They put some lady in jail 'cuz she told he ex to commit suicide, and he did, so watch what you say.
How about the "Test Pilots" the guy is trying to kill by flying in his death tra...err ground breaking...wait thats kind of the same as death trap...um visionary aircraft?
It's fairly safe to infer that he does not understand how flutter works. And with his wildly flopping ailerons during taxi testing leading to broken landing gear, which he is addressing by adding weighted spades and replacing pulleys and cables, it is also likely that he still doesn't know much about flutter.
Of course not! The guy is a raging idiot. I don't think he understands anything about planes.. he's the adult equivalent of an eight-year-old designing planes on Microsoft Paint
the loss of the ghost was caused by the loss of the trim tab connecting bolt. it did not involve flutter. in a nut shell, the P51 was not designed to fly at those speeds, so without modification the trim needed to be almost full nose down at race speed. I believe both voodoo and strega have had the incidence angles of the wing and tail re-done so that they run neutral trim at race speed. that mod had not been done on the ghost. so since it required large amounts of nose down trim at race speed, when the trim tab bolt came out, the trim tab departed the airframe and the loss of that nose down trim induced a very large pitch up moment to the aircraft. this also imparted a very large g- load on the airframe and pilot. its been a while since i read the report, but I believe that was the conclusion of the NTSB concerning flutter.
You are correct in that it was the trim tab departing that resulted in the terminal maneuver; however, the trim tab departed when it fluttered as a result of attaching bolts loosening, which the final report describes as reducing stiffness in the control system (hmmmm). Flutter is some scary ****, er, stuff. Not going to comment on applicability to the subject of this thread.
The test pilots are grown ups with enough knowledge to make their own decisions. They are free to decide whether to try and fly this thing. And I believe they have told this guy what needs to be fixed.
the trim tab might have departed because it fluttered, but I saw the tab depart AFTER the pitch up, not before. the loss of nose down trim is what cause the high g pitch up. if the aircraft had not required that amount of trim the loss of the trim tab would have been a non-event. one well know mustang racer would not use rudder trim during a race because he was worried about losing a rudder trim tab. it happened to him during a race and he did not even know it happened because he was holding rudder with his foot and not the trim tab.
No argument with any of that, and I'll leave it at that.
there is a lot to said of that, had there been two trim tabs, the total loss of trim might not have happened. however, it also did happen on voodoo and it had two tabs. so I really don't know if having a single tab made any difference. What I do know is that only having one tab did impart a twisting motion in the tail, you can see the oil canning in the aircraft in pictures on the course.
Nope, can't do it...but it's a story, and a diversion from the thread.
One of the 'small bits' flutter events was a small oscillatory vane mounted to an airplane and intended to excite different rigid-body and aeroelastic modes to test for flutter envelope clearance. They're built really rigid so they don't contaminate data with their own aeroelastic modes. The only part of the airplane that actually experienced aerodynamic flutter was...you guessed it, the vane.
I wish the world still worked like that but it doesn't. If enough people tell him that thing is a POS, people who know, and some climbs in a tries to fly it and dies. His family will sue.
Per the final report of the trim tab incident, loss of rigidity in the trim tab resulted in flutter of the trim tab which in turn resulted in the loss of the trim tab. Loss of the trim tab resulted in the abrupt pullup as was described in this thread.
Who cares. We get more @nauga signatures.Put down the beer Nauga. You’re replying to yourself!
I suggest you look up "intent" and "incompetence" in the dictionary.
It'd be better to look up culpable mental states in your state statutes. Here in AZ we have Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and criminal negligence. If he were to fly it tommorow I'd say the builder has at least recklessl and negligence working against him for any future court proceedings. I'd also push for knowingly, given that qualified people are trying to give help and point out the issues and he's ignored them
some of us have built planes that have flown.............
thanks, I thought I remember reading something about that, if I remember correctly the main dude was helping him was pretty discouraged and had some choice words
Burt Rutan could come over to help and Peter would turn him away saying he knows what he's doing. His head is way too big for his own good.
I'm in no way surprised that he would call that a success
