# Peter Sripol is at it again...

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Keep in mind that Peter is not designing an HBA to be useful or even replicated. He is providing entertainment on YT as a business venture. He is very good at that.
Yes. As VB mentioned earlier, it is possible/likely that the analysis and engineering going on is more extensive than Peter shows. This analysis could be Peter's or his associates'/friends'. It would be interesting if, before the build video, we could see any work or even TLAR that went into figuring the foam webs in the wings.
Some folks find it more fun/inspiring to believe Peter is sketching things out on a napkin and just going for it. I'd find it more entertaining to see a 5 minute explanation on the white board, including any TLAR bits or "build and test" portions ("iterative engineering").

Last edited:

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Maybe that was a different plane, or a different video?
I did see another video before this one. But yes, I said about 5 g "on the foam" because all the sand bags were on the foam instead of cheating and placing the bags on the spars. So the foam was overloaded. It wasn't a full test program that requires two or more separate load conditions, but better than most and he explained that.
I spoke to him at Airventure and got the feeling he doesn't need much help from old guys.

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
Peter is very smart not letting anyone see numbers verses the other Peter. Also, Peter is only making money from video and he gets a free plane out of it. The other Peter is hoping to make money on the airplane only. Peter is a showcase, like the old Autoramas. Demonstration of possible technology. Free thinking ideas. If you like, hit the subscribe bell, but if you want to use, do it on your own numbers.

When he did the load test, he knew where to look for fuselage problems, which he showed. He knew how far he could take it the way he did it. He knows the numbers. He also knows speculators, who have numbers, will randomly change them to suit themselves, and he is not going to get blamed for that.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
To focus on the full-span foam ribs for one moment, I am curious as to how that technique might be adapted to more demanding applications *without* going to composite construction because I personally hate working with fiberglass and resin. We have discussed plywood-and-foam ribs before (Foam ribs with plywood capstrips?). I could see a full plywood skin or a plywood lattice CNC cut from sheet glued down over the foam making a very strong and rigid structure in combination with your choice of conventional spars.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
OK, I'll bite, who is the other Peter?

Peter is very smart not letting anyone see numbers verses the other Peter.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I think it deserves repeating that Peter S. is very cleverly and profitably building airplanes with an expected/design lifespan of 5 hours or less. That changes the game considerably.

Then, he's building airplanes that have an expected/design loading of 2G or less. That changes the game even more.

It is entirely possible that if you hired Lockheed ADP or Boeing Phantom Works to build an aircraft to the same design and mission and budget and construction time specifications as Peter's airplanes, they might come up with something very very close to what he is doing.

Our job, as the "old guys who want a future for aviation", is to do two things. First, capitalize on what Peter is doing, by finding a way to convert his trillions of youtube watchers into people who stay interested in aviation. Second, we need to find a way to convince Peter to continue building airplanes, but airplanes that are a little less disposable each new version.

One way we can do this second thing IMHO is to convince him that the future of his "enterprise" is to have a growth plan for when all those youtube viewers get tired of what he's doing now. Sooner or later it will be "oh, another quick and dirty foam airplane... naahhh, let's look at the Kardashians"

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
I would, at some point, like to make simple kits. Easy to build, easy to fly, don't cost too much. Elements of multiple threads appeal. Direct drive industrial V twin, the Ranger and my experimental plastic construction.

#### stanislavz

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Easy to build, easy to fly, don't cost too much
Chose any two

You will have to supply all structure prebuild for safety. Which will bring price a little higher.

You may supply it as roll of cf + two buckets of epoxy + cnc hot wire machine rent with some locally bought foam blocks - it will be cheap. But far from easy and safe..

Or one could go old rag and bolted tube way as good old days. It will fly, but not on eletricity.

On my personal though - Strojnik s4 look-alike, maybe some larger wings for more motorglider.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
And at this point, with its vertical fin sticking out of the water, and John Williams' terrifying music in the background... this thread starts to veer toward the 21st Century Volksplane thread.

We're gonna need a bigger monitor...

#### proppastie

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
one old guy likes the design, load tested to a reasonable number, change the covering to UV resistant fabric system, it will live outside, fiddle with the prop to get better performance....great potential UL plane.