Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Raptor - 300kts, 130k usd, 7gph jet-a1

airways: I see your point about roominess. Didn’t realize this would be such a major deal maker.
The Raptor packs so many goodies that one tends to oversee other people’s motives.
Your point of view gave me this idea:
What if Peter licensed the airframe to another company for them to make a non pressurized Raptor with a conventional engine. I dare suggest Velocity.
This way, people who are interested in the more basic features of the Raptor, such as roominess, looks, whatever, can buy much sooner
The income would be in the form of a royalty per plane. ($ 5 K?)
This would avoid losing some of the deposit holders – this is likely to happen naturally and will accelerate once people hear how much longer they actually need to wait.
The royalty money would fund further development and the early customer feedback will be extremely useful to help detect and iron out issues that can become killers in the “full” Raptor.

LSGG, LFEY, Switzerland

Under CS-23.49 (since the passing of amendment 1 by ED Decision 2009/001/R, incorporating NPA 2008-08), it is allowed (single engine planes and twins of 6000 lb or less) to exceed 61 kts Vs0, if:

  • either the plane can climb 1.5% OEI [CS 23.67(a)(1); obviously only possible for multi-engine aircraft]
  • or the plane’s maximum load factors are increased by a factor of (Vs0/61 kts)² and the seats must meet some adjusted standards [CS 23.562(d)]

Under amendment 5 (issued by ED Decision 2017/013/R), that whole text is removed from CS23; the limits are moved to the AMC; the AMC just refers back to ASTM F3179/F3179M-18 Standard Specification for Performance of Aircraft.

I think that this is just aligned with FAR23?

ELLX

What if Peter licensed the airframe to another company for them to make a non pressurized Raptor with a conventional engine. I dare suggest Velocity.

I had the impression Peter was hinting at this possibility after the meeting with the first test pilot a couple of months ago.
Dropping the pressurization might already be a tough pill to swallow for future customers. It is a big part of “flying comfortably”.
It would be nice if there was a choice of multiple engines, but as we know in aviation it would cost a ton of money to test different configurations.

One thing that absolutely has to be retained is the chute. It is what the market wants. Ask Mooney…

EBST, Belgium

I assume the test crew will be expensive. Or are they taking a share in the project?

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom
64 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top