Why are we talking about IVP like that has anything to do with Raptor? If all Raptor was claiming was that they were going to go 250-300knots with 300hp at FL250 and everyone was saying no way the IVP would be a good point of reference.

What Raptor is actually saying is that they are going to go that fast, AND 3600nm range AND pressurized AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND $130K.

No, I'm talking about IV-P like it accomplished about half of what raptor is proposing, at a cost of being a very hard to fly airplane and 4x the money. So I agree completely with you that the Raptor is vaporware and I'm using Lancair IV as an example of compromises required to pull off 300knots at FL250 with a piston engine. If Lancair couldn't pull this off, no way Raptor will. On the other hand, there are plenty of naysayers here stating that 750hp is required to pull this off. 350hp would do just fine, but the airframe will be a two million dollar airframe made mostly of unobtanium and could only be designed by Burt Rutan or someone else of his caliber. Not some dreamers in a little hangar in GA. And the range will never happen, no matter what and how the airframe is constructed.

The Raptor is an extremely spacious 5 place, pressurized, composite aircraft with a 62" wide cabin with a possible top speed of 300 knots that can cruise at 230 knots true on 7 gph of Diesel or Jet-A. It will come equipped with an optional BRS airframe parachute, constant speed propeller and anti-lock brakes. It's a luxury SUV for the sky.

Note possible 300kts top speed.

No, I'm talking about IV-P like it accomplished about half of what raptor is proposing, at a cost of being a very hard to fly airplane and 4x the money. So I agree completely with you that the Raptor is vaporware and I'm using Lancair IV as an example of compromises required to pull off 300knots at FL250 with a piston engine. If Lancair couldn't pull this off, no way Raptor will. On the other hand, there are plenty of naysayers here stating that 750hp is required to pull this off. 350hp would do just fine, but the airframe will be a two million dollar airframe made mostly of unobtanium and could only be designed by Burt Rutan or someone else of his caliber. Not some dreamers in a little hangar in GA. And the range will never happen, no matter what and how the airframe is constructed.

[quote="James Crossno"
You’re being VERY generous saying “half”. [/quote]

I can see 300knots, I can see pressurized, You're right. I can't see the range or the useful load, especially with a water cooled diesel engine. Gamebird GB1 is an airframe that comes to mind when it comes to full utilizations of composites for strength and flutter resistance and they come in at 1300lb empty for an unpressurized short fat wing, two seater. That leaves raptor with 700lb to play with for a longer aspect wing, retractable gear, pressurization, etc, etc. 700lb is actually a lot weight to play with for systems, but one number just sticks out like a sore thumb. They are claiming 300hp on 11gph. That's .24 lb/h/hp. Just not happening even on a ship engine. The most efficient diesel 4 stroke in the world currently pulls off .271 lb/h/hp. If they can't get that number right, I know they are pretty much wrong about everything else.

3,600nm? Is that nano meters or nautical miles at 230knots? About 4 hours into that 15 of "pressurized comfort" I am going to start getting rather uncomfortable. The fuel bladders might be emptying but my bladder is going to be filling up!

That is th3 helium filled version in the jet stream

Well, I’m going to invest $1000 in bitcoin tomorrow. When my $1000 reaches $130,000 I’ll buy a raptor. It should be real by then. And it will only cost me $1000. Now that’s a deal.

Stuart, I don't think anyone thinks the RAPTOR will go 300 KTAS at 25K.

I don't think anyone thinks the RAPTOR will be able to cruise at 230 KTAS on 7 gph

Additionally, none of us are locked in to our small 2k deposit, until the airplane finally takes flight, the performance data is released, and a final price is set.

However, I do believe the final version will have:

1. State of the art avionics
2. BRS Chute
3. Pressurization
4. Anti-skid brakes
5. Use Jet A
6. Deice

There are many problems to overcome in the next year, the biggest being:

1. Prop reduction
2. Deice
3. Sealing the pressure vessel
4. First Flight

I fully expect what I buy will significantly exceed the performance of a Cirrus, is as safe as a Cirrus, for less than half the cost of a Cirrus.

If the RAPTOR does not achieve the above, I will likely not buy.

Worst case scenario: I lose 2k in deposit.

I traveled to see the project during their open house. The project is real. I watch each video twice a week and I am continually impressed with their diligence and openness.

Position #1141

I’ve no skin in the game but I’m hooked on the videos. I just love experimentals and the mindset behind such a venture that actually takes flight. Mike Mellville’s EZ is an excellent example.

Still says so on the website. Reminds me of the used car dealer charged with fraud whose defense was that sure he lied, but he wasn't deceiving anyone because everyone knows used car dealers always lie.

That would be truly revolutionary but seems highly unlikely. Even with the parachute, the Cirrus fatal accident rate used to be over twice that of GA as a whole but an expensive factory training program over many years eventually got it down to slightly better than the GA average, an impressive achievement. The rate for all homebuilts is 4 times the GA average, and that includes many low and slow machines; for homebuilts with performance similar to what Raptor promises it is many times as high. The Lancair Legacy and piston IV are each over 10 times the GA average; the turbine IV is over 100 times(!) the GA average. I don't believe any mass-produced kit plane has come anywhere close to the level of safety you expect from the Raptor.

That would be truly revolutionary but seems highly unlikely. Even with the parachute, the Cirrus fatal accident rate used to be over twice that of GA as a whole but an expensive factory training program over many years eventually got it down to slightly better than the GA average, an impressive achievement. The rate for all homebuilts is 4 times the GA average, and that includes many low and slow machines; for homebuilts with performance similar to what Raptor promises it is many times as high. The Lancair Legacy and piston IV are each over 10 times the GA average; the turbine IV is over 100 times(!) the GA average. I don't believe any mass-produced kit plane has come anywhere close to the level of safety you expect from the Raptor.

You quoted the overall GA FATAL accident rate, 1.19/100K hours. The overall accident rate for GA is 5.78/100K hours. Both are per Nall #26.

The same report says E-AB rates are 20.59/100K hours for overall, and 6.35/100K hours for fatals.

No question E-AB is much worse than GA average, but it isn't quite as bad as your post suggested.


Source? I don't actually think what you said is true.

Note that if you allow E-AB rates to exclude a certain high risk period, we should allow the same for the overall GA average.

It should be noted that the overall GA average includes the E-AB sub category. Overall GA would improve if E-AB accidents are removed from those numbers.

Mike C.

Those are total accident rates, note that I specifically referred to "fatal" accident rates, which this year dropped to a new low of 0.99 (per 100K flight hours) for all GA (widely reported by AOPA, EAA, et al.) vs. 4 for E-AB, according to the EAA. The Cirrus numbers (2.6 in 2004, 0.84 latest) are from COPA. The Lancair numbers are from LOBO.