CatholicFlyer
Active member
interesting. that is some what a study. very interesting on how the adding the second motor made it slower.
Solved Designing My De Haviland Mosquito
- Thread starter CatholicFlyer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- de haviland mosquito
CatholicFlyer
Active member
ok found some photos, the wings of the Mosquito are called Piston Wings. here is the cock pit. Here are some sketches I did by holding my sketch paper up to the photos and tracing them. The rudder is a weird design. @Userofmuchtape&glue @Chuppster @Hai-Lee @DamoRC
I'm still searching to learn what Piston Wings are, if you know, please share.
I'm still searching to learn what Piston Wings are, if you know, please share.
Attachments
CatholicFlyer
Active member
"Design and manufacture
Overview
B Mk IV nose closeup showing bombsight and clear nose, plus engine nacelles and undercarriage.
While timber construction was considered outmoded by some, de Havilland claimed that their successes with techniques used for the DH 91 Albatross could lead to a fast light bomber using monocoque sandwich shell construction.[66] Arguments in favor of this included speed of prototyping, rapid development, minimisation of jig building time, and employment of a separate category of workforce. At the same time, they had to fight conservative Air Ministry views on defensive armament. Guns and gun turrets would spoil the streamlining, losing speed and manoeuvrability. The ply-balsa-ply monocoque fuselage and one-piece wings with doped fabric covering gave smooth aerodynamic performance and low weight, combined with strength and stiffness. Whilst submitting these arguments, Geoffrey de Havilland funded his private venture until the eleventh hour. It was a success beyond all expectations. The initial bomber and photo reconnaissance versions were extremely fast, whilst the armament of subsequent variants might be regarded as primarily offensive.
The most-produced variant, designated the FB Mk VI (Fighter-bomber Mark 6), was powered by two Merlin Mk 23 or Mk 25 engines driving three-bladed de Havilland hydromatic propellers. The typical fixed armament for an FB Mk VI was four Browning .303 machine guns and four 20 mm Hispano cannon while the offensive load consisted of up to 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of bombs, or eight RP-3 unguided rockets.[67]
Performance
The design was noted for light and effective control surfaces that provided good manoeuvrability but required that the rudder not be used aggressively at high speeds. Poor aileron control at low speeds when landing and taking off was also a problem for inexperienced crews.[68] For flying at low speeds, the flaps had to be set at 15°, speed reduced to 200 mph (320 km/h) and rpm set to 2,650. The speed could be reduced to an acceptable 150 mph (240 km/h) for low speed flying.[69] For cruising, the maximum speed for obtaining maximum range was 200 mph (320 km/h) at 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) weight.[69]
The Mosquito had a low stalling speed of 120 mph (190 km/h) with undercarriage and flaps raised. When both were lowered, the stalling speed decreased from 120 to 100 mph (190 to 160 km/h). Stall speed at normal approach angle and conditions was 100 to 110 mph (160 to 180 km/h). Warning of the stall was given by buffeting and would occur 12 mph (19 km/h) before stall was reached. The conditions and impact of the stall were not severe. The wing did not drop unless the control column was pulled back. The nose drooped gently and recovery was easy.[69]
Early on in the Mosquito's operational life, the intake shrouds that were to cool the exhausts on production aircraft overheated. Flame dampers prevented exhaust glow on night operations, but they had an effect on performance. Multiple ejector and open-ended exhaust stubs helped solve the problem and were used in the PR.VIII, B.IX and B.XVI variants. This increased speed performance in the B.IX alone by 10 to 13 mph (16 to 21 km/h).[9]
Fuselage
The oval-section fuselage was a frameless monocoque shell built in two vertically-separate halves formed over a mahogany or concrete mould.[nb 13] Pressure was applied with band clamps. The shell sandwich skins comprised birch three-ply outers, with cores of Ecuadorean balsa.[nb 14] In many generally smaller but vital areas, such as around apertures and attachment zones, stronger timbers, including aircraft-quality spruce, replaced the balsa core. The main areas of the sandwich skin were only 0.55 inches (14 mm) thick.[70] Together with various forms of wood reinforcement, often of laminated construction, the sandwich skin gave great stiffness and torsional resistance. The separate fuselage halves speeded construction, permitting access by personnel working in parallel with others, as the work progressed.[71]
Work on the separate half-fuselages included installation of control mechanisms and cabling. Screwed inserts into the inner skins that would be under stress in service were reinforced using round shear plates made from a fabric-Bakelite composite.[72]
Transverse bulkheads were also compositely built-up with several species of timber, plywood and balsa. Seven vertically-halved bulkheads were installed within each moulded fuselage shell before the main "boxing up" operation. Bulkhead number seven was especially strongly built, since it carried the fitments and transmitted the aerodynamic loadings for the tailplane and rudder.[73][nb 15] The fuselage had a large ventral section cut-out, strongly reinforced, that allowed the fuselage to be lowered onto the wing centre-section at a later stage of assembly.[75]
For early production aircraft, the structural assembly adhesive was Casein-based. At a later stage, this was replaced by "Aerolite", a synthetic urea-formaldehyde type, which was more durable.[76][nb 16] To provide for the edge joints for the fuselage halves, zones near the outer edges of the shells had their balsa sandwich cores replaced by much stronger inner laminations of birch plywood. For the bonding together of the two halves ("boxing up"), a longitudinal cut was machined into these edges. The profile of this cut was a form of V-groove. Part of the edge bonding process also included adding further longitudinal plywood lap-strips on the outside of the shells.[71][75] The half-bulkheads of each shell were bonded to their corresponding pair in a similar way. Two laminated wooden clamps were used in the after portion of the fuselage to provide supports during this complex gluing work. The resulting large structural components had to be kept completely still and held in the correct environment until the glue cured.[71][79]
For finishing, a covering of doped Madapolam (a fine plain woven cotton) fabric was stretched tightly over the shell and several coats of red, followed by silver dope were added, followed by the final camouflage paint.[80]
Wing
A preserved Mosquito at the U.S. Air Force Museum (former TT Mk 35 which was restored to B Mk XVI configuration).[81] Note the air and oil coolant radiators in the leading edge of the wing, intake for the two-stage Merlin's intercooler radiator behind the propeller blade, and the carburettor intake with ice guard behind and below.
American F-8 Mosquito nose; USAAF markings, PRU Blue finish at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
The all-wood wing pairs comprised a single structural unit throughout the wingspan, with no central longitudinal joint.[82] Instead, the spars ran from wingtip to wingtip. There was a single continuous main spar and another continuous rear spar. Because of the combination of dihedral with the forward sweep of the trailing edges of the wings, this rear spar was one of the most complex units to laminate and to finish machining after the bonding and curing. It had to produce the correct 3D tilt in each of two planes. Also it was designed and made to taper from the wing roots towards the wingtips. Both principal spars were of ply box construction, using in general 0.25 in. plywood webs with laminated spruce flanges, plus a number of additional reinforcements and special details.
Spruce and plywood ribs were connected with gusset joints. Some heavy-duty ribs contained pieces of ash and walnut as well as the special five ply that included veneers laid up at 45 degrees. The upper skin construction was in two layers of 0.25 in. five ply birch, separated by Douglas fir stringers running in the span-wise direction.[83]
The wings were covered with Madapolam fabric and doped in a similar manner to the fuselage. The wing was installed into the roots by means of four large attachment points.[84][85] The engine radiators were fitted in the inner wing, just outboard of the fuselage on either side. These gave less drag. The radiators themselves were split into three sections: an oil cooler section outboard, the middle section forming the coolant radiator and the inboard section serving the cabin heater.[86]
The wing contained metal framed and skinned ailerons, but the flaps were made of wood and were hydraulically controlled. The nacelles were mostly wood, although, for strength, the engine mounts were all metal as were the undercarriage parts.[87] Engine mounts of welded steel tube were added, along with simple landing gear oleos filled with rubber blocks. Wood was used to carry only in-plane loads, with metal fittings used for all triaxially loaded components such as landing gear, engine mounts, control surface mounting brackets, and the wing-to-fuselage junction.[88] The outer leading wing edge had to be brought 22 inches (56 cm) further forward to accommodate this design.[86] The main tail unit was all wood built. The control surfaces, the rudder and elevator, were aluminium framed and fabric covered.[87] The total weight of metal castings and forgings used in the aircraft was only 280 lb (130 kg).[89]
In November 1944, several crashes occurred in the Far East. At first, it was thought these were as a result of wing structure failures. The casein glue, it was said, cracked when exposed to extreme heat and/or monsoon conditions. This caused the upper surfaces to "lift" from the main spar. An investigating team led by Major Hereward de Havilland travelled to India and produced a report in early December 1944 stating that "the accidents were not caused by the deterioration of the glue but by shrinkage of the airframe during the wet monsoon season". [nb 17] However, a later inquiry by Cabot & Myers definitely attributed the accidents to faulty manufacture and this was confirmed by a further investigation team by the Ministry of Aircraft Production at Defford, which found faults in six Mosquito marks (all built at de Havilland's Hatfield and Leavesden plants). The defects were similar, and none of the aircraft had been exposed to monsoon conditions or termite attack.
The investigators concluded that there were construction defects at the two plants. They found that the "...standard of glueing...left much to be desired.”[91][92] Records at the time showed that accidents caused by "loss of control" were three times more frequent on Mosquitos than on any other type of aircraft. The Air Ministry forestalled any loss of confidence in the Mosquito by holding to Major de Havilland's initial investigation in India that the accidents were caused "largely by climate"[93] To solve the problem of seepage into the interior a strip of plywood was set along the span of the wing to seal the entire length of the skin joint.[91]"
Overview
B Mk IV nose closeup showing bombsight and clear nose, plus engine nacelles and undercarriage.
While timber construction was considered outmoded by some, de Havilland claimed that their successes with techniques used for the DH 91 Albatross could lead to a fast light bomber using monocoque sandwich shell construction.[66] Arguments in favor of this included speed of prototyping, rapid development, minimisation of jig building time, and employment of a separate category of workforce. At the same time, they had to fight conservative Air Ministry views on defensive armament. Guns and gun turrets would spoil the streamlining, losing speed and manoeuvrability. The ply-balsa-ply monocoque fuselage and one-piece wings with doped fabric covering gave smooth aerodynamic performance and low weight, combined with strength and stiffness. Whilst submitting these arguments, Geoffrey de Havilland funded his private venture until the eleventh hour. It was a success beyond all expectations. The initial bomber and photo reconnaissance versions were extremely fast, whilst the armament of subsequent variants might be regarded as primarily offensive.
The most-produced variant, designated the FB Mk VI (Fighter-bomber Mark 6), was powered by two Merlin Mk 23 or Mk 25 engines driving three-bladed de Havilland hydromatic propellers. The typical fixed armament for an FB Mk VI was four Browning .303 machine guns and four 20 mm Hispano cannon while the offensive load consisted of up to 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of bombs, or eight RP-3 unguided rockets.[67]
Performance
The design was noted for light and effective control surfaces that provided good manoeuvrability but required that the rudder not be used aggressively at high speeds. Poor aileron control at low speeds when landing and taking off was also a problem for inexperienced crews.[68] For flying at low speeds, the flaps had to be set at 15°, speed reduced to 200 mph (320 km/h) and rpm set to 2,650. The speed could be reduced to an acceptable 150 mph (240 km/h) for low speed flying.[69] For cruising, the maximum speed for obtaining maximum range was 200 mph (320 km/h) at 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) weight.[69]
The Mosquito had a low stalling speed of 120 mph (190 km/h) with undercarriage and flaps raised. When both were lowered, the stalling speed decreased from 120 to 100 mph (190 to 160 km/h). Stall speed at normal approach angle and conditions was 100 to 110 mph (160 to 180 km/h). Warning of the stall was given by buffeting and would occur 12 mph (19 km/h) before stall was reached. The conditions and impact of the stall were not severe. The wing did not drop unless the control column was pulled back. The nose drooped gently and recovery was easy.[69]
Early on in the Mosquito's operational life, the intake shrouds that were to cool the exhausts on production aircraft overheated. Flame dampers prevented exhaust glow on night operations, but they had an effect on performance. Multiple ejector and open-ended exhaust stubs helped solve the problem and were used in the PR.VIII, B.IX and B.XVI variants. This increased speed performance in the B.IX alone by 10 to 13 mph (16 to 21 km/h).[9]
Fuselage
The oval-section fuselage was a frameless monocoque shell built in two vertically-separate halves formed over a mahogany or concrete mould.[nb 13] Pressure was applied with band clamps. The shell sandwich skins comprised birch three-ply outers, with cores of Ecuadorean balsa.[nb 14] In many generally smaller but vital areas, such as around apertures and attachment zones, stronger timbers, including aircraft-quality spruce, replaced the balsa core. The main areas of the sandwich skin were only 0.55 inches (14 mm) thick.[70] Together with various forms of wood reinforcement, often of laminated construction, the sandwich skin gave great stiffness and torsional resistance. The separate fuselage halves speeded construction, permitting access by personnel working in parallel with others, as the work progressed.[71]
Work on the separate half-fuselages included installation of control mechanisms and cabling. Screwed inserts into the inner skins that would be under stress in service were reinforced using round shear plates made from a fabric-Bakelite composite.[72]
Transverse bulkheads were also compositely built-up with several species of timber, plywood and balsa. Seven vertically-halved bulkheads were installed within each moulded fuselage shell before the main "boxing up" operation. Bulkhead number seven was especially strongly built, since it carried the fitments and transmitted the aerodynamic loadings for the tailplane and rudder.[73][nb 15] The fuselage had a large ventral section cut-out, strongly reinforced, that allowed the fuselage to be lowered onto the wing centre-section at a later stage of assembly.[75]
For early production aircraft, the structural assembly adhesive was Casein-based. At a later stage, this was replaced by "Aerolite", a synthetic urea-formaldehyde type, which was more durable.[76][nb 16] To provide for the edge joints for the fuselage halves, zones near the outer edges of the shells had their balsa sandwich cores replaced by much stronger inner laminations of birch plywood. For the bonding together of the two halves ("boxing up"), a longitudinal cut was machined into these edges. The profile of this cut was a form of V-groove. Part of the edge bonding process also included adding further longitudinal plywood lap-strips on the outside of the shells.[71][75] The half-bulkheads of each shell were bonded to their corresponding pair in a similar way. Two laminated wooden clamps were used in the after portion of the fuselage to provide supports during this complex gluing work. The resulting large structural components had to be kept completely still and held in the correct environment until the glue cured.[71][79]
For finishing, a covering of doped Madapolam (a fine plain woven cotton) fabric was stretched tightly over the shell and several coats of red, followed by silver dope were added, followed by the final camouflage paint.[80]
Wing
A preserved Mosquito at the U.S. Air Force Museum (former TT Mk 35 which was restored to B Mk XVI configuration).[81] Note the air and oil coolant radiators in the leading edge of the wing, intake for the two-stage Merlin's intercooler radiator behind the propeller blade, and the carburettor intake with ice guard behind and below.
American F-8 Mosquito nose; USAAF markings, PRU Blue finish at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
The all-wood wing pairs comprised a single structural unit throughout the wingspan, with no central longitudinal joint.[82] Instead, the spars ran from wingtip to wingtip. There was a single continuous main spar and another continuous rear spar. Because of the combination of dihedral with the forward sweep of the trailing edges of the wings, this rear spar was one of the most complex units to laminate and to finish machining after the bonding and curing. It had to produce the correct 3D tilt in each of two planes. Also it was designed and made to taper from the wing roots towards the wingtips. Both principal spars were of ply box construction, using in general 0.25 in. plywood webs with laminated spruce flanges, plus a number of additional reinforcements and special details.
Spruce and plywood ribs were connected with gusset joints. Some heavy-duty ribs contained pieces of ash and walnut as well as the special five ply that included veneers laid up at 45 degrees. The upper skin construction was in two layers of 0.25 in. five ply birch, separated by Douglas fir stringers running in the span-wise direction.[83]
The wings were covered with Madapolam fabric and doped in a similar manner to the fuselage. The wing was installed into the roots by means of four large attachment points.[84][85] The engine radiators were fitted in the inner wing, just outboard of the fuselage on either side. These gave less drag. The radiators themselves were split into three sections: an oil cooler section outboard, the middle section forming the coolant radiator and the inboard section serving the cabin heater.[86]
The wing contained metal framed and skinned ailerons, but the flaps were made of wood and were hydraulically controlled. The nacelles were mostly wood, although, for strength, the engine mounts were all metal as were the undercarriage parts.[87] Engine mounts of welded steel tube were added, along with simple landing gear oleos filled with rubber blocks. Wood was used to carry only in-plane loads, with metal fittings used for all triaxially loaded components such as landing gear, engine mounts, control surface mounting brackets, and the wing-to-fuselage junction.[88] The outer leading wing edge had to be brought 22 inches (56 cm) further forward to accommodate this design.[86] The main tail unit was all wood built. The control surfaces, the rudder and elevator, were aluminium framed and fabric covered.[87] The total weight of metal castings and forgings used in the aircraft was only 280 lb (130 kg).[89]
In November 1944, several crashes occurred in the Far East. At first, it was thought these were as a result of wing structure failures. The casein glue, it was said, cracked when exposed to extreme heat and/or monsoon conditions. This caused the upper surfaces to "lift" from the main spar. An investigating team led by Major Hereward de Havilland travelled to India and produced a report in early December 1944 stating that "the accidents were not caused by the deterioration of the glue but by shrinkage of the airframe during the wet monsoon season". [nb 17] However, a later inquiry by Cabot & Myers definitely attributed the accidents to faulty manufacture and this was confirmed by a further investigation team by the Ministry of Aircraft Production at Defford, which found faults in six Mosquito marks (all built at de Havilland's Hatfield and Leavesden plants). The defects were similar, and none of the aircraft had been exposed to monsoon conditions or termite attack.
The investigators concluded that there were construction defects at the two plants. They found that the "...standard of glueing...left much to be desired.”[91][92] Records at the time showed that accidents caused by "loss of control" were three times more frequent on Mosquitos than on any other type of aircraft. The Air Ministry forestalled any loss of confidence in the Mosquito by holding to Major de Havilland's initial investigation in India that the accidents were caused "largely by climate"[93] To solve the problem of seepage into the interior a strip of plywood was set along the span of the wing to seal the entire length of the skin joint.[91]"
CatholicFlyer
Active member
okay, here is the info on how the Mosquito was built, will be following this on how to build it. Especially this "The all-wood wing pairs comprised a single structural unit throughout the wingspan, with no central longitudinal joint.[82] Instead, the spars ran from wingtip to wingtip. There was a single continuous main spar and another continuous rear spar. Because of the combination of dihedral with the forward sweep of the trailing edges of the wings, this rear spar was one of the most complex units to laminate and to finish machining after the bonding and curing. It had to produce the correct 3D tilt in each of two planes. Also it was designed and made to taper from the wing roots towards the wingtips. Both principal spars were of ply box construction, using in general 0.25 in. plywood webs with laminated spruce flanges, plus a number of additional reinforcements and special details.
Spruce and plywood ribs were connected with gusset joints. Some heavy-duty ribs contained pieces of ash and walnut as well as the special five ply that included veneers laid up at 45 degrees. The upper skin construction was in two layers of 0.25 in. five ply birch, separated by Douglas fir stringers running in the span-wise direction.[83] The wing was installed into the roots by means of four large attachment points."
Spruce and plywood ribs were connected with gusset joints. Some heavy-duty ribs contained pieces of ash and walnut as well as the special five ply that included veneers laid up at 45 degrees. The upper skin construction was in two layers of 0.25 in. five ply birch, separated by Douglas fir stringers running in the span-wise direction.[83] The wing was installed into the roots by means of four large attachment points."
CatholicFlyer
Active member
did some more drawing up on the wings and notes on the sketch pad, please take a look.
Attachments
CatholicFlyer
Active member
Chuppster
Well-known member
I find it difficult to read the design from pictures. Do you have a scanner available to you?
It does appear you are thinking of putting your battery in the wing. Might I suggest moving it to the fuselage? That will allow you to use the battery as ballast so that you could set your CG more easily.
If your wings are drawn to scale you would do well to increase the size of your ailerons.
OK. Reading through this I'm pretty sure like others mentioned that you're not actually talking about shrouding or ducting props on a Mosquito. So here is where I'd suggest you start with your skeeter build. Take a look at this THIS thread over on RC groups. I've been following that build for a few years. If you browse through the attachments on that thread (or just click HERE) you will find some PDF files shared by the builder with detailed drawings, three views, and pretty much everything you'd need to recreate his build. Granted, his is a balsa build, but the drawings should go a long way to helping you start your foamboard design.
Good luck!
Good luck!
CatholicFlyer
Active member
yep. will try to scan it. will do on moving the battery into the fuselage. and will increase the ailerons.
CatholicFlyer
Active member
yep, got talked out of and shown why a prop edf wouldn't be good. so back to the traditional mossie, well I am planning on using foam board, but some of the same traditional wood used to make the plane as well. Only thing I can find that was used was "brass screws", but doesn't say what size or length or kind of screw. My guess a screw used in wood making, going to use gorrilla hot glue sticks as well. So my wings will be five feet long, 3 feet wide, fuseloge will be 10 feet by 3 feet. Keeping to the build design, so I will have to learn how to steam wood and make it workable. Thanks for the link for the plans, will be reading them.
CatholicFlyer
Active member
@Chuppster umm, help me to understand this math on the De Haviland Mosquito Wing Section please. So I can use it to make sure the wings are proper. thanks.
CatholicFlyer
Active member
Got me another Flysky 6 channel transmitter and receiver for this.
Chuppster
Well-known member
Well, I'm afraid I don't know enough about aerodynamics to be able to teach it to someone. I can kind of understand what they are talking about but not enough to really grasp it myself.
Be careful with using "Traditional Wood." It can get heavy quick, and you don't want that.
Not sure what you're talking about here, but screws are heavy. We typically build with glue and only use screws for things that need to be removable.
Buddy, that is a massive build. The motors we talked about earlier won't be able to power it. You may have trouble finding electric motors that can power it, and event then we are talking about moving the cost of the build to around a thousand of dollars. I highly suggest you consider putting this on the back burner until you get really good at building more "normal" sized RC airplanes, stuff in the 20"-60" wingspan/fuselage length range. Maybe try three FT builds and then start this design? Since this is a twin warbird, master the SE5, then build one of the 40" warbirds (Spitfire, Mustang, or MIG 3), then do the Sea Duck. The reason I recommend this is so that you can begin to understand what needs to be strong on an airplane and how light it needs to be to fly well. We are fighting gravity after all.
For the motors I suggested (PropDrive 3542) I'd hesitate to make the build with more than an 80" wingspan (3' 4" / wing). Remember, as your wingspan increases linearly (adding one inch, say from 40" to 41", yields a difference of 2.5%) your weight and cross-sectional area (amount of drag the airplane has to fight) increases exponentially (adding 1 inch takes you from 40*40*40 (64000) to 41*41*41 (68921), an increase of 8%)! This is a crude way of looking at it, but I hope you get my point.
The airplane I have the PropDrive on that goes 120mph weighs about 40oz and has a VERY slim 47" wing. So, if you want speed, you'll need to keep your target weight down (I'd say less than 110oz) and your wing profile as slim as you can.
Chuppster
Well-known member
If you have a transmitter you can just buy another receiver and bind the receiver to the transmitter. The transmitter supports 20+ models.
CatholicFlyer
Active member
yeah, thanks for pointing that out, will put this on the back burner and work on the easy builds and then work up as you say. I was just thinking on keeping the look, so I need to keep the entire plane wing at 37 inches or 3 feet and 1 inch, also to keep the entire length that size. which is still a good size , should show the uniqueness of the mosquito. Oh, I didn't know that about the transmitter.
Chuppster
Well-known member
If it's not too late I'd cancel my order for the transmitter. I can help you find a receiver if you're having trouble.
Agree with @Chuppster . Starting off in the 40 inch range for your builds is probably a good place to be in terms of being reasonable in size, easily supported by foamboard and flite test build techniques, reasonable weight, and works well with common electronics like a C-pack. I would also suggest always starting with a three view of your desired plane to map out how you want to design it. For example a 5 x 3 rectangular wing probably would not help make the plane "Mossie-like". Here's a quick and dirty Mossie three view scaled to a 40 inch wingspan.
So the wing will be about 9 1/2 inch chord (wide) at the root, 2 1/2 inches chord at the tip, 30 1/2 inches long and is almost 5 inches high from the top of the cockpit to the belly. It's also about 3 inches wide at this point which is a good size for getting your batteries and electronics in there.
DamoRC
CatholicFlyer
Active member
Thank you.
CatholicFlyer
Active member
Okay, was speaking with my dad and he said I could return to some old product my uncles used when making the early version RC Planes, something called monaco heat shrink plastic with foam board, be light. I can't find the plastic stuff. does anyone know if they still make it. @Chuppster
CarolineTyler
Legendary member
Most likely referring to Monokote film
