Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Raptor - 300kts, 130k usd, 7gph jet-a1

airways: I see your point about roominess. Didn’t realize this would be such a major deal maker.
The Raptor packs so many goodies that one tends to oversee other people’s motives.
Your point of view gave me this idea:
What if Peter licensed the airframe to another company for them to make a non pressurized Raptor with a conventional engine. I dare suggest Velocity.
This way, people who are interested in the more basic features of the Raptor, such as roominess, looks, whatever, can buy much sooner
The income would be in the form of a royalty per plane. ($ 5 K?)
This would avoid losing some of the deposit holders – this is likely to happen naturally and will accelerate once people hear how much longer they actually need to wait.
The royalty money would fund further development and the early customer feedback will be extremely useful to help detect and iron out issues that can become killers in the “full” Raptor.

LSGG, LFEY, Switzerland

Under CS-23.49 (since the passing of amendment 1 by ED Decision 2009/001/R, incorporating NPA 2008-08), it is allowed (single engine planes and twins of 6000 lb or less) to exceed 61 kts Vs0, if:

  • either the plane can climb 1.5% OEI [CS 23.67(a)(1); obviously only possible for multi-engine aircraft]
  • or the plane’s maximum load factors are increased by a factor of (Vs0/61 kts)² and the seats must meet some adjusted standards [CS 23.562(d)]

Under amendment 5 (issued by ED Decision 2017/013/R), that whole text is removed from CS23; the limits are moved to the AMC; the AMC just refers back to ASTM F3179/F3179M-18 Standard Specification for Performance of Aircraft.

I think that this is just aligned with FAR23?

ELLX

What if Peter licensed the airframe to another company for them to make a non pressurized Raptor with a conventional engine. I dare suggest Velocity.

I had the impression Peter was hinting at this possibility after the meeting with the first test pilot a couple of months ago.
Dropping the pressurization might already be a tough pill to swallow for future customers. It is a big part of “flying comfortably”.
It would be nice if there was a choice of multiple engines, but as we know in aviation it would cost a ton of money to test different configurations.

One thing that absolutely has to be retained is the chute. It is what the market wants. Ask Mooney…

EBST, Belgium

I assume the test crew will be expensive. Or are they taking a share in the project?

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

After lots of modifications, test crew back on Monday so perhaps a test flight soon?

United Kingdom

The designer hired Wasabi test pilots to test fly it. They are extremely professional and went through the design and build with a tooth-comb before even running taxi trials.




This YouTube video (warning it is 1 hour and you may want to watch it all) from Wasabi (not the designer/marketer) is remarkably candid, and explains in detail how they’ve inspected and checked everything from the strength of the undercarriage bolts, to the play in the aileron/elevator controls, to how the door mechanism operates. They chose not to fly from the builder’s airport due to lack of suitable off field landing options but did manage a few high speed taxi runs. It was quite surprising to see them fully kitted up with oxygen masks like fighter pilots to do just that, but shows the level of preparedness they go too.

The Audi engine is perhaps the weak point – what happens if a belt fails? – but the attraction of a GA aircraft that can fly sipping Jet A fuel at up to 230 knots is high.

The aircraft has already been moved to another site, is conducting more ground runs and I would expect it will fly at some point this year, possibly fairly soon, and I think that employing professional test pilots will significantly improve safety and the marketing potential of the aircraft in the medium term.

See also the main website for the aircraft at http://raptor-aircraft.com/ and associated YouTube blog at https://www.youtube.com/c/RaptorAircraft

FlyerDavidUK, PPL & IR Instructor
EGBJ, United Kingdom

Wishing him the best. Seems like he was a bit put off by what wasabi said and now seems to want to do In ground effect test flights himself. Let’s see…

Switzerland

I think the engine should be put on a test bench for a looong time. There are so many unproven ideas that it si like playing russian roulette.
The failures he is seeing perfectly demonstrate why and how things would go wrong…
Also wondering how he intends to get rid of the excess weight.

LSGG, LFEY, Switzerland

What I don’t understand is why he put so much effort into the interior (just look at those rudder pedals). I would first make it fly and then make it nice. I mean everyone is waiting for this thing to fly and not to look good. The exterior already looks exciting enough for people to buy that plane especially in conjunction with the alleged performance.

EDQH, Germany

I was a big fan of this project but the way he’s ditching the Wasabi-guys makes me think this is becoming a disaster. I found those test pilots to be pretty reasonable.

EBST, Belgium
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top