# Raptor Composite Aircraft

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Nothing new. There are exceptions in any demographic.

But you can't expect minds to change when experience, math and physics are being defied.

There are indeed some people on here that can actually do the walking and the talking but as I've asked, how would one fix the situation and a fire isn't a solution.

#### cheapracer

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
Can you take the heat from this site in your quest?
I already have, lol! I've been in the frypan a few times around here!

But I haven't taken a cent from anybody, and my plane will be flying and tested, meet all criteria that I claim, in stock and ready to deliver before I do.

Until then, all critique is moot because I'm just a guy building his own airplane, and it's not commercial until that first cent is handed over.

When i say "critique is moot", that doesn't mean I don't listen to people and take their advice, I most certainly do and have, and will continue to find nuggets of gold from members here. This is an awesome brains trust here, I've taken some fantastic ideas and inspiration to create my own ideas, for which I am happy to donate to when I have ideas or make discoveries, in kind.

When I succeed, I will without doubt have some part of HBA to be thankful for.

Also, I could probably ask for deposits, or a 'Go-Fund Me' sort of deal, but that would then put me on a time schedule and commitment, nah, not for me.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
Never seen so many people so vested in something that really doesn’t have anything to do with them.
Peter must’ve offended some of y’all in another life. Regardless of his project, Some here can’t wait to run to the keyboard to tout why they should be listened to!
It reveals more bout some here, than bout the man struggling with his project. Be careful, Don’t hurt yourselfs trying to pat your on back!
You guys remind of a fellow who could piss people of after giving them $20.00 ! What utter rubbish. Insulted us in another life? Peter has personally insulted many of us in this life. That's before we get into his trash talking the current homebuilding manufacturers and their 'inferior' products. He is going to do damage to the homebult industry when his project dies, which it will. he has spent nearly$3 million of other people's money on a TLA (to Peter, but few of us) engineered white elephant that will never get anywhere near it's claimed outrageous performance, if it even manages to fly at all. Those people could have spent that money on something that actually flys instead. Now, they are down $20k and will also have a sour taste in their mouth about homebuilt aircraft. Used Cirrii have gained a lot of appeal. Especially after a loaded one smoked the empty Raptor, at part throttle. While I hope to be getting into building kits in a few years, I won't be near Raptor territory, but I will definitely be in the homebuilder industry. I would like it to be healthy and untainted by disasters such as the Raptor. Hell, I even look forward to some competition, perhaps from Scott? If Peter hits his undisclosed milestone, he gets about as much money again of honestly invested deposits to flush down the toilet of ill conceived ideas. Good money after bad. Seriously, the best thing that homebuilders can do right now is express their concerns about this project, somewhere, somehow. Maybe that will show the public that the next project that doesn't get this level of oppostion might actually still be worth a looking at. While I may not like some design features on some kits/plans out there, the successful ones are successful for a reason. They work reasonably well. This is the first project that I've felt compelled to voice deep concern about. Last edited: #### Marc Zeitlin ##### Exalted Grand Poobah There are indeed some people on here that can actually do the walking and the talking but as I've asked, how would one fix the situation and a fire isn't a solution. Some things can't be fixed. While it's possible that this is not in that category, it's more likely that it is. Once one has stepped off the side of the Empire State Building and is down to the 80th floor, there is no answer to "how do we fix this problem"?, no matter how much one may want there to be. I've been involved in projects at large companies (HP, Agilent, Philips), which were cancelled after multiple millions of $$of investment, because it was clear that we couldn't meet the intended goals, no matter what we did or how much MORE$$$ we spent. It happens...

And while the "sunk cost fallacy" leads many folks to continue when they ought to quit, there's a reason it's called "the sunk cost fallacy". See:

which, interestingly enough, calls the "sunk cost fallacy" the "concorde fallacy". Go figure .

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Well try to stay on the positive side guys.

It’s going to provide a lot of data. Even if it doesn’t exceed existing aircraft, the performance data at high altitude will be useful.

And if he does give up on the Diesel, it may prove to be a useful airframe for another engine.

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Some things can't be fixed. While it's possible that this is not in that category, it's more likely that it is.
Well, someone has to be the bad example to show your kids

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Cirrus had a failed first design, started over with a more standard design and now is the top seller.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
Well try to stay on the positive side guys.

It’s going to provide a lot of data. Even if it doesn’t exceed existing aircraft, the performance data at high altitude will be useful.

And if he does give up on the Diesel, it may prove to be a useful airframe for another engine.
And how will it get to high altitude? It's current powerplant is questionable for the pattern, it certainly won't get it up high.

The airframe could be re-engined. But enough design errors have already surfaced that would make me very leery of the ones that we don't know about yet...

#### rbarnes

##### Well-Known Member
So your saying Cirrus needs 1.5 Billion in sales just to recoup the certification cost?

I mean...$30,000+ for a 250hp motor from the 1950s? #### Rik- ##### Well-Known Member And now you understand why Cirrus sells a new 4 seat single engine fixed gear unpressurized airplane for$875,000

And why Peter's initial cost predictions were/are complete utter nonsense
On the best days that's 1,715 plane sales to recover the cost. How many do they sell a year?

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
I mean...\$30,000+ for a 250hp motor from the 1950s?
From my incipient contact with Aviation I have been amazed at this singular point. By the way your to low in your pricing.

It's rape at best and thus and probably the reasons that this guy is trying an Audi engine instead of a Volkswagen flat 6 like everyone else is doing.

Everyone says, "insurance cost are built into the engine price" ok, well what about rebuild cost? Is the real story that this is how Warren Buffet gets richer in the insurance business?

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
On the best days that's 1,715 plane sales to recover the cost. How many do they sell a year?
Cirrus has about 7,000 airplanes in the field.

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
All good points, but lets not forget that there were a few prototypes before Cirrus, especially from Rutan.

The only reason Cirrus had so much development debt was because its first aircraft failed entirely. It then restarted from scratch using the information proven by Rutan prototypes.

If Peter proves anything, inability to put the aircraft into production is not necessarily an issue. Rutan lacked that ability, but that hasnt stopped a dozen different successful production aircraft from using the information they proved.

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Cirrus bought a Glasair kit and built it to learn about molded fiberglass, not Rutan methods.

#### Kyle Boatright

##### Well-Known Member
Cirrus bought a Glasair kit and built it to learn about molded fiberglass, not Rutan methods.
And I've never seen anything that indicated the Klapmeirs (sp) had aspirations beyond a homebuilt when they designed the VK-30. The idea for a certified aircraft seemed to come later.

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I don't know, just watched a video about Dale and his entire life in aviation.

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
I can set you up with a VK-30 project with a water cooled Continental 520 Voyager engine. I’m pretty sure all the kits left the factory 88-93.

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
All good points, but lets not forget that there were a few prototypes before Cirrus, especially from Rutan.

The only reason Cirrus had so much development debt was because its first aircraft failed entirely. It then restarted from scratch using the information proven by Rutan prototypes.

If Peter proves anything, inability to put the aircraft into production is not necessarily an issue. Rutan lacked that ability, but that hasnt stopped a dozen different successful production aircraft from using the information they proved.

2