Guitarmaster

That panel is probably worth than my house! Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

African swallows fly at a higher TAS due to the hot air. Typically about 27.47 MPH. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Me too!

If we end up not using it, you have dibs Bob. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Did another fitting today. We are finding, on the injected models, the oil cooler is simply in the way. Dave thinks he could work around it, but it is uber tight. The command decision is to relocate the cooler to clear up space and also make room for a second landing light. This will delay things a bit. The plan is to move the oil cooler and plug the with a plate allowing us to test the ram-air. If the ram-air is ineffective, we remove it totally, making even more space and a cleaner installation. If we do remove the ram-air, I will have a nearly-new servo boot for sale. Also for sale will be the LASAR cowl closure.

We are working on it today! Stay tuned......

Especially when you keep slicing yourself up on my airplane... [emoji848][emoji39]. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Why have they failed? Was it a faulty design? Poor marketing? Not meeting a market? Honest question, I really don't know. I know Bede failed mostly due to engine problems (maybe that will be the Raptor's fate), but also because the market is tiny for a tiny jet. In this case, the market is large for an affordable airplane with lift and range. As far as what's different? IDK. Basing the airplane off of a proven design (SR22). Completely CAD designed, computer modeled and 'tested.' Composite technology and our understanding of it has advanced with huge steps in the last decade. He may fail. Lots of people have failed, only to succeed later with a few tweeks. With the number of deposits he has and very little advertising he has done definitely shows a market.

In talking with Jeff, it sounds like the next step with the engine is to run it on the test stand for four hours on and one hour off every day; don't know how many days. Granted, it doesn't take into account altitude, but it should be a good stress test that simulates a typical flight day. Lots of details to work out, but if nobody ever challenged the norm, we would still be flying radials on airliners. This is the very nature of 'experimental' and I love it. I hope it goes as advertised, but if not, I'll take my deposit back out of escrow and move on. After all; nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Not sure where you are getting the 15% more number. They are targeting 550 lbft torque. Not 650 HP. At 550 lbft, it would be about 350 HP. A number VERY achievable with longevity. With a 1.3 reduction, it would produce ~715 lbft at the prop with 350 HP. But that is at 100% power. Right now, they are simply seeing what they can produce, then back it off to what they need. So far, they broke the Dyno in the test runs.

I'm really glad they decided to do the open house. There ware probably around 300 people there. They had the prototype up on it's wheels and we got to sit in the cockpit and play a little. It's very wide in the cabin. Very much like sitting in my 2015 Sierra HD. You can see the Garmin g3X touch screens are far apart. the GTN 750 is in the lower, center panel. The oval thing is the climate control. The side stick will take come getting used to, but I like it. There is enough space under the seats to place a carry-on size rollerboard leaving plenty of room for feet in the back. This is the flying model. Nose gear area. Back seat area I talked quite a bit with Jeff. He is the guy that used to work at Velocity. One of the concerns I had was the canard in icing conditions. I told him about my friend's Varieze and how it doesn't even like to fly in the rain. The canard Rutan used was not the best. It was good for speed, but nothing else. The airfoil on the Raptor is a proven to work well in icing, rain, bugs. In addition, Jeff was asked about flaps. Basically, flaps load the canard creating a higher AOA and higher stall speed. Since the canard will now stall at a faster overall airspeed, flaps defeat the purpose by which they were intended. The engine: This is where there is alot of debate. My personal feeling is, this is a good engine choice. When I first heard of the engine choice, I asked about it and specifically noted that car engines don't have a good track record in airplanes. What I found out was, that os true of gas motors, but all the aviation diesels out there are automobile derivatives. I know diesel. I tune performance diesel trucks. I would have NO issue flying with this engine. Here's why. The Audi engine is not only a proven, reliable engine in automobile use, but also in marine use. You can make an argument for the fact it doesn't work very hard in a car, but it does work hard in a boat. In fact, it runs 75% and higher in a boat. In an airplane, we RARELY run and engine more than 75% power, even if you are turbo charged. To say the 3.0 won't hold up to running 100% all the time is probably a true statement, but it never does. If a Lyc or Conti engine was run at 100% power all the time, they wouldn't last long either. A better test is, will it run at 75% power for four hour stretches with an hour rest time. That would be more typical of a flight. When I tow with my diesel truck, I am towing at 75%+ power for hours on end. Diesels like to work. Gas engines don't. With a diesel, there is a ton of low-end torque that is not available in a gas engine. Also, the torque curve is relatively flat. This means you could throttle the engine back at cruise, turn a big prop and really move out while barely taxing the engine. In addition, if you are light, it is very feasible to do what the airliners do; derate your take-off power. The main difference between gas and diesel are the internals. They are much beefier then their gas cousins. The Raptor is probably 70% done. Their target date for the first flight is March. The prototype will probably be heavier than they originally planned, but as the production begins, Mark (the structural engineer) is going through all the parts to see what can be made lighter. Overall, it is very cool to see the operation in person. You can really see the planning and the CAD at work. Glad I took the time to go down and see it in person!

Haha... Yep. First world problems. [emoji3] Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

That number is 6 hours travel time. Yep, about 1000nm Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I remember why I own a Mooney! Would have cut at least four hours off the travel time Chicago to Atlanta and back, but she is getting her nose job done. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Just left the open house. Very cool! Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I have lots of good data for oil temp pre-mod. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Wow..... Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It looks like they changed things. I don't see the individual dimmer listed. Any PWM dimmer will work though. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Enter downwind at redline. Idle power, high-G (stall warning chattering) downwind/base turn. Gear and flaps on base. Pull hard on the base/final turn. She'll slow down.... Or you may accelerate the stall... There is that. [emoji848] Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Anybody know a good way to get the cowl flap torque tube out? There appears to be two bushings that need to be pushed out and they're extremely difficult to get to. Just looking to see if anybody has any tricks to get those out. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

http://m.aircraftspruce.com/pages/in/instrumentlighting/fiberlite.php Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

WHERE is the 900 grounded? Mine is on one of the vacuum pump bolts. It must be grounded to the engine. I have almost zero fluctuation on any of my gauges once everything stabilizes. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I always step on the brakes prior to retraction. It's just force of habit, but I believe it's in my 1975 POH as well. I will have to double check. In my head, it just makes sense; I really don't want spinning wheels going into the wells. The nosewheel is taken care of with a scrubber but the mains are not. In the big planes, the brakes are applied automatically when the retraction sequence is initiated so I kind of mimic that. I always thought it was so the wheels don't tear things up in the well, but I wonder now if some of the reasoning is gyroscopic effect and longevity of the gear system. I have a GoPro mount on the step. When the cowl is done, I will hook it up and see if we can get an answer to the question of how long they keep spinning. To some extent, it comes down to when you retract. Mine go in the well at positive rate so I know they are still spinning. If you're wait-longer guy, then it may make no difference.

As part of my pre take off check at the end of the runway I simply put the gear handle up. That way, as soon as I break ground, the gear comes up and I look really cool! [emoji3] Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Doesn't the Beech have inner gear doors that open in sequence creating drag? The 310 has the same thing, leave the gear down for obstacle clearance for this reason. Our Mooney's don't suffer from this problem. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk