Yeah, how many hours could those belts even have on them? He needs to pull that engine/re-drive and switch it out for something like the E330. The turbo version has 500 hp. The problem is he is probably out of money and needs this to fly. Then, he's going to request to get those escrows released. People are crazy if they release their deposits on this thing in the current condition.

Well, the good news is we are getting pretty close to everyone's comments and predictions being trivial and meaningless (except perhaps in hindsight) because the facts will be demonstrated. Wonder how many of the naysayers/critics who are commenting now made earlier comments declaring he would never get his far, let alone airborne. "Most," is my guess given that is the nature of those kinds of folks.

Teddy had it right....

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.


Saw a comment earlier saying this bird has an L/D of 14:1 Not sure where or how that was arrived at. That is not even in the ballpark. A 172 is about 11:1 The Wright Flyer was nearly 18:1 Competition hang gliders are in the 16-18 range... (With wires and a pilot in a harness below mind you.) A 777/A-380 are in the 19/20 to one range. I expect this bird is in the 25-30 to 1 range. But again... we shall see.

Expect the re-drive belt issue will be sorted. If indeed it is a problem at all.

Loved all the comments on the nose wheel when indeed it was just a viscosity/foaming issue in the dampening fluid.

For the more thoughtful this is worth a read. It is short. Deals with and examines the second part of Jeff Bezo's very accurate and now famous quote.

"“The older I get the more I realize how many kinds of smart there are. There are a lot of kinds of smart. There are a lot of kinds of stupid, too.”

https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/ ... of-stupid/

--Cheers
The imposter "Chris Close", pretending to be.... you guessed it.. Chris Close

Fly Raptor Fly!!!

Yea it’ll fly.

But not 300 knots for 3000 miles with a full load.

When it does that - I’ll happily say I’m wrong. In fact, I would probably build something that can do 300 knots for 3000 miles for less than 300k.

Until then, it’s too heavy and underpowered.

This is the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

The worst thing about all of this malarkey is that it dilutes out the actual news about the actual airplane. New messages show up, and the reader is disappointed to find it’s just more of the same pecker measuring.

So, having nothing to say about the Raptor, I’m out....

More napkin math, using the current figures on the website:

230KTAS cruise
25,000' ISA
3800lbs max gross (I'll use 3,700lbs to account for taxi/takeoff/climb fuel)
33'9" wingspan

(I made the assumption that the efficiency factor is 1.0, that is, equal to elliptical wings, although slightly greater than 1.0 may be possible with the winglets.)

I get 48lbs of induced drag.

Looking at the total drag based on gross weight and L:D, 25:1 L:D would be 148lbs total drag and 30:1 would be 123lbs total drag.

Parasite drag (profile, wetted area, interference drag at the wing roots/canard roots/etc., cooling drag, antennas, bumps, hinges, fairings, etc...) as a single number at that speed, it would have to be about 75-100lbs (Parasite drag = total drag - induced drag). We can assume the cooling drag is practically zero (this might be a generous assumption but it is technically possible; the P-38 famously accomplished it with the special fairings around the heat exchangers sticking out the sides of its tail booms), and for the sake of simplifying the analysis, let's say all of the surface protrusions (antennas, etc.) are perfectly smoothed over and some exceptional work has been done to pare down interference drag.

Now, the dynamic pressure at 230KTAS and 25,000' is about 80 psf (pounds per square foot). This airplane's cabin alone is about 20sq.ft. of cross sectional area. Streamlining that to a 0.05 drag coefficient, not to mention all of the other pieces of the airframe, that is the kind of drag coefficient that a pencil-thin glider fuselage gets or one of those solar-powered science project cars get... for a passenger airplane fuselage it would be one heck of a technical achievement!

Some Lift to Drag figures of existing aircraft. 25-30:1 seems a little far fetched to me

What’s the figure for a Mooney 201 or a Lancair IV?

Columbia 400/Corvallis/TTx

(book numbers)
3600lbs gross ( MTOW minus fuel to reach FL250 ).
238ktas at FL250
36' wingspan
TSIO550C 310HP, 65% power (201hp) available at FL250.

So - it's possiblish.

What’s the figure for a Mooney 201 or a Lancair IV?

Wait, What? The prop drive pulleys are not rigid to each other? He is doomed.

All BS aside, I love his spirit and hope he succeeds in some form or another. If he can even get 200 knots and 1,500 mile range for under $300,000.00 it will be a success in my book. Diesel is future of piston powered aircraft, and this is what will push that forward.

It is a race. Diesel or electric?
Diesel has weight, complexity and vibrations are the major issues to overcome.
Electric has a capacity problem.

It will be interesting to see which one gets there first. Especially when you add price into the mix.

Tim

Did Wilber and Orville publish performance numbers and start taking deposits several years prior to their 1903 flights?

>Looks like a Mooney M20J is right at 20:1

How do you figure that?

1 nautical mile is 6076 ft.

At 6000 ft the graph shows 11.5 nautical miles.
Or 11.5/1 L/D

Now this is with a windmilling prop, but the chart attached to your 20:1 claim does not show 20:1.

Is there a difference between cruise l/d and dead stick l/d?

Which one should we use and for which circumstance?