Looking for feedback on Raptor by Peter Muller

[jetkit]

Hello all.

Thanks for having this forum.

 

I am planning to place a deposit to get in line for a Raptor aircraft, and I would like your opinion on it.

I do like all the videos and construction detail that the designer posts weekly, but I guess I am not fully convinced.

It is very appealing to me to wait 5 years for a pressurized craft I can use and afford, but I like to hear the opinion - good or bad - from those that actually did this with other planes.

 

The plan is to have an aircraft we can use for frequent cross country use, like six months traveling per year.

 

What have you heard?

 

 

 

 

[TMann]

If you select the refundable deposit option ..... what is the risk?

[jetkit]

Only a hair under $500 in 5 years.

Not a major decision point. I am quite interested in what owners and builders of other craft think of the project so far.

[TMann]

Hard for a canard builder (kit or plans) to relate to this plane.

Example: My canopy is roughly 1/8" thick where the Raptor glass is 1/2" thick (to remain intact when pressurized.)

 

There is a level of complexity that is beyond what the average home builder is capable of. This is more inline with the Epic aircraft. I'm sure they have patterned the builder assist program after the one Epic came up with.

You have a flying aircraft after 2 weeks.

 

I know some of the people involved in this and I'll reserve judgement until after they have some test data. Nobody can give you a valid assessment of an aircraft that has never flown.

It would not surprise me if the price goes up once they have a grasp of what it takes to get one in the air. $130K sounds a bit on the optomistic side.

I look forward to this aircraft entering the market.

[Kent Ashton]

How about a Velocity?  I have flown in couple of them.  They are roomy and the performance is pretty good.  If you just want to buy a fast airplane, Cirrus, Lancair IV, Pilatus.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Kent Ashton

[Marc Zeitlin]

On 6/7/2017 at 4:29 PM, TMann said:

Nobody can give you a valid assessment of an aircraft that has never flown.

This.

[Voidhawk9]

I am watching the Raptor with interest. Also Synergy, and a few others. But until they fly and there's solid performance data, who knows. Could be the next big thing. Then again they might never fly at all. I'm hoping of course for the former, while busily building my proven design in my garage.

[AeroTesla1]

I am watching the Raptor with interest. Also Synergy, and a few others. But until they fly and there's solid performance data, who knows. Could be the next big thing. Then again they might never fly at all. I'm hoping of course for the former, while busily building my proven design in my garage.

What is your "proven design" Sir?

 

Thank you,

 

Al.

[Barry]

Al, click on the link in his signature. http://www.canardspeed.com/

[Jon Matcho]

I feel compelled to raise awareness on the current state of affairs with the Raptor Aircraft kit project.  Personally, this was a dead-in-the-water project from the start for the following reasons:

1. Features overload (pressurized?! de-icing, extremely wide) = heavy
2. Untested auto engine conversion (Audi diesel)
3. An untested platform with too many variables; nothing to compare to

Canard-type aircraft require long runways and are best to be kept light.  The engine choice was meant to compensate for this, but I can't imagine breaking into the market with a new kit (let alone a canard) AND a new engine platform.  The choice would be one or the other.

As the time has come and past where the project was expected to have flown if it were more focused and simplified, many issues are coming to light and receiving critical feedback from the community.  Many feel that the project needs to take multiple steps back, although the designer is seemingly convinced that there are just a few issues to airworthiness.

You can get to the comments from the Raptor site, as well as this thread on the HBA site (navigate to the most recent posts).

Choose wisely, and stay safe!

[Voidhawk9]

1,000lbs overweight, a PSRU that's failed twice on the ground with only around 20hrs run time, and a repeatedly modified elevator of dubious effectiveness. Yeah, even his test pilot won't touch it.
I really wish it didn't have serious problems, but I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel for the Raptor.

[Jon Matcho]

3 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:

...a PSRU...

I forgot about that.  Even without the failures, or imagining that it survived even 100 hours would not be enough for me to trust Version 1.0 of the thing.  The amount of engineering needed just to produce a viable PSRU is substantial, and then to prove its durability you'd have to torture-test several with adjustments to the design after each to gain my trust.  

The latest video released just 2 days ago shows Peter enthusiastically pressing on, expecting a first flight next month.  He'll need every bit of that 5,000-foot runway I expect.

Check out this documentary on another man's dream to create an aircraft which was just a bit too much.

[Jon Matcho]

Peter has posted a video update, with him taxi testing a new linkage assembly in his PSRU.  The engine sounds great and the optimism is palpable with high-speed taxi tests coming up as a next milestone.  I truly hope that Peter moves forward with healthy design-build-test-review cycles, learning from mistakes and improving the design, and being smart enough to know whether parts of the design may need to go back to the drawing board.

The thing I realized when watching these videos is that there's no discussion at all from Peter on the constructive criticisms he's receiving in the comments and other places.

 

[Jon Matcho]

On 7/13/2019 at 9:22 AM, Jon Matcho said:

The thing I realized when watching these videos is that there's no discussion at all from Peter on the constructive criticisms he's receiving in the comments and other places.

I found there's actually some discussion on the latest video update, which is startling in how Peter discounts some of the advice he's receiving for even basic things, such as safety-wiring engine parts, especially the spinning bolts.

Here's one exchange that's particularly interesting, with Peter answering a seemingly harmless question with a telling response.  Here's the question:

Quote

I wonder... are test-pilots happy to test-fly Airbus, Boeing, General Dynamics etc, but hesitant to sign on with small teams?

...and Peter's response:

Quote

Well, there's probably more risk involved with what I'm doing. New air frame, new powerplant. But for reasons I have previously mentioned it is what it is and I don't have the energy to swap the engine out for a Continental or Lycoming at this point to prove the airframe. Likewise I don't have the energy to fit the engine to a proven airframe to test it. If I can't find a test pilot I'll hand off the project to someone with some fresh legs who can do all that.

Wow!  Here are my takeaways from this response:

1. Peter recognizes that he'd have been better off if he had went with the aircraft engine approach.  That would have eliminated a HUGE variable in his current equation.
2. Peter is at the end of his runway, in terms of energy, and I assume time and budget.
3. Peter is not going to test-fly his own creation.
4. Peter is not blindly vested in the Raptor project, and Raptor Aircraft may soon cease to exist if a test pilot cannot be found.

Kudos to Peter for having such self-awareness, and sharing this.  This is far more positive than the other possibility, where Peter or a test pilot would be killed.  It would be fantastic if the aircraft were to be successfully flown and improved -- perhaps all of those CAD and computational models are spot-on accurate -- but I remain skeptical and concerned about the next major milestone, which is for a test pilot to jump in and depart the runway.

Stay safe everyone!

[macleodm3]

Through the years, we have watched good friends here on our forums build excellent airframes and then install non-aviation engines.  We have learned that adapting any modern non-aviation engine to an airplane has many more unknown problems than any reasonable person should expect....  there are so many differences between an engine in a car and an airplane.  So many failure modes... its actually very surprising.  I would have thought we could bolt on a Subaru or Mazda or Chevy and just go fly (using safe hardware and wiring practices of course).  It just isn't so.... 

 

 

 

 

[TuscanRider]

A question for the aircraft technicians out there.

If you took the Raptor and fitted a proven aviation engine, i.e. something like Velocity’s set-up, would that be the way to test the rest of the Raptor concept?

we know Peter wants to use the economical advantages of an Audi engine but, a plane that does not fly is called a “model” and the fuel economy is irrelevant.

How challenging is it to swap an aviation engine with an automobile engine or vice versa?

[Kent Ashton]

There is big thread over at HomebuiltAircraft.com.  I think it's going to be a big, overpriced turkey with no market.   "Homebuilt" airplane, YGBSM!

[Voidhawk9]

Changing the engine to something proven would solve a lot of engine issues, but would not solve many other serious problems with the aircraft.

Put a -540 on a Cozy and go fly fast and high.

[Jon Matcho]

10 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

There is big thread over at HomebuiltAircraft.com.

I can't even bear to follow it anymore as it's become a littered mess.  Parts make for an interesting read though:  https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/24721/

autoreply (from HBA) said:

[The Audi engine] is what dooms it. Name me one single airframe intended to go into production (kit or certified) that succeeded with a non-proven engine. Having seen what it takes to bring an automotive powerplant (also a diesel) in airworthy condition, it's outright ludicrousness...

That was on the first page of that thread from 2016.

10 hours ago, TuscanRider said:

If you took the Raptor and fitted a proven aviation engine, i.e. something like Velocity’s set-up, would that be the way to test the rest of the Raptor concept?

That would have been the only way in my opinion.  Peter made a major mistake when he started by combining two major design and development efforts into a single effort:  airframe and engine.  In this business, you are either an engine manufacturer or a kit manufacturer.  The only chance this aircraft would have had would be to use one of the larger 300hp 6-cylinder engines from Lycoming or Continental from the start. 

Alternatively, he could have decided to be an engine manufacturer, made the project all about the engine, and mounted one on a Velocity model as a test bed.

Quote

we know Peter wants to use the economical advantages of an Audi engine but, a plane that does not fly is called a “model” and the fuel economy is irrelevant.

What economical advantages?  MPG on the road does not translate to annualized economy in an aircraft.  Imagine actually owning that one-off custom engine and having nobody willing to work on it?  You'd be left to your own devices, somehow convincing a local auto mechanic to work on it.  Custom parts?  They're terribly complicated and expensive to fabricate.  I would anticipate the overall cost of ownership would actually be greater than with an aircraft engine.

Quote

How challenging is it to swap an aviation engine with an automobile engine or vice versa?

It's very challenging, but very doable and typically happens after people get tired of their auto-conversions and just want to fly.

36 minutes ago, Voidhawk9 said:

Changing the engine to something proven would solve a lot of engine issues, but would not solve many other serious problems with the aircraft.

A good reminder that there are many variables that have changed relative to a Cozy or Velocity airframe that require a substantial amount of time and effort to prove.

@TuscanRider I'm hesitant to ask, but why are you asking?

[Jon Matcho]

Here's a link to the 11:40 mark of the scariest high-speed taxi test yet:  

 

[TuscanRider]

On 11/18/2019 at 3:11 AM, Jon Matcho said:

@TuscanRider I'm hesitant to ask, but why are you asking?

Jon, I’m sick of TSA & lost luggage. Started researching buying a plane,, the Raptor is appealing asides from the possibility that my non-existent grandkids will be graduating college before its possible to fly one. 
Zero plans to buy one & replace the engine but, thought I would ask the experts why he doesn’t

Really appreciate your response, thank you for educating me.
taking my pilots license & will no doubt need to fly a cessna for a while. 
 

[Voidhawk9]

A Velocity or Cozy would probably suit you very well, then.

[Jon Matcho]

Interesting news announced on Raptor's YouTube Community section:

Quote

No video today as I got rained out. I did get the oil changed but mostly I've been preparing for visitors next week. Justin, Elliott and Marc will be here performing a thorough inspection of the aircraft. As some of you know, Justin and Elliot are the potential test pilots. Marc is extremely experienced with evaluating canard aircraft. He does pre buy inspections on all types of canards. If any deficiencies remain they should be outed next week.

The results will be telling.  I am not holding my breath.