the other thread that my perspective has changed some with our discussions. Obviously it is being done so the reliability is higher then what I had originally anticipated. I'm still going to hold my ground some and say that although some guys are successful I still have to say it's with a lesser degree of reliability. There just simply is no way you are going to install an RX with internal antennas into a metal structure and get the same signal saturation. Now you may get enough to operate the model in most environments but what about that one time when you can't? Of course this is speculation on my part but why wouldn't someone who has done his homework on this topic share what he has found? it could very well put this debate to rest could it not? My theory and it is nothing more then that is that he has discovered that he has in fact reduced his safety margin and by posting such findings he would eliminate his plausible deny ability and be open to a higher level of liability should there be an accident. Again you are correct that nobody on RCU should take what anyone says at full face value. However is what you read makes some sense then do your own investigations and deem what is safe and what is not. Obviously I am of the opinion that an all metal airframe is beyond my personal safety margin, you may not and that is perfectly fine. Then again the reason for my opinion is based on my 36 years of flying R/C and my 15 years experience in the RF industry.
I have known carlos for nearly 10 years and have seen his models flying for much longer. Carlos is not one to take the time to spend hours upon hours explaining himself, especially if people come across as condescending to him. He isnt trying to start some conspiracy theory on the effects of metal airplanes and rf link strength and after knowning and working with him personally, he is not the kind of person who cuts corners just to go fly. If its not right, he doesnt fly it. The man has a history in fullscale aviation (as do I), he is not some fly by night hack involved in the hobby who doesnt know his left from his right.


Personally i am tired of everyone thinking they Have to have the answers handed to them on a silver platter. If people actually expended some effort in determining the answers to their questions, or atleast attempting to find the answer with some effort, the entire world would probably be less frustrating. It is amazing how some self study and research opens a persons mind to much more information than when they are given the answer.

Last edited by invertmast; 04-11-2014 at 08:17 AM.
Old 04-11-2014, 11:03 AM
  #36  
Kentli22
Thread Starter
 
Kentli22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: hong kong, HONG KONG
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

invertmast, I have great respect for what you said on the last paragraph. I also have great respect for Carlos' attitude in building his planes. If I could live long enough, I would eventually learn to build planes as nicely as those of Carlos' and of many other RCU scale builders .
Old 04-11-2014, 11:15 AM
  #37  
Kentli22
Thread Starter
 
Kentli22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: hong kong, HONG KONG
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

as my planes are taking longer and longer to build, I start to ask myself more often, how would I deal with it if the plane takes hundreds or even thousands of hours to build crash under a very limited number of flights?

I wonder, how would the matured builders deal with this kind of disaster? or perhaps their planes don't crash?
Old 04-11-2014, 03:17 PM
  #38  
invertmast
My Feedback: (23)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Capon Bridge, WV
Posts: 8,192
Received 223 Likes on 114 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Kentli22
as my planes are taking longer and longer to build, I start to ask myself more often, how would I deal with it if the plane takes hundreds or even thousands of hours to build crash under a very limited number of flights?

I wonder, how would the matured builders deal with this kind of disaster? or perhaps their planes don't crash?
everyone has crashes at some point, its a never ending saga, its just how often and when that you havecto negate aw much as possible. I have not had a single crash in 7 years due to pilot error or maintenance issues. The last crash i had was due to an electric motor shorting out and catching its ESC on fire, the other motor unfortunately only had enough power to take it to the crash site.

some take crashes pretty hard, i personally (after 25 years in the hobby) laugh the crash off and typically tend to find something amusing about it joke about. Unfortunately, if you arent willing to lose the model, you either shouldnt fly it, or dont get involved in the hobby.
Old 04-11-2014, 05:08 PM
  #39  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

Agreed and this holds true for any model. The very best you can do is be very picky during the initial build and fitting of equipment. Make sure your servo choice leaves a good safety margin, your power supply to RX and servos is going to deliver enough current, your engine starts easily and transitions from a reliable idle to full throttle without hesitation, surging or sagging. Always read and follow your manuals that come with the radio, engine and any other piece of electronics. Do range checks often and always following replacing something electrical or flying at a different site. It seems like a lot of work but still less then building a new airplane. It may not increase reliability but I like to make my installs a clean as possible, just a couple examples.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	1.12 MB
ID:	1986201   Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	1.22 MB
ID:	1986202  
Old 04-11-2014, 06:20 PM
  #40  
invertmast
My Feedback: (23)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Capon Bridge, WV
Posts: 8,192
Received 223 Likes on 114 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Agreed and this holds true for any model. The very best you can do is be very picky during the initial build and fitting of equipment. Make sure your servo choice leaves a good safety margin, your power supply to RX and servos is going to deliver enough current, your engine starts easily and transitions from a reliable idle to full throttle without hesitation, surging or sagging. Always read and follow your manuals that come with the radio, engine and any other piece of electronics. Do range checks often and always following replacing something electrical or flying at a different site. It seems like a lot of work but still less then building a new airplane. It may not increase reliability but I like to make my installs a clean as possible, just a couple examples.
+1

clean installs really help diagnosing and tracking problems much easier

Old 04-11-2014, 08:47 PM
  #41  
049flyer
My Feedback: (18)
 
049flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,133
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

If you can't afford to crash it, you can't afford to fly it.

You must maintain your perspective. This is a HOBBY, paid for with DISPOSABLE income. You don't eat it, ride in it, use it for shelter, or make money with it. It's a toy, sometimes a very expensive toy. It's not worth getting upset about in the least if you break it. Just pull another one out of the car and keep flying!
Old 04-28-2014, 03:07 PM
  #42  
cmartin3977
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kouts, IN
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I for one would love to have an RC all aluminum scale GA type aircraft, Its still on my to do list. I believe that the reason why you don't have many out there is that, people do not have the knowledge on how to build one, way different then cutting and gluing balsa. Also the myths that they are too heavy, wont fly, can get good signal out of one, to dangerous... bla bla bla bla bla. In this gotta have in now world that we live in, its hard enough to have guys in the hobby that will build a stick kit anymore let alone an exotic metal plane. I say if you truely have an interest in having one, do it! Don't let the nay sayers that don't have the understanding and ambition on how to build aluminum planes keep you from it. Its been proven that it can be done!

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.