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).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.
Look at the paramotor world. I think it's safe to say it exists in its present form solely because of the internet.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.
“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.”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
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.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.
Several cynical responses here, so I’ll try a more tactful one.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.
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.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.
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....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.