flyboy2160
Well-Known Member
weather at time of flight below:
Attachments
Last edited:
10/23 Raptor Video
- Thread starter Volzalum
- Start date
Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:
Early landing would be back to 17. But he went around again for 6 minutes.
flyboy2160
Well-Known Member
...at about 500 ft maximum.......
But why land in the opposite direction of takeoff? I can think of a few reasons...
- Windshift.
- Traffic pattern preferred runway change at the airport.
- Took off downwind to avoid overflying the town of for favorable terrain.
- Forced landing due to deteriorating circumstances.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 95
Looks to me like he climbed to about 750ft after takeoff on 17. He then immediately started a descent intending to land on 17.
Looking at the pattern I think he probably found he was too high/close on base for 17 (panic?) so turned it into a crosswind for 35 then climbed back up to 625 ft for an unconventional downwind (upwind?) 35. Then descended 500-600ft/min as he turned base for 35 for a landing the wrong way downwind. Not ideal at all and obviously trying to get back down in a hurry rather than make a full circuit for 17. If we can get ATC then will know for sure.
Postscript: Looks like I was wrong. The new video shows a slight downwind takeoff then a normal pattern to resume downwind 35. Aside from a slightly elevated oil temperature, looked like a pretty good flight. No panic landing here at all.
Last edited:
rv6ejguy
Well-Known Member
550 ft AGL on a 10 minute flight.
Last edited:
TarDevil
Well-Known Member
Sounds like he's healthy, which is both surprising and pleasant to find.
ImperfectSense
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 28
LiveATC at this airport is basically useless, it only archives 2.5 minutes out of every half hour period. There is some discussion with Rescue 7 headed out somewhere on the runway/taxiway area during the 1300-1330Z archive, but that's all.
Second flight video is up. Looks much better, no porpoising, just some air bumps flexing the wings on the wing tip camera. He went to 1100 pattern altitude.
Wing rigging angle still not corrected.
rv6ejguy
Well-Known Member
The gear is down of course but the fuel flows are pretty prodigious- roughly 13-14 gph to maintain 110 kts, 16-17 for around 120 kts and around 8 gph in ground effect during landing at 90 kts. Lots of drag and/or the engine mapping is WAY off and the turbo layout is suffocating it. An RV-10 burns less than half the amount of fuel at these speeds with fixed gear and climbs at almost triple Raptor's ROC with such a light load at these temps.
With the gear retracted, no way this airplane will true 230 KTAS on 7 GPH at 25,000 feet, as was predicted. A couple years back, I predicted closer to 13-16 gph. May even be higher than that. Will have to see how much difference the gear retraction makes.
Of note, the oil and coolants temps didn't stabilize until power was reduced to about 55%. With OAT at around 40F, that doesn't bode well for a 90F day at gross at climb power. Much work to do on the thermal side of things.
On the plus side, it looked much more stable during this flight.
With the gear retracted, no way this airplane will true 230 KTAS on 7 GPH at 25,000 feet, as was predicted. A couple years back, I predicted closer to 13-16 gph. May even be higher than that. Will have to see how much difference the gear retraction makes.
Of note, the oil and coolants temps didn't stabilize until power was reduced to about 55%. With OAT at around 40F, that doesn't bode well for a 90F day at gross at climb power. Much work to do on the thermal side of things.
On the plus side, it looked much more stable during this flight.
What made me nervous was his comment about trying to decide what he wanted to do as he's already flying around.
When you're test flying you should have a plan before you ever leave the ground. You should have emergency procedures ready for every point of that flight. You should also talk to the control tower about your plan for the flight. This goes for any aircraft, even a proven design like the RV.
Brandon
When you're test flying you should have a plan before you ever leave the ground. You should have emergency procedures ready for every point of that flight. You should also talk to the control tower about your plan for the flight. This goes for any aircraft, even a proven design like the RV.
Brandon
Turd Ferguson
Well-Known Member
Right now performance is on par with a 172 RG, much longer takeoff and landing distance and higher fuel consumption.
Much less "interesting" flight than the first one. Glad he got it back on the ground safely again.
The 40F temperatures and the cooling kludges he's installed delivered 5 minutes (?) before the engine exceeded thermal limits. As Ross said, lots of work to do there. If he'd spend a month working on fixing the cooling issues, rather than applying duct tape over the band-aids, he'd get to a point where he can do more than a partial (or full) lap around the pattern. He's not going to get any real flight testing done with 5 minute hops.
The 40F temperatures and the cooling kludges he's installed delivered 5 minutes (?) before the engine exceeded thermal limits. As Ross said, lots of work to do there. If he'd spend a month working on fixing the cooling issues, rather than applying duct tape over the band-aids, he'd get to a point where he can do more than a partial (or full) lap around the pattern. He's not going to get any real flight testing done with 5 minute hops.
Rik-
Well-Known Member
He said he took off with a tail wind so he wanted to land into the wind.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 95
He put a large tab on the outer trailing edge to correct a port low wing. Looks like he overdid it hence the new up deflection of the aileron to counteract. If he backs off the trim tab (or removes) the aileron should level.
Scheny
Well-Known Member
I took some notes in the DA42 (old Thielert model) about power settings for landing. Now I can fly them by feeling and don't need the values in the NG anymore. Note: the aircraft has FADEC and these values correspond roughly to thrust, hence drag.
Pattern speed (120kt), const. ALT:
- Clean config: 55%
- Flaps full: 68%
- Flaps+LDG gear: 86%
flywheel1935
Well-Known Member
In the Audi cars that this engine is used in surely the fuel flow at max speed 155 mph wouldn't be anywhere close to 21 gallons /hour, guessing at 20 mpg so 7-8 gph ??? Is he using the vehicles pumps and is the fuel system/injectors actually capable of handling 20+ gph ? Also the maingear wheel stopped pretty quickly on T/O I bet the brakes are still an issue.???
12 gallons of fuel onboard !!!! so less than 1/2 hour fuel at full power, is there no limit ref available fuel for a divert/problem/etc ???
12 gallons of fuel onboard !!!! so less than 1/2 hour fuel at full power, is there no limit ref available fuel for a divert/problem/etc ???
Last edited:
rv6ejguy
Well-Known Member
21 gph should be around 350hp on a stock Audi engine but we know from the acceleration that it's nowhere near that here. He has different external pumps and fuel system from the car. Engine pump is stock.
12 gallons of fuel on board seems like a poor decision. How much is usable? Was fuel feed/ flow ever checked at climb attitude? I never saw that ground tested.
12 gallons of fuel on board seems like a poor decision. How much is usable? Was fuel feed/ flow ever checked at climb attitude? I never saw that ground tested.
