Jump to content
jetkit

Looking for feedback on Raptor by Peter Muller

Recommended Posts

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?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Kent Ashton

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)


Aerocanard (modified) SN:ACPB-0226 (Chapter 8)

Canardspeed.com (my build log and more; usually lags behind actual progress)
Flight simulator (X-plane) flight model master: X-Aerodynamics

(GMT+12)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Aerocanard (modified) SN:ACPB-0226 (Chapter 8)

Canardspeed.com (my build log and more; usually lags behind actual progress)
Flight simulator (X-plane) flight model master: X-Aerodynamics

(GMT+12)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.... 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Andrew Anunson

I work underground and I play in the sky... no problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information