Raptor Composite Aircraft

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Steve C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Lodi, CA
I have a question. With the CNC plugs, I thought there would be min body work being all machined / digital / autocad, etc.... This is going back years ago when they were doing the body work, been meaning to ask this. How come so much body work afterwards?
Many full scale projects are done with external layups at the leading edge and the seams of the fuselage. I don't know if Raptor was done this way, but that's one possible reason.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,320
Location
Everywhere USA
These canard prototypes kill so many people we should really create a test rig to verify safe rotation behavior.

Someone could probably create a test sled out of Tesla parts in order to quickly accelerate to rotation speed while also weighing down the nose and providing emergency deceleration.

Because other forms of towing aren’t really great for airflow or safety, and don’t have emergency brakes.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,106
Location
Australian
Umm, the sidestick main control shafts are a bit on the thick side, golly gosh, lets just add some more weight in. 80% of the bore is 3/8"~10mm bore,

May as well have used stainless steel with 0.040" wall at a tenth the price, available, 50% less weight while being strong enough.

ss 1.jpg

The way he has run the control stick wires is a joke, and dangerous.

6 weeks to design, develop and implement this sidestick, just utter disbelief.

 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,224
Location
Port Townsend WA
So, he is actually improving the design by adding weight so he will need less ballast?


BJC
No net change in weight. So why be concerned? I didn't say he improved anything by adding weight.
But he indeed did need to improve the control to meet the demands of the test pilot. I won't criticize his lack of employing dozens of engineers to save each ounce at this point.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,224
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
No net change in weight. So why be concerned? I didn't say he improved anything by adding weight.
Bill, just consider my comment as tongue-in-cheek.
I won't criticize his lack of employing dozens of engineers to save each ounce at this point.
Agree. Just see if it will fly OK at gross weight, then start over.


BJC
 

ScaleBirdsScott

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,231
Location
Uncasville, CT
I'm less upset with the current result he's got than the original concept, and it seems like it would work. But it could be more elegant and lighter weight (as could the rest of the whole bird...)

But yeah it'll be a matter of fly it and start over.
 
Last edited:

deskpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
1,125
Location
Morphett Vale, South Australia. Just south of Adel
I read with interest all your comments. I assume you all have pilots licenses but how many of you have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering? My guess, none of you. Maybe Peter doesn't either but he's having a go at building a somewhat different aircraft. At least he's not having a go at your lack of support. You all think this is a disaster waiting happen, what are you going to say if it turns out to be a complete success? Too cock sure of your presumed knowledge IMO. Time will tell.
 

Marc Zeitlin

Exalted Grand Poobah
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
657
Location
Tehachapi, CA
I read with interest all your comments. I assume you all have pilots licenses...
Yeah, Aircraft Single Engine Land / Glider / Instrument / Commercial. Can't speak for anyone else.

but how many of you have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering? My guess, none of you.
Too bad this wasn't a bet - I've got a couple, from MIT, which along with $5 gets me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I know of a number of other folks on here who also have degrees in AE or ME. Aside from the academic credentials (which actually aren't worth very much once you've been out of school for 5 years or so) many of the folks here have been involved in the aeronautical industry designing and testing aircraft for many years (and I count myself amongst that group). None of the folks with that type of experience and knowledge believe that there is much, if any, future in this design - we just hope no-one gets hurt testing it.

Maybe Peter doesn't either but he's having a go at building a somewhat different aircraft.
No one is taking anything away from his enthusiasm, sticktoitivness, or ambition. Those things have never been the issues.

You all think this is a disaster waiting happen...
Not all, but the knowledgeable ones believe that there is no future for this aircraft and while the prototype may fly in a very limited envelope that doesn't come close to the original intent of the aircraft, it will not be proof of anything useful, nor will it lead to any further serial # aircraft.

what are you going to say if it turns out to be a complete success?
What will I say if I get eaten by a shark dropped out of a tornado while a meteorite hits me in the head as I'm having a stroke and SCA during a category 6 hurricane? That's basically what you're asking here... The definition of "complete success" is not "the plane got off the ground, flew for 1/2 hour, and no-one died". "Complete Success" means "met the original performance goals for speed, efficiency, cost, reliability and payload".

Too cock sure of your presumed knowledge IMO. Time will tell.
So if I told you that I was going to jump off the empire state building, flap my arms really hard and make it over to the Chrysler building merely because I was enthusiastic as hell and would work incredibly hard at it, do you think you could predict the outcome, given your knowledge of human flight characteristics? Or would you tell me that "time will tell" and that I should give it a go because I might succeed?

There is, and I say this with absolute certainty as the only person on this forum that has personally inspected this plane for Peter, Justin and Elliot back in December, that there is exactly zero possibility that it will meet the performance goals that have been set out for it. It will almost certainly fly, but that's as much as can be said for it.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,106
Location
Australian
Too cock sure of your presumed knowledge IMO.
Clearly you have assessed other Member's posts with your superior knowledge, so if any of those posts happen to be mine, I would be happy to have you dissect any of those posts' content, show where I am mistaken technically, or from a business production perspective, and I will be more than happy to pull my head in, man up and apologise to the forum.
 

ScaleBirdsScott

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,231
Location
Uncasville, CT
Are we drawing straws to see who has to inform him of the next step?:popcorn:
I'm more reflecting on what I'm going through. I'm almost done with plane #1. And now I get to start over from almost scratch. As in, almost every single part is going to be overhauled and tweaked and refined. Some systems replaced wholesale while others will simply see thorough refinement. As capability and knowledge increases, so to does design philosophy. In some cases these are changes of necessity, in some cases the current solution is so ad-hoc as to be inexcusable. But often it's just that one cannot, in good conscious, use a perfectly acceptable existing design when there is a perfectly better potential design sitting on the ground in front of the mind's eye waiting to be picked up.

I doubt any of what we're seeing in these videos, in the form we're seeing it, is going to end up in a commercial product. Whether that's the next step or if it takes a detour first, who knows. Then again...
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,224
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
but how many of you have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering?
I don’t. My degree is in Aerospace Engineering, but I worked primarily in mechanical and electrical engineering for 39 years.

what are you going to say if it turns out to be a complete success?
If “complete success” means achieving the performance claims and price claim, I say that there is no chance of it being a complete success.

If, however, your definition simply means that it flies, I will say that I am pleased that no one got hurt physically. In this scenario, though, there are going to be lots of disappointed true believers and financial participants.

Edit: I see that Marc already covered the subject thoroughly.


BJC
 

poormansairforce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
937
Location
Just an Ohioan
I'm more reflecting on what I'm going through. I'm almost done with plane #1. And now I get to start over from almost scratch. As in, almost every single part is going to be overhauled and tweaked and refined. Some systems replaced wholesale while others will simply see thorough refinement. As capability and knowledge increases, so to does design philosophy. In some cases these are changes of necessity, in some cases the current solution is so ad-hoc as to be inexcusable. But often it's just that one cannot, in good conscious, use a perfectly acceptable existing design when there is a perfectly better potential design sitting on the ground in front of the mind's eye waiting to be picked up.

I doubt any of what we're seeing in these videos, in the form we're seeing it, is going to end up in a commercial product. Whether that's the next step or if it takes a detour first, who knows. Then again...
I'm in complete agreement! But I think Peter believes he only needs one build and I say 'build' because he was/is convinced that He, using CAD, CNC, etc, would only need one! Based on his responses to his critics I cannot imagine what he will say to the idea of doing it again or a couple more times. Now that the weight has gotten away from him he is between a rock and a hard place.
 
Last edited:

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,090
Location
Upper midwest in a house
but how many of you have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering? My guess, none of you. Maybe Peter doesn't either but he's having a go at building a somewhat different aircraft.
Which (as I have said many times) is great!! He can experiment as much as he desires! This is a great country because we allow that!! However, he thinks he can build a revolutionary aircraft on the first attempt, immediately put it into production and sell it to the masses. 1000's of them. The latter is where I have a problem. People should not be placed in danger because of another person's incompetence. If the plane is going to revolutionize aviation, great!! Prove it!! Test thoroughly to ensure there are no shortcomings in the airframe, powerplant, redrive, pressurization, environmental, AFCS, systems, etc.. Despite the complexity, Peter is convinced these things are going to work perfectly and minimal testing will be needed. He has indicated the next step is moving into production. The only obstacle to that is that the prototype has yet to fly and shortcomings are yet to be discovered. Is there a contingency plan for that?

what are you going to say if it turns out to be a complete success?
I will say he won the lottery as the odds of the plane being a "complete success" are about the same as winning the lottery.
 
Top