Pandora (oz1539)

About this Plan

Pandora. Wakefield contest model. Free flight rubber. From Aeromodeller April 1960.

Quote: "THE first Pandora was completed on the evening before the first Team Selection Trials in 1958. It was trimmed in the early morning before the contest and recorded 13:45 to place 8th. Same model recorded 10:38 in the 2nd in Trials of that year and this gave a final position of 12th in the Team Selection list. About this time another version was built. This incorporated several modifications, ie longer motor tube, a thicker fin and some structural mods. This version was left to age until March '59 before being trimmed out.

About this time the two designs were extensively tested in evening conditions on identical motors. On this showing the revised version was putting up time of 15 and 20 sec per flight improvement on the prototype. The prototype was flown in the '59 Gutteridge Trophy (very rough conditions) to top event with 13:04. This same model was also flown in the 2nd Eliminator to score 10:36 using old motors. At the 1st Centralised Trials the five flight total was 13:02. At the 2nd trials this same model scored 14:36 to place 2nd overall, so gaining a team place. It also placed 2nd in the Muxlow Memorial 1959 with a five flight total of 13:00

Design requirements:

(1) Consistency, (2) Durability. (3) Ease of Packing. This called for stability; a good power/prop combina-tion coupled with a good glide performance. Stability was to be achieved by (a) Lightweight flying surfaces. (b) Generous dihedral.

It can be generally accepted that the most important part of a 'Wake' or for that matter any rubber powered model, is the quality of rubber and the actual shape, pitch, diameter etc., i.e. design of prop. Since many successful Wakes had employed the NACA 6409 this section was selected for the wing coupled with a moderately thick Clark Y section on the tailplane.

This set-up, with CG at 75 per cent, gave an outstanding glide performance, particularly in rough conditions. It was decided to break the design down into as many separate parts as was practical. A two piece strut braced wing was adopted. This type of wing fixing has downward deflection (from the root) but no upward deflection. Since a fuselage was required to withstand motor breakage a two piece fuselage was desirable, these halves being detachable from each other..."

Update 21/12/2016: added article, thanks to RFJ.

Supplementary file notes

Article.

Corrections?

Did we get something wrong with these details about this plan (especially the datafile)? That happens sometimes. You can help us fix it.
Add a correction