More than 2 raptors in RAID 0?

You can have more than 2 drives in RAID 0.
But most people with that many drives go with RAID 5.

Nope. Raid 5 kills perforance unless you have a dedicated controller to calculate parity (and the only reason anyone runs RAID 0 is for performance). But it is true that few people run RAID 0 with 3+ drives. That is just taking the reliability risk and multiplying it times 3.

I think that would be dependent on your controller.

RTFM, my man.

Actually, his question wasn't whether he could, it was whether anyone ever has. The answer to that is "yes, someone has". But the conversation quickly shifted to "but that doesn't mean it is a good idea for you to". But it is quite possible he has RTFM and knows he CAN but is wondering if anyone really does. Then again, he might just be postulating without knowing anything at all. We'll potentially never know. :wink:

I was just wondering about the increase in load speeds if I were to use 3 drives instead of 2. Do not care too too much about drive failre since important information will be on a seperate disk

You can as many hd as you want or as many as your motherboard can handle. You can even get raid card to expand it further more. But the many the hd the better. Most people have 2 raptors in raid 0, since it's expensive and that's most that can afford. If I have the money I would go for 6x36GB Raptor in raid 0 with my onboard raid controller. So yeah, more hd more performance. But you're better off buying raid card as well if you have the space for it in the slot.

is there a rule of thumb concerning load speeds when adding an additional hard drive to a RAID 0 array? Like for every hard drive you add over 2 makes your load/read/write speeds 4% faster. Has anyone ever done benchmarking going from 2 drives and up?

This REALLY depends on the controller. Here is a link to an older benchmark, but I think it will give you a pretty good understanding of how additional drives impact your performance in generals. As you might expect, each drive added has less incremental impact than the last.

http://storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_3.html