It is interesting to me to read all the comments here. Have been following this thread, and the videos for about a year now.

Pretty good metaphor for life.

Some people see all (only?) the problems. (Tend to me the loudest and most opinionated.)

Some people see possible solutions.

Some people see the opportunities.

Some people see all of the above.

A rare rare minority of folks see all of the above and actually do something about it.

And thank God for those folks.

None of us would be flying it that was not the case. A point of view lost on many?

Chris,

Welcome to BT.

Tim

Chris,

Welcome to BT.

Tim[/quote]

Thanks Tim. Appreciate it.

What will you say if a test pilot perishes on the first "flight" of this thing? What if he takes a couple of bystanders with him?

What will you say if a test pilot perishes on the first "flight" of this thing? What if he takes a couple of bystanders with him?

At that point I would say that is both, a tragedy, and an acceptable, calculated, accepted, and known risk, and part of this business (aviation) that would not exist if such risks had both, not been taken in the past, and will and should rightly be taken in the future.

That being said, right now I would say that a fella that can calculate, within a few knots, when the canards of a one-off experimental will have enough control authority to lift the nose wheel off (and then prove he is right via demonstration) stands a better chance of success than folks that have proven to be successful in past aviation endeavours.

I am new to your forum, and don't want to kick up a big cloud of dust right off the bat. That being said, this is obviously a pretty contentious subject and I am trying to both get my arms around the subject at hand while treading lightly as is appropriate.

In that spirit would you mind sharing with me the number, types, and major construction method of planes you have built? Maybe the approximate hours you have spent building them? And perhaps your total PIC time in composite/glass, complex, pressurized, and canard configured aircraft so I can exercise the best possible self judgement in weighing your concerns?

Do you believe having a better idea of your level of demonstrated experience in those areas would be valid modifiers for calculating the probability that your concerns will come to pass into reality? I do. Thanks in advance for sharing.

Yes, the marketing is coming along nicely.

I'm not sure what universe they plan to build it in, the numbers they give certainly aren't from ours.

Mike C.

Oh, brother. . . .

Oh, brother. . . .

I work on diesel engines professionally. Be it considerably larger than the 3.0 Audi. Largest I've ever worked with was 62,000 hp.

That engine aint gonna cut it. Not for what he needs it to do.

It will probably fly. But not for projected specs and that engine won't have any reliability or longevity. Two key factors in an aviation engine. Third key factor for an aviation engine is weight. It fails there too.

I've been following the project closely. But it'll be a one off airframe that flies some and has some serious problems staying in the air because of the engine.

Slap a turbine on it and it'll do a lot better

But now you have the Cirrus SF50.... which is also underpowered.

I just hope nobody gets hurt and people who want their deposit back can get it back.

Maybe we would feel better if he lived in Ohio and built bicycles.

We would all love to see an aviaton diesel cranking out 300 hp on 9.5 gph cruise.

But the thermodynamic efficiency just isn’t there.

Physics was on the Wright Brother’s side.

Thermodynamics is not on the Raptor’s side.

My old instructor, Military ( TEST ) pilot told me to remember one thing! Don't you ever think crashing a plane will not happen to you. Bob had over 26,000 hrs and is well over that now I am sure. Its the one's that think they know it all and have done it all that become complacent and that's when they DIE.

It scared the living Dung out of me! He made me watch some video's of crashes and all of them fatal. It stuck with me to this day!

He’s so good he missed calculating the empty weight so bad the aircraft is already almost at the original projected gross weight.

It would be awesome if he could develop the Raptor and it perform up to his claims. But, it just isn’t going to happen at $130,000 buy in price. He has already gone through $2.7 million. I think he wants to get it in the air and “explain” how he’s going to get the numbers. He’s going to request to get the escrows released. That’s another $3 million to play with

I hope the Raptor teams wins, meaning the aircraft flys close to anticipated specs. What a USA aviation innovation that would be.

This is one of the things I love most about our country. Someone taking a risk privateering something new and a group of people willing to go there with him with financial support.

I will be sad if it does not work and will celebrate if it does. Whether successful or not, the aviation community will learn from the attempt.

-David