Dude should at least take the PC12 off his profile. I mean if we can put something we charter..... I’ve got tickets on a CRJ900 tomorrow. Off to add as my aircraft.

Quite?

Quite?

Dude should at least take the PC12 off his profile. I mean if we can put something we charter..... I’ve got tickets on a CRJ900 tomorrow. Off to add as my aircraft.

Generally speaking, people on this board have a lot of class, so people here don't need to pile on now that the test "flights" are proving the early naysayers correct. The videos speak for themselves.

Generally speaking, people on this board have a lot of class, so people here don't need to pile on now that the test "flights" are proving the early naysayers correct. The videos speak for themselves.

I don’t feel any desire to comment now that all the BS “specs” have been removed from the website. He’s just a guy building his own design and seeing what it will do. Nothing wrong with that. Extraordinary claims, made with complete disregard of realities, invites comment.

I fixed it for you. The problem is he used those extraordinary claims to get about $3 million from people giving $20k to get part of the company and move to the front of the line. Now, he’s probably going to get another $2-2.5 million when he asks people to release their escrows.

Stick with an RV

An RV-10 is the optimum.

I should know.

I fixed it for you. The problem is he used those extraordinary claims to get about $3 million from people giving $20k to get part of the company and move to the front of the line. Now, he’s probably going to get another $2-2.5 million when he asks people to release their escrows.

Myself and others in this thread have done the napkin math on the performance figures. It's really not that hard to learn, especially in the information age. You used to have to crack open an encyclopædia or go on a journey to your public library, oh my, but the knowledge is out there and easier to find than ever.

I expect some of the early investors made an educated choice with their eyes open, took those early projections with a grain of salt, whatever. I expect others took the numbers at face value. As for anyone who is shocked that the numbers have had some downward adjustment probably believes the fuel economy estimates on new car advertising- you don't need to be an engineer or a trained aerodynamicist to grasp that real world numbers sometimes vary a little and sometimes vary a lot.

Buyer beware is never an excuse for seller malfeasance.

I don't see any evidence of deliberate misbehavior here. In fact, with the return of the escrow money I think it's just the opposite. You might accuse Peter of ignorance or naïveté, but I don't get any impression of him being in it for the money.

Thanks Bob.

Spent the last couple of days going back an reading the "nayest" of naysayers posts... and my own. I am happy will all I have written. Some others.. perhaps not.

And re-watching documentaries on the B-29, the P-51, the P-38, the F-14 and many other well loved (but deeply troubled during development) historical icons.

I also re-read an article which I knew was deeply flawed, but had a veneer of logic (Funny given the handle of the Author is "Logical Thought.") if you thought linearly. The world is not. (And neither are polars or their effects)

https://seekingalpha.com/article/250168 ... are-absurd

The Author boldly proclaimed and laid out the "facts" in 2014 (When Tesla struggled to get 35K cars out annually) that a 500K cars per year prognostication by Elon Musk was "absurd." It seems today to be not quite as absurd as some once argued.

Let that sink in given who here has said what about Tesla at various times. Then juxapostion that information across their other beliefs/bodements/utterances...

In regards to the Raptor PROTOTYPE (Emphasis mine)

1. She is heavy/fat. By a lot.
a.) I am sublime about this and feel it is easily solvable.
b.) In doing so the CG issues which plagued early flights can be addressed as well.
c.) This will obviously effect acceleration, ground roll, takeoff speed, climb rate, and most importantly of in regards to performance numbers... induced drag, which is a key component in... the aircraft polar.

Let's see where airframe #2 weighs in

2. She runs hot. Cooling can fix this but will not address what I believe is/are the root cause(s).
a.) The dual turbo set and cooling in general need to be decluged from the PROTYPE. (Common problem that has plagued many early aircraft models and ALL of the models I referenced above.)
b.) I think there may be a problem in the re-drive fluid drain process which is generating heat.
Could be other issues as well. Again am sublime and feel they will be worked out. These things take time.

3.) Am not a fan of the permanent trim tab fix. I believe this is probably a wing incidence problem, or it would roll back the other way when torque comes off. It does not. Again... fixable.. and draggy as hell. Both from an induced and parasitic perspective.

I see from a couple of comments folks got the reverse profile pic joke (and who it was aimed at.) We will just let them keep pounding sand till they figure it out.

Peter is plugging away as he sees best and he will not quit. Barring any unforeseen accidents I am optimistic. There will be plenty of problems and issues ahead....

and loads of armchair critics...

When reading the critics thoughts here (and other places) I find it is worth remembering even Neil Armstrong (aeronautical engineer and university professor among a few other accomplishments) gave a scathing critique of SpaceX and its future prospects in regards to the space program to congress.... AFTER Space had already completed 4 successful mission and brought the first stage back successfully.

He was wrong. And more credentialed then you are.

This will perhaps give a few folks reason to pause and think going forward. Others not so much.

It is kind of them to self-identify.

Cheers and fly Raptor fly.
--Chris


.

tl;dr