Raptor Aircraft

In the most recent video, he mentions that airspeed is reading higher than groundspeed, as if that's unusual. Don't y'all have wind down south?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Who mentioned that in which video?
Click to expand...
Peter mentions it in the video embedded in post #673, "8000 Feet of Goodness." For example, at 13:50 he mentions the groundspeed is 61 and airspeed 70, "so the airspeed is still reading high." I thought I heard another comment about that before. But when I was skimming the video just now, I heard Tower tell another plane that the winds were calm. So his IAS is definitely reading at least 10 knots high at his estimated Vr of 93 knots, probably closer to 15. I'm not a professional test pilot, so I don't know how important that is for the first flights.

It does make me wonder where the issue is, though. Airspeed is reading high so it's probably not a leak. My guess is that the static port is in a position that sees low pressure when the vehicle is moving. But my guess is only based on the PHAK information about use of an alternate static port generally indicating a higher altitude and airspeed due to the lower pressure inside the fuselage due to the venturi effect.
 
iamtheari said:
Peter mentions it in the video embedded in post #673, "8000 Feet of Goodness." For example, at 13:50 he mentions the groundspeed is 61 and airspeed 70, "so the airspeed is still reading high." I thought I heard another comment about that before. But when I was skimming the video just now, I heard Tower tell another plane that the winds were calm. So his IAS is definitely reading at least 10 knots high at his estimated Vr of 93 knots, probably closer to 15. I'm not a professional test pilot, so I don't know how important that is for the first flights.

It does make me wonder where the issue is, though. Airspeed is reading high so it's probably not a leak. My guess is that the static port is in a position that sees low pressure when the vehicle is moving. But my guess is only based on the PHAK information about use of an alternate static port generally indicating a higher altitude and airspeed due to the lower pressure inside the fuselage due to the venturi effect.
Click to expand...
Oh

I just figured that was due to Peter having no idea what he was doing and the aircraft not being properly instrumented for accurate data collection.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Oh

I just figured that was due to Peter having no idea what he was doing and the aircraft not being properly instrumented for accurate data collection.
Click to expand...
My first guess was that he had a headwind on the runway and didn't consider that when comparing IAS with GS. But I should have given him more credit than that, as Tower did say winds were calm. The real challenge on things like this is that you never know how much credit to give to the person. He has some very solid skills with 3D CAD, for example. He is clearly a bright guy. But every person in the world has a stupid streak just waiting to express itself.
 
iamtheari said:
My first guess was that he had a headwind on the runway and didn't consider that when comparing IAS with GS. But I should have given him more credit than that, as Tower did say winds were calm. The real challenge on things like this is that you never know how much credit to give to the person. He has some very solid skills with 3D CAD, for example. He is clearly a bright guy. But every person in the world has a stupid streak just waiting to express itself.
Click to expand...

The Wasabi guys also mentioned in their video issues with the airspeed indicator and that the deviation seems to fluctuate with the power setting. I would therefore agree that it likely has to do with the location of the static port. This is actually a pretty common issue, the various kitplane forums are full of discussions about where to put the static port(s).

These are Peter's ratings. Even if he's rusty I would assume that he still knows the difference between ground- and airspeed.

CFI/FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR - AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE (2020-10-31)
CFI/FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR - INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE (2020-10-31)
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
PILOT/PRIVATE - AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
PILOT/PRIVATE - INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
 
I thought I read somewhere in all of the information on this that his static source was IN the cabin at this time, because he had issues with the outside port.
 
dans2992 said:
Well.... on the bright side, an accident in ground effect would likely not be fatal.
Click to expand...

I dunno, if he needs 80kts+ to achieve rotation/liftoff, it could get pretty sporty if a wing dips and he cartwheels it. I guess cartwheeling at 80 is better than a death spiral at 150.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I dunno, if he needs 80kts+ to achieve rotation/liftoff, it could get pretty sporty if a wing dips and he cartwheels it. I guess cartwheeling at 80 is better than a death spiral at 150.
Click to expand...
“The audience was particularly pleased with the understudy’s performance in the role of Lord Dundreary on April 14. This reviewer couldn’t agree more. The only low point in that evening’s production was a disturbance around the presidential box, although it was short-lived and could not detract from an otherwise perfect play. If you haven’t seen Our American Cousin at Ford’s Theatre, you really must.”
— some 1865 D.C. newspaper’s Arts and Entertainment section, probably
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Lolwut?
Click to expand...
Yep. Static port in the cabin... on a pressurized aircraft. Even if the cabin isn't pressurized at this point, shouldn't a CFI know that the inside of a cabin is almost always going to have lower pressure which would result in higher than actual airspeed indications?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I just figured that was due to Peter having no idea what he was doing...
Click to expand...

You should save this bit of text, it'll make future posts about the Raptor easier to make.

Peter's latest video is a repeat of a repeat, et sic porro. His taxi 'tests' are done with no real aforethought, there are no specific goals, nothing is written down or recorded other than the video, and therefore nothing is accomplished.

A good illustration of this was in his latest video, a taxi done at 65 kts while he counted off seconds. I'm not sure what this was intended to accomplish, because 65 kts isn't the calculated liftoff speed. He didn't use the brakes to stop the aircraft, just coasted it down.

Anyway, during this sequence he also mentioned the brakes, engine coolant temperature, a tailwind, and a few more things. If the run isn't pre-planned, then carried out according to plan, and the results recorded in a journal and spreadsheet, then nothing worthwhile was accomplished.

Of course the video exists, but they're done as infomercials, not flight testing. There's not much in the videos that could be used as a guide for the first flight. He doesn't enumerate at what speeds the rudders and ailerons provide directional control. He doesn't verbalize what throttle lever angle produces certain speeds. Do his electronics capture the TLA? I've not heard it mentioned. But that's immaterial. One cannot be expected to pore over mountains of data produced on colored traces and come away with all of the right conclusions. The pilot must provide contemporary comments to make the data pertinent.

I don't recall any efforts to perform an alignment of the three landing gear tires. Instead, Peter again complained one MLG tire was 'dragging', causing the aircraft to turn right. Now, after replacing the brake components, the aircraft still doesn't track straight, and he continues to attribute that to brake drag.

Doing some investigation, which means doing something other than jacking up the aircraft and giving the wheels a spin by hand, might be a good idea. In a related area, I'm quite sure Peter has never done any maximum effort braking tests that started from several target speeds and measured the stopping distances.

I could go on. My basic premise is that Peter's 'testing' does nothing to advance the airplane to flight. Instead of being able to show Justin and Elliot data, he talks about 'bent' bolts, and clocking them in a certain direction to cure MLG shimmy. He tells Justin how to manipulate the throttle so the engine won't die. It's telling that Peter has made no mention in his post-Wasabi videos of the airplane being stranded on the taxiway with a dead battery. How did that happen? Will it happen again?

This is all building to a crescendo. I just hope it's not the Götterdämmerung.
 
Last edited:
At 31:12 mark of the Wasbi test video, why does the emergency gear drop raise the front gear? Also the left side main gear did not lock.

Why would this have not been tested and and remedied before the Wasbi guys ever arrived? <---Rhetorical question.

The engine out at low speed taxi at 49 mins due to battery run down is confidence inspiring. Especially when Peter told them the battery always has some charge to lock the gear in the earlier gear swing test. :eek:
 
NordicDave said:
At 31:12 mark of the Wasbi test video, why does the emergency gear drop raise the front gear? Also the left side main gear did not lock.

Why would this have not been tested and and remedied before the Wasbi guys ever arrived? <---Rhetorical question.

The engine out at low speed taxi at 49 mins due to battery run down is confidence inspiring. Especially when Peter told them the battery always has some charge to lock the gear in the earlier gear swing test. :eek:
Click to expand...

“Get there-itis” is not just for flying-it’s applicable to large projects as well...Peter seems to be displaying a lot of “well yeah, it’s not perfect but I don’t think it’s a big deal” type reactions to the Wasabi folks’ punch list items.
I can relate on a much smaller scale-after years of restoring my Camaro, it took a lot of willpower to maintain the same standard of work the longer it dragged on and the closer it got to being drivable. I can’t imagine what this must be like in his case.

The trouble is, there is no shoulder to pull to in an aircraft, and a much higher potential for a tragic outcome if things are okey-doked.
 
Let's say he does get everything safe and it does actually fly. What's the end game? What would the kit cost actually be? He has to realize at this point it's just a love affair and not an actual potential business...right? Which is fine.
 
NordicDave said:
At 31:12 mark of the Wasbi test video, why does the emergency gear drop raise the front gear? Also the left side main gear did not lock.

Why would this have not been tested and and remedied before the Wasbi guys ever arrived? <---Rhetorical question.

The engine out at low speed taxi at 49 mins due to battery run down is confidence inspiring. Especially when Peter told them the battery always has some charge to lock the gear in the earlier gear swing test. :eek:
Click to expand...

Peter stated that the emergency dump valve still allows residual pressure so the landing gear won’t fully lock. In order to lock, it requires electrical power to power the hyd motor to fully lock. He doesn’t believe it’s that big of a deal since electrical failure would be slim.

I’ve used the dump valve on my Velocity in real world conditions and tested annually. It doesn’t require electricity or the hyd motor to lock. Why Peter can’t remedy this fault makes no sense.
 
Velocity173 said:
Peter stated that the emergency dump valve still allows residual pressure so the landing gear won’t fully lock. In order to lock, it requires electrical power to power the hyd motor to fully lock. He doesn’t believe it’s that big of a deal since electrical failure would be slim.
Click to expand...

And then the engine dies after a run and it won't start because the battery is dead.

If you made this up, nobody would believe it.
 
Has there been as much discussion about the Moller SkyCar?
I mean more than 40(?) years and not even a taxi test as far as I can tell. (Tethered flight doesn't count, sorry).
Just trying to figure out what's driving this discussion.
 
Velocity173 said:
Peter stated that the emergency dump valve still allows residual pressure so the landing gear won’t fully lock. In order to lock, it requires electrical power to power the hyd motor to fully lock. He doesn’t believe it’s that big of a deal since electrical failure would be slim.

I’ve used the dump valve on my Velocity in real world conditions and tested annually. It doesn’t require electricity or the hyd motor to lock. Why Peter can’t remedy this fault makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the battery dies later in the video on the ramp. Who would ever plan for the most critical phase of flight assuming no system failure?

Yikes!
 
Shepherd said:
Has there been as much discussion about the Moller SkyCar?
I mean more than 40(?) years and not even a taxi test as far as I can tell. (Tethered flight doesn't count, sorry).
Just trying to figure out what's driving this discussion.
Click to expand...

The difference is Moller doesn't put out weekly videos documenting his project. He's perfected the "lay low until cash runs out, then have someone run a puff piece in Popular Mechanics or on CNN to boost investment" strategy. And he doesn't reveal details. He's always just one prototype away from success. I'm sure that if he produced weekly videos, the reception would be about like the reception Peter's project gets.

Peter shows how he's making his version of sausage. It isn't necessarily pretty and there are plenty of reasons to believe the project is doomed. So folks comment.
 
donjohnston said:
And then the engine dies after a run and it won't start because the battery is dead.

If you made this up, nobody would believe it.
Click to expand...

So.... if power is required by the ECU, there should be a backup power source!! Yikes!

Didn’t a similar fate wreck a DA42 just after takeoff when raising the gear overloaded the electrical system and the engines quit? I believe it has since been rectified on the DA42.
 
Shepherd said:
Has there been as much discussion about the Moller SkyCar?
I mean more than 40(?) years and not even a taxi test as far as I can tell. (Tethered flight doesn't count, sorry).
Just trying to figure out what's driving this discussion.
Click to expand...

I think the Commuter Craft would be a better association. That aircraft had an owner/test pilot too.
 
NordicDave said:
Exactly. And the battery dies later in the video on the ramp. Who would ever plan for the most critical phase of flight assuming no system failure?

Yikes!
Click to expand...

"I can't imagine a scenario where you're flying along and all of the sudden your battery has zero volts."

Maybe not, but a 12 volt battery at 11.5 volts is 80% discharged, and that's not going to drive an electric hydraulic pump. Or start a diesel engine.
 
Wait, are you saying electrical systems aren’t foolproof? But electric cars and planes are the future!
 
3393RP said:
I think the Commuter Craft would be a better association. That aircraft had an owner/test pilot too.
Click to expand...
I think he developed his flying prototype far more quickly. Cool looking thing too, didn't look like any other kit aircraft. Pity what happened, don't know if the crash was because of an aircraft shortcoming or pilot mistake.
 
I wonder if the ECU peter is using to control the engine is the original VAG one just overlaying his tuning or some other 3rd party. If it's the original VAG one, I wonder if he has removed any kind of MIL/Limp functions. I couldn't imagine getting some phony CEL inflight and the engine going into reduced/limp mode.
 
With all the knit picking going on, it makes me wonder how many actually have done any form of a startup successfully soup to nuts, or designed an airplane from scratch or even by plagiarizing someone else’s design successfully while leveling all the OBVIOUS criticism without offering to lend a real hand.

It seems that a lot of stated animosity is aimed at Peter’s personality as he works through either his errors in logic or design, or just his unwillingness to listen to the droves of people who demonstrably “know better” because they’ve achieved much more historically. Why can’t he just listen to everyone on the inter webs ? He would be done by now, riiiiight? Just like all you all listen to your wives?

What’s the male equivalent of a Karen? :)

At a stated $130k, Peter is clearly not doing this for the profit particularly given his openly stated margin. That statement alone should turn his project into some modern mash up of crowd funding and open source ideology; this should drive people to offer to help in droves, not collect a gaggle of New York moms gossiping at a boy band concert while waiting their turn at the restroom. What a culture we’ve become. Can you imagine if the explorers coming to America, or the founding fathers behaved in this manner how little would have been accomplished? In some ways, I can say no wonder Peter comes across as a bit of a stubborn a-hole at times. With everyone standing around with their hand on their waist and the other at their mouth while pondering the labor of another, it’s soooooo easy to just kvetch.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt”

Ugh.
 
Llk said:
With all the knit picking going on, it makes me wonder how many actually have done any form of a startup successfully soup to nuts, or designed an airplane from scratch or even by plagiarizing someone else’s design successfully while leveling all the OBVIOUS criticism without offering to lend a real hand.

It seems that a lot of stated animosity is aimed at Peter’s personality as he works through either his errors in logic or design, or just his unwillingness to listen to the droves of people who demonstrably “know better” because they’ve achieved much more historically. Why can’t he just listen to everyone on the inter webs ? He would be done by now, riiiiight? Just like all you all listen to your wives?

What’s the male equivalent of a Karen? :)

At a stated $130k, Peter is clearly not doing this for the profit particularly given his openly stated margin. That statement alone should turn his project into some modern mash up of crowd funding and open source ideology; this should drive people to offer to help in droves, not collect a gaggle of New York moms gossiping at a boy band concert while waiting their turn at the restroom. What a culture we’ve become. Can you imagine if the explorers coming to America, or the founding fathers behaved in this manner how little would have been accomplished? In some ways, I can say no wonder Peter comes across as a bit of a stubborn a-hole at times. With everyone standing around with their hand on their waist and the other at their mouth while pondering the labor of another, it’s soooooo easy to just kvetch.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt”

Ugh.
Click to expand...

yeah. Whatever dude. The guy has refused help from highly qualified people and run them off from the project. I don’t think anyone here expects him to listen to us. It is not necessary to have successfully designed an aircraft and brought it to market to look at what he is doing and form an accurate opinion.

I have no doubt Peter is intelligent and hard working. Unfortunately that isn’t enough to accomplish his goals.
 
steingar said:
I think he developed his flying prototype far more quickly. Cool looking thing too, didn't look like any other kit aircraft. Pity what happened, don't know if the crash was because of an aircraft shortcoming or pilot mistake.
Click to expand...

CommuterCraft had a prolonged development too. They built a prototype and had to do substantial aero rework to get to rotate on takeoff. Before that, it was an expensive and fast go-cart. Once they got it off the ground it apparently flew ok. That first prototype was based at my home field.

The one that crashed was a similar 3 surface planform but was substantially different from the first one.

A pro test pilot made the first flight of the 2nd prototype and had nothing good to say. He said it flew so poorly he would have bailed out if he could have climbed high enough.

After that, they modified the second prototype in an attempt to fix the aero characteristics and Richard Hogan was killed on its next flight. I didn’t see the crash but did witness high speed taxi tests an hour before the crash.

This was on a Lycoming powered airplane that had already flown and where they had previously flown a similar design. Unusual configurations require extra attention because you’re in barely charted territory.

Peter has all of these risks plus his dodgy power train.
 
Peter just posted:

"Hey All, just a quick message before the next video update mainly for all those concerned about the ongoing flight testing. First of all, I'm continuing ground testing to find any more potential issues. I actually found a decent one yesterday that I'm working on resolving now. I'm also working with a new DAR based right here at True Flight Aerospace, the guys that have given me a warm welcome and are hosting the aircraft and even providing support and guidance. The airworthiness certificate amendment is underway now and as part of that the new DAR will be doing his own full inspection of the aircraft. So hopefully anything that was missed by everyone else who inspected it will be identified and resolved. The DAR is also a former test pilot who at one point in his test piloting career had a hand at building a Long EZ and flew the flight test program on it. I'm already consulting with him to ensure that everything that happens with the prototype is done in a safe manner. What better person to have than a DAR and Test pilot, and right here, every day. It's like a dream come true. I will be bringing in an active test pilot to do the majority of the test program and hopefully we'll find someone local to the southeast. Frankly, having a remote group was just not working out. So, please calm down just a little, trust that the level of judgement I have used to get this far will continue to prevail to bring the aircraft through to completion of the flight test program."
 
Llk said:
With all the knit picking going on, it makes me wonder how many actually have done any form of a startup successfully soup to nuts, or designed an airplane from scratch or even by plagiarizing someone else’s design successfully while leveling all the OBVIOUS criticism without offering to lend a real hand.
Click to expand...

I bet a number of folks here have started successful businesses. What no one has done is started a business they didn't have the expertise to carry out and then made unrealistic promises to the public. I just hope this albatross doesn't widow anyone.
 
Llk said:
With all the knit picking going on, it makes me wonder how many actually have done any form of a startup successfully soup to nuts, or designed an airplane from scratch or even by plagiarizing someone else’s design successfully while leveling all the OBVIOUS criticism without offering to lend a real hand.

It seems that a lot of stated animosity is aimed at Peter’s personality as he works through either his errors in logic or design, or just his unwillingness to listen to the droves of people who demonstrably “know better” because they’ve achieved much more historically. Why can’t he just listen to everyone on the inter webs ? He would be done by now, riiiiight? Just like all you all listen to your wives?

What’s the male equivalent of a Karen? :)

At a stated $130k, Peter is clearly not doing this for the profit particularly given his openly stated margin. That statement alone should turn his project into some modern mash up of crowd funding and open source ideology; this should drive people to offer to help in droves, not collect a gaggle of New York moms gossiping at a boy band concert while waiting their turn at the restroom. What a culture we’ve become. Can you imagine if the explorers coming to America, or the founding fathers behaved in this manner how little would have been accomplished? In some ways, I can say no wonder Peter comes across as a bit of a stubborn a-hole at times. With everyone standing around with their hand on their waist and the other at their mouth while pondering the labor of another, it’s soooooo easy to just kvetch.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt”

Ugh.
Click to expand...
I assume you're new to Peter and Raptor aircraft and haven't watched the multitude of videos where he documents of "I think this, therefore it's best and right, everyone else is wrong" approach. Don't straw man the whole PoA group into just hating this guy because we want to. I bet most of us want him to succeed

We're not blaming him for innovating, I think many (most?) people here appreciate the desire to push the envelope. What makes us skeptical is the tunnel vision, rejection of actual expertise, and pressing on with what he thinks is right (even though empirical data, that he himself often collects, shows he's probably wrong).

The Wasabi video, which was very carefully and gently put together, gives a good glimpse of this and is riddled with examples of the shoddy build technique.
 
He must be a deposit holder. :D

No one wants the guy to fail but those of us who have in aviation for more than a day have seen this before. The whole thing reminds me of the Blue Mountain Avionics saga. I actually met a couple of former employees a few years after they went bankrupt. They said the inventor / CEO was a brilliant at software development but had no people skills and didn’t fully understand the engineering aspect. So, they had design issues with their EFIS products, his employees tried to tell him what was wrong but he didn’t listen. Anyone who has flown early BMA EFISs has experienced the woes that they had. They developed a reputation of poor quality and that’s all it took to do them in. Dynon had a reputation of reliability and won the experimental EFIS battle.

Jim Bede comes to mind also. Offer an aircraft at an incredibly low price with unbelievable performance. Peter is just starting to experience the same issues as a BD-5 but in an aviation climate that is no where the boom of the early 70s. It’s brutal but that’s the reality of trying to bring a new design to market today.

Brains and hard work mean nothing if there’s nothing to show for it. We’re consumers. We want results, not talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top