This is pretty much what Burt said at Mojave last month.The story I heard was Mike built a Viggen and did such a great job Burt hired him to answer the builder support phone. That allowed Burt to work on the next design.
I’m not a canard expert (far from), but I suspect that has a lot to do with the landing gear configuration. If the mains are far aft and/or the nose gear is short, then some form of rotation will be required to achieve lift. If the nose gear is long, then it might fly itself off in three-point attitude if the canard is designed to stall before the main wing. Of course, ground effect might change things too.they tend to lift up rather than change angle of attack like an elevator designed plane. I say this as the raptor kinda jumped the front wheel up rather than a level lift up
vsBurt R. was a flight test engineer, and that's not the procedure he recommended in any of his POH's. In short, the recommended procedure was to accelerate to a particular speed (for the VE, it was 40 KIAS to start) and chop the throttle, then gradually add back pressure to see if the nose would rise. A gradual increase in IAS by 5 KIAS on each run, with a gradual application of back pressure after the throttle chop, gives a safe and non-surprising action of nose lift-off.
Mighta missed but bottom line is the test pilot who turned down flight testing also didn't even end up doing taxi runsPeter is slowly talking himself into flying the airplane personally, and that's been obvious, at least to me, for 3-4 months now. He swore from the beginning that he'd be using a "professional test pilot" for all the flight testing. He's rationalized doing taxi tests himself, and is now to the point of lifting off the nosewheel. Someone mentioned that he thought the mains came off on that last flight (I didn't see the video). If that's the case, and since "nothing bad happened," he's only one step removed from doing what he swore he wouldn't do, at the beginning.
I don't think that's quite fair.Just a thought !!!! with 99% of Peters YT followers blowing smoke up his a*se, maybe he can just float, like a Barrage Balloon, along the 5000ft runway, problem of test flying sorted ????
I didn't take it out of context. You used two terms in a way that I didn't understand so I requested clarification, noting more.Firstly my response to the OP was in context, you have taken my reply to him out of context, but no problem, I'll answer anyway:
I don't really understand this part. Peter isn't the first person in the homebuilt market to solicit funds to build a prototype and if it ultimately fails, won't be the first to have those funds blown on a non-viable project. That's the nature of the beast when you decide to crowd source an endeavor. Yes, I know that there are some who self fund their projects but they are the exception, not the rule.Correct, they are all 'Connercial Ventures', the difference is they proved or put their products on the market before they took public money, whereas Raptor has taken 2.7 million and continued on a path of doing everything except proving it.
If people want to pony up funds to create an assembly line to manufacture tin holes for teddy bears, more power to them. It's their money and their decision. Not to mention that there are more than a few "naive people" who are now millionaires because of their perceived naivete. No, i am not suggesting that there will be a whole crop of millionaires because of the Raptor project but stranger things have happened.I suspect there is 4 or 5 Members of this forum who would have had it flying a while ago with change to spare had it been under their wing.
Naturally I am unaware of how all of those companies got to be where they are, eg; their funding base, but if they also risked apparently naive people's money, then I am quite happy to critisise their methods also, as I have demonstrated in this thread recently with a similar project who did so.
OK guys sorry , to be honest I admire Peters passion for the project, its just I find it so frustrating when so many people, myself included, offer suggestions for problems he knows he has, the latest ReDrive video being a case in point. I simply cannot understand that he cant see the issue is the 'fixed Redrive' and 'floating engine' and the many YT suggestions, 99% having no idea what there talking about !!!!I agree. Let's keep this about the airplane and the project, please, and not veer off into attacking Peter personally. Thanks.
Yeah, you can't blame him too much for ignoring advice when the majority is from people who don't know what they are talking about. Look at all the advice to use crowned pulleys...OK guys sorry , to be honest I admire Peters passion for the project, its just I find it so frustrating when so many people, myself included, offer suggestions for problems he knows he has, the latest ReDrive video being a case in point. I simply cannot understand that he cant see the issue is the 'fixed Redrive' and 'floating engine' and the many YT suggestions, 99% having no idea what there talking about !!!!
And? You act like the Raptor project is the first one I have vilified, and you would be far from correct. It just happens to be the current one.Peter isn't the first person in the homebuilt market to solicit funds to build a prototype and if it ultimately fails, won't be the first to have those funds blown on a non-viable project.
That's the nature of the beast when you decide to crowd source an endeavor.
How did this play out? His indiegogo campaign failed so he switched over to soliciting deposits? I agree, that is a different proposition.Soliciating forward deposits is NOT crowdfunding, it is contractual obligation to supply said product.
I had not known about this till just now.