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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 07:30

Username Protected wrote:

So what if they finally face reality and come up with kit that delivers the same performance as a Lancair 4P for around $600k once you include all the avionics and engine costs. Would that really sell?

No. A $600k kit is a failure. A $400k kit is a failure too.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 08:09

Username Protected wrote:

So what if they finally face reality and come up with kit that delivers the same performance as a Lancair 4P for around $600k once you include all the avionics and engine costs. Would that really sell?

No. A $600k kit is a failure. A $400k kit is a failure too.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 08:55

Username Protected wrote:

Dave, I am not trying to play both sides of the coin. I am just saying to beat these guys up call them names, and constantly put them down seems silly to me. Yes they are over weight, behind schedule, and over budget. So is Tesla, so was cirrus at one point, same for space X, etc etc etc. When you are trying something new and attempting something that no one has ever done before things don't always go perfect. So what, the project moves ahead. Some of the weight, budget and time, came because they decided to add things, like a second turbo, AC, etc. They were not initially planned for but as the project progressed they decided to add them. Others came because they ran into an issue. For example the doors, I bet they weigh double what they planned for because of the issues they ran into and the extra hardware that was needed. They had issues with the foreplane that required added weight. Hindsights always 20/20 and its easy too. Peter has been totally transparent in this build process. He has taken suggestions and feedback from those following the process. I respect a guy who is willing to be as transparent as this guy has been thus far.

In the end I don't know if it will fly, I suspect it will, and I hope it does. Can they sell them, thats another question and I have more doubts about that. But I am still pulling for them and following their progress. I don't have a deposit for a raptor, so no dog in the fight for me. I wish them well, I pray it works and no one gets hurt along the way.

Really the only new thing on the Raptor was the price. Everything else has been done before.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 09:56

Username Protected wrote:

No. A $600k kit is a failure. A $400k kit is a failure too.

So,,, unless they come in at $130,000, anything above it is a failure? :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 10:51

You guys are right... it will never work. These guys are dumb for even trying, they should have known better for sure. I am now convinced that everything that can be done has already been done. :whiteflag:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 15:32

I'm all for pretty much anyone building any airplane, but the numbers were BS from the start and anyone with half a brain knew it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 17:10

Since this thread was resurrected, I watched a few of the YT videos by Raptor's founder. Here are a few questions that come to mind:

1. Why is the weight so hard to predict early on? They missed their projection by almost half.

2. Doesn't it make much more sense to make a small pressurized plane with a single door? And shouldn't that door be relatively compact?

3. What makes the Audi engine ideal for this application? Can it really generate enough power and throw off enough waste heat to keep the leading edges de-iced?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 18:00

Username Protected wrote:

Since this thread was resurrected, I watched a few of the YT videos by Raptor's founder. Here are a few questions that come to mind:

1. Why is the weight so hard to predict early on? They missed their projection by almost half.

2. Doesn't it make much more sense to make a small pressurized plane with a single door? And shouldn't that door be relatively compact?

3. What makes the Audi engine ideal for this application? Can it really generate enough power and throw off enough waste heat to keep the leading edges de-iced?

3, is easy to answer! Audi, Porsche, Volkswagen use that engine and it has had lots of time to iron the kinks in it. That being said,,,,its a work horse engine!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 18:35

Username Protected wrote:

Since this thread was resurrected, I watched a few of the YT videos by Raptor's founder. Here are a few questions that come to mind:

1. Why is the weight so hard to predict early on? They missed their projection by almost half.

2. Doesn't it make much more sense to make a small pressurized plane with a single door? And shouldn't that door be relatively compact?

3. What makes the Audi engine ideal for this application? Can it really generate enough power and throw off enough waste heat to keep the leading edges de-iced?

3, is easy to answer! Audi, Porsche, Volkswagen use that engine and it has had lots of time to iron the kinks in it. That being said,,,,its a work horse engine!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2019, 23:48

Username Protected wrote:

Really the only new thing on the Raptor was the price. Everything else has been done before.

Not true.

Hugely optimistic and unrealistic price has been done before in aviation. Indeed, it is practically standard practice for new airframe startups.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2019, 02:01

Looks like the Raptor has had its first gear-up landing. I find it hard to believe the plane is not on supports when the landing gear can be exercised — even inadvertently. And then one should Think Twice before touching that lever. Glad no one was seriously hurt..

Best,

Tom

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2019, 08:07

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-10

Here’s one of those innovators we should be applauding. For you critics, how many supersonic jets have you designed?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2019, 08:25

Username Protected wrote:

They advertised a 300kt, 4-5 seat pressurized piston, 1500 lbs. useful load with a chute that will go 3600nm + at FL250 and fit in a T hanger. All for the introductory low price of $130k.

Those of us who are skeptical of the Raptor aren’t saying progress is impossible. We’re just saying the technology to make this kind of performance/price leap isn’t here yet. When someone finally discovers the dilithium crystal so we can built the Raptor’s engine and someone else invents nanopixilated neon fibers so we have a material as light as balsa wood yet stronger than steel THEN building the Raptor in its original form will be possible, even easy. It may even come in at $130,000 2019-dollars once the technologies mature.

Right now, structural and power plant technology are not moving much. There are things going on in labs that are promising but we can’t use them yet. Piston engines, carbon fiber, etc. are all established technologies and we’ve wrung out just about all the performance available with those technologies. The Raptor might perform a little better than a Cirrus at a slightly lower all-in price (including labor costs which amount to “sweat equity” in a kit) but they aren’t going to get the astounding leap in price/performance they were originally advertising. Whether the increase in performance they get at the price they can deliver is “successful” will be determined by the market.

The Raptor guys aren’t the big innovators. The big innovators are working in a lab somewhere on those nanopixilated neon fibers. Sadly, we’ll probably never even hear their names.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2019, 11:27

Username Protected wrote:

1. Why is the weight so hard to predict early on? They missed their projection by almost half.

2. Doesn't it make much more sense to make a small pressurized plane with a single door? And shouldn't that door be relatively compact?

1. In the absence of direct, applicable experience and data (ie a previous model and making a derivative, or a long history producing airplanes with the proposed technology) weight predictions are very difficult to do accurately until you've actually done all of the structural analysis work to actually size the airframe. I haven't followed this project closely since I thought it was a fantasy when I saw the original projections, so I don't know what material system and production method is being used.

Trend data is useful and some is even published in text books that can be used for preliminary design to get in the ballpark, but that is really only applicable for similar materials and aircraft configurations, so IMO there wasn't much to go on when starting the Raptor. I suspect it you gathered all of the small-ish pressurised planes and normalized the data against seats and/or range, there would be a family of data. And the Raptor predictions wouldn't be anywhere near it.

2. Holes are heavy, period. Doubly so in a pressurized plane. More holes and bigger holes lead to bigger weight. If the goal is minimal weight, then yes, a single compact door would be a better idea.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2019, 22:19

Username Protected wrote:

A $600k kit is a failure. A $400k kit is a failure too.

Well, it does depend what you get for the money. If the Eclipse jet could be revived as a complete, ready to fly in a few weeks kit at $400K, or even $600K, they'd be flying out the door. That said, the kit market does get much tougher as price goes up. On the one hand, people who have that kind of money generally don't have the time to spend years in their garage. And on the other hand, the used planes they could buy instead at that price get more capable. The Raptor's original promise of TBM performance was far beyond that of something like an older 182 that could be had for the same money. But now it's looking like delivering performance closer to a P210 or old Malibu for the price of, well, a P210 or an old Malibu, without any of the time and hassle of an Experimental.