Raptor Aircraft

Looks like he took a liking to Synergy Aircraft. Personally, I like the Synergy design better but it seems to be another dream that may never come to market..
Synergy-v26-a-960x500.jpg
 
DaleB said:
And correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this thing require a type rating, since it's now a multiengine jet?
Click to expand...
Just wait, the next big reveal is that there will be no pilot.
 
DaleB said:
V2 seems more like a fever dream. I mean, it's a cool looking concept, yes. But the world is awash in "cool looking concepts" that simply do not, will not, cannot work.

In V1, it seems he vastly overestimated the power that would be available from the engine and drive he chose (not to mention its longevity, and the weight of that porker when he finally got it flying). In V2, I think he's making the same mistake, among numerous others -- vastly overestimating the thrust he can get from a couple of ducted fans with the power he'll be able to generate from a anything buried in the airframe. And the whole "We'll have a battery for backup power"... uh, right. Either we've now got an 8,000# airplane, or you have about three seconds of battery power.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this thing require a type rating, since it's now a multiengine jet? I suppose it's up for debate whether a ducted fan is a "turbofan" according to the FAA or not, since I don't think anyone has ever flown one, but I somehow suspect they'll say it is.

Not that it will matter for the next several years.
Click to expand...
Ducted fan is not a jet. There are others out there, the Optica is the one that comes to mind immediately.

600px-Edgley_Optica_Sywell_1.jpg



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgley_Optica
 
DaleB said:
And correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this thing require a type rating, since it's now a multiengine jet? I suppose it's up for debate whether a ducted fan is a "turbofan" according to the FAA or not, since I don't think anyone has ever flown one, but I somehow suspect they'll say it is.
Click to expand...

I can’t see how an electric ducted fan - just a multi-bladed shrouded propeller - is anywhere remotely a jet.
 
231TC said:
True, but he knew he was abandoning the original design quite a while ago and kept flying it to get to his mythical 40 hours, then tried to fly it to Boise. Could have saved himself a lot of trouble and just trucked it to Boise months or even a year ago and started on the new one already instead of risking his life for no purpose.
Click to expand...
His actions the last year are nothing less than baffling.
 
DaleB said:
And correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this thing require a type rating, since it's now a multiengine jet? I suppose it's up for debate whether a ducted fan is a "turbofan" according to the FAA or not, since I don't think anyone has ever flown one, but I somehow suspect they'll say it is.
Click to expand...
It's not up for debate.

FAR 1.1 says, "Turbojet engine means a gas turbine engine that is designed to create all of its propulsion from exhaust gases." A ducted fan produces none of its propulsion from exhaust gases.
 
Lindberg said:
It's not up for debate.

FAR 1.1 says, "Turbojet engine means a gas turbine engine that is designed to create all of its propulsion from exhaust gases." A ducted fan produces none of its propulsion from exhaust gases.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps a tiny fraction of a fraction. ;)
 
In the video, he refers to the Raptor 1 (the corn harvester model) as the prototype for the Raptor NG. That seems a stretch--they have almost nothing in common.

Also, the wing loading looks to be frightfully high
 
Lindberg said:
It's not up for debate.

FAR 1.1 says, "Turbojet engine means a gas turbine engine that is designed to create all of its propulsion from exhaust gases." A ducted fan produces none of its propulsion from exhaust gases.
Click to expand...
OK. I can admit when I'm wrong. Perhaps it's one reason I'm not sitting here at the end of a long trail of cornstalks.
 
The advantages of diesel electric propulsion.

Diesel railroad engines need awesome amounts of with to provide the traction needed to deliver their power to the rails an pull immense tonnage of cars.

An engine too heavy to consider for an aircraft, relative to its power output.
A generator optimized for efficiency, not weight.
Motors in the trucks that are not rated for continuous power, but amazing for the short time of accelerating from a stop.

Ships are on a similar weight to power scale, and flexibility is an added gain with electric drive.
 
As pure exercise it would be interesting to see what someone could do with a basic honda generator and some ducted electric fans

The most reliable piece of hardware I ever had access to was a Honda generator we kept at the marina. It sat outside year round in Massachusetts on a floating dock probably 6 inches from salt water. It never got an oil change, we'd just put gas in it, and it ran for 12 hrs a day without problem. Started on the first pull every time

Eventually what broke was the pull cord to start it
 
I see Peter has learned a lot from this whole experiment (Nothing). Why is it everything this guy tries to do is heavier and more complicated than it needs to be?
 
Bender Aviation said:
I see Peter has learned a lot from this whole experiment (Nothing). Why is it everything this guy tries to do is heavier and more complicated than it needs to be?
Click to expand...
Ha! I ask that about almost every engineer. :D .....which Peter is not.

That's what you engineers get for calling me a bean counter. :p
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Ha! I ask that about almost every engineer. :D .....which Peter is not.

That's what you engineers get for calling me a bean counter. :p
Click to expand...
BS. It's my job to design and build stuff as simple as possible to get the job done, yes sometimes the job and requirements are complicated and require complex solutions but I will NOT make something needlessly complex. Simple is cheaper for the customer and cheaper/simpler to maintain.

Do NOT confuse Peter with any semblence of an engineer.
 
So Raptor 1 was a totally new airframe and totally new propulsion system. He didn't learn anything from that, and is going the same route with Raptor 2. He sure enjoys making it hard on himself.
 
WWFeldman said:
So Raptor 1 was a totally new airframe and totally new propulsion system. He didn't learn anything from that, and is going the same route with Raptor 2. He sure enjoys making it hard on himself.
Click to expand...
In fairness, he learned that pressurization requires too much structure and weight to be worth it.
 
iamtheari said:
In fairness, he learned that pressurization requires too much structure and weight to be worth it.
Click to expand...
And that the Diesel engine + reduction drive + mix matched turbos are too heavy, can't stay cool, and don't produce enough power.
 
Honest question... is this Raptor stuff his full time gig? Is he independently wealthy or something? How does one fund such a monumental failure... and then think they'll just start over on yet another likely failure?

I get the entrepreneurial/experimental/inventor spirit. I really do. The tenacity in folks that do this stuff is impressive (if not sometimes scary). But I cannot fathom the time and money that has gone into what is now (and likely forever) a trailer full of parts that will never leave the ground again.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Are you being sarcastic? Because it IS incredibly efficient. That's how nearly all trains and many oceanliners are powered.

It's not particularly light, but clearly PM doesn't care about weight.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the good Dr. Porsche knew what he was doing when he invented the first practical hybrid electric car in 1900...
 
Mtns2Skies said:
BS. It's my job to design and build stuff as simple as possible to get the job done, yes sometimes the job and requirements are complicated and require complex solutions but I will NOT make something needlessly complex. Simple is cheaper for the customer and cheaper/simpler to maintain.

Do NOT confuse Peter with any semblence of an engineer.
Click to expand...
I'm not. Just commenting on the engineers I work around all the time. Somehow we still make billions. Probably because of the bean counters. :eek: :p
 
Steve Costello said:
Honest question... is this Raptor stuff his full time gig? Is he independently wealthy or something? How does one fund such a monumental failure... and then think they'll just start over on yet another likely failure?

I get the entrepreneurial/experimental/inventor spirit. I really do. The tenacity in folks that do this stuff is impressive (if not sometimes scary). But I cannot fathom the time and money that has gone into what is now (and likely forever) a trailer full of parts that will never leave the ground again.
Click to expand...
Other people's money. He's good at creating concepts that look cool at a glance and making bold claims that sound revolutionary even if they're nonsense. He got at least $2.6 million in investments for the first version. Those are reportedly being paid back now, apparently out of new investors' funds.
 
Tantalum said:
As pure exercise it would be interesting to see what someone could do with a basic honda generator and some ducted electric fans

The most reliable piece of hardware I ever had access to was a Honda generator we kept at the marina. It sat outside year round in Massachusetts on a floating dock probably 6 inches from salt water. It never got an oil change, we'd just put gas in it, and it ran for 12 hrs a day without problem. Started on the first pull every time

Eventually what broke was the pull cord to start it
Click to expand...
Simple math. Whatever horsepower comes from the generator engine is reduced by efficiency losses converting to electricity.
Let's say your Honda generator uses a ballsy 10hp gas engine. Then reduce losses to a completely fictional 1%.
Not even enough power to taxi.
 
231TC said:
Other people's money. He's good at creating concepts that look cool at a glance and making bold claims that sound revolutionary even if they're nonsense. He got at least $2.6 million in investments for the first version. Those are reportedly being paid back now, apparently out of new investors' funds.
Click to expand...

So, this is basically a flying pyramid scheme. Neat!
 
aftCG said:
Simple math. Whatever horsepower comes from the generator engine is reduced by efficiency losses converting to electricity.
Let's say your Honda generator uses a ballsy 10hp gas engine. Then reduce losses to a completely fictional 1%.
Not even enough power to taxi.
Click to expand...
I get that part, and the whole thing with hybrid cars being less efficient cruising on the highway but better at stop and go - yada yada yada. But that little Honda could crank! and it was optimized for one thing, running at ~3K RPM 24/7 making electricity. I'm curious if there MIGHT be applications where the losses from converting from one type to another and back are overcome by optimizing each component for its job. A propeller is most efficient at lower RPMs, right? But most small pistons have their peak performance with higher RPMs, 3-4K.. that sorta thing

Probably not, or it'd be done. But if I had PM's free time and unlimited financial means it would be a fun backyard project.. even if it comes out proving what we might already know

I do believe that for ship's and trains the whole gearing, transmission, cutch assembly, etc., make it "worth it" to simply run a generator and then use electric motors to do the actual propulsive work
 
I wonder how he plans to cool a generator capable of powering that contraption.
 
His new one *might* need a new thread. I'm finally unsubscribing from this thread since I finally feel it's come full circle and there won't be any useful updates for a long time.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
I wonder how he plans to cool a generator capable of powering that contraption.
Click to expand...

Easy. He plans to put the generator in one nacelle, and let the slipstream spin the fan to power the generator, while providing it ample cooling. All of the power generated is cabled to the other nacelle, powering the aircraft's single engine. It's not centerline thrust, but the design seems to have ample rudder authority to compensate. And since it requires no fuel, the weight savings are substantial.

It will require a push to start, but otherwise it's a pretty simple concept.

:D
 
Tantalum said:
I get that part, and the whole thing with hybrid cars being less efficient cruising on the highway but better at stop and go - yada yada yada. But that little Honda could crank! and it was optimized for one thing, running at ~3K RPM 24/7 making electricity. I'm curious if there MIGHT be applications where the losses from converting from one type to another and back are overcome by optimizing each component for its job. A propeller is most efficient at lower RPMs, right? But most small pistons have their peak performance with higher RPMs, 3-4K.. that sorta thing

Probably not, or it'd be done. But if I had PM's free time and unlimited financial means it would be a fun backyard project.. even if it comes out proving what we might already know

I do believe that for ship's and trains the whole gearing, transmission, cutch assembly, etc., make it "worth it" to simply run a generator and then use electric motors to do the actual propulsive work
Click to expand...
So you want an air cooled, carbureted, magneto ignition engine big enough to power an airplane…

oh the irony.
 
This is a simple math problem. The laws of thermodynamics care not a whit how “neat” or “clever” an idea seems to someone.

A fool and his money...


Tantalum said:
I get that part, and the whole thing with hybrid cars being less efficient cruising on the highway but better at stop and go - yada yada yada. But that little Honda could crank! and it was optimized for one thing, running at ~3K RPM 24/7 making electricity. I'm curious if there MIGHT be applications where the losses from converting from one type to another and back are overcome by optimizing each component for its job. A propeller is most efficient at lower RPMs, right? But most small pistons have their peak performance with higher RPMs, 3-4K.. that sorta thing

Probably not, or it'd be done. But if I had PM's free time and unlimited financial means it would be a fun backyard project.. even if it comes out proving what we might already know

I do believe that for ship's and trains the whole gearing, transmission, cutch assembly, etc., make it "worth it" to simply run a generator and then use electric motors to do the actual propulsive work
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
His new one *might* need a new thread. I'm finally unsubscribing from this thread since I finally feel it's come full circle and there won't be any useful updates for a long time.
Click to expand...
Same. see ya folks
 
Tarheelpilot said:
oh the irony
Click to expand...
The most ironic is the thing would start on the first pull each time and didn't involve a voodoo ritual!

Zborder said:
This is a simple math problem. The laws of thermodynamics care not a whit how “neat” or “clever” and idea seems to someone.
Click to expand...
Point missed but that's okay. There are applications where it 'makes more sense' to go through a generator and electric motor vs transmission, clutch, etc. - like the ships and trains mentioned above. Planes aren't it, but in a "junkyard wars" fashion it would have been interesting to build
 
231TC said:
Other people's money. He's good at creating concepts that look cool at a glance and making bold claims that sound revolutionary even if they're nonsense. He got at least $2.6 million in investments for the first version. Those are reportedly being paid back now, apparently out of new investors' funds.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a pyramid scheme? o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top