10/23 Raptor Video

[Marc Zeitlin]

Marc,indeed it was supposed to have a steerable nosewheel.. He ,however, in the interest of expediting completion purchased a used Lancair IV nose gear leg and went with differential braking instead. Last I knew steerable nose wheel was still to be incorporated in any production effort.

Well, there you go - for the new year, I'll declare myself officially senile. Thanks for the correction (and to Malish as well).

 

[rbarnes]

Somebody worked off another 30mins of flight time today

N352TD Flight Tracking and History - FlightAware

Track N352TD flight from Valdosta Rgnl to Valdosta Rgnl

flightaware.com

 

[BBerson]

Looks like a new high about 3000 ft.

 

[TarDevil]

Wow! Made it to 3,000 and back down in 30 minutes. Sounds like his ROC is up to about 120 fpm.

 

[mcrae0104]

While I share the skepticism, the log indicates a maximum of 500 fpm.

 

[TarDevil]

While I share the skepticism, the log indicates a maximum of 500 fpm.

Wonder how long he sustained that rate?

 

[Turd Ferguson]

A Vegas bookie need to come up with odds on who can guess the number of racetrack patterns it will take to complete 40 hrs of flying.

 

[mcrae0104]

Wonder how long he sustained that rate?

Longer than it takes to fire off the average cynical comment on the Internet is my guess.

 

[Toobuilder]

Somebody worked off another 30mins of flight time today...

But how many test points? That's the true measure of a test regimen - not grains of sand through an hourglass.

 

[BJC]

A Vegas bookie need to come up with odds on who can guess the number of racetrack patterns it will take to complete 40 yrs of flying.

I would not place a bet on that, because it is probable that I won’t be here when the answer becomes known.


BJC

 

[BBerson]

But how many test points?

He flew about 2 hours and found problems with the PSRU.

"not grains of sand through an hourglass."
How should he test a PSRU?

 

[BJC]

How should he test a PSRU?

A newly designed PSRU should be tested on a test stand.


BJC

 

[BBerson]

A newly designed PSRU should be tested on a test stand.


BJC

He tested it on the ground. But with every modification it needs to be retested. That is what he is doing.
It needs hundreds of hours of inflight testing, according to some on the forum.

 

[BJC]

He tested it on the ground. But with every modification it needs to be retested. That is what he is doing.
It needs hundreds of hours of inflight testing, according to some on the forum.

Well, I should have written, "Test it on the ground long enough to have proven it after the final fix / modification."

In-flight testing of a newly designed PSRU is not a reasonable practice.


BJC

 

[rv6ejguy]

New PSRUs should be flogged for at least 100 hours at full power before putting in in the plane to complete the next 500-1000 hours in flight. Remember, this is all intended for a kit plane to be sold to the public by the hundreds, it's not a one off for personal use.

 

[flywheel1935]

New PSRUs should be flogged for at least 100 hours at full power before putting in in the plane to complete the next 500-1000 hours in flight. Remember, this is all intended for a kit plane to be sold to the public by the hundreds, it's not a one off for personal use.

Do we seriously expect 100's of cRaptors to be bought and built ??? My money is it will all go T*ts up afer 20,if that. ( That's what I,ve said on YT ) flying

 

[Toobuilder]

He tested it on the ground. But with every modification it needs to be retested. That is what he is doing.
It needs hundreds of hours of inflight testing, according to some on the forum.

The number of hours is irrelevant, so long as they are sufficient to achieve specific test objectives. An example of a specific test objective might be to verify that the landing gear can cycle at max design airspeed within the predicted time without failure. THAT is but one of MANY such objectives that will make a flight test program. Once complete with all test objectives, the test program is complete.

OTOH, staggering around the pattern waiting for something to fail is NOT a flight test program.

 

[BBerson]

Aero momentum website implies inflight testing is more important. Doesn't list ground test hours, so I haven't found any industry standard yet:

"From this point we have spent over a year testing both in the lab and more importantly in the real world."

 

[BJC]

Aero momentum website implies inflight testing is more important.

Inflight testing is important (new loads are applied to the PSRU) and should be done with a newly designed PSRU after successful completion of ground testing.


BJC

 

[Victor Bravo]

The actual FTE's and engineers here can absolutely feel free to correct me, but my feeling is that "ground testing" is an important and necessary part of product design and development... and "flight testing" is supposed to be flight testing in real-world use conditions.

Flying around several hours within gliding distance of the airport is certainly a part of initial flight test, even by large professional companies, but it is not "real world use" testing by any means.

The FAA minimum 40 hours of flight test is a minimum, and in the case of funky-wonky-chunky-monkey powertrains like this... 40 hours is probably not nearly enough. The FAA I believe now gives you a reduction in E-AB test hours if you use a certified engine (from 40 to 25??), but in fairness there should be a quid pro quo and a longer or more demanding type of testing for something like this.

I'm sorry to advocate for more or bigger rules, but I am saying this with the desire to protect the freedom/privilege/opportunity to build and fly experimentals in today's world.