Thank you.

(What's the "59" to the right of the 150?)

Jim Bede, Raptor, Theodore R Wright III, Icon.......

Perhaps we're the fools they take us for.

Actually most auto engines are tested to much worse conditions then our poor "certified aviation" engines. A fun way to waste twenty minutes:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/8tEqwXrqzH4[/youtube]

Based on some other forums, a few auto engineers have posted that the ecoboost video understates the actually abusive testing. But the reality just does not film as well.

Tim

Thanks for digging this up. It's a popular myth in GA that modern auto engines just aren't physically tough and rugged, that their endurance testing is done at a light load, or that the bottom end can only hold up short bursts of full power.

Not to knock you down, Cliff- you're absolutely right about gearboxes and heat rejection in auto conversions. A lot of amateur-built and professionally developed auto conversions have gone by the wayside over the decades for exactly those reasons.

Amen, my friend. No truer words ever spoken.

Your stock with me just went up.

Jg

We should really just accept that the world is flat and stop this foolhardy venture out into the distant ocean - it’s much safer to stay in port where everything is as it has been.

I sure hope the Raptor guy doesn’t read this forum, he’d have to destroy everything he’s built and close up shop and just accept he’s already a failure with no hope and that his dreams are all false, completely based on all the negative diatribe about how what he’s doing isn’t right or possible stated here.

While there is some fact presented questioning the data on the Raptor website, there are a lot of statements of opinion - presented as fact.

All I’m really trying to say is stick to the facts. I for one will support him; I hope he succeeds. If his airplane goes 30% slower on 30% more fuel at twice the cost, it will still be less than half the price of a new “certified” airplane and still outperform it. Good grief guys - it’s an “experiment”.

Talk is cheap. Are you buying his airplane? Better yet, investing in his company?

Yup, #870. Let’s see you do that. Or just keep talking.

Yup, #870. Let’s see you do that. Or just keep talking.

I get that as the air gets thinner, the prop doesn't work as well. At least to the extent that a prop spinning in outer space will generate no thrust because there is no air. But a prop spinning in outer space requires essentially no power to turn because there's no drag.

So if you're putting constant power into a prop and thrust decreases, where is that extra power going? Is this something fundamental that prop efficiency decreases with altitude or could you design a prop that works 100% at FL250 and sucks at MSL?

I get that as the air gets thinner, the prop doesn't work as well. At least to the extent that a prop spinning in outer space will generate no thrust because there is no air. But a prop spinning in outer space requires essentially no power to turn because there's no drag.

So if you're putting constant power into a prop and thrust decreases, where is that extra power going? Is this something fundamental that prop efficiency decreases with altitude or could you design a prop that works 100% at FL250 and sucks at MSL?

On the prop efficiency thing: there's also gotta be some point where blade angle becomes too coarse.

How many of you guys put money on the Elio? How’s that deal working out?

This discussion of prop efficiency is very interesting - I started a separate thread to discuss it (independent of the Raptor) here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=146724

Ron I am with you... I am pulling for the Raptor project. I have been following it for close to 2 years now. This entire thing as you say an experiment. I have appreciated that Peter and his team don't seem to be hiding anything. When they make a mistake or run into an issue they own up to it. They don't blame anyone else or try to pretend that they knew that would happen. They seem to honestly think this is all going to work and I hope they are right. I have said if they can get cirrus performance for under 200k people will buy this thing like crazy. If the numbers can compete with cirrus for under 350k they will still sell a ton of them. All of this provided that the final production version of the plane proves to be fun, pilot friendly, and safe.

I do wish Peter and the team would update the website. Over the past few months they have admitted they won't be able to build this thing for 130k something most have suspected for a long time. They should update that number to their new projection whatever it is. They should also update the performance expectations in my opinion.

All in all I am pulling for these guys and wish them the best. Will this replace my 35P... who knows but I am very thankful we live in a country that people are still allowed to dream, experiment, and innovate.