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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:37

Username Protected wrote:

For my own education, I visited the Raptor website. they request a minimum of 1000 deposits at $2000 each with the tag line "Get in line now and tell all your friends".
They also run a clothing store. Raptor t-shirts for only $35.94. Raptor hats for $46.99 and $29.99. "One day only sale-14% off and free shipping with orders over $99".

Dean, I watched the Billy Mitchell video you linked. Do you mean to compare the life, the accomplishments and future visions of this great American to the Raptor project?

No, what I was trying to communicate is that the things General Mitchell predicted seemed absolutely preposterous to the "Group Think de Jour".

I don't know the Raptor creator, let alone any of his accomplishments. Just like that he seems to be busy "doing" while the collective "It'll never flyers" compare his efforts to antigravity boots and unicorns.

As I have previously stated, "if the guys #'s are wrong, fine. Simply share your data and prove the guy wrong."

I don't have anything riding on this and I don't have a deposit one one of these.

I do, however, like the looks of the plane, as I do the Velocity and the Berkut and SQ2000 for that matter. Notably, the latter 2 aircraft are now defunct. :oops:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:38

Aviation is rife with exaggeration and big fish claims. We have this thread, the SF50, Chips thread about real world range, the CJ winglet claims, and on and on.

What they all lack is objective independently verified data.

There have been many brilliant aircraft designers like Burt Rutan who tried many different designs to create breakthroughs for GA. Maybe these guys are smarter then all who cam before them. I wish them luck but the facts are their path is littered with other failed promises and bankrupt companies.

There are big hurdles between a one off prototype to experimental aircraft test flights to a kit built company to a certified production aircraft. Let's see how far they get along that path. With the magic if the internet we can watch these projects unfold.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:40

Username Protected wrote:

As I have previously stated, "if the guys #'s are wrong, fine. Simply share your data and prove the guy wrong."

Maybe the Raptor guys should open source and publish their models and simulations for peer review if they want more support and credibility.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:41

Username Protected wrote:

I actually wish someone would test that theory on the SA Ravin 500, which was a "modern" clone of the Piper Comanche.

I'd love before and after Cd numbers for the two. I suspect "negligible difference", but I'd love to be surprised.

At some point when you're done doing maximum aerodynamic cleanup, you've made yourself a missile.

I go back to the Delaminator. Incredible speed on 100hp. He cleaned up an already efficient design and squeezed out a whole lot more performance.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:43

Username Protected wrote:

As I have previously stated, "if the guys #'s are wrong, fine. Simply share your data and prove the guy wrong."

Maybe the Raptor guys should open source and publish their models and simulations for peer review if they want more support and credibility.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:45

Username Protected wrote:

Ain't nobody going 300 knots in a 300 HP 5 place pressurize airplane.

Mike C.

This quote is begging to be a t-shirt at Oshkosh this year. :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:45

Username Protected wrote:

I don't think Mike is doing anything other than applying math skills to refute the marketing material presented by this company. That's not being a naysayer. Anyone is free to say anything or make whatever claims they want. Similarly anyone can refute those claims. What's interesting is when people get offended by a. The claims being made and b. The claims being refuted by sound logic, math and common sense.

Reminiscent of the climate change debate....
I'm always wary of the people who get offended when their ideas are challenged with facts. Name calling follows usually. Tells me there's something wrong with the idea to begin with.....

Hence the "antigravity boots" and other snarky "Math-Speak"!

Yeah... NO!

As for the name calling? I didn't mention anyone specifically...

But hey, if the anti-gravity boots fit?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:46

Username Protected wrote:

Maybe the Raptor guys should open source and publish their models and simulations for peer review if they want more support and credibility.

That would be a great idea.

I wonder how willing he'd be to do that, especially since he's mentioned the whole "open-source freeware" approach?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:49

Propulsion is the missing element in making the "plane of the future" a reality. Airframe design and avionics have taken monumental leaps the past 50 years. Engines, not so much. There will continue to be small incremental changes in planes and performance until such time there's a new way to propel them faster and higher for less fuel and cheaper cost. Hopefully GA can survive until that happens. My guess is that it's a long way off because you'd think that with all the R&D dollars spent by the engine manufacturers and the military, if there was something on the horizon revolutionary we'd know about it. There's a lot of dollars at stake for the winner of the race to "faster, cheaper and less fuel".

Imagine the aircraft possibilities for an engine either jet, TP or piston that did everything better by just a factor of 2.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:56

Username Protected wrote:

Somebody should invite him to join BT. We will set him straight.

He is probably too busy laying carbon fiber. But he should have spare time while it is curing. Unless he is editing his videos then.

Just did.

Quote:

I wanted to invite you to join the discussion on BeechTalk.com about the Raptor.

BeechTalk is an airplane owners and pilots forum with over 38,000 members. Unlike other sites, BeechTalk requires that all members use their real names, thus virtually eliminating typical gamer site troll like behavior.

I started a thread about your project this morning, it has already resulted in over 80 responses and 1200+ views.

Your input and question answering could go a long way in promoting your project

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 14:56

Username Protected wrote:

I don't think Mike is doing anything other than applying math skills to refute the marketing material presented by this company. That's not being a naysayer. Anyone is free to say anything or make whatever claims they want. Similarly anyone can refute those claims. What's interesting is when people get offended by a. The claims being made and b. The claims being refuted by sound logic, math and common sense.

Reminiscent of the climate change debate....
I'm always wary of the people who get offended when their ideas are challenged with facts. Name calling follows usually. Tells me there's something wrong with the idea to begin with.....

Hence the "antigravity boots" and other snarky "Math-Speak"!

Yeah... NO!

As for the name calling? I didn't mention anyone specifically...

But hey, if the anti-gravity boots fit?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 15:01

The open source part is interesting.

Might this be a better way to handle modern liability problems than the heavy-handed Icon approach? By leaving everything open to the builder and the aftermarket, do they have plausible deniability? "Ours was just a suggestion among many. Builders have a choice to do what we suggest, what the aftermarket suggests, or what they make up. But it's the builder who has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the airframe, and the pilot who's responsible for airworthiness and flight safety."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 15:17

Username Protected wrote:

Somebody should invite him to join BT. We will set him straight.

He is probably too busy laying carbon fiber. But he should have spare time while it is curing. Unless he is editing his videos then.

Just did.

Quote:

I wanted to invite you to join the discussion on BeechTalk.com about the Raptor.

BeechTalk is an airplane owners and pilots forum with over 38,000 members. Unlike other sites, BeechTalk requires that all members use their real names, thus virtually eliminating typical gamer site troll like behavior.

I started a thread about your project this morning, it has already resulted in over 80 responses and 1200+ views.

Your input and question answering could go a long way in promoting your project

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 19:09

Username Protected wrote:

There have been many brilliant aircraft designers like Burt Rutan

It would be a hoot to see Rutan read the numbers for the Raptor and see how much he laughs.

Burt knows the numbers. Give him the weight, frontal area, wing area, Cd, HP, and I bet he can estimate the cruise speed to within 10 knots.

The Raptor is not exploring some new frontier, it is decidedly in territory that has been well understood for decades.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2016, 19:19

Username Protected wrote:

They are usually very heavy engines that turn slowly. Very low power to weight ratios. Easy to make that last a long time.

Mike C.

No, they are not. Most diesel generators are turning at high rpms ( 2,100 and up depending on the engine), and are running at 70-90% load.
Oilfield mud pumps, generators, hydraulic pumps, ect. all run at a high load. In fact, they last much longer at load than if they are ran in a low load situation. 10,000 hours in very common.