themadmax

My Feedback: (70)

Thanks for the info on the adhesive. Discovering new materials is one of the things I enjoy about RC modeling. I've been doing it for going on 30 years and only bought 2 airplane kits. I tried learning on a foam P-51 which didn't go well and then bought a Pilot 25 trainer kit...plywood a-go-go...fuse sides, bulkheads and 1/4" sq. balsa for spars if I remember correctly. Almost immediately I made it a symmetrical airfoil and then virtually vaporized it against a big tree in the dead of winter. I had to dig around in the snow to find the servos, battery and motor. The tank was toast and I never found the wheels. Should've gotten a video because, of all the crashes I've seen personally and on youtube, it just exploded into small shards of balsa, plywood and monokote. Been designing my own ever since.

The mosquito would be cool to construct per the full scale. Make a fuse plug, pull right/left molds and make ply/balsa/ply fuse halves. It's actually a monocoque structure only wood instead of aluminum. For the Lancaster I'd design a semi-monocoque structure, per full scale using foam for bulkheads/ribs, 1/16" for stringer/longerons and mylar skinning.

I'd post pics but presently I've no means of taking pics. Talk about flintstonian, I'm drawing on shelf paper with a T-square, etc. I can do it in CAD but don't have even a basic drawing program due to a stroke of misfortune. Good thing I loved my drafting/architectural classes. Pffft!!! Never know what life's going to hand you.

Wizz-Racing

I had this discussion years ago with an Lockheed Martin engineer. As I wanted to use carbon fibers and vacuum bagging to make make parts but wondered about the so called radio interference people say it causes. Which he informed me is not an issue if you use a ground strap. As not all carbon fiber is the same. One reason I ended up using reinforced carbon-carbon as it has low conductive property.

The strength to weight ratio is designed into an airframe from the very start. So you can use less materials to achieve the same performance. Using smaller lighter engines which in itself makes for more useable space. His words not mine. This is why you can't scale down one design or scale it up and get the same performance. One reason I spent lots of time building known good designs and only made changes where needed. This is where ARF or RTF builders have a distinct disadvantage. They don't know how to fix planes that don't fly right or would ever notice they had an issue. They just stick a bigger engine on it and call it good if it flies and lands in one piece.

This is where my math and science teachers got it right. You will be glad you paid attention if you value knowing where money comes form and how to make it grow and it might even make you a smarter person.

Good Luck. As aerodynamics uses lots of math...