Raptor Aircraft

mondtster said:
Yet underwriters sign up to cover E/ABs built in people’s garages by amateurs with zero experience every day?

Never say never.
Click to expand...
Little different building one from a kit and plans than someone making it up as they go
 
231844238_10157874026492133_1965648512040353502_n.jpg
MpGN4Gy


From Nebraska State Patrol's Facebook page.
 
donjohnston said:
First, I did not say "never".

Second (and more importantly) there is a world of difference between the risk profile of insuring an E/AB aircraft with numerous aircraft flying and an E/R&D, one-off, untested aircraft with an auto engine.
Click to expand...

There are one off and plans built E/AB aircraft that are insured as well. Not everything comes in kit form.

I see little difference here.
 
That’s a mess. Where do you begin to test the structural integrity of a one-off design after that? No knowledge base, engineering support, etc?
 
Obviously over built on structural strength, it did not even shed the wings. The landing attitude must have been level or nose up, so it was not really a crash, but a forced landing, under control. There may be many structural or cosmetic cracks, but the overall integrity is impressive. That is pretty mature corn, and the decelerating forces must have been high. As I said before, the swept wings helped in the corn, but at least on the starboard side, the elevator and horizontal stabilizer seems intact too.

The engineer who did the original structural design deserves a positive call out for this landing.

Interesting that in the final slide, the left side was leading, and thus the right side door was clear of corn, enabling the unobstructed opening of Peter's door for his exit. That door also seems to have reclosed with a reasonable fit. Pleasant surprises continue. From the tilt, the left main gear did collapse, but the right is still supporting the plane, and the nose gear may also be supporting, though it may not be re useable now.
 
geezer said:
Obviously over built on structural strength, it did not even shed the wings. The landing attitude must have been level or nose up, so it was not really a crash, but a forced landing, under control. There may be many structural or cosmetic cracks, but the overall integrity is impressive. That is pretty mature corn, and the decelerating forces must have been high. As I said before, the swept wings helped in the corn, but at least on the starboard side, the elevator and horizontal stabilizer seems intact too.

The engineer who did the original structural design deserves a positive call out for this landing.

Interesting that in the final slide, the left side was leading, and thus the right side door was clear of corn, enabling the unobstructed opening of Peter's door for his exit. That door also seems to have reclosed with a reasonable fit. Pleasant surprises continue. From the tilt, the left main gear did collapse, but the right is still supporting the plane, and the nose gear may also be supporting, though it may not be re useable now.
Click to expand...

You can clearly see one of the wheels in the foreground with the fire extinguisher leaning against it.
 
That does appear to be the nose wheel, and the location relative to the ground track is correct. The nose seems to be higher than it would be without some portion of the nose gear supporting it.

Peter should soon be posting more pictures as the plane is removed from the field.
 
So is that also a prop strike? Or completely disconnected from the engine rotating assembly?
 
mondtster said:
Yet underwriters sign up to cover E/ABs built in people’s garages by amateurs with zero experience every day?

Never say never.
Click to expand...
I'm building a well known experimental plane. Because I have a county owned hangar I am required to have insurance on it even when building it.
Avemco has told me they will not insure an experimental for hull loss during the first 40 hours, so I will be exposed that whole time
 
Yellowstone said:
Will insurance cover something like this?
Click to expand...
You mean will his liability coverage pay for the property damage? Yes, after the deductible is met.
Does he have hull coverage to pay for loss of the plane? I doubt it.
 
aftCG said:
I'm building a well known experimental plane. Because I have a county owned hangar I am required to have insurance on it even when building it.
Avemco has told me they will not insure an experimental for hull loss during the first 40 hours, so I will be exposed that whole time
Click to expand...

Trying to insure an airplane that does not exist because it hasn’t been constructed yet is a separate issue from what is being discussed. The city I rent a hangar from where I am building a kit plane plus restoring several others does not expect insurance on a bunch of parts but they do require a general liability policy to protect the building. It’s cheaper and offers better coverage than an aircraft policy would anyway.

Insurance during phase one would be more akin to where the Raptor would likely be. Insurance should be available although it may be at a price many people wouldn’t like. If this is a real business and/or the the people he was going to meet are real buyers or investors, I expect there was at least some kind of coverage.
 
mondtster said:
There are one off and plans built E/AB aircraft that are insured as well. Not everything comes in kit form.

I see little difference here.
Click to expand...
You keep comparing this to an E/AB aircraft. It ain't.

This is not an E/AB aircraft. It's E/R&D. That means Research and Development. You know, concept testing. And in this case, we're not talking about a new flap design. Or a new propeller. This is an entire airframe and engine thought up and built by a guy with absolutely ZERO experience designing, building or flying said aircraft. If he has any in-motion coverage (at any premium), I will be truly amazed. And if they were to offer a policy on an R&D aircraft such as this, I can almost guarantee that the underwriters would have paid a visit to look this aircraft over. And if that had happened, I would bet Peter would have had that video up within a week of their visit.
 
donjohnston said:
This is an entire airframe and engine thought up and built by a guy with absolutely ZERO experience designing, building or flying said aircraft. If he has any in-motion coverage (at any premium), I will be truly amazed.
Click to expand...
Based on my experience with one-off EX/R&D airplanes with no prior art to base insurance on, it is possible to get insurance for pretty much anything, be it liability, hull (in motion), etc, as long as you're willing to pay for it. I can't say whether or not the name on the application matters, but I know insurance is possible, and the coverage may be granted without laying eyes on the airplane.

Nauga,
uncovering coverage
 
donjohnston said:
You keep comparing this to an E/AB aircraft. It ain't.

This is not an E/AB aircraft. It's E/R&D.
Click to expand...

I know what it is. You were the one that suggested the Raptor was impossible to insure. I simply am suggesting it is not, and was providing something that has some similarities that is easy to insure.

Insurance is always a gamble. The higher the risk for the underwriters, the higher the premium price. When most say something is “uninsurable” they really mean it is too expensive to insure.

Even self insuring is a form of insurance.
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
Trying to insure an airplane that does not exist because it hasn’t been constructed yet is a separate issue from what is being discussed. The city I rent a hangar from where I am building a kit plane plus restoring several others does not expect insurance on a bunch of parts but they do require a general liability policy to protect the building. It’s cheaper and offers better coverage than an aircraft policy would anyway.

Insurance during phase one would be more akin to where the Raptor would likely be. Insurance should be available although it may be at a price many people wouldn’t like. If this is a real business and/or the the people he was going to meet are real buyers or investors, I expect there was at least some kind of coverage.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I obtained insurance through Avemco which included quotes for my current (yes completely unrelated) build condition, but also included a quote for when the plane is flying. They will not cover hull loss for phase 1, period.
 
mondtster said:
I know what it is. You were the one that suggested insurance was impossible to insure. I simply am suggesting it is not, and was providing something that has some similarities that is easy to insure.

Insurance is always a gamble. The higher the risk for the underwriters, the higher the premium price. When most say something is “uninsurable” they really mean it is too expensive to insure.

Even self insuring is a form of insurance.
Click to expand...
The casino always wins.
 
geezer said:
The landing attitude must have been level or nose up, so it was not really a crash, but a forced landing, under control...
The engineer who did the original structural design deserves a positive call out for this landing...
Click to expand...

This thread has officially gone full circle. First the fans, then the critics, then the well-wishers. Now we are at the fans-of-the-crash-landing phase;)
 
Racerx said:
Speaking of casino, wasn't there a bet on how many hours before it went down? Or was that claimed when the last engine crapped itself?
Click to expand...
nauga said:
I can't think of a single new design auto conversion where I'd feel safe taking that bet...but since I'm the one that called you on it I'll take it. :D
Click to expand...
I bet @kyleb a round that the motor would make it 40 hours before failing. I lost that bet but have been unable to make good on it. My word is good, but timing is...difficult.

Nauga,
who doesn't always know where he is but knows where he's been
 
nauga said:
I bet @kyleb a round that the motor would make it 40 hours before failing. I lost that bet but have been unable to make good on it. My word is good, but timing is...difficult.

Nauga
Click to expand...

@nauga reached out to me prior to Oshkosh to try and make good on the payoff. Since he wasn't gonna be in attendance, we deferred until next year or some year afterwards. I'd wanted to hear some heroic test pilot stories over a Spotted cow: "Then we did another saw toothed climb profile, but I really had to pee, and..."
 
kyleb said:
@nauga reached out to me prior to Oshkosh to try and make good on the payoff. Since he wasn't gonna be in attendance, we deferred until next year or some year afterwards. I'd wanted to hear some heroic test pilot stories over a Spotted cow: "Then we did another saw toothed climb profile, but I really had to pee, and..."
Click to expand...
I want in on those stories whenever that takes place!
 
Looks like the harbor freight landing lights just need some butt splices and they’re good to go. “I’m fine with that”
 
Would it better to land in the corn with landing gear retracted? Seems with the gear extended there is more chance of the gear catching and ending up upside down, possibly preventing a quick egress. Am I wrong?
 
Brad Smith said:
Would it better to land in the corn with landing gear retracted? Seems with the gear extended there is more chance of the gear catching and ending up upside down, possibly preventing a quick egress. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
With mature corn, I'd imagine the rate of deceleration was quick enough that the gear didn't have much opportunity to dig in on anything with enough energy remaining to flip it over.
 
SoonerAviator said:
With mature corn, I'd imagine the rate of deceleration was quick enough that the gear didn't have much opportunity to dig in on anything with enough energy remaining to flip it over.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that most of the weight is in the rear. And the big wing is in the back as well. So I would think that flipping is less likely than in a single engine Cessna.

Friend of mine put a 152 in a corn field. Said everything was going well until the horizontal stabilizer hit the corn. By the time the main wing got low enough to hit the corn, things were going inverted.
 
I’m glad that he was able to walk away from the accident.

A couple guys I knew put a Grumman C-1A down in a corn field after an engine failure. The plane was all beat to hell. They were able to trailer it back to Topeka and eventually able to get it flying again. Here is a link to their old page (https://traderair.com/Schedule.html). The picture links are broken but the thumbnails aren’t too bad.

Not sure if the composite of the Raptor would be repairable or not.
 
Brad Smith said:
Would it better to land in the corn with landing gear retracted? Seems with the gear extended there is more chance of the gear catching and ending up upside down, possibly preventing a quick egress. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
You're probably right. Kind of like ditching in water. In this case it obviously didn't flip, but probably would have sustained less damage with gear up.
 
I won’t second-guess anything about where or how he landed. I think it’s fair to say that there was a very short interval between the first sign of trouble and the first stalk of corn.
 
Brad Smith said:
Would it better to land in the corn with landing gear retracted? Seems with the gear extended there is more chance of the gear catching and ending up upside down, possibly preventing a quick egress. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

The fact that the gear sheared off is pretty good indication that he should have just geared-up. I understand he was cruising pretty low, probably not much time to debate the physics.
 
Datadriver said:
The fact that the gear sheared off is pretty good indication that he should have just geared-up. I understand he was cruising pretty low, probably not much time to debate the physics.
Click to expand...

Knowing the quality of his aircraft, the landing gear retraction mechanism was probably somehow tied to the propeller gear-reduction drive, lol.
 
It's also entirely possible that going in the corn wasn't the plan. May have put gear down for the road. Either way, it worked out relatively well.
 
I assume he was aiming for a trash dumpster, so the gear would soften the landing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top