Hey everyone, I'm really interested to get your take on this (especially from company representatives )

I fly 3D planes (3DHS, EF, PA) and also participate in F3F gliding. One of the key differences between these two sections of the RC world is the materials used to make the models. My F3F models are made from carbon and kevlar or fibreglass, whereas most 3D manufacturers use a combo of balsa wood, carbon, and ultracote covering. The only 3D companies I know of at the moment that are using composite are Comp ARF and Krill (there may be others but I'm not aware of them). However, both of these companies tailor in larger models, nothing in the 40 to 70 inch range (which is of course very popular looking at how large the threads are here for these sized planes).

So I'm just curious whether any 3D manufacturers have toyed with the idea of using composite, or thinking of using it in the future for their models.

A composite 3DHS 51 Slick or EF 48 MXS or PA Bandit would look great

Thanks

A composite version of our 48" Extra EXP would probably have to sell for $600-$800 . I don't think there are many that would pay that much for this size model.

Originally Posted by EXTREME FLIGHT

A composite version of our 48" Extra EXP would probably have to sell for $600-$800 . I don't think there are many that would pay that much for this size model.

Woah, didn't realise it would cost that much! Although I would love to see a prototype one

Would the weight of it be similar to the current balsa one? My guess is that it would be slightly heavier.

Thanks

It would be difficult to prototype without committing to production due to the costs of creating the molds. The biggest cost would be producing multiple mold sets for layup of the individual components.

In this size, it would be difficult to achieve the light weight of the built up wood airframes.

plus I would imagine the composites are a pain to repair. I know my own attraction to the smaller planes is partly based on the fact that most repairs are a popsicle stick and epoxy affair.

Originally Posted by EXTREME FLIGHT

It would be difficult to prototype without committing to production due to the costs of creating the molds. The biggest cost would be producing multiple mold sets for layup of the individual components.

In this size, it would be difficult to achieve the light weight of the built up wood airframes.

I remember reading about someone who was in the production of an F3F glider. As the profits are very low and so are the production yields, he only made one mould (the gliders are usually hand-built by one person so only one mould is necessary). He sadly broke the mould and decide to not put his design into production because the mould was just too expensive to make again.

So as you say, the moulds would be very expensive especially for every little component!

Originally Posted by Irg

plus I would imagine the composites are a pain to repair. I know my own attraction to the smaller planes is partly based on the fact that most repairs are a popsicle stick and epoxy affair.

Indeed When my gliders break, I have to get someone to repair it. I can't mould carbon unfortunately

as for the weight....the fuse can be done at similar weight. the rest would be more heavy, especially the wings.
the main advateges of composite planes are: appereance, oilresistence, precise shape, complicated shapes.....all not main criterias for smaller 3d planes.
then again, i would love to own a small composite plane....and if it would be for only looking at it. a jewel in the living room
what i personally would like too see at the smaller 3d planes is that the balsa has an uniderictional layer of cf both sides and would work in a sandwichsystem.
that would cost and weight some more, but this way the plane would be very stiff for long time.
at the very least it should be done at the ailerons and the elevator as these tend to bend (this is very usual even with the top brand, even new)
btw i own a krill thunder 3d, its only about 75inch and its an outstanding machine

It is also very expensive.

Originally Posted by long leng

as for the weight....the fuse can be done at similar weight. the rest would be more heavy, especially the wings.
the main advateges of composite planes are: appereance, oilresistence, precise shape, complicated shapes.....all not main criterias for smaller 3d planes.
then again, i would love to own a small composite plane....and if it would be for only looking at it. a jewel in the living room
what i personally would like too see at the smaller 3d planes is that the balsa has an uniderictional layer of cf both sides and would work in a sandwichsystem.
that would cost and weight some more, but this way the plane would be very stiff for long time.
at the very least it should be done at the ailerons and the elevator as these tend to bend (this is very usual even with the top brand, even new)
btw i own a krill thunder 3d, its only about 75inch and its an outstanding machine

Great reply, thanks! Sound like some great ideas

Originally Posted by EXTREME FLIGHT

It is also very expensive.

Haha, yes If money were no object...

I think it'd be cool to have some sort of "hybrid" airframe if it meant a decent increase in strength. Or maybe that's just silly. I'm still suffering a little post-traumatic stress from crashing my first balsa plane the other day...

Originally Posted by K_B

I think it'd be cool to have some sort of "hybrid" airframe if it meant a decent increase in strength. Or maybe that's just silly. I'm still suffering a little post-traumatic stress from crashing my first balsa plane the other day...

Sorry to hear that buddy I remember crashing my first balsa! Stupid me didn't check aileron direction and bam, my E-Flite t34 smashes into the deck

I remember it being a lovely warm Saturday afternoon in June. So I went to my LHS bought it and built to fly that evening at about 8pm. Get to the park, lovely sunset with a really nice bohemian atmosphere there and really pleased with getting the plane fixed up in just a few hours. So I take-off, and it starts rolling left, so I add some right stick and it rolls left even further and BAM, one minute later I was picking up pieces of balsa. Really ruined the weekend

But hey, it hasn't happened again so yippee!

Crashed mine on maiden as well. I had to make an emergency landing; landing gear runs through the fuse and gutted the plane like a fish when I clunked it in.

That's why I was thinking that some sort of carbon subframe structure might help. But then again, if you beef up one area, the next thing attached to that part takes the stress. For all I know, carbon might snap just as easy.

Originally Posted by K_B

Crashed mine on maiden as well. I had to make an emergency landing; landing gear runs through the fuse and gutted the plane like a fish when I clunked it in.

That's why I was thinking that some sort of carbon subframe structure might help. But then again, if you beef up one area, the next thing attached to that part takes the stress. For all I know, carbon might snap just as easy.

That's a bummer As you say, it may just break the closest part.