Foam or Balsa?

[Tom Sawyer]

Its probably been done already but what are the main differences in FLYING characteristics between foam and balsa planes?

I am trying to choose between a foam or a balsa Wot 4 e (ARF).

I have seen a few videos of these and the foam version looks like you could fly it indoors its so manouvreable(!) - on the other hand surely it will be less smooth in any wind?

My main flying site can be a bit rough sometimes and I mostly fly hand launch and belly landings (stalling into long grass) although I have a smaller but cut grass field nearby which might suit the foam version.

[JetPlaneFlyer]

All other variables being equal there would not be any difference in how a foam plane and a balsa plane performed. The air doesn't 'know' what a plane is made of

Obviously if one was lighter than the other there would be a difference. Lighter planes (all other variables being equal) will turn tighter, climb faster and be able to fly slower, but would get buffeted around in gusts more..... but it would be a mistake to assume that a foam plane was always going to be lighter than a balsa plane or vise versa.

Steve

[Elfwreck]

Hey now,
Foam survives poor landings better than wood but looks scuffed up quickly. Foam is faster to repair.
Wood lasts longer. Wood feels crisper in flight and generaly is stiffer too. Foam gets soft and mushes out of proper shape and so loses it's good handling. Wood although more effort to repair can easily be made to look like new after serious repair work foam not so much.

Of course these are sweeping generalizations. You can always find the
Model that breaks out of these stereotypes.
RobII

[bthrel]

Something I just noticed after flying my first balsa ship, the wood ships make a different noise in the air, foam ships tend to be much more quiet... good or bad, I like the sound of the wood ships.

Brian

[FlyWheel]

As others have pointed out, the air don't care what the plane is made of. The design and weight of the plane will decide it's flying characteristics. The only difference would be the result of flexibility. Foam is spongier and so will tend to bend under flying stresses, while wood is stiffer and will stay rigid. How this may affect the flying of the bird I'm not experienced enough yet to tell you.

I do like the traditional look of wood better though, especially when it's at least partially covered with transparent which let's you see the craftsmanship and the sky through it


Oh, and the reason foam sounds different than balsa is the same reason a pillow sounds different that a guitar.

One is hollow, and so acts like the sound box on a guitar: It amplifies the sound. While the other is, well, foam and acts like acoustic tile: It muffles the sound.

Posted via Mobile Device

[RCFlyer44]

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer

Lighter planes (all other variables being equal) will turn tighter, climb faster and be able to fly slower, but would get buffeted around in gusts more..... but it would be a mistake to assume that a foam plane was always going to be lighter than a balsa plane or vise versa.

Steve

I think that pretty much sums it up, other than to say repairs on balsa can take considerably more time (removing bad splintered parts, replacing and gluing and then of course recovering), and balsa is typically more expensive. I fly my balsa planes a little more careful probably than I do my foam planes because I don't care for building or repairing. But I think they feel a little more crisp in the air and fly more scale (if you are into that) and that is mostly because of what Steve said above that foam typically gets buffeted around in even light winds.

[dkrhardy]

I am NOT an expert. Take anything I say with a grain of newb salt, please. I have flown my foam planes a lot and find them to be very forgiving. I have 6 planes that I fly and a 7th balsa that is nearly done and should maiden soon. The 6 foam are all in near mint condition, I just don't crash much ... bounced landings are about the worst thing they see from me, and most are good smooth landings. Having said that, I feel like the balsa planes that my friends fly are crisper in-flight. Not as "sluggish" as the foams. The biggest thing I've noticed is the wing type. Seems most foams are flat bottom, or nearly flat, and they don't "cut" through the air as a symmetrical wing does. Little bit of wind seems to affect them far less than the flat bottom wings.
The sound IS different, I think because the covering is like a drum head and it vibrates a tiny bit and resonates through the plane as it flies.

[FlyWheel]

DrHardy: Again, I think that's more the design of the plane than the material. I've flown foam Easy Stars, balsa Miss Stiks (one of which was my very first build), and composite AeroBirds, and by far the easiest was the balsa Miss Stik.

I think that I could have handed the TX to someone who has never even touched a stick in their life and they could handle this bird. I know this because it was that way when I first flew one. The Miss flies so nicely you almost have to force it to crash!

Posted via Mobile Device

[CHELLIE]

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Its probably been done already but what are the main differences in FLYING characteristics between foam and balsa planes?

I am trying to choose between a foam or a balsa Wot 4 e (ARF).

I have seen a few videos of these and the foam version looks like you could fly it indoors its so manouvreable(!) - on the other hand surely it will be less smooth in any wind?

My main flying site can be a bit rough sometimes and I mostly fly hand launch and belly landings (stalling into long grass) although I have a smaller but cut grass field nearby which might suit the foam version.

I Agree with you, if your landing on grass and hand launching, foam will work just great, if you have a nice runway, balsa would be nice with that, I like both Balsa and Foam, IMHO foam seems to work better for Park fliers, foam can take a lot of abuse and is easy to repair after a mishap, Just my 2 cents worth, Take care, Chellie

[road king 97]

I have built with only balsa but i will try scratch building with foam soon .I own a couple foam ships and if iam flying on rough land i will fly my foam ships, balsa planes woud get small punctures in the covering from the grass and twigs . I would say try both to see what you like as i like flying both types in different places. Remember the man who dies with the most toys wins.

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks Guys, in the end I chose foam simply because of my flying field.

If the field had a decent landing area I would have gone Balsa

[Tom Sawyer]

The last 2 planes I have bought have both been foam ARTF. Both have had substandard pre installed electrics and both have required mods to get them to a reliable standard so what seemed like good deals at the time have turned out not to be.

Foam has its merits but it will certainly be balsa for me from now on.

[eflight-ray]

There is balsa and there is 'balsa'. That's why we often spend ages in a model/hobby shop selecting just the grade and weight of balsa we want.

Sadly many of the ARTF balsa models seem use 'balsa' that was chosen either for its very low cost, or for its ease of CNC cutting. The weight difference between what a balsa modeler can build, and a 'balsa' ARTF manufacturer can produce can be quite considerable.

Tom, if you enjoy building, try some Depron foam, it's about the nearest thing to balsa, but lighter, cheaper, and can be painted directly, (if super finish isn't required), so no covering required.

My Sunderland in my avatar is built in Depron, so are most of my planes these days.

Here's just some - http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=19

[Elfwreck]

Hey now,
Here's the deal. You have two planes, same exact shape, same weight, same everything. One is typical foam construction and the other is typical balsa.
Brand new first day on the flight line you may not notice any difference other than sound. In extreme flight conditions you may notice a bit of flex (read slop or fuzzyness) of the foam in the turns. But only if you're really pushing the limits.
So for most sportsters you won't notice any real difference between foam and wood. But. However. Still.

We come back a year or two later. All else being equal, same twin models, the foamy will likely look scuffed up and prolly even a bit droopy. The balsa model will lookuch closer to new and not even a little bit droopy. You will now deffinately notice a difference in the air. The balsa model will still feel crisp and tight almost the same as day one.

In ten or more years? Generally the balsa model may look a bit ragged but still fly very well. Generally speaking the foam plane will... Hmmm. Um, the foam plane won't be. Won't be at all.
For that you can easily strip off the covering, clean up the frame a bit and recover it and the woodie will look and fly like new.

I have several woodie that are fourty years old. They look and fly like they were built this year. The oldest foamie I have is hmmm well ok I have a ten year old Wingo. But it hasn't flown in seven years now. Other than thaty oldest foamie is about four years old and ready for the trash heap.

And although not covered in this thread my fiberglass planes look and fly as new even the oldest one and it was built in seventy one.

So it's an issue of longevity mostly. The older it gets the bigger the difference.
RobII

[road king 97]

I agree with you elfwreck I just today flew my balsa seacruiser sea plane from hanger desighns i built 16 years ago and still flys like a champ .I have wore out a polaris in a year and on the second one so balsa planes ,i think last alot longer if taken care of. joe

[eflight-ray]

Never really wanted a plane that lasts forty years, but each to their own preference.

I have built models using balsa since about 1955, plus IC power until about 25 years ago when I went electric. I still build in, and use balsa in some of my foam models as a structural material where needed.

It's only the higher cost and variations in balsa quality that had me try Depron. Now I like it, also I still like balsa, (though I'm not so keen these days on split bamboo frames and oiled linen covering).

To me there isn't a 'better' anything, balsa/foam, IC/electric, whatever, just the opportunity to try and enjoy different methods in a great hobby.

I always feel, until you've tried something............

[eflight-ray]

Or to put it another way, as I told someone else.

"A crash is just a golden opportunity to build yet another model.."

Wearing them out is very similar.

[lou1984]

Jet plane flyer has it right on the first post, its about wing loading , airfoil ect ,, weight , plane does not know if its made of foam or balsa

[Buddfly]

I read or heard someplace that if one applies MiniWax to a foam place, that will keep the plane looking good for longer periods of time.
I've not tried it, actually had forgotten about that until reading this forum

Anyone know if MiniWax would actually help at all?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by eflight-ray

Never really wanted a plane that lasts forty years, but each to their own preference.

Hey now,
I didn't start out with the plan to own very old models. But I built this Olympic II and it flew so very well. I won a number of thermal contests with it. As the years passed I got to know it better and better, every little nuance and because of that it made me look like a great pilot. I don't do contests anymore but it's still in prime condition. Why should I junk a perfectly good airframe? I'd only have to build another standard class RES model. I've also go an original Hobie Hawk in near perfect shape. It was my first real sailplane. Again in great shape, a "classic". Why would I want to get rid of it? On that same list of very old models is a Ringmaster Imperial, a Bob Palmer Thunderbird II autographed by Bob. And my first glow powered free flight model a Midwest Super Sniffer. Why give them up? That only seems wastefull to me.

It's only the higher cost and variations in balsa quality that had me try Depron. Now I like it, also I still like balsa, (though I'm not so keen these days on split bamboo frames and oiled linen covering).

I can understand that all too well. For years I got my balsa from Lone Star and they always sold me top quality wood. I told them I built free flight and they made sure I got nothing but the best. When they burned down I tried buying from other places and was shocked by the high price and low quality of wood. I've done little bits in depron but I'm not comfortable with it yet. It's a fine material it just doesn't last as long.

To me there isn't a 'better' anything, balsa/foam, IC/electric, whatever, just the opportunity to try and enjoy different methods in a great hobby.

I always feel, until you've tried something............

And here my friend we agree totaly. As long as you're having fun (and maybe learning something) it's all so very good.
RobII

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Buddfly

I read or heard someplace that if one applies MiniWax to a foam place, that will keep the plane looking good for longer periods of time.
I've not tried it, actually had forgotten about that until reading this forum

Anyone know if MiniWax would actually help at all?

Hey now,
On it's own? No. It does nothing. Dude, it's paint that's all it is just paint.
Now if you got some 1/2 or 3/4 oz fiberglass cloth and painted it down with the minwax stuff you'd have something. I've doubled the life expectancy of foamies doing that.
RobII

[Tom Sawyer]

When you look at the two materials in isolation you can see each has its merits.

I have a ARTF foam Multiplex Pico Cub which my son learnt to fly on and still use to teach on with dual controls so it never crashes (well almost never!). For this the foam has worked out great giving a very reliable (its a less demanding environment for cheap electric componants) and slow flying model. Its about 8 years old now, tatty but its not a scale model so I dont mind and it still flies well within its own limited envelope. For park fliers foam is a great choice (and probably safer)

I went with foam again with the purchase of the big stand off scale FMS Mustang and - for me - this was a mistake. Despite modifcations the wings soon loosen up slightly and when hung in my garage soon started to sag. The undercarriage has never worked and the electrics were not good (another story) Despite only flying a few times its already picked up quite a few marks which on a plane like this that catches the eye is the last thing I want. It is however easy to fly and looks impressive but I know this plane won't last long yet from memory it was nearly £180 without radio or battery!

Chose the Foam WOT 4 foam e again because it seemed to offer an instant all up solution but same problems as above....

I know this has gone off topic a bit with all the moans about cheap electrics often found in these planes but for me the lesson I have learnt is that you can't beat a well made balsa plane with quality electrics, it might take longer to build, it might cost more to put the 'right' electrics in it but what you will end up will have longevity (gravity allowing) and reliability.

[lou1984]

Budd , i would not add wax , its weight , epo is durable , epp is less durable as we all know but it serves a purpose ect .
Its me personally but I dont add anything to my foam , its foam and when you purchase , purchase with intent .
example---warbirds -epo is durable and will take warbird landings
EPP great for high speed jets , as well as EPO .

[lou1984]

epo -examples

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by lou1984

Budd , i would not add wax , its weight

Hey now,
I think you may be confused here. The "wax" he asked about isn't wax, "Minwax" is a brand name for a water based poly urathane um, paint. It's a clear finish sold as a floor varnish. A lot of folks use it in combination with very light glass cloth to stiffen and toughen foam airframes. For example I used the combination on a GWS Formosa and after three seasons it's almost as stiff and unmarked as new. And it only added a third of an ounce, not too bad really.

, epo is durable , epp is less durable as we all know but it serves a purpose ect .

I think you have that backwards. Epp is tough. Hard to rip, chunk out, or whatever. It is not however very stiff and so is comonly used with carbon strip spars and strapping tape like on combat wings.
Epo is not as tough as epp but it's much stiffer and cheaper for the mfg.

Its me personally but I dont add anything to my foam , its foam and when you purchase , purchase with intent .
example---warbirds -epo is durable and will take warbird landings

Epo does work well for war birds and thrashers like the MPX planes and the Parkzone stuff. But it a uffs up pretty quickly and gets bendy after a relatively short time.

EPP great for high speed jets , as well as EPO .

Say what?!? Epp for high speed jets?? Never. Low speed jets maybe combat planes absolutely. But high speed jets? For me it's 'glass all the way. I want no chance of flutter on a heavy fast model.
RobII