Congrats Peter

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Aviator168

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
2,214
Location
Brookville, NY. USA
3.8g is usually plus a 50% safety factor. So ultimate load would be 5.7g. 3g is kinda skimpy compared to that. Dead calm weather only IMHO. And no aerobatics. I believe that his biplane had an even lower test load.
His planes are going to be collecting dust after few flights. I think he's building them to make video and make money. He didn't even test the torsion load of the wing.
 
Last edited:

litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
1,557
Location
Sydney
Good on ya Mate,

Keep it up and don't worry about the critic too much.

I do agree that more testing would be good on structures and this could easily been done in a entertaining way for the videos.

If you can add a bit more engineering you will go very far in the game of flight.

Don't be afraid of the unusual but beware of hidden traps for new designs.

I see a great future.....keep flying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,427
Location
North Carolina
Should I start making 103 kits in 5 years time, Peter would be top of the list to build and test one. The publicity couldn't be beaten.

I would like to see more engineering in the videos. Even a run through of the FAR103 appendix calculations would be educational for most fans. Basic load tests are about minimum structural engineering. Peter mentioned that plans won't be available until he gets the design checked. Perhaps he could suggest some good designs available today for those chomping at the bit to get flying? There are many good designs out there.
Perhaps a load test to a higher g would be in order now that it has actually flown.
 

Aviator168

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
2,214
Location
Brookville, NY. USA
I would like to see more engineering in the videos. Even a run through of the FAR103 appendix calculations would be educational for most fans.
Absolutely.

What is discouraging people who have the resources, time and want to experiment with 103 is the lack of airports in proximity of where they live. There is private airport 10 minutes from where I live; but it is not experimental friendly. The nearest one where your experimental can take off and land is at lease an hour and a half away.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,536
Location
NJ
3.8g is usually plus a 50% safety factor. So ultimate load would be 5.7g. 3g is kinda skimpy compared to that. Dead calm weather only IMHO. And no aerobatics. I believe that his biplane had an even lower test load.
We do not know what the ultimate load will be unless we test to destruction....not very practical for a one off airplane. In 50 years of flying I do not think I have ever felt 3G, of course I do not fly aerobatics.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,289
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
yes, but not that rough (I think)......the thermal, has a gradient....I have been lifted off my seat maybe once.....
Some thermals have a reasonable gradient and some do not. I say this from personal experience. There are many other types of turbulence than just thermals, there is "wave rotor" where you pass through a significant downward (sinking) mass of air immediately adjacent to a significant upward moving mass of air. This creates a wind shear effect where the resulting effect is greater than just hitting thelift from level flight. There is also often a very sharp transition from sinking air to rising air when you cross a ridge line.

YES of course we would strongly suggest that ultralight style aircraft should be operated in calmer or milder conditions, but you have to design this stuff to protect against the people who are not careful, as well as the careful people who get still hit with unexpected conditions that were not "supposed" to be happening at that time of day or in that weather system.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,536
Location
NJ
What limits we design for is a subject of many reasonable opinions....I submit the FAA requirements for an airliner....how many airliners do we know have broken apart in rough air? I agree most of the sport planes, GA aircraft and pilots need higher limits for various reasons,....but a perhaps a 3G limit is not unreasonable for airliners or ultralites conservatively flown.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,051
Location
USA.
I have had the wind knocked out of me, back hurt, hit side of my head very hard against the door frame , everything in the cockpit hit the ceiling including people, and seen the wings bend and the landing gear shake. All over mountains. Why the JMR is rated at 6.7 G's with a 50% safety factor.
 

wktaylor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
184
Location
Midwest USA
Pops pointed out an important design requirement by FAA... as memory serves me... all acft must be designed to withstand survive penetration of sharp-edged vertical gusts of 75-FPS and lateral gust of similar intensity. So regardless, of designed 'G' envelop... the load envelop must include gust-loading wild-cards up to V-penetration speed [top-of 'green-arc' on the airspeed indicator].

Pops...

RE Your signature 'quotation' [which I have gratefully added to my quotations file]...

Antoine de Saint-Exupery stated this concept another way...

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
 
2
Top