|
hobbesmaster posted:If he’s lucky he’ll have a gear collapse or something early in a takeoff run that totals the engine and airframe preventing him from being at a speed or altitude high enough to kill himself. For his sake hopefully the gear collapse totally destroys the airframe and sets him back years. The amount of poo poo workmanship on that is astonishing. Like why the gently caress not take the burrs off of that pulley with a loving file? It'd take seconds when you pulled it off the lathe or before you installed it.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
I didn't realize Elliot Seguin was the guy who crashed that Quickie with the r/c-class turbines into the airplane graveyard. Maybe canards just need to be added to the list of exogenous factors affecting safe airmanship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
I would rather fly in that Finnish guy's homemade ski-plane with no ailerons or instruments than in this deathtrap e: I would put money down that the air-cooled Volkswagen van motor in Tiira 1 is more reliable than this guy's homebrew modded diesel with backwards turbos Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Oct 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
Whether his heart beats is irrelevant, he's been dead since he decided that his plane can be salvaged
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I would rather fly in that Finnish guy's homemade ski-plane with no ailerons or instruments than in this deathtrap The Finnish guy seems to know what he has (which is awesome) while this guy thinks he's Burt Rutan and designs planes in real life the same way I do in KSP while putting less effort into his build and repairs than I do when I fix my lawnmower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I would rather fly in that Finnish guy's homemade ski-plane with no ailerons or instruments than in this deathtrap Have you a link to this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
I want to see a plane powered by a VTEC motor, just for the memes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Have you a link to this? https://www.ilmailumuseot.fi/tuotteet.html?id=20170/334889 Of course the guy had experience building model airplanes, so that's probably a considerable headstart compared to the Raptor guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:To get anything more meaningful than the current parking lot cameras catching pixelated views of crashes, you’d need a camera with enough zoom to matter. Probably at LEAST a 5x, which wouldn’t cost peanuts. Also, it now doesn’t cover the entire field of view you wanted, so it will either need an operator, or some way to automagically track moving targets; Again, not cheap. You wouldn't mount to the tower. Depending on the airport you pole mount it to another building or near to the runways. Generally that simplifies your placement, although with cameras in the field it does add a need to ground bury the cables. That adds cost but trenching at an airport isn't usually a massive problem. And you could use an autotracking PTZ. They work for applications like this, but generally my preference is to use multiple fixed cameras with slightly overlapping fields of view. The cost of the project is gonna vary pretty wildly depending on airport but most of that will be due to labor rates that than materials costs. As projects I've done at airports go, it would be fairly cheap the budget perspective of an airport. It's not never done, I've consulted projects like this at smaller airports that didn't have manned towers. Their concern was more about two airplanes colliding during take off or landing. And the military seems to like having them, along with some that are done for specialized training.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:^^^ It's a new take on Schrödinger's cat. We know the cat's location, but not its condition. We know the kit plane builder is loving dead, just not exactly where.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:e: I would put money down that the air-cooled Volkswagen van motor in Tiira 1 is more reliable than this guy's homebrew modded diesel with backwards turbos Did he give a reason for the two turbos? I'm up to July 2018 of the videos on his YouTube channel. He keeps running the engine for an hour then plugging numbers into a spreadsheet to figure he's getting 360hp. Wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Source4Leko posted:The Finnish guy seems to know what he has (which is awesome) while this guy thinks he's Burt Rutan and designs planes in real life the same way I do in KSP while putting less effort into his build and repairs than I do when I fix my lawnmower. I would say he actually puts an immense amount of effort into his build and repairs. It's his full time job, and he clearly gets a lot of work done on the airplane-shaped object, particularly for someone who's doing so much of the work solo. The problem is that his hard labor isn't producing much of value because he's a Dunning-Kruger posterchild. He's designing and building planes like he's playing KSP, but isn't aware that there's more to it than KSP, and resists being told so. Just look at this majestic reply to one of the many who've told him his compound turbo design is all hosed up. (Short version of the correct idea for a compound turbo: think about how a multi-spool turbojet or turbofan engine works. Cold gas flows through the largest compressor stage first, then through progressively smaller compressor stages as it's compressed further. Hot gas flows through the smallest turbine first, and then through progressively larger turbines as it expands. Anything else doesn't make sense.) Peter Muller posted:I took the advice of several different outfits on how to configure the compound turbos. Perhaps no one knew what they were suggesting and it's set up incorrectly. Either way, the hot side housings are identical in size so the order on that side should not really make a difference, they are both moving the same amount of exhaust. On the cold side I'm feeding small into big. 2867 into 2871. At max power the small one boosts about 6psi, the big one about 21psi. Now I don't really want to run much more than the 43psi total pressure that I'm running now. If I inject more fuel I get a lambda below 1 and black smoke. The setup is generating a measured 1000lbs of thrust. The aircraft accelerates well enough to move the mass as quick as most other GA aircraft. I've measured that as well. So, with enough thrust and not overheating and not running the turbine inlet temp over 1500f I'm quite happy that the powerplant is dialed in as much as it can be without a Dyno. I don't need to go to the trouble of putting it on a Dyno just to get a number. Anyway, that's my take on it. Your mileage may vary. I guarantee that if he's not just outright lying about getting advice from several different "outfits", he didn't listen to it. They'd never have approved his idiotic equal size turbines, nor would they recommend small-to-large on the cold side. They'd also have told him that no matter what he did, he'd need to dyno it to develop the ECU map. (He's consistently refused to put his engine on the dyno.) I wish the bolded was short enough to be a thread title. It's so good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:I guarantee that if he's not just outright lying about getting advice from several different "outfits", he didn't listen to it. They'd never have approved his idiotic equal size turbines, nor would they recommend small-to-large on the cold side. They'd also have told him that no matter what he did, he'd need to dyno it to develop the ECU map. (He's consistently refused to put his engine on the dyno.)  Goddamn. I thought he was running two identical sized turbos. That he's running a small feeding a large is just amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
you can't innovate if you just do what's tried and true / safe / known to work!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:
He says it's a measured 1000 lbs of thrust, is there a video of him testing the thrust?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Ola posted:He says it's a measured 1000 lbs of thrust, is there a video of him testing the thrust? If there is I haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean anything since I can't be bothered to wade through hours of him waffling about things he doesn't understand. I have read that his setup for thrust measurements is something like using the rear wheels as a pivot point and putting a load cell under the nose gear, then looking at the difference in observed "weight" on the nose gear between engine off and engine at full power. Seems like a plausible enough way to indirectly measure thrust, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's hosed it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
It would be much more direct and effective to just chain the plane to a concrete wall with a strain gauge in the line. The value you read is your static thrust. But buddy thinks his math is good enough to that he doesn't need to dyno the engine so obviously he isn't going to set up a proper thrust measurement either. His way will work and it is impossible for him to make an error
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
I'm studying electrical engineering, not aeronautical engineering, but it seems like there would be way too many losses to be able to figure out the thrust of the engine just from the weight on the nose wheel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It would be much more direct and effective to just chain the plane to a concrete wall with a strain gauge in the line. The value you read is your static thrust. I would not be surprised if he hasn't done this solely because it's be annoying to do with a pusher prop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Your average bathroom scale is rated to 300 pounds so if he puts 4 of them in sequence... E: I meant parallel. Obviously I am not qualified to measure the thrust on this majestic beast. goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
One bathroom scale. Use a lever to put it at a mechanical disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:One bathroom scale. Sounds like that would need more math. Rejected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Look, measuring thrust is real simple. I can't believe I have to explain this. You hang the plane by its nose from the roof of the hangar using a scale, like the ones grocery stores have to weigh vegetables. Then you fire up the engine and see how much it decreases the weight of the plane. Like this: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:If there is I haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean anything since I can't be bothered to wade through hours of him waffling about things he doesn't understand. Like Sagebrush said, you do it with a strain gauge and I thought it was a strict requirement on order to get your kitplane approved. I'm thinking it could be that he simply measured acceleration and worked it out from that, possibly taking certain liberties in rounding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
Been watching raptor guy for a while. I hope he succeeds but at this point that seems unlikely. He did put the plane on a strain gauge before he started taxi testing. You guys should quit giving him ideas of how to make this worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 08:24
|
|
|
Ola posted:Like Sagebrush said, you do it with a strain gauge and I thought it was a strict requirement on order to get your kitplane approved. I'm thinking it could be that he simply measured acceleration and worked it out from that, possibly taking certain liberties in rounding. Could be. You mention kitplane approval, which reminds me that I said something earlier ITT about the Raptor which I now know is not true. Despite the similarities, the Raptor fuselage, wings, and canards aren't derived from a Velocity kit at all. It is a new type. Peter didn't do the design and analysis. That was someone else he either hired or convinced (I don't know which) to do the work for him. This is a good thing, since I doubt he could have designed an airframe or wing himself, much less a canard pusher configuration. (However, his design chops have had an impact. One of the issues Wasabi mentioned is that neither the RC model nor the prototype as built match the original drawings, and he did not bother having the prototype configuration re-analyzed to predict handling qualities, stability, and so forth.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 09:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9njdYkhZUFc
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Yikes. This came up in my playlist after that. I've never seen it before but it looks like it's 6 years old https://youtu.be/1DkZ3LlVRi4?t=31
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:It's not never done, I've consulted projects like this at smaller airports that didn't have manned towers. Their concern was more about two airplanes colliding during take off or landing. And the military seems to like having them, along with some that are done for specialized training. Sweden's got two commercial airports that are run using "virtual towers" - Höga Kusten (KRF/ESNK) was converted in 2015 to have ATC run out of Sundsvall. In december of last year, the country's newest airport, Scandinavian Mountains Airport (SCR / ESKS), opened as is purpose-built to use a virtual tower run out of the same place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
Canada's solution to that is "lol use MF procedures, bitch!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Canada's solution to that is "lol use MF procedures, bitch!" https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...chnologies.html I think everyone is moving towards remote towers whenever they can get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Now they just need to power them with those Soviet reactors they used for lighthouses for the ultimate in futurism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Most of what I’ve seen of remote towers has been more of the “install a remote tower where there was previously no presence on the field, allowing for more expeditious movement of traffic” thing and a lot less of the “replace a manned tower with a remote tower and continue to run the same amount of traffic” type of thing. Even the above article is using it for Flight Service, and not as a full tower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Most of what I’ve seen of remote towers has been more of the “install a remote tower where there was previously no presence on the field, allowing for more expeditious movement of traffic” thing and a lot less of the “replace a manned tower with a remote tower and continue to run the same amount of traffic” type of thing. Even the above article is using it for Flight Service, and not as a full tower. Sweden is doing it for full towers, probably due to a combination of high seasonal variation (SCR is basically built just for ski traffic), low amount of GA traffic and high labor costs. All the ones they’re doing remote towers don’t have a lot of flights usually
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Most of what I’ve seen of remote towers has been more of the “install a remote tower where there was previously no presence on the field, allowing for more expeditious movement of traffic” thing and a lot less of the “replace a manned tower with a remote tower and continue to run the same amount of traffic” type of thing. Even the above article is using it for Flight Service, and not as a full tower. Yeah, we have remote aerodrome advisory services here and we have had for a long time, but that's very different in terms of legal obligations and capabilities compared to an actual "virtual tower."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, we have remote aerodrome advisory services here and we have had for a long time, but that's very different in terms of legal obligations and capabilities compared to an actual "virtual tower." London City airport replaced their tower with a virtual tower last year, didn't they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:London City airport replaced their tower with a virtual tower last year, didn't they? They did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii_Gz1WbBGA
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
The US would be much more likely to just shutdown an entire airport than move to virtual ATC. I'm shocked that Detroit City is still open (and Class D).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Zero One posted:The US would be much more likely to just shutdown an entire airport than move to virtual ATC. They don’t shut down the airport, just the tower. The airport can still run without it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
What happens if a plane is coming in NORDO with a virtual control tower?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 16:51
|
|