Raptor: Revolution or Failure? 

But its going to have a hybrid electric propulsion system! Surely that'll be easier and less-complex than a turbodiesel with a PSRU - right? RIGHT??? :-D :-D :-D

@@noelwade I'm not saying that an experienced team of engineers couldn't design and develop the Raptor NG, but the point is his lack of expertise. The box wing is not an easy, well know design, nor is the duct fan or hybrid electric propulsion system. So once again his lone ranger hubris will undoubtedly get him in over his head. (Like Sheldon, I'm not good at recognising sarcasm. LOL)

Yeah the audacity of the new design is pretty amazing. After ditching into a corn field I would think the obvious conclusion would have been to go with a proven power plane. I suppose he at least learned that pressurization is a waste of wait.

@@rogerolander458 - You may not say that, but *I* will say that an experienced team of engineers couldn't design and develop the Raptor NG. Or rather, that they never _would_ try to do so. The design is _massively_ aerodynamically inefficient in several ways! I started to enumerate them here but it won't fit within the character limits of comments :-P :-D Here are a couple of the highlights (lowlights) of that NG layout: 1) The top-of-wing mount of the ducted fans creates extra interference drag where the shrouds meet the wings. The acute angle between these surfaces will exacerbate the drag and airflow separation (compare that to any decent wing-root fairing that makes these intersections into gently curving obtuse angles). Additionally, the rapid widening of the gap between the rear fuselage sides and the ducted fans *and* the downard sloping angle of the aft part of the wing airfoil in this area will create additional airflow separation and a low-pressure zone that will add noticeably to the overall drag. 2) The lower wing will be contributing very little to the overall lift of the vehicle. That's because the rear part of the airfoil where the fans sit is disrupted by the fan itself. Add to that all of the areas around the fans that will experience airflow separation (see point #1), and you wind up with a very small effective wing area. Essentially that lower wing is just structure that supports the fans and outboard vertical stabilizers - it adds frontal area and wetted area which contribute to the overall drag of the vehicle without doing much else. 3) The vertical fins are just chopped straight some distance below the bottom of the lower wing. No effort has been made to shape them as you would want to (i.e. a "split winglet"). While this lower section of the fin may help reduce the wingtip vortex and add to ground-effect when just above the runway surface, the lack of shaping (taper, twist, sweep, etc) means that this is again going to have a smaller effect than it could while simultaneously being heavier and draggier than necessary. 4) The entire design of the upper wing is completely stupid from a structures standpoint, and nigh-unworkable. Remember that the wing, when flying, will be producing lift and pulling up on the structure. And the greatest concentration of structural load from that lift tends to happen near the middle of the wingspan. Now think about the bending loads on the wing when flying - whole center part of the span has no support (compared to most box-wing designs where the upper or rear wing connects to the fuselage at the center of the span)! The only way to make this upper wing rigid is to create an INCREDIBLY beefy wing-spar; which means a huge amount of weight. That weight must then be carried by the vertical fins; which themselves must now be incredibly beefy (to resist bending loads or side loads. Imagine a big rudder slip or sideways gust of air on those things, with all the weight of the upper wing being borne by the upper tip of the fin. The corners of the fin, where it meets the upper and lower wings, will have to be incredibly strong to help resist "paralellogramming" when there is a side-load applied at the upper or lower wing joint area). And beefy wingtips means making the lower wing spar *also* beefy, since the outboard sections of the lower wing are now going to be asked to carry huge bending loads (downward, due to gravity and the weight of the upper wing when the plane is at rest; as well as upward when flying and the wing is producing lift)! Footnote/Qualifications: I am a pilot with over 1,000 hours in Sailplanes (which use composite structures and have to deal with bending loads on wings more than most airplanes), and I've build my own (propeller-driven) airplane out of aluminum.

@@noelwade Hi Noel, nice analysis. But in my defense I must say that I assumed my mythical bunch of engineers of diverse disciplines would have addressed the issues you raise. And admittedly, I hadn't given the Raptor NG design any serious thought but while the interference drag issues, etc. had escaped me, I did wonder about the structural loads.

More like putting down a gravely wounded and suffering animal and relieving it of its suffering. The 'Raptor' already exists, as pointed out by 'rf6ejguy'; It's call Velocity and is designed and built by a team of professionals with a fleet of aircraft and a large community of owner/builder/pilots.

@@bobstovall5449 also True. I think the biggest criticism people have had here is that there was a disconnect between his perception of the task and the actual enormity of the task, which is why he made so many bold claims at the beginning. As RV6 guy stated, he chose not to simplify. he chose absolutely the most complex type of aircraft he could and ended up with a complex monstrosity. It is a classic case of linear thinking in design, leading to an additive, rather than integrated and efficient end result. None the less, the man built a functioning airplane and flew it successfully. From nothing. Essentially alone. I honor him for that.Aviation needs people who do this. I am not excusing his over-estimation of his skills, but he is smart, is learning, and he can refine it. There is 20-30 kts of just aero clean up that is low priority for him at the moment, but as RV6 guy stated, it will take years and possibly another full build to get all of it fixed, and in the end, yes, he will have something comparable to a very wide, possibly pressurized velocity. I just hope he doesn't hurt himself in the process. " all great adventures begin by first grossly underestimating the enormity of the task"-Anon.

@@troygleeson738 cough cough! Doug Jackson .. cough cough! SV Seeker

Yikes, how'd she go down? I was pretty active in his comments way back when he was tuning in the engine 1-2 yrs ago. I stopped looking when he was tuning it to 27% injection duty cycle and would attack me in the comments via his fan boy proxies. I basically said I know how to get the power you want but so should you if you're the engine tuner and you're doing it wrong. He didn't understand the fundamental basics of diesel engine tuning, last I heard he blew his first engine. I couldn't bare to watch the video, I wanted to see if the failure matched my prediction.

@@kylegoldston That overly complicated re-drive system failed on a cross country repositioning flight. You should see what he's building next...

But The love that someone will try

really I wish I could get the free advice from engineers for the many projects I want to do

So wild to see Peter ignore all best flight test program/engineering practices and barrel head first towards a sure disaster. So much potential behind the idea, and so little belief that doing things right is worth it. Good on you for at least trying to dissuade him

This guy I like. But is outdated. He's an example of not being able to teach an old dog new tricks... why don't he create a flying car?

I think Peter can’t get past his ego. He’s worked very hard and invested a lot of money but often it just seems like he’s reinventing the wheel. He’s too blind to see that the plane has already failed.

@@tuzisawsome2199 Moller is working on that ;-)

@@MrMartinglob what with propellers and rotors LMAO

Budgeting for a kit. Your numbers are amazing! Canard done right...

You are gracious to see your project undone. Oh wait, this was a shitpost wasn't it.

@@keepyourbilsteins what?

@@keepyourbilsteins Don't understand that comment. Velocity was complimented in this video and I'm considering buying a project or kit for an XL now that I've finished a Glasair. Can you explain?

@@rileyswing9731 Sorry, I assumed too much. A shitpost is typically a very sarcastic response. Or a "hot take". Since you've not taken constructive criticism or offers to help on your project with any attitude that resembles humility or gratitude, one can assume that it is not in your nature to admit failure at maximum, or the need to accept input from people that sincerely wish for your project to succeed. No cogent skeptic of your project wishes failure. The entire EA community wants to help you. Buck up. Take the advice from those that have experience. No one wants Raptor to end up a smoking hole that arrives at the scene of the accident first.

I stopped as well. I was just cringing through every video update. Seeing the instability of the plane and the climb rate that is half that of a Piper Warrior, I just hope his untested ballistic recovery system works.

@@Micah1Powell I think he fixed all that now it's stable last few videos

Well Its finally over, he did'nt yard dart the thing like I always figured would happen but I'd say that crash ended the project for sure. Thank God it was just some corn taken out and not people's lives.

Glad he's OK. Hate to see someone spend that much time and energy on something for it to end that way.

@@Tonnsfabrication that was by far the best possible outcome for that whole project.

As an engineer and project manager, I look at putting lots of effort into bad solutions as wasted time and money. You are very on point with your assessment that Peter needs a couple of million dollars and a huge bunch of professional help to turn this project around, but unfortunately that is not going to happen unless the new company Peter is talking about is headed up by someone who can push Peter out of the way. All he has accomplished to perform at this point is to build a bad prototype of a Velocity clone.

I commended him for his drive and tenacity as well. That part is amazing. I agree with the rest of your assessment as well here.

@@rv6ejguy ....I'm starting to form the opinion that his "Drive/Tenacity" is ITSELF a barrier to clear(er) thinking.....I'll coin a phrase..."More Balls than Brains".

You're just making it personal now, nothing intelligent to contribute except bash the guy personally. *He did everything they told him to do that was flight critical.* The Wasabi test pilot was afraid... and kept making excuses. I did not see arrogance on Peter's end. Decisions had to be made... It is like Anthony Fauci telling us to lock down and double mask for another year after you've been vaccinated... There's always going to be risks.. YOUR claims he does not want to make it a success is just you running your mouth. Who did he block? Who? What help was the peanut gallery giving? Who are these internet aircraft experts and what constructive comments were suggested and dismissed? I have made some very critical comments on the Raptor Channel and I haven't been blocked. Keep it facts like this video. The fact is the current prototype is no where near predicted design performance. Short of putting a pt6 on it this aircraft is not going to do what he was hoping it would do.

@@gmcjetpilot So not having a long enough runway to do an aborted take off or suitable places to put it down in an emergency is being "afraid"? I suggest you watch Elliot's crash of the turbine powered Quickie. The fact that he continues to do testing of new experimental aircraft after a near fatal crash proves he is not "afraid" but has probably increased his personal minimums so as to try not to leave behind a widow and fatherless children. Peter was obviously annoyed and reluctant to do the move to a more suitable airport because of the cost but at least he was smart enough that time to take Elliot's advice and give in. Honestly the move was the right choice with how much runway Raptor currently needs. It will probably save Peter's life one day when the engine or PSRU fails at low altitude. On Elliot's second cross country visit he still wasn't happy and kept his reasoning out of the public eye so as to not bash a customer (bad for future business). Also Peter was insinuating Elliot's price for his services was too much for a real Test Pilot and engineer to travel from California. One comment I remember recently seeing and then no longer existed was someone recommending he physically wear a parachute. Peter responded that the aircraft has an airframe parachute and he doesn't need one. His airframee parachute installation is completely untested. If It fails to properly deploy Peter will no longer exist if he is unable to physically bail out. He's even stopped wearing the fire resistant flightsuit and helmet he wore on his first flight. He's now just wearing shorts and a t-shirt on his flights which has decreased his survivability during an incident that wouldn't be fatal if proper personal protection is worn. Also if he isn't blocking people he's at the very least deleting comments. I suggest you look to see if your negative comments are still visible to everyone by using a different RU-vid account because it will still show up on the account you left the comments on. I rarely respond to replies on social media because it just ends up being two people not willing to give in so this will be my last reply.

I noticed that recently he removes all negative comments

@@davidlirio1 If he hadn't moved to Valdosa (on the advice of Wasabi to find somewhere more suitable), the first flight and 2 subsequent inflight emergencies (latest on 16th April) would have put the Raptor in trees. I agree in that Elliot is not 'afraid' of anything, he just mitigates and/or walks away from the unnecessary risks that stare back at him when he inspects what he's about to put his butt into! Who watched their visit to Raptor to do the inspection and was horrified by the level of design/implementation incompetence. I know I certainly did ... so did Wasabi. For me that was 100% a good call.

@@gmcjetpilot he blocked me

Hindsight is always better than foresight. Sower grapes I think.

yes, it IS a train wreck, on the rails still,, the dismissal of a highly qualified test pilot shows where this all is heading, unfortunately.

Same, its a comical build in a morbid kind of way tho.

I'm still laughing........beautiful comment

@@adambarber100 ha!!! I personally know elliot. Theres things like safety margin that need to be consodered...especially in the 1st flight of a un proven airframe and power system. There were also other issues off camera. Elliot is a very smart engineer amd designed and built his own formula 1 racer. He also has experience flying tons of dofferemt types of airplanes. He knows what he needs for a safe test program....amd this "program" didnt meet those needs. Nor was the builder willing to work with them on the changes they wanted to be made before first flight. The guy doing the raptor is a lose cannon...and doesnt know shit about power systems..nobody in their right mind...having limoted knoledge would look at the raptor program up to this poikt and say...yeah sign me up..thats going to be awesome..... hed be lucky to live long enough to sell a single airplane.

@@adambarber100 wow are you uninformed

@@adambarber100 You need to go watch Elliot's video on his channel on the raptor. He goes way more into it than what Peter's edited video actually showed.

@@adambarber100 No, It probably just took Eliot a few runs in the Raptor to realise that this thing aint performing anywhere near close to what Peter told him or showed him on paper...

@@adambarber100 I think the airplane inspired so little confidence, that elliots margins to achieve acceptable risk went way up. Had the aircraft performed better, and workmanship been better, I’ll bet they would have stayed at KCNI

Thank you for posting this.

Wonder why he doesn't use the crowdsourcing online at least those people understand the money is an investment not a prepayment for something not sold yet. StartEnegine was a Crowdfunding website lot of failures there.

I couldn't agree more. I had real high hopes of seeing it fly, until I actually watched that terrifying video of it doing something that resembled flying. The way he acted when Wasabi was there really just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sure a lot of investors and people that put a deposit down backed out as soon as they seen his video of Peters attitude and unwillingness to listen to sound advise.

@@BIGWIGGLE223 I watched a lot and put a lot of my "that seems weird" feelings down to not being an expert in any way. But when he said something along the lines of "oh, yeah, circlip to hold on the oil seal, it just seemed like too much trouble to put it on, so I just left it off" The clip that stops the oil seal being blown out and dumping all the oil overboard. Too much trouble. Oh My God.

@@gasdive Don't forget the hair tie on the door latch

Had he approached it incrementally and collaboratively by for example approaching Velocity or an experimental engine builder with a proposal to build a auto conversion engine, he could've maybe gotten the guidance along the way on how to do it properly, and maybe someone would've taken an interest in certifying a conversion kit. The only selling point/revolutionary aspect of his project was the prospect of taking audi crate engines that are abundant and dirt cheap from scrap yards, clamping on a gear box and go fly another 2,000 TBO for a few thousand dollars. The airframe wasn't any better than the current tech (Velocity), nothing new about carbon fiber construction.

It did. Luckily no one died.

Not just pitch but roll too. And nasty oscillatory coupling. Its scary to watch and he insults anyone who mentions it like a parent with an ugly baby. He blames it on turbulence when any pilot with instincts would say, looks like a relatively smooth day to me.

@@Chris-bg8mk Sometimes you find people and come away thinking, "This person was educated beyond their intelligence."

@@Chris-bg8mk The turbulence was not the problem. He needs to raise the canards or lower the main wing, or both.

History proved you correct.

Good comment.

hoping Pete gets so mad that he walks away to clear his head, sees the errors of his ways and put a proper plan together to correct the flaws in his prototype and get it airborne.

@@dirkk4992 I'd love to see these two guys locked in a room and debate all of this. Mr. Muller would get very angry, turn bright red, and then start crying and gnashing his teeth.

200 mph at 6.5 gph ????

They didn't really develop they were there from the start Peter is just to hardheaded and sure of himself he doesn't see the problem or really know how to correct them

Expand on that please? I would like to learn more.

I think those brothers are going to make a huge success of their project. Clearly have the requisite knowledge and education.

I like to watch DarkAero content immediately after I watch anything about Raptor; the contrast in basic engineering competence soothes my troubled soul hahahahaha!

It's completely night and day differences between what they're doing at Dark Aero and what Peter is doing with the Raptor. Dark Aero is doing it right. So far. If I've learned anything from watching Raptor all these years now, it's to not get too sucked into the "projected expectations", but always keep my expectations low.

Dark Aero is also an awesome project. 39.6K Subscribers producing 92 videos. Speaks for it's self. A fast efficient 2 place aircraft with an aircraft propulsion system that's well known in just 2 years of development is very rapid. I'm looking forward to their test flights.

@@BIGWIGGLE223 , My takeaway from both projects is that they are daring to endeavor to produce better than before experimental light aircraft that are affordable, fast and fuel efficient. Dark Aero is working at classical, conventional 2 place machine build with modern carbon fiber composite materials. Still a naturally asperated antique air-cooled petrol engine that TBOs at 1,500 hours. Raptor is a widebody design that is fast and efficient. The takeoff and landing speeds are similar to a small corporate jet. Peter Muller is employing CI diesel propulsion that is very efficient, very clean exhaust emissions with a low fuel flow to horsepower ratio. It will burn Jet-A fuel with additive or diesel. In Africa by necessity of not able to get Jet A or 100 LL fuels in that country we have 20 years history of auto converted CI 3~4 liter piston diesel engines to aviation that statistically are proving reliability to turbine engines with up to 5,000 hours uneventful running hours. Shock cooling is avoided with liquid cooling lowering maintenance cost. The series turbos deliver about 240 HP with about a 12 GPH Fuel Flow at continuous cruise settings. The main point of both builds is employing carbon fiber instead of fiberglass. Both channels are showing the public how to do it to the public. Folks like myself that have been working with more established now certified manufactured aircraft that started this process over 25 years ago simply haven't had time to produce quality video content like these two companies have. We were living under a rock and couldn't see the forest for the trees. Now we are collaborating together to work at building better aircraft. I credit Peter Muller with the Raptor Aircraft project with opening our eyes. He started this conversation as well as Mike Patey. We have the tools to build much better single engine piston aircraft. I love turbine engines but can't afford the fuel flow for transporting myself around in aircraft. Turbo diesels deliver more available horsepower than petrol engines with almost half the fuel flow when configured properly and last much longer with proven dependability. I won't create another company however both Raptor and Dark Aero have motivated me to silently blend and build my own experimental private GA personal aircraft that's built from carbon fiber materials and employs a marine CI diesel series turbocharged engine converted to aviation. Others are doing the same thing in the DIY (Do It Yourself) avoiding corporate manufacturer road blocks. I hope your having fun because we are!

Won't it be wonderful if Mike Patey dropped in and helped on the Raptor. But then again Peter wouldn't listen to Mike. Sad!!!

Agreed.

Look up the history of Viking (Eggenfellner) business practices before making any decisions.

@@bh3141 don’t i know it lol..... this was a question hopefully to shed light on Viking’s bs marketing, and questionable tech implementation.

Dude. Are you a stalker?

@@paulslevinsky580 lol. Nope, but they should be covered to to same depth.

@@PeteZoot I remember a guy describing his experience with a Wankel engine conversion "specialist" of the same vintage named Duncan. He was separated from $25 grand in 1990's money. I'm putting a prop on a $300 dollar Honda clone, so I win the smiles per dollar contest.

A good friend had a $2K deposit on Raptor and thought the specs were too good to be true but since the money was in escrow, if it didn't pan out close enough to his requirements, he could get his money back. Entirely reasonable.

A quick sanity test is calculate the HP required for the Cirrus to fly with the drag that Peter modelled it as having. Hint, it's engine seems to be exceptionally conservatively rated...

The message was harsh but the delivery was smoooooth.

I couldn't have said it better. His willingness to play chicken with future customers lives has really pissed off a lot of people. I wonder how much time he spends going through and deleting negative comments after every single time he posts a new video. That's gotta be exhausting.

I seriously doubt he has hull insurance and doubly doubt he has investment insurance. Miracle if he could find liability.

I remember watching the open house video. It seemed the potential customer base he was attracting seemed they might have had a limited aviation background, as your dentist. The U Tube videos apparently were intended from the start, as a way to advertise and promote the idea without addressing the numerous difficult engineering questions. As you said, selling a dream.

No mesmerizing fraud tries to fly his own plane especially if he knows it was smoke and mirrors that he sold to the public. He has risked his own life for this project, which proves to me he is sincere and not what you are calling him.

@@yashmanwani6232 We don't know what PM really thinks of his project, the You Tube videos and commentary have presented a one sided positive viewpoint that he wants us to see, and glossed over many negative aspects of the design, which have now become apparent, summarized in RV6jguy"s video. These videos have become a successful promotional and marketing tool for him. PM may indeed be showing determination and risking his life in continuing in attempts to fly this plane, and it may be an effort on his part to prove something to himself or others, but in the end, may just reveal a series of diminishing returns.

Positives and negatives are all out in the open. Nothing is hidden. Nothing is mesmerizing smoke and mirrors. All is out in the open.

Agreed and those of us who have built lots of stuff have had our failures too. The big difference I see here is he's trying to sell this to other people as some superior game changer.

@@ryanthomas2472 , I'm scheduled to work on two Lake Aircraft this week. One of the guys that owns one of them is an airline pilot. He has a deposit on a Raptor. Good idea... We may discuss that Wednesday while working. Thank you. Lakes have turbo charged engines you know. I'm not trying to be funny. Good idea! Cheers

@@ryanthomas2472 , We probably could have contributed to the Raptor project if we would have been aware of it at that time. I wasn't made aware of his fine work till June of 2020. I was looking for a all composite start-up aircraft company that had already produced the female production molds for my 135 KW hybrid electric aircraft propulsion system. I employ lofting to fabricate plugs for production molds. I've had the privilege to plug for other's their ideas, some drawn up on napkins over the years. I've found that once we fabricate a concept prototype to full size intent and application. We then can balance the composites for price-point, supply-chain, workmanship, support, strength, weight, reliability, quantity of materials needed and make adjustments for performance on the production prototype. The key to our success is that while we are testing the production prototypes in real-world application we are also testing the 2 foot models gleaning the fluid dynamics of what it is we are spending time to achieve. We then add the features that make the 2 foot model more efficient to the production prototype for further testing. To me testing the production prototype is the most fun. After the final production prototype is molded for production another idea comes along and we keep moving forward. I've never heard of an experimental boat however I've been testing different powerplants that have aviation capabilities for years. I've never talked to Peter Muller and he has not responded to my offers to work with him to produce high quality carbon fiber and composite parts for Raptor as we do for other FAA certified aircraft manufactures. That being said I'm thankful for his efforts to make and produce his Private Experimental Aircraft. I have a family member that is large and heavy that loves to fly little aircraft. She isn't comfortable flying a 182. With refinement the Raptor type aircraft would work for her. So you see what some call a bad idea may be the perfect solution for someone else's needs. I wouldn't have used his business model to undertake such a project however the folks that have the excess funds to support the project have opened my mind that Experimental Aircraft is the path. Serious conversations are happening in the aviation world. The Raptor project has set targets and goals to achieve that are tough. If it were easy everyone would do it. Laminar flow winged canard watercraft that happens to fly and land on an airstrip or load on a trailer may be a solution. I'm sure someone will try it. I've found if we can think it, over time we can produce it. It takes persistence, tenacity, desire, time, fun, community interest/involvement, experience and luck. The naysayers with their lack just settle. Yesterday I landed at Franklin County Airport in Texas. The transmission power company are constructing the towers for the new infrastructure. I was privileged to see an incredible helicopter that drinks Jet A at 550 Gallons of fuel per hour. This aircraft is rated to lift 20,000 pounds and also serves for fighting forest fires. It has a front pilot and a rear pilot, copilot and flight engineer. It's outfitted with 4 each 400 gallon fuel tanks facilitating 2 hours of flight time. The air-crane is a CH-54E. Because of the fuel flow 2 tanker trucks must be on site to keep this bird flying and traveling ahead on cross country flights. I know the turbine engines well that provides the propulsion as well as the APS that starts it. Turbines have their place however the fuel flow isn't affordable to facilitate light aircraft or the price tag of operations. I've been silently working on that solution testing with boats. I've been employing aircraft construction methods in producing yachts since 2008. We have independent teams of folks in place that produce the best composites, CNC production here in DFW for aerospace that have been actively working for producing their dreams concerning light aircraft to rockets. Looks to me like more fun times ahead spending quality times with folks perusing their various passions of transforming ideas into reality in the composites world and piston propulsion. No one person has all the answers however addressing concerns is paramount. Turbocharging CI Diesel Engines and cooling with little drag is tough for light aircraft operations however in my humble experienced opinion, series compounding to produce about 240 horsepower for operations at FL-24 employing the 3L V-6 aluminum engine with a target of 12 GPH fuel flow is a doable target. I'm pursuing this myself and for myself. But silently... I like the reserve power that this configuration offers that the Continental air-cooled petrol fueled engines cant offer at about the same weight... I hope your having fun because we are here in DFW. Cheers

I agree. He just didn't understand how to use the CFD program or what approximate real-world numbers for his design might look like. He was off by a factor of around 5 for drag. The L/D ratio made no sense either (off by a factor of 3-4) and he didn't know enough about propeller thrust with hp and velocity to do a back check on if any of his CFD numbers made sense either. I am not a professional aircraft designer but I know enough about these subjects to know that all his assumptions and calculations for speed and drag were massively in error as I've demonstrated here. You couldn't have 2000 pounds of drag force when you only had around 330 pounds of thrust force at 210 knots. If you did have 2000 pounds of drag, you'd need about 1500hp to overcome that! CFD and FEA software are tools for experienced people with aero and mechanical engineering backgrounds primarily. These folks know from experience and training what is at least in the ball park when the program spits out results. I've seen an over reliance on FEA these days to design parts without actual static testing to validate the results. That's dangerous and have seen a number a parts quickly fail in service. Computer models need to be validated by actual testing- especially in aircraft and are only as good as the numbers entered in. Too many assumptions made, often yields erroneous results for the output data.

I'd be interesred in this as well. That team really has their act together. It looks fast and compact even on stands.

I'd also like to see an outsider's look look at Dark Aero 1. I enjoy their videos. The main thing I've seen which I'm not a fan of is the way the control panel is part of the canopy. I'm concerned repeatedly flexing all those wires will eventually lead to one or more of the wires breaking. I personally think they should redesign the way the canopy opens so it doesn't cause repeated bending of the instrumentation wires.

I do like what the Dark Aero guys are doing and they are actually engineers but they are again projecting performance figures and putting out kit prices before it's even built or flying. Why do newby designers have to do that? Why not get the prototype built, flying, sorted and tested before saying anything? Then you don't need to make excuses for any shortfalls. I don't see it meeting the cruise speeds they are projecting and I think it will come in a bit heavier as well.

@@rv6ejguy it's all bc people are too lazy and impatient to do anything the right way; From the bottom up. Everyone wants to skip over the part where they put their own money where their mouth is and instead go for everyone else's purse strings. One thing I really can't stand is when people think they can cut corners. What they're doing is light years ahead of that disaster, Raptor, but they're still doing it all wrong. They want to get paid before they even know exactly what they're doing.

@@rv6ejguy Because getting it flying requires money. And you can't sell preorders with question marks. It's one thing if your an existing manufacturer with sales to float R&D, another story if you need to figure out how to keep the lights on with no actual product.

@@BIGWIGGLE223 darkaero is 100% self funded. Three people can make a lot of money in 10 years as professional engineers, especially in a low COL environment

@@JH-tc3yu I forgot about that comment. And these guys have most definitely proven me wrong. I am cheering for them all the way now. Oof... That comment didn't age well.. lol! Live and learn I guess. Happy to be proven wrong.

The plane was hugely overweight, so useless right there for its intended mission. The whole thing was a s**t show from start to finish.

i would amend your comment to "i hope peter survives".

@@TeemarkConvair ...this is true... I hate that I agree with you...but, yup.

The original estimate from 2013 was 1800 pounds, revised in 2018 to 2000 pounds. After weighing in 2019, the aircraft has had ballast, coolant tanks, coolant, extra heat exchangers and plumbing, steel keel plates, control mass balances, a heavier drive coupling and some other smaller bits added, bringing weight up to over 3400 pounds by my estimates, so useful load is closer to 400 pounds- 2 people and an hour of fuel at best. Not a useful 4 place airplane in any way.

Tire rolling resistance falls off with velocity and air drag increases with velocity. Both of these forces at the average speed of 40 knots amounts to less than 60 pounds force I'd estimate, so around 10% of total average force required. Since my 60% prop efficiency estimate is probably on the low side, this favored higher than true hp being estimated. If we throw in 10% more for air and tire drag, we end up with 253hp which is still 100+ hp less than the designer was estimating. My goal was to show from 3 different angles why the designer's hp estimates (based on fuel flows) cannot be close to correct. My video #106 discussed the improper matching of the turbos on this engine with is likely the main cause of the very poor BSFC figures being achieved here. The turbines are extremely restrictive and the small 1st stage compressor results in high CDTs. The extreme EGTs are a consequence of this and indicative of low thermal efficiency. Contributing factor could also be sub-optimal mapping of the aftermarket fuel injection system.

I did my own calculations of actual Raptor performance a year or two back. They were close to the numbers Ross has in this video, including the atrocious BSFC. Before Peter revealed the fuel flow rate... Others who can also do the maths have come up with similar numbers too. So, there are those of who can do the maths coming up with numbers close to Ross, and Peter and fans with their wildy different (and hopelessly optimistic) guesstimates... Peter lacks the maths and physics to estimate true performance. He chose to launch the project relying on internet apps and his own guesses rather than getting someone who could calculate run them for him. $3,000,000 of other peoples money blown on wishful thinking.

Don’t forget the equity he sold to get another mil or so

@@ryanthomas2472 My bad as to customer deposits. It's obvious he's hurting for cash as he's so unwilling to make some of the more proper changes that are expensive and will stop him from doing flights. He's putting bandaids on the cooling issue instead of doing the proper changes the forced induction and cooling systems so he doesn't have to cut into the airframe in anywhere structural. Also he needs to figure out the static port issue. Lancair managed to find literally the only spot on the airframe to put the static port because they did computer testing to find a spot that wasn't effected.

@@ginacalabrese3869 when he was having the side stick issue, I carefully reviewed all the videos and listened intently to what he was saying but I realized there was a type of bearing he hadn't tested that works linearly and rotationally and I happen to have about a thousand of them in stock... I first got a hold of him said I had a solution and offered to send him enough bearings to do 10 Raptors for free. I had been hoping I could make a meaningful contribution, this was my chance. He said he looked at those bearings I didnt understand the problem and proceeded to tell me the issue that these bearings didn't fix and asked me politely not to waste his time on this issue again. My words not his he was very polite. I tried to tell him I DID understand the problem and these bearings would solve that problem specifically. No reply. So I mocked up a stick with brackets that clearly would replace his as a very simple elegant solution which would be rigid and not stick. It used two of my ball bearing sleeved linear rod mounted on a chromed hardened steel hollow shaft normally used in CNC motion machinery. .... I posted it on youtube so he could see it in action. I told him the video was 13 seconds long and gave him the unpublished video link and said if he wanted it I would send him a finished plug in unit if he wanted to give me the bracket drawings or I could send him the materials and a dozen bearings for free. He never responded nor did he take the time to watch the 13 second video. If he were serious about exploring options I could not have made it easier for him. The fact that he wouldn't look at a 13 video made me wonder what other stuff he hasn't looked at? My feeling at the time was I had challenged him and he had dismissed me. He is too proud or ego too big to admit he has been bested by someone else's idea. I admit, I'm a little butthurt. I understand why he would be. And that's the point, if my idea had turned out to be bad, I would have dropped it and conceded if it meant the better solution had been implemented. I think he needs to be the one to come up with the ideas. Once he thought he knew what I was saying he implemented something similar. The solution ended up being something he told me he had already though while clearly not understanding what I was saying. I'm not explaining this very well in other words he ended up doing what he thought I was suggesting while telling me it wouldn't work and refusing my help because he didn't want to share the credit maybe I don't know. The point is he ended up putting something in that was cheesy in my opinion. What really irked me was how he talked about how smooth his new solution was. He used all the same words I used to describe my idea. All he had to to was bolt this flight control stick to the existing panel and rear bracket mount. It had two captured bearings that allowed for smooth as silk effortless sliding and rotating of the stick and added rigidity instead of binding the system. With no way of ever coming our flexing which might cause binding in the system. There, I've got it off my chest. I feel better already. Its not just money. There are I'm sure a lot of things that he hasn't done because he wanted to be the guy who did it all.

@@christopherleveck6835 is the video still available?

@@christopherleveck6835 my observation is that he does not know what he does not know. He cannot evaluate if your solution is better or not because he lacks the prerequisite subject knowledge to properly evaluate the idea. So he goes with what he does understand and overlooks outstanding ideas. Lately he has become fixated on flying off the first 40 hours, a requirement before he can go into airframe production. I can only guess but I suspect that is a financially driven decision because it's the only logical reason I can come up with.

Not really at all ended up on the ground.

Absolutely. Now that really is a boondoggle....! R

@@RalphEllis Boondoggle is too kind, more like straight up fraud.

Pipedream Vaporware Phantasy flier