There's no denying the entertainment value in the early and middle parts of this thread.

--
In regards to the static system plumbed to the cabin, yep, that's a very, ahem, strange temporary expedient. I know for airplanes without an alternate static port built in, the old gouge for a suspected static system blockage is to break the glass on your VSI- but that's for when you're already in the air.

For flight test, I don't understand why he doesn't put a combined pitot-static probe out in front on about a 3' long stick. True, it would be another day of delay and the days add up, but still...



It'll be interesting to see what changes and tweaks the test pilot(s) demand in the coming weeks.

So true. But I'm in until the fiery end.

That would be too cheap, too easy, make too much sense, and wouldn’t require several more 1/4” thick steel brackets.

Latest video is him replacing the brakes after all the high speed testing and glazing the discs from improper break-in procedure. Meanwhile, Patey released a video showing his 4 10" screen Garmin G3X panel. Fantastic contrast.

I am less and less a fan of the Raptor. Like most I have major doubts at this point about the viability of the overall project. I am not a fan boy or trying to defend Peter, so please don't take what I am about to say that way. To compare Peter to Patey is not really a fair comparison. Patey has designed and built 14 airplanes, this is Peter's first. Patey has a lot more pull and connections with vendors in the aviation industry from what I can tell. This gives him tons of advantages and increases his knowledge. Patey has much deeper pockets for his project from what I can tell. He is also trying to build a one off, awesome fun plane for him to fly. Scrappy will never be something you or I can buy. Peter is trying to build something for production and something that meets the needs of masses. All things are never equal but this comparison that keeps popping up between the builder of raptor and scrappy is just not valid in my mind. I love Patey and Scrappy and his videos are awesome, that plane is crazy cool so this is not a dig at them in any way.

And while we are at it does anyone know when Mike Patey sleeps? Or what he eats, or what vitamins that guy takes. His energy level and stamina are off the chart. I want some of that!

Pete,

You have some good points. But I am pretty sure Mike P does not spend nearly what Peter does. Mike P does all his own work and is pretty good at value engineering. For sure this build he has more coverage and partners willing to help but he just puts in the time and hard work, he does not just write checks. If Mike had to pay someone to design and build all of his parts his planes would cost many Millions. LOL

The main difference is Peter really does not bring much value to the over all project. He does not have any required skill sets or experience. So Peter has to pay people to do just about everything. Mike P has all the required skill sets to build a plane on his own with 20 years of experience.

I think Peters needs to switch from quantity to quality in his videos.

I believe the gap from Prototype to production is getting wider and wider as time goes on for the Raptor. It now seems he will have to re do just about every aspect of the plane to make it production and thats if he can get it to fly with good numbers.

Just want to see it fly, I don't get what the hold us is.

Mike

I think Peter brought the idea to the table, but that's not enough if you're by yourself.

Patey admits he doesn't require much sleep, and his personal creed is "work hard." He has the advantage of experience, but also incredible fabrication machinery and work space. Until his latest video, I always wonder who cleaned up his massive hangar and organized stuff. Turns out his camera guy does all that.

Peter on the other hand, has failed at some massive pieces like the pressure vessel. If this plane isn't pressurized, I think it gets ignored. Then of course, his prototype weight is way beyond a reasonable margin of error.

Every time I watch the videos I think the cabin is "too wide." Everybody likes elbow room, but man it looks like a Humvee in the front row.

Ideas are a dim a dozen.


Good execution is where the value is.


Mike

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Tim (could not resist)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Tim (could not resist)

lmao. Ok, so which one of the three is Peter?

Tim

Kitplanes happens to have a timely article today, that is incidentally pertinent to this thread. Lots of important, but subtle details about flying an airplane that shares a lot of design characteristics with the Raptor.

Along a similar safety philosophy, EAA has a formal Flight Advisor program, "... designed to increase sport aviation safety by developing a corps of volunteers who have demonstrated expertise in specific areas of flying and making them available to EAA members who may be preparing to fly an unfamiliar aircraft."

I don't know one way or the other which things Peter, or anyone involved in the Raptor, have drawn from but regardless, my overall point is that there are some really great resources out there.


Here's the article. It's good food for thought:

Velocity U

You could probably figure out how to fly one on your own, but it wouldn’t be pretty. Velocity will show you how.

He should have started by building a Velocity or three. That experience would have put him in a much better place and he might have made a few $$ for his time and effort AND had some safe fun doing it. The V-Twin is gorgeous!

The Raptor reminds me of the TAA-1, a Scaled Composites Joint Venture, which looks a whole lot like the first try at the Cirrus.

My thoughts are that this aircraft will be a pig and interest will dry up after that first flight if it is anything less than stellar! We have already seen what many of us have predicted - this will be slow to accelerate, even single pilot, and will have a high rotation speed. Then again, the Velocity has a fast rotation and landing speed BUT it is lightweight and can be very well constructed without all that 1/4 steel. The Velocity and VTWIN are gorgeous planes.

Maybe he can read about the TAA-1 in his downtime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_TAA-1

The empty weight of the prototype was significantly beyond predictions and the unsubstantiated rumors within the industry are that the aircraft's performance during the test flight was below what was expected, and it does not appear that much flight test activity followed the initial flight.

The prototype aircraft remains stored in a Scaled Composites hangar. A follow-on design, TAA-2, (substantially similar airframe with retractable landing gear, upgraded avionics and higher performance engine with constant speed propeller) was also envisioned however never made it to the prototype stage.

After several years of negotiation for a potential joint venture with the general aviation piston aircraft market leader of that time, interest in the TAA-1 declined after the initial flight test and that outside partnership development evaporated shortly thereafter.