Aero News Network Video - Terrible Raptor 1st Flight Review

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Moderators:

I suggest that this thread be merged with the original Raptor thread. The point has been made, and it would be nice to have all the comments quarantined in one thread.
And, actually, this thread has suffered severe drift. The title refers to an "ANN Network Video" and no one is talking about THAT anymore. On that basis alone, it should be merged with the original Raptor thread, or a new thread should be started referencing the appropriate Raptor video.

Ron Wanttaja
We'll discuss it. I see your point, but there's the counter-argument that the old thread had become so unwieldy at 3,000+ posts, including a lot of ones we'd probably moderate these days, that it's an anchor around its own neck.

But yes, we'll discuss it.

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
I fear the negitive attitude about this thread is partially an attitude about criticism of homebuilt or experimental aircraft....perhaps moderation of the discussion of the designer's character is in order and technical issues can still be discussed.

TarDevil

Well-Known Member
perhaps moderation of the designer's character is in order and technical issues can still be discussed
It would be difficult to discuss the project's merits (good or bad) without some discussion of discipline. HBA exists, in part, to educate. I do agree that critique of processes, mental and otherwise, can occur without personal attacks.

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
The Raptor issue(s) are a perfect example of why the moderators' job is so difficult. On one hand, hubris and repetitive disregard for common sense are in fact dangerous to people and to this sport, are relevant to our demographic, and should be discussed. On the other hand, personal ad hominem attacks and "descent into chaos" have destroyed plenty of internet forums, HBA has managed to keep its head above that quicksand, and the moderators are the one and only line of defense against that quicksand.

Not an easy problem to solve.

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
While that seems very likely to me as well, it's probably best if we don't speculate about the business aspects here without any concrete information.
SWAG:
1,000 pounds of carbon fiber and epoxy, $30,000 (probably way too low.) Propeller,$30,000
Instrumentation, \$70,000

Those three items add up to the quoted sales price before any engine, cooling, turbos, landing gear, AC, pressurization, plumbing, control systems, interior, windows, primer / paint, production tooling, a facility, utilities, or labor.

Not even touching on recovery of capitalization, insurance, taxes.

BJC

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
I'm not disagreeing on your pricing or your math, but it's the "WAG" part of "SWAG" that gets us into trouble about these things. At this point, the project isn't even close to releasing product, at any price, so maybe we can see what's what when we're closer to that point. I'm just trying to damp down speculation regarding the business aspect here. Not defending anyone, just pointing out that we don't know, and don't know what we don't know, so speculating about possible business difficulties seems premature, at best.

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
... perhaps moderation of the discussion of the designer's character is in order and technical issues can still be discussed.
Well said. "I think he's in over his head" is okay. "He's a stupid moron and he's going to cheat a bunch of people out of their money" is not. Assess his skills, his results, the airplane, the technology, etc. and all is well. Character assassination, deserved or not, is outside the HBA Code of Conduct, even for people outside the forum. That's clear in the CoC. We let that go on too much in the old thread. I personally have already excised a couple of these sort of comments from this new one, and that's not the only moderation that's taken place in this thread so far.

C Michael Hoover

Well-Known Member
It is apparent to almost of us here that completely independent of the myriad of engine issues, there are significant aerodynamic / aero control issues to be resolved. Maybe one of the YT / Go fund me "fans " can find a good used >500 cu in Lycoming or Continental and convince PM to do what so many have tried to convince him to do, i.e. work on one problem area at a time. I personally believe that the airframe can be fixed up enough that it can be made into a single place 130 knot aircraft, and with the same molds and a weight reduction program can be made into a spacious really low performing Velocity clone. If it ever gets that far, and he does get the engine sorted, he can reinstall the Audi and finally work on cooling and redrive issues. Then it can become an unreliable, low performing Velocity clone. Believing that it will perform near to a Cirrus SR-20 performance, much less an SR-22 is insanity at best.

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
I still think it could be a nice performing plane with the right auto-conversion. Say like a 400+hp Ford 2.7 or 3.0L ecoboost V6 with a proper geared redrive. They weigh 100lbs less than a TSIO-550 and the "Nano" ecoboost engines have shown themselves to be good engines in demanding environments (F150). Shed 600 lbs from the current aircraft.

The pressurization is never going to work though with the current fuselage that is for sure. Those doors will never seal even if you could redo the windows.

jet guy

Well-Known Member
The landing gear wheel wells have absolutely nothing to do with the extremely serious pitch oscillations or the less dramatic roll instability.

Some have suggested that his wells being close to the leading edge is a problem, but all retractable wheel taildraggers have the well close to the leading edge, for instance the Messerschmitt BF108 Taifun, which was a four-seat 1930s sport plane that was highly regarded for its flying qualities...

Anyone with even a basic understanding of aerodynamics knows that this small of a piece of wing surface on the high pressure underside of the wing cannot possibly develop any kind of real aerodynamic forces. It's completely ludicrous.

The Raptor has a very serious pitch stability problem as well as a minor roll instability. It points to aeroelasticity, and we also see a disturbing control reversal on the ailerons. The airplane is not safe to fly. Someone needs to get through to Peter before he has a mishap.

More on the BF108 here:

Last edited:

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
... It seems that is absolutely fine to say that Joe Bloggs is a meticulous genius, but not that John Doe is a reckless moron. That can only introduce biased discussion. Yes, I was told that if I don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything!
Yes, that's about the size of it. The mods didn't write the rules here, we've just been asked to enforce them.

There's a vast difference between expressing skepticism about someone's skillset and smacking them with the "reckless moron" label. Skepticism is fine. Personal attacks are not.

In the end, talking about Peter's skills, or lack thereof, is really pointless here. Whatever they are or aren't, that's not likely to change soon. Much more interesting to talk about the airplane itself. Talking about airplanes is why we're all here, after all.

Let's move on from moderation. If you have questions or concerns, please PM Dana, Bill, myself, or all of us together. We're here to answer questions as much as anything else.

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
... If one team of qualified engineers and experienced builders reviewing his design and, as I understand it, two separate sets of qualified test pilots doing so haven't changed his mind, how likely is it that people slamming the guy here on the forums for it will do any good?

flywheel1935

Well-Known Member

Raptor Aircraft

1 day ago
@One Thousand Two North East I'm actually already working with a group of people on the production plan but I need to have the 40 hours flown off first before we can proceed. This doesn't really require much help once I get the current issues sorted, just some time and favorable weather .

Above was the reply to a question on PMs' latest YT channel.
I'm sure that to 'fly off' the remaining 39 hours and 57 minutes may ???? take a lot longer than he anticipates. Without resolving the huge pile of issues that need attention I can't see 40 hours on the Raptor airframe before next summer !!! (if at all). My own fear is the PRU would not last more than 2-3 hours of flight time before the belts start to fail, just hope I'm wrong.

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
and, as I understand it, two separate sets of qualified test pilots doing so haven't changed his ways, how likely is it that people slamming the guy here on the forums for it will do any good?
I don't think there was any evidence posted that the Wasabi team backed away from the project. He complied with the move request to a longer runway but didn't want to continue to pay for the transcontinental travel each test flight and they were replaced, is my take.

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
I don't think there was any evidence posted that the Wasabi team backed away from the project. He complied with the move request to a longer runway but didn't want to continue to pay for the transcontinental travel each test flight and they were replaced, is my take.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone "backed away." Last I'd heard (I don't follow this stuff nearly as closely as you guys) Peter had not accepted and mitigated all the "squawks" from the engineering review and/or test pilots teams. Has he subsequently done so?

Volzalum

Active Member
Maybe PM can develop a new mission statement and make the Raptor become a Ekranoplan (Ground Effect Vehicle). It might have enough useful load to carry 5 passengers and full fuel in this mission.

Volzalum

Active Member
I didn't mean to imply that anyone "backed away." Last I'd heard (I don't follow this stuff nearly as closely as you guys) Peter had not accepted and mitigated all the "squawks" from the engineering review and/or test pilots teams. Has he subsequently done so?
According to both Peter's and Wasabi's videos on the subject, the only reason Wasabi did not fly it on their last visit was the airport did not have a long enough runway and not very good bail out options. They both stated the "must fix" items were addressed at that time. Peter moved the plane but did not bring them back. Since PM's first flight, I speculate there would be additional "Must Fix" items.

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Moderators:

I suggest that this thread be merged with the original Raptor thread. The point has been made, and it would be nice to have all the comments quarantined in one thread.
As promised, the moderators have discussed this and together have decided to keep the old thread closed, at least for now. We understand where you're coming from, but we believe that keeping that old one shut down is best for the forum.

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
I didn't mean to imply that anyone "backed away." Last I'd heard (I don't follow this stuff nearly as closely as you guys) Peter had not accepted and mitigated all the "squawks" from the engineering review and/or test pilots teams. Has he subsequently done so?
I think he may have complied. But a "squawk" list is always negotiable.

Status
Not open for further replies.