Wes Montgomery was a jazz guitar player, stuck in moderate obscurity and low pay. With a wife and 6 kids to feed, he quit gigging, took a second shift job as a welder in an Indianapolis factory and practiced the guitar alone every night, playing quietly so as not to disturb the kids. After two years, he emerged from his apartment as one of the best guitarists in the world.

Maybe Peter should take this opportunity to spend a couple of years woodshedding his engineer chops.

This is exactly why that Bezos guy decided not to pursue his crazy “inter-webs department store” idea. Smart man.

Going against convention can be successful. But Peter’s decision making seems predicated on the idea that going against convention, in and of itself, will result in success, even in areas where history (and physics) proves otherwise.

Bezos did it the right way, and iteratively improved his product. If you recall, he started with just a bookstore - start small/simple, then expand. The bookstore lead to a broader marketplace, which lead to needing more logisitics, which lead to commercializing his IT operations, which lead to his freight/delivery operations.

Peter would've been much smarter to bite off things in the same way. New airframe design, pressurization, new powerplant...they all combine to make a substantial challenge for a small shop that's never built an airplane before. I'd have been shaking out the airframe with a lowly IO550 strapped on the back...and have the diesel and redrive out hours upon hours on the test stand on the ground. Innovation is good, but there's a smart way to do it.

Today's recently posted Raptor YouTube video makes no mention of yesterday's events.

True, but you're not going to get investors making another pressurized 4 place single piston Avgas plane.

People would just buy a Lancair IV-P with its TSIO-550 and move on about their day.

The engine was honestly the only thing about this design that interests me. Then again my dream plane is a 6-place pressurized full-deice push/pull plane like the Adams 500 but actually in a decent weight class with lots of range that's Jet-A and under $300k.

I suspect a lot of people were lured by the Jet A burning plane.

Closest I'll probably get is an experimental Cessna 340 with a single turboprop on the front and better wings for better speed. I wouldn't mind a set of Lancair IV wings on it, as critical as the wing loading is. My day job has 120-140 Kt ref speeds and it would be just as easy to fly an approach at that speed as it is 90 kts.

Strapping an IO550 to a test-mule (prototype 1) wouldn't preclude still aiming, marketing, and planning to burn Jet-A (and getting your investors). If anything, I might actually help as it would show some degree of discipline, planning, and aims toward a more structured test program.

I'd argue that it'd also be faster in the long run...you go slow to go fast. All these flights haven't been able to shake out much around the airframe - things would be further along, and much more confidence inspiring, by going a more iterative route IMHO.

Glad he's on the ground safe and sound, but that project/program is a handful the way it sits currently.

Believe what you want, I just design diesel engines for a living.

Bezos came up with a new business model to fit a rapidly evolving economic and technological world.

Peter is reusing an existing engine in a physical world where the laws of physics haven’t changed in 15 billion years.

There is absolutely nothing in common between the two of them.

He says "tune in to Sunday's video, it will be exciting"

Side note...in today's video, looks like he was getting around 135kts (true) on 12GPH at 4000'...just based on quick math on the GS from his circuits, as his IAS still reads high. Downwind legs were ~160kts, upwind legs were ~110kts.

In theory, it would get a bit more speed at higher power settings, but would also mean higher fuel flows...

there is an old wisdom I heard from experienced experimental aircraft builder.

never put an experimental engine into an experimental aircraft. do one at a time with known technology in the other

even Steve Wittman did not work on his v8 engine to power his aircraft until the airframe design was well proven.

Bezos came up with a new business model to fit a rapidly evolving economic and technological world.

Peter is reusing an existing engine in a physical world where the laws of physics haven’t changed in 15 billion years.

There is absolutely nothing in common between the two of them.

What Peter's missing is that success in the face of convention requires innovation, often significant. He's not innovating anything.

What Peter's missing is that success in the face of convention requires innovation, often significant. He's not innovating anything.