Raptor Aircraft Thruster Update 

Peter, as someone currently working at a company of hundreds of engineers towards certification of a Part 23 eVTOL aircraft, calling this project wildly ambitious is an understatement. I admire your ambition and courage to put this out there, but there is quite a lot to design what you are proposing. Control and stability from hover through transition, with the ability to continue safe flight with an engine, thruster, hydraulic system, or tilt/pitch control actuator is not a trivial add on, it is intrinsic to the design and architecture of the vehicle. There is a reason the number of vertical thrusters are not less than six, and many in the industry question if 6 is enough or optimal. The electric motors, controllers and batteries are significant certification programs. The vehicle architecture needs to consider avionics and power lane failures and continued safe flight. Software certification is a significant fraction of the program, and it starts from square one. Using a series hybrid approach for cruise power gives up a significant amount of power to conversation losses. The propulsive efficiency of a propeller is not so bad to explain your hypothesized performance gains. If it's possible to get 1500 lb static thrust from your electric thrusters, the power to do so must be obscenely high. There is a significant benefit to using longer wings.. get out of the mindset that there is an advantage to pulling this into a "standard" 2 car garage, of which a 20' door is getting pretty big. I have serious doubts that any automotive manufacturer would have interest in manufacturing an aircraft, aerospace quality systems are not at all in alignment with automotive. I'd strongly consider building an experimental prototype first before starting certification efforts and to design and build for conventional takeoff and landing at least at first. Build an experimental prototype that validates the climb and cruise performance using the ducted fans after completing a ground test series of powerplant prototypes. In addition, the stability and control of Raptor 1 was somewhat questionable and needs work with a test pilot to get acceptable handling qualities before it could reasonably be handed off to an average pilot. I wish you the best of luck, and truly enjoy seeing your videos developing the raptor.

Sadly, I think this new aircraft's impact on the agriculture industry will be nearly the same as the last one.

Worked on too many STC's and mods, systems, and composites, watched entire first Raptor series, another over stated ambitious design that does not even comes close to the real world. Totally agree with Jon Beno's comment.

I admire your barnstorming spirit and tenacity, having watched Raptor since the beginning and always looking forward to each video....but this? You should have walked away from that corn field and never looked back...

Let’s make a crazy project even more unrealistic.

Many years ago, when I was a young engineer, we had a guy like Peter, Grandiose, confident, and a very nice fellow, always great to have a sit-down with. Most of his concepts were no good, but on rare occasions, he would hit it out of the park. I suppose that is why my boss kept him around, or perhaps it was because of the son-in-law factor. 🤔 I enjoyed working with him (mostly). I will give Peter a nine on the `Stick-to-it Scale', but as an engineer, perhaps a two, he still needs to learn that the cart goes behind the horse. I wish him the best of luck; I'm looking forward to the You-Tube videos; I expect them to be entertaining; now, where are my Bourbon and popcorn? Cheers

Peter, no offense, but maybe you should get really good at Simple Planes first? Just because you can CAD some overcomplicated and bloated whale up on your laptop doesn't mean that it's a good idea to start building it IRL. And to say that anything about this will be "magnitudes of less complexity" is gonna end up on someone's headstone. Sorry Peter, but it's painfully and terrifyingly obvious that you learned nothing from all the mistakes that were made with Raptor 1, EXCEPT, that you didn't go BIG enough with that failure. I was so excited to see that you had posted a new video since I kinda figured that Raptor 1 had SURELY humbled you enough that your next project would've been more grounded in reality, but here we are. Is this a grift? I can respect the grift. I can't respect someone that can't learn from mistakes so deadly that it nearly killed you every time you left the ground and then played it off every time like "nothing to see here folks. Everything is fine. Don't mind me yanking on the control stick like I'm 14 again". That's what I can't respect, Peter. Your lack of retrospect is gonna get you, or worse, someone else, dead.

Glad to see you back trying a new design. I wasn't sure how motivated you'd be after the first Raptor crash. Less motivated people would give up. I'm looking forward to see how this build goes.

Screw vertical takeoff/landing. Keep it as simple and reliable as possible. Big fan good luck!

Peter with your Raptor project you have embarked on a very challenging and expensive project. Many dreamers have given up long ago, I admire your persistence to keep on going. Beside that you and your RU-vid followers have learned alot from this project and we thank you for this. Your new NG looks awesome but will require huge resources which you may not have. It comes down to the numbers. Unless your name was Howard Hughes, convincing a multinational to invest in this is extremely challenging. My advice is get the raptor back in air. You have all the moulds needed to recreate and replace the damaged parts. Except that on this occasion replace that heavy Audi engine with an N57s BMW all aluminium block weighing less then 400Lb, have the PSRU bolted to the engine block and most important use electric constant speed. This one was your Achilles Heel…

Peter, glad to see you back (like everyone else is). I'm a little more conservative than you. I might use your molds to build another CF fuselage (not enlarged). Then simplify the design to only have the 2 'fixed' thrusters (no nose thruster and no vertical lift). Fly conventional for the next prototype. This will give you performance and durability numbers on the generators and your thrusters. After having proved all this, it might be easier to go to Ford or some other manufacturer to agree to become a partner, etc.

It all looked outrageously optimistic, then VTOL was introduced. :( I don’t understand why it needs to be SO ambitious.

The claims are beyond what I would consider extraordinary. Sign me up as the chief skeptic of a project that a team of 1,000 seasoned engineers with unlimited financial resources would struggle to achieve...... if at all. Best of luck. Prove me wrong. I would LOVE to be wrong.

The reason they can build F150s so cheaply is that they can spread the initial tooling cost over hundreds of thousands of truck. You're not going to have that much volume.

Some things to look at: -Rutan's VariViggen sub-par handling and high angle of attack with canard and delta wing -Ducted fan disc loading and hp loading -90 hp with 1500 lb thrust seems unreasonable -Ducted fan reliability on bearings and wheel wear and multiple fatigue/failure points of each and other parts of fan/motor -Fuselage dimensions vs drag and weight. Cessna sold many airplanes with tight interior. Maybe copy Cirrus interior dimensions? -30k airplanes a year seems highly unrealistic based on amount of pilots and then pilots who have 100k+ to spend -Liability, development, testing, and FAA certification quagmire will eat up money and time -Compare Ford pickup sheet metal thickness to Cessna sheet metal thickness. Semi-monocoque weight to monocoque weight. -Look at FAA and other eVTOL manufacturers certification process and amount of new rules being currently developed along with proving of tech along with the number of employees, years of still being in development, and amount of money they have invested. Lilium is an example. -Maybe keep it conventional in version 1 and then eVTOL later on? -For a smaller private eVTOL market, a partnership with someone like Cessna or Piper might be more realistic since the money needed would have investors most likely require a proven airplane partner who knows the FAA process.

This is just full vaporware. The original had at least some possibility of existing. Also does that gasoline motor even exist or is it also just a dream? There's too much here that just isn't real yet. This would be a hard project for Lockheed Martin to succeed with, let alone an individual. Ducted fans inherently are very inefficient at high speed. This is just simply not going to work in multiple aerodynamic ways

I'm afraid you're underestimating the software complexity of transitioning between the forward flight and hovering flight regimes. Most commercial drone software either doesn't handle it or doesn't handle it well. It's possible that ardupilot has made progress in the last couple years though. Plus drone software isn't human rated. The requirements for memory safety, redundancy/failover, and deterministic behavior aren't built in, and it might be easier to develop from scratch than retrofitting it.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear to set expectations about my comment. I am absolutely not an aircraft engineer, nor do I even try to pretend to understand any of the mechanincs involved. I also want to say that I wish you the very best in this endeavour, and I really do hope that you do manage to make this work. Now unfortunately I have to somewhat bring my comment to what could be construed as negative. I followed the original Raptor project and watched all the videos, and I think if we're all honest conclude that the design of that was a failure. There is nothing wrong with failure, ultimately it's how we learn to succeed. My major concern with this new design is it seems even more ambitious than the original Raptor. While the CAD models and your ideas are very enlightening I wonder if you could elaborate some more on how your thought process has changed. More importantly what has brought you to the conclusion that this new prototype will succeed where the previous did not with the added complexity?

Maybe you should finish the original Raptor! There’s a concept 😮

Dear Pete. The wheel has already been invented.

Nice to see you're still an enthusiastic engineer reaching for the moon Peter. Interesting juxtaposition between your decision and justification to go with tried and tested landing gear for all the right reasons, but then go for a batstuff-crazy non-tried, non-tested propulsion system - on top of the dubious-advantage box wing - with an oxygen concentrator thrown in, Oh and make it a three-ducted fan (ie non-survivable) VTOL just to throw in some major MAJOR complexity. More power to your elbow. We need people like you mining at the non-viable aeronautical coalfaces, because you never know what just might happen. Oh and now you're talking about a novel IC engine....I'm loving the late night whiskey induced unfettered blue sky thinking.

Peter- How many engineers do you have on your team?

Thanks for the update, very very interested developments. I am so looking forward to watching this evolve.

I actually really like the concept of this. Looking forward to the future development.

Creativity never does negativity. Good on you mate! 👍

He obviously is not an adherent to the KISS principle 😂

Watched the entire first series, and it was cool to see you working on the Raptor. However, if you failed to make a rather conventional aircraft work, how on earth would trying to make a much more complicated craft succeed? I personally believe you should not attempt this new design, and save your time for another endeavor. Just my 2 cents though. On the vtol thing, where is the redundancy if one thruster fails? if you look at almost all vtol concepts they will have two thrusters on each axis, or multiple thrusters spread out to compensate if one fails. just three is not a good idea imo. Waiting for the rc model if you do foolishly decide to proceed. Good luck.

I just told my kids two days ago that we weren't gonna get this plane. Now here you are with a better plane! Awesome!!

You should pitch this to Honda Aircraft in Greensboro. Their engineers could probably use their software to see if it will even fly, maybe offer a sponsorship.

Now I realize that you’re joking. You had me going for a bit there, thinking you were serious.

As far as Ford getting into Aircraft business you might look into the Ford Tri-Motor a.k.a. the Tin Goose from the mid 1920's. Ironically this plan also has three motors one in the nose and two on the wings.

Hi Peter. I was wondering if you could tell me your vitamin, supplement, essential oils, recreational medicine, etc regiment? I'm trying really hard to get to this level of engineering and calculations, but haven't been able to yet and am wondering if that's what could be holding me back. Thanks.

Petrol-electric can be very heavy. The Rolls-Royce EFanX jet-electric failed miserably, because the hybrid setup ended up being 4x the weight of standard jet engines. Rolls promised a 70% reduction in CO2, but ended up with a 400% INCREASE in CO2. And if Rolls could not make jet-electric work, why would Pete? He needs to build the engine setup in a hangar first, as an iron bird, to see what the weight, power, thrust, and fuel consumption is. R

I already have this RC airframe with a ducted fan buried on centerline, and was toying with the idea of making it VTOL.

As soon as a nice renderings are accompanied by words like game changer and a lot of marketing bla bla the only question is if this raptor is going to eat corn or sugar canes

I would think the best application this would be for powered lift device. It just seems that this would be a no-brainer for a VTOL.

Peter, whatever you do, I will. Support you because you make me dream and that is real wealth. I want to sign up and send a deposit. Very few peoples get to dream because if is expensive and day to day life takes over. So really, thank you for making us dream.

This might work out pretty good If you attach it to the bottom of a blimp I watched the rv6guy

Glad to see you back

Okay well it was fun hoping the raptor will still happen.... Now I can move on knowing it's just completely dead now.

Ducted fan OK but, VTOL as well seems overly complex

The calendar doesn't show April 1st yet, but I know this is a gag video!

If the less ambitious design was flawed, this one certainly has me worried. But hey, it’s your life not mine. If you get a few million in funding and 5 or 6 more engineers you might have something that nobody will buy in a few years.

One potential way to both generate interest and potentially start to test out software options would be to create a model for use within a flight simulator like X-Plane. Not only can X-Plane can provide a relatively high fidelity simulation, but the X-Plane community is filled with GA enthusiasts. If you shared a high fidelity model with the community there, it could potentially generate a huge amount of interest.

Fun idea, but you are simply putting too many massive asks on yourself. Focus on the one thing you have that is yours - the ducted electric fan. If you can meet performance and reliability targets with that on a test stand, you have a chance of generating some interest and pulling in partners. The idea of Ford mass producing it is pie in the sky for several reasons. 1) They are in a fight to survive at the moment. They will be going through seismic changes and restructurings in the ongoing auto- electrification, and will not want to split their focus into completely new markets. 2) I doubt you have enough of a reputation to get a face to face with the level of person required to get any traction. 3) They are not an aerospace company, and have no current experience in aerospace. 4) As others have pointed out, the production revenue needs to offset the tooling costs which requires huge volume. 5) The big one - they are risk averse. What they are definitely _not_ going to do is spend a billion dollars building a factory, production line, tooling, facilities and creating a whole ecosystem of suppliers and required logistics setup for an unproven concept, by a guy who's last concept nearly killed him... twice.

Very glad to see you back and the project not dead!

GREAT to hear from you Peter! 👏👏 Wonderful news!

Hello, Peter! So glad you're back and with the creative juices are still flowing. Thankyou for once again sharing your dream. Exciting!

Delighted to have you back Peter. Looking forward to some amazing adventures.

Hey Peter, great to see you back. Wishing you success in this new project and can't wait to see all the videos about it.

The Dyna-Cam engine was built in the 1940's. Very similar concept. It even has FAA certification. The engine never caught on and is a part of history now. BTW, screw VTOL and first make a successful aircraft. After that succeeds you can experiment with VTOL.

Great news Peter! And great to hear from you! Excited to learn more! 👏👏

Hey Peter, Didn’t NASA testing find box wings to be super draggy? I think the advice on here to test one innovation at a time is wise. In your last project you didn’t follow conventional wisdom, which says to never combine a new airframe and a new power plant. It could have cost you your life… I think you should consider designing this project in a modular way, which allows you to unit test innovations, one at a time. I’m still rooting for you, but think there’s power in heeding some of the more conservative views on how development should be planned. Steve

Good to hear your voice. I work with electric drive designs and I'd be keen to see a significant amount of robustness and redundancy around the drive system.

I think you may need a prototype...

Great to have you back Peter!

I like that you are pushing ideas and some of it I like, some of it I don't :) Series electric drive might just be a good idea but but I would do a conventional ducted fan because the blades are in lazy tension, not standing and wobbling. I suspect such a rotor would be difficult to make reliable without vibration. By difficult I mean essentially impossible. similarly I would try a turbine generator instead of that very untested piston design that I'm sure has problematic forces in the design. A gas turbine can be very light, very simple, very power dense, runs on jetA and runs very high rpm which is ideal for electric generation. because speed translates to volts and volts are lossless while amps is where the losses are. high rpm is power density for electric motors. The ducted fans can also run high rpm. The big jet engine makers are thinking electric transmission in the future so that's pretty much the same idea. Could actually work. However, as I recall your prior design already had a very wide cabin which resulted in slow flight, well below expectation so when I hear you say you have made it even bigger and you expect it to casually fly from LA to Hawaii, I'm guessing no :) If you get 25% of the way I'd be impressed. The speeds you have in mind are very unrealistic as well, I think you said 90HP, there is just no way it will do that. As for Ford building it, hard no :) they don't have the ambitious, inclination nor would it be viable for them. I agree with mass production and yes in ways a plane can be simpler than a car but you went with VTOL so no :) one does not simply do VTOL. The box wing is a hard no, the chubby body, also no. 4000km range, no. You can do 4000km range but not in a chubby box, think glider/U2 configuration. Sleek with skinny wings and flying at high altitude, the higher the better. In thin air you get speed for free. A sleek teardrop shape lends itself to aerodynamics and a pressure vessel and as single piece composite structure. Yes you could stamp a plane like a car fab but a car maker spends about a billion dollars minimum these days to make a car with production facility. So stick to carbon fiber and I'd strongly recommend single piece fuselage with round cross section because then it can hold pressure while weighing next to nothing. Rutan designed planes for artistic reasons, not by engineering merit. Forget Rutan. If you must have vtol why not just let the fans fly down behind the wing edge instead of through. How are you funding all this? how do you have the time? I also believe mass production mindset can make planes quite inexpensive but you are proposing a fairly complex craft while at the same time being cheaper than everyone else. It's "ambitious". For instance you'll need custom power electronics to run the series electric drive. Think Tesla style complexity of products. Expensive to develop and produce. Not impossible but it's "ambitious". I think first of all you need a better intuition of aerodynamics and the burden of weight. You can't just declare the cabin ever bigger and assume that wont affect its speed and range. There is a reason that the larger private jets use ungodly amounts of fuel. The plane needs to be much sleeker. And who said you could have a box wing? who? :) you can't. You can't just indulge whimsicle designs. Aerodynamics is your god. Lightness is your god. Zero vibration is your god. Try building small models with same motor and see which one is fastest and flies the furthest. If this chubby box design is vastly worse than say a lancair design then learn from that. Hint Lancair is much better. Glider even better although a higher speed design will need shorter wings than the best gliders. But U2 is a guide. That was a transonic design flying at FL700 in the 50s. If your design can't beat that, it's not innovation. You might take inspiration of body shape vs interior volume from the Celera 500.

Oh come on.. VTOL! With a totally new fan design. This seems a bit mad but glad you're back.

I can't say I have high expectation of this project 😅 If you deliver on the claims it will be a great airplane. But that would be a big if. Like 4500lbs of thrust in optimal conditions for a 4000lbs (maybe if not overweight) airplane. Probably doesn't leave much room for non standard conditions...oh well dreams are nice.

Great to have you back!! Exciting new concept too!

Watching this makes me think of Jim Bede

I could see myself flying this new Raptor if it all works out. I've always been crazy about the interior size. The idea of Ford, on the surface is pretty good but they would have to build a whole factory just for this and all the equipment for it and then you've got the union labor and the union contracts. Unfortunately this probably end up costing 3 to 4 times your estimate. Keep working on it I love your videos.

Welcome back. Perfect candidate and timing for an electric plane. Waiting for more 👍

I work as a stress engineer at a Tier 2 aerospace company. We had work on a certain eVTOL design with a flying (but not yet vertically) craft. We are no longer working with that company. If I understand correctly, one of the greatest problems resulted from the fact that the materials they used to build the prototype were not a certified material system, thus most of the engineering work on our side was redesigning the whole thing from materials that had established allowables and manufacturing methods. I think that if you're expecting to farm out work for mass production it would be wise to talk to the manufacturer as early as possible.

Glad you’re back!!! Can’t wait to watch this build. Please keep the videos coming.

I am impressed you are still trying to continue your efforts. An R22 with 25 foot diameter rotor needs 73 hp to generate 1375 lbs of thrust. With the shown diameter of fan I have doubts that you are able to make 1500 lbs of thrust on 90 hp. With respect to the lower doors of the nose fan, you should consider moving them for yaw control.

Getting 1500 lbs of thrust from a mere 90HP seems like an incredible claim. A C172, with double the engine power, develops one third of the thrust. I can imagine there are a bunch of improvements you can get over a C172, but a 500% improvement? Seems improbable.

Nice to see you back. What if Ford says no?

Whaaaaat?! A new update?! I'm glad to see you're back!

Replace the canard with two nacelles to make this a quad copter and I'd think you would be more likely to succeed in using ots drone software for hover stabilization

Skip the plane, if you can achieve 1500 pound thrust from 90 horsepower you will make a billion dollars on the power plant alone.

As an aviation outsider, the practical innovation is exciting. As an entrepreneur I know the adversity you will face from the knay-sayers. Always best to find people who can grasp your vision and know how to take the next step. Those who know the mine fields and the paths through. Do not let those who get overwhelmed by the challenges you face to influence you. Let in only those who see a way through. Comments from the Internet are not the place to gain support.

Welcome back my G!! You were missed!! EDIT: what are your plans for the prototype? My dream would be to complete that aircraft instead of a Velocity.

Quite an ambitious new design. I am quite interested to follow along.

You should look at the Aptera car, similar basic design concepts. They are making bodies from carbon moulding compound in some expensive tooling at CPC in Italy. Per unit looks to be very cheap and fast for a 40k per year production run. Six piece body, a revolution for cars that have many hundreds of metal components. They have aluminium frame for suspension, crash, and battery carrier. You could do similar. Lends itself to being assembled anywhere in the world with sub assemblies pre-assembled. Could be factory or kit built. Has a focus on being repairable by any basic workshop. Aptera door desing will suit your application.

I have to say I’m amazed at your enthusiasm. However I have my doubts. Wish you luck tho!

With regards to pressurisation, I have been designing an aircraft to fly at 26000 metres. While the cabin will be slightly pressurised, I am just manufacturing a suit. With the aircraft being turbocharged I already have pressurised air on tap. Even for a prestige aircraft such as yours, a well designed suit can be easy to put on and remove.

A car company producing and marketing a high concept and experimental design aircraft? As someone who spent my life integrating culturally different mfg factories, I think it's a high risk bet. It's like asking a boat company to start producing cars. Easier said than done. My approach would be to find a few investors and build several working models as experimental types. If successful, there are many aircraft companies that might want to produce it. There are too many assumptions in the design, and companies like Ford simply don't operate that way. An interesting and inspirational example for you to look at is the Aptera fully solar 3 wheel vehicle. They, too, are trying to revolutionize the EV market, yet are still having difficulty finding large investors.

The first version didn't work as expected and now we've got a version with extra complexity and VTOL? The last plane weighed 3500 pounds, how is it going to develop more thrust than that for a reasonable amount of time?

welcome back peter. good to see you.

Okay I need this now. I've been thinking of becoming a pilot but don't want to fly a big air bus, and I thought about Bush piloting which requires landing in harsh terrain in the middle of nowhere. That vertical takeoff would mean I could land anywhere in Alaska or Canada with ease. And I could do it a hundred times better than the competition

Welcome back Peter! Good to see you are back at it. I’d like to see observed performance data on the propulsion system.

Peter glad to see you back at it. I like the ultimate design idea. I personally would love to have an aircraft like that. But just like your last design, you are embarking on an uphill battle with novel airframe, propulsion and software for certification. Doing it all at once without the right resources will take a long time. I am excited to watch this journey progress. Here are my points to highlight: Build a simplified prototype before trying to sell to manufacturers. They are going to want, if not need, that before they will do anything. Don’t go to Ford! Unless they have an aviation division, there will be so much unexpected costs in the certification and manufacturing process, that it will go through the roof. Auto manufacturers will have a hard time understand aviation certification. The one engineering company I know, they create a lot of STCs and know about certification process, is Consortia Aerospace Group. If nothing else they could be a good resource. I don’t know if you heard of Liquid Piston. They are developing an engine that I think would fit this application perfectly. I am an A&P in the airlines and I would be happy to offer my minuscule expertise, if an opportunity should arise. Keep it up.

As somebody who writes robotics software has flown a lot of drones, You're almost certainly not going to just port a drone control system. There are too many things here that are bespoke, that need to interact with the pilot and other complex systems on this aircraft, that are just completely different from drone systems like betaflight. This will be custom software. Not that it's that hard to build a PID loop, I'm just telling you, it'll be custom

If everyone was to do what's being done in engineering, no change would be seen . Peter keeps on exploring which is a good thing. Maybe one day someone will take the idea ,polish it and make it possible to fly

ive been thinking that if you do a backward swept top wing from top center of fuselage it could join a forward swept wing going back to the rear. they could join at a winglet like yours, but both wings be in tension stiffening them. at slow speed the flaps from the top and lower wing will create a large lift, then as they speed up rotate to reduce drag. the wings like this will also stay behind the sound wave for supersonic aircraft. but the best use would be gliders with your engines and solar panels when needed.

And here we have it, the best prototype/concept of a true flying car that I've ever seen. If we could get general transportation off the ground, and in the sky, travel would be transformed.

We are also interested in the CAD design. You could make regular videos of how you are doing the CAD design. I am sure many people will appreciate that and it could grow your channel.

Love the way you think!!

Glad to see you back, my friend!

Diesel would be a tough one to use for a power plant. A 2 stroke engine is much lighter and you can vary the load on It enough to keep it in good ranges

Love the concept. Beautiful design.

That Raptor was a beautiful machine. Good to see the channel back, looking forward to loosing many hours enjoying the content again!

Great too see you still developing. I am looking forward to watching the progress!!

It seems you just want to sell another idea to investors who don’t know any better. This idea is ludicrous. I’m sorry.

Hey Peter, thanks for the update!

Not happening dude

Got a hint of the Moller Skycar about it…..👍

Glad to see you back with a new project, at least I can follow along from the beginning rather than having to bing watch about a years worth. Keep the content coming.

I love that you took out the pressurization system and let people use a portable oxygen system as they see fit. While I do think you should stick to a conventional airplane for version 1 and then move to evtol, my largest concern is the protection from a catastrophic failure of the front fan. I'm sure you know turbofan engines in passenger planes have kevlar blankets to contain shrapnel. Keep it going!