He also employed a team of engineers, and stole quite a few ideas.

"...on a part of the prop shaft where there is no damage, no scoring from the other one..."

"...drill bleed holes in the caps so it will hold enough pressure, and slowly upscale those to get enough bleeding but hold enough pressure..."

If the prop shaft is scored, it got hot, and if it got hot, the metallurgy could have changed, and if it is scored, that is a place for a crack to start.

Drilling bleed holes to regulate the pressure might possibly work, unless of course the viscosity of the oil changes with temperature, which it does dramatically.

One thing that scares me about this is how many pilots, whom I share the sky with, don't see the huge problems with this project and continue to be very supportive.

I also tried to explain why the turbines used here are too small and also greatly impacting performance. As a data point, my 2.2L Subaru uses a turbine wheel about 10mm larger than Raptor where Raptor should have something around 10mm larger than mine with almost 50% more displacement and around double the HP.

Now move the compressor up to 25,000 feet where in the inlet pressure and density is about 1/3rd of SL conditions and compressor won't process the same mass of air as at SL at the same compressor rpm.

Up high, we need to intake a greater volume of less dense air and compress it back to near SL pressure to feed it to the 2nd stage compressor so it can then increase that pressure to the required value in the intake manifold to make rated power.

There are a myriad of other factors involved but a simple, short video can't cover all those things and that wasn't the intention of this one.

I'll try to touch on some other factors in subsequent videos on turbocharging and intercooling as this seems to be a popular topic.
[/i][/quote]


Interesting engine discussion.. but in reference to the Raptor, to be very simple - If you want a successful program you need to choose whether to be an airframe designer or an engine designer...trying to do both at the same time is a recipe for failure.

(not sure who this should be attributed to, but it is a long-standing rule that is very seldom proven wrong)

Or if you don't have adequate experience at either, be a program manager and leave the technical details to the experts.

Sells delivery positions!

Yes, it is entertaining, but it does sell some airplanes.

How many airplanes has Peter sold? So far it looks like 0.

Larry and I cross-posted. He did better than I did.

Sells delivery positions!

Sells delivery positions!

Edison didn’t try thousands of things that others had already proven to fail. He tried new things.

I'm more saddened by those that could, but don't or won't. Like financially savvy people who fall for get-rich-quick cons and pyramid schemes, or romantically experienced ones who fall for catfishing. They would know it's too good to be true if they analyzed it dispassionately, so they don't. It's not that they don't know enough to recognize reality if they see it, it's that they won't look at it. They turn away so they can continue to indulge in the fantasy.

Yes, it is entertaining, but it doesn't sell airplanes.