
Which is a better material for building our model airplanes, foam or balsa?
XPS Foam
Foam is a man-made product. There are no foam trees or foam mines to be found anywhere. So don’t bother looking.
There are many different types of foam. To say “foam” is like saying “wood” or “metal”. For a useful comparison, you need to be specific.
My favorite type, and the one that I’m going to compare to balsa, is called extruded polystyrene foam or XPS foam. Polystyrene is one of the most commonly used plastics and is made from petroleum.
Don’t confuse it with its close relative, expanded polystyrene (EPS). EPS is less expensive, but much weaker.
XPS is sold under many different names. Depron, Cellfoam 88, and Styrofoam are names you may have heard. Since it is a completely man-made product, it can be produced in an infinite variety of densities and strengths.
Balsa
Balsa wood is considered a hardwood not because of its strength but because of the type of tree that it grows in. In fact, balsa is the softest commercial hardwood.
95% of commercial balsa comes from Ecuador, most of it cultivated specifically for commercial production. The wood is so light because the green tree contains large quantities of water. After an extended kiln dying process of two weeks, the wood is ready to be used.
Balsa is about four times heavier than XPS foam. Most of the other woods that we use are about twice as heavy as balsa.
Stiffness
The modulus of elasticity of XPS is about the same as that of balsa. This is a measure of how much a material resists bending and twisting while still springing back to its original shape. In other words, how stiff is it?
Here’s another way of looking at it. A stiff material requires a high load to temporarily deform it. A strong material requires a high load to permanently deform it.
When the lighter weight (density) of XPS foam is taken into account, it handily wins the stiffness contest against balsa. XPS is about four times stiffer, by weight, than balsa. In fact, when its very low density is taken into account, XPS has great stiffness, better than most other model airplane building materials that we use. As we will see later, this is a key point.
Cost and Quality
Foam wins hands down when it comes to cost, availability, uniformity, and overall quality.
You can buy foam sheets in any size with almost any density/strength trade-off desired. It is relatively inexpensive and very consistent in quality. When you buy a piece of foam from a manufacturer, you can count on it being exactly the same as the last piece you bought from them. There is no time or money wasted sorting through and picking just the right piece to use for a given project.
On the other hand, no two pieces of balsa wood are exactly alike. It comes in a wide range of densities. It also has a grain that foam lacks. Taking the grain into consideration complicates designs. Compared to foam, balsa is relatively expensive and harder to find in local stores. The quality can be very hard to predict. It is common to buy a sheet of balsa that turns out to be unsuitable for the intended project.
Strength
The Achilles heel of foam is its strength. When it comes to both tension and compression, balsa is about fifty times stronger. Even after we take into account the much lighter weight of foam, balsa is still about ten times stronger than XPS foam when measured by weight.
Other Materials
When compared by unit weight, most woods are remarkably similar to each other. Their strength and stiffness is almost exactly the same. Of course, when it comes to low weight balsa is king.
If we include composite materials in our comparison, the hands-down winner for both strength and stiffness is carbon fiber. Foam and balsa do not even come close, even if we measure by weight. It is not cheap, though, and there are potential health issues.
Stiff Is Difficult
Foam has an interesting combination of properties. It is low in cost and very low in weight. It also has an excellent stiffness to weight ratio.
When looked at by weight, balsa has pretty ho-hum properties. Nothing special when compared to wood from other trees. The real value of balsa is a density in between foams and other woods.
But here’s the clincher: it is harder making a model airplane structure stiff enough than it is making it strong enough. Put another way, you are more likely to run into problems in a model airplane design from lack of stiffness than from lack of strength. For that reason alone, foam trumps balsa as a generally more useful model airplane building material.
The biggest challenge I faced in my ModiFly model airplane design was making the fuselage stiff enough. I have run into similar issues with other model airplane designs I have done. Lack of strength is much easier to fix.
Conclusion
Don’t get rid of your balsa pile just yet. Using wood to add strength to a critical part of a model airplane design will not be going out of style any time soon. With its unique properties, balsa will also continue to be with us for a long time.
I have designed model airplanes using every material in the model airplane designer’s toolbox. They all have a right place and time to be put into use. The key to being a good designer is knowing when those right times are, which only comes from experience and study.














I read your article (in fact, I posted a link to it on the show’s Facebook Fan Page) and found your data to be right on with my personal experience over the last 30 years.
First off, indeed XPS is about 25% the weight of balsa for any given volume, but the strength of balsa allows one to use engineered build methods that allow the builder to call upon that strength and use significantly less material in the build. For instance, my e-QSC wing is way lighter than a typical foam-built variant to fit the same bill (perhaps one of the KF variants might come close to the same full-symmetrical performance of my airfoil). Also, I will point out that my e-QSC wing is way over-built, as I use 1/8″ ribs instead of the typical 1/16″ ribs I would prefer using. I did this because I wanted the build to be easiest for a foamie builder crossing over to the balsa medium.
However, in defense of my “Balsa Flies Better” mantra (which was the context of my message), I would like to “poke some holes” in some of your conclusions.
Another thing that should be considered is that each of the two materials call upon completely different build methods. Balsa allows the user to implement iron-on coverings to gain even more strength (stressed-skin element). Trust me, I tried to call upon typical balsa build techniques and use iron-on coverings, but I could not get anywhere near the strength characteristics of balsa with those designs. You’re pretty much limited to solid slab sheets of foam with reinforcements of balsa or foam to give the design “shape” (i.e., ribs and bulkheads). True, you can create some nice wings with a few ribs and some slabs of foam wrapped around them, but historically, the performance in real-world strength is not as good as the balsa version (that’s been my experience, anyway). Since all glue-joints in the typical build method of foam is “surface” adhesion, rather than “penetrative” adhesion as with balsa, my foam experiences to save weight over balsa have always been less than fruitful.
Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE foam and how it’s made modeling much faster and easier, especially from a newb’s perspective. I use it quite often, in fact (I love to bang out new concepts on the old CNC machine that I may choose to refine in a balsa build down the road). However, there is a point where you simply must step away from it, regardless of how inexpensive or easy to work with it is. How many XPS 2 meter Pattern Aerobatic or IMAC planes do you see? For my personal taste, small planes, especially indoor projects, are almost always foam. However, once I want to step outdoors and fly something beyond a parkie, I haven’t found a foam design yet that I would invest my time on over a balsa plane. Keep in mind, though, that I and most of my fellow club members consider anything smaller than “40-sized” to be too tiny to fly in the winds we typically get here.
I think a good example of my conclusions is the Mini Intern I just finished up for this year’s build-along. The AUW in my version is was 7.3 oz and performance in a light wind (10-12 mph) is great! To build a 33 wingspan model out of foam that would fly in these conditions, on this equipment, and with this level of performance, would probably not be this strong in the air. I may have to see if I CAN design something like the Mini Intern out of foam that is NOT a flat-plate airfoil. Hmmm… I love a good challenge.
Anyway, like I said, I agree with the data in your article, and honestly, even your final thoughts on the matter – If you are citing modelers in the world of Parkies and Indoor planes. Once a modeler graduates to planes beyond the “little guys”, balsa (/ply) will certainly be king. I will always be dead-set on airfoils and balsa-based planes for anything beyond indoor and park environments.
Good stuff. I don’t disagree with any of it. In fact, I don’t think any of it disagrees with my article. I should have mentioned that as the model airplane gets bigger the need for strength (and wood) grows.
People email me all the time expecting to pick a fight with me, but the truth is that I usually agree with them. There are many different valid trade-offs that can be made in airplane design.
A lot of purist will say that balsa is far superior to foam but I think both material have their place.
Not many people know but there is a new foam that is sold exclusively for scratch building Model airplanes.
check it out at http://www.modelplanefoam.com
I have some and really like it!
Well said. Always pick the right material for the job.
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with the website.
I am not much of a fan for mail order foam – too expensive. But I am sure others will appreciate it.
Wood is still one of the best natural material know to mankind
I won’t argue with that. But it is not always the best material for building a model airplane.