I beg to differ on repairabilty.
Ease of repair has more to do with familiarity and available tools. After
building my first vac-bagged composite ship eight years ago, I stopped the
wood "habit". Composite is easy, economical, strong, light and best of
all -- damage remained localized and simple to repair. It's just that
repair technique is worlds apart from wood. I've resurrected, with only
nominal effort, sailplanes that might have been splintered a thousand ways
if wood and/or obechi. Wood building tool are inexpensive but material is
pricey. Composite tools are more expensive but that is offset by very
economical materials.
If a person is a newbie (or newer-bie, anyhow) they may be as unfamiliar
with wood repair technique as any other. Steering someone away from EITHER
construction method based on personal skills (yours or mine) or preconceived
notions (yours or mine) should get some forethought. Everyone's different,
and wood and I just don't get along well together. For my flying buddy, he
is a wizard with wood (I'm somewhat jealous).
Thanx for the use of your soapbox. I'm stepping down now (before I fall
off...).
[help! i've fallen and I can't get up]
Dan deVries
DEVRIES DESIGN, Inc.
Product Design --+-- Patent/Litigation Graphics
_______
_____________ |_______________
0
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>There is one other thing I should mention , Composite Wings are probably
>not a good choice for someone new to flying a 6 servoed open class plane.
>They don't take abuse well. ( cartwheel landings etc. ) Wood skinned wings
>are much easier to repair. Nothing is more frustrating than to have a
>damaged plane and to not have any idea as to how to repair it . Here again
>experienced flyers might forget what it's like to NOT have that knowledge.
>
>OK I will step down from my SoapBox now.
>
>Jim Bonk
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
