Quantcast

10/23 Raptor Video

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,600
Location
Seattle, WA
It's more of a mockup, I think. But can be considered a prototype if used for some testing according to this definition: Mockup - Wikipedia
In space terminology, it's what we call "Protoflight" . There are no ground test articles, so you use the first flight article for qualification testing. Lower test ranges than you'd do a normal ground-test item, but higher than you'd normally subject flight hardware to.

Ron Wanttaja
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,001
Location
Port Townsend WA
Actually, I didn't realize it till today in that what I do as a hobby now is build "mockups". Highly unconventional aircraft experiments that may or may not be completed to full flight stage. No intention to sell plans, somewhat like Peter S.
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
317
Location
Texas
Another great compound turbo video. Little hard to listen to his uh's and uhm's, but lots of good info

 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,632
Location
Europe
I am not going to comment on this Raptor video again.

I was on a one week penalty and realized that I was barking the wrong tree...as Peter says his kite is 130 K...he means only the kit and its parts ( that are listed in his site ).

So actually this is very clever..as the 500 K plane with your own work can be made into that 130 k budget with your own input of course.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,001
Location
Port Townsend WA
Another great compound turbo video. Little hard to listen to his uh's and uhm's, but lots of good info

Interesting video. Some tidbits I heard on the video: "two years experimenting", "pressure port for dyno", "only the best bellows will avoid disasters", "cast elbows not available till now", "no room under hood".... etc.

My takeaway is that a safe system is likely far beyond an individual unless a dedicated specialist with all the equipment. Andreas mentioned a team of 130, I think. A custom build could cost $10-$30k or something?
Do the Raptor videos show any turbo specialist or who built the Raptor turbo system?
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,914
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
So a welding shop made the parts?
Peter had an excellent welder close by to join the exhaust bits (Britt sp?). They were cut out and fitted by Peter and his crew if I recall. No problem to cut and fit tubing and flanges yourself, it's the selection of materials (only 321 or Inconel tubing should be used on aircraft), allowances for thermal expansion (either bellows or slip joints) support of the turbochargers (never hang them off light gauge tubing) and gauge of material (.045 minimum wall) that's important. A first time turbo system builder will know none of these things.
 
Last edited:

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,001
Location
Port Townsend WA
Failed turbo and possible fire.... Sounds worse than ECU failure.
I guess that's all I need to know, for now. Thanks.
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
372
Location
Timaru, NZ
It looks like the gap between the wing and the back of the strake (where the wing extends along the back of the strake) is flexing open and closed a bit. Probably does that more in-flight?
Not sure if other canards do this much, haven't seen a video from this angle on another. Also, the mounting is a bit different here (two bolts inline here vs 3 bolts with outboard ones high and low on other canards).
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,001
Location
Port Townsend WA
That's completely backwards, right?
I think he is correct but not anywhere near 3° difference. Remove some load from the back wing and the back wing can fly at less AOA. With more load on the canard it will need to lift more with the elevator.
 
Last edited:

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
1,068
Location
Marietta, GA
I think he is correct but not anywhere near 3° difference. Remove some load from the back wing and the back wing can fly at less AOA. With more load on the canard it will need to lift more with the elevator.
I was thinking he was talking about the canard. Which would need a higher AOA to carry more weight. He can achieve that through aircraft pitch attitude or by using the elevators to increase the effective AOA of the canard.
 

pictsidhe

Banned
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,812
Location
North Carolina
Peter had an excellent welder close by to join the exhaust bits (Britt sp?). They were cut out and fitted by Peter and his crew if I recall. No problem to cut and fit tubing and flanges yourself, it's the selection of materials (only 321 or Inconnel tubing should be used on aircraft), allowances for thermal expansion (either bellows or slip joints) support of the turbochargers (never hang them off light gauge tubing) and gauge of material (.045 minimum wall) that's important. A first time turbo system builder will know none of these things.
.045? I've seen .063 manifolds crack often. I developed a taste for Sch10 or thereabouts.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,001
Location
Port Townsend WA
I was thinking he was talking about the canard. Which would need a higher AOA to carry more weight. He can achieve that through aircraft pitch attitude or by using the elevators to increase the effective AOA of the canard.
But the canard is rigidly fixed with the wing. They work together, he can't change the canard incidence relative to the wing.
 

231TC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
47
Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that the general tone of the comments on the latest couple vids is a bit more critical and less fanboi-ish than usual?
I thought so, too...but they are back tonight! Maybe they're just the first to watch it and will be drowned out by other comments, or maybe it's just that there isn't much substance to comment on in this one.
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
372
Location
Timaru, NZ
But the canard is rigidly fixed with the wing. They work together, he can't change the canard incidence relative to the wing.
But the effective incidence increases with nose-up elevator. This increases the ift generated by the canard, reducing the lift required to be generated by the main wing, so slightly lowering the overall aircraft AoA.
 
Top