Aluminum Frame Telescoping Camper with Alaskan Style Cabover Fold Up corners

[ckent323]

The Father of one of my high school buddies originally had a non-cabover Alaskan and I remember when he bought a new Cabover model. That was probably around 1968 - 1970. We were all really impressed with it and his Dad loved that camper and had it for many years and he did take it camping to Alaska on the old gravel highway at least once.

I have always liked the insulated telescoping design and fold up insulated hard side corners of the Alaskan cabover models.

However, they are heavy campers.

Now I am aware that there is a long running debate between wood and Aluminum camper frames and I am hoping not to reopen that issue here.

What I am curious about is why there are no (at least to my knowledge) Aluminum frame cabover campers that use the Alaskan style telescoping insulated hard side approach along with the insulated fold up corners. I saw a statement by Alaskan a couple of years ago that indicated they had no plans to switch to an Aluminum frame from wood.

The XP camper is the closest camper design I can think of to the Alaskan, but even the XP camper uses a soft side material around the front of the cabover portion. I am sure patent coverage for the Alaskan design expired a long time ago so I strongly suspect that is not the reason.

I have always thought an Aluminum Frame Alaskan style camper would be significantly lighter but perhaps that is not correct. My main interest is the (perceived) better insulation than present soft side pop-up campers and lighter weight than an Alaskan, if such a camper were made.

I must confess that I do favor Aluminum (or even composites) because I have seen a lot of older campers with rotted wood frames (for example my Dad has an old Scotsman hard side camper whose wood frame has rotted in several places). That written I realize that every product has a usable lifetime.

If anyone has insight into this I would like to read what you can share.


Regards,
Craig

 

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Craig, I’ve often wondered the same thing. My preference would be fiberglass shells, or composite if affordable.

I’m going to follow as well.

 

[klahanie]

I always figured Alaskan had the design patent locked down. Although how, after all these years, IDK. Can't think of another reason why it hasn't been copied.

I'd vote for composite, even if only the lower half. I like the Alaskan but wouldn't say no to more insulation in the cab over and lower body areas, and then there's the lack of air tightness in cold weather ...

 

[ntsqd]

I did a Design Study on steel vs. AL for a bicycle trailer that I eventually built while in college. Once I had the basic design laid out I modeled two versions of it, one idealized for steel tube and another for aluminum tube. I was surprised to learn that by the time I had the tube sizes and wall thickness' sorted to keep the stress under control that the AL frame would have weighed almost exactly what the steel frame would weigh, and would be 3X more expensive to buy the materials for.

I know that each case is likely different and the results of one study don't directly translate to another consideration, but I've been hesitant to just blindly jump to AL ever since.

Only pic that I have of the trailer:

The goal for it was 3 grocery bags worth of shopping, which meant that I didn't have to drive the 3 miles to the grocery store and back once a week. To a college budget that was significant.
I have greatly over-loaded it well past its design loading with a bunch of conical delineators and a lovely lass while setting up the Criterium in downtown Chico and it survived with no damage. (Yes, those are disc brakes on a single speed MTB, built in '97 before either was common).

One of the downsides that I see in an AL frame is the cold paths created by the studs. I have played around with various designs attempting to eliminate that "feature", but I've found nothing that easily solves the problem. See MarkBC's thermal imagery thread for more about this.

I think that foam core laminate would be a better fabrication method if the design can be made robust enough to withstand the erecting/collapsing method. Perhaps a 'C' channel AL perimeter frame for each of the folding panels?

 

[ckent323]

Some of the better insulating foams are about R7 per inch. Fiberglass Reinforced Panels (FRP) seem to be widely available but cost may be an issue. Some of the high end expedition trucks employ FRP in the camper body build.

https://totalcomposites.com/expedition-trucks-rvs/

I have seen DIY builds using FRP on Expedition Portal but with one exception being a telescoping design with hard sided tall cabover (no-fold up sides), they all seem to be hard sided not telescoping. The advantage of telescoping with fold up cab over corners is better insulation and higher strength with lower possibility of water leaks (referring to the FRP vs soft side of the pop-ups).

This build thread has some info on some composite panels

https://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/build-fiberglass-foam-truck-camper.205977/

 

[PackRat]

I think some of the attraction to the Alaskan design is the obvious low profile which cuts wind resistance and saves on gas and makes access into some areas where obstacles over head require a low profile. Alaskan owners are like those who covet the "canned ham" old trailers....they may sacrifice a turn-key newer camper/trailer for one needing a restoration that just has a "coolness quotient" to it.

With my old 60's NCO and my current 1976 Alaskan, they always attract other campers when the top is raised or lowered and at fuel stops an admiring customer will often ask questions about how we like it. Well....we like it a lot.

I'm not a long-haul camper so solar and freezers and the like are not needed by us. Just the basics...comfortable bed, clean, bug-free, stove, ice-box some storage and we are good to go.

Once you replace the Pirelli seals and seal things up, it's a pretty cool camper. Yes, it is "heavier" than other brands and if you have a light duty truck then go with them I guess, but if you start with a 3/4" ton with a 8' bed, a BIG power plant and maybe even an extended cab, you can haul that Alaskan like its not even there!

Its dependent on what you WANT guys; budget, accommodations and features on your "bucket list" and everything else.

Up to you, do your research, talk to and LISTEN to those owning an Alaskan and the other soft-sided pop-ups featured on WTW and make your decisions on what you need and what they offer....then go out and enjoy your camper whatever style you choose!

 

[roverjohn]

I'm in the process of designing a camper now. Before that I designed a hard side conversion of my StarCraft Starblazer. It really wasn't that big a deal and would have removed all the canvas. Problem was the StarCraft was pretty much junk and wasn't worth the effort.
If you are willing to raise the roof when closed an equal amount of the proposed hard wall thickness there are no issues at all other than raising your roof. The StarCraft had the typical rack and pinion device most campers use and that used the space I wanted to use to store the walls when folded. Not really an issue as I was willing to redesign the roof and lifting mech too.

At that point knowing the StarCraft was a POS I decided to scratch build.

I think people worry WAY to much about insulation. Truck campers have very small surface areas so air infiltration is much more important than the R value of your walls. Condensation at cold spots is another issue but since you need air to breathe anyway you'll carry most of the water away. Also, who cares about a little water if your camper isn't bothered by it? Boaters don't. Look at it this way. Let's say your camper is so well insulated that a 1500 btu furnace was big enough under all conditions. Where would you buy such a thing?

As far as Al vs steel Al is much easier to weld as the wall thickness is greater if you want to save weight and it's greatest advantage is it does not rust.

People say the want the latest and greatest but things they can't see like internal framing probably doesn't matter to most people. If it did no one would buy a wood framed camper unless they are planning on selling it in a year or two.

 

[Bigfoot Dave]

Over the years I have had 3 Alaskans and had to deal with water leakage/rotting on every on that I purchased. The two worst ones were opened up and rebuilt where needed. I really like the design/concept and have wondered about one built with aluminum and composites too.
Way back when I was a little kid my dad sold a line of trailers and campers called Rolite. They used a chain drive to a link setup for raising and lowering and solid walls that folded up. I like the simplicity of the hydraulics over that sysem but have wondered why others haven't picked up on the Rolite concept either.
If I was to custom build a camper around the Alaskan concept it would be with welded aluminum or composite construction. I think one could end up with a much better insulated lower half than the plywood only.
Great topic! Thanks, Bigfoot Dave Duluth, MN

 

[PackRat]

Interesting idea.....what is the R value of the aluminum skin and whatever amount of insulation you can cram in there for the lower section versus what I think is either 3/4" or 7/8" thick plywood with aluminum over it (except for the floor)?

For the upper, what is the difference in the weight between the rectangular aluminum frame, plus the insulation crammed in there and the aluminum skin vs the same set up using a wooden frame? Fully being aware that the aluminum frame will transfer COLD/moisture from the skin to the wood interior if the insulation design does not sandwich the outer skin from the aluminum frame completely, aluminum being a MUCH better conductor of heat and cold than a wood frame.

Granted, if you don't keep up with sealants and Pirelli seals on the wood frames, you will have a wood rot issue. However if you don't keep up with sealants and Pirelli seals on the aluminum framed top section, leaks will damage the wood interior so that should be a part of the issue here also.

MAINTENCE or the lack of it is always an issue in the end, isn't it?

 

[ntsqd]

Look up Pods8's camper build on this forum. The composite covered foam is the frame, and as I recall his is a clam-shell type pop-top. Excellent insulation and no cold paths there! Does take some thought to mount point loads so that they don't cause problems.

Metal frames are not the only way to get it done with a frame. If I had the skills of a boat builder I'd consider something like clear Fir for a frame. There is such a build on Expi like that. Was a few years ago so I don't know if that thread survived their server melt-down or whatever that was.

 

[ckent323]

I found his build on exp portal

It is along the lines of what I was thinking but too heavy! It is a beastly 3000 lbs wet!

Frame is Aluminum 1" square tubing with 1" thick foam sprayed in between then exterior covered with 1/8" Luan in turn covered by fiberglass. The interior is 1/8" luan plywood with Formica over it. I suspect use of FRP material would result in significant weight savings.


https://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/pop-up-and-pop-out-camper.22084/

 

[ntsqd]

I remember that thread, but it is not a build that I remembered being worth duplicating.

Found pods8's Expi thread, looks like the shell was FS & may still be:
https://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/pod-homebuilt-foam-core-fiberglass-skin-pop-up-camper-build-thread.58926/