While we're talking impossible math, what about that kit cost of $130,000? Five seats, 300 kts, and pressurization for the price of a Carbon Cub!

Some of us will eat crow about this. I sincerely hope I'm one.

2000lb empty to create an pressurized airframe capable of dealing with 300knot true airspeed sure does sound like a pipe dream but it's almost been done before. Lancair IV-Ps came in at around 2200lb empty and many were capable of exceeding 300knots at altitude and stalled right below 70knots. They also didn't have 62" wide cabin and had flaps and I've never heard of one being built under $500K by the time all was said and done adjusted for today's dollars. So I agree that this is vapor ware even at 3x $130K.

Maybe, still a big stretch.

The real problem here is not the original claims were wrong, the real problem is that the original claims exposed a fundamental and seemingly pervasive incompetence.

Start up aircraft projects like this fail all the time with competent engineering. They have no chance without it.

The only question left to answer is how long before the project dies.

For reference, consider a Lancair IV-P with 350 HP TSIO-550. 220 KTAS, 1347 nm range. That's what competent engineers can do. If someone claims they can be 10% faster with 20% more range than that on less power, be skeptical.

Mike C.

Maybe, still a big stretch.

The real problem here is not the original claims were wrong, the real problem is that the original claims exposed a fundamental and seemingly pervasive incompetence.

Start up aircraft projects like this fail all the time with competent engineering. They have no chance without it.

The only question left to answer is how long before the project dies.

For reference, consider a Lancair IV-P with 350 HP TSIO-550. 220 KTAS, 1347 nm range. That's what competent engineers can do. If someone claims they can be 10% faster with 20% more range than that on less power, be skeptical.

Mike C.

The prop they are currently testing with the prototype is an MTV-14-D-C / CLD-190-17
http://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/TCDS_EASA(Europe)/MTV-14_Issue1.pdf

No they didn't, Cirrus hired competent engineers who knew and used the correct formulas.This is engineering, not saving Tinkerbelle; whether we believe or not won't affect the outcome.

As I and others have said, I'd love to be proved wrong and for this to turn out well but the numbers, both in physics and finance, just aren't there for it to be possible. The only real question left is whether Peter is fooling himself along with his creditors.

Let's not confuse "certified" with "experimental". You're buying a kit, not a turn-key airplane. Costs are a lot different when you're doing it yourself. I keep reading that it should cost more, but the reality is that you, the builder, need to contribute many hours of labor - and time is money. Let's assume 1500 hours of additional labor; go ahead and put a dollar to that.

Numbers came from Lancair's web site. You'd better tell them to fix it. :-)

The 300 knots number came from the turboprop version.


On a TSIO-550? In level flight?

Show me.

Mike C.

All the hard evidence suggests fundamental incompetence. For example, the claimed performance numbers.

If they can't compute some pretty basic performance numbers, what do you expect will happen when they come to modeling the spar strength?

People who pay these guys some money are victims, not customers.

Mike C.

I’m talking about a Carbon Cub kit.
And on the subject of kits, no one has ever built a Lancair IV-P in anything like 1500 hours or twice that.

Finally, we'll get so see whether the left brain, or the right brain is better!

Numbers came from Lancair's web site. You'd better tell them to fix it. :-)

The 300 knots number came from the turboprop version.


On a TSIO-550? In level flight?

Show me.

Mike C.

Let's not confuse "certified" with "experimental". You're buying a kit, not a turn-key airplane. Costs are a lot different when you're doing it yourself. I keep reading that it should cost more, but the reality is that you, the builder, need to contribute many hours of labor - and time is money. Let's assume 1500 hours of additional labor; go ahead and put a dollar to that.[/quote]

The Raptor website says you'll spend 2 or 3 weeks at their build center to fulfill the 51% rule. This is not 1500 hours additional labor.

It also isn’t possible for $130k.