Calling that a first flight is a real stretch. Maybe he is trying to get the funds released.

And it doesn't look like he's tried to fix his static port location issue either. He picked up about 150' before leaving the ground.

The good news is that it appears that his canard stall speed isn't that high after all. Hard to say for certain because of the totally screwed up static port, but when he finally did set it down, the canard was still flying at 80kts which is alot better than I would have guessed.

This thing just isn’t going to work. I know it’s not fashionable to appreciate science and education these days, but this is a shining example of why it matters.

It flowed, and seemed under control.

It didn’t look too bad. It’s going to be extremely hard for him to resist flying the pattern with it. Really, if he isn’t going to get a test pilot, he just needs to get it in the air. He’s probably going to break something if he keeps beating the crap out of it trying to fly in ground effect. A test pilot would know what to look for when testing it. I think he will have in the air within 2 days.

I will not consider it flying until he ascends to 2+ wingspans.

Yep, but given how it did in ground effect in spite of pilot inputs, I’d say it’s able to fly well enough to leave ground effect, maneuver around, and come back and land. Whether Peter is up to the task is yet to be seen, but I think the plane is able.

Yep, but given how it did in ground effect in spite of pilot inputs, I’d say it’s able to fly well enough to leave ground effect, maneuver around, and come back and land. Whether Peter is up to the task is yet to be seen, but I think the plane is able.

Weight is the big performance killer.

I'm not bothered by the weight penalty of some of the weight-adding quick fixes. Yes, things like an angle iron bracket are amusing, but it's expedient and it keeps the program moving along and a carbon fiber composite weight-optimized permanent fix can get developed in the meantime (to go on the next serial number aircraft when the time comes). What I'm getting at is this prototype can get pretty pokry and still be okay, as long as it's not over design max gross with only one pilot, a nominal fuel load, and if it's within c.g. limits.

All that depends on if future production examples can get reasonably close to target weight, once all the lessons from the prototype are incorporated in the revised design, which-

- which circles back to your point about using resources and other people's expertise, instead of going it alone, every time you hit a bump in the road. It's a long road.

I think the target max gross weight of 3,800lbs, for a spacious four seat pressurized airplane, is ambitious but realistic. Pressurization adds a lot of weight, although this is a clean sheet design, not one with pressurization added after the fact. Minus the weight penalty for that, how heavy does a four seater really have to be? What would a pressurized Bo weigh if, "what if" it had been designed from the ground up as such? Compare all the varieties of the C182 and 210 with the P210 (which does come in 3,800lb versions), but what weight savings if the P had been the original model instead of an evolution of the tried and true 180? There's some weight savings that you can "spend" elsewhere in the design, creature comforts, higher delta P, quieter cabin, heavier engine that burns less fuel, etc.

Anyway, that's just some thoughts on weight management and program management.


(As for the binding rudders or things like the bent landing gear bolts, I'm not arguing those, those are shockingly bad.)

Fly straight is quite easy... A lot of cheap kites can do it. A piece of plywood off a roof of a car is quite effective at that...
Flying is a whole different thing. Getting this above ground effect, when power/weight ratio actually matters will be a very different deal.
I am very happy for him to be able to control it in ground effect. I am sure he is relieved and feel somehow vindicated... It has been a very long road for him. Congrats are in order.
The next step will be a very different thing. The real weight of this bird will come part of the equation as soon as he leaves ground effect.
I really hope that he doesn't try to get this thing in the pattern, which unfortunately he may try to do. He may need to get someone else to video this for him. NTSB will need that video.

Weight is only a minor concern.

The ability to convert from hacked together prototype to viable kit prototype is a major concern.

Even bigger concern is all of the poor design and build decisions that could lead to a major failure. The plane has required an absurd amount of adjustments, fixes and tweaks. How long before the drive, gear, or brakes fail? What about the ECU and engine tune issues? Will the flight controls get stiff and jam, or get loose and flutter, or simply not have sufficient control authority?

I don't get the whole rotate and try ground effect thing. I've done first flights on several homebuilts and never once messed around in ground effect. Do some taxi tests to check for gear shimmy etc but no more. When it's time to fly, it's time to fly to a safe altitude where the handling can be explored without hitting something.

Are you saying that there is no difference between first flight of an established design kit plane and first flight of a completely new design?

For Peter likely not.

Are you saying that there is no difference between first flight of an established design kit plane and first flight of a completely new design?

Just saying I've never seen anyone playing around in ground effect in any circumstances including kits highly modified from the designer's intent.
It seems dangerous to me. What he's doing, i wouldn't take on for any amount of money.[/quote]

Aerodynamically untested design. If it misbehaves in ground effect it’s a mishap at 3 feet he could probably walk away from.

I’m feeling your concern though. Those hops looked iffy with the prop that close to the runway.