Peter Sripol is at it again...

[rotax618]

Many dreamers don’t have 4 or 5 years and many thousands of $ to expend on their dream of flight, Peter efforts have been an inspiration to that cohort. This forum seems to be inhabited by purists and nay sayers, I call them the destroyers of dreams.

 

[proppastie]

Very few here really know how very difficult it is to DESIGN BUILD AND FINISH even one aircraft, most homebuilders can not even build to a set of plans and probably a majority can not even finish a kit. It certainly is a tough crowd here.

 

[BJC]

This forum seems to be inhabited by purists and nay sayers, I call them the destroyers of dreams.

I believe that there are plenty of dreamers here, both contributing members and lurkers. Nothing wrong with that; glad to have them around. There are lots of active threads about dreams.

There is a difference between naysaying and legitimately critiquing an airplane design. Note, also, that realization of dreams are constrained by the reality of physics, finance and abilities.

Not sure just what you mean by a purist.


BJC

 

[rotax618]

I mean those who think that...a homebuilt should be designed by at least one Boeing engineer, that Lycoming and Continental are the only engines you should use to power an aircraft, that if you dream of building a homebuilt you are far better off buying a used Piper or Cessna, the cruciform shape is the only valid form for aeroplanes, wooden airplanes are dangerous because the glue won’t last 300 years.I have heard these and similar opinions espoused so many times on this forum.
Homebuilding is the last bastion of innovation in light aviation, the large manufacturers have given up on this sector, the cost of flying has gone through the roof. I believe that all dreams of flight should be encouraged, everything from model airplanes, gyros, powered parachutes, trikes et al.

 

[TFF]

The dreamers that get shot down are, in a valley girl voice , say stuff like I want a P51 but it has to be made from carbon, it has to be electric and be able to land and takeoff from water while flying around the equator on one tank of fuel made from scooping up cloud vapor.

People shoot themselves down by not being able to hone into reasonable buildable dream. Comeback with something honed down. Comeback with something a government budget is not needed. There are plenty of sites that will cater to unreasonable. If it is such a super idea, I am happy to be proven wrong. I want to see it in front of me in real form. I’m interested in pushing a real idea into something real, not something that stays on a piece of paper for the sake of being on paper. Not that can’t be where it starts, but if it’s un buildable it’s not real.

 

[rotax618]

I agree dangerous techniques should be called out, but irrespective of the merits of Peter’s plane, the discussion of his materials and methods is both educational and inspirational when applied to a very light aircraft. Some have decided that he is simply generating youtube click bait and everything is rubbish.

 

[proppastie]

If you look at the video post 1 and notice the what I would call the extreme satisfaction, and happiness Peter shows after the completion of his first flight you would know that designing and building this his 4 th aircraft was much more to him than "click bait" .....Watching only very small clips as to what went into that aircraft does not do the project justice.....Great Job Peter

 

[Bille Floyd]

...
This forum seems to be inhabited by purists and nay sayers, I call them the destroyers of dreams.

I have dreams of launching my rigid, with adequate power and a folding
prop so i can soar the skies above large mountains ; but if i can't
get a service-life of a decade + from my dream machine, then
i'll be fully content with the foot-launch method for soaring. A rebuild for
the engine is tolerable, to complete the mission.

NO --- i don't want a devise , that only lasts a year or less ; and i ain't
impressed with a machine that won't (.)

Bille

 

[EzyBuildWing]

Free full-design info here on lightweight inexpensive floaters, all foam wings, HP calcs and what engines to use, plus designs and working-drawings of airplanes, floatplanes, and propellers......all available here,and it is FREE!:

Home

 

[karmarepair]

Free full-design info here on lightweight inexpensive floaters, all foam wings, HP calcs and what engines to use, plus designs and working-drawings of airplanes, floatplanes, and propellers......all available here,and it is FREE!:

Home

What's on the Beaujon web site is a tiny fraction of what he used to publish, and DOES NOT include any drawings of his designs. Some of his ideas have not passed the test of time, like epoxy and dacron over foam. Others look pretty clever. I haven't tried it yet, but I THINK an email query to feedback@beaujonaircraft.com MIGHT yield information on how to buy a copy of his manual/plans.

 

[karmarepair]

When I first saw the structure connecting the fuselage to the wing, from a TLAR perspective, I thought it undersize.

Milholland has seven tubes which appear larger in diameter than Sripol's.

Sripol used nine tubes with three being very small - maybe even 3 rods, not tubes.

Another difference is load paths. Milholland avoids the compression Sripol sees in the short horizontal tubes above his head.

I agree, Milholland's structure looks more efficient. Under normal conditions, those cabanes are loaded mostly in tension, so Peter's skinny tubes may be Good Enough. The way he load tested the wings actually put that structure in COMPRESSION, where thin, unsupported tubes like to buckle, and at the equivalent of about 3.5 to 4gs NEGATIVE (on this area, positive on the wings), they were showing signs of deflection, but hadn't buckled.

============ Segue ============

If you want to engage with Peter, and support what he's doing, you can become a Patron via Patreon, and for a buck a month, see his videos before the general public does, and send him messages he MAY answer. I have done this, and plan to ask him a few specific questions that have been raised here.

Peter is learning a lot, fast. He lost control of the weight of his MK3 airplane, and ended up with something VERY marginal; I'd argue WORSE than this version. But he learned to weld. Each plane advances his knowledge and skills. He has expressed a desire to have a more useful airplane, and the MK4 seems to be aimed at that goal, although he acknowledges it probably isn't there YET.

He appears to be in his mid-20's. He's designed, built and flown 4 airplanes. He's making a good living doing EXACTLY what he wants to do. I'm a fan.

 

[Speedboat100]

You have to see that Peter is building electric plane inside part 103 rule. He has 45 lbs of batteries inside of the craft.

 

[Victor Bravo]

I want to make it clear that I think what Peter is doing is fantastic. Just because we here on HBA are discussing the relative merits and issues with what he is doing... does NOT mean we are being purists, or knocking what he is doing. The clear fact is that he is making semi-disposable airplanes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with reminding ourselves that his airplanes are semi-disposable and can't be used the same way Rockiedog uses his Legal Eagle.

Peter is in the youtube business. Call that clickbait, or call it the new town hall, or the new Popular Mechanics, or call it internet porn for nerds... it doesn't matter. It is the medium in which he is succeeding greatly.

Years ago I knew several people who were in the television business here in Los Angeles. What made great TV shows succeed was that every week, you would tune in to see characters or actors that you had already accepted and liked, but they did a new complete story. The expression that the old-school screenwriters used was "every week the audience meets your lead character, then you put the lead character up a tree, then you kick the s**t out of him for a little more than half of the show, then you get him down from the tree, then the audience sees some small thing that makes them smile... then play him off with the theme music and roll the credits". Next week, lather, rinse, repeat. Any of you folks here that remember The Rockford Files, The Jeffersons, the A-Team, Magnum PI, and dozens of other classic sitcoms and private eye shows can go back and see this formula played out over and over.

Although the medium and the format have changed since Jim Rockford, what an audience reacts to is still very similar today. So although it is not the only successful "formula" there is on youtube, the formula Peter and others are using should be reasonably familiar. Check in with someone you have accepted and who's likeable (Peter), have a project that contains some challenges (put him up a tree), then have difficulties and mishaps or epic equipment fails along the way (kick the crap out of him), then finally have him figure out the solution with a different battery, or motor, or wing structure (get him down from the tree). Then make sure that the airplane flies, with some beautiful video of him flying over farm fields and trees (make the audience smile).

Whether he studied 50 year old sitcoms and private eye shows, or stumbled upon this formula by accident, or whether they teach this formula in schools... I don't know. But Peter is doing it well, whether purposely or otherwise, and we all benefit from his presence on youtube.

 

[Speedboat100]

I quite agree and he is not trying to hide it. He has appeared in Flite Test and two other YouTube aviators site as well.

 

[rotax618]

Hear, Hear.

 

[TFF]

If you looked at the original ULs, they were disposable too. More so than Peter’s. The big difference is time, historical time. Peter is somewhat reliving the early UL history.

Human nature is to use it up. Making that call is tough if you are having fun, having to shut down the fun. Anyone remember the 20/20 news show where they showed the UL fold it’s wing and plummet to the ground? It’s why I like how the Legal Eagle is so conventional a airplane. Trust.

A lot of what he does has been done before. In 1979-80, I put Econokote on my Goldberg Ranger 42. Looked like crap. My dad hated that airplane because of the foam. I bet he is not the first to do it man carrying. Probably the first to not use 8mm to document it.

When you are looking for LE solidity, you have already played out the stuff that will not give it to you. The old guys are not interested in reliving the past they have seen, that is the po po comments. A lot of it’s been there done that; not what they are looking for.

It’s new to Peter. It’s new to his audience. Reliving is also easier than for him to make a giant leap into some truly new build material or structural shape. He has beat spins on stuff for sure. Most videos that do well are low brow, every man. Too high end technical is not profitable on YouTube. Projects that take multiple videos don’t do as well across the board either


He is living a fun life, getting to build toys for pay. We are all jealous of that. No matter the scale.

Leave you name and number after the message, and I’ll get back to ya.

 

[jedi]

TODAY: 10/01/2020

Light sport is the big thing in the USA. SSDR is the big thing east of the Big Pond.

Both came from the Ultralight craze in the USA. The UL movement came from the disposable aircraft of the 70's. The disposable aircraft of the 70's came from the inflation of the 60's and the recession that followed.

Where does that leave us today? Depends on how you interpret the past and forecast the future.

I have my opinion. Your opinion may vary.

 

[BBerson]

Electric can't be much other than what you see if the so called FAR103 battery weight rule is enforced.
There is no Legal Eagle electric.

And my opinion is today is 11/01/2020.

 

[xwing]

delete - wrong thread

 

[Speedboat100]

Sripols foam use has one advantage; it serves as insulation in high altitude and in the wintertime in north.