# Peter Sripol is at it again...

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Aviator168

##### Well-Known Member
As to the "what practical use" question, my heart sank!
If he builds an airplane that goes 100+ mph, you wouldn't feel the same way, and I am sure there will be a lot of people here either be critical of him or copying him.

#### atypicalguy

##### Active Member
HBA Supporter
The reason he is successful is that he has a lot of crazy ideas and enough organizational skills to push a project through to fruition in it's most basic form using glue guns and styrofoam. It is great that he has shown the direct relationships that exist between model scale aircraft and human scale aircraft. The flying cowboys guys rarely have any sort of real mission they are trying to accomplish; they are just burning holes in the sky and selling the romance of very expensive cinematography and airplane ownership. Peter is selling the idea that you can think of a challenge and then build, test and modify things to show that the idea either works or does not work. Very different and it shows how much more accessible and interesting the second approach is.

#### PredragVasic

##### Member
The flying cowboys guys rarely have any sort of real mission they are trying to accomplish; they are just burning holes in the sky and selling the romance of very expensive cinematography and airplane ownership. Peter is selling the idea that you can think of a challenge and then build, test and modify things to show that the idea either works or does not work. Very different and it shows how much more accessible and interesting the second approach is.
Exactly! One could spend time and analyse his content (in an effort to get to the bottom of his popularity), but I'm sure many reasons come from exactly this. Challenge, design, build, test, modify, success! It is almost perfectly aligned with the concept of the "Hero's Journey", a part of the whole Monomyth narrative, which requires a protagonist on a path to adventure (with various obstacles along the way).

And I very much doubt he would build a 100+ kts plane (as a part of his YouTube entertainment venture). It doesn't really fit within the whole concept of his show (conceiving, designing, building and testing the contraption or device within a fairly short timespan of a few weeks between two episodes). There may well be future models of electric (or some other type of propulsion) aircraft designs that would improve on the MK4, but as all of this needs to fit within the show's timeframe, it can get better only so much.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
I'd like him to build a submarine. A quick overview on the white board on how buoyancy and control surfaces work, then straight to an old propane tank or 55 gallon drums, the grinder, a 12vdc compressor for blowing ballast, some emergency concrete cutaway ballast slabs underneath for insurance... Captain Nemo within a month.

#### proppastie

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
As to the "what practical use" question, my heart sank!
In my more cynical moods I often wonder what this site would be like if only those that have built and flew an aircraft could comment

#### jedi

##### Well-Known Member
FWIW - I just watched "Big Blue Sky" on You Tube about the history of hang gliding. This is a period that I participated in.

I found it interesting to ponder how a similar development to hang gliding would develop in today's computer/You Tube technology environment.

Would modern technology kill the development by presenting too many failures or speed the development thru more efficient communication.

What was most impressive was the importance of low cost. You really could build a flying machine in a week of after hours work at a ridiculously low cost.

A production hang glider could be purchased for less than $200 with a drop cloth for a sail. I paid$75 for my HBA aluminum frame and high quality plastic sail. A Bamboo Butterfly could be built for \$25 or less as the bamboo was free from the carpet stores.

#### Dana

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I found it interesting to ponder how a similar development to hang gliding would develop in today's computer/You Tube technology environment.

Would modern technology kill the development by presenting too many failures or speed the development thru more efficient communication.
Look at the paramotor world. I think it's safe to say it exists in its present form solely because of the internet.

#### jedi

##### Well-Known Member
Or ..... Look at the paramotor world. I think it's safe to say many pilots will not fly a paramotor solely because of the internet.

Want to bet on the results of a HBA vote.

#### stanislavz

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Millennials or not - kind of an example.

This is a channel of "Stig" in home foundry world. He have tons of absolutely must see videos. There is no more than 2-3 such highly qualified person on youtube with many videos. And yes, they do not have 6 numbered views per video.

But - if you try to find "lost foam casting"

You will find much more different videos...

like this :

Close to six number of views. Not super quality, dangerous pouring etc.. But we all like a show.

This one was done by me, by using lost foam :

Why i did not make it hard way ? I can cnc cut foam, and make a mold in a time of aluminium being molded..

#### Highflight

##### Well-Known Member
I find disappointment in the poor performance of Peter's designs, all that work to build an ultralight to have it be abandoned, 0&4. Success to me would be an airworthy plane that would last many years, if it employs innovative construction or flying abilities all the better. Burt Rutan stated he is currently working on a EVTOl design, he also stated he was impressed by the design and disappointed by the progress of the BlackFly development.

Last edited:

##### Well-Known Member
I find disappointment in the poor performance of Peter's designs, all that work to build an ultralight to have it be abandoned, 0&4.
I'm sure he just feels awful that you are so disappointed...all the way to the bank!

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
I find disappointment in the poor performance of Peter's designs, all that work to build an ultralight to have it be abandoned, 0&4. Success to me would be an airworthy plane that would last many years
“Personally I find disappointment in the poor longevity of Burt Rutan’s designs, all that work to build the Voyager to have it be parked forever after one big flight. Success to me would be a practical plane that can fly non-stop around the world routinely.”

See how easy that is? If you move the goalposts you can make anyone a failure without really needing to put in any effort yourself. It’s win-win!

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Burt said in that video that Ben Diachun should fly the Blackfly into Airventure and Burt wouldn't say why they didn't.
I say they didn't fly into Air Venture 2019 because it doesn't qualify as an ultralight. Because the wings do not have enough area to qualify under the ultralight unpowered stall speed rule.
Ben Diachun seems confused about ultralight rules in this video:

Last edited:

#### Highflight

##### Well-Known Member
I'm sure he just feels awful that you are so disappointed...all the way to the bank!
Just so we are completely clear Peter is only into building ultralights for the YouTube money and not for his initial stated reason.

Last edited:

#### berridos

##### Well-Known Member
Guess he is less ambitious than we are and doesnt get lost in complexity and performance. Doing a vehicle that just takes off, would be for most of us a 1 year project and not an 8 year project most of us aim at.

#### Dana

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Peter is kind of like a young Mark Stull (RIP). For those here who don't remember Mark, he built and flew a new ultralight every year, usually using pieces of the old one(s). IIRC he was up to about #10. Some were better than others, some were positively weird, and none were intended to last; it was all about the adventure of designing and building something new. Sadly, he didn't survive the test flight of his last design.

#### b7gwap

##### Well-Known Member
Peter is kind of like a young Mark Stull (RIP). For those here who don't remember Mark, he built and flew a new ultralight every year, usually using pieces of the old one(s). IIRC he was up to about #10. Some were better than others, some were positively weird, and none were intended to last; it was all about the adventure of designing and building something new. Sadly, he didn't survive the test flight of his last design.
And thank goodness for HBA and the fact that Mark took the time to document his work here. He passed before I joined the site, but because of the technology, his memory lives on, his friendly demeanor and pioneering spirit can still be experienced by new HBA perusers.

#### PredragVasic

##### Member
I find disappointment in the poor performance of Peter's designs, all that work to build an ultralight to have it be abandoned, 0&4. Success to me would be an airworthy plane that would last many years, if it employs innovative construction or flying abilities all the better.
Several cynical responses here, so I’ll try a more tactful one.

It is easy to understand your disappointment, as someone of the HBA community. Most of us here approach homebuilding an aircraft with patience, methodical research, learning, consulting others and generally we take all the time necessary to get it done right. I can’t even venture a guess what is the average time an amateur-built airplane took from plans (or kit) to test flight, it I’m sure it is measured in years.

This kid has a fixed (self-imposed) deadline for each of his wild projects, and it is measured in weeks (not even months). He is a successful YouTuber with a fairly large audience (1.7 million subscribers, 260 million total views). His mission statement is production of “make videos”, with one new episode every few weeks. So, for this to work, he has to think up, create, design, build, test, revise and finalise the entire project in less than a month.

His planes (if there will even be any more in the future) will never be optimised designs for a specific ultralight category, nor will the design ever be optimised for home building or even publishing. The sole purpose for each of his contraptions is the building process itself, not the final result.

As I had said earlier, from our perspective, I think we can like him for exposing tens of millions of his young audience to homebuilding an aircraft (simply as something that can actually be done). By doing that, he will likely motivate many of them to google a bit further and discover the amazing world of the amateur-built aircraft.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
His planes (if there will even be any more in the future) will never be optimised designs for a specific ultralight category, nor will the design ever be optimised for home building or even publishing. The sole purpose for each of his contraptions is the building process itself, not the final result.
Agree with that, but I hope that the many young and or naive viewers do not make the mistake of thinking that they can replicate Peter's "designs" and have a safe, useful ultralight or airplane.

BJC

#### PredragVasic

##### Member
...I hope that the many young and or naive viewers do not make the mistake of thinking that they can replicate Peter's "designs" and have a safe, useful ultralight or airplane.
It is possible that some may think that, but Peter is apparently careful in his explanations to include enough of engineering decisions that emphasise safety (use of aviation-grade hardware, stress testing, etc) that those who have at least a little bit of intelligence will fully understand the risks and the seriousness.

And then, there will always be people like this: