Nylon or Metal wing bolts?

[Pilot Ben 28]

Wanted some opinions on this, as it's something I've always questioned. Now, I get the big M6 nylon wing bolts on a trainer, the idea being that in a low speed crash the wing falls off, minimising damage. On a u/c I get it as well as during a hard landing they will snap off saving the underside of the model being ripped out.

The reason I ask is that I have a weston mini hype, a very fragile plane, and one that I feel even a hard landing will mess up! To give you an idea the u/c is held on by 2 servo screws and the fuselage walls around the canopy are made up of one inch wide 3mm ply. I don't see much practical use for the bolts in a crash with that plane and more to the point, it's a 3D model, and I've ventured up to high rates and I've seen what it can do for a "baby" 3D model!

I find that I'm always conscious of the fact that when I'm doing a manoeuvre such as a blender (of sorts) or a tight flat spin, the whole wing is held on by an M4 nylon bolt? I'm thinking of putting a metal bolt on, but is this a wise idea?

B  

[Bravedan 106]

Too many variables for a simple blanket answer.

If the u/c is good piano wire with impact absorbing non-bouncing wheels/tyres, rigid bolting with no shear is valid. If its a super rigid aluminium or carbon composition something has to give in the event of an over hard landing.

Have seen people fit such small nylon bolts that the u/c falls off prematurely nearly every time, even where it then rotates and damages the wing. Yet they just replace and carry on to do it again.

However, it has to be said that too many "pilots" never learn to land properly, too many resist ever practising touch and goes, and even avoid attempting landing at all till on the very last dregs of fuel/battery so they are forced into arrivals.  Too many decide to land, get it slightly wrong, and force it down rather than go around. Under those circumstances it matters not what is holding the gear on as its only affecting where the damage will be rather than preventing it.

Many ARTF are castigated as having inadequate u/c. Mostly, these people should look in the mirror before launching a tirade of abuse and modifications..

Wonder why Weston called it the "Hype", Eh?..................... failed to look in the dictionary?

Slightly off topic but a Heli model I have came under great criticism for having poorly made/designed weak components. One guy in particular moaning bitterly on and on that the tail rotor and main gear were totally inadequate.

Asked the direct question, he said he'd replaced over 30 tail blade sets and nearly as many main gears.

THIS IS ON A MODEL WITH PRESS BUTTON "PANIC RECOVERY" for heavens sake......................

He fitted an after market stronger gear - now of course damage moved to a harder to replace and more expensive component, ripping the head apart in a blade strike.

I'm still on the original tail blades after 18 months plus and have replaced one std main gear due a blade strike which was MY FAULT. And of course it saved the head as intended.

 

Well, you asked............................