Personally I like my planes built to fly, not to crash.
So in answer to your questions:
Do you crash a lot? ..... Not much
Do you wish your plane was stronger?... Nope, that would inevitably mean it was heavier than it needed to be, so with less performance and actually more likely to crash.
Would you pay more for a crash-proof plane?... Nope
Do you have any experience with crash-proofing?.... Not as such. I've strengthened weak points on airframes, like landing gear, but I've never attempted to design or build a plane primarily with crashing in mind.
Of course this is just my view. Of course a 'crash resistant' plane would be good for a beginner providing the weight impact was minimal. If you have been flying for a while and still crash a lot then IMHO you are doing something badly wrong and you need to look at why you keep crashing, not the 'crash-proofness' of your plane.
Our specialty is crash-proofing foam RC planes using "Carbon Fiber Reinforcement."
Now lets be honest. No RC plan is crash-proof. Even a complete CF plane can crash and be damaged. Servo gear strip, motors break, batteries get damaged in crashes. In fact strengthening the airframe can cause those other components to more readily break.
Also - this re-enforcement and glue adds weight. Now you have a plane that is heavier and causes itself more damage in a crash.
More crash-resistance - sure.
Originally Posted by Killer Planes
We are looking to take our innovation to the next level, by manufacturing our own production model crash-proof RC plane.
Good luck! Again nothing is crash-proof.
Originally Posted by Killer Planes
So, I am hoping to hear your opinions on the subject!
Do you crash a lot? Do you wish your plane was stronger? Would you pay more for a crash-proof plane? Do you have any experience with crash-proofing?
Thank you all! Look forward to hearing from you.
No don't really crash a lot. Part of that is a fly light airplanes that fly well. No I won't pay more for crash proof as there really is no such thing. No experience with crash proofing. Watching your vids I don't see a bunch of crashes, then picking up an undamaged airplane and flying again. Maybe I just missed that. Saw some "low" passes but those aren't crashes.
Originally Posted by Killer Planes
PS - if you are interested, check out our youtube channel with dozens of videos of our crash-proof planes in action!
What I see are a few crashes, but no video of the "aftermath". Where is the vid of the planes - going into the trees, then you pluck them out - show NO DAMAGE (crashproof) then you stick a new batt in and go fly again?
Maybe I just missed those.
Again - Crashproof just sounds like false advertising to me. Sorry man been in the hobby too long to know ain't no such thing!
These guys have been a round for awhile...small outfit providing various foam models and carbon rod reinforcment kits.
I'm wondering what their own statistics of sales has provided....they must have kept track of the volume related to the kits and modified plane packages sold, thus triggering a Q/A post here and at other web forums.
I'd suggest, before they get carried away putting $$$ into a product and marketing, they take a look at Zappos.com. (the marketing experts) and get a feel for the real aspect of segmentation (which they are attempting through shot gun web posting).
Obviuosly, they have a some idea how to target a potential market and aggregate prospective buyers into groups that have common needs and those who will respond similary to a marketing action....although, based on the thread just started, seems they are hunting and pecking around right now to get feedback without realizing who their audience is.......I guess it's one way to establish a data base.
Another thing they should realize as well, when targeting segments and analyzing feedback and evaluating profitability, they should consider the market size, expected growth, competitive position, cost of reaching the market segment and the compatibility with their organizations objectives and resources.....
That's my 2 cents on developing new products and services...
I'd say this plane flies well. I'd say it crashes well. Obviously, crashproofing is not at the expense of flying ability, as the worn out old saw goes. It is possible to build a strong plane that flies well and they have done so. Of course broken plastic pieces: props, spinners, fairings and the like still happen. Crashproofing is a means to keep foam from crushing, and airframes rigid for precise aerobatics. A crashproofed foamie flies a lot like a good balsa model.
One thing for sure. Inanities such as "this re-enforcement and glue adds weight. Now you have a plane that is heavier and causes itself more damage in a crash.", "Crashproof just sounds like false advertising to me. Sorry man been in the hobby too long to know ain't no such thing! " are shown to be mere ignorant foolishness (edit: it is an activity, the false claiming, that is ignorant foolishness. No persons were named and nobody not named can be called a name here). There was a time when I would have said the same thing about the impossibility that a plane could continue flying under control when another radio was switched on of the same frequency. There was a time when I would have said that an electric plane was heavy and flew like crap. Times change. If we don't change with them, instead repeating the worn out truths of the past, that makes us a fool. Don't be a fool. This is real. It works well. It flies well. It significantly reduces damage in a crash. It makes the plane fly better because the plane is more rigid.
But what happens with planes built from another approach altogether. Eliminate the stuff that breaks! Fuselage, nose cone, tail.....poof! Gone. Now build whats left out of EPP foam, reinforced by fiberglass (FRP) rods (no carbon fiber in these at all), Scotch Extreme packing tape, Doculam low temp laminate over all. What happens then?
Well, you seem to get higher performance than a P-51 Mustang costing much more, PLUS crashability that makes the Killer Planes deal, impressive as it is, look like the pile of sticks we normally associate with fragile RC planes. You know: the ones we misguidedly brag are built to fly, not to crash.
Sorry, the world changes and you can have both. You are no longer forced to choose between rugged and nimble. Hey, CHALLENGE for the Killer Planes guys. Duplicate this feat of a non-crashproofed plane. Use an iPhone and do what this guy did. His choice of music should have been the Jaws theme because over and over again we get good looks at the inevitable fate for this doomed plane:
One problem with carbon fiber is that it is strong in only one direction. If hit at right angles to the fibers on something hard, CF shatters like glass and very easily too. That's one of the reasons that foam and CF are a marriage made in heaven. Foam protects the CF from shattering. CF protects the foam from crushing.
One thing for sure. Inanities such as "this re-enforcement and glue adds weight. Now you have a plane that is heavier and causes itself more damage in a crash.", "Crashproof just sounds like false advertising to me. Sorry man been in the hobby too long to know ain't no such thing! " are shown to be mere ignorant foolishness. There was a time when I would have said the same thing about the impossibility that a plane could continue flying under control when another radio was switched on of the same frequency. There was a time when I would have said that an electric plane was heavy and flew like crap. Times change. If we don't change with them, instead repeating the worn out truths of the past, that makes us a fool. Don't be a fool. This is real. It works well. It flies well. It significantly reduces damage in a crash. It makes the plane fly better because the plane is more rigid.
First I am entitled to a post response and opinion right?
Second calling someone or their post ignorant or foolish is against the forum rules. You might want to refresh yourself on those rules.
There is no such thing as a crashproof RC airplane. "that cannot be smashed or broken". I guarantee I can break the plane. Why don't you send me one and I will video it for you.
I fly many Alfa airplanes. They are wonderful. Many called them too fragile. To me they are light and perfect. Adding the weight of glue and CF certainly makes for a stronger plane but it won't fly the same. And the joy since i am a good pilot I can manage to fly it without crashing.
I have foam planes that I reinforce with CF, wood, fiberglass and Kevlar. I have balsa planes I have used various it on too. It works well in the right amount. I don't consider any of them crash proof.
So please don't call anyone a fool. It does not help you make your point.
There is also no such thing as an aircraft that can't be damaged in a crash.
Sure, eliminating things like a fuselage (eliminating the potential to fly a scale appearing model) reduces the number of parts available to be broken and distributes the stress differently such that there are many crashes the plane can survive.
I can get similar results, by selecting the types of impacts imposed, using coroplast to build a P-51 that will survive many impacts that might rip that silly looking flying wing apart.
I'd say this plane flies well. I'd say it crashes well. Obviously, crashproofing is not at the expense of flying ability, as the worn out old saw goes.
So the added weight of the 'crash proofiing' material had no impact whatsoever on it's flying performance? If not then i'd like to know how because the laws of physics tell us that weight has a large effect on flight.
No one said a 'crash-proofed' plane couldnt still fly 'well' but I still maintain that (if the crash-proofing is acomplished by adding extra material) that the plane will be heavier than it otherwise would be, so inevitably most aspects of it's flight performance will be to some extent compromised.
If that compromise is worth it is up to the individual. me, I'd say not because I dont crash much.
PS.. being rude doesnt really help get your point over
I do think using the phrase "crash proof" is a bad idea. As you see a lot of people choose to take it literally when it was obviously not meant to be. I'm sure they realize there is no such thing as crash proof, and technically, crash proof would mean it never crashes, not that it never gets damaged. They should call it damage resistant.
I think what they intended was like "shatter proof" glass. There is no such thing as shatter proof glass either, but it is very resistant to being shattered just as the crash proof technology is very resistant to damage from a crash.
I agree with DC here on the real intent of "crashproofing" from Killerplanes. The term is an over reach if taken literally and I suppose it resonates with many would be buyers who crash a lot. Basically marketing to get your attention.
Of course, "crashproofing" doesn't prevent crashes. However, I do believe it helps minimalize the damage to foam that occurs in a crash, mainly compression damage. The idea being that one can return to flying a "crash proofed plane" faster than one without these add-ons.
Yes, there's weight penalty trade off. Just like EPO vs. EPS. The survivability of EPO is much higher than EPS in crashes though clearly, EPO weighs more. Example: GWS Formosa I versus Formosa II. Which plane flies better?
Seems like adding some CF in the right places might assist in keeping the foam together better, but at the price of some lost performance. To many, especially beginners, that's a great trade off. To others, it make no sense at all.
I don't think that the Killerplanes "crashproofing" marketing campaign is directed towards good pilots or good modelers for that matter. It's directed more towards beginners frustrated by the constant "walk of shame" and those who do not like spending much time repairing.
The problem with strengthening or in this wording 'crashproofing' ..... is the tendency to transmit all the same forces of the crash further into the structure and actually make repairs more difficult - or in many cases harder to detect structural damage.
CF and it's faults example : My Edge 540 unclipped a wing in flight ... this snapped the CF spar that stiffens the wing to fuselage joint. I removed the fuselage part ... but the wing part ? It's glued in and only way to remove is to destroy the wing. Therefore only solution to this - glue the wings permanently instead of having the clip system. If it had been wood or even GRP spar - I could have drilled / ground it out ... CF ? no.
There must be a 'happy middle ground' ... strengthen but not stress ... strengthen but not add weight .... strengthen but not stiffen ...
Engineers have wrestled with this problem for millennia .... how to build in strength but allow the structure to survive and give.... to perform its allocated job without weight or structural penalties.
A Guillows model looks a fragile collection of spindly thin balsa ... but in reality - you'd be surprised at the strength of the complete structure. Add in extra stiffening / bit of CF or ply here and there and that same model can lead to failing more easily / quickly than the designed structure.
It has been pointed out that even CF planes would also be damaged to some degree. That said I would like to see some type of CF coating for foam planes. This coating would help protect foam parts exposed to wear with regular use. It has been my experiance that as a part gets more brital it fractures more. So a CF coating with some flexability would help lots.
Better (than CF) to coat with PET (soda bottle plastic) if your goal is to protect the surface of the foam. A CF shell would be brittle because of the nature of CF. There is no such thing as rubbery CF.
PET can accept a LOT of impact force and is very resistant to abrasion. Use the heat gun method to reform a bottle around a plug and you get one of the strongest, lightest cowls possible.
There you go again with really rank fallacy! Cut that malarkey out!
Do waterproof watches ever get wet?
Do shockproof watches ever experience shock?
Do waterproof tarps ever get wet?
Do heatproof gloves ever get hot?
OF COURSE THEY DO AND your argument about crashproof planes not supposed to be able to crash is pure lunacy! And of course you know it.
The fact is that foam planes can be made not just a little bit, not just moderately, but significantly better able to survive a crash with Killer Planes' crashproofing. That's a clearly demonstrated fact.
Jetplaneflyer, laws of physics be damned, your premise that somehow a plane must be a pig to be crash resistant is proved dead wrong by the videos. These planes fly magnificently! Chanting "strong planes fly lousy" is not only grammatically wrong it is totally disproved by the videos. These planes are clearly flying magnificently. So either crashproofing does not add the weight you claim it must or heavy planes do not fly like pigs. Either way, you are dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. You cannot repeat a fallacy enough times to keep these planes from flying.
Check out the 4' takeoff roll of the new 55" FMS Mustang they're selling now.
You may choose to buy or not buy any plane you choose. Going beyond that to mislead others into thinking that a plane which clearly flies great and is much more damage resistant, PLUS flies better due to more rigidity in the airframe is choosing to harm others by misrepresenting the truth.
Look at the videos. Go to their site and look at more videos. You will see horrendous crashes with minimal damage. You will see clear descriptions of what crashproofing does and what it does not do. You will not see overblown, undemonstrated claims. Use your eyes and ears to make up your own mind. You don't have to take the worthless advice of the naysayers.
Me? I chose a flying wing by Crashtesthobbies. It works even better than a crashproofed plane. But if you want to fly a Mustang, Killer Planes has a great one.