<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am trying to decide which of my plane will be my
primary this year. I have an Alliance/140L/15x12W/25% and a
Hydeout/160FX/17x13/15%. Both are just under 10 lbs. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>After practicing a few weeks with the Hydeout
to start the season, I took the Alliance out also to see which one feels better
for me. I have now 30 flights with each one this year and I am still struggling
with the Alliance. I can't get nice straight lines (horizontal or
vertical), the rolls on 45 are not straight and the snaps aren't nice. When
I fly the Hydeout, everything is a lot better. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The CG of the Alliance is already moved aft of the
instructions but I still need a lot of elevator for inverted flight. I tried
more aft but it didn't fix it and I am now thinking about moving even more aft.
<FONT face=Arial size=2>The plane is very stable at low speed and the rudder as
a lot of authority. It easily loop in knife edge. The elevator and ailerons also
work very well. I tried a 15.5x13N and a 16x10 without improvement except for
better vertical with the 16x10.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Hydeout is more powerful and easily makes big
maneuvers. The roll rate going up or down looks very similar so I am assuming
that the speeds are similar too. The rolls on 45 are better.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I fly the P05 in approximately the same time
(around 8 min) with both airplanes but with some maneuvers bigger with the
Hydeout.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Could it be that I fly the Alliance too slow
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Should I move the CG more aft and how far back
could I move without trouble ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Any other ideas to help me taking the better
decision ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Xavier</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=akfai@gci.net href="mailto:akfai@gci.net">Andre Bouchard</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 29, 2004 2:07
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Another Temple Plane</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Some more thoughts......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Andre'</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>