Raptor Aircraft

This so reminds me of the second Gulf War. We're mopping up the Iraqis, destroying everything they try and send at us, marching toward Bagdad. Tereq Aziz is on CNN saying how the Bathists are winning and the Americans are on the run. Full on alternate reality. Reminds me of the Raptor guy. I just hope the thing catches on fire or breaks catastrophically before he kills himself in it.
 
PM could sell the whole project to a qualified individual/company that could get it safe and flying. It would never achieve the original performance/weight expectations that PM set forth, bit it would keep the Raptor from ending up in the junk pile (hopefully). True, he would lose most of his investment, but he would keep his life and go down in the books as the original designer and still provide a bit of an ego stroke for him.
 
NHWannabe said:
As someone who can't draw a straight line even with a ruler, I'm actually impressed with what Peter has done. I can however agree that he hasn't made very good decisions with his workarounds. Tunnel vision is a terrible thing but Peter isn't the first and certainly wont be the last person to tune out advice from others but in this situation it could cost him his life and that would be a tragedy, one of his own making, but a tragedy nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Peter brought in some good help (at least on the airframe side) at the beginning of the project, then progressively stopped listening to them and anyone else who knew what they were talking about. His latest series of fixes don't address any of the real issues with the project. He's just "trying hard" while making no progress.
 
steingar said:
This so reminds me of the second Gulf War. We're mopping up the Iraqis, destroying everything they try and send at us, marching toward Bagdad. Tereq Aziz is on CNN saying how the Bathists are winning and the Americans are on the run.
Click to expand...

I forget if it was Aziz or who, but one of the Muckety-Mucks in Iraq was doing a press conference in an open area (maybe a rooftop) and talking about US/Allied defeats and turning back the invaders (the usual kind of thing you say if you're a mouthpiece for despots). And then there were muffled explosions and smoke on the horizon. The press conference was cut short...
 
Brad Smith said:
PM could sell the whole project to a qualified individual/company that could get it safe and flying.
Click to expand...
Maybe.. but so many headwinds
(1) the market for single engine piston GA is tiny.. they sell what, 2,000 planes a year? In order for it to be financially feasible you'd have to unseat someone like Cirrus (or Piper/Cessna, but this is not geared towards students)
(2) the plane is basically still just an idea. It's riddled with so many issues that you'd really have to tear the whole thing down and start a new. You have ailerons already unlameninating, a dubious control balancing system, a whole host of serious control and weight issues.. it doesn't have enough in it to make it worth saving. Oh, and you can already just buy a Velocity if you want a cool, fast, pusher prop flying-wing-esq type plane

There was a time when I appreciated what Peter was trying to do with single engine GA. I complain often about lack of innovation, but his vision is so misguided and myopic that it's just painful to watch at this point
 
NHWannabe said:
As someone who can't draw a straight line even with a ruler, I'm actually impressed with what Peter has done. I can however agree that he hasn't made very good decisions with his workarounds. Tunnel vision is a terrible thing but Peter isn't the first and certainly wont be the last person to tune out advice from others but in this situation it could cost him his life and that would be a tragedy, one of his own making, but a tragedy nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Tunnel vision and stubbornness aren't always bad things. Look at Nikolai Tesla and electricity. The problem for Peter is everything he's trying has been done before. There's somewhat of a road map and he's on a different page. It's a big Velocity. How does Velocity make their plane controllable? How do they keep the engine cool? Granted by copying someone else we don't get innovation, but sometimes you have to... especially when everything has failed. That or ask and listen to an expert. I work with CAD for my day job. I'm a welder/fabricator. I've also built my fair share of race cars, built my own house from scratch by myself, and worked with some exotic metals for my day job. I'm also an aerospace certified welder, not that I've ever used it. Attention to detail and prep work are absolutely critical to any project. I have little doubt that if Peter sold his carbon fiber shell, someone could make it work. The CAD work and the look of the shell is a thing of beauty. The panel and the seats are as well. The mechanicals are a giant question mark.
 
Tantalum said:
Maybe.. but so many headwinds
(1) the market for single engine piston GA is tiny.. they sell what, 2,000 planes a year? In order for it to be financially feasible you'd have to unseat someone like Cirrus (or Piper/Cessna, but this is not geared towards students)
(2) the plane is basically still just an idea. It's riddled with so many issues that you'd really have to tear the whole thing down and start a new. You have ailerons already unlameninating, a dubious control balancing system, a whole host of serious control and weight issues.. it doesn't have enough in it to make it worth saving. Oh, and you can already just buy a Velocity if you want a cool, fast, pusher prop flying-wing-esq type plane

There was a time when I appreciated what Peter was trying to do with single engine GA. I complain often about lack of innovation, but his vision is so misguided and myopic that it's just painful to watch at this point
Click to expand...
His vision is a big, pressurized velocity with pie in the sky fuel burn and airspeed. People have run the numbers on his fuel burn to horsepower and his figures are simply made up.
 
Racerx said:
His vision is a big, pressurized velocity with pie in the sky fuel burn and airspeed. People have run the numbers on his fuel burn to horsepower and his figures are simply made up.
Click to expand...
We'll see, a few more long pieces of tufting here and there might magically solve all his issues
 
Why not one big tuft the entire length of the plane? Would be simpler.
 
Racerx said:
Tunnel vision and stubbornness aren't always bad things. Look at Nikolai Tesla and electricity. The problem for Peter is everything he's trying has been done before. There's somewhat of a road map and he's on a different page. It's a big Velocity. How does Velocity make their plane controllable? How do they keep the engine cool? Granted by copying someone else we don't get innovation, but sometimes you have to... especially when everything has failed. That or ask and listen to an expert. I work with CAD for my day job. I'm a welder/fabricator. I've also built my fair share of race cars, built my own house from scratch by myself, and worked with some exotic metals for my day job. I'm also an aerospace certified welder, not that I've ever used it. Attention to detail and prep work are absolutely critical to any project. I have little doubt that if Peter sold his carbon fiber shell, someone could make it work. The CAD work and the look of the shell is a thing of beauty. The panel and the seats are as well. The mechanicals are a giant question mark.
Click to expand...
As I recall the Velocity guys offered him advice and they would be willing to work with him.
 
I don't know if I would go so far as to say "willing to work with him". They offered a couple observations and mentioned that they provide transition training.

But I don't think the guys in Sebastian would want anything to do with that aircraft. It would be all minuses and no pluses.
 
donjohnston said:
But I don't think the guys in Sebastian would want anything to do with that aircraft. It would be all minuses and no pluses.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer but I feel like the most probable "reward" for a corporation getting heavily involved is to be added as a named defendant in some not-too-distant lawsuit.
 
donjohnston said:
I don't know if I would go so far as to say "willing to work with him". They offered a couple observations and mentioned that they provide transition training.

But I don't think the guys in Sebastian would want anything to do with that aircraft. It would be all minuses and no pluses.
Click to expand...


From velocity on youtube...It looks to me like the plane is nibbling at a canard stall at least in the pitch oscillations. Could be gap related or just that it needs a little more speed to come out of it. I remember when some Long Ezes as well as the Velocity had a premature very light pitch buck at about 80 to 85 knots that actually went away at a slower speed. In bumpy air, you wouldn't even notice it. Danny added a leading edge cuff on the elevator to help the situation and keep it from happening. Because of differences in builder installation of these, rotation speeds where all over the place so I removed them. With slight changes in elevator gap, this situation was fixed. I am sure if you had your temps in check you could have increased speed by 10 knots or so to see if goes away. Still would have to be addressed but at least you would know. So, before the next flight, I would tuft the canard and let them overlap the elevators so you can see what the air is doing over them. If you see them move sideways when the oscillation occurs then you can be pretty sure it will go away with a little more speed. You might be able to fix it in the short term with some VGs but if you use them, start with a few sets first with tufts behind them and on each side so you can see what the results are. Also, you would want to add some to the main wing as well so you don't change your center of lift too much and get yourself in trouble. Since you have blended winglets, I doubt you have any intersection problems and in Yaw, it looks very good with that ball hardly moving, even with a short flight. Not sure if you had any inputs with the rudders but I would guess not. I noticed that the left aileron was always up somewhat and did move with the roll oscillations. I would make sure that your leverage on the roll push rods with relation to the bell-crank on the aileron is such that you don't have some flexing going on that allows unintended movements especially during the pitch oscillations. As the loading changes on the canard and wings, the loading on the control surfaces does as well and could make the situation worse. I could say much more in trying to help and will if you want. Having done many first flights, I know how crazy that first flight can be and I have never test flown a new design so hats off to you. You were very calm and that is exactly how you need to be. Congratulation and be as safe as you can be when doing these things. As I said, I am here if you need me, even for a quick call. Always happy to help. Scott
 
I don't think the velocity guys meant we'll help you build the thing. But more in if you get stumped and need advice give us a call and maybe we'll have an idea you can try.
 
Brad Smith said:
PM could sell the whole project to a qualified individual/company that could get it safe and flying. It would never achieve the original performance/weight expectations that PM set forth, bit it would keep the Raptor from ending up in the junk pile (hopefully). True, he would lose most of his investment, but he would keep his life and go down in the books as the original designer and still provide a bit of an ego stroke for him.
Click to expand...

The problem with that idea is that his original design consists of an airframe that is ridiculously overweight, a kluged together car engine that he has burdened with turbochargers that will kill it, cooling systems that will melt it down, flight controls that are dangerous, and a pressurization system that will blow out the windows at altitude.

The rest of it is a TLAR copy of a Velocity.
 
3393RP said:
The problem with that idea is that his original design consists of an airframe that is ridiculously overweight, a kluged together car engine that he has burdened with turbochargers that will kill it, cooling systems that will melt it down, flight controls that are dangerous, and a pressurization system that will blow out the windows at altitude.

The rest of it is a TLAR copy of a Velocity.
Click to expand...
Yeah....anyone who could take this pig and "get it safe and flying" would be better off starting with a clean sheet of paper.
 
Email from Peter to deposit holders (I am NOT one). Sounds like he may have gotten some other software guys to bankroll it. I can't imagine anyone with much aviation knowledge putting up however many millions it's going to take.

Guys and Girls,

It's come to my attention that escrow.com is being forced by state rules to return deposits that have been in escrow for over 3 years in order to avoid the funds defaulting to the state. Obviously we don't want that to happen.

These deposits were initially meant to be a gauge of how much interest there was in the Raptor along with a way of holding a place in line. I think it's clear now that there is interest in the aircraft.

So, in order to not create a huge amount of work managing transfer of funds from escrow.com, the plan for if and when you receive a notice from escrow.com is to follow the directions to receive your refund. Then you simply keep those funds and Raptor will still maintain your place in line in our internal database.

If you truly want to cancel then contact escrow.com and cancel and let me know and I will remove you from the list.

I think this is a totally fair way of doing things. We won't need the escrow funds and you still keep your place in line.

As for the production plan, I am working with a group of folks on the West coast and things are looking promising for the plans we are making. I can't reveal any details as yet because nothing is confirmed but if we pull this off you will all be extremely happy. But before any of that can happen I need to get my current changes made and tested and get the first 40 hours flown off the airframe.

Thanks again for your continued support. No need to reply to this email as it's going out to well over a thousand people and I don't want to get inundated with replies.

Cheers,

--
Peter Muller
CEO
Raptor Aircraft LLC.
954-673-5960
www.raptor-aircraft.com​
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
How does he sleep at night?
Click to expand...
On the plus side, he seems reasonable on the subject of the money in escrow... telling people to take their money out, if they wish, and still maintain the position in the production run.

Remember Jim Bede and the BD-12, nobody got their "escrow" back.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Think he, the airframe, or the engine make it to 40 flight hours?
 
At the current average flight duration (including taxi time) it would only take 400 flights to get to 40 hours. With weeks between flights to "fix" everything that broke on the most recent one, it should only take 20 years or so.

But no. I'll be surprised if he manages to get that thing to 40 hours without at least one major failure. Hope it's not fatal.
 
I had mock checkride with DPE last week and the subject of the five hazardous attitudes came up during the oral, we talked about them and the raptor project came up. Peter is displaying at least 3 and maybe 4 of them. Macho, invulnerability, and anti-authority for sure. I just wish he'd stand back and take a serious look at himself and his decision making. No one wants to see this end in a fatality, but he's sure not helping his chances.
 
FastEddieB said:
I don’t see those traits that clearly.
Click to expand...

Well, anti-authority is seen when an audi engineer is telling him how to fix his engine and he ignores him. Invulnerability and macho is getting in an unproven aircraft with an unproven engine that you know will overheat just taxiing on the ground and take it off.
 
FastEddieB said:
I don’t see those traits that clearly.
Click to expand...
There is at least some exhibition of all five...

Macho - Professional test pilots said it wasn’t safe to fly, but they’re just a bunch of wusses. I’m not afraid.

Invulnerability - Even if the powerplant, control system, wings, and instrumentation all do as poorly in flight as they have on the ground, I can put it down on the highway.

Anti-authority - Experienced aeronautical engineers and airplane builders, including those with lifetimes of canard-specific experience, as well as the engineers who designed the engine I am using, have said that there are some small things I can do to make my airplane better. But what do they know?

Impulsivity - I’m going to fly this thing now, even if it’s not a good idea.

Resignation - My choices are to throw in the towel or take to the air in an unreliable, unstable airplane that has not really passed its taxi tests and is definitely not ready for flight testing. I guess there is nothing I can do about it.
 
Racerx said:
Think he, the airframe, or the engine make it to 40 flight hours?
Click to expand...

Even if it does, a first of its kind prototype needs a lot more past that. The experimental Phase 1 flight test is meant for an already established design. 40 hours on this airframe is not going to help him finalize a repeatable and marketable design.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The experimental Phase 1 flight test is meant for an already established design.
Click to expand...

From a practical standpoint, yes. If you use a certified engine/prop combination in your EX/AB, 25 hours is the rule.

But for something as underdeveloped as the Raptor, 40 hours won't be nearly enough to solve all of the problems AND explore the operating envelope.
 
kyleb said:
From a practical standpoint, yes. If you use a certified engine/prop combination in your EX/AB, 25 hours is the rule.

But for something as underdeveloped as the Raptor, 40 hours won't be nearly enough to solve all of the problems AND explore the operating envelope.
Click to expand...
Which is why I ask what are the odds Peter runs out of money or something else causes him to abandon the project, the airframe fails, or the engine is scorched before the 40.
 
Racerx said:
Which is why I ask what are the odds Peter runs out of money or something else causes him to abandon the project, the airframe fails, or the engine is scorched before the 40.
Click to expand...

I think the engine/PSRU is the weakest link. Either the engine eats a valve because of elevated EGT's, the PSRU comes undone (probably the belt or the elastomeric damper), or the engine simply overheats due to the poor cooling system.

As I understand it, the initial airframe structural and aero design was done by people who knew what they were doing, but Peter interjected some of his odd ideas (like the elevator hinged well below the chord line of the canard). The aero isn't that different from a bunch of other canards, so if he can get his rigging and controls right, I *think* the airframe will probably be OK.

There's always the chance of a prop strike (bad gear/prop geometry) or a gear collapse.
 
The rigging of the craft is what has concerned me. The controls are tighter, but I'm not convinced they're "right" or will hold up.
 
If ever there was a plane needing a BRS parachute, this is it.

Can you imagine spin or stall testing this airframe with confidence??

I think there would be higher demand to build a 6 seat low-wing experimental similar to the bonanza a36’s performance and practically.
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
On the plus side, he seems reasonable on the subject of the money in escrow... telling people to take their money out, if they wish, and still maintain the position in the production run.
Click to expand...
I don't think he has any practical choice, does he? He has had no access to the funds - which is the point of using escrow.com - and (per his explanation) if funds sit any longer neither he nor the depositors will be able to get at them. Which would be a PR disaster.
 
Rein Hart said:
If ever there was a plane needing a BRS parachute, this is it.

Can you imagine spin or stall testing this airframe with confidence??

I think there would be higher demand to build a 6 seat low-wing experimental similar to the bonanza a36’s performance and practically.
Click to expand...
I don't think the BRS would work at a 400' ceiling.

During Jimk's search for a PA32 the idea of a 6 seat stretched rv10 was brought up. We'd both be all over it. The 10's have roughly the same cruise as the A-36 with a 6" wider cabin.
 
I think he used a Galaxy GRS for the chute. I guess they say pull it at any altitude because any amount of deceleration will help. I know the conventional wisdom is/was that pulling an airframe chute too low could speed you up by pointing the nose down, but I've heard good arguments both ways.

Regardless, I'm not at all convinced that Peter's chute would save him, even with plenty of altitude. I didn't see the chute install, but for all I know the straps could be attached to the airframe with duct tape and baling wire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top