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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 13:28

the idea that this, that or the other engine type combo has done something in aviation use means practically nothing, as to what may apply or work when starting with an unknown history make/model car engine redrive type combo that has zero air miles & is a 1 of attempt

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 14:27

Username Protected wrote:

A thousand hours of engine time is really NOTHING in aviation. And we're talking on ONE engine.
It's even less significant when it comes to certification or any sort of statistical evaluation.

Obviously you know all that and you must have put a thousand hours of thoughts before you wrote that, otherwise you would not have made such a comment, in view of how many years it took Thielert to fix the little "issues" they had.
Little issues I had the pleasure of experiencing in one of the diamonds.
Or SMA with their diesel engines on the 182. We had a lot of fun with this one, especially when it went a tad bit wrong.

A thousand hours :lol:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 14:32

Sorry I had to give the last A.B.C a thumbs up......that is exactly on point! And they hand it to you dry! Well it looks like your Flux Capacitor is out,,,,that's $9,000 plus your annual.

Ok....bend down and hold your ankles!

:whistle:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 14:44

Unchecked - so feel free to help me correct it.

Attachment:

Raptor vs A36TN.JPG

Raptor performance figures came from the Raptor website. Prop efficiency assumed at 85%, which is the dirty air is going to be optimistic. A36TN info came from interweb search. Third data point was slightly extrapolated, but the R^2 show it must be very close to real.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 14:51

Username Protected wrote:

Suppose that is one way to look at it.

Here are a couple of others...

1.) It is damn good thing the experimental community is alive and well. They are the ONLY ones willing to put their hide/time/money (in that order of importance) in the game to drive any meaningful change is this stultified industry?

Things to ponder?
How much has the 182 changed since it was introduced? (not much)
What is the best selling/most produced aircraft of the 21st century? (1 guess)
Does the model above have its lineage in kit/experimental planes? (yes)

2.) True or false?

a.) Stupid (and short.. i.e. Napoleon Complex) doctor with an (attorney as a brother (also short)) gets in plane he can afford but should not be be flying. Does not adequately secure seat pin locking mechanisms (in his 32 year old plane high performance airplane.) when he scoots the seat all the way fore. Rotate. Seat slides all the way back on rails. Doc holds onto yoke for dear life. (About 6 seconds left at this point) Airplane lifts off about 1,000′ down the runway, pitches nose up, and rolls left to an inverted attitude before it hits terrain next to the runway in a nose-down attitude. No survivors.

b.) Attorney brother brings suit claiming it was a faulty design mechanism. (Not the fault of the 30 year old pin and retaining spring), and certainly not the fault of a guy smart enough to be a doctor but not smart enough to make sure his damn seat was secure before departing.)

c.) OEM settles for undisclosed, multiple integer, 2 comma amount pre-trial.

d.) Rinse wash and repeat.

I would submit that some version of the above is why....

1.) We need a bucket of anal lube every-time a "certified" engine needs a bit of work, god forbid an overhaul/rebuild/replacement.

2.) GA engine designs have not materially changed in over 70 years.

Also have a sneaking suspicion that anyone that disagrees with the above is either

a.) connected to folks doing the reaming in some way.
b.) secretly likes to be reamed. (Am not judging. It really none of my damn business expect when it affects society at large, if it does)
c.) Or is just too damn stupid to put the facts together and figure out what is really going on.

The last 3 points are just personal opinions. I could be wrong.

I am truly amazed.

1) Completely false. They are not the only ones. As demonstrated by the fact that you have diesel engines on Diamonds.
Good luck explaining to anyone buying an airplane you just stuck an engine out of a Ford, had it run for 1000 hours, so it's all good.
On that note, Ford? Really? How about a proper, reliable engine, something from Honda.

How relevant is it how much a 182 has changed? I was talking about its engine.
And the issues that SMA had. SMA, who has a team of engineer, working on a pretty reliable engine.

2) a) happened to me with my former employer in his right seat moving backwards, we survived. But that's because I grade my flying skills on a polar.

b)c)d) Relevance to the engine or the raptor? None. Obvioulsy.
Also, because English is not my native language does not mean I am not proficient in debating, thanks!
Instead of answering to anything I wrote, you just moved on to a couple other questions. Soon enough, with every one on BT, you may run out of spin questions!

Ga Engine designs have not changed in over 70 years-> See Thielert, Austro Engines, SMA.
Once again, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that you think you have a knack at this, but you:
a) love the sound of your own voice too much
b) don't know what you don't know
c) don't realize b and thus feel extremely good about using 1000 words in what looks like a Socratic approach, only to hide the emptiness.

You could be wrong, though.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 14:55

Can someone "type" you to death or is it actually suicide because you chose to read it?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 15:01

Let me preface this by saying I’ve owned many experimental airplanes and love them .

There’s absolutely nothing interesting about this airplane (or this thread any longer). The airframe is not unique nor is the panel nor is using a Diesel engine. The only thing experimental about this design is the use of a sketchy belt drive that will likely have a mean time between failure measured in 10s of hours. It will also have landing speeds hotter than any other experimental ever made. People perhaps rightfully threw rocks at my IV-p for being a hot ship (it is sold); the raptor will make the lancair look like a 172. If this plane went on a 1000lb diet and had some sort of TPE331 style planetary gearbox and had some real engineers working on it, it would be more interesting. This version 1.0 development should be stopped. 1000lbs overweight on a large business jet is bad, for a 4 seater; he already has failed. Alas that will not happen as the guy is too committed. Any day now, he will rotate and attempt to fly it; it’s not going to end well.

For the sake of this guy’s life, “Don’t fly Raptor, don’t fly”

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 15:05

What happens when the vendor of the engine litigates so that the engine, used or new, cannot be used in the experimental aircraft?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 15:06

Username Protected wrote:

Suppose that is one way to look at it.

Here are a couple of others...

1.) It is damn good thing the experimental community is alive and well. They are the ONLY ones willing to put their hide/time/money (in that order of importance) in the game to drive any meaningful change is this stultified industry?

Things to ponder?
How much has the 182 changed since it was introduced? (not much)
What is the best selling/most produced aircraft of the 21st century? (1 guess)
Does the model above have its lineage in kit/experimental planes? (yes)

2.) True or false?

a.) Stupid (and short.. i.e. Napoleon Complex) doctor with an (attorney as a brother (also short)) gets in plane he can afford but should not be be flying. Does not adequately secure seat pin locking mechanisms (in his 32 year old plane high performance airplane.) when he scoots the seat all the way fore. Rotate. Seat slides all the way back on rails. Doc holds onto yoke for dear life. (About 6 seconds left at this point) Airplane lifts off about 1,000′ down the runway, pitches nose up, and rolls left to an inverted attitude before it hits terrain next to the runway in a nose-down attitude. No survivors.

b.) Attorney brother brings suit claiming it was a faulty design mechanism. (Not the fault of the 30 year old pin and retaining spring), and certainly not the fault of a guy smart enough to be a doctor but not smart enough to make sure his damn seat was secure before departing.)

c.) OEM settles for undisclosed, multiple integer, 2 comma amount pre-trial.

d.) Rinse wash and repeat.

I would submit that some version of the above is why....

1.) We need a bucket of anal lube every-time a "certified" engine needs a bit of work, god forbid an overhaul/rebuild/replacement.

2.) GA engine designs have not materially changed in over 70 years.

Also have a sneaking suspicion that anyone that disagrees with the above is either

a.) connected to folks doing the reaming in some way.
b.) secretly likes to be reamed. (Am not judging. It really none of my damn business expect when it affects society at large, if it does)
c.) Or is just too damn stupid to put the facts together and figure out what is really going on.

The last 3 points are just personal opinions. I could be wrong.

I am truly amazed.

1) Completely false. They are not the only ones. As demonstrated by the fact that you have diesel engines on Diamonds.
Good luck explaining to anyone buying an airplane you just stuck an engine out of a Ford, had it run for 1000 hours, so it's all good.
On that note, Ford? Really? How about a proper, reliable engine, something from Honda.

How relevant is it how much a 182 has changed? I was talking about its engine.
And the issues that SMA had. SMA, who has a team of engineer, working on a pretty reliable engine.

2) a) happened to me with my former employer in his right seat moving backwards, we survived. But that's because I grade my flying skills on a polar.

b)c)d) Relevance to the engine or the raptor? None. Obvioulsy.
Also, because English is not my native language does not mean I am not proficient in debating, thanks!
Instead of answering to anything I wrote, you just moved on to a couple other questions. Soon enough, with every one on BT, you may run out of spin questions!

Ga Engine designs have not changed in over 70 years-> See Thielert, Austro Engines, SMA.
Once again, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that you think you have a knack at this, but you:
a) love the sound of your own voice too much
b) don't know what you don't know
c) don't realize b and thus feel extremely good about using 1000 words in what look like a Socratic approach, only to hide the emptiness.

You could be wrong, though.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 15:11

Username Protected wrote:

Suppose that is one way to look at it.

Here are a couple of others...

1.) It is damn good thing the experimental community is alive and well. They are the ONLY ones willing to put their hide/time/money (in that order of importance) in the game to drive any meaningful change is this stultified industry?

Things to ponder?
How much has the 182 changed since it was introduced? (not much)
What is the best selling/most produced aircraft of the 21st century? (1 guess)
Does the model above have its lineage in kit/experimental planes? (yes)

2.) True or false?

a.) Stupid (and short.. i.e. Napoleon Complex) doctor with an (attorney as a brother (also short)) gets in plane he can afford but should not be be flying. Does not adequately secure seat pin locking mechanisms (in his 32 year old plane high performance airplane.) when he scoots the seat all the way fore. Rotate. Seat slides all the way back on rails. Doc holds onto yoke for dear life. (About 6 seconds left at this point) Airplane lifts off about 1,000′ down the runway, pitches nose up, and rolls left to an inverted attitude before it hits terrain next to the runway in a nose-down attitude. No survivors.

b.) Attorney brother brings suit claiming it was a faulty design mechanism. (Not the fault of the 30 year old pin and retaining spring), and certainly not the fault of a guy smart enough to be a doctor but not smart enough to make sure his damn seat was secure before departing.)

c.) OEM settles for undisclosed, multiple integer, 2 comma amount pre-trial.

d.) Rinse wash and repeat.

I would submit that some version of the above is why....

1.) We need a bucket of anal lube every-time a "certified" engine needs a bit of work, god forbid an overhaul/rebuild/replacement.

2.) GA engine designs have not materially changed in over 70 years.

Also have a sneaking suspicion that anyone that disagrees with the above is either

a.) connected to folks doing the reaming in some way.
b.) secretly likes to be reamed. (Am not judging. It really none of my damn business expect when it affects society at large, if it does)
c.) Or is just too damn stupid to put the facts together and figure out what is really going on.

The last 3 points are just personal opinions. I could be wrong.

Regs and the current market volume have a lot more to do with the archaic engines then anything else.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 15:15

Ahahah, if only I were someone who had done anything in aviation, or certification!
That would not even be enough I am sure.

Anyway, Michael, can't agree more with you.

That belt... Can you imagine doing your preflight check on any other aircraft, and seeing something like that?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 15:30

a bummer for raptor sales & interest, a personality shows up & repeats the 'agree with me or you a dummies' argument

http://www.civilpolitics.org/content/if ... e-realism/

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 16:13

Username Protected wrote:

<snip> Or, perhaps it is because the word "polar" is not used in context of internal combustion engines.

That right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

Even more fun: if only we could get Chris and Mike C on opposite sides of a technical argument.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2019, 16:21

Encouraging this guy to fly this contraption is no different than encouraging your buddy in middle school to jump off the roof into the pool when you know deep inside he’s going to hit the edge. I surmise he will not find a real test pilot to fly it and will attempt it himself. Rotation speed will be around 105kts based on his videos running it up to 90. If there’s any pitch or CG issues it will end real quickly. If he got the CG and controls right, it’s going to struggle to climb before the belt drive goes into some weird harmonic failure. He won’t do it but putting this engine on a test stand and just letting it run for 10 hours would be a wise exercise.

He needs a Bob Hoover type to put his arm around him and say “stop”.