Hi,
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Paul,
>
> You are correct in many of your assumptions.
> Basically, it all comes back to
> the ol' "the heavier it is the harder it falls"
> saying. Weight = Inertia.
> Inertia + Collision = damage, so the less inertia
> (less weight) aircraft
> incur much less damage on such hits.
>
> Your comment about less material in light birds is
> close, but not quite
> right. Making a composite airplane light mainly
> depends on 1) resin content
> 2) type of material used and 3) the weight of the
> material. If you use a
> good layup of light Kevlar on a fuselage, and suck
> as much resin as possible
> out of it, you get a very resistant fuselage, which
> is still very light.
> Example: Encore fuselage. Four layers of Kevlar,
> 1.8 on bias, .8 on 0-90,
> 1.8 bias, and another 0-90 of 1oz. Hardy any resin
> makes it light (32grams
> is the norm) and the layup makes it very strong.
That is why I said 'All other things being equal'. In
my previous post, I was assuming a constant percentage
of resin to cloth. I was also assuming a constant
percentage of the radio gear weight vs. the airframe
weight. This is not a valid assumption, which I
forgot to bring out in my last post.
=====
Paul Griebenow
Route 3 Box 831A
Tazewell, VA 24651
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
