As a former deposit holder, videos like this confirm my decision in that regard. For newer viewers, statements like, "I unit test things as much as I can before putting them all together," or, “I’m using risk management principles to get this whole project done as safely as I can,” are highly misleading at best. In the marketing world, statements like these would fail to meet the standards required under truth in advertising. The reason this program only has ~7 hours of flight time over the past 6 months at KVLD is precisely because things were not properly bench tested before final installation at Cherokee. The engine and re-drive, for example, had a paltry 100 hours put on them on the test stand years ago, but they were mounted to the airframe anyway, with among other things, a runaway heat issue that persists to this day. At the time, the builder stated he didn't think it needed more than 100 hours, and so that was it. As a result, 6 months after firing his test pilots, the build is still averaging more things breaking on it every month than flight hours. The lack of bench testing could hardly be more obvious. As for risk management, the FAA strongly recommends a pro test pilot program which is considered the gold standard for risk mitigation in the test flight phase of development. This program has failed, twice now, to conform to that standard: Once under Len Fox, once under Wasabi. The examples are not one or two off's, but exemplify norms over the life cycle of the project. The rank attempts at historical revisionism by the builder in this video are unfortunately a norm as well. Potential buyers should not be misled. Rigorous unit testing and risk management principles and practices have not been consistently followed throughout this build. To say or even hint otherwise, is highly misleading.
I’ll be honest, I almost put a deposit down too but I was nervous about having two experimental things being tested at once. I love the idea of the Audi engine. I love the idea of a larger room canard. Testing both at once isn’t even something the huge companies do. I would’ve loved to see an proven engine in the airframe. That would’ve provided more time to iron out the details of testing and handling. At this point my focus is moving to the six seat velocity. I really wish this project the best though... Just wish there were aeronautical professionals doing this stuff.
Lots of words WOW. Happy you got your deposit back and this wasn't one of those gone bad GoFundMe scams Hey. ps.. If you are I'd also stop long term shorting TSLA stock.
>10 000 word essay. You really need to improve your trolling efficiency. The secret to effective trolling is to make a punchy, evocative statement that requires minimal effort yet rustles as many jimmies as possible.
Peter your accent sounds Kiwi Canadian from a guess. I have over 50 years on high-speed diesel engines. Many working at 10 to 14 thousand feet AMSL. I see two major factors that may be impacting your coolant temperature issues. First and foremost you are using compound turbochargers in an engine that has no need for that arrangement. Compound turbocharging is an attempt to overcome turbocharger lag under high load low rpm. Something that an aeroplane engine should never experience. Your application is actually closer to a power generator set engine were engine rpm and load are pretty constant or only vary gradually. The compound turbo application results in extremely high admission temperatures and takes a wad of intercooling to get the temperatures down to a reasonable level. The rule of thumb is that for every 1 degree Increase in intake temperature the exhaust temps will rise by a multiplier of 3 . As an example, if you could lower your intake temperatures by 50C you would lower your exhaust temps by 150C. Diesel engines on average deliver energy with roughly 33% out the crankshaft, 33% out the exhaust and 33% through the jacket water cooling. Your engine would run much sweeter on a single turbo matched for the altitude you aim the fly at and either a wastegate or a correctly sized VVC turbo controlled by your ECM However, the most serious issue you have is the radiator package. Regardless of the speed you fly at or the altitude it may attain you must cool the thing for the worst possible situation. In that case taxying, takeoff and climb when you are not going very much faster than the original car would have gone under those conditions. Simply stated the radiator in your plane should have the same thermal efficiency and capacity as the vehicle the engine was taken from. Cooling systems are complex but there is a basic rule of thumb that goes for all water jacket cooled engines. The delta across your primary radiator must not be less than 10C or more than 14C. Why are those numbers so important. If your delta is less than 10C then the coolant is going through the core too fast or not enough air is getting through the core to cool it. If the delta is above 14C then the flow is too slow through the core due to the core flow values not matching the water pump capacity or you have a restriction in the coolant flow. Also in some cases, twits take the thermostat out of the engine thinking that will increase flow through the radiator and thus increase the cooling. The reverse actually occurs and the coolant recirculates in the cylinder block as the coolant takes the path of least resistance. What worries me in your case is the Heath Robinson extra radiator come heater circuit you have installed upfront. It has low flow thus the high delta over that core. That is not efficient cooling. It is low coolant flow. You absolutely must place temperature probes in the main coolant inlet and the outlet. Those are the critical points you need to measure to understand your cooling issue. You must six¡zw your cooling system for the worst possible scenario and the rest will take care of itself.
When you simulate a go-around, shouldn't you at least drop the gear and get down to ~100kts??? Especially since you found your climb rate to be a bit low, extending the gear may be a bit more realistics.
A thing that you can't forget about height altitude flight. There is less air up there so although it is colder the reduced air density results in a less efficient cooling. Usually is needed som fat in the low level flight cooling capacity to be able to use full power in the high levels
We were discussing the radiator problems and maybe you've thought of this, but what if you redesigned the shape of the radiator to fit into the intake scoop. Because the radiator doesn't have to be the same shape as on a car, it could cool along the length of the intake scoop running the coolant from back to front through coils and fins that experience progressively cooler air. This way the coolant would exit the radiator at the coolest point, e.g. the entrance of the intake scoop. That could alleviate the need for a redesign on the cowling. It might even be possible to 3D print such a radiator design (there is a lot of work being done along those lines at Oak Ridge National Laboratory).
'mansplainers'... LMAO!!! peter.. you rock. I had to really chuckle when you said that bit last video about us 'getting bored' watching every single flight. impossible. this channel is now my FAVORITE thing to watch- right behind blue bloods. I love aviation and if I didn't have a wife & a daughter flipping out saying "don't fly! you'll die!" .. I'd sell my place in CA, move back to NC, buy a tiny little shack & put 50% down on a new raptor. I believe in this project. and you've done a MASTERFUL job of making raptor a reality.
I value the opinions of those who have actually accomplished something in life. You sir have designed, built and tested a real aircraft! That's what I call an accomplishment!
Re coolling. Have you checked that there is no air in the block and head cooling system? I.e really 100% full with coolant ? Some cars rrequire the cooling system to be under vacuum prior to filling with coolant. Any voids in tthe system affect cooling perrformance.
Hey Peter, Great job! Having a few loud mouth trolls just means your doing what they could NOT do ! Trolls never did anything in there life & are now angry at themselves :-)
So my question is are you just jumping in before a flight and then just ‘winging’ it? Or do you have a planned test-card for each flight? Seems to me you’re just going up and flying around with no plan...there’s ABC’s to testing a new plane and seems like you’re doing A, M, D, X....
PAPIs provide obstruction clearance within 4sm of the runway threshold if you are on the proper glide path, two white/two red. Sure, you can see obstructions here when its VFR and you're familiar with the airport, but this is not a safe habit and you shouldn't justify it because its what feels "comfortable." Would you do the same thing at an unfamiliar airport at night? How will you handle an IFR to VFR transition on an ILS/WAAS approach when it sets you up to land on the 1000 footers? This whole test flying program is in itself risky, so why do you keep being so arrogant about the whole process? You insist on flying a plane with a known oil leak and you still have yet to determine what Vg is, and haven't practiced an engine-out scenario yet. Seriously Peter, you didn't appreciate WASABI calling it as it was because they thought all of these scenarios through. I know they made you feel butt-hurt but that is what safety looks like, and you're one system failure from a forced landing off a runway.
@@nielsf2743 Zero experience building an airplane and test flying it. ATP, CFI/MEI/CFII with around 4200hrs TT though. I'm talking basic Private Pilot fundamentals with a little bit of common sense thrown in too. What's the disadvantage of figuring out Vg or practicing an engine-out? What's the disadvantage of being conservative when there are so many unknowns with a new design?
thats right , Niels .... @@sprebound3805 : what would he know !! ? Call me wildly out of order, @Niels F - but what qualifies you to state what is an appropriate level experience to comment on what is obviously an extremely poorly put together test program by any normal flight test standard ?
@@sprebound3805 if you look at his altitude he was at 500ft at one mile. What should he be at? I would say 300. The field elevation is 203ft. So whether or not I was looking at AGL or MSL he was not too low. Yes the papi’s show low but I don’t think it was very low.
@@nielsf2743 My intention wasn't to start a pissing battle. I've been watching these videos since the beginning and I was excited to see this thing get airborne. I'm just saying he had a team of professionals that would have done a great job getting this design refined and proven. He decided not to continue working with them and do this all on his own and that's fine but there are some very basic unknowns that need to be ironed out in order to test this plane safely. There is a known oil leak and cooling issues, both of which lead to a seized engine and then the airplane is a glider. This goes beyond what he is comfortable with and if you have the experience that you claim then I think you would agree that as aviators we have a responsibility for people's safety on the ground as well, correct? This is my point, one of the most important lessons I taught to all of my student pilots was how to put an airplane down safely if the engine failed and one of the most important numbers in that situation is Vg. He hasn't determined that number, hasn't demonstrated an engine-out, and hasn't even determined what the stall speed is on the plane. These are all very important things to know in a certified plane, and I'd think especially important with an uncertified one. I don't claim to know everything and I make mistakes all the time, but this is an inherently dangerous business and the lack of forethought here is staggering. I haven't read all of the comments so I don't know what the whole "mansplaining" deal is about, but I'm talking private pilot fundamentals. I want this project to be successful and I think all of Peter's investors would too, and if he is going to take on the responsibility of a test flight regime then these things should be figured out before worrying about the autopilot.
good on you, @@sprebound3805 for standing up and saying what needs to be said - in a lucid and rational manner. Unfortunately, as soon as you out yourself as someone with an even vaguely adverse opinion - or even someone who suggests doing something differently , you incur the wrath of the @"Raptor Aircraft" fanboys ... none of whom want to see anything negative about their hero. The common line being taken is that "You cant comment unless you've designed and built your own aircraft" It behoves everyone involved in aviation to call out safety issues - and that doesn't sit well with personality types like Peter's. I just hope the madness stops before either Peter or god forbid a member of the Public get hurt.
Flying a shallow final approach will make your landings imprecise as you fly in ground effect. In crosswinds it is even dangerous as you tend to drift to the side of center line. My advice is to get comfortable to fly red-white on the papi as it is the safest way. Airport approach angle is also due to obstacle clearance and on an ILS or NDB, you have to fly on Papi to stay established. Try it step by step. I’m sure your touchdowns will be in the touchdown zone soon.
He's not "comfortable" flying a standard 3.5 degree glideslope .... and therefore doing it is not necessary. Like stall testing (its not going to stall, so why test that) ... Correcting the obvious Pitot static issues ( it seems to be synced with the GPS , so no need to "dial it in") ... the instability issues - pitch and roll (Its turbulence !!! )
I was told that swept wings can do that as one wing moves forward and the other aft. Also this would involve the winglets moving in opposite directions.
Did I miss measuring the air temp at the input to the radiator? Do we know the air temp into the radiator is sufficiently low to suggest there is good air flow there? Remember, the evaporator air flow was seriously inadequate and by my memory barely works, now. If the temperature across the radiator is high, cooling is happening; there is just not enough air flow, or the radiator is too small, or the water flow is too low. Maybe look at the water: If the output water temp is low, not enough water flow. If the output water temp is high, not enough air flow. I'd hate for this to be a water flow through the rad problem, hope Peter measured that already.
Would a pitot static test rig allow you to test the airspeed and ASLO the Garmin g3x as you can simulate a roc or descent etc on the ground and run the servos? Why does the Garmin show a head or cross wind continuously no matter what direction you’re flying (even “downwind”)? Why didn’t you use 100% throttle for your go-around?
Looking at the specs for your engine, I see that 'peak torque' is delivered at around 2500rpm and 'peak power' is 4500. Most of the time your motor is turning at 3500rpm, where the torque's dropping off and before the power has arrived which means the engine spends most of its time in the least efficient range. If your motor is anything like my Jag 3.0TD you'll still have plenty of grunt way below 2500rpm and I think both your cooling system and economy would benefit! Would it be worth changing your prop gearing?
@@carlwilliams1570 glide ratio has little to nothing to do with weight. You will see more forward and sink speed, the ratio will be the same at most weights. Until some Reynolds numbers come into play.
Ah yes. Peter himself. An Ozzie battler. Loves succeeding despite the odds. Has backed himself with some of his own coin and ( I suspect ) a lot of other peoples coin. Sold the concept of building the Raptor to a lot of folk who've their deposit in some sort of escrow account. Has taken on the mantle of test pilot despite his obvious lack of experience - to the detriment of the program. Loves proving the "Mansplainers" wrong (Cue the Fantrolls : " Yay yay !! Hooray Hooray !! Go peter, Go Peter ..." )
Good information and explanation. When looking at the line charts, at around the 9-10 minute segment, you can clearly see the effect of the front heater/radiator cooling when sufficient airflow is being generated to provide the cooling and the same effect when you cut off then restarted the loop. Obviously, cooling still need attention but you are making progress; however, some redesign is most likely needed. Remember the "Meredith Effect" principles when redesigning in order to balance the effect of drag. You are making small steps forward each day in development of the airplane without the benefit of a large aircraft company's aircraft development.
Is there an "autotune" mode in the autopilot system to adjust the PIDs? That's how one does it for UAVs using flight controllers, standard R/C and FPV stuff with software such as Ardupilot and INAV. Every type has different behaviour, so I'm sure that unless you have already done it, the PID parameters need to be adjusted for the autopilot to stably control the aircraft.
Sure seems to be doing better and better. I think dual inter-coolers is a thing, at least in automotive engines. The latest VW V8 TDI btw: 416HP, 664 ft. lbs of torque. Dual 2 stage turbos, already has a super-charrger as well. A huge jump in performance over even the previous V10 TDI. I wonder if Raptor's redrive could handle #'s like that. Cheers.
Peter, would it be worth adding small triangular cutouts on both sides of the rear bottom vent that would allow ambient air to flow through the new cooler and provide a bit more cooling?
Outstanding Peter! I know the video editing takes a huge amount of time...Wondering if you could engage a volunteer to help with some of the raw editing so that you can spend your valuable time doing the final editing? I know you are extremely hands-on, but off loading some of this time consuming task like video editing to a reliable volunteer may be helpful. As time goes on I think you will want, and need to start building a team of volunteers to help. You are doing an amazing job...Ignore the mansplainers...👏👍
good testing!! nice to see stability on take off and landing, great piloting. as far as peanut gallery, ignore the jerks.. they never built a new plane with power plant. Q, would a larger or 2 oil coolers make a difference or take air in from outside rather than inside heated air? worth a thought. Front intercooler obviously works!!! 40 degrees is still a great lowering of temps!!!. Keep it up!!! When you meet resistance, just keep going with what common sense tells you to do. Common sense is RARE. Don't lose it or question it, you have it my friend!!! keep going!!! 1,000,000 attabits today!!!
I am confident the production version will have the optimal cooling solution - well done on this flight and further understanding technical parameters.
YOu need a small coolant bypass so that the front tank "dump" does not shock the engine. Otherwise - this is looking much better than a few months ago. Need some testing in Arizona at 110 deg F to see how it really shakes out!
and now, our LAR, old trucker . I like high oil temps, but only occasionally 220 to 230 F. for maybe 10 mins . Gets rid of any condensate water, and it is there from any overnight shutdown . I think you need to go to massive oil cooled 180 F. with some thermostatic control for the occasional water removal ( once a flight ) . The heat from the turbos, is not what some think, it is actually what all that boost puts into the pistons, and its been handled in big Diesels for 50 or so years . Thing is, you're not going to get much cooling from the 230 F. oil . And no, 180 oil is not toooo low of a temp for a relatively low viscosity synthetic .
Alright, forget the thermostatic control. The water will come out at 180 F. , just a lot quicker, and out the breather at 230 F. oil temp . I'm sure Audi and or your tuner guy, say 230 F. oil is o/k, but is that continuous ? I believe if you get the oil to 180 F. continuous, your coolant problems will go away . Just use 5W-40 full synthetic oil .
Things are coming along. Really looking forward to seeing the speed in a stablized cruise at altitude. Patience, I know that it will happen when it's time.
@@alexwilliams865 Well, development takes time. I suspect considering the turbocharging, cooling improvements and other adjustment, 20,000 feet or greater would not be unrealistic and groundspeed could be surprising.
By the way, I am with you on how long it takes to edit video. I am in an amateur rock band and the video editing and production takes 5 times longer than the gig!
@@alanpierce2269 You don't think that we will be able to record the aircraft speed at a stabalized cruise altitude? I think that it is likely that we will see that in the relatively near future. Not sure what you mean.
Those who cannot do it themselves feel fully entitled to tell others who can/do, how they should do. Don't listen to them, you are DOING what they can't even dream.
Anyone who wants to criticize ANYTHING about your design, methods or procedures, needs to go design, build and prove their own clean-sheet aircraft. I wouldn't even acknowledgement those comments.
Question for my education: is the coolant loop running along the wings leading edges, yet? If I am not mistaken, the plan for production is to keep the leading edges warm. I think that's ingenious. Due to the large area this should keep things cool due to the large area, even if the leading edges are not necessarily a good thermal conductor. Just my two cents.
It's clear that between now and the next few hours of flight, Peter will know what he needs to know with respect to this choice of engine and all related issues. Let's give him our support. There's risk involved, but so far he's has proven that he's as good as any (home builder) pro in mitigating the risks. It's a tough decision to decide to test flight such a new design without a test pilot. I suspect that he's in this fine line between completing the aircraft for himself first, and then figuring out the steps needed to go into production, including test flights by test pilots and raising more cash. So far, what he has proven is that this aircraft will not fall out of the sky. What he has yet to prove is that the aircraft can meet or exceed the original performance goals. I think that in the case of both test pilots, one refused to fly it because he thought the design was very flawed and that the aircraft could get into serious trouble under low approach speeds; the second, didn't like the airport. One of these days, Peter or someone will need to do slow flying, near stall, and know that the parachute will work in case the aircraft goes into unrecoverable flight. I am enjoying watching Peter's journey. It's as good as reading about Lindberg's crossing.
your getting there, why did you laugh at yourself when you had a thought of adding another rad/cooler? i think thats one way to go, possible more water volume, different cooling fluid maybe, in the motor trade there used to be a fluid you used neat a %100 with difficult auto engines that suffered with overheating, even replacing rubber hose with a much aluminium pipe would dissipate the heat , sorry if im annoying you but im trying to help, file in any available bin as found necessary lol
I still suspect that the pressures across the various radiators and intercoolers is the issue. czcams.com/video/70ixn1dzk2s/video.html Please, Peter - watch the video and MEASURE. It can be tested in a taxi run. I suspect the main roof scoop is in a low pressure zone in the curve of the roofline and the heat doesn’t dissipate because the pressure inside the engine bay is higher, and the main prop isn’t sucking the air through as anticipated.
@@gregorykusiak5424 im with you, just a thought while reading your reply, would a inline pump equalise or cancel out negative pressure? just a thought.
@@MsJon52 an inline pump where, pumping what? The video I linked to suggested ducted radiators, and the rest of that channel is rather focused on aerodynamic pressures. It’s not speed of air going into the air ducting, it’s air pressure, and by extension, the mass of the air passing through rads/coolers to absorb the heat...but if it’s not being sucked/pushed out, it will accumulate.
Where is the parachute? I called velocity and the told me they couldn't do it on their plane so it was abandoned. Talk to me fellers. Anybody? Huh? Speak up!
Who makes the parachute? Talk to me... Im a nervous flyer. I canceled my flight lesson today. Told the guy I had covid! Now I can't reschedule for 14 days! I don't even believe in covid voodoo..... Two brothers are doctors, dentist uncle and niece is a vet. We all giggle about covid... Flu virus gone! We are a world of pansies! I'm too scared to fly! I blamed it on my wife for not sitting at the airport and waiting for me. Next time I'm inviting a girlfriend. .... Seriously.
Ok, park the BS from the "wise yokes" for a moment - What of the experienced aviators and engineers who have tried to help by pointing out the obvious ? Also worth an ignore ?
Please, don't take offense on this: The speeds are very much below what was spected: maybe it goes together with the heating problem ¿do your think it will be positive to ask the community to pich-in ideas for giving this beautiful plane better speed ? I do appreciate very much your work and obviously many ideas can be wrong, but I think , being an enthusiastic and knowledgeable community some good ideas can come up!!
Gain is more of a ratio. It is how fast and what servo angle corresponds to what displacement in pitch from the desired value. The scale is also logarithmic. An incorrect setting causes the system to 'hunt', it was doing this in the AP test vid. You can see Pete trimming the aircraft but the autopilot was not able to damp the oscillations.
@Sonny Wheelock -- I sit corrected. I was thinking about filming a Low Pass. B.T.W. It surprises me that nobody on (or near) the airfield hasn't filmed either the take-off or landing phases of Raptor.
@Sonny Wheelock Not really Simulated if he wasn't in the approach configuration ... he also didnt go to Max Continuous Power .... which despite his arguments as to why that is not necessary is simply not a go around ...
Why then is nearly every intercooler mounted in front of a rad ? In his case it is horizontal on top, then a cavity to the rad, below. Air at the top of the scoop enters and flows through the IC, air also from mid to lower scoop enters the cavity to the radiator.The separating into two air streams may have made a pressure problem for flow, but temps did drop. Complex
@@nssherlock4547 Performance would be the first reason. Second would be that the intercooler temps wouldn’t be high all the time like they are on this compound turbo setup. How often do you see compound turbos?
As a former deposit holder, videos like this confirm my decision in that regard. For newer viewers, statements like, "I unit test things as much as I can before putting them all together," or, “I’m using risk management principles to get this whole project done as safely as I can,” are highly misleading at best. In the marketing world, statements like these would fail to meet the standards required under truth in advertising. The reason this program only has ~7 hours of flight time over the past 6 months at KVLD is precisely because things were not properly bench tested before final installation at Cherokee. The engine and re-drive, for example, had a paltry 100 hours put on them on the test stand years ago, but they were mounted to the airframe anyway, with among other things, a runaway heat issue that persists to this day. At the time, the builder stated he didn't think it needed more than 100 hours, and so that was it. As a result, 6 months after firing his test pilots, the build is still averaging more things breaking on it every month than flight hours. The lack of bench testing could hardly be more obvious. As for risk management, the FAA strongly recommends a pro test pilot program which is considered the gold standard for risk mitigation in the test flight phase of development. This program has failed, twice now, to conform to that standard: Once under Len Fox, once under Wasabi. The examples are not one or two off's, but exemplify norms over the life cycle of the project. The rank attempts at historical revisionism by the builder in this video are unfortunately a norm as well. Potential buyers should not be misled. Rigorous unit testing and risk management principles and practices have not been consistently followed throughout this build. To say or even hint otherwise, is highly misleading.
I’ll be honest, I almost put a deposit down too but I was nervous about having two experimental things being tested at once. I love the idea of the Audi engine. I love the idea of a larger room canard. Testing both at once isn’t even something the huge companies do. I would’ve loved to see an proven engine in the airframe. That would’ve provided more time to iron out the details of testing and handling. At this point my focus is moving to the six seat velocity. I really wish this project the best though... Just wish there were aeronautical professionals doing this stuff.
Lots of words WOW. Happy you got your deposit back and this wasn't one of those gone bad GoFundMe scams Hey.
ps.. If you are I'd also stop long term shorting TSLA stock.
>10 000 word essay.
You really need to improve your trolling efficiency. The secret to effective trolling is to make a punchy, evocative statement that requires minimal effort yet rustles as many jimmies as possible.
@@BestbredSA that the thing, though. He’s not trolling. He’s telling the truth.
Peter your accent sounds Kiwi Canadian from a guess. I have over 50 years on high-speed diesel engines. Many working at 10 to 14 thousand feet AMSL. I see two major factors that may be impacting your coolant temperature issues.
First and foremost you are using compound turbochargers in an engine that has no need for that arrangement. Compound turbocharging is an attempt to overcome turbocharger lag under high load low rpm. Something that an aeroplane engine should never experience. Your application is actually closer to a power generator set engine were engine rpm and load are pretty constant or only vary gradually. The compound turbo application results in extremely high admission temperatures and takes a wad of intercooling to get the temperatures down to a reasonable level. The rule of thumb is that for every 1 degree Increase in intake temperature the exhaust temps will rise by a multiplier of 3 . As an example, if you could lower your intake temperatures by 50C you would lower your exhaust temps by 150C. Diesel engines on average deliver energy with roughly 33% out the crankshaft, 33% out the exhaust and 33% through the jacket water cooling. Your engine would run much sweeter on a single turbo matched for the altitude you aim the fly at and either a wastegate or a correctly sized VVC turbo controlled by your ECM
However, the most serious issue you have is the radiator package. Regardless of the speed you fly at or the altitude it may attain you must cool the thing for the worst possible situation. In that case taxying, takeoff and climb when you are not going very much faster than the original car would have gone under those conditions. Simply stated the radiator in your plane should have the same thermal efficiency and capacity as the vehicle the engine was taken from. Cooling systems are complex but there is a basic rule of thumb that goes for all water jacket cooled engines. The delta across your primary radiator must not be less than 10C or more than 14C. Why are those numbers so important. If your delta is less than 10C then the coolant is going through the core too fast or not enough air is getting through the core to cool it. If the delta is above 14C then the flow is too slow through the core due to the core flow values not matching the water pump capacity or you have a restriction in the coolant flow. Also in some cases, twits take the thermostat out of the engine thinking that will increase flow through the radiator and thus increase the cooling. The reverse actually occurs and the coolant recirculates in the cylinder block as the coolant takes the path of least resistance. What worries me in your case is the Heath Robinson extra radiator come heater circuit you have installed upfront. It has low flow thus the high delta over that core. That is not efficient cooling. It is low coolant flow. You absolutely must place temperature probes in the main coolant inlet and the outlet. Those are the critical points you need to measure to understand your cooling issue. You must six¡zw your cooling system for the worst possible scenario and the rest will take care of itself.
He has had multiple turbocharging gurus (including Audi) offer to help. Don't get your hopes up. Thanks for the input.
Please, no ... he's not a Kiwi .... he's an Australian.
When you simulate a go-around, shouldn't you at least drop the gear and get down to ~100kts??? Especially since you found your climb rate to be a bit low, extending the gear may be a bit more realistics.
simulated a go around? without the gear down?
A thing that you can't forget about height altitude flight. There is less air up there so although it is colder the reduced air density results in a less efficient cooling. Usually is needed som fat in the low level flight cooling capacity to be able to use full power in the high levels
We were discussing the radiator problems and maybe you've thought of this, but what if you redesigned the shape of the radiator to fit into the intake scoop. Because the radiator doesn't have to be the same shape as on a car, it could cool along the length of the intake scoop running the coolant from back to front through coils and fins that experience progressively cooler air. This way the coolant would exit the radiator at the coolest point, e.g. the entrance of the intake scoop. That could alleviate the need for a redesign on the cowling. It might even be possible to 3D print such a radiator design (there is a lot of work being done along those lines at Oak Ridge National Laboratory).
@@rv6ejguy ok, reverse the flow. Start it at the front.
'mansplainers'... LMAO!!! peter.. you rock. I had to really chuckle when you said that bit last video about us 'getting bored' watching every single flight. impossible. this channel is now my FAVORITE thing to watch- right behind blue bloods. I love aviation and if I didn't have a wife & a daughter flipping out saying "don't fly! you'll die!" .. I'd sell my place in CA, move back to NC, buy a tiny little shack & put 50% down on a new raptor. I believe in this project. and you've done a MASTERFUL job of making raptor a reality.
Appreciate the ride along. Engineering, testing, editing videos. Looks like a lot of work for one person.
Very interesting Peter thanks for sharing. Great to see the measured progress as you dial that cooling system in.
I value the opinions of those who have actually accomplished something in life. You sir have designed, built and tested a real aircraft! That's what I call an accomplishment!
Re coolling. Have you checked that there is no air in the block and head cooling system? I.e really 100% full with coolant ? Some cars rrequire the cooling system to be under vacuum prior to filling with coolant. Any voids in tthe system affect cooling perrformance.
Hey Peter, Great job! Having a few loud mouth trolls just means your doing what they could NOT do ! Trolls never did anything in there life & are now angry at themselves :-)
So my question is are you just jumping in before a flight and then just ‘winging’ it? Or do you have a planned test-card for each flight? Seems to me you’re just going up and flying around with no plan...there’s ABC’s to testing a new plane and seems like you’re doing A, M, D, X....
He's dialing it in ...
Peter you have done SO well... Keep it up...
PAPIs provide obstruction clearance within 4sm of the runway threshold if you are on the proper glide path, two white/two red. Sure, you can see obstructions here when its VFR and you're familiar with the airport, but this is not a safe habit and you shouldn't justify it because its what feels "comfortable." Would you do the same thing at an unfamiliar airport at night? How will you handle an IFR to VFR transition on an ILS/WAAS approach when it sets you up to land on the 1000 footers? This whole test flying program is in itself risky, so why do you keep being so arrogant about the whole process? You insist on flying a plane with a known oil leak and you still have yet to determine what Vg is, and haven't practiced an engine-out scenario yet. Seriously Peter, you didn't appreciate WASABI calling it as it was because they thought all of these scenarios through. I know they made you feel butt-hurt but that is what safety looks like, and you're one system failure from a forced landing off a runway.
@@nielsf2743 Zero experience building an airplane and test flying it. ATP, CFI/MEI/CFII with around 4200hrs TT though. I'm talking basic Private Pilot fundamentals with a little bit of common sense thrown in too. What's the disadvantage of figuring out Vg or practicing an engine-out? What's the disadvantage of being conservative when there are so many unknowns with a new design?
thats right , Niels .... @@sprebound3805 : what would he know !! ?
Call me wildly out of order, @Niels F - but what qualifies you to state what is an appropriate level experience to comment on what is obviously an extremely poorly put together test program by any normal flight test standard ?
@@sprebound3805 if you look at his altitude he was at 500ft at one mile. What should he be at? I would say 300. The field elevation is 203ft. So whether or not I was looking at AGL or MSL he was not too low. Yes the papi’s show low but I don’t think it was very low.
@@nielsf2743 My intention wasn't to start a pissing battle. I've been watching these videos since the beginning and I was excited to see this thing get airborne. I'm just saying he had a team of professionals that would have done a great job getting this design refined and proven. He decided not to continue working with them and do this all on his own and that's fine but there are some very basic unknowns that need to be ironed out in order to test this plane safely.
There is a known oil leak and cooling issues, both of which lead to a seized engine and then the airplane is a glider. This goes beyond what he is comfortable with and if you have the experience that you claim then I think you would agree that as aviators we have a responsibility for people's safety on the ground as well, correct? This is my point, one of the most important lessons I taught to all of my student pilots was how to put an airplane down safely if the engine failed and one of the most important numbers in that situation is Vg. He hasn't determined that number, hasn't demonstrated an engine-out, and hasn't even determined what the stall speed is on the plane. These are all very important things to know in a certified plane, and I'd think especially important with an uncertified one.
I don't claim to know everything and I make mistakes all the time, but this is an inherently dangerous business and the lack of forethought here is staggering. I haven't read all of the comments so I don't know what the whole "mansplaining" deal is about, but I'm talking private pilot fundamentals. I want this project to be successful and I think all of Peter's investors would too, and if he is going to take on the responsibility of a test flight regime then these things should be figured out before worrying about the autopilot.
good on you, @@sprebound3805 for standing up and saying what needs to be said - in a lucid and rational manner.
Unfortunately, as soon as you out yourself as someone with an even vaguely adverse opinion - or even someone who suggests doing something differently , you incur the wrath of the @"Raptor Aircraft" fanboys ... none of whom want to see anything negative about their hero.
The common line being taken is that "You cant comment unless you've designed and built your own aircraft"
It behoves everyone involved in aviation to call out safety issues - and that doesn't sit well with personality types like Peter's.
I just hope the madness stops before either Peter or god forbid a member of the Public get hurt.
Flying a shallow final approach will make your landings imprecise as you fly in ground effect. In crosswinds it is even dangerous as you tend to drift to the side of center line. My advice is to get comfortable to fly red-white on the papi as it is the safest way. Airport approach angle is also due to obstacle clearance and on an ILS or NDB, you have to fly on Papi to stay established. Try it step by step. I’m sure your touchdowns will be in the touchdown zone soon.
He's not "comfortable" flying a standard 3.5 degree glideslope .... and therefore doing it is not necessary. Like stall testing (its not going to stall, so why test that) ... Correcting the obvious Pitot static issues ( it seems to be synced with the GPS , so no need to "dial it in") ... the instability issues - pitch and roll (Its turbulence !!! )
looks like you've still got a bit of dutch roll to sort out. Have you identified the destabilizing structure yet?
I was told that swept wings can do that as one wing moves forward and the other aft. Also this would involve the winglets moving in opposite directions.
Curious if part of the reason is aileron sensitivity due to the spades not being parallel to the airflow.
@@theresacaron4238 On a Long-Ez the rudders act as ailerons as well as producing yaw. Could be a backup roll control if needed.
Did I miss measuring the air temp at the input to the radiator? Do we know the air temp into the radiator is sufficiently low to suggest there is good air flow there? Remember, the evaporator air flow was seriously inadequate and by my memory barely works, now. If the temperature across the radiator is high, cooling is happening; there is just not enough air flow, or the radiator is too small, or the water flow is too low. Maybe look at the water: If the output water temp is low, not enough water flow. If the output water temp is high, not enough air flow. I'd hate for this to be a water flow through the rad problem, hope Peter measured that already.
I am loving what this plane is doing.
Would a pitot static test rig allow you to test the airspeed and ASLO the Garmin g3x as you can simulate a roc or descent etc on the ground and run the servos? Why does the Garmin show a head or cross wind continuously no matter what direction you’re flying (even “downwind”)? Why didn’t you use 100% throttle for your go-around?
I love to see this bird in the air! Keep up the great work, Peter.
Great flight Pete, enjoyed the logs just as much. Maybe you stack up another one of those charge cooler up front...
Looking at the specs for your engine, I see that 'peak torque' is delivered at around 2500rpm and 'peak power' is 4500.
Most of the time your motor is turning at 3500rpm, where the torque's dropping off and before the power has arrived which means the engine spends most of its time in the least efficient range.
If your motor is anything like my Jag 3.0TD you'll still have plenty of grunt way below 2500rpm and I think both your cooling system and economy would benefit!
Would it be worth changing your prop gearing?
Detractors aside, what a massive project and massive progress! Let the haters hate while the builders build!
Peter, if you build a frame and put the engine on the roof (rerouting the parachute), that might aid the cooling issue, plus give extra luggage space.
Finally a sensible suggestion amongst all the naysaying
@@BestbredSA Why spank you very much mate :-)
Andy. Once you design a plane build it test fly it and refine it then comment Please.
@@garystat Do you have an email address so I can send you the schematics to approve?
@@garystat woosh
Plan to speed up to 200 kts?
It would help the cooling A LOT, even with the higher power setting.
What is the glide ratio if you have an engine failure?
Not great.
@@triedproven9908 Based on?
With its weight it’s probably just a little better than the Shuttle’s!
@@carlwilliams1570 glide ratio has little to nothing to do with weight. You will see more forward and sink speed, the ratio will be the same at most weights. Until some Reynolds numbers come into play.
@@timbaeyens4986 True but a very overweight airframe has a high sink rate
Thanks Peter, Another good show! Keep up the good work...
I'm learning lots !
Curious about those missing half--laps on the main gear covers. I realize they're not a top priority at this point. How will that final flap actuate?.
I've been waiting for him to install those for a while. I keep looking for them in every video.
Things like that can be more trouble than they are worth if they don't work right.
Good flight Peter and you're doing a great job with everything. Good job putting the mansplainers in their place hehehe 👍
Ah yes. Peter himself. An Ozzie battler. Loves succeeding despite the odds. Has backed himself with some of his own coin and ( I suspect ) a lot of other peoples coin. Sold the concept of building the Raptor to a lot of folk who've their deposit in some sort of escrow account. Has taken on the mantle of test pilot despite his obvious lack of experience - to the detriment of the program.
Loves proving the "Mansplainers" wrong (Cue the Fantrolls : " Yay yay !! Hooray Hooray !! Go peter, Go Peter ..." )
Good information and explanation. When looking at the line charts, at around the 9-10 minute segment, you can clearly see the effect of the front heater/radiator cooling when sufficient airflow is being generated to provide the cooling and the same effect when you cut off then restarted the loop. Obviously, cooling still need attention but you are making progress; however, some redesign is most likely needed. Remember the "Meredith Effect" principles when redesigning in order to balance the effect of drag. You are making small steps forward each day in development of the airplane without the benefit of a large aircraft company's aircraft development.
nice work...what is the boost manifold pressure ( ins. of mercury) on blast off? thanks
Good to hear everything seems to be progressing. Look forward to hear what’s next!
Is there an "autotune" mode in the autopilot system to adjust the PIDs? That's how one does it for UAVs using flight controllers, standard R/C and FPV stuff with software such as Ardupilot and INAV. Every type has different behaviour, so I'm sure that unless you have already done it, the PID parameters need to be adjusted for the autopilot to stably control the aircraft.
40 degrees! nice peter. great progress man.
Sure seems to be doing better and better. I think dual inter-coolers is a thing, at least in automotive engines. The latest VW V8 TDI btw: 416HP, 664 ft. lbs of torque. Dual 2 stage turbos, already has a super-charrger as well. A huge jump in performance over even the previous V10 TDI. I wonder if Raptor's redrive could handle #'s like that. Cheers.
Only issue I have, if power out at 2:09, not much choice... Great plane, though.
Peter, would it be worth adding small triangular cutouts on both sides of the rear bottom vent that would allow ambient air to flow through the new cooler and provide a bit more cooling?
Great, thank you Peter, cheers Wiz
Why are you targeting 170 degrees for the coolant?
Outstanding Peter! I know the video editing takes a huge amount of time...Wondering if you could engage a volunteer to help with some of the raw editing so that you can spend your valuable time doing the final editing? I know you are extremely hands-on, but off loading some of this time consuming task like video editing to a reliable volunteer may be helpful. As time goes on I think you will want, and need to start building a team of volunteers to help.
You are doing an amazing job...Ignore the mansplainers...👏👍
good testing!! nice to see stability on take off and landing, great piloting. as far as peanut gallery, ignore the jerks.. they never built a new plane with power plant. Q, would a larger or 2 oil coolers make a difference or take air in from outside rather than inside heated air? worth a thought. Front intercooler obviously works!!! 40 degrees is still a great lowering of temps!!!. Keep it up!!! When you meet resistance, just keep going with what common sense tells you to do. Common sense is RARE. Don't lose it or question it, you have it my friend!!! keep going!!! 1,000,000 attabits today!!!
I am confident the production version will have the optimal cooling solution - well done on this flight and further understanding technical parameters.
YOu need a small coolant bypass so that the front tank "dump" does not shock the engine. Otherwise - this is looking much better than a few months ago. Need some testing in Arizona at 110 deg F to see how it really shakes out!
and now, our LAR, old trucker . I like high oil temps, but only occasionally 220 to 230 F. for maybe 10 mins . Gets rid of any condensate water, and it is there from any overnight shutdown . I think you need to go to massive oil cooled 180 F. with some thermostatic control for the occasional water removal ( once a flight ) . The heat from the turbos, is not what some think, it is actually what all that boost puts into the pistons, and its been handled in big Diesels for 50 or so years . Thing is, you're not going to get much cooling from the 230 F. oil . And no, 180 oil is not toooo low of a temp for a relatively low viscosity synthetic .
Alright, forget the thermostatic control. The water will come out at 180 F. , just a lot quicker, and out the breather at 230 F. oil temp . I'm sure Audi and or your tuner guy, say 230 F. oil is o/k, but is that continuous ? I believe if you get the oil to 180 F. continuous, your coolant problems will go away . Just use 5W-40 full synthetic oil .
Things are coming along. Really looking forward to seeing the speed in a stablized cruise at altitude. Patience, I know that it will happen when it's time.
I'm pretty sure that 140ktas @ 5000' is about all anyone is ever going to see unless there are some fresh sheet, ground up changes made.
@@alexwilliams865 Well, development takes time. I suspect considering the turbocharging, cooling improvements and other adjustment, 20,000 feet or greater would not be unrealistic and groundspeed could be surprising.
By the way, I am with you on how long it takes to edit video. I am in an amateur rock band and the video editing and production takes 5 times longer than the gig!
@@alanpierce2269 You don't think that we will be able to record the aircraft speed at a stabalized cruise altitude? I think that it is likely that we will see that in the relatively near future. Not sure what you mean.
Mansplainers... :-)
Those who cannot do it themselves feel fully entitled to tell others who can/do, how they should do. Don't listen to them, you are DOING what they can't even dream.
Anyone who wants to criticize ANYTHING about your design, methods or procedures, needs to go design, build and prove their own clean-sheet aircraft. I wouldn't even acknowledgement those comments.
I agree!
Question for my education: is the coolant loop running along the wings leading edges, yet? If I am not mistaken, the plan for production is to keep the leading edges warm. I think that's ingenious. Due to the large area this should keep things cool due to the large area, even if the leading edges are not necessarily a good thermal conductor. Just my two cents.
Thanks for the great details!
Dope
It's clear that between now and the next few hours of flight, Peter will know what he needs to know with respect to this choice of engine and all related issues. Let's give him our support. There's risk involved, but so far he's has proven that he's as good as any (home builder) pro in mitigating the risks. It's a tough decision to decide to test flight such a new design without a test pilot. I suspect that he's in this fine line between completing the aircraft for himself first, and then figuring out the steps needed to go into production, including test flights by test pilots and raising more cash. So far, what he has proven is that this aircraft will not fall out of the sky. What he has yet to prove is that the aircraft can meet or exceed the original performance goals. I think that in the case of both test pilots, one refused to fly it because he thought the design was very flawed and that the aircraft could get into serious trouble under low approach speeds; the second, didn't like the airport. One of these days, Peter or someone will need to do slow flying, near stall, and know that the parachute will work in case the aircraft goes into unrecoverable flight. I am enjoying watching Peter's journey. It's as good as reading about Lindberg's crossing.
your getting there, why did you laugh at yourself when you had a thought of adding another rad/cooler? i think thats one way to go, possible more water volume, different cooling fluid maybe, in the motor trade there used to be a fluid you used neat a %100 with difficult auto engines that suffered with overheating, even replacing rubber hose with a much aluminium pipe would dissipate the heat , sorry if im annoying you but im trying to help, file in any available bin as found necessary lol
I still suspect that the pressures across the various radiators and intercoolers is the issue. czcams.com/video/70ixn1dzk2s/video.html
Please, Peter - watch the video and MEASURE. It can be tested in a taxi run. I suspect the main roof scoop is in a low pressure zone in the curve of the roofline and the heat doesn’t dissipate because the pressure inside the engine bay is higher, and the main prop isn’t sucking the air through as anticipated.
@@gregorykusiak5424 im with you, just a thought while reading your reply, would a inline pump equalise or cancel out negative pressure? just a thought.
@@MsJon52 an inline pump where, pumping what? The video I linked to suggested ducted radiators, and the rest of that channel is rather focused on aerodynamic pressures. It’s not speed of air going into the air ducting, it’s air pressure, and by extension, the mass of the air passing through rads/coolers to absorb the heat...but if it’s not being sucked/pushed out, it will accumulate.
@@gregorykusiak5424 yes you are correct, i am sure he will look into this.
@@MsJon52 I hope you’re right
Seem like you just do a high speed taxi run on Runway 35/17, I just pick you up on Flightradar24 coming off the runway about 16:00PM 23 Jan202.
Nice
How does your landing gear work? Is it mechanical, electric or hydraulic?
Yes. All of the above.
Where is the parachute? I called velocity and the told me they couldn't do it on their plane so it was abandoned. Talk to me fellers. Anybody? Huh? Speak up!
watch ALL of the videos
Who makes the parachute? Talk to me... Im a nervous flyer. I canceled my flight lesson today. Told the guy I had covid! Now I can't reschedule for 14 days! I don't even believe in covid voodoo..... Two brothers are doctors, dentist uncle and niece is a vet. We all giggle about covid... Flu virus gone! We are a world of pansies! I'm too scared to fly! I blamed it on my wife for not sitting at the airport and waiting for me. Next time I'm inviting a girlfriend. .... Seriously.
Don’t mind all the wise yokes. The Wright brothers, Louis Bleriot, Howard Hughes, etc. wouldn’t have succeeded if they had listen to all the BS.
Exactly!
Ok, park the BS from the "wise yokes" for a moment - What of the experienced aviators and engineers who have tried to help by pointing out the obvious ? Also worth an ignore ?
Please, don't take offense on this:
The speeds are very much below what was spected: maybe it goes together with the heating problem ¿do your think it will be positive to ask the community to pich-in ideas for giving this beautiful plane better speed ?
I do appreciate very much your work and obviously many ideas can be wrong, but I think , being an enthusiastic and knowledgeable community some good ideas can come up!!
Aerodynamic load has something to do with that. If gain is speed of servo I think you need more gain.
Gain is more of a ratio. It is how fast and what servo angle corresponds to what displacement in pitch from the desired value. The scale is also logarithmic. An incorrect setting causes the system to 'hunt', it was doing this in the AP test vid. You can see Pete trimming the aircraft but the autopilot was not able to damp the oscillations.
What happened to the Go-around ?
He did it simulated at altitude.
@Sonny Wheelock -- I sit corrected. I was thinking about filming a Low Pass.
B.T.W. It surprises me that nobody on (or near) the airfield hasn't filmed either the take-off or landing phases of Raptor.
@Sonny Wheelock Not really Simulated if he wasn't in the approach configuration ...
he also didnt go to Max Continuous Power .... which despite his arguments as to why that is not necessary is simply not a go around ...
Goof stuff Maynard
You need to put that intercooler AFTER the radiator. As I do remember you cooling air from the turbine first. It is wrong.
Why then is nearly every intercooler mounted in front of a rad ? In his case it is horizontal on top, then a cavity to the rad, below. Air at the top of the scoop enters and flows through the IC, air also from mid to lower scoop enters the cavity to the radiator.The separating into two air streams may have made a pressure problem for flow, but temps did drop. Complex
@@nssherlock4547 Performance would be the first reason. Second would be that the intercooler temps wouldn’t be high all the time like they are on this compound turbo setup. How often do you see compound turbos?
1st. Finally 😂