Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Unit74, Nov 6, 2015.
I haven't seen his Op Lims so I don't know what he's got, but I've been involved with several Ex/R&D that did not have the Phase I & II of amateur built. For that matter, several of them completed their programs with less than 40 hours. In cases not intended for eventual cert (part 23 or 25) there were no specific test requirements like an air data cal or stall speed determination that we did not require for our own purposes, and we were only approved to perform the tests in our (very detailed) test plans.
My point is not that he does or does not have to to anything specific, my point is that Ex/R&D certs are typically unique to an airplane and test program. One can't assume it's just like an Ex/AB cert just because the end goal is Ex/AB.
who also couldn't use a DAR for initial certs
I know someone who has seen his ops limits and he said they were unusual and were more similar to amateur built category.
If this guy digs a hole in the ground what are the odds that the FAA makes things 10x more difficult to go the experimental route?
I think very low.
I've already lost one bet in this thread but there have already been some really egregious examples of corners cut, mistakes made in ignorance or haste, and lives lost in the name of getting Ex/AB airplanes or large-scale components to market that have not resulted in changes to the process. We are fortunate that there have not been.
a student of history
Speaking of.. does the scope of the FAA and NTSB differ with experimental and/or preproduction aircraft when it comes to accident investigation?
Pure speculation, and I didn’t even stay at a holiday inn express last night...
I’d think that would largely depend on whether he takes anyone else and/or someone’s property out. If it’s him and the aircraft in a field, there’s no manufacturer like a certified aircraft to recommend changes and/or AD’s to. OTOH, if he causes injury/death and/or property damage to others, I’d think that they’d examine his process to determine if things were done safely...if so, I don’t think they’re going to like what they see.
But again, pure WAG on my part.
The emphasis is less, on experimental accidents. The ultimate purpose of the investigation is to determine factors that could be used to prevent future accidents. If an aircraft is a Cessna, there's a chance that a flaw may be found in the design or in training to fly that aircraft, which could be used to potentially reduce the chances of a future accidents (such as via an AD). No such opportunity, with an experimental, which is considered a one-of-a-kind aircraft. The NTSB doesn't even show up for some homebuilt accidents.
The NTSB does occasionally look into potential problems with common homebuilt kits (such as the RV-6A nosewheel issues they looked at about 15 years ago), but that doesn't happen often.
I would assume that the powerplant is a factor, though. If the Raptor with its one-off auto conversion powerplant crashes, finding a problem with the powerplant will not prevent many future crashes. If my RV-14 with a Lycoming IO-390 and Hartzell propeller goes down because of powerplant failure, even though I have an "experimental" IO-390 variant, there is a chance that many Cirrus SR-20 pilots would benefit from eliminating flaws in the IO-390.
^to really stretch the imagination.. could, or has, an engine manufacturer restricted the applicable use of their engines?
If the Raptor starts selling like hot cakes and 500 frames later a 1/3 of them have crashed due to engine issues I could see Audi deciding to prohibit their use in aircraft. I mean, lawyers will go after anything, if you can sue (and win!) for hot coffee, or sue because you put superglue in your hair I imagine this kind of visibility is one that some non aviation entities would like to avoid
Certainly, *but*: The NTSB is not going to know that the engine is "stock" unless an investigation is actually performed. Easier (and probably ultimately more productive) for them to take a pass on it. There's also the fact that the engine was installed by an amateur; there's no telling how any issues it has is due to installation vs. design issues until, again, the NTSB allocates resources to investigate.
About ten years ago, the NTSB decided to take an in-depth look at homebuilt aircraft accidents. As part of that, they did in-depth analysis of all homebuilt accidents in the year 2011. The in-depth analysis that year was on a par at what they ordinarily perform on type-certified airplanes.
IIRC, the Vickers Vimy replica had BMW conversions at one point. ISTR BMW removed their support and they had to switch to another engine type.
I doubt Audi could out-and-out ban the use of their engine in the aircraft, but they could certainly ban Raptor's use of the trademarked term, "Audi." They could probably also make it real difficult to obtain spare parts.
No real point. Ive given peter crap and most of it is deserved. His goals were lofty. It seems he has moved the goal posts and that's ok. Sure canards have been done, but it's not like he took a velocity and scaled it up. He largely alone designed and built an airplane without anything conventional. No conventional engine. And yet, if you believe his ADS-b data (and there's reason to question the accuracy), it cruises faster than 2 of the most popular aircraft in GA history. Granted the thing is over weight and unstable. And there's no amount of money you can give me that I'd ride in prototype 1. Pie in the sky hopeful numbers aside, it's an accomplishment.
I need a shower after that praise. I feel unclean
A woman once sued (and won) a haunted house for scaring her too much...a place she had paid to scare her just enough.
I've never designed or built a fork before so I'm not allowed to comment on that
The question of whether the manufacturer could restrict their engine from use in the Raptor brought to mind a steam turbine manufactured by the Curtis Corporation. It drove a 25 cycle, 50,000 watt Westinghouse generator. The boiler was 20 feet square, and 40
The bronze nameplate on that turbine forbid "Installation of this turbine in any aircraft".
A hundred plus years ago, they had some grand visions of the leaps of technology that were to come.
THAT.. is really cool
Surely it tickles the steampunk fantasy
Except he has now done it twice...
This is a pet peeve of mine. There are many frivolous lawsuits, to be sure, but the McDonald’s coffee case wasn’t one of them.
3rd degree burns "down there", man or woman...don't want to think about it.
I'm aware of the facts, it was 180-190* water that can cause burns. She had it in her lap and when she opened the lid it spilled and it burned her. I guess I have a different view of life. It wasn't negligent or malicious. Optimum brewing temperature for coffee is just below boiling, from 190° f to 205° f.. hot coffee is just that, hot.. if you purchase fresh coffee then you can expect it to be near boiling point. I will never understand why it is someone else's fault for a mistake that someone made
Life happens, we are on a rock traveling through the universe hurtling towards oblivion.. if you get a booboo why does it have to be someone else's fault?
It's a ridiculous lawsuit and she should have gotten $0.00
I think this is a POA record. 64 pages of mostly on-topic discussion before the thread swerved to a no-compromise argument about something completely unrelated. Too bad I didn’t bet anyone a beer on that!
Let’s try to steer it back on track: Does the Raptor have cupholders? Does the SR-22, which the Raptor website uses as the baseline for what a modern GA plane should be, have cupholders?
Yes, 4, but they're over engineered and flimsy. You can gingerly place a Voss/Fiji/Evian in there and that's about it. If you attempt to close it then it will shatter in your hands
They're also exactly where your foot naturally slides when you board the plane so unwitting occupants destroy them
I now remember a thread about Cirrus cupholders. Raptor may win this point.
No cupholders! No coffee allowed in the aircraft. If there are two things the Raptor can't afford to have on board, it's extra weight, and an extra source of heat.
If has coffee in the left cup holder, he has to make sure there is one of equal volume in the right cup holder.
Maybe that’s the real reason he only flies on calm days, he doesn’t want to spill his coffee.
Sounds like a good argument to make it unmanned.
I try to keep coffee out of my aircraft. It stains when spilled. Aircraft interiors are pricey. I spent a day a couple months back removing coffee stains from my aircraft interior. I do not intend to do so again.
Now you’re just being silly.
Seriously, a simple lead weight to balance the coffee weight would be a more elegant solution.
But like a 5 lb barbell weight duct taped to the floor at a random location, because "that should do it."
New video is out. Engine is off the aircraft and he's finally caved to install a Piper-style pito-static tube...
But only using half of it.
It's a start.
No danger of that.
McDonald's fault was that they were serving coffee much hotter than most coffee is sold, that hundreds of people had been injured by their overheated coffee, that they had known that their customers were getting third degree burns from their coffee for over a decade, and that they decided they didn't give a **** and wouldn't do anything about it.
But where is the reasonable line drawn then?
100*, 120* ? A couple people burned? A few hundred..? A couple thousand?
if the coffee is fresh brewed someone can safely assume it's going to be basically undrinkably hot
Alternately, they determined that their clientele bought their coffee because it was hot and fresh. Hotter and fresher than the coffee from the competition.