I thought it stood for Raptor No Good.

Mike C.

I do not expect that NTSB would, just like our ATSB do not investigate every incident. I would have thought there was a regulatory requirement to lodge an incident report, and all they do is file it for statistical purposes or if a surge in tyre failures for example occurs it can trigger a deeper look.

Is there not a requirement there?

I do not expect that NTSB would, just like our ATSB do not investigate every incident. I would have thought there was a regulatory requirement to lodge an incident report, and all they do is file it for statistical purposes or if a surge in tyre failures for example occurs it can trigger a deeper look.

Is there not a requirement there?

How about Raptor Next Grift

Let's see. Two ducted fans replace the single larger prop (at least the redrive is gone), and shorter wings in biplane form.

This will definitely reduce the weight and drag considerably. After all, everybody knows that small ducted fans and short low aspect ratio wings are more efficient than a large diameter prop and long high aspect ratio wing.

Anybody wanna take bets on the 2000 lb empty weight?

Admittedly, electric motors and generators are quite efficient, but you take an IC engine driving a generator powering electric fans and that is more efficient than just driving a prop directly? Oh yeah, there is the “small battery” that will make all the difference…..or not.

It was reported.

Mike C.

NTSB reporting requirement for definition of substantial damage.

“Damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and would usually require significant repair or replacement
Not Considered Substantial Damage:
Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged
Bent fairings or cowling
Dented skin
Small punctured holes in the skin or fabric
Ground damage to rotor or propeller blades
Damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips”.


If the canard is damaged beyond cosmetic, he must report. And looks like he did.

Thanks Mike,

I could not find that, maybe a day or so helped.

I could not believe a plane in a corn paddock (field) would not be a reportable thing.

Thank you for your diligence.

Not to mention how efficient those ducted fans will be at high altitude

This guy needs to just go back to programing. He just makes up the science as he goes. I really do hope they keep the videoing going during development. Because it’s gotten so ridiculous, I want to watch this train wreck in real time.

So I was totally expecting the raptor NG to be a lycoming or continental powered revamp of the original airframe without pressurization or the angle iron. Maybe a CD diesel to keep it real.

Wow I was so far off.

Maybe he should issue vouchers for the Velocity birds... save a bunch of time, and concentrate on developing softwares for a living, since that is what he does.

And so it ends. Looking back at the first few pages of this thread, it appears that the most negative observations and predictions were largely true; it’s a total bust. No disrespect to fellow BTers, but the things written by optimists 5 years ago are so ridiculous that today they look like trolling. Granted, it did fly, but just barely.

Now the theme music starts for Part II. Like most sequels, this will be even worse than the original.

I did watch all 8 minutes of the last video. This guy has what’s called in psychiatric lingo, “poor reality testing.”

I watched the video from the guys that were supposed to do flight testing.

The guy sounded like he has no idea what he's doing (in terms of basic engineering knowledge). I had the impression I was listening to some pilot at the fly in breakfast ...

Someone I know invested well into the six figures on his son's app idea, which seemed pretty obviously destined to fail (I run a software agency and see these ideas almost weekly). His son spent a couple years on it and ultimately failed. I asked him why he would invest in such an unlikely business idea, and he said it was a better value than an MBA.

At least Peter has a good story to tell, not sure he learned much.