Raptor Aircraft

donjohnston said:
Apples and... bricks.

The 757 is professionally designed and tested aircraft which has been flying for over 30 years. Comparing that to the first flight of an aircraft designed and built by an amateur with an unproved powerplant is beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Flying the Raptor from any airport at this stage is beyond ridiculous. You know there is going to be a problem with it during flight testing if you followed the project. That is most likely why the team decided to pick up and leave after 3 visits. Airport suitability for testing could have been assessed from their first visit. My comment was to illustrate that runway length has nothing to do with the decision to nix the testing, but other factors added up to make them pack up and go home.
 
This may have been stated somewhere several pages back.. BUT:

Question 1: Do we know if he ever bothered to fly a model of this in X-Plane?

Question 2: Do we know if he ever bothered to build a scale version R/C to test fly?

Question 3: Do we know if there was any type of wind tunnel testing?

If none of the above 3 took place I would not ever let this thing fly more than what we saw in the recent Airborne! video.
 
Tantalum said:
This may have been stated somewhere several pages back.. BUT:

Question 1: Do we know if he ever bothered to fly a model of this in X-Plane?

Question 2: Do we know if he ever bothered to build a scale version R/C to test fly?

Question 3: Do we know if there was any type of wind tunnel testing?

If none of the above 3 took place I would not ever let this thing fly more than what we saw in the recent Airborne! video.
Click to expand...
I don't know about #1 or #3. The first does seem likely given the amount of 3D modeling he has done along the way. But #2 is demonstrated in a few of his YouTube videos from late 2015:

High Speed Taxi:
First Flight:
Second Flight:
 
Tantalum said:
This may have been stated somewhere several pages back.. BUT:

Question 1: Do we know if he ever bothered to fly a model of this in X-Plane?

Question 2: Do we know if he ever bothered to build a scale version R/C to test fly?

Question 3: Do we know if there was any type of wind tunnel testing?

If none of the above 3 took place I would not ever let this thing fly more than what we saw in the recent Airborne! video.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he’s got an RC version that’s flown several times. The first problem that was obvious to me was the canard was too small. Been enlarged on the full scale. Second problem was the Dutch roll at slow speeds. Larger winglets were added. Too large in my opinion. That wing flexes way too much. Even with carbon, I don’t see it absorbing the forces of those huge winglets. Jet Longeze comes to mind.
 
Brad Smith said:
John Wayne Airport (KSNA) longest runway is only 5700' long and they operate Boeing 757's out of it. Do you really think he needs more runway to test fly what amounts to a modified Velocity? Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Normal operation of a certified plane and test flying an unknown never-flown aircraft are two completely different things.

*Edit* Should have refreshed, already covered.

Someone else posted earlier in the thread as well that saying the airport was unsuitable was more than likely just to save face for all involved due to other issues likely uncovered during the testing.
 
Thanks @Velocity173 and @iamtheari .. that makes me feel a little better at least. I wonder how close to the model the W&B is on his full scale design
 
Velocity173 said:
Airport suitability should have been determined on the first trip.
Click to expand...

I read on another forum that Peter originally estimated an 1100' ground roll for take-off.
Taxi tests have shown it is closer to 2500', over double the original estimate.
The test pilots were probably comfortable with a 5000' runway at 1100', but certainly not with a 2500' ground roll.

Tantalum said:
Question 2: Do we know if he ever bothered to build a scale version R/C to test fly?
Click to expand...
Scale model showed some stability problems. Winglets were enlarged.
As I recall, when model teasing was to be resumed, Peter said that's enough, problem has been solved.
Others suggested far more testing with the scale model, expanding the flight envelope.
Peter most likely said: "I'm happy with that".
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
I read on another forum that Peter originally estimated an 1100' ground roll for take-off.
Taxi tests have shown it is closer to 2500', over double the original estimate.
The test pilots were probably comfortable with a 5000' runway at 1100', but certainly not with a 2500' ground roll.


Scale model showed some stability problems. Winglets were enlarged.
As I recall, when model teasing was to be resumed, Peter said that's enough, problem has been solved.
Others suggested far more testing with the scale model, expanding the flight envelope.
Peter most likely said: "I'm happy with that".
Click to expand...

You are very correct--I talked to the fellow who flew the model. After 4 flights, Peter said that he was happy. No further flights were carried out..............No stall testing at all.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
Scale model showed some stability problems. Winglets were enlarged.
As I recall, when model teasing was to be resumed, Peter said that's enough, problem has been solved.
Others suggested far more testing with the scale model, expanding the flight envelope.
Peter most likely said: "I'm happy with that".
Click to expand...

Rod Schneider said:
You are very correct--I talked to the fellow who flew the model. After 4 flights, Peter said that he was happy. No further flights were carried out..............No stall testing at all.
Click to expand...

wow..
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah, he’s got an RC version that’s flown several times. The first problem that was obvious to me was the canard was too small. Been enlarged on the full scale. Second problem was the Dutch roll at slow speeds. Larger winglets were added. Too large in my opinion. That wing flexes way too much. Even with carbon, I don’t see it absorbing the forces of those huge winglets. Jet Longeze comes to mind.
Click to expand...
And that didn't end well. RIP Lance.
 
Velocity173 said:
Not just the airport suitability but the aircraft airworthiness. Peter has documented the building process quite thoroughly on YT. Four visits from test pilots and they didn’t bother to watch his engineering / assembly of the craft? Come on.
Click to expand...

So I just had a thought.

This thing is based on a Velocity airframe.

Let's say somehow he's gotten it insured (I assume that's only after the AW cert? I'm an E/AB iggernit), and then afterward pooches it and puts it in the trees -- does that affect the pool of E/AB Velocities and all of their insurance rates goes up?

I notice that all E/AB planes seem to have different manufacturers usually, or even wilder make/model designations -- but for insurance, do they all get tossed into a risk pool of similar type?

Now back to your previously scheduled dumpster fire...
 
schmookeeg said:
This thing is based on a Velocity airframe.
Click to expand...

The Raptor doesn't look like my Velocity.

The similarities end with it being a canard pusher and side by side seating. He used different materials, larger winglets, MUCH wider fuselage, etc.
 
schmookeeg said:
So I just had a thought.

This thing is based on a Velocity airframe.

Let's say somehow he's gotten it insured (I assume that's only after the AW cert? I'm an E/AB iggernit), and then afterward pooches it and puts it in the trees -- does that affect the pool of E/AB Velocities and all of their insurance rates goes up?

I notice that all E/AB planes seem to have different manufacturers usually, or even wilder make/model designations -- but for insurance, do they all get tossed into a risk pool of similar type?
Click to expand...

I would be astounded if he has in-motion insurance on that plane. Velocity's, Long-EZ's, RV's, etc. are a known. This is a total unknown.
 
How do E/AB insurers group types at present? Perhaps I'm assuming too much.

When people say things like "Lancair IVs are impossible to insure" -- and with each E/AB Lancair being a different make... how do they impact one another? I assume there is a distillation and sorting that happens somewhere to keep, say, RVs in one risk pool, and Lancairs in ... the other. :D

Surely it's not the insurance broker that does this.
 
schmookeeg said:
So I just had a thought.

This thing is based on a Velocity airframe.

Let's say somehow he's gotten it insured (I assume that's only after the AW cert? I'm an E/AB iggernit), and then afterward pooches it and puts it in the trees -- does that affect the pool of E/AB Velocities and all of their insurance rates goes up?

I notice that all E/AB planes seem to have different manufacturers usually, or even wilder make/model designations -- but for insurance, do they all get tossed into a risk pool of similar type?

Now back to your previously scheduled dumpster fire...
Click to expand...

Nah, while they have / had one former Velocity employee, it really isn’t based on the Velocity. That would be like saying the Cozy is based on the Velocity. In reality, the Cozy is based on the Long Eze.

While I see some similarities in the overall appearance and position of control surfaces landing gear, it’s really a completely new design. Carbon, autoclave, vacuum bagging, pressurized, blended winglets, anti-ice, BRS, etc. Of course the whole Audi engine conversion being the biggest difference.

Accidents do drive up rates though. After that Velocity in Vegas lost its engine on take off and plowed into a house, my insurance went up about 30 %.
 
So if he thinks it works what's stopping him from just doing his own flight test? Skillset? Regulatory issues? Insurance?
 
cowman said:
So if he thinks it works what's stopping him from just doing his own flight test? Skillset? Regulatory issues? Insurance?
Click to expand...

Legally, nothing. Practically, experience, skill set, and the survival instinct. There are a ton of poorly executed ideas in this airplane. It will need to be flown with kid gloves and with a lot of respect for the airplane’s limitations.
 
kyleb said:
There are a ton of poorly executed ideas in this airplane.
Click to expand...

For a second there I thought you were talking about certified aircraft:D

There is no shortage of examples of crap designs in any of them.
 
Velocity173 said:
Not just the airport suitability but the aircraft airworthiness. Peter has documented the building process quite thoroughly on YT. Four visits from test pilots and they didn’t bother to watch his engineering / assembly of the craft? Come on.
Click to expand...
how about they did and that has given them even more reason to be very,very careful?
 
unsafervguy said:
how about they did and that has given them even more reason to be very,very careful?
Click to expand...

If they did watch them, it should have given them reason not to go out there in the first place. I don’t know of any other EAB in history that was documented as thoroughly as this one. Then a quick Google map search of the airport would reveal the lack of off airport options without having to see it in person.
 
donjohnston said:
He just posted another video. He's looking to move it to a field nearby that has at least 8,000' of runway.
Click to expand...

I can't think of one. I can think of one with a 6,000' runway and better approaches/better off-airport options, but 8,000? Not anywhere close to Cherokee County.
 
My crystal ball is telling me that he will move the thing elsewhere only for them to come up with another reason why they can’t fly it, the next time they stop by.

Business is probably going slow, so why not travel the country and taxi a bit while getting paid? :rolleyes:

They had ample opportunities to inspect the aircraft during their last visit. Peter also tested the performance over the last weeks, the sluggish acceleration therefore didn’t come as a surprise.
I’m calling BS on what they are doing!
 
So he’s going to Dobbins...;)
 
Test pilots are getting shredded in the comments section. I’ve determined that the Raptor is not a plane but rather a religion.
 
He is using plain bearings for the prop shaft and thrust bearings, is that a usual thing?

I guess it allows a smaller housing which will allow a smaller spinner etc. so there may be an aerodynamic advantage. However it involves more oil plumbing for the pressure fed oil supply, perhaps taking engine oil (not sure) round another route increasing the chance of leakage etc. I would guess that with rolling bearings an external oil supply might not be necessary, again not sure.

I'm sorry but I can't figure out what video that was in.
 
German guy said:
They had ample opportunities to inspect the aircraft during their last visit. Peter also tested the performance over the last weeks, the sluggish acceleration therefore didn’t come as a surprise.
I’m calling BS on what they are doing!
Click to expand...

Yes, because GA pilots on an internet forum have infinitely better judgement than a real test pilot performing acceleration and control authority tests on an airplane built by an amateur.
 
i have a novel idea, maybe as a test pilot elliot thinks that he has a responsibility to try everything he can to make a test flight happen, but at some point his expertise cannot overcome bad engineering and he has to say no. I find it amazing that a bunch of people that have never seen him fly let alone met him, are judging his professionalism. If you had ever met the man you would know he lives, and breaths aviation.
 
German guy said:
My crystal ball is telling me that he will move the thing elsewhere only for them to come up with another reason why they can’t fly it, the next time they stop by.

Business is probably going slow, so why not travel the country and taxi a bit while getting paid? :rolleyes:

They had ample opportunities to inspect the aircraft during their last visit. Peter also tested the performance over the last weeks, the sluggish acceleration therefore didn’t come as a surprise.
I’m calling BS on what they are doing!
Click to expand...

You go fly it, then.
 
3393RP said:
Yes, because GA pilots on an internet forum have infinitely better judgement than a real test pilot performing acceleration and control authority tests on an airplane built by an amateur.
Click to expand...

Sierra_Hotel said:
You go fly it, then.
Click to expand...

I'm neither saying that I would fly the thing nor that the test pilots should. I actually stated earlier in this thread, that using the Audi engine was in my opinion a really dumb idea.

However, from what I read here and based on what Peter said in his latest video, all they now want is a longer runway and more emergency landing friendly terrain around the airport. They did not require any new technical changes.
To figure this out, both(!!) of these guys had to come all the way from California! Really!? The (lack of) acceleration has already become very obvious in his previous videos, they could have also asked him for the recordings out of his G3X. I can only guess how much they already charged him for their 'services'.

Who knows, maybe they'll find out about 'control authority' issues during their next visit. :rolleyes:

I'm by no means a fanboy of Peter, but am certainly getting the impression that they are taking advantage of him and the desperate situation he's in.
 
My guess is that on one of those runs he did a runway hop and the handling made him concerned and decided that more runway would allow getting a better feel for it.

Just a guess.
 
I am for KVQQ (Cecil in Florida, close to Jacksonville). 12,500 runway should be sufficient and plenty swamps around it...

30239F97-48F0-49F6-B297-0A59DDFE8AE5.jpeg
 
Velocity173 said:
So he’s going to Dobbins...;)
Click to expand...

Please, no. I'm inside the pattern.

PS. I've seen 3 first flights from Dobbins. The C-5, the F-22, and the C-130J. I was a little kid when the C-5 launched right over my head in June, 1968. I was in a parking lot at the end of the runway. Think about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top