10/23 Raptor Video

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Marc Zeitlin

Exalted Grand Poobah
I would like to think that for any "Production Model" that the cooling issue would be resolved permanently by a redesign of the radiator, H/Ex combo .
And I'd like to think that the flux capacitor in my soon to be tested anti-gravity/time machine device will use less than 2 kW of power, steady state. You think I can achieve that? Deck chairs, Titanic, etc.

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Pfft, everyone knows you need 1.21GW for the flux capacitor.
Oh.
Yes, quite right. Carry on.

Here's hoping for a safe 'retirement' event for Raptor SN1, which seems the most optimistic outcome at this point.

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Pfft, everyone knows you need 1.21GW for the flux capacitor.
Oh.
Yes, quite right. Carry on.

Here's hoping for a safe 'retirement' event for Raptor SN1, which seems the most optimistic outcome at this point.
Perhaps it will get fast-trucked to California.

shuffman37

Member
In regards to serial production development:

1. What part(s) of the existing design are usable as-is?

2. Does a market exist for a professionally designed/built aircraft of this type?

3. Should prototype 2 be a clean sheet design?

4. Should prototype 2 use a standard aviation engine?

Personally, I'd use prototype 1 as a static mockup/engineering test sled and redesign the entire product from scratch.

Last edited:

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Questions in regards to serial production development:
Knock yourself out Mate, it's all there ..

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Next flight video will be very revealing.

WINGITIS

Well-Known Member
It looks good in Russian camo!

No mention of price though....

What is the average price Malish?

LOOKS LIKE MALISH REMOVED HIS POST WITHOUT ANSWERING ON THE PRICE!?

Last edited:

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
In regards to serial production development:

1. What part(s) of the existing design are usable as-is?

2. Does a market exist for a professionally designed/built aircraft of this type?

3. Should prototype 2 be a clean sheet design?

4. Should prototype 2 use a standard aviation engine?

Personally, I'd use prototype 1 as a static mockup/engineering test sled and redesign the entire product from scratch.

Moderator Mode ON. Let's NOT open the old news on this thread.

There already exists a several hundred page thread that Covered this and other issues. You can read it, but it is closed to new entries.

This and subsequent threads will stick to technical topics and leave personality issues out as much as we can.

Moderator Mode OFF.

Test

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
See the first Peter's video....he knows it cannot be built into 130 K...it is just a goal or aim for them to trying keep it simple and straight forward.

Rik-

Well-Known Member
See the first Peter's video....he knows it cannot be built into 130 K...it is just a goal or aim for them to trying keep it simple and straight forward.
Maybe from a marketing point of view, we need to look at the 130K as a starting point like so many other kit manufacturers do.

130k +
Engine
Avionics
Paint
Assembly
Etc.

Then it is a totally possible budgetary starting point.

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Maybe from a marketing point of view, we need to look at the 130K as a starting point like so many other kit manufacturers do.

130k +
Engine
Avionics
Paint
Assembly
Etc.

Then it is a totally possible budgetary starting point.
No, for two reasons:

1) There is nothing to market.

1) The Raptor was advertised as costing $130,000 complete. See BJC Rik- Well-Known Member No, for two reasons: 1) There is nothing to market. 1) The Raptor was advertised as costing$130,000 complete. See

BJC
Your still in the "it will not fly" mode of reality. He certainly has something to market, be that a concept or an actual aircraft body so let's leave that negativity behind with the old thread.

I know he budgeted 130 complete but as they say in life, some things are to good too be true and that # certainly was too good to be true.

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Your still in the "it will not fly" mode of reality. He certainly has something to market, be that a concept or an actual aircraft body so let's leave that negativity behind with the old thread.
Considering that statement as negativity is your privilege. I wrote it as a simple statement of my objective opinion.

BJC

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Considering that statement as negativity is your privilege. I wrote it as a simple statement of my objective opinion.

BJC
I understand but that's the old thread and a lot of why the old thread is dead.

I'm not Peter's cheerleader but I'm not the undertaker either.

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I understand but that's the old thread and a lot of why the old thread is dead.

I'm not Peter's cheerleader but I'm not the undertaker either.
My post made no comment about Peter. Attacks on Peter led to the shut down of the mega thread, not comments about the aircraft or the potential market for it.

BJC

Geraldc

Well-Known Member
1) There is nothing to market.
At the worst there is enough tooling to make an airframe that has attracted over 5,000,000 views on youtube.

shuffman37

Member
At the worst there is enough tooling to make an airframe that has attracted over 5,000,000 views on youtube.
Could produce fuselage shells with the existing tooling, as the door/cockpit/window layout seems to work well together. For someone like my step dad who has had multiple knee replacements, the large gull wing doors would make getting in a lot easier. It almost takes a crane to get him loaded in the RV-12!

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Could produce fuselage shells with the existing tooling, as the door/cockpit/window layout seems to work well together.
The door latching mechanisms went through multiple revisions (over hundreds of hours) and the current one could never go into production. The door seals failed to pass the pressure differential test. The windows unbonded during post cure and then one developed a large crack just sitting in the hangar for a couple weeks. A complete re-design of all these aspects would be required to make the aircraft usable.

shuffman37

Member
The door latching mechanisms went through multiple revisions (over hundreds of hours) and the current one could never go into production. The door seals failed to pass the pressure differential test. The windows unbonded during post cure and then one developed a large crack just sitting in the hangar for a couple weeks. A complete re-design of all these aspects would be required to make the aircraft usable.
I was thinking non pressurized cockpit shell. The large door design would be useful for bulky cargo. With a new wing, canard, and power plant, wouldn't be a bad design for vacation travel.