Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Unit74, Nov 6, 2015.
Has my attention..... Too good to be true?
They lost me at "wire transfer refundable deposit to escrow account." Something smells fishy here, and it ain't Aunt Nora's jay jay.
Here have been posts on this before.
Long and short, yes, too good to be true.
1.9L Fiat Diesel or 3.0L Audi TDI
Everyone who purchases an aircraft will be required to spend a 2 week period at a construction center to perform the close-outs on their aircraft in order to fulfill the 51% rule for construction of an experimental kit aircraft.
Double ruh-roh. I'm thinking the FAA is going to scotch this.
And a belt driven "gear" reducer?
Those are used on some snowmobiles, but that sounds like a real nice way to have an engine failure. Not to mention electronic engine controls designed for a car. And a water cooling system. And an untested canard airframe.
Lots of ways to screw up.
And the preflight will suck since you'll have to inspect both sides of the entire drive belt and every cooling hose before departing.
Almost certainly vaporware.
But to be fair, belt drive is a proven technology, as is water cooling.
Not sending them any of my flying dollars at this time.
I think that 51% finish-out idea is somewhat common. Epic aircraft used to do the same thing before they went certified. I met a guy who was in the works to buy and go finish one.
But yeah sounds fishy in many other ways.
I ride snowmobiles with belt drives... yeah they work but snowmobiles all have spots onboard to carry a spare belt and they can all be changed with either no tools or something small onboard. Why? Because they break fairly often, I usually replace one between our two snowmobiles every season.
Also, the performance numbers and price on this seem astronomically too good compared to everything else on the market. If they build it and it becomes proven I'll buy one.... but I don't believe them at this point.
300 KTAS on 300 HP while providing pressurization is not going to happen. Here's 250 KTAS on 400 HP.
At least they have their cost break down listed now. 176K just for parts but yet I get it complete (with my 2 weeks) for only 130K???
It does feel like if they listed that parts breakdown, and then a final price of $224,900, it would make more sense. Once they start selling they could bring down the price, but at $130k it just screams "too good to be true." Especially for everyone who saw the Cessna 162 cost more than that. You're just not going to convince many people, sight unseen, that you can build a 300kt pressurized aircraft for less than a Skycatcher.
The only way that's going to happen is if they have some serious venture capital lined up to subsidize preorders in order to gain some initial market share, and still maintain a refundable deposit pool. (Yeah, right.)
I knew that original canard wasn't going to cut it. Just too small. Haven't seen a spec update with a bigger, higher lift canard.
I joke about the thing but I honestly hope they succeed. This would actually be on my future aircraft list if they can pull it off. They're based right down the road from me so I'll be watching with interest.
The interesting thing about that project is that it got me looking at getting a PPL. I'm getting signed up at the local college to get Ground School done this spring (company pays tuition there), and then start the flight training (simultaneously). Mrs. thequick is interested, mainly because she doesn't like long car trips, and the one she hates the most is the 12 hour ones between (essentially) KPAE and 2S6 the day before Thanksgiving.
(I show her on X-Plane that it can be done in about an hour in a 172.)
I'm also hoping they succeed, and it looks like Mr. Muller has the drive, the money, and the willingness to learn.
Can't say the landing inspired confidence.
That's why you opt for the BRS option. Landings are overrated.
" We do not yet have a flying Raptor. "
In airplanes? How about with 200+ HP engines?
I've seen nice belt drives in 80 HP snowmobiles. Nothing bigger.
Water cooling has been done in airplanes, but it is another part to fail. And automotive hoses really suck, and disable the vehicle when they fail. An unpressurized cooling system would probably fail better. I've only seen this in really old twin radials. Maybe it's been done elsewhere, but the twin thing would seem rather important.
In fairness, that is an RC airplane with an undersized canard with full elevator, flown by someone on the ground with no flight deck perspective.
Everyone wants to **** on innovation. Maybe they'll fail, but I commend them for trying.
I'm always lamenting that personal air travel is never the fastest choice for places I actually want to go, so I had to lookup your locations to see where you live that it's such a big difference. Google Maps suggests 3:37 to drive the 220 miles between those two airports -- is it really 12 hours on busy travel days?? Wow, definitely get a plane!
I'm hoping to do a trip to Cherokee County next summer. Maybe I can stop by the office and see what they are up to. With my background I may have a slight idea of how they are coming along.
I'm hoping they did a scale wind tunnel test before going to an RC model to verify their stability calculations. With CNC and rapid prototyping, it can now be VERY quick to make a wind tunnel model.
Uhh, it's not that, it's that they are asking for money for vaporware, with too go to be true numbers and engineering which many take issue with.
You want invitation, here's a new airframe which does what it says it does
It was when we did that in 2012. We left at noon and got there at midnight. 9 hours were just getting out of the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma-JBLM-Olympia I-5 nightmare. (Actually did 405-167-512 past Seattle/Tacoma)
We lived in Mill Creek at the time, and now I live where riding a bike to KPAE would take as much time as driving (more or less), where the traffic lights are the equalizer.
What has me interested in this aircraft is the 5 place seating. Very few planes have that, so having the 3 kids with us safely makes this something of interest. Mrs. Thequick's father had a PPL, and was a helicopter mechanic, so talking her about this isn't a no-go. It's also nice to have a conversation with my 10 year old daughter that goes like this:
"OK, the password is Papa, Alpha, Sierra, Sierra, Whiskey, Oscar, Romeo, Delta"
In fairness, I'd be more comfortable flying a design that is capable of being flown by someone on the ground with no flight deck perspective.
I guess this conversation won't end with anything other than me admitting that you're right, so
(for those of you following along, my point was that this is a first flight of an RC aircraft, and every time that I've been to RC fly ins was that the landings of the first flight of prototype RC aircraft is anything but elegant. That comes with familiarity with the type. )
I'll commend them for trying, but not for collecting money from rubes.
It's not like anyone is EVER going to see the "refundable" deposit again.
They are also presenting that thing as though it works, which is dishonest. How can they possibly know a price when they don't even have a complete design?
I was actually thinking of Harleys and Buells where the Kevlar-reinforced belts seem to be extremely durable.
I thought about that as well, and I went to be escrow.com site and they have all kinds of other partners like eBay and autotrader.com (which makes sense) as partners. Having a third party makes sense, as it does give credence to what they're doing.
This is the site I went to:
Then I selected about us and landed here:
All in all, escrow.com seems legitimate, but I'll do more digging on buyer protection before sending any money there.
That's also a good point. I'm trying to figure out how they make money on an "at cost" airplane, unless they get the first 1000 out there at cost, then turn up the profit, but they show it costing $173,000 and selling it for $130K. There is some wording on the site about getting discounts, and that's fair, but we're back to the shaving $43K off of it to break even, and then there's that whole "keeping the lights on" part of the enterprise.
The good thing is that they keep making videos, and that may be therapeutic for Mr. Muller, as we can see the progress moving forward.
Just realized they are not too far from me. I'd be interested in seeing the actual progress as well.
Isn't there a guy on this very forum running a 400+hp water cooled Ford V8 through a belt drive on his experimental? I know I've watched the videos of him taking off in like 20'
Maybe. And it will work until it doesn't.
No way I'd bet my life on a belt drive. They would be far and above most likely to fail right after takeoff, the worst possible time. That may be OK if you only fly around flat farmland, but that's boring flying.
Water cooling isn't likely to kill you, but it may very well make you choose between an engine and an on-airport landing.
Belt drives are really common in the piston rotorcraft world. The 300C, R22, and R44 all use belts to serve as a clutch between the engine and the rotor system.
I've never heard of one breaking in flight.
The ones I've seen use multiple belts, presumably for redundancy.
How do you know?
Crowd sourcing is getting more and more popular and is happening in many industries. Escrow.com is a reputable company.
Interesting reading all these posts. I'm one of those "idiots" who gladly (still) put down money to make a reservation. The escrow.com account where the money is placed is there until either the project is completed and I can pick up the aircraft or I decide to get out. If I decide to get out - I'm out $100. I've lost worse than that on less.
If you compare the Raptor to the Velocity - which they are VERY similar in design, then add in the fact that the Velocity used design and materials from 30 years ago, update that to the latest materials and technology I can definitely see getting close to 300kts. I have personally spoken with owners of Velocity's who get 275kts in their aircraft. So speed is definitely achievable.
With computer modeling many of the traditional physical tasks can be done much more efficiently and faster at less of a cost. So I don't doubt many of the items put forth in this aircraft.
Let's discuss costs. The point of doing it the way he's proposing is a bulk-purchase to get the maximum discount and then passing it along. yes, there is the factor of you still have to pay someone to do the work to get the plane to the point of being build - or finished. O.k. - so, let's say he's off by a factor of 2. So if the plane was $260k instead of a $130k. Would you buy a plane for $260k that goes nearly 300kts on 7gph Jet A, pressurized 5 seater? I think most anyone would if they were looking for a plane with range and speed. The top-end Velocity is $450k, so even if the costs TRIPLE to $390k he'll still come in less than what the Velocity does and it beats the Velocity in gph and range.
Could it blow up in his face and come crashing down to earth? Sure. But I'm pretty sure the people who watched the Wright brothers tolling away in their bike shop said that thing would never fly either. If it fails, I'm out a $100 and I'll move on from there.
How many of those people expecting a $130k ish delivery will back out at $200k... Or $260... Or....
I cant afford a factor of two. I'd guess a large portion of the sales would fall off and drive your delivered sale through the roof. If you can swallow it. Great. If not, Rapor is up **** creek and will prolly have an unfortunate warehouse fire me thinks.
Bigger canard and bigger winglets.