Raptor Aircraft

Spring Ford said:
I forget the exact story here but it was a runup pre-delivery. F-WWCJ

81898_1195201788.jpg
Click to expand...

 
Spring Ford said:
I forget the exact story here but it was a runup pre-delivery. F-WWCJ
Click to expand...
This was a super embarrassing fubar.. https://www.flightglobal.com/violat...-led-to-toulouse-a340-600-crash/84311.article

Both an Airbus and Abu Dhabi Air Tech guy were in the cockpit. When they started moving instead of reducing engine thrust they turned the nosewheel, which reduces break pressure on the corresponding side bogies.. really pathetic air, err, groundmanship here

https://www.flightglobal.com/violat...-led-to-toulouse-a340-600-crash/84311.article


"
All four engines were operating. While the parking brake was on, registering 2,600psi, the inquiry says the applied thrust was around the limit of the parking-brake capacity.

At the time of the accident an Airbus employee was occupying the right-hand seat of the jet while an Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies technician was in the left-hand seat.

Flight-recorder data shows that, shortly after 16:02, the person in the left-hand seat warned that the aircraft was moving. The ground speed began gradually increasing to 4kt over the next few seconds and, after a second call that the aircraft was moving, the recorder registered pedal-braking and the deactivation of the parking brake.

Brakes on the A340-600 are linked to two hydraulic circuits: the 'green' normal circuit and the 'blue' alternate. The parking brake is on the blue circuit and only applies to the left- and right-hand main undercarriage bogies, not the centre bogie.

If the parking brake is released and the brake pedals applied, the 'green' circuit comes into play. The pedals act on all three main bogies.

Recorder data shows that 'green' circuit brake pressure on the A340 rapidly rose to 2,500psi while the 'blue' circuit pressure dropped.

About seven seconds after the first movement warning the nose-wheel was turned sharply right. Activating the nose-wheel steering inhibits braking on the central bogie, becoming completely ineffective past 20° of steering.

The aircraft swung 37° to the right but continued to accelerate, its speed increasing from 4kt to 31kt in seven seconds, before the aircraft struck the test-pen wall, demolishing its forward fuselage. The jet was written off.

In its report into the accident, the BEA says the aircraft and its braking system functioned correctly, but states that the nose-wheel steering "limited the effectiveness" of the brakes.

"Surprise led the ground-test technician to focus on the braking system, so he did not think about reducing the engines' thrust," it adds. Only after the collision with the wall were the throttle levers retarded to the idle position.
"
 
Looks like it flew today. Flightaware N352TD
 
Well, dang. The kitchens serving plates of crow are going to be working overtime for a bit. I think I get a "side salad" portion myself even, I didn't think the thing would fly and may have said so on a few occasions.

Does this flight (well... "U turn" if it was a car :D ) unlock the pirate cache of deposits for our long-suffering builder/visionary/daredevil? If not, what does he need to do to earn his vacation and disappearance from public life?
 
aftCG said:
Looks like it flew today. Flightaware N352TD
Click to expand...
Damn! Momentous..

I'm not sure I ever said it wouldn't fly, but I've continued to question his dubious build benefits and design philosophy

The FlightAware track shows a short 6 minute flight.. I'll be very curious to see his next YouTube update!
 
Someone caught about 8% of the flight on camera:

 
Note that he seems to be fighting the right roll tendency throughout the takeoff...
 
Seanaldinho said:
Not a very encouraging departure. Flight aware also shows he only went up to 500 feet and field elevation is 200 feet...

Why?
Click to expand...
He landed on the other runway which was his plan if things weren't going well, if I recall.
 
The FlightAware data starts at 14:11:39, which I'll call T+0:00. All altitudes and climb rates are highly suspect because of his massive instrumentation errors. For example, the final reported altitude is 53 feet below field elevation.

T+0:00 - course 205 @ 107 knots, 267 AGL
T+0:18 - course 259 @ 112 knots, 342 AGL, climbing 166 ft/min
T+0:38 - course 319 @ 109 knots, 372 AGL, descending 154 ft/min
T+0:55 - course 18 @ 109 knots, 247 AGL, descending 500 ft/min
T+1:11 - course 35 @ 104 knots, 97 AGL, descending 542 ft/min
T+1:31 - course 35 @ 87 knots, -78 AGL, descending 208 ft/min
T+1:47 - course 35 @ 50 knots, -28 AGL, climbing 47 ft/min
T+2:03 - course 36 @ 34 knots, -53 AGL, descending 42 ft/min
T+2:23 - course 37 @ 21 knots, -53 AGL
T+3:00 - course 52 @ 5 knots, no reported altitude

It's hard to say how long into the flight this information begins. My take on it is that he took off on runway 17 and was already turning to the right to line up with runway 4 when the FlightAware information picks up. He had turned about 30 degrees already in the first data point. He was turning right at 3 degrees per second (2-minute turn) the whole time until he mostly lined up with runway 4. The altitude fluctuations on final and roll-out are definitely the result of ground effect followed by deceleration, both of which are known to have a bigger affect on his indicated altitude than the actual altitude of the aircraft does.

It does appear that he did land safely at the airport, which is really good news. Hopefully he will post a video tonight to show how it all went and tell us about the plane's flight characteristics.
 
Tantalum said:
Damn! Momentous..

I'm not sure I ever said it wouldn't fly, but I've continued to question his dubious build benefits and design philosophy

The FlightAware track shows a short 6 minute flight.. I'll be very curious to see his next YouTube update!
Click to expand...
Looks like that includes the taxi back to the hangar. Actual flight probably under 2 minutes.
 
MacFlier said:
Anyone able to get the LiveATC feed?
Click to expand...

I tried to download it from their archive, the recording is however only less than 4 minutes with some unreadable stuff in it. I was wondering if he declared an emergency as I don't think that this went as planned.
 
German guy said:
I tried to download it from their archive, the recording is however only less than 4 minutes with some unreadable stuff in it. I was wondering if he declared an emergency as I don't think that this went as planned.
Click to expand...
Same here. I downloaded the 30-minute block but the audio only has 3 minutes in it.
 
Man that looks shaky. The thing needs massive amounts of runway, looks unstable in the roll axis, and kind of looks like it is struggling to fly. Good on him though for living, and getting the airplane back on the ground. Could have easily been a smoking crater. Time will tell.
 
TipTanks said:
Man that looks shaky. The thing needs massive amounts of runway, looks unstable in the roll axis, and kind of looks like it is struggling to fly. Good on him though for living, and getting the airplane back on the ground. Could have easily been a smoking crater. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
In the video it looks like it gets off pretty quickly. Climb, not so much
 
aftCG said:
In the video it looks like it gets off pretty quickly. Climb, not so much
Click to expand...
Looks like it leaves the ground 3,300 ft down runway 17 as measured on Google Maps. Assuming he started at the edge of the piano keys. That is worse than previous ground effect runs, maybe because he has fuel onboard.
 
Looking at the rate of climb and all the wobbling going on, he's lucky he cleared the trees and got far enough around the pattern to set it down on pavement. That isn't an airplane you want to land off-airport. No motor up front to protect you and an astronomically high minimum flying speed.
 
schmookeeg said:
Well, dang. The kitchens serving plates of crow are going to be working overtime for a bit.
Click to expand...

I think the first flight confirms most of the doubters' fears about the airplane. It is crazy heavy, the details of the engine installation are awful, the engine isn't developing the power he needs, and he has controllability issues in at least one axis.

The good thing is he didn't hurt himself.
 
amox said:
Looks like it leaves the ground 3,300 ft down runway 17 as measured on Google Maps. Assuming he started at the edge of the piano keys. That is worse than previous ground effect runs, maybe because he has fuel onboard.
Click to expand...
Warmer today than the last "flight" too...82 F.
 
I wonder if it was intentional, or another ground run that got away from him.
 
This thread delivers :)

For all the naysayers that didn’t expect he would take off and stay in ground effect...he got past that.

Then, people didn’t expect him to fly...and apparently the plane goes up and down.

Then, for the plane to fly and the pilot to live? I guess he made it past that.

He may not be an amiable chap, and the plane’s design may be wanting for more, his logic may be flawed, the plane may never be commercially viable, but Peter has effectively made himself a protagonist in his own “astronaut farmer” movie, even with less lofty goals.

I do like to root for the underdog while he knows full well he may end up as a burning hole on the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
midwestpa24 said:
I wonder if it was intentional, or another ground run that got away from him.
Click to expand...

He had stated elsewhere that he would probably fly it this week. There's a hurricane brushing by at the end of the week, and he's at a s***t or get off the pot spot regarding whether to fly it or tear it apart and fix all the problems he's been denying for 3 years. If none of the problems were real (as he continued to argue) there was nothing in the way of a first flight. Of course, if you watch his cockpit videos, his hands seemed to shake pretty badly during his ground effect flights. I think he'd finally come to realize the airplane has real problems, but couldn't stand to lose face by admitting it. So he risked his life flying an unsafe contraption.

Now, he's gotta do something to fix the critical problems - insufficient power, poor cooling, right roll, stability issues, and all of the bodged engine/psru systems. All of those are potentially lethal safety of flight issues and at least one of them put him back on the ground today after a 30 second flight.
 
Oh boy. This is where all the POAers, who have been holding back any critique of his project say “see, I told ya so.” Please. He’s taken 6 years to produce a design that essentially has already been done (Velocity) to fly 3 mins. The fact that he hasn’t got these things flying out the door like the good ole days of Velocity, Glasair, Lancair and Vans speaks volumes. One flight is far away from meeting the specs he’s laid out and the demand from the number of deposit holders he currently has.
 
Llk said:
For all the naysayers that didn’t expect he would take off and stay in ground effect...he got past that.

Then, people didn’t expect him to fly...and apparently the plane goes up and down.

Then, for the plane to fly and the pilot to live? I guess he made it past that.
Click to expand...

Not by much, barely more than 500 feet AGL with an immediate abort to the crossing runway. His next video may be interesting. Something made him want back on the ground fast.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Not by much, barely more than 500 feet AGL with an immediate abort to the crossing runway. His next video may be interesting. Something made him want back on the ground fast.
Click to expand...

I think 500' was his absolute altitude, if it was accurate. Based on his climb angle and rate, I doubt he made it to 300' AGL.
 
I don’t know who these “naysayers” are. Most people thought it would get off the ground and barely make it around the pattern.

Seemed pretty accurate to me.
 
I predicted that he would crap his pants, thus declaring an emergency having to immediately land. I look forward to the debrief and cleaning tips on his next video!
 
Here's a more complete video from the same user as I posted in #1128 above. Note the fire truck pulled out and ready to go. But maybe they park it there all the time. Liftoff occurs at 0:27 in this video, at the end of the third centerline stripe after the bars on the runway. Google Earth measures a 3,500-foot ground roll from the Runway 17 threshold to that point.

 
WWFeldman said:
Is that legal
Click to expand...
Why would it not be? Does an FAR or POH prevent a departure with an engine inop? A 747 flew with passengers from LAS to London on 3 engines and there's a video out there somewhere of a 2 engine L1011/D 10 departure..

Not smart, but illegal?
 
It was done all the time in the airline world to ferry a 3 or 4 engine aircraft to a maintenance facility. Not a big deal with a empty aircraft. VMCG could be a issue and procedures for that were in the aircraft operating manuals.
 
WWFeldman said:
Is that legal? I'm sure it's not smart.

Some weird video effects in that one. Love the propeller tip trails.
Click to expand...

I’ve only done three engine takeoffs in the sim, but even with an outboard engine caged it was a nonevent if you were smooth about it. Number 3 feathered is best case for Vmca/Vmcg. The stretched version 130 in this video has even lower Vmca numbers than the regular short version Herk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top