Cuantic F3A monoplane from CA Models
 

Just saw this on their site ... very unusual looking fuselage profile, sort of reminds me of Pandora from WC
No affiliation ...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ad1e4718c3.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...f139cf9f61.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...a2a730d15b.jpg

Also Alex Voicu's Vortex - huge fuselage profile with minimal additional aerodynamic gadgetry (small T-Can and SFGs).

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?

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.

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!

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?

Man, I would love to slap my Contra in that. Looks like this shape will be the new thing. Don't really see a cross-wind problem, as long as the aircraft is properly proportioned.

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.

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?

I wonder if they will make a biplane version of this in the future? Sort of like their Zonda (mono) and Andes (biplane).

As the amount of side area increases, the distribution of side becomes more critical to avoid yaw wiggle in turbulence. The affects of CG on yaw also become more pronounced.

Yes its real. I just seen pictures. It's amazing. My face book pattern page I run is awesome. He finished it a few days ago. Called the Quark

Can you post a link to the photos?
thanks

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...110fcdea72.jpg
I have Zonda and built and flown an Epic that we gave to Dave Patrick I can only imagine how nice these next generation planes fly

I really like the looks of the biplane version compared to the monoplane version. I also like the color scheme, but I'd like to see the bottom.
Hopefully Mike at F3AUnlimited will be importing this plane once it is released.
Thank you for posting the pictures

PM me if you want to come to my Facebook pattern group. All the greats are on it. If you don't have FB, it's the only reason some people signed up for it

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...454137c812.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...e6e5fa0c32.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...dce7b222e1.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...40933aaae5.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...de46a8ac09.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...91f256e3ec.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...c649c84a17.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...fc28aae0f3.jpg

Beautiful plane
Could you possibly post a picture of the bottom of the plane/wings ?

Don´t have. Theese pictures were posted by Mariano Gostanian on facebook.

OK, thank you
I did get an email back from CAModels. The Quark is still a prototype and in development. Hopefully things go well and it becomes available for sale thru CAModels.