Anyone have the numbers on PW's Impact?

[Paul Taylor]

Anyone?

[Bill Little]

HI PAul,

WS: 62" with 1/2" asymmetry
Hinge to hinge: 17 1/2"
Nose (from LE to Spinner back plate): 10"

I scaled these from the magazine article.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Paul Taylor]

Thanks Big Bear! 

[RC Storick]

30702

[Howard Rush]

30702

Very good, Robert

[proparc]

Contrary to popular belief, the Impact is not 700sq. It is almost exactly 675.

[Mike Palko]

That's a very broad question.

[Bill Little]

Contrary to popular belief, the Impact is not 700sq. It is almost exactly 675.

Thanks, Milt.  I just went on what was in the article.  Paul says 700 in the magazine.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Paul Taylor]

Very good, Robert

You guys crack me up.

[Zuriel Armstrong]

Paul,

I have the plans if you want them.

Zuriel

[RandySmith]

That's a very broad question.

That is a very numerical question  


by the way I got 682 sq in


R

[Jeff Traxler]

I'm still getting educated on the bigger ships.Is there a noticable between 675,682, or 700 Sq.In.??

[Randy Powell]

Depends entirely on which Impact you't talking about. They have ranged from about 675 to 750 square inches and the moments have also varied.

[Bill Little]

The one I am talking about is the one that won the '90 NATS and was published in May 1991 Flying Models.  It is also completely take apart.

[Mike Palko]

That is a very numerical question  


by the way I got 682 sq in


R

Randy Powell knew what I was talking about.

[Paul Taylor]

Big Bear got the right plane.

[RandySmith]

Randy Powell knew what I was talking about.

Yes so did I  :-) 

[Randy Powell]

Yep, that was the original. Been what? 10 or 12 since then? More? I think the current one is over 700 squares.

[Howard Rush]

What area you get depends on how you account for wing area inside the fuselage.   My people have a standard way of doing this, but if you consider what you will use the number for, you can see that the definition doesn't matter much.   

[Dave_Trible]

I'm still getting educated on the bigger ships.Is there a noticable between 675,682, or 700 Sq.In.??
[

Hi Jeff!  Look forward to seeing you again in Muncie soon.  I've waited but haven't seen an answer to your question so I'll try. The answer is yes, no and maybe.  Wing area is one part of a calculation to which you must add airfoil thickness and how agressive the airfoil and what the flap configuration is as a percentage to wing area To recognize two extremes to get to the same place (sort of) think the USA1 vs the Rabe Seafury. You want to be able to carry the weight through the hardest parts of the pattern without high speed stalls.  Many pack in extra lift(the key word here) to cover all bases.  The downside is that now your engine has to flog the thing with the extra lift/DRAG through the wind when it comes up.  Not good for penetration.  The trick is finding a good balance.  Hope that helped.

Dave

[proparc]

That is a very numerical question  


by the way I got 682 sq in

R

Hey, Randy I got 675sq with 4 decimal places. But you have a Fox 35 on pipe.

[Brett Buck]

Anyone?

    I think other people have answered the question directly as well they can.

     I don't think you will find these sorts of numbers very useful because they won't look a whole lot different from many other airplanes, certainly not enough to explain why it was so incredibly successful. The details matter A LOT more than changing the wing area by 25 square inches.

   And yes, Paul is a superior pilot who would beat 99% of you with a Ringmaster. He's got to just love it when people say stuff like that, not only is it flattering but anyone who thinks that is likely to have overlooked all the other stuff he has been doing so absolutely right. There are still a bunch of people who never got it (most people competitive today, as a matter of fact), and are still building and flying like it was 1975, just with more reliable engines.

     If you are interesting in the Impact, I highly recommend getting the plans and the article (along with the Imitation plans/article), and studying it like a bible *in every detail*.

    Brett

[Derek Barry]

Anyone?

Usually between 550 and 580 at the Nats.

Derek

[Jeff Traxler]

Hi Dave,
    Thanx for chiming in.One thing for sure,since I flew my SV-22 I don't think I want to fly anything that much smaller any more.Daylight and dark compared to what I was flying last summer.Now if the weatherman will let me get some more practice time,Toooo stinkin' hot to fly.See ya in Muncie
                                                                                                       Jeff

[Doug Moon]

30702

 

[proparc]

The 675sq, (and six significant decimal places) came off the Impact that was published. The section on trimming was one of the best that was ever written-and I think more people should be reading that!!

A lot of people don't realize that the Impact started life as a 90% Patternmaster.

[RandySmith]

The 675sq, (and six significant decimal places) came off the Impact that was published. The section on trimming was one of the best that was ever written-and I think more people should be reading that!!

A lot of people don't realize that the Impact started life as a 90% Patternmaster.

I cut and made one of the first, if not the first Impact wing that Paul built his plane from, and I did not know it was a 90 % PM  

I have PM templetes and the Original Impact ones that I have had since about 1989 those are not the same so I know the first Impact was not a PM

Randy

[RandySmith]

Hey, Randy I got 675sq with 4 decimal places. But you have a Fox 35 on pipe.

I used Autocad to calculate the total wing area , that was the way I got the number, not that it really matters that much, that plane as stated has been several differant areas before. Very competitive ships in this size range go from 620 to 750 sq in. My current line of SV airplanes go from 630 to 700 sq in.
The Impact could be built at many differant size wings areas and still be a great airplane as I believe Paul has shown

Randy

[Tim Wescott]

What area you get depends on how you account for wing area inside the fuselage.   My people have a standard way of doing this, but if you consider what you will use the number for, you can see that the definition doesn't matter much.   

Which people is that?

Having looked at a bunch of plan views and exercised a ruler and calculator, It seems to be standard model aviation practice to include the area blanked by the fuse as wing area, while it seems to be standard full-sized aviation practice to exclude it.  Excluding it is probably more 'honest', but it makes the math harder.

[Brett Buck]

The 675sq, (and six significant decimal places) came off the Impact that was published. The section on trimming was one of the best that was ever written-and I think more people should be reading that!!

A lot of people don't realize that the Impact started life as a 90% Patternmaster.

   Well, almost everyone doesn't realize that, because ITS NOT THE CASE!! There are a bunch of people who think everything is a "modified Patternmaster" because various Jersey types think they invented everything important (and are not shy about saying it).  

    I can't think of anything that flies less like a Patternmaster than an Impact.

     Brett

p.s. I have also been told that I copied the Patternmaster for the Infinity design. First, I think I first saw Patternmaster plans about the time I crashed the second Infinity in 2005, and second, why in the world would I copy something that hadn't been very competitive since the early 80s in 1991?

   For the record, both the Trivial Pursuit and the Infinity were the result of a conversation between Ted Fancher, Keith Trostle, and myself at a Thanksgiving dinner in about 1989 or 90, and both had the same idea - replicate the performance of the Imitation while taking full advantage of the power of tuned pipe engines like the 40/46VF. Mine was a direct evolution of the Imitation - fill -fuse Imitation -> Imitation XL (same except for 2.5" more tail moment) -> first Infinity (Imitation XL fuse and tail with thicker airfoil) - second Infinity (First infinity with slightly larger flaps and tail moment of original Imitation)

[RandySmith]

Maybe someone is confusing the Impact with a Time Machine???

Randy

[Trostle]

What area you get depends on how you account for wing area inside the fuselage.   My people have a standard way of doing this, but if you consider what you will use the number for, you can see that the definition doesn't matter much.   

Like tim wescott just asked, I would be interested in who "your people" are.  I hve an idea is would be some design teams for a major aircraft manufacturer.

Some time ago, like when I was an undergradute in engineering school, (50+ years) I understood that typically, the wing area of an aircraft was based on the total projected area including that area enclosed by the fuselage/nacelles.  Likewise, for our models and in particular our CLPA models, the convention has been that wing area specifications include the area enclosed by the fuselage.

In full scale aviation, with higher performance aircraft and more "exotic" designs with blended shpes, performance, stability and control calculations will dictate that more refined considerations must be applied for what otherwise might be considered total wing area.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

Maybe someone is confusing the Impact with a Time Machine???

     Perhaps, in that Paul was able to copy something he hadn't seen the plans for until 10 years later.

     Brett

   

[Tim Wescott]

     Perhaps, in that Paul was able to copy something he hadn't seen the plans for until 10 years later.

Well, Paul is pretty amazing at flying.  Maybe that spills over...

[Howard Rush]

Like tim wescott just asked, I would be interested in who "your people" are.  I hve an idea is would be some design teams for a major aircraft manufacturer.

Some time ago, like when I was an undergradute in engineering school, (50+ years) I understood that typically, the wing area of an aircraft was based on the total projected area including that area enclosed by the fuselage/nacelles.  Likewise, for our models and in particular our CLPA models, the convention has been that wing area specifications include the area enclosed by the fuselage.

In full scale aviation, with higher performance aircraft and more "exotic" designs with blended shpes, performance, stability and control calculations will dictate that more refined considerations must be applied for what otherwise might be considered total wing area.

Keith

Boeing Commercial.  I forgot the formula, as did the guy who probably thought it up.  It includes some of the area inside the fuselage.  For discussions like this where you are probably using wing area to compare different airplanes with a similar configuration, you should specify how you account for area inside the fuselage and for anything else that may be questionable.    

In full-scale (or quantitative model) airplane development, somebody picks a wing area about the time the wing design gels, and everybody uses that number for that airplane ever after, even when the actual wing area gets tweaked.  It's not too important what the wing area number is, but it is very important that everybody uses the same number for certain calculations.  

[Randy Powell]

Doug,

>>30702<<

Take a look at the outboard wing of Paul's Impact. Any version.

[Doug Knoyle]

I've seen this fly in person a few times now. And in particular, noted it was markedly more solid in windy conditions (at the NW Regional) then ANY other plane.  Guys were pulling out of the contest, then Paul puts in a practice flight if I recall correctly.    - - - yes I know pilot skill and trimming skill come in to play, but I noted that the Impact flew straight and level like the wind wasn't there.  EVERY other plane was moving around (excluding Chis Cox's Crossfire which I didn't get to see fly).

Does anyone have sound knowledge of the numbers on the brand new Impact?  How about the airfoil (how come people in C/L don't talk airfoil "names")?

[PJ Rowland]

This will be the first time we have seen a super light Impact with Pauls own Electric engine setup.

What made the Impact untouchable in the early 90's was partly that amazing 40 setup. With all the modern advantages that competitive electric engines offer - this new Ultra light version I think could be better than that 90's edition..

Is 5 in a Row again possible ( 2012 - 2017 ) which would include another W/C 2012 ..

I think we could be talking about that sort of domination again.. scarey for a plane design 20 + years old.

[RC Storick]

This will be the first time we have seen a super light Impact with Pauls own Electric engine setup.

What made the Impact untouchable in the early 90's was partly that amazing 40 setup. With all the modern advantages that competitive electric engines offer - this new Ultra light version I think could be better than that 90's edition..

Is 5 in a Row again possible ( 2012 - 2017 ) which would include another W/C 2012 ..

I think we could be talking about that sort of domination again.. scarey for a plane design 20 + years old.

Its the man that makes it work. He could do it with a Ringmaster.

[Doug Moon]

.....He could do it with a Ringmaster.

I hope he brings that Ringmaster to the Nats this year, instead of his newest impact.   

"Let's see, this Ringmaster or that new Impact.  I just dont know.  Yeah, better take the Ringmaster"

[Derek Barry]

I hope he brings that Ringmaster to the Nats this year, instead of his newest impact.   

"Let's see, this Ringmaster or that new Impact.  I just dont know.  Yeah, better take the Ringmaster"

I second that!

Derek

[Paul Walker]

Yes, I have "the" numbers. They are all a little different.

I generally try to stay out of these because there are so many experts on this subject even though they don't have a clue.

Proparc: what makes you an expert on my design?
Answer: NOTHING.

It is NOT related to the PM other than pure coincidence.

If there are specific questions about the Impact, I can answer them.

Yes, there are 2 new Impacts ready for the Nats. One is 61.8 ounces and the other 61.8. Both are with the "heavy" batteries attached. Both fly quite well!

[RandySmith]

"Brett

p.s. I have also been told that I copied the Patternmaster for the Infinity design. First, I think I first saw Patternmaster plans about the time I crashed the second Infinity in 2005, and second, why in the world would I copy something that hadn't been very competitive since the early 80s in 1991?"


I was told the same thing about my SV-11, as were many others about several of my SV ships by a famous person from New Jersey....
There is nothing you can do blowing up or down templetes of teh PM to match either my SV series, Vector series, or Ryt Flite series of wings.

I also took Pauls templetes he used form the early 90 late 80s and put it on my copier and blew it up 110 %, didn't match the PM.

I also have shrunk the PM to 95,90 ,85, etc, doesn't match anything I have here either

Randy

[Randy Powell]

It's like saying that all planes are just modified Noblers. Well, I suppose that's sort of true. They all have fuselages, wings, tail planes and rudders. Oh, and flaps. Don't forget flaps.

[Bill Little]

 (snip)
     If you are interesting in the Impact, I highly recommend getting the plans and the article (along with the Imitation plans/article), and studying it like a bible *in every detail*.

    Brett

HI Brett,

I have both articles you speak of and have studied both a whole lot.  I now have the UHP Impact kit and a set of foam cores for the Imitation wing and stab.  Both will get built in the next year or so.  I can't physically do it right now, but I am being patient.

Bill

[Doug Knoyle]

Yes, I have "the" numbers. They are all a little different.

If there are specific questions about the Impact, I can answer them.

Questions on the two current Impacts (specifically, the one you flew in the wind at the NW Regional 2012)
Wing Area?
Asymmetrical inside vs outside wing spans?
Nose moment?
Tail moment?
Airfoil?

Is the other Impact different? If so how?


I would normally assume one would want to keep "the numbers" somewhat under wraps for competitive reasons - So I humbly and respectfully ask the questions.  If you are inclined not to share numbers please don't tell.  Otherwise ...

Thank you Thank you,
Doug

[PJ Rowland]

I doubt the new numbers will be much of a secret - Pauls designed it specifically for his New Electric setup. Lightweight design. With appropriate tweaks for the Electric setup.

I for one cannot wait to see the results of the Nats. His previous ship was very impressive; if the new one is better - look out I say. Cutting edge stuff flown about as good as one can fly a plane no doubt.

[Brett Buck]

I was told the same thing about my SV-11, as were many others about several of my SV ships by a famous person from New Jersey....

   You mean the Vector 40 wasn't based on the "flight-proven Profile Cardinal aerodynamics"? I am sure that was just a misunderstanding...

    Brett

[john e. holliday]

I vaguely remember years ago an individual writing an article about the aerobatic planes at the time.   He had taken three views of all the planes at the time.   Then came up with what was supposed to be the ultimate stunt plane.   But, it was an average of all the planes outer deminsions and shapes.   The semi scale planes were left out for some reason.   Todays planes to me don't look much different until you get up close and start scrutinizing.

[RandySmith]

   You mean the Vector 40 wasn't based on the "flight-proven Profile Cardinal aerodynamics"? I am sure that was just a misunderstanding...

    Brett

LOL   No ...

Interesting the Vector 40 and it's sister ships are thinner ribs, but closest to the early Stiletto or  Chipmonk in rib sections, Many years ago I took the scaled SV computer plots and found  the ones closest to the Chipmonk and used them in the 46/51 Vector, the later 40 Vector is just a slide down the Rib section plots from there, They are not exact , but very close, so if anything it is closest to a SIG Akro / Chipmonk /or Stiletto.

Randy