I've held my tongue for a long time because I really hope these guys make it. But I've also put in a long career in composite tooling. My resume includes tool strings (master models, layup molds, ply and core templates, trim fixtures, drill fixtures, check tools on up to some very expensive match metal dies - all of it) for open wheel race cars, truck bodies, commercial planes, GA planes (Cirrus, Lancair and the jet that became the Cirrus jet), tilt rotor, F-22, F-35, ICBMS and parts that went into space.
Here's the red flag for me. They're trying to make serial number 1 be perfect. Peter (raptor guy) made the same mistake of attempting to go straight to production tooling like there would never be any revisions. Let me tell you how it normally goes. You give it your best stab at how everything fits together and then you have temporary, short term tooling made. You will have your forehead slapper moments so you adapt and overcome. Your prototype will have some forehead slapper moments where things didn't go as planned. In assembly you'll find areas where you painted yourself into a corner and realize you need three elbows to do the build. Then you'll fly the thing and come to the conclusion you need to move the wing 2".
To assume that you're the first group of smart engineers to get to skip that step is naive. The plane we know as the P-51 went from bar napkin sketch to flying prototype in 102 days - and was a failure. Go crack the history books yourself but it took several modifications before it became the plane we remember. I worked for a company that made the tool string to do the intake ducts for the F-35 back when it was the JSF competition. We did a beautiful set of carbon fiber breakdown mandrels 18' long. I was sad to learn that they would only make 7 sets of ducts and then be scrapped because certainly there would be changes to the design. If Lockheed knew that in advance, well that says something a few dudes with CAD experience and epoxy floors might want to consider.
These guys have produced how many successful kits before?
We're almost to the point where history only knows Jim Bede didn't work out so well. For a few decades there people would have called him a crook. But what he was, was a great designer and a near genius when it came to manufacturing processes. He just had some flaws in his business model.
Peter? Bless his heart, he started out with a good (I didn't say great) idea. I know someone who held a low digit serial number for a Raptor (I also know someone with a low digit serial number for a Dark Aero) and it was going to be some kind of open source engineering grass roots project, with input from builders. We all know how it turned out. Where I come from we call it stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.
Make your master models, create some temporary tooling (PFPs, or Plastic Faced Plasters) are good for between 1 and 25 parts (depends on the shape and some luck). Trim them by hand. Expect your prototype to have some bumps in it and be overweight. Do not publish optimistic performance numbers until your prototype actually delivers. Take what you learned on the flying prototype and roll it back into your design.
I'll say it again, I hope they succeed and the plane flies well.
PS, want another example? Turbaero. A 200hp turbo prop. I'm at "shut up and take my money" with just the basic stats. But they've been to Oshkosh at least twice, Sun n Fun just recently and you can't swing a cat without hitting one of their advertisements. My issue is: No running prototype. "We're working on it".
.
