Raptor Aircraft

Seemed like it used a ton of runway to get an inch off the ground. I wish them the best! I hope it works out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Rotating into ground effect after pulling the power back to idle is a reasonable way to test the plane's transitions for both takeoff and landing. This is actually a big step forward. I would expect the real test pilot(s) to do the same thing more than once to get the feel for the plane. That is, if the test pilot(s) are able to get the plane to flying speed and have enough runway remaining to feel comfortable doing anything but applying brakes.
 
iamtheari said:
I would expect the real test pilot(s) to do the same thing more than once to get the feel for the plane.
Click to expand...
Determining the nosewheel liftoff speed is a standard test. Getting airborne but remaining in ground effect is not. There are people that do it, and maybe even people that recommend it, but I doubt you'll find many, if any, trained and experienced test pilots (not just home-grown) who think it's a good idea.

Nauga,
practically
 
nauga said:
Determining the nosewheel liftoff speed is a standard test. Getting airborne but remaining in ground effect is not. There are people that do it, and maybe even people that recommend it, but I doubt you'll find many, if any, trained and experienced test pilots (not just home-grown) who think it's a good idea.

Nauga,
practically
Click to expand...

Whats the preferred method after you know nosewheel liftoff speed? Just rotate normally and fly it?
 
dans2992 said:
Whats the preferred method after you know nosewheel liftoff speed? Just rotate normally and fly it?
Click to expand...
AC90-89B has some suggestions that are a good starting point. Hopefully you've got some estimate of stall speed in the configurations you plan to fly (weight, CG, flap settings, etc) - rotate at some multiple of stall speed (presumably above NWLO speed ;)), climb at some higher speed, also a multiple of stall speed, and get to an altitude where you've got time and options for sorting out the handling and issues without running out of runway. In early testing I have always added some margin above the expected operational speeds just in case stall speed and other performance predictions are off, then work down to operational numbers in testing.

Nauga,
and the buildup
 
nauga said:
Determining the nosewheel liftoff speed is a standard test. Getting airborne but remaining in ground effect is not. There are people that do it, and maybe even people that recommend it, but I doubt you'll find many, if any, trained and experienced test pilots (not just home-grown) who think it's a good idea.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to get airborne and remain in ground effect, but rather to do just what was shown in this video: reach flying speed, throttle back, and lift the nose so the plane leaves the ground but can't stay off it for long. Vaughan Askue's "The New Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft" book is well-regarded and recommends this type of "landbacks" after taxi testing. I'm not a test pilot; at least not yet. Glad to have your perspective on the subject.
 
"Airborne!" is a slight embellishment. I don't tell people I went to Harvard because I toured the campus once

I go between loving and hating this guy. I love the desire to create something new and achieve his vision. I hate that he's doing it in the manner he is. Give people your drawings and wishlist and get some legit engineers and experts to help
 
I'm not the first one to suggest it, but I believe that after performing preliminary evaluations of the aircraft's flight characteristics, his test pilots will refuse to fly the airplane.
 
3393RP said:
I'm not the first one to suggest it, but I believe that after performing preliminary evaluations of the aircraft's flight characteristics, his test pilots will refuse to fly the airplane.
Click to expand...

That’s been the case so far.
 
3393RP said:
I'm not the first one to suggest it, but I believe that after performing preliminary evaluations of the aircraft's flight characteristics, his test pilots will refuse to fly the airplane.
Click to expand...
Except that to evaluate flight characteristics one must first achieve flight.
 
dans2992 said:
That’s been the case so far.
Click to expand...

Yep. This will be the test pilots' third trip to evaluate and possibly test fly this project. Yesterday, I visited the field where the project is based. It is about 20 miles from my home field. It is a terrible location for the first flight of this airplane. It is on top of a hill (the over-runs on both ends are nasty drops), is just over 5,000', and this is a heavy airplane with a high takeoff and landing speed. Add to that the questionable engine/drivetrain and the fact that the whole area is covered in pine forests (there are very few suitable off-airport landing sites). Test flying this airplane will be a really sketchy proposition.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Except that to evaluate flight characteristics one must first achieve flight.
Click to expand...

I was referring to preflight calculations and runway work which @nauga detailed, among other things. Thus the use of the word 'preliminary'.
 
kyleb said:
Yep. This will be the test pilots' third trip to evaluate and possibly test fly this project. Yesterday, I visited the field where the project is based. It is about 20 miles from my home field. It is a terrible location for the first flight of this airplane. It is on top of a hill (the over-runs on both ends are nasty drops), is just over 5,000', and this is a heavy airplane with a high takeoff and landing speed. Add to that the questionable engine/drivetrain and the fact that the whole area is covered in pine forests (there are very few suitable off-airport landing sites). Test flying this airplane will be a really sketchy proposition.
Click to expand...

Yep, did my ME there. Nothing really suitable around there for off airport. I fly past on a regular basis for work but I’ve yet to see him out taxiing yet. He must keep it inside most of the time.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep, did my ME there. Nothing really suitable around there for off airport. I fly past on a regular basis for work but I’ve yet to see him out taxiing yet. He must keep it inside most of the time.
Click to expand...

The first flight (assuming it is successful) should be a climb over the airport to 10,000' then head direct Cartersville (or Calhoun), then direct Rome. Nice 6,000' field at Rome with great over-runs and lots of nearby pastureland. I'm betting this thing ends its flying time in a field or ditch somewhere. Not that I'm pulling against them, but I do not think the powertrain is properly conceived/implemented. So they need to relocate to a friendlier location for an off-airport landing.
 
kyleb said:
The first flight (assuming it is successful) should be a climb over the airport to 10,000' then head direct Cartersville (or Calhoun), then direct Rome. Nice 6,000' field at Rome with great over-runs and lots of nearby pastureland. I'm betting this thing ends its flying time in a field or ditch somewhere. Not that I'm pulling against them, but I do not think the powertrain is properly conceived/implemented. So they need to relocate to a friendlier location for an off-airport landing.
Click to expand...
At least the pine trees are a bit softer than a field of oak trees, lol.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep, did my ME there. Nothing really suitable around there for off airport. I fly past on a regular basis for work but I’ve yet to see him out taxiing yet. He must keep it inside most of the time.
Click to expand...
I did my first night landing and takeoff there. On the takeoff, once the we lifted off, we were IMC. There was nothing but black outside the windshield.

Not a place I would want to do a first flight with a completely unknown aircraft.
 
Tantalum said:
I go between loving and hating this guy. I love the desire to create something new and achieve his vision. I hate that he's doing it in the manner he is. Give people your drawings and wishlist and get some legit engineers and experts to help
Click to expand...

Spot on. I both admire his tenacity and drive to make something despite the naysayers; but cringe at much of the approach he employs to engineering approach for problem solving.

The Raptor's interior fit & finish looks superb. I was recently in Van RV-10 factory demonstrator and Raptor's interior fit & finish looks nicer. Doesn't mean the plane will fly better or at all.
 
NordicDave said:
Spot on. I both admire his tenacity and drive to make something despite the naysayers; but cringe at much of the approach he employs to engineering approach for problem solving.

The Raptor's interior fit & finish looks superb. I was recently in Van RV-10 factory demonstrator and Raptor's interior fit & finish looks nicer. Doesn't mean the plane will fly better or at all.
Click to expand...

thats because van builds every airplane with a hard rule, build it strong, but build it light. fancy interiors look good but add wasted pounds.
as to test pilots walking, if elliot walks he will not find anybody crazy enough to test fly it. elliot has flown a lot of aircraft that others have said no way!
 
“The airspeed was supposed to be 71, but I figured I’d try anyway”.

the hallmark attitude of every good test pilot. Make a plan and then do whatever you feel like.
 
unsafervguy said:
thats because van builds every airplane with a hard rule, build it strong, but build it light. fancy interiors look good but add wasted pounds.
as to test pilots walking, if elliot walks he will not find anybody crazy enough to test fly it. elliot has flown a lot of aircraft that others have said no way!
Click to expand...

I have no argument with anything you stated above. 100% agree. The point was not fancy verses not-fancy interiors. The point was the one skill Peter the Raptor guy has is fit & finish. The Van's factory RV-10 Demo plane I was in, had a cosmetically malformed composite right side window pillar. I was told this was their very first RV-10 plane that flew. The fitment & craftsmanship as a first attempt showed, as one might expect from a factory prototype.

Peter from Raptor might be a very good builder or build supervisor, but not such good engineer?
 
NordicDave said:
I have no argument with anything you stated above. 100% agree. The point was not fancy verses not-fancy interiors. The point was the one skill Peter the Raptor guy has is fit & finish. The Van's factory RV-10 Demo plane I was in, had a cosmetically malformed composite right side window pillar. I was told this was their very first RV-10 plane that flew. The fitment & craftsmanship as a first attempt showed, as one might expect from a factory prototype.

Peter from Raptor might be a very good builder or build supervisor, but not such good engineer?
Click to expand...

Peter has missed the point. He's spent time on the beautiful interior, air conditioning, pressurization system, fancy panel, and probably a few other things which don't matter on a prototype. His focus needed to be on getting the airframe and engine right, and he's missed the mark there. The airframe is a thousand pounds overweight, the control systems are a mess, and there are some serious problems in his engine/PSRU combination. Basically, he seems to have built an airplane that looks good and has lots of bells and whistles, but isn't going to do the flying part very well.
 
:yes:
kyleb said:
Peter has missed the point. He's spent time on the beautiful interior, air conditioning, pressurization system, fancy panel, and probably a few other things which don't matter on a prototype. His focus needed to be on getting the airframe and engine right, and he's missed the mark there. The airframe is a thousand pounds overweight, the control systems are a mess, and there are some serious problems in his engine/PSRU combination. Basically, he seems to have built an airplane that looks good and has lots of bells and whistles, but isn't going to do the flying part very well.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
I don’t think his interior is that attractive. His doors aren’t covered with anything. The overhead ceiling isn’t covered. Doesn’t appear to be any floor covering. Everything is bare plastic / carbon. It has a simple carbon glass panel which I’m not that big on. Seen many EABs that are much better appointed and are on par with certified. Frankly, while I admire his tenacity, after 6 years of development, I’d expect something more refined by now.

Forget the test flight. Let’s say it goes without incident. You can bet Elliot is going to have a list of gripes for him. The testing flight process could go on for another year or so to rectify the problems. All the while, no kits are being manufactured. I haven’t even heard if he has parts in stock or even if any of his workforce is still on hand ready to send kits out the door. This is a small operation and are no where close to Icon production status. I’m afraid this thing might become either a one off or maybe a half a dozen kits assembled. I sincerely hope I’m wrong though.
 
There were a few videos that stood out to me
(A) his control cables have (had?) a lot of slack, that was the result of some pullies just appearing to be randomly bonded to the bottom of the "floor" somewhere, not affixed to any strengthend stringer or rib

(B) the plane nearly shook itself apart with an obscene flutter after taxiing a little faster than normal, resulting in gear damage.. his answer to fix was some awful aerodynamic guesswork and dubious control surfacing balancing methods

(C) his answer to some viewer questions about prop clearance was to just measure the distance from the prop to the ground, without any real apparent consideration for differences in loading, "flex" in the gear, uneven surfaces, grass, etc
 
Tantalum said:
There were a few videos that stood out to me
(A) his control cables have (had?) a lot of slack, that was the result of some pullies just appearing to be randomly bonded to the bottom of the "floor" somewhere, not affixed to any strengthend stringer or rib

(B) the plane nearly shook itself apart with an obscene flutter after taxiing a little faster than normal, resulting in gear damage.. his answer to fix was some awful aerodynamic guesswork and dubious control surfacing balancing methods

(C) his answer to some viewer questions about prop clearance was to just measure the distance from the prop to the ground, without any real apparent consideration for differences in loading, "flex" in the gear, uneven surfaces, grass, etc
Click to expand...
I'm not as concerned about the prop clearance vs. gear flex and uneven surfaces. The gear is probably flexed to its limit already, given all the stuff piled into the plane's empty weight. And it won't ever reach Vr on an uneven surface, given that it apparently needs a few thousand feet of smooth pavement to reach Vr.
 
iamtheari said:
I'm not as concerned about the prop clearance vs. gear flex and uneven surfaces. The gear is probably flexed to its limit already, given all the stuff piled into the plane's empty weight. And it won't ever reach Vr on an uneven surface, given that it apparently needs a few thousand feet of smooth pavement to reach Vr.
Click to expand...
It's funny because it's true.
 
NordicDave said:
The Raptor's interior fit & finish looks superb. I was recently in Van RV-10 factory demonstrator and Raptor's interior fit & finish looks nicer. Doesn't mean the plane will fly better or at all.
Click to expand...

This is one of the things I really dig about experimental aviation, the ability to customize to the builders choices. As mentioned the Demo RV-10 is fairly bare bones. Mine is all trimmed out with AC... however it cost me useful load and some top speed. I rarely fly with more than 2 adults so still fits my mission.
 
kyleb said:
The first flight (assuming it is successful) should be a climb over the airport to 10,000' then head direct Cartersville (or Calhoun), then direct Rome. Nice 6,000' field at Rome with great over-runs and lots of nearby pastureland. I'm betting this thing ends its flying time in a field or ditch somewhere. Not that I'm pulling against them, but I do not think the powertrain is properly conceived/implemented. So they need to relocate to a friendlier location for an off-airport landing.
Click to expand...

Looks like the test flight crew agrees with this sentiment. They have apparently headed back to California after rejecting Cherokee County as a suitable test flying location for this aircraft.
 
kyleb said:
Looks like the test flight crew agrees with this sentiment. They have apparently headed back to California after rejecting Cherokee County as a suitable test flying location for this aircraft.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I am not impressed with the professionalism of the flight crew. It seems they could have addressed that on day 1.
 
Bacho said:
I have to say that I am not impressed with the professionalism of the flight crew. It seems they could have addressed that on day 1.
Click to expand...

I see that. Also, think it may come down to how confident you are in the aircraft. Maybe things they have seen recently undermined whatever confidence they may have started with.
 
Bacho said:
I have to say that I am not impressed with the professionalism of the flight crew. It seems they could have addressed that on day 1.
Click to expand...

Just wondering if the test flight crew's risk profile perceptions have changed with a closer look, and determined the surrounding emergency landing terrain was no longer suitable. Another thought, their reason could be part of a professional courtesy to walk away from a dangerous situation, but condemn or trash the builder or design.

Just thinking about it, few would hire a given crew if they condemn a concerning situation on the way out the door. In my business, we walk away for an ancillary reason and not the core which would condemn the program not allowing a change of course.

Example: Instead of the crew stating we won't fly it because it's too risky, they say the surrounding terrain is not suitable for a test flight. Surely someone might fly it if they were at Edwards with a multi-mile runway and hundreds of acres of flat land.
 
Last edited:
I guess you very well could be right on that thought.

I realize I only have the same view on YouTube as everyone else. It seemed to me that it was pretty clear what this aircraft was all about on their first visit in December. The changes that he’s made over time over their list of squawks has been quite well documented for all to see for better or worse.

What gets put up on YouTube might be one thing, but I believe face to face these guys need to be pretty straight up about the situation.
 
NordicDave said:
Just wondering if the test flight crew's risk profile perceptions have changed with a closer look, and determined the surrounding emergency landing terrain was no longer suitable. Another thought, their reason could be part of a professional courtesy to walk away from a dangerous situation, but condemn or trash the builder or design.

Just thinking about it, few would hire a given crew if they condemn a concerning situation on the way out the door. In my business, we walk away for an ancillary reason and not the core which would condemn the program not allowing a change of course. [...]
Click to expand...

I can see how this could be a possibility, but then again they've already been playing this game for a while now. There have already been several items of which I thought were so obvious that they could have told him even before their first visit that they want them fixed.

I think that putting this Audi Diesel engine on it was a very poor choice and certainly would not want to fly an aircraft with such a high landing speed with it, independent of whether there are subtitle emergency landing areas nearby. Then again, neither the engine nor the airport location have been a surprise for the Wasabi guys.

I'm not impressed by Wasabi. In my opinion, it is an indication of poor character to play such games with this guy who most likely invested his entire life's savings plus some more into this business. Keep in mind, that all the down payments are in an escrow and not accessible to him!
 
German guy said:
I can see how this could be a possibility, but then again they've already been playing this game for a while now. There have already been several items of which I thought were so obvious that they could have told him even before their first visit that they want them fixed.

I think that putting this Audi Diesel engine on it was a very poor choice and certainly would not want to fly an aircraft with such a high landing speed with it, independent of whether there are subtitle emergency landing areas nearby. Then again, neither the engine nor the airport location have been a surprise for the Wasabi guys.

I'm not impressed by Wasabi. In my opinion, it is an indication of poor character to play such games with this guy who most likely invested his entire life's savings plus some more into this business. Keep in mind, that all the down payments are in an escrow and not accessible to him!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the whole situation is sad. You're POV stated above is a reasonable observation and likely a dominant view by many. I just wish it would have or could have a better ending.

I think we are seeing one of the reasons the great aircraft makers never leverage social media as an observer in the development process.
 
Wish I would’ve known they left before I flew down to CNI today in hopes of at least seeing the Raptor in the wild. Does seem a bit strange for the test crew to fly all the way out, only to cancel because of lack of off airport landing areas. Oh well.

34EFA17E-51A3-4528-A71A-1C7CCF39DC44.jpeg B51D6D80-0113-4327-B2E4-C1FCDEDD5290.jpeg Fortunately blew my nose gear tire landing back home and not at CNI. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top