I respectfully disagree, from personal experience of flying helicopter and fixed wing from sitting in the left seat and the right, tandem and side by side, yoke or stick, VFR, IFR, IMC, day, night, single pilot or crew/two-pilot. My writing hand and the flight control arrangements didn't make much of a difference.

I just don't think it was that hard to get used to it.

Not if you have an autopilot, or something like the G3x touch right in front of you, or a radio stack to your left.

I have a stick on the right (on the keel in the middle) and engine controls on the left.

Even without the AP, I can still take my hand off the stick if I need to write something down. Same with the Garmin GPS that's in the middle.

Everything else is accessible with my left hand although I still do most with my right.

It's not like the airplane will spin out of the sky as soon as my hand leaves the stick.

Translation - no

Lawd, he thinks he’s making 420 hp. This guy is so hung up on believing what gets spit out of a computer program. Did they teach him garbage in = garbage out? ASSuming this thing flies and doesn’t kill him. I wonder what the excuse is going to be when it doesn’t perform very well?

https://youtu.be/klUQv5aFwwM

420 seems on the high side and he does mention something vague about "a little less" and losses in the redrive. That horsepower figure mostly hinges around the advertised 0.32 BSFC, which I wonder is the advertised value for cruise (engine turning <2000rpm and burning fairly lean in a passenger car, representative of cruising down some nice German highway I supposed), or is that the number when the engine is at peak hp?


Some napkin math on takeoff performance:

Let's say it's 400hp, minus 10% loss in the gearbox/redrive, estimate the propeller converts each 1hp into ~2.5lbf of static thrust, as well as about the same amount of dynamic thrust on the takeoff roll. Quick and dirty math says that's about 900 pounds of static thrust at the most. (We can also subtract some arbitrary amount for pusher losses and whatever other conservative estimates seem reasonable, but let's hold off on making napkin math analysis too complicated.)

That 2.5 factor is representative of horsepower to static thrust for small airplanes but it's also anybody's guess what the Raptor's propeller will deliver- it'll probably deliver worse static thrust, maybe much worse, since it's designed for a high, fast cruise. 2.5 is a good number for a C172, but the propeller on those is the one of the farthest things from a 200+ knot cruise in the flight levels.

Let's compare one of the earlier videos with the high speed taxi tests: acceleration to 50 knots groundspeed appears to take 14 seconds. That is an average of slightly less than 0.2G. (Groundspeed, not the indicated airspeed.) What's the prototype gross weight up to, as far as what's been the typical test configuration? Multiply that weight by 0.2 or about 0.18~0.19 to estimate the static thrust.


Again, don't get too hung up on the static thrust to horsepower conversion, or takeoff acceleration for the horsepower. A lot of propellers are grossly inefficient when the airplane is at a standstill or during the first part of the takeoff roll.


And back to using the fuel flow to estimate horsepower on this engine, it would help to have more thorough data from Audi. 0.32 BSFC as a simple, standalone number is vague.

Getting outside my areas of knowledge, but how applicable is the data from Audi considering he has messed with the tune and is also trying to pull significantly more power than the road tuned engine?

I'm sure it is every bit as accurate as the airframe static port pressure

He is still trying to get people/investors to believe in his numbers.
400hp, low consumption, cross country, fast, pressurized.

So far: driving 90knots in a straight line has been his most recognized record.



Fly raptor, fly....

Lol. I still wonder what motivated Chris the Right Seat Troll Without a Pilot’s License.

Lol. I still wonder what motivated Chris the Right Seat Troll Without a Pilot’s License.

420 seems on the high side and he does mention something vague about "a little less" and losses in the redrive. That horsepower figure mostly hinges around the advertised 0.32 BSFC, which I wonder is the advertised value for cruise (engine turning <2000rpm and burning fairly lean in a passenger car, representative of cruising down some nice German highway I supposed), or is that the number when the engine is at peak hp?


Some napkin math on takeoff performance:

Let's say it's 400hp, minus 10% loss in the gearbox/redrive, estimate the propeller converts each 1hp into ~2.5lbf of static thrust, as well as about the same amount of dynamic thrust on the takeoff roll. Quick and dirty math says that's about 900 pounds of static thrust at the most. (We can also subtract some arbitrary amount for pusher losses and whatever other conservative estimates seem reasonable, but let's hold off on making napkin math analysis too complicated.)

That 2.5 factor is representative of horsepower to static thrust for small airplanes but it's also anybody's guess what the Raptor's propeller will deliver- it'll probably deliver worse static thrust, maybe much worse, since it's designed for a high, fast cruise. 2.5 is a good number for a C172, but the propeller on those is the one of the farthest things from a 200+ knot cruise in the flight levels.

Let's compare one of the earlier videos with the high speed taxi tests: acceleration to 50 knots groundspeed appears to take 14 seconds. That is an average of slightly less than 0.2G. (Groundspeed, not the indicated airspeed.) What's the prototype gross weight up to, as far as what's been the typical test configuration? Multiply that weight by 0.2 or about 0.18~0.19 to estimate the static thrust.


Again, don't get too hung up on the static thrust to horsepower conversion, or takeoff acceleration for the horsepower. A lot of propellers are grossly inefficient when the airplane is at a standstill or during the first part of the takeoff roll.


And back to using the fuel flow to estimate horsepower on this engine, it would help to have more thorough data from Audi. 0.32 BSFC as a simple, standalone number is vague.

And this guy...... may know his stuff SDS EFI

Man he just will not listen to facts and people trying to help. He is so focused on his numbers and justifications he cant have an open mind. I am starting to see why he is where he is.

He really needs to stop trying to justify his claims and just get it flying. He just keeps opening up arguments that he can't win. And I dont get why he does not have a audi diesel expert helping him, there are many out there. Its not black magic, its a well known platform. No need to see guessing.

Watching the plane accelerate it sure seems like less than 400hp. 400HP is a lot in a plane that size and it would be a kick in the pants.

I think he is getting close to trying to fly this thing.

Mike

One of the guys that helped him has posted that Peter wouldn’t listen to anything they said or suggested. He used a website to pick the turbos. He watched a webinar on setting up the ECU. There are people out there that are beyond the people around him. Peter isn’t one of them. He will be lucky if this thing doesn’t kill him. People use test pilots for a reason. Their pulse stays at 60 even when everything is going to crap.