Stiffness & mass
Compare defined configurations at matched dimensions, loading and test conditions.
Development test results
Bending and flight-vibration comparisons help us evaluate the frame architecture and guide the next design iteration.
01 / Three-point bending
Global bending stiffness versus the conventional carbon-fiber frame in this comparison.
The test used matched span, dimensions and mass. Three runs were repeated on the same frame for each design.
Stiffness is the slope of the force–displacement response from a linear fit over 20–150 N. Approximate values are read from the supplied test chart. The three runs measure repeatability on one frame per design, not variability across three independent specimens. This is structural stiffness, not material strength or ultimate failure load.
| Design | Stiffness | Runs |
|---|---|---|
| CarbonForm frame | ~32.0 N/mm | 3 repeats |
| Conventional CF frame | ~9.1 N/mm | 3 repeats |
02 / Flight vibration
Lower raw gyro RMS than the CF-sheet baseline in the best of two CarbonForm flights.
Both CarbonForm flights recorded lower values than the single baseline flight in this dataset.
Raw gyro RMS over 30–800 Hz, normalized to a CF-sheet baseline of 100. CarbonForm flights measured 35.2 and 40.8. The headline uses the lower of the two values. This development comparison does not establish a guaranteed reduction across all aircraft, flight conditions or configurations.
The second CarbonForm flight measured 40.8, equivalent to a 59.2% reduction relative to this baseline.
Evaluate your configuration
Match the airframe to your electronics, payload and operating requirements, then agree on an evaluation plan.
Compare defined configurations at matched dimensions, loading and test conditions.
Evaluate the frame with the propulsion, control settings and payload of the target aircraft.
Define impact conditions and inspect the structure, interfaces and replacement workflow.
Contact us to discuss test data, frame configurations and an evaluation build.