You are right, last video confirms engine failure.
Still following the saga very closely, although it shifted from a sophisticated construction process (for which I am very grateful) to the rather worrisome epilogue.
This engine is the fundamental issue. The venture requires a cheap engine to justify its existence, but there is no such thing for good reason. And certainly not one that will operate at FL250 and be responsible for cabin heating and pressurization… You have to experience an engine out up there to realize how dire the situation becomes in seconds…
The guy has some serious tunnel-vision. He’s already planning for the production process. Production of what ??
Peter is in way over his head. This project is a prime example how not to design and build an aircraft and why certification (i.e. calculation and testing by professionals) might not be such a bad idea after all.
I hadn’t watched for a bit and just watched the most recent videos.
I was quite astounded that following an engine failure, loss of oil, prop driving the engine overspeed he thought that all he needed to do was replace an oil seal throw some more oil in and away we go.
Perhaps a reasonable strategy for an unloved lawnmower, but for something that you want to produce and sell and appears to have brick like glide qualities and high approach speeds. Maybe less so.
He seems to be focused more on flying the 40 hours than fixing the very clear obvious problems, developing full power, keeping the oil and coolant temps under control, handling properties, climb performance.
I guess it’s just impossible for him to take advice or step back and see that his initial projections were fantasy.
mh wrote:
This project is a prime example how not to design and build an aircraft
Well, IMO he is a youtuber. Action and drama is important, risk, danger and suspense. I haven’t looked at this guy at all, since the whole setup and in particular the engine, makes it uninteresting to me.
Certification has nothing to do with it. No military aircraft, no space ships has ever been certified. Cutting edge technology cannot per def be certified, or it wouldn’t be cutting edge. This does not mean that non certified is automatically cutting edge, or that non certified without being cutting edge is bad. Engineering an common sense exists regardless.
I think it’s very easy to be lead on by these youtubers, lead on by the suspense and drama, the risks, the dangers. All that may in fact be nothing but smoke and mirrors, a show. I like to look at Peter Sripol. He has made several ultralight electric aircraft, and flown them. In one of his videos he talks specifically about this “suspense and drama”-bit and that his videos looks much more “far out” than what actually is the case.
Several people have reported him to the FAA and police for his “illegal” and reckless building and flying of these “dangerous contraptions”. By looking at his videos, you definitely get the impression that he simply built it, then fly it, hoping for the best with minimal or non existent planning and preparations, no license, not even training. It turns out he is a pilot. He got is own little factory-built ultralight that he flies. He got proper training. The planes he builds (seemingly by his own ideas there and then), he have built in cooperation with the local EAA chapter, lots of engineering has been put into it by several persons. He have been in contact with the FAA up front, just to make sure everything is legal. The reality is very different than the impression you get by simply looking at the videos themselves.
YouTube is YouTube. Those who are good at it, knows exactly what to do to get subscribers and likes. Doing things “by the book” and “by the rules” is not a good recipe to get subscribers and likes apparently. It doesn’t matter, creating videos, you can make up your own reality.
Pitch oscillation looks hopeless :-(
Emir wrote:
Pitch oscillation looks hopeless :-(
Yes. The pitch oscillations on final to the deadstick landing were scary.
LeSving wrote:
No military aircraft, no space ships has ever been certified.
Of course they are.
mh wrote:
Of course they are.
In Germany maybe 
It’s not a single certified bolt in the F-16. That is not to say it is not built according to specifications, factory and military. This is very different from certification however.
For your reference: MIL-HDBK-516B which is a nice summary. Each US service then has its own procedures by which aircraft and systems are taken from initial design to line service, all of them very expensive and elaborate although less so for unmanned aircraft – which saves money.
On topic, I couldn’t care less whether this Raptor guy is competent or not. I have no stake in his activity, have never met him and don’t care if I ever do, and have plenty of other options in both Experimental and certified aircraft. Burt Rutan’s homebuilt designs are at the opposite end of the Experimental spectrum technically, Richard VanGrunsven’s efforts show that incremental progress often beats revolution and there are a thousand people doing their thing in between, at a thousand different levels of complexity and risk. It does seem that a bird born in a cage often thinks flying is an illness, whether it’s done well or otherwise. I am regardless grateful beyond measure for FAA Experimental Category and all it has allowed people to achieve around me.
