Have only perfunctory knowledge of this project, but was wondering: does it not have de-ice? If so, why construct a pressurized airplane capable of climbing above weather without it?
So, we have come up with a simple, yet ingenious, solution (thanks Tan for your brilliance, as usual). We are going to create a closed loop system of small diameter stainless steel tubing that is embedded into the leading edges of the main wing and fore plane, the leading edge of the air intake as well as the aircraft nose. This loop will pull heat from the engine radiator using a heat exchanger. It will be always on, running very low pressure with a small pump to drive it. It will be filled with a solution containing anti-freeze.
There will be dual loops with outbounds on the leading edge and top of the wing and returns on the leading edge and bottom of the wing. This should prevent any runback situation. We will have more details and diagrams later on showing the configuration.
From here – a WW2 museum at Kbely, Prague
I do find the narrator in that last video quite irritating, shooting the video with a selfie stick 
Cool, that is smart.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Cool, that is smart.
This has been experimented before WW2 – racers on floats I believe.
Interestingly, the heat exchange between the wing and ambient air is said to cause drag in the form of momentum loss!
Applying this to the Raptor is “a bad good idea” as we say in french.
The Raptor is already very much overweight, extremely complex and this setup requires two heat exchangers and pumps, lots of (stainless steel ?!) plumbing and a sophisticated design for heat transmission to the skins.
I think after Peter gets it flying, he will need to tackle the weight issue which I am guessing sits in the engine compartment…
The empty weight difference with a Velocity XL (of humble fiberglass construction) is staggering… and unless he dumps the engine it is strictly impossible to fix.
With this huge weight penalty, the larger frontal area and similar aerodynamics, the Raptor will lag behind the Velocity XL in every performance metric. Higher engine efficiency and 10% more power (maybe?) simply won’t be enough….
The Raptor is for a large part focused on comfort. The car-style experience was the main driver for its development.
Certainly, and also car-like pricing. I believe this is how over a thousand deposits were made.
Do you think people will swallow the massive miss of the performance goals as long as the “car” experience is preserved? (This question contains no irony)
I do. For the simple reason there is NOTHING that comes close with regards to cabin space except for a Cirrus Jet probably (I’m talking about pilot comfort, not nr of seats). 220 kts on 9 gph would still do it for me.
airways wrote:
I do. For the simple reason there is NOTHING that comes close with regards to cabin space except for a Cirrus Jet probably (I’m talking about pilot comfort, not nr of seats). 220 kts on 9 gph would still do it for me.
Can you actually register it in Belgium?
UK CAA rules, IIRC, say that for single engine aicraft (definitely for homebuilt ones) the Vso should be not hight than 60 (or 61?) kts.
This thing is 65kts.
No, I’m afraid it is useless in Europe. Clearly it is meant to fly IFR. I think all deposit holders are American, no ?
