banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 09:47 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 4045 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 270  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 17:42 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
I really think this plane will fly in 2018 and some of them will be built. I don't see any indication of these guys slowing down or stopping. I have been watching the videos for a long time. The guys working on the project are for the most part the same... little turn over in the shop is good. They seem to have good funding behind the project from what I can tell, because they spend money like its going out of style and there is no indication thats an issue. The prototype is steadily progressing and every time they hit an obstacle they figure out a way to overcome it. Unless they discover some major issue with the prototype, that is insurmountable to fix or overcome this plane is going to be built. How many they will sell... who knows? What the final price will be... who knows? How many of the deposits will be pulled when the final numbers are released.... who knows? I think thats all fair to speculate on and this planes price point will certainly go up, and its performance numbers will probably come down. But I bet at least one of those with a deposit will stick it out and fly their raptor even if it significantly under preforms in the numbers department. I think if these guys were going to quit they would have already done it...


No question they are funded, and stubborn (or committed). But making those videos, and uploading them takes time. If they cannot be bothered to take teh time to fix errors on the website, what makes you think they will take the time to fix problems in the design?
So far, most of the issues I have seen them deal with, are manufacturing related, not fundamental design problems.

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 22:49 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 06/28/14
Posts: 977
Post Likes: +704
Location: Pleasanton , TX (KPEZ)
Aircraft: 1963 Bonanza P35
Just to clarify when I said they were spending money like it was going out of style I did not mean that in a negative way. All I was trying to say was they have no problem writing big checks. I don't know who is bankrolling the project but they believe in Peter and this plane. From what I can tell they are not cutting corners, or pinching pennys, or rushing things because they feel like the well is about to run dry.

I have never designed an aircraft, or started an airplane company, but something tells me that getting the prototype up and flying is more then 5% of the work that needs to be done to start production.

I know its not a perfect comparison because its experimental vs certified. But I remember many moons ago reading all kinds of well informed aviators saying the Cirrus would never fly, the chute would never work, the Avidyne avionics would be a disaster etc. Then they found a way to reinvent GA in so many ways.... they have brought a new generation of pilots into GA. In the same way when glass started to appear in airplane panels I remember many many many pilots exclaim they would never trust them, they would burn up in flight, ruin your night vision, never work etc... Now the majority of pilots would love to be able to afford one in their plane.

Just remember, everything is impossible... until someone does it!

To be clear I don't have a deposit on a Raptor and don't have a dog in the fight, but I am pulling for them, not because I want to prove you or anyone else wrong. Certainly not because I want to be right... I really don't care either way. I am hoping they do it because I think it would be great for GA in general. Thats it, I hope they get it done because I think this project has the potential to make a positive impact on GA which is something I happen to love.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 01:15 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1562
Post Likes: +1781
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
I’d love to see them succeed and I certainly believe in unlimited possibilities and innovation. I just don’t see any evidence of that in this project. The workmanship of the prototype doesn’t look good. Have you seen the videos of them running the engine? I wouldn’t bet my life on that motor or the Mickey Mouse set up they are using to drive the accessories much less the mount. (No offense to Mickey) How about the fact that many very smart people have identified egregious and very basic errors in what should be simple math for an “aircraft designer”? This outfit has the want to but nothing I’ve seen indicates they have the know how to pull this off. I hope no one gets hurt.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 10:11 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2128
Post Likes: +1608
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
I love experimental aviation! I love getting my hands dirty around any kind of aviation, whether it’s pulling back on the stick or pulling plugs for a compression check. We have a lot of armchair quarterbacks in this thread that I’ll venture have not the “Love”. I’ve seen many experimental airplanes built where once all the time and effort has been put in, the pilot finds that he has a duck. Experimental aviation isn’t a Van’s kit, it involves a sheet of plans where time and skill are applied. This is a learning experience of the most satisfying kind, especially when your project takes flight. The icing on the cake is that you have spent all that time and effort where you find that it isn’t a duck.

I hope that they find a welcomed trade off and don’t end up with an expensive duck.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 12:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/22/10
Posts: 1147
Post Likes: +350
Company: Stanford University
Location: Brentwood, CA - C83
Aircraft: RV12, RV10
Username Protected wrote:
Experimental aviation isn’t a Van’s kit, it involves a sheet of plans where time and skill are applied.


Having built an RV-7A and an RV-12, I partially disagree with your comment; while the “kit” does simplify a lot of the parts formation, you still spend a couple thousand hours building and using all manner of fabrication; it’s not an Erector set by a long stretch. I do agree that there’s a substantially larger challenge in plans-built aircraft. And that of course is what the folks at Raptor are doing. Meanwhile, as you put it, the armchair quarterbacks, are just throwing rocks at their work.

I’ve realized that this thread is less about factual discussion and more of a “who’s on first” routine about who can make the most sarcastic negative remark about people actually doing something.

_________________
DISCLAIMER: I'm just a jaded engineer and my advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 12:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2128
Post Likes: +1608
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
I have nothing but praise for Van’s builders but they know that they have a great product once finished. The scratch build guy is kinda out on the limb to find out the proof is in the pudding. I wish them well. There aren’t very many (any?) airplanes that have this amount of cabin space available.
The sad part is that you can buy a great airplane less expensively than you can build one. Sad for the builder anyway.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 12:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/22/10
Posts: 1147
Post Likes: +350
Company: Stanford University
Location: Brentwood, CA - C83
Aircraft: RV12, RV10
Username Protected wrote:
The sad part is that you can buy a great airplane less expensively than you can build one. Sad for the builder anyway.


True, you can buy a good condition C172 for less money than it cost me to build my RV-12, but as you should know, there’s a lot of pride in building - doing it yourself. However, you can build a nicely done RV-10 for about $150K, whereas a comparably performing new SR-22 will be A LOT more. But it’s not a fair comparison based on everything from safety standards [having done substantial work on both my Baron and RV’s, the Baron is built like a bank vault and tested and certified to standards the RV was never subjected to] to repair costs [an experimental can be repaired by literally anyone and is much less expensive to repair]

But building an airplane shouldn’t be about the money, hence the old builder Q&A:

Q: How much will it cost to build that airplane?
A: Make a list of all items to buy, add that up, double it - and then throw the paper away and keep building. It will cost what it cost when you’re done.

And that’s a huge difference between buying an airplane and building one.

When you buy, you have a defined cost; it’s a known entity. But when you’re experimenting, changing, building and changing it again - the cost isn’t really known until you’re done. You can speculate and estimate - which is what the Raptor folks have done, quoting $130K for the kit (entry price), but it will be what it is when they’re done. And based on my own experience of building, I’d guess that it will cost more than $130K. Whether that’s a little or a lot, that remains to be seen. For reference, when I bought my RV-7A kit, it was supposed to be done for ~80K, it cost me 110K. My RV-12 was supposed to be 66K, it cost me ~73K. I didn’t cut corners on anything and I did end up putting nicer avionics than spec in both - mostly due to advances in technology over the time it took me to build, and that was the lion’s share of the differences. And yes, none of that includes my labor. But refer to my opening line - building a personal, Experimental-Amatuer Built, aircraft is about the experience and recreation, not a business venture.

It really comes down to the DIY paradigm. Do you hire a contractor to build your garage, or do you build it yourself? I built my own to not only save money, but because I could and I wanted to do it (yeah, both the garage and the airplane I built in it). If you’re not inclined to build your own airplane and your main concern is money, buying a good used one will be save you considerable time and initial cost every time over building your own. Long term costs will be less with the experimental.

_________________
DISCLAIMER: I'm just a jaded engineer and my advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 15:34 
Offline




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 30432
Post Likes: +10541
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
Experimental aviation isn’t a Van’s kit, it involves a sheet of plans where time and skill are applied.


You may have your own description of "Experimental" (Clearly you're excluding the many other Experimental Classifications like Exhibition) but EAB (Experimental - Amateur Built) covers a wide range of efforts, all the way from an "assist" at a production facility that's not much more than gluing pieces together and adding systems (e.g. Epic) to a scratch built one-off (builder's design). Van's kits fall somewhere in the middle of that range.

I have a friend who built a very nice biplane of his own design. There is a strong resemblance to a Pitts S2B and some of it was clearly influenced by a Christan Eagle but aside from the 2 place bubble canopy there probably aren't more than half a dozen pieces that match either of those airplanes exactly. And it flies very well for it's intended purpose of unlimited acro. It probably didn't hurt that he is an aeronautical engineer by schooling and a mechanical engineer by trade.

_________________
-lance

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 17:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/18/09
Posts: 593
Post Likes: +104
Aircraft: 58P
there’s a substantially larger challenge in plans-built aircraft. And that of course is what the folks at Raptor are doing. [/quote]

Of course, every prototype is a plans-built aircraft.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 17:07 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/21/08
Posts: 5430
Post Likes: +6115
Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
I have no doubt they will get it flying, but building a flying prototype is the easy part.
What kills most aviation products is the scaling up process that follows. Supply chains, delivery schedules, tooling for large scale production, ect.
These are the problems that most small entrepreneurs have no answers for. They will need a huge cash infusion and some knowledgeable people to make that happen.
Good luck, they will need it.

_________________
I'm just here for the free snacks


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 17:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/22/10
Posts: 1147
Post Likes: +350
Company: Stanford University
Location: Brentwood, CA - C83
Aircraft: RV12, RV10
Username Protected wrote:
I have no doubt they will get it flying, but building a flying prototype is the easy part.
What kills most aviation products is the scaling up process that follows. Supply chains, delivery schedules, tooling for large scale production, ect.
These are the problems that most small entrepreneurs have no answers for. They will need a huge cash infusion and some knowledgeable people to make that happen.
Good luck, they will need it.


Let me get this straight, you think getting the prototype designed, built and flying is the easy part...seriously? Wow. Is that based on your experience or just speculation?

Again, when I hear about supply chains and large scale production, it sounds like production aircraft, which confuses “experimental kits” with a certified aircraft production line. With the exception of Van’s, most kit vendors are happy to sell a few kits a month; not exactly large scale production. And that’s KITS, not turn-key AIRPLANES.

Based on communication with Peter Mueller, they’re hoping for 100-150 kits a year. And that would be a lot, IMHO.

_________________
DISCLAIMER: I'm just a jaded engineer and my advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 17:43 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2128
Post Likes: +1608
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
Username Protected wrote:

Based on communication with Peter Mueller, they’re hoping for 100-150 kits a year. And that would be a lot, IMHO.


That’s a whole lot of vacuum bagging.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 17:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/22/10
Posts: 1147
Post Likes: +350
Company: Stanford University
Location: Brentwood, CA - C83
Aircraft: RV12, RV10
Username Protected wrote:
That’s a whole lot of vacuum bagging.


No kidding. But with that kind of repetition, I imagine they’ll get proficient.

_________________
DISCLAIMER: I'm just a jaded engineer and my advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 17:55 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Let me get this straight, you think getting the prototype designed, built and flying is the easy part

Might be more proper to say "easier part" as compared to starting a profitable, sustainable business selling aircraft kits.

The list of "made a prototype that flew" is VASTLY larger than the list of "made a successful business selling aircraft kits".

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 19:24 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/21/08
Posts: 5430
Post Likes: +6115
Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
I have no doubt they will get it flying, but building a flying prototype is the easy part.
What kills most aviation products is the scaling up process that follows. Supply chains, delivery schedules, tooling for large scale production, ect.
These are the problems that most small entrepreneurs have no answers for. They will need a huge cash infusion and some knowledgeable people to make that happen.
Good luck, they will need it.


Let me get this straight, you think getting the prototype designed, built and flying is the easy part...seriously? Wow. Is that based on your experience or just speculation?

Again, when I hear about supply chains and large scale production, it sounds like production aircraft, which confuses “experimental kits” with a certified aircraft production line. With the exception of Van’s, most kit vendors are happy to sell a few kits a month; not exactly large scale production. And that’s KITS, not turn-key AIRPLANES.

Based on communication with Peter Mueller, they’re hoping for 100-150 kits a year. And that would be a lot, IMHO.

Yes, as Mike says above, building a prototype requires no business skills, only a passion for aviation and some engineering prowess.
Sadly, the marketing and production skills needed to take the next step is largely missing from most of these ventures.
The aviation world is filled with flying prototypes that never made it into production, both experimental kits and certified.
I have no knowledge the aviation industry, other than being a private pilot, but I have seen many businesses fail and a lack of business acumen is usually a driving factor.
_________________
I'm just here for the free snacks


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 4045 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 270  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.