Raptor Aircraft

kyleb said:
The question is “When do you realize your effort is a failure and go for a reset instead of continuing down a path that leads to either an accident or to an airplane that is so limited it has no commercial viability?”
Click to expand...
Hopefully not seconds before impact
 
Racerx said:
Sort of like how he refuses to say "experimental". If I was ATC I would refuse to recognize "raptor". Peter has an ego problem.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the EXPERIMENTAL call is only required on the initial call up to a given facility, not on subsequent transmissions. I think he’s relatively safe in assuming that the tower personnel is aware of his status, regardless, so that’s a pretty small nit to pick.

Similarly, I think his meaning of “for the option” is pretty clear.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'd like to be a fly on the way in the tower.

"This guy again....(sigh). How long is he going to be here? Who wants local? I don't want to talk to the freakin' Aussie today."
Click to expand...
I had that same thought until ATC asked if it was the first time he got airborne. Sounds like he gained a fan.
 
FastEddieB said:
Pretty sure the EXPERIMENTAL call is only required on the initial call up to a given facility, not on subsequent transmissions. I think he’s relatively safe in assuming that the tower personnel is aware of his status, regardless, so that’s a pretty small nit to pick.
Click to expand...

Don't know if it's required or not but I always use 'Experimental' on the first call ups or when talking to new controllers. After that just my tail number. Some people use 'RV' when talking to ATC and that might confuse them a bit. Incidentally I was flying IFR and when I went to center the controller asked me if I was an Experimental or an RV-10. I replied that I was an experimental RV-10. I can only speculate that some controllers assume RVs are production aircraft.
 
Racerx said:
I had that same thought until ATC asked if it was the first time he got airborne. Sounds like he gained a fan.
Click to expand...

...or a controller trying to gain an edge in the Tower betting pool for the Raptor...

 
OkieAviator said:
Don't know if it's required or not but I always use 'Experimental' on the first call ups or when talking to new controllers. After that just my tail number. Some people use 'RV' when talking to ATC and that might confuse them a bit. Incidentally I was flying IFR and when I went to center the controller asked me if I was an Experimental or an RV-10. I replied that I was an experimental RV-10. I can only speculate that some controllers assume RVs are production aircraft.
Click to expand...
Since it's somewhat ubiquitous, I always use "RV", but did get mistaken for "Army" once.
 
14CFR 91.319 says only that you're required to notify control towers of the experimental nature of the aircraft. No mention is made of the means of notification. It sounds like the tower guy was perfectly aware of the experimental nature of the aircraft, thus the intent of the rule was met. Perhaps the Raptor guy had discussed his upcoming flight tests with the tower staff.

AIM gives examples of making the experimental nature of the aircraft in the initial call-ups, but as many are quick to point out, the AIM is not a regulation.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
14CFR 91.319 says only that you're required to notify control towers of the experimental nature of the aircraft. No mention is made of the means of notification. It sounds like the tower guy was perfectly aware of the experimental nature of the aircraft, thus the intent of the rule was met. Perhaps the Raptor guy had discussed his upcoming flight tests with the tower staff.

AIM gives examples of making the experimental nature of the aircraft in the initial call-ups, but as many are quick to point out, the AIM is not a regulation.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I looked it up out of curiosity, and the AIM says to say "experimental" at the end of your first call-up. I always hear it at the beginning. This thread has led to me learning something new today.
 
FastEddieB said:
Similarly, I think his meaning of “for the option” is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

It is now because they've gotten used to him using it that way. The first few times they were confused. As in, "Uh, you want what? The option? Aren't you on the ground?"

Before he started testing at VLD, he was talking about developing a "code" system to use with tower. That fortunately didn't materialize, either because he took advice in his comments or tower supervisor smartly rejected it.

He likes to over-complicate simple things and over-simplify complicated things.
 
Did he need a special “code word” that meant “the option?” :)
 
Now the whole right seat thing makes sense...he thinks he's special and knows a better way than everyone else. This most definitely will eventually end exactly as some predict.
 
If he is going to fly a majority of right hand patterns it makes sense. If not his visibility is not going to be great in the pattern.
 
Racerx said:
Now the whole right seat thing makes sense...he thinks he's special and knows a better way than everyone else. This most definitely will eventually end exactly as some predict.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if he suddenly decides to switch seats, and spend the next 4 or 5 videos doing ground effect runs getting used to the seat.
 
Oh I think there’s a good chance his first flight will be successful. It’s the subsequent testing flights that worry me. I think they’ll uncover power plant reliability issues, winglet flutter issues, and canard stalling characteristics that greatly differ than his estimates. Of course, I don’t have much confidence in his aileron balancing either.
 
The plane has fundamental issues to it core structure and design.. no amount of work by any actual professional would bring it right

At this point, I trust it will fly, but this thing is going to be plagued with a lot of issues and kinks to work out.. and given how shoddy a majority of the construction is I'd be willing to bet that even if this planes manages to fly for a few years by the time it hits 1K hours on the frame you'll see issues with delamination, cracking, etc.

**I mean, heck.. the plane hasn't even flown yet and there are already portions of the wing where the adhesive has already separated from the skin and the rib
 
Tantalum said:
The plane has fundamental issues to it core structure and design.. no amount of work by any actual professional would bring it right

At this point, I trust it will fly, but this thing is going to be plagued with a lot of issues and kinks to work out.. and given how shoddy a majority of the construction is I'd be willing to bet that even if this planes manages to fly for a few years by the time it hits 1K hours on the frame you'll see issues with delamination, cracking, etc.

**I mean, heck.. the plane hasn't even flown yet and there are already portions of the wing where the adhesive has already separated from the skin and the rib
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Airworthiness Directives and Special Airworthiness Bulletins? These are document airworthiness issues on CERTIFIED products.

Core design fundamental issues example: 6 banger big bore continentals with gear driven alternators some time mind. Their starters and starter adapters aren't much better.

Another crazy one http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=b3128425-d9ef-44df-887f-2f1092a0f4c0.

Not trying to defend Raptor just trying to insert some "bigger picture"

There was an AD on Lycomings with accessory case mounted prop governors, they pumped oil from the back of the engine to an external oil line that runs outside of the crankcase up to a fitting on front of the engine where the oil was put back into the crankcase to the cranskhaft to control the prop. That oil line and/or aluminum fittings would rupture and dump all the oil overboard.
 
Last edited:
Bender Aviation said:
He really does need to be called an Idiot Sandwich by Gordon.
Click to expand...
Maybe he's already in a twisted Food Network show, though: Cutthroat Kitchen, Aviation Edition. "Raptor, your competitor has purchased a sabotage to use against you. You have to make your first flight without touching the ailerons or aileron trim, so you'll have to balance the plane in roll using only ballast."
 
As alluded to earlier, I think Peter has lost his nerve. His schedule has <apparently> turned into some sort of ground run or ground effect testing every few days and a video. What the heck is he doing with the rest of his time, and why doesn't he seem to be pushing every day for a first real flight? Honestly, I wouldn't want to fly it either, but he either needs to (wisely) decide to park it until he has fixed some of the major flaws, or fly it (if he's gonna fly it).

When I was test flying my RV-6 it was fly for an hour, pull the cowl, do an inspection, recowl. Check control linkages. Fly again. As I put hours on the airplane, it ultimately turned into 3-5 hours of flying between inspections, but I was doing 4-10 hours of flying a week and 3-5 inspections a week for 8 weeks to complete my test program. All while working a full time job. Peter's only job (presumably) is to move this project forward.
 
He won’t fly without the balance being perfect on each wheel, but he’ll fly without knowing if it has sufficient cooling? Or brakes that work good enough to keep it stopped while static? This guy needs an intervention.
 
Salty said:
Or brakes that work good enough to keep it stopped while static? This guy needs an intervention.
Click to expand...

You do know there are certified products with brakes that can't hold full power static runups? A whole bunch of FAA approved recip to turbine conversions can't.

MX just straps them to something when full power runs are needed.
 
bnt83 said:
You do know there are certified products with brakes that can't hold full power static runups? A whole bunch of FAA approved recip to turbine conversions can't.

MX just straps them to something when full power runs are needed.
Click to expand...
true. Full power wasn’t sinking in. Too early.
 
bnt83 said:
You do know there are certified products with brakes that can't hold full power static runups?
Click to expand...

I forget the exact story here but it was a runup pre-delivery. F-WWCJ

81898_1195201788.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top