I was enthusiastic about the Raptor initially , and stumped up to help keep the project going. However as Peter has demonstrated, the passion and effort of unskilled amateurs is often insufficient. Many tried to help Peter see and correct the deficiencies in his work, only to be rebuffed as nay sayers. Thankfully, no one lost their life. Sadly, Raptor NG clearly shows no lessons have been learned.
Clyde Cessna balled it up 13 times, in my opinion he has been very successful. Yep I would agree with you that you are nay saying. Dust off and move on Peter! You got this!
@@rward6083 Ever the optimist. How many small GA manufacturers have tried and failed for every Cessna ?. And how many tried bleeding edge technologies ?. I assume Peter will need investors to finance the NG - I hope they are fully appraised of the risks and Peter has adequate professional and public liability insurance. I’m a fan of innovation and technology - we have seen significant advances in aviation and space recently. What these companies all share is a strong team of experienced professionals.
a lot of the advice is garbage. put a airplane engine in it? if u gonna put an airplane engine in it, why even build it? triple the cost to build it. it's a home built and it's a prototype. I honestly think people are expecting way to much to soon with peter and his project. some people need to look up the definition of prototype and read what a prototype is. I don't think peter has an unlimited budget. if he did, I bet he would implement a lot more of the suggestions he gets.
@@wasatchm an aircraft engine should have prevented most if not all the problems the aircraft had on testing, while having good data on the aero performance & design, the engine should have been tested on an already proven airframe, now both are trashed
The dream was nice, unfortunately the skills of the designer/builder did not come close to the needed level. An arrogant individual at best, with a super inflated self importance and claimed ability. Nobody is as smart as this guy…just ask him. Watch the videos and see how he dealt with, and treated knowledgable and experienced designers and test pilots. Now he wants to build another pipe dream. A hobby at best, but taking peoples money for his hobby is as close to theft as anything I have ever seen. Wild claims of efficiency ,comfort and range, and all this resulted in an aircraft that barely got off the ground. Who in thier right mind would give this guy money for another project that is nothing more than another waste of time.
Sooooo...what was the point of all those flight test hours on the first version if you were planning something completely different? Is any of the data you gathered useful for the program going forward with a different airframe and powerplant?
Probably very little useful data. He should start over with a large scale radio controlled model to discover what's new with the layout he has selected.
Yes he should do a 1/4 scale model first. So basically he should have trucked raptor 1 to Idaho. All those years of blood, sweat,tears,$, was pretty much for nothing.
@@rodgerhecht3623 idk. The Reynolds numbers are way off unless you fly the 1/4 scale model really fast. you can't even scale a WWII fighter to 75% without destroying the tail surface proportions.
So, the Raptor is being abandoned, a new, completely different aircraft is being designed, with the added complexity of a hybrid engine system and removable wings, with a form factor similar to the Synergy aircraft.
There is reason why these double triple stacked short wingspan wings dont work in real life. Im not native english speaker but i think somoene here can explain why this is not good idea.
@@edcew8236 the Titanic might have had a design and manufacturing issue, but at least floated because engineers took the time to do the calculations. This might not even fly stable if a properly trained engineer helps in the design
Looks like a disaster: sideslip will kill joined upper “wing” lift on one side from low pressure of vertical under horizontal. High alpha will shed into fan inlet, biplane has Reduced efficiency due to interference, span efficiency is very poor with low aspect ratio.
🤦♂️🤷♂️It was only a matter of time when someone would say stuff I have no idea about and leave us feeling less and less like this project will ever graduate to a safe level.
I was immediately concerned about the "tail" as well. Now that there is no engine and prop in the back what would be wrong with putting a standard vertical stabilizer and rudder there and extending the wings? The twin engines is a very good idea although "electric" may not be the way to go. I'm still hoping for a standard twin engine ULPower (2x200hp) design to surface. THAT would work, be inexpensive for a twin, and be reliable.
Unconventional powerplant/propulsion, untested novel aerodynamics all being developed simultaneously by the guy who brought you an obviously overweight, underpowered conventional platform underperforming airframe. The powertrain can be iron birded but there’s no way to develope the airframe independently of that great experiment. My advice to investors,”Raise handles, squeeze triggers, eject, eject, eject.” Glad only the corn got hurt.
One of the Wright Brothers famously said that airplane will never cross Atlantic Ocean. He was considered one of the most knowledgeable experts on aviation of that time.
@@tiverton that is correct, but the people who eventually crossed the Atlantic Ocean weren’t trying to rewrite the laws of physics. Raptor NG has several things working against it: 1. The designer is now known for a failed design. 2. Ducted fans produce a lot of static thrust, but wimp out as the intake velocity (ie the speed of the aircraft) increases. 3. Worst of all, a hybrid system is compounding inefficiency on top of inefficiency. If you have, say, 80% efficiency at the generator, then 90% efficiency at the speed controller for each motor, you are already down to 72% overall efficiency. The output from your 300hp Diesel generator becomes 215hp at the motors.
How do you match the 75% efficiency of a large mechanically-coupled prop disc with two dinky little air-raid sirens sitting out on the wings? Check your numbers.
Wow, lots of surprises there. Very relieved that you are OK. From what you say it sounds like you had more or less given up on the Mk1 even before the unplanned landing. Good luck with Mk2 - whoever "we" is, I hope you all have deep pockets!
Now that’s full on baller. Years of work lost forever and Peter does not miss a beat…. Right back to it and as positive as ever. Back to work! Mad respect Peter.
I am profoundly happy that you were able to walk away from your "near miss", I mean that and it is heartfelt! Good luck in your future endeavors and I will look forward to seeing you accomplish it. I am, like most others who subscribe to your channel, only worried about your general heath. Please don't take any of what is said as criticism, its not, we just don't want you to lose sight of what your initial goal was and hopefully is, starting long ago! I am hoping that there are lessons learned form your journey and you don't repeat the same mistakes! Good Luck!
So, basically every original design goal is now gone? No way will this aircraft be in the $130-150k range. And no way will it arrive anytime in the next two years. This is a complete restart by a whole new company.
this is genius, in a way. First off, really glad Peter is not hurt. But, now he is completely changing the game, meaning that he doesn't have to admit that he was wrong on the first one (like Van B said, all original design goals are now basically gone) by changing the goals of the whole program. I've seen this many times in my 65 years, unfortunately. Will stay subscribed to see if anything comes of this whole raptor program, but it is now officially back to vaporware.
@@4lifeifly whole thing bad .... to heavy, not enough power, untested power train .... list goes on an and on .. .even just look at his mk II i see HUGE issues with it
It sounds like it was used incorrectly. The nut adjusted bearing preload and the tab washer 'locked' it in place. That was never going to work long term.
@@rnordquest Inlets on jets are not blocked by the wing below at high AOA. Got to get the air in to push it out to create thrust. Block half the inlet get half the thrust and the rest will be history. The Honda Jet raised the engine on pylons above the wing to solve that issue. Most other aircraft hang the engine below the wing to get unrestricted airflow.
Peter This is a radical departure from your intitial design. Companies with many 10’s if not 100’s of millions in capital have not been as of yet bring a viable aircraft to market using electrical power… or ducted fans for a price even close to what your advertising. If this is truely the direction your going to go… it signals the end of the raptor project as originally designed and invisioned. This new direction … at best… had a dubious future….. since no aircraft even close to this … is financially viable to a common aviation pilot I wish you well sir in the future…. But I’m no longer holding my breath.
Please name 1 electric plane that had over a 2 hour flight time that cost $130,000 or less that seats 5 people? You mentioned airbus…as I said there is a huge difference between a multi billion dollar company making approximately half of the commercial planes in the world….and Peter…who is essentially working… out of his basement. You mentioned that the world is changing…that is correct. However the question is how fast. While peTer still had very significant issues with his IC raptor that would still need to be worked out, the plane was at lease viable. Wether he was going to meet his stated aircraft and performance criteria is still very debatable. For velocity has a very similar and established design and can not come close to what Peter is advertising….but that is another discussion. Now Peter is essentially starting from scratch…with technology that isn’t even close to be viable at this time…and won’t be viable for years..;if not many years to come. Peter has gone from putting proven, currently used parts and technology into a slightly different package, to to designing something from scratch which doesn’t yet exist. While sir I applaud both your and Peter’s enthusiasm…what Peter is now planning is the aviation equivalent of planning a Mars colony.
@@phalanx3803 Yeah, but that's part of the problem. I know people like to gloss over this fact but just about every aspect of airplane design hinges CRITICALLY on weight, not lots of weight, even small amounts of weight makes all the difference. So now instead of an IC engine and a propeller, he wants an IC engine, additional copper cabling, 2(!) electric motors (made out of heavyish metals themselves), and possibly batteries too.... If you go pure electric AT LEAST you can ditch the engine and all the fuel and "replace" it with only somewhat heavier gear, and even that is proving difficult enough that few even attempt it. Since Raptor already had weight problems, it seems to me like we're just doubling down on the problem.
@@phalanx3803 That doesnt make things easier.Building an electric drive system,let alone the generator in a lightweight and compact environment is incredibly complicated. Its something that large manufacturers are struggling with even.Great if he can solve it. That doesnt change the problem of the unproven airframe and unproven engine concept. Both at the same time is a complicated choice, and one I'd favor not to take. Visions are great, but there is a reason why certain things are dealt with the way they are. I dont see this going anywhere. There is no real lessons learned from the past concept,no evolvement that would show the expertise is growing.
@@bernieschiff5919 Bird strikes don't usually take out fans. They wipe out the rotors and/or stators of an axial turbine engine compressor. In this case it's irrelevant.
Don’t put an experimental engine in an experimental airplane. Solving two problems at once is more than twice as hard. Glad you got Raptor on the ground safely. Sorry she went down.
@Marvi Wilson your comments on Peter’s work ethic are certainly true. He has indeed worked hard with an inspiring effort. Unfortunately, risk of failure of complex systems and the effort required to mitigate is nonlinear. Making two less-proven things work together at the same time is harder than making the individual components work alone. An example here would be the coupled aero / cooling / inlet / cowl situation. Issues like that are harder to predict and uncover until the complete system is in operation together in the flight environment.
@Marvi Wilson Now he is going in a completely different direction "Starting over" after spending 2 million on the first one buyers were expecting to be able to buy something soon.
How about rool stability. The smaller the wings the faster the roll. Making aircraft less stable on landing meaning one can roll to much. With less input. Just wounderd if that's is something you think will be an issue?
Yes, it is a consideration but with the correct rates on the ailerons it won't be too twitchy. Enough dihedral in the main wing and yaw stability via vertical stabs should be all that's required.
One vital lesson that I learnt the hard way (when leading the e-Go aeroplanes project) was that it’s vital to keep the parts count down to the minimum. See the one shot moulding technology used on the Elixir aircraft in France. No ribs, no frames - a complete wing or fuselage made in one shot. Also I hope that you’ve looked at the high incidence flow into the ducts - looks like there’ll be a lot of flow distortion. Otherwise it’s more known that ducts can deliver excellent performance and very low noise when designed correctly. I also recommend that you test it thoroughly in the X-Plane simulator Very quick, accurate and cheap, and you can learn a lot….. Do hope it goes much more smoothly this time around.
Sorry to see this happen to the prototype, whose progress I have followed for quite awhile. Your videos have been most instructive, and I'm sure many people have learned valuable lessons from them. Learning from mistakes is usually more productive than flawless outcomes. You have made a considerable contribution with such openness. Re the Next Gen: the flow into the ducts was the most obvious question for me. Perhaps the inlets should be further forward, the wing LE further back, or the fans mounted higher on pylons (the most common feature of above the wing engine mounts). The airflow into the duct should be as uniform as possible... the canard foreplane clearly presents a problem as well. I wonder whether something more like the OV-10 configuration would be more convenient, though no longer a canard. PS: I'm surprised that the hybrid power solution is "much lighter". Everything I ever read about such concepts indicated they were heavy. The hybrid concept is, of course, an extremely attractive one, but the weight question for aircraft has to be answered.
@@alexcourrier1918 Whilst I was CEO, the Chief Designer insisted on adding more and more details. This led to large increases in both design and production times - and eventually e-Go ran out of money and went into administration.
@@tonyb4773 Thats a shame. Seems like simplicity would have been a big selling point for a small plane, fixed gear, no flaps, small engine, passive stall resistance. A Mazda Miata of the sky.
@@awuma I'm with you on the weight issue...any time you add more steps between the piston moving and the blades turning you create additional weight, and additional power losses that need to be overcome by using an even larger engine. An engine that directly drives a prop is more efficient than an engine that drives a generator which drives a motor attached to a fan, with a reserve battery pack adding weight tossed in there too. Generators aren't 100% efficient, and motors aren't either, so your resulting output is going to be less thrust per hp produced compared to an engine driven prop. Some of that penalty is absorbed by being able to maintain an optimal engine RPM at all times and the ability to power multiple fans with a single larger engine (i.e. diesel-electric trains with multiple drive wheels), but that doesn't get it to the point of breaking even. Generally speaking it's more efficient to have a single large engine than two smaller engines, which is why twins based on single engine fuselages don't provide the same level of performance as the single engine with twice the power. The same concept is true of prop diameter as well, one larger prop will provide more thrust than two smaller props with the same power input. Hybrid concepts work in vehicles that frequently start and stop, but aren't as efficient in constant speed highway driving. The claim of less weight and more power (or even the same power) just sounds a little too dubious to believe. Only way this would be lighter is if there was a turbine driving a generator, but that comes with its own negatives such as high fuel burn and initial cost of both the engine as well as the development of the generator/gearbox assembly.
That was an obvious choice. The weight from all the structure required for pressurization resulted in an aircraft with a 300# usable load, a 250 mile range and underwhelming performance.
@@CapnCrusty The fuselage probably was a lot heavier than it needed to be, but most of the overage was due to the engine being so heavy. The Audi diesel and its infrastructure behind the firewall probably came in around 850 lbs, and the ballast and bandaids in the nose probably added another 150 lbs. On the other hand, an O-540 would probably weigh around 450 installed, and with a turbo still probably under 500 lbs. I figure that with some FEA and close attention to the layup schedule you could do a pressurized version that would still be under 2500 lbs empty. It might have smaller windows and only one door, but it would probably support a 6-psi differential, which would still get you into the flight levels without a mask.
@@CapnCrusty True dat....but the strength Peter built into Raptor for the pressurization is evident after the forced landing...... I doubt any GA aircraft could have taken on 9foot stalks of corn with no apparent damage!!
Did Raptor have a working parachute system? Could that have saved the prototype? With Raptor NG, will the boxed wing pose issues for parachute deployment? Thanks for the update, glad you are safe.
@@peter2uat no spinning prop either. Watch a Cirrus deploy their chutes and think where the propellor will be relative to the chute lines. It's not a minor issue, and the last engine failure was a fine pitch failure. In most cases you won't get the propellor stopped before you need to deploy the chute and it's just going to get you killed.
@@peterdrury5627 Good point about the rear prop. I just wonder if the new box wing design is even more in the direct path of chute deployment. I wonder if a tail-cone mounted chute would make more sense, assuming the aircraft is written off either way.
@@nathanchalecki4842 Probably be faster and easier to start from scratch. Modifying this one would be too difficult to reduce weight enough while also making those major changes.
@@laceymallton6541 well he could strip the interior to its bones, replace the windows with thinner items, etc etc. It would atleast remove one variable from the equation (airframe). Right now he is going back to the drawing board and starting from scratch with another unproven airframe and another unproven drive train.
We are planning on using a system similar to a home oxygen concentrator. It does not require tanks and there is no need for cannulas and there is no risk of a loss of cabin pressure. It's also way lighter and very low maintenance. The only down side is that you will not feel the pressure.
@@RaptorAircraft That sounds interesting! I wish you could share all the details but I understand you're on a different kind of development for this go around.
I simply don’t see this design getting off the ground. That is a lot of frontal area to push through the air. I pray that you actually hire an engineer this time because the last Raptor had glaring engineering issues. What happened to the people that put deposits on aircraft? Are they just out of luck? It would add a lot of credibility to address those concerns.
Hey all you haters/trolls - FYI: Peter refunded the deposits and explained this in a video months ago, along with the news that he had secured a manufacturing partnership out West and that the depositors would have first right of refusal to purchase the revised design. Trolls don't deserve to comment because they all lack the expertise to patiently absorb the complete facts before they are compelled to blurt out uninformed opinions and unhelpful suggestions, while those of us who bother to watch every video while listening to the details must tolerate the ignorant trolls competing for everyone's attention - like a true spoiled brat. These people had no friends before the Internet gave them a voice, and they employ trolling as a substitute for having friends.
@@maximummarklee hi! You don’t know me, I’m Jon, I’m not hating or trolling. I was following along until it became too painful to watch. I like many others were excited about the possibilities the Raptor promised. I truly wanted this to work. I can see that Peter is an extremely smart talented guy but like many smart and talented people their egos get in the way. When he chose to build this publicly he invited praise and criticism. There have been many people that are extremely qualified in their respective fields that have tried to help and offer advice when Peter was headed down the wrong path and he either ignored them or shut them out. Because of this and his lack of engineering experience he ended up with a grossly overweight aircraft that came nowhere near it’s estimated goals, now we’re expected to believe that using roughly the same fuselage and a smaller untested wing with an experimental propulsion system he’s going to make the next design work? Peter needs to stop before he kills himself or worse someone else.
@@leoa4c Cables won't be excessively heavy. at 600V 3 phase, each 250hp motor would suck 200A/ph. 180F wire would nbeed to be 4/0 in Al, or 2/0 in copper. 16' of XHHW-2 would be 11lb. The 500hp power generator, on the other hand... Yes, it will need somewhere around 500hp to fly well.
I am glad to see you coming out of this accident without a scratch. It is a risky business to be a test pilot of a new airplane design. However, I would like to say few words about your new hybrid airplane project. I don't know much about aerodynamics, however I 've been working in mining industry, with hybrid power plants since early eighties (previous century). If for hybrid, you mean, internal combustion engine, generator, electric motors, and then have batteries on top of that ... that simply will not work. Too much weight ... Hybrid power plants have a very specific and narrow positive features, and I don't think it will work in the general aviation airplanes.
@@NETBotic What do you mean by "Pipistrel disagrees"? Pipistel does not have a hybrid airplane. It has a battery powered airplane, and that's different than hybrid.
Please please have really competent engineers look at and verify every part of the design and manufacture INCLUDING CHANGES THAT ARE MADE after the initial design is complete. There are a million things that can go wrong and something as small as a improperly specified stake washer can bring this new one down just as easily as the last one. I really want to see you succeed and I hope that the biggest lesson you learn from the previous plane is that improvisation will almost certainly lead to failure.
Competent engineer? The guys who designed the Electra were competent engineers. The Wright brothers were improvisers. It's really none of your concern.
It's hard to tell at this stage if Peter wants to build a product or wants to be a prototype airplane designer and builder. But one thing is for certain - he's obsessed.
@@michaeltranchina6358 I think the "LEARN" part may be lacking in Peter's processes. I am glad that he survived this crash and I would be happy if he never flies again.
@@Flipflop324 We all have strengths, weaknesses, different skills, experience and personalities. It’s very easy to be critical and see shortcomings in others, and next to impossible to be objective and look at ourselves with the same critical eye. The more we focus on our own shortcomings, the less critical we tend to be with others. Peter has very rare qualities that make him and this project unique. Why not celebrate these qualities and remain positive and helpful instead of critical and unhelpful? As an engineer I have always been very critical. Too critical, and I regret that. I have come to learn, slowly, that being “right” is not always what is “best”. In this case, what is best is to encourage Peter to continue to pursue his dream, while giving constructive feedback. It is completely fine if you don’t agree with that perspective. If that is the case, I think what is best is for you to either move on, or step back, watch, and remain silent unless you have something constructive or positive to say. We all want what is best right?
Nice that you're fine (hopefully), that reassures a legion of people who follow you. Now, excuse me, but the following criticisms are totally unavoidable: I TOLD YOU on comments of this channel YEARS AGO that I hated your choice of powerplant! Your performance prediction for this aircraft with such engine was never met. And I'm sure you never could! Furthermore, I had also said that PSRUs adds unacceptable failure modes to any prototype and suggested using a conventional engine with direct drive. The idea behind your project, according to you, was to provide an economical diesel or jet fuel engined aircraft. I've argued that, historically, diesel aeronautical engines are troublesome and demands several complex solutions for reliability issues. But you eventually disdained "my" conventional engine suggestion. What we saw was a combination of radical ("wide-body") aerodynamics equipped with an untested engine resulting in some serious failures that culminated (with the last one) in the loss of your prototype. I saw clearly that you really overestimated the capacity of that engine (or engines, I should say, since you burned two of them...). All of this is really regrettable, and I'm even more sorry being here to point all this unfortunate choices to you... But you're safe now and I'm glad to know that. Better luck in your next design!
@@Jacmac1 RC pilot here they take WAAAAY more RPM... and have jack all for static thrust too. and have almost no thrust in hot high and humid conditions
I’m no Enginnering mastermind, but haven’t people been saying your choice of engine and reduction drive is terrible ?? Isnt this what was always going to happen? Glad you made it out ok.
I was hoping he would change to the ULPower 200hp direct drive. That would be a good choice and he could have two different models available. I'm sure the twin engine will have a much greater range. So there could be a single (UL) engine short range and a twin engine long range model. I live in the Philippines, so getting to South Korea and Australia would be nice options which is why I was pushing for a twin ULPower (2x200hp) design. I am eager to find out what the range of this new twin engine design will be.
@@Tsedek_ben_Shimon without pressurization you shall be left to the weather’s mood for such a long distance flight over pacific.Unless he develop a way to generate O2 onboard. If he could develop a lightweight design to generate O2 onboard itself will be a revolution in GA world.
Sidney is about 5300 Km and Seoul about 3300 Km. So traveling at 250kts would mean a 12 hour and 7 hour flight respectively. There would need to be at lest one or two stops on the way of either trip. There are inhabited islands along the way in either direction so It is not like flying to Guam (2200 Km over open seas). The weather is something that should always be monitored prior to a flight so that should not be much of an issue. Should an unexpected squall arise one would have sufficient fuel to divert or even turn around if need be.
Glad your ok , just goes to prove how safe the structure was that you were able to walk away. I hate to say it but I'd steer clear of the box wing concept. It seems to work only in clear air and on paper.
If I were him, this sort of comment would only make me more determined to dig my heels in and do this rather than take a serious second look at it with qualified personnel and redesign.
What is going to happen the investors of the Raptor Aircraft? You've all but said you aren't going to deliver on their investment. They honestly should all be refunded.
I'm not a plane designer, builder, etc., but it was mentioned that this one is being shelved, instead of repaired, because it met its goals. Has it flown enough to have accomplished much? Or was just flying the goal? I'm actually asking because it seems like an extraordinary amount of time and money spent on a machine that is put out to pasture already.
Wow. Rather than beginning to reduce the weight on the first design and at least try to get a kit to those who have actually paid, you jump into the next prototype of a completely different design that will use an even less proven propulsion system. So much for those people who have faithfully left their deposits expecting improvements on the original design and an imminent delivery.
I believe all deposit holders were able to get their money back (less the escrow fees). However, the investors are a different group of folks. As far as I can see, he has not mentioned what will happen to their investment dollars - which I believe must total a few million dollars.
@@petesinclair5653 in the last video prior to yesterday’s he told all investors they will get their money back as part of the new venture agreement. If you are one of these investors contact him and you will be refunded
@@rmrare I don't mind experimenting as long as the investors understand exactly what they are getting for the money. The biotech industry has 99% failures yet billions of dollars are lost from investors who are willing to risk their money on the chance that 1% will end up being the new wonder drug big pharma can charge $1000 a pill for. This is the American way always has been always will as long as there is honesty what you get for your investment I'm fine with what he is doing. Frankly if I were him I would just shut off the comments section on all the videos and have private live Q&A streams for investors once a month. This is a distraction for him IMO.
First of all, I'm glad you're okay! and second, I can't wait to see the next gen Raptor in action! I really wish you luck and I can't believe it's already been a year.
No updates in 8 months doesn't look good for all those who invested in this adventure. Maybe there is updates for those people just not here on RUclips.
Exactly!!! Looks like the Raptor is going to go into the trash, shame. But theres no shortage of eager innovators, ill keeping sitting and waiting for a new design to shune through.
Peter, so glad to see you were not hurt. So many years of hard work has evolved your wonderful 'project' into yet another innovative concept. Twin 'electric hybrid' ducted fans is forward thinking, but unfortunately at the cost of cabin pressurization. Best of luck, you deserve nothing but absolute success!
We've been following you from the start and I am so sorry for this loss. We wish you all the best with the project going forward and we will keep following you till the project takes off
@@flytoday You can build an IO-360 powered Cozy MkIV or Velocity right now. They were designed and built by competent engineers over 30 years ago and many owners have flown them all over the globe.
Such companies had multiple people (teams or brothers) to check and balance ideas and techniques. We shall see how long it takes working basically alone.
ICON said the A5 would cost in the 25k USD range.... its MSRP is over 300k ... just saying love the idea of the A5 but its the most useless LSA ever and nothing more then 1%'er toy now. for the price of an A5 you can get your PPL and buy a nice 4 seat aircraft with range and payload
Well I along with a bunch of others foreseen this happening. Glad you're okay but my god man stop what you are doing and listen to experts in the field. Airplane engines are around for a reason. Stick with what's proven for your power plant until you have a safe flying airplane. No need to worry about an unproven aircraft design along with an unproven powerplant as well. Get the bird flying first and work out all of the kinks. Once that is done then try out a new power system.
If you were actually convicted in your 'foresight' concerning this issue Kevin, where is the palpable evidence you took action to prevent this accident? Did your 'foresight' and 'concern' amount to anything more than posting comments on YT from your easy chair, or did you even take the simple step of contacting aviation authorities about it? So take your pick: 1) as with most new ideas you had NO foresight and NO idea what may happen because that's the nature of the beast or 2) You had intimate knowledge of what was going to happen, which makes you negligent of doing nothing a 6 year old could have done, which is post comments to YT.
@@randallsemrau7845 after watching the first few flying videos he posted I was convinced this airplane would bite the dust eventually. No I didn't report this to the authorities as he should be going through a flight test regime that the faa oversees to some degree. I'm not against thinking outside the box by any means and encourage it but it needs to be done safely. Peter, had/has a very delusional perception on safety and aerodynamics in general. Yes it flew but never achieved the end goal of speed or flying qualities it was planned to have. Normally a plane is designed for x amount of speed and the type is successful if it achieves within 10% or so of that speed during the planning phase.
@@bruuuuuuuuuh yes you are absolutely correct and the execution of this one was poorly done. There is a reason why most car engines are not used in aviation. This Audi design was overly complicated and led to issues that could have been avoided with a more simplistic engine choice or even an aviation engine.
Well Peter, most of us have really enjoyed the content… always hoping for the best, always impressed by the determination and intelligence. Unfortunately, the more we watched… the more we all knew this plane was not going to stay in the air. Thankfully, the conclusion is simply that… the end of the Raptor program. Let’s give thanks that the only causality is a dream.
Glad you were not hurt. Hate to say it, but I was pretty sure that would happen, with the engine redrive combo. The redrive was the weak link, and was disaster waiting to happen. The sad part is, that the complete redesign says the original Raptor was a complete failure. After 4 years or more, that is disappointing. Good luck on the new one.
@@Sharft6 The issue at hand is not what I have done or what you have have done, but what the end result of this project is. The plane never met any of the projected specs, crashed twice, and is now is just scrap. I understand there was a lot of blood sweat and tears put into this project, but that does not change the end result, that speaks for itself. Sorry that is not what you want to hear.
@@golfmaniac my understanding was the current one will be used as a display piece not scrap. I just struggle to wrap my head around the use of the words "complete failure" when it made it all the way to the point of flying and landing. Not meeting target specs, sure. But writing the project off as a complete failure seems like a stretch. I guess the reason I asked if you've designed and made anything before is because it's pretty common for things to not work the first time, especially with high complexity. If you Labelled all of your own projects that didn't perform as expected as complete failures, you might not see the point in trying to make anything hence your list of memorable projects might be zero. This would in turn help me understand why you used the term "complete failure" to describe this one.
Look I'm glad your ok and I've been rooting for you since this whole thing got started...but honestly, you would have been better off putting out a short statement that you're ok, then got your head together for the next month or two reviewing damage and making a plan. To just drop a next gen drawing with even more unproven concepts screams certifiable red flags. There is now zero evidence that you have learned a single thing that would allow you to advance to a NG plane. So you labeled the failure...ok great. but what about all the other things in this plane you haven't gotten right? It was an overweight pig, the turbos were incorrect, out of left field unproven engine, it climbed like an asthmatic grandmother who smoked for 50 years, it overheated horribly, etc.... At least if you had taken the time to do a proper after incident evaluation of the entire airplane and of yourself and come back a month or two later with a legitimate plan based on all the things you had learned, it wouldn't come off as a crackpot idea. Seriously feel like we as an audience barely dodged this being a fatality video.
The changes we are making are the result of many months of work already and they address all the short comings of the current design. They are certainly not something I just threw together. It just seemed like an appropriate time to release a little information on what we've been working on. It's only fraction and the details are vague on purpose. When we finally reveal everything we have been working on you will come to realize why we've made these decisions.
@@RaptorAircraft ok, I feel like you've missed the important spirit of my message (it wasn't just the plane that needed evaluation but your mindset and approach as well). So good luck and all my best. Id prefer not to watch you stuff it into a smoking hole in the ground next time, (two near misses are enough for me) so I'll just move on.
@@RaptorAircraft If you've been planning a new version for many months, what was the point of continuing to fly the old one? Risking your life for a design you're apparently abandoning?
@@RaptorAircraft Peter, Ill again say I don't believe there's a problem with your airframe design....its a lack of power!!! You wanted to pressurize, of course that will make any aircraft heavier....Was THAT a surprise??? Hey, you know what common feature many pressurized aircraft have in common.....A turbine engine!!!!
Keep moving forward! I know pouring your heart and soul into something can be incredibly stressful with a lot of sleepless nights. Glad you found a good team to move forward with and share the load. Best of luck and very exciting new design!
You are leaving an aircraft with lots of interest and buyers to go to an airplane with little interest and no buyers. You should stick with the Mk1 and finish it. Not many people want an airplane with all new problems, unproven engines, and unknown safety concerns. Just my opinion but I think this is the beginning of the end to the Raptor.
Certainly glad you are ok and something is salvageable of the original aircraft. I see where the wing joins the "winglet" there are 90-degree angles, some research show that a gentle curve provides some significant performance gains. The top wing and winglet does have a curved join so I wonder if you have considered this for the bottom sections.
Happy to see you are ok. The risk of an accident is always there when developing a complete new aircraft. Why dont you end with the MK1 doing a MK2... and not a completely new aircraft with a new propulsion system that its more for Honeywell budget than yours? I would love to see a MK2 raptor running JETA with a Continental V6 engine.
Was following this for a while and just revisited to find out about the prop failure.... Glad you are alright, sad to hear about the damage but happy about the positive energy for the future! Best of Luck!!
I know that you have moved on to a new design, but would you please make the initial design available to us open source? I am interested in modifying the design using the ULPower UL520 200HP engine and a twin engine UL520 setup for longer distance and over water trips. Thank you.
![SahBabii - Viking [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D37cL92JX0I/mqdefault.jpg)
All these years watching and it comes to this? I must confess myself disappointed. Sorry to see your loss, and glad you are okay.
Been following this project for a long time. Would love to see an update, even if it's just a "still here, still working" type of thing. 🙂
I was enthusiastic about the Raptor initially , and stumped up to help keep the project going.
However as Peter has demonstrated, the passion and effort of unskilled amateurs is often insufficient.
Many tried to help Peter see and correct the deficiencies in his work, only to be rebuffed as nay sayers.
Thankfully, no one lost their life.
Sadly, Raptor NG clearly shows no lessons have been learned.
Clyde Cessna balled it up 13 times, in my opinion he has been very successful. Yep I would agree with you that you are nay saying. Dust off and move on Peter! You got this!
@@rward6083 Ever the optimist. How many small GA manufacturers have tried and failed for every Cessna ?. And how many tried bleeding edge technologies ?.
I assume Peter will need investors to finance the NG - I hope they are fully appraised of the risks and Peter has adequate professional and public liability insurance.
I’m a fan of innovation and technology - we have seen significant advances in aviation and space recently. What these companies all share is a strong team of experienced professionals.
a lot of the advice is garbage. put a airplane engine in it? if u gonna put an airplane engine in it, why even build it? triple the cost to build it. it's a home built and it's a prototype. I honestly think people are expecting way to much to soon with peter and his project. some people need to look up the definition of prototype and read what a prototype is. I don't think peter has an unlimited budget. if he did, I bet he would implement a lot more of the suggestions he gets.
@@wasatchm an aircraft engine should have prevented most if not all the problems the aircraft had on testing, while having good data on the aero performance & design, the engine should have been tested on an already proven airframe, now both are trashed
The dream was nice, unfortunately the skills of the designer/builder did not come close to the needed level. An arrogant individual at best, with a super inflated self importance and claimed ability. Nobody is as smart as this guy…just ask him. Watch the videos and see how he dealt with, and treated knowledgable and experienced designers and test pilots. Now he wants to build another pipe dream. A hobby at best, but taking peoples money for his hobby is as close to theft as anything I have ever seen. Wild claims of efficiency ,comfort and range, and all this resulted in an aircraft that barely got off the ground. Who in thier right mind would give this guy money for another project that is nothing more than another waste of time.
Sooooo...what was the point of all those flight test hours on the first version if you were planning something completely different? Is any of the data you gathered useful for the program going forward with a different airframe and powerplant?
Probably very little useful data. He should start over with a large scale radio controlled model to discover what's new with the layout he has selected.
Yes he should do a 1/4 scale model first. So basically he should have trucked raptor 1 to Idaho. All those years of blood, sweat,tears,$, was pretty much for nothing.
@@rodgerhecht3623 I agree, 100%
@@markspc1 It's a box wing design.
@@rodgerhecht3623 idk. The Reynolds numbers are way off unless you fly the 1/4 scale model really fast. you can't even scale a WWII fighter to 75% without destroying the tail surface proportions.
What about the customers who ordered the previous model and were supposed to get it delivered in 2018?
This NG raptor has to be a joke right?
Laugh now, cry later.
Why? There are already several ducted fans flying
A friend purchased one and was supposed to receive it by December 2018 and is still waiting
@@BrandonPrado1 you serious? A friend of yours put down 20k? Has he heard any update from Peter?
So, the Raptor is being abandoned, a new, completely different aircraft is being designed, with the added complexity of a hybrid engine system and removable wings, with a form factor similar to the Synergy aircraft.
tell me you have real engineers working on project this time.
The good news is there are! The bad news is when they showed up and said it was impossible they were immediately fired. Long Live The Moller Skycar!
There is reason why these double triple stacked short wingspan wings dont work in real life. Im not native english speaker but i think somoene here can explain why this is not good idea.
The Ark was built by amateurs. The Titanic was built by "real engineers."
@@edcew8236 the Titanic might have had a design and manufacturing issue, but at least floated because engineers took the time to do the calculations. This might not even fly stable if a properly trained engineer helps in the design
@@edcew8236 The ark was a fantasy.
Are there any new updates?
Looks like a disaster: sideslip will kill joined upper “wing” lift on one side from low pressure of vertical under horizontal. High alpha will shed into fan inlet, biplane has Reduced efficiency due to interference, span efficiency is very poor with low aspect ratio.
🤦♂️🤷♂️It was only a matter of time when someone would say stuff I have no idea about and leave us feeling less and less like this project will ever graduate to a safe level.
I was immediately concerned about the "tail" as well. Now that there is no engine and prop in the back what would be wrong with putting a standard vertical stabilizer and rudder there and extending the wings?
The twin engines is a very good idea although "electric" may not be the way to go. I'm still hoping for a standard twin engine ULPower (2x200hp) design to surface. THAT would work, be inexpensive for a twin, and be reliable.
Indeed... but I live in the here and now. Maybe in 20 or 30 years it will be feasible, inexpensive, and reliable.
@Marvi Wilson You lack tact. Jump into the future where people can communicate on the internet without sounding like a douche.
...at 1/3 the cost :)
The raptor project will always exist on RUclips as an excellent example of what not to do when designing and selling a plane.
I'm shure the opinion from a spandex clad loser doesn't bother him .. he created his vision something I guarantee you will never do .
@@rkelley8475 I do appreciate your comment Bob, it's put a smile on the face of this spandex clad loser.
How is your airplane design coming along?
@@jonathanjohnson431 Deflection. Nobody needs to present their Michelin stars to be able to spit out raw chicken.
Sure would love an update... This was my favorite channel.
it crashed
@@FalkoHamburg I know ...I mean on the new build!
Unconventional powerplant/propulsion, untested novel aerodynamics all being developed simultaneously by the guy who brought you an obviously overweight, underpowered conventional platform underperforming airframe. The powertrain can be iron birded but there’s no way to develope the airframe independently of that great experiment. My advice to investors,”Raise handles, squeeze triggers, eject, eject, eject.” Glad only the corn got hurt.
The sad reality is you are probably right...
One of the Wright Brothers famously said that airplane will never cross Atlantic Ocean. He was considered one of the most knowledgeable experts on aviation of that time.
@@tiverton that is correct, but the people who eventually crossed the Atlantic Ocean weren’t trying to rewrite the laws of physics.
Raptor NG has several things working against it:
1. The designer is now known for a failed design.
2. Ducted fans produce a lot of static thrust, but wimp out as the intake velocity (ie the speed of the aircraft) increases.
3. Worst of all, a hybrid system is compounding inefficiency on top of inefficiency. If you have, say, 80% efficiency at the generator, then 90% efficiency at the speed controller for each motor, you are already down to 72% overall efficiency. The output from your 300hp Diesel generator becomes 215hp at the motors.
How do you match the 75% efficiency of a large mechanically-coupled prop disc with two dinky little air-raid sirens sitting out on the wings? Check your numbers.
The wonders of CFD, of course! If you want a good laugh, go to the wayback machine and see how much total drag he calculated the Cirrus as having...
Almost a year since the last update. Any progress?
Any updates on future progress?
So getting rid of fuel efficient CI, getting rid of Pressurized cockpit... basically getting rid of what made this aircraft worth following...
Wow, lots of surprises there. Very relieved that you are OK. From what you say it sounds like you had more or less given up on the Mk1 even before the unplanned landing. Good luck with Mk2 - whoever "we" is, I hope you all have deep pockets!
Wheres he come from? Lol
Why have the ducted fan on the wing over mounted on the fuselage
Now that’s full on baller. Years of work lost forever and Peter does not miss a beat…. Right back to it and as positive as ever.
Back to work!
Mad respect Peter.
Love this guy and shame on you weiners that wish him bad luck...you are pathetic.
Keen to see an update on this very interesting design.
I am profoundly happy that you were able to walk away from your "near miss", I mean that and it is heartfelt! Good luck in your future endeavors and I will look forward to seeing you accomplish it. I am, like most others who subscribe to your channel, only worried about your general heath. Please don't take any of what is said as criticism, its not, we just don't want you to lose sight of what your initial goal was and hopefully is, starting long ago! I am hoping that there are lessons learned form your journey and you don't repeat the same mistakes! Good Luck!
So, basically every original design goal is now gone? No way will this aircraft be in the $130-150k range. And no way will it arrive anytime in the next two years. This is a complete restart by a whole new company.
with the kicker its ready for VC money (hybrid electric all the rage)... which means they'd want return, so yea this is going to be a 300k+
@@float_sam that’s a really good point.
this is genius, in a way. First off, really glad Peter is not hurt. But, now he is completely changing the game, meaning that he doesn't have to admit that he was wrong on the first one (like Van B said, all original design goals are now basically gone) by changing the goals of the whole program. I've seen this many times in my 65 years, unfortunately. Will stay subscribed to see if anything comes of this whole raptor program, but it is now officially back to vaporware.
it never was. the all up cost of an RV-10 is around 130k, a NICE one closer 150k this thing was going be more like 400k if it ever saw light of day
@@Elios0000 I disagree. The bulk buy on Garmin, the low cost of the engine, and a dedicated facility for molding the air frame were a great recipe.
Why didn't you use the emergency parachute?
This is why you don't reuse that washer. $24 would have saved you an airplane and a headache
Bad design from the start...
@@4lifeifly whole thing bad .... to heavy, not enough power, untested power train .... list goes on an and on .. .even just look at his mk II i see HUGE issues with it
Bad REDRIVE. Incredibly risky taking off at all with so many flawed systems
It’s agonizing to watch it take off with only one passenger no baggage and partial tanks on a normal temp day. It’s beyond marginal. It’s unsafe
It sounds like it was used incorrectly. The nut adjusted bearing preload and the tab washer 'locked' it in place. That was never going to work long term.
Burt Rutan..said.. Simplicity is king when it comes to aircraft design.. looks cool but Those fans may suffer at high aoa.
Couldn't agree more. Rutan is successful... 'nuff said.
Can the ducts be advanced forward to combat the problem or are there other problems if you do that?
Inlets on jets work just fine with AOA. Just more weight.
@@rnordquest Inlets on jets are not blocked by the wing below at high AOA. Got to get the air in to push it out to create thrust. Block half the inlet get half the thrust and the rest will be history. The Honda Jet raised the engine on pylons above the wing to solve that issue. Most other aircraft hang the engine below the wing to get unrestricted airflow.
Peter
This is a radical departure from your intitial design. Companies with many 10’s if not 100’s of millions in capital have not been as of yet bring a viable aircraft to market using electrical power… or ducted fans for a price even close to what your advertising.
If this is truely the direction your going to go… it signals the end of the raptor project as originally designed and invisioned. This new direction … at best… had a dubious future….. since no aircraft even close to this … is financially viable to a common aviation pilot
I wish you well sir in the future…. But I’m no longer holding my breath.
it was never going hit 150k you spend that much on a RV-10 with proven gear with out trying
Please name 1 electric plane that had over a 2 hour flight time that cost $130,000 or less that seats 5 people?
You mentioned airbus…as I said there is a huge difference between a multi billion dollar company making approximately half of the commercial planes in the world….and Peter…who is essentially working… out of his basement.
You mentioned that the world is changing…that is correct. However the question is how fast. While peTer still had very significant issues with his IC raptor that would still need to be worked out, the plane was at lease viable. Wether he was going to meet his stated aircraft and performance criteria is still very debatable. For velocity has a very similar and established design and can not come close to what Peter is advertising….but that is another discussion.
Now Peter is essentially starting from scratch…with technology that isn’t even close to be viable at this time…and won’t be viable for years..;if not many years to come.
Peter has gone from putting proven, currently used parts and technology into a slightly different package, to to designing something from scratch which doesn’t yet exist.
While sir I applaud both your and Peter’s enthusiasm…what Peter is now planning is the aviation equivalent of planning a Mars colony.
but is not an electric plane it is still a fuel powered plane just using electrostatic drive in stead of a machinate drive like fright trains.
@@phalanx3803 Yeah, but that's part of the problem. I know people like to gloss over this fact but just about every aspect of airplane design hinges CRITICALLY on weight, not lots of weight, even small amounts of weight makes all the difference. So now instead of an IC engine and a propeller, he wants an IC engine, additional copper cabling, 2(!) electric motors (made out of heavyish metals themselves), and possibly batteries too.... If you go pure electric AT LEAST you can ditch the engine and all the fuel and "replace" it with only somewhat heavier gear, and even that is proving difficult enough that few even attempt it.
Since Raptor already had weight problems, it seems to me like we're just doubling down on the problem.
@@phalanx3803 That doesnt make things easier.Building an electric drive system,let alone the generator in a lightweight and compact environment is incredibly complicated. Its something that large manufacturers are struggling with even.Great if he can solve it. That doesnt change the problem of the unproven airframe and unproven engine concept. Both at the same time is a complicated choice, and one I'd favor not to take. Visions are great, but there is a reason why certain things are dealt with the way they are. I dont see this going anywhere. There is no real lessons learned from the past concept,no evolvement that would show the expertise is growing.
Pilots will need to be multi-engine rated for this new design won't they? Won't this drastically reduce the pool of potential buyers?
yup even if is single hybrid prime mover. FAA will call it a twin ...
Doesnt take long to get a multi rating. 5-10hrs dual and a flight test, no big deal.
INSURANCE
A bird strike could take out a fan, a twin rating probably required to obtain insurance.
@@bernieschiff5919 Bird strikes don't usually take out fans. They wipe out the rotors and/or stators of an axial turbine engine compressor. In this case it's irrelevant.
Glad to hear you can through without injury mate, hope to see you posting again soon!
Don’t put an experimental engine in an experimental airplane.
Solving two problems at once is more than twice as hard.
Glad you got Raptor on the ground safely. Sorry she went down.
@Marvi Wilson your comments on Peter’s work ethic are certainly true. He has indeed worked hard with an inspiring effort.
Unfortunately, risk of failure of complex systems and the effort required to mitigate is nonlinear. Making two less-proven things work together at the same time is harder than making the individual components work alone. An example here would be the coupled aero / cooling / inlet / cowl situation. Issues like that are harder to predict and uncover until the complete system is in operation together in the flight environment.
The failure was not engine related!
@Marvi Wilson Now he is going in a completely different direction "Starting over" after spending 2 million on the first one buyers were expecting to be able to buy something soon.
Perhaps the engineers should not have withheld information about the clutch being defective. Bunch of spiteful pathetic losers.
How about rool stability. The smaller the wings the faster the roll. Making aircraft less stable on landing meaning one can roll to much. With less input. Just wounderd if that's is something you think will be an issue?
Yes, it is a consideration but with the correct rates on the ailerons it won't be too twitchy. Enough dihedral in the main wing and yaw stability via vertical stabs should be all that's required.
One vital lesson that I learnt the hard way (when leading the e-Go aeroplanes project) was that it’s vital to keep the parts count down to the minimum. See the one shot moulding technology used on the Elixir aircraft in France. No ribs, no frames - a complete wing or fuselage made in one shot. Also I hope that you’ve looked at the high incidence flow into the ducts - looks like there’ll be a lot of flow distortion. Otherwise it’s more known that ducts can deliver excellent performance and very low noise when designed correctly.
I also recommend that you test it thoroughly in the X-Plane simulator Very quick, accurate and cheap, and you can learn a lot…..
Do hope it goes much more smoothly this time around.
Sorry to see this happen to the prototype, whose progress I have followed for quite awhile. Your videos have been most instructive, and I'm sure many people have learned valuable lessons from them. Learning from mistakes is usually more productive than flawless outcomes. You have made a considerable contribution with such openness.
Re the Next Gen: the flow into the ducts was the most obvious question for me. Perhaps the inlets should be further forward, the wing LE further back, or the fans mounted higher on pylons (the most common feature of above the wing engine mounts). The airflow into the duct should be as uniform as possible... the canard foreplane clearly presents a problem as well. I wonder whether something more like the OV-10 configuration would be more convenient, though no longer a canard.
PS: I'm surprised that the hybrid power solution is "much lighter". Everything I ever read about such concepts indicated they were heavy. The hybrid concept is, of course, an extremely attractive one, but the weight question for aircraft has to be answered.
What ever happened to the e-Go aircraft? That always looked like a fun plane
@@alexcourrier1918 Whilst I was CEO, the Chief Designer insisted on adding more and more details. This led to large increases in both design and production times - and eventually e-Go ran out of money and went into administration.
@@tonyb4773 Thats a shame. Seems like simplicity would have been a big selling point for a small plane, fixed gear, no flaps, small engine, passive stall resistance. A Mazda Miata of the sky.
@@awuma I'm with you on the weight issue...any time you add more steps between the piston moving and the blades turning you create additional weight, and additional power losses that need to be overcome by using an even larger engine. An engine that directly drives a prop is more efficient than an engine that drives a generator which drives a motor attached to a fan, with a reserve battery pack adding weight tossed in there too. Generators aren't 100% efficient, and motors aren't either, so your resulting output is going to be less thrust per hp produced compared to an engine driven prop. Some of that penalty is absorbed by being able to maintain an optimal engine RPM at all times and the ability to power multiple fans with a single larger engine (i.e. diesel-electric trains with multiple drive wheels), but that doesn't get it to the point of breaking even. Generally speaking it's more efficient to have a single large engine than two smaller engines, which is why twins based on single engine fuselages don't provide the same level of performance as the single engine with twice the power. The same concept is true of prop diameter as well, one larger prop will provide more thrust than two smaller props with the same power input. Hybrid concepts work in vehicles that frequently start and stop, but aren't as efficient in constant speed highway driving. The claim of less weight and more power (or even the same power) just sounds a little too dubious to believe. Only way this would be lighter is if there was a turbine driving a generator, but that comes with its own negatives such as high fuel burn and initial cost of both the engine as well as the development of the generator/gearbox assembly.
Hi! So it's been one year since this video was uploaded. Got any updates for us? I hope all is going well!
Non pressurized??? That was the most exciting part of the Prototype #1, IMO. 😐.. at the "flight levels", wearing oxygen,... Not nearly as fun.
That was an obvious choice. The weight from all the structure required for pressurization resulted in an aircraft with a 300# usable load, a 250 mile range and underwhelming performance.
@@CapnCrusty The fuselage probably was a lot heavier than it needed to be, but most of the overage was due to the engine being so heavy. The Audi diesel and its infrastructure behind the firewall probably came in around 850 lbs, and the ballast and bandaids in the nose probably added another 150 lbs. On the other hand, an O-540 would probably weigh around 450 installed, and with a turbo still probably under 500 lbs. I figure that with some FEA and close attention to the layup schedule you could do a pressurized version that would still be under 2500 lbs empty. It might have smaller windows and only one door, but it would probably support a 6-psi differential, which would still get you into the flight levels without a mask.
@@CapnCrusty The Cessna P-210 is a successful single engine pressurized 5 seat airplane. And it was designed over 20 years ago.
@@CapnCrusty I'll mention the Piper Malibu, with a 5-6 seat pressurized cabin.
@@CapnCrusty True dat....but the strength Peter built into Raptor for the pressurization is evident after the forced landing...... I doubt any GA aircraft could have taken on 9foot stalks of corn with no apparent damage!!
I would love to see an update
Did Raptor have a working parachute system? Could that have saved the prototype? With Raptor NG, will the boxed wing pose issues for parachute deployment? Thanks for the update, glad you are safe.
It did indeed but perhaps he was too low for a safe deployment.
A big prop spinning at the rear of the fuselage could do nasty things to a chute! A plus of the new design will be safer chute deployment.
@@peterdrury5627 have a look at mike patey's scrappy where they tried the chute - no problem at all
@@peter2uat no spinning prop either. Watch a Cirrus deploy their chutes and think where the propellor will be relative to the chute lines. It's not a minor issue, and the last engine failure was a fine pitch failure. In most cases you won't get the propellor stopped before you need to deploy the chute and it's just going to get you killed.
@@peterdrury5627 Good point about the rear prop. I just wonder if the new box wing design is even more in the direct path of chute deployment. I wonder if a tail-cone mounted chute would make more sense, assuming the aircraft is written off either way.
Glad you are safe.
Can't say I am surprised.
This whole thing seems like random guessing rather than engineering to me.
Prove me wrong, please 😉
Well the airframe could now be repaired and used to test the new propulsion system.... But I guess that would be too easy.
@@nathanchalecki4842 Probably be faster and easier to start from scratch. Modifying this one would be too difficult to reduce weight enough while also making those major changes.
@@laceymallton6541 well he could strip the interior to its bones, replace the windows with thinner items, etc etc. It would atleast remove one variable from the equation (airframe). Right now he is going back to the drawing board and starting from scratch with another unproven airframe and another unproven drive train.
Bummed to see the pressurization go. That was a big thing for me.
We are planning on using a system similar to a home oxygen concentrator. It does not require tanks and there is no need for cannulas and there is no risk of a loss of cabin pressure. It's also way lighter and very low maintenance. The only down side is that you will not feel the pressure.
@@RaptorAircraft That sounds interesting! I wish you could share all the details but I understand you're on a different kind of development for this go around.
The distance between lower and upper wing affects air drag,
the vertical stabilizers on the ends trap the air.
Better performance?!!! I sure hope so🤣
I simply don’t see this design getting off the ground. That is a lot of frontal area to push through the air. I pray that you actually hire an engineer this time because the last Raptor had glaring engineering issues. What happened to the people that put deposits on aircraft? Are they just out of luck? It would add a lot of credibility to address those concerns.
people gave that guy money for that concoction
Hey all you haters/trolls - FYI: Peter refunded the deposits and explained this in a video months ago, along with the news that he had secured a manufacturing partnership out West and that the depositors would have first right of refusal to purchase the revised design.
Trolls don't deserve to comment because they all lack the expertise to patiently absorb the complete facts before they are compelled to blurt out uninformed opinions and unhelpful suggestions, while those of us who bother to watch every video while listening to the details must tolerate the ignorant trolls competing for everyone's attention - like a true spoiled brat. These people had no friends before the Internet gave them a voice, and they employ trolling as a substitute for having friends.
@@maximummarklee hi! You don’t know me, I’m Jon, I’m not hating or trolling. I was following along until it became too painful to watch. I like many others were excited about the possibilities the Raptor promised. I truly wanted this to work. I can see that Peter is an extremely smart talented guy but like many smart and talented people their egos get in the way. When he chose to build this publicly he invited praise and criticism. There have been many people that are extremely qualified in their respective fields that have tried to help and offer advice when Peter was headed down the wrong path and he either ignored them or shut them out. Because of this and his lack of engineering experience he ended up with a grossly overweight aircraft that came nowhere near it’s estimated goals, now we’re expected to believe that using roughly the same fuselage and a smaller untested wing with an experimental propulsion system he’s going to make the next design work? Peter needs to stop before he kills himself or worse someone else.
@@leoa4c Cables won't be excessively heavy. at 600V 3 phase, each 250hp motor would suck 200A/ph. 180F wire would nbeed to be 4/0 in Al, or 2/0 in copper. 16' of XHHW-2 would be 11lb. The 500hp power generator, on the other hand...
Yes, it will need somewhere around 500hp to fly well.
@@jonathanhuman7333 He's not going to be using roughly the same fuselage
I am glad to see you coming out of this accident without a scratch. It is a risky business to be a test pilot of a new airplane design. However, I would like to say few words about your new hybrid airplane project. I don't know much about aerodynamics, however I 've been working in mining industry, with hybrid power plants since early eighties (previous century). If for hybrid, you mean, internal combustion engine, generator, electric motors, and then have batteries on top of that ... that simply will not work. Too much weight ... Hybrid power plants have a very specific and narrow positive features, and I don't think it will work in the general aviation airplanes.
Agreed... and the ULPower 200hp engine would be great choice.
Pipistrel disagrees ; )
@@NETBotic What do you mean by "Pipistrel disagrees"? Pipistel does not have a hybrid airplane. It has a battery powered airplane, and that's different than hybrid.
@@Hajduk12 They're developing a hybrid model.
@@Hajduk12 They've been developing a hybrid for a few years now.
Almost looks like it could float!!
Is their any updates on this project? Just curious to know where it ended up.
Please please have really competent engineers look at and verify every part of the design and manufacture INCLUDING CHANGES THAT ARE MADE after the initial design is complete. There are a million things that can go wrong and something as small as a improperly specified stake washer can bring this new one down just as easily as the last one. I really want to see you succeed and I hope that the biggest lesson you learn from the previous plane is that improvisation will almost certainly lead to failure.
Competent engineer? The guys who designed the Electra were competent engineers. The Wright brothers were improvisers. It's really none of your concern.
@@bingosunnoon9341 you must not have been following this project for very long...
It's hard to tell at this stage if Peter wants to build a product or wants to be a prototype airplane designer and builder. But one thing is for certain - he's obsessed.
I totally disagree...This is completely normal for innovative leaders. ACT-LEARN-ADJUST
All great companies go through the same process...
@@michaeltranchina6358 I think the "LEARN" part may be lacking in Peter's processes. I am glad that he survived this crash and I would be happy if he never flies again.
@@Flipflop324 We all have strengths, weaknesses, different skills, experience and personalities. It’s very easy to be critical and see shortcomings in others, and next to impossible to be objective and look at ourselves with the same critical eye. The more we focus on our own shortcomings, the less critical we tend to be with others.
Peter has very rare qualities that make him and this project unique. Why not celebrate these qualities and remain positive and helpful instead of critical and unhelpful?
As an engineer I have always been very critical. Too critical, and I regret that. I have come to learn, slowly, that being “right” is not always what is “best”.
In this case, what is best is to encourage Peter to continue to pursue his dream, while giving constructive feedback. It is completely fine if you don’t agree with that perspective. If that is the case, I think what is best is for you to either move on, or step back, watch, and remain silent unless you have something constructive or positive to say.
We all want what is best right?
@@michaeltranchina6358 Given Peter's level of skill and experience, the best that his designs don't leave the ground. The best is that no one dies.
Every man dies, but not every man really lives. Sir William Wallace, Braveheart.
Nice that you're fine (hopefully), that reassures a legion of people who follow you. Now, excuse me, but the following criticisms are totally unavoidable: I TOLD YOU on comments of this channel YEARS AGO that I hated your choice of powerplant! Your performance prediction for this aircraft with such engine was never met. And I'm sure you never could! Furthermore, I had also said that PSRUs adds unacceptable failure modes to any prototype and suggested using a conventional engine with direct drive. The idea behind your project, according to you, was to provide an economical diesel or jet fuel engined aircraft. I've argued that, historically, diesel aeronautical engines are troublesome and demands several complex solutions for reliability issues. But you eventually disdained "my" conventional engine suggestion. What we saw was a combination of radical ("wide-body") aerodynamics equipped with an untested engine resulting in some serious failures that culminated (with the last one) in the loss of your prototype. I saw clearly that you really overestimated the capacity of that engine (or engines, I should say, since you burned two of them...). All of this is really regrettable, and I'm even more sorry being here to point all this unfortunate choices to you... But you're safe now and I'm glad to know that. Better luck in your next design!
Are you going to build an RC model first.
Just from experience, ducted fans use lots more power than propeller driven models.
I can imagine that the ducted fans would require more RPMs to generate the thrust of a prop? Is that the reason in the RC models?
@@Jacmac1 RC pilot here they take WAAAAY more RPM... and have jack all for static thrust too. and have almost no thrust in hot high and humid conditions
Yes the extra weight and drag of the nacelles won't help much unless you can get to much higher speed to make them worthwhile.
Isn't a turbofan used on all Modern airliners basically a turbine driven ducted fan?
@@Elios0000 So THAT's why all those airliners are falling out of the sky.
I’m no Enginnering mastermind, but haven’t people been saying your choice of engine and reduction drive is terrible ?? Isnt this what was always going to happen? Glad you made it out ok.
That's why they call these planes "experimental". Not everyone can be like Mike Patey and crush it on the first design. :)
I was hoping he would change to the ULPower 200hp direct drive. That would be a good choice and he could have two different models available. I'm sure the twin engine will have a much greater range. So there could be a single (UL) engine short range and a twin engine long range model. I live in the Philippines, so getting to South Korea and Australia would be nice options which is why I was pushing for a twin ULPower (2x200hp) design. I am eager to find out what the range of this new twin engine design will be.
@@Tsedek_ben_Shimon without pressurization you shall be left to the weather’s mood for such a long distance flight over pacific.Unless he develop a way to generate O2 onboard. If he could develop a lightweight design to generate O2 onboard itself will be a revolution in GA world.
Sidney is about 5300 Km and Seoul about 3300 Km. So traveling at 250kts would mean a 12 hour and 7 hour flight respectively. There would need to be at lest one or two stops on the way of either trip. There are inhabited islands along the way in either direction so It is not like flying to Guam (2200 Km over open seas). The weather is something that should always be monitored prior to a flight so that should not be much of an issue. Should an unexpected squall arise one would have sufficient fuel to divert or even turn around if need be.
@@RealRickCox are you suggesting that any half assed design can be forgiven because it's experimental?
Glad your ok , just goes to prove how safe the structure was that you were able to walk away. I hate to say it but I'd steer clear of the box wing concept. It seems to work only in clear air and on paper.
My wife has a box wing
If I were him, this sort of comment would only make me more determined to dig my heels in and do this rather than take a serious second look at it with qualified personnel and redesign.
You may want to read this article, justin!
@@charlesdavis6535 send me a link or the title and I'll check it out.
Like it and I am all for it, just don't spend again months on the door handle before you know it flies and climbs to 25,000 ft.
What is going to happen the investors of the Raptor Aircraft? You've all but said you aren't going to deliver on their investment. They honestly should all be refunded.
He said in a previous video that all the money would be refunded.
@@mathias5385 could you post a link to that video?
@@MrTravisgood sorry, don’t know which one. It’s one of the latest ones. Review them and you’ll see it for yourself.
Yes he already refunded all the money a while back, but everyone keeps their place in line.
@@TodayIFoundOut you still don’t get it do you? A line to where? And with what? Just be glad you got your $2k, it’s over now.
I'm happy you weren't hurt,
And I can't wait for you to start the next build.
Hi, been curious about the progress on the new design etc... how's things going?
Any updates?
I like the new one. It has no landing gear so can land anywhere.
I'm not a plane designer, builder, etc., but it was mentioned that this one is being shelved, instead of repaired, because it met its goals. Has it flown enough to have accomplished much? Or was just flying the goal? I'm actually asking because it seems like an extraordinary amount of time and money spent on a machine that is put out to pasture already.
I was thinking about this wing design myself. Peter is very glad that you have come to such a form. It is the closed wing that will give more lift
Wow. Rather than beginning to reduce the weight on the first design and at least try to get a kit to those who have actually paid, you jump into the next prototype of a completely different design that will use an even less proven propulsion system. So much for those people who have faithfully left their deposits expecting improvements on the original design and an imminent delivery.
Apparently nothing was learned from the first test program and the subsequent crash.
All investors were offered their money back, no exceptions…He has always been a man of his word…
I believe all deposit holders were able to get their money back (less the escrow fees). However, the investors are a different group of folks. As far as I can see, he has not mentioned what will happen to their investment dollars - which I believe must total a few million dollars.
@@petesinclair5653 in the last video prior to yesterday’s he told all investors they will get their money back as part of the new venture agreement. If you are one of these investors contact him and you will be refunded
@@rmrare I don't mind experimenting as long as the investors understand exactly what they are getting for the money. The biotech industry has 99% failures yet billions of dollars are lost from investors who are willing to risk their money on the chance that 1% will end up being the new wonder drug big pharma can charge $1000 a pill for. This is the American way always has been always will as long as there is honesty what you get for your investment I'm fine with what he is doing. Frankly if I were him I would just shut off the comments section on all the videos and have private live Q&A streams for investors once a month. This is a distraction for him IMO.
First of all, I'm glad you're okay! and second, I can't wait to see the next gen Raptor in action! I really wish you luck and I can't believe it's already been a year.
No updates in 8 months doesn't look good for all those who invested in this adventure. Maybe there is updates for those people just not here on RUclips.
Exactly!!! Looks like the Raptor is going to go into the trash, shame. But theres no shortage of eager innovators, ill keeping sitting and waiting for a new design to shune through.
Any updates ???
Peter, so glad to see you were not hurt.
So many years of hard work has evolved your wonderful 'project' into yet another innovative concept. Twin 'electric hybrid' ducted fans is forward thinking, but unfortunately at the cost of cabin pressurization.
Best of luck, you deserve nothing but absolute success!
asymmetric thrust will be a huge issue better have huge rudders
Since fan motors are electric, they could be used to control yaw with great authority.
Until one of them fails at full power, and much as we love Peter, his track record on engine reliability is not super stellar.
@@peterdrury5627 not when one motor seizes up and then till have be able fly on 1 motor pass any way
I'm keen for an update
When are you going to post a progress update on the new design?
So, this means the "old" version is scrapped? It really was a failure ?
Why didn't you pull the chute?
Happy to see you are in 1 piece. Looking forward to see your new project.
Does anybody have any news about Peter and the project?
Glad you got out of this landing safe and sound.
Good luck in the next steps, I’ll continue following.
"It's been a quiet year in Lake Raptor..."
We've been following you from the start and I am so sorry for this loss. We wish you all the best with the project going forward and we will keep following you till the project takes off
Whats going on Peter?
glad you survived an off field landing but I think you need to build a basic model with an IO-360
An IO 360 should not power a plane with a 2900lb empty weight.
@@justtwoseats a basic model implied
@@flytoday You can build an IO-360 powered Cozy MkIV or Velocity right now. They were designed and built by competent engineers over 30 years ago and many owners have flown them all over the globe.
@@EUC-lid you can buy them used for the cost of the engine
It happened to Cirrus, Cessna and Icon during development too. Glad to hear you're ok, best of luck with your next design.
I greatly appreciate the spirit of this encouraging comment. You are an excellent brother.
Such companies had multiple people (teams or brothers) to check and balance ideas and techniques. We shall see how long it takes working basically alone.
ICON said the A5 would cost in the 25k USD range.... its MSRP is over 300k ... just saying love the idea of the A5 but its the most useless LSA ever and nothing more then 1%'er toy now. for the price of an A5 you can get your PPL and buy a nice 4 seat aircraft with range and payload
I agree with your sentiment. I also wish Peter would allow himself to learn from others as well as only test one variable at a time.
An intense learning curve for sure.
This has to be satire.
Really. I really really hope it is. But sadly it doesn't seem to be the case. Someone on the inside would have spilled the beans by now.
Well I along with a bunch of others foreseen this happening. Glad you're okay but my god man stop what you are doing and listen to experts in the field. Airplane engines are around for a reason. Stick with what's proven for your power plant until you have a safe flying airplane. No need to worry about an unproven aircraft design along with an unproven powerplant as well. Get the bird flying first and work out all of the kinks. Once that is done then try out a new power system.
I very much agree
If you were actually convicted in your 'foresight' concerning this issue Kevin, where is the palpable evidence you took action to prevent this accident? Did your 'foresight' and 'concern' amount to anything more than posting comments on YT from your easy chair, or did you even take the simple step of contacting aviation authorities about it?
So take your pick: 1) as with most new ideas you had NO foresight and NO idea what may happen because that's the nature of the beast or 2) You had intimate knowledge of what was going to happen, which makes you negligent of doing nothing a 6 year old could have done, which is post comments to YT.
@@randallsemrau7845 after watching the first few flying videos he posted I was convinced this airplane would bite the dust eventually.
No I didn't report this to the authorities as he should be going through a flight test regime that the faa oversees to some degree.
I'm not against thinking outside the box by any means and encourage it but it needs to be done safely. Peter, had/has a very delusional perception on safety and aerodynamics in general. Yes it flew but never achieved the end goal of speed or flying qualities it was planned to have. Normally a plane is designed for x amount of speed and the type is successful if it achieves within 10% or so of that speed during the planning phase.
Car engines used to power airplanes is nothing new, it's all about the execution.
@@bruuuuuuuuuh yes you are absolutely correct and the execution of this one was poorly done. There is a reason why most car engines are not used in aviation. This Audi design was overly complicated and led to issues that could have been avoided with a more simplistic engine choice or even an aviation engine.
So basically it's an all new project from scratch! What next in 4 years? Adding fans on the canards and make it a eVTOL?
Can’t wait for the next update
Well Peter, most of us have really enjoyed the content… always hoping for the best, always impressed by the determination and intelligence. Unfortunately, the more we watched… the more we all knew this plane was not going to stay in the air. Thankfully, the conclusion is simply that… the end of the Raptor program. Let’s give thanks that the only causality is a dream.
Dream is still alive, just a totally different aircraft he's dreaming up now.
@@laceymallton6541 it’s over
Happy you are OK!
Glad you were not hurt. Hate to say it, but I was pretty sure that would happen, with the engine redrive combo. The redrive was the weak link, and was disaster waiting to happen. The sad part is, that the complete redesign says the original Raptor was a complete failure. After 4 years or more, that is disappointing. Good luck on the new one.
A complete failure? Have you designed and built anything before?
@@Sharft6 The issue at hand is not what I have done or what you have have done, but what the end result of this project is. The plane never met any of the projected specs, crashed twice, and is now is just scrap. I understand there was a lot of blood sweat and tears put into this project, but that does not change the end result, that speaks for itself. Sorry that is not what you want to hear.
@@golfmaniac my understanding was the current one will be used as a display piece not scrap. I just struggle to wrap my head around the use of the words "complete failure" when it made it all the way to the point of flying and landing. Not meeting target specs, sure. But writing the project off as a complete failure seems like a stretch. I guess the reason I asked if you've designed and made anything before is because it's pretty common for things to not work the first time, especially with high complexity. If you Labelled all of your own projects that didn't perform as expected as complete failures, you might not see the point in trying to make anything hence your list of memorable projects might be zero. This would in turn help me understand why you used the term "complete failure" to describe this one.
Could you attach the turbo fans to the fuselage to make the wings easier to detach?
No turbo fans. Ducted electric fans.
conceptually I like that idea. would also clean up the airflow over the wings (I do not claim to an any kind of engineer - just intuition).
@@sidewinderdrums Look at the Hondajet.
glad you were not harmed. Good luck on your future project
Peter, I've got a question, does the NG have cable pully setup for the control surfaces? Or rods?
I wonder whether modern electric systems would not be more reliable?
And it failed. . .
Wish you would have heeded the advise from the old timers in the Industry
Look I'm glad your ok and I've been rooting for you since this whole thing got started...but honestly, you would have been better off putting out a short statement that you're ok, then got your head together for the next month or two reviewing damage and making a plan. To just drop a next gen drawing with even more unproven concepts screams certifiable red flags. There is now zero evidence that you have learned a single thing that would allow you to advance to a NG plane. So you labeled the failure...ok great. but what about all the other things in this plane you haven't gotten right? It was an overweight pig, the turbos were incorrect, out of left field unproven engine, it climbed like an asthmatic grandmother who smoked for 50 years, it overheated horribly, etc.... At least if you had taken the time to do a proper after incident evaluation of the entire airplane and of yourself and come back a month or two later with a legitimate plan based on all the things you had learned, it wouldn't come off as a crackpot idea. Seriously feel like we as an audience barely dodged this being a fatality video.
The changes we are making are the result of many months of work already and they address all the short comings of the current design. They are certainly not something I just threw together. It just seemed like an appropriate time to release a little information on what we've been working on. It's only fraction and the details are vague on purpose. When we finally reveal everything we have been working on you will come to realize why we've made these decisions.
@@RaptorAircraft ok, I feel like you've missed the important spirit of my message (it wasn't just the plane that needed evaluation but your mindset and approach as well). So good luck and all my best. Id prefer not to watch you stuff it into a smoking hole in the ground next time, (two near misses are enough for me) so I'll just move on.
@@RaptorAircraft If you've been planning a new version for many months, what was the point of continuing to fly the old one? Risking your life for a design you're apparently abandoning?
@@RaptorAircraft Peter, Ill again say I don't believe there's a problem with your airframe design....its a lack of power!!! You wanted to pressurize, of course that will make any aircraft heavier....Was THAT a surprise??? Hey, you know what common feature many pressurized aircraft have in common.....A turbine engine!!!!
@@apolloactual Good riddance!
Keep moving forward! I know pouring your heart and soul into something can be incredibly stressful with a lot of sleepless nights. Glad you found a good team to move forward with and share the load. Best of luck and very exciting new design!
Success is built on failures... 👍
You are leaving an aircraft with lots of interest and buyers to go to an airplane with little interest and no buyers. You should stick with the Mk1 and finish it. Not many people want an airplane with all new problems, unproven engines, and unknown safety concerns. Just my opinion but I think this is the beginning of the end to the Raptor.
Well, allow us a little time to prove you wrong.
@@RaptorAircraft what about the people that put deposits on the first aircraft?
@@jonathanhuman7333 They got their deposits back
Thanks for continued transparency.
I love the idea of a hybrid powertrain! Looks are amazing as well.
Certainly glad you are ok and something is salvageable of the original aircraft. I see where the wing joins the "winglet" there are 90-degree angles, some research show that a gentle curve provides some significant performance gains. The top wing and winglet does have a curved join so I wonder if you have considered this for the bottom sections.
Happy to see you are ok. The risk of an accident is always there when developing a complete new aircraft. Why dont you end with the MK1 doing a MK2... and not a completely new aircraft with a new propulsion system that its more for Honeywell budget than yours? I would love to see a MK2 raptor running JETA with a Continental V6 engine.
He’s not improving MK1 because it was a poor design. An absolute dog. Lord knows how many millions the investors lost…
@@stuckzipr They didn't loose it, they just paid for R&D. That's how these things work.
Was following this for a while and just revisited to find out about the prop failure.... Glad you are alright, sad to hear about the damage but happy about the positive energy for the future! Best of Luck!!
I know that you have moved on to a new design, but would you please make the initial design available to us open source? I am interested in modifying the design using the ULPower UL520 200HP engine and a twin engine UL520 setup for longer distance and over water trips. Thank you.
Is Raptor ever going to come back to life??
Glad you are fine and the aircraft proved it was safe. Good luck on your next phase of the journey.
Wishing you all the best but not sure how you plan to get around battery energy density considerations