Can framework planes like this endure any punishment?

Surfer_kris wrote:Anything but nose first at full bore should be fine. If it is properly designed it is both stronger and lighter than plain sheet constructions. Low weight means a softer impact too...

Ditto
The Old Timer is just a few balsa ladders strapped together
It just shrugs it all off and when something does break
It's 5 mins and a bottle of cyano.

Good, maybe I'll get one this Winter. Maybe for a Surestart or a Medallion. This is a recurring whim, but I'm more interested in building than aggressive flying this time. I've got three good planes for ripping holes in the sky and I'd like to build something different. I remember being fascinated with the Guillows kit threads that have been posted here. If it goes anywhere, I'll post back about it.

Structurally complex planes can not endure punishment as well as profiles, slab wings, foam etc.

While pleasing to the eye, structurally complex planes are expensive and time-consuming to build.

I'm wondering what a good search term is, what this type of model construction is called. Like you've got your profiles, your full fuselages, your hollow logs, etc. What would you call one of these?

SuperDave wrote:Structurally complex planes can not endure punishment as well as profiles, slab wings, foam etc.

While pleasing to the eye, structurally complex planes are expensive and time-consuming to build.

That's what I'm looking for. It'll no doubt be a tame flyer and not as likely to take any serious ground pounding as the wild ones can. I reminded myself last weekend that they can be re-kitted. I was way overdue.

RknRusty wrote:I'm wondering what a good search term is, what this type of model construction is called. ........ What would you call one of these?

Stick construction

Stick built

Occasionally, the earlier models were referred to as "stick and tissue".

Rusty:

Sitting in my "roundtoit" stash is a Dumas Aeronca C-3 "Collegian" 44" span for 3-channel EP designed by Pat Tuttle. I've never attempted the kit and can't seem summon a "roundtoit" to begin.

The C-3 is so UGLY that it's actually BEAUTIFUL if you can grasp the concept.

Now there is an example of a structurally-complex model aircraft which would be sentational if it were built.

The kit cost would be a fraction of the finised cost and what would be the result would be fragile I have no doubt.

Rusty:

"Difficult model aircraft" might work. I dunno though.

The skin distributes the loads to many members of the structure. Structure members can also be selected for best strength and weight. You can select spruce or long grain pine for spars, and lighter balsa for shapes that make fair.

These are quite durable in fact. If a good design is built properly it will excel at acrobatics. Building light and precise are two of many keys to having a good performing, strong aircraft.

They are not as tolerant to point loading such as rough landing, mid-air collisions, and crashes where "solid" materials such as foam handle that level of abuse a bit better.

Phil

pkrankow wrote:The skin distributes the loads to many members of the structure. Structure members can also be selected for best strength and weight. You can select spruce or long grain pine for spars, and lighter balsa for shapes that make fair.

These are quite durable in fact. If a good design is built properly it will excel at acrobatics. Building light and precise are two of many keys to having a good performing, strong aircraft.

They are not as tolerant to point loading such as rough landing, mid-air collisions, and crashes where "solid" materials such as foam handle that level of abuse a bit better.

Phil

this type of building is my favorite for a couple reasons, it saves weight, and they look really cool when covered with a translucent covering material

Stick and tissue; I wondered if that was what this was called. Though it may be becoming an antiquated term these days. I think my building skills are getting better, and with you guys behind me I can't help but turn out a successful product. I'm soaking up all the tips y'all give me.
Dave, maybe you'll finally get a round tuit under the tree this year.

"Dave, maybe you'll finally get a round tuit under the tree this year." - Rusty

Yes I'm hoping so. I could use several actually.

SuperDave my name and procrastination is my game.

I was gonna say Summatt but I'll do it later

John Goddard wrote:I was gonna say Summatt but I'll do it later

JB:

I'll bite, "Summatt" what?

North Country Something

A couple of snapped longerons on a "stick-built" and the plane would be "toast".

Don't ask how I know.

We currently have four of those planes in the picture. Three Seniors and one Seniorita. They fly very nicely. A .15 size Cox might work on the Seniorita. Otherwords you would need to scale it down for it to work. We have had some rough landings with ours with no issues. Nothing has broken so far. Great planes.

Rolla

What's a longeron? I've heard the word but don't know what it is.

RknRusty wrote:What's a longeron? I've heard the word but don't know what it is.

It's the structural member that runs the length of the fuselage.

Rusty -
Are you planning to start flying some R/C or freeflight? There is a smaller version of the plane you posted called the Kadetito that will fly on anything from a .049 (if built lightly) up to an .09 . A NORVEL .074 would probably do nicely or a TT .07 -- both throttle well.

Andrew, I was strictly thinking control line until you asked. But your questions have me thinking, maybe I should build it as an RC platform, and it can wait until I'm trained for it before it ever flies. My model choices may open up more if I turn towards RC. That one I first posted would then fall into my options. Just to accommodate my cramped work area, I'd like to keep it in the 30-36" or less wingspan range.

When I start training on RC I'm planning to start with an inexpensive 3 channel(rudder, elevator, throttle) electric foamie RTF or ARF. That will probably be in the Spring. When I get good with it, I'll go back to glow for further advancement. I have no desire to stick with electric after I learn to fly.

My main goal and purpose is a project I can build meticulously and maybe only fly occasionally. I'm interested in the building experience of a stick plane more than just throwing together another frequent flier. I want the satisfaction of building a complex structure and have it come out not only aesthetically pleasing but airworthy in every respect. In other words I'm testing my building skills with an interesting new medium, and hoping for a pleasing outcome.

pkrankow wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longeron

That was helpful, thanks for the link.