Raptor Composite Aircraft

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

anvegger

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
being an IT guy who used to be an aerodynamicist and worked on large IT projects, I'd like to remind people that "on-time," "on-budget," and "meeting original specs" are usually not things that can be said for most large IT projects.
+++

MikePousson

Well-Known Member
One thing that gets me is where are all these guys when it comes to defending their products. This is a pretty large and inclusive group board. They know we are here. Alberto defends his company's product in Italy and the production delays. There are others here that produce aviation products and some trying to get setup for a production operation. There is back and forth between members and these guys. It's always upbeat. Where are Kerlo and Hawkins. Taking a moment or two a week to address questions or misconceptions is part of the business.

anvegger

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Taking a moment or two a week to address questions or misconceptions is part of the business.
That is absolutely correct many thanks Mike for your great point!

Well-Known Member
Wow - and that is for me to roll over 80 messages. Any one in particular - the killer one? If you send me to a hangar flying thread from here, I really in doubt of finding something valuable out of those posts. two years of discussion ... really?...
Wait, you wanted to hear all objections against it right? If it's too many, simply stop reading after you've found enough.

As I stated before I am maintaining all the available existing stats from all the sources related to Canard Type Aircraft

Take off distance over 50':
1. Cobalt Co50 = "Short to Medium"
2. Raptor = 335 m
3. Phoenix = 488 m
4. Velocity XL = 396 m
5. Velocity SE = 427 m
6. Cozy MK IV = ?
7. Cozy III = ?
8. Long-EZ = 253 m
9. VariEze = 262 m
10. Jetcruzer = 530 m
Any single one of those is between bloody optimistic to downright ridiculous (grass strip, 15C, sea level, no wind). I would be surprised if any of those meet them, even on a perfect level flat, concrete strip.

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Wait, you wanted to hear all objections against it right? If it's too many, simply stop reading after you've found enough.

Any single one of those is between bloody optimistic to downright ridiculous (grass strip, 15C, sea level, no wind). I would be surprised if any of those meet them, even on a perfect level flat, concrete strip.
The Velocity figure, according to their web site, is takeoff distance, not distance to clear 50'. Even then, I suspect that it is optimistic.

BJC

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member

BJC
Sorry...but were we in court I think that it has been entered into evidence and therefore is a fit topic here. I really only wanted the short version, and so far all I have seen is they are not making deliveries.

just looked.... "big brother is watching" I now understand ....we do not need another BD5 debacle....it hurt all of us in aviation.

Last edited:

anvegger

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Any single one of those is between bloody optimistic to downright ridiculous (grass strip, 15C, sea level, no wind). I would be surprised if any of those meet them, even on a perfect level flat, concrete strip.
I really don't care - I operate with the data - and the source of that data is authorized - if you want me to share my research with you feel free to ask. Definitely all numbers could be wrong - but we relay on the source of the data.

Well-Known Member
I really don't care - I operate with the data - and the source of that data is authorized, if you want me to share my research with you feel free to ask.
Definitely all numbers could be wrong - but we relay on the source of the data.
If you apply that attitude to aviation you will be dead within a few years.

FWSwe

Member
Canards per se do not have anything to do with not being able to start or stop within 500 m. I've personally seen a JA37 Viggen, 21000 lbs empty, land within 400 meters of the start of the runway, with each 100 meters marked. But there again it's canards look and move more like the tail fins on a F14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaWn7kX4Es It was designed in the 60's with STOL capability, 400 - 500 meter, and still capable of mach 2.1.

I work across town now, but for a while my workplace was under the low flight demo path of it's "big" brother, the J39 Grippen. It's also a 5th generation, unstable, fly by wire with canards, though smaller than the F35 and not designed for STOL. Last stage of the demo is to fly at 65-70 knots at a 45-50 degree angle for 30 seconds before landing.

Using a canard is no technical limitation if designed right.

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
I really don't care - I operate with the data - and the source of that data is authorized - .
There is only one authorisation to that data, your own verification, eg; Get yourself down to an airstrip on windy days and compare for yourself.

Above I mentioned the "little tell tales" that just aren't quite right, the ones you read, see or hear in projects that cause you to suck a little air in and grimace, you have just displayed one to perfection, i.e. You may well be technically or theoretically correct, but you are treading recklessly at the same time.

The answer is to ask rather than to state - which would include listening as well.

Canards per se do not have anything to do with not being able to start or stop within 500 m.

Using a canard is no technical limitation if designed right.
Relative to the task there is the difficulty of utilising flaps on a canard based craft which offer greater advantages to 'normal' wing set up.

As for the SAAB fighter jet landing distances, the Raptor comes with everything including a kitchen sink apparently, but I don't believe large airbrakes and jet reverse thrusters are optional at this stage.

Last edited:

Swampyankee

Well-Known Member
I think that is being well referenced here : Changing the Industry Phil has produced his personal valuable and honest opinion into many interesting topics and here is his 2 cents:
I think he's also ignoring a lot of changes in the financial landscape for people in the demographic that could produce private aurcraft owners. One is that the new middle managers come to their jobs with student loan payments that are the size of NYC rents; if you're coughing up $1500/month to the student loan sharks, on$5000/month before-tax dollars, when unemployment is a fickle CEO's bonus downsizing away, and you need a car and a rent without hot-and-cold running rats, pilot license is really low on the priorities.

Thirty and forty years ago, the financial conditions were better for many people. So was the fact that before cell phones and email companies did not expect 24/7 availability from white collar staff.

Well-Known Member
As another software person, I think the software industry has a truly awful record when it comes to delivering on time, on spec and in budget

From bitter experience, doing an "all new" design massively increases the risk of failure : new hardware doesn't meet the engineers' optimistic predictions, new electronics suffers from unexpected noise glitches, new software has missing features because the specs weren't nailed down - combine all three and you can be in deep trouble.

If they started with an unpressurised prototype, powered by a tried and tested engine, and worked up from there, I would give them a better chance of success.

In my work, we build machines that can kill people, or at least cause very expensive damage. Aircraft are an even more extreme version of that.

Most software these days is rushed to market, and the bugs worked out later. That approach doesn't work with safety-critical systems.

I hope they succeed, but cannot see how they will meet all their planned objectives in therir planned timeframe.

anvegger

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I hope they succeed, but cannot see how they will meet all their planned objectives in therir planned timeframe.
The only possible chance in my honest opinion would be given if many and more followers would be able to work on that target. I agree the data is very very limited. But was that available at all for the frontrunners like Otto Lilienthal or Write Brothers? The aviation is all about pioneering. Someone is creating a ludicrous flying car, another one is using his musculus to fly from the skyscraper , the third one is adding a propeller to a parachute ... many many examples of foolish ideas at the time became the reality today. Where is the end of this story? There is non. We all doing the same foolish (at a glance) things. Even a "proven design" if presented to a public domain most likely would be rejected : "we have seen that one already, go do your research and bring something better new and unknown"

:emb:

anvegger

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
If you apply that attitude to aviation you will be dead within a few years.
That is another good point. And most likely you are correct. The key combination here is: I WILL BE DEAD. And the only uncertain is the time for that to happen Many people in Aviation are killed "in line of duties" Experienced and newbies, Engineers and Pilots, Researches and Testers... many many just passengers around the globe. That is the nature of that lifestyle. Is anyone from those who just walks on the street or drives their car secured from the death? Nope... I am sure you know that.

anvegger

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Thirty and forty years ago, the financial conditions were better for many people. So was the fact that before cell phones and email companies did not expect 24/7 availability from white collar staff.
At the golden age of Aviation we all know how many companies went out of business using a "proven" design. And as of today - same thing: many homebuilders who tried to succeed in a specific market niche : would it be warbirds, nostalgic planes (like sportster for example), Light Sport etc ... have failed. Look at the SAM Aircraft as a perfect example. Thierry Zibi has created an airplane that:

1. looks very much like many War-Birds ;
2. All Metal Kit Traditional Design;
3. Inexpensive and easy to construct.
4. LSA compatible;
5. Roomy and stylish (to the extend)
6. All documented with prototype tested.
7. Well established in terms of a marketing support AND....

Sold everything after a year of unsuccessful attempt of penetrating the market. I am glad that he sold it to Zenith Aero - Zodiac people might be able to contribute something into their success of CH planes. Have you heard about them at all? Just an example. And "unsuccessful" as of today (or this far) Terrafugia , iCon among with Cobalt' Valkyrie and Raptor are constantly shaking the ground trying and trying and trying again to penetrate that shell ... New customers are coming and they do expect something different.

Last edited:

anvegger

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Taking a moment or two a week to address questions or misconceptions is part of the business.
Peter has responded to my note about participating - and I understand his point too - they are busy working on proving the Raptor's success:
Peter Muller said:
Andrey, Obviously I am aware of all the naysaying out there. Just give us some time to prove all of them wrong. I don’t feel like I have to answer to any of them. Keep in mind that every day we are working hard to make the Raptor a reality whereas they are just sitting at their computers doing nothing but spew negativity.
I have been thru that a lot myself. Sometimes it is frustrating. Sometimes it is just silly. I would be here not advocating him but simply paying respect for his hard work. And do my best to contribute everything in my power to see the success, the failure people see better. That is normal reaction of the fear. Viam supervadet vadens = with its feet cuts through the path it follows. Something like that.
:speechles

BoKu

Pundit
HBA Supporter
Are we there yet?

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
I think we should respect the hard work and hours that have gone into this design. They are actually making molds and parts which is a lot more than many folks are doing here.

The hurdles are many. I wish them luck and wait for them to complete the prototype, fly it and post actual performance numbers.

Midniteoyl

Well-Known Member
I think we should respect the hard work and hours that have gone into this design. They are actually making molds and parts which is a lot more than many folks are doing here.

The hurdles are many. I wish them luck and wait for them to complete the prototype, fly it and post actual performance numbers.
This ^^^... While I certainly have been here long enough to know better about getting overly enthusiastic about any new plane announced, constant armchair engineering and bickering does nothing. As for "..taking a moment or two a week to address questions or misconceptions is part of the business..", I disagree.. Nobody is required to answer or refute anything. They are not beholden to anyone but themselves and any investors. If it fly's, that's proof enough. If it doesn't, so what? You get to say 'I told you so', sip your coffee and act smug, but that doesn't actually accomplish anything so in the end was worthless.

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Status
Not open for further replies.