Cuantic F3A monoplane from CA Models
#3
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
It’s amazing how thin the fuselage is when viewed from the tail...
Check the 3rd picture here ... it’s almost a 2m profile plane!
https://gator-rc.com/ca_model-cuantic
More info here
https://www.camodel-usa.com/cuantic.html
i guess it’s all about knife edge performance?
Check the 3rd picture here ... it’s almost a 2m profile plane!
https://gator-rc.com/ca_model-cuantic
More info here
https://www.camodel-usa.com/cuantic.html
i guess it’s all about knife edge performance?
Last edited by ltc; 12-11-2019 at 05:46 PM.
#4
My Feedback: (121)
Knife edge performance for sure, but also drag reduction since speed is so much easier to control in e-powered models, less drag should require fewer electrons during the flight providing a little more margin of battery life per flight. And when the wind starts blowing you might have max battery power available throughout the flight. Probably not a problem for top level pilots who will always have peak performance batteries available, but the more budget conscious trying to extend the lifespan of their packs might appreciate the reduction in drag.
#5
I too thought it was very thin overall till I actually studied the interior pix. Using the Pyro motor and battery tray as reference, it's clear that the thing is simply huge and the while the tail view image looks very trim and thin, the nose area is massive. Nothing wrong with this as it's probably very close to a proper airfoil shape overall so comments on reduced drag are correct. Probably do the whole pattern knife edge with the right pilot!
#6
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
Novice questions...
Wouldn't a plane with a large side profile fuselage area be more of a problem in crosswinds?
Wouldnt a plane like this be more susceptible to P factor and therefore be better off with a Contra rather than a standard single prop drive?
is there any other penalties to designs like this?
Wouldn't a plane with a large side profile fuselage area be more of a problem in crosswinds?
Wouldnt a plane like this be more susceptible to P factor and therefore be better off with a Contra rather than a standard single prop drive?
is there any other penalties to designs like this?
Last edited by ltc; 12-12-2019 at 05:15 AM.
#7
Novice questions...
Wouldn't a plane with a large side profile fuselage area be more of a problem in crosswinds?
Wouldnt a plane like this be more susceptible to P factor and therefore be better off with a Contra rather than a standard single prop drive?
is there any other penalties to designs like this?
Wouldn't a plane with a large side profile fuselage area be more of a problem in crosswinds?
Wouldnt a plane like this be more susceptible to P factor and therefore be better off with a Contra rather than a standard single prop drive?
is there any other penalties to designs like this?
#8
Crosswinds have to be an issue with such a design, regardless of the choice of drive. Perhaps any direction of strong wind with this much side area is going to present some difficulty during certain maneuvers so there are going to be trade-offs depending on pilot skill. May be a godsend to some and headache for others. Of course, I can often be wrong, LOL.
#9
My Feedback: (121)
Thanks for the CAModels link. The enormity of the fuselage is apparent in the photo of it standing on the nose in front of the gentleman from CAModels. The photo from the tail of the airplane which makes it look very 'skinny' is just a neat optical illusion!
My short answer to the crosswind question is: yes and no.
Yes, for those flying in the lower classes, but wind correction is always a bit more of a challenge for more inexperienced pattern pilots. I am not really in favor of the current F3a designs in the lower classes. They are big and relatively slow which makes them easier to see and implement corrections, but big and slow also makes them more susceptible to the vagaries of mother nature's air mass. I'm probably biased since I grew up in the ballistic pattern era with much faster models with far less fuselage profile, but I still think faster and 'skinnier' is easier to fly in windy conditions for the less experienced pilot.
No, for the F3A pilot the current designs have basically moved into full symmetry between fuselage side area and wing & stab area. As Big_G points out, a well proportioned fuselage should be fine. The Cuantic side area is very uniformly distributed across the entire length of the fuselage. Flying the F3A schedules has the airplane constantly changing attitude in all 3 axes and having the horizontal and vertical area be equal means wind effects stay pretty constant regardless of the position of the aircraft. You are still busy with all three control inputs!
I am a bit amused by the vestigial T-can; with a fuselage that large is it even needed aerodynamically?
My short answer to the crosswind question is: yes and no.
Yes, for those flying in the lower classes, but wind correction is always a bit more of a challenge for more inexperienced pattern pilots. I am not really in favor of the current F3a designs in the lower classes. They are big and relatively slow which makes them easier to see and implement corrections, but big and slow also makes them more susceptible to the vagaries of mother nature's air mass. I'm probably biased since I grew up in the ballistic pattern era with much faster models with far less fuselage profile, but I still think faster and 'skinnier' is easier to fly in windy conditions for the less experienced pilot.
No, for the F3A pilot the current designs have basically moved into full symmetry between fuselage side area and wing & stab area. As Big_G points out, a well proportioned fuselage should be fine. The Cuantic side area is very uniformly distributed across the entire length of the fuselage. Flying the F3A schedules has the airplane constantly changing attitude in all 3 axes and having the horizontal and vertical area be equal means wind effects stay pretty constant regardless of the position of the aircraft. You are still busy with all three control inputs!
I am a bit amused by the vestigial T-can; with a fuselage that large is it even needed aerodynamically?
The following users liked this post:
wattsup (12-29-2021)
#19