Neither is dead, I know employees in both Epic and Evolution. I was there yesterday.

Neither is dead, I know employees in both Epic and Evolution. I was there yesterday.

Interesting to compare the other new canard aircraft in development: http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com/co50-valkyrie/

No news about the status from the company in about close to 2 years (viewtopic.php?f=49&t=115053) until this accident report viewtopic.php?f=41&t=142950

The Raptor seems more real given the ability to follow its development weekly but the pricing on the Valkyrie is way higher and they offer no specs on performance.

Basically 700k for the valkyire with A/C and a chute both things the Raptor is suppose to come with standard... I took a look at the accident report from the website below. The last paragraph on the site described it all and it sounds to me like they might need to go back to the drawing board.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/09/c ... craft.html

The pilot stated that immediately after rotation, he experienced extreme difficulty controlling the airplane. As the airspeed increased, he began to attain some controllability and climbed to about 1,000 feet above ground level. He determined that the ailerons were ineffective but was able to use the rudder for directional control. The pitch stability was sporadic with him experiencing intermittent pitch up and down movements. After about 20 minutes of manipulating the flight controls and practicing climbing and descending using the trim, he managed to stabilize the airplane around 90 kts. He reasoned that he would be able to land the airplane while configured at an increased airspeed using steady thrust control and the rudder for directional control. During landing, with the airplane about 10 feet above the runway surface, the airplane experienced a loss of lift and landed hard. The impact resulted in the right landing-gear leg separating and the airplane subsequently made a 180-degree; the right-wing spar sustained damage.

reading through the raptor web site... It is very interesting.
I guess some people are sending money.
The numbers that those guys use are interesting.
-Financial
-Technical
-Specs

I guess they must be using something else then the decimal system.... to calc out specs.

Oh by the way, I have a large bridge in San Francisco, almost brand new that is going to be for sale very soon. I will let you know, but you will need to act on it very fast. Great opportunity, and of course, money back guaranteed.

The odd thing is that this was the airplanes fifth flight, although the pilot's first. As described, it's hard to see how previous pilot(s) could have made even one accident-free flight, let alone four, or how they could have let a new guy fly it without copious warnings on its "special" characteristics. Sounds more like something broke.

Oh my. It's not just that Raptor's calculations are wrong, they're not even using the right formulas. Example: In this recent video, starting around 10:20, Peter explains how he comes up with his forecast 300 knots at 25,000 feet on 300 hp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXoPa2V2xyI
He looks at the graph of HP required vs. IAS (which itself uses the wrong formula, but never mind), which forecasts that 300 hp. would give 200 KIAS at sea level and "at 25,000 feet 200 knots indicated is 300 knots true". That's not how it works! Power required at altitude is proportional to TRUE airspeed. If (big if) 300 hp. does give 200 KIAS at sea level then at 25,000 feet that same 200 KIAS, 300 KTAS, would require 450 hp., not 300. This is basic stuff, first semester aerodynamics, and NOBODY at the company knows this?? You have to wonder what else they don't know as you contemplate trusting your family to their expertise.

Look at the comments on that video from Mike McGhee where he called out the math error and Peter's reply was:

Thats not good LOL

Maybe they should "Re Run" all the numbers for everything including price model. Seems like a pretty major mistake to make on the projected speed.

This is a numbers game, so the numbers and math really matter.

Mike

Look at the comments on that video from Mike McGhee where he called out the math error and Peter's reply was:

Yes, but his math still doesn't add up. I asked him to show his math, but he brushed me off. He thinks all he has to do is maintain the same horsepower at FL250 that he has at sea level for a given IAS, and he'll be able to achieve the same IAS at FL250 as he can at sea level. And since the same IAS at FL250 translates to a much faster TAS, he thinks he'll get all that extra speed for free. That's not how it works. Even if he can maintain the same HP at FL250, the thrust in that thin air will only be about 60% of what it was at sea level. No way he's getting even his claimed 262 KTAS at FL250, even if he achieves his claimed 15% drag advantage over the Cirrus, and that's a big if!

Yeah, about that.... There are at least two other carbon, pressurized, piston, 4-5 seat kits out there and they don't come in anywhere near Raptor's $130K target price. The bare Evolution airframe alone is $410K, ten times Raptor's estimate for their airframe; a complete package like Raptor promises is $925K. But that's with a $145K engine; an engine at Raptor's hoped-for price would bring it down to "only" $800K.

To be fair, the Evolution is a little bigger than the Raptor so maybe that price includes a few extra pounds of carbon. The RDD LX7, on the other hand, is also carbon, pressurized, and about the Raptor's weight but smaller inside, no way you could fit 5 adults. It is also sold as a complete package, like the Raptor, and it costs $600K -- PLUS you have to supply an existing Lancair IVP, including engine. Those go for around $300K so again, it's around $900K all in. By the way, even with that tiny frontal area the LX7 needs 350 hp. to do 260 knots, just sayin'.

Several people have said that even a near miss on their claims of 300 knots for $130K would still be compelling, but what if the reality is closer to 230 knots for $900K? It winds up as the hard way to buy a used Malibu/Mirage.

I'm all for optimistic, over-the-top dreamers, where would we be without them? But at what point do rose-colored glasses become willful blinders to reality? I'm still trying to be charitable and think optimistic dreamer, but the tune of "Springtime For Hitler" is playing in the background and getting louder.

You're right.

Just basic thrust/drag/speed/horsepower performance sanity check on the original figures, 300hp at 300 knots at 25,000 feet needs a 2.4 sq.ft. equivalent flat plate area. That is a very skinny airplane! Some of the speediest two seat, unpressurized homebuilts (some canards, Glasairs, and Lancairs) are down around 2 sq.ft. Just for comparison, a Bonanza is about three times that.

No, you don't have to wonder, I think it is crystal clear.

Mike C.

Will Jim Bede please chime in :-)