Comments were turned off on his latest video, I wonder what happened there.

He mentioned going to a flaperon arrangement in the future to allow it to fly/land slower. I'm curious how that works with the canard given that the canard appears to be what governs his stall.

Every take-off looks like there is a pitch oscillation to me. Maybe that is just a function of him pulling it off, then lowering the nose, then combined with some changes in lift as the gear retracts.

Peter mentions changing the aileron authority at the stick. Maybe he was saying that full aileron on the stick goes past full deflection at the control surface? Or maybe just that he didn't need full deflection of the control surface? I haven't seen any tests of roll rate or anything besides shallow turns. These changes wouldn't be on this prototype, but "the production model."

He did mention once he can reposition the plane (to the production team in CA?) then more people can be looking at it and evaluating solutions. Is he planning to fly the plane cross-country, and that is why he's messing with the autopilot? The fact that there is an issue with the autopilot driving the elevator trim is a scary if you think about it. There hasn't been any testing of the edges of the envelope and recoverability from an autopilot issue is not a foregone conclusion.

Still fighting an oil leak and now adding a scavenge pump to the redrive. There was a belt skip on a previous flight, either before or after changing his belt tensioner. Also talk of adding an oil cooler across the entire opening on the bottom of the cowling where the cooling air around the engine exits.

Oh yeah, and he mentioned asking Garmin about correcting the static and pitot system errors given that he is getting his static source from in the cabin... "To those of you that say I can't do that, well yes I can. It's an experimental aircraft and I can do whatever I want." I think this was the context where he mentioned having the production team help him evaluate an acceptable location for the static port.

And this is why most people think this is going to end badly. Not understanding that you can't correct static port errors in software (well... unless you know exactly what the error is at every airspeed and attitude), thinking that you can do anything you want just because it's experimental and even considering flaps on the main wing of a canard aircraft show an incredible lack of understanding.

I can certainly understand how someone without an aerospace background might not understand these things to begins with, but if you decide to design a plane and spend YEARS working on it, how do you fail to learn such basic concepts?

A quick google of “why don’t canard airplanes have flaps” would probably deliver some pretty good answers. Understanding pitot static systems takes a bit more effort, but I am sure there is plenty of info online, if not, get a textbook and consider an online engineering class. Peter had plenty of time to do things right, but he insists on the the slower and more expensive path of doing everything wrong.

I just hope he doesn’t kill anyone else before it’s over.

Man this thing seems unstable. Peter keeps saying its the wind but I am not convinced. What do you guys think, is it the wind or something with the design or weight? I also wonder how much this thing weighs now he keeps adding more and more weight each week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jElbk9PX_JM

You know it weighs a ton, which if anything should help the ride, but it does rock & roll in the wind.

One good thing; when he does a “carrier landing” he actually puts it on the fixed distance markers instead of half way down the runway. Looked smooth too.

Is the 90 degree fitting he is demoing wise? That looks like the turbulence of from the viscous oil could be a risk. A would a couple of 45 degree fittings be better for flow?

How does he know he hast static errors? It cannot be checked via a GPS box because you need stable flight while you fly several ground tracks. I have never seen a more unstable ASI in my life

That thing pitches and rolls so much it almost makes you motion sick watching it. And I don't get motion sickness, or not easily.

I wonder if his pitch sensitivity maybe partially attributed to his control ratio movement, but I was always under the impression canards were unstable to start with.

The altimeter climbs ~200 feet during the takeoff roll. The runway grade doesn’t look that steep.

The altimeter moves hundreds of feet almost instantly with power changes.
Watch the altitude indicated on final.

Sorry, you misunderstood my message, ......I am sure he has static errors as you all explain, but I would suggest you look at your PFD's as you power up too.

My point was he has big static errors but how would he know what is what and by how much. He could not do a GPS box because you need straight and level flight and stable airspeed. He cannot achieve that. And the AP is not going to give him any stability as a result.

I am surprised there is not an NTSB report by now.

Tony........yeah sorry, you are correct.

What was I thinking.

Having never done any test flying at all......

How? A static cone is proven technology, cheap, easy and reliable ...