This is the longest youtube video I've ever watched and I didn't think for a minute to hit pause or stop. Loved every minute, especially your "go/no go" decision process!
@@philpotter6388 Funny you said that. My wife was trying to get my attention while I was watching the video for something less important as well. There was frustration....lol
"There's been too many examples, some recently, where the owner-builder has thought they could open the envelope slow and been surprised how fast the envelope opens it's self with unfavorable results." - Elliot Seguin This is exactly why I'll be hiring a professional like Elliot when I complete my build, albeit a simple, time tested design that many are flying. There's so many lessons to be learned for us builders from these test videos. It's very interesting, seeing the dynamics of self preservation, objective engineering, ego, and all the other emotions/psychology that comes into play when putting blood, sweat, time, and large amounts of money into a project only to see it put on ice. Everyone made the right call, hats off to you guys and thanks. You're doing all of us a great service.
Really hard video to watch in some ways. I'm glad you're doing what you can to make the first flight of the plane a safer affair. We need guys like Peter building these crazy new things, and guys like you making sure it's not the last thing they do.
Exactly. Scotty Wilson and his team spent 6 years building that Bugatti 100p replica. He crashed fatally on his third flight, and just because he hadn't the professional guidance from an expert like Elliott Sequin. We want Peter to be safe when he can fly the Raptor himself. video report here: ruclips.net/video/qyNdOtz9lPA/видео.html and here: ruclips.net/video/44AZZerPtN0/видео.html and here: ruclips.net/video/hYSbSGuJUI0/видео.html
@@yvindascanius6061 Yes exactly! Doing postmortems of catastrophic disasters isn't pleasant when someone is hurt. Pilots are family. When one gets hurt we all hurt! Pilot error happens every day. Developing aircraft that forgive these pilot errors is a double edge sword with trade offs. Dynamically learning the tradeoffs within the world envelope isn't static as there are wide ranges of variables. Taking the time on the ground with baby-steps and determining GO ~ NO-GO scenarios with planning is a no-brainer. Burt Rutan developed these style aircraft about 30 years ago. So everyone thinks this style aircraft has been flying for a long time with few mishaps. When John Denver got hurt in this style aircraft I lost interest. Raptor has regained my interest as it is a remarkable solution for single engine piston Experimental GA (General Aviation). Understanding Burt Rutan's original design and the innovative deviations that The Raptor Project has in comparison may shed light of why it is wise to take these baby-steps. #1 The Propeller - BR's original design = two blade fixed pitch... Most pilots don't have a clue of all the subtle choices and effect these choices add or take away concerning dynamic performance. We have choices of wide power cone thrust and narrow speed cone thrust for example. Changing these subtle differences makes huge overall performance dynamics as to configuration. Propeller changes alone related to thrust cone will make the difference of induced Dutch oscillating roll and stable flight. A constant speed propeller doesn't adjust the thrust cone. That's designed into the propeller! Finding this in ground effect with enough runway to shut down and safely land is priceless! Then the cone thrust can be changed and prototype tested again with no harm done! And we are just talking about the propeller thrust cone choice! Remember... It's a prototype that I expect will need relatively minor adjustments for stable flight! Over all... Raptor is very promising according to my slide-rule graphing! Best wishes everyone.
@@utopiasnow - You never noticed that You screwed up when all issues on the list where addressed and clear and then, comming out that You do not fly it due to the Airport. You never mentioned before that the Airport is a show stopper. So why flying over the country to bring up this judgment on the last second. Very sorry, but you failed compleaty as I also missed commitment to push the Raptor program forward with the task that you assigned. Very sorry Eliot, very sorry.
I’ve watched Peter for quite some time now and have contributed financially to his current needs. As a mechanical engineer that has designed and built aircraft for almost my entire life except for flying for the Navy I’m glad you take the Test Pilot sternness with Peter. I have had the misfortune of having to remove the dead body of one of our Test Pilots from one of our aircraft due to high vibrations. This is not anything one ever wants to be part of or ever see again. Your reporting of the discrepancies found has been enlightening to say the least. Reducing risk is paramount in achieving a successful flight program and the aircraft. These mitigation’s require acceptance by all parties concerned and I believe you have educated Peter and have given him the understanding he needs to succeed with his program. Great job from you experience and educating everyone watching. As being part of several test programs I could have watched for several more hours of in-depth review on the Raptor aircraft. I now have several more questions about the Raptor aircraft and I believe I warned Peter about aileron strikes causing delimitation of the wings surface. I’ll have to go back and check my comments. I believe there are quite a few people who are still willing to help Peter financially to succeed in his program. With a new aircraft engine design adaptation and new aircraft structural configuration there are going to be hundreds if not a thousand grips prior to feeling comfortable enough to finally decide to request a departure heading. I wish you all the safety and success in your partnership with Peter and the Raptor aircraft program. If he doesn’t listen to you please show him photos of programs of failed test flights where pilots took matters into their own hands and pilots got behind the power curve trying to fly and handle their aircraft because I would rather donate more money to see him succeed than to hear about the Raptor aircraft on a UTube video. Fly safe and fly often!
32:56 "I couldn't think of a scenario where you're flying along and all of a sudden your battery has zero volts." 50:53 "Jump Start." Maybe he should start thinking out more scenarios. This thing is a compound EP just waiting to happen.
Yup, or shorts, disconnects, and the fact that MANY pilots have had it happen over aviation history, but hey, HE can't think of any, so all is good. WOW. That is why we have COMPLETELY redundant systems for things like missile flight termination (destruct) systems, and those systems get tested to DEATH beforehand, and qualified through shake and bake, accelerated aging, interference, extended temp environments (military, in my case), etc. after design, as customers, and range safety require. I have been through those design reviews at WSMR, and they are fairly thorough, and again, that is after careful design, and design quality reviews, debug, all manner of fault injection testing, single and multiple point failure tree analysis, statistical modeling, simulation, etc. But "I can't think of any". I have heard of batteries (and just about everything else) completely catastrophically failing in testing more than once, and those are mil spec batteries, batteries required to go through all that testing (at least the designs, and occasional random lot samples, I expect, don't know their exact requirements).
Kudos to Peter for ok’ing you to post such a detailed back stage view of the process and the history of some of these issues. Ultimately your involvement will make a successful outcome and a better plane.
@@flybywire5866 Just catching up on this change to Peter's project. I really appreciated that Wasabi's perspective had a much different focus to that of Peter. & vice-versa. It was enriching in terms of getting to see the discussions that are essentially negotiations of priority around the project. The guys here were good at going meta on their involvement in such projects, which I think is valuable and not too common to capture on film. Sometimes the step-up in terms of rigour can seem too great.
Many years ago i read a statement from Burt Rutan (Scaled Composites) about quality control. He said the top rule with issues is "Never defend". My impression sometimes is that Peter defends tooth and nail.
Thank you for the comment. Burt is a master. The "never defend" motto comes from moments just like these. The safety culture that comes from being open and honest about everything that is going on, and avoiding situations where you have tied yourself to anything being 'safe'. We don't know whats safe, we have some ideas about things we know are scary and how we have planned to mitigate those risks. That will get us to the next step, and then we reevaluate.
@@utopiasnow I get that. I don't know his time and finance margins but the test flights should bound and border all other discussions. It will make for a much safer aircraft next year, 5 years from now, ten years from now, as your suggestions ALREADY have. You need him to do his thing, and you guys need to do your thing. The massive volume of work he's had to do, much on his own, is daunting; for sure, hats off to him!. I find it insane but if he finds a path forwards he's the winner, eh?
@@donjohnston3776 I guess the YT activities are important for fund raising. I think the biggest problem is a certain unwillingness on his part to listen to others - i mean really listen - or to doubt his decisions. I found his last video rather worrying, with the ECU going AGAIN to idle, or the control surfaces moving in the airstream way before takeoff speed.
That's a great motto, definitely something to remember regardless of industry. I also find the less you defend the less you are chewed out for the mistake.
Is it just me or does Peter seem like a very difficult guy to work with? PS...what in the world is that clicking noise in the video during many portions? Awesome guys!!! Hope to see another one shortly.
I have to assume that - despite most people assuming the flying is the "hard part" - the interactions with owners/builders is actually the toughest part of the work! Diplomacy vs. candor, realism vs. excitement, "good-enough" vs. safe... so much to juggle, all while trying not to come across as obstinate or against flying the airplane... Tough, tough, tough to try to ride that balance without eroding your margins or permanently damaging the customer relationship. Thanks for bringing us along for the ride! Watching this has helped me think about a couple of extra tests/checks to do with my Sonex before first flight. :-)
You forgot whilst documenting (making a documentary) the whole thing. Which I might add is no mean feat as it has to include all the emotion to make sense. I worked in tv/film for 20 + years, a camera looking at the difficult bits of this process can amplify any communication difficulties (tension) as can the edit after. But for what it is worth, Peter and his friends and family as well as you guys will really really appreciate having this footage when all this is over and you have all contributed to a safe and successful aircraft. I wish you guys huge success.
well, like he said, hes there to ensure the safety of the aircraft. Peter worked for years to get to this point, its foolish to try and throw it away with a high risk test area. thanks for presenting the other viewpoint, it clears up a lot of things for me, in this saga.
Thanks for making this, and providing a small insight into a fascinating world. I appreciate the candour of the video, particularly as it has the potential to affect the test/client relationship, it wold be so easy for you/client to say no. I like the two-handed approach to a new design. Thanks to all involved.
It’s like a reality TV show for aviation geeks, but without the hype and fabricated drama. I loved every minute, I was sorry it ended so soon. Thank you for taking the time to produce these.
Thanks, that was really interesting! However, I still want to know: who was that angry guy who "[knew] a helluva lot more about airplanes than you do"?
Best part: When Justin said "getting close"! The fact that Peter can say that the Raptor was checked, improved, and O.K.'d by Wasabi is going to mean millions more in reputation, confidence, performance, safety and profitability for the airplane. Time precious but well spent.
Must have been a hard call, but huge respect for making the safest call despite external pressure. As a 35 hour student pilot, it's really awesome to have pilot heroes who don't fool around when it comes to safety and professionalism. I hope that I will have the fortitude to scrub when things aren't right, and this video reinforces that for me. Many thanks.
Impressive video. I admire the staying between the lines approach,,, here is our safety envelope and if something is not within that envelope you address it. I am amazed at the amount of information you convey to the viewers. Thank you for these videos.
I am glad you did this. You guys were mercilessly attack by people on the raptor comments. Not once did Peter say anything in your defense. There are so many things of huge concern with this project, you should watch as much of the things he did and didn't in videos to get an idea of the trouble you may be in. The design of the main gear showed a terrible area of worry when in a brief moment of being airborne, the mains had a movement fore and aft. The airplane has never had a drop test. The gear has never been cycled while supported by the surfaces that would support it flight... I could go on and on. I believe you were thrown under the bus by sock accounts and people who paid deposits for an airplane sold in slick videos and promises that can never be kept.
Changing airport environment venue for Raptor is a no-brainer. Saying no to the conditions should never be difficult for any pilot. Get-there-itis with little airplanes has resulted in catastrophic disaster for notable people. I've had to say no to stakeholders many times and seen the tantrums. Stacking the deck with all system go is intelligent decision making. Waiting out storms may cost a few days but being on the ground wishing you could be up there is much better than being up there wishing you had made the decision to stay on the ground. Good job to the whole team for making a series of good decisions. I'm thankful for your hard work with this project as in my opinion it will prove out opportunity experience to select pilots that was not available till now. Best wishes to everyone...
Thank you Elliot! Your doing something I won't do. I made a decision with GA aviation 45 years ago. If I felt like I needed a flight suit and helmet to fly it. I won't do it. My career has always been with certified aircraft. The only reason I'm interested in the Raptor is that we have the ability today to build better than what exist in the GA fleet today. You and Justin have a sobering reality in that over 1,500 of these units can be built in a very short time. After you guys verify the numbers that to me, look very good on paper, I plan to build one and be a part of helping others build theirs. As a boat builder and carbon fiber parts specialist with experience remanufacturing control surfaces I know just a little about aviation. I think Velocity has less than 800 units to date. Experimental is just now the better path to make GA aviation uncompromising and safer. Raptor can be a much needed shift for Experimental GA. Best wishes and I look forward to working with you guys!
@@crono331 Great question!!! In my humble opinion Peter Muller working with Mark and many others have documented from cradle SolidWorks modeling a very unique full carbon fiber build of this flying Luxury SUV experimental aircraft prototype. All his videos when you take the time to go through them are fantastic learning tools. I didn't discover Raptor till about 2 months ago. I have about 200 more videos to watch as I find time. To my understanding he stopped taking secured escrow deposits at 1,500 units. To me Peter's story and journey team-leading his project is incredible. Though many are flying Burt Rutan spinoffs such as the LongEZ and Velocity this is a wide comfortable cockpit. Carbon Fiber is relatively new to aviation. I'm finding the Sailplane producers have been the true testers of proving a fantastic track record for decades of this incredible material. Gliders are successfully demonstrating longevity of many years utilizing pure carbon fiber designs. Craftsmen experienced with fiberglass tend to unnecessarily over build with carbon fiber. The Beechcraft Starship twin pusher had this problem. The outstanding powerplant that Peter is working with is an Audi 3L TDI Diesel engine with twin turbo chargers. Mating to this wonderful creation. This transition finding alone is worth volumes as it will prove to be 900% less expensive than proven aviation counterparts.
This is the first experimental aircraft that I've witnessed that will have the ability to affordably, safely transition GA pilots to the comfortable class "A" positive control airspace. In relative perspective as to affordability this is comparable to entering the millionaire club for about US $100,000.00 To me Raptor is the champagne of single engine aircraft at beer money pricing! When Raptor clears the fence for the first time it won't just be another aircraft. This state of the art prototype is making simple of highly complex systems. My thinking is that Raptor will prove to be a valuable workhorse that will eat very little hay! Peter Muller has tenaciously remained focused on Raptor and in me answering your question, my thinking is... Once we have real world flight numbers from Justin & Elliot. Peter has already produced high quality plugs and molds. Raptor is poised to be developed by the experimental community in a very short period of time. In my book Raptor is a world-class GA game changer in a unique class and category of experimental! A great paradigm is positively shifting for a safer general aviation future! I blame Peter for me getting back into GA aviation. Thanks Allot Sir! It's his fault! 😂😂😂 Best wishes to all...
"waiting out the storm on the ground wishing you were in the air is better than being in the air and wishing you had never left the ground." Couldn't have said it better myself if I had said it myself.
Watched the Raptor 1st flight video; SO glad they moved to a better airport than Cherokee; that plane needs all the runway available. Not to bash someone's passion and work, but Wasabi's professionalism was sorely needed there.
Thank you for this in depth look at the methodical, step by step, and honest nature of flight testing. Your work is best done with clients who are willing to accept your expert opinions and act on your suggestions. Intellectual honesty and humility are important. Some are unwilling to accept this and learn or change. An inability to take constructive criticism is no reflection on you or your methods. Very well done gentlemen. I really enjoy your vlogs. Please keep this up. The extra work and effort it takes to produce these documentations is very much appreciated.
Oh the Raptor... a storied airplane to be sure... thanks for this. Glad you are the guys looking over this build, I know you will (within your control) try to ensure safety is number 1.
Thanks for the detailed information it's good to see both sides of this story you guys unjustly take a pounding on Peter's channel occasionly In the comments it's not deserved
Glad to see you guys adding some real safety checks/experience into a program like this. Wasabi is steering this back in line with what I've done with BIG aircraft manufacturers. Peter's plan of "try stuff and see what happens" is not how you successfully test an aircraft.
I've seen a pilot pile a Seawind into the dirt on its first time off the ground. When you see it happen in person to an aircraft on one of its initial flights, it makes a lot of sense why test pilots leave nothing overlooked or left to chance. Great video and it was just the right length for its content.
Great to see the 'other side of the story' and in such detail too! The change of airfield being a last minute decision didn't add up to me and the lack of reply from Peter meant there was definitely more to it. Ultimately the best decision and good on Justin for putting his foot down and insisting on the change. It can be very easy to fall down a rabbit hole when you spend so much time on a project and lose the ability to look at things 100% objectively so kudos to Peter for taking all these roadblocks in his stride and continuing to press on. It's great to see Peter's already got the Raptor relocated and I can't wait to see it in the air some day soon! Best of luck to everyone involved!
Tremendous video! Blown away with your thoroughness. For me as a normal piston pilot (DA40), you two set a solid standard for the caution we all should exhibit when we make our everyday go/no-go decisions. Many thanks! Wayne
Elliot and Justin are a class act and know their stuff. After watching Peter do his own test flights later in the Raptor after basically telling Elliot and Justin he didn’t need their valuable advice any longer, I thought, what an ego! The oil leak he had during his test flight later and the engine quitting after loosing all but 1 quart of oil because he didn’t think the oil seal retaining ring was needed should’ve been a fatal accident, he was LUCKY! I will never build an experimental plane, however if I did I would have Elliot make sure it flew properly and was safe.
Thank you for documenting this process. For home-builders, this functions as an excellent reminder that once the building is complete, the project is far from over. The urge to fly is overpowering... and simply incorrect until an honest and methodical review and informed plan are complete. "Props" to the design, and the designer for working with the two of you to keep his approach methodical.
@@utopiasnow I suppose you could put the angry b'mer who knows "a hell of a lot more about airplanes than you" on the problem. It would save you all a lot of trouble.
Well laid out, thank you for clearing up for many that Raptor inc. was indeed forewarned early about the possible unsuitability of the airport, as well as clarifying a few other points wondering around social media. I can see how this could have easily been a 3 or 4 hour video, must have been some effort to edit this one, thanks for the effort, not just about Raptor, but the insight into your processes.
This. We’re all being polite because we are but it can be said without being acerbic; all of us would probably affect our behavior if it was us in peter’s shoes. We’re all human. Looking forward to this continuing to be the best show I on RUclips, hands down. With your help, Wasabi, we’re on the way.
@@utopiasnow I still believe the bolt you shine the light onto at 26:56 (and in a blur at 26:58) is a danger. The gold anodised bolt through the black CF tube. If the heim joint locknuts came loose, and that tube rotates, the head of the bolt, or the nut (depending on rotation direction) will catch on the square silver longeron tube, and it will result in a potentially lethal event.
To the non-pilots out there, EVERY item these engineers bring up COULD be show stoppers in certain situations or in combination. Their explanation is logical, thoughtful, and necessary. Peter has limited funds but, what must be done to make the airframe "airworthy" are not up for negotiation. Once resolved, these issues will make for a safe and trustworthy airframe. Until then, it's a huge gamble to take airborne. The discussion of peak HP and peak thrust could only be experienced on the high-speed taxi tests. That probably gave them concern at the shorter airport location. It would me too. Fixed pitch props are set up for climb or cruise though some can bend slightly, altering pitch. Acceleration characteristics from 0-40 may be hugely different than 40-100. If power faulters shortly after takeoff, will the power available still be enough to remain airborne? Hopefully... My suggestion is, keep Wasabi involved and the program will be successful. Other options may yield another result.
You handled that Very well. I’m impressed with both of you for not bending to the owner on the first flight airport. We have learned a lot about flight testing since the Wright Brothers . It would be a shame not to use all that we have learned. Good luck with the flight test. I hope we don’t read about the builder trying to fly it himself and getting hurt.
Fantastic video! I didn't mind the length at all and really appreciated the detail. My one suggestion would be to eliminate the clicking sound. I found that a bit distracting.
@@KenLeonard It seems that they are not assigned any more for testing - And if You look carefully on the Video, and some on Raptor aircraft you can easily understand why.
Absolutely love these longer videos! I can’t imagine how much more work this is for you, but it teaches us pilots and builder invaluable information that cannot be gleaned anywhere else. Thank you guys. I was glad to see Peter decide to not shoot himself in the face from his own videos....such difficult decisions.
No there wont be. Peter (Raptors owner) will not listen to anyone. No matter who you are or what you say he tells you he know better. He has been flighting it himself already blow up the engine, Can't climb over 5000 ft can hardly get enough speed to stay in the air. None of it is good.
I also watch Peter's videos on the Raptor and it's fascinating seeing it from different viewpoints. It's the classic manufacturer and pilot perspective. From his perspective I get to see the design, systems, and building of the aircraft. From yours I get to see the pilot interaction and perspective of those design choices. I have to ask, how do you mitigate the risk on aircraft (not exclusive to the raptor) with a completely different ergonomic design especially in potentially stressful situations?
You had me at: Planning the freeway as an emergency landing option. Kinston North Carolina, ISO, has an 11,500ft runway surrounded by pastures. That’s where you do test flights. Not on a 5000ft runway where the get out of Dodge last ditch option is a freeway. Aircraft needs to go on a diet and lose 1000lbs for Cherokee to be viable. More weight is longer accelerated stop distances. Everyone on the internet thinks they’re Chuck Yeager. Good call going to a better suited airport.
Loved the video. I'm not a huge fan of reality tv but I am captivated by the flight test version. The general aviation community is fortunate that highly skilled and experienced test pilots like you and Justin produce and share this content on youtube. And I'm glad you are moving flight test to a more suitable airport especially given the single-channel engine control. I take to heart your comment about involving flight test from the git-go and I have little sympathy for the complainers because I feel that the raptor project is lucky to have you.
A few things to add on his engine programming. I had already suggested he contact Gale Banks who knows more about diesel engine design, testing, programming, and ultimate power than any of the rest of us combined. In his killing a Duramax series he talks about injection timing in detail. Most of the time he uses 20 degrees btdc to 20 degrees atdc for injection. I heard peter talk of starting at tdc. No way to achieve good power and clean operation doing that. He scares the hell out of me. I am a licensed A&P but not current. I see all kinds of things like no paint bands on cable splices for slippage indication. I see no torque seal markings on any hardware. I see him frequently reusing hardware over and over. I have really appreciated your reporting here on this. I agree on the poor airport for the first flight. I hope you can have a safe flight test but this bird is nowhere near ready to fly. The engine quitting after leaving the runway is a big proof of that.
I think you had a bit of a different take on the video than the rest of us. Peter had completed all of the action items on the safety checklist. They were literally going to do the first flight that day, but the weather and the location was not acceptable.
I thought i'd just watch the first 5 minutes as it was after 1 AM here.....now it's almost 2:30 AM!!! Well put together and a great outcome moving to a better airport. From Peter's further video's he's sees that and accepts that it was entirely necessary. So well done and looking forward to next chapter.
I'm of the strong opinion that if one of the drive belts break or it derails, there is a high likelihood it will entangle the second belt and derail or break it as well, resulting in a complete power train failure. In effect, what appears to be a redundant system is actually a TRIPLING of risk, at two single points of failure. independent systems - if one fails the other will continue to function belt 1 / belt 2 - result works / works - good result works / fails - good result fails / works - good result fails / fails - both fail 25% failure rate entangled systems - if one fails, both fail belt 1 / belt 2 - result works / works - good result works / fails - both fail fails / works- both fail fails / fails - both fail 75% failure rate At a minimum, the aircraft needs to be high-speed taxi tested using only a single belt, tested in both positions and through all power settings and ranges, in order to verify the base assumption that the mere appearance provides, which is that one belt will keep the prop spinning without it derailing, slipping or otherwise failing from stress. This of course does not mitigate the high risk associated with an entangled belt scenario but at least it gives you some confidence in the event one does fail and it does not entangle the other, you can still fly the aircraft. In a non-entangled scenario, you may not even know a belt failed. So that single belt better be capable of accepting all power inputs with a high level of confidence otherwise even if one belt manages to survive, the pilot could still inadvertently cause it to fail with normal throttle inputs. Once both single belt drive configurations pass operationally, I would absolutely insist on shielding the belts to preclude entanglement in the event one fails. These two steps alone reduce the risk of a catastrophic power train failure by three-fold. That's a lot of risk reduction for a minimum amount of work. As configured, catastrophic belt failure is a much more likely scenario than a single ECM failure in my opinion, and I became a former deposit holder last summer when it was announced dual FADEC was scrapped because the initial engine selection, which was made years ago, precluded a second ECM.
Its a fair point you make but your math is dramatically over simplifying the situation. Reality is that you Dont Know what the rate of double failure is. Ie. You don't know what percentage of single belt failures would lead to an immediate failure of the other belt. Therefore your entire thesis (and thus your math) is flawed.
@@samnozik6659 I'm not an expert either but I assume you could at least show it was likely to do this (or not) by doing a few experiments with deliberately sabotaged belts and then observing where the broken belt ends up.
I would be more worried about the wings. Just don’t trust those 2 bolts and no interference fit even though that’s also how Velocity does it. Pipers seem to lose wings even though they have their main spar fit into the carry trough spar under the fuselage. Looks like a much more secure method of wing attachment and it’s still facing AD’s. The Raptor just gives me bad feelings all around, wings, power plant, & weight. Even those static thrust tests Justin mentioned raised many questions. Those static numbers were in line with a Skylane which is a fraction of the weight. Bad feelings all around for me. I hope the project will be successful and he can prove the doubters wrong, would be a shame to waste all that time and money. But then again innovation can only get you so far since physics rules out world. I didn’t even understand the reasoning behind using an automotive power plant, after his tuning and high boost numbers it didn’t seem all that more efficient than a comparable commercially available aviation power plant (100LL or JETA/Diesel). I would think a TIO-540 or TSIO-520 would’ve been much easier to implement as a direct drive, lower weight, similar power option. No need for re-drives, water cooling, and maintains dual mags for redundancy.
Elliot, you are truly an inspiration to all, but to me for sure. Ive always had visions and drawings of aircraft i would like to create, however i feel very unintelligent or under powered, (let alone funding) to proceed. However as an A&P Mechanic myself, its difficult to me to watch people create aircraft that are "unsafe" or not airworthy. I wish I had the funds to give back to you and your team for helping these people help better their designs for success. You gentlemen are the hero's for sure!
Elliot, Incredible video, format is excellent. Don't change a thing. As one who follows, learns from, and enjoys your videos im becoming aware of what the average non test pilot may not be aware of what he doesn't know. Enjoy the meticulous approach to your program. Beginning to appreciate thoroughness and discipline of your profession, and can't recall a single article about the first fight of an amateur built aircraft that even hinted at the detail involved in securing a safe experience. Cudos to Peter for being so open about this project. Airplanes AND Wasabi are COOL!!
I like that, we don't fly aircraft with cracks. He says, be alright. I was thinking it's not his arse on the line. Tell you what, we'll test fly it. Us together, I'll wear my parachute. If something falls off, you can land it.
Great showcase and break down of the intricate process, I followed Peter’s project for some time but the intricacy is most apparent in this vid. Very informative for us builders and dreamers of what all is involved in legitimate testing and scrutiny of a concept for viability. Only thing i found alarming was the apparent radiation you all encountered given the Geiger counter feedback in much of the video. Jokes aside what is your strategy or approach to dealing with the emotional aspect of critiquing and potentially tearing apart a creator’s ‘perfect dream’? It must be so frustrating and counter productive to have to keep justifying your critiques like I heard done once or twice here?
@Elliot Sequin glad you guys made the decision to part ways. Glad Peter is ok. Wish I could say I was surprised by the news. The entire design/build/test program was sketchy at best.
Fella's, I haven't been viewing the snippets up to this point. From a guy that builds jets and runs flight test programs, for a living, you're making the right recommendations, and I'm glad Peter is listening... Defining airworthiness on a new configuration is hard, coming up with new ways to assess the previously un-conceived is even harder, but there are tried and true tenants to ground your decision's in. I've not met Justin before, but bravo to bring this to a place where both he and the plane can live to fight another day.
@@willhibbardii2450 Hi Will, no... I don't get many opportunities to dabble in GA, but I watch a lot of these videos, especially the Patey's, because I find guys getting back to "1st principles" and it helps keep my perspective when dealing with military development bureaucracy, and industry approaches to problems. Flight test should be boring and used to verify what you think you know about the airplane, though I've experienced more than my share of "exciting" test programs. Doesn't matter how much you prepare, however, new airplanes are going to teach you something about them, and you have to be prepared... I like how these guys are approaching the business.
Hi Scott, I agree that flight test should be boring. When transporting from point A to B I prefer every trip uneventful! Mike and Mark Patey I just found 90 days ago. I've been living under a rock concerning GA since 2008. I love Mike's Scrappy project! I kidded him about not including cup holders. He wrote back that he has three of them for Scrappy which he will show us in another video... I'm working on an experimental electric propulsion aviation/marine system. The batteries/super capacitors are specified to be built into the airframe/boats instead of modular. That's how I found the Raptor project. I was seeking a small company that had female composite aircraft molds. Since my proposed electric system is 135 KW Raptor wasn't what I had in mind. My concept is a redesigned M20C Mooney style full composite build. Peter Muller's conversion of the Audi 3L TDI Diesel to me looks very promising for GA and the marine industry. Burt Rutan's design that converted into the Velocity was the last exposer in passing a few years back for independent thrust calculations only. Raptor has propelled my research to fully understanding Rutan's work. Winglets serving triple duty as fuel savers, speed brakes and rudders. My understanding at this time is, Raptor's winglets are serving as rudders only at this time. I find myself hooked with this overall concept of Raptor. As you say, new designs have much to teach us. I know Justin, Elliot and ultimately Peter used good judgement in transporting the project to the better environment at Valdosta. I sorted out many GA certified aircraft at KGGG in Longview, Texas with a 10,000 foot runway before clearing the fence. I know I wouldn't want to do even a ferry flight out of Cherokee Co. with out enough room to sort things out just out of ground effect with a rotate speed of 110 knots. I would say hell no to that mission even 30 years ago and not look back! Keep it boring guys! I'm in hopes that Wasabi will be doing the envelope numbers for Raptor. Peter or someone else may clear the fence in Raptor for the first time and ferry to other locations. That's just a new beginning... Verifying what we think we know... Best wishes to everyone...
Kudos for walking away from a paying job, even knowing it was going to upset the customer. This is the epitome of professionalism. As it later turned out, this aircraft was never going to be safe to fly and was abandoned.
Don't let Peter bully you into getting killed! Think of your family, walk away if you don't want to fly it. PLANNING on landing on a highway?? Nothing but forest and highway around Valdosta as well. Complaining that things are dragging out and that you're not willing to kick the tires and give it a try. That's the attitude from the raptor channel. 1000 hours on a test bench, get some data. Untested drive that's had issues all along, flight controls that jam, car engine that's not designed for this. Peter said gear emergency release could never be needed because the battery will never have no juice!? All busses fail, all fuses blow, total darkness.
Super informative. I especially enjoyed the discussion at the video start of builders leaning forward and the fine line a test pilot walks when engaging a project after prototype is complete. You guys have the right amount of empathy and psychological skill to keep safety paramount yet keep the project moving toward the goal. Never thought of pausing, fantastic job of editing, the tension was palpable, and a cliffhanger ending. What a script for the viewer. Great job, Wasabi!
I love this plane and Peter has one hell of a vision for the Raptor. Having said that, when he is talking with these guys about some of the issues, it sounds like he is more worried about just getting this thing finished and working out the problems later. I can't imagine the pressure he is under to get this finished and start producing kits for sale. Doesn't really instill a lot of confidence, honestly. One thing I hate to hear from a guy thats obviously trying to cut corners is "this ain't my first rodeo". It ain't???? Then don't f'ing act like it and just do the damn work. I mean, if you think you have more experience than the PROS that you called, then why the hell did you even call them?!?! No matter what it is, we use experts bc THEY'RE EXPERTS PETER!!!! You wouldn't call in a group of guys to double check your work if you thought they knew less than you do. Bc that makes no sense. That's like wiping before ya poop. We get it Peter....... You're exhausted mentally, physically and I'd imagine financially by now, but look how far you are!!!! Don't destroy your dream over the last 10% of this project!!!! Just put in the work and listen to these guys!!! They sound like they really want to see you succeed. Why would you not listen to ppl that want that for you????
@@utopiasnow huge fan of what you guys do for the aviation world. I may have only flown once, but I get to fly all the time watching you guys here. Makes me wanna get in the air again and actually enjoy it as an adult now.
Well said, but apparently Peter has decided that actual experienced professional test pilots are too much of an obstacle in getting his one of a kind unproven experimental aircraft flying (see post in community section of his channel). Such a shame after having got this far, but possibly a good outcome for Wasabi
@@kirkc9643 yeah.....it's a shame he didn't take their advice in the right way. I don't think he was prepared to have anyone really comb through every square inch of that bird. And he certainly didn't take any of it positively. Being able to receive constructive criticism and embrace it for what it is is not an easy thing to do and once you open your mind to that kind of feedback things can really take off, but the moment you shut down and see it as they're talking trash about whatever it is you're working on, all you hear is static and feel like you have to be on the defensive. And when you're on the defensive you're not gonna hear a word anyone has to say and you're just gonna keep on doing it the way that got you into that mess in the 1st place. It's not looking good. I really hope he gets this bird in the air without any issues though. I'd hate to see this become a paperweight or, like I've said before, turn up on some RUclips documentary 10 years from now about the most groundbreaking birds that never flew.
@@BIGWIGGLE223 "Being able to receive constructive criticism and embrace it for what it is is not an easy thing to do" Depends very much on who you are. As a former electrical design engineer, mostly servos, I know that I very much appreciated design reviews where super competent and widely exposed engineers, who did that design quality assurance for hundreds of designs were invaluable. On most of my designs they didn't have a whole lot to say, but the few times they did chime in were often invaluable. The input here was immense, and as an homebuilt aircraft builder (Long EZ) I would have never put that aircraft (mine) in the air with 1/1000 th of these problems, actually not with ANY known problems. Building a proven, to plans (almost exclusively, a few minor variations, nothing concerning critical systems like controls, surface shapes, fuel system, etc.) is obviously FAR different than modifying systems/designs extensively as was done here, and I'm not trying to talk shit, but WOW. I more than suspect that a design program in a place like Mojave RAF is quite different than this, with static loading and other standard design/verification tests being done as they should. What I really hope is that the aircraft never becomes and NTSB study. I saw a guy here building a Vari with modifications that were absolutely inane. His claim was that he was a shuttle aerodynamicist. I certainly hope not and didn't remotely buy that. The worst example was that he had closed in the slots in the Fowler flap type elevator design that direct airflow over the tops of the elevators at high angle of attack, and my comment to him was that the best outcome he could have would be that the airplane wouldn't even rotate...and it didn't. After fixing that problem, he crashed it early in flight test (walking away, luckily) totaling the airplane because he STILL hadn't done tests like max glide speed and it cost him that airplane (hit obstacle on that emergency landing). He had a power failure on the VW engine he used, which IIRC did not even have redundant (or aircraft level) systems added for cylinder ignition. Here's the real clincher. He had crashed MULTIPLE aircraft in the past, some very seriously, and he seemed proud of that. Life is hard, it is harder if you are stupid or even just ignorant. He also came up with 'wonderful' ideas like peel plying an entire wing, making it 50 lbs heavy. Sometimes ya just gotta wonder and shake your head. Some folks put out very safe and well designed kits only to have completely unqualified builders extensively modify them. I remember Rutan saying that if you modify major aspects of the DO NOT call it a LongEZ or whatever, as he didn't want those statistics on his design, as they darn well should not have been. I also remember reading in the plans that if there was ONE system in the plane you definitely should build strictly to plans it was the fuel system. If you remember, John Denver was killed in a Long he bought from a builder that didn't heed that warning, and had mounted the tank selection switch up and behind his shoulder, rather then between the pilot's legs, as in the plans designated, and John could not reach it properly. Ultimately John's fault for not fixing the problem (for him, apparently the builder never had a problem with it) but that is exactly the kind of reason NOT to modify that system. You likely will not be the only owner of that airplane, a MONSTER consideration (or should be). I can't imagine how that builder must have felt after that incident, but I've often wondered if a totally preventable death in an aircraft he modified at least registered enough to preclude him from taking on such responsibilities in the future. One can only hope ... One intentionally humorous 'requirement' in the plans was if you were thinking of adding something extra, throw it up in the air, if it comes back down, don't add it. Obviously a tongue in cheek reminder to keep weight in mind for performance. Sorry for the novella, but it is very much something that needs to be said. One modification another builder (probably with more than three working brain cells to rub together) made a mod to the rudder that was actually quite good. Good enough, in fact, for Rutan to modify his test bed aircraft, and run through all the controllability/stability flight testing again to add it to the design, so not all mods are bad, not remotely all, actually. I don't remember if RAF initialized the change or not, but the 'female' version of the aircraft, which utilized a NACA type inlet was another good design mod, again, tested by RAF and added to the plans as an option. :-) The guy that finished our airplane (long story, back to school, father's health, etc) had us come out previous to taxi tests to look it over. The main input I gave him was from a comment he made about a header having very low clearance to the cowling. He was also an engineer, and I asked him if he'd ever seen fiberglass (actually kevlar, but still with a petroleum based matrix material, epoxy) burn? I said I would not even consider putting that aircraft in the air before I removed that header, redesigned, cut, and rewelded that one pipe (minorly, and best case with factory discussions as to possible performance impacts, if you want to go nuts about it, as it wasn't much of a change in length). He didn't get angry, no claims of godlike knowledge, he just fixed it before flight, and thanked us for the two or three comments we made before his testing. I did make one very stupid and careless building mistake, which luckily caused no safety issues whatsoever, as it most certainly could have, worst case) because he had carefully thought out his flight testing program and was testing switched tanks at altitude. The moronic mistake I made worked fine on the ground testing, but limited fuel flow at power to an engine stop after significant run time from the one tank. We apologized profusely, and I had one of those hot flashes of doom/terror, even after the fact when he related the story, he was not just a coworker, but a friend as well), and he said he actually laughed out loud when he found the problem. I'm not sure my response would have been as light hearted, but that's the kind of guy he was. Moral of THAT story...just because you've already built one wing doesn't mean you should give ANY less weight to plans checklists/procedures on building. I really should have known better. The aircraft now has many many safe hours on it, and has performed virtually flawlessly, though he did pull one bone headed maneuver in testing that luckily wasn't a big issue, ultimately. We ALL make mistakes, it's human, but following procedures is one very good way to eliminate many of them. The one thing he didn't totally heed advice on was having a highly experienced (in type) pilot,a long time builder/owner do the test flight, and it almost certainly would have precluded the problem he had, another pretty strong suggestion from RAF...that, or get some not insignificant front seat time in the type previous to first flight, some of which he did. He also would have gotten yet another extensive inspection of the aircraft from a successful builder/owner...again, invaluable. The more competent, or better yet, expert eyes, the better, I say, and that has been borne out by experience. He wouldn't have caught my mistake though, it was buried beyond inspection visibility.
I really like this longer format, Elliot. It's less entertainment and more education. And I feel for the builder, but you can see his cognitive dissonance throughout, like that AC/ECU idle control issue. Yes, you CAN train yourself to overcome an improper ECU program, but should you? And once these decisions begin to cascade it can be very hard to go back to the beginning and force a re-think. So hat's off to the builder for wisely opting for some adult supervision, no matter how difficult it can be to swallow at times.
Hi Elliot, really glad to get your side of the story. I'm supportive of both parties, but the comments on Peter's videos were unfortunately one-sided. I appreciate the dynamic environment as you learn more and collect more data, decisions change. Quick question on Justin's gear, what kind of headset does he wear, and is that is his usually one or specifically to fit under his helmet?
A few things bother me about this situation. 1) The aircraft was not built to the design. And then not re analyzed after being built. As evidenced by the discussions between Peter and the designer. 2) The flight dynamics of the scale model were not optimized before the full scale was built. 3) The comment that the control surfaces were not formally designed. It is going to be very interesting to see how this unfolds. Fantastic video. Not to long at all. Very happy to be able to watch this play out.
@Shawn Huffman I was reading the HBA thread on the raptor, and the Aero expert that _was_ working with Peter had some choice words about Peter ignoring his advice to iterate on the RC model before forging ahead with full scale. So, the answer to your question is, no, no there wasn't any more iterations on the RC model.
After watching Peter's sort of first flight and subsequent videos. I now believe you were correct in your assumptions of the aircrafts stability and safety. And apologize for my previous statements about your intentions. I will also find my comments about you in his videos and will remove them. Again my apologies.
Wow, I have never seen a comment like this before. Don’t feel like you need to delete anything, but I appreciate the effort. Peter is trying hard and I wish him the best, thank you for the thought.
You all made the right choice. It is sometimes hard to see but boy was I glad I was going to an airport with more than 5000' when I lost the left engine in a B-55 Baron. I am looking forward to you opening up the envelope. Great job!
Elliott - I have to be honest here, the whole situation has been nerve racking. I've read a lot of comments and replies from both parties on both Peter's and your channels. As a service provider and as a professional you have to thread a very fine needle when it comes to balancing customer need, safety, and peoples feelings. I think it is important to be dispassionate and look at the project for what it is, at that very moment. I think you did a great job on that - and yes, some things were missed in some of the visits, but the important thing is that you are willing to be honest and admit when mistakes are made, and learn from them. The field change was a tough call, but it shouldn't have been. If there is a safety risk inherent, then it must be addressed without fuss. I am a pilot but I also have access to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 - I loaded up Peter's home field and flew around it. It is hilly as heck, and you are correct that there are basically no options based on the satellite data. Loving the debriefs, and its great when you are willing to sit down on camera and dissect what went wrong and how you can improve your workflow. Very educational.
Elliot Seguin no problem ... I would also check out this thread as a ton of people think that the turbos are setup in a dangerous and un air worthy configuration: www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/raptor-composite-aircraft.24721/page-269
@@utopiasnow Perhaps FS2020 can be used as a way to investigate remote fields like this one before actually visiting? Could be a cheap/easy tool to get a rough indication of the environment.
Owner/Builders can be so invested in their project that they really need a neutral experienced third party to save their bacon. Just human nature, you guys handled it well. Peter is not doing too bad either. Just needs some help to keep on the straight and narrow. With you guys on board; once this phase is successfully completed and any tweaks indicated that need to be done, future owners and flies will greatly appreciate this ground work. Thanks for this video, it helps the viewers to get this other perspective too. :bow:
Yet another great video, if not painful to watch in certain areas. What a crazy plane, the Raptor! Diesel, cool looking 5 blade prop (but how much efficiency is being lost in those blades?), pressurized, etc, and heavy! You can tell in the builder's high speed taxi that he used the entire length of the runway, and didn't appear to just be coasting to the end. Throw in a "airport on top of a hill" setup, and yeah, that plane needs a better test site. Tough job to tell a customer things aren't going well, but it's the right call.
This was a pretty fascinating video; especially in contrast to its counterparts on the Raptor channel. I can see he has a lot of passion for his design, but it seems like he's fairly reasonable once he accepts that something has to be changed/fixed. What I find most troubling is the tone of the echo chamber on his channel comment section. I understand that his goal is to button up the design and sell planes, but all those arm chair experts are eating up the quick overviews like this thing was ready to fly 6 months ago and absolutely tearing into you guys with, until now, no real counterpoint. I hope they'll make their way over here and take this video into consideration.
@@keim3548 I can see your point, but I think I've viewed that as a kind of attempt to market this during the flight testing rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Then again, I can see how his lack of transparency may only push the zealots down in his comment section further into their position that this thing was perfect and ready to fly. I suppose what will be most telling to me is how things move forward from here: does he push forward in spite of Wasabi's efforts or does reason prevail and he starts to take the flight testing a little more seriously?
Unfortunately, it's an echo chamber because Peter has curated it into one. Genuine supporters used to regularly raise concerns and constructively critique his work. Of course there were detractors too but what did Peter expect when he chose to undertake this project in such a public fashion. He originally intended to use his viewership like an open source knowledge base but seemed to get increasingly sensitive/defensive to -I repeat- mostly constructive criticism - to the point that he resorted to calling them whiners (search "whining sound" on his channel for a prime example). Posts were deleted and people got blocked - myself included. Alas Peter gloated a little too soon. Most of the objections raised have turned out to be legitimate concerns that he has been forced to rectify. Not that he'll acknowledge that. I fully get that this is a commercial venture and a certain level of reputation management has to be expected. However, Peter is rapidly making himself a case study in how not to do it. He is often tetchy and, as Wasabi's video reveals, he's not as transparent about project glitches as his fanboys imagine. I love the idea of the Raptor and accept that innovation is often driven by "Mad Scientist" types but there's nothing scientific about ignoring sound engineering principles. Some of the build execution has been so sketchy it's scary. An accident waiting to happen? Let's hope not.
Hahah I was thinking about that. Imagine, if it got off the ground the control surfaces would have been almost useless due to the flexing in the cable system. And if the engine wasn't managed correctly and stalled, it might not have been possible to restart it. IIRC the rudder didn't have full movement in one direction either. And that's just a couple of things that spring to mind. What could possibly go wrong?
32:53 Peter can’t think of a scenario.... how about a failure of the gear motor? Or the shaft shears? Or gear strips? Or some other reason why the pilot would need to utilize the emergency extension in the first place? Maybe if the gravity and pressure dump system isn’t enough, perhaps it could benefit from a Co2 blowdown (Piper Apache style) or stronger extension springs, or a manual pressure relief valve instead of requiring the electric solenoid to be bumped.. I think it’s clear that the plane needs more engineering and changes before it’s ready... it’s just not ready to fly yet. Now that it’s been disassembled and moved, it will need to be completely looked over again to verify proper assembly and operation.. Good luck guys!
Thank you for the comment. The gear needing electrical power to emergency extend is a tough one, not necessarily a show stopper but tough for sure and another thing to track.
Elliot Seguin not only does it need electrical power, doesn’t it also need an operational hydraulic motor? Yeah.. something needs a redesign in my mind.. thank you for the responses.. it means a lot to all of us that you are taking the time to address each and every commenter here!
It is worth noting that after several flights and several setbacks, this plane crashed after losing thrust. Fortunately, Peter walked away. I believe he intends another version with twin shrouded turbofans. Good luck Peter.
Have to admire Justin for making the call on the airport. Sounded like he was ok with baling out but wanted to bring the aircraft down safely if needed. That is professionalism. Well done guys. First flight will come when it happens. cheers
Hi Elliot, I watched the whole thing and read the whole description - no need to return any favors, just keep doin' what you're doin'. Cheers. (Okay maybe one favor - upload the rant from that old guy at the beginning)
Hahha, it was a pretty good dressing down. Reminded me of gym class in grade school. I hope the rest of his day went better. Thank you for the comment.
@@ChrisCanMakeStuff Ok, detailed debrief. After the engine quit the airplane was stranded on the taxiway. Landing aircraft were having to taxi-back on the runway, Justin and Peter were troubleshooting the electrical system and cranking the propeller, etc. A suburban pulled up to the plane the driver got out and walked up to the airplane. directly behind me. I turned around and the guy was just awkwardly standing there super close, so I asked him to give us some space while we figure out what is going on. I wasn't super friendly, my justification was the guy seemed to be more curious/aggressive than helpful and had not introduced himself. I then went to go get the jumper cables. The suburban chased me down, the driver flagged me down and gave me the 'what for'. He read me his resume (airline, freight 757/767/777 "flown basically every airplane") and said that he could help a stranded airplane more than I ever could. I suggested next time he opens with an introduction so a person knows how valuable a guy he can be, and we went separate ways. In all honesty, I wish it would have gone better. Guys like that exist at every airport, all he wanted to do was prove he likes planes, we all like planes, that's why we are at the airport...I should have been more prepared. Did I answer the question?
Interesting that you guys had previously suggested that Cherokee was unsuitable and it fell on deaf ears. Total respect to Justin for saying that he wasn’t comfortable with using that airport. He is 101% correct.
You don't have to be an engineer to see where things go wrong here. Just common sense and my gut feeling as an airline rated pilot tells me that this is a dangerous airplane. Not so much in the original design, which I think is great, but as a combination of everything together. Further more, designing and building an entirely new airplane is one thing. Having to deal at the same time with a new engine setup is an another thing. Peter should have gone for a reliable and proven engine for the prototype and tinkered with a new engine setup afterwards, after the plane is flying and approved. I hope he gets his airplane in the air, especially after all the work and hours he has into this built, but going to production from that point on is another costly endeavor. Aviation history is full of game changing aircraft that never made it to production or went bankrupt shortly after. The twin engine Adam 500 aircraft is just one example of such an airplane, but there are many others. I don't want to be the party pooper here, but I see no happy ending . All my respect if he pulls this one off, but...
Elliot I've read almost every other comment written to this point so I'll keep my comment short..... If I needed someone to test fly or review my work ( plane building ) you would be on top of my list. I watched this build for a long time... I had some doubts about some of the things I saw but thats just me.... hope Peter uses all your input to his advantage and in the end his plane is all he thinks it will be. IF I would ever need someone to review my work you are the folks to do it. THANK YOU for the super video.
Thank to both Justin and Elliot. That was a fascinating film. Wasabi is continuing to live up to their reputation of being able to have the difficult conversations and reducing the risks on a first flight. The most difficult decisions for professionals is when they have to tell the customer(s) no. Great job, cant wait to see where you go from here.
I have followed the development of this a/c and as a licensed mechanic and technical instructor I had some issues with a few methods and basic principles in cable and pulleys design and construction philosophy, also gear ops. I felt that an a&p should have gone over it from an independent point of view as you have done to look at all those things for safety and ops. "Dual inspections " . I also stated that runway was too short and not aware of your previous concerns re airport. Very concerning to find that rudder issue on the right. I would not be happy with any form of engine cutout, that would have to be eliminated. I posted about prop efficiency and as you said speed decreases efficiency and density alt is very important also for aircraft and prop ops. Before going to flight test all maint issues need addressed and dual inspected by a licensed mechanic. Design and construction is one thing but inspection is another. Peter has a lot of good ideas (and Aussie perseverance) but I do question some methods used (not aviation standard) ie gear bolts and bushes. Great design but get those little things sorted. It was good to hear your side. And I must say I can only agree. I did make comments on Peters channel about why you had not brought up airport unsuitability earlier without knowing your previous conversations. Proof of concept is one thing but before production a lot of rework will be required for weight reduction and pulley mountings. 🤔
Elliot Seguin , I have a little concern about engine exhaust proximity to prop. (A) prop contamination. (B) effect of hot exhaust on prop efficiency. 🤔🤔 maybe split L&R and further fwd?.
Wow, is all I can say. I was riveted watching this. I have been watching Peter build this aircraft for over 3 years now, and this was the one thing I have been waiting for. Watching you both carefully and methodically go through the flight systems, weight and balance, etc is fascinating. I've always wondered what it would take to get from point A to finally test flying a brand new aircraft and the physics, and mathematics employed to decide that it is safe enough to pull the mains off and try it. I agree with you that when a builder wants to test fly their own aircraft that is scary, with recent evidence why that's not a good thing. Having your team be the other set of eyes, and brains behind the decision is what Peter needs to get this project into a production state. Thanks guys, I can't wait to see the video of the flight tests now at the new airport!
One thing that struck at me was that Peter said he would be ok if you had to dump the plane, but you are not, that your goal is to have a successful test flight. I hope Peter really understands, and accepts emotionally that you guys are on _his_ team, that the work you are doing is to help him succeed. The little of him I saw in the video seemed to show a bit of defensiveness, which I hope is not the case.
As a pilot myself and hopefully a future home builder, this is a ton of great information. I like that you do a thorough breakdown of everything on the airplane. I can see that the guy gives some resistance with making changes. Which is unfortunate. As I continue my education every day as a pilot, it's nice to see your procedures that you go through for first flight.
This is by far my favorite of your videos. The quality of your content has increased dramatically over the last few months. Thank you for taking us along and explaining what is happening!
What an awesome piece of work. I’ve been waiting until I’ve had time to sit down and watch this from beginning to end with no interruptions and I’m glad I did.
When i was a Mechanic on an airport we had a test, We would ask pilots, mechs if they "knew everything there is to know about what they're doing" If they said yes you run the other way. That reminds of this owner telling his test pilot he knows a hell of a lot more about airplanes. I suggest running the other way.
@@ryanthomas2472 LOL! We called them Airport Dicks. All Airports have them. Makes sense. Huge apology to the owner. Just needed to ask him if he knows everything there is to know about what he's doing. He will say yes.
Thanks for a wonderful video about the professionalism of three people who see things slightly differently. The humanity of all parties and the editing that demonstrated it and how each person is under pressure to perform. Thanks for the insight into the process and the clear logical process of decision making. Glad to hear that you have all done your bit and am sure the Raptor wil benefit from your design as well as flight input. Your anguish when leaving about the risks to Peter were palpable. Looking forward to the next chapter.
which video is this? The latest one thats public didnt have the raptor lifting off into ground effect... Peter even mentions at the start that he's legally not allowed to fly it.
@@CFinley25 Yes, in the comments section he announced that he'd decided to fly it himself. Since then, he's announced to his subscribers that Wasabi have been dumped.
@@DealerD8vE ah ok... I'll have to go read through some of them then... yeah, I saw his community post and wasnt to thrilled about it, shame to see Wasabi get dumped and have to train a new MTP for it but at the same time I understand as hes a lot closer and can more closely follow the build...
The best part of the video was your face after he explained to you some bullshit you're supposed to do to outsmart the ECU in that off-idle condition so the engine doesn't quit
Real eye-opening insights between the passionate design for a really advanced/modern/cost effective GA aircraft and the practicalities of ensuring it is safe. Not too long and included a level of candour that's emphasises the difficult decisions involved. I hope this project helps move us forward from the 1970 designs that remain most common today, and appreciate the enormous efforts of everyone involved in it.
Still waiting for the part 2 video! Also, go check out Peter's most recent ground effect video. Raptor looks to have some SERIOUS lateral stability issues, and maybe some longitudinal stability issues as well.
It could seem you're delaying the project but in my opinion you are boosting it. A second opinion was mandatory, I know that Peter put a lot of effort in projecting the Raptor at its best but still everybody always need an external confrontation. Since you came the project made a lot of steps ahead. I hope to see a fully airborne plane as soon as possible.
I agree. Its one thing to get some dude to fly your plane for the first time.... Its another to have Wasabi experience working with you to get the flaws out and make an airplane as safe as it can be. Peter seems to not see them as an asset in the beginning, but more of exposing flaws he takes personally. Looks like he's getting better at that though.
I love how you guys keep it raw and real !! I have watch Peter go through all his ups and downs with building the Raptor and then what you guys do to test an unknown aircraft is fantastic to watch , don't every reduce the length of what you guys do as it is real !! Cheers Alistair from Australia..
Thanks for the note. We are all impressed with Peters hard work ethic. The world will be a better place with more awesome airplanes like Raptor. There is good stuff on the horizon!!
This is the longest youtube video I've ever watched and I didn't think for a minute to hit pause or stop. Loved every minute, especially your "go/no go" decision process!
Thank you for the comment
Agreed. I usually don't get frustrated with my wife's constant interruptions, but today was different!
@@philpotter6388 Funny you said that. My wife was trying to get my attention while I was watching the video for something less important as well. There was frustration....lol
@@philpotter6388 Made me giggle. Thanks. 😁
This video is a whole lot more relevant now he’s put it in a cornfield. Dude is a danger to himself.
"There's been too many examples, some recently, where the owner-builder has thought they could open the envelope slow and been surprised how fast the envelope opens it's self with unfavorable results." - Elliot Seguin
This is exactly why I'll be hiring a professional like Elliot when I complete my build, albeit a simple, time tested design that many are flying. There's so many lessons to be learned for us builders from these test videos. It's very interesting, seeing the dynamics of self preservation, objective engineering, ego, and all the other emotions/psychology that comes into play when putting blood, sweat, time, and large amounts of money into a project only to see it put on ice. Everyone made the right call, hats off to you guys and thanks. You're doing all of us a great service.
Nicholas, thank you for the comment.
I am so happy to that Peter allowed you to provide this video. Very informative and entertaining. Thank you!
Thank you Brian!!
Really hard video to watch in some ways. I'm glad you're doing what you can to make the first flight of the plane a safer affair. We need guys like Peter building these crazy new things, and guys like you making sure it's not the last thing they do.
Thanks for stopping by
Exactly. Scotty Wilson and his team spent 6 years building that Bugatti 100p replica. He crashed fatally on his third flight, and just because he hadn't the professional guidance from an expert like Elliott Sequin. We want Peter to be safe when he can fly the Raptor himself.
video report here: ruclips.net/video/qyNdOtz9lPA/видео.html
and here: ruclips.net/video/44AZZerPtN0/видео.html
and here: ruclips.net/video/hYSbSGuJUI0/видео.html
@@yvindascanius6061 Yes exactly! Doing postmortems of catastrophic disasters isn't pleasant when someone is hurt. Pilots are family. When one gets hurt we all hurt! Pilot error happens every day. Developing aircraft that forgive these pilot errors is a double edge sword with trade offs. Dynamically learning the tradeoffs within the world envelope isn't static as there are wide ranges of variables. Taking the time on the ground with baby-steps and determining GO ~ NO-GO scenarios with planning is a no-brainer. Burt Rutan developed these style aircraft about 30 years ago. So everyone thinks this style aircraft has been flying for a long time with few mishaps. When John Denver got hurt in this style aircraft I lost interest. Raptor has regained my interest as it is a remarkable solution for single engine piston Experimental GA (General Aviation). Understanding Burt Rutan's original design and the innovative deviations that The Raptor Project has in comparison may shed light of why it is wise to take these baby-steps. #1 The Propeller - BR's original design = two blade fixed pitch... Most pilots don't have a clue of all the subtle choices and effect these choices add or take away concerning dynamic performance. We have choices of wide power cone thrust and narrow speed cone thrust for example. Changing these subtle differences makes huge overall performance dynamics as to configuration. Propeller changes alone related to thrust cone will make the difference of induced Dutch oscillating roll and stable flight. A constant speed propeller doesn't adjust the thrust cone. That's designed into the propeller! Finding this in ground effect with enough runway to shut down and safely land is priceless! Then the cone thrust can be changed and prototype tested again with no harm done! And we are just talking about the propeller thrust cone choice! Remember... It's a prototype that I expect will need relatively minor adjustments for stable flight! Over all... Raptor is very promising according to my slide-rule graphing! Best wishes everyone.
@@utopiasnow - You never noticed that You screwed up when all issues on the list where addressed and clear and then, comming out that You do not fly it due to the Airport. You never mentioned before that the Airport is a show stopper. So why flying over the country to bring up this judgment on the last second. Very sorry, but you failed compleaty as I also missed commitment to push the Raptor program forward with the task that you assigned. Very sorry Eliot, very sorry.
I’ve watched Peter for quite some time now and have contributed financially to his current needs. As a mechanical engineer that has designed and built aircraft for almost my entire life except for flying for the Navy I’m glad you take the Test Pilot sternness with Peter. I have had the misfortune of having to remove the dead body of one of our Test Pilots from one of our aircraft due to high vibrations. This is not anything one ever wants to be part of or ever see again. Your reporting of the discrepancies found has been enlightening to say the least. Reducing risk is paramount in achieving a successful flight program and the aircraft. These mitigation’s require acceptance by all parties concerned and I believe you have educated Peter and have given him the understanding he needs to succeed with his program. Great job from you experience and educating everyone watching. As being part of several test programs I could have watched for several more hours of in-depth review on the Raptor aircraft. I now have several more questions about the Raptor aircraft and I believe I warned Peter about aileron strikes causing delimitation of the wings surface. I’ll have to go back and check my comments. I believe there are quite a few people who are still willing to help Peter financially to succeed in his program. With a new aircraft engine design adaptation and new aircraft structural configuration there are going to be hundreds if not a thousand grips prior to feeling comfortable enough to finally decide to request a departure heading. I wish you all the safety and success in your partnership with Peter and the Raptor aircraft program. If he doesn’t listen to you please show him photos of programs of failed test flights where pilots took matters into their own hands and pilots got behind the power curve trying to fly and handle their aircraft because I would rather donate more money to see him succeed than to hear about the Raptor aircraft on a UTube video. Fly safe and fly often!
32:56 "I couldn't think of a scenario where you're flying along and all of a sudden your battery has zero volts."
50:53 "Jump Start."
Maybe he should start thinking out more scenarios. This thing is a compound EP just waiting to happen.
Yup, or shorts, disconnects, and the fact that MANY pilots have had it happen over aviation history, but hey, HE can't think of any, so all is good. WOW.
That is why we have COMPLETELY redundant systems for things like missile flight termination (destruct) systems, and those systems get tested to DEATH beforehand, and qualified through shake and bake, accelerated aging, interference, extended temp environments (military, in my case), etc. after design, as customers, and range safety require. I have been through those design reviews at WSMR, and they are fairly thorough, and again, that is after careful design, and design quality reviews, debug, all manner of fault injection testing, single and multiple point failure tree analysis, statistical modeling, simulation, etc. But "I can't think of any". I have heard of batteries (and just about everything else) completely catastrophically failing in testing more than once, and those are mil spec batteries, batteries required to go through all that testing (at least the designs, and occasional random lot samples, I expect, don't know their exact requirements).
Well.., that’s what just happened.
That guy really begged for a crash happen.
Kudos to Peter for ok’ing you to post such a detailed back stage view of the process and the history of some of these issues. Ultimately your involvement will make a successful outcome and a better plane.
Thank you for the comment
Well, the lastest statement from Peter is to have separated from Wasabi. I am not surprised, he seems to be no fan of any kind of criticism
@@flybywire5866 Just catching up on this change to Peter's project. I really appreciated that Wasabi's perspective had a much different focus to that of Peter. & vice-versa. It was enriching in terms of getting to see the discussions that are essentially negotiations of priority around the project. The guys here were good at going meta on their involvement in such projects, which I think is valuable and not too common to capture on film. Sometimes the step-up in terms of rigour can seem too great.
This whole testing/ evaluation process is as fascinating as it is complex.
Looking forward to the next one!
Thank you Matt, I am glad you enjoy it
Many years ago i read a statement from Burt Rutan (Scaled Composites) about quality control. He said the top rule with issues is "Never defend". My impression sometimes is that Peter defends tooth and nail.
Thank you for the comment. Burt is a master. The "never defend" motto comes from moments just like these. The safety culture that comes from being open and honest about everything that is going on, and avoiding situations where you have tied yourself to anything being 'safe'. We don't know whats safe, we have some ideas about things we know are scary and how we have planned to mitigate those risks. That will get us to the next step, and then we reevaluate.
@@utopiasnow I get that. I don't know his time and finance margins but the test flights should bound and border all other discussions. It will make for a much safer aircraft next year, 5 years from now, ten years from now, as your suggestions ALREADY have. You need him to do his thing, and you guys need to do your thing. The massive volume of work he's had to do, much on his own, is daunting; for sure, hats off to him!. I find it insane but if he finds a path forwards he's the winner, eh?
In my humble opinion, Peter has too much going on to juggle. Limiting his RUclips production would help.
@@donjohnston3776 I guess the YT activities are important for fund raising. I think the biggest problem is a certain unwillingness on his part to listen to others - i mean really listen - or to doubt his decisions. I found his last video rather worrying, with the ECU going AGAIN to idle, or the control surfaces moving in the airstream way before takeoff speed.
That's a great motto, definitely something to remember regardless of industry. I also find the less you defend the less you are chewed out for the mistake.
Is it just me or does Peter seem like a very difficult guy to work with? PS...what in the world is that clicking noise in the video during many portions? Awesome guys!!! Hope to see another one shortly.
I have to assume that - despite most people assuming the flying is the "hard part" - the interactions with owners/builders is actually the toughest part of the work!
Diplomacy vs. candor, realism vs. excitement, "good-enough" vs. safe... so much to juggle, all while trying not to come across as obstinate or against flying the airplane... Tough, tough, tough to try to ride that balance without eroding your margins or permanently damaging the customer relationship.
Thanks for bringing us along for the ride! Watching this has helped me think about a couple of extra tests/checks to do with my Sonex before first flight. :-)
You nailed it, thanks for coming along
You forgot whilst documenting (making a documentary) the whole thing. Which I might add is no mean feat as it has to include all the emotion to make sense. I worked in tv/film for 20 + years, a camera looking at the difficult bits of this process can amplify any communication difficulties (tension) as can the edit after. But for what it is worth, Peter and his friends and family as well as you guys will really really appreciate having this footage when all this is over and you have all contributed to a safe and successful aircraft. I wish you guys huge success.
It is so invigorating to see professionals making real decisions. No fake drama. Thank you for the “the good, the bad and the ugly” of flight test.
Thank you for the comment.
well, like he said, hes there to ensure the safety of the aircraft. Peter worked for years to get to this point, its foolish to try and throw it away with a high risk test area. thanks for presenting the other viewpoint, it clears up a lot of things for me, in this saga.
Thanks for making this, and providing a small insight into a fascinating world. I appreciate the candour of the video, particularly as it has the potential to affect the test/client relationship, it wold be so easy for you/client to say no. I like the two-handed approach to a new design. Thanks to all involved.
Thank you Ian, it's always tough. Peter has worked so hard and come so far, we are excited to have the opportunity to help.
It’s like a reality TV show for aviation geeks, but without the hype and fabricated drama. I loved every minute, I was sorry it ended so soon. Thank you for taking the time to produce these.
Thanks, that was really interesting! However, I still want to know: who was that angry guy who "[knew] a helluva lot more about airplanes than you do"?
hahaha, thanks. I guess we'll have to wait and see
I was wondering the same thing!
What a cliffhanger
Mitch McConnell?
yes, i would like to see this entire encounter
Best part: When Justin said "getting close"! The fact that Peter can say that the Raptor was checked, improved, and O.K.'d by Wasabi is going to mean millions more in reputation, confidence, performance, safety and profitability for the airplane. Time precious but well spent.
Thanks for the comment
Well, the lastest statement from Peter is to have separated from Wasabi. After this video i thought, no, that wont go down well with Peter.
It's a good thing he changed airports, because on first flight he had a problem.
Must have been a hard call, but huge respect for making the safest call despite external pressure. As a 35 hour student pilot, it's really awesome to have pilot heroes who don't fool around when it comes to safety and professionalism. I hope that I will have the fortitude to scrub when things aren't right, and this video reinforces that for me. Many thanks.
Thank you for stopping by! Best of luck with your flying, let me know if we can help with your training.
Impressive video. I admire the staying between the lines approach,,, here is our safety envelope and if something is not within that envelope you address it. I am amazed at the amount of information you convey to the viewers. Thank you for these videos.
Thank you PV
I am glad you did this. You guys were mercilessly attack by people on the raptor comments. Not once did Peter say anything in your defense. There are so many things of huge concern with this project, you should watch as much of the things he did and didn't in videos to get an idea of the trouble you may be in. The design of the main gear showed a terrible area of worry when in a brief moment of being airborne, the mains had a movement fore and aft. The airplane has never had a drop test. The gear has never been cycled while supported by the surfaces that would support it flight... I could go on and on. I believe you were thrown under the bus by sock accounts and people who paid deposits for an airplane sold in slick videos and promises that can never be kept.
Thank you Tim.
Changing airport environment venue for Raptor is a no-brainer. Saying no to the conditions should never be difficult for any pilot. Get-there-itis with little airplanes has resulted in catastrophic disaster for notable people. I've had to say no to stakeholders many times and seen the tantrums. Stacking the deck with all system go is intelligent decision making. Waiting out storms may cost a few days but being on the ground wishing you could be up there is much better than being up there wishing you had made the decision to stay on the ground. Good job to the whole team for making a series of good decisions. I'm thankful for your hard work with this project as in my opinion it will prove out opportunity experience to select pilots that was not available till now. Best wishes to everyone...
Thank you Will
Thank you Elliot! Your doing something I won't do. I made a decision with GA aviation 45 years ago. If I felt like I needed a flight suit and helmet to fly it. I won't do it. My career has always been with certified aircraft. The only reason I'm interested in the Raptor is that we have the ability today to build better than what exist in the GA fleet today. You and Justin have a sobering reality in that over 1,500 of these units can be built in a very short time. After you guys verify the numbers that to me, look very good on paper, I plan to build one and be a part of helping others build theirs. As a boat builder and carbon fiber parts specialist with experience remanufacturing control surfaces I know just a little about aviation. I think Velocity has less than 800 units to date. Experimental is just now the better path to make GA aviation uncompromising and safer. Raptor can be a much needed shift for Experimental GA. Best wishes and I look forward to working with you guys!
Will, raptor will require an enormous amount of development to be produced in numbers.
@@crono331 Great question!!! In my humble opinion Peter Muller working with Mark and many others have documented from cradle SolidWorks modeling a very unique full carbon fiber build of this flying Luxury SUV experimental aircraft prototype. All his videos when you take the time to go through them are fantastic learning tools. I didn't discover Raptor till about 2 months ago. I have about 200 more videos to watch as I find time. To my understanding he stopped taking secured escrow deposits at 1,500 units. To me Peter's story and journey team-leading his project is incredible. Though many are flying Burt Rutan spinoffs such as the LongEZ and Velocity this is a wide comfortable cockpit. Carbon Fiber is relatively new to aviation. I'm finding the Sailplane producers have been the true testers of proving a fantastic track record for decades of this incredible material. Gliders are successfully demonstrating longevity of many years utilizing pure carbon fiber designs. Craftsmen experienced with fiberglass tend to unnecessarily over build with carbon fiber. The Beechcraft Starship twin pusher had this problem.
The outstanding powerplant that Peter is working with is an Audi 3L TDI Diesel engine with twin turbo chargers. Mating to this wonderful creation. This transition finding alone is worth volumes as it will prove to be 900% less expensive than proven aviation counterparts.
This is the first experimental aircraft that I've witnessed that will have the ability to affordably, safely transition GA pilots to the comfortable class "A" positive control airspace.
In relative perspective as to affordability this is comparable to entering the millionaire club for about US $100,000.00
To me Raptor is the champagne of single engine aircraft at beer money pricing!
When Raptor clears the fence for the first time it won't just be another aircraft. This state of the art prototype is making simple of highly complex systems.
My thinking is that Raptor will prove to be a valuable workhorse that will eat very little hay!
Peter Muller has tenaciously remained focused on Raptor and in me answering your question, my thinking is... Once we have real world flight numbers from Justin & Elliot. Peter has already produced high quality plugs and molds. Raptor is poised to be developed by the experimental community in a very short period of time.
In my book Raptor is a world-class GA game changer in a unique class and category of experimental! A great paradigm is positively shifting for a safer general aviation future!
I blame Peter for me getting back into GA aviation. Thanks Allot Sir! It's his fault! 😂😂😂 Best wishes to all...
"waiting out the storm on the ground wishing you were in the air is better than being in the air and wishing you had never left the ground."
Couldn't have said it better myself if I had said it myself.
Watched the Raptor 1st flight video; SO glad they moved to a better airport than Cherokee; that plane needs all the runway available. Not to bash someone's passion and work, but Wasabi's professionalism was sorely needed there.
Thanks for the comment.
Thank you for this in depth look at the methodical, step by step, and honest nature of flight testing. Your work is best done with clients who are willing to accept your expert opinions and act on your suggestions. Intellectual honesty and humility are important. Some are unwilling to accept this and learn or change. An inability to take constructive criticism is no reflection on you or your methods.
Very well done gentlemen. I really enjoy your vlogs. Please keep this up. The extra work and effort it takes to produce these documentations is very much appreciated.
Oh the Raptor... a storied airplane to be sure... thanks for this. Glad you are the guys looking over this build, I know you will (within your control) try to ensure safety is number 1.
Thank you Jeremy
Thanks for the detailed information it's good to see both sides of this story you guys unjustly take a pounding on Peter's channel occasionly In the comments it's not deserved
Thank you HC, I appreciate you stopping by
@@utopiasnow You guys are doing great work. Were I you I'd sleep well at night knowing that.
So glad to hear someone else’s opinion. I stand corrected on you guys. Hats off.
This has been fun but the size of this hurdle is immense.
Thank you for stopping by and hearing us out.
Glad to see you guys adding some real safety checks/experience into a program like this. Wasabi is steering this back in line with what I've done with BIG aircraft manufacturers. Peter's plan of "try stuff and see what happens" is not how you successfully test an aircraft.
Thank you Josh
I've seen a pilot pile a Seawind into the dirt on its first time off the ground. When you see it happen in person to an aircraft on one of its initial flights, it makes a lot of sense why test pilots leave nothing overlooked or left to chance. Great video and it was just the right length for its content.
Thank you Lorne!
Great to see the 'other side of the story' and in such detail too! The change of airfield being a last minute decision didn't add up to me and the lack of reply from Peter meant there was definitely more to it.
Ultimately the best decision and good on Justin for putting his foot down and insisting on the change. It can be very easy to fall down a rabbit hole when you spend so much time on a project and lose the ability to look at things 100% objectively so kudos to Peter for taking all these roadblocks in his stride and continuing to press on.
It's great to see Peter's already got the Raptor relocated and I can't wait to see it in the air some day soon! Best of luck to everyone involved!
Glad the video added value. Thank you for stopping by.
Tremendous video! Blown away with your thoroughness. For me as a normal piston pilot (DA40), you two set a solid standard for the caution we all should exhibit when we make our everyday go/no-go decisions. Many thanks! Wayne
Thank you for stopping by!
Sounds like you guys are the perfect fit for this program/project and are just what this plane needed
I think we are helping, thanks for the comment
Elliot and Justin are a class act and know their stuff. After watching Peter do his own test flights later in the Raptor after basically telling Elliot and Justin he didn’t need their valuable advice any longer, I thought, what an ego! The oil leak he had during his test flight later and the engine quitting after loosing all but 1 quart of oil because he didn’t think the oil seal retaining ring was needed should’ve been a fatal accident, he was LUCKY! I will never build an experimental plane, however if I did I would have Elliot make sure it flew properly and was safe.
Love these long form break downs. its cool to see the thought process through the entirety of everything and you guys goofing off too.
Thank you Matt, they are a lot of work but this informed discussion that comes in the comments is valuable.
Thank you for documenting this process. For home-builders, this functions as an excellent reminder that once the building is complete, the project is far from over. The urge to fly is overpowering... and simply incorrect until an honest and methodical review and informed plan are complete. "Props" to the design, and the designer for working with the two of you to keep his approach methodical.
Thank you for the comment, its all so much work. I feel fortunate to be able to help Peter on his journey.
@@utopiasnow I suppose you could put the angry b'mer who knows "a hell of a lot more about airplanes than you" on the problem. It would save you all a lot of trouble.
Where was that guy in this? I was expecting to see his part in the discussion. Didn't he have much useful to say?
@@deSloleye he was playing the esential part of "that guy," at every airport.
@@marcinband I guess so. Kinda wondering how he even got in the video. It's more random than the tow tractor with the bowers pony in recent tests
Well laid out, thank you for clearing up for many that Raptor inc. was indeed forewarned early about the possible unsuitability of the airport, as well as clarifying a few other points wondering around social media.
I can see how this could have easily been a 3 or 4 hour video, must have been some effort to edit this one, thanks for the effort, not just about Raptor, but the insight into your processes.
Thank you MM, I am glad you got value out of the video. I appreciate you stopping by!
This. We’re all being polite because we are but it can be said without being acerbic; all of us would probably affect our behavior if it was us in peter’s shoes. We’re all human. Looking forward to this continuing to be the best show I on RUclips, hands down. With your help, Wasabi, we’re on the way.
@@utopiasnow I still believe the bolt you shine the light onto at 26:56 (and in a blur at 26:58) is a danger.
The gold anodised bolt through the black CF tube.
If the heim joint locknuts came loose, and that tube rotates, the head of the bolt, or the nut (depending on rotation direction) will catch on the square silver longeron tube, and it will result in a potentially lethal event.
Mark Mark thats exactly what we were looking at. Good eye.
To the non-pilots out there, EVERY item these engineers bring up COULD be show stoppers in certain situations or in combination. Their explanation is logical, thoughtful, and necessary. Peter has limited funds but, what must be done to make the airframe "airworthy" are not up for negotiation. Once resolved, these issues will make for a safe and trustworthy airframe. Until then, it's a huge gamble to take airborne. The discussion of peak HP and peak thrust could only be experienced on the high-speed taxi tests. That probably gave them concern at the shorter airport location. It would me too. Fixed pitch props are set up for climb or cruise though some can bend slightly, altering pitch. Acceleration characteristics from 0-40 may be hugely different than 40-100. If power faulters shortly after takeoff, will the power available still be enough to remain airborne? Hopefully... My suggestion is, keep Wasabi involved and the program will be successful. Other options may yield another result.
Thanks for the note.
You handled that Very well. I’m impressed with both of you for not bending to the owner on the first flight airport. We have learned a lot about flight testing since the Wright Brothers . It would be a shame not to use all that we have learned. Good luck with the flight test. I hope we don’t read about the builder trying to fly it himself and getting hurt.
Thank you Clayton, it was a hard trip
Fantastic video! I didn't mind the length at all and really appreciated the detail. My one suggestion would be to eliminate the clicking sound. I found that a bit distracting.
Wireless interference on our shotgun mic. It's since been fixed. My apologies. Thank you for the comment!
I actually watched 1 hour and 5 minutes and can’t wait for the actual flight. Great contents
Thank you Frank
I CAN wait. As long as it takes to make the first flight safely guys. Stick to what you know to be the mature decisions. (Searey owner / builder)
@@KenLeonard It seems that they are not assigned any more for testing - And if You look carefully on the Video, and some on Raptor aircraft you can easily understand why.
Absolutely love these longer videos! I can’t imagine how much more work this is for you, but it teaches us pilots and builder invaluable information that cannot be gleaned anywhere else. Thank you guys. I was glad to see Peter decide to not shoot himself in the face from his own videos....such difficult decisions.
Thank you Bruce I appreciate the feedback. We are all pulling for Peter!!
Am I right in thinking that there will never be a part 2 to this video?
If you go to the Raptor Aircraft video page, you will see that the aircraft is being flight tested by the owner. Take from that what you will.
@@tk5067 yes I see that. I was hoping that he would show the video of the guy telling him that he knows so much more about the aircraft
@@tk5067 The Raptor *was* being test flown. Nothing for two months after a constant stream of videos.
@@idleobserver7211 He said he was taking time from all the vids. and EDITING of vids.
No there wont be. Peter (Raptors owner) will not listen to anyone. No matter who you are or what you say he tells you he know better. He has been flighting it himself already blow up the engine, Can't climb over 5000 ft can hardly get enough speed to stay in the air. None of it is good.
I also watch Peter's videos on the Raptor and it's fascinating seeing it from different viewpoints. It's the classic manufacturer and pilot perspective. From his perspective I get to see the design, systems, and building of the aircraft. From yours I get to see the pilot interaction and perspective of those design choices.
I have to ask, how do you mitigate the risk on aircraft (not exclusive to the raptor) with a completely different ergonomic design especially in potentially stressful situations?
Glad you are finding value in the content. Thank you!
You had me at: Planning the freeway as an emergency landing option. Kinston North Carolina, ISO, has an 11,500ft runway surrounded by pastures. That’s where you do test flights. Not on a 5000ft runway where the get out of Dodge last ditch option is a freeway. Aircraft needs to go on a diet and lose 1000lbs for Cherokee to be viable. More weight is longer accelerated stop distances. Everyone on the internet thinks they’re Chuck Yeager. Good call going to a better suited airport.
Thank you for watching and commenting.
Loved the video. I'm not a huge fan of reality tv but I am captivated by the flight test version. The general aviation community is fortunate that highly skilled and experienced test pilots like you and Justin produce and share this content on youtube. And I'm glad you are moving flight test to a more suitable airport especially given the single-channel engine control. I take to heart your comment about involving flight test from the git-go and I have little sympathy for the complainers because I feel that the raptor project is lucky to have you.
Thank you DSG!
A few things to add on his engine programming. I had already suggested he contact Gale Banks who knows more about diesel engine design, testing, programming, and ultimate power than any of the rest of us combined. In his killing a Duramax series he talks about injection timing in detail. Most of the time he uses 20 degrees btdc to 20 degrees atdc for injection. I heard peter talk of starting at tdc. No way to achieve good power and clean operation doing that. He scares the hell out of me. I am a licensed A&P but not current. I see all kinds of things like no paint bands on cable splices for slippage indication. I see no torque seal markings on any hardware. I see him frequently reusing hardware over and over. I have really appreciated your reporting here on this. I agree on the poor airport for the first flight. I hope you can have a safe flight test but this bird is nowhere near ready to fly. The engine quitting after leaving the runway is a big proof of that.
Thank you for the comment. We are excited about all of Peters great progress
I think you had a bit of a different take on the video than the rest of us. Peter had completed all of the action items on the safety checklist. They were literally going to do the first flight that day, but the weather and the location was not acceptable.
rustusandroid What was the fix for the right rudder?
@@richard8181 Ask Elliot... We got 1 hour of his 500GB of footage.
@@richard8181 What do you think the statement "We armed the gun and put it in the hands of a child" meant?
I thought i'd just watch the first 5 minutes as it was after 1 AM here.....now it's almost 2:30 AM!!!
Well put together and a great outcome moving to a better airport.
From Peter's further video's he's sees that and accepts that it was entirely necessary. So well done and looking forward to next chapter.
Thank you UDF, I appreciate you taking the time. Get some sleep.
I'm of the strong opinion that if one of the drive belts break or it derails, there is a high likelihood it will entangle the second belt and derail or break it as well, resulting in a complete power train failure. In effect, what appears to be a redundant system is actually a TRIPLING of risk, at two single points of failure.
independent systems - if one fails the other will continue to function
belt 1 / belt 2 - result
works / works - good result
works / fails - good result
fails / works - good result
fails / fails - both fail
25% failure rate
entangled systems - if one fails, both fail
belt 1 / belt 2 - result
works / works - good result
works / fails - both fail
fails / works- both fail
fails / fails - both fail
75% failure rate
At a minimum, the aircraft needs to be high-speed taxi tested using only a single belt, tested in both positions and through all power settings and ranges, in order to verify the base assumption that the mere appearance provides, which is that one belt will keep the prop spinning without it derailing, slipping or otherwise failing from stress. This of course does not mitigate the high risk associated with an entangled belt scenario but at least it gives you some confidence in the event one does fail and it does not entangle the other, you can still fly the aircraft. In a non-entangled scenario, you may not even know a belt failed. So that single belt better be capable of accepting all power inputs with a high level of confidence otherwise even if one belt manages to survive, the pilot could still inadvertently cause it to fail with normal throttle inputs.
Once both single belt drive configurations pass operationally, I would absolutely insist on shielding the belts to preclude entanglement in the event one fails. These two steps alone reduce the risk of a catastrophic power train failure by three-fold. That's a lot of risk reduction for a minimum amount of work.
As configured, catastrophic belt failure is a much more likely scenario than a single ECM failure in my opinion, and I became a former deposit holder last summer when it was announced dual FADEC was scrapped because the initial engine selection, which was made years ago, precluded a second ECM.
Its a fair point you make but your math is dramatically over simplifying the situation. Reality is that you Dont Know what the rate of double failure is. Ie. You don't know what percentage of single belt failures would lead to an immediate failure of the other belt. Therefore your entire thesis (and thus your math) is flawed.
@@samnozik6659 I'm not an expert either but I assume you could at least show it was likely to do this (or not) by doing a few experiments with deliberately sabotaged belts and then observing where the broken belt ends up.
Most likely the marks on the pulleys are from FOD. I would want dust covers
I would be more worried about the wings. Just don’t trust those 2 bolts and no interference fit even though that’s also how Velocity does it. Pipers seem to lose wings even though they have their main spar fit into the carry trough spar under the fuselage. Looks like a much more secure method of wing attachment and it’s still facing AD’s. The Raptor just gives me bad feelings all around, wings, power plant, & weight.
Even those static thrust tests Justin mentioned raised many questions. Those static numbers were in line with a Skylane which is a fraction of the weight. Bad feelings all around for me. I hope the project will be successful and he can prove the doubters wrong, would be a shame to waste all that time and money.
But then again innovation can only get you so far since physics rules out world. I didn’t even understand the reasoning behind using an automotive power plant, after his tuning and high boost numbers it didn’t seem all that more efficient than a comparable commercially available aviation power plant (100LL or JETA/Diesel). I would think a TIO-540 or TSIO-520 would’ve been much easier to implement as a direct drive, lower weight, similar power option. No need for re-drives, water cooling, and maintains dual mags for redundancy.
@@Alex-us2vw You don't trust bolts?
Elliot, you are truly an inspiration to all, but to me for sure. Ive always had visions and drawings of aircraft i would like to create, however i feel very unintelligent or under powered, (let alone funding) to proceed. However as an A&P Mechanic myself, its difficult to me to watch people create aircraft that are "unsafe" or not airworthy. I wish I had the funds to give back to you and your team for helping these people help better their designs for success. You gentlemen are the hero's for sure!
Elliot,
Incredible video, format is excellent. Don't change a thing. As one who follows, learns from, and enjoys your videos im becoming aware of what the average non test pilot may not be aware of what he doesn't know.
Enjoy the meticulous approach to your program. Beginning to appreciate thoroughness and discipline of your profession, and can't recall a single article about the first fight of an amateur built aircraft that even hinted at the detail involved in securing a safe experience.
Cudos to Peter for being so open about this project. Airplanes AND Wasabi are COOL!!
Thanks Larry for the note and the feedback.
I like that, we don't fly aircraft with cracks. He says, be alright. I was thinking it's not his arse on the line. Tell you what, we'll test fly it. Us together, I'll wear my parachute. If something falls off, you can land it.
Thanks for the comment.
Great showcase and break down of the intricate process, I followed Peter’s project for some time but the intricacy is most apparent in this vid. Very informative for us builders and dreamers of what all is involved in legitimate testing and scrutiny of a concept for viability. Only thing i found alarming was the apparent radiation you all encountered given the Geiger counter feedback in much of the video.
Jokes aside what is your strategy or approach to dealing with the emotional aspect of critiquing and potentially tearing apart a creator’s ‘perfect dream’? It must be so frustrating and counter productive to have to keep justifying your critiques like I heard done once or twice here?
@Elliot Sequin glad you guys made the decision to part ways. Glad Peter is ok. Wish I could say I was surprised by the news. The entire design/build/test program was sketchy at best.
Fella's, I haven't been viewing the snippets up to this point. From a guy that builds jets and runs flight test programs, for a living, you're making the right recommendations, and I'm glad Peter is listening... Defining airworthiness on a new configuration is hard, coming up with new ways to assess the previously un-conceived is even harder, but there are tried and true tenants to ground your decision's in. I've not met Justin before, but bravo to bring this to a place where both he and the plane can live to fight another day.
Well said Scott! Are you working on any GA projects?
@@willhibbardii2450 Hi Will, no... I don't get many opportunities to dabble in GA, but I watch a lot of these videos, especially the Patey's, because I find guys getting back to "1st principles" and it helps keep my perspective when dealing with military development bureaucracy, and industry approaches to problems. Flight test should be boring and used to verify what you think you know about the airplane, though I've experienced more than my share of "exciting" test programs. Doesn't matter how much you prepare, however, new airplanes are going to teach you something about them, and you have to be prepared... I like how these guys are approaching the business.
Hi Scott, I agree that flight test should be boring. When transporting from point A to B I prefer every trip uneventful! Mike and Mark Patey I just found 90 days ago. I've been living under a rock concerning GA since 2008. I love Mike's Scrappy project! I kidded him about not including cup holders. He wrote back that he has three of them for Scrappy which he will show us in another video... I'm working on an experimental electric propulsion aviation/marine system. The batteries/super capacitors are specified to be built into the airframe/boats instead of modular. That's how I found the Raptor project. I was seeking a small company that had female composite aircraft molds. Since my proposed electric system is 135 KW Raptor wasn't what I had in mind. My concept is a redesigned M20C Mooney style full composite build. Peter Muller's conversion of the Audi 3L TDI Diesel to me looks very promising for GA and the marine industry. Burt Rutan's design that converted into the Velocity was the last exposer in passing a few years back for independent thrust calculations only. Raptor has propelled my research to fully understanding Rutan's work. Winglets serving triple duty as fuel savers, speed brakes and rudders. My understanding at this time is, Raptor's winglets are serving as rudders only at this time. I find myself hooked with this overall concept of Raptor. As you say, new designs have much to teach us. I know Justin, Elliot and ultimately Peter used good judgement in transporting the project to the better environment at Valdosta. I sorted out many GA certified aircraft at KGGG in Longview, Texas with a 10,000 foot runway before clearing the fence. I know I wouldn't want to do even a ferry flight out of Cherokee Co. with out enough room to sort things out just out of ground effect with a rotate speed of 110 knots. I would say hell no to that mission even 30 years ago and not look back! Keep it boring guys! I'm in hopes that Wasabi will be doing the envelope numbers for Raptor. Peter or someone else may clear the fence in Raptor for the first time and ferry to other locations. That's just a new beginning... Verifying what we think we know... Best wishes to everyone...
Kudos for walking away from a paying job, even knowing it was going to upset the customer. This is the epitome of professionalism. As it later turned out, this aircraft was never going to be safe to fly and was abandoned.
Don't let Peter bully you into getting killed! Think of your family, walk away if you don't want to fly it.
PLANNING on landing on a highway?? Nothing but forest and highway around Valdosta as well.
Complaining that things are dragging out and that you're not willing to kick the tires and give it a try. That's the attitude from the raptor channel. 1000 hours on a test bench, get some data. Untested drive that's had issues all along, flight controls that jam, car engine that's not designed for this.
Peter said gear emergency release could never be needed because the battery will never have no juice!? All busses fail, all fuses blow, total darkness.
Thank you Sloth!!
@@utopiasnow That could've been you in the Nebraska corn field! Biting the bullet > Biting the corn.
Super informative. I especially enjoyed the discussion at the video start of builders leaning forward and the fine line a test pilot walks when engaging a project after prototype is complete. You guys have the right amount of empathy and psychological skill to keep safety paramount yet keep the project moving toward the goal. Never thought of pausing, fantastic job of editing, the tension was palpable, and a cliffhanger ending. What a script for the viewer. Great job, Wasabi!
Thanks for coming along!!
I love this plane and Peter has one hell of a vision for the Raptor. Having said that, when he is talking with these guys about some of the issues, it sounds like he is more worried about just getting this thing finished and working out the problems later. I can't imagine the pressure he is under to get this finished and start producing kits for sale. Doesn't really instill a lot of confidence, honestly. One thing I hate to hear from a guy thats obviously trying to cut corners is "this ain't my first rodeo". It ain't???? Then don't f'ing act like it and just do the damn work. I mean, if you think you have more experience than the PROS that you called, then why the hell did you even call them?!?! No matter what it is, we use experts bc THEY'RE EXPERTS PETER!!!! You wouldn't call in a group of guys to double check your work if you thought they knew less than you do. Bc that makes no sense. That's like wiping before ya poop. We get it Peter....... You're exhausted mentally, physically and I'd imagine financially by now, but look how far you are!!!! Don't destroy your dream over the last 10% of this project!!!! Just put in the work and listen to these guys!!! They sound like they really want to see you succeed. Why would you not listen to ppl that want that for you????
Thanks for the comment.
@@utopiasnow huge fan of what you guys do for the aviation world. I may have only flown once, but I get to fly all the time watching you guys here. Makes me wanna get in the air again and actually enjoy it as an adult now.
Well said, but apparently Peter has decided that actual experienced professional test pilots are too much of an obstacle in getting his one of a kind unproven experimental aircraft flying (see post in community section of his channel). Such a shame after having got this far, but possibly a good outcome for Wasabi
@@kirkc9643 yeah.....it's a shame he didn't take their advice in the right way. I don't think he was prepared to have anyone really comb through every square inch of that bird. And he certainly didn't take any of it positively. Being able to receive constructive criticism and embrace it for what it is is not an easy thing to do and once you open your mind to that kind of feedback things can really take off, but the moment you shut down and see it as they're talking trash about whatever it is you're working on, all you hear is static and feel like you have to be on the defensive. And when you're on the defensive you're not gonna hear a word anyone has to say and you're just gonna keep on doing it the way that got you into that mess in the 1st place. It's not looking good. I really hope he gets this bird in the air without any issues though. I'd hate to see this become a paperweight or, like I've said before, turn up on some RUclips documentary 10 years from now about the most groundbreaking birds that never flew.
@@BIGWIGGLE223 "Being able to receive constructive criticism and embrace it for what it is is not an easy thing to do"
Depends very much on who you are. As a former electrical design engineer, mostly servos, I know that I very much appreciated design reviews where super competent and widely exposed engineers, who did that design quality assurance for hundreds of designs were invaluable.
On most of my designs they didn't have a whole lot to say, but the few times they did chime in were often invaluable. The input here was immense, and as an homebuilt aircraft builder (Long EZ) I would have never put that aircraft (mine) in the air with 1/1000 th of these problems, actually not with ANY known problems. Building a proven, to plans (almost exclusively, a few minor variations, nothing concerning critical systems like controls, surface shapes, fuel system, etc.) is obviously FAR different than modifying systems/designs extensively as was done here, and I'm not trying to talk shit, but WOW.
I more than suspect that a design program in a place like Mojave RAF is quite different than this, with static loading and other standard design/verification tests being done as they should.
What I really hope is that the aircraft never becomes and NTSB study. I saw a guy here building a Vari with modifications that were absolutely inane. His claim was that he was a shuttle aerodynamicist. I certainly hope not and didn't remotely buy that.
The worst example was that he had closed in the slots in the Fowler flap type elevator design that direct airflow over the tops of the elevators at high angle of attack, and my comment to him was that the best outcome he could have would be that the airplane wouldn't even rotate...and it didn't.
After fixing that problem, he crashed it early in flight test (walking away, luckily) totaling the airplane because he STILL hadn't done tests like max glide speed and it cost him that airplane (hit obstacle on that emergency landing). He had a power failure on the VW engine he used, which IIRC did not even have redundant (or aircraft level) systems added for cylinder ignition.
Here's the real clincher. He had crashed MULTIPLE aircraft in the past, some very seriously, and he seemed proud of that. Life is hard, it is harder if you are stupid or even just ignorant. He also came up with 'wonderful' ideas like peel plying an entire wing, making it 50 lbs heavy. Sometimes ya just gotta wonder and shake your head. Some folks put out very safe and well designed kits only to have completely unqualified builders extensively modify them. I remember Rutan saying that if you modify major aspects of the DO NOT call it a LongEZ or whatever, as he didn't want those statistics on his design, as they darn well should not have been.
I also remember reading in the plans that if there was ONE system in the plane you definitely should build strictly to plans it was the fuel system. If you remember, John Denver was killed in a Long he bought from a builder that didn't heed that warning, and had mounted the tank selection switch up and behind his shoulder, rather then between the pilot's legs, as in the plans designated, and John could not reach it properly. Ultimately John's fault for not fixing the problem (for him, apparently the builder never had a problem with it) but that is exactly the kind of reason NOT to modify that system. You likely will not be the only owner of that airplane, a MONSTER consideration (or should be). I can't imagine how that builder must have felt after that incident, but I've often wondered if a totally preventable death in an aircraft he modified at least registered enough to preclude him from taking on such responsibilities in the future. One can only hope ...
One intentionally humorous 'requirement' in the plans was if you were thinking of adding something extra, throw it up in the air, if it comes back down, don't add it. Obviously a tongue in cheek reminder to keep weight in mind for performance.
Sorry for the novella, but it is very much something that needs to be said. One modification another builder (probably with more than three working brain cells to rub together) made a mod to the rudder that was actually quite good. Good enough, in fact, for Rutan to modify his test bed aircraft, and run through all the controllability/stability flight testing again to add it to the design, so not all mods are bad, not remotely all, actually. I don't remember if RAF initialized the change or not, but the 'female' version of the aircraft, which utilized a NACA type inlet was another good design mod, again, tested by RAF and added to the plans as an option. :-)
The guy that finished our airplane (long story, back to school, father's health, etc) had us come out previous to taxi tests to look it over. The main input I gave him was from a comment he made about a header having very low clearance to the cowling. He was also an engineer, and I asked him if he'd ever seen fiberglass (actually kevlar, but still with a petroleum based matrix material, epoxy) burn? I said I would not even consider putting that aircraft in the air before I removed that header, redesigned, cut, and rewelded that one pipe (minorly, and best case with factory discussions as to possible performance impacts, if you want to go nuts about it, as it wasn't much of a change in length). He didn't get angry, no claims of godlike knowledge, he just fixed it before flight, and thanked us for the two or three comments we made before his testing.
I did make one very stupid and careless building mistake, which luckily caused no safety issues whatsoever, as it most certainly could have, worst case) because he had carefully thought out his flight testing program and was testing switched tanks at altitude. The moronic mistake I made worked fine on the ground testing, but limited fuel flow at power to an engine stop after significant run time from the one tank. We apologized profusely, and I had one of those hot flashes of doom/terror, even after the fact when he related the story, he was not just a coworker, but a friend as well), and he said he actually laughed out loud when he found the problem. I'm not sure my response would have been as light hearted, but that's the kind of guy he was.
Moral of THAT story...just because you've already built one wing doesn't mean you should give ANY less weight to plans checklists/procedures on building. I really should have known better. The aircraft now has many many safe hours on it, and has performed virtually flawlessly, though he did pull one bone headed maneuver in testing that luckily wasn't a big issue, ultimately. We ALL make mistakes, it's human, but following procedures is one very good way to eliminate many of them. The one thing he didn't totally heed advice on was having a highly experienced (in type) pilot,a long time builder/owner do the test flight, and it almost certainly would have precluded the problem he had, another pretty strong suggestion from RAF...that, or get some not insignificant front seat time in the type previous to first flight, some of which he did. He also would have gotten yet another extensive inspection of the aircraft from a successful builder/owner...again, invaluable. The more competent, or better yet, expert eyes, the better, I say, and that has been borne out by experience. He wouldn't have caught my mistake though, it was buried beyond inspection visibility.
I really like this longer format, Elliot. It's less entertainment and more education. And I feel for the builder, but you can see his cognitive dissonance throughout, like that AC/ECU idle control issue. Yes, you CAN train yourself to overcome an improper ECU program, but should you? And once these decisions begin to cascade it can be very hard to go back to the beginning and force a re-think. So hat's off to the builder for wisely opting for some adult supervision, no matter how difficult it can be to swallow at times.
Great to hear from you Bob, great observation.
Hi Elliot, really glad to get your side of the story. I'm supportive of both parties, but the comments on Peter's videos were unfortunately one-sided. I appreciate the dynamic environment as you learn more and collect more data, decisions change. Quick question on Justin's gear, what kind of headset does he wear, and is that is his usually one or specifically to fit under his helmet?
Thank you GM. Justins headset is a Clarity Aloft, he runs in ear speakers in his helmet as well
I spotted the clarity aloft. I use the quiet technologies halo since several years, similar arrangement but cheaper. Best aero headsets imho
@@crono331 Dumb question, but can you wear sunglasses with it?
@@geraldmartsy2165 yes definitely, and a cap.
@@crono331 Cool, very good! Thanks for the info!
You guys are better off not getting involved in this program further than you did. I’ll just leave it at that.
Love what you guys do.
A few things bother me about this situation.
1) The aircraft was not built to the design. And then not re analyzed after being built. As evidenced by the discussions between Peter and the designer.
2) The flight dynamics of the scale model were not optimized before the full scale was built.
3) The comment that the control surfaces were not formally designed.
It is going to be very interesting to see how this unfolds.
Fantastic video. Not to long at all. Very happy to be able to watch this play out.
Thanks for the comment. We are all excited to see Peter succeed.
@Shawn Huffman I was reading the HBA thread on the raptor, and the Aero expert that _was_ working with Peter had some choice words about Peter ignoring his advice to iterate on the RC model before forging ahead with full scale. So, the answer to your question is, no, no there wasn't any more iterations on the RC model.
After watching Peter's sort of first flight and subsequent videos. I now believe you were correct in your assumptions of the aircrafts stability and safety. And apologize for my previous statements about your intentions. I will also find my comments about you in his videos and will remove them. Again my apologies.
Wow, I have never seen a comment like this before. Don’t feel like you need to delete anything, but I appreciate the effort. Peter is trying hard and I wish him the best, thank you for the thought.
You all made the right choice. It is sometimes hard to see but boy was I glad I was going to an airport with more than 5000' when I lost the left engine in a B-55 Baron. I am looking forward to you opening up the envelope. Great job!
Elliott - I have to be honest here, the whole situation has been nerve racking. I've read a lot of comments and replies from both parties on both Peter's and your channels. As a service provider and as a professional you have to thread a very fine needle when it comes to balancing customer need, safety, and peoples feelings. I think it is important to be dispassionate and look at the project for what it is, at that very moment. I think you did a great job on that - and yes, some things were missed in some of the visits, but the important thing is that you are willing to be honest and admit when mistakes are made, and learn from them. The field change was a tough call, but it shouldn't have been. If there is a safety risk inherent, then it must be addressed without fuss. I am a pilot but I also have access to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 - I loaded up Peter's home field and flew around it. It is hilly as heck, and you are correct that there are basically no options based on the satellite data. Loving the debriefs, and its great when you are willing to sit down on camera and dissect what went wrong and how you can improve your workflow. Very educational.
Nerve racking for us as well. Thank you for the comment!
Elliot Seguin no problem ... I would also check out this thread as a ton of people think that the turbos are setup in a dangerous and un air worthy configuration: www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/raptor-composite-aircraft.24721/page-269
@@utopiasnow Perhaps FS2020 can be used as a way to investigate remote fields like this one before actually visiting? Could be a cheap/easy tool to get a rough indication of the environment.
Owner/Builders can be so invested in their project that they really need a neutral experienced third party to save their bacon. Just human nature, you guys handled it well. Peter is not doing too bad either. Just needs some help to keep on the straight and narrow. With you guys on board; once this phase is successfully completed and any tweaks indicated that need to be done, future owners and flies will greatly appreciate this ground work. Thanks for this video, it helps the viewers to get this other perspective too. :bow:
Thank you for the comment.
Yet another great video, if not painful to watch in certain areas. What a crazy plane, the Raptor! Diesel, cool looking 5 blade prop (but how much efficiency is being lost in those blades?), pressurized, etc, and heavy! You can tell in the builder's high speed taxi that he used the entire length of the runway, and didn't appear to just be coasting to the end. Throw in a "airport on top of a hill" setup, and yeah, that plane needs a better test site. Tough job to tell a customer things aren't going well, but it's the right call.
Thank you Mike
This was a pretty fascinating video; especially in contrast to its counterparts on the Raptor channel. I can see he has a lot of passion for his design, but it seems like he's fairly reasonable once he accepts that something has to be changed/fixed. What I find most troubling is the tone of the echo chamber on his channel comment section. I understand that his goal is to button up the design and sell planes, but all those arm chair experts are eating up the quick overviews like this thing was ready to fly 6 months ago and absolutely tearing into you guys with, until now, no real counterpoint. I hope they'll make their way over here and take this video into consideration.
Matt, thanks for the comment. I hope people find the video useful. It’s a tough deal, all of it.
What's disturbing to me is the lack of transparency on Peter's channel.
@@keim3548 I can see your point, but I think I've viewed that as a kind of attempt to market this during the flight testing rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Then again, I can see how his lack of transparency may only push the zealots down in his comment section further into their position that this thing was perfect and ready to fly. I suppose what will be most telling to me is how things move forward from here: does he push forward in spite of Wasabi's efforts or does reason prevail and he starts to take the flight testing a little more seriously?
Unfortunately, it's an echo chamber because Peter has curated it into one. Genuine supporters used to regularly raise concerns and constructively critique his work. Of course there were detractors too but what did Peter expect when he chose to undertake this project in such a public fashion.
He originally intended to use his viewership like an open source knowledge base but seemed to get increasingly sensitive/defensive to -I repeat- mostly constructive criticism - to the point that he resorted to calling them whiners (search "whining sound" on his channel for a prime example).
Posts were deleted and people got blocked - myself included.
Alas Peter gloated a little too soon. Most of the objections raised have turned out to be legitimate concerns that he has been forced to rectify. Not that he'll acknowledge that.
I fully get that this is a commercial venture and a certain level of reputation management has to be expected. However, Peter is rapidly making himself a case study in how not to do it. He is often tetchy and, as Wasabi's video reveals, he's not as transparent about project glitches as his fanboys imagine.
I love the idea of the Raptor and accept that innovation is often driven by "Mad Scientist" types but there's nothing scientific about ignoring sound engineering principles. Some of the build execution has been so sketchy it's scary.
An accident waiting to happen? Let's hope not.
Hahah I was thinking about that. Imagine, if it got off the ground the control surfaces would have been almost useless due to the flexing in the cable system. And if the engine wasn't managed correctly and stalled, it might not have been possible to restart it. IIRC the rudder didn't have full movement in one direction either. And that's just a couple of things that spring to mind. What could possibly go wrong?
A lot of pilot-owners under estimate how complex a test program like this is, I’m glad the owner gets a second chance.
32:53 Peter can’t think of a scenario.... how about a failure of the gear motor? Or the shaft shears? Or gear strips? Or some other reason why the pilot would need to utilize the emergency extension in the first place? Maybe if the gravity and pressure dump system isn’t enough, perhaps it could benefit from a Co2 blowdown (Piper Apache style) or stronger extension springs, or a manual pressure relief valve instead of requiring the electric solenoid to be bumped.. I think it’s clear that the plane needs more engineering and changes before it’s ready... it’s just not ready to fly yet. Now that it’s been disassembled and moved, it will need to be completely looked over again to verify proper assembly and operation.. Good luck guys!
Thank you for the comment. The gear needing electrical power to emergency extend is a tough one, not necessarily a show stopper but tough for sure and another thing to track.
Elliot Seguin not only does it need electrical power, doesn’t it also need an operational hydraulic motor? Yeah.. something needs a redesign in my mind.. thank you for the responses.. it means a lot to all of us that you are taking the time to address each and every commenter here!
Yes and the pump. It’s all tough but I think we would all love a game changing new GA aircraft. God bless Peter for putting in the effort.
I remember wondering why he didn't go with a manual pressure relief valve when I watched the build video on the emergency dump system.
Elliot Seguin Most could be solved by a small accumulator. And a manual bypass to emergency extend what do you think 🤔
It is worth noting that after several flights and several setbacks, this plane crashed after losing thrust. Fortunately, Peter walked away. I believe he intends another version with twin shrouded turbofans. Good luck Peter.
Just watched Peter's new video...... he has a hard head.
Thanks for the comment.
Have to admire Justin for making the call on the airport. Sounded like he was ok with baling out but wanted to bring the aircraft down safely if needed. That is professionalism. Well done guys. First flight will come when it happens. cheers
Thank you Steve.
Hi Elliot, I watched the whole thing and read the whole description - no need to return any favors, just keep doin' what you're doin'. Cheers.
(Okay maybe one favor - upload the rant from that old guy at the beginning)
Hahha, it was a pretty good dressing down. Reminded me of gym class in grade school. I hope the rest of his day went better. Thank you for the comment.
But seriously...why was he mad? Awesome content.
@@utopiasnow Same question as Kent. What was going on @ 0:58?
@@ChrisCanMakeStuff Ok, detailed debrief. After the engine quit the airplane was stranded on the taxiway. Landing aircraft were having to taxi-back on the runway, Justin and Peter were troubleshooting the electrical system and cranking the propeller, etc.
A suburban pulled up to the plane the driver got out and walked up to the airplane. directly behind me. I turned around and the guy was just awkwardly standing there super close, so I asked him to give us some space while we figure out what is going on. I wasn't super friendly, my justification was the guy seemed to be more curious/aggressive than helpful and had not introduced himself. I then went to go get the jumper cables.
The suburban chased me down, the driver flagged me down and gave me the 'what for'. He read me his resume (airline, freight 757/767/777 "flown basically every airplane") and said that he could help a stranded airplane more than I ever could. I suggested next time he opens with an introduction so a person knows how valuable a guy he can be, and we went separate ways.
In all honesty, I wish it would have gone better. Guys like that exist at every airport, all he wanted to do was prove he likes planes, we all like planes, that's why we are at the airport...I should have been more prepared.
Did I answer the question?
Interesting that you guys had previously suggested that Cherokee was unsuitable and it fell on deaf ears. Total respect to Justin for saying that he wasn’t comfortable with using that airport. He is 101% correct.
Thank you for the comment!
Well this adds the other side of the story and I'm glad to have watched this, better safe than sorry guys, good job.
Thank you Clint
@@utopiasnow what was with the Angry older guy in the car?
Emotions or no emotions, you are obviously working together. I appreciate your past input I found about here in this clip. Fly safe!
Thank you Troy
You don't have to be an engineer to see where things go wrong here. Just common sense and my gut feeling as an airline rated pilot tells me that this is a dangerous airplane. Not so much in the original design, which I think is great, but as a combination of everything together. Further more, designing and building an entirely new airplane is one thing. Having to deal at the same time with a new engine setup is an another thing. Peter should have gone for a reliable and proven engine for the prototype and tinkered with a new engine setup afterwards, after the plane is flying and approved. I hope he gets his airplane in the air, especially after all the work and hours he has into this built, but going to production from that point on is another costly endeavor. Aviation history is full of game changing aircraft that never made it to production or went bankrupt shortly after. The twin engine Adam 500 aircraft is just one example of such an airplane, but there are many others. I don't want to be the party pooper here, but I see no happy ending . All my respect if he pulls this one off, but...
Elliot I've read almost every other comment written to this point so I'll keep my comment short..... If I needed someone to test fly or review my work ( plane building ) you would be on top of my list.
I watched this build for a long time... I had some doubts about some of the things I saw but thats just me.... hope Peter uses all your input to his advantage and in the end his plane is all he thinks it will be. IF I would ever need someone to review my work you are the folks to do it. THANK YOU for the super video.
Thank you Robert. I am glad you found value in the video.
Fantastic video, so interesting and informative. You both are true gentlemen and professionals. Congrats. On to the next steps as you say.
Thank you for the note
Thank to both Justin and Elliot.
That was a fascinating film.
Wasabi is continuing to live up to their reputation of being able to have the difficult conversations and reducing the risks on a first flight.
The most difficult decisions for professionals is when they have to tell the customer(s) no.
Great job, cant wait to see where you go from here.
Thank you Chris, I appreciate the feedback. I feel good that we added value to the program.
I have followed the development of this a/c and as a licensed mechanic and technical instructor I had some issues with a few methods and basic principles in cable and pulleys design and construction philosophy, also gear ops. I felt that an a&p should have gone over it from an independent point of view as you have done to look at all those things for safety and ops. "Dual inspections " . I also stated that runway was too short and not aware of your previous concerns re airport. Very concerning to find that rudder issue on the right.
I would not be happy with any form of engine cutout, that would have to be eliminated.
I posted about prop efficiency and as you said speed decreases efficiency and density alt is very important also for aircraft and prop ops.
Before going to flight test all maint issues need addressed and dual inspected by a licensed mechanic. Design and construction is one thing but inspection is another.
Peter has a lot of good ideas (and Aussie perseverance) but I do question some methods used (not aviation standard) ie gear bolts and bushes. Great design but get those little things sorted. It was good to hear your side. And I must say I can only agree. I did make comments on Peters channel about why you had not brought up airport unsuitability earlier without knowing your previous conversations. Proof of concept is one thing but before production a lot of rework will be required for weight reduction and pulley mountings. 🤔
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the feedback on our processes.
Elliot Seguin , I have a little concern about engine exhaust proximity to prop. (A) prop contamination. (B) effect of hot exhaust on prop efficiency. 🤔🤔 maybe split L&R and further fwd?.
Wow, is all I can say. I was riveted watching this. I have been watching Peter build this aircraft for over 3 years now, and this was the one thing I have been waiting for. Watching you both carefully and methodically go through the flight systems, weight and balance, etc is fascinating. I've always wondered what it would take to get from point A to finally test flying a brand new aircraft and the physics, and mathematics employed to decide that it is safe enough to pull the mains off and try it. I agree with you that when a builder wants to test fly their own aircraft that is scary, with recent evidence why that's not a good thing. Having your team be the other set of eyes, and brains behind the decision is what Peter needs to get this project into a production state. Thanks guys, I can't wait to see the video of the flight tests now at the new airport!
Thank you Paul
One thing that struck at me was that Peter said he would be ok if you had to dump the plane, but you are not, that your goal is to have a successful test flight. I hope Peter really understands, and accepts emotionally that you guys are on _his_ team, that the work you are doing is to help him succeed. The little of him I saw in the video seemed to show a bit of defensiveness, which I hope is not the case.
Thank you for the comment!
@@utopiasnow thank you so much for sharing your work!
As a pilot myself and hopefully a future home builder, this is a ton of great information. I like that you do a thorough breakdown of everything on the airplane.
I can see that the guy gives some resistance with making changes. Which is unfortunate.
As I continue my education every day as a pilot, it's nice to see your procedures that you go through for first flight.
Thank you Corey!
Amazing video, love the new format, super interesting stuff!
Thank you Joseph
This is by far my favorite of your videos. The quality of your content has increased dramatically over the last few months. Thank you for taking us along and explaining what is happening!
I love watching you guys wring these things out, love your process
Thank you CR
What an awesome piece of work. I’ve been waiting until I’ve had time to sit down and watch this from beginning to end with no interruptions and I’m glad I did.
Thanks Chris
When i was a Mechanic on an airport we had a test, We would ask pilots, mechs if they "knew everything there is to know about what they're doing" If they said yes you run the other way. That reminds of this owner telling his test pilot he knows a hell of a lot more about airplanes. I suggest running the other way.
Thanks for the comment.
@@ryanthomas2472 LOL! We called them Airport Dicks. All Airports have them. Makes sense. Huge apology to the owner.
Just needed to ask him if he knows everything there is to know about what he's doing. He will say yes.
Thanks for a wonderful video about the professionalism of three people who see things slightly differently. The humanity of all parties and the editing that demonstrated it and how each person is under pressure to perform. Thanks for the insight into the process and the clear logical process of decision making. Glad to hear that you have all done your bit and am sure the Raptor wil benefit from your design as well as flight input. Your anguish when leaving about the risks to Peter were palpable. Looking forward to the next chapter.
Thank you for the comment. It was a hard trip.
Your bravery in flying an amateur build for the first time is contrasted heavily by most people's fear of even doing this: 13:58
Thanks for the comment!
Awesome documentary of what it takes to baby step an aircraft through this difficult process until first flight. I wish Peter and Raptor all the best.
Thank you for the comment
From Peter's latest video it looks like your worst case scenario is about to become reality. He's decided to fly it into ground effect himself...
He seems to be ignoring all advice, and insisting that he can do it himself. I hate to say it, but I don't think this is going to end well.
@@ScottsSynthStuff Let's hope he doesn't get to feel the effect of the ground.
which video is this? The latest one thats public didnt have the raptor lifting off into ground effect... Peter even mentions at the start that he's legally not allowed to fly it.
@@CFinley25 Yes, in the comments section he announced that he'd decided to fly it himself. Since then, he's announced to his subscribers that Wasabi have been dumped.
@@DealerD8vE ah ok... I'll have to go read through some of them then... yeah, I saw his community post and wasnt to thrilled about it, shame to see Wasabi get dumped and have to train a new MTP for it but at the same time I understand as hes a lot closer and can more closely follow the build...
The best part of the video was your face after he explained to you some bullshit you're supposed to do to outsmart the ECU in that off-idle condition so the engine doesn't quit
I like that "outsmart the ECU"
Its interesting watching Peter's approach to building airplanes compared with Mike Patey. Hope you guys stay safe.
Great observation, thanks
I too love the approach Mike Patey takes "design it, build it , break it advance aviation."
Seth Valentine the difference between the two is mike knows what he’s doing
Jake Tomlinson yes 100% Hopefully Peter gets the msg, I also commented on Raptor channel
Real eye-opening insights between the passionate design for a really advanced/modern/cost effective GA aircraft and the practicalities of ensuring it is safe. Not too long and included a level of candour that's emphasises the difficult decisions involved. I hope this project helps move us forward from the 1970 designs that remain most common today, and appreciate the enormous efforts of everyone involved in it.
Well said, thank you for the comment.
Still waiting for the part 2 video! Also, go check out Peter's most recent ground effect video. Raptor looks to have some SERIOUS lateral stability issues, and maybe some longitudinal stability issues as well.
Thanks for the comment Joe.
Hard call, right call. We can empathize with Peter but much Respect to him for choosing to move it.
Tough call for sure. Stoked to see the airplane successfully moved!
It could seem you're delaying the project but in my opinion you are boosting it. A second opinion was mandatory, I know that Peter put a lot of effort in projecting the Raptor at its best but still everybody always need an external confrontation. Since you came the project made a lot of steps ahead. I hope to see a fully airborne plane as soon as possible.
Thanks for that. Peter has come so far and done so much, we are excited to see what he does next.
I agree. Its one thing to get some dude to fly your plane for the first time.... Its another to have Wasabi experience working with you to get the flaws out and make an airplane as safe as it can be. Peter seems to not see them as an asset in the beginning, but more of exposing flaws he takes personally. Looks like he's getting better at that though.
I love how you guys keep it raw and real !!
I have watch Peter go through all his ups and downs with building the Raptor and then what you guys do to test an unknown aircraft is fantastic to watch , don't every reduce the length of what you guys do as it is real !!
Cheers
Alistair from Australia..
Thanks for the note. We are all impressed with Peters hard work ethic. The world will be a better place with more awesome airplanes like Raptor. There is good stuff on the horizon!!
@@utopiasnow thanks Elliott for your reply ..
Cheers