# Raptor Composite Aircraft

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Dexacare, Mar 28, 2016.

1. Apr 1, 2016

### rv6ejguy

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jun 26, 2012
Messages:
3,749
2,824
Location:
The folks behind this project seem reasonable and humble from their YouTube vids. I can cut people like that some slack and I think they realize they are going to learn a lot doing this project. Folks who say they're GOING to revolutionize aviation with their engine or airframe design and everyone else is an idiot who came before them- well they often need a dose of reality and deserve some harsh comments sometimes, especially when smart people in the field can see it's not probable, especially when said engine or airframe has never even run/ flown, let alone been built in many cases.

birdus, Topaz, autoreply and 2 others like this.
2. Apr 2, 2016

### PW_Plack

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
May 25, 2015
Messages:
154
71
Location:
West Valley City, UT
It is not "part of the business." It's a priority for social media participants who have way more spare time than management. From their side, they'd risk lending credibility to messages over which they have no control, and it would take way more than "a moment or two" to deal with the roughly 14 new posts generated every day since this thread started.

There's far more urgency to your hunger for details than there is for their need to deliver them.

rv6ejguy, narfi and Midniteoyl like this.
3. Apr 2, 2016

### Pitts540F

#### New Member

Joined:
Apr 1, 2016
Messages:
1
2
Location:
Newnan, GA
I flew into Cherokee County to check out the operation a few months ago. After talking to Jeff and Peter and seeing the operation there is no doubt in my mind that the Raptor will fly!

birdus and anvegger like this.
4. Apr 2, 2016

### BJC

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
10,221
6,953
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
I don't understand all the skepticism here about this wonderful new machine. Just consider a few of its features:

Pressurized
Parachute system optional, add $10,000 Unproven engine Unproven cooling / deice system Unproven PSRU Full Garmin suite 5 blade MT propeller Retractable LG Bigger cabin than a Cirrus Heavier engine than a Cirrus Lighter empty weight than a Cirrus Much faster than a Cirrus More useful load than a Cirrus Three times the MPG of a Cirrus Construction centers on all continents (Antarctica too?)$130,000 vs. \$750,000 for a Cirrus

I think that I saw one fly over yesterday, but it was so high that I wasn't able to make a positive ID. I'll probably buy one at Sun n Fun next week, then re-sell it to a frustrated Cirrus pilot for a nice profit.

BJC

5. Apr 2, 2016

### cheapracer

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 8, 2013
Messages:
5,829
4,295
Location:
Australian
Its a nonsensical plane that will never fly as offered, however I don't give a flying dog's tail if it does or doesn't.

However, what everyone should care about is for every deposit they take, and about 350 now I think(?), that is the potential loss of a sale for a real existing manufacturer with a real product, and after they fail, that sale may well never be recovered from the bad taste left in the clients mouth.

It affects and damages the industry as a whole and burdens everyone who is a part of it.

6. Apr 2, 2016

### rv6ejguy

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jun 26, 2012
Messages:
3,749
2,824
Location:
I'm pretty certain this aircraft will not be meeting many of its design goals and may never even be completed/ flown as envisioned. I've seen too many similar projects bite the dust or come up well short of the mark and then disappear.

People putting down deposits for such an ambitious project which is not even built yet and has never flown or been proven to meet projections deserve whatever they get in the end. Fools and their money are soon parted. Do you have to be first on your block to have this?

Damage to the industry? Only if one expects most of these projects to actually revolutionize the market. Par for the course is failure, but it will be interesting to see what happens to this one in the end. Everybody needs to have a dream. As I said, this one at least is being built (so far), where others which have been discussed here on HBA have little concrete to show after years of "development" and hype. People probably know which one I'm referring to here.

birdus, Topaz and Turd Ferguson like this.
7. Apr 2, 2016

### anvegger

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Jul 6, 2015
Messages:
481
124
Location:
LACONIA NH USA
I just posted [fairly] the same comment into the reaa.ru. Yesterday I spend all my evening researching the subject' history. I have a very good book in my shelf call General Aviation Aircraft Design . That book is definitely the one to sit down and deeply study the theory. From ground up to the rocket science. Make your guess how much they have about canards (out of 1031 pages long). You won't believe it - only two pages. But the credits given to the Wrights Flyer : the first successful heavier-than-air airplane. That was canard design. The 14-bis (Quatorze-bis), also known as Oiseau de proie ("bird of prey" in French),[1] was a pioneer era canard biplane designed and built by Brazilian aviation pioneer Alberto Santos-Dumont. The aircraft made the first publicly witnessed European manned flights by a powered heavier-than-air machine. So the point is the canard design is always have been appealing to aviators. The Raptor will fly - if not in 2016 - than in 2020 but it will - This team deserves their credits. At the end that is not about the product that is advertised but about someone's dream to be chased.

8. Apr 2, 2016

### Turd Ferguson

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 14, 2008
Messages:
4,916
1,820
Location:
Upper midwest in a house
There's one that can't show any aspects of development because apparently, every component has a pending patent. It's going to be the first fully patented homebuilt!!

cheapracer likes this.
9. Apr 2, 2016

### Turd Ferguson

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 14, 2008
Messages:
4,916
1,820
Location:
Upper midwest in a house
It would be terrific if Raptor had a new development to show. Like 3 flying surfaces or fan jet power. Canards went through their heyday in the early 80's. They were most prolific type on the flightline at OSH. The variations sprouted like weeds, side by side, 4 place, cabin style, twins, etc. The limitations became well known, poor takeoff/landing performance, limited to hard surfaces, limited c.g. range, good but not outstanding performance, etc. So no, the canard design is not appealing to everyone, not like it once was. Hard to believe someone is going to revive the design and with minor tweaking it's going to fly higher, faster, further than man has ever gone before - all at LSA prices! Just doesn't pass the smell test.

If they worked under secrecy like a "skunkworks" and showed up on the ramp with a plane that can wow me, I'd be impressed on many fronts, including dream chasing. But making all these performance claims before pulling a plane out of the molds then complaining about negativity is called "whining" where I'm from. When one follows that model they are essentially asking for criticism and there' s no shortage of critics.

Topaz and rv6ejguy like this.
10. Apr 2, 2016

### proppastie

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
Messages:
4,044
1,187
Location:
NJ
cheap focus group

Turd Ferguson likes this.
11. Apr 2, 2016

### rv6ejguy

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jun 26, 2012
Messages:
3,749
2,824
Location:
If this thing actually gets completely built and flies, I'll be impressed with that alone. That's a huge accomplishment for a small team. As far as meeting all performance and cost targets, I frankly don't see how that's possible but it should be a lovely thing to behold.

BoKu, Battler Britton and anvegger like this.
12. Apr 2, 2016

### Swampyankee

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Dec 25, 2015
Messages:
1,411
367
Location:
Earth USA East Coast
Three surface aircraft? I think there's one that's been put into service, and, overall, I don't think there are very many aerodynamicists who think they're much more than a solution in search of a problem.

It would be a fun project to design a turbofan-powered aircraft, say around one of Williams Research's engines. It would not be trivial, and may not be practical for a kitplane. A big problem is, of course, where do you put one turbofan: putting it on the top of the rear fuselage means the inlet will be operating in a less-than-pristine flow field, due to the fuselage, which could mean the unlovely "pop,pop,pop" of engine surge just when trying to spool up to miss that stupid guy crossing the runway in his lawn mower (a former coworker got to hear that unlovely noise in a commercial jet that was landing; a helicopter pilot chose that time to cross the active runway and the airline pilot had to abort the landing).

13. Apr 2, 2016

### Tom Nalevanko

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 10, 2007
Messages:
1,316
132
Location:
Alpine, WY
Not true, a properly designed 3 surface aircraft with the same dimensions/surface area and power plant will exceed both a conventional and a canard design.

Blue skies,

Tom

Topaz, Midniteoyl and cheapracer like this.
14. Apr 2, 2016

### cheapracer

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 8, 2013
Messages:
5,829
4,295
Location:
Australian
You are absolutely correct Ross, they are doing the hard yards regardless of the end result.

15. Apr 2, 2016

### Turd Ferguson

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 14, 2008
Messages:
4,916
1,820
Location:
Upper midwest in a house

Piaggio P. 180 does pretty well for a plane that's only "scratching the three lifting surface" lol (pun intended)

The rest of the debate is here: http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/f...chnology/8269-3ls-three-lifting-surfaces.html

Battler Britton and rv6ejguy like this.
16. Apr 3, 2016

### Topaz

#### Super ModeratorStaff Member

Joined:
Jul 30, 2005
Messages:
13,964
5,588
Location:
Orange County, California
And there's the rub. I wish for heck's sake that companies like this would either put the entire development out there for all the world to see - especially the design phase including all the numbers - or shut the heck up until they have a flying prototype that backs up their claims. What we get is "mystery development", followed by "we're building the best airplane ever!"

Getting really tired of that.

At this point, no amount of armchair quarterbacking is going to make a whit of difference. Either they got the numbers right or they didn't. The only way we'll find out is when it flies, if it ever does. No point in prognostications of doom or success until then, IMHO.

BoKu and rv6ejguy like this.
17. Apr 3, 2016

### Hot Wings

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Nov 14, 2009
Messages:
6,635
2,522
Location:
Rocky Mountains

Ditto.

nucleus, cheapracer and BBerson like this.
18. Apr 3, 2016

### BJC

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
10,221
6,953
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
There is something fascinating about watching a train wreck occur in slow motion, even though you know that it will not end well ....

BJC

nucleus, Kiwi303 and cheapracer like this.
19. Apr 3, 2016

### Kiwi303

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 22, 2015
Messages:
253
99
Location:
En Zed. Aka The Shire.

The same human nature than makes Rotten.com so popular.

Through I am with the "For Gods sake, STFU and keep it under wraps until you can fly one to OSHKOSH/Sun-N-Fun and blow raspberries at those who don't like it" crowd, this thread just has me dipping in every now and again just to see where the yammering has reached. 7 pages in a few days.

cheapracer likes this.
20. Apr 3, 2016

Joined:
Jul 6, 2015
Messages:
481