Bugatti Crash

[JammedStab]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2014/march/03/bugatti-100p-recreation-to-debut-in-museum-exhibition

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/august/09/bugatti-100p-replica-crashes-killing-pilot?utm_source=ePilot&utm_medium=Content&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=160825epilot

[Stanwell]

It was so sad to hear about that, JS.
Any idea what went wrong?

[onetrack]

When it does fly—“about like a Lancair 360," said Wilson—he expects "no surprises," based on analyses of performance, stability, and control performed by Brazilian professor of engineering Paolo Iscold and his studentsIt appears to me, the test pilot got one hell of a surprise, and certainly not one that he could keep control of.

[Stanwell]

Certainly sounding like it.
I'd followed the design, construction and initial testing phases of it elsewhere.
Aside from the tragedy of the pilot and project leader, Scotty Wilson, losing his life, the event must have been heartbreaking
for quite a number of people.

Just by way of a p.s., the Bugatti Aircraft Association's site gives a reasonable overview of the 100P recreation's history, construction
and the engineering that went into it.
.

[onetrack]

I trust that the reasons for the crash are found, and I would suspect some overlooked deficiency in the design.
When all's said and done, the design dates from the early 1930's, when a lot still had to be learnt about aerodynamics - and even during WW2, the learning curve about aircraft design was still steep.
So much of what we know today was gleaned from vast amounts of aviation and aerodynamics calculations, construction, testing, and trial and error, during WW2.
I doubt whether any period in the last 120 years has added so much to the aviation knowledge base, as WW2 did.
Out of WW2 came jet engines and our modern aircraft designs, and the only real gain in aviation knowledge since WW2 has been from supersonic aircraft, and the development and massive expansion of electronics.

[IcePaq]

From the flight videos, it looked like it was a stable handling aircraft.

My questions are on the powerplants which are very peaky and make near zero horsepower until near full throttle and high rpms.

Unless the pilot had felt a hayabusa powerband, he might get behind the curve.

They are also 1/2 the horsepower of the original design......though a lot lighter.

[Wageslave]

Sadly the field of test flying is hazardous, especially in an airframe of largely unknown aerodynamic qualities and with completely unproven engines.
I say unproven because motorcycle engines though long lasting on two wheels live in a totally alien operating environment in an aeroplane. Especially the long-term operation at constant revs. I don't know how the power band was configured on the engines in question but the bike sees max Tq at 7,000 and max power at 10,000. The bike goes there momentarily but never sits there for more than a second or three at a time, and certainly never for minutes, or with testing cumulatively many tens of minutes on end. Who knows what resonances are set up that become destructive over such a timescale. I bet Suzuki never deeply explored that sort of regime as they'd never go anywhere near it in a bike.
I am also a little unsure of the wisdom of strapping draggy gopros all over the airframe and especially at the wingtips where in an experimental type with unknown stall characteristics you'd think maintenance of clean airflow paramount. That extra drag would be thoroughly unwelcome if an engine failed.

What a terrible shame, a real vision brought to life and so, so nearly made it. Well done Scotty, a brave, visionary man.