The person who gets the lion's share of the blame is the same person who would or will get the lion's share of the glory if and when it works.

Fly Raptor, Fly...

I don't. I cringe a little that my son has to go through that period getting his ratings. That's why I own Laz.

Sure, a crankshaft could fail. A cam could fail. You could throw a rod. However many of those points of failure leave you with partial power to limp to a field.

An aftermarket ECM is not as stable as you would like to think. I work on cars on the side, tune my own TT 3000GT and Audi S4. ECM/ECU's are fairly fragile things. They work great... until they don't.

Redundancy is a good thing. No reason to put this much into something not to have a redundant ECM. One thing to have it that way in the prototype, but his dismissal of it in a production aircraft was one of my big red flags and why I didn't join some of my coworkers who invested.

I like the engine, quite a bit actually. Especially if it was reliable on Jet-A long term instead of the Diesel it was designed for. However I'd want a proper reduction gearbox such as what the 421 has as well as dual channel ECM to ever want one in a plane I'm flying, especially a single.

To each their own.

That's why I think, at the end of the day, out of sheer desperation, he may fix as much as he considers "critical" and go fly it himself, even if it's just in ground effect for a few runs.

We shall see.

I don't. I cringe a little that my son has to go through that period getting his ratings. That's why I own Laz.

Sure, a crankshaft could fail. A cam could fail. You could throw a rod. However many of those points of failure leave you with partial power to limp to a field.

An aftermarket ECM is not as stable as you would like to think. I work on cars on the side, tune my own TT 3000GT and Audi S4. ECM/ECU's are fairly fragile things. They work great... until they don't.

Redundancy is a good thing. No reason to put this much into something not to have a redundant ECM. One thing to have it that way in the prototype, but his dismissal of it in a production aircraft was one of my big red flags and why I didn't join some of my coworkers who invested.

I like the engine, quite a bit actually. Especially if it was reliable on Jet-A long term instead of the Diesel it was designed for. However I'd want a proper reduction gearbox such as what the 421 has as well as dual channel ECM to ever want one in a plane I'm flying, especially a single.

To each their own.

There’s $10k in a go fund me to push to first flight and release escrows.

pretty cool to see people donate $25K to his efforts. Lots of negative Nelly's on here but I admire his efforts. And I know you negative Nelly's have you points and they may be right but every innovation was met with lots of people saying it cant happen and wont work.

If all the innovative people listened to all the haters nothing would ever move forward.

Nothing great was ever done by playing it safe and making everyone happy. Not saying this project will be some world changer but it's still pushing our industry forward. Just like Mike Patey has done by his projects. He inspires and challenges the norm, which is what we need in GA.

If the only thing Peter did was show the aircraft manufactures that they need to innovate and stop using 50 year old tech then the project was good for GA.

I think the Raptor will fly and can be a great aircraft. Will it be perfect, No. Will if fill a niche and be the best plane for many people? yes The fact that Peter had some crazy claims early on does not take away from what it can be.

Mike

Genuine question: would you please list the innovations for me as demonstrated in the prototype? What I mean is: please tell me what is so good in this thing now that is almost completely built.

Genuine question: would you please list the innovations for me as demonstrated in the prototype? What I mean is: please tell me what is so good in this thing now that is almost completely built.

There are no positive innovations, and even his many mistakes are not innovative. I am not critical because He is trying something unproven, I am criticizing him for not learning from his mistakes and the mistakes of others.

You are right there is not new "inventions" here. The innovation is putting many things together that have not been integrated in the past. Thats still innovation.

Peter has a Jet A burning engine in a modified Velocity airframe, BRS, variable intake, gear reduction, pressurization, etc. These features have not been put in a single aircraft and he is in the prototype phase so its OK he is not proven all systems yet.

its like Mike Patey's suspension for his Scrappy Cub build. It is nothing new but he took a design from off-road vehicles and intreated it into his build, that make his build innovative.

Many innovative advancements came from simply using tech that already existed and putting it together in a new system.

Mike

But, does he have pressurization?? I’m not too sure how well you can pressurize a vessel if it has a cracked window.

Right now, we have an aircraft built that has a cracked window, engine that we don’t know the hp or torque for, one person plus fuel puts it at gross weight.

What he has proven is you cannot build a $450,000 aircraft for $130,000. Physics is physics no matter what you want. It’s got to the point of guys starting a go fund me for the guy so he can fix it so the elevator doesn’t lockup while it’s in a roll. His only hope is to get it fixed quickly and get it in the air so he can ask to get the escrows released.

Jet-A = Diamond.
gear Reduction = Diamond
BRS = Cirrus and others via STC
Pressurization = M500, M600, PC12

If you want to discuss this in a single plane:
Lancair IVP and Evolution.

Everything Raptor is trying has been done before. Many times.
As much as I admire Peter's stubborn push ahead mentality, that mentality is also going to hurt the project. He absolutely refuses to learn anything from anyone who has gone before.
Systems are a major failure point on experimental aircraft; and they take a long time to work out. As a general rule if you follow experimental aircraft, when you attempt to do more than one new thing, you end up failing.
Peter has a new airframe, new auto adaptation that has not really worked out TV issues, new flight controls, new power-train. At the end of the say, he has made his life infinitely more complicated than needed. BWTHDIK? I am SGOTI.

Tim

Yes lots of issues with the build for sure. Just about every new build has issues. That’s why there are prototypes, beta, pre production, and production units of any Project like this.

I guess I feel for the guy and have some respect for him trying to do something new. If you saw the details of any new build you would be shocked at how many issues come up. And that’s from pro experienced builders.


Nobody is perfect, well except the peanut gallery on Internet forums. They are all experts. Haha.

If you have ever tried to do something that nobody has ever done than you would have some respect for the guy. It’s so easy to judge when you are not the one taking the risk and trying. There is a reason large companies can not innovate. It takes small companies with guys that do not know any better to try and make things better. Some are successful and most are not.

Mike

I would suggest that for every really new, imaginative, innovative product, there are a hundred or more failures, and we'll never remember most of their names or the products.

The physics of flight are pretty well understood, and have been since WWII. We'll see minor advances now and again, but nothing more unless someone produces a radical new form of propulsion.

The basic design of a hammer hasn't changed much since they were made of stone.