Another Temple Plane

[Andre Bouchard]

Some more thoughts......

The Panacea is consistent with the current design trend: big fuselage and smaller wing area, both of which I think are very beneficial and make this type design superior to other designs having less fuselage side area and larger wing area.  My perspective on this comes from flying a Smaragd for the last 2-1/2 years.  I have not seen anyone fly these "newer" designs and not be improved by them.  The smaller wing area (i.e., generally higher wing loading than most designs) helps greatly with snaps, and the larger side area makes rolling maneuvers effortless.  Interestingly, the Smaragd has only 850 in2 projected wing area.  The side lift on the Smaragd is so much more than the previous generation designs that you tend to over do the rudder input at first; rudder needs to come in noticeably later.  Of course, it is not just side area that counts, it is the distribution of side area.

Designs like the Smaragd may not appeal to everyone as the design has a fair amount of drag due to its frontal area, and one needs to be conscience of this in order to avoid slowing down too much in certain maneuvers.  However, I find the drag profile of Smaragd-like designs helpful in controlling airspeed as you tend to control airspeed more by applying power (4-stroke being used here) than by reducing power as was the case for designs of just a few years ago.  For me this results in a more consistent performance across a range of weather conditions.

Regards,

Andre'


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ed Alt 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 7:18 PM
  Subject: Re: Another Temple Plane


  That screech on the Composite ARF models is their signature sound.  Since the aileron hinge line is on the top of the wing, a large opens up on the bottom of the wing when an aileron is raised a bunch, hence the screech.  Usually when the planes are assembled, guys trim back the plastic covers that are designed to seal that gap, because they add a fairly stuff resistance to movement as proved by the factory.

  Ed
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Mike East 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:36 PM
    Subject: Re: Another Temple Plane


    Seeing Todd fly both the Panacea and his new 35% Composite ARF was awe inspiring to say the very least. I still would like to know what that screech was that his plane made when he performed that last snap roll. He is the best pilot I have ever seen in person. Single roll rolling circle with a snap between each quarter,, sheesh!!! :)
    tony at radiosouthrc.com wrote: 
      Bob:

      Thanks for the post about my design.  You think some of the great flying quality MIGHT have something to do with the pilot??   <VBG>


      Tony Stillman
      Radio South
      3702 N. Pace Blvd.
      Pensacola, FL 32505
      1-800-962-7802
      www.radiosouthrc.com
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Bob Pastorello 
        To: NSRCA 
        Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:52 AM
        Subject: Another Temple Plane


        I had an opportunity to observe (and judge) Todd Blose's PAC "Panacea", designed by Tony Stillman.

        Even with so few flights on it, he looked very solid, and the plane presented very well. I was amazed at it's ability to stay put, and still have good penetration.  Looked great!

        It handled the P-05 Snaps, and all those Reversing Rolls with ease.  First one of these I've seen, and sure looks like it could be a real winner.

        BTW - the front end is so big, that if a person ran the OS 1.60 with wrap-around header, there would STILL not be any cutting required.  The fuse opening is large enough to put most other airplanes' canopies inside!!
            It was a surprise to see something this large and easy to see...yet fly so well in those conditions!

        Bob Pastorello
        rcaerobob at cox.net
        www.rcaerobats.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040528/5c523808/attachment.html