Raptor Composite Aircraft

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

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Apr 1, 2016 #81

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,824
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    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 #82

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    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 #83

    Pitts540F

    Pitts540F

    Pitts540F

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    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 #84

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10,221
    Likes Received:
    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 #85

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    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 #86

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,824
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    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 #87

    anvegger

    anvegger

    anvegger

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    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 #88

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,916
    Likes Received:
    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 #89

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,916
    Likes Received:
    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 #90

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,044
    Likes Received:
    1,187
    Location:
    NJ
    cheap focus group
     
    Turd Ferguson likes this.
  11. Apr 2, 2016 #91

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,824
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    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 #92

    Swampyankee

    Swampyankee

    Swampyankee

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    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 #93

    Tom Nalevanko

    Tom Nalevanko

    Tom Nalevanko

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    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 #94

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    4,295
    Location:
    Australian
    You are absolutely correct Ross, they are doing the hard yards regardless of the end result.
     
  15. Apr 2, 2016 #95

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,916
    Likes Received:
    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 #96

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,964
    Likes Received:
    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 #97

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

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

    Ditto.
    And yet I read this whole thread. :ermm:
     
    nucleus, cheapracer and BBerson like this.
  18. Apr 3, 2016 #98

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10,221
    Likes Received:
    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 #99

    Kiwi303

    Kiwi303

    Kiwi303

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    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 #100

    anvegger

    anvegger

    anvegger

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    124
    Location:
    LACONIA NH USA
    Cobalt's development went thru exactly these steps for almost 10 years. It's started in France then appeared briefly at the Oshkosh in 2010 , moved to Canada and finally presented the plane in 2015 out from San Francisco based headquarters. That what we (IT folks) would call "The corporate approach" In contrary The Raptor team did not hide up at all. It was always on the scale and anybody could take that design since Mr Kerlo constantly asked for some assistance looking for co-mates developers. Without any luck. Then (2014) we have a spark of creation and the group of enthusiasts have been taking that project over. This group is lead by Mr Muller. The outsider from the IT world. And since 2015 that project is available for the public and being followed by hundreds if not thousands of supporters "ayers" and critics "nayers" . That what we (IT falks) would call "The open source approach" . This approach is not any close to capitalization . That approach is not about the money. That is about our freedom and choice That is about our rights , that is about our freedom of flying and dreaming of flying. That is about everything that makes Experimental aviation such an interesting program. And I am sorry, colleague Topaz - but if you are tired of it - that is simply turn your cursor away from this topic. That how you would be guaranteed of "not getting tired of that"
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
    birdus likes this.

Share This Page

Group Builder
arrow_white