Raptor Composite Aircraft

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
That MT prop has to be close to $20K. A prop strike on rotation could save the life of a test pilot, or Peter.$20k well spent.

mm4440

Well-Known Member
Hi, to get glider like L/D takes a glider like planform. The Voyager had that kind of L/D. The EZ planform is not one you would chose when designing a normal GA aircraft for max L/D with its higher loaded canard surface and swept main wing. It can be a reasonable choice for a high speed cruiser. For efficient high altitude cruising the design needs to be more glider like. Think of airliners and B-52 which have swept wings only because they are transonic. A better example is the U 2. If you have huge power, you build an SR. An SR pilot made an interesting statement when asked how fast it could really go. That is still secret so he said, "Whenever he needed it to go faster, it would."
There are many questions I have about their powertrain. Putting a new engine in a new airframe has often led to program failure.
Murry

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
It looked like the distance between the prop and engine was large. So the prop might be more aft or the engine is more forward.

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
I read the specs for the Raptor today. The range is most impressive. It tells me that the glide ratio is above 25:1.
I know nothing about CFD, which might spit out wonderful numbers to unsuspecting dilettantes, but I do know that L/D depends on things like W/S, Cdo, and K (which in turn depends on Oswald), so there is lots of room for optimism until it is displaced by reality. Of course you have to have either a tow rope or an engine that works to find out.

canardlover

Well-Known Member
I also suspect that it is a deathtrap. From what I've seen Peter does not know enough to design an ultralight.

This project needed the eye of a competent person all the way though. What it got was an IT guy and his lackeys.

I've done IT work. Never had a problem with deadly bugs! The "We can iron out the bugs later" mindset is completely wrong for building an aircraft.
The programs " Lackeys" are far more competent than most of the critics here on this thread( no insult intended). However the IT guy thinks he knows more than everyone
( Cirrus,Piper,Beech,Velocity,for example) and rarely listened to advice, suggestion, and even argument. Borrowing from modern phraseology to relate to all the problems herein, Peter " OWNS IT" all.

Status
Not open for further replies.