Peter does it again

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,368
Location
Memphis, TN
The building on Peter’s channel is a bit like Mythbusters. Task with execution. It’s not meant to be heirloom quality, it’s a test to see if it’s possible.
Building as if you could never ever do it again seems to kill about 80 percent of peoples projects. Coveted action instead of let’s do it some more because it’s fun. It’s supposed to be fun.
Think about it. He enjoys building and he enjoys flying. He doesn’t let perfect kill the project. He is not unhappy to iterate. Having fun doing it,why quit? He has been a real test pilot about to be four times. How could that not be exciting? Can’t say he doesn’t want to fly.

What would I have him work on? One flying skill. If he is going to be test pilot, he needs to up his experience. I know he has ridden in a Pitts and done basic Acro. He needs to be able to do this solo. Not to test the airframes but the day the airframes test him. Second, pay a little more attention to standards in welding or cutting wood or covering. Mainly out of safety. I think he has gotten better.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,294
Location
Australian
And yet Peter's ratio of flying, original design, self-built planes to opinions expressed about others' projects is quite a bit higher than most of the rest of us.
? I commended the Man's improving abilities, and am merely disappointed in that the design itself is conventional. Not sure what the sneer is for.

We might differ on what constitutes "planes" though. Flying for a couple of minutes to get some Youtube cash and actual real world usage, aren't the same thing IMO.


What happens when you experiment and iterate ideas? Often you find yourself going toward more efficient and practical designs....which also tends to be what others have found to work.
Yup.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,960
Location
NJ
am merely disappointed in that the design itself is conventional.
There is a difference between building from plans, assembling/building a kit, and designing your own aircraft...even if it is very similar to some other aircraft.....There are many reasons to design and build your own aircraft, and the knowledge necessary is probably 10 times or more knowledge than to build a kit with a decent build manual. Most safe aircraft are conventional. Peter's last video mentions strength of popular vs spruce, and I doubt we have seen the analyses that has gone into his designs. He is doing much more than 95 % of those here as regards design, and after you have designed and built your 3 rd aircraft maybe your appreciation of Peter and his accomplishments will be different
 

Enalpria

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
17
That about sums it up perfectly. Also, I suspect he has learned more about designing small aircraft(and knowing how to build them) than most engineering students fresh out if college.
Plus, just because you can think something up, does not make it worth anything if no one other than NASA or Boeing can afford to build it.
This is the HBA, and I for one think he
is doing a lot to spark more interest in aviation and home-built aircraft.
 

crusty old aviator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
238
Location
Grantham, NH
He might be building an IO-550 powered Bearhawk off-camera with the money he's making off of building funky looking foam and tape ultralights on camera :)(nothing would please me more...)
He might be building an IO-720 powered, carbon fiber Bearhawk...oh, that's already being done by a different youber-tuber: never mind!
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,294
Location
Australian
And yet Peter's ratio of flying, original design, self-built planes to opinions expressed about others' projects is quite a bit higher than most of the rest of us.
He is doing much more than 95 % of those here as regards design, and after you have designed and built your 3 rd aircraft maybe your appreciation of Peter and his accomplishments will be different
Wow, how dare I compliment and commend the guy on the constant improvements in his abilities, but not actually like the conventional style of the craft.

Well ok then, you want to play this game, and don't forget that you started it, then lets do it:

The planes are rubbish, period, and don't deserve the title of airplane. They are mere vehicles to gain profit via Youtube numbers. No one is going to fly any of those pieces of junk any reasonable distance or hours worth noting, other than the few minutes he needs to rake in some Youtube money.

So no, he isn't doing more than many here designing and building aircraft that will offer years and hundreds of hours of robust, safe flying, even if those numbers of Members are small.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,960
Location
NJ
I think there probably were many reasons EAA put him in the stage with Van,.....but I would think one of the reasons is that fact that his first foam and tape aircraft was indeed innovative and not conventional......The many features incorporated from model aircraft technology including tab and slot motor mounts I thought were extremely innovative. I wish I had his energy and skills.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,705
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
The planes are rubbish, period, and don't deserve the title of airplane. They are mere vehicles to gain profit via Youtube numbers. No one is going to fly any of those pieces of junk any reasonable distance or hours worth noting, other than the few minutes he needs to rake in some Youtube money.
There you go, CR. Completely agreeing with me again.


BJC
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,960
Location
NJ
and don't forget that you started it,
Yes i thought of that a little too late,....Many here want to sell/promote homebuilt aircraft in order to make a buck......that he is doing it in an unconventional way is certainly creative.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,705
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I think there probably were many reasons EAA put him in the stage with Van,.....but I would think one of the reasons is that fact that his first foam and tape aircraft was indeed innovative and not conventional......The many features incorporated from model aircraft technology including tab and slot motor mounts I thought were extremely innovative. I wish I had his energy and skills.
I think that he was there only as an outreach effort to the You Tube crowd. i.e., in an effort to interest young people in sport aviation. Had the “airplane” been looked at with any real scrutiny for design and construction, it would have been severely criticized.


BJC
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,960
Location
NJ
Another builder I like of the same generation is Conin Furze his YouTube builds are very entertaining and I think encourage people to start learning build skills and build something.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,960
Location
NJ
lets face it....General Aviation is dying most here are over 50 encouraging safe builds and passing on skills is certainly worthwhile but given the mission of Peter's builds I consider those builds extremely successful
 

Steve C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
161
Location
Lodi, CA
I left a comment right away on his video. He's designed a way to damage his stabilizer/elevator on takeoff and he might not know until he's looking straight at the ground.

I love watching his videos, but even as a model airplane designer he's pretty crude. Nothing wrong with that, but he's at beginner level.
 
Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,705
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
.... but given the mission of Peter's builds I consider those builds extremely successful
As do I, given the mission of generating revenue via You Tube.

I find nothing wrong with that. But I do not consider it to be a serious effort (yet) to design and build a reasonably robust, reasonably performing, reasonably useful ultralight.

BJC
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,616
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Well IMHO let's not either demonize or idolize him.

I wish I could create the youtube presence and response he has done. I've been manufacturing an aviation product for 10+ years and haven't made nearly as much of an international splash as he has.

So he's doing something a lot more effectively than I am, despite the fact that I have spent 40+ years in aviation, and know a few things he doesn't.

So which one of us is "the success", and which one of us "doesn't know what he's doing"?
 

Enalpria

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
17
One thought might be that if Peter stuck with one of his designs and refined it so that it was marketable/plans/kits quality that would sway some opinions here.
Unfortunately, he starts fresh instead.
Many aircraft we see available(many only in old PDF plans format) gave had several years development time invested in them.
Again, I still commend him for building and flying something!
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
2,134
Location
YMM
Well IMHO let's not either demonize or idolize him.

I wish I could create the youtube presence and response he has done. I've been manufacturing an aviation product for 10+ years and haven't made nearly as much of an international splash as he has.

So he's doing something a lot more effectively than I am, despite the fact that I have spent 40+ years in aviation, and know a few things he doesn't.

So which one of us is "the success", and which one of us "doesn't know what he's doing"?
I think it's that scenario both Peter's are managing better than the aero types...

They know their audience.

Here on HBA we often debate the viability of a single seat. Bet if scripol released one his plans at 100$ each - he'd sell thousands. Note the comment "I'm not releasing plans stop asking".

The two Peter's come from backgrounds that are better suited to understanding marketing. They're those bad marketing folks trying to force the aero types to make it sellable. Which the engineer types balk at.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,368
Location
Memphis, TN
Youtube. He found a way to pay for his vices. He does ok but not like the big hitters. He still has to put in two jobs. One the project; the other the presentation. He was going to school but is probably out by now. He is not like the old guys that sit at the first tee at the golf course, just sitting and heckling. He has to work at it. It’s not retirement.
He knows he could perfect designs, but they would be not learning anything. Once his tube time is over, he can build his perfect UL. He is learning by doing and he has not done enough.

Being jealous of him in a good way is ok, but not in a bad way. Rodger Penske is the perfect example. College kid race car driver sees opportunity in trucking company, decides he is too old to drive but can’t get quit so runs teams, goes to Indy and now buys Indy. That is Rodge Penske’s regular state; his lazy. He can’t go any slower or do less. It’s just so his life talents mesh that way. Peter is fitting into his. No better or worse than yours or mine. I would love to own the Indy 500. My life talents say no. My lazy says no. Someone else’s lazy directs somewhere else. Someone’s lazy can be turn over every stone, and someone else’s is turn over none. This has nothing to do about direction or learning because that is part of the lazy state.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,400
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
Peter's building and flying remind me of the early days of Ultralights on streroids. I am talking about even before the popular motorized Ultralight movement, back before the internet when "Low and Slow"* was the social media of the day.

It was not uncommon to build during the week and fly on the weekend. Look at where the Rogallo design concept lead. Where will Peters design/building end?

*"Low and Slow" was the HBA equivalent in 1971. It was snail mail publication with less than 200 subscribers. It morphed into today's "Hang Gliding and Paragliding".
 
Last edited:
Top