# Raptor Composite Aircraft

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### xwing

##### Well-Known Member
back to the point: what will the Raptor be able to carry?
or even carry on status quo as is

Last edited:

#### TarDevil

##### Well-Known Member
No, that is not a fact. I'm not going to continue with you any longer because you are disinterested in acknowledging demonstrated reality. Interested parties can look up a POH or discuss the matter with Bonanza pilots who have done what Rik says is impossible. Now back to the point: what will the Raptor be able to carry?
I restored and flew a V35 Bonanza back in the late 80's. No, I could not fill the tanks and seats. And full fuel without passengers does not create an aft CG... just the opposite.

Fuel is carried in the leading edge, ahead of CG. All seats add weight AFT of CG.

4 pax in the V35 presents a range delmina... one must carry enough fuel to balance the seat occupants, but not to much to overweight the airplane. In addition, you can only burn off so much fuel before CG nears or exceeds aft limits. Toward the end of a 4 pax (not to mention baggage) trip, you now have a speedy airplane with very light elevators.

What has this to do with Raptor?

It's billed as a 5 pax plane, already heavier than an empty V35, we don't have a clue how fuel or 3 back seat passengers impact CG or the plane overall. Though much heavier empty than a V35, it is producing (according to Ross's numbers) less HP.

Last edited:

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
That’s a which model are you talking about question for a plane being continuously in production since 1947. Talking about a 33,35,36? Tip tanks and or VGs or some other mod? 33 no for sure. 36 with tip tanks loaded with no fuel in the tips might be ok. There is no plane you can load seats and fuel; not one. Ok maybe a single seat.

#### TarDevil

##### Well-Known Member
That’s a which model are you talking about question for a plane being continuously in production since 1947. Talking about a 33,35,36? Tip tanks and or VGs or some other mod? 33 no for sure. 36 with tip tanks loaded with no fuel in the tips might be ok. There is no plane you can load seats and fuel; not one. Ok maybe a single seat.
I used my V35 example because Rik specifically mentioned that model.

#### Toobuilder

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
RV-10 is a full fuel, full seats + baggage airplane.

It's certainly possible

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
I used my V35 example because Rik specifically mentioned that model.
You know everything so argue with Tardevil how he’s incorrect.

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
RV-10 is a full fuel, full seats + baggage airplane.

It's certainly possible
Yes some are but most certified aircraft can’t. RV12 is nearly impossible to overload, it’s within CG nearly no matter 50 lbs of baggage or less. The cockpit kinda rules out 350 lb guys.

Point is some apparently believe if it’s got 5 seats, 65 gallons capacity and 50 lbs of cargo it means they can use all three at the same time.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Hell even the SR20 can’t do it so why try and hold this contraption to a higher standard.
Because the Raptor advertising / performance claims specifically claim to be far superior to the Cirrus.

BJC

#### MechEngr32

##### Member
Not to derail the current discussion of performance claims but let’s say the plane would fly and all issues currently on the table are resolved. How in the world does any deposit holder actually get an airplane?

Raptor has one employee. Cirrus built 380 planes last year with 1,300 employees(say 1/2-2/3 are in manufacturing) how does Raptor produce 1,500 in any reasonable time frame?

#### cheapracer

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
Not to derail the current discussion of performance claims but let’s say the plane would fly and all issues currently on the table are resolved. How in the world does any deposit holder actually get an airplane?

Raptor has one employee. Cirrus built 380 planes last year with 1,300 employees(say 1/2-2/3 are in manufacturing) how does Raptor produce 1,500 in any reasonable time frame?
Yup, but forget about the 1500 units, that's just nonsense, no one's going to step up with 40 or 50 million to start that program, so as far as I can see he is now obliged to build 130 units.

With 20 staff (overall), I figure that's 6 years, but who's going to seed him the first 3 million for the first year with a somewhat shaky nett return of 4 million, requiring another seed of 2 million year 2, and 1 million seed year 3, with no provable expotential expansion potential (without doubling the seed) and no returns seen until year 4?

But that's a bit moot, because as an Investor, the worst part is those 130 depositors locking you in to an obligation, and as I said earlier, a smart Investor would first buy out the 130 contracts, unchaining yourself from them. Why lock in to sell 130 aircraft at $180K (pure guess that's the deal done by Rapator with the 130) when you can lose them and sell the same craft for say$280K (just examples).

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Because the Raptor advertising / performance claims specifically claim to be far superior to the Cirrus.

BJC
I understand. Everyone has to have a yard stick to measure against and for this plane it’s a Cirrus (and there are many haters of the Cirrus too) but we need to be realistic. In an airplane every seat doesn’t always get an ass in it.

Last edited:

#### poormansairforce

##### Well-Known Member
Not to derail the current discussion of performance claims but let’s say the plane would fly and all issues currently on the table are resolved. How in the world does any deposit holder actually get an airplane?

Raptor has one employee. Cirrus built 380 planes last year with 1,300 employees(say 1/2-2/3 are in manufacturing) how does Raptor produce 1,500 in any reasonable time frame?
If I understand it correctly Peter has open sourced this project so there would be different manufacturer for the various parts to promote competition and keep costs down. The first batch is being used simply to raise the funds for development. After that it is open to all parties for manufacture of individual parts, etc.

#### xwing

##### Well-Known Member
So, the project has turned into a rabbit hole, assuming someone/others take over, what next?

Last edited:

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
If I understand it correctly Peter has open sourced this project so there would be different manufacturer for the various parts to promote competition and keep costs down. The first batch is being used simply to raise the funds for development. After that it is open to all parties for manufacture of individual parts, etc.
Open source generally requires the full release of information. We only have youtube videos to go on...

#### poormansairforce

##### Well-Known Member
Open source generally requires the full release of information. We only have youtube videos to go on...
True, and that was my point in an earlier post. I assume at some point it will all be released. Maybe after he gets it 'perfected'.

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Here is how Mike Melvill described his first Long-Eze test flight in Sport Aviation article:

"I put on the parachute, climbed in and started the engine, Taxi tests were fine; brakes, excellent. I taxied out to runway 7 and made a high speed taxi run. This involved lifting the nose wheel and rolling along just below flying speed, feeling the airplane out. Several such runs were done, ending up with a runway flight a foot or two off the ground. During these short "flights", I asked myself, "Is the ship in trim?", "Do I have neutral controls?" The answer was "yes" and "yes", so I elected to take off. "

#### TarDevil

##### Well-Known Member
Here is how Mike Melvill described his first Long-Eze test flight in Sport Aviation article:

"I put on the parachute, climbed in and started the engine, Taxi tests were fine; brakes, excellent. I taxied out to runway 7 and made a high speed taxi run. This involved lifting the nose wheel and rolling along just below flying speed, feeling the airplane out. Several such runs were done, ending up with a runway flight a foot or two off the ground. During these short "flights", I asked myself, "Is the ship in trim?", "Do I have neutral controls?" The answer was "yes" and "yes", so I elected to take off. "
Keeping things in perspective...
Mike was testing a proven design.

Mike had a resume full of homebuilding and test flying.

Mike was tooling along on one of the longest runways in North America.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
Keeping things in perspective...
Mike was testing a proven design.