10/23 Raptor Video

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Marc Zeitlin

Exalted Grand Poobah
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
868
Location
Tehachapi, CA
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).
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,762
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
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

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,627
Location
Port Townsend WA
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

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,762
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
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
 

flywheel1935

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
489
Location
Downham Market, Norfolk, Great Britain.
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

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,105
Location
Mojave, Ca
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

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,627
Location
Port Townsend WA
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."
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,631
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
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.
 
Top