Oh, you make a great point - you should never invest in anything, especially if someone else failed previously.

BTW, a previous response called the Raptor a "pig in a poke", which is essentially buying a pig sight unseen - a blind purchase. However, Peter Mueller, who is the builder of the Raptor, posts about 10-15 min long videos of his work about once or twice a week and has done so for over a year. Each video details his processes and often thoughts behind tasks or steps shown. Some of the posts in this thread portray Mr. Mueller as a scammer, among other rather rude things. The reality is that he's very upfront with his build. So to make claims that it's a "pig in a poke" is simply false and misleading. For those claiming to put their money where their mouth is, let's see you go design and build an airplane and put yourself out there on a public forum doing so.

It's much easier to just sit back and "poke" at the guy that's actually trying. And that, good sirs, is cheap talk.

I repent. Jim Bede was brilliant, too.

This thing is a pig in a poke because it can't possibly be what it pretends to be, so buyers don't know what they're actually getting.

As for my designing such a thing, the fact that I'm no cinematographer doesn't mean I can't tell when I've seen this movie before.

Stuart, I'm sure you're well intended, but you're essentially saying this is a bad purchase and that the airplane can't possibly be what will be because the builder is making claims you either disagree with or disbelieve. It would be easier to accept your comments if you just said that. I enjoy a good discourse with critical thinking - it's varying perspectives and diversity of thought that helps us grow. But that's not what you're doing. Instead you're just being negative, with, in your words "cheap talk".

Jim Bede actually is brilliant and made a very innovative design, but he took money and didn't deliver the kits. However, I'm not aware of any financial or legal connection between Bede and Raptor Aircraft, so making disparaging comments to connect them is like saying don't buy a Beechcraft because Mooney filed bankruptcy several times (wait, folks are still buying Mooney's too...isn't that odd). An aside is that the BD-5 was actually a good design and fun to fly, with a notable appearance in the James Bond movie.

It's easy to be a skeptic and slander folks - it's an entirely different process to actually produce. Just keep it clean man.

Peter's motivations are irrelevant. There's this thing called math and reality. Just because someone truly believes they can fly and jumps off a building, the outcome is predetermined by gravity. This thing will come crashing down at some point and how good his heart is, isn't really important.

As far as the opposition comments being against innovation, America, dreams etc., that's just nonsense.

The ONLY thing that makes this project fly is the invention of some super light, super powerful and extremely efficient engine. A 300HP Audi motor is none of the above.

My guess is that the inventor of such a motor required to make this project successful would be a billion air within a year due to government contracts and the cost said motor would be so high as to price it out of GA for a long, long time.

You should check out the new CMI CD-235/265/285 turbo diesel line. The 285 hp motor is a four cylinder diesel and with a dry weight of 440 pounds, which is actually very comparable to an IO-520 at 426lbs - or 440-426= 14 pounds heavier. For reference, the Audi 3.0 TDI is 483 pounds installed, according to Audi; that is a different weight than "dry weight". So, it's really not the boat anchor it's being portrayed to be.

When you make comments about doing math, you should actually include, well, math.

...and 240hp.


Except for the part about its power output being 20% less. And the part about how a liquid cooling system will need to be added. And the part about a prop speed reduction unit.

You should check out the new CMI CD-235/265/285 turbo diesel line. The 285 hp motor is a four cylinder diesel and with a dry weight of 440 pounds, which is actually very comparable to an IO-520 at 426lbs - or 440-426= 14 pounds heavier. For reference, the Audi 3.0 TDI is 483 pounds installed, according to Audi; that is a different weight than "dry weight". So, it's really not the boat anchor it's being portrayed to be.

When you make comments about doing math, you should actually include, well, math.

James,
You are likely way over on the hp. The only data I can provide is my Duke at 760 hp will give near the speeds they are talking. However to get that horsepower I have about 1400 lbs in the engine compartments and burn closer to 80 gph at full power.

it cant and it wont. This dream cant be dead because it was never alive.

Got a price on those? Certified aircraft diesels have always been multiple times more expensive than traditional gas engines of similar power. CMI's CD-155 is about $90K so a CD-285 engine alone would likely be well more than Peter's $130K price for the entire plane.

That's always been the story with auto engines in airplanes. Used as-is they're cheap but don't last; with certified levels of reliability (PFM; Orenda/Trace; Toyota, CMI, etc.) they ain't cheap. Peter is claiming he'll have both cheap and reliable, which has never been done before.

Peter is also claiming he'll get an auto company to sell their non-aviation engines to a maker of experimental airplane kits, which has also never been done before.

But a company collecting millions in deposits, failing to produce a product people want to buy, burning up depositor's money and declaring bankruptcy -- now that HAS been done before.

All of the available HP to meet the performance claims isn't going to the propulsion. You still have to pressurize the plane, provide A/C, power deice or some way to pop boots, generate electricity and liquid cooling all under 3600 lbs.

The problem with this entire dream is that it's not based on innovation or new technology. It's was put together making the assumption that you could achieve twice the performance, half the weight, 3 times the range, four times the efficiency and do it all for 20 percent of the cost of anything else on the planet.

Got a price on those? Certified aircraft diesels have always been multiple times more expensive than traditional gas engines of similar power. CMI's CD-155 is about $90K so a CD-285 engine alone would likely be well more than Peter's $130K price for the entire plane.

That's always been the story with auto engines in airplanes. Used as-is they're cheap but don't last; with certified levels of reliability (Porsche PFM; Orenda/Trace; Toyota, CMI, etc.) they ain't cheap. You can't have both cheap and reliable, nobody's ever managed that, but Peter is claiming he will.

Peter is also claiming he'll get an auto company to sell their non-aviation engines to a maker of experimental airplane kits, which has also never been done before.

But a company collecting millions in deposits, failing to produce a product people want to


buy and declaring bankruptcy rather than returning depositor's money -- now that HAS been done before.

I like solid questions, so no issue with me here. I also invested four years of college funding for son #4 at UCLA, and now he's working as a waiter, so I'm not sure my $2K investment here is actually anywhere near as much an risk/loss for me financially.

No, I don't believe the aircraft will cruise anywhere near 300KTAS, but even Mr. Mueller's math targets 230KT. In one of his videoed dyno tests, he shows the engine making around 280hp with a prop speed of 2,000 rpm; that horsepower is mostly driven by the custom dual turbo setup and a very different fuel curve than the factory Audi, but let's assume a 100% output of 240hp. It's not unrealistic to get 90% full power from a turbo diesel at 15,000'. An RV-10 with a 260hp IO-540 can do 165KTAS at 15,000 feet; I've done this so I know that is accurate and it is my reference aircraft. With that reference, at 15,000' the IO-540 is producing about 150hp at cruise power burning about 10.5 gph.

The Raptor is a fairly clean design from a drag perspective, and it's not unrealistic to expect is a 180-200KTAS aircraft on about 10 gph with the TDI. That's my math. And quite honestly, I'd be very happy with that.

My biggest concern on the build is the pressurization, but they are experimenting, so we'll see.

For the prop efficiency conversation, note that the prop used on the Raptor is a 4-bladed MT running at a slower prop speed, which should be fairly efficient at altitude, however I haven't researched the actual MT data...yet.

Got a price on those? Certified aircraft diesels have always been multiple times more expensive than traditional gas engines of similar power. CMI's CD-155 is about $90K so a CD-285 engine alone would likely be well more than Peter's $130K price for the entire plane.

That's always been the story with auto engines in airplanes. Used as-is they're cheap but don't last; with certified levels of reliability (PFM; Orenda/Trace; Toyota, CMI, etc.) they ain't cheap. Peter is claiming he'll have both cheap and reliable, which has never been done before.

Peter is also claiming he'll get an auto company to sell their non-aviation engines to a maker of experimental airplane kits, which has also never been done before.

But a company collecting millions in deposits, failing to produce a product people want to buy, burning up depositor's money and declaring bankruptcy -- now that HAS been done before.