No. None of them are in the business of making airplane kits.

What’s the Rough rule for HP Compared to increased speed. For example if 300hp goes 200kts. How much more power do you need to go 300kts? I know it’s way more complicated than that, but isn’t there a rough calcullation?

without changing drag coefficient, I would expect at least double the power he has now.

That's actually the perfect way to phrase the question, and for increasing top speed then you need to increase horsepower by approximately the cube.*

200 to 300kts is 50% more speed, so 1.5×1.5×1.5 or about 3× the horsepower, but realistically a bit less than 3×


Early in this 3+ year thread ( ) I talked about "flat plate area" when we were discussing estimated performance (and fuel burn). Equivalent flat plate area is a good concept for back-of-the-napkin math and rough performance calculations, but it's just another tool. (The flat plate area of a Bonanza and your Mirage are comparable, by the way.)

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=123165&p=2056637&hilit=raptor#p2056637


* sort of, because induced drag is somewhat significant in high altitude cruise. Think back to basic types of drag from private pilot ground school, which kind curves up as you go faster and which kind curves up as you go slower.

300kts...

So funny to see people argue about this...
Right now, this is a very heavy pig, with an underpowered, unproven, belt driven engine...
This is quite ridiculous to even think that this motor has what it takes to make that kind of power. And to claim 300kts... Pressurized....
Some people actually put some money down for this...
I would love to have that mailing list... So I can send them some other offers...

Drag is proportional to the square of velocity. The power is proportional to the cube of velocity. So roughly, you are looking at 3x the power to get get an aircraft from 200 to 300 mph.

I don't think anyone actually believed the 300 knots claim. At least I hope not.

I flew a 2 seat Lancair race plane with 500hp and its top speed was 280 knots. It was super light, and super small with about twice the power the Raptor has.

No way in hell a 5 seat plane goes 300 knots without 600hp or more.

I just cant imagine anyone believed that claim. I don't think the Raptor needed to go 300 knots and 3600nm range to be successful. It could have Piper Mirage performance and still been a viable kit. The cost and efficiency is what people believed in.

Mike

Yeah, I think anywhere north of 200 KTAS and $130,000 price tag is a win. The problem is he is finding out that it takes money to develop something. He would be at least $5 million deep into it and that’s not including setting up some way to manufacture kits. Pretending it did everything as expected which is a really tall request. Kits would have to be at least $200+k. What’s that put it at after you pay for build assist/ $300k. The big part of this project was to make it affordable to the masses. If the masses could afford a $300k aircraft, they would just go buy one. There’s a whole lot of great aircraft at $300k.

Rhetorical question (just taking advantage of this one part of your post), but if he had tried to develop the engine* on its own, would it even be possible to raise millions in venture capital for that kind of a project?

A modest deposit on a fast looking airplane is a lot more enticing advertising than... charts and diagrams of an engine.


* engine + prop combination/plug-and-play installation on an existing glass canard

there have been a few start up engine manufactures trying to make a Jet-A piston to replace the current 100LL engines. They have all struggled with the Red tape and government oversight to get certified.

There was a company that I forget the name of that had an engine in a Cirrus that ran pretty good and they were just waiting for certification. That was years ago. Then there is Delta Hawk and Red that are also working on it. These are all well funded companies. So apparently its harder than it seems to get a aircraft engine certified, which is why we still put in old tech into our aircraft.

So I doubt Peter would have been successful with an engine only program, unless it was for experimental aircraft only.

Mike

EPS
Just declared bankruptcy

EPS
Just declared bankruptcy

EPS
Just declared bankruptcy

Oh man, that sucks. They seemed to have a good chance and a good product. Why is it so hard?


Mike

Matching the power, weight, safety and reliability of a gas engine with a diesel is not going to be easy or cheap. Then you need to convince not only the FAA, but actual buyers at the price point you need to charge. Diesels are going to be a very hard sell in the marketplace as long as 100LL or a replacement is available.

Simply having a few better numbers on paper won’t do it. For example, the Atlantic Aero (whatever it is called these days) conversion offers a better (gas) engine for Bonanzas, but few real customers have deemed the improvements warrant the price tag over the older 550, or they opt for a TN 550 at a similar price. Can someone make a 300 hp diesel the same weight as the Continental, at a similar price point, and with similar installation time/costs?

The same factors are going to apply to the experimental market. If your FWF diesel package including computers turbos etc. costs more and weighs more than other options with the same power output, you won’t sell many.