Raptor Composite Aircraft

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Status
Not open for further replies.

donjohnston

Well-Known Member
I'm asking me about if Peter is right about of the effect of the big hole of the landing gear almost in front of the wing isn't the cause of the weird behavior of the airplane. I think this prototype could have non retract landing gear and a lot of issues would be avoided.
Doesn't cause a problem on the Velocity RG.

Alessandre

Active Member
PM is in the depths of Sunk Cost Fallacy. I'm not sure he has the personality to pull himself out of it until the plane is destroyed in an incident.

Individuals commit the sunk cost fallacy when they continue a behavior or endeavor as a result of previously invested resources (time, money or effort) (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). This fallacy, which is related to loss aversion and status quo bias, can also be viewed as bias resulting from an ongoing commitment.

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Nope. Don’t want to. I’m in a good mood, and don’t want to get all riled up over how the imperial government spent the money that they took from me.

BJC

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
That's right. Peter Muller didn't "took" money from anyone.

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Certainly.....but ......can what are glaring errors be fixed and an aircraft of his own design and development be made safe to fly? The consensus here is he will not meet his design goals, but backing up a moment ,....can the engine problems be fixed?,.....can the aerodynamic problems be fixed? Is it possible that a somewhat heavy aircraft with a Jet A or Diesel burning engine will develop?
Peter's stated goal was to produce a $130K kit which would go 300 KTAS at 25,000 feet, cruise 230 KTAS on 7 GPH, hauling 4-5 people a couple thousand NM in pressurized comfort. Clearly it won't be coming close to a single one of these goals. It will take him years to correct even the most fundamental issues at the rate he's proceeding at without professional help. BBerson Light Plane Philosopher HBA Supporter The performance and price numbers are carefully worded as "estimated". See the word "possible". "62" wide cabin with a possible top speed of 300 knots that can cruise at 230 knots true on 7 gph of Diesel or Jet-A. It will come equipped with a" cheapracer Well-Known Member Log Member please do not leave......I like your comments. Just tired of it, part frustration from the woefully slow recovery after my open heart surgery 18 months ago, which they told me would be 6 months, and I find myself channeling that frustration by elevating my contempt for this abortion. It's not right for me, I am a bit embarrassed by some of it, and want to correct that path somewhat and get back to a better place, so I need to avert my gaze away from this thread. Speculation on the financial aspects of the Raptor project is just that. Aprox.$2.5 million was raised about a year ago, that's a fact.
He declared himself (or Raptor LLC) to be broke about 9 months later, that's a fact.

No obvious substantial cost was incurred by the aircraft project in that interim that might explain the absorbed cost of over $2 million, that's a truth. The speculation by this Member was merely a Member's Member defense of various Members by pointing out to the Member "ashamed of those Members" (the Members nominated by the Member), of the possibilities that he should be a Member ashamed of a non-Member, on the other side of the Member's fence, though he might be Member invited by a Member to be a Member. If the Member read the Member's post for the Member about the Members, he would remember this. berridos Well-Known Member Besides the sunk cost fallacy ,the problem he is becoming lazy and demotivated. His response in th YT forum regarding the second turbo clearly shows that he has understood one of the problems but he is not caring because of demotivation. Hopefully he will find energy and at the end and remove that second turbo. Last edited: pictsidhe Well-Known Member Cheapie, this is a family friendly site. Please put your member away. berridos Well-Known Member You should have asked PM to do the open heart surgery. He would have implanted you a second heart behind your old one and now you would play around like a 6 year old. pictsidhe Well-Known Member Besides the sunk cost fallacy ,the problem he is becoming lazy and demotivated. His response in th YT forum regarding the second turbo clearly shows that he has understood one of the problems but he is not caring because of demotivation. Hopefully he will find energy and at the end he will remove that second turbo. His response indicates that he thinks other people 'design' stuff the same way that he does. By taking an idea and throwing it at the wall. Sometimes, it sticks. He seems unable to comprehend the idea that a properly designed item in an established field has no reason NOT to work. Proper design usually involves taking an idea and throwing it at a wall of maths. Often that is pretty simple and quick. Usually, it needs a little tweaking, but we can see where and why from the maths, so the second go does far better. This is usually a far, far quicker process than building an item then testing it. Sometimes, it isn't, so we test when we are unsure of our maths. That test piece becomes an analog computer. C Michael Hoover Well-Known Member Yep. Start over. Any additional dollars and sweat invested in the current airframe are waste. Fruitless to prioritize what needs to be done to Raptor V.1. But yes, use the lessons learned for V.2, if the concept is valid. If the concept of a 5 seat, 300 knot, pressurized 25k ft aircraft for$130,000, then, NO it is not valid. Those performance figures at that price point are valid on one day a year. April fools day.
Now if your desire is to make a really wide 5 seat, poorly performing Velocity clone, then go for it. And, by the way, if you are going to use an Audi Deisel in an aircraft, you better figure out how to use Jet A fuel without destroying said engine first.

TarDevil

Well-Known Member
That's right. Peter Muller didn't "took" money from anyone.
You are precisely correct.
In the words of Wyatt Earp: "Depends on how you look at it. Nobody's putting a gun to their head."

TarDevil

Well-Known Member
If the concept of a 5 seat, 300 knot, pressurized 25k ft aircraft for \$130,000, then, NO it is not valid.
Oh indeed, LOL! I should have been more specific;
"If the airframe design is safe and sound.'

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
It's not right for me, I am a bit embarrassed by some of it, and want to correct that path somewhat and get back to a better place, so I need to avert my gaze away from this thread.
That’s probably the smartest thing any of us can do. I should be right behind you if I can peel myself away from the drama.

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
This thread has run its course. It is CLOSED.

If you want to discuss technical and design details of the Raptor, please keep it technical.

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
This thread has drifted so far away from discussing the Raptor itself that it's hardly recognizable anymore. Agreed on the closure.

For those of you complaining, let me refer you to the HBA Code of Conduct. Which the mods have allowed to be bent into a pretzel shape (actually, Moebius Strip) to let you folks keep talking about this subject.

Status
Not open for further replies.