Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 Send TopicPrint
Normal Topic Fuselage Box vs Keel (Read 1314 times)
bigrip74
Administrator
*****
Offline


What did l do this time!

Posts: 6486
Location: Austin, Texas
Joined: Jan 14th, 2013
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #9 - Jan 4th, 2019 at 8:48pm
Print Post  
Mike, what adhesive are you using? Those former's and cross members look glue free.

Bob
  

IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT!
Back to top
IP Logged
 
staubkorb
5 Star Member
*****
Offline


Stick & Tissue

Posts: 1344
Location: Germany
Joined: Oct 22nd, 2008
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #8 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 9:12am
Print Post  
Another thing to keep in mind is to make sure that the same edge of the material is in the same plane as the other stringers.  A sheet of "A" grain balsa has "C" grain on the thin edge - different bending characteristics.
  

WWWoFF
Wonderful Wacky World of Free Flight
(with a bit of rc thrown in for giggles)

Comparing Spammers to a pile of organic waste is an insult to the organic waste!
Back to top
IP Logged
 
alfakilo
Global Moderator
****
Offline


Retired USAF and TWA.

Posts: 1226
Location: St Louis, MO
Joined: Jan 18th, 2018
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #7 - Oct 18th, 2018 at 8:00pm
Print Post  
Good idea! Never thought of that but it makes sense!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
pb_guy
5 Star Member
*****
Offline


So I'm just a kid at heart.

Posts: 1752
Location: Youbou, BC, Vancouver Island
Joined: Oct 15th, 2014
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #6 - Oct 18th, 2018 at 4:42pm
Print Post  
One way to make 'banana' fuselages less likely is to strip your stringers/longerons from a sheet of balsa and keep the ends identified. Use the same length and orientation from separate strips that are adjoining. It is more likely that they have the same density and bending characteristics this way.
ian
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
alfakilo
Global Moderator
****
Offline


Retired USAF and TWA.

Posts: 1226
Location: St Louis, MO
Joined: Jan 18th, 2018
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #5 - Oct 18th, 2018 at 3:45pm
Print Post  
Excellent info! Thanks everyone for your input. One of these days I'll have to try the box method again now that I've reacquired a taste for bananas!!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MKelly
5 Star Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1060
Location: Helotes, TX
Joined: Apr 11th, 2017
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #4 - Oct 16th, 2018 at 9:50am
Print Post  
pb_guy wrote on Oct 15th, 2018 at 11:10pm:
One advantage of the box structure is that it can be lighter if you use lighter wood for the formers, since all the strength is built into the box. With the 'keel' method, you seem to use heavier formers than are really necessary for strength to keep from breaking them while adding stringers.
YMMV
ian


I've been trying to put my thoughts together on this question and I think Ian captured a good bit of them in his post above.  The T-28 has the former-on-box fuselage construction, and I really like the way it came out.  The box lets you keep the fuselage interior open all the way to the corners, which gives room for lots of wound-up rubber from a long motor without getting things hung up on structure.  The former segments can all have the grain long-wise, which makes the fuselage much more crush-resistant (and as Ian said I think you can use much thinner and lighter wood for the formers).  I also think the combination of the inner box and outer stringers makes each quadrant of the fuselage something of a box beam, more rigid than curved stringers over half-shell formers.

However, the box fuselage requires more thought during design and more steps during construction.  The designer and builder have to be very careful to get the box accurately sized or the formers won't come together properly at the corners, and if the builder likes to use glue liberally it may come out heavier than a half-shell fuselage because you've got more and longer glue joints.

I've got a couple of aircraft in the back of my mind for design-build candidates, and based on how the T-28 went together I'm leaning towards box-former construction for them.  That said, there are a lot of plans and kits on my bucket list that use half-shell construction...

Mike
  

( 344 KB | 33 Downloads )
0510_Former_Installation_5_-_First_and_Last_LR.JPG
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
New Builder
5 Star Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1344
Location: Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada
Joined: Dec 25th, 2016
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #3 - Oct 16th, 2018 at 7:42am
Print Post  
My thought is that the keel and former method is useful with several aircraft designs, mostly the WWII stuff and the air racers with round or nearly round fuselages. I built a fixture to accommodate these barrel shaped fuselages and it works very well to hold the fuselage in place while adding the stringers. Not all the stringers can be added as the crossing members used for clamping blocks for the formers are in the way but the last few stringers can be added after the fuselage is out of the fixture. The other benefit is the reduction in parts. The entire box is now gone and all the parts that were to be added are now collected into their respective units and in place at the same time. As to weight, I build from plans and strip my own wood so can choose what I want for the keel and formers. On the other side, the box does add a measure of strength and torsion resistance. With careful selection of wood either could come out about the same weight.
Mike
  

"Skill comes by the constant repetition of familiar feats rather than by a few overbold attempts for which the performer is yet poorly prepared." Wilbur Wright
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
pb_guy
5 Star Member
*****
Offline


So I'm just a kid at heart.

Posts: 1752
Location: Youbou, BC, Vancouver Island
Joined: Oct 15th, 2014
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #2 - Oct 15th, 2018 at 11:10pm
Print Post  
There is nothing that prevents building a basic box structure and then adding formers to create the body shape. That is the way a lot of Joe Ott's models were done - using the 'Ott-O-Matic' formers.
The main advantage of the keel and former method is that it builds the fuselage in one step instead of two.
One advantage of the box structure is that it can be lighter if you use lighter wood for the formers, since all the strength is built into the box. With the 'keel' method, you seem to use heavier formers than are really necessary for strength to keep from breaking them while adding stringers.
YMMV
ian
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sky9pilot
Administrator
*****
Offline


Stick & Tissue

Posts: 12002
Location: Kelso, WA 98626 USA
Joined: Jan 9th, 2010
Re: Fuselage Box vs Keel
Reply #1 - Oct 15th, 2018 at 6:15pm
Print Post  
As far as I've been able to tell, it boils down to one's preference in building or designing.  How about it fellow modelers/designers?
  

If God is your Co-pilot...switch seats...
Your attitude will determine your altitude!- John Maxwell
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Jn 8:32
Back to top
IP Logged
 
alfakilo
Global Moderator
****
Offline


Retired USAF and TWA.

Posts: 1226
Location: St Louis, MO
Joined: Jan 18th, 2018
Fuselage Box vs Keel
Oct 15th, 2018 at 4:59pm
Print Post  
Is there an advantage (structural or otherwise) to using the box building method rather than a keel/former method?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send TopicPrint