another ultralight build by Peter

Thanks for posting this here F T , I saw it a couple of days ago on HBA .

I really like this guys 'can do' attitude and his first creation was pretty impressive .

cheers

Jim G

OK, my inbox is probably going to get spammed into meltdown but...

Saw the heading picture and thought, 'that looks like an interesting take on the Legal Eagle layout, so I watched the video.

Then I saw how he was making it, and the Bunnings quality materials he was using and couldn't help myself, I had to take him aside and point out a few things.

I know the armchair experts at youtube are going to explode on me, but the kid shows real promise and tenacity, it would just be better to funnel that enthusiasm into better knowledge of what he's trying to do.

Guess I'm just losing some of my tact in my old age?

part 103 is such an open category, i was thinking he had over engineered it

IMO, for a low and slow design like he's making, even Bunnings materials are OK PROVIDED the engineering is right.

IMO, for a low and slow design like he's making, even Bunnings materials are OK PROVIDED the engineering is right.

I was looking at various parts of his concept like, light alloy angle around the perimeter of his foam tail surfaces, which would be heavier than the ply he used on his biplane.

I mean the whole tail concept is pretty agricultural from a weight aspect, to say nothing of the heavy control surface balance and possibility of low frequency flutter (I've had it, I know it can happen).

Then there's the square tubing he decided to use for the fuse frame, can't tell if it's inch and a half or two inch square, but very obviously one eighth wall thickness.

Much better tubing is commonly available, like a two inch square with rounded corners and only one sixteenth wall which I have used a lot in my designs, or even better in his situation would have been typical hang glider leading edge tube, two and a half inch round with also one sixteenth wall, lighter ind stiffer than the thin square I use and better in the twisting situation.

All his machined brackets are from more of the heavy walled, square cornered tube, when there is square tube with filleted corners is available.

True enough, he probably hasn't put any thought into how long this structure is to last, and I'm coming from working on forty plus year old Cessnas and the like.

Should be interesting to see what material he has planned to cover the wings with...

As a modeller 'in the business', I would think he has the ability to bargain with some of the model film suppliers to get large rolls of 'name your iron on film here' at a good price.

Guess we'll just have to watch and see...

I just hope he doesn't kill himself.  I wish he would stick to model (UNMANNED)  aeroplanes.  He did what he set out to do with the last one.   He built and flew an electric aircraft using hobby grade materials.   Now move on Peter please.

it would just be better to funnel that enthusiasm into better knowledge of what he's trying to do.

This.

There's a number of questionable things he does that he needs someone with experience hanging around to mention them to him as he goes.

Might fly for years, and make all the knockers look silly, but also one day one of those questionable items is going to make for a bad scenerio, suddenly.

I don't think he's doing it to build a plane that's going to last years.  He has a very clever business method going on here.  Firstly, he's getting stuff like electric motors for hugely discounted prices - if not free - because he's showing their product in the build.  Then he's getting the "wow, this guy built a plane out of normal stuff" buzz going so his youtube views go through the roof.  As his profile grows, his money from advertising grows, and he gets to do the stuff he always wanted to do anyway and has his lifestyle completely funded.

Good on him, and I hope he has fun.  I reckon he'll fly each plane a few times and quietly cannibalize all the useful stuff out of them.

I don't think he's doing it to build a plane that's going to last years.  He has a very clever business method going on here.  Firstly, he's getting stuff like electric motors for hugely discounted prices - if not free - because he's showing their product in the build.  Then he's getting the "wow, this guy built a plane out of normal stuff" buzz going so his youtube views go through the roof.  As his profile grows, his money from advertising grows, and he gets to do the stuff he always wanted to do anyway and has his lifestyle completely funded.Good on him, and I hope he has fun.  I reckon he'll fly each plane a few times and quietly cannibalize all the useful stuff out of them.

Yeah.  He already did all that with his last electric plane?   

Yeah, I think it's all about the video "production". It's not marketed to aircraft builders as "how to build an aircraft" but to low attention span millennials.

He needs to feed his subscribers and promote his sponsors so there will be a 30 second flight and then on to the next project.

If you think of it as pure "media" rather than a serious aircraft build, it makes more sense....

I don't think he's doing it to build a plane that's going to last years. 

It has some potentials there to fail at any moment.

Yeah, I think it's all about the video "production". It's not marketed to aircraft builders as "how to build an aircraft" but to low attention span millennials.He needs to feed his subscribers and promote his sponsors so there will be a 30 second flight and then on to the next project.

 

If you think of it as pure "media" rather than a serious aircraft build, it makes more sense....

Then why is he going to Oshkosh?

Then why is he going to Oshkosh?

Real designers,

Real builders,

Real pilots.

But then again, the yanks do like a celebrity, and everything on youtube is real isn't it?

Oh shock horror, it failed ...

Must admit, I only watched the first video, and even then I suspected it was going to be slightly on the heavy.

Now watching this video, and seeing some of the materials used, I'm only slightly surprised it could barely get off the ground.

At least he's starting to come to grips with some of the stuff he's been overlooking.

It's only the U/c leg failed , but It's obviously too heavy/draggy to fly with the power available, without getting into the aeroelastic aspects and flutter possibilities.. If you can calculate a few shear loads and bending moments you could save a lot of weight. There's no real attempt to minimize drag. He's keen though. Needs his luck to hold till his experience is adequate .Nev

A few days ago he was doing some ground rolls in a field with long grass and hit something with that landing gear, it looked bent back then I guess he didn't fix it. it does looks a bit underpowered.

Underpowered, overweight and/or c of g well aft.......

Just didn't look like the tail would come up. I'm wondering if he even gave it full power....

he said the motors were playing up

On the youtube thread, so many people were saying he should put on a tailwheel, but he was sticking to a skid for weight(?), I think he needs a longer skid as sitting on the ground, it is well above stalling angle and affecting his acceleration.

To say nothing of being tail heavy (he admits he left the seat too far back) and the possibility of the tail/elevator remaining stalled for a lot of the ground roll.

Without a prop on the front, there is no real reason to have a long U/C set-up.

Most modellers will see that the thing barely flying, and just at the edge of stall.

We don't know what power setting he is using. He might be deliberately remaining low in the early stages of testing it. When you are over a longish runway, that has appeal. Nev

He's replacing the engines