The most fascinating thing about this is that someone can be so capable, but so wildly off base. After all he did somehow finance, design, and build a pretty slick looking airplane that could more or less fly. This is not something that a normal person can accomplish, and even the results he got took an incredible amount of skill. But then all that capability is directed toward pie in the sky nonsense that’s too optimistic by an order of magnitude just about every step of the way ranging from fan thrust numbers to people at Ford actually taking him seriously. Fascinating.
that POS was renderware magic as well and an accident looking for a place to happen. He must have found a very incapable FAA office to allow him to fly over populated areas. If you saw many videos you knew flutter was off the charts and it was not a stable machine in any axis.
I kid you not, as a teenager I discovered a milkshake flavour called 'Blue Heaven" from a local shop. I must have drank more than 2 liters of flavoured milk that day. The next morning I went to the toilet, and my shit was blue, again I am not kidding, it really was. It was beautiful, and I created it, but it was still shit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Heaven_(flavour)
I love the contrast between yours and his video ... Peter's video is the best sales pitch you'll see, the tone, the excitement etc. And then there is yours, full of facts and with such calm presence. Gosh do I wish his design would work, but he lost me when we told me Ford will build it. Thanks for adding such a great fact based video to this conversation!
The original Raptor was an accident looking for a place to happen. Way to complicated drive system and I think it was a real dog too. The takeoff roll was extremely long and landing speeds were very high for a 140 kt aircraft. Throw in the disastrous cooling issues and you have a plane that made absolutely no sense. Kudos to Peter for pursuing his dream though, amazing effort and he lived through that first flight which was downright scary to watch. He will now move on to this new hallucination and I see it going absolutely nowhere. He is gifted mechanically but I would like to see him put those talents towards a far more conventional design.
@@stevewinegar6364 The Mark I Raptor was a conventional tricycle canard with a pusher prop. (What was unconventional was its power source and the novel crowd-funding). So with slight lowered design aims (e.g. no pressurisation) and a proper aero-engine, surely it would have been much easier to press on developing an essentially sound aircraft concept than to fundamentally redesign it with so many untried technologies?
He needs to do a lessons learned on the failed combine, how did it end up 1500 pounds overweight, and why not Dyno test an unproven engine prior to flight tests?
that price range is PURE FANTASY. just look at how much Icon A5 price ballooned from there 100k price point when they first talked about it. and real cost is almost 500k FOR AN LSA
Magnetically assisted gears or electrodynamic bearings might work, but this is just one of the many problems in the fan and it would require a lot of R&D to make it work.
I've been building and flying model airplanes including my own designs for more than 40 years. One of the basic design principles that I stick to is if it doesn't look right it won't fly right. That's where I start. I use all kinds of software and virtually fly the planes before I ever Even start to make a mold... But after building probably 30 or more of my own airplanes from scratch I get a pretty good idea after a while what works and what doesnt. A flying lunch Box with a handle on it and some PC cooling fans isn't going to cut it. Forget the VTOL aspect. That thing wouldn't fly very well as just a regular airplane. And I'm dying to know what kind of air foil hes thinking of using. Because with that shape of wing There isn't an airfoil that I'm aware of that will transition Through the kind of speed envelope hes going to need to get that flying on its own wing From a hover and then back again in a controlled manner. Without having to claw his way into the air with a LOT of power making a metric buttload (technical term) and a radically high angle of attack. Roll it out of your driveway and then launch it like a spacecraft? It's gonna need at least 2 stages to get to orbit.
There are box wing ultralight airplanes being sold and RDFs for RC airplanes were even tested by a research paper shown in the video, the ideas work but this stack of unproven technologies won't.
For everyone using imperial units, one metric buttload is 1.34 imperial buttloads. If you are speaking to a North American audience, we are usually more familiar with f*ck tons as the conversion is close, like liters to quarts. Hope this helps! :)
Hey man, would love to bounce an idea off you, not for anything professional but had an idea and was just curious about it, you would know way more than I would. Hoping to connect.
You would think, Peter and investors would want to build an RC proof of concept along with a much smaller simpler plane to prove what the RC plane discovers before pushing a complete, ready to sell aircraft. As smart as he is, he is not learning much from past mistakes.
The raptor 1 RC prototype had stability issues and Peter just charged ahead saying it would be better in full scale. Reality is not a deterrent for Peter. At least Raptor 2 won’t ever fly so I won’t have to worry about him killing himself every week.
A very measured and thoughtful discussion of peters latest design. You provided a lot of good references to support your calculations. Thank you for your contributions.
Ross - Thank you again for a cogent and concise analysis of PM's latest fantasy. The unfortunate thing is that PM is likely going to get another group of new investors to sink money into this concept and lose it all in the end.
As a non aerospace engineer, I bit on some of the too-good-to-be-true claims by PM the first go round. Thankfully the internet has people like you to check the “baffle them with bullshit” types. I won’t waste anymore time watching PMs videos.. unless I’m in the mood for a laugh.
Loved your very sterile approach. No fluff. Just science. I am not an engineer. I hope these numbers are the most up to date. Even if they aren't I appreciate the work that went into such a video, and for the slight reality check over such promising and exciting theories. Please keep up the good work. -Jake
I would like to add... My biggest complaint about GA aircraft are the comfortabilities. I've always wondered why they are so cramped and difficult from a usability side. Amazing machines with challenging application and it all seems due to tradition. My favorite part about the Raptor series was someone taking action against the GA traditions... Care to comment?
@@7wakyjake You can have the huge, wide cabin but you'll pay for this in extra weight and especially drag. There is no free ride here. The new door design was good as far as ingress and egress but I didn't see any other useful improvements on this iteration, just a less realistic design than Raptor 1.
For the engine’s pulley wheels to handle higher RPM’s: layered bearings. You run three (or more) bearings, one inside the other, inside the next, etc, therefore combining total RPM ratings
What Peter is selling is a dream how many of us have bought lottery tickets knowing we aren’t likely going to win but dreaming about what we would buy when we did win was half the fun . I was following his original Raptor videos and was already dreaming where I would go when I got mine . And for sure I would get one it was the price of a car and Peter said it would be easy to fly and cheap to run . I already had dreams of loading it up with friends and family and flying off to Paris for the weekend. All those dreams died when I saw the first flight and still can’t believe Peter survived that . I don’t think Peter is trying to scam anyone because he believes 100% in his assumptions and actually puts his life on the line test flying the plane . This new version looks even better than the first one however even if it gets off the ground you would have to be an amazing pilot to be able to fly it way beyond the skill set of your average pilot . One thing Peter has proven is he is an amazing pilot the average general aviation pilot would have killed themselves in the first flight of the Raptor . Peter probably is an eccentric person and a loner that doesn’t listen to others . If you noticed when he was flight testing the first Raptor he was on his own there didn’t seem to be even one person on the ground supporting him or even to film from the ground the first flight of the Raptor. Remember the very first flight where he came close to buying the farm he landed and taxied back to the hanger and there was not even one person on the ground to create him ? I admire his determination and he is creative but I don’t think Peter is firing on all cylinders
Ooooo there you go using facts 😂 I think it would be great if you did an on line class talking about engine design and all the mistakes first time designers make. It would give us a great starting point for improving our own aircraft designs. Thanks for putting out great information in a respectful way.
Some good advice at the end. Better to build and test the motor first before embarking on the build of the fuselage. I am sure that is what Peter will do. The Lilium Jet project is also of interest here I would have thought.
I would like to see a follow on video where you put in how the design could work with as many modifications that you think are necessary. While you covered some of that on this video I would watch that as well.
Since Raptor NG is no longer pressurized, it seems like a Velocity RG turbo is what you need. Already proven and available. Covered this in a previous vid. Nothing PM touches will ever see production in either kit or certified form. He doesn't have a clue about what he is doing. Raptor 1 was almost 100% overweight from his first predictions and only achieved speeds about half of what was projected. The engine never cooled, his redrive was a disaster and the airframe was never pressurized in flight. Raptor NG's aerodynamics are completely unproven. There is no structural design done yet (now in aluminum which PM has zero experience in) , the engines he envisions are neither proven nor available. His RDF design is utter nonsense and will never see the light of day. Raptor NG is going nowhere regardless of what PM believes.
So far, to me this looks' like a rederware. With all the numbers shown here, there is one very basic issue that will make this idea just a renderware. And that is the use of a hybrid power plant on such a small airplane. You have an engine, then you put a generator (weight) to it and then you add three electric motors, which is even more weight. One electric motor, the one in the nose is dead weight for the most of the flight. so you double, (probably more) the weight of powerplant on such a small airplane, where weight is critical.
It would be really interesting to hear from the people that worked with PM in the early mould lay up stages, I think they all left the project because you can’t work with him. He knows everything all of the time (in his own head) and is a loner for this reason and he can’t play nicely in a team environment.
Jeff Kerlo and his son left when the construction work was completed. I talked to him at Reno a few years back and he didn't have the kindest words to say about Peter. Jeff is working on his own composite projects now. Look up Revelation Aerospace LLC and see his cool Voodoo jet project. Jeff is a super talented, likeable guy.
the role of engineers is to keep the wishful thinking of marketers under control (but without crushing their dreams and providing real-world data), you are doing a fine job at that !!
Just to make it clear to viewers, I am not a ME, just someone who has built a lot of mechanical and electronic things over the years and understands some of the limitations and physics that define what's possible or probable to achieve...
My humble opinion: he should’ve refined and finished the original Raptor, delivered on it and then moved on to another project. Regardless, subscribed. Very interesting information provided here.
I don't think flying the same as raptor One is something I'd want to brag about really. I built a really accurate model of that thing directly off his drawings really early on and it flew like c*** and the nearest I could tell the full size one flew the exact same way i told him that my models did.
Funny thing is Peter did build an RC model early on which had stability issues. He decided it would be stable in full scale since that’s what he saw in his computer models so pressed ahead.
I already have this RC airframe with a ducted fan buried on centerline, and was toying with the idea of making it VTOL. I wonder if Peter would be interested in me building a scale model for him.
I didn't realize this was Peter's 'Raptor" when I selected the video, I was quite surprised. I just feel a little sorry for him. He seems to work hard at it and truly believes in everything he is doing here. After a brief overview all I could do was shake my head. If I didn't believe him it could almost look like some clever job he invented for himself with no possibility of ever really working. His competition is Boeing, Airbus, GE, RR and P&W. I still wish him luck, I guess. --gary
Any basic kit plane these days, especially the cub clones are over $100k so he is off the planet with his numbers. With his first plane he couldn't even match a velocity that is a quality product.
Thanks for the video. I made similar comments to Peter's original TH-cam video and also tried to communicate to him regarding his thrust errors via LinkedIn and Twitter but never got any response. My thrust calculation is similar to yours.
Peter invites response to his video but his DK won't let him accept that he's wrong here. Nothing has changed with him unfortunately. He learned nothing from his first experience with Raptor 1 which failed to achieve a single performance prediction.
@rv6ejguy Thanks for the insight. Peter came across as honest but not fully aware of fan aero design especially at the low pressure ratio. It's a common error to push fan pressure ratio down to maximize thrust/HP statically...even Efan made this mistake and suffered low performance in flight. I am an experienced engineer in this area and was hoping to help him.
@@robertmazzawy8322 Yes, I think many fall into the trap of comparing static thrust numbers which may be useful on a low speed vehicle such as an air boat but fairly meaningless on high speed aircraft. I tried to help PM on his turbo and cooling systems too but was rebuffed, with him saying he knew better- even with zero previous experience in those fields! We saw the results of his hubris on Raptor 1- multiple failures at every turn. I appreciate your comments here. Thank you.
I wish I could get in contact with Peter to help bring novel solutions to his problems. I've worked in the R&D field for 13+ years, and have some very off-the-wall solutions for some of his challenges. I won't say I could solve all of his problems, but I know I can get his bearing issue solved without something super expensive, and fix his axial motor design to be much more efficient, The aerodynamics would still fall on his shoulders. An actual production fan would need titanium blades and near seamless outer hub, which would make the aluminum blades, welds, and open outer ring obsolete. I think it can be assumed without much assumption that the aluminum and delrin assemble is a mere proof of concept.
This is just a single solution to the strength (or lack of) for the fan. If he attached them at the center (while having a pivot) they could then take compressive forces and be stronger. Sure, all the other stuff...
Forget about engineering analysis! I would like to dissect a psychological analysis of Peters brain! There's no question he is an intelligent man, but as they say, when there is a battle between logic and emotion, it is usually emotion that wins! Peter needs to spend some time with Spock!
Dunning Kruger effect He knows just enough to think he knows everything but not enough to be aware of what he does not know. Add emotion over logic, arrogance and his unwillingness to listen to those who do know. The guy is smart, he's not dumb, but when it comes to mechanical and aeronautical engineering he is less skilled than most amateurs but thinks he knows more than the experts. Until he eats some humble pie he will just keep failing.
The 1st one flew and he didn't die so im optimisticly hopefull about this one. Something about the trust calc is off on both ends. One is absurdly high the other absurdly low. Either the fan usable surface area calc are off or a wrong variable was used. As far as the rim thruster bearings being unspinnable @ x speeds this can be corrected with larger ball wheels with greater diameters. Still not how I would have done it, but to each their own.
The straight blades Peter used on his fan were easy to make but ridiculously inefficient. Larger wheels on the bearings won't easily fit within the duct. They'd have to be over 8 inches in diameter to get the bearing rpms down to livable levels. You have real problems with bearing engagement and slip as well which won't be easy to solve. Peter could stop all the conjecture and just build a full scale, working model of his fan, measure input hp (easy to do looking at amps X volts/ 746) and measure thrust with a load cell. His CFD numbers are nonsense. He needs actual numbers from a proper experimental fan, not conjecture. His CFD drag numbers on Raptor 1 were proven massively wrong both on paper and with the flying article. It's no different this time. He doesn't know what he is doing.
7:00 I'm sorry but it's unfair to look at the grease type lubrication and not the oil type which is meant to go fast. Still unrealistic, but makes for a better analysis. And about this endless dissection of Peter's thrust and power estimates, it feels so weird. It's like saying that your water-powered car concept will never work because the steering is flawed. Anyways, thanks for another great video! Edit: By the way, do you think that the original Raptor concept, properly made, would've been successful? I feel like it was the logical evolution of the velocity series. Bigger, more luxorious, very cool looking, pressurized, and has an efficient automotive engine.
"It's like saying that your water-powered car concept will never work because the steering is flawed." No, it's like saying, "your water-powered car concept will never work because your water-powered powerplant is about as commensurate with proven physical law as a unicorn's rainbow fart." As designed, Peter's fan will _never_ develop the thrust required to get his airframe (a disaster in its own right) aloft-let alone the outlandish performance targets.
Can you think of a way to use bath or pressure lubed bearings here? You need containment to to do that. In any case, this would only extend rpm limits 20-25%- still far short of the rpm requirement.
@@rv6ejguy I was looking at 7:00 where the 26mm bearing's high speed version (open oil) could run 64% faster. But I have to correct myself, you and @Elios0000 are right, another look at Peter's pictures shows that his design can't even accomodate proper bearings. It's not that bearings can't be that fast, the flaw is his irrational design that necessitates self contained bearings. This was mentioned at 7:04 , but the statement at 7:28 confused me. Anyways, thank you for the replies.
@@sigmundwong2489 I disagree. The already messed up powerplant was switched to an impossible setup that's never giong to work. The wings were switched to an inefficient and irrational setup that's never going to work. Fans where they're not supposed to be used, never going to work. VTOL because why the duck not, never going to work. Fully autonomous, never going to work. Throw in some impossible specs, never going to work. This whole concept is beyond ridiculous. Discussing the in depth engineering challanges of the fan feels like a small detail in all of this mess.
At least Jim Bede created designs that successfully flew, based upon simplicity, and only one series made it to production. Peter= ultra complex design, no model that safely has flown, nor met design promises,and after this analysis by a professional of this new offering, only fools would sign on
Peter's claims are so nuts. Thanks for the analysis. Make it fatter, make the wings short and draggy, use tiny fans, use a totally new type of engine, make it VTOL. And of course a car manufacturer wants to build airplanes. Right in their area of expertise. The dude needs his medication levels increased a lot.
The strangest thing was that Raptor v1 was an abject failure when measured against it’s claimed performance and now here is Raptor v2 a concept with even more outrageous claims. Most of which would be met with shaking heads even by his most ardent supporters. What’s next? Raptor v3 capable of entering low earth orbit.. New York to Sydney in 2 hours. We wait in anticipation.
Interesting. I’m wasn’t familiar with this airplane design or the claims. Definitely fails a sanity check with some simple analysis or a descent engineering background. At 15:00 when F=ma is used to calculate thrust is acceleration or velocity being used for a? It should be the acceleration required to go from free stream velocity to the fan exit velocity over the length of the fan blades correct? It sounded like maybe velocity was being used.
We are looking at static thrust here only. Initial velocity is zero. I covered in a previous vid how thrust varies with airspeed. One indisputable fact is that when exit velocity= freestream velocity, thrust = 0.
@@rv6ejguy Yeah, that makes sense. I thought a little more about this. I was getting bogged down with acceleration and how it would be determined. The acceleration would have to begin before the inlet of the fan not at the fan vane, and this acceleration would be caused by lower pressure at the inlet. Although after rearranging the equation acceleration it isn't needed. You get the time term for the second law equation from the mass flow rate instead and the units work out. In this case velocity can be used. I see where I was confused about the equation was applied.
What is Peters background. The firtst rapotor was such a great idea. What stopped him from just putting an lycoming or Continental engine in it. I think everything that people warned him about happened
The idea of a 2000 mile range, 5 seat, 300 knot, pressurized aircraft was good and would have found a market. However Peter built a one seat, 150 knot aircraft with a 300 mile range. It couldn't even match the numbers of a 40 year old Piper Arrow. His background was software with no experience in engines, structural design, aerodynamics, systems design or turbocharging. The results were predictable. Raptor 1 would have been a total flop even with Lyconental power as it was more than 1200 pounds overweight- a deal breaker right there.
This is supposed to be a diesel-electric / hybrid design. This makes an aircraft FAR too heavy. Note that the Rolls-Royce / Airbus EFan-X hybrid aircraft failed miserably, because: it was too heavy, there was no room for passengers there was insufficient cooling. (the aircraft was an old Bae146.) RR promised a 70% reduction in CO2, but achieved a 400% INCREASE in CO2 per passenger. It was a Woke design that went Broke. Ralph
or just a simple al construction. lighten the weight, get some experts to fix the turbos, build a real redux unit, rebuilding the original concept would meet with better response. but to me his egg design is very ugly.
Leave it to a very knowledgeable engineer to debunk marketing nonsense. Maybe if Bob Lazar can figure out the alien propulsion systems - he can pass along the technology to Peter for use in his new Raptor. :D
he missed a very important factor in his needs ... to validate a 100k to 130k price tag the cost of his 30k units has to be much less than the total to make the 3M to 3.9M pay back worth it ... the production costs for labour alone will be HIGH ... and the materials will be the ONLY place to save money ... . the multiple unproven designs is never a concern ... THE AVRO ARROW proved that ... unproven shape unproven engine unproven weapons system ... and yet all proved valid and became the standards ... and even today the sparrow missile used is from the avro redesign when they reworked it because the us side couldnt get it to work at all ... even the ps13 engine ... was designed for 20k and could do 22k thrust PER engine ... and the airplane design as a delta wing was new ... and was proven effective even using under powered over weight engines when compared to the ps13 ... and yes delta wing was proven because after march of 57 when some 10 to 15 avro engineers began work on the failing sr71 swept wing design ... it went from that to a delta wing blended body like the arrow with loads of titanium like the arrow because the Canadian engineers already had the experience working with this metal and the americans didnt ... . nice proof that the designer ISNT making a real plane ... now as a an RC plane it might work well ..
Unproven concepts which are eventually validated are finally proven. This isn't just unproven, it's a physical impossibility as I go to show in my 2 videos on it. This will never see the light of day as it was initially proposed.
not surprising. hope he isn't taking people's money for his "breakthrough." at least he didn't have to experience an inflight breakup of the previous effort. My misgivings were well documented. PS. the fan design does work for water propulsion and is much better than propellers, but air being a compressible fluid, this is utter nonsense. Sorry Peter.
It's about as laughable as the Moller Skycar. To his credit, he designed, built and test flew his own creation . He should just modify it based what worked and didn't work. Maybe get with some real aerospace engineers to get some expertise. Make it smaller, simpler, using off the shelf aircraft engines. I think it's foolish to just throw it all away.
"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us - there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries." It sounds kind of scientific but it's really a religious statement of what Sagan would like to believe about the world. If Sagan was still alive, we could ask: Dr. Sagan what experiment did you do and what paper did you publish those results in that leads you to know the cosmos is all that ever is and was and will ever be? Because that had to be one big experiment. And what did you use for a control in that experiment? Sagan couldn't do an experiment like that. So those magic-like, emotion appealing words and phrases are really just religious views masquerading as science. Anyways. Go to a man of God who knows the difference between titles baptism and baptism in the title-name-title of Lord Jesus Christ. Peace and understanding of those who are looking for God. amen
@rv6ejguy So you're saying PM and Carl Segan both have outlandish ideas. I agree. And I appreciate your time friend. Peace of Lord Jesus upon you and yours
Yes, but imagine how boring the world would be without its mad inventors. And if some folks want to give these dreamers money for the enjoyment that sharing the dream brings them, well, there is no harm in that.
new airframe, new engine, new propulsion, new airfoil?, what could go wrong? i wouldnt buy a car from ford, darn sure aint buying a airplane from them.
The moment I saw Peter's release, I knew your analysis would come. Thank you for your excellent videos Ross! I love your technical breakdowns.
The most fascinating thing about this is that someone can be so capable, but so wildly off base. After all he did somehow finance, design, and build a pretty slick looking airplane that could more or less fly. This is not something that a normal person can accomplish, and even the results he got took an incredible amount of skill. But then all that capability is directed toward pie in the sky nonsense that’s too optimistic by an order of magnitude just about every step of the way ranging from fan thrust numbers to people at Ford actually taking him seriously. Fascinating.
that POS was renderware magic as well and an accident looking for a place to happen. He must have found a very incapable FAA office to allow him to fly over populated areas. If you saw many videos you knew flutter was off the charts and it was not a stable machine in any axis.
I kid you not, as a teenager I discovered a milkshake flavour called 'Blue Heaven" from a local shop. I must have drank more than 2 liters of flavoured milk that day. The next morning I went to the toilet, and my shit was blue, again I am not kidding, it really was. It was beautiful, and I created it, but it was still shit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Heaven_(flavour)
I love the contrast between yours and his video ... Peter's video is the best sales pitch you'll see, the tone, the excitement etc. And then there is yours, full of facts and with such calm presence. Gosh do I wish his design would work, but he lost me when we told me Ford will build it. Thanks for adding such a great fact based video to this conversation!
His older design would have been more achievable then this. Now there is no chance of success
If you had an engine failure during a vertical takeoff or landing, you would totally lose control
Agreed. He shoulda just thrown a Walter 601 into his original design and seen if that gets him anywhere.
The original Raptor was an accident looking for a place to happen. Way to complicated drive system and I think it was a real dog too. The takeoff roll was extremely long and landing speeds were very high for a 140 kt aircraft. Throw in the disastrous cooling issues and you have a plane that made absolutely no sense. Kudos to Peter for pursuing his dream though, amazing effort and he lived through that first flight which was downright scary to watch. He will now move on to this new hallucination and I see it going absolutely nowhere. He is gifted mechanically but I would like to see him put those talents towards a far more conventional design.
@@jfjaksgf I still think the original Raptor could have been fine if he'd just thrown a Walter (or other) turboprop in it.
@@stevewinegar6364 The Mark I Raptor was a conventional tricycle canard with a pusher prop. (What was unconventional was its power source and the novel crowd-funding). So with slight lowered design aims (e.g. no pressurisation) and a proper aero-engine, surely it would have been much easier to press on developing an essentially sound aircraft concept than to fundamentally redesign it with so many untried technologies?
He needs to do a lessons learned on the failed combine, how did it end up 1500 pounds overweight, and why not Dyno test an unproven engine prior to flight tests?
that price range is PURE FANTASY. just look at how much Icon A5 price ballooned from there 100k price point when they first talked about it. and real cost is almost 500k FOR AN LSA
Magnetically assisted gears or electrodynamic bearings might work, but this is just one of the many problems in the fan and it would require a lot of R&D to make it work.
I've been building and flying model airplanes including my own designs for more than 40 years. One of the basic design principles that I stick to is if it doesn't look right it won't fly right. That's where I start. I use all kinds of software and virtually fly the planes before I ever Even start to make a mold... But after building probably 30 or more of my own airplanes from scratch I get a pretty good idea after a while what works and what doesnt. A flying lunch Box with a handle on it and some PC cooling fans isn't going to cut it. Forget the VTOL aspect. That thing wouldn't fly very well as just a regular airplane. And I'm dying to know what kind of air foil hes thinking of using. Because with that shape of wing There isn't an airfoil that I'm aware of that will transition Through the kind of speed envelope hes going to need to get that flying on its own wing From a hover and then back again in a controlled manner. Without having to claw his way into the air with a LOT of power making a metric buttload (technical term) and a radically high angle of attack. Roll it out of your driveway and then launch it like a spacecraft?
It's gonna need at least 2 stages to get to orbit.
There are box wing ultralight airplanes being sold and RDFs for RC airplanes were even tested by a research paper shown in the video, the ideas work but this stack of unproven technologies won't.
For everyone using imperial units, one metric buttload is 1.34 imperial buttloads. If you are speaking to a North American audience, we are usually more familiar with f*ck tons as the conversion is close, like liters to quarts. Hope this helps! :)
Metric f*ck tons to imperial f*ck tons is what I meant
@@alarmedmutant Brilliant analysis of differing measurement systems. :) A definite favorite comment recently, bravo!
Hey man, would love to bounce an idea off you, not for anything professional but had an idea and was just curious about it, you would know way more than I would. Hoping to connect.
You would think, Peter and investors would want to build an RC proof of concept along with a much smaller simpler plane to prove what the RC plane discovers before pushing a complete, ready to sell aircraft. As smart as he is, he is not learning much from past mistakes.
thats what they did with Raptor 1
The raptor 1 RC prototype had stability issues and Peter just charged ahead saying it would be better in full scale. Reality is not a deterrent for Peter. At least Raptor 2 won’t ever fly so I won’t have to worry about him killing himself every week.
Oh yay, I was really hoping you would make a video about his latest claims. Awesome video, thanks!
A very measured and thoughtful discussion of peters latest design. You provided a lot of good references to support your calculations. Thank you for your contributions.
Ross - Thank you again for a cogent and concise analysis of PM's latest fantasy. The unfortunate thing is that PM is likely going to get another group of new investors to sink money into this concept and lose it all in the end.
As a non aerospace engineer, I bit on some of the too-good-to-be-true claims by PM the first go round. Thankfully the internet has people like you to check the “baffle them with bullshit” types. I won’t waste anymore time watching PMs videos.. unless I’m in the mood for a laugh.
Loved your very sterile approach. No fluff. Just science. I am not an engineer. I hope these numbers are the most up to date. Even if they aren't I appreciate the work that went into such a video, and for the slight reality check over such promising and exciting theories. Please keep up the good work. -Jake
I would like to add... My biggest complaint about GA aircraft are the comfortabilities. I've always wondered why they are so cramped and difficult from a usability side. Amazing machines with challenging application and it all seems due to tradition. My favorite part about the Raptor series was someone taking action against the GA traditions... Care to comment?
@@7wakyjake You can have the huge, wide cabin but you'll pay for this in extra weight and especially drag. There is no free ride here. The new door design was good as far as ingress and egress but I didn't see any other useful improvements on this iteration, just a less realistic design than Raptor 1.
I looked at the Raptor 2 design and intuitively I got very skeptical. There were too many extraordinary claims at once for this to be real.
Oh boy I’ve been waiting for this
Nice respectful analysis and commentary. I just cannot get how many folks are excited about believing clearly delusional ideas.
Excellent professional analysis. Thank you.
For the engine’s pulley wheels to handle higher RPM’s:
layered bearings. You run three (or more) bearings, one inside the other, inside the next, etc, therefore combining total RPM ratings
What Peter is selling is a dream how many of us have bought lottery tickets knowing we aren’t likely going to win but dreaming about what we would buy when we did win was half the fun .
I was following his original Raptor videos and was already dreaming where I would go when I got mine .
And for sure I would get one it was the price of a car and Peter said it would be easy to fly and cheap to run .
I already had dreams of loading it up with friends and family and flying off to Paris for the weekend.
All those dreams died when I saw the first flight and still can’t believe Peter survived that .
I don’t think Peter is trying to scam anyone because he believes 100% in his assumptions and actually puts his life on the line test flying the plane .
This new version looks even better than the first one however even if it gets off the ground you would have to be an amazing pilot to be able to fly it way beyond the skill set of your average pilot .
One thing Peter has proven is he is an amazing pilot the average general aviation pilot would have killed themselves in the first flight of the Raptor .
Peter probably is an eccentric person and a loner that doesn’t listen to others .
If you noticed when he was flight testing the first Raptor he was on his own there didn’t seem to be even one person on the ground supporting him or even to film from the ground the first flight of the Raptor.
Remember the very first flight where he came close to buying the farm he landed and taxied back to the hanger and there was not even one person on the ground to create him ?
I admire his determination and he is creative but I don’t think Peter is firing on all cylinders
The only people that Peter would allow to be in his circle are those that constantly praise him. Once someone is critical he blocks them.
Ooooo there you go using facts 😂 I think it would be great if you did an on line class talking about engine design and all the mistakes first time designers make. It would give us a great starting point for improving our own aircraft designs. Thanks for putting out great information in a respectful way.
Some good advice at the end. Better to build and test the motor first before embarking on the build of the fuselage. I am sure that is what Peter will do. The Lilium Jet project is also of interest here I would have thought.
I would like to see a follow on video where you put in how the design could work with as many modifications that you think are necessary. While you covered some of that on this video I would watch that as well.
Since Raptor NG is no longer pressurized, it seems like a Velocity RG turbo is what you need. Already proven and available. Covered this in a previous vid.
Nothing PM touches will ever see production in either kit or certified form. He doesn't have a clue about what he is doing.
Raptor 1 was almost 100% overweight from his first predictions and only achieved speeds about half of what was projected. The engine never cooled, his redrive was a disaster and the airframe was never pressurized in flight.
Raptor NG's aerodynamics are completely unproven. There is no structural design done yet (now in aluminum which PM has zero experience in) , the engines he envisions are neither proven nor available. His RDF design is utter nonsense and will never see the light of day.
Raptor NG is going nowhere regardless of what PM believes.
So far, to me this looks' like a rederware. With all the numbers shown here, there is one very basic issue that will make this idea just a renderware. And that is the use of a hybrid power plant on such a small airplane. You have an engine, then you put a generator (weight) to it and then you add three electric motors, which is even more weight. One electric motor, the one in the nose is dead weight for the most of the flight. so you double, (probably more) the weight of powerplant on such a small airplane, where weight is critical.
That was fun and educational. Thank you.
It would be really interesting to hear from the people that worked with PM in the early mould lay up stages, I think they all left the project because you can’t work with him. He knows everything all of the time (in his own head) and is a loner for this reason and he can’t play nicely in a team environment.
Jeff Kerlo and his son left when the construction work was completed. I talked to him at Reno a few years back and he didn't have the kindest words to say about Peter.
Jeff is working on his own composite projects now. Look up Revelation Aerospace LLC and see his cool Voodoo jet project. Jeff is a super talented, likeable guy.
the role of engineers is to keep the wishful thinking of marketers under control (but without crushing their dreams and providing real-world data), you are doing a fine job at that !!
Just to make it clear to viewers, I am not a ME, just someone who has built a lot of mechanical and electronic things over the years and understands some of the limitations and physics that define what's possible or probable to achieve...
@@rv6ejguy I am in the ducted fan design business, and if I had to bet on one builder and his numbers, that would be more likely you...
@@olivergarrow233 I'd be interested to see your blade designs and thrust/HP numbers.
you are fantastic, thanks, I always learn much from your videos
Ludicrous. Anyone else craving roasted corn?
My humble opinion: he should’ve refined and finished the original Raptor, delivered on it and then moved on to another project.
Regardless, subscribed. Very interesting information provided here.
I don't think flying the same as raptor One is something I'd want to brag about really. I built a really accurate model of that thing directly off his drawings really early on and it flew like c*** and the nearest I could tell the full size one flew the exact same way i told him that my models did.
That's so cool! Would you mind expounding on that model?!
Funny thing is Peter did build an RC model early on which had stability issues. He decided it would be stable in full scale since that’s what he saw in his computer models so pressed ahead.
Reminds me of Paul Moller’s Aircar that never got to more than a tethered prototype…. lot of flash and smoke but little else… ie vaporware.
I already have this RC airframe with a ducted fan buried on centerline, and was toying with the idea of making it VTOL. I wonder if Peter would be interested in me building a scale model for him.
Ty Ross
I'm on your team, Pete"s a dreamer on over time
I didn't realize this was Peter's 'Raptor" when I selected the video, I was quite surprised. I just feel a little sorry for him. He seems to work hard at it and truly believes in everything he is doing here. After a brief overview all I could do was shake my head. If I didn't believe him it could almost look like some clever job he invented for himself with no possibility of ever really working. His competition is Boeing, Airbus, GE, RR and P&W. I still wish him luck, I guess. --gary
Any basic kit plane these days, especially the cub clones are over $100k so he is off the planet with his numbers. With his first plane he couldn't even match a velocity that is a quality product.
How many takes was it to read the claims and not burst out laughing?
Thanks for the video. I made similar comments to Peter's original TH-cam video and also tried to communicate to him regarding his thrust errors via LinkedIn and Twitter but never got any response. My thrust calculation is similar to yours.
Peter invites response to his video but his DK won't let him accept that he's wrong here. Nothing has changed with him unfortunately. He learned nothing from his first experience with Raptor 1 which failed to achieve a single performance prediction.
@rv6ejguy Thanks for the insight. Peter came across as honest but not fully aware of fan aero design especially at the low pressure ratio. It's a common error to push fan pressure ratio down to maximize thrust/HP statically...even Efan made this mistake and suffered low performance in flight. I am an experienced engineer in this area and was hoping to help him.
@@robertmazzawy8322 Yes, I think many fall into the trap of comparing static thrust numbers which may be useful on a low speed vehicle such as an air boat but fairly meaningless on high speed aircraft.
I tried to help PM on his turbo and cooling systems too but was rebuffed, with him saying he knew better- even with zero previous experience in those fields! We saw the results of his hubris on Raptor 1- multiple failures at every turn.
I appreciate your comments here. Thank you.
Thanks, Ross. I hoping for this.
Thanks for the video. Peter seems to be living in a fantasy land. It's amazing he hasn't killed himself.
Even ignoring his fan wet dream, the roll stability would be terrible….reminds me of the Starr bumble bee lol
I'd love to have my design picked apart by this guy. ;-)
My dreams have just been squashed.
If it sounds to good to be true then it probably is.
I wish I could get in contact with Peter to help bring novel solutions to his problems. I've worked in the R&D field for 13+ years, and have some very off-the-wall solutions for some of his challenges. I won't say I could solve all of his problems, but I know I can get his bearing issue solved without something super expensive, and fix his axial motor design to be much more efficient, The aerodynamics would still fall on his shoulders.
An actual production fan would need titanium blades and near seamless outer hub, which would make the aluminum blades, welds, and open outer ring obsolete. I think it can be assumed without much assumption that the aluminum and delrin assemble is a mere proof of concept.
Peter isn’t capable of listening to anyone but himself.
What a joke of a project. I have no doubt that Peter could make a drawing of a flying submarine, and some people would still think it's viable.
He could have easily 3D printed a small scale version of his design and demonstrate his improvement with a fishing scale.
Ummm.. Reynolds number issues.
This is just a single solution to the strength (or lack of) for the fan.
If he attached them at the center (while having a pivot) they could then take compressive forces and be stronger.
Sure, all the other stuff...
Forget about engineering analysis! I would like to dissect a psychological analysis of Peters brain!
There's no question he is an intelligent man, but as they say, when there is a battle between logic and emotion, it is usually emotion that wins! Peter needs to spend some time with Spock!
He’s a smart guy, he just lacks proper understanding and any kind of engineering degree.
Dunning Kruger effect
He knows just enough to think he knows everything but not enough to be aware of what he does not know.
Add emotion over logic, arrogance and his unwillingness to listen to those who do know.
The guy is smart, he's not dumb, but when it comes to mechanical and aeronautical engineering he is less skilled than most amateurs but thinks he knows more than the experts.
Until he eats some humble pie he will just keep failing.
The 1st one flew and he didn't die so im optimisticly hopefull about this one. Something about the trust calc is off on both ends. One is absurdly high the other absurdly low. Either the fan usable surface area calc are off or a wrong variable was used. As far as the rim thruster bearings being unspinnable @ x speeds this can be corrected with larger ball wheels with greater diameters. Still not how I would have done it, but to each their own.
The straight blades Peter used on his fan were easy to make but ridiculously inefficient. Larger wheels on the bearings won't easily fit within the duct. They'd have to be over 8 inches in diameter to get the bearing rpms down to livable levels. You have real problems with bearing engagement and slip as well which won't be easy to solve.
Peter could stop all the conjecture and just build a full scale, working model of his fan, measure input hp (easy to do looking at amps X volts/ 746) and measure thrust with a load cell.
His CFD numbers are nonsense. He needs actual numbers from a proper experimental fan, not conjecture.
His CFD drag numbers on Raptor 1 were proven massively wrong both on paper and with the flying article. It's no different this time. He doesn't know what he is doing.
7:00 I'm sorry but it's unfair to look at the grease type lubrication and not the oil type which is meant to go fast. Still unrealistic, but makes for a better analysis.
And about this endless dissection of Peter's thrust and power estimates, it feels so weird. It's like saying that your water-powered car concept will never work because the steering is flawed. Anyways, thanks for another great video!
Edit: By the way, do you think that the original Raptor concept, properly made, would've been successful? I feel like it was the logical evolution of the velocity series. Bigger, more luxorious, very cool looking, pressurized, and has an efficient automotive engine.
at that speed oil will just get spun out. even at lower rpms. and there is no way run an oil system
"It's like saying that your water-powered car concept will never work because the steering is flawed." No, it's like saying, "your water-powered car concept will never work because your water-powered powerplant is about as commensurate with proven physical law as a unicorn's rainbow fart." As designed, Peter's fan will _never_ develop the thrust required to get his airframe (a disaster in its own right) aloft-let alone the outlandish performance targets.
Can you think of a way to use bath or pressure lubed bearings here? You need containment to to do that. In any case, this would only extend rpm limits 20-25%- still far short of the rpm requirement.
@@rv6ejguy I was looking at 7:00 where the 26mm bearing's high speed version (open oil) could run 64% faster. But I have to correct myself, you and @Elios0000 are right, another look at Peter's pictures shows that his design can't even accomodate proper bearings. It's not that bearings can't be that fast, the flaw is his irrational design that necessitates self contained bearings. This was mentioned at 7:04 , but the statement at 7:28 confused me.
Anyways, thank you for the replies.
@@sigmundwong2489 I disagree. The already messed up powerplant was switched to an impossible setup that's never giong to work. The wings were switched to an inefficient and irrational setup that's never going to work. Fans where they're not supposed to be used, never going to work. VTOL because why the duck not, never going to work. Fully autonomous, never going to work. Throw in some impossible specs, never going to work. This whole concept is beyond ridiculous.
Discussing the in depth engineering challanges of the fan feels like a small detail in all of this mess.
At least Jim Bede created designs that successfully flew, based upon simplicity, and only one series made it to production. Peter= ultra complex design, no model that safely has flown, nor met design promises,and after this analysis by a professional of this new offering, only fools would sign on
Here we go again!
Peter's claims are so nuts. Thanks for the analysis. Make it fatter, make the wings short and draggy, use tiny fans, use a totally new type of engine, make it VTOL. And of course a car manufacturer wants to build airplanes. Right in their area of expertise. The dude needs his medication levels increased a lot.
Don’t forget let’s mount the fans on top of the wing where airflow is most critical.
Moller, but Peter sounds sincere, wrong, but sincere.
i honestly thought he was the one behind the sketchy velocity clone coming out of brazil.
When success requires magic, it is unlikely to succeed.
The strangest thing was that Raptor v1 was an abject failure when measured against it’s claimed performance and now here is Raptor v2 a concept with even more outrageous claims. Most of which would be met with shaking heads even by his most ardent supporters.
What’s next? Raptor v3 capable of entering low earth orbit.. New York to Sydney in 2 hours. We wait in anticipation.
Great video. The fact that so much time was spent on the money side of things suggest scam to me.
Peter is using a lot of CBD cream on his joints when predicting performance!
The NG will never make it to a working prototype much less a corn field.
Interesting. I’m wasn’t familiar with this airplane design or the claims. Definitely fails a sanity check with some simple analysis or a descent engineering background. At 15:00 when F=ma is used to calculate thrust is acceleration or velocity being used for a? It should be the acceleration required to go from free stream velocity to the fan exit velocity over the length of the fan blades correct? It sounded like maybe velocity was being used.
We are looking at static thrust here only. Initial velocity is zero. I covered in a previous vid how thrust varies with airspeed. One indisputable fact is that when exit velocity= freestream velocity, thrust = 0.
@@rv6ejguy Yeah, that makes sense. I thought a little more about this. I was getting bogged down with acceleration and how it would be determined. The acceleration would have to begin before the inlet of the fan not at the fan vane, and this acceleration would be caused by lower pressure at the inlet. Although after rearranging the equation acceleration it isn't needed. You get the time term for the second law equation from the mass flow rate instead and the units work out. In this case velocity can be used. I see where I was confused about the equation was applied.
What is Peters background. The firtst rapotor was such a great idea. What stopped him from just putting an lycoming or Continental engine in it. I think everything that people warned him about happened
The idea of a 2000 mile range, 5 seat, 300 knot, pressurized aircraft was good and would have found a market. However Peter built a one seat, 150 knot aircraft with a 300 mile range. It couldn't even match the numbers of a 40 year old Piper Arrow.
His background was software with no experience in engines, structural design, aerodynamics, systems design or turbocharging. The results were predictable.
Raptor 1 would have been a total flop even with Lyconental power as it was more than 1200 pounds overweight- a deal breaker right there.
This is supposed to be a diesel-electric / hybrid design.
This makes an aircraft FAR too heavy.
Note that the Rolls-Royce / Airbus EFan-X hybrid aircraft failed miserably, because:
it was too heavy,
there was no room for passengers
there was insufficient cooling.
(the aircraft was an old Bae146.)
RR promised a 70% reduction in CO2, but achieved a 400% INCREASE in CO2 per passenger.
It was a Woke design that went Broke.
Ralph
I’d like to see the original raptor made unpressurized using carbon fiber techniques from the darkaero brothers.
or just a simple al construction. lighten the weight, get some experts to fix the turbos, build a real redux unit, rebuilding the original concept would meet with better response. but to me his egg design is very ugly.
What about air bearings?
Would need a high pressure air source somehow fed to the periphery in multiple places. Complex and unproven in this application.
10min in to this video and it has gone from interesting, to sad, to downright embarrassing… honestly though, none of these errors come as a surprise.
Wait wait , someone is released from mental hospital ?
Leave it to a very knowledgeable engineer to debunk marketing nonsense. Maybe if Bob Lazar can figure out the alien propulsion systems - he can pass along the technology to Peter for use in his new Raptor. :D
Thanks for your thoughts. Totally agree Peter is delusional. 🇨🇦
Peter is from Australia, aka Coo-Coo-Laa-Laa Land. Physical and Financial laws of the real universe does not apply there.
There is a lot of interference drag.
he missed a very important factor in his needs ... to validate a 100k to 130k price tag the cost of his 30k units has to be much less than the total to make the 3M to 3.9M pay back worth it ... the production costs for labour alone will be HIGH ... and the materials will be the ONLY place to save money ...
.
the multiple unproven designs is never a concern ... THE AVRO ARROW proved that ... unproven shape unproven engine unproven weapons system ... and yet all proved valid and became the standards ... and even today the sparrow missile used is from the avro redesign when they reworked it because the us side couldnt get it to work at all ... even the ps13 engine ... was designed for 20k and could do 22k thrust PER engine ... and the airplane design as a delta wing was new ... and was proven effective even using under powered over weight engines when compared to the ps13 ... and yes delta wing was proven because after march of 57 when some 10 to 15 avro engineers began work on the failing sr71 swept wing design ... it went from that to a delta wing blended body like the arrow with loads of titanium like the arrow because the Canadian engineers already had the experience working with this metal and the americans didnt ...
.
nice proof that the designer ISNT making a real plane ... now as a an RC plane it might work well ..
Unproven concepts which are eventually validated are finally proven. This isn't just unproven, it's a physical impossibility as I go to show in my 2 videos on it. This will never see the light of day as it was initially proposed.
Looks like PM has been smoking Wacky Baccy ,again !!!! ps ; where can I get some ???
Oh no, not again! 🤓 What do I think? Fail. Again.
I feel lucky to be this early
So all he needs to do to make it work
Is to attach it to the bottom of a blimp ? LoL 😂
not surprising. hope he isn't taking people's money for his "breakthrough." at least he didn't have to experience an inflight breakup of the previous effort. My misgivings were well documented. PS. the fan design does work for water propulsion and is much better than propellers, but air being a compressible fluid, this is utter nonsense. Sorry Peter.
It's about as laughable as the Moller Skycar. To his credit, he designed, built and test flew his own creation . He should just modify it based what worked and didn't work. Maybe get with some real aerospace engineers to get some expertise. Make it smaller, simpler, using off the shelf aircraft engines. I think it's foolish to just throw it all away.
"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us - there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries."
It sounds kind of scientific but it's really a religious statement of what Sagan would like to believe about the world.
If Sagan was still alive, we could ask:
Dr. Sagan what experiment did you do and what paper did you publish those results in that leads you to know the cosmos is all that ever is and was and will ever be?
Because that had to be one big experiment. And what did you use for a control in that experiment?
Sagan couldn't do an experiment like that. So those magic-like, emotion appealing words and phrases are really just religious views masquerading as science.
Anyways. Go to a man of God who knows the difference between titles baptism and baptism in the title-name-title of Lord Jesus Christ.
Peace and understanding of those who are looking for God. amen
Just a quote which relates to the outlandish claims made in PM's videos. Nothing about the Cosmos or religion here...
@rv6ejguy
So you're saying PM and Carl Segan both have outlandish ideas. I agree.
And I appreciate your time friend. Peace of Lord Jesus upon you and yours
Yes, but imagine how boring the world would be without its mad inventors. And if some folks want to give these dreamers money for the enjoyment that sharing the dream brings them, well, there is no harm in that.
new airframe, new engine, new propulsion, new airfoil?, what could go wrong? i wouldnt buy a car from ford, darn sure aint buying a airplane from them.
Renderware LOL how is this even a question?