BeechTalk - BT - Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Diesel

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 03:10

Really, I think the engine is way down the list of concerns. Several on the homebuiltairplanes including Mark Z are discussing the canard is 8 percent larger in down position vs the neutral position. This setup could end up with the main wing stalling first. Deep stall or flipping over backwards if the stall margin is enough between the wind and canard.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 10:26

Username Protected wrote:

Really, I think the engine is way down the list of concerns. Several on the homebuiltairplanes including Mark Z are discussing the canard is 8 percent larger in down position vs the neutral position. This setup could end up with the main wing stalling first. Deep stall or flipping over backwards if the stall margin is enough between the wind and canard.

You give me waaay too much credit. Those guys over there exceed my mental gymnastics. I’m just a basic lurker that will stir it when it doesn’t stink.

The guy in the know is Marc Z. He’s a big time canard builder guy.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 13:52

Username Protected wrote:

You give me waaay too much credit. Those guys over there exceed my mental gymnastics. I’m just a basic lurker that will stir it when it doesn’t stink.

The guy in the know is Marc Z. He’s a big time canard builder guy.

Marc-Z has not been impressed from what I recall of the thread on HBA.
In fact the engineers who work in aviation, or those who have previously built multiple planes on HBA do not seem to be impressed with the product; but many have expressed admiration for Peter's guts and passion. If not for the execution.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 15:47

Username Protected wrote:

but many have expressed admiration for Peter's guts and passion. If not for the execution.

People keep saying stuff like that. It doesn't make sense. Why admire a guy for publicly bad self-assessment?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 16:19

Username Protected wrote:

but many have expressed admiration for Peter's guts and passion. If not for the execution.

People keep saying stuff like that. It doesn't make sense. Why admire a guy for publicly bad self-assessment?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 18:41

Username Protected wrote:

Because, we need that guts and determination to make any advancement in GA.

Tim

In what way does his guts and determination make any advancement in GA?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 18:54

Username Protected wrote:

Because, we need that guts and determination to make any advancement in GA.

Tim

In what way does his guts and determination make any advancement in GA?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2019, 19:33

Username Protected wrote:

Because, we need that guts and determination to make any advancement in GA.

Tim

In what way does his guts and determination make any advancement in GA?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2019, 01:25

Username Protected wrote:

Because, we need that guts and determination to make any advancement in GA.

Tim

In what way does his guts and determination make any advancement in GA?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2019, 01:33

Username Protected wrote:

Exactly, let’s say I decide to build a tower to the moon. Having guts and determination isn’t the only thing that gets it done.

That reminds me of the old joke about running out of scaffolding.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2019, 02:56

In 1895, a nut suggested an elevator to space.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... ast07sep_1

Quote:

As early as 1895, a Russian scientist named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky suggested a fanciful "Celestial Castle" in geosynchronous Earth orbit attached to a tower on the ground, not unlike Paris's Eiffel tower. Another Russian, a Leningrad engineer by the name of Yuri Artsutanov, wrote some of the first modern ideas about space elevators in 1960. Published as a non-technical story in Pravda, his story never caught the attention of the West. Science magazine ran a short article in 1966 by John Isaacs, an American oceanographer, about a pair of whisker-thin wires extending to a geostationary satellite. The article ran basically unnoticed. The concept finally came to the attention of the space flight engineering community through a technical paper written in 1975 by Jerome Pearson of the Air Force Research Laboratory. This paper was the inspiration for Clarke's novel.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/co ... ncna915421

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2019, 08:45

Username Protected wrote:

In 1895, a nut suggested an elevator to space.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... ast07sep_1

Quote:

As early as 1895, a Russian scientist named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky suggested a fanciful "Celestial Castle" in geosynchronous Earth orbit attached to a tower on the ground, not unlike Paris's Eiffel tower. Another Russian, a Leningrad engineer by the name of Yuri Artsutanov, wrote some of the first modern ideas about space elevators in 1960. Published as a non-technical story in Pravda, his story never caught the attention of the West. Science magazine ran a short article in 1966 by John Isaacs, an American oceanographer, about a pair of whisker-thin wires extending to a geostationary satellite. The article ran basically unnoticed. The concept finally came to the attention of the space flight engineering community through a technical paper written in 1975 by Jerome Pearson of the Air Force Research Laboratory. This paper was the inspiration for Clarke's novel.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/co ... ncna915421

The physics works, but no known materials are strong enough.

One thing that all the popular accounts get wrong is that the mass at the end has to be well above the geostationary point, otherwise there is no "force" to keep the whole contraption in orbit.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2019, 09:20

Username Protected wrote:

The physics works, but no known materials are strong enough.

IIRC, last I read, we are 20-50x off in strength to weight ratio required? Similar to how far off we are from the energy density required for battery powered airliners.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2019, 12:56

...and then they made a sci-fi movie using that idea. My kids loved AD Astra but Dad fell asleep a few times. The CGI work and other graphics were phenomenal!

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this experimental aircraft.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2019, 18:11

Username Protected wrote:

Because, we need that guts and determination to make any advancement in GA.

Tim

Guts and determination only helps if it is paired with competence or extreme dumb luck. If you are determined to repeat the same mistakes that led others to fail, well, I don’t see how that does anyone any good.