Raptor Aircraft

Something in the back of my mind just clicked after watching the model flight vids. It was a long time ago, but there was something from the Rutan design about dutch roll and the canard blanking the inner part of the main wing at higher AoA. At first, the Vari-eze was supposed to have a mixer for elevator and aileron on the canard for both pitch and roll, but that was no good, so they moved the ailerons to the inboard main wing. Then, I think they had the dutch roll problem, and blamed the inboard ailerons so they moved them out to the end of the main wing, but still had issues. Finally, they moved the canard to the TOP of the front of the fuselage because the tufting showed that the canard was disrupting airflow at the inboard section of the wing root or the 'strake' as they named it. Once the canard was moved to the top of the fuselage, just below the canopy front it didn't blank the main wing inboard and the dutch roll was minimized.

This is all from a long time ago, and I don't have any of the notes anymore but it might be found in some of the online notes from the Canard Flyer which tracked the development of the Vari-eze.

YMMV, don't try this at home, closed course pro driver, and may cause anal leakage.
 
True or not, do you really want to be one of the first to find out?
 
bullwinkle said:
True or not, do you really want to be one of the first to find out?
Click to expand...

If you put your money down today, the earliest you can be is #251 to find out...

http://www.raptor-aircraft.com/ordering.html

We have over 250 deposits already and are already working on construction of the prototype. It should be flying in about 15 - 18 months. First customer deliveries will follow about 6 months after that. Deposits placed now can expect delivery in about 3.5 years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
They’re bonding the wings. Flight is imminent!

 
I was around when the BD-5 was introduced to the public in the 1970's. The Raptor website reads a lot like the promises made before the BD-5 was even fully engineered. Too good to be true? You can bet on it. Smart money would walk away or wait until the design is PROVEN safe with many happy customers having logged enough time prove its performance and safety.
 
Early investors and early adopters of wildly hyped products under development take high risks unless the principals developing the new product have a proven track record of successful product development. The early adopters are, in a sense, pioneers.

My boss used to say the definition of a pioneer is a guy with his face in the dirt and an arrow in his back.
 
I think its impressive as hell to assemble a carbon fiber aircraft with that small of a team. And good on them for videoing the stages. Packaging all the components must be incredibly hard. I wish them luck.
 
They may well end up with a super nice airplane. They may or may not end up with a viable kit plane. Their price target is almost certainly as much a fantasy as Icon’s original price... remember that? Eventually reality sets in. Still, if they make it to the finish line, it’ll be pretty cool. Financially viable? Who knows? There are way more aircraft companies that have gone TU than have not. Maybe these guys succeed, maybe they don’t, either way they contribute something... even if it’s only lessons learned.
 
dukeblue219 said:
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!
Click to expand...

The drive from KPOU to KBOS is normally 3 hours, including a stop for gas.
The day before and after a big holiday, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, the typical drive time is 6 to 12 hours.
I have been stuck waiting to get on or off the Mass Pike in the Boston area for as long as 7 hours.
Three kids in college in Boston nearly killed me. Now they have their own cars.
I sit, comfortably at home, in front of the fireplace, with the alcoholic beverage of my choice and joyfully await their arrival. heh heh heh.
Happy holiday, progeny.
 
I see these guys are just up the road from me.

I'd feel better about these guys if their expectations were more realistic. Comparing what they think this airplane will do compared to a similarly sized and powered SR22 Turbo indicates to me that they are either unrealistic or deceitful. Plus, they are trying to develop both a diesel engine conversion and a new airframe simultaneously, either is a big project. Of the two, the engine project is probably the more difficult. We've seen dozens of designers successfully complete aircraft designs. How many have successful diesel conversions flying?

Whether they are being absurdly optimistic or are out to deceive, I don't see this ending well.
 
They sounded like Brits in the videos. Like a true Scot, I never trust the English! ;) Perhaos their pricing is in pounds sterling and their estimated air speeds are in some other weird British unit. :)
 
Lachlan said:
They sounded like Brits in the videos. Like a true Scot, I never trust the English! ;) Perhaos their pricing is in pounds sterling and their estimated air speeds are in some other weird British unit. :)
Click to expand...

I believe the designer is Australian.
 
It would be impressive if they had a flying prototype...like 5 years ago. :rolleyes:
 
Brad Smith said:
I was around when the BD-5 was introduced to the public in the 1970's. The Raptor website reads a lot like the promises made before the BD-5 was even fully engineered. Too good to be true? You can bet on it. Smart money would walk away or wait until the design is PROVEN safe with many happy customers having logged enough time prove its performance and safety.
Click to expand...

This thing reminds me more of the hype around the Prescott Pusher than the BD-5.

IMG_0434.JPG
 
Yeah, its is a lot of work. And they're not hiding it in the videos. I don't know what their asking price is because I'm not in the market for a plane like that, but I still would like to see them succeed.
 
oh for eff sake. The aero work is vaporware. Throw in book cutouts of "coke rule" (aka area rule) from your "aircraft design" motivational freshman class, 'lifting body' sophistry potato, and a couple of CFD renderings with garbage assumptions in there for good measure to impress the mouthbreathers. I could make that thing spit out 200KTAS for the Arrow too if I fiddled with it long enough LOL. Reminds me of the undergraduate aero engineering capstone project we had to entertain the second to last semester to graduating. Such pantomime, I swear if I didn't have scruples in life I'd be flying that PC-12 on sucker's money already. Lambs to the slaughter.

It's not complicated folks. You're not going to eek out the aerodynamic efficiencies you seek in 2018 by merely streamlining. The only way you get this outcome is a robust improvement in materials (they're not doing that, the construction work is literally amateurish, the materials selected run of the mill) or engine technology. And the latter is actually a regression imo as far as experimental powerplant applications go.
Just get a velocity and be done with it, as they'll be lucky to exceed performance by 20%, by my guess that egg doesn't even beat it.

The fact the ludicrously protracted chronology of events here doesn't strike folks as self-evidence is the only alarming thing to me. I've married a second time, had a child, and that child is learning math and writing in the time these folks started taking pictures next to a fiberglass tub resembling an airplane. A fool and their money.
 
hindsight2020 said:
oh for eff sake. The aero work is vaporware. Throw in book cutouts of "coke rule" (aka area rule) from your "aircraft design" motivational freshman class, 'lifting body' sophistry potato, and a couple of CFD renderings with garbage assumptions in there for good measure to impress the mouthbreathers. I could make that thing spit out 200KTAS for the Arrow too if I fiddled with it long enough LOL. Reminds me of the undergraduate aero engineering capstone project we had to entertain the second to last semester to graduating. Such pantomime, I swear if I didn't have scruples in life I'd be flying that PC-12 on sucker's money already. Lambs to the slaughter.

It's not complicated folks. You're not going to eek out the aerodynamic efficiencies you seek in 2018 by merely streamlining. The only way you get this outcome is a robust improvement in materials (they're not doing that, the construction work is literally amateurish, the materials selected run of the mill) or engine technology. And the latter is actually a regression imo as far as experimental powerplant applications go.
Just get a velocity and be done with it, as they'll be lucky to exceed performance by 20%, by my guess that egg doesn't even beat it.

The fact the ludicrously protracted chronology of events here doesn't strike folks as self-evidence is the only alarming thing to me. I've married a second time, had a child, and that child is learning math and writing in the time these folks started taking pictures next to a fiberglass tub resembling an airplane. A fool and their money.
Click to expand...

Congrats on having two wives- you’ll NEVER be able to afford that PC-12 now! :(
 
I remember NASA testing the Wankel engine in a Skymaster. They used belts for gear reduction.
 
Anyone that's been following their progress, have they mentioned how the engine conversion project is coming along?
 
FormerHangie said:
Anyone that's been following their progress, have they mentioned how the engine conversion project is coming along?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of teething pains but it seems they’ve got the bugs worked out. It’s mounted to the aircraft now.
 
Have you been keeping up with the build videos? The man hours going into this prototype are astronomical, so they will need to make concessions for mass production to keep the price under $300,000-400,000...

The VAG 3.0l Diesel they are using is the same engine as in my Toureg and it is a torque monster. We'll see just how well that massive belt drive holds up.
 
I had no idea that was going on so close to me!

The video made the whole moving of the plane seem kinda “fly-by-night”, with everything sort of jury-rigged.

If it all comes to fruition, and the prototype flies like a dream, then the hard work of setting up production will begin. I wonder if they have any idea what a Herculean task that will be. I would love to compare/contrast this with Cirrus’ early days.

I don’t want to be a nay-sayer, but I have serious doubts about the whole enterprise.
 
FastEddieB said:
I don’t want to be a nay-sayer, but I have serious doubts about the whole enterprise.
Click to expand...

There have been several really odd design choices made in the aircraft's systems, the prototype came in tremendously overweight, and they are developing a whole new engine package for it. The odd design choices can be cleaned up (even better, maybe they will actually work), but weight issues are tough to resolve on any aircraft, and developing an entirely new aero-engine package is a big-boy job that generally requires far more resources than these guys seem to have. I think either the weight or engine issue (or both) will turn out to be insurmountable.
 
IK04 said:
Have you been keeping up with the build videos? The man hours going into this prototype are astronomical, so they will need to make concessions for mass production to keep the price under $300,000-400,000...

The VAG 3.0l Diesel they are using is the same engine as in my Toureg and it is a torque monster. We'll see just how well that massive belt drive holds up.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I’ve been watching the YT vids for 5 years now. Even though it’s a more technical kit compared to a Velocity XL, no way it should take 6 years before first flight. Should’ve had first flight and kits going out the door within 2 years. Just amazes me the lack of progress on this project. Reminds me of DOD aircraft acquisitions. They take forever to get the aircraft procured and it always comes in way over budget. In this case, it won’t meet the performance (300 kts) goals either.

What I find funny is the CEO’s secrecy about people coming out and “milling around.” This isn’t the first F-22 being rolled out. All they did was reinvent the wheel and slapped an Audi engine to it. You’ve got a guy who used to work for Velocity and it’s quite evident in the design. I wouldn’t even say it’s more refined than a Velocity. A dirt simple panel and no wing anti-ice. Basically a big Velocity that’s pressurized is all they produced.
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Aircraft_Raptor

"The Raptor's development is being funded by prospective buyers making a $2,000 deposit, held in escrow. As of December 2018, 1,500 deposits had been received and the company had stopped taking further deposits.[12] "

The information is from Wikipedia and I would take the time to verify what you have been told concerning your "deposit". Read the citation [12] at the end of the quote. It says it comes right from Raptor. I'm only pointing this out as I've read here that some were told that they can get back their deposit minus $100 if they change their mind. A close read of the contract's fine print may be in order and in no way would I accept the promise of a company official over the phone. Not relying on the promise of ANY company official from ANY company is a good practice.
 
Brad Smith said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Aircraft_Raptor

"The Raptor's development is being funded by prospective buyers making a $2,000 deposit, held in escrow. As of December 2018, 1,500 deposits had been received and the company had stopped taking further deposits.[12] "
Click to expand...

Think about that quote. How do you fund anything with money held in escrow? Either it is in escrow (i.e. untouched in a bank) or it is being used (spent) to develop the airplane. Can't be both.
 
I have a deposit in on this and it is held under escrow at escrow.com. It’s straight forward. The deposit can only be collected when the depositor purchases an aircraft and releases the funds via escrow.com. No idea where the funding is coming from for this project but it’s not the deposits.
 
I will send in my deposit when they have a flying example with firm pricing and have submitted it to an independent evaluator for a flight test. I doubt that I will be mailing a check anytime soon. If you want reality go to vansaircraft.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top