# 10/23 Raptor Video

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
I suspect some private equity will electrify the raptor in california to comute from san francisco to silicon valley. Thats why he is not bothered with the cooling and turbo issues.
There ya go. It is about 39 miles. Just use a stock battery from a car, a few car electric motors on the back wing, and an electronic catapult (hyperloop technology) on each end of the trip to launch the ElectriCRaptor at 250 knots into the sky. Pretty much an augmented ballistic trajectory. No waiting in traffic for the Big Guy.

#### mcrae0104

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Just use a stock battery from a car...
Naaaah. With a reeeeeally long extension cord, you can still do figure eights.

#### Jay Kempf

##### Curmudgeon in Training (CIT)
Maybe Space X can lift it up to FL60.

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
Tremendous arrogance and naivety shown here, thinking he could design a better, lighter airplane than Velocity with zero previous design experience. We see how this dream played out- 50 to 100 knots slower, a fraction of the range and payload because it's 1400 pounds heavier. So much for the carbon advantage...

#### Geraldc

##### Well-Known Member
From the video I got the impression that Peter has had a very adequate source of income so all those people worrying about others losing money should probably not.
It is not like there were 10 planes lined up in a big factory.

#### WINGITIS

##### Well-Known Member
Tremendous arrogance and naivety shown here, thinking he could design a better, lighter airplane than Velocity with zero previous design experience. We see how this dream played out- 50 to 100 knots slower, a fraction of the range and payload because it's 1400 pounds heavier. So much for the carbon advantage...
He also looks A LOT YOUNGER there.....

So the issues may well be weighing on him, never mind the ones we do not know about.

#### GotWake

##### Member
From the video I got the impression that Peter has had a very adequate source of income so all those people worrying about others losing money should probably not.
It is not like there were 10 planes lined up in a big factory.
He sold $2-3 million worth of shares to people if I remember correctly. They even started a gofundme for him at one point because he was talking about doing some IT work to get some money. #### flywheel1935 ##### Well-Known Member Now here is a thought, Over here in the UK we understand that in the States it may actually RAIN, (on the odd occasion !!!!!!) Dose it/will it fly in the RAIN ???? Gather some Rutan designs can get a bit 'difficult' ???!!!! #### BBerson ##### Light Plane Philosopher HBA Supporter He sold$2-3 million worth of shares to people if I remember correctly.
Did not sell shares. It is a LLC which don't have shares. NO INVESTORS.
Who would invest in a non profit?
The depositors bought ownership in a dream same as PM. None have complained.

#### cheapracer

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
He is flying research prototype one, not production prototype with proven developed engine.
He said the future design is not what you think.
Well that's just not true. The craft he has built, even allowing for prototyping issues and re-designs, is darn close in concept to what he has always offered. Any sensible person, especially those who have built stuff, will give him a generous allowance of variation, but this craft isn't even close.

... nor does it answer why he went to such cabin detailing during the build. Many a prototype vehicle are bare bones, do the absolute minimum required to get testing underway, not cnc milled pedals, molded hand grips, custom switches etc etc.

Also, do you understand that to go from 150 knots to 300 knots requires 8 times the power and therefore 8 times the heat dissipation? That it's having cooling issues now just shows how far he is away from the claimed eventual specs.

How can the statement "future design is not what you think" be justified when the intent of the design has been clear for the last 8 years, and what he has taken money and the public's encouragement for? i.e. A diesel powered, pressurised, 300 knot, roomy aircraft that can carry 5 across America ...

He sold $2-3 million worth of shares to people if I remember correctly. They even started a gofundme for him at one point because he was talking about doing some IT work to get some money. By his own words in public, aprox$2.5 million, which from the time he solicited those deposits, to the time he publicly declared he had no money (when the "GoFund" was started), there was no public evidence that he spent say more than say $100K, moving the plane, hangar rent, minor build work, engaging Wasabi's services, but no staff otherwise. Now this isn't a slight or an accusation of any wrong doing, in fact it's quite common for developers to kick in their own money at the beginning, even selling or mortgage their homes, sell their cars, loan from relatives etc, and spend it on their invention/product they believe in, then later claiming that expenditure back in from the advent of deposits, investments, IPO etc, that's fine, but not so fine when you judge the future of this product, which is evident and transparent for everybody to see. That he has been a one man team for the last year should have been a clear signal for anyone to ... #### Oliver ##### Member [...] By his own words in public, aprox$2.5 million, which from the time he solicited those deposits [...]
I don't know how he funded his operation but it's not with the deposits. AFAIK the deposits are all in escrows, inaccessible for him.

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
I don't know how he funded his operation but it's not with the deposits. AFAIK the deposits are all in escrows, inaccessible for him.
Nope. A bunch of people put down \$20K deposits, not held in escrow. I have talked to one of them at length on the phone who contacted me after I published my video on Raptor.

#### ImperfectSense

##### Well-Known Member
The recent video by Elliot showed a screen shot of about 50 "racetracks" above the airport. Not exactly figure eights but that's how he does it. Then the auto engine quit and crashed before he got to cross country.
The airplane Elliot was testing in that video was not a freshly-built one-off prototype, it was a proven airframe of which ~60+ are flying in the US that was completed years ago and accumulated ~140 flying hours. The reason they asked for a test pilot was that they had experienced gearbox failures in preceding flights, and the goal of his flight "test" program was primarily to investigate the gearbox. After a very short flight, just once around the pattern, to make sure nothing major was going to immediately shake loose or grenade, the next step was to put hours on the gearbox under flight conditions to see what would happen. Given the dearth of off-airport landing options around that airport, Elliot wisely kept the aircraft within the "glide cone." In other words, how he flew the airplane and where he flew the airplane was dictated by the goals of the program, and the testing procedure that had been drawn up in order to achieve those goals. That's how a test program is supposed to work. You have questions, about the capabilities of the airframe/engine, or about its reliability, or w/e, and the test program is built to answer those questions while controlling risk. That is not at all what we've seen from Raptor.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
He wasn't hired to do a full flight test of anything experimentally altered. It was a proven design with a new gearbox and he was only burning through the 5 hours required by the insurance company before giving the owner some rides. Good luck with your 1941 Dehavilland conversion to EA-B.

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
In fact, this T51 owner has posted here numerous times on the gearbox woes and the plane was really brought down by a fault induced by poor electrical layout- having both fuel pumps and the hydraulic pump fed by a single breaker which was too small for the job. Good practice on electrically dependent aircraft never places critical electrical devices such as fuel pumps and ECUs on the same breaker. The automotive engine stopped because of lack of fuel, just as a Lycoming would.

Just because you make it through 40 hours, doesn't mean your reliability has been established. Lots can still bite you, especially on a new design like Raptor.

#### Mark Z

##### Well-Known Member
That T-51 video deserves a thread of its own. Fascinating.

#### galapoola

##### Well-Known Member
I watched Elliot's last YouTube video on the 51, very informative. I suppose doing an exhaustive wiring harness trace to mission critical components are on his radar moving forward.

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
I suggested to Elliot on his YT channel that he look at how critical systems are wired on electrically dependent aircraft in future. He has had numerous incidents flying P51 replicas with a variety of engines (not all electrical). I think they had schematics that could have been reviewed on the wiring and breaker layout. Anyway, we've all learned some lessons the hard way and those usually stick with us through our subsequent flying. He did a great job getting it down safely, faced with 2 simultaneous emergencies.

I also mentioned the lack of effective roll over protection on the T51. He was lucky the thing stayed shiny side up in this case...

In his profession, sometimes it's probably better to walk away from an offer to test fly certain aircraft.

#### PPLOnly

##### Well-Known Member
I suggested to Elliot on his YT channel that he look at how critical systems are wired on electrically dependent aircraft in future. He has had numerous incidents flying P51 replicas with a variety of engines (not all electrical). I think they had schematics that could have been reviewed on the wiring and breaker layout. Anyway, we've all learned some lessons the hard way and those usually stick with us through our subsequent flying. He did a great job getting it down safely, faced with 2 simultaneous emergencies.

I also mentioned the lack of effective roll over protection on the T51. He was lucky the thing stayed shiny side up in this case...

In his profession, sometimes it's probably better to walk away from an offer to test fly certain aircraft.
I do worry that his niche is becoming aircraft no one else wants to deal with. And P-51s aren’t really friendly for the shade-tree weekend pilot. People need to be thinking long and hard about what they’re willing to accept before buying or building these aircraft.

Status
Not open for further replies.