Raptor Aircraft

I agree that putting it down in that flat country is a promising outcome, but i worry that his Flight Aware track shows speed and altitude diminishing together, as opposed to speed remaining high until the very last of the descent at the previous landing.

Hopefully we will learn that he did indeed arrive at the airport safely, with a flyable aircraft. With only 18 planes based there, there will be very little amenities and support facilities for any repairs he may need to do. The local farmers can pump him some diesel if he needs that.

Thanks, RG, for the information
 
Well………..that’s going to hurt marketing.

Glad to hear he’s ok.
 
Peter just posted this comment to his latest YT video:

"I'm fine. The aircraft is down in a corn field. We're working on the logistics of getting it out and on a truck. The redrive had some kind of problem that I had not experienced before. Need more investigation to find out why but in the grand scheme we weren't planning on using that design going forward anyway. A bit of a set back but you know me well enough by now to know that I'll keep pushing on with the program."
 
Corn fields aren't known to be kind to airframes, but at least he's not hurt.

Had he been flying at more than a thousand feet above the ground, he would have likely had more options available.
 
Oof. My aviation-related haunts online are going to be just drowning with Schadenfreude today.

I wonder if he was honestly intending to cross the rockies. Better it let loose over the corn, the terrain gets pretty unappetizing quickly westbound.
 
Rgbeard said:
Corn fields aren't known to be kind to airframes, but at least he's not hurt.

Had he been flying at more than a thousand feet above the ground, he would have likely had more options available.
Click to expand...
More options, but all of them would still be corn fields.
 
flightwriter said:
Peter just posted this comment to his latest YT video:

"I'm fine. The aircraft is down in a corn field. We're working on the logistics of getting it out and on a truck. The redrive had some kind of problem that I had not experienced before. Need more investigation to find out why but in the grand scheme we weren't planning on using that design going forward anyway. A bit of a set back but you know me well enough by now to know that I'll keep pushing on with the program."
Click to expand...

"I landed in a corn field but it's fine and I'll fly again before I determine how to safely make it over the mountains"
 
The number of relatively safe landing spots is definitely one luxury we enjoy in this state. Glad he's ok.
 
Z06_Mir said:
"I landed in a corn field but it's fine and I'll fly again before I determine how to safely make it over the mountains"
Click to expand...
I hope you're wrong. What would he have to gain by fixing it remotely? I hope he trucks it to Idaho and "fixes" it there.
 
Jim Bede was a huckster too, but was a competent designer. His BD-1 was not successful as he originally envisioned it, but at least it was sound enough so that when adults finally took over the company the design was made into something that was certifiable and worked, and very well.
 
tumblr_nksbwzgbf11tq4of6o1_400.gifv
 
flightwriter said:
Peter just posted this comment to his latest YT video:

"I'm fine. The aircraft is down in a corn field. We're working on the logistics of getting it out and on a truck. The redrive had some kind of problem that I had not experienced before. Need more investigation to find out why but in the grand scheme we weren't planning on using that design going forward anyway. A bit of a set back but you know me well enough by now to know that I'll keep pushing on with the program."
Click to expand...

He also posted this a couple of hours ago

"After investigation it turns out that the stake washer that locks the stake nut on the prop shaft failed. 40 hours of flying time ago I reassembled that using unused tabs on the washer and it had no play. I'm guessing it was just a poor design and as I said we're not using it going forward. Once the nut came loose the play in the shaft allowed the belts to jump on the pulleys and that was game over."
 
KSNB has on their facebook page: "Experiment with Experimental plane didn't work. Arkansas pilot has to put plane down in cornfield near Fairmont, NE."

Yeah, that sums it up.
 
With all of the section lines in that part of Nebraska I wonder why it went into the corn? Thinking about bio-diesel perhaps? After pics should be interesting.
 
“Any landing you can walk away from...”

Good aviating, if not ADM.

Hey, we gotta say a few positive things every few pages, eh?
 
farmrjohn said:
With all of the section lines in that part of Nebraska I wonder why it went into the corn? Thinking about bio-diesel perhaps? After pics should be interesting.
Click to expand...
Tree rows next to roads, power lines parallel to or across roads, and inconsistent road surfaces ranging from pavement to two-track trails. We weren’t there so it’s hard to say what he saw out the windshield to influence his decision about where to put it down. Also, the crosswind may have been more than he had landed in before and a gravel farm road can make for a very narrow, “squirmy,” and steep-ditched runway. People lose control and go off of gravel roads at 40 mph in a car often enough, it could easily happen in an airplane going faster than that. Lots of possible reasons he came to a rest in a corn field.
 
Also plus the sweat stinging his eyes from blazing the heater nonstop. Would have made it hard to discern those power lines. Big square fields, though... sure shot. :D
 
It pains me to say this but I think it's time he just puts a big old Continental in there..

I'd love to put my vote in for a rotax but that plane is far too heavy

If this exercise has proven anything it's that his power train is not scalable and not applicable to hundreds of hours of use
 
Tantalum said:
It pains me to say this but I think it's time he just puts a big old Continental in there..

I'd love to put my vote in for a rotax but that plane is far too heavy

If this exercise has proven anything it's that his power train is not scalable and not applicable to hundreds of hours of use
Click to expand...

I vote for TIO-540. But I am biased.
 
Tantalum said:
It pains me to say this but I think it's time he just puts a big old Continental in there..

I'd love to put my vote in for a rotax but that plane is far too heavy

If this exercise has proven anything it's that his power train is not scalable and not applicable to hundreds of hours of use
Click to expand...
upload_2021-8-6_19-17-47.jpeg

TurboProp – Garrett
  • TPE331
  • 600 to 1000/shp
  • Hartzell prop
 
It looks like it lands fast and kinda terrible. Which given the initial premise of RC testing, and having watched many flying wing RC's land, seems to fit. You fly them down, or you drop them in, the latter probably not preferable in human flight. Am I missing something?
 
Peter
"After investigation it turns out that the stake washer that locks the stake nut on the prop shaft failed. 40 hours of flying time ago I reassembled that using unused tabs on the washer and it had no play. I'm guessing it was just a poor design and as I said we're not using it going forward. Once the nut came loose the play in the shaft allowed the belts to jump on the pulleys and that was game over."

Running out of money, or impatience when the proper part is not available, were the lead to this failure. He re used the old stake washer, since it still had at least one unused tab. Those are one time use items. I wonder if he torqued to the proper value before staking the tab? Or stopped when an unused tab lined up? In automotive drive lines, that torque is in the many hundred foot pounds. Under torqueing will cause high loads on that nut and washer.

On a more positive note, the swept wing should have dealt with the corn better than a 'normal' straight wing, reducing the chance of flipping on his back.

Happy he is on the internet in his customary positive approach to his troubles.
 
Last edited:
donjohnston said:
I would be amazed if any carrier would write a policy for in-motion loss on an R&D experimental aircraft build by someone with zero experience.
Click to expand...

Yet underwriters sign up to cover E/ABs built in people’s garages by amateurs with zero experience every day?

Never say never.
 
mondtster said:
Yet underwriters sign up to cover E/ABs built in people’s garages by amateurs with zero experience every day?

Never say never.
Click to expand...
First, I did not say "never".

Second (and more importantly) there is a world of difference between the risk profile of insuring an E/AB aircraft with numerous aircraft flying and an E/R&D, one-off, untested aircraft with an auto engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top