Why Glass?
01-04-2010 | 07:17 PM
#26
My Feedback: (28)
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: twn
When it comes to glassing with .5 and .75 oz cloth I peronally don't think that it adds strength like people think. I had some .5oz cloth left laying around, trim ends from my p47 that I glassed. These trim ends were the ends cut off after using zpoxy. I was EASILY able to tear these zpoxied pieces in half with only my hands just like ripping paper in half. I don't think strength is attained untill a person uses 1.5 oz cloth or greater. Of course this is too heavy for glasing entire surfaces...
.5 and .75 oz cloth is great for doing scale paint jobs that won't crack from usage but thats it... I bet that covering like monokote is actually stronger. Just try to tear clean cut monokote with your fingers without staring the cut with a knife or sizzors. lol try it!
Also dents and dings in glassed surfaces usually result in actual punctures where that fiberglass has received a hit like a hole puch and the glass tears easily even with the lightest wack. Covering doesn't do this it only dents and doesn't always tear through. Most blunt dings on normal covering result in a minor depression...
When it comes to glassing with .5 and .75 oz cloth I peronally don't think that it adds strength like people think. I had some .5oz cloth left laying around, trim ends from my p47 that I glassed. These trim ends were the ends cut off after using zpoxy. I was EASILY able to tear these zpoxied pieces in half with only my hands just like ripping paper in half. I don't think strength is attained untill a person uses 1.5 oz cloth or greater. Of course this is too heavy for glasing entire surfaces...
.5 and .75 oz cloth is great for doing scale paint jobs that won't crack from usage but thats it... I bet that covering like monokote is actually stronger. Just try to tear clean cut monokote with your fingers without staring the cut with a knife or sizzors. lol try it!
Also dents and dings in glassed surfaces usually result in actual punctures where that fiberglass has received a hit like a hole puch and the glass tears easily even with the lightest wack. Covering doesn't do this it only dents and doesn't always tear through. Most blunt dings on normal covering result in a minor depression...
01-04-2010 | 10:08 PM
#27
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: eurekame2
The extra I am working on has a 87'' span. The plans say 15lbs and up.. I dont have a weight target in mind because i don't have the experience to guestimate. The largest I have flown is a Great planes Patty Wagstaff Extra with a Moki 180. I realize that this kit is from a different time period and will be much heavier per inch. I thought that the iron on cloth, monokote and glass w/paint all ended up adding about the same weight if done correctly.
I rcvd the kit nearly completly assembled. It uses rather robust construction for todays standards. So weight of the covering is an issue. I would prefere the experince of glassing but I do want this plane to be flyable in a scale fashion. (no 3d). If there is a sizeable weight differance I would prefer good flying over good looking.
The extra I am working on has a 87'' span. The plans say 15lbs and up.. I dont have a weight target in mind because i don't have the experience to guestimate. The largest I have flown is a Great planes Patty Wagstaff Extra with a Moki 180. I realize that this kit is from a different time period and will be much heavier per inch. I thought that the iron on cloth, monokote and glass w/paint all ended up adding about the same weight if done correctly.
I rcvd the kit nearly completly assembled. It uses rather robust construction for todays standards. So weight of the covering is an issue. I would prefere the experince of glassing but I do want this plane to be flyable in a scale fashion. (no 3d). If there is a sizeable weight differance I would prefer good flying over good looking.
Bob
01-04-2010 | 10:37 PM
#28
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Hamburg,
NY
RE: Why Glass?
I agree with Sensei that lighter is better. if anyone is saying that a plane will be ok with a couple extra pounds has very likely not flown two identical planes with one being heavier than the other. it is noticable.
for aerobatic planes, lightweight is very important as long as it will hold up to the g's. i will also agree that for some that will just fly their plane around, they might not notice the added weight until they do something to remove some and then fly it again.
i also will concede that for glow powered planes, a glass and painted fuse will hold up better than the monokoted one. real reason is that the fuel just wants to get under everything and is so agressive at loosening up even good covering jobs. the trouble usually starts at the engine bay where covering just doesn't work well. if i chose to monokote a plane for glow use, i will fuel proof the plane firewall forward with resin. i often will cover first and then overlap the sealing resin over the covering seams to lock them down better.
i am sure that glassing the plane doesn't add strength to the structure but adds fuel resistance. repairing the painted plane will be harder in my opinion. matching the paint after the original paint has aged in the sun will be difficult. and feathering in the new paint is tricky. with covering, to make a repair not very noticable, usually you have to recover more than you think is necessary so that the seams can be put back in places that they would normally be like on corners of the body etc. just slapping a patch on the the small damaged area works but is more noticable to someone. but, after flying the plane for a year or two, usually you don't care anymore and just want to get it fixed. like the plane doesn't owe you anything now and is not the hanger queen it used to be when brand new.
cheers.
for aerobatic planes, lightweight is very important as long as it will hold up to the g's. i will also agree that for some that will just fly their plane around, they might not notice the added weight until they do something to remove some and then fly it again.
i also will concede that for glow powered planes, a glass and painted fuse will hold up better than the monokoted one. real reason is that the fuel just wants to get under everything and is so agressive at loosening up even good covering jobs. the trouble usually starts at the engine bay where covering just doesn't work well. if i chose to monokote a plane for glow use, i will fuel proof the plane firewall forward with resin. i often will cover first and then overlap the sealing resin over the covering seams to lock them down better.
i am sure that glassing the plane doesn't add strength to the structure but adds fuel resistance. repairing the painted plane will be harder in my opinion. matching the paint after the original paint has aged in the sun will be difficult. and feathering in the new paint is tricky. with covering, to make a repair not very noticable, usually you have to recover more than you think is necessary so that the seams can be put back in places that they would normally be like on corners of the body etc. just slapping a patch on the the small damaged area works but is more noticable to someone. but, after flying the plane for a year or two, usually you don't care anymore and just want to get it fixed. like the plane doesn't owe you anything now and is not the hanger queen it used to be when brand new.
cheers.
01-04-2010 | 11:31 PM
#29
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Why Glass?
WOW! I want the two of you to go and grab a quart of epoxy and hardener, then go grab about 4 rattle cans of paint & throw it on a scale. I bet you'd be suprised to see it weighs less than 5 LBS, but, now you have to remove the weight of the cans for the paint, the thinner used in the paint(about 50%) and the weight of the plastic jugs holding the epoxy, now remove anywhere between 25-50% of the epoxys weight for sanding(yes, you sand away about 1/2 the resin when doing a proper glass finish) and you might be left with about 1 LB or 1.5LB of total weight on a large aircraft with over 1000 sq inches of surface area. Yes lighter flies better and no, plastic will puncture and tear, especially todays plastic coverings that are a joke. You never have to reshrink epoxyglass or worry about punctures, TWN, if you could remove the glass from the surface, it wasn't applied correctly, the wood should have absorbed the resin as well and kept the glass firmly attached to the wood to the point that removing the wood from the glass would have ment destroying the wood to remove it. And now hat brings me to a composite structure, once you impregnate the wood and glass together with a binder of epoxy, you now have a unitized structure that is locked together and gives you a solid hard coating of glass. If you actually puncture the surface, it will be minimal damage, plastic covered wings wil either be destroyed or require complete recovering and major rebuilding with the same type of impact.
01-05-2010 | 02:52 AM
#30
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: Jeff Worsham
My experience is that a glassed (.6 and .75 oz) finish is stonger (read that as lasts longer) than plastic when it comes to fuselages. A balsa fuse w/o open framework that's been glassed holds up to vibration over time better than a similar plastic covered fuse. Less likely to get fuel soaked too as there is never a peeled-up edge. I've also found the glassed/painted/cleared finish is more resistant to handling dents and dings. Sure- plastic is easier to fix, but all of my glass/painted fuses have lasted longer than similar/same constuction covered in plastic.
My experience is that a glassed (.6 and .75 oz) finish is stonger (read that as lasts longer) than plastic when it comes to fuselages. A balsa fuse w/o open framework that's been glassed holds up to vibration over time better than a similar plastic covered fuse. Less likely to get fuel soaked too as there is never a peeled-up edge. I've also found the glassed/painted/cleared finish is more resistant to handling dents and dings. Sure- plastic is easier to fix, but all of my glass/painted fuses have lasted longer than similar/same constuction covered in plastic.
]
01-05-2010 | 06:27 AM
#31
RE: Why Glass?
i wonder how many of these died in the wool monocoters have actually finished a plane in glass and paint? a glass and minwax polycrylic combo is far lighter than monocote, monocote is what, 3 0z?, per square yard? 0.5 or 0.75 oz cloth and water based polycrylic will blow that away. adding latex paint doesn't add much more but if you use glow power the clearcoat will add weight.
i spend most of my time building classic pattern planes these days. my current project (fully glassed and painted) looks to be finishing up at 7.5 lbs or less. perfect for a ballistic classic pattern plane.
i spend most of my time building classic pattern planes these days. my current project (fully glassed and painted) looks to be finishing up at 7.5 lbs or less. perfect for a ballistic classic pattern plane.
01-05-2010 | 08:23 AM
#32
RE: Why Glass?
Yes I have painted many airplanes over the years, both open bay, and fully sheeted. Here are a couple of pictures of painted 40% airplanes from years ago, and one that is Monokoted three years ago that I still fly today, it is the red and black 40% Carden Extra 260, it has over 500 flights on it, and weighs 28 lbs. with a DA 100. Both of the painted aircraft had almost 4 lbs. of glass, covering, and paint on them, but I figured if I was going to paint these, then they were going to have a finish of a show car, and the hell with the performance. I am happy to say I don't think that way any more, and have tought myself to cover in Monokote with a finish that will stand up to any painted airplane in looks.
Here is a short video of what you can do with a really light 40% airplane on a 100cc engine.
http://icanflyrc.com/JRFlyin/slides/Bob260.html
Bob
Here is a short video of what you can do with a really light 40% airplane on a 100cc engine.
http://icanflyrc.com/JRFlyin/slides/Bob260.html
Bob
01-05-2010 | 08:43 AM
#34
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: planebuilder66
What was the wind speed that day, looks like a pretty stiff wind your flying in, good show you put on though.
What was the wind speed that day, looks like a pretty stiff wind your flying in, good show you put on though.
Bob
01-05-2010 | 10:04 PM
#36
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: dhal22
another down side of painting (all beautiful planes btw) is the additional time required to finish. equal to or more than the time needed to build the plane.
another down side of painting (all beautiful planes btw) is the additional time required to finish. equal to or more than the time needed to build the plane.
Bob
01-06-2010 | 07:44 PM
#39
RE: Why Glass?
what engine? a 350 V8? 454? [sm=what_smile.gif] that's the biggest i've ever seen except for maybe mac hodges b29. you're way out of my league, no more paint vs plastic arguments.
01-06-2010 | 08:17 PM
#40
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Why Glass?
No he's not out of your league, he's way out of ours and most normal modelers. You gotta be a little nuts to build something big, you have to fukin crazy to build something that big!? And the funny thing is I think he's still married, but by looking at her facial expression, I can tell she's thrilled to be the lucky gal to stand next to it late at night for a photo shoot.
So how long did you sleep on the couch for again?
So how long did you sleep on the couch for again?
01-06-2010 | 08:56 PM
#41
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: proserpineQueensland, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why Glass?
ahhh, that lighter is better argument again [:'(] I get a laufgh when I see these you beaut super light planes fold up in the air or sustain major damage on a less than perfect landing. I have build several 100" plus planes, some very light and some a bit heavier, and to be honest, if you arent right into 3D I dont see that much gained, I fly imac, and I prefer to have a heavier than light plane, I find I get better lines and the wind doesnt push the plane around as easily. I also like the fact I know its NOT going to fold up from just behind the canopy if my landing isnt perfect. Noit so long ago I built 2 100" laser 200's from plans, one I built light as per plans and the other I beefed a bit, with ply doublers from fire wall to well into the turtle deck, heavier landibng gear blocks etc. I fitted boith with BME 102cc motors, all hitec servo's etc, both set up with identical fit outs. guess which one i still have? the heavier beast, the light one folded up doing a waterfall, snapped right at the front turtledeck former.
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
01-06-2010 | 10:01 PM
#42
My Feedback: (-1)
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: planebuilder66
No he's not out of your league, he's way out of ours and most normal modelers. You gotta be a little nuts to build something big, you have to fukin crazy to build something that big!? And the funny thing is I think he's still married, but by looking at her facial expression, I can tell she's thrilled to be the lucky gal to stand next to it late at night for a photo shoot. So how long did you sleep on the couch for again?
No he's not out of your league, he's way out of ours and most normal modelers. You gotta be a little nuts to build something big, you have to fukin crazy to build something that big!? And the funny thing is I think he's still married, but by looking at her facial expression, I can tell she's thrilled to be the lucky gal to stand next to it late at night for a photo shoot.
So how long did you sleep on the couch for again?
Now you understand why Bob is counting ounces and grams. I still cover most of my builds with Ultra but if it's fully sheeted then it gets glassed. Yes, glass adds strength to the frame and it won't chip, it's usually just the paint chipping and not the glass. Try using Klass Kote and you will never have that problem again. It's just like the old K&B two part epoxy paint.
01-06-2010 | 11:08 PM
#43
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: qldviking
ahhh, that lighter is better argument again [:'(] I get a laufgh when I see these you beaut super light planes fold up in the air or sustain major damage on a less than perfect landing. I have build several 100'' plus planes, some very light and some a bit heavier, and to be honest, if you arent right into 3D I dont see that much gained, I fly imac, and I prefer to have a heavier than light plane, I find I get better lines and the wind doesnt push the plane around as easily. I also like the fact I know its NOT going to fold up from just behind the canopy if my landing isnt perfect. Noit so long ago I built 2 100'' laser 200's from plans, one I built light as per plans and the other I beefed a bit, with ply doublers from fire wall to well into the turtle deck, heavier landibng gear blocks etc. I fitted boith with BME 102cc motors, all hitec servo's etc, both set up with identical fit outs. guess which one i still have? the heavier beast, the light one folded up doing a waterfall, snapped right at the front turtledeck former.
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
ahhh, that lighter is better argument again [:'(] I get a laufgh when I see these you beaut super light planes fold up in the air or sustain major damage on a less than perfect landing. I have build several 100'' plus planes, some very light and some a bit heavier, and to be honest, if you arent right into 3D I dont see that much gained, I fly imac, and I prefer to have a heavier than light plane, I find I get better lines and the wind doesnt push the plane around as easily. I also like the fact I know its NOT going to fold up from just behind the canopy if my landing isnt perfect. Noit so long ago I built 2 100'' laser 200's from plans, one I built light as per plans and the other I beefed a bit, with ply doublers from fire wall to well into the turtle deck, heavier landibng gear blocks etc. I fitted boith with BME 102cc motors, all hitec servo's etc, both set up with identical fit outs. guess which one i still have? the heavier beast, the light one folded up doing a waterfall, snapped right at the front turtledeck former.
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
Bob
01-06-2010 | 11:13 PM
#44
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: planebuilder66
No he's not out of your league, he's way out of ours and most normal modelers. You gotta be a little nuts to build something big, you have to fukin crazy to build something that big!? And the funny thing is I think he's still married, but by looking at her facial expression, I can tell she's thrilled to be the lucky gal to stand next to it late at night for a photo shoot. So how long did you sleep on the couch for again?
No he's not out of your league, he's way out of ours and most normal modelers. You gotta be a little nuts to build something big, you have to fukin crazy to build something that big!? And the funny thing is I think he's still married, but by looking at her facial expression, I can tell she's thrilled to be the lucky gal to stand next to it late at night for a photo shoot.
So how long did you sleep on the couch for again?
Bob
01-07-2010 | 10:31 AM
#45
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Why Glass?
I only say that because I asked my EX one time to hold up a plane so I could take a picture. She grabbed it, held it up and I took the picture. I looked at the shot and said your not even trying to look happy, she said "why would I?, ..... You spend more time with these than me!" she literally let go of the plane and it hit the floor, then she walked away. I have no idea what she was talking about, it must have been the monthly curse talking again. But then again, she's my ex now and my new gal loves to watch me build and fiddle with projects, she thinks I'm 5 everytime I work on the planes?!
01-07-2010 | 10:58 AM
#46
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: Gray Beard
Now you understand why Bob is counting ounces and grams. I still cover most of my builds with Ultra but if it's fully sheeted then it gets glassed. Yes, glass adds strength to the frame and it won't chip, it's usually just the paint chipping and not the glass. Try using Klass Kote and you will never have that problem again. It's just like the old K&B two part epoxy paint.
Now you understand why Bob is counting ounces and grams. I still cover most of my builds with Ultra but if it's fully sheeted then it gets glassed. Yes, glass adds strength to the frame and it won't chip, it's usually just the paint chipping and not the glass. Try using Klass Kote and you will never have that problem again. It's just like the old K&B two part epoxy paint.
01-07-2010 | 12:31 PM
#47
My Feedback: (-1)
RE: Why Glass?
I have built and flown planes up to or just a taste over 42%, I don't like to bother with the big ones any longer due to money and the problems with hauling them, biggest I fly today is just over 30% and even that one stays in the shop most the time, I have either sold or taken apart my big bipes, those are a true pain in the mule. As an IMAA inspector all I could think of when I saw Bobs 70% was a big, Oh My God!! I have only seen photos of RC planes that size from magazines from the UK where there are no weight limits.
So, I have to ask, what it the weight of that big critter?? Every year at the Castle IMAA event we had an AMA inspector that would give the planes of 100 pounds the once over then test the planes and pilots to get there waver. When a plane weighed in at over the 100 pound mark they couldn't get one and turned into desert flyers. Is that big plane flown at air shows?? Is it AMA legal in this country? Tell us about it, what engine, servos, gear do you have in the beast?
So, I have to ask, what it the weight of that big critter?? Every year at the Castle IMAA event we had an AMA inspector that would give the planes of 100 pounds the once over then test the planes and pilots to get there waver. When a plane weighed in at over the 100 pound mark they couldn't get one and turned into desert flyers. Is that big plane flown at air shows?? Is it AMA legal in this country? Tell us about it, what engine, servos, gear do you have in the beast?
01-07-2010 | 12:55 PM
#48
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: proserpineQueensland, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: sensei
If you are folding up wings, and fuses in flight on your light airplanes, then your design and, or consruction methods need a little help. A properly designed and constructed lightweight airfarme will last hundreds, even thousands of hard flights. There are just too many builders using many of my lightweight construction methods these days, that are having 0 structural issues, so there is no argument, I been doing, and documenting it for years. Now knocking out gears is another story, all I can say is practice, practice, practice...
Bob
ORIGINAL: qldviking
ahhh, that lighter is better argument again [:'(] I get a laufgh when I see these you beaut super light planes fold up in the air or sustain major damage on a less than perfect landing. I have build several 100'' plus planes, some very light and some a bit heavier, and to be honest, if you arent right into 3D I dont see that much gained, I fly imac, and I prefer to have a heavier than light plane, I find I get better lines and the wind doesnt push the plane around as easily. I also like the fact I know its NOT going to fold up from just behind the canopy if my landing isnt perfect. Noit so long ago I built 2 100'' laser 200's from plans, one I built light as per plans and the other I beefed a bit, with ply doublers from fire wall to well into the turtle deck, heavier landibng gear blocks etc. I fitted boith with BME 102cc motors, all hitec servo's etc, both set up with identical fit outs. guess which one i still have? the heavier beast, the light one folded up doing a waterfall, snapped right at the front turtledeck former.
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
ahhh, that lighter is better argument again [:'(] I get a laufgh when I see these you beaut super light planes fold up in the air or sustain major damage on a less than perfect landing. I have build several 100'' plus planes, some very light and some a bit heavier, and to be honest, if you arent right into 3D I dont see that much gained, I fly imac, and I prefer to have a heavier than light plane, I find I get better lines and the wind doesnt push the plane around as easily. I also like the fact I know its NOT going to fold up from just behind the canopy if my landing isnt perfect. Noit so long ago I built 2 100'' laser 200's from plans, one I built light as per plans and the other I beefed a bit, with ply doublers from fire wall to well into the turtle deck, heavier landibng gear blocks etc. I fitted boith with BME 102cc motors, all hitec servo's etc, both set up with identical fit outs. guess which one i still have? the heavier beast, the light one folded up doing a waterfall, snapped right at the front turtledeck former.
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
Bob
01-07-2010 | 01:05 PM
#49
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Why Glass?
Currently, that is my next venture, I need to get a trailer or get creative, make the bigger ones completely "plug-in", I know the hostetler skybolt has a removable tail, but that's not going to be what I want removable, I want the wings to plug together, gotta figure that one out before I start building it.
01-07-2010 | 02:07 PM
#50
RE: Why Glass?
ORIGINAL: qldviking
I have snapped one arf plane in the air personally, that was a H9 extra 260 running a BME 50cc. It snapped right at the end of the ply doubler just behind the cockpit. I have also snapped one of my scratchbuilt planes in exactly the same spot, again right where that doubler finishes behind the cockpit. Also, check the aerobatic and 3D threads and see how many planes break in that area. In the hunt for building ever lighter planes for a minimal cost, something has to give. Also, none of the scratchbuilt planes I have built have ever folded a wing, just 3 supposed quality bARFs. Its also been many years since I have knocked out the landing gear of one of my own built planes. My designs or construction methods? I dont think so, as I have said I am happy to have a little more weight to have a plane that flies the way I like, and I DONT fly 3D, and I firmly believe harrier type arrivals, you cant call them landings[:'(] are an insult to a plane. As for landings? I find them a breeze, when I first started flying and had soloed I never worried about how much fuel I had, and most of my landings were deadstick. I only wrecked one plane by getting caught too far out and I collected the fence post coming in. To put it bluntly I will NEVER buy another bARF, I trust my building skills a lot more. At least I know there WILL be glue where its needed, and there will be wood where needed too.
ORIGINAL: sensei
If you are folding up wings, and fuses in flight on your light airplanes, then your design and, or consruction methods need a little help. A properly designed and constructed lightweight airfarme will last hundreds, even thousands of hard flights. There are just too many builders using many of my lightweight construction methods these days, that are having 0 structural issues, so there is no argument, I been doing, and documenting it for years. Now knocking out gears is another story, all I can say is practice, practice, practice...
Bob
ORIGINAL: qldviking
ahhh, that lighter is better argument again [:'(] I get a laufgh when I see these you beaut super light planes fold up in the air or sustain major damage on a less than perfect landing. I have build several 100'' plus planes, some very light and some a bit heavier, and to be honest, if you arent right into 3D I dont see that much gained, I fly imac, and I prefer to have a heavier than light plane, I find I get better lines and the wind doesnt push the plane around as easily. I also like the fact I know its NOT going to fold up from just behind the canopy if my landing isnt perfect. Noit so long ago I built 2 100'' laser 200's from plans, one I built light as per plans and the other I beefed a bit, with ply doublers from fire wall to well into the turtle deck, heavier landibng gear blocks etc. I fitted boith with BME 102cc motors, all hitec servo's etc, both set up with identical fit outs. guess which one i still have? the heavier beast, the light one folded up doing a waterfall, snapped right at the front turtledeck former.
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
ahhh, that lighter is better argument again [:'(] I get a laufgh when I see these you beaut super light planes fold up in the air or sustain major damage on a less than perfect landing. I have build several 100'' plus planes, some very light and some a bit heavier, and to be honest, if you arent right into 3D I dont see that much gained, I fly imac, and I prefer to have a heavier than light plane, I find I get better lines and the wind doesnt push the plane around as easily. I also like the fact I know its NOT going to fold up from just behind the canopy if my landing isnt perfect. Noit so long ago I built 2 100'' laser 200's from plans, one I built light as per plans and the other I beefed a bit, with ply doublers from fire wall to well into the turtle deck, heavier landibng gear blocks etc. I fitted boith with BME 102cc motors, all hitec servo's etc, both set up with identical fit outs. guess which one i still have? the heavier beast, the light one folded up doing a waterfall, snapped right at the front turtledeck former.
In a previous post someone mentioned that f/g was weak? what material for covering do we use that isnt on its own? I work a lot with f/g and composites, I bvuild and refit boats for a living, and yes I can tear layed up f/g 1/4 fairly easily when I can start at the edge too, but try to tear f/g from somewhere in the middle? eg when you f/g a wing joint, you lay a strip of glass all the way around, and when bonded to the wing properly it increases and stiffens that wing joint a great deal for not much weight, same when f/g a whole airframe, you dont just bung on a patch here and there, you lay your f/g all round, and fair it all in together if you do it right, whether in 1 or multiple steps, and you use a minimum of resin well rolled in to bond it to the wing/fuse etc. the strength isnt from the resin itself, but the f/g fibres being bonded. As has been said before tho, later applications of resins will be for finishing with micro ballons, talc or whatever.
As in any aspect of our hobby, or anything else for that matter, there will always be differences of opinion. These are just my thoughts and observations
cheers
Bob
Bob
