Jon Matcho

Agreed. There's just so much time in the day and the pros/cons of foam/fiberglass vs. ribs/carbon are beyond RSD's original question: You and I both answered the question the best we could (original Berkuts had foam-core wings, and later used a rib structure). However, your link to Wikipedia is still just text without a citation; essentially hearsay anyway. So... there's more work to do in order to back up our claims, but at this point that's all I've got. 🙂

I recall reading that the first Berkut wings were carbon skins on foam cores, and then they later replaced the foam cores with carbon ribs. I recall reading the same thing somewhere on the 'net, and recall discussing while flying in Marc Zeitlin's Cozy IV. Marc pointed out the flex of the wing, and that we were not feeling it much in flight. If it were carbon, we'd be feeling it.

Several weeks ago I was invited to an "Open Shop" event nearby. I was amazed at the shop when I got there, which could fit several more planes than the 2 that were in it. The builder is working on an RV and was seeking feedback from everyone. What's interesting about this shop is that it's on residential property, but the door opens to extended grass end of an airport runway. I'll have to find out more about this arrangement, but here are some pictures in the meantime... These doors open towards the runway just a short taxi away... I'm spent more time looking at the shop than I did the plane... I noticed these EAA Chapter 1000 worktables, which mine are based as well. I thought I used too many screws, but these tables beat mine by a few more screws per lineal foot (if I were ever to build new tables, I'd seek the same strength but half the wood).

There were a few Dragonfly flyers here sometime ago and they may be lurking. I'm working on a Quickie TriQ-200 and there are some other Quickie flyers here.

After a few trials and tribulations Corbin has soloed in his new Q200. Congratulations Corbin!

I set out to finish just two walls so I could hang a pegboard so I could free some of my horizontal surface areas. As I got into it I find that, in order to do it "right", the add-on work just keeps coming. I had to include a third wall so I could deal with the one "outside" corner in the room. I worked around the existing electrical box, and not too gracefully at that, but it's good enough for what I need. Here are the first three walls... This looks crowded but most everything is on wheels and can easily be moved... Here's the rest of the shop... I'd like to keep these updates coming more quickly, but looking back at the first few before this I bored myself! I'll try to keep to the more significant updates. In the meantime I'd appreciate any feedback!

I found there's actually some discussion on the latest video update, which is startling in how Peter discounts some of the advice he's receiving for even basic things, such as safety-wiring engine parts, especially the spinning bolts. Here's one exchange that's particularly interesting, with Peter answering a seemingly harmless question with a telling response. Here's the question: ...and Peter's response: Wow! Here are my takeaways from this response: Peter recognizes that he'd have been better off if he had went with the aircraft engine approach. That would have eliminated a HUGE variable in his current equation. Peter is at the end of his runway, in terms of energy, and I assume time and budget. Peter is not going to test-fly his own creation. Peter is not blindly vested in the Raptor project, and Raptor Aircraft may soon cease to exist if a test pilot cannot be found. Kudos to Peter for having such self-awareness, and sharing this. This is far more positive than the other possibility, where Peter or a test pilot would be killed. It would be fantastic if the aircraft were to be successfully flown and improved -- perhaps all of those CAD and computational models are spot-on accurate -- but I remain skeptical and concerned about the next major milestone, which is for a test pilot to jump in and depart the runway. Stay safe everyone!

Peter has posted a video update, with him taxi testing a new linkage assembly in his PSRU. The engine sounds great and the optimism is palpable with high-speed taxi tests coming up as a next milestone. I truly hope that Peter moves forward with healthy design-build-test-review cycles, learning from mistakes and improving the design, and being smart enough to know whether parts of the design may need to go back to the drawing board. The thing I realized when watching these videos is that there's no discussion at all from Peter on the constructive criticisms he's receiving in the comments and other places.

Welcome to the forum Randall. I suspect this one may no longer be available, since it's from 2009. When items get sold the title is changed to indicate "SOLD", so there's a chance this is still available. I'm looking to implement a proper classifieds system to avoid this confusion in the future.

I can see how writing about adding a pegboard might seem a bit ridiculous or trivial to some, but this was a big deal for me. I haven't had a fully working shop in about 10 years, and this pegboard marks a major milestone for me. I am getting back in business. Note the lone hammer, which I feel I have to explain it is tongue-in-cheek since I once caught some flak for posting a similar first pegboard pick from my old shop. Tell me that's not funny! 😉 You can see the put-wheels-on-everything mantra is working for me as well. I need to insulate and cover the left-side wall in insulation and plywood, and I'm going to extend the right-side section to use the same pegboard+plywood combination. I'm going to spray foam the ceiling joists and then do the remainder of the walls by October at the latest. I need to make room for my incoming Quickie TriQ-200 project, and this is all part of that plan. Yikes I have sh'tuff to do!

I forgot about that. Even without the failures, or imagining that it survived even 100 hours would not be enough for me to trust Version 1.0 of the thing. The amount of engineering needed just to produce a viable PSRU is substantial, and then to prove its durability you'd have to torture-test several with adjustments to the design after each to gain my trust. The latest video released just 2 days ago shows Peter enthusiastically pressing on, expecting a first flight next month. He'll need every bit of that 5,000-foot runway I expect. Check out this documentary on another man's dream to create an aircraft which was just a bit too much.

For those interested in the kit being developed by Raptor Aircraft, please see this post.

I feel compelled to raise awareness on the current state of affairs with the Raptor Aircraft kit project. Personally, this was a dead-in-the-water project from the start for the following reasons: Features overload (pressurized?! de-icing, extremely wide) = heavy Untested auto engine conversion (Audi diesel) An untested platform with too many variables; nothing to compare to Canard-type aircraft require long runways and are best to be kept light. The engine choice was meant to compensate for this, but I can't imagine breaking into the market with a new kit (let alone a canard) AND a new engine platform. The choice would be one or the other. As the time has come and past where the project was expected to have flown if it were more focused and simplified, many issues are coming to light and receiving critical feedback from the community. Many feel that the project needs to take multiple steps back, although the designer is seemingly convinced that there are just a few issues to airworthiness. You can get to the comments from the Raptor site, as well as this thread on the HBA site (navigate to the most recent posts). Choose wisely, and stay safe!

The first one is always the hardest, but now I know the right measurements, have the right sized bits and tools, and know a few tricks. The next wall will definitely be easier and go faster, but I am getting ahead of myself -- I still have to mount insulation on the right side behind the compressor. I just need that pegboard up, and now!