BeechTalk - BT - Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Diesel

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 15:39

Username Protected wrote:

Maybe he's been following SpaceX.

Real innovation seldom comes from huge corporate behemoths.

SpaceX is around 10 times the size of Continental and Lycoming combined.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 15:41

Username Protected wrote:

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

Yes it does. It hints twice that the video from that flight should be up on Sunday and that it's worth tuning in for.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 16:11

Username Protected wrote:

That engine had no hope for being a reliable long term option...
I am glad that he found out while being in the pattern.
The design, the location, the lack of cooling... too many weak links in the chain to be a viable option for aviation. This is not a car, with constant throttle changes. This engine was not designed for that. As good as those engine are, they were not designed for a constant RPM at high torque...
Diesel is a good option, but they need to be designed from the ground up.
Why would he think that he could do better than Lycoming and Continental, with their large RD department, deep pockets and years of advanced designs... :doh:

If those guys have not pulled it off yet, how can a dude in a garage make it happen?

You should call up diamond and explain that to them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 16:39

Username Protected wrote:

I'm waiting to hear about the redrive but I didn't know he was getting a rattling. Anyone have a link to that video? I've had a wrist pin turn loose on a TDi before and it does make a distinct sound.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/412pEL4Lb1A[/youtube]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 16:58

Username Protected wrote:

Why would he think that he could do better than Lycoming and Continental, with their large RD department, deep pockets and years of advanced designs... :doh:

I don't think Peter thought he could do better than Lycoming and Continental, he thought Audi could do better. That seems reasonable given that Lycoming and Continental both mostly subsist on products that were developed in the 50s and 60s.

I'm not arguing that the Audi engine he's using is a good choice or that it's going to work in an aviation application. But setting the R&D bar where Lycoming & Continental live is pretty low. Heck, they have a hard time just watching the QC on products they've made for decades.

(Did that sound a little bitter?)

Jack

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 17:07

Username Protected wrote:

And what were they when they started out to build their first prototype rocket compared to their "peers"? How did they compare to Lockheed Martin or Boeing? Bet they looked like a little back yard garage operation by comparison. How did the Wright Bicycle Company look in their little garage workshop compared to Sam Langley and his deep pocket government funded operation? Both of those got spanked by the innovators.

I'm not suggesting that Peter is working at a comparable level, but I am saying that often it is the little garage operation that does the real innovation.

I don't disagree with the notion that innovation comes from the small shops...but I'm not sure I'd use SpaceX as the analogy. They had the backing of Musk's wallet, which is/was the largest in the world. They might be new to the game, but they're hardly a backyard garage operation. New to the game (aka, no-baggage) and well funded is probably the best of both worlds for innovation.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 18:54

Username Protected wrote:

Your criticism of his lack of innovation means nothing because you are not in the arena!

And if you were in the arena, you'd be a competitor so we'd still say your criticism means nothing!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 20:18

Username Protected wrote:

I don't think Peter thought he could do better than Lycoming and Continental, he thought Audi could do better. That seems reasonable given that Lycoming and Continental both mostly subsist on products that were developed in the 50s and 60s.

I'm not arguing that the Audi engine he's using is a good choice or that it's going to work in an aviation application. But setting the R&D bar where Lycoming & Continental live is pretty low. Heck, they have a hard time just watching the QC on products they've made for decades.

Jack

The difference is no one told Audi they were building an airplane engine. Might have better luck if Peter had their cooperation in development, but instead he took a stock car engine and modified it himself.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 21:01

Username Protected wrote:

I don't disagree with the notion that innovation comes from the small shops...but I'm not sure I'd use SpaceX as the analogy. They had the backing of Musk's wallet, which is/was the largest in the world. They might be new to the game, but they're hardly a backyard garage operation. New to the game (aka, no-baggage) and well funded is probably the best of both worlds for innovation.

No doubt that a lot of money was spent, but compare the three that I mentioned, compare anything in the inventory to Falcon 9, compare SLS to Starship. Look at the costs and the quality received for them. Look at the development time and the relative progress and innovation in that time.

No, SpaceX cannot be called a garage company by any measure, but in comparison to its closest competitors I think it’s a fair analogy.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 21:13

Spacex had the luxury of having flexible, visionary ownership; and hired the best pragmatic creative engineers, and listened to them to find the best solutions and had the resources to build, test and perfect them

a good start up with enough resources.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2021, 23:58

Username Protected wrote:

a good start up with enough resources.

And $9 Billion in Federal assistance.

The other thing about SpaceX is they really aren’t new players. The company itself is new(er) but they hired the best and brightest experienced people who were already in the industry.

In a way Peter did the same thing, but he ignored them at every opportunity, whereas Musk encourages and trusts them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Feb 2021, 00:10

John, comparing Peter to the Wright Bros. is beneath you. The Wright Bros were steeped in science. They developed thrust profiles on their propeller blades. Peter is not worthy to be discussed in the same sentence with the Wright Brothers.

No comparison.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Feb 2021, 00:35

Username Protected wrote:

John, comparing Peter to the Wright Bros. is beneath you. The Wright Bros were steeped in science. They developed thrust profiles on their propeller blades. Peter is not worthy to be discussed in the same sentence with the Wright Brothers.

No comparison.

Yeah but the Raptor is faster and carries more people than the Wright Flyer

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Feb 2021, 01:03

Username Protected wrote:

John, comparing Peter to the Wright Bros. is beneath you. The Wright Bros were steeped in science. They developed thrust profiles on their propeller blades. Peter is not worthy to be discussed in the same sentence with the Wright Brothers.

No comparison.

I wasn’t trying to compare them. What I said was “I'm not suggesting that Peter is working at a comparable level, but I am saying that often it is the little garage operation that does the real innovation.” I agree there is no comparison there, it was a sort of tangent. You have to hang on sometimes if you want to follow me :lol:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Feb 2021, 08:18

I think this guy might be a better comparison - a single guy developing something new and making youtube videos about it. It's some nice craftsmanship and the powerplant issues appear well thought out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyiEAcwhirg

skip to 11:40 for the engine