BeechTalk - BT - Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Diesel

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 11:48

Username Protected wrote:

Of course, Pete has to relearn every design mistake from the last 100+ years of aviation for himself. How many does he have left to learn?

He will be dead before he learns them all.

His tenacity will be fatal. I keep praying he will give up and apply his energy in some other way.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 12:01

Username Protected wrote:

Lancair 4P is definitely NOT a frightening airplane. It does exactly what it was designed to do. It's an extremely well engineered, well made and very nice flying airplane with a wonderful glide ratio. I can't remember 100% because I sold mine 1.5 years ago but it stalled around 70kts. Also climbs at 2000FPM which gets you out of the danger zone really quickly. The Raptor will never have any of the excellent qualities of the Lancair. Like all airplanes, the Lancair has weaknesses which are total intolerance to icing and a VREF speed of 100kts which is something that can be learned to deal with.

The safety issue I see with the Lancair and any other piston single with a high stall speed is that if you ever have to make an off field landing, you are going to be carrying a lot of energy to the ground.

Other than that, I agree the IV is a well engineered airplane and not at all like the Raptor.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 12:05

Username Protected wrote:

I don't know, I'm not that pessimistic about Peter's chances of survival. It seems he's already past the most dangerous part of the testing.

That's is exactly when carelessness creeps into the process, even more so than already evident. I believe he is entering the most dangerous part of the exercise precisely because he believes the most dangerous part is over.

Quote:

One thing I do think has become clear; the Raptor isn't going to turn out to be a commercially viable airplane. Too slow, not enough useful load.

Risk for no reward. That will make any negative outcome that much more tragic.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 13:22

You are talking about open casket accessories.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 15:35

The question is whether this thing has crossed the Vantasner Danger Meridian. I think so.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 16:57

Username Protected wrote:

The question is whether this thing has crossed the Vantasner Danger Meridian. I think so.

I don't see danger increasing exponentially as he continues to fly it. Yes there is probably more in the Raptor than he is willing to acknowledge, but it's not like every time it leaves the ground the risk increases dramatically. Heck he isn't even conducting risky tests that he should be like MCA and Stalls.

Is it going to end badly? Coin toss. I'm guessing it goes out with a whimper a few years from now rather than with a bang.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 17:39

I think if he keeps flying he will have further loss of power issues. The engine and redrive install is far from confidence inspiring. If he gets away from the airport environment and has to land anywhere unpaved at 80+ knots, I think the odds of an ugly ending are unfortunately very high.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 17:52

One of the major drawbacks of a Canard design is if you crash, you are the first one on the scene. There is much to be said for a few hundred pounds of aluminum with a grinder attached to it plowing a path for the cockpit wreckage.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 18:31

Username Protected wrote:

One of the major drawbacks of a Canard design is if you crash, you are the first one on the scene. There is much to be said for a few hundred pounds of aluminum with a grinder attached to it plowing a path for the cockpit wreckage.

Actually... the firewall (at least on the velocity) is incredibly strong. The wing spar is between the engine and the cabin and that makes it very unlikely engine can get into the cabin. The last crash I recall which was into trees, about three trees got taken out. Both occupants walked away with no injuries. The plane was back in the air about a year later.

As for the “grinder”, there ain’t much of that going on with a stopped engine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 18:54

Username Protected wrote:

One of the major drawbacks of a Canard design is if you crash, you are the first one on the scene. There is much to be said for a few hundred pounds of aluminum with a grinder attached to it plowing a path for the cockpit wreckage.

Same can be said about a Baron.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 18:57

Username Protected wrote:

I think if he keeps flying he will have further loss of power issues. The engine and red rice install is far from confidence inspiring. If he gets away from the airport environment and has to land anywhere unpaved at 80+ knots, I think the odds of an ugly ending are unfortunately very high.

Especially since we know he's going to run the engine for an hour and if he doesn't see anything..... back to flying. I mean, his theory may be correct that the turbos choked the engine before any damage was done. But, that's an awful lot of ASSuMe for me. High EGTs, loss of oil while running, I think I would like to see a tear down before I took back off. I just wouldn't be all fuzzy inside to finish 40 hours and then fly that thing across the country.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 19:09

Did some quick googling on the engine & low oil pressure scenarios, there's a yellow light warning setup that gets you in limp mode with max rpms ~ 2000, even with just a bad sensor.

Then a red light setup, that's about shutting off, dunno if that's auto..

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 19:18

Username Protected wrote:

Did some quick googling on the engine & low oil pressure scenarios, there's a yellow light warning setup that gets you in limp mode with max rpms ~ 2000, even with just a bad sensor.

Then a red light setup, that's about shutting off, dunno if that's auto..

Yeah, that sounds like an auto setup; Yellow caution light with derate, followed by a Red Stop lamp before Engine Protection Shutdown triggers. On a road vehicle those make a lot of sense.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 19:20

IIRC, he is not using an Audi ECU. No idea how he has programmed it ...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Feb 2021, 19:21

Username Protected wrote:

Did some quick googling on the engine & low oil pressure scenarios, there's a yellow light warning setup that gets you in limp mode with max rpms ~ 2000, even with just a bad sensor.

Then a red light setup, that's about shutting off, dunno if that's auto..

I assume you are talking about the Audi engine behavior? Peter is not using their engine computer. He has a Motec(?) computer, which we learned a week or so ago was not set up to control the thermostat. The electric control on the thermostat was not wired anywhere. Peter did not realize the thermostat had an electric control. I would think Peter would know if his computer was setup to shutdown the engine based on some set of inputs.