# 10/23 Raptor Video

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### Deuelly

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
He’s pretending he’s a manufacturer, that’s like saying the G650 crash hurt our community. If he was E-AB I’d agree.
Why do people keep thinking Peter's choices can't effect us. I seem to remember one guy, in one P-40, disobeying one line of his operating limitations recently. It changed how all training, in all experimentals, is handled. The Raptor project is very public. Peter's actions could easily effect any of us.

Brandon

#### BoKu

##### Pundit
HBA Supporter
There is barely enough market for Velocity (full kit and owner assistence), AeroCanard (partial kit), and Cozy MkIV (plans), then new Raptor would try to take some of each...
True enough. But let's not forget that Peter was aiming at a whole 'nother pie altogether. If he had actually produced a pressurized canard capable of getting well into the flight levels and staying there for any reasonable duration, the TAS/IAS ratio would have been a substantial competitive advantage. With that fat cabin it wouldn't have gotten all that close to the claimed 300 kts, but it would still be a rockin' XC machine.

Unfortunately, Peter appears to have underestimated by about an order of magnitude how hard it would be to produce enough power dependably enough to get to 25k ft. He also seems to have underestimated by a similar margin how hard it would be to develop the requisite airframe. But if he had gone with proven powerplant and turbo systems, and concentrated on the airframe problems, he might actually have gotten up there in the time his budget allowed.

Of course, the Lancair IVP and later Evolution pretty much paved that road, with a configuration that allows higher Cl and commensurately lower takeoff and landing speeds besides. But the canard layout offers compelling packaging advantages when it comes to entry and egress, and at expos and air shows that counts for more than you might imagine. Especially among non-pilots and those old enough to have earned the requisite wealth to be in the fast airplane market.

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
The reality though is that the price of admission for 300 knots in pressurized comfort (Lancair IV-P) makes this market pretty small. New Raptor kits with real airplane engines are not going to come in at half the price of a used IV-P.

When it comes down to the crunch, few YouTube fanboys will actually be writing $250-$300K checks for Raptor kits. Well heeled pilots with IFR ratings would be the actual customers if Raptor could match IV-P performance- which it never will.

You don't need a pressurized plane to bump along at 160-180 knots at 8-12,000 feet.

I see a very limited market for what Raptor is likely to deliver even after a good re-design.

#### BoKu

##### Pundit
HBA Supporter
...When it comes down to the crunch, few YouTube fanboys will actually be writing $250-$300K checks for Raptor kits...

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Ok...start pounding on me...but the truth is...he did something that I...and 99.5 percent of the people who are pounding on him could NOT do...he BUILT AN AIRPLANE...FROM SCRATCH...and HE FLEW IT
We applauded Peter's impressive perseverance in designing, building and flying Raptor but that's where the admiration ends. He took millions of dollars setting out to build a best in class, turbocharged, pressurized, 4-5 place kit airplane for production and delivered a turd prototype which meets ZERO of his ridiculous performance predictions and fails to perform anywhere close to a 1970 Piper Arrow in fact. Not an impressive result for a couple mil spent...

If it's ever sorted, it will perform no better than a Velocity XLT, which has been available for years now and it will likely cost more too once all the extra development costs are added to the kit price and the certified engine to power it.

#### Pops

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
My 1980 Falconar F-12 was faster, had a ROC single place of 2200 fpm and 1700 fpm at GW. 2 1/2 place.

#### Kiwi303

Give 99.5% of the people pounding on him $2 mil and we'll see what they can do. I wouldn't say I've been pounding on him, but I'll step up and take that money and that challenge. More, I'd give 2 years to first flight. It won't be an uniobtanium E-Engine with Dilithium crystal storage and 40 vertical fans with 90* rotation giving supersonic cruise like the latest CGI vaporware however. Just another boring tractor layout like the majority of things out there. #### Victor Bravo ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Give me the$2M and I'll give you two different new airplanes, both flying, both closer to their claimed performance, and will have paid myself a modest salary while doing it.

And I'm by far not the smartest guy in this room.

##### Well-Known Member
Assuming 2 wings, tailplane, undercarriage, fuse, cockpit, engine, and electrics - that's 8 major systems.

So 8 HBA members get picked out of a hat, and each gets 1/4 million to design their bit - which is also randomly chosen.

What could possibly go wrong?

#### TarDevil

##### Well-Known Member
Wow...very predictable response
You're vomiting out tired, worn out fan-boy cliches to a population of highly experienced and quite accomplished aircraft homebuilders. So, **** right the responses were predictable.

Has anyone else here built an airplane that meets the criteria and performance specs Peter detailed for Raptor?

No.

It's a waste of time and two million dollars.

Status
Not open for further replies.