Have to disagree here. It is very possible to produce high quality honeycomb sandwich parts at or near room temperature (100F), in epoxy molds. I do it all the time. Peel strength of the inner liner is certainly critical, and there are several methods for achieving a consistent bond without requiring an autoclave, high-temp molds, post curing etc.
In general, I'm still baffled by the reliance on structural 'strength' and high-torque servos for flutter prevention. Flutter is an aero problem, and can be largely prevented through simple measures. On a full flying surface one method would be the correct relationship between pivot, CG and aerodynamic center. No amount of structural beef will prevent flutter.
Not that I'm defending FEJ in any way, and I applaud Dave S. for standing up for his beliefs.
CRG
ORIGINAL: Chris Nicastro
There should be a guidebook for model composite structures that a CD could refer to who is not versed in composites. If what he see's doesn't look like whats pre approved then the aircraft in question should be denied flight pending further inspection and approval.
I bring this up because there are too many opinions on how composites work when in reality there are proven methods that should be the standard. With these standards as the rule then the manufacturers would have something to refer to when considering making a plane. Any CD could pick up this book and compare whats on the model to the description and photos in the book.
In fact any factory making open mold wet layup honeycomb, not oven curing the parts, no autoclave, is already doing it wrong. The peel strength is already compromised. These parts are supposed to be oven cured at fairly high temps as a rule and the molds have to be capable of high temps. There is a lot to composites techniques, layup schedules, tooling, post curing, etc, etc.
Going back to good old basics with proven materials and proven methods is the way unless your investing a lot of time and money into real aerospace composites, equipment and practices.