Quantcast

Raptor Composite Aircraft

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Status
Not open for further replies.

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,596
Location
Memphis, TN
I mentioned the PIO, because from the ground someone might think it was a stall instead of a pilot chasing his tail, or nose I guess.
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
348
Location
Timaru, NZ
These two airframes were largely designed and built by the same person, as far as I can tell from research on the web.
The engine and pressurization is of course different. That's why I am curious of the Orion weight.
Nope. The guy behind the Orion did build the Raptor, but was not involved in it's design. He was made his involvement clear in this thread repeatedly. His work is (the?) one part that ISN'T a problem on the Raptor.
Don't tar him with Peter's brush!
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
348
Location
Timaru, NZ
Fancy title for the guy who did most of the airframe construction (since Peter seems to be averse to making anything that doesn't start as a plate of steel or aluminum). Again, he has made his involvement clear in this here HBA thread multiple times. Look for 'canardlover'.
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
253
Location
Texas
The problem with the Raptor is not the engineering or fabrication. It's the overall design, promised performance, and complete lack of a proper testing of the structures to verify the math. Peter brought in decent engineers to do the math and actually build the thing. It's all the little sub systems, the engine, the door latches, the control layout, ect. ect. that is the problem.
 

cblink.007

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
502
Location
Texas, USA
These two airframes were largely designed and built by the same person, as far as I can tell from research on the web.
The engine and pressurization is of course different. That's why I am curious of the Orion weight.
I am curious as well; for a while I thought the Orion was a modified Velocity. Or is it?
 

hammer

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2020
Messages
7
Jet Guy:

You may want to adjust your assumptions slightly. You should be able to run the numbers quickly.

You assume because the Raptor needs 90kts to rotate then best ROC will be 110kts. I don't think ratio will hold in this case (but we dont have enough data to be accurate)

In the case of my Saratoga, best ROC is 93 kts. POH rotate is 88kts @ 3600 with zero flaps, which is about the same as the Raptor.

(if i use 25deg flaps it is more like 70kts). But a canard doesnt have this option.

I usually use 105kts for climb so i can see clearly over the big goofy nose (as somebody else once said) of the Saratoga.

Maybe worth creating a small table - hp one variable (lets say 200,250,300,350,even 400) and best ROC speed the other variable (90/100/110)

Assuming we get a flight sometime soon we then then fill in some of the missing information quickly (what is the actual hp)
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,725
Location
Port Townsend WA
I am curious as well; for a while I thought the Orion was a modified Velocity. Or is it?
I don't think so, Orion info is not available. The info indicates Jeff worked on the Velocity XL (extra large). Claims on this forum the Orion is largest Homebuilt canard. Photo shows it parked at a sales tent, perhaps Oshkosh. About all I found.
So, seems to have expertise with large or heavy canards.
Seems to almost be the perfect pick by PM for the enterprise in the beginning.
I found a V-Raptor that was built and apparently later delisted from FAA records. Not sure how that is related.

I don't see the point of flying this thing and starting over unless someone can uncover the history and show exactly how it became overweight.
 
Last edited:

donjohnston

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
68
Location
Panama City, FL
Ok. It didn't look small on the outside. I've never seen another canard takeoff and do that.

I've been told EZ's can bob up and down without loosing altitude if they have some power on. That's why I assumed he stalled the canard. My mistake.

Sometimes people do dumb things in front of a big crowd of airplane enthusiasts.
Nope. You're right. The canard was stalling. But just on the edge at full power. So instead of the full break there was only a little dip.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,518
Location
North Carolina
It doesn't matter what the best ROC speed is. Climb requires excess thrust power of p=mgv, v is vertical speed. That will get you dang close, without a page of calculations.

You can get very close to minimum level flight power from the measured minimum sink speed. We don't even need an extra formula to do that. It's my ballpark friend again, P=mgv.
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
253
Location
Texas
I don't see the point of flying this thing and starting over unless someone can uncover the history and show exactly how it became overweight.
Did you miss the video where they weighed the engine ? and the one where he put a 100lbs of "ballast" in the nose ? PM himself admits the doors and their super pressurized latch system probably weigh 50 lbs each. A PT6 on the back would solve the weight and performance problems in one move, but destroys PM's cost and range promises.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,518
Location
North Carolina
Did you miss the video where they weighed the engine ? and the one where he put a 100lbs of "ballast" in the nose ? PM himself admits the doors and their super pressurized latch system probably weigh 50 lbs each. A PT6 on the back would solve the weight and performance problems in one move, but destroys PM's cost and range promises.
I missed the engine weighing. How bad was it? Peter has 475lbs on his webpage.
The weight problem us that Peter just did not pay attention to the weight of the everything.
"I'll make it strong" seems to have been his primary aim. Weight does not seem to be something he has paid any attention to. He has mostly used TLAR engineering. That means many parts are heavy AND weak.
I am designing an ultralight. I am perhaps a little anal about the weight. I design a widget to meet required strength stiffness etc. Then I look at the weight. If it is way too heavy, I look at another way to do it.. Sometimes it's nearly there and few tweaks here and there sort it out. Other times I find myself changing a whole mess of other stuff so I can build a light enough widget to go on.
Without being able to calculate strength and stiffness, its just not possible to build a strong and light aircraft. The big catch with an aircraft is, the heavier it is, the stronger it has to be to carry that weight! That key fact seems to elude Peter.
 

canardlover

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
65
Location
Canton, Ga USA
These two airframes were largely designed and built by the same person, as far as I can tell from research on the web.
The engine and pressurization is of course different. That's why I am curious of the Orion weight.
The Orion was/is slightly larger than the Raptor and about 10 % larger than the Velocity XL. The prototype with a twin turbo Cont. I0-550 weighed in at 2265 lbs empty and flew beautifully with better characteristics than the often cloned Rutan format. It was about 75 lbs heavier than similarly equipped Velocity XL's.
So , NO, I am not the reason the Raptor is chunky. And, NO, it is not my design. And the Orion is not a modified Velocity in more ways than you can imagine! And, YES, the winglets on the Velocity V-Twin are from my Orion design.🤪
I may, in the future, revisit the Orion after finishing my Voodoo project. After having it, and all the related tooling I created, stolen by a former partner I was able to acquire the second fuselage ( most complex part to re-pattern) quite by accident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top