Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
Posted: 05 Nov 2019, 19:47
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 5535 Post Likes: +2930 Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
In regards to single fail point of ECU, that to me seems to be the least of the concerns. A well made ECU like the Motec is very reliable. Those are the preferred ECU for most racing. They take serious abuse and do great.
A single engine aircraft has many single points of failure. That’s just how it is in a single engine aircraft. You want dual systems build a twin.
Different folks will have different views, but for me single ECU would be a no-go item. Electronics are generally reliable, but they are prone to unpredictable, sudden, complete failures with no apparent reason. NFW am I getting into an aircraft with single channel ECU regardless of it's previous track record, let alone unproven one.
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
Posted: 05 Nov 2019, 19:56
Joined: 02/28/17 Posts: 216 Post Likes: +180
Aircraft: Velocity XL-RG
Username Protected wrote:
What I don't understand: in this day and age, even if you're 50+ and you suck at anything remotely close to a computer, get a 20 year old student to do a model of your plane project with Catia, let the sim go for a few hours (that should give you a good hundred thousand runs), and see the results.
You'll know what to expect performance wise, what and where it will break after XX hours, and so on.
Fun fact... AVERAGE age of the engineers at Nasa during the Apollo program was.....
And once again, another absolutely useless post.
Another fun fact, people who don't know the difference between Nasa and NASA are generally...
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
Posted: 05 Nov 2019, 20:15
Joined: 10/06/19 Posts: 130 Post Likes: +50 Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
Username Protected wrote:
Fun fact... AVERAGE age of the engineers at Nasa during the Apollo program was.....
And once again, another absolutely useless post.
Another fun fact, people who don't know the difference between Nasa and NASA are generally...
I know it speaks eloquently to the rates of innovation and ability/desire to take risks while young as a well understood general rule of human behavior that plays out in everything from theoretical physics to entrepreneurship.
Do you see this as useless to point out, or are you arguing against the merits of my case, or do you just revel in boorish behavior?
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
Posted: 05 Nov 2019, 20:21
Joined: 05/01/14 Posts: 326 Post Likes: +620
Username Protected wrote:
In regards to single fail point of ECU, that to me seems to be the least of the concerns. A well made ECU like the Motec is very reliable. Those are the preferred ECU for most racing. They take serious abuse and do great.
A single engine aircraft has many single points of failure. That’s just how it is in a single engine aircraft. You want dual systems build a twin.
Different folks will have different views, but for me single ECU would be a no-go item. Electronics are generally reliable, but they are prone to unpredictable, sudden, complete failures with no apparent reason. NFW am I getting into an aircraft with single channel ECU regardless of it's previous track record, let alone unproven one.
I might accept the risk of a single ECU on a powered glider, or something like a carbon cub, but on an overweight canard with an engine out minimum glide speed possibly north of 85 mph? That is a very different situation when the noise stops.
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
Posted: 05 Nov 2019, 20:44
Joined: 05/01/14 Posts: 326 Post Likes: +620
Username Protected wrote:
What I don't understand: in this day and age, even if you're 50+ and you suck at anything remotely close to a computer, get a 20 year old student to do a model of your plane project with Catia, let the sim go for a few hours (that should give you a good hundred thousand runs), and see the results.
You'll know what to expect performance wise, what and where it will break after XX hours, and so on.
Fun fact... AVERAGE age of the engineers at Nasa during the Apollo program was.....
Do you know the real answer for engineers at NASA, or the widely reported average age of just the control room at splashdown of Apollo 11?
Do you include all of the contractors and subcontractors who did much of the heavy lifting?
At what point during the decade long Apollo program would you take the measurement?
As for Fabien’s original point. They did do CAD designs and CFD analysis as part of Raptor development. The two big problems with computers is garbage in garbage out (did they model properly and completely with accurate inputs?) and the ability to build a physical prototype that actually matches what was modeled (overweight, dimensional tolerance, flex, design modifications etc.). I don’t think this project has the type of engineering expertise and rigor needed to meet its goals, but there was quite a bit of work and research done beyond some guy slapping it together and hoping it works.
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
Posted: 05 Nov 2019, 21:13
Joined: 10/06/19 Posts: 130 Post Likes: +50 Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
Username Protected wrote:
Fun fact... AVERAGE age of the engineers at Nasa during the Apollo program was.....
Do you know the real answer for engineers at NASA, or the widely reported average age of just the control room at splashdown of Apollo 11?
Do you include all of the contractors and subcontractors who did much of the heavy lifting?
At what point during the decade long Apollo program would you take the measurement?
As for Fabien’s original point. They did do CAD designs and CFD analysis as part of Raptor development. The two big problems with computers is garbage in garbage out (did they model properly and completely with accurate inputs?) and the ability to build a physical prototype that actually matches what was modeled (overweight, dimensional tolerance, flex, design modifications etc.). I don’t think this project has the type of engineering expertise and rigor needed to meet its goals, but there was quite a bit of work and research done beyond some guy slapping it together and hoping it works.
You are beating a dead (and dying) horse man.
Robert Oppenheimer was considered "the old man" on the Manhattan Project when he was 37
The good news after all that time & effort, even going with high speed taxi runs that could have easily been end game, is the ship still in one piece unscathed
my understanding next tho from the most recent vids , is with some redrive fiddling & fresh belts, time for flight testing, even with this
"Might have a been the nose oscillation or shimmy causing the wing rock. The aileron flop was secondary. Not flopping in latest video."
or this going on
"Four re-drive failures to date? On an engine with no more than 60 hours? Predicted by numerous people in this community?"
Let’s just hope, that when we start the Crash Talk thread, the test pilot makes it out alive because of all the extra strengthening. That is, assuming, that a runway overrun on a high-speed ‘“taxi” test, or a ground loop with a 77 knot lift off and landing,
Someone else will have to confirm but i think the setup is full on or off flaps that are also flaperons & even hinge (in the 'state of the union' vid ~ 05:25) http://youtu.be/cSAC5EAe2HI
So in summary, you have no idea what the real answers are? (Followed by a bunch of links to hide that fact, and the fact that none of this is at all relevant to the Raptor. Manhattan project? Really?).
Do you understand the difference between 1960’s NASA and 2019 SpaceX that might explain different employee bases and different use of third parties? (HINT: one is a government agency that is/was directed to engage and coordinate amongst 3rd party contractors, and one is a private company and coincidentally a government contractor)
Do you realize that SpaceX actually DOES use 3rd party contractors and suppliers quite extensively? (Seriously don’t even try to argue this one!)
Do you think that sometimes your attempts to come across as smart might just make you look like an idiot?
So in summary, you have no idea what the real answers are? (Followed by a bunch of links to hide that fact, and the fact that none of this is at all relevant to the Raptor. Manhattan project? Really?).
Do you understand the difference between 1960’s NASA and 2019 SpaceX that might explain different employee bases and different use of third parties? (HINT: one is a government agency that is/was directed to engage and coordinate amongst 3rd party contractors, and one is a private company and coincidentally a government contractor)
Do you realize that SpaceX actually DOES use 3rd party contractors and suppliers quite extensively? (Seriously don’t even try to argue this one!)
Do you think that sometimes your attempts to come across as smart might just make you look like an idiot?
Maybe you should give this act a rest?
Really you can’t pay much attention to a guy that gets someone to take his picture in a leased PC12, flip the picture like he is flying it and list as his aircraft in his profile.
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die
Posted: 08 Nov 2019, 16:34
Joined: 02/14/11 Posts: 2877 Post Likes: +1805 Company: Air Mass Aviation Location: Seneca, SC (CEU)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
What an anticlimax.
It ain't over till its over. Now excuse me while I go create a new account real quick...
Perhaps this as your Avatar?
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files. _________________ Remember, no matter where you go....there you are.
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
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.
even with this
