To start off, I've never flown one of these nor have I seen one flown -- it's a fairly new airframe.
From a quick glance, it looks like a fair compromise between a sport flyer and a glider. Fairly short wingspan at 1.3m and the high cube wingloading at 5.8g/dm^3 (4g/dm^3 is the upper end of a glider -- your Radian ranks in at about 3.4g/dm^3) will hurt the glide performance, but the motor seems trimmed for a cruise flight.
It looks like a fun flyer, but more a floaty sport plane/trainer than a glider. The AS3X, surprisingly, helps tremendously with the UMX Radian, so I'd lay good odds the Adagio will be better off for it. I wouldn't expect it to thermal soar well, but it should fly fairly slow and friendly.
If you're truly wanting to move up to a 4/5 channel glider but still stick with a foam construction, I'd suggest the RXR version of the Flyzone Calypso -- For foam, it's fairly good performance, the Flaps are an easy mod, great payload capacity, and she can hold a moderate thermal well. Horizon did an amazing job with the Radian, then such a poor job with the Radian pro -- a fine plane in it's own right, but nowhere near the performance of it's baby sister plane it's supposed to be the "pro upgrade" for. Flyzone learned from Horizon's mistakes and found a nice happy medium with their Calypso -- I'm thrilled with mine.
Dan, I hope you are dead wrong on the Adagios performance seeing as Santa left one under the tree for me!
Leave it to Dan to use a term that I had never heard of.....Lets see "Cubed Wing Loading", Google search, ah, an article by Francis Reynolds, 1989..what the ? 1989, did we even have electric power systems back then; foam construction techniques we have now; is the measurement of CWL even valid for today's models; just asking, no disrespect intended, just wondering.
I need to tell you Dave, Dan's opinions are well respected around here and I personally find the information he shares a valuable resource, but sometimes..... WJ.
P.S. Welcome to the FT family Dave, all the best to you and yours in 2015.
Even if I'm right, it should be a fun plane. Not a great glider, but a fun floaty plane. Don't knock the fun quotient until you've lured a buzzard out to a "thermal" only to watch him flap home pissed off at you -- powered gliders can be fun
CWL, as you've discovered, ain't new, but the physics of aerodynamics and their tendencies are discovered, not created -- the laws don't get more lenient with time, we just learn how to better exploit them. This particular tendency really has nothing to do with how a glider's ballast is used (cut of the power, and the battery and motor are nothing but ballast). It has everything to do with how much load is applied to a "typical" wing. Keep in mind, it's a fair rule of thumb but no more than that -- There's a lot of variation ignored in "typical". Some airfoils are far better at lift than others, and this RoT just assumes the airfoil is acceptably good at lift then ignores it's performance.
I hope you are right. I got a lot of eggs in that basket. I plan to build a "Photon" motor glider as well this "build season" er, Canadian Winter.
The FT Spit and the FT Storch are on the bench too. I really hope that the "Adagio" will bridge the gap and I can move forward.
Thanks Bro, WJ.