I don't know if any of you saw the hour-long youtube video by his test pilots, describing their experience with Peter, but it was pretty clear Peter wasn't willing to listen to them. They gave him a squawk list of over two dozen items, and when they returned a few months later, he hadn't addressed hardly any of them. I haven't seen hide nor hair of the test pilots lately - I wonder if they excused themselves from the project. They convinced him to change to an airport with a longer runway, and that's the last I heard of them.

Sounds like a lot of the same kind of curiosity I have about it. The contentious implementation and details notwithstanding, I think it's an interesting project. It's like an "improved" Velocity with an innovative powerplant as its heart. Technically, all that is very ambitious, it's a lot to bite off and chew, but that's exactly what makes it so interesting.

(But for that implementation...)

This Peter guy appears to exhibit at least 2 of the 5 Hazardous Attitudes.

Does he have a bio somewhere? A short one. I’m just curious about his previous experience designing and building airplanes, tuning engines, going to college, etc.

A number of people have said recently in this thread, “I think it’ll fly but. . . .” What inspires this unbridled optimism? I don’t know if it’ll fly or not, but I won’t be surprised if it flies to an altitude 2 feet less than the top of the airport fence.

Early on in one of his videos where he said that he was going to be using a VPX for power distribution, I pointed out something he needed to to plan on since I had installed a VPX in my plane. I got a "That was covered in a previous video. Try to keep up." I have seen similar responses when others have offered some helpful observations.

I understand the challenge of taking advice from anonymous strangers, but if you're posting progress videos on youtube they are effectively public relations/advertising. So you better be prepared to answer the same question over and over with a smile on your face.

Since I got the response, when I have seen something that I have run into that will become a problem, I have not made any attempt to let him know.

On Homebuilt Airplanes’ site there’s a 300+ page thread. Somewhere in there someone said Peter’s background is in software.

From his avoidance of actual numbers, engineering and analysis, I would doubt that Peter has the technological chops to carry on a conversation with an engineering student.

From his avoidance of actual numbers, engineering and analysis, I would doubt that Peter has the technological chops to carry on a conversation with an engineering student.

From the Raptor website, http://raptor-aircraft.com/peter.html
"Peter was born in Melbourne, Australia.... B.S in computer science....Apple...his own software company...heavily into flight simulation for 8 years...Instrument, Commercial, CFI and CFII"
All of which explains a lot about his development approach. In software the mantra is "move fast and break things": Rapid prototyping; get something out there quickly to test; fix bugs and add features in the next version; repeat. That doesn't work so well in aviation, as we're seeing.

The right way to do this would have been not one but two prototypes: One a stock Velocity, just buy one and put the diesel on it. The other the new airframe with a standard engine. When the bugs are out of both of them, then put them together. If he'd done that he'd be far ahead right now. Except that he wouldn't have gotten all that deposit money selling reality instead of fantasy.

From the videos I watched from both sides, I'm thinking the feeling was somewhat mutual. They weren't comfortable with his fast fixes and responses to things they found. He didn't like his product being scrutinized (which seems to be a recurring theme). The only thing that seems to have come out of it was he did move the aircraft to a better airport.

Justin and Elliot are not the first professionals that Peter has run off. I recall someone here had been previously involved with both Velocity and Raptor ... and Peter ran them off.

Whaaaat? Peter is Australian. Well, bugger me!

Now this potential trainwreck is suddenly seems much closer to home.

I look on here occasionally, dreading to see that the bloody thing has crashed.

Now, though, I'm wondering how one of my neighbours down the street may feel about this when their friend or relative has died.

We all hope that some dumb pelican from another country will %#$@ things up.

Closer to home, as I said.

Also being in software myself, another mantra is "work small" -- breaking down problems into digestible, deliverable pieces vs boiling the ocean or intermingling two problems at once. What you mention above is a prime example of that.

I will say that there are a lot in this industry (IT) that find satisfaction in over-complicating things, vs keep things simple...so not super surprised at his habits there. Pretty sure I would not recommend him for my software team if his resume crossed my desk, based on working habits, mindsets, and practices...

Also being in software myself, another mantra is "work small" -- breaking down problems into digestible, deliverable pieces vs boiling the ocean or intermingling two problems at once. What you mention above is a prime example of that.

I will say that there are a lot in this industry (IT) that find satisfaction in over-complicating things, vs keep things simple...so not super surprised at his habits there. Pretty sure I would not recommend him for my software team if his resume crossed my desk, based on working habits, mindsets, and practices...

I'm pretty sure that Peter's explanation for running Wasabi off was that it was too expensive to gave his test pilots based on the other side of the country. And, them mumbled some stuff about disagreeing with some of their findings.

One of his biggest issue is that he is by himself.
Most developments are done in a team. Where you can bounce ideas, after you have checked your ego at the door.