Aviator168
Well-Known Member
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:
Congrats Peter
- Thread starter Tiger Tim
- Start date
Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:
Victor Bravo
Well-Known Member
And if that is the case he is still doing more for the cause and survival of homebuilt airplanes than anyone else in the world under 40 years old. We need any and every win with the younger crowd, and Peter is one of those wins.
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.
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.
Aviator168
Well-Known Member
I think this is exactly what his videos lack.
I never heard of anyone doing a torsion test.
Speedboat100
Well-Known Member
Yes congrats Peter !
Aviator168
Well-Known Member
Yeah. Not for an UL. Peter is a great inspiration.
Yeah, I will. Only because what I am doing is unusual. Otherwise just grabbing the tip and twisting it is usual for slow stuff.
pictsidhe
Well-Known Member
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.
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
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.
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.
hole in the ground
Active Member
I’m late to this thread but I followed Peter’s builds on YT. The above might be a description of the best job in the world...
pictsidhe
Well-Known Member
No rough air?
yes, but not that rough (I think)......the thermal, has a gradient....I have been lifted off my seat maybe once.....
For example, the US Federal Aviation Regulations prescribe the following limits (for the most restrictive case): For transport category airplanes, from -1 to +2.5 (or up to +3.8 depending on design takeoff weight) For normal category and commuter category airplanes, from -1.52 to +3.8.
Load factor (aeronautics) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_factor_(aeronautics)
Load factor (aeronautics) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_factor_(aeronautics)
Victor Bravo
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
TFF
Well-Known Member
Think of 2.5Gs in a plane that takes off at 800,000 lb. it takes a lot of bad air to move one. Much more than a 2500 lb one.
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
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."
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."
