[Why aren't uncompressed RAW files larger?]

Well yes. That's what everyone reports. But the mathematics would suggest that uncompressed raw files should be 2x - 3x bigger at about 130MB. I'm just curious as to why they're not. 

[Why aren't uncompressed RAW files larger?]

Just bought an X-T30 and am new to the wonderful world or shooting RAW. I have (what is I suspect) a naive question. Why aren't uncompressed RAW files larger than we see them?

My logic is this:
  X-T30 shoots in 14 bits per channel.  3 colour channels. So 42 bits (or 5 1/4 bytes) per pixel.
  Images are 6,240 pixels wide, 4,160 pixels high. 25,948,400 pixels total.
  So I'd expect an uncompressed RAW file to be about 25,948,400 * 5 1/4 bytes big. Or about 130MB.
  But the uncompressed .RAF files come out around 56MB 
Which bit of my assumptions or logic have I got wrong?